Watchmen: A Review

Back in the sixties a few people decided to fight crime dressed in colourful costumes. Everything was going well until a real superman arrived on American soil. In the 1980s that superman has changed the world in significant ways - winning the Vietnam war is a noticeable divergence - but a nuclear arms race still threatens Armageddon. The heroes of yesterday have now been outlawed, and these masked vigilantes are mostly either retired or insane. When one of them is murdered, however, the rest may have to band together to find the culprit, as the countdown to nuclear destruction inches closer towards midnight.

Watchmen is dense and complex - although inevitably shallower than the book from which it is derived - and it is entertaining.
Strangely, I'm comfortable saying that I enjoyed the film, and am keen to view it again, despite not yet having rendered a verdict on whether the movie really works.

As a fan of the graphic novel, there were a few questions I couldn't help taking in to the cinema with me:
If the adaptation keeping with the spirit of the work?
Will changes to the story pull me out of the story?
Does it work as a standalone film?
Is the movie good?
I always envy people who can see something like this with a fresh set of eyes, as they only have to consider the last question, which is clearly the most important.
At present my answers to the above are: somewhat, no, I don't know and yes.

Given my present state of mind, I'm just going to throw out my thoughts and hope they solidify in the future. Apologies for the sloppy structure.

1. The actor playing Rorschach was really, really good. It's a tough character and he excelled. He's the spine of the film and a failure here would've really hurt the movie, but this succeeded in adding to my view of the character as it had been written. Top notch. My one complaint was the occasional shade of grey in his mask, which undercuts its metaphorical meaning.

2. The opening credits, unique to the film, were magnificent. The somewhat static images conveyed a lot of information in an excellent manner, and got a lot of world building out of the way. More importantly, they were gorgeous. Their only problem is that the film never again rivals their excellence.

3. Dr Manhattan worked well on screen, which was an obvious concern given that he's a naked, blue God. I always imagined him as speaking in the booming, authoritative voice of a God, but this was better. His plaintive, almost depressingly disinterested tone really drove the point home. And it is confronting to stare at his flaccid penis throughout the film, but it's about time straight dudes like myself were made to be comfortable about that after decades of explicitly bare women, especially within the same film. Speaking of which ...

4. The sex scene in this is unexpectedly explicit. Myself and the two other guys who watched it all commented that it took us out of the story in a 'whoa, this is crazy' fashion. I may have been reacting to the family behind us that had decided to bring their ten-year-old children along. That was a mistake on their behalf - this is not a children's film.

5. The film maintains the book's narrative, but loses a lot of texture. Most notably absent are the 'man on the street' characters. With their disappearance we lose some insight into their world, and their increasing hopelessness as Armageddon approaches is missed, as is the tension it provides.

6. This film is dense. I cannot objectively say whether a newcomer could find everything on the first viewing. Of course, the comic is the same, but people expecting an easy film may be frustrated. Watchmen will reward repeat viewings. I feel like everything you need is in here somewhere.

7. The film is hard. Of the three of us who saw it, only one of us knew nothing of the story going in. He seemed to expect a superhero film, and was disappointed that it never arrived, and found the story slight. He wanted Rorschach to have super powers and thought Ozymandias would be immortal. He wanted to know who the villains were when there where none. I wonder if the film will overcome this clash of expectations, but doubt this is a failing of the film itself.

8. Silk Spectre failed to make any impression, which was a shame, reducing her to an off-the-shelf hot heroine. She never needed saving though, and was no more flawed than the men, which is nice.

9. The film is gory. There is no holding back from blood and violence, which is good. Strangely, the gore of the ending has been almost entirely removed, taking violence from the place wherein it would have the most impact.

10. The ending has been changed drastically from the book. I understand and the change makes sense, but the execution is a little disappointing. This ending is more clinical and ends up losing a lot of impact. The message is basically the same, but it didn't sit in my stomach the same way. When the creator of the endgame atrocity says "I have made myself feel every death", I noticed that I hadn't like I had in the book.

11. With the few exceptions above, I am fine with the story changes and omissions.

12. You lose a few layers. The commentary on the superhero genre is less obvious when not in their native medium. But the elements that survive add up to saying a lot about Batman and Superman. They're the heroes that have lived longest on screen, so I don't know if it was intentionally magnified or if my brain just picked it out.
If you split Batman in half you get crazed vigilante Rorschach and do-gooder gadget guy Night Owl. If you split Superman you get Dr Manhattan - all-powerful and unable to relate to us - and Ozymandias, who is the pinnacle of achievement that can play us like a cheap fiddle. We are shown how unsettling and terrible these people would be.
With all that you still get the central deconstruction of the superhero form, a story that shows that it cannot work. I like that.

13. It is deeply satisfying to see a film like this made. The superheroes that may attract an audience are window dressing, no character is easy and the message is difficult. It's violent and explicit and there do not appear to be any compromises on that front.

14. Above all, the movie entertained me. I liked it. It was good. I would be deeply interested to hear from someone who has seen the movie without having read the book, as that is a viewpoint I cannot have.