In spite of lukewarm opening grosses, Zack Snyder’s WATCHMEN is already proving to be one the most polarizing and debated films in recent memory. I saw it the other night with two friends, both un-familiar with the graphic novel the film is based on. Their reactions were both opposing and unexpected. Alex, a comic book fanatic as a kid and a general fan of superhero films, hated it. Leo, the one who’s never read a comic book cover to cover and generally loathes all comic book movies, loved it. And so it goes on the blogs; with seemingly every second of the film analyzed and poured-over beyond anything I remember. WATCHMEN, in short, is proving to be the love/hate movie for the ages and while watching WATCHMEN, I found myself feeling a little of both emotions.  

First off: I am a big fan of Alan Moore’s WATCHMEN comic. It’s the War And Peace of the graphic medium; broad in scope, meticulously executed, and brimming with interesting ideas. Moore and artist Dave Gibbons’ concept, to place superheroes into the ‘real’ world, proved a brilliant one.  The characters, both shaped by and shaping the universe they inhabit, turn out to be mostly un-heroic misfits and borderline lunatics. Yet Moore’s ability to identify with even the most extreme of these strange people, gave the work a great deal of heart and emotional impact. Watchmen was also filled with scientific, political, and moral dilemmas, allowing Moore a platform to cleverly integrate his Anarchist philosophy within a meditation on the American mythology as expressed in the ‘superhero”.  It was Moore’s critique on America.  And though much of its moral relativism and Cold War angst have aged poorly, the Watchmen exploded the expectations the public had for what comic books can be.  Released in ‘86, the book’s challenging and extremely adult themes changed the perception of the entire art form and, by default, opened the door for a more serious approach to comic books on film.

Zack Snyder deserves a huge amount of credit for faithfully transplanting much of Moore’s novel to the screen. Deemed “un-filmable” for many years, Snyder rode his 300 success and delivered a film that proved to be un-mountable for several talented directors including Terry Gilliam and Paul Greengrass.  Snyder’s approach here was to simply treat the graphic novel as a sort of rough storyboards for the film. He hits the novel’s most important ideas and plot points, expands the action and removes the side characters and background materials. It’s a Cliff Notes approach, but it does manage to compress the book’s expansive ideas into a fairly tight 190-minute film.  This is an accomplishment that must be acknowledged and applauded.

The film itself is more problematic. When I heard it was green lit a couple of years ago, I questioned the relevance of WATCHMEN in 2009. Will its Cold War era themes have any meaning? More importantly, will it’s very concept hold any value in a marketplace that’s already seen The Incredibles, X-Men, Dark Knight and Heroes? The ideas pioneered by The Watchmen have been plundered for more than 20 years now, and this fact remains an obstacle that Zack Snyder never completely overcomes. 

WATCHMEN, like the graphic novel, begins with the murder of The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a brutal Government lackey whose own super brand of cynicism replaced every iota of heroism he may have ever possessed. His death sets Rorschach (Jackie Early Haley), a right-wing moralist vigilante and the movie’s de facto protagonist, on a mission to uncover a vast conspiracy to kill off superheroes. He’s aided by the meek Night Owl (Patrick Wilson) and the very hot Silk Spectre 2 (Malin Akerman). Then there’s Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a nuclear scientist who’s been transformed into an omnipotent being and used by the U.S. to win Vietnam and keep the Russkies in check. Finally there’s, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), a wealthy industrialist whose monstrous altruism becomes the film’s main moral dilemma. It’s all beautifully realized, action packed, set to an occasionally inspired, but often clichéd soundtrack, and confidently constructed. The dialogue is stiff, but the acting is descent; despite the reviews, I liked both Akerman and Goode. Billy Crudup’s approach to Manhattan is both interesting and grounded. The film’s star however, is clearly Jackie Earle Haley. His Rorschach (85% of which is behind a full mask) just crackles with energy and wit. Like a coiled spring, Haley gives this extremely unsympathetic character a charisma and depth that countinually thrilled and surprised me. It’s a great little performance and I’m interested in seeing a lot more from this former former child star.

Everything else in WATCHMEN is uneven. I found myself alternately repulsed, thrilled, disappointed and entertained. I was never bored, but the film failed to impress me as a complete artwork. Like a roller coaster ride, it continually fluctuated between the highs and the lows; never really finding the footing to support its intellectual content. And, much like Dr. Manhattan, I found myself emotionally uninvolved; detached from what was happening before me.  Maybe it was the fact that I had recently re-read the novel and its ideas were not surprising to me anymore. Or maybe it was the fact that when he removed Moore’s details and multiple side characters, Snyder also removed much of what made Watchmen special in the first place.  He removed the novel’s soul.