[IMDB link] [Netflix link] [Wikipedia link – helpful plot summary]
PEOPLE: From the director of the overdone and disappointing movie 300….
Mmmm, Malin Akerman (The Brothers Solomon, Harold & Kumar 1) as The Silk Specter. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian (Rick from the movie Live!, and the late Judah Botwin, during his few appearances in Weeds). Oh, and the hot lesbian who did the V-J day kiss was Apollonia Vanova. She was in an ep of The L Word, too. :) Also: Matt Frewer (Max Headroom:20 Minutes Into The Future, Gargoyles, Weirdsville, National Lampoon’s Senior Trip).
QUIRKS: Based on comic books that I have never read… Or heard of, until the movie hype started. LOOOONG. Over 3 hours.
VISUALS: Excellent visuals. Great action. Great special effects.
SOUNDTRACK: They managed to license songs (some as covers) that were referenced in the original graphic novel, which is a good call. And 99 Luftballoons!
WILHELM SCREAM: We noticed it this time :)
BAD STUFF: I can see why Terry Gilliam, my favorite director ever, refused to direct this, calling it “unfilmable”. He said he would have been willing to do this as a *5* hour mini-series. They should have compromised and filmed 2 or 3 movies…but instead they got the 300 director (Zack Snyder)… Pretty much constituting an incredible loss of talent. Especially considering better directors had previously been attached to the project, like Requiem For A Dream and Pi director Darren Aronofsky (who wanted to muck with it too much), and Bourne Ultimatum / Bourne Trilogy director Paul Greengrass.
But Gilliam was right. This barely, barely worked as a film. There was just too much material to cram in. It was probably perfectly acceptable to those who had read the comic, but in this case, I was not one of them.
I *like* and *prefer* long, 2+ hour movies, even 3 hour movies. But this was rushed, even when it was over 3 hours long! There was no time for anything to sink in. Character development was rushed — there were TONS of characters, and not enough time to characterize them.
And just to make things harder, the movie flashed forward and back in ways that made it so confusing that I didn’t always know if it was “now” or not. I enjoy non-linear movies greatly — but with so many characters, so many sub-plots, so much material to cover, it did not help the storytelling in this particular instance; I feel it hampered it.
Watching the movie, I was simply confused as to who the main character was, who the main bad guy was, was there even a bad guy, do these plots relate, and what are we trying to avoid, besides nuclear war? I didn’t really even know that the movie was ending when it did, because it was never clear to me what the main obstacle we were trying to surmount was.
I think this would probably be much better the 2nd time around — but what are the odds of me sitting through a 3-hour movie a 2nd time, when I didn’t LOVE it the first time?
Also, it seemed like Rorschach’s voice was way overdone… Reminded me of Jack Bauer on 24, but even more “purposefully and unrealistically grunty”. He was a kick-ass character, though.
CONCLUSION: I’m being very critical here, but this was kind of a disappointment. Maybe when the Ultimate Edition comes out, we’ll give it another try and end up upgrading our rating. But for now, we were both a bit confused and disappointed. It’s not that we didn’t like it — it’s that with all the hype, we were expecting a 5/5 star movie. And this was not that.
RATINGS: IMDB: 7/10. Netflix: 3/5. Probably really 3.5/5.
RECOMMENDATION: Fans of the original graphic novel have probably already watched it. People who hate superhero movies and have mainstream tastes should steer clear of this; it’s long and confusing. Not in either of those groups? You should check it out. It is most certainly EPIC.
MOVIE QUOTE: “Who watches the Watchmen?”
COINCIDENCES: (Watchmen, Squidbillies #47:Atone Deaf) In the same night as watching Watchmen, Squidbillies said “who watches the watchmen?”, which is pretty much what they said in the Watchmen movie.
FRIENDS’ RATINGS: Despite being, for me, one of the most hyped up movies of the year… Not a single person has rated it on Netflix as of the writing of this review (7/27/2009).
Mood: meh
Music: KMFDM – Split
Claire's blog 
January 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM
[…] Watchmen (2009) – Still a disappointment. Way too confusing for those who haven’t read the […]
October 7, 2010 at 11:01 AM
Suds Pshaw:
Couldn’t disagree with the review more — but I wont harp too much seeing as how you’ve never read the books in question. WATCHMEN is (along with The Dark Knight Returns) simply the best comic book series ever published — it shattered the …misconception that comics are strictly kids fair, and kicked open the door of possibilities for the storyteller. It also put a stake in the heart of the concept of ‘superheroes’ and showed the reader why it was such a bad idea to put any faith in them. If you haven’t had a chance yet – I highly recommend reading it.
The Film on the other hand, I like to compare to Pete Jackson’s Lord of the Rings – Zach Snyder took an unfilmable book and managed to take from it what was necessary to make it work – taking into account time limitations, subplots and such, he managed to do something Jackson couldn’t do with LotR – Snyder literally put the book on screen – dialogue, shot composite, important story elements – are all there. There is very little difference in the source material and final product. This film is one of very few comic book adaptations that impressed me – others being ’30 Days of Night’ and ‘A History of Violence.’
My suggestion is read the source material – then watch the ‘ultimate’ version with everything he wanted to put in.
October 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Heh. I think Jackson did a great job. Now if he had to rush all those events into 3 hrs instead of 12 hrs, it might not have worked out so well…
October 7, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Suds Pshaw:
I love LotR – I think Aragorn is a much more well rounded character in the films than the book. In fact my only complaint is the charge of the horses across the field during the massive battle at Minis Tirith — I so wanted the music to dro…p out and just leave the thunderous roar of the charge. Sadly I get music. O well.
My comparison to the film was due to how much Jackson had changed from the source material in order to make it work as a film. Snyder changed virtually nothing except for one point which makes sense when you compare the source material to the final film. Thats all.
October 7, 2010 at 11:50 AM
I read the comic before I read the movie, and my basic reaction was that they did *what they could* have with the movie, based on time limits and other constraints, but that it wasn’t a fantastic movie. One part of your review I agree with is that there was no discernible building up to a final “climax” (or at least, it was very subtle).. because the entire movie was very action-based, there wasn’t much time for character development, either.
There was simply too much source material to squeeze into a 3 hour film. I enjoyed it and found it to be a pretty good adaptation, but I totally agree that a mini-series would have made the intelligence of the comic come to life MUCH better…it would give them time to really make you care more about the characters, their history, and it’d be less confusing.
October 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM
I wouldn’t watch that crap with Hitler’s eyes. The only reason they had to make up new names for the characters in the first place was DC couldn’t get the rights to the Charlton lineup. You were watching THE BLUE BEETLE MOVIE and that’s why it stunk. See, that’s how to write a blog comment.
October 8, 2010 at 9:35 AM
Rev. Suds Pshaw: Ahh — a fanboy — haven’t seen one of them in over a decade
October 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM
J. Walter S: Actually DC did own the source material (They bought Charlton) and asked Moore to sort of create a launch point for introducing them to the DC universe. They loved it but didn’t want the actual characters to be tied to the gritty story Moor…
October 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Watchmen was a comic book about comic books – it owes its popularity and success to its ability to make comic geeks feel intelligent by showing them things they recognize, telling them their knowledge of comics is important and valuable when the rest of the world tells them, quite rightly, that it is not. To make Watchmen into a movie it was necessary to discard that, making it nothing more than another Costumed Crimefighter movie. The Costumed Crimefighter motif’s primary appeal is to boys aged 9 to 14. For marketing purposes its appeal is extended to older teens and socially disabled young adults by attaching attributes which teenagers mistakenly believe to be those of adulthood – absurdly hypertrophic musculature, emotional obsession with romantic relationships, a sardonic disregard for human life, etc. Like all Costumed Crimefighter movies, the only adults who can find this one appealing are those whose social and emotional development is halted at age 14. That’s why it stunk. The fact that you didn’t enjoy it is a sign of slowly dawning maturity. Congratulations!
October 13, 2010 at 7:08 AM
[…] (Watchmen, When Do We Eat?) 2 movies in 2 nights starring people who were also in National Lampoon’s […]
February 13, 2011 at 7:08 AM
[…] is played by Patrick Wilson (the pedophile from Hard Candy, Nite Owl II from Watchmen). God he gets annoying in the movie–and that actually works pretty well for […]
April 29, 2011 at 4:23 AM
[…] might be advisable to read the graphic novel first, honestly. Watching this was a lot like watching Watchmen … Separate plots, excellent cinematography, and lots of confusion. If you can link it all […]