ReelFriction »

Mar 11, 2009 - 5:42 pm

watchmen

TC: Disclaimer: I am a fan of the novel. It’s a layered story of costumed heroes with different philosophies, and how the choices they make affect an alternate 1985 on the brink of Nuclear War. The novel is long and involved with an imaginative visual aesthetic, memorable characters, and a foreboding mood throughout. A spectacle.

Getting the characters and story on the screen is an achievement. The film hits all the right notes, and creates the right mood. The stylish opening scenes and the brilliant title montage give the background of the world. The story and characters are slowly revealed from there. At the end all the stories converge in a satisfying climax, but the real joy is in the journey.

Performances are mixed, but Zack Snyder’s direction is confident and stylish. He keeps the pace slow and picks up the action when needed. The film is somewhat different from the source material, but the story and characters were translated from page to screen with respect. It’s amazing that Watchmen was made in the studio system, and the results are very impressive and definitely one of a kind.

LCD: Despite my penchant for comic-based action movies, I wasn’t looking forward to seeing Watchmen. It didn’t fail to disappoint. From the loins of perhaps the most over-rated pieces of literature I have read came a film that will garner similar popularity despite not being very good at all.

First, the positive: the film is visually stunning and has a distinct style that was supremely enjoyable to watch. Its direction was so brilliant that it could stand on its own as a silent film. It was like watching poetry.

However, good films must do more than look great. Good films have all elements working together in concert – the visuals, the story, the acting and sound, in short the entire cinematic experience – to produce a work of art. This is simply not the case in Watchmen. The visuals, as stated, are great. They are not supported (indeed, the opposite) by the soundtrack which was emotionally jarring and counterproductive toward setting the proper mood for several scenes. They are not supported by the consistently lackluster acting. Worst of all, the strength of the visuals are certainly not supported in any way by the quasi-film noiresque storyline with the most ridiculous plan to save the world ever put to celluloid.

Many people will enjoy Watchmen. They will all be wrong.

4 Comments

Cinesthete • Mar 11, 2009 @6:04 pm

There were some unique music choices, but the music didn’t bother me. It never took me out of the story.

As for the acting, I thought everyone did an adequate job. Some less adequate than others. There were some standouts. Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan were great.

Besides those quibbles, the main reason you didn’t like it was the story. First off, it’s not about the “plan.” Whether it succeeds or not is moot. The story is really about the different philosophies and viewpoints of the main characters and how they each wrestle with the way the world is heading.
Lowest Common Denominator • Mar 11, 2009 @9:22 pm

Unique is a synonym for unorthodox and shitty. I wouldn’t have minded some of the music choices if they were set into the background instead of the prominent feature of the film. “99 Red Balloons” and “All Along the Watchtower” were prominently set as mood-seeting/reinforcing pieces and the moods they set/reinforced were totally against the emotional grain of the film. I laughed out loud at certain points of the film because of the music. It was TERRIBLE.

As for the acting, I will agree with you on Jeffrey Dean Morgan. His was probably the strongest performance of the picture, which is sad because he was probably only in about 25 minutes total. I have a hard time congratulating Jackie Earle Haley or Billy Crudup (another crowd favorite) as having great performances. What was great about Haley’s performance? He had a mask over his face for about 90% of his screentime and he made a creepy voice. Billy Crudup was probably a CGI character for about 90% of the time. I have a hard time praising actors for those types of performances. It’s like saying “Hey! Shari Lewis was great as Lambchop! And Jack Black turned in an Oscar worthy performance as Kung Fu Panda!”. It just doesn’t work. Ever.

As for your argument regarding the story…….every artistic pursuit involving a plot is about the story. It’s about the payoff. This film was absolutely incredible regarding the plot….up until the the end. It had a great buildup and then a shit ending. I don’t care how psychologically involved the ending is, that’s a cop-out. The smartest person ever in the history of the world should have thought of a better way to save the world. After all, if the Lowest Common Denominator can figure it out, it’s not much of a plan, is it?
Cinesthete • Mar 13, 2009 @5:47 pm

I agree with you that some of the music choices weren’t the best, but none of them took me out of the film. I was firmly with it the whole time. Not that it matters, but the last chapter of the graphic novel was named after “All Along the Watchtower.”

And whether those two performances were full of CGI or covered by a mask, they were good. Even if the effect was gotten by the direction, costumes or special effects, those two characters felt real.

And when I say it’s not about the story, I mean it’s not about the part of the story you hated. Sure, the ending is important. And I for one liked it. I like the plan. Even if it doesn’t work, it still wrapped up the film for me. The character’s stories of how they got to that point are what I really liked.
Ex Back • Apr 9, 2009 @2:45 pm

If you ever want to hear a reader’s feedback :) , I rate this post for four from five. Decent info, but I have to go to that damn msn to find the missed parts. Thanks, anyway!

4 Comments

Leave a Reply