Movie review - Watchmen

In an alternative 1985, Richard Nixon is in his third term as president, the Soviet Union are stock piling nuclear warheads and Superheroes are a reality. Or at least they were because masked vigilantes have been outlawed, so they now walk un-masked among the general population. I had heard a lot of buzz about this movie, mostly mixed but ranging from approval to downright negative, so here I go.

Based on the 'comic book' by Alan Moore (j0sh, if you still read this blog, that's a shout out to you and your thoughts on my review of V for Vendetta), Watchmen has an interesting Hollywood history as it was considered nigh on unfilmable partly due to the complex nature of the story with all its violence, nudity and politics, and the effects required to make the story plausible.

Firstly to the good things. This was directed by the Zack Snyder who did 300, and as you can imagine, the visuals are pretty darn great. Seeing it at IMAX probably helped but even so, the opening credit sequence that people have raved about was pretty darn amazing and would have looked great on a not-so-big screen! Other highlights were the attention to detail in recreating the flashbacks to WWII, Vietnam War etc. I also really liked seeing Silk Spectre's (Malin Akerman) hair swish. And I didn't find Dr Manhattan's (Billy Crudup) glowing blue penis too distracting (Link is safe for work).

Although I knew who they were, the cast is pretty much devoid of any *big names* but I think the actors were pretty spot-on for their roles, if not for their acting then for their looks! Carla Gugino and her bonestructure in particular is great as the original Silk Spectre, bitter at having to give up her crime-fighting ways to have a family and glorying in her past as a 40s sex symbol. In fact, I reckon she would have been better than Akerman as the current Silk Spectre! Patrick Wilson does well as the meek Clark Kent-type who doesn't know who he is without his mask on. But the real star would be Jackie Earl Henry as Rorschach. Possibly benefitting from having the most background info, Henry really gets across the uncompromising to the extent of crazy aspects of Rorschach and does a great gravelly voice that is kinda funny when you see it coming out of the face without the mask

So the bad. It is really long. Not unexpected given that how thick the comic is, but given the cuts and compressions, there were points when I did sit there thinking *how much longer is this going to be?* I know it was necessary to run through the backstories in order to get to why some characters have taken the position they have but sequences like Dr. Manhattan dressing could shorter?

Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias annoyed me. From his voice to his looks but particularly his hair. I know it's 80s hair. But he just annoyed me in every scene he was in.

The ending was changed from the comic. I won't say what it was to try and avoid spoilers but immediately afterwards I thought I preferred the movie ending. Now I'm wondering whether it might be too 'neat'. I'm not going to go on, psycho-fan style, about changes to the work because I think the finished product is pretty good even though the really complex philosophical aspects have been trimmed.

Then there's the statement that people have that Watchmen is an effects-bloated, ultraviolent, ultralong overly reverent mess. It's kinda hard to argue with that. Okay it does have a lot of special effects. And it is both really long and really graphically violent - more violent than the comic, actually and in one scene in particular. I'll just say *meat cleaver*. Mess...I do wonder if my having read it prior helped me keep track of what was going on. I didn't love it enough to be all *hey, that's different!* so that probably also helped.

A *superhero movie* in that it has superheroes, I wonder whether the many people who told me the movie was an incomprehensible load of crap walked in expecting something like Batman or Transformers where the good guys are sympathetic and win, and instead got a story about the political and moral complexities of being a hero - after all, how do you choose who is 'good' when everyone is willing to do some pretty bad crap to get their way? For example, Rorschach is pretty much a psychopath but he's the one who will not compromise on doing the 'right thing'. Does that make him the 'good' guy despite also being a brutal murderer? Or is 'Villain' who is willing to sacrifice millions of lives in order to save billions doing the right thing?

I fully expected to hate it and while there are definite provisos, I still say it is pretty good.
6-7/10