Movie Review: Adaptation of "Watchmen" Is Graphic But Not Novel

The much-anticipated film adaptation of the celebrated graphic novel about a band of superheroes who have fallen from grace. Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson and Jackie Early Haley are among the stars. Video by Warner Bros.
By Philip Kennicott
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 5, 2009

"Watchmen" is a bore. Sad to say, after a wait of more than two decades, the much-anticipated adaptation of the world's most celebrated graphic novel is long, dull and subject to what might be called the "Lord of the Rings" problem: It sinks under the weight of its reverence for the original.

Scene by scene, this is "Watchmen" as you remember it, a complicated, many-voiced, bloody and cruel trip to the dark side of the comic book genus. Director Zack Synder, who has said he respected the original novel "like a freakin' illuminated text," even reproduces the pacing, the allusive visual language, the almost subliminal symbols and exact perspectives of the original artwork that made the novel so edgy. The gang is all here, the psychotically righteous Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), the dangerously smart and suspiciously dapper Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode) and of course the shape-shifting blue nudist with seemingly limitless power, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup).

For a while, it's impressive. The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a maniacally patriotic brute whose murder sets the plot in motion, goes through a plate-glass window in exactly the same position, shattering the glass in the same pattern, spilling blood on the gritty New York streets in the same oozing puddle as seen in the opening of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons's 1986-87 graphic novel, as if Snyder has discovered some alchemy for reversing the usual CGI technique. And when rain falls on the Comedian's coffin a few scenes later, the same, vertiginous perspective -- the drops seem to fall from behind the camera, from on high, straight down to the desolate earth -- is reproduced on film.

And yet as this continues, for 162 minutes, the usual question arises: Has the film added anything? Which forces one to confront the book, after more than two decades, with a little more critical distance. For years, people have wondered if it is filmable. But the real issue is whether the novel is worth filming at all.

When it first appeared, "Watchmen" was hailed as a revolution in comic-book artistry. It was dark and ironic, a wry speculation on what the "real life" of superheroes might be like, set in a dystopian 1985, during the constitutionally extended presidency of Richard Nixon. It was two books in one, a look at the twisted, tortured, sexually kinky underworld of vigilantes who like to fight crime in costumes grafted onto an ordinary, race-against-the-doomsday-clock tale of pugilistic heroes and arch-villains. It deflated the very form it celebrated.

But it was ambitious in its storytelling, filled with flashbacks, subplots, and obscure strands of narrative slowly woven together over 12 serial installments. The graphic design, by Gibbons, was manically detailed, hyperkinetic and worked out with the precision of a movie storyboard. The novel was cultlike in its appeal, a little illicit, always alluding to its own profundity, hinting at secrets, drawing you deeper into its self-consciously metaphysical world.

This was catnip for the fanboys, who can be as snobbish about their comics as wine lovers or opera geeks are about their fetishes. And it attracted critics eager to find genius in the dark corners of American pop culture. Time magazine declared it one of the 100 Best English-language Novels since 1923, in the same league with Faulkner, Orwell and Hemingway. The academically inclined found it a brilliant deconstruction of the superhero myth, multivalent, polysemic, densely imbricated and all that jazz.

Which was pure hooey. "Watchmen" was fun, but also incredibly pretentious -- a word that hardly applies anymore to high culture, but sure comes in handy when dealing with pop culture's more desperate efforts to be taken seriously. By treating the original text as a sacred document, the movie is laughably pretentious, too. Just as the film version of "Lord of the Rings" reminded everyone of something they had forgotten since reading the book in high school -- Tolkein was a turgid writer -- the "Watchmen" movie can't help but expose the glaring problem with the "Watchmen" graphic novel: The dialogue stinks.

Despite the intellectual name-dropping, the quotes from Nietzsche, Blake and Juvenal ("Who watches the watchmen?"), the level of Moore's writing rarely rises above B-movie fare. It is silly and dated, the faded gibberish of an old-fashioned noire stylist (the kind who now works for newspapers). And it is filled with cliches.

"We're all puppets," says the God-like Dr. Manhattan, the mysterious hero who looks like a blue version of Mr. Clean. "I'm just a puppet who can see the strings."


Over the years, multiple efforts to film "Watchmen" have failed. Terry Gilliam, director of "Brazil," was engaged with the project for a while, but that fell through. Paul Greengrass ("The Bourne Ultimatum") worked on a version that updated the story from its Cold War setting to the War on Terror, but that didn't go far either. All of which led to the farcical notion that "Watchmen" was unfilmable.

CONTINUED     1        >

© 2009 The Washington Post Company