Hurm...

Review not simple.  Will take some thought.

Divisive.  Divisive is what the this movie is going to be.  Songs will be sung about the epic flame wars that will ensue from disgruntled fanboys and disillusioned movie patrons versus the equally adamant and fulfilled Watchmen lovers and pleasantly surprised first comers as they all react simultaneously to the adaptation of Alan Moore's epic costumed hero saga.  If for no other reason, this film deserves note for that accomplishment.  If for no other reason you should see this film to find out which side you will pledge allegiance to when the ensuing war of opinions comes.  The more clever of you, and probably the less clever too, will catch at least one thing from the previous statement: you should see this film.

Briefly, for those of you who have been baffled by the trailers and hype around the movie, Watchmen is in its simplest form a whodunnit mystery involving a group of self appointed costumed heroes in an alternative 1985 where we didn't loose the Vietnam war thanks to the story's only real "super" hero, the god-like Dr. Manhattan.  But like onions and ogres, there are layers, many layers, which range from nihilist philosophy, sex and violence, the nature of truth and peace, and even commentary on the comic book genre itself.  As I said in my review of the written work, this isn't your father's Action Comics.

However, despite the comic book being perhaps one of my favorite written works of all time, I find myself having difficulty saying where I stand on 300 director Zack Snyder's adaptation.  There is part of me that wished I had never heard a thing about the comic book before having seen this film, or at least hadn’t reread the entire thing in the week leading up to the film’s release.  I think I can definitively say that I like the movie, and perhaps more properly, really like the movie, but it some how feels different having essentially watched a near exact recounting of the comic book in abridged, filmic form.  My perspective made each scene feel more like confirmation of a narrative moment rather than exposition of a vast conspiracy and mystery leading to a twist on a twist of an ending.  That doesn’t mean that any of what I watched was bad, it just some how feels more distantly pleasurable than electrically affective as was last year's great comic book film The Dark Knight.

My own personal film digestion issues aside, this movie really does stand on Zack Snyder’s ability to paint scenes in ways that feels fresh and unique in the same way watching The Matrix used to elicit such feelings.  I don’t think this movie could have been shot more beautifully or stylized in a more representative way to make Dave Gibbon’s artwork jump off the page into a living, breathing alternate 1985.  The opening credits were transcendent, perhaps one of the most amazing things I’ve ever seen in cinema.  They should invent and award and give it to Zack Snyder for that sequence alone.  And if you haven’t seen 300 or aren’t familiar with Synder’s ability to compose a fight seen like beautiful dance, or his trademark "speed-ramping", you should take this opportunity to familiarize yourself with what will undoubtedly be a bench mark for style in many action films to come.  Move over Michael Bay.

The narrative is complex and sticks dramatically true to its roots, and though I find myself unable to effectively step into the shoes of someone unfamiliar with the source material, talking with my roommate on the drive home from the theatre, he says he was both able to understand what was going on and enjoy it.  He even made several deep observations about the story that I, having read the comic twice now, had not considered.  That doesn’t mean, of course, that all will be as able to sift through the complex narrative thread, but it is far more approachable than some critics would have you believe and is one of the bigger praises that could be lauded on Snyder's manipulation of the winding comic book plot.

However, like a blood stain on a bright yellow smiley face, this movie was definitely not without its flaws.  A friend of mine who vehemently loathed the film, being a lover of the source material and clearly taking up arms for a chosen side, commented that the complex emotions written into the novel did not escape their printed pages into the celluloid spectacle.  While I don’t quite feel as strongly, I will say that some of character’s performances definitely felt flat.  Particularly, Malin Ackerman's role as Laurie Jupiter, aka The Silk Spectre II, ranged from tolerable to tragic.  Her role is pivotal in the book and her emotions doubly so, and I felt Ackerman’s portrayal of the head strong vixen lacked a certain intensity in key moments of the narrative.  This is partly do to what I felt were some serious problems with the presentation of certain parts of the narrative which seemed to dramatically reduce their impact on the audience despite their remaining importance in both the book’s and even the film’s plot. 

On a positive thespian note, I felt that Billy Crudup’s portrayal as a distant, inhuman force with human flaws in the role of Dr. Manhattan was incredibly well tuned with pinpoint subtly, almost to the extent that you first want to hate his performance until you realize just how brilliant it is…I know, it’s complicated.  Acting acolades and film MVP have to go to Jackie Earle Haley’s role as the growling and grizzly Rorschach, putting Christian Bale’s grumbly orations to shame.  He truly shines as the movie’s foremost flawed antihero with power and raw emotion befitting the beloved character and doing justice to his comic book counterpart.

The ending, which amongst fans of the source had been a point of apprehension, was redone in a way that I think is both easier to accept by audiences, and may even provide a more interesting commentary on Dr. Manhattan's God comparison than the original Moore ending.  However, I felt like despite its visual punch, the film's climax lacked a certain emotional upheaval that I enjoyed from reading the novel.  Fortunately, I felt like things were made up for by an equally powerful follow-up which remains true to the original story and left me wishing that they could have allowed a moment of silence in the theatre to soak in the event, as I was allowed reading the comic under the covers of my bed sheets.

Book/Movie Spoiler (highlight to read):

For those have read the book, if you look carefully beneath a computer panel that pans quickly out of view to look at the reactor being teleported towards New York, you will notice an easter egg nod to the original ending with initials “S.Q.U.I.D.” appearing on the panel.

Watchmen is one of those movies that demands a second viewing as I don’t think even as reader and lover of the comic book that I was able to take in everything the first time.  You should also be aware that the film is full of "Snyderisms" including several scenes of “ultra violence,” a fairly comical and gratuitous sex scene, and a whole bunch of glowing blue Dr. Manhattan “naughty bits.”  I also feel this movie will leave many frustrated as they attempt to convince others why, in fact, the movie is either so great or so terrible, likely failing to convey either point very well.  Nevertheless, true applause should be given to Snyder for pulling off, for better or for worse, what many, including Alan Moore, claimed to be impossible: A movie based on Watchmen, and a movie which manages to stick nearly perfectly to its source material and still manage to be a great film. 

Now, let slip the fanboys of war.

Verdict: That'll do, B+