Film review: ‘Watchmen’ winds down slowly
Showtime Showdown:
Showtime Showdown: "Watchmen"
(AP Photo/Warner Bros., Clay Enos)
In this movie still released by Warner Bros., Jeffrey Dean Morgan stars as The Comedian in a scene from the film, “Watchmen.“
Published: March 5, 2009
Updated: March 5, 2009
The most unintentionally hilarious moment in "Watchmen"? There are so many to choose from, so very many.
But it would have to be the love scene played out on a desert planet at sundown, the two naked lovers standing and kissing in front of a nuclear explosion and mushroom cloud.
How romantic. But this is the best part: It's only a dream!
The next love scene -- same two lovers, but real this time -- takes place on a hovering spacecraft thing in front of a full moon, with Leonard Cohen's song "Hallelujah" blaring on the soundtrack.
Really. If the music seems to be heavy-handed ("Ride of the Valkyries" during a Vietnam flashback -- now there's an original idea -- "The Times They Are a Changin'" over a montage showing how times are a-changing, Mozart's "Requiem" at a dramatic climax), it's because the whole movie is heavy-handed.
Director Zack Snyder, the man who gave us "300," feels compelled to hit every point as hard as he can. He can't just film a sad scene, he adds rain and dramatic flashes of lightning and some appropriately somber song such as "The Sounds of Silence" at a funeral.
It is as if he does not trust the audience to understand what is happening without his help. He must think we're stupid.
Competing with Snyder in the ineptitude sweepstakes are writers David Hayter and Alex Tse, whose boring script is bizarrely overwritten. In excruciating and infuriatingly repetitive detail, they give us the back story of far too many characters, but almost no information about the tiny part of the film that counts as the current plot.
We learn from the "The Times They Are a Changin'" montage that superheroes who were once popular have fallen out of favor and been banned by the government. One -- the man who assassinated JFK, by the way -- is killed, and the others begin to suspect that someone is trying to kill them all.
Then they have a lot of flashbacks. During the one guy's funeral alone, three of them have flashbacks.
The filmmakers do not give us enough reason to care about any of them. One (Ozymandias? Can his superhero name really be Ozymandias?) is barely in the film. Another, played by Patrick Wilson, is never identified by his superhero name, but his costume looks sort of like Batman.
The point is, the filmmakers expect us to know who these people are and to care about them, because they expect us already to know the source material, a graphic novel by Alan Moore. This is a movie made only for the existing fans, who may very well love it.
They will certainly appreciate the production design, which appears to be lifted directly from the graphic novel. So much effort went into the design that little was left for what matters most in a movie, like the plot. And the pace. And the acting. And the editing. And the coherence.
What we get is production design. That, and some appallingly gratuitous hyper-violence, gratuitous slow-motion shots and gratuitous hyper-violence shot in slow motion.
All of that slow motion makes a slow movie seem even slower. The embarrassing inability to come to a conclusion -- or rather, to pick one final ending out of the 10 or 12 it attempts makes it worse. "Watchmen" clocks in at 2½ hours, if you leave during the credits. But it feels much, much longer.
Despite shortcomings, 'Watchmen' likely to be hit
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I don’t get it. Every Dan Neman movie review I read sounds like some bitter douche-bag who only watches movies that remind him of his failed relationships in the past.
I agree. I would give it a 6.
The movie was actually good. I must admit it was long, but I definitely needed those back stories of the characters to know exactly what was going on because I was a little confused about the montage from the beginning where it was flashing all of those different people. The way the story went helped me to realize who they were. I give the movie at least 3 1/2 stars.
Apparently Dan Neman understands little to nothing about the purpose of the “score” in a movie. The whole point of the music in any movie is to drive home the feeling of the scene. Just as an example: Star Wars. Vader enters a scene, the martialistic tones of the “Imperial March” begin. You know in an instance this guy is not to be messed with.
He spent so much time harping on the music in this movie, I wonder if he really paid attention to anything else that happened. For one, the use of “Flight of the Valkyrie” is satire. Yes, it was done in “Apocalypse Now,“ and that’s the point, it’s satirizing a well-known Vietnam war movie’s use of the same song.
This whole movie is a commentary on the human condition and our society as it was in the mid-80’s. How anyone could miss that is beyond me. Oh no, they used rain to drive home a point about sadness. Guess what, it rained A LOT in the graphic novel. Guess the filmmakers were too busy replicating the source material to care if they were making film school mistakes.
I can understand not giving this four stars, but a one star? You’ve got to be kidding me. Multiple endings? I only saw about 1.5 minutes that could’ve been cut from the ending, everything else was required to wrap up the story’s loose ends. And if after sitting through a 2.5 hour movie, 1.5 minutes bothers you, please, do us all a favor and quit going to movies.
Actually, come to think of it Dan Neman reviews are a worthwhile gauge for the movie-going public. If he gives it one star it is actually a four star movie…and if he gives it four stars it is actually a one star movie.
Do you have any idea who Ozymandias is? It happens to be the Greek name of Ramesses II, the greatest ruler of Egypt. Naming yourself after the greatest ruler of Egypt actually makes a lot of sense, more so than adjective-man.
And yes, the movie is, as you describe it, from the novel. But isn’t that what everyone wants when they go from paper to film? Everytime a movie comes out it is always “the book is better.“ The creators of this film maybe wanted someone to finally say that they would rather watch the film than read the novel. The only way to accomplish that is to go verbatim from the novel.
Oh, and for the record, the “conclusion” you draw to, is actually quite clear, unless you are too boneheaded to have simple associations with actions from earlier in the movie. I won’t give them away for those that haven’t read the novel and want to see the movie, but the end result makes complete sense, and gets the point that the original authors of the novel wanted to get across.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.



Advertisement