Out of the 9 of us who saw this movie the other day, only one said he really liked it. One said it was “okay”. The rest of us had less flattering things to say:
“I struggled to stay awake”
“The love scene was bizarre”
“It was so damn long”
“This movie was lame”
“WTF?”
That last one was me – what the fudge? Actually, I was the one who said all those things, but I’m pretty certain most of us shared the sentiments. While it wasn’t a terrible film (there are indeed some special moments), it failed to portray Watchmen as “one of the most celebrated graphic novels of all time”. The remedy? Read on.
1. Cut the Length
It’s 9pm on a Friday. You’ve had a long day. Minor inconveniences forced you to rush to the theater, so you didn’t get to use the bathroom beforehand. Two hours into the film and you’re just waiting for it to end, because A.) you’re tired, and B.) you need to pee.
I know this isn’t the movie’s fault. But I think the length wouldn’t have mattered so much if it just didn’t feel long. Watchmen felt so unending especially for a film that skimps on action and insists on incesssant dialogue. Which brings me to my next point:
2. Increase the ratio of action to dialogue
I’m not a fan of excessive, mindless action; I prefer a conversation-laden film. But a movie of this magnitude requires a certain level of visual excitement to remain relevant. Yes, the story strays from the usual superficial superhero superflick as it had important things to say. I suppose it would be unfair to blame the writers for my own failure to keep up with Manhattan’s long-winded thesis on corruption, the human condition, morality and all its millions of implications. There was just too much to digest within a three hour frame. It was a case of too much being said, with too little being done. Watching this movie on mute would be no fun.
3. Create better aesthetics
The trailer leads us to expect something dark, mysterious and sophisticated. Something visually sleek, rich and less flashy – something visionary. But the trailer was deceptive. True, the tone was more subdued and it relied less on saturated hues and excessive explosions and random car chases and such…but there was a low-caliber feel to it all. Maybe it was the costumes. I know they’re based on old designs, but was there not a way to modernize them – to decheesify them for contemporary cinema? I’m specifically referring to Silk Spectre’s weird vinyl get-up, and Night Owl’s Batman knock-off with the cheap night-vision goggles. Rorschach’s shifting ink-blot mask was pretty rad – and that’s all I have to say about that!
4. Change the cast
Rorschach was an interesting character – but only with his “face” on. Otherwise he reminded me a tad of Danny Bonnaduce – not quite how I picture my masked mavens. Matthew Goode’s Ozymandias resembled an effeminate 80’s new wave pop star, in both appearance and mannerisms. This is not a criticism, just an observation. The last time I saw Malin Akerman was in 27 Dresses as the younger, snottier, blond sister. I couldn’t fully accept her as Silk Spectre. She wasn’t bad, but I just wasn’t feeling it. Billy Crudup was well-suited as Dr. Manhattan, but the blue, emotionally-muted character almost easily plays itself. I suppose each actor on their own was more or less fine, but as a whole there was something missing, something that would unify the cast like X-Men or Justice League or other superhero clans who band together to thwart evil forces. I would also vote to include more of the gorgeous Carla Gugino, who was grossly under-used and accelerated in age. A far cry from those Bon Jovi days.
5. Remove soundtrack oddities
There were two important scenes with well-chosen songs: The beginning with “Times Are A-Changin”, by Bob Dylan, which signaled a very promising start, and the funeral scene with “Sound of Silence” by Simon and Garfunkel, supporting important flashbacks in the midst of a sombre moment. Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” seemed oddly misplaced, an oddness that only added to the already laughably awkward moment. You know which one I’m talking about.
I know people out there will object to these five points, claiming that Watchmen is an “intelligent” film, and anyone who can’t appreciate the movie surely isn’t intellectually equipped for it. They’ll say that we only want action without substance, words without meaning and characters without complexity. And I’ll whisper “No!”
Watchmen does indeed tell a stellar story, one that asks us to challenge the very notion of “superheroes”, to examine the repercussions of putting all our faith into our leaders and thereby relinquishing our own personal responsibility - politically, socially and morally. It’s not a story that forces us to completely suspend our belief and succumb to make-believe the way Superman or Spiderman do (The Dark Knight will always remain in a class all its own). Watchmen, though set in an alternate reality, seems more rooted in real life than other works of fiction, as the layers of social commentary are rife with a certain profundity that ultimately, just does not translate well to the big screen.
While it warrants important discussions, the story is reduced to a second-rate sci-fi reel, which only makes me wonder how much better the film would’ve been were Alan Moore on board. His refusal probably had something to do with DC screwing him over, and I completely understand that. But it could’ve made all the difference if the guy who created Watchmen were at least consulted.
Then again, perhaps my criticisms are all trivial; maybe I’m nit-picking only because I can’t quite pin-point exactly why I didn’t like it. All I know is that I didn’t. The movie medium just could not wholly articulate the heavy discourse I assume Moore intended, while the ambitions of the filmmakers seemed to exceed the comprehending capacity of the average viewer.
Given our short attention span they might have better luck if they take on Minutemen.
What do you think?
