Who watches the WATCHMEN? Yours truly.

Hurm.

It turns out writing a reasonable review of the film adaptation of Watchmen is maybe as arduous a task as making the movie itself. Like so many others my age, I love this comic like no other, and have read it annually (at least) ever since its release back in 1986-87. I sit in awe of the book's brilliance with every encounter, worshiping at the alter of its creators, and I can say with unabashed affection that this comic book played a defining role in my early development as both a young adult and a reader of literature.

How the everlovin' hell can a film be made from what many to consider to be the perfect comic? Should anyone even try? Co-creator and writer of Watchmen Alan Moore looked down and whispered "No." He has repeatedly stated over the years that Watchmen was meant to showcase what could be done in no other medium than comics, and refuses to have anything to do with the film. He does not fault artist and co-creator Dave Gibbons for his participation (Moore signed away any income from the film to Gibbons), and even though he said that an earlier version of David Hayter's screenplay was as close as anyone would come to capturing the comic, he stands by his belief that reading the graphic novel on a Saturday afternoon should be more than adequate for anyone.

I say all of this to illustrate how much difficulty I expect to have penning this review, as I am afraid that I may be too involved emotionally to judge the film on its own merits. I have seen the film twice now, trying to sort through my impressions, and felt less divided upon walking out of the theater for a second time. So, biases and all, here we go. Rambling is inevitable.

For those of you that have not read the graphic novel, here is the most brief synopsis I can manage: Watchmen is set in a 1985 where superheroes are real and their presence has visibly altered the timeline over the forty-plus years prior; the only truly superpowered being is American, and his existence caused the US to win the Vietnam War which allowed for Nixon to remain in office. Nuclear holocaust seems inevitable as tensions between the Soviet Union and US approach critical mass. Costumed adventurers have been outlawed for nearly a decade; most retired, some went public and capitalized on their personas, some began working for the government, and one chose to continue his crusade outside the law. The latter's investigation of the murder of one of the masked community's own is the first step down a path that will either save or doom mankind as the heroes are forced to confront who and what they are.

I admit to leaving the theater feeling a little overwhelmed after the first viewing. I found the violence to be often excessive and over-stylized, something that bothered me a great deal in director Zack Snyder's last film, 300. Cutting away at the correct moment in film is comparable to using the gutters between panels to imply action in comics, and it is almost always best to let the reader/viewer do the work in their own head with something so graphic. Interestingly, the violence did not bother me during the second viewing, most likely because I was prepared for it.

As for the film as a whole, my feelings were torrential at best as I initially walked out of the theater. There are so many things for a fan of the book to both love and hate about this film, and I found myself both excited and agitated afterward. There is no question as to the dedication and attention to detail paid by the filmmakers; there are small elements in the scenery and background that even the most discerning eye is going to overlook time and time again, and I was thrilled when I noticed little things that I had missed during my first viewing. Some scenes are almost perfectly borrowed from the comic, almost to a fault. Other scenes were perfect to a point, and then seemingly needless changes from the source material would jar me from the experience. See what I mean about how difficult this is for me to review?

So, a second viewing was a necessity. I was able to relax and enjoy the absolutely gorgeous opening credits, and upon exhaling found it possible to let the film be exactly what it is: a movie. Gone were the years that I spent venerating the graphic novel, and the internal film lover was finally capable of appreciating what was up on the silver screen. And now, nearly eight hundred words later, I can finally get down to the business of reviewing this gorram film.

A film like Watchmen is doomed to not live up to the hype; nothing short of the Second Coming of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could. It is not going to be a perfect translation, and nor should we expect it to be. Film and comics are different mediums with different needs, and trying to perfectly adapt one to the other would be a comedy of errors of magnificent proportion. Some of the areas where the film falls short are due to this, creating the dichotomous feelings that will torment fans of the graphic novel as well as the confusion and/or detachment those unfamiliar with the source material might experience. I have spoken with both fans of the comic and newbies, and emotions are mixed; some fans loved it, some hated it. Some newbies were completely along for the ride, and others not so much. I started out somewhat unsure about the experience, and walked out after my second viewing feeling pretty good about it.

Most of the changes were made in an effort to create an internal continuity completely independent of the graphic novel, and although I took strong issue with a couple of points, the filmmakers were successful in creating a realized world for the story to take place (again, I say this with history under my belt). The ending did not bother me as much as expected once this was taken into account. Do I prefer the ending in the graphic novel? Most definitely. Is this ending serviceable to the world Snyder and company created? Generally yes, although it is not perfect and the flow feels somehow off during the last ten minutes or so (maybe a third viewing in IMAX will help me discern how so).

The look of the film is gorgeous, a veritable feast to the eyes. The style and colors of the graphic novel have been captured wonderfully, and seem to work well on the screen. I am extremely forgiving to the varying special effects, as they facilitated the needs of the story rather than drove the story (something that angers me about most effects-laden films). And yes, Dr. Manhattan's unavoidable blue penis is all over this movie.

The song choices did not bother me in the least; several people have complained about the music, but I lived through the Eighties and remember hearing all of these songs quite frequently. It may be time to retire Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah however, as it is becoming kind of trite to use it in films. Now to be a total hypocrite, I love the use of Bob Dylan's The Times They Are a-Changin' during the opening credits, as well as Pruit Igoe by Philip Glass during Dr. Manhattan's segment. The score also has a definite Eighties feel, complete with heavy synthesizers (à la Blade Runner).

Some of the performances were fantastic; Jackie Earle Haley did not portray Rorschach so much as become him, and had his moral absolutism not been believable the film would have fallen apart. Jeffrey Dean Morgan had the difficult task of filling the boots of the nihilistic Comedian, and did so quite well. The Comedian is that guy that you do not want to like but do anyway, and Morgan pulls it off nicely. Billy Crudup did the motion capture for the 3D animation and was the voice of the nigh-omnipotent Dr. Manhattan, and did a good job subtly insinuating how painful it was for Manhattan to be losing his humanity as he ascended.

The two performances that seem to have taken the most heat are Matthew Goode's performance as the brilliant and eccentric Ozymandias and Malin Akerman's portrayal of the second generation Silk Spectre. Playing the part of someone who can relate only to Alexander the Great is extremely difficult under the best of circumstances, and although not as vibrant as some of the other performances, Goode was stronger in this role than I expected (and much to my surprise, his costume did not bother me). I do wish there would have been a little more Robert Redford to his look and performance, however. And I think I realize why people have problem with Akerman's acting ability: her face does not emote very visibly. This did not bother me as much as it seems to have most others, and although her performance pales in comparison to the stronger ones, she was passable in a role that Diane Lane would have absolutely owned ten years ago.

Finally we get to Dan, the second Nite Owl, portrayed ever so excellently by Patrick Wilson. The role of Nite Owl is maybe the most thankless of both the comic and the film; Dan is our conduit into this world, the only character "normal" enough to serve as our everyman in reaction to the extreme personalities surrounding him. Dan has his issues, regretting his retirement and wrestling with the fact that he thrived off of the fetish involved in wearing the tights, and Wilson captured the emotional struggles of this rich character admirably, becoming the unsung heart of the film.

Did I love Watchmen? No, but it is growing on me, and I most definitely want to see it again (in IMAX, if possible). There are moments during which the film was pure magic to me, and had I felt that sense of wonder the whole time this film would have garnered a higher rating. My friend Matthew commented that if the movie does nothing more than bring new readers to the graphic novel it has served its purpose in being made; I have spoken with several people who are doing exactly that after seeing the film, a fact that pleases me greatly. There is a reason Watchmen made Time Magazine's list of Top 100 English-language novels from 1923 to 2005: it is that damned good. I think about how comic books inspired me to explore mythology, history, and literature, paving the way for the devoted reader and student that I am today, and all I can think is how can I fault someone for attempting to do the impossible? So kudos, Zack Snyder. Better to have tried and have fallen just short of perfection than having not tried at all. I'm giving Watchmen a strong and pleasantly surprising 3.75 out of 5.

For another take on Watchmen, head over to The Knight Shift after you've seen the film to see how my buddy Chris felt about it. He may just be a bigger fan of the graphic novel than yours truly, and has some interesting things to say about the film.

UPDATE (3/22): My friend Shimmering Jemmy over at The Shallow Brigade also posted a very interesting review of the film (as well as some excellent insights into the graphic novel) that you should definitely check out.