|
KaineD -> Watchmen (2009) - Contains Spoilers (3/6/2009 11:14:36 AM)
|
This review contains spoilers.
In a way, the fact that Alan Moore opposes this movie fits perfectly with what the film was trying to achieve. Not just the fact that the creator of the original work opposes this film, but why he opposes it - he flat out doesn't like the idea of adaptations.
Questions are therefore posed - what is the point of adaptations? Is this film a succesful adaptation? Is Watchmen the book indeed unfilmable?
Moore once said he wrote the book with the purpose in mind that it could not be filmed.
He succeeded.
But Snyder succeeded in making a succesful adaptation, in my opinion. If that makes any sense.
See, if Moore's Watchmen is unfilmable, then so is 90% of books.
That's why it drives me nuts that fanboys get so pedantic and nitpicky that if a single line of dialogue from the book is missing, they get bent all out of shape. They're missing the point.
Each entertainment medium has advantages and disadvantages. Moore took advantage of just about every tool that makes comic books unique. And with his book-within-a-book sections, he was able to add fountains of backstory and information to his world that a film couldn't hope to copy without being ridiculously long. But pick up a Stephen King book, and you might find incredible detail to a sewage system, or the town history, or entire pages devoted to details of a side character. It's just what books are good at - books can take their time to flesh out depth and details.
So if anyone was expecting or hoping for a Watchmen film that went into Hollis Masons days in an auto repair shop, or the possibility of the Hood's secret identity being that of a russian wrestler, then they are an idiot. Does the fact that Snyder's Watchmen excludes these details make the film a failed adaptation? No.
I'm not sure if Snyder did this or not, but I'm sure there is a good chance that he did, I'm sure he asked himself "what are the limitations of film? What can a film NOT do that the book can?" If Snyder's film TRIED to do what a film just CAN'T, then he would have failed miserably.
Everything we need to know about the Minutemen is summed up in about 3 minutes in the film, all visually, without a word of dialogue.
Other details are revealed in small pieces of dialogue later in the film, or through Silk Spectre's rape scene.
It's amazing then, that for so long people thought that Watchmen just couldn't be done on screen, when now it's been done so effectively. The reason is that people think in order for Watchmen to be brought to film succesfully, not a single panel should be cut out or a single line changed.
They're wrong.
Part of Snyder's job was to edit the book. And while I realize he will be releasing a longer version of the film to DVD, I really have little issue with what was missing from the theatrical edition. It stands very strongly by itself. Things that were cut out, like Hollis Mason's death I did not miss. I thought I would, but I didn't. Snyder "gets" Watchmen.
In a sense, he even recognises the books weak points. And the book does have them. If anything, I'm concerned the longer version of the film may be weaker for trying to fit so much in.
I thought I would cringe at the slow motion scenes. I didn't. They fitted the film, the tone of the scenes, very well. The camera work at times was masterfull. The slow motion allowed the camera to pinpoint little details, and then move on.
Jackie Earle Haley knocked Rorscach out of the park. He owned that role. He was excellent.
Dr. Manhattan's scenes on Mars, and his origin scene, awesome.
I was with the film loving it up till about the last 20 minutes, which I have mixed feelings about, but I think its still strong.
And here I do perhaps get pedantic between the comic book and the adaptation.
Simply, I think the feeling that they were already too late to stop Adrian was stronger in the book. Those silent panels of all those dead bodies piled up ontop of each other with all of the blood were powerful images. And while I understand why they couldn't do that for the film, sensitivities about a post-911 world, I think that's all the more reason why they should have shown all those bodies and blood. The message is a lot stronger than simply destroyed buildings. I don't feel emotional connections to that, but I do to seeing dead bodies. It's human nature.
Squid be damned. I don't care about that. I just think they should have shown the dead bodies strewn all over the place.
This does seem nitpicky, but why did they have Laurey say Dr. Manhattan's line? "Nothing ever ends". I just don't understand why they kept the line in, but had the words come out of a different character? It's so much more poignant coming from Dr. Manhattan. You get the sense that he knows something that we don't. Something about the very nature of our existence.
I thought it was campy and somewhat over the top by having Night Owl witness Rorscach's death, and then react by screaming and charging at Veidt. I think it says more about Rorscach, and how lonely Rorscach's existence was, to have the others not even notice he's not there. In a way, he was the only real hero.
Good film. Shows that adaptations have a purpose and are worth it. Moore should watch it with an open mind sometime, but whether he enjoys it or not is irrelevant.
The film has a lot of depth. And audience members unfamiliar with the book, I suspect would enjoy the film the more they watch it. Like the book, there would be things they did not pick up on or notice the first time around. There are a bunch of visual signifiers. Good stuff.
[Mod Note: spoiler warning added to subject]
|
|
|
|
