|
|
So, Watchmen. Under the best of circumstances, this would have been a difficult movie to pull off. And while these circumstances weren't perfect, they did do a pretty good job; better than 300 would have indicated Zak Snyder could do, especially.
The first part of the movie is very rough and slow-moving. The actors don't really seem to know what to do with these characters early on, but they seem to (mostly) find their groove as the film progresses. They left the talkier bits of the book in, with (again, mostly) reasonable cuts... actually, I shouldn't say cuts, more like shortenings. One event in particular, Rorscharch's meetings with the psychiatrist, is compressed into a single meeting; it still works, but only just. Watching that guy fall apart over a series of weeks from the stress of dealing with Rorscharch's case was one of the best bits in the book.
None of my friends that went to see the movie with me seem to agree with me on this, but my most significant complaints would be that they overdid the violence; often blood seems to flow for the sake of blood, limbs and necks broken in pointlessly graphic closeups. A more subtle hand would've been better there. Also, a big part of the original material was that these heroes, with the exception of Manhattan, Veidt, and possibly the Comedian, were really 40-something schlubs that had fetishized their costumed adventuring, and a lot of that seemed to be lost; they seemed a bit too 'capable', really.
But overall, they pulled the movie off better than I had expected. Kudos, also, for leaving Manhattan naked in multiple scenes. Male nudity is something that's usually shied away from in American films but it's made all the more apparent here, especially in comparison to the almost downplayed female nudity.
Hope it doesn't sound like I'm excusing the movie's flaws, as they're certainly there. But I had fun with it. |
|
|