Watchmen

I hate reviewing movies, I really do.

Exactly what am I supposed to base a review on? There is no scale for such a thing. How can I compare one movie to the next? What one director does has no bearing on what another will do, different styles and all. You can't compare The Godfather to Animal House because they're entirely different movies.

I mean, look at critics. There is no "International Movie Association" ranking formula. Now, yes, you obviously tell if actors are lousy, the script makes no sense, the effects are lame, etc. But it all comes down to personal taste more than anything else. One critic will laud a movie as having a "detailed, intricate plot that sucks you in" while the next will say the exact same movie is "far too long and plodding." What sense does that make?

I suppose that's just one of life's unanswerable questions, like why the local sandwich shops have thicker napkins than the wings place.

All that said, here's my take on Watchmen!

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Zack Snyder stayed very faithful in his adaptation, while at the same time adding his own unique style and artistic touch.

Visually, it was stunning. Snyder gave the film a fascinating, comic book-like look. It was beautiful, smooth and really fun to watch. Of course, there was the issue of Snyder's penchant for slow motion fight scenes. Naturally, they were there; but Snyder managed to reel them in and let scenes play out without bogging the film down with slow motion a la 300.

The acting, for the most part, was superb. Jackie Earle Haley stood out above the rest, because he absolutely nailed Rorschach (although when I read the novel I didn't imagine him with the Christian Bale Batman growl). However, I wasn't the biggest fan of Matthew Goode's portrayal of Ozymandias (more on that later).

But Snyder's biggest feat was pulling off the complex, layered story on the big screen. This was as good a comic book/action movie as I have seen. Gone were the cheesy cliches, shallow stories and contrite commercialism. In Watchmen, characters were actually developed, the plot was actually well thought out, and corners were not cut in favor of flash and flair. The run time of the movie barely falls short of three hours, but Snyder uses every minute of it so well that it flies by.

I highly recommend this one. It's an intelligent, fun, involved movie experience. It's a great alternative to the cheap thrill-filled blockbusters that dominate the genre. However, I do suggest you read the graphic novel first. While Snyder did about as good a job as you can do in transferring the novel to the silver screen, there are still so many little things and side-stories to pick up in the book.

OK, now for specifics...

***SPOILER ALERT***

OK, I said above that I wasn't impressed with Goode's version of Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias. Now, for those of us coming into the movie having read the book, we already know that he's turns out to be the villain. But, in the movie, Goode's acting is so brooding, so dark that it's almost obvious. What was an absolute shock in the novel was almost a foregone conclusion in the movie.

I was a little disappointed with the lack of the newspaper stand side-story. I thought both the newsstand's operator and the comic provided a nice subtext to the overall story. However, I can understand the difficulty in trying to translate them to the big screen.

The ending might upset some hardcore fanboys, but I was perfectly fine with it. It still kept true to the novel's main idea; and while adding his own twist Snyder didn't compromise that idea.

OK, sleepy time.