Impressions of the Watchmen movie
I finally got around to watching the Watchmen movie. (Yeah, I know I’m late to the party. I meant to watch it in theaters, but my plans fell through, and by then everyone else had seen it already.) I have to agree with Ben’s remarks: I liked it, but I didn’t love it.
Even in the director’s cut, a lot of things from the comics were omitted, but that’s to be expected. I was a bit disappointed that some things were left out (mostly involving Rorschach’s origin). I was skeptical that Watchmen would work as a film—a lot of what makes Watchmen great is how it takes advantage of the comics medium. The movie adapts it as well as probably can be expected; it does an admirable job, but by itself I think it falls a bit flat. It’s too late to be groundbreaking, and I think familiarity with the comics is necessary to appreciate the movie.
(Spoilers below.)
I’m not sure what to make of the adjustment to the way Rorschach killed the kidnapper. On one hand, giving the kidnapper the option of sawing off his own arm seems like a better segue for Rorschach’s transformation from being “soft” to having no mercy, and it has the symbolism of Rorschach being reborn in flames. On the other hand, killing the kidnapper immediately fits better with Rorschach’s black-and-white, no compromises mentality. (In some ways, though, that seems more merciful than letting the kidnapper saw off his arm and burn alive.)
At first I was a bit annoyed that the filmmakers changed the implementation of Veidt’s master plan from the comics, but as I thought about it, I liked the film’s version better. I don’t think that the space alien thing would have worked well outside of a comic book format: comics are better equipped to foreshadow events with details that don’t draw too much attention to themselves, and without that ability, the original deus ex machina ending would have felt completely cheap. Additionally, redirecting humanity’s aggression toward Dr. Manhattan fits much better with the anti-hero sentiment that had been building up in the Watchmen universe, culminating in a rejection of the God-figure.
Coincidentally, a few days before watching Watchmen, I was thinking about the typical religious question about why God lets bad things happen to good people and about why the typical answer is, “Who can understand God’s ways?” instead of a more affirmative, “It’s for the greater good”. (But maybe the answer is that it’s because of tachyons.)
There’s also something more poetic in Dr. Manhattan providing the means to his own downfall.
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Agreed. I was neither super thrilled nor super disappointed in how the movie turned out. I thought they actually did a pretty decent job in translating the comic. I could have done without seeing Dr. Manhattan’s… um… appendage… repeatedly… but as far as a movie version of the comic, I thought it was pretty well done. It’s a seriously dark and disturbing story, but that was the whole point of the comic.
Also, I prefer the answer to the God question that states that God has given everyone free will, and that evil happening to good people is the unfortunate consequence of someone using that free will to do wrong. Or that this world is just a short part of our existence through eternity. Or, heck yeah, tachyons. =;P
But what did you mean about Dr. Manhattan providing the means to his own downfall? (It’s been a while since I saw the movie.)
— Jason 'vanRijn' Kasper @ September 11, 2010, 8:19 pm (PT)
you are late, but yeah mostly agreed. i guess as you saw in my post.
— Ben @ September 11, 2010, 8:53 pm (PT)
@Jason: I meant that Dr. Manhattan helped Veidt build the machine used to frame him for killing millions of people.
As for the full frontal nudity: c’mon, it wouldn’t have been Watchmen without it.
— James @ September 11, 2010, 8:57 pm (PT)