Watchmen (18)

Verdict: Don't watch, men (& women) **

By Robbie Collin, 24/02/2009

THE road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And you could tarmac the first five miles of it with duff comic-book movies alone.

And for all the thunder and hype of the last six months, Watchmen is just the latest substandard cobble to be laid on Bogroll Boulevard.

This 2½-hour wannabe pop culture epic isn't the worst superhero movie ever made but it IS one of the most disappointing. Because this time round, it was supposed to be so different. We were promised darkness, we were promised maturity.

But what we got, is 163 minutes of tin-ear dialogue and absurd violence, capped with one of the most laughable sex scenes since Nomi Malone went outboard motor in the Showgirls swimming pool.

A Watchmen movie of some shape or form has been on the cards for a while now. But after two failed attempts to get one into production, director and Monty Python star Terry Gilliam said the story was unfilmable.

And whaddayaknow? The mardy old goat's been proven absolutely right.

Watchmen's based on a much-loved 1980s graphic novel about a loose team of masked crimefighters, working in Cold War-era USA. Which is the whole problem. Director Zack Snyder was so obsessed with doing justice to the comic, that he forgot to stand back and think about whether or not he was making a coherent movie.

And he wasn't. Because what works well on the page looks flat-out ridiculous on the big screen.

Perfect example: the lack of clothing covering the heroic bod of Dr Manhattan (Billy Crudup), who got his superpowers thanks to an accident in an "intrinsic field subtractor" (gotta be careful with those things). Not only does he have God-like dominion over space and time but the far more terrifying ability to stride around naked with his nuclear todger on display.

On the page-his modest winkie etched with two curved lines-he looks like a living Greek statue. But on screen-rendered in pin-sharp digital peen-o-rama-it's like Blue Man Group Gone Wild.

He doesn't leap tall buildings with a single bound but you do get the impression he'd be a bit handy at the pole vault. Other characters aren't without their problems. Latex-clad Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman) cuts a tidy figure but botches line after line-and her trouser-wiltingly bad sex scene with Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) makes X Factor's Christmas single only the SECOND worst thing to happen to Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah.

And Ozymandias (Matthew Goode)? Well, at least he lives up to his name- because hell on wheels, did I look on his work and despair.

The one decent performance comes from Jackie Earle Haley, as inky-masked 'tec Rorschach.

He's the only character you feel a scrap of sympathy for. And not just because of the absolute dog of a script-as his near-constant growling voiceover sounds like someone's running a Hoover in the cinema foyer.

Admittedly, it's not all bad. A couple of sequences at the start are fantastic-the murder of aging vigilante The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), and a superb "history of costumed crimefighting" montage.

Plus-ironically-the new ending, which has caused outrage in the more rabid corners of the internet for daring to step away from the original comic's plot.

But the new climax is tight, elegant and works a million times better on screen than the original (giant interdimensional squid destroys New York City) ever would have done.

Anyway, it's hard to tell who'll be most disappointed by this mess of a film. Maybe paid-up Watchmen fanboys-of whom I'm one-who'll pretend for a few weeks that this really was "the film they always wanted", but with toes curled silently all the while.

Or average cinemagoers in the mood for another "mature superhero movie" after The Dark Knight, and find the whole thing pretentious, humourless and completely bloody unfathomable.

The simple answer is, nobody's going to get much out of it. In the end, it's just another disappointment to sling on the "too good to be true" pile.

Three new Star Wars episodes, Catwoman played by an Oscar-winning actress, a faithful big-screen Watchmen movie . . .

When it comes to films, you've got to be careful what you wish for. Because sometimes, if you're unlucky enough, you might just get it.

OUT FRIDAY

Robbie Collin's Movie Time: Watchmen

Your comments

This article has 26 comments

I loved the film, saw it twice, and went out and bought the book - and loved that as well. If you watch this film and read the book, wanting superman or batman, or spiderman - bad luck, cos this just ain't it. However if you are looking for a story and more importantly characters that make you think seriously about society and philosophy, motivation, and "doing the right thing!" then this is probably as good as it gets. Didn't have a problem with the sex scenes or Jon's penis, but I am glad that they left the octopus and pirate stuff out, it did seem a bit strange in the book. Good Stuff, a real one off, and it is going to be hard to beat, I will certainly buy the Dvd when it comes out.

By richard.. Posted May 4 2009 at 8:20 PM.

I loved the film. Yes it was long, but most of the time was spent exploring what drives the main characters. Yes the voiceover was almost constant, but it was never explaining what we see or should be seeing. Rorshach himself was being explored in this voicing of his own view of the world. The two sex scenes were funny, the first funny, kinky and humorous, the second funny, awkward and touching. My toes only curled at the very final scene which was a little too twee and could have been handled better. The action was bone-crunching and balletic, the visuals were, as expected, stunning, most of the characters had more depth than we have come to expect in superhero films and the whole view of the world with real superhumans (Manhattan and Veidt) was never less than intriguing.

By SteveMD.. Posted May 4 2009 at 6:30 PM.

Sounds like he's given the movie a good review without even realising it...

In the comic, the voiceover is constant throughout. So top marks there

The Sex with Nite Owl is SUPPOSED to be ridiculous... See the comic

Silly fanboy so-called reviewer.

By Raft of Bodies.. Posted March 3 2009 at 1:54 AM.

talking about dr. manhattan walking around naked? wow, talk about trivial. also, the way i percieve any sex scenes between nite owl and silk spectre WOULD be awkward. dreiberg (nite owl) is out of shape and out of luck with women and in a general rut in his life. it's inevitable he'd wouldn't win the title for worlds best lover. i can't wait to see this film so i can really contextualize what it is you're saying.

By BidD.. Posted March 1 2009 at 9:50 PM.

hey petero, go watch the new directors cut of blade runner. they removed the voiceover and it does wonders for the movie.

By dzve.. Posted March 1 2009 at 7:37 PM.

Zack Snyder is one of those directors, such as Michael Bay, who emphasizes style over substance, so it follows that he'd believe he's been faithful to the graphic novel simply because his film is a painstaking visual recreation of it. He just doesn't get that when you have source material with brains and a soul, you spend your effort trying to capture that before you move on to the wrapper.

By Chris Hughes.. Posted March 1 2009 at 6:03 AM.

I read the graphic novel and loved it, i have great respect for Alan Moore as a writer, however, i agree with Alex who said that Mr. Moore take himself too seriously.

Movies and comic books are two different medias, if you going to translate one to another, obviously some changes have to be made, but that doesn't mean that it will be a bad movie.

I think that's the problem here, people expect to have the exact experience that they had reading the graphic novel and get disappointed.

I've been reading other reviews and most of them say that this movie, despite of some flaws, is one to admire. Have good acting, good direction and is faithful to the source material. It may not be a "masterpiece", but it sure inspire me to go and see it.

I have great expectations on this movie and, for all that i've been reading, i really doubt that i'll be disappointed with it.

By Eduardo Selayzim.. Posted February 27 2009 at 10:41 PM.

Became a Watchmen fan overnight when I saw the first trailer for this movie...Never been this excited about a movie before...I bought the Book, im half way through the graphic novel and love that to...When thursday night 12 am rolls around im makin sure I watch it...This movie is goin to be visually orgasmic and a walk down memory lane to remember...

By Lyrikcha.. Posted February 26 2009 at 5:12 PM.

I don't understand why people get the idea that a comic book made into a movie is the same thing as making a comic book. They are completely different art forms. Comics are comics and movies are movies. If you want to see a direct translation of the comic book then just re-read the comic book. This is the movie of The Watchman. Would you like it better if they took pictures of the comic book and blow them up to fill the screen and just show each frame throughout the entirety of the movie until it was over?

By bdeadsoon.. Posted February 26 2009 at 6:53 AM.

Adaptations from ANY source material (comic or otherwise) will never be truly faithful or deliver the same intensity or impact, simply because it is up to the individual reader to interpret the material. I enjoyed the graphic novel, but could care less how it's interpreted in live-action.

I'm more interested in how John Waters or Dario Argento would have interpreted Watchmen...

By Boo Berry Surprise.. Posted February 26 2009 at 6:20 AM.

I agree with this:

"What is this reviewer really complaining about here? *They stuck to the comic... good.
*When they didn't stick to the comic, it was arguably better... also good.
*Strange sex scenes... as the saying goes, even bad sex is still good.

This review makes me want to see the film even more than before. Perhaps checking your expectations at the door will ensure an enjoyable film. Afterall, it's just a movie."

By Alex.. Posted February 26 2009 at 12:11 AM.

It seems like the worst thing I've heard in this review is the "near-constant voiceover from the husky-throated Rorschach," which could indeed hurt the film. It's a common device of untalented directors incapable of true character development, and although the device was also used in good movies like "Blade Runner" -- it didn't ruin "Blade Runner," it certainly damaged the film. Noir uses voiceovers, I guess... so it might be okay. Also, Moore always took himself and his work a bit too seriously, and I'm hoping that "Watchmen: the Movie" understands that it can still be entertaining, and not be high art.

By petero.. Posted February 25 2009 at 11:07 PM.

This is the only negative review I've seen. Suck on that.

By Vee.. Posted February 25 2009 at 6:42 PM.

I know this movie is not Watchmen. The esence of the comic is far lost. I agree with the reviewer, and I suggest to all the fanboys of Snyder not to screw up. Go and see the movie, I'm sure you'll like it. Not me.

By Tronheim.. Posted February 25 2009 at 6:11 PM.

As one of the few replying who have seen it - I agree completely with Robbie's review. The fact that he's a fan of the comic makes this opinion even more valid. Just because the rest of you want something to be great, doesn't mean that it will be. Watchmen isn't.

By Archnemesis.. Posted February 25 2009 at 4:55 PM.

People who haven't even seen the movie are already complaining that the reviewer is wrong. This is why people hate fanboys. They're just not housebroken.

By Reality.. Posted February 25 2009 at 5:07 AM.

I can't for the life of me understand what the reviewer disliked so much about the movie? A sex scene? Hard to imagine a sex scene ruining the experience of an entire movie.

By Adam.. Posted February 25 2009 at 12:14 AM.

Umm...this movie was amazing. Everyone should definitely go and check it out. There are great action scenes and moral ambiguity all throughout the movie. I respect Mr. Collin's opinions but for those who want to hear the other side of the story, you need to see this movie. It will blow you away.

By Jake.. Posted February 24 2009 at 11:59 PM.

Okay, I'll keep these criticisms in mind when I see it. Still, I'm excited. I'm not expecting the graphic novel, which would be near impossible except maybe in animation split into 12 parts with great voice actors. But since that's never going to happen...

I'm going to enjoy this movie unless it's a gigantic disaster, which other reviews say it isn't. Most other reviewers give this movie 4 stars.

By Chris.. Posted February 24 2009 at 10:24 PM.

So his hits will be increased ten fold with a negative review.

But his arguments seem about justified. I read the comic wondering how the hell is this going to be interesting.

I don't think it will work for the ADD kids as well as Batman.

All I care about is the Rorshach scenes and the ending. Hopefully those are good.

By mikekim.. Posted February 24 2009 at 8:59 PM.

This review is epic fail.

By L.. Posted February 24 2009 at 6:57 PM.

You're telling me that a tabloid which posts stories about Bat Boys and celebrity shocker videos, would post an incendiary movie review ON PURPOSE? How dare you imply such a thing, sir!

By coyo7e.. Posted February 24 2009 at 7:52 PM.

Let me guess - it would've been better as a 12 hour HBO-produced miniseries, right? NOT MY WATCHMEN >:(

By Ben.. Posted February 24 2009 at 8:23 PM.

What is this reviewer really complaining about here? *They stuck to the comic... good.
*When they didn't stick to the comic, it was arguably better... also good.
*Strange sex scenes... as the saying goes, even bad sex is still good.

This review makes me want to see the film even more than before. Perhaps checking your expectations at the door will ensure an enjoyable film. Afterall, it's just a movie.

By Todd.. Posted February 24 2009 at 8:03 PM.

It sounds to me like this review was from one of those people who was waiting for this movie to fail based on Alan Moore's disowning of it (although he would disown anything that even slightly changes anything about his characters) and the "too good to be true" mentality. All the other reviews so far have said it was excellent, so scr*w you, I'm buying my ticket. (This is not an attack on the reviewer, maybe I'm just in denial or I'm angry that anything bad could be said about Watchmen. Or I've been on the rotten tomatoes forums too much listening to all the people whine about how much the movie is going to suck just because Alan Moore disowned it. I'm betting it's the latter.)

By Bias ftw?.. Posted February 24 2009 at 4:31 PM.

Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful

By Haha.. Posted February 24 2009 at 5:04 PM.

We have to check every comment before we can allow it to be published. But don't worry, we've got a team on it 24/7 - so check back soon! Please note that we cannot publish all comments received. The editor's decision is final. Please note that your email address will not be displayed next to your comment.