Skip to main content

The Watchmen is a magnificent ... failure

The characters and the mood are excellent: The Comedian, Dr, Manhattan and Rohrschach especially.

There is a good comic-book feel, and the use of music manages to capture a lot of essence of the original.

The direction--in flashes--is grimly inspired.

It fails, however, for three reasons.

1) The ending limps, especially the fight scenes between Ozymandias, Night Owl, and Rorhschach, as well as the overdone moralizing by Night Owl. The last really good moment is when Night Owl and Rohrschach get out of Archie and head for the Antarctic Karnak.

2) It's too long as a movie and too short for an HBO mini-series, which it really should have been. The length made me ... tired. But on the other hand the brevity left out a lot of what made the series so important: in the graphic novel, context was equally important as plot. The minor characters (like the psychiatrist or the pair at the newsstand) are critical to understanding the world of the Watchmen. Here they become almost inside jokes: if you haven't read the book, you have no idea who they really are, or why they are wandering around.

3) The sex and the violence are not gratuitous, just ... bland. I couldn't care when Night Owl and Silk Spectre hooked up. And the splashing blood, gunshot wounds, and flying bodies just became more special effects rather than shocking (or even necessary) during the movie's second hour. By the opening of the third hour, I didn't connect at all. (I will give them credit for doing justice to Rohrschach in prison, even though they changed the attack on his cell somewhat.)

As I said before: it should have been an HBO mini-series, with 90-monute episodes each corresponding to one chapter of the original. That would have worked (and we might have gotten the real fake alien attack on New York).

But then again, maybe the world of The Watchmen is like Discworld (which didn't translate too well in the BBC attempt at Hogfather): not meant to be removed from its original media.

I don't regret having seen it, but now I realize why my son complains about the short-cuts and liberties taken in the Harry Potter films.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...