MOVIE REVIEW:
Watchmen

163 mins | release date Feb 23, 2009

By Pavan Shamdasani | Feb 23, 2009

Share this article
  • Watchmen

Category III. Whatever happened to the humble sex scene? Once an essential part of every sweaty, seedy thriller, recently it’s been phased out, perhaps obsolete in an age of streaming online porn. It somehow seems fitting then, that “Watchmen,” a sleazy, Category III superhero epic set in an alternate 1985, should have at least two of them. One is a bizarre threesome between a superheroine and two God-like creatures, and the other is an almost-embarrassingly long scene involving the same woman and another superhero in the cockpit of the “Owl Ship.”

I mention their inclusion for one reason: to highlight the lengths “300” director Zack Snyder has gone through to have “Watchmen” appeal to mass audiences. The film is based on the classic 12-part comic book series of the same name written by Alan Moore. You won’t recognize his name from other film versions of his work such as “From Hell, ” “Constantine” or “V for Vendetta”; the funny-book genius refuses to attach it to these supposed adaptations because he can’t stomach Hollywood raping his visionary masterpieces.

This exception is a serviceable attempt at the only comic book included in Time Magazine’s All-Time 100 Novels list, a condensed version of what in all honesty should have been a “Lord of the Rings”-esque 12-hour film. Unfortunately, the movie-going masses nowadays demand instant and widespread gratification, and that’s what you get here. In between scenes of explanatory melodrama are the previously mentioned sex scenes (for men), gratuitously extended acts of bloody violence (for teens), enough slow-motion to make you feel like you’re on acid (for old people), and a big blue penis that endlessly dangles back and forth on that massive IMAX screen (for women).

“Watchmen” is not a film that you love—it callously eschews too much of the philosophy of the original comic, and wears its cynicism as too proudly to ever be lovable—but it’s not a film you hate. It’s a surface-skimmer, extracting a coherent story out of a sprawling epic, and performing an adequate and entertaining job at that. If anything, it will inspire audiences go back to the original comic and recognize its greatness, but also it will hopefully help Hollywood realize the mess they’ve made of Moore’s work and finally give up on ripping him off. Hopefully, but unlikely.

Related Articles

Legend of the Guardians — Owls of Ga’Hoole
(USA) It must be said upfront that I love Zack Snyder, and I like owls enough to have long been on the tips of my toes for the past two months in anticipation of “Legend of the Guardians,” along with…
300
300, the cinematic adaptation of Sin City creator Frank Miller’s graphic novel, has two things in abundance: Shouting and violence. Seriously, forget character moments or peaceful reflections from any of the key players in this epic. Those are few and…
The Losers
(USA) With a film title as generic as The Losers, one naturally has preconceived notions of seeing a bunch of gangling social misfits who break into energetic musical routines to express their unhappiness about pubescent life. Thankfully, what you will…
A Nightmare on Elm Street
(USA) A little trivia: In 1991, Samuel Bayer directed Kurt Cobain in the “Smells Like Teen Spirit” music video. Almost 20 years on, he directs another guy in a grungy striped sweater. But Bayer’s latest effort is no inspired work…
Shanghai
(USA) After sitting for almost two years in the editing room, Mikael (1408) Håfström’s troubled, multi-lingual spy-drama starring a bevy of Hollywood and Chinese/Hong Kong cinema heavyweights still looks like a hackneyed piece of work. Sure, the irresistible Gong Li…