Watchmen

Many adjectives can be used for his film. It is impressive, visually polished, excessively comic book-like, and stylishly action-packed. It is a bombastic spectacle that reminds me of the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing. Unfortunately, I have always preferred small theater forms and similar shows where the idea does not disappear in favor of impressive action that does not impress me. It is over-stylized, illogical, and cold. It is a certain tribute to comics, but to the ones that never appealed to me, namely the superheroes. It is exactly the type of production where I get the impression that the film heroes go through so much effort to achieve a banal goal. I always remember the scene from the first Indiana Jones movie, where a native warrior dramatically fences with a sword in front of a surprised Indiana Jones, only for him to eventually pull out a gun and shoot the warrior while saying "Go to hell." For example, the scene where the villain breaks into the victim's apartment, beats him up for a long time using all the furniture in the room, and breaks a table with him, only to eventually throw him through specially reinforced glass onto the pavement instead of pulling out a gun and shooting him. It is indeed impressive, but incredibly stupid. Watchmen is exactly the type of film where style and effects are everything. Overall impression: 60%. I do not regret seeing  Watchmen, but I do not intend to return to the film in the future. Fans of blockbusters can easily add two stars. (12/14/2009)

A complex, smart, R-rated comic-book gem. I’m quite surprised by the talk about the complexity of the film, I was afraid that I would get lost because I don’t know Moore’s original. But I didn’t have any trouble and nobody capable of paying attention to a film should, either. Watchmen captivated me in several ways: the intellectual and visual aspects, the brutality and how uncompromising it is. Awesome! (03/08/2009)

Snyder may have huge talent, but I just don’t get why he has to build his career on copying (stealing?) other people’s work. First Romero, then Miller and now Moore. The last of then took the worst beating, because before that Snyder at least always used to put in the work of giving his “remakes" a bit of his own invention, point of view, simply something of himself (and then they make at least a bit of sense). But in this movie there is no sign of invention at all. If I had an Ikea reproduction of “The Night Watch" by Rembrandt, then I wouldn’t start singing praises about what an original and visionary artist the plagiarist is. I concede that he put a great deal of detailed work into this, and he is certainly talented, because not just any director could have succeeded in doing what he did, but the original is the original. And if Snyder had picked up a full HD camera, put on a CD with some golden oldies and s-l-o-w-l-y filmed the original comic book, it would have ended up the same. Damn it, Zack, try doing something of YOUR OWN already! Thanks in advance. The preceding reproach concerns Snyder and Snyder alone, not the Watchmen as such. As I wrote - it’s absolutely identical to the comic book which is perfect, so logically its celluloid 1:1 version must be perfect too. Well, apart from being in a way utterly pointless, because an illustration of an illustrated book is a pointless adaptation. But still perfect all the same. I seem to be going round in circles a bit. So why perfect? Because Watchmen are like the Rorschach Test. You can see boredom, the history of mankind, cool scenes, boobs, would-be cool scenes, no action scenes, penises, explicit violence, ego masturbation, cheap visuals, awesome visuals, too much footage, too little footage or an overlap long enough to build a bridge across the English Channel with. Just whatever you want. I just don’t know whether to give it a full set of stars or none at all! Both would be absolutely right. I even thought about giving it three stars, but compromise is not the solution here. Rorschach would have bitten my head off. (03/09/2009)

I’m not completely sure what to write. It’s definitely not a straight 5, because Moore’s content far surpasses Snyder’s form. The movie seemed to me terribly cursory at times, but still worked excellently and all the viewers got to know all they needed. I can safely say that it was a three hour ride without a dull moment. But it definitely isn’t the best comic book film. Oh and by the way: right in the middle of the finale when the plot was as its climax the projector broke down and caused an awful 5 minute intermezzo filled with hectic activity of my brain thinking about how it would end. (04/07/2009)

It hasn't been a year since The Dark Knight and suddenly crowds of people were shouting that Watchmen are too serious for a comic and therefore ridiculous. On the other hand, Batman's established visual style is so firmly maintained that Snyder's work suddenly becomes too colorful for a serious drama. And prejudices, apart from the puritan part of society, also started to affect the average viewer, who suddenly cannot digest a few non-offensive "blue" shots. And so, they miss out on the pleasure of a brilliant adaptation, masterful direction, and performances that not only do not disrupt but precisely fulfill each character and flawlessly disrupt all the previous superhero stereotypes. In my eyes, Watchmen are a masterpiece that paradoxically surpassed its time. They are modern and, despite their generous length, very skillfully directed, but their nostalgic melancholy still has no place in the genre. However, they can easily become an untouchable idol for all those who accept them. (03/12/2009)