Interesting. I’ve heard this from quite a few people and I’ve not yet seen the film. Is it bad from a fan of the original graphic novel or bad as a film in general? I am actually wanting to see it despite the bad word of mouth.
on August 18th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I’m actually still interested in seeing the longer director’s cut, on the chance that the extra 20 minutes may make a difference. I simply could not believe that such an interesting tableau — of an alternate timeline in which Nixon was still president and pseudo-fascism went to a further extreme than it did in our timeline — could have been wasted. My problem with the story was partly that the superheroes were exceptionally dull people (with one exception), and partly that the first half of the film teases a mounting crisis that may require the efforts of these superheroes to avert, a crisis that seemed to promise that the story would become interesting. But that crisis never develops. Instead, a different crisis occurs, a much more insipid crisis, one that I doubt was original even back when the comic book was written.
I’m trying to avoid spoilers here, so the most I can say is that Watchman has a great environment, a detailed world as potentially interesting as the world depicted in V for Vendetta (a much better film). But the characters populating the Watchmen world, and the story told within it, are unforgivably dull.
I am hoping the director’s cut will clear up some of the logical problems not covered in the theatrical version, such as, if the Watchmen are merely off-duty cops (and later, people who thought it would be fun to join in), why do some have super strength?
The film’s standout is the character of Rorshak (the one with the nylon mask over his face). There’s also a great bit part by Max Headroom (Matt Frewer). But these good bits are in the minority.