Watchmen (2009) - Review: The Weirdest "Adaptation" Ever

watchmen is a deeply weird movie. it’s riddled with poor adaptational decisions by a man who doesn’t fully get the source material, but the changes he makes and how he makes the movie are all very fascinating and, if you look further, can say a lot about superheroes, society, and people's attitudes toward them in 2009, and the level of intentionality of this commentary in the story is very hard to define.

in 1965, bob dylan released desolation row. the original song is an 11 minute slow guitar song with each verse serving as a vignette, a small peak into a different world. each verse is very evocative, the song describes the various going-ons throughout a city connected by one street. every glimpse is both an unrealistic satire of the modern world that feels like it should takes place in the future but also feels deeply realistic and something you could see any day in new york by just looking at the window. its very contemplative, slow, and thoughtful. dylans singing style lets you pay attention to every single word he says and feels like you’re seeing something unrealistic come to life. 20 years later, it would catch the attention of alan moore and dave gibbons and they used the lyrics and vibe for their comic book, watchmen. 30 years after that, my chemical romance released their cover of dylan’s song for the 2009 movie watchmen, based on the comic and brought to life by zack snyder. it was shortened to just 3 minutes, made much louder, and it's kind of hard to tell what gerard way is singing. you can get the jist of the song because the lyrics are still good, but a lot is lost. despite this, the song still kinda rocks hard. 

i can usually give credit to zack snyder for having a crazy vision and leaving the source material by the wayside, i even like batman v superman and especially like his justice league! but this is not one of those cases. unlike his other comic book movies which take aspects from the comics and add his own vision to it, this is trying to be a straightforward adaptation of an acclaimed comic book that i read 1 week ago. watching this film felt like i was going through the motions of watchmen. i was seeing story events, images, and dialogue that i recognized as watchmen but it never comes together in the way the comic does. there are so many little changes made that ultimately make the story worse and things are compressed to the point that what hit hard in the book just doesnt matter anymore. if you are going to make the movie extremely long to include everything, why cut and change so much? let's get into it. 

i think the biggest issue of adapting this is that the narration and dialogue of the comic put us in the point of view of any given character while the art tells the story from a more objective perspective. the 2 aspects each tell separate stories, but they come together to make something wholly unique to comics. how do you translate that into film? snyders approach is interesting, but inconsistent. his first is shooting the scenes very objectively to give us a sense of what is happening to the characters as if we were an outside observer, like with dan and laurie beating up the gang for the first time and the comedians attempted rape of silk spectre. this is more similar to the action scenes in the comics which try to portray the action as unglamorous. his second approach to filming is going full snyder with it, showing badass scenes of our characters fighting off bad guys set to epic music to put us in their perspective, like with rorscach trying to escape the police or dan and laurie beating up prisoners. the first approach can work quite well, while the second usually doesn’t. the first allows us to see what this world is actually like and how the mindset of people who would become superheroes would actually interact with the real world, which is the actual point of the comic. the second approach can work at times, but usually it ends up glorifying characters that probably shouldn’t be. a good example of it working is the sex scene of dan and laurie set to leonard cohen’s rendition of hallelujah. while this scene and its song choice was widely mocked, i do think it illustrates the point the book was making well. it puts us squarely in dan and lauries perspective and shows us how they view their hero work as both holy and something to get them off. it also contrasts with the boring sex they had earlier, again like the book. it also gets the audience to question what they’re seeing, its provocative and makes us feel dirty for seeing them do this after saving people. if you’re going to shoot the film subjectively rather than objectively, you have to make choices that get the audience to question the characters the same way the comic did. unfortunately, these types of choices are quite spare in the film, but we’ll get to that later. another thing the subjective dialogue and objective art from the comics can do that is lacking in the film is the ability to tell 2 separate stories. for just one example, the dialogue tells us that ozymandias could never do something like what he does; rorschach and the gang rule him out as a suspect rather quickly. the art, however, lets us know that that couldn’t be farther from the truth. from the very first page of the very first issue, every time something goes wrong for our main characters, ozy’s fingerprints are everywhere. we see the pyramid on the top of the car as the ‘camera’ pans up after the comedians death, and we see nostalgia by veidt when we learn jenny slater has cancer. it is everywhere, like how veidt wishes to be. when rorschach complains about no one valuing hard work, he steps in the way of a man simply doing his job. the film, on the other hand, does nothing of this sort. it pays lip service to the deeper imagery behind the comic, it even has a purple car with a pyramid drive by at one point and uses the panels as storyboards, the iconic zoom up from the smiley pin and all. but there’s no motivation behind it, there’s not rorschach’s conflicting narration that gives us insight until much later. the dialogue that is directly lifted from the book also doesn’t hit as hard when its not speech bubbles that complement the art. hearing “the comedian is dead.” or “i leave it entirely in your hands” spoken like normal people rather than as ending stinger on top of an illustration just doesn’t hit at all. it creates a reaction more akin to recognizing something in a marvel movie than the intended effect. the visuals do not conflict with the script to create a cohesive story and there isn’t anything particularly creative in the rest of the films visual language to make up for it, so at that point, what is the point of making a watchmen movie?

now lets dive into how each and every character and plot point is changed and try to see how the thesis of the book is followed/changed, and try to construct one for the movie! who is better to start with than our boy, the main character and narrator himself, rorschach? book rorschach is a hypocritical and pathetic man with a child's view of sex and good/evil who sees violence as the only way to punish the rotting cesspool of new york. the movie makes substantial efforts to declaw him, so many of the things that showcase he is an awful person are cut in a way that drastically harms and warps his characterization. specifically, both times  in the first issue where he defends the comedian are cut. he doesn’t try to overlook his rape allegations or defend himself when ozy calls him a nazi. in fact, that scene is given to dan specifically so ozy can still have that line while not questioning rorschachs morality. snyder wants to have his cake and eat it too by including the homosexual line in rorschachs journal when it doesn’t make much sense for him to have written that. snyder also gives rorschach more credit by making the child murderer confess to the kidnapping instead of it being more ambigious, and even giving rorschach a badass one-liner after he kills him. its almost like snyder wants to keep rorschach as likable as possible because… he kinda likes him. and that is the main question at the heart of this film. does it glorify rorschach? and to answer, i think we should remember one key thing about zack snyder: he’s kinda dumb. and i love that about him! but you can see that coming through here when he wants to do his version of a very dense text like this one. he wants the story to be the same and that includes all the deconstruction at its core laid out by moore, but his stylistic sensibilities get in the way of him fully framing the story in the way the book is. so there is no yes or no answer to the question, the conclusion is that rorschachs portrayal in this movie is a confused choice made by a man with an incomplete and at times contradictory vision for what he wants from the characters. i think rorschachs death scene is the best example of this. haley’s performance really sells his internal conflict as he realizes his ideology is crumbling and how he would rather die than accept it, but after, there is the spectacle of having his blood form an actual rorschach blot in the snow, ironically in a very batman & robin way. the flashbacks also suffer from being cut down and i think rorschach gets the shortest end of the stick. i think his childishness is done dirtiest by the flashbacks, we really don’t see it translated into his adult life at all, especially his hatred of sex which is very important. i dont think the movie fully agrees with him, but snyder isn't doing it any favors either. its just much harder for me to believe he is a real guy. and if you’re not going to translate the realism of rorschach onto film, what is the point of making a watchmen movie?

if rorschach in the book is a critique of people who would feel compelled to be a hero, dan dreiberg is a critique of those who would want to be a hero. if rorschach is driven by paranoia, selfishness, and the desires of a child, dan is driven by idolization, escapism, horniness, and the fantasies of a child. the movie slightly captures this. it does a better job on him than the big R at least. you can tell snyder does actually think he’s a cuck loser and that benefits him in the film quite well. when hollis dies, you can actually see him go into denial and anger after realizing the person he based his dream on is dead. the nostalgia he and hollis and later he and laurie share is genuine and sells the character. you can tell dan wants control over his life and being an adventurer gives that to him, he feels lost without it and this is shown well throughout the film. wilson does a great job in selling it. as stated earlier, i think the sex between he and laurie is well done and its clear he doesnt really care about helping people. he only wants to feel escapist and get off to the idea of heroism. still, however, he has flaws on the silver screen. the lack of the framing of the costume and his basement as a sex dungeon hurts it quite a bit. it feels like snyder gets the jist of his character, but doesn’t wanna fully explore it. i think the loneliness he feels is not emphasized enough, you can’t really get why he decided to get with laurie. the absolute best piece of character work with him is also cut. after ozymandias’ plan has been captured, while he is initially mad at it, he doesn’t really care after and has sex with laurie. he just realized something horrific but he doesn’t actually care about the complex morality in the real world, he only cares about the escapism and sexual pleasure that the superhero fantasy provides him. immediately after, he has sex with laurie while literally drenched in nostalgia. the film cuts this pivotal scene, the final conclusion to dans story, and what are we left with after that? he doesn’t really have any other end besides with laurie, and its like snyder didn’t really care that much about wrapping things up with him. speaking of laurie, lets talk about dans other half. unfortunately as expected, the movie does nothing to improve upon the insanely misogynistic writing moore gave to laurie. she still only exists as a character in relation to her sexuality and relationships with men, lacking all agency. the book at least tries to deal with this with her trying to reclaim her agency but ultimately reverting back to silk spectre and forgiving her mother. the movie, however, does not do this. we get lip service to this in the beginning, but it’s really not a thing throughout. she is just so defleshed out, which seems impossible given her state in the comic but leave it to zack to do the impossible. she, of all the watered down characters, feels the most like she got turned into barely a character at all. and if you're not going to improve upon the books shortcomings in any way, what is the point of making a watchmen movie?

ozymandias is perhaps hit hardest by the films change. adrian serves as the greatest foil to rorschach, like any great villain should. just like him, veidt is compelled to be a hero and is a critique of the individualism that would possess anyone who would become a superhero. rorschach shows the type of person a superhero would realistically be, while ozy shows what the realistic effects of the actual bombastic heroism would be. his plan is, of course, the ultimate example of this, and my favorite line from the book “how can anyone tell if he’s gone crazy?” lays it out clearly. is his plan really a result of insanity or is it the natural result of letting the simplistic fantasy of the superhero run wild? in the film, this is absolutely entirely gone. none of anything that makes ozymandias or his plan interesting is in the film. the theatricality of it is all gone. his suit wants to satirize batman & robin for some reason? i suppose this can be interpreted as a commentary on how superhero movies thought the schumacher films or “classic superheroes” were too gay, so they tried to overcorrect. but that doesn’t really feel like sincere commentary considering snyder and his view on the comic. any commentary feels more incidental, which makes the movie interesting, but not necessarily good lol. he is cold, calculating, and detached, more like doctor manhattan than rorschach or dan. we also don’t really see his grand ego, which is crazy considering his name is OZYMANDIAS. he doesn't gain pleasure or gratification from saving the world, we don’t even see that desire get established in the flashback with the crimebusters. there is no big “i did it!” when his plan is successful, again showing the lack of theatricality. it also barely shows that ozy is proud of his plan and is grateful for being the savior of the world. no indication that he’ll be lonely forever because of it, no indication that he thinks he committed a great sacrifice or even feels a little bad about his actions. snyder just absolutely gutted everything about his character. and what did he add to replace it? he made him gay. he has this weird british fagcent? and a crazy ass side bang and silk turtlenecks and a file on his computer labeled “boys” and its like… why? in the book, it is mentioned once to show rorschach is a bigot but here its like… a whole thing. why?? is snyder trying to do the traditional hero thing like i said earlier but just did that by making him gay? if thats the case holy shit theres a lot i would need to unpack. for my sake, im gonna assume its not and its just plain ol 2008/9 homophobia + distaste for batman & robin and nothing else because yikes! while we’re here, lets talk about the most controversial change from the book, ozy’s plan to fake an alien invasion on new york with a giant genetically engineered psychic squid was replaced with him pretending to use doctor manhattans power to destroy new york and several other cities around the world. and…. i am both baffled by and dont completely hate this change. on one hand, its fucked up that the only thing thats super “comic book-y” gets changed because they thought it was too embarrassing. like, that is the point. its supposed to illustrate what a supervillain plan would actually be like. thats like the whole point of the story. it also doesn't reaaaaally make sense that the world would unite under a manhattan common threat, like he is an american dude. it would make the soviets more distrusting in the long term, unlike the squid which would generate the same feelings in everyone. on the other hand, it still creates the same morally ambiguous threat and i guess it gets the job done. it was also 2009, and peoples tolerance for crazy shit was quite low. it makes me wish it went in some other crazy direction that satirized comic book movies beyond the bare minimum. if you arent going to properly deconstruct the ultimate ideas of heroes and villains with one of the greatest antagonists of all time, then what is the point of making a watchmen movie?

one of the best parts of watchmen and what makes ozymandias’ plan truly horrifying is the ordinary people of new york that we meet throughout. there’s bernie, a young man reading a pirate comic within the comic; bernie, an old newsvendor whose perspective we follow as the world and war change around him; doctor malcom, rorschachs psychiatrist in jail whose marriage problems we follow; a lesbian couple going through rough times; and 2 lousy cops. these people are small additions to the story and serve as our way of learning what the real world is like outside of our delusional superhero main characters. they serve as a counter to rorschachs view of the world and the city being a cesspit of crime and lunacy, which is something sorely lacking in this movie as we never see new york in any meaningful way. they never take up more than 2 or 3 pages at a time in the book and are a very simple yet incredibly effective way of getting us attached to the people in the city. crucially, they are the reason we actually care about ozymandias killing everyone. it is such an amazing and unique way of treating the world of superheroes as real, getting us attached to actual people is brilliant. and yet, the film gives us none of it. i mean, we kinda hear bernie talk sometimes? but thats nothing. do you need them in order to make watchmen good? no. you dont. but again, if youre trying to do a 1:1 adaptation like this, you do kinda need an emotional anchor in the big climax. like, they even try doing the same ending stinger with everyone's paths crossing before they all get exploded but it just doesn’t hit at all, because we don’t know these people! there’s also none of the tragedy that came from them finally working together and extending compassion for each other, all strangers being brought together. again, its just lip service. if you are unable to extract any of the care or effort put into the characters both big and small, what is the point of making a watchmen movie?

you may notice that 2 characters are missing from my discussion so far, doctor manhattan and the comedian. this is because they are… fine. nothing particularly offensive or uniquely bad to them. manhattans cgi is iffy, and his origin suffered the most from getting cut down. so much of jons life is gone, with the detail about the watch that gets him stuck in the field subtractor being something he had been repairing for janey being a detail i particularly missed.and it goes without saying that the movie has absolutely nothing on watchmaker and does not use the medium of cinema in a unique way in any way close to how comics were used interestingly in the book. manhattan is not a very complicated character compared to the rest of them so its nothing awful to me honestly even tho he is one of my favorite characters of all time. i do abhor the decision for him to leave before talking to ozy and his lack of care that he was framed but you know what? whatever. you got 1 character mostly right. congrats zack. a character he got actually right tho is mr. eddie blake himself, the comedian. i have even less to say honestly. dean morgan does a great job portraying him, everything is done well. snyder gets his awfulness quite well. he’s honestly barely a character so i really don’t have much to say besides congrats bro. you made the america character appropriately evil. 1 character you fully get.

now you must be thinking, wow i must really hate this movie. and i kinda do, but honestly, there’s still a good chunk to love. i obviously have my problems with it as an adaptation, but how does it stand on its own? the answer is, decently. i watched the directors cut, which cuts the tales of the black freighter present in the ultimate edition for pacing reasons. despite that,  pacing is this films biggest problem. lots and lots of talking, which doesn’t really hit the same when transformed into dialogue rather than speech bubbles, as discussed earlier. in a comic, its easy to dedicate whole pages to fleshing out characters because you’re not supposed to read it all in one go, unlike movies. to me, it feels more repetitive than actually getting insight into the characters. outside of that, i think everything is executed pretty well. i absolutely adore the opening credits set to the times they are a-changin’. its such a simple and beautiful way to introduce us to the world and i honestly found myself getting emotional over it because it felt like the story i love was coming to life in front of me. everyones performances are also great, snyder is honestly insanely wickedly extremely good at casting. it feels like everyone gets their character pretty well, with jeffery dean morgan’s comedian, patrick wilson’s nite owl, and billy crudup’s manhattan being particular standouts. crudup in particular does really well, manhattans voice is perfect and his penis perfectly impotent when it swings around. the film also has a weird color palette, its very muted, even in the golden age flashbacks. but i honestly think it works once you get used to it. while i would prefer if it stuck to the color of the comic to emphasize seeing the heroes in a traditional visual way that contrasts with their dark actions and personalities, the odd colors also do help build the surreal vibe that the comic has at times. the action is also done quite well, although thats expected from snyder. i did find myself intrigued by the characters and their struggles at times when i wasn’t thinking about the comic too much. honestly, i’d give it like a 6/10 or 3 stars as a movie, there’s some good shit but its kinda bogged down. 

so, what is watchmen? well, fundamentally, its a story about how the childish and escapist fantasy of the superhero, when taken seriously by adults as it has been for the past several years, does serious harm to and cannot survive the complex morality of the real world. does zack snyder understand this? honestly, not really. he fundamentally buys into the fantasy. you can tell this not just based on how rorschach was warped to seem cooler, but his other movies too. bvs and zsjl are both movies about how despite their flaws, superheroes can still be sources for good in the world, especially zsjl which is all about how the greatest people working together can solve problems. despite his love for edginess and slo-mo, he still is a kid who wants to weave epic tales about mythology using heroes. i think this does work for his dc trilogy, but his tastes are just not suited for watchmen, a story he has stated he only got into because it has sex and violence unlike other comics. he doesn’t really have a deeper worldview philosophically, psychologically, or politically and you really, really need a concrete one in order to adapt watchmen. so instead, this movie is lip service. we see the events of the movie go through the motions of watchmen but without the deep look into the world that moore gave us or any view unique to snyder. it feels largely empty at times. any deeper meanings or looks at characters come down to snyder trying to bring everything moore said and gibbons drew exactly to life. YAY i would absolutely love it if snyder had any deeper take on watchmen than he does, but he simply does not get it on a deeper level. and if you don’t understand watchmen, what is the point of making a watchmen movie?