If you do not go to see Watchmen its first or second weekend, you will be missing out on a cinematic event. It'll keep the water cooler talk abuzz very much like The Dark Knight or 300 both did. You'll be playing catch-up. Whether people loved, liked or hated it, you'll be behind the curve having not seen it.
The "geek crowd" went live with their stuff a couple weeks ago when Matt Selman posted on his TIME-hosted blog. The sentiments of others are a mix of effusive praise and "I would have done a couple things different."
Other reviews (Variety, THR) are from people who either aren't into comics or who obscure their familiarity with Watchmen and comics intentionally. They're doing this so they don't get lumped in with the geeks and risk their "general audience" credibility.
I saw Watchmen on Monday night and have finally sifted through my thoughts and had some time to digest it. A great deal of people have already weighed in on this movie, so what's left to be said?
The predominant perspective at play right this moment is that to properly review this movie, you must be either predisposed against it due to its legendary status among the geeks, or a raving fan who can never be pleased. What's needed at this point is context and some distance from knee-jerk reactions that'll start pouring in over the coming days.
So you know where I sit, I've read the serial it's based on, and read comics regularly for some time. I'm not religious in my devotion to the text as are others who've written about it. There's a lot that just carries over from page to screen, but a number of things are changed that work much better as adapted.
You could write a dissertation on deviations from the comic, but I won't. I'll discuss that stuff with friends. Frankly, that's something you will or won't do yourself, so best to not waste your time here. To dispel a couple few notions I've seen dominate current coverage:
The theatrical cut did not need to be longer. If it had been 35 minutes longer (as the Director's Cut is alleged to be), my friend Gy and I would have stuck with it, but my wife would've checked out.
Yes, the big blue tiger thing shows up out of nowhere late in the film with no substantive explanation. Yes, the heroes seem to have some super-strength that doesn't really jive with the rest of the world they've been set up in. There is some speed ramping done, but nothing to the extent of 300, and I think only so that you don't feel dizzy from trying to keep up.
These issues do not in any way sink the film. We're taking for granted that there's an omnipotent blue nuclear man walking around blowing things up.
Malin Akerman is the victim of her character becoming overly-sympathetic in translation, not some deficit in her acting ability. I welcome the more rubbery, caricature Nixon too, especially in the wake of Frost/Nixon.
Bloggers and commenters have been speculating from all sides of the internet, insisting "the general audience will not know what to think!" and I disagree vehemently. People said this about The Matrix, which had a similarly high-concept thing going on. The people who knew what 300 was in advance of the movie's first weekend said the same thing. This cautious criticism was wrong before and is wrong again.
David Mamet recently came to the University of Texas to give a talk before a screening of The Spanish Prisoner, and the thing he said that is most relevant here is that "you start calling the audience stupid...I've met a lot of stupid people in my life, but never a stupid audience. The audience knows."
There is no Dune-like glossary needed. You need not have read the graphic novel. Come ready for a movie that is a spectacle to watch and worth digesting over the hours following as well as over the next few days.
What I find most lacking in the reviews that are out there is that they all seem to be focused squarely on the adaptation and how that harms or helps things rather than how 2009's Americans are actually going to react to this movie.
The sociopolitical commentary struck me as especially relevant in parallel to where we are currently, especially since the next evening after I saw Watchmen, President Obama addressed Congress about his plans for the next year.
All the stodgy old men can't be bothered to care about the future of the country in Watchmen, shrugging their shoulders and continuing their nuclear pissing match. In D.C. on Wednesday night, the same crowd shrugged their shoulders and sat motionless, indifferent to the working classes beneath them. The Republicans are stuck in the "us vs. them" Cold War mentality that permeates the 1985 world of Watchmen. Who give a shit about the rest of the world if I don't win?
This is the most academic, uncomfortable thing Watchmen hits at: the futility of the individual. Most human beings are generally averse to any sort of real criticism, no matter how thick their skin. It's really a feature-length examination of the Cuckoo Clock speech in The Third Man, asking how much any one of us really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Zack Snyder has done interesting work previously, but this is the first time he's absolutely floored me. Some have said that the "slavish" dedication to the original material does the movie a disservice, but I disagree. Had they watered it down and made Watchmen less challenging, then this would just be another superhero action event film.
Watchmen gives credence to the idea that the audience is not as hungry for junk food as everyone is telling us they are. The film has already divided critics and will continue to, but that will only drive more people to see for themselves.