Exhausting, sprawling, dazzling, and yes, occasionally misfiring, Zack Snyder’s spectacle nonetheless deserves to be caught on the big screen by pretty much all science fiction or super hero fans.

And, going a step further, this recommendation might even apply to diehard fans of the graphic novel; of course they certainly don’t need my prodding, or anyone’s really, to see this film: half of them probably caught it at a midnight screening already. But for the members of this group who haven’t, I’m sure they’ll find plenty to thrill to, whether it’s the topflight performances of Jackie Earle Haley or Billy Crudup or the consistently awesome production design, even as they pick apart a million other details. No, Watchmen might not hit the emotional or artistic high notes of The Dark Knight, or provide the nonstop high-octane thrills of the director’s earlier films, 300 and Dawn of the Dead (to be fair, it’s not trying to). But as a meticulous, big-budget, thinking-person’s popcorn flick, it offers a lot to be happy about. Certainly its overall slickness might appear to contrast with the matter-of-fact yet striking storytelling of Alan Moore’s and Dave Gibbons’ source material. However, the film’s real achievement is how it marries the groundbreaking revisionist themes of that work to state-of-the-art filmic visuals in the action and fantasy genres (although some of the Mars-based imagery was a little too gaudy and obviously CGI to my taste—there, that’s one of my pick-aparts).

Indeed, the heavy thematic, political, and even mythic underpinnings that distinguish Watchmen from other graphic novels are foregrounded here—probably to a fault. What I mean is that the development of characters or the forward momentum of the central storyline—which should be pretty gripping, since it’s about world destruction occurring in T-Minus five minutes—often suffer because there’s just so much… stuff to be gotten through. For this reason, Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse are in a tough position from the get-go because to not lead with what makes Watchmen unique (hint: it’s not the action) would be to betray its army of fans.

However, those who aren’t among the initiated may wish that the unfolding of the basic story elements was more leisurely or conventional. That’s not to say that the story is hard to follow or rushed, as I’ve read some critics remark. Still, the film’s sometimes tunnel-visioned loyalty to the graphic novel’s “big ideas” can render its simple, human moments puny by comparison, and, as a result, bordering on the clichéd. That’s why you’re apt to read many reviews from mainstream critics who will find Watchmen, although inventive, maybe even innovative, also pretentious beyond belief. For me, though, it’s perfectly okay to have idea-movies that are also full of blood and pulp.

A colossal Dr. Manhattan towers over the Thames, Big Ben in the background, on March 4. (2009 Jo Hale for Paramount Pictures)

Turning to the adaptation itself, I should probably admit that it’s been many years since I read the graphic novel. So although I recall well all the major plot twists, reversals, and revelations, I was also able to enjoy the movie’s presentation of them as if experiencing them for first time. Not a bad achievement. For those who read the book for the first time in the past year or two—and there are literally millions of such folks—well, they might not agree. For them, this revisiting of the material so fresh in their minds may seem too Hollywood-ish, or at the very least, too movie-ish. Structurally, though, I think it’s hard to fault Hayter and Tse’s script. Ever-shifting points-of-view and leaps backward and forward in time are done with a sinuous grace that I did not expect. To some degree of course the writers simply followed Moore’s lead, but what works in a comic, with identifiable breaks for page-flips and new issues, doesn’t translate so easily to the screen. So Snyder and editor William Hoy deserve some credit here, too. 

The downside is that, as with any epic, the nonstop flow of events, pageantry, and high drama can get tiring. And of course Watchmen feels like it drags most when a relatively quiet scene follows the rush of the more compelling, visceral passages, i.e., pretty much any scene with Rorschach. That’s why the episodic structure of a TV or comics series (or even graphic novels, since they have chapters) is better suited to telling a tale with so much scope. That’s also why movies of this length used to have intermissions and Broadway plays still do: the demand they make on audiences is substantial. This point might be worth bearing in mind if you’re considering Watchmen as a date movie, albeit a dark one.

Watchmen's iconic image writ large on London's Shell building: either a disturbing sight or evidence of the Disneyfication of a subversive text. (2009 Jo Hale for Paramount Pictures)

Stylistically, Watchmen displays shades—it’s unavoidable, I guess—of films as diverse as Sin City, Batman Begins, Southland Tales, and Wanted. To be clear, the film’s fight choreography and visual effects are often eye-popping, but rarely will you say, “Wow, I’ve never seen anything like that before.” Similarly, while some sections are painfully over-directed, the set-pieces that are on-target are spectacularly so. The problem is that Snyder often seems incapable of staging any scene as if it isn’t a set piece, even if it’s just two people having a conversation. In addition, the lengthy running time makes the director’s favorite tropes stand out by virtue of their repetition. Examples include the endless number of overhead pull-backs and slo-mo shots.