Talk about rag-tag.

Picture Provided By

Watchmen.

This film (now watchable, as I did, on DVD) is difficult to decide whether you like it or not. There are a laundry list of things that make it both "visionary" as the poster would suggest and annoying as hell.

Pros:

- Visual effects are stunning. This is not a comic book/graphic novel genre film in the sense of cinematography and special effects. It actually does an artistic and dare I say beautiful job of weaving in these fantastic special effects and imagery , with shots looking like any other typical drama and even throwing in some historical seeming footage.

- Unique story. Graphic novels making the leap to film have a tendency to be overly violent bordering on grotesque.....but Watchmen takes a stab at a legitimate story line that reaches out to an audience slightly broader than the "fan boys", perverts and barely pubescent men of all ages. Certainly (as I will be happily detailing later) there are plot holes, unnecessary subplots to be found I do have to applaud on the whole the efforts made to pitch the piece as an ensemble drama, about superheroes no less, with a pinch of action, a dash of gore and the zest of the graphic-novel-adaptation genre.

Cons:

-Casting. I do not shy away from the fact that I feel Hollywood has gone beyond itself by not just making stars but making talent-less stars, it is depressing, infuriating, annoying and ruining a historically fabulous art medium all at the same time. So initially I was excited that Watchmen carried a C-list, possibly some B list actors on its roster. No cheesy attempts at allowing Bruce Willis to pretend he is still an action star (that is you Sin City) or taking mediocre, albeit visually interesting roles, and prematurely creating quote-unquote "the new star" (see Gerard Butler, 300). HOWEVER, when you actually get somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 way through the movie you realize that the casting directors failed the film horribly by picking a bad rag-tag cast. Malin Akerman makes a respectable turn in her barely treading credentials into this action/drama. Her portrayal falls quite short through as her sexy vixen with daddy (translating into romance) issues comes off as comical, and this is not a low rate Farley Brothers hot mess. Billy Crudup's Dr. Manhattan had an interesting story-line but the robotic performance left me wondering if the stiff, emotionless drone is all he is able to play (for reference see: all other Billy Crudup performances). Jackie Earle Haley's character was intriguing with his mask on but as soon as he de-masked and kept his creepy Little Children voice it was all ruined. I'm so sick of Patrick Wilson in film that I wish he would just jump off the B- list and just save us all the film squares. His character was one of his more compelling as far as plot line but even that doesn't help when you have a sap on hand who cannot act. Jeffery Dean Morgan was the only actor who really compelled me in the piece. His Comedian was a highlight in the piece, obviously not for moral fiber, but this was a new turn from his previous roles and I think it was well played. Too bad his character was on film way less than the other characters.

Length - 2.7 hours???? really necessary???? No. The beginning got me hooked then all the dramatic babble of the love triangle and reuniting the group bored me in the middle so by the time it started to pick back up in the end I'd forgotten (perhaps maybe it wasn't that interesting....hmmmm) or no longer cared about the loose ends they were trying to tidy up. Editors really need to start realizing that audience members have lives and they should stop wasting them. I'd take a powerful, memorable, dynamic 1.5 hour movie that a floundering 2.7 that picks up in the last 30 minutes. Thank you.

So unfortunately I have to leave this one up to the audience. I wasn't disappointed with Watchmen as a whole. That being said there were some significant flaws that I would hesitate before saying I liked it or recommending it to someone else.

<3>