A Watchmen review?

Is this going to be a Watchmen review? To be honest, I don't know and I can't really predict.

Maybe it's just going to be a Snyder (the director) review.

Yes, that is what it is going to be.

The Watchmen was everything 300 was not.

I say this as a man who has read both of these books before seeing the movies. Oh, and yes, they are books; just because they have pictures does not mean they cannot also be literature.

300, Snyder's first film which was not a remake (unless you consider it to be a remake of The 300 Spartans, the movie which probably inspired Miller to write the book) was a faithful adaptation, almost frame for frame. Really, there were several shots, slowed down to emphasize, which were from the book -- something done to great effect most notably in Sin City, but also done to far lesser extents (simple recognizable poses or phrases) in pretty much every comic book movie. But what Snyder cut out was the character development. The redemption of Stelios (or should I say, Stumblios) was cut out entirely, though he was still picked to lead the final charge. The rise of Leonidas himself was too bastardized. Though it was not cut, the scene in which he faces a wolf as a child turned from a coming of age survival story to simple badassery. Also, there was a plotline added where Leonidas' wife tries winning support in Sparta and in the Spartan senate.

The Watchmen, on the other hand sacrificed little, if any, character development. Rorschac's real identity is only alluded to, even when his face is exposed. That was a major flaw, but it doesn't really affect him as a character, it simply helps the audience understand him a little bit better. The curse of the black pearl, the meta-comic, was cut out, but it will be released separately, presumptively straight to video. Again, something that in and of itself does not hurt the media, but helps the audience to better understand what is going on. While both the book and the movie used an ensemble cast, the focus seemed to shift more to Silk Spectre II (or maybe Ackerman was just a scene-stealer). I dunno, maybe I was just drawn more to Rorschac's character when I read it, and the movie obviously couldn't have all of his insanity. They also cut out alot of the story about the Minutemen, the superhero group preceding the Watchmen, also including the Comedian.

Where the "freeze-frames" or slo-mo shots helped with 300, they hurt with Watchmen. 300 was set in a fantacized version of ancient greece. Slowing frames down emphasized their un-realness while making it all seem that much more epic. Watchmen had a realistic, dirty tinge to it. The only superhero with actual superhero powers was Dr. Manhattan, and that happenned in a ridiculously freak accident. These freeze-frames de-realized whatever scenes whenever they happenned.

In the end, as Moore himself said, it was written to sho what comics could do that cinema could not (sic). The universe that was so meticulously created in the comic was faithfully recreated in the movie sets, however movies move too fast. A true adaptation of the book would probably take 4, maybe 5 hours, and wouldn't really be that watchable. This was probably the best a Watchmen adaptation could be. It really is a good attempt, but it is not the best comic book movie, and never really could be unless it was severely stripped down from or "done in the spirit of" the book. Simple as that.

It's been common knowledge that Short Stories usually adapt much better than Novels into movies, now I guess we found out what happens when one full legnth comic with novel-esque depth (300 isn't very long, and Sin City is like an anthology of stories, not all of which were movie-ized (yet)) is adapted into a movie, at 2 hours and 40 minutes, still feeling a little light.

-- Knuttel