Update: Well, I'm an idiot. After starting to re-read my copy of the graphic novel, I found out that I was wrong. Said wrongness has been struckthrough.  This error on my mis-remembering the story increases the accuracy score to 95.

Mongobaer's Journal.

March 6, 2009

  Watched the new "Watchmen" movie at Midnight showing. Engaged in geek small talk with theater goers. Spoke briefly on Star Trek: DS9, Star Trek: Voyager, Babylon 5, Ron Moore's Battlestar Galatica. Theater must be aiming really hard at geek segment of audience. Showed trailers for Terminator: Salvation, Star Trek: 
The Franchise Reboot,XMen Orgin: Wolverine,Dan Brown's "Angles and Deamons", and a new Seth Rogan Movie. Must remember to 'speak' with studios about Rogan. Hurm.

 Ok, Enough Rorschach challeneling. I case I was being too subtile, I was at one of the two midnight showings of the Watchman movie in my town.

   I'm posting a link to Wikipedia's "Watchmen" story page here. It summerizes the graphic novel better than I can in less space. And besides this is suspose to be a review of the movie, not the novel.

 Short analysis of the movie: I liked it, it's a good movie, and it captured the sprit of the graphic novel well. See it.

 Longer analysis. While I liked the movie, there were bits and pieces missing that should have been included. Now bear in mind, this movie runs 163 minutes long. By way of comparison, Lord of the Rings ran 178 minutes long. Overall, the sprit and feel of the novel were kept in place. I was pleased how well the movie was able to match key scenes and look of the characters from the novel. I was the most suprised how well they were able to reproduce the look of Night Owl. I was likewise disappointed in the look of Ozmandias in his costume. For someone who's whole schtick is ancient Egyptian, using one "Eye of Horus" symbol doesn't cut it for me. Other subtile things were removed. I understand the need for artistic licence and run time, but these things make you aware of the shortcommings of the media you use. Please understand, I'm not a uber fan of the Watchmen nor am I an over zealous proponet of absoulte perfection. I sometimes notice the incongruities between the orignal and the remake. An example of this is Laurie Jupiter's smoking. In the novel, she smokes. In the movie, she doesn't. While this may seem a triffling thing, it sets up a continuity problem later in the movie. In the scene where she's in Archie (Night Owl's ship) she hits a button with a flame symbol on it. In the movie, it looks like she's hitting buttons because she can. In the novel, she thought it was a lighter. This seems like a bowing to current political sensiblities. Also in that same theme, there was a completely new policial subtext added to the movie that I found was completely out of place. Durring the opening scenes, the director made an inferance that The Comedian was responsible for the Kennedy assassination (He was the second shooter on the grassy knoll) as well as a subtile anti-oil/anti-big business context. Late in the movie, during the 'assassination' attempt on Adrian Veidt/Ozmandiaus, Lee Iacocca is shot and killed when Veidt is dodging the assassin's shots. In the novel, Veidt female assistance is killed. I'll be the first to admit that I might be seeing things that are there, but given the current political climate... Another incongruity, is the Sex scene with Dan (Night Owl II) and Laurie. This happens on his couch in his apartment with an acrobatics demostration by Ozmandias on the TV in the novel. In the movie, Laurie and Dan get it on in Archie. Again it's artistic license, but it's not in keeping with the original story.

 I don't rate movies on a alpha-numeric scale (ie. 3 out of 5, B-). I use this scale: see it now, see it now and get the DVD, wait for DVD, or forget it. I'm rating this see it now. It's not as good as "The Dark Knight" but it is good for what is is. Side note, I've read that most of the extra filler matterial is going to be added to the DVD released copy of the movie. If I had to rate this on an accuracy scale (0-100%, 0=only in common was name 100=complete fidellity to orginal), I'd give it a 92 accuracy rating.

 That's how I saw it. What say you?