Who Watches the Watchmen? (Spoiler Alert!)

Like I usually do whenever a highly-reputed literary work is to be turned into a movie, I bought (and immediately read) a copy of the Watchmen graphic novel a few months back. I saw the film earlier today. As expected, there were discrepancies between the graphic novel and the movie, borne both out of the inherent limitations of film as a medium and the artistic leeway filmmakers bestow upon themselves. Almost all of the novel’s numerous sub-plots (Hollis’ “Under the Hood”, the newsstand vendor and the black kid, the collection of artists and scientists ala “Atlas Shrugged”, etc.) that were only indirectly tied to the main storyline were omitted in the film version, and several “trivial” inconsistencies were evident throughout the film (Rorschach and Nite Owl traveling to Veidt’s Antarctic base on foot; the missing big, badass motherfucker of a monster). But the whole plot is there, stretched across three hours of film; and moviegoers, especially those who have read the novel, will see the film makers’ efforts to stay true to the original material (note the homage to the newsstand vendor and the black kid when the New York bomb detonated).

Is Watchmen for everyone? Well, the graphic novel definitely isn’t. Some friends I’ve lent the book to were overwhelmed by either the enormity of the story or the complexity of the plot. But give the novel a shot and you’ll see that a significant portion of the pleasure in reading it will come from the sub-plots, these seemingly inconsequential narratives that lend color, life, and substance to both the characters and the story itself. At first glance, these details will seem unimportant; but as Alan Moore’s intricate web starts to unravel, the realization that each small part is related to every other in ways both subtle and brilliant will ultimately leave you breathless. As for the movie… Purists will definitely hate it (they always do), most of those who haven’t read the novel will not get it, and conservatives will be turned off by the excessive gore Zack Snyder is known for.

I personally liked the film, in general. But I do have a few gripes about my movie-watching experience earlier.

1. It is my humble opinion that the local movie industry, or this country for that matter, will never ever prosper as long as higher ups treat us like frigging children. I mean, come on! You’ll show a disintegrating body in all its bloody splendor and then you’ll cut portions of a love scene between two lead characters? Who the fuck are you kidding? Well, it’s probably the fault of the local distributors (sellout fucks), but that’s not the point, is it?

2. Again about this crap we call the local movie industry. What’s up with those grainy and dirty film negatives these mall theaters keep shoving down the throats of their patrons? It’s not like they’re one of those fly-by-night provincial movie houses which show local “R” rated films “double with” unknown foreign B-movies. I paid 175 pesos to see the film in your theater (I’m talking to you, Eastwood Cinema), and I expect to get my money’s worth, film-quality wise. How can you expect us to stop patronizing pirated films (which reportedly now cost a measly 10 pesos per film in Divisoria) when you keep giving us crap? Assholes.

3. In the film, Adrian Veidt looks eerily like David Spade, hair, nose, build and all, which is so unlike his masculine, Aryan-looking counterpart in the graphic novel. At one point in the movie, I almost expected badass Veidt to deliver a stand-up routine. Now that would’ve been definitely worth watching.

Have a nice day!