Given how long it took for Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' graphic novel to get out of development hell and onto cinema screens, slipping in and out of the grasp of a number of hugely talented filmmakers along the way (Gilliam, Aronofsky, Greengrass), one can excuse Zack Snyder for taking some pride in finally getting Watchmen made. It's all the more impressive an achievement given Snyder was able to wrangle a reported $120 million budget for a film which never stood a snowball's chance in hell of being PG-13, and managed to faithfully recreate on screen a comic book story which many had declared unfilmable. However, Watchmen's main problem is, for those who've read the graphic novel, the film just feels like a hollow replica; meanwhile, those unfamiliar with the source material would be forgiven for wondering why every tiny little thing is treated with such importance. Synder's taste for slo-mo (established by 300) takes the already protracted narrative down to a snail's pace at times, and his appropriation of popular music (indulged further in Sucker Punch) seems to be less about fitting the scene than impressing the viewer with his musical taste. Indeed, every frame of Watchmen seems to cry out, in a pretentious adolescent fashion, "look how cool and sophisticated this is, be impressed!" The question remains, does Snyder even fully understand what Watchmen was actually about? The graphic novel was primarily concerned with questioning just why anyone would ever choose to become a superhero, and emphasising just how deeply flawed they really were as human beings. Snyder, however, has no qualms deeming superheroism to be unequivocally a good thing, as evidenced by the effort he puts into making his protagonists come off as badass. Recent remarks from the director in which he describes Batman V Superman as "the impossible version of Watchmen," implying the characters are equally aspirational, would seem to indicate that he may well have badly misinterpreted both properties.
