Following a summer that brought both Iron Man and The Dark Knight to the big screen, it could be said that the comic book adaptation genre of the movies is in something of a renaissance.  Gone are the days of the campy villainy that plagued the original Superman series in the late 70’s and early 80’s.  Nor are there the giddily homosexual overtones mixed with a not so subtle lack of story that derailed the Batman series of the 90’s.  Even the entries that came during the new century, namely the entries based on Marvel characters seemed quaint in comparison to the super hero films of 2008.  These tapped into the mythology of the characters, taking liberties, but staying true to the essence that would please the die-hards, yet leave enough room for newcomers to understand and enjoy the stories.  But, neither of those films adapted word for word a specific stories, instead taking various ideas by putting them in a blender to make the worlds more accessible to film audiences.  So, it was with great interest, that the long gestating project Watchmen would be released in March, a story with very little in the way of recognizable characters and a small, cult following that has been quite vocal in their need for a literal adaptation.
    There is a bit of serendipity in the release schedule of Watchmen.  The original graphic novel appeared in 1986, months after the groundbreaking The Dark Knight Returns, with the film version coming on the heels of highly revered The Dark Knight, in hopes of a replication of that same one-two punch, allowing comic book based films to be looked at from an artistic standpoint, much as comics were in the post Watchmen world.  Unfortunately, the choices made by director Zach Snyder served to undermine the text created by Alan Moore, leaving a movie that is hefty with great visuals, but ultimately bogged down by a bloated screenplay that seems to focus on all of the wrong parts of the story.
    Alan Moore, who asked for his name to be removed from the credits of the film, had written in Watchmen a super hero story that both deconstructed the myth of the “mystery man” while making pointed social commentary on human behavior and America in the 80’s.  These themes work well in the context of the book and the period in which it was written, a time when the Soviet Union, the fear of nuclear war, and the growing fear of crime in the cities was at its peak, a factor that gave Watchmen a sense of timeliness in the face of the fading Cold War.  Even today, the comic book feels fresh with the current worldwide situation of banks feeling, a seemingly never-ending war, and a nationwide collective fear of the future.  These are the makings for a timeless piece of art, whether it be in comics, novels, or film.  The ability to take a situation that is over 20 years old and to make it viable and relatable to current events is the mark of great storytelling.  From that angle, how is it possible that Watchmen, the film, felt like a missed opportunity, seemingly out of date and out of touch with the themes that were so prevalent in the book version.
    Part of the blame needs to be put on the feet of director Zach Snyder.  Visually, there are few that can compare with what he brings to the table from a slick, special effects driven aspect (see 300 for a film that is at least visually stunning).  His take on the opening credits of the film are the highlight and almost a clinic on how to take what could be an overbearing back-story and making it easy for newcomers to understand what could be a potentially convoluted and time consuming piece of the story.  But, being a visual director does not necessarily make one a visionary (as the trailers so subtly stated), nor does it give Snyder the accolades to take on such a dense, story driven piece as Watchmen.  And it shows, again and again, as a story fraught with conflict and tension in the comic, slowly de-evolves into the standard error of storytelling, telling what you should feel instead of showing.
    At close to three hours, there should be plenty of time to instill these themes of a coming apocalypse, to allow for a deconstruction of the superhero genre and to make the requisite social commentary.  The opening titles sequence achieves this to an extent, but it loses this momentum almost immediately with some badly chosen story beats.  For starters, the music is offputting at times.  Putting in an 80s’s soundtrack makes sense given the setting of the story, but if music is often a product of the times, then it doesn’t make sense that “99 Luftbaloons” would come out of a fifth Nixon term.  In the world of a Reagan America, it fits, but in terms of the darkness swirling about in this alternate Nixonian America, it feels as if the darker portions of the late 70’s punk scene would be more prevalent in the culture of the time.  The choice of “Hallelujah” during the sex scene, while inspired in the sense of the quiet foreboding in the song, is lost by the way the scene is handled; Instead of a subtle scene of two lost souls finally discovering love, the audience is treated to a soft-core sex session that one could find on Showtime at 2 am on a Friday.
    In many ways, the aforementioned sex scene between the Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson and the Silk Spectre (Malin Ackerman) is a microcosm for all that is wrong with the film.  Both of these characters were given the short shrift in their story arcs, with the Silk Spectre’s backstory especially being dumbed down to the point of not having the same effect it did in the book.  The revelation of the identity of her father is lost in the shuffle, a meaningless afterthought in the rush to head towards the ending.  Of the myriad of characters within the story, only Rorschach (Jackie Earl Haley) and Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) come across as fully realized characters.  Of the heroes, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) comes off the worst, with the revelation of his schemes being hinted at quite bluntly before beginning to build his character.
    These may seem like odd quibbles for a comic adaptation, but character counts, perhaps even more so than the special effect.  Sure, Watchmen looked nice, but it ultimately means nothing when the themes and characters are secondary to looks.  In the hands of a better director, this could have been the masterpiece that it should have been.  There is no need to show scenes of Nixon ranting in his war room about the coming nuclear onslaught, instead show the panic in the streets (as the comic did) to push forward the idea of a coming end of days like scenario.  The film needed to feel like a 70’s crime film, as if the world were on the brink of a dirty death.  Instead it was clean, with only the occasional burst of over the top violence to give it any sort of stature. 
    But, it’s not about the violence, at least not in Moore’s vision. Society is decaying, the politicians and social structures are corrupt (keeping Nixon as President for a fifth term is a masterful underline to this theme), the superheroes were the only hope, but they too fell into corruption (The Comedian).  You can feel those themes begging to come to the surface in the movie, but Snyder keeps them underwater by focusing on the wrong aspects of the story.  Ultimately, this prevents “Watchmen” from being the movie it could have been, one that is on par with The Dark Knight and Iron Man, which would have placed Snyder in the same breath as Christopher Nolan or Jon Favreau.  Instead it’s a could’ve been type of movie, which will only leave its audience wondering if it had been a complete success, what the future of comic book films could have looked like.