**** out of ****
It should come as no surprise that the comic book maxi-series that redefined its entire medium would later become the film that would (re-)revolutionize the superhero genre. Hot on the heels of last summer's blockbuster, "The Dark Knight," "Watchmen" may actually eclipse it with its more distinct visual style, plausible cause-and-effect-driven narrative and overall density. Though "The Dark Knight" is more elaborate than most superhero movies, incorporating the feel of a crime drama, "Watchmen" contains a more stylized look, somewhat like a colorized version of "Sin City" but also embracing a bit of the old ultra-violence and philosophy of Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange." While the conflicts in "The Dark Knight" seem created to keep the film moving, the conflict of "Watchmen" builds slowly into a mind-blowing symphony. If "The Dark Knight" was almost perfect, "Watchmen," supported by the original story from Alan Moore (who requested to be uncredited) and Dave Gibbons and sharp direction of Zack Snyder ("300"), is a masterpiece.
Snyder adapts the comic book - mostly word-for-word and image-by-image - to the screen. Often, there could be concern for this approach because the film might retain a two-dimensional feel, but "Watchmen" is far from flat. Snyder uses the specific powers of film to make the story even more visually real and compelling. For anyone wary of a film version of "Watchmen" coming close to the masterpiece of the source material, I can vouch that the 163 minutes I witnessed are perhaps the closest to an ideal adaptation that I could have ever imagined. "Watchmen" is going to be loved, first and foremost, by the fans of the comic book series/graphic novel. However, this does not mean that the film itself is incapable of being digested by people new to the story. "Watchmen" transforms the "hero saves the world with no real story" film (a.k.a. "X-Men") into a masterpiece of sharp visual, narrative, psychological and philosophical genius.
