I'll say up front - since it will naturally affect my review - that I'm a huge fan of the graphic novel, and had been eagerly awaiting the movie interpretation for some time.
Oh, and likely some spoilers, minor or otherwise, throughout.
My initial reaction was that it was a wonderful interpretation of a groundbreaking work, made by people who obviously cared very much about the source material, but that it had a few niggling disappointments that contributed to a watering down of the final product.
I found that the tone set in the opening scenes - including the credit sequence - was spot on. You were pulled instantly into the time line (again, something best appreciated by those familiar with the story already) and between the still photos and a surprisingly apt soundtrack, the sadness of the deterioration of the 'glory days' of the Minutemen was palpable. And after that, there were a number of moments where the tone seemed pitch-perfect - due in large part to the incredible care taken to directly transpose entire scenes from the novel directly to the screen - Rosarch's first visit with Dreiberg being a perfect example.
The characters again were transposed to the screen with incredible faithfulness to the source material (for the most part). They managed to somehow keep a veneer of the comic book sheen - see Nixon, for example - while making these people incredibly real. Dreiberg and Rosarch, again, perfect examples of the written characters, both their physicality and personality, jumping straight out of the book. Amazing performances from both of them as well.
And I think, in the end, it's *because* of this fastidious faithfulness that, when something doesn't quite fit, it really jars you. My main point of contention is the casting of Veidt. It was no mistake that the original character had the strong chiseled features and physique of a classic Greek hero, and this was something that simply didn't make it across for me. It's a shame too, as he's such a pivotal character. It's so crucial to get the message across that he had done what he's done out of a *love* of humanity, and that he is calmly, quietly *proud* of his work. But it just didn't fly.
My other 'issues' were fairly minor - a wholly unnecessary sex scene up in Archie (with an especially ill-fitting backing track - at least the Cohen version of it...), a surprisingly high-pitched delivery from Dr. Manhattan which took a bit of time get used to, and a slightly goofy 'cameo' moment from a certain diminutive actor who I was most familiar with from sitcoms. Me, I would've tried to cast him as a short Teller, but what do I know.
So yeah - full points for what they wanted to do, but the deeper message within the original story lost a lot of its impact for little reasons. Too bad, they very nearly got it.
Oh, and likely some spoilers, minor or otherwise, throughout.
My initial reaction was that it was a wonderful interpretation of a groundbreaking work, made by people who obviously cared very much about the source material, but that it had a few niggling disappointments that contributed to a watering down of the final product.
I found that the tone set in the opening scenes - including the credit sequence - was spot on. You were pulled instantly into the time line (again, something best appreciated by those familiar with the story already) and between the still photos and a surprisingly apt soundtrack, the sadness of the deterioration of the 'glory days' of the Minutemen was palpable. And after that, there were a number of moments where the tone seemed pitch-perfect - due in large part to the incredible care taken to directly transpose entire scenes from the novel directly to the screen - Rosarch's first visit with Dreiberg being a perfect example.
The characters again were transposed to the screen with incredible faithfulness to the source material (for the most part). They managed to somehow keep a veneer of the comic book sheen - see Nixon, for example - while making these people incredibly real. Dreiberg and Rosarch, again, perfect examples of the written characters, both their physicality and personality, jumping straight out of the book. Amazing performances from both of them as well.
And I think, in the end, it's *because* of this fastidious faithfulness that, when something doesn't quite fit, it really jars you. My main point of contention is the casting of Veidt. It was no mistake that the original character had the strong chiseled features and physique of a classic Greek hero, and this was something that simply didn't make it across for me. It's a shame too, as he's such a pivotal character. It's so crucial to get the message across that he had done what he's done out of a *love* of humanity, and that he is calmly, quietly *proud* of his work. But it just didn't fly.
My other 'issues' were fairly minor - a wholly unnecessary sex scene up in Archie (with an especially ill-fitting backing track - at least the Cohen version of it...), a surprisingly high-pitched delivery from Dr. Manhattan which took a bit of time get used to, and a slightly goofy 'cameo' moment from a certain diminutive actor who I was most familiar with from sitcoms. Me, I would've tried to cast him as a short Teller, but what do I know.
So yeah - full points for what they wanted to do, but the deeper message within the original story lost a lot of its impact for little reasons. Too bad, they very nearly got it.
Tell Your Friends