Watchmen.

It is not a perfect film.

That said, I have only this to say to Zack Snyder: You done good.

Snyder took on an unfilmable work of comic book genius and produced an extraordinary adaptation that profoundly affects its audience on every level of the spectrum: visually, emotionally, intellectually. Nonetheless, while the film is an accomplishment, it is not nearly the accomplishment that is the graphic novel; the differences in medium and scope make it impossible for Snyder’s “Watchmen” to reach the pinnacle of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ “Watchmen.”

But more on that later. Anyone who has seen “300″ knows that Snyder has the ability to translate the aesthetic of a graphic novel into film, and “Watchmen” is no exception. In fact, the loving attention paid to every seemingly-minute detail is one of the reasons that this film stands up to multiple viewings. Snyder recreates some of the comic’s most iconic panels in ways that not only turn the film into a visual masterpiece, but make the fans, well, pretty damn happy.

One of the visual centerpieces of the film is of course Dr. Manhattan. To the casual viewer, the glowing blue man (and the many full-frontal shots of azure genitalia) might seem to be an odd choice among the sea of gritty, noir characters, but sans Dr. Manhattan, the hard-boiled detection and bloody fight scenes do not a “Watchmen” make. One of this reviewer’s fears was that Warner Brothers’ attempts to pare down the running time would cripple Dr. Manhattan’s character arc. Not to worry; the most important elements are preserved and in fact they form a breathtaking sequence that is one of the emotional linchpins of the entire film.

Billy Crudup’s mostly monotone performance was a daring (and ultimately compelling) narrative choice. Through Crudup’s understated performance, Snyder was able to address some of the philosophical questions that made the graphic novel so great.

Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II (aka Dan Dreiberg) did an excellent job, but some of his story didn’t quite make it to the film and what did make the cut was slightly disjointed and unclear. A fault of either the studio’s running time fears or Snyder’s squeamishness with Nite Owl II’s hard–err, difficult personal problems (hard to believe given the amount of blue penis), Dan Dreiberg’s arc was one of the weaker ones in the film.

But the true weak link of the film was Malin Akerman’s Silk Spectre II. While the rest of the cast brought their game (notice I’m saving the genius Jackie Earle Haley for last), Akerman was good only in the sense that if she kept her mouth shut, she looked like Silk Spectre II. The problem was that she simply couldn’t deliver her lines anywhere close to the standard achieved by the rest of the cast. While the no-dialogue action scenes were fantastic, her performance was ultimately undercut by the fact that she looked like she was playing in “Watchmen: The Community Theater Presents.”

And there’s a scene on a ship in the sky that ends with fire, with a lot of awkward cuts and a terrible song choice, and I have to say that it was really one of the low points in the movie for me.

But back to the good stuff.

Rorschach.

In a stroke of genius, Zack Snyder fought to get Jackie Earle Haley the part and the effort paid off brilliantly. Haley was extraordinary as the masked noir vigilante, no mean feat considering the fact he spends a great deal of the film with his face entirely covered. Haley handles that setback deftly, his superb physical acting breathing life into the beloved character. Rorschach has almost all of the best moments of the film and he acts the hell out of them: equal parts finesse and presence. Simply put, if there is one reason for you to see “Watchmen” it is for Rorschach and Jackie Earle Haley’s performance.

So what’s the damage?

There are okay parts to this film, there are good parts, and there are some great parts which overshadow the mediocre to the extent that 95 percent of the film is stunning.
The other five percent has been rife with controversy for months: namely, to squid or not to squid. For readers of the comic book, it’s easy to understand why a giant alien squid would have a difficult transition to the silver screen. I for one don’t have a problem with it being cut, but rather with what they chose to replace it.

On the surface, the Not-Squid isn’t a terrible deus ex machina, but once you peel back that first layer it sort of falls to pieces at the first indication of logic. By the time that the Not-Squid hits the screen in the film, I was so amped up and excited that I’d have accepted any explanation without question. But the moment the credits started to roll, I was left a little deflated and disappointed with the direction Snyder and company went.

If that were the only problem with the end of the film, I’d probably be able overlook it in light of the sheer awesome of Rorschach or Dr. Manhattan. Unfortunately, Snyder spoiled us with his TLC in the rest of the film and the last 10 minutes felt disjointed and rushed. At the same time, it’s understandable; he was forced to blend key moments from the graphic novel (which were as outstanding as the other 95 percent) with the haphazard denouement of the Not-Squid conflict.

So my conclusions? Like the characters it depicts, Snyder’s film is great and yet ultimately flawed. But I choose to focus on the great half of that equation; Zack Snyder deserves accolades for not just the masterwork of vision but for the audacity to tackle “Watchmen” on the big screen.

So “Watchmen” is not a perfect film. But it is, without a doubt, a damn good one.

Here are some more “Watchmen” videos from Rubber Republic and Blast Magazine.

The Comedian and Ozymandias

Zack Snyder and Dave Gibbons

Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre

Night Owl II and Rorschach

NEW YORK — With less than a month until the release of “Watchmen,” there was doubt as to what their panel would provide. What would they do to entice their audience? After the full cast panel at San Diego Comic-con in July where then never before seen footage was shown, it seemed like there was little Warner Bros. could provide that would whet our already starving appetite for more “Watchmen.”

So they gave us Dave Gibbons and showed us the first 18 minutes of the film.

The footage reaffirmed what I already anticipated — “Watchmen” is brilliant. Dave Gibbons, co-creator and illustrator of the “Watchmen” graphic novel, discussed with the audience how director Zack Snyder incorporated a combination of scenes both in and outside of the comic book to create a better visual picture for all audiences to appreciate. I was awed how, within the first 10 minutes of footage, “Watchmen” had managed to establish the idea of “the Doomsday clock is always five minutes to midnight” and the fact the film takes place in an alternate time where Nixon is still president.

Without giving too much away, Snyder uses the opening credits of the film to give the viewer a brief history of the world “Watchmen” inhabits. Not only did they incorporate historic instances, like Kennedy’s assassination and a woman placing a flower in the end of a soldier’s rifle – an icon Vietnam image – but they also showed scenes to introduce the concept of the Minutemen and their progression to the Watchmen.

There were cheers from the audience at the right moments, like when a young Rorschach appears on the screen and when “Who watches the Watchmen?” is sprayed on a storefront window. But the audience of the New York Comic-con panel is a dedicated group of “Watchmen” fans, and I’m curious to see how much of the film – or at least its first 18 minutes – someone who hasn’t poured over the comic would understand. Seeing a picture of Laurie in the Comedian’s apartment made me appreciate Snyder’s attention to detail, but I’m worried anyone who isn’t familiar with the “Watchmen” universe will have no idea what’s going on after the film’s fast-paced start.

Regardless, Snyder has created a fantastic visual interpretation of one of the greatest graphic novels of all time. His attention to detail and careful representation of the story’s characters emphasizes how much effort he put into making the film adaptation of “Watchmen” as respectful an interpretation as possible to the graphic novel.

The first 18 minutes looked beautiful. Let’s see on March 6 whether the rest of the film holds up to that standard.

SAN DIEGO — Many have called the comic book series “Watchmen” unfilmable. With the exclusive footage Comic-con attendees were shown at Friday’s event, director Zack Snyder (“300″) is proving otherwise.

Snyder said that when Warner Bros.  approached him about making a “Watchmen” movie as he wrapped production on “300,” he was initially hesitant, but he realized that if he refused the movie, it would pass on to another director who might not create a good translation of the novel.

“If the movie for whatever reason didn’t turn out, it still would have been my fault,” Snyder said of his decision to make the film, which will be released March 6, 2009.

Previous tries by directors such as Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky and Paul Greengrass came up empty as they tried to recreate the world of “Watchmen” in modern times using current political tensions, but Snyder tried to stay as true to the original as a two-and-a-half-hour movie can to a 416 page graphic novel.

“Making a movie about the war on terror and [modern politics] seemed really wrong in a lot of ways to me,” said Snyder. “It’s cooler if people go, ‘Oh hey, this makes me think,’ instead of me telling people what to think.”

“Watchmen” is the only graphic novel to be listed on Time Magazine’s 2005 list of “the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present.” It tells the intertwined stories of a group of unwanted superheroes; Rorschach, The Comedian, Dr. Manhattan, Ozymandias, Silk Spectre I and II, and Night Owl II, from their numerous perspectives throughout various time periods. “Watchmen” dates itself as it is set in an alternative future where the United States won the Vietnam War (thanks to Dr. Manhattan), and Nixon is serving his fifth term as president.

Snyder acknowledged that while the movie will remain similar to the comic series in many ways, some aspects of the “Watchmen” world will have to be changed for the sake of length.

“You’re going to end up with some stuff that’s not in [the original story], but that’s just how it is,” Snyder said.

More important than the segments that might have been cut are the subtle parts of “Watchmen” that Snyder left in. While cavalier directors may have considered getting rid of character development for the sake of large action scenes, Snyder said that he left out a lot of the big blockbuster action attractions in order to have more of the story elements.

The four minute montage of clips that Snyder presented exclusively to the audience showed evidence of his attention to detail. The scene in which Rorschach discovers that the murdered Edward Blake was in fact the Comedian includes a brief shot of a photograph of Laurie Juspeczyk, a connection to later events in the Watchmen storyline. A light bulb flashes and Sally Jupiter rubs her eyes as she stands in her Silk Spectre outfit in a scene that matches frame for frame with the graphic novel. A Vietnamese woman slashes the Comedian’s face with a broken bottle in a scene that reveals just how cruel the Comedian had been in his life. All of these clips are of events small enough that they could have been cut, but significant enough to diehard fans like Snyder that they weren’t.

Even a shot of Dollar Bill lying dead after he got his cape caught in a revolving door surrounded by police was in the series of clips, and that was a scene that had only been mentioned in the supplemental material included in the novel compilation of the series.

Snyder said that he was especially proud of how his actors absorbed the mythology of “Watchmen” and how well they kept their characters consistent with the book.

The actor who had the most difficult time slipping into character was Billy Crudup (“The Good Shepherd”), who is playing the omniscient, blue, and completely computer generated Jon Osterman (superhero alias Dr. Manhattan). Instead of a costume, Crudup had to wear a skin-tight suit with motion sensors covering it so that a computer could capture his movements and make them Dr. Manhattan’s. He said that it took weeks before costar Malin Akerman (“27 Dresses”), who plays Manhattan’s love interest Laurie Juspeczyk (superhero alias Silk Spectre II) to look at him without bursting out laughing.

“I wasn’t the only one,” Akerman said in her defense.

“Dr. Manhattan is like nothing I have a frame of reference for,” said Crudup. “How do you play [Dr. Manhattan] while you’re a five-foot-nine, 40 year old jackass playing dress up?”

“Changing my molecules … that’s stuff they don’t teach you in drama school,” he said.

Jackie Earle Haley (“Semi-Pro”), playing Walter Kovacs (superhero alias Rorschach), said that he learned the most about his character not from the comic book but from the blogs where fans discussed Rorschach’s intricate and nihilistic character.