Watchmen - Les Gardiens

"[komiksom som nedotknutý]" 20% de l'intrigue se déroule actuellement, 80% sont des flashbacks nous présentant les personnages que je n'ai pas réussi à comprendre pendant tout ce temps et parmi lesquels un seul - Rorschach - est bien écrit et joué (c'est-à-dire intéressant). Il n'y a pratiquement pas d'action ici, mais tout est enveloppé dans une belle esthétique, pleine de montages inventifs, de plans au ralenti et d'une sensation de fantasy, où rien n'est impossible et où un super-héros bleu vif philosophe constamment sur quelque chose de profondément spirituel en dehors de la compréhension des terriens. Au cours du premier tiers de Watchmen, j'étais ébloui et enthousiaste (et agréablement surpris par la quantité de sexe, de brutalité et de dépravation morale des principaux héros), mais j'attendais avec impatience la fin des flashbacks et le début de l'aventure cinématographique. Aucun changement n'est survenu pendant le deuxième tiers, j'ai commencé à m'ennuyer et à m'inquiéter. J'ai tout simplement SURVÉCU au dernier tiers. Être producteur de ce monstre politique (pseudo)philosophique et fantastique classé R, ça ne m'attire pas vraiment... (27/02/2009)

Untouched by the comics, but with thoughts of both Gilliam and Greengrass, I end up being thankful for Zack Snyder, who has grown as a filmmaker in his third film. While he was enabled by an obviously strong premise or rather its script treatment, the way Snyder presents the vast world of rejected superheroes is breathtaking. It’s a powerful reflection on America with an almost meditative thought about humans in general. It is based on excellent dialogue by a group of fresh-faced actors who are occasionally sent into excellent action sequences by the director. Rorschach's rendezvous with the cops took me far beyond mere viewer ecstasy. I left the movie theater very pensive, but a day later I was cheering and I know I have to see it at least one more time. Edit I: It was worth it. It's been a long time since I've experienced a second screening of a film that I've enjoyed so intensely. Edit II The D.C. version is "only" a gourmet cherry on top. (10/03/2009)

The biggest surprise in years. I don't really like Snyder (300 will confirm that) and I don't know the comic books, so this seemed to be a first-class head-on collision. But after completing three hours and thirty-five minutes in the Watchmen world, I'm just in awe. I'm in awe of the narrative structure Snyder chose, how he chose rich mythology over a straightforward plot, I'm in awe of the depth of the individual characters, I'm in awe of the absolutely brilliant compositions (Hollis's last duel, in which he projects the glorious strokes of his life, Rorschach's conversion into a mask in the lair of a pedophile), I'm in awe of how Snyder transformed the indigestible fetishism and effectiveness into an incredibly coherent and aesthetically polished whole (the title sequence rolls radically, I'm speechless), I'm in awe of the inclusion of the pure comic book insert Black Freighter, which fantastically resonates with the overall tuning of the film... I'm in awe, even though there's a few unnecessary shots, a couple of deranged ties and unnecessary masturbation. I'm in awe of a film which I rank, alongside Nolan's Batman films, among the top three comic book movies that have ever hit the silver screen. I don't even know if I'm sad that I didn't see it in the movie theatre, because those nearly four hours of TV were almost a spiritual experience of pure ecstasy from post-modern mythology... (22/03/2011)

A complex, smart, R-rated comic-book gem. I’m quite surprised by the talk about the complexity of the film, I was afraid that I would get lost because I don’t know Moore’s original. But I didn’t have any trouble and nobody capable of paying attention to a film should, either. Watchmen captivated me in several ways: the intellectual and visual aspects, the brutality and how uncompromising it is. Awesome! (08/03/2009)

Snyder may have huge talent, but I just don’t get why he has to build his career on copying (stealing?) other people’s work. First Romero, then Miller and now Moore. The last of then took the worst beating, because before that Snyder at least always used to put in the work of giving his “remakes" a bit of his own invention, point of view, simply something of himself (and then they make at least a bit of sense). But in this movie there is no sign of invention at all. If I had an Ikea reproduction of “The Night Watch" by Rembrandt, then I wouldn’t start singing praises about what an original and visionary artist the plagiarist is. I concede that he put a great deal of detailed work into this, and he is certainly talented, because not just any director could have succeeded in doing what he did, but the original is the original. And if Snyder had picked up a full HD camera, put on a CD with some golden oldies and s-l-o-w-l-y filmed the original comic book, it would have ended up the same. Damn it, Zack, try doing something of YOUR OWN already! Thanks in advance. The preceding reproach concerns Snyder and Snyder alone, not the Watchmen as such. As I wrote - it’s absolutely identical to the comic book which is perfect, so logically its celluloid 1:1 version must be perfect too. Well, apart from being in a way utterly pointless, because an illustration of an illustrated book is a pointless adaptation. But still perfect all the same. I seem to be going round in circles a bit. So why perfect? Because Watchmen are like the Rorschach Test. You can see boredom, the history of mankind, cool scenes, boobs, would-be cool scenes, no action scenes, penises, explicit violence, ego masturbation, cheap visuals, awesome visuals, too much footage, too little footage or an overlap long enough to build a bridge across the English Channel with. Just whatever you want. I just don’t know whether to give it a full set of stars or none at all! Both would be absolutely right. I even thought about giving it three stars, but compromise is not the solution here. Rorschach would have bitten my head off. (09/03/2009)