Watchmen Movie

Of all the casting choices in WATCHMEN, the one that bugs me the most is Matthew Goode as Ozymandias. And it has nothing to do with acting talent or anything like that (in other words, no disrespect to Matt Goode), it has to do with a mismatch between character and actor.

You see, Ozymandias differs from pretty much every other character in WATCHMEN (except for Sally Jupiter, I guess) in that he revels in the attention he gets as a superhero. The other characters are introverted, depressed, withdrawn, and/or misanthropic loners who are hiding from the public. Ozymandias, on the other hand, is a freaking rock star. He’s a celebrity, and he loves it. He hangs out with musicians, he has a TV show, he makes action figures of himself – he’s as big as it gets.

Over the years, a number of equally big names have been considered for the role, most notably Jude Law and Tom Cruise. Basically, the idea was to cast a celebrity as a celebrity – which I think works perfectly.

Instead, however, we have indie darling Matthew Goode filling the very big purple boots. Now, from what I’ve seen of Goode (which is admittedly very little) he’s a talented guy, but he still doesn’t seem right to play the world’s biggest superstar. He a little too quiet and reserved for a man with an ego the size of Manhattan (literally…) In short, I have a really hard time believing that this guy would be accepted amongst the ranks of American socialites.

Also, I have the same issue with his age that I have with a number of the other WATCHMEN actors. Ozymandias is supposed to be in his 40s, and Goode is about ten years shy. I’ll say it again, age is incredibly important to WATCHMEN, and Goode doesn’t have the experienced, wizened look needed to play a believable Ozymandias.

Who would I cast? I think they should have done whatever it took to get Tom Cruise. The man truly is perfect for the role. Basically imagine if Cruise had been a superhero before he became an actor and you have Ozymandias.

And for the record, I could have made a “not Goode enough” pun, but I refrained.

There are two things to consider when looking at how everyone’s favourite naked blue superman has been interpreted for the screen. One, there’s Billy Crudup’s voice performance and motion-capture work. Two, there’s the team of animators responsible for actually drawing Dr. Manhattan.

First off – Billy Crudup is an interesting choice. Definitely not the first name I would have thought of, but definitely not a bad pick. Crudup’s a talented guy and I think he’s got exactly what it takes to tackle the good doctor.

Manhattan, for the uninitiated, is a unique character in that he’s the only hero with any real superpowers – and boy does he have power. Basically the guy can do whatever he wants – the only problem is that he’s become so powerful that he’s lost touch with humanity. As a result, he’s a little lonely. If I had to pick three words to describe Dr. Manhattan, I’d go with cold, distant, and sad. 

Now I know Crudup can do cold (see Dedication), and I know Crudup can do distant (see Almost Famous), but I’ve yet to really see him do sad. I’ve seen him angst-ridden, depressed, brooding, and miserable, but not sad in the purest sense of the word. You know, not angry, not frustrated, just the “I’m so sad I need to get away to Mars to clear my head for a bit” kind of sad.

But I’m not too worried, because this is where the animators come in. From what I’ve seen, it looks like they’ve nailed the patented subtly-sad Dr. Manhattan face. In the publicity stills the poor doctor looks just as upset as he does in the comic. Now, don’t get me wrong, I know Crudup did a lot of motion-capture work, so he totally deserves credit for the sad-face, but I think the animators also deserve a round of applause. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a CGI face quite so expressive… except maybe for WALL-E, but he’s a robot so he doesn’t count.

I have only one minor issue with how they’ve handled Dr. Manhattan, and that’s his voice. In the graphic novel, it’s implied through distinctly-coloured speech bubbles that Dr. Manhattan speaks with an altered voice – it’s one more thing that separates him from the rest of us lowly humans. In the film, however, they’re using Crudup’s voice au natural. Not a major change, but it does make Dr. Manhattan seem more human, which is sort of the exact opposite of how he should be portrayed…

But again I’m being picky.

In any event, at least they’ve finally released the Dr. Manhattan costume I’ve always wanted.

When I first heard that Jeffrey Dean Morgan would be playing the Comedian, the rough-and-tumble, cigar-smoking, flame-spewing, superbad assassin from WATCHMEN, my first thought was… You mean the guy from Grey’s Anatomy? (that’s right, I’ve seen Grey’s Anatomy)

In other words, Morgan was not my first choice. The Comedian is a bad, bad man (pretty much any of the shocking, controversial things you’ve heard about the movie can be attributed to this character), and I don’t really get a bad vibe from Morgan. I get more of a fun uncle vibe. Hopefully I can be forgiven for thinking that the man who starred in such notable epics as P.S. I love You and Fred Claus was not the best choice to play a war-mongering rapist.

But once I saw the guy in costume and makeup, I did change my mind… somewhat. For starters, it’s almost creepy how much Morgan looks like the character in the comic book, and that’s about half the battle for me. Furthermore, from what I’ve seen in the trailers, Morgan does seem to have a handle on the whole “I love violence” thing that the Comedian is known for. For proof, check out the scene where he smirks while spraying down a wave of enemies with a flame-thrower, and then lights a cigar… with the same flame-thrower.

All in all, I give Morgan my seal of approval, but I still think there might have been a better choice. Who exactly? I’m not sure. I guess I’m getting picky…

In any event, apparently Morgan loved going to the firing range, so that’s a step in the right direction.