Watchmen Movie

Dan Dreiberg, aka Nite Owl II, is without a doubt my favourite character in WATCHMEN. I know many would disagree, but I think Nite Owl is the heart and soul of the comic, and he’s easily the most identifiable character by virtue of not being completely freaking nuts. Something about this impotent, runt-of-the-litter loser is incredibly endearing, and in classic underdog fashion you can’t help but root for him.

So it was with much trepidation that I waited to hear who would be cast as Nite Owl. You can mess up Ozymandias, you can screw with the Comedian, but if you go wrong with Nite Owl, you don’t have much of a movie.

So what do I think about Patrick Wilson as Dan Dreiberg?

At first I wasn’t sold. I hadn’t seen much of his work, and his pictures on imdb didn’t immediately scream retired superhero.

But as soon as the publicity material started circulating, I pulled a 180. In fact, Wilson as Nite Owl might just be my favourite casting choice. For starters, more than any other actor in the film, Wilson looks exactly like his character is drawn in the comic. I’ve talked about how closely Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley resemble the Comedian and Rorschach respectively, but neither of them hold a candle to Wilson’s Nite Owl. He’s got the perfect early-middle-aged comb-over, he’s got the “I used to work out, but now I just eat donuts” physique, and those 80s aviators look right at home on his face. The guy even sounds like Nite Owl. I don’t know how it’s possible to sound like a comic book, but Wilson does it. Bottom line: unlike just about everybody else in the film, Wilson actually looks like a middle-aged, broken-spirited retiree who longs for the glory days.

He’s so good that Patrick Wilson will forever be Nite Owl to me. In fact, I have to go rent Lakeview Terrace, because I’m pretty sure it’s about Nite Owl fighting Samuel L. Jackson.

I wish I had something more insightful to say, but I got nothing – Wilson is just plain awesome, and I urge anyone to suggest a better choice.

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.

Jackie Earle Haley probably has the single most difficult role in WATCHMEN. Rorschach is the most beloved and revered character from the graphic novel, and even the slightest misstep in his performance will bring scorn from the fan base.

That being said, I think Haley is unquestionably the right choice.

For starters, his acting history is perfectly in line with what the WATCHMEN project is all about. If anything, WATCHMEN is about spanning the divide between popular culture and high art. It’s about taking something as lowbrow as superheroes and turning it into a dramatic masterpiece. As an actor, Haley knows the border between art and the popular very well. An examination of his imdb profile reveals that he’s appeared in Oscar bait like Little Children and All the King’s Men, as well as making time to star in such films as Maniac Cop 3: Badge of Silence and an episode of MacGyver. Haley brings the perfect blend of classical acting skill and an appreciation for pop culture. Put ‘em together and you’ve got WATCHMEN.

Secondly, in wig and makeup, Haley looks an awful lot like Rorschach sans-mask. The bored, judgmental eyes, the wacky red hair, and the vague feeling that this guy wants to murder you - all picture perfect.

Finally, Rorschach is an undeniably crazy but nonetheless sympathetic character, and Haley plays sympathetic-crazy really, really well. If you need proof, go watch Little Children. His portrayal of a child molester who tries to do the right thing is amazingly close to the repulsive attraction of Rorschach. You don’t like this guy, you don’t agree with his actions, but you can’t stop yourself from sympathizing with his all-too-human motivations.

All in all, I don’t think they could have picked a better man to play Rorschach. Now we’ll just have to wait and see how he handles that mask… and how good he is at breaking fingers.

I was intrigued when I first heard that Malin Akerman would be playing the role of Laurie Juspeczyk, a.k.a The Silk Spectre, in Watchmen.

While I like Akerman (she was funny in Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, and she was the only reason to see The Heartbreak Kid), I’m not convinced she’s the best choice.

For starters, she comes from a comedic background, and as fans of the comic book will tell you, this movie ain’t a comedy. The Silk Spectre is one heck of a dramatic role, chock full of relationship angst and daddy issues, and I’ve yet to see proof that Ms. Akerman is capable of pulling it off.

My real problem, though, is that she just doesn’t look old enough. In the graphic novel, Silk Spectre is a 35-year-old smoker. Akerman, on the other hand, looks like she could be in college. And I’m not just being a picky fanboy – Silk Spectre’s age is vital to the character’s role in the film. The whole point is that she wakes up and realizes she’s been wasting her life following a path set out for her by her mother and her husband. Akerman doesn’t look old enough to have wasted anything.

My casting choice for the Silk Spectre: Kate Winslet. She’s slightly more age-appropriate and we know she has the chops to pull off the role. Plus you’d almost have a full reunion of the Little Children cast, and how cool would that be?

But I’ll leave it open: Who do you think should be playing the Silk Spectre?