<\/p>\n
When Zack Snyder scored a surprise box office smash with his adaptation of Frank Miller and Lynn Varley’s limited comic book series “300,” every studio in town wanted him in their directors stable. This hit also came on the heels of his well-reviewed remake of George A. Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead,” and while I’m not a fan of that film<\/a>, I couldn’t deny the craft. Snyder, who’d cut his teeth on commercials and music videos, was a visionary. And when he brilliantly captured the brutal, ab-shredded aesthetic of Miller and Varley’s “300,” I was excited to see what he could do with a project that had a little more going on in its noggin.<\/p>\n Snyder must’ve felt the same way, because, for his third feature, he decided to climb the filmmaking Everest of adapting Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ wildly subversive superhero epic “Watchmen.” The limited series comic book (not a graphic novel per Moore<\/a><\/em>) was considered holy writ by a legion of fans, so they kept a close eye on which directors circled the project. There was enthusiasm for Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky, and Tim Burton, cautious optimism for Paul Greengrass<\/a> (because the material wasn’t in his wheelhouse), and incandescent outrage over Michael Bay.<\/p>\n In 2008, the conventional wisdom held that Snyder was a damn near perfect hire, if only because he’d faithfully adapted “300.” He had the visual acumen to bring this dystopian world to life, but was he up to the rigorously intellectual demands of the storytelling? Reviews were positive with reservations at the time, but the movie’s biggest fan 16 years later might be Christopher Nolan, who told The Hollywood Reporter<\/a> in 2023 that “Watchmen” was “ahead of its time.” But why is one of our brainiest filmmakers so taken with Snyder’s box office disappointment (which is currently streaming for free on Tubi)?<\/p>\n