Who’s Watching the “Watchmen” Reviewers?
by John Nolte
This is somewhat anecdotal, but when you look at the Metacritic scores below it boosts my theory that truly awful leftist films frequently get better reviews than deserved while solid, entertaining conservative films (now that the left’s ceded “liberty” to the right) get worse reviews than deserved and films critics didn’t understand were pro-Bush receive fantastic reviews, but once found out, no Oscar nominations.
Metacritic scores:
Redacted -52; The Lucky Ones – 53; Rendition – 55; Stop Loss – 61; In the Valley of Elah – 65; Grace is Gone – 65.
Taken – 50: 300 – 51: The Dark Knight – 82.
As of right now, Metacritic shows “Watchmen” getting killed with a score of 30, but that’s with only 5 reviews in — albeit from the big boys like Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and the New Yorker…. On the other hand, Rotten Tomatoes has over 30 reviews in and the film sits with a fresh rating of 78%.
The Rotten Tomatoes split appears to be among the more elite critics (Cream of the Crop) and their less creamcroppy counterparts. Among the cream is Anthony Lane’s devastating pan in the New Yorker, which is especially interesting:
“Watchmen,” like “V for Vendetta,” harbors ambitions of political satire, and, to be fair, it should meet the needs of any leering nineteen-year-old who believes that America is ruled by the military-industrial complex, and whose deepest fear-deeper even than that of meeting a woman who requests intelligent conversation-is that the Warren Commission may have been right all along. The problem is that Snyder, following Moore, is so insanely aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power, that the film ends up twice as fascistic as the forces it wishes to lampoon. The result is perfectly calibrated for its target group: nobody over twenty-five could take any joy from the savagery that is fleshed out onscreen, just as nobody under eighteen should be allowed to witness it. You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile, and two dogs wrestle over the leg bone of his young victim? Go ahead.
I’m not familiar with the source material, but “Watchmen” director Zack Snyder’s “300″ was a grand surprise both in its embrace and understanding of the idea of liberty and from a pure storytelling stance. That’s not to say “Watchmen” doesn’t look a little campy, overlong, and overblown. It does, but so did “300.” And Snyder’s storytelling gifts also managed to melt the huge chip on my shoulder for his daring to remake “Dawn of the Dead,” which remains one of the best horror films in years.
As much as I respect Snyder, however, I wasn’t excited about “Watchmen” until the New Yorker used the words ”twice as fascistic.” As someone proudly “aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power,” — which in non-elite terms probably means: kicks unholy ass — Friday can’t get here soon enough.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
175 Comments
I'll be Watching the Watchmen this week, Snyder may give the story the force the comic never had.
I did read the source material. The ending will -blow your mind-. But I will say this, the action is intense and there are some good parts of "Stylizied application of power"
Just 4 days…
"You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile…"
Actually, yeah.
And how interesting that after Jackie Earle Haley got a big star boost by playing a sympathetic pedophile in Little Children, he takes this role as a follow-up.
The graphic novel is great and I am really looking forward to this film. It doesn't surprise me that these left wing critics are against the Watchmen because the main villian of the book is an ultra leftist. Even though the graphic doesn't take any sides politically, some of the most liked and sympathetic characters are a bit more right wing, like Rorshach.
Odd how he writes: "You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile…" — as though that were a bad thing.
I hope Rorschach's first words of the book make it into the film. If I remember correctly, he's talking about how the city has lost its morals, and failed to choose the path of "decent men who believed in a day's work for a day's pay" they chose
I think he went on to say "… instead they followed the droppings lechers and communists." "And all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers … had nothing to say."
If that's all kept in the beginning, then some critics will definitely have a bad taste in their mouth.
*You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile…*
You mean, as opposed to try to understand the pedophile ? I'll take the meat cleaver appoach. In fact, if the meat cleaver approach was more prevalent, I'll lay odds there would be far less pedophiles.
The graphic novel was a masterstroke and I thought, pretty well balanced, as it takes shots at both sides of the aisle. Arguably, Rorsharch is the hero of the piece and his refusal to back down in the face of evil and compromise is inspiring.
No matter what the critics think, Watchman is going to do serious bank.
Unless Snyder has COMPLETELY failed to translate the point of the story (which happened with "V for Vendetta") I get the strong sense you're going to HATE this, at least on a thematic level. In fact, I'd hazard that most of the "conservative" film writers who were so deeply in love with Dark Knight will DESPISE Watchmen.
I furthermore predict (speaking now of the right-wing press as a whole) multiple instances of "Rorscharch is the only character I liked!" without a shred of irony or understanding of what that's meant to say about the speaker, cartoonishly livid indignation about at least one character's costume, and copious variations on the theme "this is the anti-Dark Knight"… which, at least, it kinda is.
It will be interesting to see how Snyder brings it all to the screen, especially keeping in mind his work on "300." After reading the source material, I can see how Moore (and the other guy–I can't remember his name) had conservative ideology at least partially in their crosshairs (the whole Nixon-for-life thing, the criticism of Vietnam militarism, etc.). Plus, their anti-Thatcherism is obvious in "V for Vendetta." Rorschach is clearly depicted as fascistic (though I'd say that his fierce aggression doesn't always make him so sympathetic a character as others have stated in their posts–at least for me), but Ozymandias is clearly a utopian health freak leftist. So, it's all an interesting interplay of political ideologies. I'm looking forward to it.
What's amusing is these liberal dolts don't even know what fascist means; in their dilapidated minds “fascist” is synonymous with Republicans. But we shouldn't be surprised, these intellectual retrogrades don't even realize that nazi was short for Socialist German Workers' Party. The real hilarity is listening to the affirmative action president and the braindead troglodytes in congress espouse fascist policies like card-check, the “fairness” doctrine, abolition of guns, nationalizing banks, threatening to nationalize oil companies, nationalizing healthcare, etc. The historical illiterates on the left will probably start wearing brown shirts and roaming the streets looking for dissenters.
If the dorks and geeks in hollywood hate the Watchmen I’ll undoubtedly love it. Thanks for selling me on the movie you leftist cretins.
Wait wait wait wait
So you guys think "Watchmen" is conservative?
There's a greatr quote from an early ad for the comic. Rorschach says: " I wish all the scum of the world had one throat and I had my hands around it"
Rorscach was portrayed as this crazed Ayn Rand influenced type hero. But he's the breakout star of the comic, the most popular character and no matter how crazy Alan Moore tried to make him, people liked him more. Because he had an unfiltered morality and idea of how things were, and in a sense, he was the one who saw things the most accurately in that he figured out what was going on (even when the villain denies it, Rorchscah was in fact correct).
Moore is an anarchist who doesn't like the left or the right. But a lot of his work has a conservative undercurrent whether he would admit that or not. He comes from working class roots and that kind of morality comes into play in his stories sometimes. Watchmen is largely an attack on liberal intervention and social engineering. I suspect the film (depending on what Snyder did to the ending, which he changed) will stand as another conservative film like 300.
Because basically, while Moore tries to say that superheroes in the real world would be crazy or deluded people in costumes, he fails to show that they would be a bad thing. In many respects all he does is show they would have human failings like everyone else.
I slavishly bought and read the Watchmen comic 22 years ago. It was wonderful then. But as an adult with life experience, I found that, upon rereading it, the comic was very sophomoric. It's politics were steeped in the liberal psychoses that were all the rage in the '80's. Nixon as a dictator? C'mon.
Whereas, Dark Knight remains most germane.
I cut together some interviews about Watchmen here:
http://www.hitfix.com/video
BTW, I will still see the darn thing!
Obviously Watchmen comes from a pretty heavily left wing bent, but its a little old school left wing where they still allowed some semblance of a positive portrayal to characters like Rorschach. That sort of passes for open minded compared to the left wing of today which will brook not even a second of positivity towards anything not explicitly left wing.
Watchmen is very left wing. Allen Moore, the author, is a self-proclaimed socialist. Nixon is the dictator for life in Watchmen. V for Vendetta was a reaction to Thacherite England and Watchmen is a reaction to Reaganite America. However, it is still a great story that I would definitely recommend.
I'm seeing it in iMax this weekend. I'm sure it'll be great.
"…You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile"?
Well, I don't know who "Rorschach" is, but, yeah. I take it this is only a movie, though…
Watchmen's canonization is an example of the Left's ability to take drek mixed with a few good bits, and turn it into diamonds by the sheer force of their will. Its their comic book superpower. There are thousands of better stories in comic books than this. Its moderately clever, and it has a flow to it that catches you, and Rorshach is cool.
Watchmen is a booster of Determinism, nihilism, anti-Vietnamese War, and the art is just okay.
Tim Allen's Galaxy Quest is not greater than Star Trek, and the great comics that frequently lame Watchmen parodies still shine brighter. Except this is not a kindly parody like GQ, but an attempt at deconstruction of something good.
I read Watchmen this year for the first time and really could not understand the hoopla, sort cool but I agree, very sophomoric ( high school sophomoric in fact ), but I could see the appeal of the story ( and the artwork, the most basic uninteresting comic book art imagineable, glad the book survived it).
Just the same excited about the movie, but then again, I'll watch RD-Jr in anything ….
and I'll see it in IMAX, big and LOUD will be great
See, the thing is, I think Moore is serious when he had an insane clown murder a Viet girl for no real good reason, and the demigod who could stop him with a flick of his finger instead chooses to tell us that its determined already, and then give us a lame sermon on determinism which I guess was determined too…
Now, if Moore was trying to show how idiotic determinism was, then kudos, but I thought he was being serious. The demigod never repents from his determinism, and he does have superior sources of knowledge compared to mortals.
It's weird how liberals keep trying to make films depicting fascists as right-wingers, and then right-wingers like the anti-fascist message more than liberals do. They want right-wingers to be fascists so that they have someone against which they can rebel. That's why their favorite anti-fascist movies are ridiculous self-parodies (e.g. V for Vendetta). They don't want to rebel against oppression; they only want to rebel against conservatism.
I don't think Robert Downey Jr. is in Watchmen.
For the conservatives out there, SPOILER AHEAD, The villain is once again a business guy. At least what I remember his job to be. The comic also seemed to say that you had to break 3 million eggs to make an omelet and that Rorshach was wrong to not understand the need to make that omelet.
Also, the character wearing the american flag on his costume comits atrocities in the vietnam war of the comic book. Thats another reason why I think conservatives will dislike this movie. To say that the heroes in this comic were flawed is an understatement. Rape and murder are two of the "flaws" that these heroes participate in.
Sounds like a truly awful film. Anthony Lane is a terrific writer and critic, btw.
I'll be interested to see if this generation 'gets' the context that the comics were written in. When 'Watchmen' was released, I was in high school and we were all sure there was as much of a chance of getting nuked accidentally or otherwise as there was getting accepted into the college of our choice. It puts a damper on perspective.
This mania is a pivotal context for the comic and I'm wondering if folks can "get it" some 25 years 'out of context'.
Spoiler Warning, read no more. Please do not read the following spoiler if you haven't read 'Watchmen' or seen the film.
Second, the idea that a central enemy needed to be concocted to unify humanity seemed an interesting pretext when I first read the comic, but the global failure to unite against Islam in reality today makes the appearance of a giant ESP powered cephalopod even more of a fantastical contrivance than the 'deus ex machina' it originally was in the comics.
That said, I'm very excited to see how it's brough to screen.
I haven't seen the movie, but the comic is an attack on liberals whether Moore intended that or not. The Comedian is supposed to be this terrible "fascist" right winger, but he ends up being sympathetic and understandable in the end because Moore fully develops him as a person. And Rorschach is the most popular character of the story. He's also the characer that drives it forward and serves as the narrator.
But how it's an attack on liberals is:
SPOILER:
The most liberal character in the story is the villain. He does something like cause a 9/11 type event, claiming he does it for world peace. We all know how well that worked for for 9/11. The ends justify the means mentality does not get validated. If anything it's repudiated (though Moore leaves it to the reader to come to theri own conclusions).
We have to see what Snyder does to the ending, but from what I've heard he just takes out the squid
Mr. Nolte apparently misses Lane's point about the film being sophomorically LEFTIST (portraying the world as being ruled by the fascist military-industrial complex), not conservative – a point corroborated by several commenters here.
But it features lots of blood-and-guts action, so it must be cool. Who doesn't enjoy a good cleaver-to-the-brain scene? I mean, that's real entertainment!
moore's watchmen and frank miller's dark knight came out at about the same time. or at least that's how they came to me. both showed dystopian futures. both looked at the reaction of heroes.
i understood the ending of watchmen for what it was, the imposition of a fascist order based on a lie. but at the time just assumed that moore had written a downer ending on purpose. 1984 ended poorly as well to make the point. it's only recently that i've met people who say that he saw ozymandius as doing the right thing.
anyway, the new generation of batman movies trace back directly to frank miller. infinitely superior.
Having just seen the movie at a reviewer's screening, I can say that movie is not at all conservative. The movie faithfully translates the misguided politics of the comic onto the screen, and that may actually be its biggest failing — it is too faithful to its source material (even though the ending is changed, and not in a good way) and the politics of the early 1980's (the cold war stalemate) are just not relevant in today's world. Alan Moore's politics are orthodox leftist. His 1985 graphic novel presented his view of society at that time, which was defined by the cold war stalemate with the Soviets. Alan Moore did not believe that the West could break the grip of that stalemate without destroying the world, so he imagined a world that needed an outside threat to "unify" the planet into a peaceful whole. That story idea, however, just doesn't play today. We didn't need an "outside threat" to end the cold war, we needed Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, leaders that Moore absolutely despised.
The movie also adds an anti-business element (Lee Iacoca gets shot in the head) to try and make the theme of the movie a little more contemporary, but the thrust of the movie is that only a liberal fantasy can save the world. While the movie's liberal paragon "feels" the millions of deaths he has caused in his efforts to "save" the world, the caricature of a conservative character is obliterated because he cannot compromise his principles in order to maintain the new "world peace" that is brought about by the murder of millions committed by the liberal paragon character.
"But it features lots of blood-and-guts action, so it must be cool. Who doesn't enjoy a good cleaver-to-the-brain scene? I mean, that's real entertainment!"
And he answers his own question… Genius.
True, but Reagan himself rather famously told Gorbachev that they would have an easier time working together if confronted by some alien force.
What I meant was that liberals only want to rebel against conservatives. They don't really care about fighting for freedom per se. As such, unless they go completely off the wall as they did in V for Vendetta, they can only have their characters rebelling against some kind of fascist dictator. Since conservatism is inherently anti-fascist, conservatives see the anti-fascist message as a good thing, which angers liberals who intended to their message to be anti-conservative. Conservatives hate oppression, but the only thing liberals hate is conservatism, which leads to some interesting results as liberals try to portray conservatives as oppressive.
Remember that the they have already stated that the ending in the movie is different from the ending in the comic book. Now I don't know if that applies to the meaning of the ending, but definately the method.
James said: "The Comedian is supposed to be this terrible "fascist" right winger, but he ends up being sympathetic and understandable in the end because Moore fully develops him as a person."
I think that you will agree that he's not completely sympathetic. Yes, we understand why he does the things he does for his government and how it changes him on that level, but he is still a disgusting human being for his personal life/actions. In that way, he is a commentary on those that do great things/ perform sacrfices, yet are flawed/disgusting people because of their private lives and how do we evaluate that type of person. How much are we willing to overlook because of the benefit they provide to others.
Much like Moore's personal beliefs, I think it is less of being anti one ideology, than being anti all ideologies and his belief in the individual, dare I say objectionist.
Please put a spoiler warning on the link to that review, IT GIVES AWAY THE ENDING OF THE MOVIE.
Part of its appeal and popularity is based on timing. When this came out, the idea of a graphic novel was very new. The dark undertones, and deconstruction of superhero books were things that had never been done by a mainstream company before. Like alot of pop culture icons the popularity is a blend of quality, novelty, and timing.
Apparently they do. I'm not sure how they're getting the notion that the "villain" is liberal.
The graphic novel is a strange attempt at a liberal message that ended up being far more conservative than either its writer or artist intended. The character of Rorschach fails to be seen as the insane right-wing madman we're supposed to see him as and instead becomes the only man unwilling to compromise everything he stands for in the name of the 'greater good'. If Snyder stays close enough to the original work to keep that concept alive, Watchmen will be a winner.
Since it's being perceived as both liberal and conservative, suffice it to say Alan Moore has done his job. I'm an old school comic reader who remembers how this and the Dark Knight Returns revolutionized comics in the 80's. Watchmen was considered unfilmable for so long because of the effects and the dense story, which is what I think the snootier reviewers are confused by, and they probably don't like comics to begin with. The Watchmen comic is actually extremely static for long periods–it's a superhero story without a whole lot of superheroics, so I don't know if mainstream–and by that I mean people who haven't read AND enjoyed the graphic novel–will want to settle into a nearly 3-hour epic with an unrelentingly grim tone and even grimmer ending. In contrast, "300" was a fight scene broken up by bombastic soliloquies. (and it was great) Watchmen is a much more cerebral, philosophical story. Personally I didn't (and on recent reading STILL didn't) waste energy pigeonholing the villain's political stripe. He's just evil. Doesn't matter what his politics are.
they will look and shout, "SAVE US!" I will look down and whisper, "No."
Ever hear of a rhetorical question? I was being sarcastic.
My take on the graphic novel was always that they were trying to make the point that the US could not win the cold war. Reagan's build-up of the military and approaching the Soviets from a position of strength would fail, if not outright lead to nuclear holocaust. A point that was shattered a scant few years later.
That said I still reread it every few years and can't wait to see the movie
This reminds me of Starship Troopers. Most people thought Heinlein was engaging in a serious thought experiment, but a few (liberals) thought he was making a joke. The moview ST thought it was a joke, and thats why ST was terrible.
Here we have a divide between those who think that Moore was sophomoric lefty in love with some pretty terrible ideas, and those who think he was really trying to jab those ideas (and some like Nick A who think the material got away from Moore). I still go with Theory #1 because even though I hate to say it, there are some really awful people out there. However, show me a link where Moore unreservedly blasts his villain, and slams Dr. Manhattan too as compleat moron, and I'll reconsider.
You are both right…
Moore, despite the crazy, hill-billy, wildman beard, is a gigantic liberal (And I make that comment as some one with a beard whose father had one of those crazy, hill-billy, wildman beards). If conservatives don't dig too deep into it, then yes, they'll hate it, one conservative character is a horrible person, the other is crazier than Rosie O'Donnel rampaging after twinkies.
But if James is right, and you dig a little deeper, Moore, most likely unwittingly, attacks liberals. Its the classic difference between conservative, "The people should make their own choices." and the liberal, "The people are too stupid to decide for themselves, I should decide for them"
SPOILER: If they keep Rorschach's decision at the end than I think most people will continue to love Rorschach. And Ozy will most certianly come off as liberal, I dont' know how you could play it any other way without compeltley bastardizing the plot.
Watchmen is kind of impossible to categorize as left or right. It is a complex, multi-facted work that more than anything challenges the reader, no matter where the reader approaches it from. To take just one example, you could argue that the climax reveals that the villain is really the hero of the entire piece — with the blood of millions on his hands. Contrariwise, you could argue that the villain really is the villain — but that he saved the world (maybe). Either way, he asks whether he did the right thing, and never gets an answer. Both he and the reader are left to work through it on their own.
Well said. This is a very important point to make. When the Watchmen comic came out, it was one of the very first comics to do deconstructionist superheroes. I think that the movie-viewing public may now be familiar enough with "traditional" superhero stories in film to appreciate that aspect of the movie version of Watchmen.
By the way, Andrew Lane – if you read the linked article in full – has no qualms about giving away the ending, or even of giving a spoiler warning before spilling it. So if you're not familiar with the graphic novel and want to see the movie, do yourself more than one favor and skip his New Yorker article entirely.
True. I am not saying he's lovable. But Moore never makes any caricatures. And the Comedian isn't really right wing exactly. He's more like if Rambo worked for the government and became corrupted by the association.
The Comedian isn't really that central to the story other than his death sets things in motion and we learn he plays an important role in the history of that world and one character's life. He's kind of an example of what Captain America would have been if America was as bad as Howard Zinn depicts it. Fortunately, why Moore is better than most comics writers is he doesn't resort to simple, hackneyed reasons for people's motivations. He writes realistic people. Even his V for Vendetta made the evil government officials out to be very human once you get to know them.
Even conservatives can agree the government does bad things on occasion. The Comedian is sort of a representation of that side of things. He's an opportunist who is not it in to fight for truth or justice. He just gets off on chaos. He's an adrenaline junkie. And then he becomes a sad old man living alone until he's murdered.
That's fair dinkum, because the Watchmen will be watching YOU this weekend too!
Didn't Andrew Klavan just write an article about liberal writers unwittingly attacking liberals?
"You mean, as opposed to try to understand the pedophile ? I'll take the meat cleaver appoach. In fact, if the meat cleaver approach was more prevalent, I'll lay odds there would be far less pedophiles."
Even if it doesn't deter pedophilia, it would decrease the numbers by the simple fact that we could lodge cleavers into their brains faster than their numbers grow. Not that i'm advocating Rorschach's particualr brand of justice, but its only a matter of time before it happens if the courts don't toughen up on them.
If I see this movie, it will be because of Rorschach is beating a pedophile with a meat cleaver! If I don't see it, it'll be because of the book's (reported) slanted (and kind of wrong, it would seem in hindsight) worldview, and because it's essentially a character assassination against the Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, and the Peacemaker….
SPOILER:
Because you probably think he was doing mass murder for the "right reasons". You don't get the bit at the end where Dr. Manhattan tells him it wonk make a difference in the end.
Therefore, he murders a lot of innocent people because he thinks he's smart enough to play god. It's a typical left wing conceit that you can save the world by believing in nonsense.
O is the villain of the story because all stories have a POV that is usually the heroes. In this case it's Rorschach who drives the story forward, narrates it and is proven correct in the end when his theories more or less gel. The villain of every story works counter to the hero and has a counter argument. R. believes you have to rid the world of evil people to make it better O. believes you have to scare people with lies into acting properly by killing innocents.
Who did you think was the villain?
I'd go see it if it wasn't rated R; I'm sure the rating won't affect the quality of the story, it'll just pump in a lot of extra crap that isn't necessary. Rorschach was such a great character, seeing everything in black and white; nobody else would.
The villian is an elite intellectual trying to create a planned utopia-on-earth.
The Comedian had his reasons, they were just horrible. I normally can relate on some level to diety like beings, like Darksied's desire to bring order to the universe, but Dr. Manhattan just annoyed me, and its because of, like you said, the predeterminism.
We are waiting with breath that is baited. I know Moore is having kittens his baby was made into a movie which is intriguing in itself but when a craptacular film reviewer from the New Yorker calls it twice as fascist well….that coming from a card carrying member of said organization….that means we will like it.
Yes we also know about the guy who wrote it. Maybe Zack will bring a different idea to the issue? You know? Lets just sit back and have fun. Maybe the real Americans, billc not being one, will have another film in which to thumb our fingers at YOU Bill. But then I don't know. Or Bill did you think maybe Zack felt like making the movie because he just liked the comic book? Or can you actually make that leap?
Moore is/was closer to Libertarian than anything when he wrote Watchmen. Over the years, he's strayed into the world of "progressivism" out of a reaction to Bush and Blair. And soon enough, he'll drift away from progressive and back to Libertarian because of Obama's nanny state. As great of a writer as he is, he has that George Carlin instinct of polar opposition to whatever is the mainstream.
Was Watchmen meant as a screed against Regan and Thatcher? Yes, but even Moore has admitted that the metaphor has changed post-9/11. And what Snyder has done to change the story actually works against a progressive, socialist message. Was Snyder aware of this? Probably not because because of the two years he's been developing this version could not have accounted for what's happened recently. But that speaks to the power of Moore's original work. The themes are universal and can be adapted to current history.
John
The leftists are fascists. The way they talk, all the same, the way they act, and everything they believe in. A herd of sheeple, automatons. Hardly rebels. Hardly free spirits. And very narrow minded and bigoted.
Equal parts Ozy, Rorshach, and Dr. Manhattan. The only remotely sympathetic character is Nite Owl
I felt Watchmen (the comic) tried too hard to mix separate themes together, without doing either of them very well. Moore should've stuck with either the "Superhero Deconstructed" concept, or another one of his political turds. Either one would've been a more refined product than what Watchmen turned out to be. Marvel had their own deconstructed superhero comic in the mid-80's in the vastly superior Star Brand series. It even featured a superpowered Democrat President villain, who brainwashed the electorate into voting for him (sound familiar?). Unfortunately, all three of us that read it were unable to convince others that it was worthwhile, so it failed. It was recently resurrected. But I suspect it has been heavily modified for modern liberal sensitivities.
That's why leftists fail at making movies like this. As soon as you present evil, it makes allowances for there to be good. When good and evil exist, their arguments fall apart and conservatism wins simply by default.
That must be because he is a successful businessman.
It's "bated" breath, actually. If your breath is baited, well, you have a mouth full of night crawlers. And there's nothing wrong with that.
SPOILER:
How is Dr Manhattan a villain? He is the most passive character in the story. He just doies what 's told and finally has enough and leaves Earth. .
Here's something funny. I haven't read the comic book – only saw the trailer. And the trailer didn't give a good impression – it seemed muddled to me, the characters were flat and boring, making it impossible for me to care about them. As a result, I was going to give this film a pass – until I read Lane's bitchy slapdown. THAT decided it!
ANY critic who gets his panties in a twist because a pedophile gets hurt is a critic whose opinion I don't trust for beans! Ergo – if Lane says I shouldn't see this film, I'm seeing it!
Actually, Moore is not a liberal. He detests liberals. I know him.
He's a anarchist which is anti-statist. And Nixon isn't a dictator for life, just elected to three terms. Which they abolished with FDR, but they reversed in the story. He's president, but not a dictator. The only thing dictator like is the Keene act which outlaws vigilantes. Something that wwould probably happen in real life.
I didn't read this comic book (and it's called a comic book, okay, not a 'graphic novel') – I only saw the trailer. And frankly, the trailer didn't give me a good impression of the characters. The superheroes (or whatever) were flat and confusing and boring – I couldn't get a handle on them, and consequently couldn't bring myself to care. Which meant I was going to give this movie a pass.
UNTIL Lane got in a snit about it. That tears it. Any critic who gets his panties in a twist because a paedophile gets hurt is a critic whose opinion is totally warped. If Lane says I shouldn't see, I am so definitely not following Lane's advice.
ummm…so you think vigilantes SHOULD be legal?
Well, ya. But they don't know that. They've been taught that even questioning liberalism is heresy. They don't think they're being closed-minded; they just start with the assumption that conservatives are evil, and everything kind of flows from there.
In 1985, liberals like Moore thought nuclear annihilation was imminent, especially with the cowboy Reagan manning the White House.
Having the benefit of 22 years of hindsight, that Reagan was indeed not the third term of Nixon, that all those right-wing fascists like Thatcher helped liberate millions, the book says more about the liberal Moore than it does of the supposed right-wing push to eventual Armageddon. On one hand, we have a bizarre liberal solution to the crisis. Over here, we had Reagan's. Who won?
I'm not really sure how this movie is going to be made relevant. Maybe it won't be and this is just a love letter to the original work. Whatever it is, if Snyder can make it all work (not just make the cash, because that looks like it's inevitable) with all going against it, he's proved his worth.
Kind of like Paulbots (or Ronulans). They just assume that the problem is that everyone else is too idiotic to understand, and so they never question their own premises.
He may have, I don't get to check the site every day, only when we're not busy at work. If he did, then I'm sure his post is probably better then mine.
His passivity and willingness to cooperate with the "plot" after the fact makes him a villain
Thanks for the response. I can see where he could be labeled an adrenaline junkie. However, how does that fit in with his treatment of the women in this story. To me, that just seemed to be Moore's way of ensuring the readers wouldn't sympathize with him and in fact he deserved his lonely existence and his death, if not deserved, was somewhat justified.
Actually, if I remember correctly (and I am sure James can correct me) Alan Moore is a self-proclaimed magician. To say he is a socialist is putting him in a box that he doesn't fit in. Based on his works, I would say he is closer to an anarchist, but only in the sense that it is personal freedom that is the greatest ideal. If you truely want to see what Moore believes in, pickup the series "Promethea". It is his exploration of his ideas and beliefs and it is a heck of a ride.
The fact that the villain is a business guy doesn't automatically mean conservative to me the way it does to others. It depends on his motivations. If his evil actions are simply for money and power, then he's probably a liberal's idea of a conservative. If it is for some greater good like here, then he can be either a liberal fascist or a conservative.
"Even conservatives can agree the government does bad things on occasion."
Don't know which "conservatives" you hang around with but its my take that we feel the government does very little that is good. The whole reason for the "limited government" is because it is assumed the government is the worst way to do things.
Sorry the comment got me going. Had to put this out. Thanks
The only thing I hope is there is not the obligatory anyone who is a priest or a minister is a monstrous hypocritical pedophile with delusions of grandeur like in Sin City and 300. I am so tired of that nonsense.
Moore isn't liberal, actually. He's a little… unorthodox. From what I've heard, he hates liberals as much as he hates conservatives, and the closest one could come to an accurate description of his politics is something resembling anarchism. His attacks on liberal ideology in Watchmen are entirely deliberate.
As one of those who read Star Brand, I think it was a less a decontruction and more of trying to emulate what it would be like in real life to see appear with powers and abilities that defy convention physics. When I think of deconstruction, I think of stories that examine what makes a superhero, faults and all. In most of the New Universe books, the idea was how would 'real' people react to being given/develop powers and how would our world react to them. I don't remember the Democratic president. I do remember from "The Draft" when they revealed that the Reagan analogue was a powered individual. The book universe itself was pretty good and had a lot of great, then lesser known talent working on those books.
"I refuse to believe that God plays Dice with the Universe"
Albert Eistein to Oppenheimer (sp) (I believe) regarding the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics.
Much better written Thank you
Pssst So was John……..
Pssst1 So was John……..
As a film based on a comic..Uh…Graphic Novel, whose title is taken from a commentary of the general untrustworthiness of rent-a-cops at whore houses, what could there be not to like?
One thing that is forgotten by critics, who watch films looking for reasons to dislike them, is that people who drop a fist full of sawbucks on a ticket and a Dixie cup full of popcorn go to movies to be entertained. They actually expect action from action movies.
While critics toy with their crème brulees, sip their half-caf and goat’s milk lattes and search for scenes that reinforce their world view or …gasp… contradict it, ever ready to strike with the full force of their magnificently cosmopolitan intellects, and symbolically keel-haul those films that dare to disregard them, the guardians of proper taste. We the groundlings, the madding crowd, the great unwashed, just want to see Hollywood do what it once did so well, entertain us. It is only after this key requirement to a movie’s utility as a capitalistic economic venture will we look deeper into the film for its hidden aspects. Will the “Watchmen” be a smash hit or a fizzle? That depends on how the movie plays on the rippled screen down at the megaplex in Peoria and how many Americans will be willing to sit in wallowed out grease stained seats while their shoes adhere to the sloped concrete floor for the cost of half a day’s wage, to watch an action flick. Like the Dude says,”Man, that movie was kinda preachy but that dude who wore those stained panty hose over his face and the dirty raincoat, that dude is THE DUDE!” If words to that effect are said, then it is a box office hit, if not we all let Netflix buy it and we put in our queue.
I didn't say that. I said IRL they would be. They are. So it's more real that they are illegal in teh story than if they weren't like they are in most comics.
I think Dennis Miller said it best on SNL when the walls of Germany were coming down.
Who'd of thought that the downfall of Communism would be that there was no money in it!
Lola, I do not know why Zack Snyder took on the film. Perhaps he likes adapting things from comics so that he can make the film the way the comic book was created by the writer as opposed to imposing his views on the material. I like directors who can do that. They are also usually more successful, Lord of the Rings vs. the first Hulk for example. Personally, I did not like the comic. It is obvious that moore does not like conservatives, he has said as much in interviews about the creation of Rorshach. He does not seem to like the superhero as a role model for what is good. I think from my take on his view of ozymandius that he reluctantly agrees with what he did. He shows this with the way the other hero characters fall in line with the lie. Rorshach takes a stand against it but you know what happens to him. I am a proud Limbaugh conservative and I love everything Ann Coulter does. I think the character Rorshach rises above Moores attempt to discredit him, as anyone can see by Rorshachs popularity. Liberals just do not understand the silliness of their positions. Read Andrew Klavans new piece here on Big Hollywood about the book, soon to be a movie, "Blindness."
Well, yes. I am not a fan of the government, I don't know who is. What I meant was, the left likes to paint the US as deliberately oppressing and killing people for right wing reasons (as long as a Republican is president, but not when a Democrat is). Yet they seem to think more government is the solution to everything (that and taxes).
While a lot of real conservatives (as opposed to most Republican politicians apparently) are for limited government, I don't think they believe the government deliberately sets out to murder and torture people, etc. Which is what the Comedian does as an agent of the US.
Ok well having read everything here my mind is still not changed. I have never read the comic so don't have a basis there. From just the trailers my take was that this was written by some math geek who did not have the intellectual stamina to stick it out in his college science classes, got a polisci degree instead and then went into making comics.
Instead of making cool comics he tried to be "all intelectual" but in reality the characters just spout nonsense. "The world will ask me to save it and I'll just say NO!" or "why should I save a world I know longer have any stake in" "Do it for me" —- GAG the SNL mock commercial Compulsion had better lines.
I guess this might be the thought provoking artwork everyone says it is but so far I am not seeing it.
Oh well to each his own!
Individualist – I echo your sentiments. I haven't read the comic and I didnt' care for the trailer. It was infantile 'aren't I clever?' dialogue. My only reason for seeing it would be to piss off the leftist reviewer who trashed it. That being said, however – wait for John's review of it. That will totally let you know whether this film is worth seeing.
And it amazes me that those words were written by English counter-cutlure maven Alan Moore. I can't decide if he wrote those "conservative" words with sincerity, or if he was mocking their very notion.
Moore is a libertarian?
Has anyone here read any of his work? Other than watchmen?
Look The comic Watchmen was an interesting read with fascinating characters and an idiotic plot/message. The movie will hopefully be an interesting read with fascinating characters and an idiotic plot/message.
I really have no idea how people on the site have time to actually enjoy a movie while at the same time always making sure the material is Conservatively Correct. It's a bizarre exercise. I remember watching '300' and not at any time did I care if the film catered to my particular political views. I just enjoyed it for what it was and understood people were going to interpret it multiple ways, as good art is supposed to do. Sit back and enjoy (or not enjoy) the film for what it is.
G.S.- wish you'd quit equivocating, and told us what you really thought.
All this repression isn't healthy, man.
"..the imposition of a fascist order based on a lie. "
Coming soon to a reality near you, sadly.
You must be logged in to post a comment.