Review: Watchmen
by John NolteIn Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” there’s a scene which plays out on separate ferry boats where a group of hardened prisoners and a group of everyday citizens are told they must blow the other up in order to survive. The choice both sides make to sacrifice themselves is a rare (for Hollywood, at least) look at the worthy side of our human nature. Zack Snyder’s mostly successful adaptation of Alan Moore’s classic graphic novel “Watchmen,” is a much harsher judge of humanity. In the “Watchmen” world both groups would have eagerly blown the others up and maybe done so with glee. This begs the question: at our very worst are we worth saving? This theme drives “Watchmen” along with an examination of how far one should go in order to save us – and burning a village to save a village doesn’t begin to cover it.
Because this theme is both timeless and universal, the story setting in a kind of alt-universe America, circa 1985, where Richard Nixon’s into his fifth term and the Cold War still rages, isn’t a disadvantage. In fact, by removing itself from our world this allows ideas to be explored outside of the purely political. If “Watchmen” has a political point I missed it, and while its dark view of humanity might be unfair it’s a necessary and compelling way to ask and answer the questions of human worth. “Watchmen’s” world may be nihilistic, but the ideas are not.
The Watchmen are a group of disbanded superheroes lost in cynicism and disillusionment. The government they helped to win the war in Vietnam outlawed them and now they live embittered half lives in a world that needs them but doesn’t know it. After one of their own, The Comedian, is brutally murdered in the opening scene, Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), a masked madman with an uncompromising thirst for justice, sets out to find the killer. This puts him in touch with his former teammates – all former superheroes with wildly different skills and costumes.
If there’s a protagonist, it’s Rorschach, who narrates in the language of hard-boil and while he might be a psychotic, he’s our psychotic. His contempt for criminals is only topped by the grisly methods he uses to rid the world of them. And in their own way, each of the Watchmen is deeply flawed. Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a scientist involved in an accident that gave him god-like power over matter, has become hyper-intellectualized to the point of losing his humanity; Laurie Jupiter aka Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman) is torn between her devotion to Dr. Manhattan and need for her own identity; Dan Dreiberg aka Night Owl (Patrick Wilson) is lost without the group and close to becoming his predecessor – whom he visits regularly – a drunken has-been living in the past. The only one of the group who appears to have moved on is Adrian (Matthew Goode). He’s evolved into a wealthy and esteemed industrialist.
The story’s one big flaw is the lack of a strong, central plotline to carry the first couple hours (the full runtime is 163 minutes). The first two-thirds jump from character to character, filling in back story and building mythology. Depending on how interesting the character is, this is a hit and miss approach and during the weaker plotlines, like the budding romance between Laurie and Dan, an episodic feel overwhelms.
But even during the worst of the lulls, the ideas being explored keep the story alive and there is a sense of momentum, at least after the first hour, that all the time spent laying down plot elements and developing the characters will come together. This makes the payoff vital, and pay off it does. The last forty minutes are absolutely brilliant.
Also brilliant is Zack Snyder’s direction. You don’t have to be familiar with the source material (and I’m not) to understand just how close to camp the whole affair might have become in lesser hands. What holds it together is a firm, confident visionary director who understands that the literate nature of the source material is the key to retaining credibility. At times this approach works against the pacing of the story, but with the costumes and neo-noir elements, if adapted into a straightforward action film, “Watchmen” would go down as another “Flash Gordon“ (1980).
And action is lacking. There’s all kinds of violence, some of it gratuitous and unnecessarily so, but almost no action scenes. The sense of adventure and thrill of being a superhero is not what “Watchmen” is about — not even close. R-rated for this reason, and due to an explicit sex scene like the kind we frequently saw in films made in 1985, this comic book film is not for kids.
But it is for adults, and if you hang in there through the dark cynicism and a deceptive bent towards nihilism, “Watchmen” has something to say about who we are, who we could be, and what we’re worth — even at our most worthless. While not as exciting or lavish as “The Dark Knight,” Snyder’s plumbed just as deep into the rich depths of the human condition to make a very good film, and on a second viewing, which I look forward to, it may just rise to something more.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
117 Comments
A post-Vietnam world where Richard Nixon is still President? This is why mouth-breathing Brits shouldn't be allowed to write or film about America.
A welcome antidote to Debbie Schlussel's vitriolic "review." I have neither seen this movie nor read the original comic, though. Not that it matters — at least your review addressed the themes.
Okay. I'll see it.
Thanks John, I'll give it a shot.
I've really enjoyed your reviews here (and from the Dirty Harry days), especially your TCM recommendations.
As a guy in his 30's who is not often willing to pay $21 (the cost of 2 tickets where I live – have to take the wife, you know) to see a new movie, I'm just starting to realize how many fantastic movies were created before I was.
Glad you liked it. I just saw it. I give it a B+. It was very faithful to the comic. The big change wass an improvement, the little changes made sense. I do feel the pacing could have been a lot better. It needed more of a sense of urgency, which the comic had built into it. And I think some of the performances were too laid back. But over all it worked very well.
One of it's big strengths is it's an original movie, unlike anything else. As a result, I think it will be a classic in time.
I agree that the view of humanity is perhaps too negative. I felt that way about the comic, too. But since Rorschach is the narrator, that kind of makes sense.
Nixon is still president because he won the Vietnam War and I guess watergate didn't happen (its been about a year since I read the graphic novel, so I can't qutie recall if its even mentioned). I think its entirely plausible that if the Vietnam War was won under a republican president that he could have been propelled to a FDR level of adoration from the public, because it would have silenced all of the mouth-breathing hippies. Besides, I know people that voted for Robot Nixon in the last election.
The graphic novel mentions something happening to two journalists (I don't think they are mentioned by name), giving the impression that a certain hero dealt with them. The movie is a little more obvious about it.
There are two minor changes that I'd like to comment on.
First, at the end of the movie a comment is made that Ronald Reagan may run for President in '88. In the novel they used Robert Redford. Since there was no mention of Reagan by this point (is/was he California governor in this world? still an actor?) I think leaving Robert Redford would have been better. And maybe switching it to Reagan was a small insertion of politics.
Second, in the graphic novel as in the movie the antagonist kills his assistants. In the novel there were 3, in the movie a slightly larger group. However, in the novel when he is talking to the heroes he claims that they committed suicide by 'drunkenly opening his vivarium and freezing to death'. To me this is an important omission. While he has no problem admitting to the Comedian's murder as well as the his 'masterstroke', he cannot bring himself to admit the truth about his assistants. Just another flawed human.
Good stuff. The Watchmen articles here at BH have been a fun read. Some commenter's mentioned V for Vendetta on another thread, I saw it and thought it was ridiculously absurd leftwing delusional bullshyt. Hopefully Watchmen won't be anything like that.
"If there’s a protagonist, it’s Rorschach, who narrates in the language of hard-boil and while he might be a psychotic, he’s our psychotic. His contempt for criminals is only topped by the grisly methods he uses to rid the world of them."
This alone will probably make the rest of the movie tolerable.
Dammit. Half the joke was that you knew what it was a reference to.
"Redford says he's thinking of running for office."
"I know we print all kinds of things, but we do NOT print absurdities. Who the hell wants a cowboy actor in the White House?"
I think Schlussel has her heart in the right place, but some days she's like Ann Coulter without either the Midol or the erudition.
Thanks, John, for a literate and measured review. Your reviews are always informed by your amazing breadth and depth of movie history. What a pleasure to read your stuff. I know nothing about "graphic novels"–I think they were comic books in my day and a graphic novel was best represented by Lady Chatterley's Lover. But reading your work tempts me to see the movie–or at least to buy it sometime in the future when it appears on DVD. More like this, please….I sorely miss DHP!
Thanks John- I've been dying to read a review from someone who hasn't read the comic every year for the last 20.
Ebert gave it four stars, which means I probably won't see it on general principle (at least not until it hits the second run theaters). I can't imagine anything he'd like that much that I could appreciate. I think he's president of the Michael Moore fan club (and a raging Leftist moron).
Still, some of the reviews like John's has me rethinking. If I do see it, the producers should send a thank you note, Mr. Nolte.
Not even Rorschach wanted to see 16 million people die to prevent a possible WW3, which showed that even a seemingly demented vigilante actually does consider life to be valuable, at least in the same way that the Punisher does anyway.
My only problem with the movie would be the parts with Nixon, which didn't exist in the comic and pretty much only existed to strengthen the concept that a nuclear holocaust was imminent.
No, Ebert is a geek. He likes geek stuff. Nothing political about that.
I think Veidt comes off as even more evil than before. And I'm glad to see Nite Owl smacks him around in the end, even though we saw Ozy could beat him if he wanted to.
I agree they blew the RR reference at the end. And a few other jokes fell kind of flat the way they handled them. Over all, it was very faithful.
Interesting post! Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
And just what on earth is wrong with Flash Gordon?
1985, where … the Cold War still rages
Umm, how exactly is that different from real history?
I love Flash Gordon. Just wanted to get that out there. "Flash! I love you! But you only have ten hours to save the earth!"
Plus the soundtrack rocks. So maybe I'll rent Watchmen on DVD. Right now I'm saving my money to take the family to "Witch Mountain." I loved that book as a child. I think I spent more time looking for Witch Mountain than I did looking for Narnia.
Nothing wrong with "Flash Gordon" — but it "went down" as a flop and is remembered as campy.
My younger son is a big Watchmen fan and has encouraged me to read the graphic novel. I had an aversion to doing so, being a Katy Keene fan myself. However, I just saw the movie and am glad to read above that it stays true to the comic itself. Also, as usual, John Nolte is still Dirty Harry. No one says it like he does.
Watchmen is definitely NSFC. It will make the conservative film's list. And my sons are golden proof of miracles. See the movie. Highly recommend.
I felt the movie was terrible. No character except Rorschach was developed very well, the entire Nite Owl/Silk Spectre storyline was pointless and poorly done (they wasted ), and Dr. Manhattan was completely lifeless. I get that's kinda the point of Dr. Manhattan but it still makes him an utterly boring character.
However, Rorschach was awesome as always (except in the end when he broke down before getting vaporized, he would have taken it like a man). The movie also had some pretty good moments, mostly involving Rorschach.
Of course I didn't really like the Comic, I found them laden with way too much pointless background. Oddly though, I found Dr. Manhattan to be interesting in the comic whereas in the movie he just seemed pointless.
Much to admire here … but I saw it three hours ago and it's already slipping from my mind. "The Dark Knight" lingered … and lingered.
I saw it with a friend who was also unfamiliar with the source material and he made the same comment about it being kind of episodic. That's because its original format was a series of 12 comic books which were then gathered together into a graphic novel. The "episodes" are the individual comics.
The Dark Knight still lingers. Nothing like it.
I'm curious if Watchmen will be better for a second viewing. I feel the same way I did after seeing NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN — unsure of it, but knowing I need to see it again to find out. NCFOM rose in my esteem to a near classic, maybe Watchmen will, maybe it won't but just the fact that I want to see it again to find out means something.
In the movie, The Comedian says 'this is more fun than Woodward and Bernstein' when he is wasting those protesters.
Also, Nixon won the Vietnam War in one week when he unleashed Dr. Manhattan.
For those who didn't read the comic books, there was a story within a story, or comic within a comic, called "Tales of the Black Freighter". It's a pirate comic (which surpassed superhero comics in popularity in the Watchmen universe) that featured a man obsessed with getting back to his village to warn the citizens of approaching invaders. As part of the Watchmen merchandising they turned it into a animated feature available on DVD/Blue-Ray.
I really didn't like the whole ending with Ozzy saying that in order to save everyone we have to kill millions of people. That kind of reminds me of that "Ends justify the means" mantra that is so popular among the left. The fact they killed Rorschach off because he was going to expose Ozzy kind of annoyed me too, as did the fact they left Ozzy alive and his company to take everything over as seen in the end.
I agree. I think Ebert is extremely political in his reviews.
I'll give you one movie he liked though that was really top notch: Dark City. Ebert even does the commentary on the disc and he does a really good job. If you're at all into science fiction, check it out totally worth it.
Me too. It's a guilty pleasure. I even own the movie on dvd — have for years.
Zarkov — "I haven't changed." That always cracks me up!
"Lack of a strong, central plotline to carry the first couple hours…"? That's called a bad movie. And a long bad movie.
Dark City was great – same overall themes as the Matrix, but I think I like Dark City better than the Matrix films.
I'll watch anything with bad lasers, Melody Anderson doing cart-wheels and firing lasers, Brian May guitar and DIIIIVEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK, now I have to take back what I said about liking your posts.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but I sort of always saw Rorshach as Javert from Les Miserable–when you can't bend your ideals an iota, when you're faced with something that requires a shocking compromise (Valjean saved his life, yet was an excon, Ozymandias committed an atrocious act that made sense in a cold-blooded way) you literally can't live with it–you can't see beyond the straitjacket of your morals. The human psyche is adapatable. When you can't…you don't.
Yeah, but Rorschach exposes them in his diary
I agree with your pick Dark City. The visual aspects of the movie left me extremely impressed. I also enjoyed Ebert's commentary on the DVD. It made the movie even more enjoyable when I watched it again after that.
Me three. I loved Flash when it cmae out. HAven't seen it in years, but I listen to the soundtrack now and then. It's cheesy fun.
Actually, a lot of that is in the graphic novel. Just not as extended as the movie scenes. I didn't like the actor they got for Nixon. Too much like a cartoon with that nose sticking way out there like Pinocchio. He sounded like him or more less. Better than Christopher Plummer who really screwed up the Nixon voice in Frost/Nixon.
Flash ahhhha save every one of us!
I'm a huge fan of Queen — even like the Highlander soundtrack.
Me too. Maybe that would all have helped Michael Moore's stuff? Nah.
LOL!! Join us… join us…
Me too. It's my second favorite commentary, after the one on Seven Samurai.
What's different, if memory serves me right, is that it's the Russians trying to kick the Americans out of Afghanistan instead of the other way around. And the Russians are pretty trigger-happy about threatening to go to open war if their own demands aren't met.
Was that Chris Plummer or Frank Langella?
Except it's not a bad movie and it does have a plot. John will see it better on his second viewing.
I do think they didn't emphasize some things that would have given it more momentum. I feel some of it was too leisurely paced. But it will stand the test of time, I think.
Frank Langella
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870111/
For those of you who grew up in Southern California:
I seem to remember many weekend afternoons in the 80s when Flash Gordon would be playing on channel 13.
Anyone share that recollection?
Are you sure that the left believes in "the ends justify the means"? I thought they were pretty much against that as evidenced by their opposition to anything that makes people feel bad even if it is necessary.
NCFOM definitely was better the second time through. I read somewhere (maybe here) that you need to view the story from the perspective of the Sheriff rather than Llewelyn. I did that on the second viewing and appreciated it much more.
After seeing Watchmen today, I didn't know what to make of it and thought a second viewing (perhaps the longer director's cut) would clear things up.
Flash Gordon is the worst film I actually enjoyed watching.
I was a big fan of "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", something so different from the usual that it riveted me to the seat. "Dark Knight" did the same. I hope when I see "Watchmen" it creates the same focus.
I'm not gonna dump on Rorschach; too many times lately I've wanted to follow up on some folks in exactly the same way…
I still don’t think I’m willing to subject myself to the typical talking/texting/cell phone calling movie audience by seeing it in a cinema, but it’s obvious this film was crafted with care and love for its source material, and I admire that. It’s eerie to watch a preview and recognize original comic book panels for every shot. Not just some shots – every darn shot.
The Flash Gordon soundtrack by Queen is fantastic. Dialogue and sound effects from the film are included with the music – it's almost like a concept album (whoa, am I dating myself!). I remember one long road trip in which I listened to the soundtrack on cassette two times. (Whaddaya mean, "What's a cassette?" Get off my lawwwwn!)
I wish they'd left in the scene from the comic where Jon and Ozzy talk before Jon teleports away. A lot of people took that scene as Jon hinting that Ozzy hasn't stopped anything, he's just delayed the holocaust a little while.
Even if Rorschach's journal isn't published or, if it is, people don't believe it, how long will the spirit of goodwill that Ozzy created last? As we saw, it took less than 6 months after 9/11 for the politicians to start playing partisan politics with the War on Terror. No reason to think the Watchmen world will be any different.
Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't sure what you were getting at.
Now that I understand, perhaps a better comparison might have been to a comic book movie that tried to inject elements of seriousness. Flash Gordon did exactly what it set out to do (except make money, at least theatrically).
Although the other possible examples that come to mind don't seem to have taken their material all that seriously either. Dolph Lungren's Punisher (didn't see the recent version)? Schumacher's Batman movies?
I sure am spilling a lot of ink defending Flash Gordon when it wasn't even being attacked! Time to get out of the house…
Huge fan of the book and Alan Moore. The movie was disappointing, despite looking stunning in certain spots. Thought some of the acting was Star Wars prequel quality. Thought it was a mistake to basically eliminate the street level non-heroes that help the story in the book.
This movie is very easy to nitpick apart, even with people, who haven't read the book.
Wanted it to be great, alas, no.
I wonder how others feel about that. In the comic, Rorshach breaks down in his final moments. He takes his mask off, and he cries.
Now, I recognize that, in a different medium (film), a different reaction might be necessary in order for the moment to work, but I really liked the way it went down in the comic. I found it moving that he broke down after being so cold and unyielding for so long. Wasn’t that really the point: that even Rorshach, a guy deadened to the world’s brutality had finally come up against something that not even he could shrug off? I wouldn’t that think it made him less of a badass; instead, wouldn't it just underline how off-the-charts monstrous Veidt’s actions were.
Anyone else want to comment on that?
I saw Dark City completely blind (without an idea what it was about) on a first date with a girl I really liked. I didn't really enjoy the movie at the theater (although it did grow on me later), and our dinner afterward was a bit stilted as we tried to come up with something to talk about after such a……bizarre movie. I learned my lesson, no sci-fi flicks for a first date.
BTW, I used to like Ebert, but in the last couple of years he has abused his position to actually talk about politics in a venue that should be free from it, and his reviews have been insane (he liked all of the anti-troop movies last year, and has always been a Moore fanatic). I won't trust anything he says any more, because I know there's always a bias (political or otherwise). To me, he's everything that's wrong with movie reviews (as opposed to Christian Toto, who I am really starting to like).
Harsh.
Special Edition Flash Gordon, worth every last $14.99 penny. I think I've still got the comic book adaptation around somewhere, too, probably in the same sleeves as Blade Runner. Yeah, I know they're supposed to be in separate sleeves…
The comedian brags about killing Woodward and Bernstein, and at the same time jokes about being involved with the JFK assassination.
'Flash' rocked, and it gets better with repeat viewings… a great Queen score doesn't hurt.
How cool… fellow 'Flash Gordon' fans. Saw the premiere in Chicago at the State Lake theater; the late, great Gene Siskel sat next to me… those were the days/
It's Queen, What's not to like? Even 'Iron Eagle' had a great song from them…
Alan Moore has always been conciously enigmatic. And, in the UK, the liberal-conservative thing is much more complex and nuanced. He rails against US imperialism, yet there is a tacit acceptance that without a muscular US they would suffer. It is schizo by nature, ergo the weird politically tinged take the (nostly leftist)
critics are putting on it. One supposes he truly enjoys the 'crazy artist' thing…
IN the book, the antagonist actually has a whole host of unwitting accomplices beyond the trio of servants. Those accomplices are blown up on a boat. The new ending, which streamlines the plot effectively, eliminates the need for all those accomplices, and replaces them with the (still needed) smaller group of scientists, but he kills them off in the manner of his Vientnamese manservants.
I've given up trying to make sense of Alan Moore's politics, but I've always felt Roschach is the most pure, honest, and consistent charatcer in the book, which, despite his madness, also gains him some admiration.
Some of the creative choices in the film destroy the emotional punch of the book. You should really check it out, John. The scene where Rorschach "becomes" himself, especially, was butchered (ahem) in the film. The way Moore handled it gave it far more visual punch and effective symbolism. Also, the ending was changed (and not just in the obvious way) and made the overall tragedy nowhere near as horrifying as it was in the novel. I wasn't really able to divorce myself from the graphic novel's version, but this was a far, far inferior work.
Most readers I know don't take the story of Watchmen to be an endorsement of Veidt's actions. The "ending" is meant to be one that provoke debate, and as Jon (in the book) and Laurie (in the movie, quoting Jon) say, nothing ever ends. The final Journal scene clinches it. The plan will be exposed, and Veidt's plot will fail in the end.
The street level characters were in the film briefly, and should be returned in the director's cut of the film.
I have a feeling the studio would not let Snyder linger on streets filled with dead bodies. As I recall, that got 6 splash pages in the novel, which to that point had not devoted more than 2/3 of a page to any single image (unless you count the covers). I would love to see something like that included in the director's cut. After all, there are at least 2 scenes that show what Jon's power does to a body. Seeing that on a city wide scale….
So winning a war trumps the constituion?
"like Ann Coulter" I take that as a compliment for Schlussel, and so would Debby.
No, but it could have been changed, or maybe a two term limit wasn't part of the Constitution in that reality.
It's very cool how 'Flash Gordon'- one suspects a hugely ,ore entertaining film then 'Watchmen' has seized the dialectic… further proof that denizens of this site not only know their stuff, they exhibit pretty darn good taste…
Well, (SPOILERS) what ruined it for me was that they made Dr. Manhattan the boogey man at the exact point that he leaves earth– forever. Eventually people would just say, "Hey! I think he's gone. Let's go back to Cold Warrin' it up!" Whereas, in the book, it's possible that Ozymandias could have replicated the whole alien thing again and kept humanity fearful enough to stay all peacenik-y together.
But that touches on another flaw. They completely omitted the scene where Manhattan tells Ozymandias that his peace won't last! Sure, they had Silk Spectre repeat his "Nothing ever ends" line, but that takes away the authority that Manhattan had when he said it. So, in the film, rather than leaving Veidt knowing that he's turned himself into a murderous monster for nothing, it's just , "Oh, he's alone and he feels really about killing people to make the world hunky-dory."
Maybe she would, but I don't take the line as either a slam against Coulter or a compliment to Schussel. I don't necessarily disagree with Schussel's take on Watchmen, but the vitriol she unleashed on that movie would apply just as much to quite a few others that have just as much sex and violence in them and are more directly marketed to kids (and which don't have an R rating). I also wasn't keen on Schussel's "you're a moron if you see this movie" approach. She hated it. Okay, I get that, and I'm grateful that she gave me fair warning (though I got that from having read the comic book), but that doesn't mean I'm a moron if I see the movie. I believe JohnFNWayne's point is that Coulter, who has nearly perfected the over the top approach to pontification, would have done it with more style and humor.
Okay, that makes sense. I suspect viewers are drawn to Llewelyn on purpose the first time (myself included) and are caught up short when he's killed. The second time you know it's coming, so look more to the Sheriff as the continuing character.
Different context. The means chosen won't necessarily make people (more specifically the left's power base) feel bad, but those means may not be ethical, legal, etc. That's the argument, anyway.
All indications point to Ebert hating Republicans. He's swallowed all of Michael Moore's stuff hook, line and sinker. He loved the first South Park movie, but when his Hollywood liberal oxen were gored in Team America, he frowned into the camera and said "It's just not funny." Shortly after her selection by the McCain campaign, Ebert wrote a column trashing Sarah Palin right down to her eyeglasses. He actually believed a wiki site's listing Armageddon as George W. Bush's favorite movie.
I thought it was terribly nihilistic. Given, I have a hard time picking up smaller dialogue in a big theater setting. Maybe catching more of the back and forth would help.
I thought the only character that didn't fall into that trap was Rorschasch.
I thought that the source material was stupid and pointless.
I could not disagree more Mr. Nolte with the review.
The central point of Watchmen is that millions of people have to die in order for a fake enemy to "unite" everyone being created.
If you don't see the noxious 9/11 Truther parallels you are willfully looking away. It's why Ebert loves the film.
And it's also fairly stupid. Plus non-original, taking characters created by other writers and "deconstructing them." For example, Adrian Veidt or Ozymandias, was really "Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt," a gentle martial arts mystic who only really wanted to meditate not kick ass. HIS creator was a working NYC policeman, who saw plenty of ugliness and decided to create beauty instead.
ANYONE can create something ugly, Alan Moore, Damien Hirst, or Robert Rauschenberg. It doesn't take much to create ugliness. It takes a REAL artist to create something beautiful, which is why ugliness is far more common than beauty.
For a real take on what "superheroes" would do to "save the world" see "Wildcats 3.0" and "Stormwatch: Shield of Achilles." In the former, a team of superheroes mostly retires, a few are kept on by the super-powered leader who decides to transform the world to a better place by private enterprise using superhero technology to provide clean/cheap energy. Who decides he saves more lives by THAT than pointless superhero battles. In the latter, a bunch of Special Forces guys with no or very limited powers acts as a check on superhero (and by extension, elitist) excesses.
The basic conflict in our society is between "superheroes" who are the elite, wealthy, powerful, famous, wielding influence far beyond any measure of famous people in times past, and the ordinary person who has no "powers" of fame and wealth and access to politicians.
This is WHY Superheroes are important (no better metaphor for our own time) and WHY Alan Moore got it so, so utterly wrong.
Ozy is the one who chased Manhattan off Earth. That was part of the plan. Ozy has the ability to replicate Manhattan's abilities, and thus could drop a little M-Bomb if ever people began to doubt Manhattan was watching them.
As someone unfamiliar with the comic, i thought the moment worked well to give the character a bit of humanity. He knew he couldn't compromise and so he chose his own death in order to save us. I still think he took it like a man but to see his life meant something to him in the end made his sacrifice a touching and important thing.
This is why when I read review about the film being a piece of nihilism I scratch my head. I would argue the film is the utter and complete REJECTION of nihilism — it's saying that no matter how ugly you see the world humanity is still worth saving.
Went to my local Toys R Us today to shop for my son's upcoming birthday.
The Watchmen toys at this store were shelved under "Collectible Figures" along with "Heroes", "Gears of War" and "Friday the 13th" – my phone camera doesn't have a zoom out – so I did my best with these pictures.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2vni16e.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/30n81o2.jpg
Does this prove they aren't marketing to kids? No. It is only one store in one city, but I can't imagine too many Toys R Us putting these in with Hot Wheels or Polly Pockets.
Exactly. I think that's why many people who only saw it once didn't like the ending because of what happens to Llewelyn.
yeah, and the left wing sophistrist Michael Phillips (Chicago Tribune) gave it one and a half stars- so, as many thought, this will be a political litmus test- Alan Moore's political schizophrenia can do this to you…
There were some political biases in Watchmen (Nixon villainous, JFK assassinated by someone willing to work for Nixon – though whether at the time or not unclear, Reagan nothing more than a joke, Democrats nowhere near the foul play).
But this is an exceptionally well-told story.
I walked out brooding about the end, but I suppose that's what the origninal author wanted.
That's why I avoid reading Ebert's reviews of political movies.
But something like this, I think he's on the mark although I would rate the film a little lower than he did…
I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about the Watchmen
I agree with you on Ebert, but I still read the reviews once in a while (not regularly anymore).
I just have to read them with his bias in mind.
I have to say, I agree with much of the former Dirty Harry's review. I think Watchmen, the film moreso than the comic, is a rejection of nihilism and determinism. While there are points for debate in the comic, the movie gives much more emphasis to the parts that reject these philosophies. For example, the scene with Doc M and SS on Mars, is given more weight in the movie, as is Nite Owl and Silk Spectre's decision to put their costumes back on. I especially liked the way they played scene with the goggles, that the only time Daniel ever saw things clearly was when he was wearing his Nite Owl costume. The only time he saw clearly was when he was fighting the good fight, not sitting on the sidelines telling himself someone else had to do it. Rorschach certainly comes off as quite a bit more brutal in the movie than in the comic, but still much as he does in the comic. Say what you want about his personal hygiene, it turns out that Rorschach is correct about everything. There truly is a mask killer, there is a conspiracy, and there is something terrible about to unfold. The only thing he missed was where to look. He figured that once a good guy, always a good guy. He never imagined that some with seemingly good intentions could do something so despicably evil. I especially liked his scene with the doctor when he puts his mask back on "Your turn, Doctor, what do you see?" I hope that's extended in the special edition.
As for the changes from the comic, I liked most of them. It makes a bit more sense to blame things on Doc Manhattan, than random space genital-looking monster. It makes sense that the world's most powerful creature, and the world's smartest man would be working together. I didn't like the emphasis put on Silhouette at the beginning, as she's such a minor character, I don't think she really merited quite as much screen time, especially when Hollis Mason got such short shrift (in the comic that's one of the things that subtly unites Dan and Laurie, the fact that they both get together to old superheroes). There was a comment earlier about a lot of the city people being left out and thus the destruction of New York having less impact. I suspect that we'll get most of that on the blu-ray, as I understand that pretty much everything from the comic was filmed, but in the theatrical release they chose to focus more on the superheroes, and leave the side characters behind. Which makes sense. My friend and I discuss Watchman as the world's longest trailer, because we both saw it anticipating the special edition.
As for the story being ugly, I'm not sure I agree with that. Brutal, yes, disturbing, sometimes. But isn't that the way the world is? Isn't the universe sometimes brutal and disturbing. I'm not saying that we should necessarily go seek out the brutal and the bad, but occasionally being forced to look at the darker side of the universe, the unpleasantness is a good thing. One must first understand that monsters exist before he can credibly fight them. I'm a Catholic (so the Angels and Demons trailer didn't thrill me), and right now we're in a period called Lent. A period of fasting, abstinence, and penance. Fasting voluntary is spiritually good because it prepares us for the times when we are fasting involuntarily. We sort of put ourselves through hard times willfully, so that we're strong for when we really do have hard times. I think art like Watchmen can, not always, but can have the same effect. By watching something that is brutal and disturbing, but not real, it gives us a framework for when we do encounter something like that in the real world. This isn't to say that artists shouldn't strive for beauty, as beauty is indispensable to being human, but the occasional foray to remind people that we are all sinners isn't necessarily bad. But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I also wanted to add, that I don't think it was Alan Moore's intention to give people a Lenten experience. It was just a coincidence for thoughts on the film. And Watchmen gets extra points for having, in my opinion, the best use of a Jimi Hendrix song ever
"This is why when I read review about the film being a piece of nihilism I scratch my head. I would argue the film is the utter and complete REJECTION of nihilism — it's saying that no matter how ugly you see the world humanity is still worth saving."
SPOILERS
Excepting that the character who most embodies (and acts on) a "humanity as a whole is worth saving at all costs" worldview is a utopian-fascist who willingly murders 15 million people in order to "save" the rest of them.
Whereas Rorschach, who IS more-or-less a nihilist who despises humankind and human nature, argues the strongest AGAINST mass-murder – and he'll stand up to (a) god and certain death rather than do otherwise.
The grungy, mean guy who hates the world can't accept the murder of the innocent (or at least the not-yet-guilty) while the enlightened "golden boy" who wants to save the world find mass-murder an acceptable shortcut to doing so. It's the final, blackest irony of the whole story.
Regarding Rorschach breaking down – the thing is… he's NOT a stoic hardcase who takes things "like a man." He's an angry, violently disturbed child in the body of an adult – that's what the emotionless, expressionless mask is for. Watch him in the unmasked prison scenes, then go backed to the "masked" parts and keep in mind that the alternately withdrawn or fidgety and sarcastic (but no less dangerous) wormy dude from the prison is ALWAYS under there and probably ALWAYS emoting like that. When he finds Comedian's gear and realizes the dead guy on the street was his former teammate, all we see is the mask and all we hear is a grunt of acknowledgment… but he MUST be doing something under there. Fighting back tears? Foaming at the mouth? The only thing I can feel certain of is that he's NOT being Mr. Stoic at that moment – stoic men don't do what he does to Moloch (Matt Frewer with the pointy ears) for questioning.
I thought it was a work of art, and I think Snyder is one of the best visual directors working today. Still, the feeling I had leaving The Dark Knight was one of awe, mixed with being in 12 rounds of a title fight. Brooding was a good way to describe the taste Watchmen left me.
As for Moore's vision of America, if I lived there I would have hit the button myself.
[...] exactly we were looking at as we stared at fragmented pieces of metal. I completely disagreed with this positive critique from Big Hollywood’s Nick Nolte: In fact, by removing itself from our world this allows ideas [...]
Ah, but we DON'T know that the plan will be exposed. In the book, at least, it's pretty unclear as to whether it's getting picked from the crank file or not. I suppose in the film they made it more obvious, though even then, even if it is published, who is to say anyone will believe it? If this goodwill has truly permeated, won't people rail against anything that attempts to shatter it? Or will they just be looking for any excuse to go back to war, in-fighting, etc.? It's an interesting question. Agreed though that Watchmen was not an endorsement of Veidt's actions, in any way. Nor was it an endorsement of Rorschach's, when it comes down to it. The most sympathetic characters–Laurie and Dan–were completely powerless to stop Veidt's plan.
You must be logged in to post a comment.