Conservative’s favorite vigilantes know that no justice system is perfect just like “Dirty Harry” Callahan knows there is no time for due process when people’s lives are at stake. These heroes always draw a distinct line between good and evil, and we trust them to do the right thing.

Watchmen, which was recently released on DVD, gives us a darker view of our heroes. It suggests that maybe we shouldn’t trust them, and takes a very cynical view of the fight of good versus evil. The characters are pitched as superheroes but most of them are as human as any of us.

The film takes place in a fictional 1985 where Richard Nixon is still the president. Over the years, “watchmen” had been working with the government to keep the world a safe place but eventually became outlawed. While President Nixon is trying to avoid nuclear warfare with the soviets, some “watchmen” see a world that is not worth saving anymore while others continue to operate as vigilantes.

The story is driven by the murder of Edward Blake/The Comedian (Jeffery Dean Morgan), who was a cynical hero who felt that there was no point to fighting anymore. Blake represents the kind of “reality of heroism” that liberals want to push on the rest of us. Too often it seems that they feel there are no truly good people or heroes.

Edward Blake was the most corrupt superhero, with a past of heartless murder of women and children. Once he realized there was a plan in place to kill thousands of innocent people to save millions, he decided to right his past by alerting his fellow “watchmen.” This decision ultimately leads to his murder.

The hunt for Blake’s murderer was spearheaded by Walter Kovacs/Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), who refused to give up the fight for the greater good. He has zero tolerance for those who are soft on crime, often complaining about “liberal sensibilities.” In one scene he confronts a man who murdered and hacked up a child. When the man admits his crime and says “Take me in. I need help,” Rorschach puts a meat cleaver through his skull.

Some characters fell out of the crime fighting business because they managed to lose faith in humans as well as their own ability to rid the world of evil. This explains why the diegetic world is so dark and corrupt and also shows us what the world will be if criminals continue to be treated like victims.

Parts of this story do not want us to look up at any one person or group to “save us.” The original graphic novel was written as a critique to those looking up at Ronald Reagan as a superhero. Ironically, the same critique can be placed towards those who look up at President Obama as some sort of all knowing producer of good.

Most certainly a conservative’s favorite character will be Rorschach, whose actions are anything but soft on crime. He is programmed to fight evil, both foreign and domestic. Rorschach eventually sacrificed himself since he could not live with the decision to sacrifice thousands to save millions.

In the end, the “watchmen” decide to let the plan continue, or else the end result will surely be a nuclear apocalypse. This decision was a tough one and was in no way one of self interest. Regardless, film still tries to leave us questioning our heroes on some level.

Of course, anyone who believes the world has no heroes is looking through a polarized lens. There actually are people who fight for good and succeed. The USA hasn’t had a terrorist attack since 2001, and that is because we have our own heroes fighting for the greater good of the free world both here and abroad.

We don’t have one single hero, but rather hundreds of thousands of them. They are at every military base, fire station, police station, and every other institution that helps keep us safe every day. Without them, we would live in the dystopic world that occurs in the film once “watchmen” are outlawed.

Obviously no one is perfect and we all have flaws, but I want to believe that most of us know the difference between good and evil. The line between the two is not always blurred, like those on the left want you to think. Certain elements of Watchmen want us to believe the world is not worth fighting for, however, it most certainly is.

The film was highly successful with audiences, making Bronson a big star and inspiring several sequels. Critics hated it.

Both reactions were caused by the same thing: the film’s uncompromising truthfulness. Death Wish marked the death of liberal illusions about crime and punishment: the idea that crime is caused by disadvantageous social environments and that the solution is to pour even more taxpayer money into bad neighborhoods in an attempt to buy submission from the poorer elements of society.

Death Wish showed that process to be an absurd sham. The film, based on a novel by Brian Garfield, clearly showed that giving in to such political extortion was making social conditions worse and exacerbating the nation’s already terrible crime problem.

Death Wish and its sequels refused to sugarcoat the villainy of the criminals the architect Paul Kersey pursues, nor did it state that he was justified in what he was doing. It simply showed the characters doing what they were inclined to do, making their choices and following the consequences. Such truth was impossible for Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert, and other elitist critics of the time to stomach.

As direct and truthful as Death Wish is, it is not simplistic or political, despite the ravings of critics at the time. It is a story that was all too plausible, and the characterizations and situations were accurately and insightfully portrayed.

In the years since its release, Death Wish and its sequels have received some of the positive reconsideration they deserve—long after I wrote a lengthy article defending Death Wish, Dirty Harry, and other vigilante films in Chronicles magazine in the mid-1980s.

AMC will show the film several times in the coming days; click here for a synopsis and schedule, and click here to have AMC send you a reminder to watch it.

Death Wish: Highly recommended.