"Watchmen" ** 1\2 (out of ****)It seems since the days of Charles Bowers in the 1920s and 30s audiences have always had a thirst for special effects. One of the thoughts I had watching "Watchmen" was I no longer find special effects special. I've become so jaded by all the technical advancements of technology and computers that I simply assume they can achieve anything. Nothing in "Watchmen" was visually impressive to me. It has a sort of "been there done that" feel to me.
"Watchmen" was actually the first comic book adaptation I looked forward to seeing. For those who know me or perhaps could have picked up from my writings, I have little to no respect for the comic book genre. If I never see another comic book movie I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. But there was something about "Watchmen" that caught my interest. What exactly I can't say. I never read the comics the film was based on but it seemed to have a respectability to it. I heard it was considered by Time magazine as one of the greatest pieces of literature of the last century. Pretty high praise indeed.
But does that mean it would translate into a good movie? Audiences often grumble when novels are turned into films because they feel the novels are never faithfully adapted. This sometimes annoys me. When will people learn movies and book are two different mediums? We shouldn't compare the two even if they are based on the same material. Many will disagree with me and that's fine because in the end you are the one who will be disappointed not me.
Before seeing this movie two people told me the movie wasn't what they expected. Both read the comics however and therefore walked into the theatre with expectations. Another friend read the comics but refused to see the movie because she was afraid the film wouldn't be faithful. As I have already said, I knew nothing about the comics. I never even heard of it before this movie. Besides having little respect for the comic book film genre I also have little respect for comic books in general. One of the major reasons I found "Unbreakable" to be a pathetic movie and secretly laugh when I hear people liked it is because it took comic books too serious.
Of course last year we had a growing hysteria of Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight". It became the second highest grossing movie of all time only behind "Titanic". Currently on the movie website imdb.com (Internet Movie DataBase) viewers have ranked it 6th on the site's top 250 movies. Undeserving indeed, but, there's no accounting for the public's taste. As of today's date "Watchmen" is ranked 225th on the list and has a score of 8.1/10. On the critic's side, they have also responded well to it. On rottentomatoes.com the film scored a 64 percent. Out of 254 reviews 163 were positive while 91 were negative. This seems to demonstrate that people are responding well to the film.
One of the things I'm guessing some audiences members will want to do, besides compare this to the comic books, is compare this film to "The Dark Knight". In Roger Ebert's rather bland and pointless review he declares "Watchmen" is this year's "The Dark Knight". While I normally stay away from a fight today I don't care. "Watchmen" is a better movie than "The Dark Knight". This is despite the fact I gave "The Dark Knight" a higher rating (I wrote a three star review). And I'll tell you why I think so. "The Dark Knight" was said to be a story comparable to Greek tragedy. A classic tale of good v.s. evil. A film which had a moral dilemma at the heart of its story. That is true, but, it wasn't done as masterful as the devoted, almost cult-like, fans said. "Watchmen" has a greater social and political relevance to it. Though it takes places in a futuristic 1985, the themes presented could be told in a modern day setting. The film hits at the very essence of man. "Watchmen" is a film about the human condition. Between "The Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" I'd be willing to watch the "Watchmen" again.
I suppose at this point I should tell you a little more about the film's plot. It takes place in 1985, but not a 1985 as we remember it. President Richard Nixon (Robert Wisden) is serving his fifth term. A group of superheroes have banded together calling themselves the "Watchmen". They perform the usual heroic feats superheroes engage in. President Nixon has even asked for their help in Vietnam leading to America's victory. But times are changing. Nixon has now outlawed masked heroes. Some have revealed their identity and lead normal productive lives. Some still hind behind their secret identity.
As the film begins, one of these heroes has been killed. His superhero name was "The Comedian" (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). When one of his partners in crime, Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) learns about his death, he fears it may be a message that someone is trying to kill all the old members of the "Watchmen".
The other heroes include Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson), Rorschach's old partner. Who still has not revealed to the world who he is. Then there is Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), the world's smartest man. His superhero identity was Ozymandias. Rorschach fears since he is the best known superhero he may be the next target. Veidt has turned himself into a very powerful businessman.
Next we have Silk Specture II (Malin Akerman), a Betty Paige pin-up type and her mother, the original Silk Specture (Carla Gugino). And finally, the only one among them that in the true sense is a superhero, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup). Who is not no longer human, but quantum particles. President Nixon relies on him the most in his fight against the Soviets, as the Cold War wages on. Dr. Manhattan, many hope, would be able to stop any and all nukes the Soviets might aim at the United States.
One of the things I like most about "Watchmen" is it is not really a superhero movie in the tradition sense. I felt it goes beyond that, mostly because of the political and social message. These characters are confronted with real world problems, have real world thoughts and at times, must make real world decisions. The basic point of the movie as I understood it, was man's intentions. Are they good or evil? One character says since the beginning of time man has been trying to find ways to kill his fellow man. Our society is prone to violence.
But there are elements about "Watchmen" which I didn't enjoy. I thought it goes on too long. I felt the ending was a it cliche, though I did enjoy a discussion about sacrifices for the greater good. But by the end of the film "Watchmen" feels like a comic book. It started to seem a little silly to me.
There is one more thing about "Watchmen" I'd like to point out. Rorschach's true identity is reveal. His real name is Walter Kovacs. Kovacs is a Hungarian name, making him, as far as I know, the only Hungarian superhero. Too bad he is a bit of a lunatic.
Posts
