Who’s Watching the Watchmen?
Watchmen (2009)
Rating: 
The answer? Too many people, in my opinion.
In case you haven’t been with my blog for long, if I see a movie in the theater (a rare event these days), then I feel obligated to post about it that night. I would like to let this one sink in a bit more before blogging about it, but I just can’t take it.
I read a ton of websites about the movie after my initial impression, and it really hasn’t wavered. I just don’t like this movie. I could list the 20 reasons I don’t like it, but I don’t think it’s going to help you decide whether or not to see it. Eric Melin summed my feelings up quite nicely in the first paragraph of his review.
Paced at many variable speeds, “Watchmen” is the most wildly inconsistent film I’ve seen in recent memory. In fact, the movie is so uneven that it sometimes it feels like parody or a gaudy recreation just minutes after achieving some kind of true cinematic bliss.
He hit the nail on the head. While watching the vast majority of films anymore, I keep a running thought of what I’m going to rate the movie. This was one where a graph of that thought process would be quite interesting… I’m thinking it would look like an EKG meter (you know, a periodic heartbeat). There were several really well-done scenes sprinkled throughout the movie, but the next scene… or even just as that scene neared completion… something ridiculous would occur to wipe out the sensation. So many times I sat there just scratching my head wondering “why?”
From what I gather through reviews of the movie, there seems to be a pretty big consensus that one should check out the graphic novel the movie came from. People who loved the movie said you should check it out; people who hated the movie said you should check it out. Guess I might do that someday after I get this bad taste out of my mouth.
Update 3/13/09: I couldn’t take it anymore. I grabbed a copy of the novel at Barnes & Noble over lunch today. I have more to say about the movie, but I’ll hold off until after I’m done reading it.
Share on Facebook
March 13th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
“Watchman” is a terrible film, and I won’t get my 2 hours and 43 minutes back. There are degrees of “terrible”, and Watchman is the-worst-movie-I’ve-ever-seen. This begs the question of “why” was it so bad. A fairly succinct summary is from magiclaterncinemas.com: “Watchmen presents a set of familiar superhero archetypes — and then subverts them completely, turning them into criminals, jerks, narcissists, megalomaniacs, and plain ol’ whiny wusses–an ironic superhero epic that doesn’t like superheroes in the first place.”. So after you get past the deliberately disparaging violence towards women, children, and for that matter, anyone who is in the path of these “heroes”, you wish they had never existed in the first place. So just who are these contemptuous capped crusaders?
Dr. Manhattan/Jon Osterman: The big blue guy has a suit, but doesn’t seem to want to wear it unless he’s on TV. More importantly are two very detailed scenes that need to be discussed: 1) the symbol on his forehead (round circle with a dot in the center). Is this a cool self defining memento of super hero lore? No, it’s a subversive call to teenagers to get tattoos. Apparently, the most incredible thing you can do if you had all the power in the universe is the ability to give yourself a tattoo. What sort of message is that? 2) Just before big blue goes on the television, the TV producers fret about his light-blue color and how he won’t show up on TV. So we see the awesome power of the universe displayed as his transforms from light blue to dark blue. Why on earth did any of this get written, let alone filmed? Didn’t anyone proof read the script? My brain hurts due to the juvenile quality of this screenplay. Movies are supposed to be works of art that inspire, entertain, even educate. The Watchman only offends and gleefully recruits the audience in it’s subversive tirade. Oh, and why does his Mar-fortress-of-solitude crack when Spectre II gets all pissy? Aren’t there building codes for crystal flying cities anymore?
Adrian Veidt/Ozymandians (aka “the smartest man in the world, who also moonlights are the fastest man in the world”) Now here’s his plan, eliminate the only deterrent (big blue) to global atomic warfare, by, get this “framing” big blue as the perpetrator who destroys New York City in hopes that the whole world will take pity on our loss and we’ll all be friends. Can’t we all just get along? And he’ll through in free electricity as a bonus. Apparently all the world woes are from not enough Xbox 360 time, and all those silly pre-Xbox wars were really just misunderstandings. Well, we the audience live in a post-9/11 world where the world sympathy towards New York’s loss was very short lived. It’s insulting to advocate this story line, let along attribute it to the smartest (and don’t forget “fastest”) man in the world.
Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II. This whiny little girl is last link that Big Blue has with the real world. But apparently that’s not enough for Spectre II, who really wants to kick ass with Nite Owl, since he has a cool Owlmobile which she can ride around in without throwing up, unlike big blue’s teleporter. This is so lame. If the only deterrent to America’s destruction by Soviet atomic bombs was in fact Dr. Manhattan, then the DOD would be schooling little Miss Spectre (don’t forget the “II”) in couple’s therapy. Of course it’s not enough to just be self obsessed, she has to get off on violence. And she’s not picky about where the throwdown is … a dark alley, ok, prison inmates, better, prison guards? (if they get in her way, “you betcha”). But most of all, when saddled with the task of talking big blue to come back to earth and save the pathetic 80’s world, she DOESN”T HAVE AN ANSWER. So big blue is a little dense after all and goes back to earth for no apparent reason.
Sally Jupiter/Silk Spectre Carla Gugino. Why on earth does she think fondly of the Comedian? This just perpetuates the myth of violence as being acceptable.
Rorschach. At least Rorschach is a consistent “Dirty Harry” character. Of course even that is undone by the writers as his death is made childishly ironic … “he becomes a Rorschach”.
Edward Blake/Comedian. This could be a long list, but I’ll comment on only one of his appalling actions. After helping “win” the war in Vie Nam, we learn he fathered a child with a native girl. Not wanting to take responsibility, he kills the pregnant girl. But that’s not enough. Looking on is big blue, who is mostly responsible for winning the war. And get this, the Comedian blames Mr. Manhattan for letting the girl die. This is a blatant example of not taking responsibility for one’s actions … “it’s not my fault I did all these terrible things”. On a more symbolic scale, Mr. Manhattan represents the post-cold-war US as a singular super power … with the rest of the world symbolized as the Comedian, where all of their evil actions can be blamed on the US. No wonder big blue goes to Mars. The bigger question is why did he come back?
Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl. Apparently building the Owlmobile was subcontracted out, he’s not that bright. Nite Owl’s sin of omission is his complicit acceptance of those around him. Old Owly was side by side the Comedian as he fired on the citizens of NYC, and where is the outrage when Specter (don’t forget the II) slugs the prison guard.
Beyond the superheros, the rest of the world in Watchman doesn’t have any redeeming characteristics either. Let’s see, who was there 1) lynch mob for lesbian superheros, 2) the original criminals that donned masks and “inspired” the masked vigilantes, 3) Vietnamese who get slaughtered 4) lots of hookers, 5) cowering people in burning buildings (if we had met them, they’d probably have been illegal immigrants in a meth lab who tipped over a Bunsen burner and started the fire in the first place)., 6) TV audience who make daytime TV look like masterpiece theater an 7) TV producers … who cares if the blue guy is keeping us from world annihilation, he doesn’t photograph well.
So, what SHOULD have been the Watchman? Well, if the Soviets were the bad guys, then the story should have been about their attempts to create a “Dr. Moscow”. Now a big blue and a big red guy duking it out on Mars would at least be fodder for a brainless (and less socially damaging) superhero movie.
And in closing, I’ll repeat what Jeff said: there’s a disturbing trend on superhero movies. Now a days, they have to be dark, damaged and conflicted. True, to a degree, this adds complexity and interest, but not when all redeeming qualities are cast aside. So boycott superheros until they return to deserving our time, and filmmakers can finally say “… and the American way” without apologizing.
(GMR – 13/Mar/09)
March 14th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Well, I’m really glad I didn’t get into the temptation to go watch this movie today, and went golfing instead.
I will comment on the trend in superhero movies, as a fan of Batman, one of the most troubled “traditional” superheros. What makes Batman’s darkness palatable is he always uses it to do the right thing. I know Grant and Jeff will disagree with me, but I liked the fact that Batman wouldn’t kill the Joker. It was his way of keeping himself in check and not becoming a monster. He is a tormented soul, but he’s still a human being who wants the protect the rest of humanity.
What I hope for are more superhero movies in the mold of X-Men, Spiderman, Batman and Iron Man. The hero, or heroes, can have their troubles, but the important thing is, in the end, they do the right thing and save the day. Superheroes are supposed to be inspiring. If we lose that, then what’s the point?
Thanks for the insightful reviews guys.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:42 am
Thanks Grant and Jeff for reaffirming my decision to not go to see it this past week. Sounds like it would have just made my stomach knots. Though I would have to agree with Jake about Batman. ;)