WATCHMEN (as watched from the outside)

The coming of WATCHMEN was heralded like the coming of the Nintendo Wii. Spreading like a splash of 300-style blood across the interwebs, its trailer was one of the most watched clips on YouTube last year. The week before its opening, Fandango allegedly crashed multiple times as fanboys and girls alike flooded the site to buy tickets to midnight screenings nationwide. But naysayers parlayed their critique, speaking more judgmentally about the film's flaws than Tom Colicchio dissing Stefan on the penultimate episode of this season's "Top Chef." The decries led those unfamiliar with the subject matter to lose interest in its reported SIN CITY-style darkness. All that hullabaloo, and now, a mere two weeks after it hit theatres, its presence is fading into a mere box office memory.

It's a shame, I must say, having just seen it. Why is it fading out when the film is so freakin' good?

Now, I'll admit, I don't read graphic novels (in fact, I barely read anything but my own blog, that's what a ham I am), so I knew nothing about WATCHMEN. I didn't know the characters, the plot, the fact that that blue guy is naked and swinging for most of the movie--didn't really know any of that until about a week ago. But I loved it. I think I even liked it more than some of my friends who are fans of the story's original form. Not sure if that means there's something wrong in the film's marketing...or something right in my digestion of it...or vice versa...or both, but I'm here to say that if you go in, hang-up free and at least a little informed, you're sure to enjoy WATCHMEN. Here's why I did:

1. The superheroes. I love superheros, and WATCHMEN has them in spades, behaving goodly, behaving badly, being human and being superhuman. I haven't seen so many men and women of mystery on screen since the X-MEN trilogy, and this was done so much better than Ratner could have, even if given a handicap (look, more special effects!). Their stories were well-realised, and I was completely drawn in by watching them use their powers, both practiced and inherent. This is a movie that extols superheros even as said icons critique themselves. It's kinda meta that way.

2. The central hero. Would you say it's Dr. Manhattan or Rorschach? I'd say the latter. I was most confused/intrigued by the character Rorschach, as I wasn't sure, really, what his power was--perhaps as a result of not having read the novel. But if you break it down and define what makes someone a superhero as someone who uses any superhuman ability to fight for good--be it superhuman intelligence (Tony Stark) or superhuman stickiness (Spiderman)--Rorschach fits the mold. They all did. About Rorschach, I thought, "Hmm. He is strong. And smart. Unbelievably violent. Yet fighting for good. And that mask thing is cool. He's a superhero." I was pleased by the non-traditional superhero "space" his character inhabited, and hence got pulled into his slightly psycho obsession with journals and justice. And really, in a fight, would you rather have him for or against you? He was a loner, he was a fighter, and he was the glue that brought these superheroes back together.

3. The tone. Again, one point for the non-traditional. If the coming era of superhero movies means a little more DARK KNIGHT, a little less IRON MAN, I'm not sad or happy--they're both great flicks--but I am impressed. I think it's got to be alienating to be "the only one of your kind" (thanks, HANCOCK), and exploring that alienation is human. Exploring it on Mars is just plain cool. It's also a bit wimpy of Dr. Blue Balls, but I forgive him. It ain't easy being all-powerful and somewhat god-like. I appreciated the darkness, the poignancy, of this tale of good-doers with some serious skeletons in their closets. Growing up different wasn't easy for Rorschach or Silk Spectre II, living in the present is a struggle for The Comedian and Nite Owl, in their own ways, and thinking about the future almost derails Dr. Manhattan. In this film, we see the underside of superhero life, and it ain't pretty. But like we saw in DARK KNIGHT last year, a superhero knows his/her place--serve the world first and self second; live a life of hurt either way. That dedication to depicting this message sets WATCHMEN apart, as it did the caped crusader.

4. Story accuracy. As I said--and please don't judge too harshly--I didn't read the graphic novels. I actually (sorry) didn't even know who the Watchmen were until about the fourth time I ran into the trailer, around mid-December of 2008. Yes, I know, way late. But I don't think that entirely dispels my ability to discuss the accuracy of the story. I've asked around, and people tell me the film was very true to the comic, even encapsulating much of the comic's flaws. Interestingly, the things I left thinking didn't work in the movie were things that, upon conversations with others, I found didn't work in the graphic novel, either. And certain observations I made--why is Rorschach so long-winded when dictating his journal but so terse when speaking in scene?--seemed to be details lifted straight from Alan Moore's pages. Don't take the credit if you don't want to, Mr. Moore, but it's all there. You wrote something brilliant, and Zack Snyder did his damnedest to get it all on screen. But how do you turn a painting into a poem? Changing mediums is tough, and I suppose that's why they invented DVD-extras. Apparently, upon DVD-release the already dauntingly lengthy film will be beefed with deleted scenes galore to make this re-telling of the reawakening of the world hopefully even closer to what Moore would have wanted. That's dedication to a story, my friends, and Snyder deserves some serious praise.

5. I was prepped [SPOILER ALERTS AHEAD]. Final reason I could enjoy WATCHMEN, I think, was because I was told I wouldn't. From every media source, friends and foes alike, everyone had an opinion about the movie. I wanted to go in a little "clean-slate," but it was impossible. I heard early that there was graphic violence, graphic sex, it was longer than TITANIC and darker than DARK KNIGHT. I heard Malin Ackerman sucked, you could see Billy Crudup's possibly fake balls, that it was confusing to the outsider (me) and slow in pacing to everyone. I went in informed, and I knew: "Get a good night's sleep the night before. Use the bathroom before it starts. Pay the frack attention. Don't be distracted by the cyan-colored schlong. Get ready for lots of dialogue and a fair bit of cartoonish blood." It was like cheating, knowing all this. But then by the time that [seriously, SPOILER ALERT] Matthew Goode's awful American accent revealed the Noah-and-the-Ark-like nature of this long-winded tale, I was hanging on every minute. I had been waiting for it to get bad, but it didn't. THE WATCHMEN delivered. Well, actually, the ending, the big climax/resolution kind of disappointed me, but knowing that's how the graphic novel ended as well means I had to forgive it. So what, if it boiled down to "kill a million, save a billion"? Was the ride worth it? Knowing what I knew walking in--certainly.

[END SPOILER ALERT]

Of course the cinematic portrayal of the most well-known graphic novel of all time stands to be critiqued, but as far as I can tell, the naysayers are shooting crap. I encourage anyone willing to spend three hours of their time in a dark room with the darkest heroes of our time to go in with an open mind. You don't have to be some graphic novel aficionado to love WATCHMEN. You just need to have a good appreciation for the superhero genre and, perhaps, dark characters in general. If you understand at least a bit of what you're getting into, you'll fare fine. You may enjoy it even more than expected. I, for one, totally did.

plot: Even superheroes drop like flies.
thought: Who will save us now?
in five: 4/5

watch them: http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/