Movie Review: "Watchmen"
By Skip Tucker
March 10, 2009
I went to see “Watchmen” with William (and three of his friends) last week. Jack opted out. Smart kid. (Sidebar: I think I’m slipping in the “Cool” department. I was the first one in the theater while they went to get snacks. Then, all four kids sat in the row in FRONT of me. Sigh.) Anyway, I’ve been holding off on reviewing this movie because apparently it’s the new “in” thing. It’s almost blasphemous to suggest that “Watchmen” is anything other than a masterpiece of cinema.
So you might want to stand back a bit. I expect lightning to strike at any moment.
Let me start with the disclaimer that I’ve never read the graphic novel nor the comics. I didn’t know anything about this until I saw the first teaser online (“This movie is going to totally rock!...”), so take the following with not just a grain, but a pillar of salt.
Maybe it was just me, but the movie seemed pretty confusing. I understand that it was set in an alternate reality (primarily in the early 1980’s). The Vietnam war has been won, Richard Nixon has just been elected for a third term, and the world (well, more accurately, the United States) is being protected by a group of masked super heroes, one of whom has just been murdered by an unknown assailant.
Even more graphic than “300,” “Watchmen” delivers with severed limbs, exploding bodies, language that would make a longshoreman blush, a couple of pretty explicit sex scenes, and a blue, naked (circumcised) superman. Kids, there’s a REASON this movie is rated R.
There’s too much dialogue about seemingly insignificant things, and not enough exposition on scenes that appeared to be relatively important. With the exception of the Bob Dylan song at the beginning and "The Ride of the Valkyries" (a nod to Apocalypse Now), the music just seemed to be dropped in wherever they felt like it. I mean, “99 Luftbaloons?” Please. And while I’m an “All Along the Watchtower” sort of a guy, I wish they’d left it with Battlestar Galactica. At least there it’s confusing and totally inappropriate for a REASON.
The actors range from being very good (Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach) to over-the-top (Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian) to so-bad-it-hurts-my-fillings-just-to-watch (Matthew Goode as Veidt).. I mean really, what were they thinking when they cast this loser? The suckage factor here had to be at least 9.6. You’d think that someone who’s supposed to be The World’s Smartest Man and the epitome of human perfection would be a little more convincing than a slightly more buffed version of David Spade - a spoiled, rich, effeminate poser with a slight German accent.
Nite-Owl (Patrick Wilson) was the most human of the bunch – ungainly, dorky, a bit out of shape, but who could kick major ass when necessary. It was also cool that he was able to hook up with the Silk Spectre II (a jaw-droppingly beautiful Malin Akerman). Middle-aged guy and hot young chick? Oh, yeah (had to double up on the old blood pressure medicines, I did).
We all pretty much agreed that the most fun character was Rorschach. His battles with the cops and the bad guys were universally cool. He also had the best line in the movie. To the other convicts in jail: “I'm not locked in here with you! You're locked in here with ME!!” Epic awesomeness.
So – I thought it was long, overblown, overacted, overrated and morally ambiguous. William and his friends thought it was fantastic.
What do I know? I’m old.
|
