Watchmen - reviewed by good friend Michelle Welker Scott

I am delighted to welcome a guest reviewer - fellow filmnut and excellent writer, Michigan's very own, Michelle Welker Scott.

Watchmen is not your parents’ superhero movie. While Spider-Man gives its audience the scrubbed-faced, boy-next-door hero of Peter Parker and Batman offers a brooding-yet-sensitive Bruce Wayne, the good guys in Watchmen are, well, not so good.

Based on the 1986 limited comic series by Alan Moore and directed by Zack Snyder (of Sin City and 300 fame), Watchmen takes place in a 1986 that never existed. Richard Nixon, having won the Vietnam War by unleashing the destructive capabilities of Dr. Manhattan, has been re-elected for a third term. The cold war is in full swing, with Russia and the U.S. poised on the brink of nuclear annihilation. In the United States, pandemonium reigns in the form of massive demonstrations and social unrest. Things, to put it mildly, are a mess.

In such a chaotic world, the death of a single man, Edward Blake, doesn’t seem like much of a tragedy. But when Rorschach, a hot-tempered socially-maladjusted crime fighter, delves into Blake’s death, he uncovers a diabolical plot that is putting the entire world at risk.

What makes Watchmen such a fascinating movie is its penetrating look into human nature. The movie takes such a dour view of humanity that even a hard-core Calvinist might blanch at its depiction of total depravity. Surely people aren’t that bad! Yet there’s hardly a likeable character on-screen. The hardened, embittered Rorschach, though apparently on the side of ‘good’, is as cruel and ruthless as the villains he captures. And the Comedian, whose sardonic nature is personified by the bright yellow smiley button he wears, is both avenger and savage murderer; lover and rapist.

Divinity, too, is called into question. Dr. Manhattan, whose matter-bending abilities make him nearly godlike, is an odious creature. With glacial calm, he dismisses the world of humans, shrugging off their imminent doom by saying, “A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?”

Not every character is abhorrent, however. Some, most notably the Night Owl and the Silk Spectre struggle bravely against nihilism. They fall in love; they act heroically in the face of danger; they even attempt to reach out to their wretched comrades. But, in the end, these acts of decency are simply far too puny to stop the impending Armageddon.

Yes, Watchmen is a grim film; a twenty-first century update of classic film noir. Nearly all the scenes are set in seedy apartments and squalid city streets. Yet the highly-stylized cinematography makes the movie a visual delight. Even violence is elevated to a kind of grotesque poetry.

And there is plenty of violence. People die in massive numbers. Arms are cut off, limbs are broken, skulls are hacked apart with cleavers. In one horrific scene, a pregnant woman is gunned down by her lover. The sound-effects alone can be stomach churning. Watchmen is no Spiderman. Even The Dark Knight pales in comparison.

Watchmen has other drawbacks as well. The movie is, at times, terribly confusing, especially to the uninitiated who have not read Alan Moore’s comic book series. Flashbacks and multiple points-of-view needlessly complicate the narrative. Additionally, the length (three hours) is astounding. Even hard-core fans of Watchmen feel the need for editing.

Yet, overall, the movie works. Despite its hard-core cynicism, there is salvation at the end. It is poor and wretched and comes at a magnificent price, but it is there. Billions of lives saved; millions are lost. Some relationships are restored while others are irreparably damaged. The good die for the causes they believe in, allowing humanity to enter a golden age. Yet, as the curtain closes, there is an undeniable sense that society will once more revert to its darker nature.