Who watches the Watchmen?

[Bob Harris]

The whole remarkable complexity and the detailed arrangement is the reason why the whole story as such, with all its subtexts, references, intertextual links and visual "installations" can't be transported entirely into another medium. A movie is able to use visuall and acoustical moments but is completely stuck to a timeline. I guess this is it's biggest weakness compared to "written" mediums in all their variety (See chapter 5 for example in which you have to turn the pages back and forth to get the whole thing, I guess.) Nevertheless a few of the multilayerd aspects could be transported pretty well into the movie. Just like that opening sequence you introduced, Turtle.

You have a very elaborate point of few here that Snyder definitly doesn't have. This has nothing to do with feeding a story as easy to digest as possible to a mainstream audience. You can do both. Take the Black Freihter as another example. Producing it in general of course is a very nice thing. But if you don't want to "just" watch that story seperatly but see it as a complementary perspective of the "real world" events, you have to include it in the movie. Somehow. (Like the whole thing with that float, which is build up on sacrificed dead people so this one single man is able to go and save the rest of the world/Davidstown, realizing what he actually has tried to do in the end; but if there is "no end", he's left uncertain asking "I did the right thing, didn't I Jon? It all worked out in the end.")

If anything it underscored the escalating (re)actions of a conservative mindset that is struggling to survive in an ever changing world, the same mindset that is reflected by Comedian and Rorschach- the two characters that ultimately are unable to survive, unable to cope, unable to compromise.

I agree. In case of Rorschach, not of Blake. Rorschach is a lost anachronism which literally vanishes into thin air in the course of time. The Comedian adapts to all new enviromental settings. He realizes very early that being a masked adventurer does neither solve any of society's problem, nor will they be accepted by society. Working for the government, not as a patriotic fighter, but as a wage earner giving a frak about values and aspirations, is the niche he perfectly adapts to. (In that sense he's for sure the total bitch I once called him, but he also exposes the other masked adventurers to be just the same. Take the conversation with Jon after Blake killed the pregnant woman as an example.) Since he neglects all basic rules of society, there is no need to compromise with anything or anyone at all. So he's the ultimate survivor in Watchmen, "apart from being dead" to quote Detective Fine. For Watchmen he just has to be the one who's dead from the beginning. That's the Pagliacci joke, I guess.

What do you think?

[Turtle]

I definitely agree that Blake is able to compromise, or rather he doesn't need to. But... he is not able to cope with the changing world. That's what leads to his breakdown and, ultimately, to his death. Up until that point, that unfortuntate plane trip for him, he was indeed the ultimate survivor. He immediately knew that the masked adventurers would not solve society's problems, but when faced with something that might, that's when he fell. When he realized what Veidt was up to, when he saw the whole plan and the reasons for it, he just could not cope. He could not adapt. It drove the Comedian to tears.

I certainly wish Snyder had transported more of the comic into the movie. While so much of it was visually stunning and a literal interpretation, so much of it also missed the spirit of the work. I've read Watchmen countless times, and everytime I find something new. I don't think I will get that with the movie. And, obviously, one could never replace the other, but that doesn't mean I want the movie to be a dumbed down version. I just don't think Snyder has the sensibilities to make a movie as meaningful as the Watchmen book is.

[Bob Harris]

Ah, now I got your point on adaption. Right, in the face of the whole plan he finally broke. Even from his point of view Veidt's plan is something completely perverted. (So he despairs of him realizing that he in fact does trust in some ethical and social principles, realizing his grand delusion.) That's a strange situation there at Moloch's - Rorschach can hardly believe it at all. Maybe one of the comic's most intense moments. You have to keep in mind, that you don't know anything about Blake at first hand. While you actually watch what the other characters do, or what they did and thought and felt in retrospective, everything you get to know from Blake is retold by someone. I read the book a few countable times, but it's still hard to get something like a clear and coherent view on Blake in the sense you might get it of the other characters. Maybe it's his complexity that makes Blake the character drawing my interest the most.

And I agree on your appreciation of Snyder. That's what I thought when I first heared about him changing major parts of some storylines and cutting out others entirely. It's hard to dump a single part when making a watch.

[Shup Dude]

Okay, I don't watch Watchmen, but I wanted to bring this up.

Ever since the movie came out, I've seen about twenty people with a Watchmen comic book in school. Crazy how many people read them now because they saw the movie and liked it.

[Turtle]

Ah, now I got your point on adaption. Right, in the face of the whole plan he finally broke. Even from his point of view Veidt's plan is something completely perverted. (So he despairs of him realizing that he in fact does trust in some ethical and social principles, realizing his grand delusion.)

Yeah. Thank you for stating that better.

I read the book a few countable times, but it's still hard to get something like a clear and coherent view on Blake in the sense you might get it of the other characters. Maybe it's his complexity that makes Blake the character drawing my interest the most.

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying I have read it countless times to suggest that my opinion on any of it is anymore valid than anyone's or that I have more street cred or whatever. Quite the opposite. I still occasioanlly find myself surprised at the ending. (Veidt just felt so different in the book than he did in the movie.) And I agree about Blake's complexity. I love that we only see him in flashbacks, getting glimpses at who he was and what he did at various points, but never really getting a complete picture of the man.

It's hard to dump a single part when making a watch.

Single best review of the movie I have read.

Shup Dude, I'm glad the movie is getting people to read the book. My wife teaches high school english and assigned this to her AP 12 class earlier in the school year. They loved it.

[Punisher]

(Veidt just felt so different in the book than he did in the movie.)

I agree. In the book, he seemed like Tony Stark, speaks to the public, kinda "showing off", and in the movie, he seemed much more toned down.

EX: in the Dan/Laurie

sex

scene in the book, he is shown advertising for Nostalgia on the T.V., but nothing except for the Studio 54 scene really shows that in the movie

Edited March 9, 2009 by the punisher=D

[Trekker 42]

Veidt was an OK performance. I liked him better than Spectre.

But in the film he seemed a LOT less selfless. Like Snyder really did want there to be

a clear villain.

I just don't know...

But I gotta say I LOVED the accent.

And my favorite part of the movie was my favorite part of the book. "I trigered it thirty-five minutes ago"

That line epitomizes why Watchmen is different than ANY comic book ever written ever.

[NorthRaider]

And my favorite part of the movie was my favorite part of the book. "I trigered it thirty-five minutes ago"

That line epitomizes why Watchmen is different than ANY comic book ever written ever.

Personally I didn't like the use of the verb "triggered" for this line. If Ozymandias said it a lot simpler ("I did it thirty-five minutes ago") then it would've had a lot more of that knee-jerk "Oh, fuck..." reaction. But that's just one heck of a nitpick at this point.

And also I really would've liked it if they played that end scene with Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan straight. You know, that beautiful, bittersweet scene where Ozymandias goes,

"I did the right thing, didn't I Jon? It all worked out in the end."

Dr. Manhattan's reply was what really did it for me. I think this scene would've added so much more complexity to the movie ending as it humanizes Ozzy even more (now that Snyder's had to go all

villain

with his treatment of the character) and reminds us that this was a guy who desperately wanted good for the world just as much as Nite Owl II or Rorschach did.

[entertheninja!]

after a few days of thinking over the film as a whole...i've realized that zach synder did the best he could in adapting HIS own interpretation of watchmen...i'm starting to appreciate it now even more...and the end is what got me...

when rorscach realizes he will hve no place in Veidt's new Utopia he gives up and that really brings out the humanity in rorschach...

And i take back what i said earlier about the violence being unneccessary...the sex, and violence is what makes watchmen an adult graphic novel...

Edited March 10, 2009 by entertheninja!

[Bob Harris]

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying I have read it countless times to suggest that my opinion on any of it is anymore valid than anyone's or that I have more street cred or whatever.

I neither wanted to pick on you, nor did I regard your statement as boastful. I just kind of liked the possibility of replying like that.

It's hard to dump a single part when making a watch.

Single best review of the movie I have read.

Thanks for that.

...the sex, and violence is what makes watchmen an adult graphic novel...

I don't think so. You are right in a very bureaucratic sense, for sex and violence actually forces a movie to be rated somehow different. What might make Watchmen an "adult graphic novel" should be it's complexity and multilayerd subject matters.

And also I really would've liked it if they played that end scene with Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan straight. You know, that beautiful, bittersweet scene where Ozymandias goes,

"I did the right thing, didn't I Jon? It all worked out in the end."

Dr. Manhattan's reply was what really did it for me. I think this scene would've added so much more complexity to the movie ending as it humanizes Ozzy even more (now that Snyder's had to go all

villain

with his treatment of the character) and reminds us that this was a guy who desperately wanted good for the world just as much as Nite Owl II or Rorschach did.

I talked - rather fanboy debated - about that with a friend of mine right after watching the movie and we both deeply missed that sentence. But we both agreed about movie Veidt would never articulate such thoughts. In the movie he's way too flat and stereotype - that miserable attempt to put him in perspective by letting him recommend renewable energy sources was just lousy and awkward - rather than the round and eloquent character he is in the comic. (He convinced me that he is the nice guy up to the point were he killed his Vietnamese workers leaving me totally shocked and disbelieving! I actually re-read that pages because I thought I misunderstood something!) Just like Turtle said:

He immediately screamed villain, not Apollo.

That, unfortunately, is exactly the point.

[entertheninja!]

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying I have read it countless times to suggest that my opinion on any of it is anymore valid than anyone's or that I have more street cred or whatever.

I neither wanted to pick on you, nor did I regard your statement as boastful. I just kind of liked the possibility of replying like that.

It's hard to dump a single part when making a watch.

Single best review of the movie I have read.

Thanks for that.

...the sex, and violence is what makes watchmen an adult graphic novel...

I don't think so. You are right in a very bureaucratic sense, for sex and violence actually forces a movie to be rated somehow different. What might make Watchmen an "adult graphic novel" should be it's complexity and multilayerd subject matters.

And also I really would've liked it if they played that end scene with Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan straight. You know, that beautiful, bittersweet scene where Ozymandias goes,

"I did the right thing, didn't I Jon? It all worked out in the end."

Dr. Manhattan's reply was what really did it for me. I think this scene would've added so much more complexity to the movie ending as it humanizes Ozzy even more (now that Snyder's had to go all

villain

with his treatment of the character) and reminds us that this was a guy who desperately wanted good for the world just as much as Nite Owl II or Rorschach did.

I talked - rather fanboy debated - about that with a friend of mine right after watching the movie and we both deeply missed that sentence. But we both agreed about movie Veidt would never articulate such thoughts. In the movie he's way too flat and stereotype - that miserable attempt to put him in perspective by letting him recommend renewable energy sources was just lousy and awkward - rather than the round and eloquent character he is in the comic. (He convinced me that he is the nice guy up to the point were he killed his Vietnamese workers leaving me totally shocked and disbelieving! I actually re-read that pages because I thought I misunderstood something!) Just like Turtle said:

He immediately screamed villain, not Apollo.

That, unfortunately, is exactly the point.

the way the media makes it seem is what i had said...it is neccessarry to the story...but not absolutley vital

[Turtle]

EX: in the Dan/Laurie

sex

scene in the book, he is shown advertising for Nostalgia on the T.V., but nothing except for the Studio 54 scene really shows that in the movie

I had never really considered the level to which Veidt had permeated the lives of everyone in that world. Even a "sex scene," that most personal moment between two individuals, was penetrated.

after a few days of thinking over the film as a whole...i've realized that zach synder did the best he could in adapting HIS own interpretation of watchmen

The problem, to me, is that it was HIS interpretation. I said above I don't think he had the sensibilities to properly pull it off. I stand by that. He makes some visually fantastic movies, but they don't make me re-evaluate right and wrong. They don't make me strain to see the grey hues.

.

when rorscach realizes he will hve no place in Veidt's new Utopia he gives up and that really brings out the humanity in rorschach...

But Rorschach doesn't give up. Like Veidt, he triggered it before the showdown. The journal is out there. The questions still remain, who won and was that the "good guy"? Rorschach is obviously and outwardly insane and violent, breaking men's arms when it suits him and without hesitation. Ozymandias killed millions to set in motion his vision of a more peaceful tomorrow. But if Rorschach's journal is published, doesn't that render useless Veidt's efforts, effectively condemning BILLIONS? He didn't give up, but I'm not convinced he was the intended hero. If anything, he is every bit the "villain" that Veidt is. And Veidt every bit the "hero" that Rorschach is.

[SErge]

Top ten things you should know about watchmen(movie)!

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/030909-w...vie-top-ten.php

[Shup Dude]

Shup Dude, I'm glad the movie is getting people to read the book. My wife teaches high school english and assigned this to her AP 12 class earlier in the school year. They loved it.

Aw they're lucky. I wish I could read it, but I have no money to buy it.

Also, my teachers aren't as cool as your wife... I'd love to have my teacher let us read that!

[karamazov80]

Saw it tonight. Good, but nothing that blew me away. The scenes with Rorschach in particular seemed kind of weak in relation to the comic, but I can't fault the actors or the director for that. The imagination is always more powerful than reality. It was great to see one of my favorite comics come to life. Looking forward to getting me some Kubricks and Hot Toys!

[Alpheon]

I'm continually amazed (and appalled) to see people refer to Rorschach as things like "insane," "psychotic," and a "ranting, murderous maniac."

...are you serious? Really?

Perhaps I'm reacting defensively, but I feel like you're maligning a long-dead (and exceptionally heroic) friend of mine.

Rorschach was, in my mind, the only truly virtuous character in the whole story. The story Watchmen itself is anything but uplifting, and is really repellent in its subject matter, and Rorschach reflects that intrinsic darkness in the pages, but still--he was the only one who actually knew what was right, was sure of it, and acted upon his understanding. Everyone else was either wishy-washy or incredibly misguided, and as Rorschach pointed out: compromising.

I don't want at all to turn this into some sort of personal/political/religious debate, I'm just talking about the character. Rorschach's journal entry at the opening defines the environment of the book, and is one of the most honest and on-the-mark expositions I've ever read from a character on his surroundings. Remember where he was? New York. At night. 1985. Everyone around him was wallowing in their filth of undisciplined, out-of-control and carnally-driven life, without any sort of clear guidelines as to what was right and what was wrong--what else would he write about in his journal? How nice the sky was? No. That's not Rorschach.

Yes, he's extreme. Of course he is. He's a fictional character. In Watchmen. So of course he's extreme. I'm not saying murder is right--far from it--what I'm saying is that Rorschach, at the very least, truly believed what he wrote about in his journal. I'm also saying he was right, but that's beside the point.

The ending, too, with Rorschach's journal *possibly* being published, is wonderfully analogous for the fact that truth is truth--Good can never be extinguished, and no matter how much you compromise yourself to try and destroy it in order to live peaceably in your own self-imposed limitation, Good will always return (because it cannot be killed), turning the false kingdom you've built out of blackened "morals" into rubble. I can't believe nobody's seen it that way before; there must be others like me out there.

And no, Rorschach did not see things in "black and white." How can people say that? If he did, he wouldn't have killed murderers. He wouldn't have broken into Dan's house. He wouldn't have done the things that appear as hypocrisy if he saw things in black and white. Of course he understood there were areas of grey. But he also understood you should always aspire towards White--and when those around him compromised Right for the sake of living comfortable in Black, it disgusted him.

"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." Rorschach believed that if Good is truly Good, how can it possibly be compromised, and still continue to be Good?

The character himself was also mentally damaged from a horrific childhood and an unsupportive upbringing. So, though he was unwavering in his near-immaculate sense of righteousness, his appliance of that discipline was tinged and discolored with his surroundings and the darkness of his experiences. So, he killed the unrighteous.

In the end, it's obviously not whether you win or lose, live or die. We all die. It's how you played the game.

Rorschach understood this as fully as he was capable, and for that, I deeply admire him.

[/rant] If I opened up any cans of worms with this post, I apologize, and I'll even edit my message if necessary.

Remember, I'm not debating anything deeper than fans' perception of Rorschach as a character (and maybe as a symbol, too, if discussions are kept civil enough).

Edited March 11, 2009 by Alpheon

[cdubya]

No, Alpheon I quite agree with you on your points about Rorschach. In the end though, I believe that even he realized that his time was up

as well as being intuitive enough to set himself up as a martyr and have the last laugh by exposing his journals to the world. Despite his self-righteousness, I still believe that he harbored a tremendous amount of self-loathing (as most good anti-heroes do) and fully embraced his demise as a form of redemption and sweet-release. This is of course not to totally dismiss his actions simply because he was fully aware of them and bore them like a cross, but I completely get what you're saying.

Then again, I still tend to lean more towards nihilistic beliefs (though not quite as extreme as when I was a younger man) than the majority. No surprise that this, Judge Dredd, Marshal Law, Brat Pack, The Crow, Astro-City, ect. are my all-time favorite comic titles!

*Astro-City would make an excellent movie!

[Bob Harris]

Alpheon, I would always - and somewhere in that black-bar-insanity people call fanboy debate I actually did - sign Turtles statement:

If anything, he [Rorschach] is every bit the "villain" that Veidt is. And Veidt every bit the "hero" that Rorschach is.

Both do have a perfectly clear view on what actually is good, what a perfect - or at least a better - society has to look like. Only because of the fact that both do know how to tell right from wrong the obscure means of both of them are justifyed in their eyes. But do they? Or is there a meta level to judge from at all? Isn't it just funny that both perspectives, both characters actually knowing, they have conflictive ideas? (In at least occidental history the godlike perspective is the only justifyed one from which it's able to judge. For that it is quite ironical that the only godlike character in Watchmen isn't interested in human belongings at all.)

In that sense I'd say Rorschach is seeing things in black and white. A criminal is a criminal. In all aspects of the criminal's personality he is just scum and - for the greater good - you are allowed to beat him down or break his fingers. And "criminal" could be regarded as a metaphor for anything "bad" for a society, just like other minorities like homosexuals are in Rorschach's idea. In my eyes he's not only a conservative hardliner but also someone who justifies himself to be standing above other people, judging them.

Of course he truly believed in what he was thinking, in the way he sees things, in the perspective that there is evil outthere that has to be punished. He was absolutely sure about seeing things cristal clear, knowing what society needs. Of course he is writing about his greatest concerns and the problems there are to be overcome. He never compromises; That is never compromise with his own point of view! But so does Veidt. "Never compromise" might be Veidt's slogan, too.

Nevertheless, hurm, I really like Rorschach as a character in Watchmen.

Dealing with the many perspectives the Watchmen characters offer is like juggling - I guess I used that metaphor before - with six balls: you do see all of them at the same time, but just can't hold them simultaneously in your hands.

And cdubya, in my eyes Rorschach - in case you intended to say that - is in no way a nihilistic character, beacuse of the things I just mentioned. The Comedian might be the closest of all Watchmen characters to that principle.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Bob Harris

[Turtle]

I think a further reflection of Rorschach's black-and-white view is right there on his face. His mask, or his face as he calls it, is the ever changing black and white, but the two never mix, never mingle, never compromise. That's just a further reflection of his perspective, but Moore wrote these characters so well and created such a lush world, it would be impossible to say that Rorschach LIVES in back and white. Alpheon, I completely agree that he definitely exists in shades of grey, but he refuses to see that in himself. Don't get me wrong, I love Rorshach, but tossing a lame villain that wants to be "punished" down an elevator shaft is not what sane people do. Putting on a mask and calling it your face is not what sane people do. That's the kind of stuff psychotic people do. And I wouldn't have Rorschach any other way.

And I think Veidt suffers the opposite problem. He tries so hard to see in gray, to see the way to compromise. But he also feels that what he does is right, that he is completely justified, that this is a necessity. That's black and white. Neither of the characters really live in the world as they see it, and both are much more similar than either would want to believe. I think Veidt is every bit as insane as Rorschach. He killed millions to save billions, but he killed MILLIONS. That's not the kind of thing a sane person does. A sane person would compromise and come up with a better plan.

[entertheninja!]

I saw this on IESB and thought you peoples should know...it seems heartfelt

AN OPEN LETTER FROM A WATCHMEN SCREENWRITER

So it has been five months since I saw my first rough cut of WATCHMEN, and eight days since the premiere of the film I've been working on since late in the year 2000.

The reviews are out -- Some outstanding, others rankly dismissive, which can be frustrating for the people involved, (though I can only speak for myself,) because I firmly believe that WATCHMEN, the novel, must be read through more than once to even have the faintest grip on it. And I believe the film is the same.

I've seen it twice now, and despite having run the movie in my head thousands of times, my two viewings still don’t' allow me to view the film with the proper distance or objectivity. Is it Apocalypse Now? Is it Blade Runner? Is it Kubrick, or Starship Troopers? I don’t know yet.

All I know is that I had a pretty amazing experience the two times I've seen it. And both viewings produced remarkably different experiences. The point is, I have listened for years, to complaints from true comic book fans, that "not enough movies take the source material seriously." "Too many movies puss out," or "They change great stories, just to be commercial." Well, I f***ing dare you to say any one of those things about this movie.

This is a movie made by fans, for fans. Hundreds of people put in years of their lives to make this movie happen, and every one of them was insanely committed to retaining the integrity of this amazing, epic tale. This is a rare success story, bordering on the impossible, and every studio in town is watching to see if it will work. Hell, most of them own a piece of the movie.

So look, this is a note to the fanboys and fangirls. The true believers. Dedicated for life.

If the film made you think. Or argue with your friends. If it inspired a debate about the nature of man, or vigilante justice, or the horror of Nixon abolishing term limits. If you laughed at Bowie hanging with Adrian at Studio 54, or the Silhouette kissing that nurse.

Please go see the movie again next weekend.

You have to understand, everyone is watching to see how the film will do in its second week. If you care about movies that have a brain, or balls, (and this film's got both, literally), or true adaptations -- And if you're thinking of seeing it again anyway, please go back this weekend, Friday or Saturday night. Demonstrate the power of the fans, because it'll help let the people who pay for these movies know what we'd like to see. Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me also point out that I do not profit one cent from an increase in box office, although an increase in box office can add to the value of the writers' eventual residual profits from dvd and tv sales.

But I'm not saying it for money. I'm saying it for people like me. I'm saying it for people who love smart, dark entertainment, on a grand, operatic scale. I'm talking to the Snake fans, the Rorschach fans, the people of the Dark Knight.

And hey, if you hated the film, if you think we committed atrocities, or literary mistakes of a massive, cephalopodic nature. If the movie made you a little sick to your stomach, or made you feel bad about your life. If you hated it for whatever reason, that's cool too. I'm not suggesting you risk gastro-intestinal distress just for the sake of risky filmmaking.

But if you haven't seen it yet? Well, I'll just say this...

It may upset you. And it probably will upset you.

And all along, we really meant it to.

Because face it. All this time...You there, with the Smiley-face pin. Admit it.

All this time, you’ve been waiting for a director who was going to hit you in the face with this story. To just crack you in the jaw, and then bend you over the pool table with this story. With its utterly raw view of the darkest sides of human nature, expressed through its masks of action and beauty and twisted good intentions. Like a fry-basket full of hot grease in the face. Like the Comedian on the Grassy Knoll. I know, I know...

You say you don't like it. You say you've got issues. I get it.

And yet... You'll be thinking about this film, down the road. It'll nag at you. How it was rough and beautiful. How it went where it wanted to go, and you just hung on. How it was thoughtful and hateful and bleak and hilarious. And for Jackie Earle Haley.

Trust me. You'll come back, eventually. Just like Sally.

Might as well make it count for something.

David Hayter

[NorthRaider]

Well, that was lovely.

I am SO glad I've seen Jackie Earle Haley act in another movie before Watchmen (Little Children, where he ironically played a semi-repentant pedophile). I have a feeling that after this movie, he will be Rorschach in the eyes of us fans forever.

[blacksun1520]

on a side note... if anyone doesn't have a copy of Watchmen yet, Amazon has it for only 10.99. A very good deal IMO.

OK, back to the discussion

BS

[TM2 Dinobot]

Watchmen, the book, is a brutal, bleak and bitter tour de force. Named by Time magazine as one of history's 100 best novels, it explores philosophy, politics, theology and human nature. It culminates in a literally monstrous act of heroism: In order to "save the world," one of the protagonists unleashes a made-up monster on the streets of New York—the mere appearance of which kills millions of people. Our "hero" feels bad about the loss of life—but he figures that their unknowing, unwilling sacrifice saved the human race. And, while Moore obliquely suggests that the man's gone mad, he eventually leaves it up to the reader to decide: Did he do the right thing?

Watchmen, the movie, retains that cruel sense of despair. At times, its adherence to the source material feels almost slavish. Yet it's a bit pastiche, too, layering in extra—gratuitous—sex, blood and gore just for raw, big screen shock value.

As a book, Watchmen is messy. As a movie, Watchmen is a mess. In fact, I'll go so far as to call it dispirited, depressing schlock—both as a work of art and as a mode of message. Fanboys may be enthralled, but I'd imagine the uninitiated will walk away appalled, confused and even strangely bored. At the advance screening I attended, where folks generally stay glued to their seats, I saw a number of people leave the theater. Some never came back. This isn't a movie as much as an assault.

"Who watches the Watchmen?" one graffiti artist paints in both the movie and book. If I had my druthers, I know what my answer would be:

No one.

Interesting article.

And no. I didn't see it. I don't intend to see it. I read the book, and after hearing sorted reviews from regular people who'd never heard of it before, I think I'll pass.

So, Monsters VS Aliens. Any one else excited?

[Turtle]

Well, that was lovely.

I am SO glad I've seen Jackie Earle Haley act in another movie before Watchmen (Little Children, where he ironically played a semi-repentant pedophile). I have a feeling that after this movie, he will be Rorschach in the eyes of us fans forever.

Clearly you've never seen Bad News Bears

Kelly Leak

[Bob Harris]

Well, that was lovely.

I am SO glad I've seen Jackie Earle Haley act in another movie before Watchmen (Little Children, where he ironically played a semi-repentant pedophile). I have a feeling that after this movie, he will be Rorschach in the eyes of us fans forever.

Clearly you've never seen Bad News Bears

Kelly Leak

Damn, a young Walter!