Who Watches the Watchmen? Not Enough of You!

Actually, I'm glad that Watchmen didn't do as well as projected. The reason being that if it made too much money they'd have almost certainly wanted to do a sequel and that would've been grounds for my head to explode. As it stands, Watchmen is an incredible film which I love dearly (even more than I love the graphic novel, in some ways). Unfortunately, it's another one of those films that people don't seem to like that much, a fact that keeps me awake at night (not an exaggeration). Well, as usual I'm here to set people straight (by the way, at this point I say "as usual" so many times that it's probably redundant, how long until it becomes a catchphrase?).

First off, people have a problem with the running time, which is a fairly hefty two hours and forty something minutes. My question is, didn't you people check the running time before you went down to the theater? Are you telling me this is a common dilemma:

"I have two hours to spare before I have to pick up Joey from soccer camp, I think I'll go see a movie. Gee, should I go see Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over or The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King? They're the same running time, right?"

Wrong! You would either be on time to pick up Joey having seen a mediocre kids' movie, or you would've been late having seen the greatest film of all time. Moral dilemma, I know. But that's not the point, the point is, why don't people check? Don't they have schedules to adhere to? They clearly do as they need to text people about it during the movies that I've waited three years to see (example: The Bourne Ultimatum).

As long as a film deserves its running time, I say go for it. I'll sit there for four hours if it's good stuff, whereas Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon's running time of about two hours felt like I was stuck in an infinite time loop of Chinese soap opera.

Anyway, the length of a movie shouldn't be an issue. And if it is, don't go to see it. Another criticism of Watchmen seems to be the choice of music. I personally love all of the choices they made. Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" plays in the opening scene as the Comedian is killed by his assailant. This was truly an inspired choice. They could've had the composer create some music to fit the scene or they could've chosen some cool rock song or something, but then it would've been just like every other fight scene in every movie. Instead, the song represents the Comedian's reminiscence of the good old days as he's about to die. In fact, the entire movie is about the good old days, so it's a very fitting piece of music. And when I got the CD, I saw that's exactly what the director said, so HA! Of course not all of the songs are quite so layered with the story, but Simon and Garfunkel's "Sound of Silence" is probably my second favorite choice (it's played during the Comedian's funeral). It's a song about a man who sees everything that's wrong with society, but when he tries to tell people, no one will listen. This exactly describes the Comedian's character (gasp! I'm sure that was a coincidence). So instead of hating on a director's choice, do some thinking and some research first. How long does it take to look up a song's lyrics online? About 2.76 seconds. So don't tell me you don't have the time, because that means you didn't have the time to see the movie either (no matter how long you abstractly guessed it was).

Now here's the main issue I hear from people who even liked the film: Dr. Manhattan and his lack of clothing. Well you know what? Don't look down! If you have such an issue with it, don't look there. It's not as though he looks like a real person, he looks like a blue Michelangelo's David walking around. This is part of the character, a verifiable god would neither feel shame nor a drafty breeze and thus not feel the need to cover himself up. He's also supposed to resemble a Greek god walking around, as this very much exemplifies his character. Plus, my feeling is that if you're going to giggle and say "oh look at the naked guy!" then you're probably not old enough (mentally or otherwise) to be seeing the movie anyway, and if you're not giggling but shivering, this is understandable. And I say look at the lovely Malin Akerman instead.

Of course, the most scrutinizing viewers are fans. These people enrage me more than any other. Because they should be able to recognize the fact that maybe, just maybe, the filmmakers improved upon the original vision. As an example, I personally like each and every change they made to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. As long as they're adhering to the story and not betraying the characters, it's fine. In the case of Watchmen, (and I warn you now, SPOILERS AHEAD!) there are a few minor changes that I rather like. When Rorscach kills his first criminal, it's much more personal and gives us much more of an insight into his distorted mind (the details are a bit gory, so you can see for yourself).

There are also a few changes at the end which I thought were big improvements. In the novel, Ozymandias (the bad guy, you were warned of spoilers) used a psychic's brain and the talents of a graphic artist to create an squid-like being, which is teleported to New York, and the teleportation itself destroys most of the city. The intent of which is to bring the world together against an alien threat. Yeah that was going to fly with audiences. Either people would see it as silly, or people around people who see it as silly would have the moment ruined. Plus, if no more aliens show up, wouldn't that be a clue at some point that maybe all is not as it seems? In the movie, Ozymandias essentially uses Dr. Manhattan's own technology and power to destroy cities all over the world, thus framing Manhattan (which people are likely to believe, because everyone knows he exists) and accomplishing the same goal in a way that makes more sense. Finally, after all is said and done, Rorscach is killed because he refuses to lie about what really happened. Instead of Nite Owl (Rorscach's only friend) shrugging his shoulders and making out with Silk Spectre like he does in the novel, he becomes upset and beats down Ozymandias for a bit. He then leaves in disgust as Mozart's "Requiem" plays. That's way cooler.

As I could likely write a whole book about how much I love this movie, I'll leave it at that. What I want people to remember though, is the fact that when you just sit and ponder why a director might have made a certain choice, you often figure something out about the story/characters/etc. These guys put a lot of work and effort into their projects, and the odds are that they know better than you do how something should be handled. At the very least, we should be able to appreciate their take without simply writing it off because perhaps the newscaster didn't use the same coffee mug that he did in the novel.