I watch the Watchmen

In my mind, there are four kinds of movies:

1. The kind that I'll never, ever voluntarily watch as long as I live. These kinds of movies either aren't my cup of tea from the moment they're announced or marketed, or have one or more qualities that make me want to break out in hives. If Michael Bay ever cast Larry the Cable Guy and Keanu Reeves in a buddy movie, then I'd have the perfect example of what I'm talking about.

2. The kind of film that is the baseline of mediocrity. The kind of movie that afterwards only conjures up memories of how well the theater was air conditioned... Movies that will probably only re-enter my consciousness if I get asked a trivia question about it. Good examples: Anything you'd find in the Romance section at Blockbuster.

3. The kind of film that blows me away, makes sweet love to my eyeballs and disables my ability to speak for a couple of hours afterward. Recent example: The Dark Knight.

4. The kind of movie whose quality falls about two-thirds of the way between #2 and #3. It was a good movie, but I can't shake the nagging sensation that the Director's Cut DVD is gonna absolutely rock! Good examples: Blade Runner and Lord of the Rings

Watchmen is the epitome of category #4.

I'm a late arrival to the world of Watchmen, but sooner than most people caught up in the hoopla. I finally bought and read the graphic novel last summer, after the movie was in production, but before every copy of the book was value priced at every store. I've reread it twice since then. So, yeah, my expectations were a bit high going into the theater.

And, I understand what has to happen when you translate a story from one medium to another. A lot can get lost in the transfer, but if the essence of the overall story is maintained, then I consider it a success. In that respect, Watchmen, as a film is a success. It would've fallen squarely within Category 3 (maybe) if I hadn't read the source material first.

Watchmen is different from any other superhero story in that it shows the cultural impact these characters had on the fabric of history. Superman didn't end any of our real wars. Spider-Man didn't shake hands with JFK. Batman didn't become a government spook performing shadow operations that allowed Nixon to remain in power for four terms.

It's this take on alternate history that sets Watchmen apart, above and beyond. Many have tried (cough, X-Men, Heroes...) but they've gotten so bogged down in being relative to our current political and societal landscape that they've never really had the balls to just run with it. Watchmen may take place in 1985, but it isn't the 1985 that we remember.

The movie does a pretty good job in setting up this alternate reality in the opening credits. Vignettes of events in the timeline spell out how history veered off it's familiar course. Some of them I had a problem with because they were dealt with so differently in the novel, like explaining why Dr. Manhattan didn't prevent the assassination of JFK.

Or Silhouette's being a lesbian. It's handled just a briefly in the movie as it was in the novel, and while the changes in make her out and proud in the forties and fifties is admirable by today's standards (and the flood of angry conservative responses start right about...now), in the novel she's outed by Hollis Mason's book and her and her lover's murder was so much more tragic as a result, and it's reflective of the prejudices of that time. They may have changed history, but they didn't change history that much.

Sorry, I would've put a spoiler alert on that last one, but it didn't have ANY bearing on the overall plot. Just a bone I had to pick.

Dr. Manhattan was a character that I had a clear vision of in my head, and while my own vision was vastly different than what was in the film, I wasn't disappointed. It was like having someone drive you to a place you've been to before and take a route different than what you always have. Same destination, but this way works, too.

Rorshach. Was. Spot. On. His view of justice, his twisted take on humanity, and his over-reactive nature was exactly as I hoped it would be. Every time he's on screen, the scenery is thoroughly chewed up and spat back in our faces. Definitely a contender for best movie badass of all time.

I wish I could say the same for the Comedian. His character didn't have the descent into madness that I was expecting. In the novel, he was always kind of this prick who quickly discarded any shred of idealism he may have had. In the film, he's just, well, a prick.

Many of the online Ebert wannabes I read prior to going into the movie criticized Ozymandias for being portrayed as too wooden of a character. I disagree, sorta. His character is equal parts smug egotist and misguided idealist. Throw in a butt load of cash and corporate clout... What, are you expecting that much depth here, people? He's a Bond villain with a sculpted latex suit.

I read the same criticisms about Silk Spectre II as well, but I think they missed the point there as well. This character was superhero home schooled. She resents the life that she was forced into by her mother, but doesn't know how to relate to anything else. Her character in the novel and in the film has slightly more depth than a Yahoo Personals ad.

Most of these things I bring up is merely nit-picking. This is the reason I refuse to read all of the Harry Potter books until I've seen all of the movies. I always prefer to go into the film with a blank slate instead of the equation mapped out before me. I did enjoy the film, but I know there's so much more to this that we'll only see in the wonderful world of after market DVD sales.

However, I do have one strong complaint about the film: the soundtrack. The score was awesome, but the song choices bugged the living shit out of me. It was nice that they used Dylan's "The Time They Are A' Changing" for the opening scene, but pretty much everything else was distracting on a level here-to-fore unseen in cinematic history.

The funeral scene set to Simon and Garfunkel's "Sounds of Silence", for example. Why the hell would they use a song that was so memorably used in a completely different context in the Graduate? Or, were they counting on the chance that most of Watchmen's viewers hadn't seen a movie made before 1998?

And while I commend them for not using "All Along the Watchtower" during any of the Vietnam War scenes (so cliché at this point), it dumbfounds me that they heard this song in post-production and thought it conveyed the message of "We're approaching the bad guy's fortress". Was "Carry On My Wayward Son" too pricey?!?

And I'm forever thankful that the cover of Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row" by My Chemical Romance was playing over the end credits instead of playing earlier in the film. That way I could promptly exit the theater to escape that pile of musical excrement without missing out on crucial plot points. Seriously, filmmakers... you're already gonna be selling merchandise at Hot Topic, why go that extra mile to cater to that demographic by having the suckiest emo band imaginable cover one of my favorite songs of all time?!?

But I digress...

Overall, the film works for me, and I'm sure my nitpicking will subside with time. I plan on seeing it again tomorrow with some like-minded friends (I saw it this time alone), so maybe my opinions will change sooner rather than later, but I'm pretty sure my thoughts on the soundtrack will not.

My Chemical Romance... What the hell, man! Un-freaking-believable.