Spoiler Alert!  If you don’t want major plot points revealed to you don’t read any further!  (But seriously you shouldn’t be such a big baby about it.)

Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), thirty five minutes later. Image courtesy Warner Bros.

I am going to write this review as if you know absolutely nothing about the graphic novel of which the movie is based.  I will assume you do not know that Alan Moore wrote this over 25 years ago and that he, upon last check, wants nothing to do with the film (or any film based on his comics, for that matter).

First, let me not tell you of the similarities between the movie and the graphic novel, or comic series, or whatever you want to call it.  That’s not really fair.  Certain license is taken when translating material from one medium to another.  With Watchmen, I didn’t think that it could be done, but it was.  Whether or not it was successfully done is up for debate.  My opinion on the matter doesn’t really matter.  I’m going to talk about the movie by itself.  Now, I won’t compare them or give intimate details of the book, but let me tell you how I feel about the print version.

I first read it about ten years ago and just didn’t “get” it.  I thought it was slow and silly, and I utterly missed the point.  Frankly, I just wasn’t ready to read it.  About four years ago, I picked it up again and it clicked.  Like a Magic Eye poster, I stared long enough past the insanity and, well, psychosis, and saw what I believe Alan Moore was trying to say.  In short, I liked it.  I liked it a lot.  And I liked it precisely because how uncomfortable it made me feel.  I liked it because Alan Moore was able to say through irrational and highly emotionally sensitive sub-language, something wholly and completely rational.  What’s worse is what he said was not only rational, but reasonable.  And that’s all I have to say about that.

Watchmen is the project of Zack Snyder who directed the film and whom also directed another successful comic adaptation in 300.  Snyder made his mark with the remarkable visual effects of the latter which also provided strong emotive brutality, and he looked to follow up with another similarly visceral feast with Watchmen.

Since Watchmen requires such a large ensemble, the filmmakers made the wise choice to avoid any uber-stars in the cast.  Save for perhaps Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan, but I think his approach to his roles disqualifies him as a veritable star.  That is, he is never bigger than the characters he plays, which is the biggest compliment I can think to give an actor.  The casting is solid and I can’t think of a weak link in any real way.  Nor can I say ill of any production aspect of the film.  Again, it is solid through and through.

The story is driven by the character Rorschach played terrificly by Jackie Earl Haley who arguably shoulders the film as well or better than any big actor can.  Rorschach is an uncompromising vigilante who is brutal and unapologetic in his application of “justice.”  I have to point out that Brian Doherty writes a good article about Rorschach as the “real” objectivist hero over at Reason.  Despite of course the glaring fact that Rorschach is the ultimate moral relativist.  But you know, whatever.

The story jumps over quite a long 20th century timeline and its non-linearly eclectic construction sometimes keeps us guessing what context the scene serves.  But this strategy pays off in order to hammer us with crucial backstory.  Normally, I don’t like how this technique tends to drag the plot, but I think it works in this case.

The first group of Watchmen, beloved in all their frontpage glory, occupy most of the 1940s and 1950s and are instrumental in American victories in each of the major military conflicts during that generation.  Indeed, some of them continue this path into the 1970s with the second group of Watchmen.  This latter generation has a more ambiguous moral authority and the uncertainty of the conflicts of which they are involved lead to diminished public standing.

Eventually, the second generation are forced to resign over greater insistence of accountability.  As the world eats itself in nuclear paranoia and apathy, civilization hangs on by a thread.  This leads us to the inciting incident of the story in which the aging Comedian played by Edward Blake is hurled from his penthouse by an unknown assailant.  Rorschach is on the case.  He warns the remaining former members of each of the Watchmen groups and is rather ill at their inactivity towards the matter.

Throughout the whodunnit pursued by Rorschach, we see rather inglorious episodes of the Watchmen’s path.  This includes scenes of the perpetration of crime in general, but specifically murder, rape, vanity, and any other nasty human commonalities.  One memorable scene is of the Comedian murdering a woman who is pregnant with his baby.  Another is when the Nite Owl II is unable to maintain an erection unless engaged in crimefighting…suggesting a realistic understanding of normal human motivations rather than an idyllic rareity such as nobility or sacrifice.

Without giving too much away the whole story cumilnates to the point that the story attempts to make: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Or, Who watches the watchmen?  In this sense, this is less a theoretical pondering and more a deeply profound political philosophical question.  Consider that our free society resembles in large part a platonic republic.  If the Watchmen are not the bastion of virtue that they purport to be and they are regarded as heroes, or even in the case of Dr. Manhattan, as super heroes, and they are not just capable of horrible acts of indecency, immorality, and illegality, but predisposed to them, then what can we hope for with the actual Guardians?

Who watches the watchmen? is not about the super heroes at all.  It is about us.  Can our self governance actually work?  Has it worked?  Does it work?  Alan Moore visited the idea of anarchy before in the fantastic V for Vendetta, but makes a stronger case here, I think.  Snyder was faithful enough to the source material for this question to come through, even if he didn’t understand it.

The answer is obvious through the plot that, no, we aren’t up to the task.  At best we may be able to work together with a freedom from want provided by free energy and a common enemy with which to direct our action.  I don’t want to give too much away, but suffice it to say that the ending does not disappoint.  The solution to the problem of ourselves is to have something greater to fear that is a real and tangible threat.  And it just might work.

Some think that the film is long and arduous, I would politely disagree, but take the point into consideration.  I enjoy the film the more I think about but also think it misses the point a bit.  Some of the execution is for the benefit of a less interested audience and its insincerity grates on me a little.  I also don’t think that the movie was needed as the comic makes the point well enough on its own.  Overall, I liked it and recommend it to those who are interested in challenging themselves with an open mind.