The Watchmen

The price of a movie ticket on debit Mastercard...$11, a bucket of popcorn...$6, seeing Dr. Manhattan's glowing blue penis...priceless. Billy Crudup aka Mastercard voice is Dr. Manhattan, a nuclear physicist who establishes super powers in an accident. In The Watchmen, when not wearing a loin cloth we see a full frontal. Yes, I know women have been waiting years to see a full frontal in film that doesn't carry one more equis than the beer in the rating. Thanks to The Watchmen we now have equality in film. Men get full frontals of a variety of hot actresses, we get glowing blue penis and a lot of it. Shocking! I was not expecting this, the New Yorker did not warn me the level of nudity and even some pretty graphic bump and grind action--of two non-blue, non-glowing although sweaty characters.

The New Yorker panned the movie in a major way--as the New Yorker is often wont to do. It is very violent it says, don't take the kids, it continues. And yeah, OK it did say that Billy Crudup is "buff, buck naked, and blue like a porn star left overnight in a meat locker" But it does not say anywhere in the article, get ready for multiple scenes that feature the blue penis. Seriously, I would have like to have been prepared for that. I need it spelled out for me. I have watched years of strategically placed fruit bowls, heads, and a gazillion other things. I was expecting the same. But not this time. Nope there it is, in its full sometimes quite massive glory. Let me just repeat that...Shocking!

Here is the story, due to Dr. Manhattan's interference or heroics--strictly a matter of opinion--the Vietnam War ends favorably for the US. Nixon is elected to a third term--the bastard, I knew he would rewrite the constitutional if given a chance. And superheroes have been outlawed and they have all hung up their capes, masks and whatnot or have they? The Watchmen is based on the graphic novel co-authored by Alan Moore, also the author of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and V for Vendetta. Popular graphic novels recreated into less than mediocre films. Moore has become so disenchanted with Hollywood that you will not find his name anywhere on the current endeavor to produce a blockbuster. He has totally disassociated himself as the author of a well received graphic novel from the production of a film bearing the same title. I do wonder if he will receive any royalties or other payment--yeah probably so--sticking to your guns only goes so far after all.

The big question is--is the movie actually any good? Well, I mostly enjoyed it--it was different and after reading the New Yorker article, I was more determined to like it than I might otherwise have been. The article starts like this..."The world of the graphic novel is a curious one. For every masterwork such as Persepolis or Maus there seems to be shelves of cod mythology and rainy dystopias, patrolled by rock-jawed heroes and their melon-breasted sidekicks."
OK, maybe, but given the same thought line, for every Great Gatsby and whatever else is considered quality fiction, there are bookstores filled with pulp-fiction. Does this mean that none of them cannot be made into an enjoyable movie--of course not. So, yeah, maybe most graphic novels do not get Pulitzer prizes like Maus, but of the thousands of books sitting on my library shelves only a few of them are actually notable.

In general, I like comic book movies. They are interesting and look at the world in a different way. I appreciate that. Maybe I would have preferred less violence, fewer blue penis scenes and quieter music, but on the whole I had two and a half hours of entertainment that gave me a few things to think about. The other option for the evening was to channel surf my gazillion channels watching nothing for more than 5 seconds because either I have seen it before, or I don't want to see it now. You are not getting any complaints from me. Go see The Watchmen, but I am spelling it out for you--there is not strategically placed anything, ever. So prepare yourself.