“Watchmen” requires some reading 
March 9, 2009 by Richard Pierce
Having never read the graphic novel along with seeing a midnight premiere packed full of drooling fanboys, I couldn’t help but feel a little out of the loop during “Watchmen.” Was it a good movie? Sure. But I did have the overwhelming feeling that one would have to be a hardcore fan of “Watchmen” to truly appreciate it.
The story takes place in an alternate-reality version of 1985 where the U.S. and Soviet Union are on the brink of nuclear war that could potentially wipe out the entire human race. The film opens with scene of The Comedian, a member of the Watchmen, being thrown out of the window of his high-rise apartment, leaving the rest of the masked heroes to wonder who did it and why.
The unique and greatly detailed cast of characters is what made the movie a cut above a lot of other comic-book-based (okay, okay – “graphic novel!”) features. Each character has a unique and often disturbing background. They are by no means noble, but they are the only ones who know how truly evil men can be. The most interesting character is Rorschach, who’s as psychotic as any criminal but still possesses a strong personal code of conduct.
The big problem with the film is that it doesn’t balance its allegorical, psyche-diving elements with entertainment. There are many sections of the film that are (sorry, fanboys) really quite boring without sufficient knowledge of the source material.
The complex story and characters cause the audience to think, but they crammed so much damn thinking into the film that when it ended my brain felt like it had just been subjected to a 163-minute psychology lecture – albeit a very cool-looking and violent psychology lecture – but one that only covers half of Plato’s cave allegory.
The film does look amazing. Zack Snyder, director of “300,” once again delivers a visual treat of a film, never missing the chance to make a slow-motion fight scene or graphic death look like a beautiful work of art.
Final word – if you’ve got a long attention span or a fan of the books, then you may enjoy “Watchmen.” If not, see it in theaters; you’re less likely to fall asleep there than watching the DVD at home.
Too bad this “classic” comic hasn’t really been the Batman level seller DC and Warners put so much money into it becoming, obviously. The comic generally was and still is ignored and panned as being the low level crud that it is. Not sure if the movie improves upon this, as I haven’t seen it. I hope Time-Warners gets some of its money back, given how much they’ve sunk into this meaningless stinker. With all the amazing comic titles DC has, they could at least try adapting their good ones. From Wonder Woman to Hourman, and Black Canary to Hawkman. They’ve got a real comic library worth exploring.