Mar 092009
 

If you’re in the market for unintentionally hilarious movie reviews, then this one from Debbie Schlussel about “Watchmen” should just about have you covered. Behold:

It’s 1985 and Nixon is President. We’ve won in Vietnam. Oh, and Henry Kissinger has a Russian accent. And Ronald Reagan is thinking of running for President in 1988. Wow, isn’t that cool that they got it wrong on purpose? I’m so amazed at this “high-brow art” of deliberately getting dates and timelines wrong, you know, just to be “artistic,” and get the drooling of the critics. That is sooooo genius. Like way totally cool.

Hey Debbie: The book was written in 1985, but was meant to show an *alternate* 1985 where Nixon had won in Viet Nam (by using the godlike services of Dr. Manhattan), and who was consequently so popular that the Constitution was changed to allow him to run for office more than twice…. which he did, successfully.

There’s another aspect of the movie that has clearly disturbed Debbie:

Oh, and don’t forget another superhero’s swinging computer-generated penis frequently in your face on-screen.

Many scenes of Dr. Manhattan’s computer generated penis swinging about;

terrible computer generated images (including the penis)

Gosh, how horrid.

pic00432.jpg
“My God, cover yourself. I didn’t live a thousand years and travel a quadrillion miles to look at another man’s gizmo.”

Now, I’ve as little interest in looking at another man’s junk as the head of President Nixon, but getting upset about it in a rated-R movie? Pretty damned weak. And for those who haven’t read the book or seen the movie, Dr. Manhattan is not your normal character. He’s the only true “super” hero in the “Watchmen” universe. In traditional comic book form, he was originally a scientist who was blasted into subatomic particles due to a lab accident. But when he finally reformed himself, he was no longer human. He looks human… sorta. But he doesn’t think as a human anymore, doesn’t feel as a human, and doesn’t give a rats ass about humans or human problems anymore. He can teleport across interplanetary distances. He can walk across the surface fo the sun. He can split himself into many different copies, and then recombine. He can turn dirt into giant flying glass clocklike mechanisms with a thought. He can vaporise people with a glance. He no longer lives linearly in time; he’s equally present in past, present and future. So… why the hell would someone like that worry about making sure his peener was carefully hidden from the fainting class? “Watchmen” is filled with people dressed as all the usual classes of comic book heroes… you’ve got the guy in the trenchcoat and mask; the guy in animal-themed armor; the guy in flashy patriotic armor; the guy in gold-plated blinginess; the hot chick in skin-tight latex. But they are, in the end, just regular schmoes in funny costumes. Dr. Manhattans complete lack of any kind of costume at all is a useful mechanism to show just how different he is: he doesn’t need a costume at all.

In the movie, Dr. Manhattan’s schlong does nothing but just sorta hang there and tell you “This guy ain’t right. His morals are not yours, and he’s powerful enough that you’d best not pester him about his enormous blue schwanzstucker.” Getting all huffy because a computer generated wang appears onscreen – and unlike what Debbie says, it’s hardly a screen-filler – is a sure sign that one has issues.

 Posted by at 12:13 am

  4 Responses to ““Watchmen” review: Way to *completely* miss the point”

  1. Since I havent read the actual graphic novel, I cant say how well this movie is comparable to the original. Just considering the movie story, I feel a bit unsatisfied. The characters neither had strong roles to play. I had gone to the theaters expecting some good action, but got discouraged! And over that I wasted my $20 towards the tickets.

  2. > Just considering the movie story, I feel a bit unsatisfied.

    Shrug. No matter what, some people are going to love a movie, others will hate it. But if you hate it, at least have some better reason than a computer generated wangdoodle briefly visible in a few scenes. That was my point.

    > The characters neither had strong roles to play.

    I’d agree on some cases, but disagree strongly about Rorschach.

  3. >I had gone to the theaters expecting some good action

    That was part of your problem. The novel wasn’t much about action either. Rather cerebral, which is part of why it is highly regarded even outside fandom.

  4. i haven’t read the Watchmen comic series, but i can’t imagine them packing any more into one movie even if they wanted to, which is good for me, makes me feel like i got my money’s worth

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.