Sunday, March 8, 2009

WATCHMEN Does OK Opening Weekend

Author: Jett
March 8, 2009

Photobucket

WATCHMEN did OK at the box office its opening weekend.

It’s figured that the film will take in about $55.7 million its first three days, according to Warner Bros.

"Our expectations were met," said Dan Fellman, the studio's president of domestic theatrical distribution. The film was released in 3,611 theaters, a record for an R-rated release.

For comparison, Zack Snyder’s 300 took in $71 million its first weekend two years ago -- a record for a March opening.

SOURCE: REUTERS.COM.

TDK Finally Done In Theaters

Posted by: Jett
March 8, 2009

Photobucket

In comes WATCHMEN, out goes THE DARK KNIGHT.

Warner Bros. finally pulled the plug on TDK at theaters. As of March 5, 2009, TDK had racked in $533.3 million domestically and is the #1 superhero/comic book movie of all time.

According to BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM, TDK is also the most attended film since THE PHANTOM MENACE back in 1999. Adjusted, it’s #27 all-time at the box office and #2 unadjusted.

Worldwide, TDK is only the fourth film in history to cross the $1 billion mark.

A box office and critical success, TDK was nominated for 8 Oscars and won 2 -- including "Best Supporting Actor" for Heath Ledger as The Joker.

Friday, March 6, 2009

2012 For BATMAN 3?

Author: Jett
March 6, 2009

Photobucket

Based on conversations with industry insiders as well as the apparent schedule for INCEPTION (preproduction, shooting, and postproduction), it’s starting to look like BATMAN 3 is going to end up being a Summer 2012 release.

Firstly, let’s take a quick look at a little Nolan history.

We know now that the script for THE DARK KNIGHT was finished before the end of 2005 -- about a half a year after BATMAN BEGINS was in theaters. Nolan worked on THE PRESTIGE during the latter part of 2005 on into 2006, with the film ultimately being released in October 2006. In July of 2006 while the director was still working on THE PRESTIGE, Warner Bros. officially announced that Chris would helm TDK, it would be released in the Summer of 2008, and that Heath Ledger had been cast as The Joker. Once THE PRESTIGE hit theaters in Fall of ‘06, there was then a six month gap before filming began on TDK.

Right now, INCEPTION is in preproduction. From what I’ve heard through the grapevine, filming will take place from mid-2009 and finish late in the year. Nolan and co. will most likely be involved with post for most of the first half of 2010, readying the film for it’s mid-July release.

It looks as if there will be no way that BATMAN 3 can go through pre, filming, and post during the second half of 2010 and the first part of 2011 and be ready for a Summer ‘11 release.

Doing the math, the timeframe between THE DARK KNIGHT to INCEPTION is nine months later than it was between BATMAN BEGINS to THE PRESTIGE -- that’s nearly a year folks. Thus it appears that BATMAN 3 will come four years after TDK.

I know a four year gap is a bummer, but cheer up -- at least we know a Nolan-directed BATMAN 3 is coming!

(And that’s more than we could say back in ‘97 after BATMAN AND ROBIN.)

Who Watches The Watching-Men?

Author: Mark Hughes
March 6, 2009

Photobucket

This isn't a review of the new Zack Snyder film WATCHMEN This is a review of the reviews, or more to the point a review of a particular type of review that has been cropping up lately in what I believe to be a backlash against the rise in prominence of comic-based films.

Fans of comics know of course that the medium is rich with deeply examined characters within complex, dramatic stories. Complex issues and characterization are frequent hallmarks of a vast array of comic books and graphic novels. Only in recent decades has the medium gained attention as literature for adults, this despite of course many more decades of terrific storytelling and examination of social issues and characterization. But the modern acceptance and occasional acclaim for comic books (most often actually directed at the more adult-sounding term "graphic novels") has been a welcome transition for those of us who have long known the literary value and artistic merit of the medium.

It was perhaps inevitable that as mainstream acceptance of the medium grew, it would propel the printed pages into an ever more successful film genre. The rise of the comic-based film genre as a modern powerhouse at the box office and as a treasure trove full of potential material for future films has, thankfully, attracted increasingly talented filmmakers and performers to these projects. Now, we have just seen the first Academy Award season in which a comic-based film was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, and was a top contender for both Best Picture and Best Director nominations.

Comic-based films have officially "arrived" as serious, dramatic works recognizable as great artistic achievements. The future looks very bright, indeed, as studios such as Warner Bros. give careful consideration and serious thought not to just churning out big-budget summer popcorn films featuring these characters, but rather the creation of powerful films capable of gaining nominations and awards for the artistry on display in the work.

Apparently some people are having second thoughts about the advisability of all of this. Namely, a bunch of film critics. It seems that they are disturbed by the notion that suddenly the literary "poor relations" have grown too big for their britches, and that this whole ascendance of comic-based films into the realm of higher-art is not such a good thing after all. So we are seeing with "Watchmen" a sort of buyers remorse from this particular batch of film critics, who are sounding the alarm as they imagine the hordes of masked barbarians storming the gates of the faux-Ivory Towers of pseudo-intellectualism.

I suspect there is a sense of guilt at the root of it all. The critics, in their inflated sense of self-importance, no doubt feel that they accidentally helped legitimize the comic-based film genre in the first place. Widespread critical acclaim for films such as IRON MAN and THE DARK KNIGHT, and some of the early acclaim for WATCHMEN, has spread the notion that this lowbrow, immature pop-culture kitch rises to the level of true art – heaven forbid! That the recent Academy Award season featured much discussion and debate about THE DARK KNIGHT as an Oscar-contender likely sent this batch of film critics into hysterics.

The teaming masses flocked to these films, declared them masterpieces, and had the gall to even rally behind the Oscar-worthiness of the films. Only the power of intellectual critical acclaim could have given the commoners this mistaken sense of a voice in the thoughtful determination of what is or is not serious art, right? So it is of course their solemn duty to undo the damage their powerful expressions of opinion have wrought.

Now these defenders of high-art rush forward to stem the tide, to put the comic-based genre, it's fans, and the mainstream masses in their place. WATCHMEN has become a rallying point, and they've taken out the big guns.

It isn't enough to just denounce the film – that would not be a strong enough statement. No, what is necessary is to make it perfectly clear that it is not merely this particular film, but rather the entire genre and its source material, that are utterly unworthy of serious consideration as art. Even that, however, is apparently not enough, for they have decided it's time to also try to knock all of these comic book fans down a notch or two as well. Time to force back the clock to the time prior to mainstream acceptance of the medium and of its fans as more than just immature little boys who can't talk to girls. Time, in fact, to perhaps literally call them just that – as at least one reviewer explicitly did in mocking those who would watch WATCHMEN in the first place.

By insulting the fans of this material, by dismissing the literary source, and by acting annoyed that the consideration of these films as true art has "gone too far", these reviewers are trying to humble audiences into embarrassed and submissive silence.

The backlash against the genre does not really have to successful stymie the box office power of the films, notice – it merely has to remind audiences that this is all a bunch of mindless fluff suited more for kids, with the warning: "Hey, popcorn flicks are fun, sure, but don't get any delusions of grandeur about this pop-culture crap as serious art." It is the removal of expectations, an attempt to prevent audiences from assessing the merits of the film and reaching conclusions – remember, the goal isn't just to alter those conclusions, it's just as important to alter the audiences' notion that they have any collective right to participate in determinations about what constitutes real art.

So even if fans and audiences feel insulted by this messaging, it has still had its needed impact – reduce expectations, and get across the point that notions of art and literature are the realm of a "better" class of people. This part, then, is easy enough for these reviewers. It is not, however, the main goal.

The real target audience for these reviews is a combination of other film critics and of Hollywood itself. The message to this audience is that these are films taken from comic books, with people wearing masks and underwear, where silly action and special effects cannot ultimately disguise pretense toward being something it's not – high art and serious literature. In other words, stop being fooled by the pomp and circumstance. Make your fun and flashy films, and we'll review them and even smile and wink and encourage the lowbrow viewers to stop by for a fun night – but don't try to pass this stuff off as worthy of serious consideration, and don't nominate this pop-culture kitch for serious awards.

Some of their brethren will no doubt fail to get the message, or will get it but return it to sender. Roger Ebert is one such reviewer, someone who doesn't care what are the origins of a film -- if it is great, then he will call it great. He has long been one of the critics who most recognized the ongoing renaissance in comic-based films, and who early on stated his belief that THE DARK KNIGHT could get -- and would deserve -- a nomination for Best Picture. But his popularity and status is so strong, that the currently incited group of critics can't openly complain and attack the likes of Roger Ebert, lest their own critical voices be rather quickly dismissed and lose whatever weight they might have (even if only in their own minds) in shaping public and industry opinion and standards.

I am not objecting to criticisms of WATCHMEN or of other comic-based films. What I'm objecting to is criticism of this movie and other comic-based films when that criticism is rooted in the fact that they ARE comic-based. That is precisely the sort of knee-jerk hack writing that is being passed off as legitimate critical journalism right now, in a backlash launched by a segment of film critics who fancy themselves the gatekeepers of high culture and intellectualism in film. I'm also not being anti-intellectual here, either. My disdain is directed at pseudo-intellectuals, and those pseudo-intellectuals who pose as definers of true artistic merit.

Photobucket

Those who disliked WATCHMEN or THE DARK KNIGHT for serious, intelligently articulated reasons are quite different from those currently flailing about to discredit comic books as an acceptable literary genre and to insult and degrade comic book fans as childish losers trying to pretend toward intellectualism as a cover for an inability to score dates. These are not the arguments of high-minded critics, but rather petty outbursts from small-minded people alarmed at what they perceive as an existential threat to their self-perceived status as intellectual superiors.

I hope that some of the other film critics speak out openly about this, and take their wrongheaded peers to task for that sort of behavior. I also hope that Zack Snyder, Chris Nolan, and/or some other filmmaker involved with this genre speaks out publicly to the fans and to mainstream audiences as well, to defend the integrity of these films and of the source material, as well as publicly shaming that small segment of film critics for such inexcusable remarks parading around as serious film analysis. But most of all, I hope fans and audiences in general simply ignore these critics and see through the transparent attempts to degrade an art form and a film genre that are more than worthy of consideration as fine literature, dramatic filmmaking, and high art.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Film Review: WATCHMEN

Author: Jett Man
March 3, 2009

Photobucket

OFFICIAL SYNOPSIS: "A complex, multi-layered mystery adventure, WATCHMEN is set in an alternate 1985 America in which costumed superheroes are part of the fabric of everyday society, and the Doomsday Clock--which charts the USA's tension with the Soviet Union--moves closer to midnight. When one of his former colleagues is murdered, the outlawed but no less determined masked vigilante Rorschach sets out to uncover a plot to kill and discredit all past and present superheroes. As he reconnects with his former crime-fighting legion--a disbanded group of retired superheroes, only one of whom has true powers--Rorschach glimpses a wide-ranging and disturbing conspiracy with links to their shared past and catastrophic consequences for the future. Their mission is to watch over humanity...but who is watching the Watchmen?
RELEASE DATE: March 6, 2009
DIRECTOR: Zack Snyder
OFFICIAL SITE: WATCHMENMOVIE.COM

Before you continue reading my review of WATCHMEN, please indulge me a brief personal story.

I can remember distinctly my introduction to the graphic novel WATCHMEN. While in college, I kept the fact that a was a comic book fan a secret -- it wasn’t “cool” to read them back then. Since I wouldn’t be caught dead in a comic shop, I’d go to a book store at my local mall and read them right off the rack.

That’s how I kept up with Batman in comics back in the 80s.

It was at this bookstore that I discovered the “graphic novel.” Being a Batman fan, I stumbled upon this book featuring Batman titled THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. As I read it, I can remember thinking…

“Why is Batman old?”

“Why is Robin a girl?”

“Why is Batman and Superman fighting?”

“What in the hell are Ronald Reagan and David Letterman doing in this story?”

Anyway…

Like TDKR, I also discovered WATCHMEN at this bookstore. I can clearly recall picking it out because of the “DC” logo. But upon flipping through it, I discovered a bunch of superheroes that I’d never before encountered. As I read it, I can remember thinking…

“If this is a DC comic, where’s Batman and Superman?”

“Why is Richard Nixon still president in the 1980s?”

“Cursing, sex, and blood…in a comic book?!”

“Who is this big blue dude running around naked?”

After reading both THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and WATCHMEN, I began to question myself. Why exactly wasn’t I buying comics anymore?

This DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and WATCHMEN. Not only were they good, but they were written for grownups…and me.

A year or so later, I saw BATMAN (1989) and it was over. To hell with peer pressure! I like comic books, I am a geek, and I’m damn proud of it!

And now, some 20 years later, comic books and the films that are based on them are “cool.” Hell, we’ve even had an actor (the late Heath Ledger) win an Oscar for playing a comic book character (The Joker in THE DARK KNIGHT). Comic book movie are now an established form of film here to stay.

As comic book movie legend Michael Uslan told me recently, the Golden Age of comic book movies is upon us.

I’ve been excited to see a WATCHMEN film for several years. As I’m sure you all know, this project was in development hell for years.

I first started following it when director Darren Aronofsky was still attached and it was over at Paramount. Then Darren left and Paul Greengrass was set to direct. Next thing you know, the thing went into turnaround.

Eventually, WATCHMEN found it’s way home to Warner Bros. who put director Zack Snyder (300) on it, and here we are.

Photobucket

WATCHMEN is a film that comic book fans should be very proud of. It further proves that the genre has come a LONG way since the days of STEEL, CATWOMAN, and BATMAN AND ROBIN. BUT…

I’ve got to wonder how this film is going to resonate with a mainstream audience. More on that in a a bit.

Any worries that WATCHMEN wouldn’t be faithful to the graphic novel can be put to rest. Amazingly, the filmmakers were able to incorporate the core theme and message of the book into an almost three hour film. Honestly, Zack Snyder has absolutely nailed it as far being loyal to the comic book. It’s almost like he went out of his way to install images and scenes into the film exactly as they appear in the source material. I’ve got to tip my hat to Snyder and company because I did not think WATCHMEN the book could be turned into WATCHMEN the film.

Alan Moore will be pleased!

Um, probably not.

Are there things from the book omitted? Sure, and that’s to be expected when any book is adapted to film.

Did Synder and the writers make some changes? Yep. I’m sure that this will come off as blasphemy to some, but sometimes changes that filmmakers make can be viewed as improvements to the comics on which they’re based.

Like The Joker in THE DARK KNIGHT…

The organic web shooters in SPIDER-MAN…

And making changes to the end of WATCHMEN.

I thought the change (which I won’t reveal) made was actually better. Trust me, it has the same effect and serves the same purpose as the squid in the book.

As far as performances, not a bad one to be had. I particular enjoyed Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II -- who is the “hero” of the film if there is one. Malin Akerman made for a good Silk Spectre II -- and she’s smoking hot. Mathew Goode as Ozymandia made me hate him -- and I think you were supposed to. I thought Billy Crudup was fine as Dr. Manhattan -- although he’s blue, naked, and CGI for the most part. Jeffery Dean Morgan as The Comedian, what an A-hole -- and that’s a good thing! And…

Photobucket

Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach…

Wow.

This guy simply owned the role -- that’s about all I can say. Of all the Watchmen in the film (Yes, they are referred to by that name), Haley’s portrayal of Rorschach/Walter Kovacs was by far the closest to being exactly like his comic book counterpart. Yet, he brought some humanity to the character that I frankly missed when reading the book. In my opinion, Haley’s Rorschach ranks right up there with the great performances in comic book movie history -- Christopher Reeve's Superman, Christian Bale’s Batman, Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man, and Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine to name a few.

A couple other positives I took away from WATCHMEN. The cinematography and look of the film -- this alternate 1985 New York City -- was outstanding. Also, I thought the very 1980s-sounding score from Tyler Bates meshed well the story and the setting. And on a related note, the film certainly had a nice soundtrack with each song included being appropriate to the events of WATCHMEN.

Photobucket

Negatives? Yep, I’ve got a few.

I expected the film to be violent and needed to be at times. Case in point, The Comedian’s murder that opens the movie. With that said, I thought there were some very violent and bloody scenes that Snyder didn’t have use. It seems to me that these brutal images were incorporated for shock value -- simply to say “Look how bloody and gross a ‘comic book movie’ can be!”

Previously I mentioned that it appeared as if Snyder went the extra mile to tremendously loyal to the comic. While that’s certainly a good thing, I felt it was overdone a bit as well. The film’s dialogue being ripped word for word from the graphic novel was annoying at times. Ditto for recreating classic panels from the book as visuals in the film.

Other nitpick is Snyder’s overuse at times of slow motion. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. I wish he had limited the use of the effect to the times it worked the best -- like Nite Owl and Silk Spectre taking on inmates while breaking Rorschach out of prison.

And isn’t Dr. Manhattan the only superpowered being in WATCHMEN? Then how in the heck can Ozymandias, Rorschach and the other human Watchmen do things that would require some sort of superhuman ability?

Oh well.

Earlier, I said that I do indeed wonder how people who have never read WATCHMEN -- the “mainstream” if you will -- will take to this film. As someone who has read the book several times, the movie’s complicated storyline was easy to follow. Will it be too much for those unfamiliar with the book?

Will the fact that it is a very different type of comic book film than previously seen -- THE DARK KNIGHT included -- turn off those folks? Let’s face it, the Watchmen are certainly not the Fantastic 4.

On the other hand, maybe these non-fans will embrace this movie and make it a success. And in turn, studios will be willing to take more chances on other comic book movies that are similar to WATCHMEN, further expanding the genre.

Here’s hoping the Golden Age of comic book movies becomes even more golden in the future.

JETT'S GRADE: A-

Monday, March 2, 2009

Why Watch the Watchmen?

Photobucket

What makes this comic book cult sensation so special? And why should you uninitiated see the film?

If you live in Los Angeles, or any major metropolitan city, and you've driven down any street lately, you've probably felt the presence of a big, blue, bald man with glowing white eyes peering down at you from a wall or billboard. If not him, then perhaps you've seen a guy in a vaguely Batman-like costume, or a woman in sleek, skin-tight latex and thigh-high boots. No, these aren't the latest fashion trends lighting up Hollywood (although you never know). They're part of the marketing push for "Watchmen," the first major superhero movie to come charging into theaters since last summer's "The Dark Knight" (we'll just forget about the "The Spirit," shall we?). Images of the movie's six main characters are everywhere, the trailers are ubiquitous online and in theaters, and the fanboy universe is about to go supernova. So what exactly is all the caped commotion about?

In 1986 a comic book was published that forever changed the nature of the medium. Titled "Watchmen," the 12-issue series was written by famed comics scribe Alan Moore, illustrated by artist Dave Gibbons, and colored by John Higgins. The impact of "Watchmen" was immediate on a commercial level; it was an instant best-seller and even briefly lifted its publisher, DC Comics, above its eternal competitor, Marvel, in the two companies' never-ending battle for market dominance. But more importantly, on a cultural level, the effects of "Watchmen" are still being felt today throughout the comic book world and, by association, the film, television and even literary realms as well.

Along with, arguably, Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" (issued around the same time), "Watchmen" took the comic book medium to an entirely new level of sophistication, maturity and dramatic potential. Moore and Gibbons brought the story to the page in groundbreaking new ways, while the narrative itself was a rich mélange of action, sci-fi, mystery, politics, social satire and philosophy, steeped in symbolism, subtext and allegory. "Watchmen" took the very idea of the superhero and became, as author Bradford Wright wrote in his study "Comic Book Nation," "Moore's obituary for the concept of heroes in general and superheroes in particular."

Now, 23 years after its initial publication, and almost as long since the idea of a film version of the story was first developed, "Watchmen" is coming to the screen. The project's long struggle to get there is almost as complex and dramatic a tale as the actual book, and for many years "Watchmen" was close to being deemed one of those "unfilmable" projects that would never see the light of day. Now, at last, it's here, under the guidance of "300" director Zack Snyder. And for many comic book fans, March 6, the film's release date, is a day they never thought they'd see. But for the rest of the world, the question is: Why watch the Watchmen?

Origin Story

"Watchmen" emerged out of Moore's desire to take a series of superheroes from the defunct Charlton Comics line, which went out of business in 1986 after a 40-year run and sold its characters to DC, and resurrect them in a new story that would begin with the death of one of them and portray the rest in a fashion that had not been seen in superhero comics to that point. Eventually abandoning the idea of using previously existing characters such as the Peacemaker and the Question, Moore came up with his own set of heroes. They looked and sounded enough like pop culture icons such as Batman and Captain America to strike a chord with readers, but were also deeper, more dysfunctional and in many ways more twisted than just about any so-called "superhero" that had appeared in comic books before.

Thus were born Nite Owl, the Comedian, Ozymandias, Silk Spectre, Dr. Manhattan and the unforgettable Rorschach, six "heroes" in various stages of retirement, personal crisis or mental instability. The world of "Watchmen" is a parallel to our own, set in a 1980s in which Richard Nixon is still president (term limits having been lifted on the Oval Office), the Cold War is reaching a boiling point, and there's a level of dread and anxiety permeating every facet of everyday life. Masked crime fighters, while once a part of this world and influential in the outcome of historical events such as the Vietnam War, have fallen out of favor and are either dead, retired or officially working for the government, with legislation passed in 1977 to outlaw them entirely.

Only one of our six main characters, Dr. Manhattan, is a true superbeing, having been transformed by a lab accident into a highly evolved entity of immense power and energy. Ozymandias, now operating a vast and hugely successful business empire under his real name, Adrian Veidt, is considered the smartest man in the world and has evolved in his own way. The others have relied on a mix of strength, ferocity, fighting skill, technical prowess and intelligence to make their mark, but all four are feeling the effects of age, loneliness and loss of purpose in a world that has rejected them.

The time of the superheroes has indeed passed in Moore's story, and at the worst possible moment. Tension between the United States and Soviet Union, mostly over the presence of Dr. Manhattan as a U.S. operative/weapon, has led the two superpowers to the brink of nuclear war. Meanwhile, someone is out to either murder or discredit the superheroes. The story begins with the killing of the Comedian, which the psychopathic Rorschach, who still works outside the law, sets out to investigate. What he and some of the others discover is a plot to not only get the heroes out of the way, but also to alter the course of human history entirely.

Heroes or Villains?

When Moore wrote "Watchmen" in the mid-'80s, the Cold War was still raging, but with nowhere near the intensity he establishes in his book. Yet Ronald Reagan had come into office a few years earlier, blustering about the "Evil Empire" and decimating the country's welfare system in exchange for a massive increase in defense spending. His Justice Department launched an invasive and punitive "war on drugs" that opened the gates for even more abandonment of civil liberties.

This world of cowboy diplomacy, might over right, and moral absolutes was the one Moore wanted to comment on. "Watchmen" rejected the idea of a superior morality or authority. Moore made sure his superheroes were as flawed as the rest of us: Nite Owl suffers from impotency and can barely squeeze his sagging frame into his costume; Silk Spectre drinks and smokes too much and is promiscuous at a young age; the brutish Comedian is a rapist; and even the above-it-all Dr. Manhattan thumbs his nose at the world the minute he gets some bad publicity.

In a number of crucial scenes, Moore makes the argument that we cannot, as a race, depend solely and unconditionally on individuals or bodies of authority to make the world a safer or better place. Moore's United States has already handed power over to Nixon in possible perpetuity, while the tactics of the Comedian and Rorschach come straight from the vicious playbook of Dick Cheney, making them nearly as bad as the evildoers they are attempting to eradicate. Even the ultimate plan that's revealed at the climax of the story, while ostensibly idealistic, comes at a horrifying cost and carries its own odor of fascism. The best laid plans are subject to the whims of human frailty, superpowers or not.

"You've Changed Things"

It is for all the reasons above, and many others, that the vast viewing audience out there not necessarily familiar with the book's Grail-like status should nonetheless flock to see "Watchmen." While its characters are not iconic like Batman or Superman, they're all recognizably human, even the godlike Dr. Manhattan. The intertwining of ideas and themes is almost overwhelming, as is the parade of surreal, slightly psychedelic visuals. The complex narrative is rich with details, character moments, flashbacks and mind-blowing set pieces, not to mention explicit, plentiful sex, violence and bloodshed.

Even the story's alternate Cold War setting feels both timeless and just as relevant as ever. If anything, the world is more uneasy than it was back in the '80s, with the threats of terrorism, environmental disaster and economic collapse casting deep shadows across the globe. The idea that we shouldn't place all our hopes on the shoulders of one person, or a handful of individuals, also seems timely; with tens of millions looking to a new president to lift us out of our current mess, we might just need a reminder than he's a man, not a superhero, and just as capable of failure as the rest of us. Even the most idealistic leader can be corrupted and the most promising initiatives distorted, a point driven home quite eloquently in "Watchmen."

In other words, this is a superhero movie unlike any other you've ever seen, written and directed for an adult audience. I can report confidently for the die-hard fans that, while there are some changes along the way (most notably in the climax), the film version of "Watchmen" is so faithful to the book that, for most of its 160 minutes, it seems to have leapt straight off the page. For everyone else, this is about as far away from silly junk like "Batman and Robin," "Spider-Man 3" and "Fantastic Four" as this genre of movie can get, and its long path to the screen in this pristine form mirrors the long evolution of comic books as well.

It was "Watchmen," after all, that introduced the concept of the flawed, dysfunctional superhero, leading to massive changes in the comic book industry. The books got darker and more complex, while the heroes got more recognizably human. This has finally filtered down to the movies, as evidenced by the depth of "The Dark Knight," the character shadings of "Iron Man" and even the misfired ambition of "Hancock." While "Watchmen" paved the way 20 years ago for those films to eventually emerge, their success has in turn opened the way for "Watchmen" to make its way on-screen. So why watch the Watchmen? For many of the same reasons you watch any movie: It's got action, mystery, fights, sex, love, special effects, a great story. But it's also got something else that we're seeing for possibly the first time in this genre, front and center: ideas.

Green Lantern: First Flight - Behind the Scenes Video