The Warlock's Review: "Watchmen"

Anticipation is a funny thing. While the high expectations it creates often lead to heartache, the lead-up and hype for a movie often lend it even more weight once it hits the box office.

Watchmen has been among my most anticipated movies since it was announced nearly two years ago. When its release was nearly held up by 20th Century Fox, I was aghast. When the first trailer aired, pulsing along to a Smashing Pumpkins anti-ballad, I was in awe. And now, having seen it...

...it's honestly hard to breathe. As a fan, it's utterly mind-blowing.

In all honesty, never before has a "comic-book movie" been as faithful to its source as Watchmen. To be honest, I cannot envision another movie challenging it on this front. Scenes directly from the book are placed on screen one after another. Director Zack Snyder is flawless in this respect--his adoration for the book itself is phenomenal.

Several other critics have criticised this, both on the front that he has "embalmed" the movie (i.e. staying too close to the source material), or that his changes, made for time (the movie is nearly 3 hours, without the cuts!) were not faithful to his overall vision. Considering both arguments, as well as my own opinion, I dare say that he managed to walk a fine line in this respect. While changes to the book are present, they're dealt with smoothly and without hassle. However, scene after scene are pulled directly from the book.

I'm jumping ahead of myself. If you haven't read the book, or have much familiarity with the universe at this point, here's the basic summary. In 1977, the Keene Act is passed, banning acts of "masked vigilantism" following a massive police strike. Vigilantes have been active since WWII, impacting history in various ways, including the accidental creation of the first actual superhero, known as Dr. Manhattan (and played in a perfectly stoic manner by Billy Crudup). It's now 1985, and someone has started killing former vigilantes, starting with the fascistic gun-nut The Comedian (Jeffery Dean Morgan). Rorschach, a sociopathic (and still active) vigilante played by Jackie Earle Haley, begins to investigate.

As I said, the scenes are literally pulled straight from the graphic novel, and thus have a grim, edgy tone suited to this alternate history tale. Haley's gravelly tone narrates us through the world via Rorschach's journal, as he attempts to warn his fellow heroes. At the top of the list is Dan Dreiberg, better known as Nite-Owl (Patrick Wilson), who has fallen into despondancy and impotency.

By and large, the portrayals in this movie are near flawless. Haley's Rorschach oozes with loathing and menace, while Nite-Owl's near-fetishistic obsession with the costumed lifestyle display him as torn between his desire for a normal life and his primal need for the adrenaline rush of adventuring.

Opposite Nite-Owl is Malin Ackerman's Silk Spectre II, forced into the costumed lifestyle by her mother (Carla Gugino), now aging in a rest home. While Ackerman's portrayal is adequate, it does not carry the emotional weight of Haley's narration, Morgan's psychopathic violence, or Wilson's despondancy. The only truly poor performance I would assess for this film is Gugino's, which centers primarily around her age. The elder Silk Spectre simply does not look the part, particularly in the 1985 sections, where she looks just as old as her daughter, instead of 40 years older. Her delivery--too energetic and youthful--only exacerbates this feeling.

One of the few flaws I can find with this movie is with the sheer level of graphic violence in Watchmen. I had gone in knowing much about the violence, having read the book numerous times, but I was not quite prepared for the sheer intensity of the gore in this film. Fight scenes are choreographed with no punches pulled, and no strength unused. During a fight with some street thugs, Nite-Owl breaks a foe's elbow, cracking it in a hideous compound fracture. When invading a mob speakeasy, a gesture from Dr. Manhattan splatters gun-toting mobsters across the room. If you are weak of heart or faint of stomach, even the first scene--wherein the aging Comedian fights for his life and falls to an unseen assailant in his apartment--will sit ill with you.

Snyder pulled no punches with his violence, and I can respect that, but I do question the necessity of it. Whereas the book is just as violent, many of the actions are 'between panels', where it is understood what happens--a typical Shakespearean motion. On screen, the actions overshoot their visceral intent and roam into the unnecessary. The same can be said of the sex scene between Ackerman and Wilson, high above New York aboard the OwlShip. Were the scene half as long, it would have had the same impact--the sheer length and graphicness of it overshoots its intent.

Much has further been made of Watchmen's soundtrack, which brings together an ecletic series of tunes from across the late 20th century. However, I was more impressed by the score itself, penned by Tyler Bates. The background music was more subtle than expected, yet held a great deal of menace, particularly throughout Rorschach's theme, as well as that of Ozymandias, the adventurer-turned-businessman played adequately by Matthew Goode. While I own most of the soundtrack's songs as it is now--yay for being a classic rock junkie--I fully intend to go find the score itself as soon as I'm done here.

All in all, Watchmen is a difficult movie not to recommend. It is utterly faithful to its source material, and the experience of watching it is much like watching a horrifying accident. The story itself is midnight-black, which makes it hard to watch, when shown in all its glory on the screen. If you can stomach through the intensity of the violence, the movie will leave you stunned, with your jaw on the floor. It is, quite literally, the best (and most likely) fulfillment of the comic book lovers' dream.

In Which The Warlock Realizes Some Irony...

...immediately after commending myself about my ability to update on time, this update is, of course, late. Oi. *hangs head* It's life.

But, on a more positive spin, things are finally rolling in our Friday night game. Unsere, my tiefling artificer/swordmage, is utterly fed up with getting followed around by everyone in sight, but at least she's finding her way out of Thromstorm! However, I can't help but feel just a touch of frustration, as what I had originally intended to be a more "supporting" character seems to be turning into the plot's lead. *shrug* That's the way of things, some days. Nothing like a 'reluctant hero' archetype!

Further positive, I've set myself on using Heroes Unlimited 2e Revised for my Watchmen/Call of Cthulhu game. Looking onto the rules, they're not quite so clunky as to shy the newbies to Palladium away, and it's definitely the best fit for the setting's feel.

That said, I'm definitely going to pare out some of the "bigger" powers, to fit with the feel of the world. I just can't imagine Nite-Owl or Silk Spectre roaming around with someone with "Alter Physical Structure: Plasma", who can melt through steel walls with his bare hands. I mean, the whole point of Dr. Manhattan was the fact that he was one-of-a-kind. Doesn't make much sense to populate the whole world with Captain Atom!

One of my bigger difficulties comes from the grafting of the Sanity system onto the Palladium stats. While "Mental Endurance" seems to be a great place to start, the character classes that rely on it most heavily--Mystics and Psionics--should be the first ones to go crazy, not the last! I think I may end up using an average of all mental stats, to form the Sanity base, but I'm still undecided.
We shall see, I suppose!

Next post? My 4e Manual of the Planes review!

In Which The Warlock Celebrates His Centennial!

Well, devoted readers--oh, few of you!--we've reached our first real milestone. This, right here, is my 100th blog entry, and (almost) my 2 year blogging anniversary.

Well, I suppose I can't actually say the latter portion. I held a personal blog during college, which promptly disappeared, as the blog-service that I was using vanished. However, it's nearly the 2 year anniversary of this blog, so it warrants celebration.

To be perfectly honest, I'm somewhat surprised that I've been as on-time and as up-to-date with this blog as I have been. Averaged out, 100 entries over 2 years is almost exactly 1 update per week. Now, you and I both know that's not exactly the case--this past Origins alone had daily posts, which skews the average quite a bit--but still! Success!

I really wasn't sure what to write in this entry, though, to be perfectly honest. But, with it being New Year's Eve...I figured that I might as well go ahead with some New Year's Gaming Resolution:

1. Keep updating on-time! Been doing well so far, but Sunday's the day to shoot for...

2. A stronger focus on writing. Managing game design with Dungeon Slam!, writing up campaigns and WEGS Supers ideas, and doing the whole 'teaching thing' isn't exactly easy, but it's a balance that's gotta be struck. I can't just leave Dungeon Slam! as a summer project! Doesn't work that way...

3. More gaming-based reviews. While the movie reviews this year were a nice change--particularly considering the utterly loaded summer blockbuster season--this is a gaming blog...sort of. Speaking of, I've got some strong opinions on WotC's 4e Manual of the Planes that need to be divulged...to say nothing of some other recent purchases.

4. More insight into design. Some of my favorite entries of the past two years have been the ones based around understanding the principles of game design, as well as observations on the practical application of these. I remember particularly the entry on "how the Warlock changed 3e/4e"...that was glorious.

5. More pictures! Especially with how much the PlatinumChick and I have been painting, it'd be nice to set up a weekly painting progress book!

6. More "tales from the table" With a weekly D&D game once more, and my Watchmen-esque Call of Cthulhu/Heroes Unlimited game coming en route, there'll be plenty of gaming tales to be had. Here's for seeing some of those here!

Cheers, all! Happy New Year! Good gaming to all, and to all...well, something they enjoy, I suppose.

In Which The Warlock Remembers He Has a Blog!

Sorry for the lack of updates recently--the weeks have been hectic recently, as work has had me hopping on IEP and MFE documentation, to say nothing of my normal workload. As such, it's been a touch rough to focus on gaming during all this time.

That said, I have come up with something of an idea for a game...if I can pull it off.

The premise would be something of a coupling of Alan Moore's seminal Watchmen and some of the more recent Ramsey Campbell Cthulhu Mythos work, with a touch of Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth thrown in for good measure.

Players would take the role of low-powered superheroes--think Punisher, Batman, or Moon Knight instead of Green Lantern or Iron Man--as they investigate psychotic supervillains, vile cultists and serial killers, and the conspiracies behind the banning of global "superheroes".

The biggest problem in this centers on the system to use in this. There's no easy answers here...

I'm tempted to use Mutants and Masterminds, as many people are familiar with the d20 system. However, M&M suffers from the rules bloat of 3.5e D&D, and is really numbers heavy. While I'd always have d20 NPC Wiki to fall back on, I hate to do that on a consistent basis. Plus, it seems like most of the orientation in M&M is towards high-powered, Golden Age superheroes, which isn't exactly the time period in question.

I've heard good things about Silver Age Sentinels and Champions, but I own neither, which is...well, more money for only a singular game. And further, I don't know much about the actual nitty-gritty of either system.

As such, I'm left with my old stand-by: Heroes Unlimited. While I love the quirky little Palladium system, it's not exactly the most elegant thing out there, and many players balk at learning a new system just for one game. However, for low-powered supers, there might not be a better system to catch it.

Suggestions? I'm all ears...

In Which The Warlock Finds Himself Unable to Compare Billionaire Playboys...

So, I've been debating about writing this review since I've seen it. The Dark Knight The newest, biggest, most anticipated summer blockbuster of the year. It's out, and I find myself dumbfounded, trying to figure out how to think about it.

Mainly, I think this is because I enjoyed Iron Man so much. But, as I've thought about the two films more and more, I find myself nearly unable to compare them. However, I'll do my best, here, as I give my review on The Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight begins scant months after Batman Begins--the mob families of Gotham are in disarray, and the appearance of The Batman has caused several "copycat vigilantes" to pop up, to say nothing of "the freaks"...including a perennial psychopath called The Joker. However, rising to the occasion is also District Attorney Harvey Dent, played by a grimly determined Aaron Eckhart.

If Iron Man was a film that was driven by Robert Downey Jr.'s performance, The Dark Knight succeeds in spite of Christian Bale's presentation. This is not to say that Christian Bale does badly, but the film itself is not about him--The Batman's already been established, and the screentime focuses more specifically on Dent and the late Heath Ledger's Joker. Batman becomes second fiddle in his own film, growling menacingly at any who come by, as he simply reacts to the Joker's threats as swiftly and mercilessly as possible.

And it is Ledger that absolutely steals the show. Something of a combination of Sid Vicious and "A Clockwork Orange"'s Alex (both of whom were inspirations for Ledger's character), with a touch of Kevin Spacey's "John Doe", The Joker comes across as a man possessed. Licking the corners of his facial scars with frentic abandon, Ledger slinks his way through the part like a predatory cat. The writing for the Joker, particularly, crackles like a loose high-voltage cord. Jeff Bridges' Obediah Stane has nothing on this guy--while Bridges made for a suitable industrial businessman, Ledger brings a genuine insanity to the part that no villain in recent memory can match.

The plot of The Dark Knight moves subtly and (to a degree) slowly, starting first as a bust on mob money launderers, then spiraling further and further out of control as the Joker turns his anarchic vision to judges, Police Commissioner Gordon, and D.A. Dent, as he goads The Batman to dare to stop him, mainly by breaking his "one rule"--no killing. While the film maintains a taut sense of tension throughout, the side-plots and continual layered machinations run just a little long. I actually began to wonder, by about the 2 hour mark, where they were getting any more Gotham policemen or Joker henchmen...

Believe it or not--and trust me, this is going to sound odd--I found myself somewhat bored with The Dark Knight's fight scenes. Oftentimes, they felt unnecessary and rushed, and I felt myself longing for them to end as soon as possible, so we could get back to the high tension. This was a massive departure from most superhero movies, where the actions scenes pile up like one of Michael Bay's wet dreams. Again, Iron Man had a good balance here, but the action drove the plot, rather than vice versa, as in The Dark Knight.

I suppose this is another major point of differentiation. Iron Man and The Dark Knight both shared PG-13 ratings, but for very different representations. Iron Man had the various expected explosions, but was not afraid to kill--I remember particularly when the Armored Avenger punches one of the Gulmira terrorists and he crumples into a wall about 20 feet away. The Dark Knight, on the other hand, has the exact opposite effect. While Batman refuses to kill, this movie is dark. Yes, I know you've heard that already, but let me put this straight...

...early on in the movie, the Joker kills a mob thug. With a pencil. The camera speed is moved up, so that the action happens in a flash, as the Joker literally slams the mobster's head down, impaling his skull on a sharpened pencil.

That's grim. That's dark. That's psychotic. It's ground that superhero movies have never trod before. It's more reminiscent of films like Se7en or Saw than of Fantastic Four, and doesn't let up through the whole film. The irony of this is not lost on me--Iron Man kills people, while Batman does not...yet Batman's film is so much darker, most likely for that fact.

I have no problem with this direction in films, but it shows a grim darkness that is almost unfitting with other superhero movies. That said, I cannot believe whatsoever that parents would let their children under 10 or 11 see this, particularly unsupervised.

The Dark Knight is an absolutely fantastic film. While it runs long, and Bale's Batman gets somewhat lost beneath Ledger's schizophrenic symphony, it deserves every ounce of hype it gets. However, it is not a true superhero/comic-book movie. It's a psychological thriller, complete with sociopathic serial killer, with just enough of a superheroic twist to get kids in the seats and action figures in the aisles.

Long story short?
Iron Man is utterly a superior superhero movie. It centers on Tony Stark as Iron Man and doesn't let up, it follows comic book conventions to a T, and it shows the necessary action in high fashion. Take it for what it is, and you'll never be disappointed in it.

The Dark Knight, to the opposite point, is a superior "film". It's a brillant character study of a psychopathic villain, and two heroes (Batman and Dent) who must walk a thin line when chasing their adversary or risk becoming equally psychopathic. It's an absolutely brilliant piece of celluloid, but it's not a superhero movie--don't treat it as such, and you'll absolutely love it. Try to categorize it with Iron Man and you'll be disapointed.

For the sake of posterity, let me put down one last thought. Coupled right before The Dark Knight was the trailer for Zak Penn's Watchmen, which I've been drooling over for months. I get the feeling, knowing the story of Watchmen, that I'll be saying most of the same comments about it, as I've shared about The Dark Knight. Time shall tell, friends and neighbors!