As DAGblog's newly self-appointed film critic, I've chosen Watchmen as my first foray into DAGblogging. And since I'm not an "established" critic, I didn't get courtesy press tickets a week in advance. No, I went to the theater last night at midnight and left this morning at three a.m. (Please, press guys, get me some of those advance screening passes next time, and maybe the review of your film won't be written on three hours sleep.)

Here's the need-to-know for anyone not familiar with the graphic novel. Watchmen, originally published in 1985, is unsurprisingly set in 1985. But it's not exactly the 1985 you remember. The divergences begin in the 1930's, when a group of police officers take to wearing costumes as an homage to comic book heroes. The media runs with the gimmick, and the age of the masked hero begins. By the time the second generation of masked heroes arrive in the 1960's, their presence has begun to alter history, in slight but important ways. Think America would have been better off if it had won in Vietnam? Think again.

With one important exception, these heroes are not "super" - they have no special powers, but rely upon their natural physical abilities (and, in some cases, Batman-esque gadgetry). They have been driven to the "masked lifestyle" by psychological neuroses that make Bruce Wayne look well-adjusted. The one exception - Dr. Manhattan - acquired seemingly limitless, God-like powers in a freak laboratory accident. Uncle Ben told Peter Parker "With great power comes great responsibilities." The sad truth revealed by Watchmen is that with great power comes great alienation. Dr. Manhattan can save the world. The real question is, why should he bother?

Some of you may remember me from that other site, and if you do, it'll come as no surprise that my first review is a film with such strong political resonance. Did I say political resonance? That's not quite the right phrase. Partisan resonance is more appropriate. Watchmen (both the film and the graphic novel) is about ideological extremism. Some of these masked heroes are clearly Freepers, while others are dKosers. Go back to the archives of either site during the election and look at some of the more rabid comments. Now imagine (it's not a stretch) that these people like to put on masks and pretend they are superheroes. Ever wish you could throw gotalife through a glass coffee table? This, in a nutshell, is Watchmen - wish fulfillment for the usenet set, with guns and boobs for good measure.

Rorschach, our erstwhile narrator, blames "liberals and intellectuals" for creating a nation of drug addicts, pedophiles and prostitutes (quite an accomplishment for the liberals, really, considering that on this world Nixon has been President for five terms). The self-proclaimed "smartest man on the planet" violates Godwin's law, calling Rorschach and his buddy the Comedian "Nazis". But the one thing both sides seem to agree upon, the one thing that brings them together as masked heroes, is that the masses must be saved - from themselves.

On a separate level, Watchmen is a debate between the ethical theories of consequentialism and deontological ethics. The film is an exploration of Bernard Williams' famous thought experiment: would you pull the trigger on an innocent man to save the lives of twenty? Are moral agents merely conduits for the creation of maximally beneficial outcomes? How can we reconcile such a view with our own conception of moral responsibility? Of course, this is a superhero movie so the stakes are increased dramatically, but the dilemma remains. And beyond the dilemma, a new question: do we want decisions like this made by freaks in masks? Or Freepers or dKosers, for that matter? Who are these arrogant, anonymous bastards to think they can make these kinds of calls? Who watches the watchmen?

I'll be honest: I did not think I would like this film. I anticipated a kind of noble failure. But entering with these expectations, I was quite happily surprised. The acting falls flat in some places, though Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian is glorious throughout. The pacing is steady but not plodding: this story is not really an action movie at heart, and if you expect Die Hard level plot development you will be disappointed. The movie is complicated, especially if you are not familiar with the source material, but then, so's Joyce's Ulysses. The film requires active attention from its audience, but for those willing to invest, the complexity is rewarding. If you want simple, rent Beverly Hills Chihuahua.

The pre-credit sequence, and the credit sequence, may be the highlight of the film, so don't come late. This is especially important for Watchmen newbies: the credit sequence does a smash-up job setting the historical backdrop for the film (including Silhouette, a 1940's-era heroine who barely appears in the novel but who steals the show in the first ten minutes). My top peeves from the film: over-the-top fight sequences that make it appear that the masked heroes have super-human strength, and renaming of the second-generation heroes "the Watchmen" in an attempt to make the title of the film relate overtly to the plot. (In the graphic novel, "Watchmen" is merely an allusion to the Roman poet Juvenal, not the name for a team of superheroes). I agree that the squid had to go (sorry, newbies - this is strictly inside info), but its replacement is slightly underwhelming.

Watchmen is not perfect, but it is smart, political, and fun. It should, however, be followed by a conversation with intelligent friends. And, while it's no substitute for the novel, thank god it's no embarrassment. Recommend.