I decided to wait to post this review of “Watchmen” because I am a moviegoer in favor of more realistic, gritty and less-campy superhero films.  With that, you can probably already guess that this review is not 100% positive.

Here is how the movie-business works (keeping in mind that it’s a business): If people do not go to see a film, less films of that particular type will be given a greenlight, not to mention a budget. I’m hoping studios are realizing that PG-13 superhero films are fine, so long as they push the limits to the very edge of PG-13, a la “The Dark Knight,” but that more R-rated superhero films are necessary, based on the caliber of material currently out there. Campy superhero stories were the norm 30-40 years ago, but nowadays, writers of comics and graphic novels are pushing the envelope, so why not the films based on them?

Ok, now here we go.

This is not the movie anyone could have expected. Fans of the comics will most likely expect them to tone down the sex and violence (because it’s Hollywood) and those who have never read the comics won’t know what the hell to expect. But you do not have to be a fan to enjoy the film.

It’s an alternate 1985. Richard Nixon is still president and the United States is on the verge of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The “Watchmen” were a group of superheroes that were active back in the 60s and 70s and helped the US win in Vietnam, hence Nixon’s re-elections. They have since aged and retired and other superheroes have taken their place, but they no longer perform “hero work” after running afoul of the American public (think “The Incredibles” without the lawsuits).

One night a member of the old “Watchmen,” known as The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is murdered. A creepy hero known as Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) is determined to find out who and why, in the process bringing some of the younger, hidden Watchmen back into play.

I loved the juxtaposition in the film concerning the ethos and mythos of the Superhero. It will test you. Try not to be shocked when The Comedian shoots a Vietnamese woman that he impregnated. Later, try to understand his motives when you see him take down random innocent citizens on the streets. These are not the superheroes you expect, and this is certainly not Metropolis.

Where the film succeeds most is in how effectively it immerses you in this alternate 1985. Nixon’s makeup is terrible in the film, but the immersion succeeds because of the detailed, epic filmmaking from “300″ director Zack Snyder. Note the opening credits sequence: crisp, beautiful, vibrant shots of the most polarizing events in 20th Century-America’s history, twisted to fit the existence of the Watchmen, all set to the nasal twangs of Bob Dylan and not a single word uttered. Snyder had far too much story to deal with, but he handles it with a poet’s eye.

The acting suffices, especially from Jackie Earle Haley’s Rorschach and Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) and Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman) leave you flat and uninterested, which is saying something since they encompass the love story. This is most likely due to their characters being too one-dimensional; Snyder shows the amazing backstories of Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan, but with Nite Owl and Silk Spectre we really only get some slight exposition and a lot of humping. I realize it is foolish to ask for fleshed-out characters in a superhero film, but “Watchmen” succeeds in giving us another side of superheroes, so why not go all the way? If you are going to make a 3 hour film, fill it up.

The film is too long. Other reviews share my sentiments with one difference: I think it is only 20 minutes too long, other people think it is an hour too long. I have no problem with 3-hour epics, so long as they deliver all the way through; “Watchmen” does not.

Finally, there are a few things I just have to mention about the film. Some are gripes, others are just observations and suggestions. Keep in mind that I am not a Fanboy of the books:

1. The Giant Blue Penis

Alright, so it had to be mentioned. We get that Dr. Manhattan is naked (he should be allowed after having his body torn apart by radiation and being forced to rebuild it on his own), and we get that he can grow 300 feet tall, but we don’t need to see a 20-foot wang. Although I must say the scene where his is having sex with Silk Spectre II while simultaneously working on his nuclear project was hilarious.

2. The Costumes

Are they all supposed to induce laughter? Because that’s what I was doing the moment I saw some of them, in particular Nite Owl II, Ozymandias and Silk Spectre II. You end up holding your sides more than anything else. The acting of these characters seems to be equated with the stupidity of their outfits.

3. Since When Do Superheroes Use Guns?

I realize I just asked for more realism in the beginning of this review, and I know the story of the Watchmen turns the superhero mythos on its head, but The Comedian may as well be a bar-owner from Detroit.

Scenes to Remove:

1. The pointless sex scene (I don’t care if it’s in the book). It doesn’t add to the atmosphere, mood or overall tableau of the film. I don’t even know why they bother with sex scenes anymore. They have never added anything to a film unless the plot was specifically about sex. As far as I can tell, “Watchmen” is about superheroes getting knocked off. Why get it on? If this is why you go to the movies, stay home and get yourself some porno.

2. Final fight scene. It’s weak and solves nothing. It’s the tidal breath of the film. The actual choreography is nothing we haven’t seen before in other films, not to mention the first half of the damn movie. They fight Ozymandias, he beats them, that’s it (this is the 20 minutes I mentioned earlier).

Scenes to Add (and yes, I know this isn’t faithful to the book):

1. More of Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach.

Anyway, if you haven’t seen it yet, go. Not for a brilliant film, but for the type of film you demand. We can’t let poor box office performance for this film force us to be given only campy, kid-friendly superhero films in the future. If that’s what you want, I encourage you to stay home and get that porno I mentioned before.

Watchmen at IMDB

Showtimes from Yahoo! Movies

Gran Torino was shot in only 27 days and is Clint Eastwood’s second film this year. Not bad for nearly eighty years old. It also might be, according to the man himself, his last acting role. And what a role to go out on.

Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a recently widowed Korean War veteran who essentially has…well, brass balls. Clenched teeth, canine grimace, cigarette and a Pabst, Walt maintains a strong hatred of “pussies” and foreigners, meaning anyone that doesn’t look or act like him. He lives in a decaying Detroit suburb taken over long ago by ethnic groups and flooded with gangs. He sees what’s happened to the neighborhood and doesn’t like it, but he keeps to himself and expects everyone else to do the same.

His only grown children are trying to put him in a home, while his granddaughter eyes his furniture for her new college dorm and his 1972 Gran Torino to haul it over there. Essentially, they want all of his worldly possessions but don’t listen to a word he says. Tsk, tsk. Walt’s having none of that, and the kids end up looking like crying babies with wet diapers after he throws them all out. Walt’s priest even gets a taste of his ire, since his late wife bestowed the task of getting Walt to go to confession on the 27-year-old Father (I won’t spoil the brilliant line you will here in that scene, trust me).

The trouble starts after the funeral when Walt notices the Lors, a Hmong family, moving in next door. We meet their friendly teenage daughter, Sue, and her calm and gentle brother, Thau. Thau seems like the Forrest Gump-type and only wants to go to school and live life, but continued harassment from a local Hmong gang led by his cousin, forces him to go along with their initiation task: steal the Gran Torino. You never fully buy Thau’s sudden acquiescence to their demands, because you never buy that the gang leader, or any of the other “gangs” in this film, could inspire fear in anyone (more on that later). Thau screws up the GTA when Walt appears and shoves his rifle down the kid’s throat. Later, when Thau is being beaten for his failure to get the car, the brawl spills over into Walt’s yard and one of his garden gnomes gets smashed, leading to yet another appearance of the M-1 rifle: “Get off my lawn,” he rumbles. Naturally the family is grateful for Walt’s interference and Sue arrives later to thank him for saving Thau, to which he replies: “I didn’t save anybody. I was just trying to keep a horde of jabbering gooks off my lawn.” Eastwood excels in his portrayal by maintaining a softness under an exterior of New-Tough-Guy-Veneer, without conjuring up images of Dirty Harry.

Some people might think Eastwood takes the racial epithets too far in his performance, but they are missing the subtle joy a tough, straight-talking, racist old man can provide. Think Grumpy Old Men, only more profane. Once the story starts digging in, you will find yourself laughing at all of the ethnic slurs and wanting more, even though you just heard 35 within the last two minutes. This is due in part to the acting. Eastwood cast only one actor when it came to the Hmong characters, a decision that both helps and damages. For one thing, there is an air of authenticity in the scenes where Walt joins a Hmong party and hangs out with old and young alike. Major points for the scenes where Walt calls Thau a “pussy” when he can’t score with a girl Walt refers to as “Yum-Yum.” But when the bad acting does happen (you’ll wince a few times), you find yourself wanting to get back to Walt’s “gooks,” “wops” and “spooks” ASAP, nevermind the story.

There are a couple of major themes in the film, and one of them was tough for me to find. The obvious one is the value of “being a man” in every way possible, particularly when it comes to building and fixing things, which is exactly what Walt tells “Yum-Yum” he does. Being a veteran and a former Ford factory worker, Walt owns every tool in the world, and can use them all, something that is fading away in our society. Nobody knows how to fix anything, and we’re all the worse for it. When Thau arrives to atone for his attempted theft, Walt has him patch up the neighborhood, shingle by shingle.

The tough theme deals with community and how we as a society communicate with one another across multiple boundaries. The juxtaposition found in the film hides it somewhat, which is probably what Eastwood was going for. On the one hand you have violence as communication: Walt bringing his rifle out every five minutes or beating the hell out of a Hmong gang member in order to send a message, and on the other you have Walt heading over to the Lors house to hang out with an ethnic group he thinks he fought against back in the fifties. Despite the load of ethnic slurs, the film is trying to show that communicating with people doesn’t mean staying PC or dancing around racist terms, but actually talking to your neighbors in your neighborhood; really trying to see people for who the are rather than where they come from, which inherently means no violence. You’ll see what I mean.

When all is said and done, when I’m pushing eighty years old I hope my work is nearly half as interesting and thought-provoking as what Eastwood churns out on a regular basis.  The man is more prolific than most other Hollywood directors, yet at the same time is able to produce films that not only meet with box office success and numerous awards, but also push the boundaries of what we think of as story, character, and life in general without bashing you over the head with sappiness or gory violence. Eastwood still knows how to tell a story and force questions on the way out of the theater.