Will you be watching the Watchmen?

One of the twentieth century's most celebrated pieces of literature is about to hit the silver screen.

It's been pegged as genius, a masterpiece, trailblazing and groundbreaking. It's been hailed by TIME Magazine as one of the 100 greatest novels since 1923. It's a novel with more accolades on its covers than there are words on the Rosetta Stone.

It's Watchmen.

Written in 1986 as the brainchild of visionary graphic novelist Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons, Watchmen serves up one of the medium's most profound and grown-up stories, exploring the role of vigilante superheroes in a dystopian America of the 80's engulfed by the paranoia of nuclear armageddon.

Watchmen is by no means "standard" comic book fare and should not be treated as such. There's no rooftop swinging, villains with tentacles (well, scratch that), heroes gone emo, or slutty blonde damsels-in-distress waiting for the next costumed paladin to fly by for a make-out session (I'm looking at you, Spiderman). That's not Watchmen.

Moore's chef d'oeuvre probes further beyond the superficial stuff of today's cinematic comic-based drivel (apart from THE DARK KNIGHT, of course), exposing the conflict that a group of morally ambiguous vigilantes faces by combating the underbellies of the world without a speck of public support. Think of Watchmen as an account of what superhero life would be like if superheroes actually did exist in the real world, complete with angry mobs, a big blue naked guy, and lots of grit.

So why see the film?

Early reviews pit WATCHMEN as one of the most faithful film adaptations of a literary work ever put together. With source material as expertly crafted as Watchmen's, there's no glaring downside in that regard, though the sheer mention of the world "squid" might be enough to divide those with previous knowledge of the novel. But at this point, less than a week before release, it seems as if Watchmen might be one of the few pieces of literature to get the faithful, respectable cinematic treatment that it deserves.

But it all sounds too good to be true, doesn't it? Could a truly great novel transcend media and become a legitimate artistic triumph on both the page and screen? Director Zack Snyder says hold the phones.

Snyder's directorial rèsumè is unsettlingly sparse. Despite remaking DAWN OF THE DEAD in 2004, the only other mainstream film to Snyder's credit is fellow graphic novel adaptation (and a film accepted and supported by countless posters and universal DVD ownership in fraternities across America) 300. While 300 was certainly a romp; a film that had no problem telling audiences that it was more about flash (and flesh) than brains, it didn't possess nearly the same depth that Watchmen does - a sense of depth necessary to tell this particular story with justice. Can Snyder put the cheesy slow-mo, overblown fantasy aethestic, and general disinterest for plot aside and deliver a film that has no qualms exploring rich psychological issues and social commentaries in the same vein that the source material does?

You'll have to watch the Watchmen to find out.

Why you (probably) didn't watch the Oscars...

Odds are that you weren't in one of the 35% of American households with a television that tuned into the 81st Annual Academy Awards Sunday night.

I don't blame you.

For two straight painstaking years now, the Academy has done nothing to swoon the public, opting to favor under-the-radar, limited release productions over populist Hollywood fare. For a group of folks that had no qualms catering to the blockbuster big dogs over the years, this recent change of pace has been visibly alarming and more than unsettling. With mega-hits like GONE WITH THE WIND, TITANIC, and LORD OF THE RINGS taking home serious Oscar hardware in years past, it appeared as if the Academy hadn't a single bother rewarding good Hollywood product. So why all of the sudden turn that on its head and shun today's powerhouse earners, like 2008's WALL-E and THE DARK KNIGHT, from rewards in the major categories?

Not only did the aforementioned flicks earn a hefty profit for their studios, grossing over $1.5 billion worldwide collectively, both were also overwhelmingly critically lauded, garnering a 96% and 94% on Rotten Tomatoes respectively (with WALL-E being the best reviewed wide-release movie of the year). Though the films combined for fourteen nominations in total, they garnered only three victories, only one of which was in a major category (which of course was Ledger's shoo-in win for Supporting Actor). With virtually every sentient being on the planet in harmony on the quality of these films, it would seem logical that they did something right, yet in the face of public approval, the Academy seems to turn the other cheek. Why? Well because we're dealing with artists, of course.

Think of Academy members as artsier, snobbier, slightly-less-batshit-crazy clones of Rod Blagojevich. They politick their agendas and they politick them real good. THE DARK KNIGHT didn't get a nomination for Best Pic purely because it's a superhero action film. Why would anyone let a film in the same genre as SPIDERMAN 3 and THE SPIRIT be considered in the same breath as a flick like SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE? And WALL-E? WALL-E didn't get any love in the major categories because it's animated. The Oscars did their best to keep animation from sniffing Best Picture by creating its own category for it after BEAUTY AND THE BEAST stole a nomination in the category in 1991. To voters, no live actors means no little statuette (though if current trends continue, no gays, retards, or Holocaust means no little statuette, either). The Academy has plenty of other biases to complain about, like handing Scorsese every major award in 2007 for THE DEPARTED, a film thought by many to be decidedly inferior to his other works that were Oscar snubs, but that's beside the point.

By no means am I implying that the Academy should start dismissing all lesser-known stuff for popcorn cinema. I'm simply offering that they should give the big-budget movies a chance, especially when they deserve one. And why not? The Academy are a business and they see the revenue from the ceremony's broadcast. They are only hurting themselves when nobody tunes in.

Maybe next year will be different. Maybe it won't. I have been hearing through the grapevine though that Michael Bay has reworked Shia LeBeouf's character in TRANSFORMERS 2 to be a homo with Downs that fights Nazi Decepticons. Watch out, Megatron. This one's Oscar gold.