Trusted by over 1.6 million members since 2014 — why not join them?
Name of the movie you are reviewing: Watchmen (2009)
Watchmen is a 2009 film by visionary director Zack Snyder. It is based on the limited comic book series released in 1986-87 of the same name.
Review:
Warning for spoilers. Also, this is actually a reflection on Adrian Veidt's embodiment of utilitarianism, so in a way this is a philosophical essay. But, still kinda a review!
“Dan. A world united in peace... there had to be sacrifice.”
“No! You haven't idealized mankind but you've... you've deformed it! You mutilated it. That's your legacy. That's the real practical joke.”
Watchmen is a 2009 film directed by my favorite director, Zack Snyder. It’s a superhero film based on the limited 1986-87 comic series of the same name. They have differences, but their principles are mostly the same. It’s ahead of its time if I may say, as it deconstructs and criticizes superheroes right before the golden age of superhero movies. Spoiler alert on what I will discuss below. But also, beware on checking it out if you are squeamish, it doesn’t hold back on images of violence.
Watchmen, at its core, is something that tackles ethics. Numerous papers have been written both on the film and source material, discussing its ethics and their merits and defects. It actively invites interpretation. This comic was written in the 1980s, in the height of Cold War, and its premise was an alternate era of the same time, in which superheroes existed and their actions make a worldly impact. America and Russia are in tension. We are in a cusp of full-blown war. We are in danger of a nuclear explosion that might very well wipe out humanity.
We are introduced to a team of flawed heroes, the Watchmen, most of which are retired, some of which whose ideologies you may agree with, but nobody to idolize. It can be argued that the most of the members of the Watchmen embody different moral system. The Comedian is an absurdist and a nihilist. Doctor Manhattan, some say, is a materialist. Rorschach, famously, is a deontologist that adheres with his popular quote, “Never compromise. Not even the face of Armageddon,” which in other words follow with Immanuel Kant’s “Let justice be done, though the world perish.”
In bringing up Deontology, comes its polar opposite: Utilitarianism.
Handsome, charming, he is the smartest person in the world, and arguably the richest too. He’s an idealist—an opposite of The Comedian in that sense—and he believes the world can be better, and intends to make sure it will be. It’s Adrian Veidt a.k.a. Ozymandias, billionaire and genius, former vigilante, and spoiler alert, mastermind of a great plot. He found kinship with Alexander of Macedonia and was dismayed that the man hadn’t brought his dream for the world to unite into fruition. But now that Veidt is in power by being rich, revered, and incredibly intelligent, he crafted a scheme that will unite United States, Russia, and subsequently, the rest of the world together. Ultimate peace.
At, of course, a high price.
“The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.” - Leon Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours: The Class Foundations of Moral Practice
A lot of comic book villains make a lot of sense if you put yourself in their shoes, and majorly in their mentality. That is the reason why they are incredibly charismatic and has a strong pull. Our world is crooked and a lot broken, and for many, it is tempting to fall into that utilitarian mindset just to find a way to fix it, by whatever means necessary: does your end really justify the means?
At the end of the film, Adrian Veidt admitted to Rorschach and Nite Owl II his big scheme: He found a way to end the war, saving billions of lives, and unite the world. A mighty and heroic feat, if you didn’t know what he did just to achieve it. He believed the world could be better, made sure it would be. Whatever the cost.
In the book, he crafted an imaginary enemy by destroying New York and its millions of citizens. In the film, he set up Doctor Manhattan by mimicking his power using machines designed to explode in different cities across the world, resulting in millions of dead. Both of these hold the same effect: It was so the Russians will side with U.S. to fight a bigger bad: whether it was an imaginary enemy that was never there, or Doctor Manhattan.
In the end, it was all just Adrian Veidt and his cunning plan. A heinous plan for the greater good.
“Dan. A world united in peace... there had to be sacrifice.”
“No! You haven't idealized mankind but you've... you've deformed it! You mutilated it. That's your legacy. That's the real practical joke.”
Millions of lives to save billions. This is an old dilemma that has been asked and pondered upon for longer than any of us have been alive. The train tracks dilemma of one person on a rail road and multiple people tied in another—it comes to mind. It was never the choice of those tied to the train tracks, it was the choice of the one who pulls the lever. And Adrian Veidt took it upon himself to decide. That is where the judgment lies. Who gave him the right? Is it because he was “cursed” to be the smartest person in the world? Because he had the power? Because he thought it was the right thing to do? Is his ideology excuse enough for the deaths of millions of people? Is the result of his act enough to absolve him of his terrible act?
The world had never been black and white. It has always been, and always will be, hundreds of shades of grey. Adrian Veidt understood that. I understood that as well, but that doesn’t mean I agree with what he did. The means will always have value. No matter what the end may be, it will always be defined by what had to happen before we got there. That is why it must matter.
Not all good deeds lead to good results. Good actions may have tragic consequences. There is sadness in that knowledge, a kind of helplessness, but to be a good man means to still try. And the world always, always needs good people. The world needs you to try and do the right thing despite that knowledge, and it is your duty to do so. That is the entire point of our existence, to be able to live a meaningful life through the goodness of our actions.
But by knowing exactly what the consequences will be, are we still going to be good people for letting it come to that point? Perhaps that’s what plagued Adrian Veidt. Perhaps by being the smartest person in the world, he thought doing an awful deed was the right thing to do. But that is the defect of Utilitarianism, and I think it is in the allure of that gleaming result that we must see we must always be careful, as we may easily take it too far just to achieve it. After all, Adrian Veidt is just evidence that even the good men fall.
Would you recommend this to other users? Yes, of course! I love this film. Just be warned that it's very violent. And make sure to watch the Director's cut.
Rating(1-5):
Watchmen is a 2009 film by visionary director Zack Snyder. It is based on the limited comic book series released in 1986-87 of the same name.
Review:
Warning for spoilers. Also, this is actually a reflection on Adrian Veidt's embodiment of utilitarianism, so in a way this is a philosophical essay. But, still kinda a review!
“Dan. A world united in peace... there had to be sacrifice.”
“No! You haven't idealized mankind but you've... you've deformed it! You mutilated it. That's your legacy. That's the real practical joke.”
Watchmen is a 2009 film directed by my favorite director, Zack Snyder. It’s a superhero film based on the limited 1986-87 comic series of the same name. They have differences, but their principles are mostly the same. It’s ahead of its time if I may say, as it deconstructs and criticizes superheroes right before the golden age of superhero movies. Spoiler alert on what I will discuss below. But also, beware on checking it out if you are squeamish, it doesn’t hold back on images of violence.
Watchmen, at its core, is something that tackles ethics. Numerous papers have been written both on the film and source material, discussing its ethics and their merits and defects. It actively invites interpretation. This comic was written in the 1980s, in the height of Cold War, and its premise was an alternate era of the same time, in which superheroes existed and their actions make a worldly impact. America and Russia are in tension. We are in a cusp of full-blown war. We are in danger of a nuclear explosion that might very well wipe out humanity.
We are introduced to a team of flawed heroes, the Watchmen, most of which are retired, some of which whose ideologies you may agree with, but nobody to idolize. It can be argued that the most of the members of the Watchmen embody different moral system. The Comedian is an absurdist and a nihilist. Doctor Manhattan, some say, is a materialist. Rorschach, famously, is a deontologist that adheres with his popular quote, “Never compromise. Not even the face of Armageddon,” which in other words follow with Immanuel Kant’s “Let justice be done, though the world perish.”
In bringing up Deontology, comes its polar opposite: Utilitarianism.
Handsome, charming, he is the smartest person in the world, and arguably the richest too. He’s an idealist—an opposite of The Comedian in that sense—and he believes the world can be better, and intends to make sure it will be. It’s Adrian Veidt a.k.a. Ozymandias, billionaire and genius, former vigilante, and spoiler alert, mastermind of a great plot. He found kinship with Alexander of Macedonia and was dismayed that the man hadn’t brought his dream for the world to unite into fruition. But now that Veidt is in power by being rich, revered, and incredibly intelligent, he crafted a scheme that will unite United States, Russia, and subsequently, the rest of the world together. Ultimate peace.
At, of course, a high price.
“The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.” - Leon Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours: The Class Foundations of Moral Practice
A lot of comic book villains make a lot of sense if you put yourself in their shoes, and majorly in their mentality. That is the reason why they are incredibly charismatic and has a strong pull. Our world is crooked and a lot broken, and for many, it is tempting to fall into that utilitarian mindset just to find a way to fix it, by whatever means necessary: does your end really justify the means?
At the end of the film, Adrian Veidt admitted to Rorschach and Nite Owl II his big scheme: He found a way to end the war, saving billions of lives, and unite the world. A mighty and heroic feat, if you didn’t know what he did just to achieve it. He believed the world could be better, made sure it would be. Whatever the cost.
In the book, he crafted an imaginary enemy by destroying New York and its millions of citizens. In the film, he set up Doctor Manhattan by mimicking his power using machines designed to explode in different cities across the world, resulting in millions of dead. Both of these hold the same effect: It was so the Russians will side with U.S. to fight a bigger bad: whether it was an imaginary enemy that was never there, or Doctor Manhattan.
In the end, it was all just Adrian Veidt and his cunning plan. A heinous plan for the greater good.
“Dan. A world united in peace... there had to be sacrifice.”
“No! You haven't idealized mankind but you've... you've deformed it! You mutilated it. That's your legacy. That's the real practical joke.”
Millions of lives to save billions. This is an old dilemma that has been asked and pondered upon for longer than any of us have been alive. The train tracks dilemma of one person on a rail road and multiple people tied in another—it comes to mind. It was never the choice of those tied to the train tracks, it was the choice of the one who pulls the lever. And Adrian Veidt took it upon himself to decide. That is where the judgment lies. Who gave him the right? Is it because he was “cursed” to be the smartest person in the world? Because he had the power? Because he thought it was the right thing to do? Is his ideology excuse enough for the deaths of millions of people? Is the result of his act enough to absolve him of his terrible act?
The world had never been black and white. It has always been, and always will be, hundreds of shades of grey. Adrian Veidt understood that. I understood that as well, but that doesn’t mean I agree with what he did. The means will always have value. No matter what the end may be, it will always be defined by what had to happen before we got there. That is why it must matter.
Not all good deeds lead to good results. Good actions may have tragic consequences. There is sadness in that knowledge, a kind of helplessness, but to be a good man means to still try. And the world always, always needs good people. The world needs you to try and do the right thing despite that knowledge, and it is your duty to do so. That is the entire point of our existence, to be able to live a meaningful life through the goodness of our actions.
But by knowing exactly what the consequences will be, are we still going to be good people for letting it come to that point? Perhaps that’s what plagued Adrian Veidt. Perhaps by being the smartest person in the world, he thought doing an awful deed was the right thing to do. But that is the defect of Utilitarianism, and I think it is in the allure of that gleaming result that we must see we must always be careful, as we may easily take it too far just to achieve it. After all, Adrian Veidt is just evidence that even the good men fall.
Would you recommend this to other users? Yes, of course! I love this film. Just be warned that it's very violent. And make sure to watch the Director's cut.
Rating(1-5):
Last edited:
