Before Watchmen: Minutemen #1 Review

Everyone seems to like this book. IGN gave it a 9/10, MTV called it “brilliant”. As much as I want to avoid the premise of this event, I couldn’t help but be intrigued by the lack of hate the internet has for this work. I thought I would be happy among fan boys who boycott the Before Watchmen event on principle but the part of me that craves a good story took and over a few days after release, I picked up a copy. My verdict: Not bad...not brilliant, but not bad.

Art

I found the art to be visually appealing. The imagery was very smart. The opening panels seem like their straight out of Watchmen, so kudos there, although I feel that Cooke is not quite as detailed an artist as Gibbons...not any worse, just not the same. Just look at the facial expressions, and realism in Gibbon's compared to Cooke's Silk Spectre.

 Cooke's Silk Spectre

Gibbon's Silk Spectre

Story

There wasn’t much to the story; the book is basically a series of back-stories for each of the minutemen communicated through the perspective of Hollis Mason (Night Owl Sr.). Each one either pulled from something mentioned in Watchmen in the ‘Under the Hood’ excerpts or was a creation of Cooke. The back stories for Comedian and Mothman were probably the riskiest of the latter. So far Cooke has painted a young Blake as a mischievous 16 year-old thug who takes what he wants and does what he wants. Fine so far but Cooke would be wise to tread cautiously with this character, as he played a major role in Watchmen. Anyone who has read Moore’s character has likely established their own understanding of how Blake’s morality works, and his key personality traits. Hopefully Cooke has kept this in mind when working on Blakes story. Fine so far, but like I said, tread cautiously.

Cooke developed a new story for Mothman that is a bit of a risk, in my opinion. We learned in Watchmen that Mothman was commited to a mental institution after a long bout with alcoholism. Cooke’s invention lies in the concept of Mothman needing alcohol in order to build up courage to fly and ultimately perform as a masked adventurer. This is a change from what Hollis originally (in Watchmen’s ‘Under the Hood’ excerpts) stated which is that Mothman began drinking because of a ruthless investigation by the unAmerican Activities Committee. Nitpicking aside, the new concept is interesting but altering Moore’s original vision is definitely a risk. If this story is not developed properly it will likely not catch wind and fall on its face (see what I did there?).

I did actually enjoy Silk Spectre, Silhouette, and Night Owl’s back-stories. They were mostly stories or general musings lifted from Watchmen’s version of ‘Under the Hood’, so it was great to see these stories brought to panel. They reminded me of the parts of Snyder’s Watchmen film I actually liked because they stayed true to Moore’s original intentions. Staying true to Moore is a recipe for success. 

I do have one final concern, more so for future issues, which lies with the portrayal of Nelson Gardner A.K.A. Captain Metropolis.  I thought the back-story was interesting enough, with Gardener acquiring a Canadian Malting factory (CM – Captain Metropolis – get it?) but then again, I’m Canadian so I may be biased. My uncertainty lies with the last few panels. I always pictured CM as a straight laced Marine, who was polite and reserved. The reason I thought that: Hollis Mason says he’s polite and reserved in ‘Under the Hood’. He just seems too laid back, and the way he orders his butler around is unsettling. I know that’s a huge nitpick, and it’s really too early to judge Cooke’s character, but that just bugged me a bit.

Final Thoughts

It’s unfair to judge Minutemen solely on the first part. On the one hand I like what Cooke has done with some of the characters such as Silk Spectre and Silhouette (however, this could attributed to the fact that their back-stories were lifted right from the original text), but on the other hand, I’m nervous about how some of the character’s stories will pan out (mostly because of how Cooke displays a willingness to deviate from the original text). I enjoyed the book but while reading, I had this unnerving feeling that with a simple turn of the page Cooke could ruin the character’s I’ve loved for years; I think this is the consensus among fans about the whole Before Watchmen concept though. As stated earlier, Cooke would benefit from treading cautiously with these character’s back stories.

Would I recommend it? Sure. If you’re curious about how this event will turn out, give it a go. Is it a 9/10 work of sequential storytelling brilliance? Far from it, but like I said...not bad.