Just because a guy punches you in the nuts less than the other guy would have, doesn't make him a nice guy.

The first slow motion face punch made me actually sick. Im not joking.

I think this film will be a sleeper success. Its not going to post huge numbers but many people will discover it on DVD or Blu Ray much like Donnie Darko or Boondock Saints.

Everyone on the news or on the radio keeps talking about Watchmen the superhero comic movie. I think that is a bad way to describe the film. Still after decades people see all comics as Archie & Jughead or the 1960's era Batman. Regardless of the darker incarnation of Batman comic movies (which people forget that Road to Perdition and a History of Violence were both) are still viewed as for kids and not having meaning. This film has depth, especially those of us old enough to remember the cold war. Even today it speaks volumes and with a viewing at home without the morons giggling at Dr. Manhattan's penis people will see what the film has to offer. I have long term hopes for this film.

Well done. I think your observations are all spot on.
While I had plenty of "That's now how it happened" and "Wally Weaver didn't say that, Milton Glass did" moments while watching the movie, there really wasn't all that much for me to complain about, and I did manage to actually enjoy it for what it was.
I do think that some piece of classic punk would have done a better job of setting the time - and tone - than "I'm your boogie man" did, but that's just a nitpick.
Speaking of nitpicks, Bubastis is a she.
But anyway, great article, and thanks for your insights.

it was boring, and terrible. The story, as always, was sublime. However it was acted horribly, and drawn out to embarrassment (in my own humble opinion of course). I was disappointed.

if forced to break it down, I enjoyed 15%, groaned but tolerated 25%, and sat through in agony the remaining 60% of it. My poor wife, the trooper, sat through in agony 100% of it. I really felt betrayed, but once again this may simply be a childhood story I loved, (I was in Junior High when Watchmen was published), that really wasn't that great, and If I were an adult reading the same story , after the nostalgia had all but vanished, I would see the craptastic fuckfest of a film I just saw.

It's pretty sad, for me anyway, when even the sex scenes were garbage. (however props to Malin Akerman for keepin' me in the theater.) I will see it again, downloaded, or free in some way, just for a second take (in case I'm not being fair) but I doubt my opinion will differ.

"But I should probably add that when the movie was over and we got home, Ms. Robot immediately asked to read the Watchmen graphic novel. And that's a result that even Alan Moore should consider a resounding success."

I tell you what, I have never read the novel myself. Boo! I know...bad nerd.
And honest to God I had no intention of doing so after seeing the movie.
I didn't think it was bad per se, but it was long and seemingly disjointed. It seemed like they were trying to cram several different storylines in there and none of them (minus Rorschach) were very good. I get it. We live in a selfish consumer driven society. I don't need my movies to tell me that, I just need to walk down a street in anytown USA.
I too was not impressed by the actress that played Silk Spectre, for all the reasons mentioned above. The over the top love scene (music/the fire-jizz shooting ship) seemed forced and out of place.
Not to mention all the Dr. Manhattan...and I mean ALL the Dr. Manhattan. (as a faithful reader of TR I was forewarned.)
Anyway, I posted that quote at the top, b/c after reading this review I can see that by not having read the novel I may have missed some of the subtle nuances of the film and the point of the story altogtether.
So chalk one up for Mr Alan Moore and more importantly TR.

I liked the movie. I was pretty sure I was going to hate it going in. But I did really like it. The slow-mo punches did not bother me, and even in slow-mo the fights were faster and better then any of them in The Dark Knight. There is no way I can make a post as long as Rob's(well I could but I don't fee like it)

I did think that some of the fights were over the top, and was not a fan of that I mean you can beat the crap out of people but do I need to see the bones pop out of the skin? I don't
The sex it was a bit much but not bad it was not a really long part of the movie and he did actually take one sex scene from the GN out of the movie.

The changes taht were made I can live with, I miss the squid but there is no way to fit it in the move with out confusing people more so then what is going on to start with.

I do however think that Snyder loves him some man ass, just saying how some of the parts were filmed he was more about the dudes then the ladies but hey whatever I was less then impressed with SS looks (her head was funny shaped).

I also think the Snyder hates Night Owl II because not only does he now have him watch his BFF die but also walks back in to see the girl he likes making out with the guy that just killed his BFF, thats harsh.

Normally I am a purest for the sorce meterial but the changes were very well done and did not take much out of the story.

Well, I'm going to have to say that I agree with you on most of this (as much as I hate agreeing with anyone about anything!). The opening sequence alone was absolutely jaw-dropping, I thought Malin Ackerman sucked at emoting, and the character of Ozymandias would've looked better if played by a beefy blond quarterback (like the leader of the asshole frat in Revenge of the Nerds). Matthew Goode's acting was great, though.
I found the music somewhat jarring at first (the placement of Hendrix's 'All Along the Watchtower' in particular), but I think it did very well and, as you say, will age the film well.
I really do hope that this encourages the average moviegoer to pick up a copy of the graphic novel, if only to make sense of the unexpected giant lynx. And I can just imagine Alan Moore being curious enough to don a disguise and sneak out to the nearest multiplex to watch it himself, hoping to explode with righteous indignation (although I doubt he will do so). Can't wait for the Director's Cut!

Good synopsis from the other point of view. I have to say that I consider the film a failure after seeing it this weekend, because of the effect on the non-initiated (Like Mrs. Robot)and also the initiated like myself. Watching the film, I was reminded that was lies on the panels, in the spandex of watchmen, is a superhero epic very much like what we have already seen in film and in print time and time again. Was it original in its day? Sure, but that's not what makes it a classic (even then it was only kinda original...the mankind must unite in the face of extraterrestrials was cribbed from an outer limits episode older than Watchmen by far).
What propels it to classic status is what lies beneath the costumes,in between the panels. Its the format and the style more than the story. Its the layers upon layers--Watchmen is just not the same without its stylistic innovations. It is famous for intellectual breadth and width, all which is lost on screen. Its having background characters take center stage like the Ventecelli of Shakespeare. Its Parallel plots that act as foils to the emotional states of the main characters. But above all, its crafting a world so fully that you actually care when the final weapon comes down. This film failed to make me care about that world, and I'm a die hard fan of Moore's work. I can't imagine what the non -fan would think,but if the auidence I saw it with was any indication the answer was a resounding "meh". Leaving the theater, I was hard pressed to explain to people why this was considered a classic comic. Heck, I could barely remember.
To put it simply, Snyder adapted the panels, but the soul got lost. I don't know that anyone could have done it better. But maybe that's why it shouldn't have been done.

Great review TR, I agree with most of your points , but overall thought it was a fantastic film. Maybe not for everyone, but I came away from it more pleased than I thought possible. There are obviously some nits that can be picked, but they pale in comparison with how much was done right.

I am very much looking forward to the director's cut DVD to see what holes they filled in. When I saw the first installment of LotR, I wasn't too impressed, but the extended version of it ranks as oneo f my top 5 favorite movies. I am hoping the same will occur with Watchmen.

I thought Donnie Darko and Boondock Saints pretty much had to be discovered on DVD due to their limited releases, but the extended edition will be snapped up by the fanboys.

I'm going to straight out say that I did not like the movie, and I wish it was otherwise. While it is a panel for panel adaption as much as it could be it seemed to focus too much on getting the look and style down more than it did the themes and forming a coherent story for those who didn't grow up with the comic. The pacing was horrible for a movie and unless you're seeing your cherished comic in action I wouldn't be surprised if you felt every long second of that 2 hour 45 minute movie linger for too long.

So far I only see this movie doing well with the mainstream by the initial promotion and advertising that don't really show off that the movie isn't like your standard special effect blockbuster, and it it most likely is going to go downhill when they become more aware of it, the ads in aus pushed it as an action packed cgi fest which will only fool the people for so long, it's really going to come down to how much the fanboys are going to invest

The music made me cringe. There was absolutely no subtlety what so ever.

I sort of understand all the negative reviews now too. If you didn't read the graphic novel I don't the movie would do anything for you. The characters' background stories and the Minutemen story were so thin; I don't think the movie gave you a good enough idea of who these people were/are.

I remember being surprised by the Steven Segal styled brutality of the first fight scene. Man, I wasn't expecting that.

I thought there was plenty to like about the movie, but also enough wrong with it that it ends up as a fairly middling film.

My biggest problem was the gratuitous and unrealistic level of violence. The point of the story is 'this is what would happen if superheroes existed in real world' but the film sees all the characters endowed with superhuman strength and capabilities, which impossibly plays it both ways: Nite Owl II is a chubby middle aged man, but he's also an invincible martial artist. It's this lack of subtlety that characterises the movie- the constant emphasis on big bright colours and painfully obvious pop soundtracking. And that horrible sex scene.

All that said, I thought the 'Doc Manhatten did it' ending was far, far better than the original.

@Stone Gaijin
Right on! I was bored to tears. I fell asleep about 15 minutes into the film. Almost two hours later I was nudged to wake up and my friends demanded their money back. We ended up getting a free movie pass to be used next time. Only one of us stayed behind to see how the movie ended. I probably should have gone to see Slum Dog Millionaire with the others, but I figured Roger Ebert gave it a good review so it should be worth something even if Rotten Tomatoes says it's 65% fresh.

This is the second movie I've fallen asleep in out of boredom at the movies since King King 2005 and the second movie I've walked out of and asked for my money back since The Cell.

Only a die-hard Watchmen fanatic could appreciate this film. But then to read about them complaining that it pandered to a wider audience is just silly since I think it pandered too much to the comicbook nerd alienating any hope of reaching a wider audience.

Excellently stated Rob. Going into the movie, I was expecting a repeat of the Hitchhiker's Guide film--something that looked great but was robbed of the source material's soul. But from the brilliance of the credit sequence onwards, it was clear that Snyder somehow got away with creating a film that held the graphic novel in the highest esteem...and as you say, he had the fans in mind seemingly non-stop. The cynic in me dismissed the set reports that stated that Synder, et al had the graphic novel on set at all times. It sounded like PR posturing. But as the scene where Rorschach leaves Nite Owl slumping and dejected best demonstrates, Synder was going above and beyond in his attempts to be as faithful as possible and still be cinematic at the same time. I enjoyed it tremendously. I did have a few problems with it, many of which were addressed in the above article. But my pleasure at seeing these characters live and breathe far outweighed my fanboy bitching. And it gave Matt Frewer mainstream work again!

What I wanted was for someone, anyone, to listen to the author of the work itself. Moore didn't want a movie to be made of WATCHMEN yet they went ahead and did it anyway -- and what's worse is that millions of idiotic fanboys lined up to see it ... and buy the toys ... and the t-shirts ... and the game ....

The 7 reasons why Watchmen is awful, made me laugh:

http://rantwithryan.com/files/496c8529d4f5eff8a8a219f463ed22f5-15.html

Man, can nerds lay on the hate.

I honestly don't see how Snyder could have made a better movie. Rob is 100% right. He made the movie for the fans with just enough edited/removed/added to appeal to the Hollywood bigwigs that held the purse strings. Had he not made the changes he did, the movie probably would never have been made. Worse yet, it would have been made by a more malleable director that would have caved to the Saturday Morning Watchmen vision.

As for choosing a truly inconsequential element of a movie as the deal breaker (slow motion punching ruined the whole movie for you, really?) that's just nerdhate. You ain't never going to make anything relating to the nerdrealm without some nerdhate getting slung all over the place.

So yeah, it was good. Could it have been closer to the source material? No, not if we wanted the budget required to make such a thing even happen. There's no way a studio exec would okay the fan service. Could it have been worse? I won't even comment on that.

I'm going to do the nerd thing and lump you haters into a couple of categories, just for my own benefit:

Hated it because it wasn't a shot-for-shot recreation of Moore/Gibbon's work (questionably purist, naive)
Hated it because Snyder added studio-exec-friendly material (even more naive)
Hated it because you don't understand how action movies work (seriously, slow motion punching?)
Hated it because Alan Moore didn't want it made (Why even watch it then?)
Hated the performances (I don't agree, but I'll allow it.)

Then there's these:

Confused by the whole damn thing (necessary casualty of Snyder's nerdlove and studio exec placating)

Me, I'm going to put myself in this one:

Loved it because it was a faithful adaptation of Moore/Gibbon's work

I'm sure I missed a few, but I'm just as sure that more nerdhate will be slung long after I comment with other reasons. Sad really.

(Slow motion punching? Really?)

Overall I thought it was a good effort, and a huge bit of eye candy. But the ending I thought was completely off the mark.
Admittedly the giant squid would have been ridiculous on screen, but the point of that was that Adrian was trying to improve mankind by uniting it to prepare to fight a potential common foe.
The movie instead has Adrian forcing humanity to be good or Big Blue Daddy will punish them.
It just seems like a dumb move by the "worlds smartest man".

I agree with pretty much everything you said. The movie has flaws, but it's still a good adaptation and I can't wait for the DVD.

I agree with nearly everything you said, and think this is a great review.

Silk Spectre II was terrible. Just plain godawful.

I simply cannot agree with you on the music. While I thought the it's placement was generally rather poorly done, what made me really lose it was the way in which Snyder mangled the Koyaanisqatsi soundtrack. I think his choice to use it was both time-appropriate (this was 80's Glass composition) and gorgeous, and it added to Dr. Manhattan's Mars-exile/past scene wonderfully. However, I simply do not understand why he felt the need to cut up one song and splice it into the middle of another. He starts with "Prophecies", which he loops to just include the simple string part. Then, he inserts a good part of Pruit Igoe, which is an intimidating, diabolic piece of orchestration. After he's done cutting and looping the bit of that he wants, we suddenly jump back to the original Koyaanisqatsi theme. Why the hell didn't he just play one of the two tunes? I realize this isn't a big deal to the non-music-freak segment of the audience, but it drove me nuts, and is incredibly weak in execution.

But yes, I'm of the "this is a good film for the fans" camp.

I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, and totally recommend it to anyone. Most of the reasons are the same as have been said- the opening montage was great, Manhattan, Nite Owl, and Rorschach were note-perfect. There were shockingly beautiful moments, panels ripped right out of the comics, and some very well-done action scenes. It is a spectacle to behold, and I can't wait for the full 3hr 45min cut. That out of the way, there are some complaints that keep nagging at my brain:

They upped the violence in a lot of areas, but removed it completely where it counted most: The squid death. Mind you, I'm fine with the squid being gone and Manhattan being blamed, but I really, REALLY am quite frustrated that New York, piled high with dead bodies, blood clogging the sewers was replaced with a complete and obviously intentional rip-off of Akira. They took out Watchmen's great, horrifying climax, and threw in Akira's for no real reason I can see other than perhaps keeping Malin Ackerman from having any emotion or expression other than feigned interest.

Which of course, brings me to what was the human emotional core of Watchmen- how fucked Laurie's relationships and life are. Carla Gugino, normally a solid actress, is doing some weird June Cleaver impersonation rather than acting like an old, sarcastic, regret-filled woman. Bouncing off of that is Malin Ackerman's utter refusal to show emotion. Sure, she fills out the suit, and I got to see her O-face. She, or perhaps her action double, were excellent in the action scenes. Other than that, she's a drag on the movie, and completely derails one of the story's subplots.

There are other gripes, but I digress. Those two are paramount.

Normally, I'd find one or two things I may disagree with you on, but for once, you've pretty much captured my sentiments. Everyone finds something to nitpick or nerdrage over, but I thought it kept what it could and got away with it pretty well.

I'm like you, dragged my Mr. who hadn't read a lick of the novel (and would never have bothered considering the amount of text and nuances lathered in), but after watching the film, he expressed an interest in cracking it open and wanting to read through it (which is what helps me consider it a success.. that it could get to folks who wouldn't normally pick it up under regular circumstances).

My two gripes involve 99 Luft Balloons (I've been brainwashed by the Scrubs episode with the tasty coma wife, so whenever I hear the song, I think of that episode), and the strange posing moments where the characters have that awkward forced super hero look to them (like when Silk Spectre II comes down from the blazing ceiling).

But all in all, I couldn't ask for anything better in an adaptation... and at least it's not the Resident Evil movie...

I enjoyed it--but it the adaptation was so faithful that the movie seemed pointless. The whole panel-by-panel adaptation that worked so well with Sin City just kind of fell flat for me with Watchmen because Sin City was all action scenes, and seeing those action scenes put into motion was awesome.

Watchmen is mostly drama and mystery, with an emphasis on characters and story. There's no point to the movie. None at all. I'll rather read the book again than watch the movie again.

I loved the movie. I can't beleive how harsh everyone is being. The changes that were made were good and updated the story for a 2009 audience. Loved it.

Haven't seen the film yet (not out of nerd pique; just because I have kids and therefore don't get to see movies). But I was surprised that your big complaint was the telegraphing of Ozymandias' role in these things.

I read the comic for the first time recently, and I have to say I didn't think it was exactly a secret in the comic, either. The "assassination" scene pretty much gave it away, and the flashbacks reinforced it.

Then, IIRC an issue or two before the "reveal", Moore pretty much has Nite Owl and Rorscharch spell it out for you in a dialogue along the lines of, "Yes, Nite Owl, your theory would make perfect sense and tie all of the loose storylines of this comic together. Oh, except that someone tried to kill Ozymandias, which makes no sense at all."

Also, as far as Alexander the Great goes, is it any more obnoxious than the Adrian Veidt section early in the comic series?

I just have to comment on all the hate Malin Ackerman is getting.

Everyone is saying she "didn't emote" or "seemed like a robot" and they're completely missing that this WAS her character. She had been living with an emotionless godlike being for almost twenty years! Anyone who has been married for a long period of time knows that, after a while, you adapt to your mate and start acting a bit like them. It's the only way to get along, sometimes.

She was in love with an emotionless man, and after so many years she stopped being able to register emotion as purely as other people. She became numb. It happens.

So the only times in the entire story when she shows a spark of life are when she's fighting or fucking. Every other time, she's completely unaware that she's not showing emotion, because she hasn't had to (or it would have been pointless) for half of her life.

Personally, I think her portrayal was spot-on.

This weekend, myself and a few of my friends (mostly fanboys to some degree or another) trekked out to see Watchmen with attitudes ranging from super-excited to bracing for the apocalypse.

In the end, we were all met with an overwhelming sense of... "meh". It wasn't that the movie was bad, but it also wasn't good either.

You're right to say that Zach Snyder made a film that was the best those who love the comic could hope for. But I'm firmly in the camp that thinks this never should have been made into a movie in the first place.

One of the reasons that Watchmen resonates so firmly as a graphic novel is because of the medium itself. It so succinctly examined the superhero genre that had come before in comics and was intended for fans of that medium. It was meant for those who had grown up with a group of superheroes and examined those stories wondering what it would be like if they existed in real life. Alan Moore gave us that in perhaps more of a tangible and gritty way than we were hoping for. It made it less innocent, but opened up our eyes and brought a whole new depth to the comics we'd loved.

This is why turning Watchmen into a movie could never work, because you're taking away the very thing that made Watchmen work--the history of the medium. I find the comment from Ms. Robot infinitely interesting because I think it sums up my point. She saw it, didn't mind it, but didn't see what all the hype was about. That's because removed from the medium of comic books and the context therein, Watchmen doesn't resonate the same way.

If you take a great comic book movie like the Dark Knight, the reason that it works is because it provides something new. It examines, re-defines, and adds to a decades old mythos and makes us look at Batman with fresh eyes.

Watchmen the film didn't do that because there was nothing to add to Watchmen the graphic novel. It stands alone, wholly realized in its place and time in the history of comics. It is great because of what came before it, and continues to be great because of how it influenced what came after it.

No movie can capture that.

Excellent "non-review." This sums up my feelings about the movie almost exactly (except for the part about needing to add more sex and violence to ensure an R rating. I think the pregnant woman getting shot point-blank was probably enough to earn it an R, no?)

Anyway, I saw it with a couple of people who had read the book and one who hadn't, and we all agreed that Ozymandias is too villainous too soon.

I did miss some of the back story stuff (like some of the bits about the technology that was developed as a result of Dr Manhattan's appearance) but that's a small nitpick and I'm guessing a lot of it will be in the extended cut anyway.

@MKitn

99 Luftbalons was perfect! It's VERY 80s, and it's about accidental nuclear war. They couldn't have picked a better song!

All the music was spot-on, as I see it.

"Unforgettable" was the theme for a Veidt product on television, while Veidt was in the room killing the Comedian because what Adrian was doing was unforgettable.

"The Times They Are A'Changin'" was just perfect. Said it all in the lyrics.

"All Along the Watchtower" basically described exactly what was happening on-screen. "Outside in the cold distance, a wildcat did growl. Two riders were approaching, and the wind began to howl..."

"I'm Your Boogie Man" was more than just a "Hey, it's the 1970s!" cue. It also described how the Comedian was seeing things at that point in time... but not as "boogie" man, but "bogey" man. He WAS the Bogeyman.

Each song had more than just period relevance. They had lyrical relevance too.

I
LOVED
this
movie

Seriously, it was amazing. I'm not going to try to understand why other people didn't like or convince them otherwise. For me, Snyder gave me the movie version of Watchman I used to lay in bed and dream about when the comics first came out. My only complaint was that it was so true to the GN (which I read many times over) that nothing surprised me. Not exactly a complaint.

I don't care what the mass audience thinks of Watchmen. I'm completely selfish about this one. It was EXACTLY what I wanted. Because of this movie, I will see anything that Snyder makes from here on out, just to say "Thank you" for this movie.

Nice write-up. I agree on most points. And there are a few ideas here (mainly per the music) that I'm going to embrace because it'll help me to like the film better. :-)

And I did like it. Saw it twice and liked it more the second time. I think because I had worked out my fanboy issues after the first viewing and got to just kick back.

I think this is about as good a feature adaptation as I could have hoped for. As good as the graphic novel? Of course not. When something maximizes the potential of its medium as Watchmen did, it will always suffer in translation to another medium. (Though I don't remember any massive outcry among my fanboy pals when Marvel "raped" the original Star Wars with a giant-size comic adaptation. Certainly not as good as the movie, but I still enjoyed it.)

Back to the flick, I agree with others that it lacked subtlety, particularly with the music during the sex scene. And I'll still quibble about tiny editing choices ("No, THAT line should have been the close-up.") We didn't have all of the Bernies, but enough for fans like me, with the promise of more in the expanded edition. And I loved the little touches they got right -- Rorschach-as-Walter appearances and so many pleasingly accurate panel-to-frame translations.

I liked skinny Ozy, too, especially when it came time to throw down. Seeing THAT guy kick ass worked better for me than a muscle-bound dude. And I thought the fight choreography was excellent (and well shot) across the board. Thank you, Snyder, for letting us actually SEE the choreography and not going for the hackneyed shaky, indecipherable, you're-IN-the-fight shtick that has become the norm.

I DID miss Hollis' murder and Dan's reaction, but it wasn't a deal-breaker. And I didn't mind Dan watching Rorschach buy it in the end. It worked to have Dan play as the heart of the piece and our emotional window.

I agree that Ackerman was a disappointment, but was more than satisfied with Rorschach, especially in prison, even though they condensed most of my favorite issue to one scene with the shrink and changed the bit with the murderer. And I really loved the whole Doc Manhattan section and appreciated Crudup's performance better the second time around.

So, surprisingly from me, a thumbs up. And at the risk of attracting a nerd barrage, I think Alan Moore should grow up and let it go. The graphic novel is what it is and the movie is what it is. And if the movie drives people to read the book (as it has with three of my friends), that's an unmitigated good thing. It reminds me of an interview snippet I read once from a famous author (Hemingway, maybe?). When asked if he felt film adaptations had ruined his books, he turned around and basically said "No, they're still right there on my shelf."

Great review, man, and thanks for the shout-out. I enjoyed it as well, although I think there was a bit of "trying to please both camps" about it, which may have hurt it. If he had tried to appeal solely to mass audiences, the nerds (myself included) would have been angry. And there was NO way to make the nerds entirely happy, because every nerd has different tiny things they aren't willing to compromise on, and the only way to satisfy them all is to remake it panel by panel. So he put in a lot of nerd stuff, and did lots of mass stuff, and I think he made the best film possible (although the longer one will be better). I understand why people hated it (although I'm not sure where all this sudden hatred of the book is coming from) and I'm sad that non-readers were confused, but what can you do.

Not to hijack the entire comments thread, but having checked out the "rant" link above, I've gotta say it's pretty poor. I love a funny, snarky roast as much as the next guy, but almost every one of the complaints applies to the original graphic novel (the sex scene, lack of powers, biker gang fight, even Doc's bait and tackle alternating between being shown and covered up).

And other bits show that the dude just didn't understand what was going on. Ackerman did not play her mom (wtf?). And the reason Doc couldn't divine Ozy's plan was clearly explained.

Okay, I'm picky. But I'd rather read a funny roast where the guy has some clue about what he's roasting.

Contrary to previous rumors, I will say that Dr. Manhattan's over-sized penis, while larger than in the book, was not above par for your average porn-star guy.

I add this not because I'm so preoccupied, but because someone else has already said just about everything thing else I thought about the film.

I also felt some of the key lines may have been stepped on by visual/music cues popping in a little too early. But that's about as important and a CGI penis too.

Well, most of the points I could make about this film have already been covered by you guys......but:

I found it overlong and at times boring, and as one that doesn't hold the Novel in the same high regard that many of you do I am hardly surprised. The 80's were nihilistic and overly commercial enough to live through as it is - I really didn't need Alan Moore to tell me to "think" about the parlous state of the Planet as it was in most peoples' faces day-in, day out - and unfortunately it hasn't changed much in the last 20 years.

The Film is as Rob has stated, exactly the film that Watchman diciples wanted it to be, for the rest of us it's more of a yawn-fest than most of you will want to admit.

I'll probably end up with a copy on DVD when it ends up on discount.....

Just my opinion, and nothing to get worked up about....

I thoroughly enjoyed 'Watchmen', changes and all. But I definitely see what you mean about Silk Spectre II...she was gorgeous but the acting just wasn't quite up to the calibur of everyone else. That being said...I still can't get the credit sequence out of my head. It was utter brilliance. I also quite liked the ending, 'Tonight a Comedian died in New York...' and then it slams in to the credits/music.

I'm also hearing the director's cut is like over 5 hours long or something crazy like that? Epic dvd imminent.

This was an amazing piece on Watchmen Rob. I think you hit everything on the head. This movie has been made for the fans, and I'm amazingly greatful for it. What you said about the damn mutant tiger really summed that up. Though, I'd give Malin a little more credit than everyone else, she wasn't amazing, but she wasn't bad. The movie doesn't seem to be tanking, at the very least, which makes me all the more happy.

Obviously, I think the graphic novel makes it a much better shock, since Ozy seems so blond and heroic, and less sketchy.

There IS the slight problem of Hollywood type-casting the "blond and heroic" type more or less exclusively as a creepy villain for the last few decades...

@ Templar

That's very true...I hadn't even thought of that!

I do not understand the venom against the music. I really don't even get the idea that it was unsubtle. Maybe it's because I'm not actually a fan of the novel (I cliff-noted the plot and skimmed it first, thank god), but I hardly even noticed the music. It all just seemed to fit perfectly. Set the stage, time, and emotion of each of the scenes.

Anyways, I'm in the clearly minority loved it camp, and there's much to say that hasn't already been hashed out. All I do want to note is that the stunning recreation of the Zapruder film in the credit montage ending with the Comedian on the grassy knoll is perhaps the single greatest thing I've ever seen. That entire montage was amazing, but that bit sealed it for me.

I somewhat disagree about the music... I feel like they could have still used music of that time but maybe choices that were SLIGHTLY less obvious (since some of those picks have been 'played out' by this point, being used several times in other movies, commercials, etc).

But everything else you mention here I feel is spot on. Very well said. I think Snyder should be commended for his efforts because even if we all never wanted to see a Watchmen movie, there would eventually be one. And I'm pretty sure if anyone else got their hands on it, it would have been complete and utter shit.

...and there isn't much to say that...

Alan Moore can suck it!

Snyder did the BEST possible adaptation that this book could have ever seen. To me the upped action and sex really put more of a perspective as to why these people would ever go out and fight crime without superpowers in the first place... They Got Of On It! Simple as that.
If you hated it because it wasn't scene for scene EXACTLY the same as the book... then go read the book again and shut up.
If you hated it because of the music... get a life! Music is part of it and Now every time I here "the times, they are a changing"... I'm going to want to punch someone in the face in slow motion. And I LOVE punching people in the face in slow motion!
The Ending was a hundred times better than the book.
Moore is a bitter old man that got screwed out of his money by DC, thats why he never wanted this movie made.
If you know anything you know that WATCHMEN wasn't a brilliantly thought out novel that was written out to perfection years in advance... no, Moore was right issue 12 when issue 5 was just being put on the shelves. I remember, I was there in 86 and read them as I bought them, one issue at a time, months apart...
This was thrown together issue by issue just like LOST or HEROES.
I'm a hater, but some of you guys take the Cake.

"M.Christian said:

What I wanted was for someone, anyone, to listen to the author of the work itself. Moore didn't want a movie to be made of WATCHMEN yet they went ahead and did it anyway "

I'm SO tired of hearing this bull shit. If Alan Moore didn't want a movie made, then why in the f'ing hell did he sell the rights for a movie? Poor Alan Moore, took that money for selling the rights, then has to cry about the fact that someone is actually using them, and criticizing movies he won't even bother to see. Yeah, that's real integrity.

Personally, I really enjoyed the movie, though I thought the middle dragged on a bit too much, butt I would have missed those scenes if they weren't there.

Low-lights:

1. The Ultra Violence was a bit much at times, especially when they cut the guys arms off and with the dogs chewing on the little girl's leg bones. I mean, I can handle that stuff fine, but I think my wife was going to throw up, and it even got to be a bit much for me to the point where it became almost so overblown it got cartoonish.

2. Too easy to figure out Ozy was the villain. I mean, Goode I think did fine for how he was directed, but I don't think he had the Ozy look, and he came off as more douchebaggy with a slightly sinister look then as some almost All-American Altruist and the toast of the country.

3. Too much blue penis. Yes, I understand the need for it and the symbolism of it, and it didn't bother me personally that much, but I was in a crowded theater and I could just tell people around me were getting annoyed with how much it was being shown to the point it was distracting from the story.

The High-lights:

1. Rorschach. RORSCHACH . Everyone in the theater seemed to love him, especially the jail scenes. Beautifully played and I thought that was exactly how he would sound.

2. I actually liked Nite Owl II even better in the movie than I did in the graphic novel. I liked that they streamlined the suit and just generally made him more awesome rather than some fat dude who was almost unbelievable as Sally's post-disaster pity fuck.

3. The Music was great. I don't care what anyone says. Set the time periods well.

By the way, whats with all the Malin Ackerman hate. I thought she -was- Sally Jupiter, believable in the roll as someone who was essentially out of her element to begin, emotionally damaged and having been forced by Mom to enter this line of work. And I respect the fact that she wore that costume too, lol. I took my wife along who is a model/actress herself and she thought Malin did fine too.

And whats the problem with the sex scene? I actually thought it worked much better than the lets make love to celebrate life in Ozy's fortress at the end. It much better highlighted how much the characters need this superhero thing, and let me tell you, I -love- the fact that they had her keep on the latex thigh-high boots and nothing else for the scene, lol.

Good review, TR.

For those who want another take, my review is up at: http://looking2dastars.livejournal.com/102284.html

It looks like we're in ultimately in agreement over the movie - though I think Malin Ackerman's problems were more to do with the fact that Laurie is an ill-defined character to begin with (Moore satirizing the place of women in comics at that time) and that out of all the main characters, she had the least ammount of character-defining flashbacks. And only one of those (Sally arguing with her husband) made it into the movie.

I seem to be alone in liking the Jimi Hendrix on arrival in Antarctica. Am I the only one who remembers that a line from "All Along The Watchtower" closed out the chapter in the book where we see Nite Owl and Rorschach moving in on Veidt's base? "Two riders were approaching..."

For my part, I'm not going to see Watchmen.

Viewing the opening credits here, they ARE impressive.

Makes me want to read the book again.

As someone else pointed out here, the medium is the message. Moore and Gibbons crafted something which stands out as a masterpiece. The movie, is as best, an excellent copy of a copy.

Meh, I sez.

For my part, I'm not going to see Watchmen.

Viewing the opening credits here, they ARE impressive.

Makes me want to read the book again.

As someone else pointed out here, the medium is the message. Moore and Gibbons crafted something which stands out as a masterpiece. The movie, is as best, an excellent copy of a copy.

Meh, I sez.

"For example -- can you imagine, having never read Watchmen, watching the movie and seeing a big blue tiger with antennae all of a sudden? We know Bubastis is a beloved part of the story, but for mass audiences, he's this bizarre animal which comes out of nowhere, who serves no purpose to the story."

This is what happened with my wife. I think it would have worked a little better if Bubastis had been hanging around since the beginning. You wouldn't have had to explain him if he would have been there earlier. To suddenly have him show up near the end of the film is distracting.

i completely agree with everything you said, came up with almost exactly the same assertions after watching it on friday.

anyone who disagrees with us is a big dummy.

Fantastic review. I am in 100 percent agreement.

Since we don't want a sequel - or really anything more to come out of this than the director's cut which is apparently in the can already anyway - this movie's box office returns don't matter.

In a sense I kinda feel like Snyder "got away" with making this movie.

Here Here. Great article. I went with a bunch of people who had not read the book. I got much more out of it then they did, BUT like it or not, they all wanted to read the book and fill in the blanks for themselves. Thus...a success.

Man, way to take up all of the GOOD points. I only have one to add-- I *liked* the changed, squidless ending. I liked it because while some layers of depth had to be stripped from the work to make it fit into three-ish hours and palatable to mainstream audiences, it gave Snyder the opportunity to add a new layer for those who want to prod at such things.

I'm referring here to the indications of John as God. Several times people refer to him as a god or as God throughout the film, and Daniel's line about how everyone will behave as long as they think John's watching drives the idea home; just replace "John" with "God" and you've got sort of an interesting stepping point into the nature of human belief and ethics.

Of course, it's not a "moral" or a "message" or anything that concrete, more of just a prompt for thought. And it made a huge difference to me, because while I really enjoyed the film, I also felt like it was in many ways SO close to how I imagined voices and characters in my head that I could have re-read the comic just as easily. I liked the film, but I think I'm unlikely to go to effort to re-watch it.

Great review and a great movie.

I read the Watchmen when it first came out as a twelve part series, worked at the comic book store where I bought it years later and several years after that I made several of my own comic books and short films. Knowing what goes into the the medium of sequential art and the other medium of film I feel that this movie is like the Peter Jackson LOTR films--it takes an incredible amount of narrative, and using the best elements of the film medium, turned it into a version that is as faithful to the source material and yet still work as it's own medium.

Is it better than the book? Hell no. Just like the LOTR is better in the book version, because you get more details and more self involvement since you have to actively create the scenes in your own head, the comic will always require more of the viewer than the film version.

That said, this movie does a great job of taking the viewer to a different place and telling a compelling story. All the key elements from the book are there-the deconstruction of the super-hero mythos, the question of morality vs actions and the sense of scope.

From a film point of view it was tightly shot, wonderfully acted and the effects served the story instead of being the main point. When we left the theatre, I was talking to my wife (who has also read it several times and enjoyed both the book and the movie) and I noted that Malin Ackerman was perfectly cast. She played a shelled person who only opens up to Dan and finally to Jon again. The sex scene was well done and I'm glad they casted a natural woman instead of some fake breasted bimbo. It was nice to see that in a movie about how normal people would be as super heroes that Zach didn't cast Silk II according to some fake breast measurement.

As far as the ending, I'm with those that think this version with Jon being the fake threat works better than the squid. Most of the story deals with the power shift that Jon causes and his growing alienation from humans. The squid on the other hand is actual hardly in it. In the early part of the story there is only two pages and a few panels that deal with the actual development of the squid. The last chapter has several full pages devoted to the carnage caused but only one page that shows the main part of the squid. So you have three pages of squid missing but the development of Jon through out the story. So by making Jon the fake threat you actually have more impact and direct reference to one of the most major themes in the book.

Alan Moore is a great writer but if he put his ego aside he might even agree that the change benefited the story and he would even like this film.

Now that Zach has covered two of the comic world's biggest stars, Miller and Moore, and done a great job I want him to take on the last of the group, Gaiman, and make a Sandman movie.

Just a few thoughts:

1. I have yet to read the original (a geek sin I know), but I am intending too.

2. I did like the movie with only minor complaints. I don't like the sounds of the whole giant space squid thingy in the G-novel.

3. For the people (all guys) who are complaining about the appearance of Dr. Manhattan’s penis... It's just a penis. The character has developed beyond primitive human moralities such as "blushing" over nudity. In public he is polite & panders to the social "norms" and in his private life he has no such restraints & just lives. It's not over done, any more than the appearance of any other body part in the movie (such as breasts).
Ps. to curb any juvenile rebuttals on this point... yes I'm a guy, I'm straight, with 0% desire for sex with another man & I've been married for 8 years to a woman.

Well first off, the massive amount of comments (and massive comments no less) should denote that regardless of whether you like it or not, the film succeeded in drawing out the nerds. Apparently WE ALL saw it this weekend. Love it or hate it, you paid for it.

As for the music, I think it was great because it helps to cement the Americana of it all. It was Forrest Gumpian, but I think that's why it worked. It keeps this alternate reality superhero story grounded in a time and place we know. Plus I think it helped to keep some of the atmosphere a little lighter, than painting our country as a disheveled madhouse.

And on the point of the 80's movie homage. Did anyone notice the end credits? Yes the opening ones were brilliant. But the ending ones were short! Like really really short, which reminded me of the Pre-Star Wars era movies. It actually only lasts for one song (Probably 3 or 4 minutes tops) and really must have left a ton of people out (Poor craft services). It's nothing major, but stylistically I thought it was brilliant.

Last point. You can see Snyders previous work in the film. More gore than was in the comics? Well he did (re)make Dawn of the Dead. Too much slow motion fighting? Well he did make 300. I felt those were his own personal touches that he added to the movie from his own artistic repertoire.

Well, looks like most everything is covered. I stand on the side of it was okay for what it was and leave it at that. The squidless ending still bugged me, but I was pleased that as long as they were throwing out the source material at that point they did change something else. I never liked in the comic that Dan and Sally stay behind with Ozymandias and that they so readily accept his new utopia. Dan actually fighting him and telling him off before leaving was a welcome adjustment.

One thing about the opening credits. They were not what I was expecting. I thought perhaps they'd have newsreel footage type material, with a voiceover or something to explain who the characters were. Maybe narrated passages from Hollis Mason's book. They weren't terrible by any means, just not what I was expecting from all the publicity shots of the 40s characters.

I am still mystified by how they got so many tiny background details exactly right, but haphazardly ignored some easy things that could have been done. Mostly it's stuff with the Comedian's look. Call it nitpicking, sure, but the Comedian's gun has a nameplate from Nixon you can't even read in the film, but the act of taking a moustache off, putting a domino mask on in Vietnam, and putting a full face mask on from that point forward were considered too difficult to get in?

I was okay with the ramped up violence and understood why it was there. Still, Rorschach just cleavering the child murderer in the head lacked the power of the scene where he gives him a chance to save himself, then walks out and watches the building burn along with the last vestiges of Walter Kovacs.

Man, I can't believe all you guys who were bored or the guys who demanded your money back. Go watch your overrated oscar garbage and stay there. I have a feeling a lot of that is a lot of the same people who couldn't read the book back in the day cause it was "too wordy" or something stupid of the like.

I won't say the movie was perfect because it's not. But it is the most faithful thing you'll ever see, and I enjoyed the hell out of that.

I'm not going to repeat the review because I 100% agree, but one thing I will say is that the music was PERFECT. Man, All Along The Watchtower at the end? That was so badass, and a sweet treat for those of us who read it. I really liked the Boogeyman part and it summed up the Comedian oh so well. 99 Luftballoons, etc... great cues, good set up. And I had no problem with Malin really. I never thought Sally was a likeable character to begin with.

I think the thing I really liked was the guy playing Rorschach left his mask on the entirety of the film. How many spoiled bastard Hollywood actors piss and moan about not wearing a mask in these types of films in the past cause you can't see their overexposed faces?

And can I say I just love the old Hollywood style Bruce Timm posters you have up there? Those kick ass!

I saw it over the weekend, like most people, and still have mixed feelings. It was much, MUCH better than I was expecting, and surprisingly the squidless ending worked pretty well. The movie was pretty well done, but the scenes with Ozymandias were the scenes I hated. He's incredibly obvious as a villain, the acting felt surprisingly sub-par and out of character, and pretty much everything else about his portrayal bothered me. The music was awful no matter what way you look at it, but some scenes, like the opening titles montage, were very good, especially with my low, low expectations for the film. Zack Snyder's kinetic slow-motion was much less prevalent than others, and there was very little wrong with the way he shot it. Not a great movie, but for Watchmen it's a pretty good attempt.

I would also like to say that that was a great review.

For me the biggest surprise was rorschach. When I read Watchmen I did not see Rorschach as a badass. In the movie I did, and I liked that a lot. It turned that character completely around for me.

I only read Watchmen after seeing the original trailer. So I am not as attached to the story as a long time fan. I thought they did a good job of adapting a complex book.

I think this was the best review I've seen yet.

I was so ready to hate this movie & side with Alan Moore but ultimately I think it was as good an adaptation as they could have done.

It was a flawed movie sure, and I could go on and on about what I didn't like about it and how it could have been better, but if we're realistic about it what more could we have asked for? (Except a 12hour miniseries sold with a copy of "Scott McCloud's Understanding Watchmen" so that non-believers are forced to realise the genius of the original work)

The saddest thing is that if Alan Moore hadn't gone all Rorshach and had compromised just a little to work with Snyder the way Gibbons did then we could have had a perfect adaptation.

Unfortunately I'm going to have to live with knowing one of my favourite writers is too prideful to give his fans a hand up.

For the most part, I thought that the movie was a fairly faithful adaptation of the graphic novel and I found it to be enjoyable.

There was one problem that I had with it, though. Zach Snyder has no concept of subtlety. Now, the movie put a few things about the Comedian that were implied in the graphic novel. The problem is, Snyder said them outright and bluntly.

First, the Comedian shot Kennedy. Now I was okay with this being put out bluntly. It just fit in with the montage, and it would be hard to put something that subtle in a movie otherwise. In fact, I think that part looked pretty cool. So that one was fine.

The problem I had with the movie was that they said that the Comedian was Laurie's father, without any hint of subtlety whatsoever. Something that was originally an element that added depth to some of the characters instead turned Laurie into a corny melodramatic piece of nonsense. The final exchange between Laurie and Sally was so cliche that it was laughable.

Also, I felt that it was made too obvious that Adrian was the villain. It certainly could have been handled with less heavy-handedness.

All in all, the movie was well done until the part where Jon tells Laurie that the Comedian was her father. Even then, the movie wasn't ruined by the ending. It certainly could have been worse, and I will certainly buy this movie when it comes out in stores.

I'd say the music was an excellent touch, a sort of auditory calendar. There are some songs that you can hear and know exactly when they were made. The use of classic songs like that took away the chore of having to put more plot exposition in (which would have made things even slower).
My only complaint is that when the Watchmen trailer came out they used the Smashing Pumpkins instead of actual Movie Soundtrack.

The pacing of the movie felt really good to me; a little story, a little dialog, some fighting, rinse, repeat. It carried the movie a lot further than it would have gone if it had simply gone the route of other action movies and lumped everything combat related in at the end.

Your entire review literally made the case for why the Watchmen was and still is, unfilmable.

"Obviously, there were some changes to Watchmen, but I contend they were made strictly to try to connect to audiences beyond the nerds, or just by the necessity of it being a film."

"But no studio would ever allow a four-hour superhero movie to be released, so things had to go if the movie was to come out at all."

Sorry, but it wasn't just "some changes", it was a LOT. Zach Snyder truly made one fantastic movie, that is not in question. It is whether he made a movie that was true to the SPIRIT to the book, that's the question. Zach was anal about making sure every bit of detail was as faithful to the book, but made fundamental and disturbing changes to the substance of it. He made the characters look the same, but made substantial and fundamental changes to their character itself. None of this movie characters resemble their characters in the book and how they were written. It only seems like it's faithful, but it isn't. It takes a more discerning eye that's not easily blinded by the flash and glitter and kick ass slo-mo.

Strip away the superficial "authenticity" of the movie (the costumes, the set, the scenes), and you come up with something that's completely different from the book.

You still don't get it. When it comes to Watchmen, it's not *just* about missing scenes. It's about something much deeper than that.

2 ordinary 20-years-old-guys and 1 older nerd that was "watchmenless".
We all think that the film it's pretty cool! ^^

My friend during the film was thinking that the bad guy was "the red-haired guy with a sign" (do you know him? ^^). So I don't think that the bad guy it's so obviously recognisable.

I think that the next thing I will buy will be the graphic novel... After what I watched I expect it to be awesome!

Ps: yeah, silk spectre II was quite bad...

Saw it this weekend, like everyone here. And my experince was... I still don't know! Yes, it was good, but it wasn't GREAT. All the people who say it's the best movie ever are talking out of their asses and living in denile.
There was so much stuff going on but the film felt empty to me. Sub characters were completely cut out! Where the hell were the Bernies?! Key characters about showing the tension of society as a whole!
All the characters were great, all the hate on Silk is odd. The only cringe worthy performance was the ending.
I'm going to see it again, but I'll hold my judgement for the director's cut. I guess I just needed more.

I think this is a great non-review review. I agree with many of your points. It may not be a great film, but I think it was a good film and a very good adaptation. The best adaptation I've ever seen was Sin City. Rodriguez practically used the comics as story boards and having Miller along helped a great deal. I don't think we could have expected the same from Watchmen.

I'm also hoping that we'll eventually get a nerdtastic SE on DVD similar to what Jackson gave us with the extended editions of the LOTR films. I don't even remember what the theatrical releases looked like. All I ever watch are the extended ones and I expect the same will hold true for Watchmen one day.

First off, thank you for using the term nerd rather than the media's new pet word "fanboy."
More importantly, thank you for a well written and insightful review. I've scanned over countless reviews trying to gauge how the world at large is taking this film, and yours by far was the best.
I've read the comic, and when I first heard about the movie, I was apprehensive. When the first production stills started leaking, I was cautiously optimistic. When I finally saw the final product, I was thrilled.
I really don't think we could have gotten a better adaptation. I loved seeing the panels come to life, and I really felt there was a fair balance between honoring the source material and making it appealing to the mass audience. A nearly impossible task, and it was pulled off as best as it could be.
I have no complaints. I was a little put off by the music during the sex scene, but I figured Snyder had an angle, and I think you just turned me around on that. Despite what many thought, the film does manage to have some subtle moments.
Thanks again for a well thought out entry about this. Between this and your call for a moratorium on Lucas bashing. TR is quickly becoming my favorite blog.

Good review. I agree with pretty much all of it, including some o' those comments up top saying it's gonna be a sleeper; I think that this movie - and hopefully the graphic novel - will pick up a lot of fans through dvd etc.

The only real problem I had with the film was the violence. I guess it makes sense that Snyder would want that R rating, but I kind of wish he hadn't needed to go to that extreme. I don't mind in most of the movie, actually, only in the NIte Owl and Silk Spectre fight scenes. It's appropriate for Rorschach to snap someone's arm so that the bone sticks out. Likewise for almost all the other characters. But I can't help but feel it changes the character of Nite Owl and Silk Spectre a bit for the worse. It's only a small gripe, but it's there.

Otherwise, awesome movie! I didn't even think that Malin Ackerman was that bad. She nailed the look, and while there was a little awkwardness, I think the skill of the other actors helped her out, rather than highlighting it so much.

Does anyone know if Moore's seen this movie? I kinda wanna know what he'd think. I don't think he'd be able to get too pissed about it, all things considered.

Let me start buy saying I haven't read it, and I went with my wife and parents who had not read it. (A little uncomfortable but it could have been worse in the sex scenes.)

We all enjoyed it. Some of the brutal scenes were enough to make my wife close her eyes, but we could have seen that in a murder mystery or on The Shield.

My wife summed it up saying, "the parts I didn't hate I absolutely loved. I am glad to have seen it."

I think I will read it having seen it, and I believe that the DC will be on frequent rotation till I finally feel like I've seen all the subtle nuances that one misses in something as grand as this.

The only music that seemed actually out of place was the Desolation Row remake by MCR at the end. The rest of the songs were master/original artist tracks and were wonderful even if somewhat overused and they really made the mood come alive.

For characters, the Comedian was a man seemingly without any redeeming qualities who I felt less bad for his dying throughout the movie. Adrian seemed like a douche bag but none of us pegged him as the villain. His blue lynx we all just figured was something that went along with his apparent fetish for Alexander the Great's history.

On a side note. My 62 year old father, whom I have never seen read a book, ever, recited the whole poem on the stone from memory.

I agree on most of the points, however, I thought Malin Ackerman was great. ZeroCorpse brought up some good points regarding why she wasn't that emotive, and someone else mentioned she was a rather weak character to begin with. Besides all that, she lloked EXACTLY like her, which I think is possibly more important in this instance.

When I first read the book, I figured out Ozmandias was behind it before the reveal. However, my boyfriend (who hasn't read it) leaned over and said "he did it" the first time we ever hear him speak. And I totally agree about Bubastis, I was happy to see her, but she did just come out of nowhere. It wouldn't have been that hard to have him show her off during his interview or something.

My big complaint, which I consider more important than excessive violence and sex (which is totally reasonable considering the movie gets an automatic R for frontal male nudity, why wouldn't they throw in some violence and female nudity for the non-nerd super macho straight guys out there?), is the changing of one line. "Your hands, my perspective" to "your hands, my pleasure" made me sick. It takes one simple line that boils down what makes Rorshach such a brilliant crime fighter to it's core and turns it into a pathetic one-liner. However, it's not a deal breaker for me, I still liked the movie quite a bit and think Zack Snyder is fabulous for caring so much about the fans.

Oh yeah, speaking of frontal nudity, Manhattan isn't all that huge in the movie, at least from my experience. Sorry if I'm raining on anyone's parade here, maybe I'm wrong, and I'm just a lucky girl.

Great review.

I am among those who had never even heard of the Watchmen before all the buzz about the movie started. To read MY take on it, from the point of view of a film fan, go to:

http://mattthemovieguy.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/at-the-movies-watchmen/

I agree, this was a good movie and the changes - frankly, a lot of them I prefer to the "way it was" in the book. Heresy, I know, but I always thought the squid was stupid and the Black Freighter stuff was Moore celebrating his own cleverness a little much.

And there's a couple scenes where I was unsure about the acting, but in general I think the lack of emotion is deliberate and done to show the alienation all these folks experience from each other and themselves. Even if you're married or boning someone it doesn't mean you're really engaged at a core level and I think all these characters had that problem, from the really obvious Dr. Manhattan and Dan's impotence, but Spectre and the rest as well.

I've seen it twice so far, once with a squad of comic fans going to see it before a D&D session, and once with a bunch of people from work who hadn't read the comic. Both groups enjoyed it.

And some of the critiques are just retarded. "But, there was no slo-mo in the comic!" How do you say that with a straight face? Or "Eek, blue penis! Makes me uncomfortable with my manhood! And it was smaller in the comic!" (I'm pretty sure ol physicist boy wasn't all super ripped with 6-pack abs before getting zapped either, looks like he made plenty of improvements.) Or "What's up with that 99 Luftballons crap? Bubblegum pop? Not dark enough!" When so many of the criticisms are dementedy uninformed, I don't worry about them so much.

It could have been improved. He should have cut Bubastis and retooled a couple more of the lines. Rorschach's "Not interfere with piloting" thing when the owlship is crashing sounds like he's doing a Twiki imitation, and it's the fault of the original line. Other than that, great stuff!

I really only have a few points to make, due to the fact that I think this non-review really hit the nail on the head.

First, two parts in the film which made me cringe, the flame-throwers orgasm and the final exchange between Sally and Laurie at the end, stuck with me as moments that seemed silly and poorly written. I went back to the book the next day and, yep, they are both in there. Sally and Laurie's lines are basically word for word what Moore wrote. Plus, the choice of "Halleluja", and the inclusion of the flam-o-gasm make the sex scene, which I had previously though to be too much, kind of friggin' hilarious.

As for Rorschach's voice, I think that he sounded that way before Batman did. If Snyder used it as a medium to give mass audiences a way to connect with the character via something they know, excellent. Really, though, how else could he sound?

Finally, I don't think Ackerman gave a very strong performance. I understand the points that have been made here about Laurie's character, but there is a big difference between bad acting that just happens to work for the role, and a strong performer making solid choices to flesh out the character. Especially among a group of actors who, for the most part, delivered as well as the cast of Watchmen did.

Reading this post and the responses have really given me even more of an appreciation for the film, and I already liked it. I think that from all of the comments from people who are now interested in the book, and from the general agreement that is present here, we can say that this one goes into the job well done category. And yeah, I am looking forward to the directors cut.

I thought it was really good, but not great. I do think the script was the best that could possibly be hoped for and most of my quibbles are with directorial choices.

And, I'm sorry, but the music was awful. I could not disagree with you more on that.

truly rhought the movie was a flawed work of genius.

the opening scene, wit the slow music juxtoposed against the vicious fight, was astounding. going to see it again tomorrow, cant wait to see it again.

rorshach could not have been played better in 1000 years, the ending scene with him was done better than the comic, so sad.

I don't think the director could win either way here.

I loved the movie - but MOSTLY because I had read the novel. While there were some things missing, overall it was truthful to the feel and philosophy of the novel.

If I HADN'T read the novel, I would have thought the movie a bit choppy.

I think he did a fine job. I's see it again.

On a happier note, there is a good possibility that the DVD release will have a bunch of nice missing scenes. When looking at the official score listings, there was music composed for the murder of Hollis. Wasn't in the movie, so we can assume it will be on DVD.

No hope I suppose for the squid of doom though.

For the most part I loved the movie, in particular I think the casting is spot on in every way. My only criticism is the ending and how Ozy is made to look like a villain. To me the ending in the comics was always a positive one, where Ozy's plan had succeeded in uniting humanity and putting an end to war. Whereas in the film, he's made out to be a villain. But how can stopping WWIII be a villainous act? He made the hard choices and accepted the consequences of what needed to be done to save the world.

Sadly, I don't think that's conveyed in the film at all. From what Snyder has said about the studio wanting Ozy to be a villain and be killed at the end, I suspect Snyder pushed things as close to the comic as possible while still having to give the studio their villain. I'm hoping the director's cut might perhaps use alternate takes and different cues to retain the tone of the comic but this might have to be a flaw that cannot be fixed.

As for framing Doctor Manhattan, I think it mostly worked but as a plan I think it had a much greater chance of failing and didn't really live up to what the world's smartest man could come up with. The audacity and scope of the squid plan is what makes me love it so much. As Rorschach said, "Sounds unbelievable. Probably true."

I liked the movie, and I agree with you on so many points. I did read the book, and the opening sequence nearly made me cry, especially seeing Dollar bill in that doorway for some reason; I've never seen "The times are a changin" used in such an amazing fashion. I loved the acting of the guy that played Rorshach, his face at the end took my breath away, and I have to say I've always hated Silk Spectre II anyways, so hating her in the movie was no surprise--The sex scene did make me angry, I agree that it had to be there to keep the general audience in tune, but it being as muted as it was in the comic, I thought that pandering to the audience in that fashion was too much against the book, you know?

Overall, I liked it, but the sex scene through me off completely, especially considering how drawn out it was, it just felt forced and awkward.

I did like how Bubastis was at the end there, tho at first I wondered why he would do that, I came to feel like it was a throw to the comic fans, as you could immediately tell who wasn't one in the theatre by all the cries of "Wait..wait what the fuck is that?"

Partially, my experience was clouded by the audience around me, consisting of a couple with a 6 year old in tow and a group of douchebags behind me who, at the beginning, asked each other "What's this movie about anyways?" to which another one responded "You know, retired superheroes..like..have you ever seen the incredibles?"

I nearly wept.

i'm your italian reader, TR, and i watched the movie yesterday (i did not come unprepared, i know the basics of the story like the alternative 1985, but i did not spoiler me anything) i didn't read the novel before but i liked the movie despite many many people i heard says it was ugly. they don't undertand nothing! i'd like to read the novel now, i loved the Ozymandias's plan (and his quote "i'm not a comic villain...") and the Rorschach character so much!
thumbs up for Watchmen from here!
vf

i haven't read the Watchmen comic series, but i can't imagine them packing any more into one movie even if they wanted to, which is good for me, makes me feel like i got my money's worth