So, I shouldn't let finding Watchmen to be one of the most overrated and overhyped graphic novels I've ever read deter me?

Wow, Craig, how old are you? You sound like a pretentious 20 year old poseur. Those of us "of a certain age" (me = mid 40's) have been waiting so long. I'm only worried about how Bubastis looks -- we saw her (overhead shot from the back) in the HBO First Look the other night. Hope she looks good and they're keeping her held back by not giving away the goods in the ads -- talking to YOU, GEORGE LUCAS/DOUBLE-BLADED SABER... I can't wait for midnight tonight...

I was pleasantly surprised and disappointed by turns at Snyder's ability to preserve the spirit of the story. Some of the movie's strongest moments are when Snyder allowed himself a freer hand (wowsa opening credit montage). But a lot of Dr. Manhattan's gravity as a character is lost in the shuffle. But I quite glad I saw the movie nonetheless.

DUDE. -Stares at Craig- I'm 14 and a half, and I feel like I've been waiting forever...If only for Rorschach. 8DD;;

I was able to see a preview screening on Monday, and speaking for those unfamiliar with the graphic novel, I have to say I'm still on the fence about it. It has plenty of positives: great visuals, complex characters, interesting storytelling method, plenty of thematic depth. But I still left feeling detached. It took quite a while to get into the meat of the story, which means that it must have done it's job setting everything up for people like me. I suppose it's got plenty of brain, but not the kind of heart I found in, say, Ironman.

Zach, it's still not a graphic novel. It was a limited series. If you're embarrassed to admit you read comic books, stop admitting you read them.

Just because something is printed in serial form doesn't mean it's not a novel. All of Dickens' work was printed in the same fashion and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that his works are not novels. Speaking as someone who has never read a comic book or graphic novel I'm interested to see this film because it sounds good.....

I saw the midnight showing and I have to say that I don't have any complaints. I loved the graphic novel and I think we got the best possible translation to film that a story like Watchmen could get. (Snyder is far too fond of his slow motion but that doesn't hurt this film too much).

As was said, this movie isn't the book. No movie is ever the book its based on. Even the best film adaptations (Coraline, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc) all fall very short of the books they're based on.

The primary thing that's holding me back from seeing the movie is my comic-book fan friend who really disliked the novel ranting about it. Also reports of the massive cerulean wang, because mentally I am twelve and will giggle loudly when that shows up onscreen. It sounds like if you go in expecting a comic-book movie, you'll be disappointed and possibly scarred for life. But if you go in expecting an actual movie with a lot of darkness and complex characters, you'll have a much better experience. Is that observation valid?

Saw the movie. It's only OK. The only memorable character was Rorschak. Action, violence, sex all good, but the story was just boring. The ending was painfully boring. If you have to raed a comic book just to understand the movie, then the movie just doesnt hold up on it's own. Dont confuse graphic violence with quality. Watchmen is just OK.

mm, forgot to mention - JDM was also delish as Comedian.

I'm glad to find someone who finally agrees with me! I thought the movie was absolutely fantastic. The running time was no bother, as so many have complained about--I just think most people are instant-gratification idiots who just need to see people being beat up and things exploding without seeing all the deep philosophical meaning in the story. Wow, do I sound pretentious. But I'm mad at all the middling reviews and comments, because not only is Watchmen a visual triumph, it is an absorbing story that manages to reflect our own state of the world right back at us in a meaningful way. I haven't read the graphic novel--I didn't want to so soon before the movie, because I knew I'd spend the whole time comparing the two. But now I can't wait to read it, then go see the movie again. Watchmen is simply brilliant.

This movie sucked I'm sure there was a good movie in there somewhere but as is it was terrible. The two best actors got the least screentime (JDM and whoever it was that played the young Owl Man)). What really gals me is that I can think of half dozen actors who could have done the roles better Katee Sackoff would have ruled in this lead and any Star Trek would have been better than Crudup, I mena the guy who played Vorik on Voyager can't be that busy right?
Also it one thing to show violence but I felt numb after this because they showed so much blood it stopped affecting me, I actually was more affected by a history channel documentary than this movie. Some of the problems stemmed from the simple limits in film, you can't tell six stories in one film its just not possible. If they had pared down and simply let Owl Man tell the present story and let the Comedian tell the past one it might have worked but they didn't do that. I'm sure Watchmen was a great comic book/graphic novel but I wonder if it should have been made into a movie at all.

SPOILERS!

I was really torn by this -- I enjoy the actors, liked the prologue, and loved the overall visual look, and while I had trouble sticking with its completely too-cool-for-school nihilistic viewpoint, I was glad I finished the story, even if it took a lot of effort slogging through the gratuitous violence and misogyny, because I did feel like the film was trying for something new and not unintelligent. Even if it did fold on itself like a pack of cards.

But the movie itself was also marred by over-the-top graphic violence -- I was sickened by several moments I won't mention here -- and so often they involved nameless or supporting characters and in that classic less-v.-more way could have been shortened to implication with no loss to its story. As it was, I'm no lightweight, but the way the visuals lingered on every spurt of blood, stab, dismemberment, and compound fracture in loving shimmering close-up slo-mo began to feel like violence-porn to me.

I also had real trouble with the morality of the story, which seems to go for flashy nihilism even when it's adolescent and tired. The finale is laughable because it's kind of a kid's idea of thinking deep (no, the sacrifice of MILLIONS will never be okay, sheesh, this isn't Ethics 101--congrats on making your 'heroes' into Nazis, MOVIE). I was amused at the idea that the author evidently felt humanity was like a naughty child that just needed to be taught a lesson, since as 9/11 taught us, human memories are short and sure enough, everyone goes right back to being their horrible old selves. In which case, the Big Deep Ending is for naught.

And the transparent villain and disappointing heroes who buy his BS are the worst, but nobody would ever convince me a 'hero' like The Comedian would be tolerated for his behavior, much less loved or admired. The guy was utterly reprehensible and everyone kept treating him instead like a lovable scruffy dog instead of like a rapist, murderer, assassin, and sociopath. It just took me out of the story, that he would be tolerated or even encouraged among a group of heroes (even using the word ironically).

I felt ultimately like [i]Watchmen[/i] was a peculiarly male movie made by a very smart boy with a thing for superyoung women in thigh-high boots and bondage get-ups. The female costumes were laughable and insulting, and the whole movie exudes an ugly misogynism around the edges.

Overall, I found it stylish and smart, but also sophomoric, and disappointing. It tried so hard to be edgy it was dated before the third hour began. (Oh, and on a shallow note, thank you Watchmen for the [i]worst[/i], unsexiest, most laughable sex scene EVER. Complete with an ejaculation of fire. I laughed out loud.)