"The book is always better"
Well, that one is definitely true.

I actually thought in some ways the movie was better. It shed a lot of the stuff that slowed the pacing of Watchmen the graphic novel way the heck down, and as a result it felt less like a three hour movie than many two hour movies.

There are lots of reasons why a book is always better than its movie adaptation, but most important this time was my ability to apparently skim over the Dan and Laurie parts of the book so quickly that I wondered how what I thought of as two very minor characters with seemed to get the bulk of the screen time.

Still, I don't see how it could have been adapted better, and I look forward to the super-extended-pirate-comic version -- and the ability to pause that will come along with it.

In the meantime, I'm gonna reread it.

I actually thought in some ways the movie was better. It shed a lot of the stuff that slowed the pacing of Watchmen the graphic novel way the heck down, and as a result it felt less like a three hour movie than many two hour movies.

I don't care if the book was better, or indeed if there WAS a book. Is the movie any good in its own right is the question.

A lot of reviews seem caught up in Alan Moore's whines rather than the merits of the films, and border on snobbery [strike "border" in the NYTimes case]. Poor reviewers rather than poor reviews.

Yeah, I read Watchmen when the comics came out, and I've reread it again recently. But the film needs to stand on its own, and be judged that way.

Let's put it in perspective.
The photography was beautiful.
The acting was dead-on-the mark perfect.
The adaption was as faithful as humanly possible.

I really think the reviewers just didn't like the story itself, or more likely, didn't get it. Zack Snyder did a fantastic job and he deserves a LOT more credit.

It is quite evident where Sci-Fi's sensibilities lie. If this had been produced by Universal all mentions of it would be positive.

I decided to wait and read the graphic novel until after I watched the movie. As a movie on its own, I thought it was awesome, the first true superhero movie for ADULTS. Not for the kiddies folks, and in this case, that is for the better. For me, it appeared to be structured and filmed like a graphic novel would be written and it was done masterfully with even the possibility for a sequel left at the end. Now I'll read the graphic novel.

Stephen King was asked how he felt about the movies, some horrendous, that had been made from his books. He said that he didn't care because the movies were not his books.

The books are never the movies made in their image. Except it on its own merits and move on.

I have read the book 14 times. yes they changed the ending, but other than that it was dead on in tone and feel. Some stuff was left out but I expect that to be on the directors cut. I loved this film. Everyone at the screening loved it. It will go on to make a ton of money. I just hope that dose not make the studio want a squeal. But with all the legal problems involved, I doubt it.

Wow, 12 whole reviews surveyed. Thanks, Rotten Tomatoes.

definately, a movie for adults old enough to remember the nixon era. a little too essoteric, but never read the books, never the less, well written, well performed, a little long. It was like heavy metal magazine 2009

I've never read Watchmen and apart from a few spoilers about when and in what circumstances the story was set; knew nothing about it. I'll agree the movie was long - albeit necessarily given the amount of backstory setup that was needed for those that were newbies. I thought it was well cast, well acted and well done. It's not the best movie ever but I enjoyed it and at some point will watch it again (which isn't always the case with this genre). As a closing note, I also think it's worth mentioning that unlike some Sci-fi movies, the FX / CGI blended in so naturally that they didn't feel forced or over the top.

Put it this way: like it or not, think of it as a 3 hour advertisement for the book. At least it will inspire new readers to pick it up.

I wasn't very interested in seeing this, as I imagined it would be an irritating Frank Miller-type gratuity fest of violence and scuminess under the guise of exploring the dark side of humanity -- like a typical "The Shield" episode or "Sin City". However, a review from the BBC channel by some black guy has me really interested. The idea of superheroes being morally ambiguous in the way that reviewer explained it has me intrigued. I'll definitely be seeing this in the next few weeks.

Also, I'm pretty sure Peter Travers enjoyed the film, based on his review, so I don't know why it's among quotations by those who thought it was bad.

All I can say is, don't listen to the critics: go along and see the film, and be your own critic.

This film is amazing and deserves to be seen on the big screen.

I hadn't read the comics before seeing the film, and I knew very little about it. It blew me away, and I'm already looking forward to seeing it again.

Like the one guy said: The book is not the movie. I think Moore is just being pissy. The book, for it's time and place, was and is great (but I found some parts of it to be boring). The movie was and is great, for it's time and place as well. And I was never bored and consider that 163 minutes very well spent. Plus I got to hate Nixon all over again. :>)

I agree with Paul and Warlock_C.

I've found that Roger Ebert's reviews usually reek of vinegar, water, and a little summer rain for me. I usually go to the ones he says aren't worth seeing and I get to watch a great movie. People that know nothing about comic movies are usually the last ones on the planet you'd want to review them as they never got into comics in the first place. Watchmen was literally a motion picture comic book. Most of the media reviewers never actually had to think about a story as it was unfolding in front of them and I believe most of them are a bit clueless.

Go see the film and see for yourself.

lol. Sorry all, I just had to point out the guy who said this is the first adult super-hero movie. Ever hear of Sin City? How about The Dark Knight or even Batman Begins? How about the Tim Burton Batmans? I would not take kids to see ANY of those and those are just 4 of many.

Regardless, the idea behind Watchmen is that they're not "super" per se, but normal humans who do abnormal things. Dr. Manhattan the exception of course, though his humanity fights with what he has become.

It's also steeped in anthropology and historical themes. This isn't just some movie meant to be flashy action--it's about human relationships, about war and the threat of war, about the deepest motivations behind human action; and so much more.

Don't go to the movie expecting it to be a mindless popcorn flick. But, enjoy it that way too. And, remember everyone, critics are critics. They are paid to pick apart movies. The fact that many love it and many hate it means that critics are, despite being trained in critical theory, still human and suffer from opinion and interpretation fluctuations. The thing to remember is that most of them consider the FX, cinematography, and acting to at least be good; generally amazing. So, it's up to you to decide whether you find the plot likable or at least worthy of thought. Worrying about critics is an excercise in futility.

I think Watchmen is one of those movies that polarizes public opinion about it. You either love it or hate it. I loved it, for the record. I thought it was epic and brooding and complicated and deep and I truly believe that it is a wonderful adaptation of an "unadaptable" book. I think this is a film that is going to take some people years to appreciate. Is is Citizen Kane? No. Is it the Citizen Kane of Super Hero movies? Maybe (and before you ask, that would make Dark Knight the Godfather of Super Hero movies). Kudos to Zack Snyder, et al. Whether it's a deed or a dud, I don't think anyone else could have done better.

@ shroudedwolf

You're right, I did forget about Sin City, but I put that movie, 300 and The Spirit in more of the art film category, graphic in their own way, but not realistic like The Watchmen. But, I concede, The Watchmen is not the 'first' if you are counting graphic novels turned into movies. There is also The Crow, a far better movie than Batman and Robin.

And I must chuckle at your insistence that the Batman movies should be included as 'adult'. Sorry, but those movies are aimed at a general audience, PG13 is bring your kids, any of your kids. As dark as The Dark Knight was, it was still mild enough that tweens could, and did, go see it. And the Tim Burton Batman's ?, come on, you're joking right? They were farcical, derivative movies at best. While I enjoyed them, there was absolutely NOTHING adult about them.

My point about The Watchmen being the first adult movie is just what I said, it is strictly an adult film.

I read the comics as they came out in the eighties, and loved them. I saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it enormously. The story worked well, and even with the tweaked ending, the lack of a true conclusion emulated what I remember from the comics, and left me wanting to think about the story.

I was surprised at how much of the sense of nuclear paranoia I knew as I grew up in the Cold War years was to be found in the background of the film.

I'm very glad I was able to see it.

OK..... just came in from seeing this and i have to say what a great film.
don't go in thinking your seeing another batman or superman or even spiderman film this isjust like the graphic novel, a stand alone peice of art...
keep an open mind, don't listen to other peoples or so called critics reveiws and just enjoy a damn great film

Great movie-loved the novel and the film version is probably as close as you can get, despite the end rewrite, which I thought was clever in itself. Please- no sequel. Let it stand alone as a great piece of art and a valentine to true fans.

Why is that the known most Liberal publications and sources had negative reviews: New York Times, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, MSNBC, Time, Entertainment Weekly.
Seems funny to me, maybe it has something to do with Mr. Kovacks and the New Frontiersman being the heroes in the end. Hmm?
The film was amazing, absolutely brilliant, but I'll say it again as I did in another thread, Zack should fire teh make up artist and never work with them ever again. The make up was terrible, worse than Xerxes in 300 and that was really bad too. BUT, the make up is my only complaint.
I originally didn't like the cleaver scene with Rorschach, but then after thinking about it I actually like it better than the comic version with the fire.
The black and white of his mask representing right and wrong and then the red from the blood representing his rage was brilliant and proved Zack had a true grasp and handle of the material and actually made it better in some spots than the original source material.
Can't wait to see it again!

Seems Mick LaSalle liked in in the San Francisco Chronicle, and he's a pretty tough audience.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/06/MV5M16993S.DTL&type=movies

I think many of the other reviewers were looking for an Iron Man, or Batman movie.

Critics have been wrong before and are wrong now. If they're confused and can't follow the story that their short comings. Rate the movie for what it is. Outstanding and from the pages of the book. Can't wait for the DVD release!!

While the comics weren't for little kids, they were certainly okay for young teenagers. This movie, on the other hand, needlessly cranks up the violence, the swearing, the nudity and the sex.

In so doing, it obscures if not misses the point of the comics.

I've heard the movie's writers say they hope Alan Moore sees it one day and recognizes it as a loving homage, but I really don't think he'd enjoy it. The movie sensationalizes the very elements of superhero archetypes that he and Dave Gibbons were deconstructing and demystifying.

I wonder how many of the people who objected to the length objected to the length of the two-part CHE movie.

The other objections seem to be either of the purist sort ("the book was better") or snob ("a comic book?!?") sort. I'd rather the reviewers spent their time reviewing the film that was made instead of the one they wish was made or just rejecting the premise out of hand before seeing it.

Most of the negative reviews I read were really only talking about the nudity, sex and violence. They saw superheroes and expected a happy little story with fluff and a happy ending. Obviously this movie had a lot more depth then people expected and were immediately turned off. Snyder did an amazing job and I couldn't have hoped for a better outcome. The movie was amazing and I well be going for a second viewing.

I for one am not surprised that a newspaper in San Fransisco gave Watchmen a positive review...

I wonder if people would have enjoyed it more if Snyder would have covered up Dr. M's tackle by having him wear his black speedo throughout.

This is a great movie and YOU SHOULD GO SEE IT!!!

I went into the theater last night having never read The Watchmen, but over the years I've heard people raving about how it is the greatest graphic novel ever written. And they're probably right. I've been an avid reader of comic books for over 15 years, but somehow and don't ask me how, I've never gotten around to reading The Watchmen. But after the viewing the movie it only inspired me to want to go out and read it. The movie was incredible in every way. Most people just go into superhero movies expecting a mindless popcorn romp, but movies like The Dark Knight and The Watchmen are proving this theory wrong. These kinds of things just prove that Superheroes can be complex characters and deeply flawed.

Where I agree that the book is always better, I believe that this is the best possible silver screen adaptation of Watchmen. The property would've been better off as an HBO type miniseries. I think views and reviewers weren't preparred for ComicBook Noir. I wrote up my thoughts here : http://seanreiser.com/content/noticing-who-watched-watchmen-spoiler-free

bobanart, you did notice that Roger Ebert was listed under "The Best" section, didn't you? He even gave the film 4 out of 4 stars. I don't see how he could've rated it any better.

Honestly, of any and all movie reviewers out there, I enjoy reading Ebert's the most. I don't always agree with him, but I find him to be a fair reviewer. I suppose that's why he's been popular and relevant for so many years.

I really enjoyed Watchmen, and other than a little quibble with pointless violence level, I'd easily go see it again. Of course, I had just purceased the grpahic novel when I heard that there would be a film, so I didn't read it. Unlike so many others, I understand that a film is not a book (or a graphic novel). For me, I was interested and the time flew by. Were their flaws? Yes, but most were the screenplay (and the occasional sour acting note by the younger Silk Spectre), not the direction or adpation. Did I care how close it cleaved to the novel? Nope. It was a gorgeous view, and thought provoking stuff. I'll buy the director's cut, check that out, and then try the graphic novel. I recommend it for all adult sci-fi fans that don'e mind a high violence tlevel.

In general, I find movie reviewers to be pretty stupid and not even very knowlegable in their own subject. More ofthen than not, they confuse their opinion for a review (or objective evaluation). In the case of sci-fi or chick flicks, the level of stupid and ignorant rises to the levels that I always ignore anything a reviewer has said. I can;t tell you how many times I've gone to a panned movie and found it to be excellent - and the discrepancy was because the reviewer was just too damn stupid to understand what was going on. Seriously... dozens of times. And after two film classes, I'm usuauly quite confident that I know more film terminology than the average reviewer. Pitiful really.

@#$#@ the critics. They usually get to see the movie for free, but it's those of us who vote with our tickets that make or break a film.

After readind some of the actual reviews, I have to say one thing: anyone that says something is 'unfilmable' should never ever be allowed to review another film. It's not only incorrect, it's inane gibberish.

I saw the movie, and I was disappointed. I have never read the books, and don't intend too. What should have been a great film was all sizzle and no steak. I liked Dr, Manhattan, but not enough to recommend the film.

Roger Ebert wasn't "confused that he liked it." He gave several reasons for why he thought it was a good movie: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997

He also wrote that he wants to see it again--but not so that he can analyze it (i.e., discover all the nuances he's not sure he understood the first time) but so that he could enjoy the experience of it again. I think that's high praise and doesn't indicate any confusion on his part about why he liked the film.

It was ok. Highly disappointed. The only developed character was Rorschack or however you spell it. It is a movie about bitchy under developed story of a bunch of wusses other than one. The Dr. Manhatten was a joke and so was Owl Man II. I like most of the story, but the characters or probably the people that played them just didn't do a good job or develop them.

One of the reasons I almost never look at movie reviews anymore. Most of them are too busy trying to look interesting hyping the next French arthouse movie that really nobody cares about and forgot what movies are all about for a lot of people: entertainment.

I had read the comic, was looking forward to see the movie, saw it and loved it! It was well done and managed to keep my attention. Like someone said it's near the 3 hour mark but it doesn't feel like it. When they had the 10 minute break in my theater I couldn't believe we were halfway through.

Tomorrow there is another trip to the cinema, and I am debating between Gran Torino, Slumdog millionaire and seeing this movie a second time. And you know what I am leaning pretty heavy to seeing watchmen a second time.

Finally decided to read these (no way I was going to read them before I saw it). It's pathetic how many of the negative comments were about duration. The ADD generation has started writing critical reviews. And "the book is always better"? Genius, absolutely brilliant. I don't suppose that's because bad books usually aren't turned into movies...