Good-looking but disappoints in comparison with graphic novel.

Rating: 1/10 (17 August 2009)

In short: Do NOT, repeat, NOT, see the movie until you've read the graphic novel. It offers nothing that the graphic novel doesn't do better.
If you're not normally into comics, you may consider that this one was elected in TIME MAGAZINE as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present. Yes, novel. The graphic novel "Watchmen" really sticks out as full-fledged (and extremely original) literature.
Elaborating: Whenever a movie is made from a story already told in another medium, someone will complain that this or that was omitted. They (okay, now 'we') are always right of course, but other people tend not to care, accepting that the movie 'cannot have it all'.
But then why make it? This question is extra relevant in this case, where the original story was already in a visual medium.
Furthermore, the 'you cannot put it all in a movie' argument is wrong. The 'Watchmen' movie actually demonstrates that a completely loyal adaption would have been possible. It would have been longer, but it would also have been incredibly much better if there had to be a movie version.
Watchmen the movie IS impressive, and until a point extremely loyal to the graphic novel.
The problem is, ALL good things in the movie result from sticking EXACTLY to scenes from the graphic novel. But about one and a half hours into it, it will be clear that you can stop drooling in anticipation of the movie version of the correct ending from the real story. And also that the lack of a lot of background from the graphic novel is rapidly beginning to hollow out the the movie adaption.
So, after an impressively loyal start the movie ultimately fails by deviating from the heavily superior graphic novel.
Without giving too much away (trying to avoid spoilers by only hinting at how differences from the graphic novel discredit the movie):
1) In the novel, Rorschach follows a series of leads concerning missing persons in a storyline that builds up to the climax. The climax of the original graphic novel is radically different from the movie, and the build-up storyline is part of why it's actually devastating. The movie is weakened by omitting this side story..
2) A lot of 'man on the street' sequences from the graphic novel are omitted. These scenes revolve around a street newsstand and its occasional as well as frequent customers. Without these scenes, the movie lacks the 'consequenses for man on the street' interest of the graphic novel, and also removes a lot of human interest from the Rorschach character. Also, the 'pirate cartoon' (which refers to a comic-within-the-comic from the graphic novel, and which has been adapted separately) cannot be inserted in a way that will make sense in an 'ultimate' Watchmen movie cut as planned. (It is a comic book story read by a young man who frequents the street newsstand. Without the newsstand scenes there will be no context for the pirate story).
3) The movie follows Rorschach, Night owl and Silk Spectre. A lot of background about another super hero, Ozymandias, is left out. The background given in the graphic novel serves to make some important points for understanding the entire story, and the movie is weakened by the omissions.
4) As already mentioned, the climax differs from the novel. While good enough seen autonomously, it pales in comparison to the correct ending. And it does smell of "The Dark Knight" - so much that I think it's a pure and unoriginal ripoff, and that at the cost of the real storys uncompromising originality.
The movie is still highly impressive 'in it's own right', but it IS redundant where it's loyal to the graphic novel, and finally inferior for not sticking completely to being loyal.
A perfect movie version would have been approximately four hours long (four and a half if counting the pirate story in). The movie clearly proves that a loyal transfer of the graphic novel to cinema was possible. But it fails to be it.
Without putting down it's stunning visuals and it's dark and brooding intelligence, this is NOT an 'ingenious', or 'brilliant' movie. This is just another relatively okay (and certainly well-produced) movie adaption of a novel from which the true brilliance and genius was borrowed, and which you really ought to read instead.
By the way: Why the BLEEP isn't Mozarts Requiem credited in the music list, along with information of conductor, orchestra and record label?
Post edit: Much much later I am finally changing what I almost immediately regretted, namely giving this movie 6 stars. My reason for that was it does entertain to a point (about halfway, where is turn to pure boredom and disgust if you know and like the novel), and it is visually good looking, but so are lots of other movies that differ from this in being worth one's time. Since it completely fails in keeping the stuff that makes the graphic novel great, I don not feel it deserves attention at all, and therefore I have changed to 1 star. This movie simply should not have been made. I never felt an urge to see the movie again, I do regret having ever wasted time with it. Knowing the novel it merely annoys and bores me, and I don't like it.