"Why should I save a world I no longer have any stake in?"

Rating: 7/10 (16 March 2009)

You know you're in trouble when one of your biggest selling points is labeling Zack Snyder as a visionary.
Surely, quite a few people already know the basic idea behind the 'Watchmen' phenomenon, but for those who don't, allow me to fill you in quickly: It's basically a darker version of 'The Incredibles'. It takes place in 1985, and superheroes used to be all that and a bag of chips, but have since then been outlawed. For the film's opening sequence, we're treated to a beautifully choreographed fight/murder scene of The Comedian (one of the original masked heroes), whom is later shown to be quite a douche bag, which really takes away from the impact of his death. That event leads to another retired hero, Rorschrach, trying to solve his murder, which leads to him uncovering a whole other plot to destroy humanity or some crap like that. Unfortunately, the opening murder is the high point of the film.
You know you're in trouble when the best scene in the film is the first one.
The acting in this film isn't exactly 'The Dark Knight' caliber, but it's much more preferable to the inaudible shouting of '300'. The performances here are serviceable. Nothing exceptional, but the actors do their jobs well. Patrick Wilson leads the film as Nite Owl. Jackie Earle Hayley also has a major role as Rorschrach, whose face is hidden under a mask for a large portion of the film. Matthew Goode has a smaller, yet equally engaging part, portraying Ozymandias, the world's smartest man (not really sure how that makes him a superhero). We also have a glob of blue C.G.I. pixels, voiced by Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. Last but not least, newcomer Malin Akerman plays as the obligatory female foil to the cast, although she does so with much more personality than her character was written with.
From what I've heard, some 'Watchmen' enthusiasts have been claiming that the graphic novels this film is based off of couldn't be done, or done well at least. As far as I'm concerned, they're yet to be proved wrong. Alan Moore, the writer of the graphic novel series, is notoriously known for not liking what Hollywood has done with any of his other works prior to 'Watchmen', and I quote: "I'll never watch the f_cking thing". But I can't really blame him for that, because what we have here is not what he made at all. It lacks the emotional depth, the message, or anything he intended with the graphic novel. Now, having said that, I do think 'Watchmen' works to a certain extent, as it's own film, if you don't really have any connection to the source material, or just don't associate the two with each other. Now, I've only read about half of the original graphic novel, but I'm willing to bet none of them contained an uncomfortably drawn out and oddly boring sex scene. One of the advantages of reading the graphic novel is not having to listen to "Hallelujah" by Leonard Cohen while the two lead actors awkwardly hump each other for two minutes.
You know you're in trouble when a sex scene with somebody as unbelievably hot as Malin Akerman is boring.
Overall, this is not the faithful adaptation the graphic novel deserves, but it's still pretty entertaining. Is this as good as the comic without comparing the two side by side? No, it's not even in the same league. But I have to commend Zack Snyder for reflecting the tonality of the source material, even though he tried to make it his own, which is where the film falls short of being a satisfying experience. It's not a must-see, but it's decent enough to at least give it a try.