Difficult homage achieved; whether it's an enjoyable film or not...

Rating: 7/10 (15 March 2009)

...will depend on your viewpoint of the original material.
I'll leave the plot line synopsis to others and just focus on my thoughts and what I've gleaned from listening to others opinions.
Storyline: for the fan, 8 stars; for the general public, 5 stars. If you read "Watchmen" you'll appreciate the storyline and recognize almost every scene in the context of the book. I'm sure people who haven't read the source material will have a much harder time appreciating or even following the story.
Part of the "wow" factor of "Watchmen" the graphic novel was the incredible attention to detail that drew so many disparate elements together over the course of the book. Necessarily, much of that material had to be pared down for the movie. (Not all to the bad in my opinion--I always thought the "Black Ship" subplot detracted from the pacing of the main storyline, though I understand how it fit into the original work.) Audience members who were most disappointed seemed to have expected a standard superhero flick, and were not familiar with Moore's book.
Fidelity to the book: 9 stars The film does distill that main storyline extremely well: the vast majority of scenes and dialog are taken directly from the book, and the director did a fine job of trimming non-essential material, yet still found a way to include it as set pieces, cameos and homages to the novel. For fans of the book, all the essential elements are there, though many are given short shrift, especially Hollis Mason's tale. I found myself smiling as I recognized devices from the graphic novel given their few seconds of life on screen.
One critique: Though the novel is dark, bleak and violent, the movie is actually much more graphic in its depiction of that violence. Fight scenes are longer and the camera dwells on the blood, broken bones and severed limbs. This enhanced gore is the one aspect of the film that I feel is unnecessary and detracts from the whole.
Nevertheless, I think the feel of Moore's "Watchmen" shines through this condensed film quite clearly. With the one caveat above, I don't think that could have been better accomplished.
Performances: 6.5 stars In general, the actors turned in good performances, though some of the characters did fall a bit short of Moore's characterizations. This isn't necessarily the actors' fault, as there isn't time to give six main characters equal treatment. I would say that Malin Akerman as Laurie and Matthew Goode as Veidt were credible, but nothing more. I thought Patrick Wilson did more with Nite Owl than what he was given, and rendered probably the most believable and true to character performance. Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach also rose above Moore's somewhat purple dialog and his obscuring mask and delivered a compelling character on screen. Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan is appropriately distant and restrained, but that makes it hard to move beyond the dialog and expand the character. Jeffery Dean Morgan played The Comedian as sociopath very well.
Film making: 8 stars The cinematography and special effects brought the setting of the book to life, from the Gunga Diner to Jon's palace on Mars to Dreiburg's Owl Ship. Dr. Manhattan is probably the only jarring element to me. The CG animation was a bit off; the figure's movements weren't quite correct, and I never forgot I was looking at CG enhancement. Others have mentioned the full frontal male nudity as distracting and I have to agree, though I think that's mostly from it's rarity in American films (and perhaps some shared embarrassment from watching it in a crowded theater). I think it's more a comment on our immaturity than a criticism of the movie--what need has an Indestructible Man of clothing, and in the book it's shorthand for Dr. Manhattan's increasing detachment from humanity and it's concerns. In any case it isn't sexually provocative.
Wrap Up: 7.5 stars/4 stars Overall, I think the screenwriters and director have created an homage to Moore's work; given the incredible difficulty of bringing that story to film (let alone as a commercial studio release), I think it's remarkable how well they achieved that goal in a 2:45 movie and worthy of 9 stars. Yes, they took some liberties with the story and certainly some economy in the material, but what would you have them do? Deliver a 15-hour opus that would be unwatchable and unintelligible but for a handful of true believers? Not very realistic, and not a better alternative either, in my opinion.
If you liked Moore's "Watchmen" (and you're not an irrational fan-boy screaming about purity), go see the movie--you'll enjoy it on the big screen.
If you've never heard of the book, you should probably skip it--those in the audience so inclined at the screening I attended seemed bored or disgusted..
DEFINITELY, leave your kids at home. This film earns its "R" rating, not only for its dark and violent nature, but also for the morally ambiguous tone throughout; the resolution at the end is also something that children would not be expected to accept as appropriate.