Brad to Hey: This is never the case and one hell of a weird comment.

You say "changes are made" but that is the problem, no changes were made. Snyder shot the panels and then excised material which destroyed the layering of the original story and simplified it down to a straight-forward narrative, which ultimately isn't interesting, exciting or entertaining. At least not to me. Obviously you and others disagree, but I was not comparing the film to the book.

ok, i was also a bit bored by the story, i would rate it B minus than a C minus. i have to confess though that i have only read the first issue of the graphic novel then i lost my liking to read comics at that time & never really followed the issues afterwards. but now that i have seen the film, i will want to catch up on the movie to also understand what you guy are saying.

but the result is the same. this movie is a movie. we need to look at the movie on its own right again. will i have a different opinion when i now read the comics? of course i will, because the story is definitely different from the movie compared to the page. but would we want watchmen to be the exact replica of the comics? if you do, then we will spend more than 7 hours watching it. much like how lav diaz direct all of his award winning obra's

changes are made from the original content to movie because it has a reason. but if i explain it here, then this will be a very long read. i suggest you rent or watch the special features DVD of LOTR trilogy : extended editions, there peter jackson makes a good comment AND observations on why some so many films are changed dramatically for the movie. he even thought he could be very faithful to the LOTR books, but he found something odd if he does follow it to the tee. so he changed some.

Not every single review comes down to taste really —- some do, but what I mean about my post was that some critics are actually saying that this movie is BAD quality, and it is certainly not BAD quality. There are certain movies like Watchmen, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, 300, the Dark Knight, etc. that have had a lot of effort put into their making so that it is not really FAIR (I would say) to call them 'bad' movies (techinically speaking), but I think its ok to call them 'bad movies' in YOUR own opinion (because they are not bad technically, just bad to your own taste) – which some critics did in fact make these epic movies bad reviews. So I wasn't trying to contradict myself, but say that what I didn't agree with is some top critics callling Watchmen a 'mess' or 'horribly made' or 'not a good watch' (completely discrediting the filmmakers!) when it is in fact a fine watch AND very well made, but just not appealing to some (sorry I didn't make this point too clear previously).

Although I will say that the comments here are all really good, actually informative and sensible reviews, better than I've seen from a lot of the top critics who completely shut down Zack Snyder and his team – which I think is a little unfair! I will say though that the tendency has been that mostly those of us who have actually read the graphic novel really enjoyed the movie, while those who just watched the movie tend more to not understand the movie and therefore don't really like it (just generally speaking though)

@Vince: I completely agree with your comment though on making the actual Graphic novel a movie —- Alan Moore creates the most complex and imaginative stories that are not easy and virtually impossible to bring to the screen as easily as something like the Dark Knight or Spiderman. Which is why he probably doesn't support the making of his novels into movies so much

Cons: Its too long, confusing, and pointless.

Pros: Funny and interesting.

Worst sex scene ever filmed? Are you kidding me? It was a very good sex scene. Nowhere near in my top 10 of all time, but definitely in the top 10 sex scenes in graphic novel/superhero adaptations–heck, top 3, even. Somehow Patrick Wilson always ends up in the good sex scenes with the good partners (see "Angels in America" with Mary-Louise Parker and "Little Children" with Kate Winslet)!

The first 20-30 minutes did seem a bit rocky to me, but as it got deeper into the story, I became more and more hooked. It was 163 minutes, but I never checked the time, nor did I even think of doing so.

I am definitely watching this movie in theaters again.

Dude, "Twilight" WAS faithful to the source material. Read the book and watch the movie, then you'll be able to see just how well the film captured just how stupid, corny and idiotic the book is (even though both the film and book are two of my most guilty pleasures).

Yeah, I liked Watchmen a lot, but it doesn't even touch "The Dark Knight" in terms of comic book movies, and it ended up just making me really want to read "Watchmen" the novel again.

I just don't think that Watchmen can completely work on film. A lot of what they took out so that the film would be "mainstream" kinda made the source material so great. Granted, Laurie wasn't a fully-fleshed out character in the novel, but she ESPECIALLY was poorly developed in the film, mostly because they had to take out a lot of her flashbacks/stories/etc to make room for the others. But, like in the graphic novel, I found myself loving every minute whenever Rorschach the focus.

Mostly, you'll get the most enjoyment if you've read the work beforehand, since there are a lot of amusing easter eggs and things in the film. What doesn't work in the original novel doesn't work in the film as well, but I would really like to see the Director's cut of the film- I think that if the excised footage helped develop other characters, "Watchmen" the movie could be a little masterpiece.

i want my moneyback dammit

Taking all the negatives and positives into acount, on both sides, wether you thought it was good or bad, is it worth seeing? And paying $10 to see.