I have seen some well made, well constructed films made by talented and celebrated people that I simply detested and I have watched some utter tripe that I found surprisingly enjoyable, this film for me kind of falls into the middle ground where I feel it was a bit mediocre.

Sure the fight sequences looked ok, the lighting effects were moody and some of the characters were really engaging…but some of the good stuff, for me, was undermined by the simple fact that one of the core characters was written wrong (Ozy) and played by a guy who just seemed to come off a bit “pantomime villain”, a bit like a poor man’s Jeremy Irons rather than a really good chap who is loved by everyone – hence the big shock when he really does turn out to be the big bad.
That you could tell from the word go that this chap was a wrong ‘un sort of made everything a little less interesting for me for the rest of the film.

I leave it to you others to contemplate the merits of the film vs book debate, as I say, I am coming at this simply as a movie watcher who has this nasty feeling that she sat through a very long bad film and paid for that priviledge.

I don’t remotely buy that the expicit stating of Rorschach’s perspective makes him more complex. We know he chooses what he is – both in the comic and the movie he describes the exact moment he chose to surrender himself to the Rorschach persona. The very first page of the comic has him talking about people choosing which standards to hold themselves to. It’s a theme he returns to several times. Spelling it out in small words feels clumsy and patronising.

You understood, “That’s the difference between you and me, Daniel”, quite literally. Where’s the insight? By Rorschach admitting this, he admits awareness of his perspective. That makes him more complicated because it means he is not simply the victim of a horrible past. He chooses what he is, which is one of the film’s themes- perspectivism.

The director didn’t lack insight. In fact, he shares Moore’s insight into the medium and genre he’s working with. Perhaps you should have prefaced by admitting what you think Watchmen, the comic, was about so readers ascertain the angle of your criticism.

I can’t remember the last time I appreciated an adaption because the way it was done neither trod all over the original media with large boots nor sullied my childhood memories.

There have been many to have used and abused both of the above – which I have nonetheless enjoyed.

I speak of course of Starship Troopers.

I wouldn’t say I preferred the new ending, merely that it does make more sense in a few ways. Insane squid nuttiness would make for a more out-and-out horrific climax.

I did feel that the film finish (after the big reveal) was a fair bit tidier. In the book it’s all a bit of a slow trudge once Rorschach is killed – Dan and Laurie get buzy, Ozzy gets a bit smug, and Dr Manhatten does the offski. The film wraps up a bit quicker than that.

Anyhow, from here on in I suspect we’ll just be debating somantics, so let’s just leave it as Watchmen is great fun in a parallel-world-1985-gets-largely-disintergrated way.

On the Hollis thing, I believe that his death, plus “Under the Hood” is going to be on the super-duper Directors Cut DVD. But you are right about that single scene being left in – either chop it all or leave it all.

And LoEG was a fun film. A travesty of the novel, but like The Italian Job (2003), would have been alright under a different title.