Went to see the movie yesterday, and I have absolutely no idea if I liked it.

So a bunch of my friends and I went to see a matinee showing of Watchmen yesterday. And I THINK I didn't like it. I'm not entirely sure. I know I didn't love it. And I didn't get the same experience from it than I did the book. Which I guess makes sense as movies are entirely different from books. You don't have time constraints, budget constraints, and the like with books. But the movie gave me different feelings than the book did.

Was it true to the book? Yes, very much so. Even with the change to the cataclysmic end, I don't think I've ever seen a more faithful movie to a book that I've read. But where after I was done with the book, I was lost deep in thought of moral ambiguity, wonder, and satisfaction over having read a brilliant story told by incredible images. However, those incredible images on page brought about a different thought on screen. My first reaction after the movie was over, was I didn't feel nearly as dirty after having READ Watchmen as I did after having WATCHED Watchmen. I guess ultra violent gore just isn't as appalling in pencils and ink than it is with actors and corn syrup. I felt like I needed a shower while leaving the theatre.

Parts of the story which seemed integral to the book seemed boring and to drag on forever on film. Out of the 7 people with whom I went to see the movie with, only two of us had read it. Admittedly the majority who hadn't read the book didn't really care for the movie. At all. The general thought was it could have been an hour shorter, and again - some of the story which seemed to be so important in the book - they didn't care about in the movie and thought it had no purpose to be there. Mostly Silk Spectre II's relationship with The Comedian. I mean, that's a pretty big chunk of the story right there, but the average uninitiated movie goer didn't seem to care, and thought it was a really pointless subplot in the grand scheme of the movie. At least that was the opinion in my particular gathering of movie going friends.

I'm also going to veer off track here for a minute and mention my total shock and dumbfoundedness at the fact that a row behind us was a family who brought their children to see this movie. The children had to be no older than 8 or 9. The parents can claim ignorance to the source material all they want and say they just saw super heroes and brought their children. The R rating should have told them SOMETHING. I consider myself a pretty progressive individual, but there is no way I'd bring a child younger than 14 to this movie. Call me a prude, but no 8 year old should see this movie chock full of murder, sex, rape, and god only knows how many gallons of blood. And no child the age of 8 is mature enough to even BEGIN to contemplate the incredibly adult, complex, and morally grey ending of peace through death and violence. The next time your child has a nightmare about his favorite superhero burying a meat clever into his head, or punching his mother into submission so he can bend her over a pool table, you have nobody to blame but your ignorant selves. My apologies to anybody who disagrees with this particular rant, but I needed to get that off my chest. I'm done now.

So, back to the movie. Some things I've thought over since I saw the movie yesterday. The actors portraying Rorschach, The Comedian and Nite Owl II did extremely well with their parts and did it justice. Very impressed with the film makers for keeping Doc Manhattan's distaste for clothing in the movie. His blue glowy genitals got more screen time than Silk Spectre II's bare breasts. The restructuring of the end seemed to work really well, while still paying homage to the book.

I was also very surprised to see the inclusion of Ozymandias' mutated tiger in the end. However, they did not include the explanation of what it was, and why it was there. My friends who hadn't read the book thought the poor kitty was pointless, and had no reason for being there. Again, the average opinion of the non-readers was that the movie could have also been an hour shorter, and should have focused ONLY on the main murder mystery, end of the world plot. They all felt the beginning was great, the end was okay, and the middle dragged on for eternity.

While my opinion is still confusion over whether I liked it or not. I think I might have, but at the same time I think I didn't. Was Alan Moore right about his work being unfilmable? Was he justified by taking his name off of it, and signing all his royalties over to Mr. Gibbons? Will Warner Bros' Gamble pay off in the long run? I have no idea. I do, however think that Mr. Snyder the director made the best movie of Watchmen that could have been made. Having read the history of this movie's sordid past, and how the studio didn't seem to care about the source material, I'm glad it was he who helmed the direction. This movie would have been unwatchable and unrecognizable if anybody else did it in my opinion.

Honestly, I think this is probably a niche movie where the only people whose interest it will capture will be those who have read the book, and get it. This is a very expensive movie that is not for the general movie going public. They just probably will not get the flawed story of dysfunctional super heroes with a doomsday plot. On top of that, Moore and Gibbons actually created an entire world within their pages. An expansive, complex, and COMPLETE world. So complete in fact, that it's a tiresome feat to even imagine TRYING to fit it all into a movie. And when you DO try to fit such a large world into a movie it tends to feel over crowded, too busy, confusing, or too boring.

And here I sit still confused about whether or not I liked this movie. I do know that I did not enjoy it in the same way I enjoyed the book.