I've seen two other online reviews, and they were not promising.

And you're right: the squid was really stupid.

Thanks for an interesting review. I really hate super heroes and this sounds like it could offer a sly slap at the sappiness of all that ham in a mask crap in a darkly clever way. The alternate American history stuff alone sounds sharp edged and terrifying enough. Phase five of Uncle Sam's nuclear nightmare...wow! President NIXON in '85?!!? That's a horror flick on its own!

I wasn't planning to even give this a peek...you sold me on this one.

Pardon me while I go kill myself. Fanboys all over are probably doing the same. A squid-free movie-- what a breath of fresh air! Sushi, anyone?

OK Andrew ... I'm trusting you on this.

I'm a big fan of the comic book and had decided NOT to see the movie because I didn't see how they could fit in all the details of the book into a movie. Most reviews of I've read of it have not been positive but most of those reviewers suck. You and I on the other hand agreed on Dark Knight ... so I'm trusting you ... this had better be good.

..start slingin' the sushi..the more self immolated fanboys the better.

Really? It's good?

It's really good?

Really?

But really?

It's good?

Zack Snyder's Watchmen is good?

Zack "300" Snyder's Watchmen... is good?

Really really?

Really really really?

C'mon now.

Really?

Dag, yo.

I'm excited to see it; your review makes me very hopeful. The ditching of the squid is for the best, as I always thought that was the weakest point of Ozy's plan -- seems like a simple genetic test would determine that the squid was of terrestrial origin (or at best cobbled together from native materials), regardless of how horrible it appeared. But, its absence likely won't be missed by anybody but the fanboys!

"What if Batman was in "The French Connection"?"

After I saw the movie "Seven" I thought the same thing. That would have been (and how it should have been) a great Batman movie. The bad guy was a perfect Batman villain. Just imagine the scene near the beginning where the cops are investigating the glutton's death. The cops come in, do their investigation, leave. Batman slips in the window, (with cops still outside) and begins his investigation. The look and feel of "Seven" would have been a spectacular vehicle for Batman. Glad to hear Watchmen might not be bad. I'd be happy if it didn't insult my intelligence.

I understand why the squid was removed and as much as I am disappointed as a fan, it does kinda make sense. It was the weakest element of the book in a book with almost no flaws. I'm still concerned that non-comic audiences won't understand the premise, a take on comic book stereotypes that shows them in the "real" world, and walk away wondering what the big deal was. Moore never wanted it made into a movie, even despite the legal issues he had with DC comics. I can only assume for this reason. It was intended for fanboys who "get" the basic concept of comics and all the little nuances. The black and white morality of a character like Rorschach, the god-like being who could end all wars but doesn't for whatever excuse the writers come up with to still allow him to live in the real world, even not-so-subtle things like the Owlship and Adrians Antarctic retreat might not sink in for non-comic audiences.

Some elements are intended for tongue-in-cheek references to comic fans. The pirate comics, the older generations of heroes, using heroes to intervene in international affairs, why congress might feel the need to reign super-heroes in in the first place, even the panel grid was all for people "in the know". Maybe the reason why it is getting mixed reviews is because the other reviewers never "got it" in the first place. I hope it does well and I certainly plan on seeing it, but in this case, Moore may be rihgt about this one.

The whole squid monster is important because Ozymandias' plan is suppose to be completely ABSURD in classic comic book style. The internal logic is suppose to collapse when looked at closely but that's the trait of most comic book villains (see PNAC). The joke is that it WORKED completely and the heroes are complicit. If the ending is rational and realistic, it totally destroy Moore's deconstruction of the superhero myth.

So where did Brad Bird get his idea of an alternate place where heroes are real and retire and work at insurance companies?

Mr. Incredible reviews a catalogue of superheroes much like the generational characters in Watchmen. Bird did a great job with that movie.

I haven't read Watchmen in years but remember being literally enthralled by it. It reignited my interest in comics so I'm hoping for a good job, at least. I saw the Dark Knight yesterday and wasn't too impressed, as is usually the case with these movies.

12:01 am at the Lake Theatre in Oak Park!

At least it can't be any worse than 300.

Good lord, was that movie terrible on so many levels. I've got a high threshold for sitting through (and even enjoying) bad movies, but that one broke me after 15 minutes.

It is seldom mentioned that "Watchmen" did not start out as a project initiated solely by Alan Moore. DC Comics had acquired a stable of super-hero characters from Charlton Comics and Moore saddled up to do something with them. DC then got cold feet about what Moore was concocting, since he was using properties the company hoped to utilize beyond one maxi-series (as it was referred to at the time), but retained interest in the project using recast characters. So Charlton's The Question became Rorschach, Blue Beetle became Nite Owl, Captain Atom became Dr. Manhattan, and so on. The changes were material, but not so much as to entirely obscure the essence of the originals. DC was satisfied, however, and Moore and Gibbons charged ahead into comics history.

No one is, or is likely to, salute the Charlton characters who were central to the origin of the whole "Watchmen" phenomenon, but the fact remains that they were, and still are, part of the template of what has now managed to reach the big screen. Without them, for better or for worse, you wouldn't be seeing what you're seeing.