So, I know you are all dying to know my opinion about this movie (or I am totally full of myself, either way). I got several emails today asking me about it, so I think I will share it below.

Despite numerous problems with the movie, I really enjoyed Watchmen, and will see it again. I am not a movie theory buff, nor do I go into real serious examination of genres, styles and "coulda-been". My gut reaction right after seeing a movie is usually how I feel about it later, so please keep that in mind. I came out of the theater feeling like I just watched one of my favorite books come alive, and not in the dry-and-boring-why-did-I-watch-this way that I felt about Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code", which was faithful and yet completely soulless. I felt like Watchmen did a good job making both the fans and the people who have not read the book happy. I have a suspicion that it will impress more those who have not read the source material, and have not had exposure to the amazing character development and depth of Alan Moore's characters in the book. But that is the beauty of having been introduced to Watchmen through watching the movie. The book, read after watching the movie, will be that much more impressive and there is something RIGHT about that.

Of course, after the initial reaction wore off, I started remembering the things that threw me off about the movie. There are a couple of "WTF" moments in it that go against the grain of someone who's read the book as many times as I have. Without giving things away too much, here are my two main "beefs" with the movie.

1. Acting - The two female leads are so outmatched by two out of three male leads, that their lack of skill really stands out (in a bad way). Malin Akerman is sexy as hell, but does not carry the scenes at all, and she's got the better of the two female performances. Carla Gugino, who looks like a dead ringer for the original Silk Spectre, feels so wrong with the "old woman" make-up on her face, that it makes me wonder why they did not just cast a different actress for the role of the older Spectre. The scenes between the two of them are unwatchable and are void of any energy. Matthew Goode, while not a bad actor per se, has an accent that comes in and out, and seems "boyish" in the role that should have been given to someone with a lot more presence. Younger Robert Redford is the look they should have gone for, IMHO, and there are a few actors that could have fit the bill. Goode does not look "right" as the young costumed hero in flashbacks (in the garish rubber nipple ring suit), nor does he pull off the older persona. And for a character who is supposed to feel like the IDEAL Dedicated Superhero, he comes off a bit creepy throughout the movie.

2. Gratuitous violence - in the book, the violence is shown in quick bits and pieces and is very understated on purpose. I completely understand the need for added action scenes in the movie, and they would not have bothered me, if not for the Superhuman-like strength the characters exhibit, with giant leaps and wall crushing blows that do not seem to injure the actual combatants. And don't get me started on the "alley" scene (if you have read the book, you know what that is), where our supposed "heroes" dispatch the attackers with such brutal and deadly violence that it made me cringe.

On the other hand, the movie has a couple of absolutely masterful acting performances by Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and a ton of moments that make real fans giddy with joy. Overall, I would say this is a must-see movie that deserves a chance to impress.