The music was absolutely terrible and does not fit the scenes it accompanies at all. Most of the acting was average or poor apart from Billy Crudup and Jackie Earle Haley. The slow motion was highly distracting in parts and most of the fight scenes were poorly choreographed. While there was an abundance of violence, the film lacked a raw atmospheric grittyness to give it impact. The ending was also nowhere near as powerful as it should have been and we never got a sense of how the world is at stake.

Despite it’s flaws, Watchmen as a whole is a film worth watching and it accomplishes the task of adapting the graphic novel’s complex narrative on screen and even border on brilliance in parts.

Some may want to see it again, but some may not.

I agree with Rodney that you are just nitpicking. Sometimes fans can never be pleased. There is no single definite incarnation of the Batman characters and villains, there is only consistency. A basic set of rules that crop-up in every Batman story (Batman doesn’t kill etc.). Since there is no one true representation, accuracy depends entirely on how consistent it is with the consistency of the comics.
The Nolan Batman universe is by far the best representation of of Batman on screen. We often forget that these are Nolan’s films so a large part of what we see is HIS vision, but it works because he doesn’t shun the source material, he embraces it and makes it consistent with his own take on the series.
It’s a pity that you can’t see that.

Can you imagine Batman talking with his normal voice, EVERYONE would know it was Bruce Wayne! He’s a bloody celebrity!
It’s like when Superman puts on glasses and becomes Clark Kent and nobody realizes it’s Superman. The audience giggles from the obviousness which the characters don’t seem to see.
A car driving on rooftops is absolutely awesome, and the Batmobile makes more sense as a tank. As with most in the Nolan universe, it’s functionability over style.

If those things bother you about Batman, you must hate ANY movie that doesnt hold itself to the absolutes of physics. By those standards ALL scifi and action movies should offend you.

You can over analyze any detail of any movie to try and discredit it. This movie has had a far more broad appeal across fans and non-fans.

Sounds like you went out of your way NOT to like the movie. Oh no! Growly voice. And a car that can do what the Batmobile does in the comics while still being somewhat believable? This is overly nitpicking.

And to discard the most successful film in any Batman Franchise and try to say it shouldnt even be labeled as a part of Batman is a little extreme.

First off Im a huge fan of Batman, hes the only DC Comic hero I have ever been able to read. If your talking about the batman world, then yes these new movies do a excellent job. Even the villains are done real well. Its everything that has to do with the Batman character himself that is way off base. From the dumb bat tank that can drive on houses without collapsing them to the constipated grizzly bear that dresses as a bat. I mean come on Macho Man Randy Savage could deliver the lines better. I mean he does a beautiful job as Bruce Wayne. Just find myself feeling sick the whole time “Batman” is on the screen. And the dark detective who is supposed to be able to look into the minds of these villains that noone else can seem to figure out needs help from first Katie Holmes and then his butler, who’s next. In my opinion they could have put any other superhero into this movie and it wouldnt have changed the movie in the least. These are just a few of the probs I have with the new “Batman” but getting longwinded. I mean some people are just different in opinion and I hate these installments. Sorry.

…. and that is center of the debate, which is what appeals to geeks but ignores the masses and what makes business sense for the movie industry. Sin City was a graphic novel and that movie worked perfectly because of its budget and the way it was positioned. Thus it turned out to be a success for its studio. Watchman is the complete opposite of that movie. I’m not saying don’t make this film for the audience that wants to see them just don’t do it at the expense of making a very entertaining movie that has a broad appeal. TDK was a realization of this principle.

Id sooner see a true adaptation than some adaptation that changed the story to something it was never supposed to be.

Most books are spoiled as movies, some are lucky enough to still work. Watchmen might not have been what you wanted, but it IS the graphic novel, which is what it should have been.

I would love to hear how the most recent incarnation of Batman (the most true to the book adaptation that appeals to real world sensibilities) should not be considered Batman movies.

And while you are at it, you can tell us what you are smoking.