I enjoyed it and had no problem following the story even though I've not read the graphic novel. I like the conflicts each character faces, conflicted heroes always makes a better story (Spider-Man 2 being a prime example). The Watchmen were different in many ways but all united for a common cause, even if they didn't all beliveve in that cause. I didn't quite get what the "twist" at the end was meant to be, was it the Empire-style father revelation or which of the Watchmen turned out to be the villain? (of all the Watchmen I could've guessed who it was by process of elimination). It was visually a great movie, it was a bold move to make it as dark and violent as the graphic novel was and restrict the usual audience for this type of movie. It also didn't feel that long which I thought was good. The film raises interesting questions about humanity, war and peace and what sacrifices are neccessary. I found myself agreeing with the way it ended and feeling that was the best solution available, despite the fact it was essentially bad. The characaters were all good and well acted, with clever names reflecting their behaviour and styles (Rorschach the creator of ink-blot tests, Ozymandius was the name for Rameses II which happen to be the computer password, Dr Manhatten after the Manhatten Project). As I said I've not read the novel, but some of those who I know have question the "visionary" style of the director claiming this is not an adaptation but merely a copy of the graphic novel directly onto screen. Did he even storyboard it or just give everyone a copy of the novel to work from? Batman is an interpretation using the characters of the comics, but it creates new senarios and gives Batman and Joker and others a new style different form the comics. But it's hard for me to judge that, I've not read Watchmen so I can't compare.