Rorshach's Journal, Oct 15, 1985.
(I'm not cutting for spoilers, because I don't plan to drop any save for those who have read the graphic novel and who therefore can't really be spoiled anyway.)
It is, in some ways, a more true adaptation of the graphic novel than I might ever have expected. Like its inspiration, the movie is funny, horrifying, thought-provoking, unsettling, disgusting, grim, challenging, and leaves you profoundly uncomfortable in its wake. It is also surprisingly bloody and gory in places - though some of the fight scenes are astonishingly beautiful, there were several places when Amy had to look away, and one point where I did as well. It is not, just as the graphic novel was not, a piece of kid's entertainment. Don't take anyone to this one if you're not quite comfortable with their maturity (and I don't think I'm just limiting that statement to children here).
There are noticeable differences as well, some of which might even make Moore purists howl. The gritty, intensely inked look of the graphic novel's visuals - part of Moore's vision of a story that would celebrate the uniquely comic elements of the storytelling form he used, I think, intended to reflect the gritty and "particulate" nature of the world he was describing - has been replaced by a uniquely smooth, slick, intensely cinematic visual style that is easily the largest visual break between the two forms of the story, even though director Zak Snyder once again, just as in 300, made several attempts to directly recreate panels from the graphic novel as shots on the screen. In some ways, the movie is even more a part of the historical period it depicts than the graphic novel was, inasmuch as the list of major historical figures from that era (and the ones leading up to it, throughout the flashbacks) who show up on screen is astonishing. The ending has changed - in particular, the graphic novel's "culprit" for the attack has been replaced by Dr. Manhattan himself, with a twist that seems to directly invoke Jeremy Bentham's idea of the Panopticon - but also in Nite Owl's reaction, which was the change that bugged me the most. It felt as though the change was made to salvage Nite Owl's moral standing as the "good" hero, but it was a standing that should not have been salvaged. Everyone compromises, remember? That's part of Moore's point.
All in all, though, I liked it. I'm very, very glad to have seen it, though it will likely be some time before I am up to another viewing (again, not unlike the experience of reading the graphic novel). There were specific elements that I truly, truly appreciated: Bubastis is amazing, and onscreen for far too little of the movie. Adrian Veidt has a pitch-perfect mix of foppishness and charisma, more in tune with how I've seen Ozymandias in some ways than what the graphic novel itself accomplished. The beginning title sequence is nothing short of genius, and if I could see a part of the movie again right away, that is what I would choose. There is far more of the characters' backstories and histories than I expected to make it into the movie; many of the "flashback" elements from the graphic novel appear here, in largely similar form. (I wonder, however, if they might prove to be a weight around the movie's neck - there were times when the movie seemed to go kinda slow, and I think the backstories contributed to that.) All of the acting is quite excellent, and Silk Spectre is (and I'm not ashamed to admit it) quite hot to boot. Plus, I got to watch Lee Iacocca get shot in the head, which is something I greatly appreciated.
Final verdict: go see it. Be ready to walk out of the movie theater shaking your head, biting your lip, and haunted. It deserves nothing less.
