I loved this movie so much, that after I saw it I couldn't go to sleep in the night. That's never happened to me before.

     Hollywood has been trying to film Watchmen, often called the greatest graphic novel ever, for more than twenty-four years, when it first hit bookshelves. After switching film companies numerous times due to financial problems and a recently famous legal dispute between WB and Fox, it's finally leaped from it's colorful pages to the silver screen. Alan Moore, the writer most responsible for Watchmen's content, has vehemently disowned it, having a history of loathing his material's adaptations, including the disappointing flop "League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and the successful, but still inaccurate "V For Vendetta". So how has perhaps his best work, "Watchmen", fared at the cinemas, at the mercy of viewers not only unfamiliar with the source material but likely unprepared for it's highly unusual material? I'll recap.

     The prized director's seat for "Watchmen" ended up landing in the hands of Zack Snyder, who has managed only two films so far; a remake of "Dawn Of The Dead", and the sword-and-sandle adaptation of Frank Miller's "300". So he's gotten his feet wet as a director, with a mild fanbase, but what, aside from being another avid fan, convinced him that he had the experience to successfully adapt what has long been claimed impossible to film? Is the nonlinear format meant not more for Quentin Tarantino, the complexity for Christopher Nolan, the darkness for Alex Proyas? Watchmen's readers know that everything about it is tackled with immeasurable intricacy, right down to every spoken phrase and each detail in the background, literally transcending forms of media with mastery while kept still to behold for hours of time. Keeping this in mind, Moore, and several fans of "Watchmen" (myself included), had plenty of reason to be doubtful in a film's potential to capture this artistry and keep the impact intact.

     The film has kept undeniably faithful to the source material, much thanks to the screenplay penned by David Hayter (the first draft conceived over eight years ago, given Moore's personal blessing) and Alex Tse. There is still much that is left out or reduced to a cameo or easter egg, but the most important parts fully remain. "Watchmen" takes place in a large portion of the 20th century, interweaving American historical events with some interesting interpretations. It starts in 1985, when a government-sponsored superhero, The Comedian, is murdered in his own apartment. Rorschach, the only illegal vigilante who remains active, investigates his death, believing there may be a conspiracy to kill all retired superheroes. In the midst of all this, President Richard Nixon, re-elected a couple times out of a turn of historical events, tries to negotiate the avoidance of nuclear war with Russia.

     Over the past two decades, a few movies have challenged the superhero genre; "Darkman", "Unbreakable", "The Dark Knight" - but none of them have twisted the idea so far as this. Watchmen takes the depth and concept of last year's Batman spectacular and pushes them to the maximum limit. Unfortunately, "Watchmen" is so esoteric that it may not sit well with general audiences; superheroes usually appeal more to younger viewers, who not only are unfamiliar with the timeline this movie covers, but shouldn't be subjected to the alarming amount of sex, language and gory violence found here. The historical significance may sit well with an older crowd, but in this category the initial impression of the film's concept would raise more eyebrows than curiosities. Still, admist the theoretical oddysey and downright strangeness, this film is definitely worth watching, even if just once.

     Those who visit cinemas expecting an escape from reality will be very uncomfortable here. Sure, a glowing blue man with unbelievable powers is hardly realistic, but the topics usually avoided by films here are. Even the most incurable optimist may find themselves whimpering in their mind at the strong suggestions this film provides. The themes, messages and morals are present; they're just less obvious to notice than in several comic book brethren among the morbid symbolism and ambiguity. Though the mention of any superhero is usually a family household name, this unflinchingly faces rape, child abuse, population control, political corruption - and that's just barely scratching the surface. "Watchmen" fearlessly confronts many questions; what would life be like if superheroes were real, and what impact would they have on history? At what cost are the sacrifices for the greater good? Is it even possible to ever "save the world"? Only one of the six protagonists even have any powers, but they're all just as human as any of us.

     The deceased Comedian is a nihilistic sociopath who uses vigilantism as a moral excuse to enact sadistic murders, and paints his perception of reality with dark humor. Rorschach's entire life has transformed him from a traumatized freelance detective into a guilt-ridden killer of killers. Nite Owl, once a fearsome, courageous figure comparable to Batman, is now overweight, suffers erectile dysfunction, and finds companionship only in his elderly predecessor. Ozymandias, the smartest man alive, ponders a solution to the threat of nuclear war; a problem much too big for a handful of masked men to handle. The Silk Spectre is seeking a sense of identity, pressured to carry on her mother's legacy. Her lover, Dr. Manhattan, is a godly freak accident of science who mourns the loss of his own humanity and feels isolated from the rest of the world.

     All of these characters are focused on equally, detailing to some extent why and how they became costumed crimefighters and enlightening us as to how time, and the Keene Act strictly outlawing their activities, have impacted their lives. But some seem to stand out more than others. Jackie Earle Haley (nominated for an academy award for his role in "Little Children", from which he's reunited with Nite Owl's actor Patrick Wilson), who plays Rorschach establishes a presence that commands the viewer's attention, providing an eerie air of his merciless attitude and all-or-nothing beliefs. Jeffrey Dean Morgan's (The Comedian) performance is also exceptional; while not as similar to Heath Ledger as his character's name implies, he uniquely commits heinous, unspeakable acts while somehow being impossible to hate. The only ones who seem a bit out of place are Malin Akerman (Silk Spectre) and Matthew Goode (Ozymandias); they have their shining moments, but appear stiff for large portions of the film.

     Visually, the film is amazing, filled with spectacular special effects, glorious set designs and engaging costumes (some of which were begrudgingly changed from the original material, but seem to somehow fit better on screen). The money put into them was wisely saved by filling the cast with C-list actors instead of splurging it on big names and marring the effort necessary for other portions. Though I will admit, this is sometimes offput by the camera's tendency to seem trapped in fixation and several scenes being led - or dragged on - by narrative speeches straight from the book. Unless one is a fan of the book or open-minded, they may find these two a little irritating and distracting. While the action scenes are often scarce, they are jam-packed; bone-crunching, flesh-ripping violence often tatters the screen in quantities and exposure comparable to the latest "Rambo". I was also delighted to find that the R-rating lent itself to taken opportunities for exciting martial arts choreography, often desired but left out in several Batman films and others about superheroes who supposedly possess them.

     Snyder reused the copius inclusion of slow-motion action sequences seen all over "300", but most of the time in "Watchmen", they are appropriately placed. The only other thing that seems to not quite fit, for some, is the soundtrack. The composed score appropriately decorates major events, but could be much better at other times. Music from various label artists are input, some having been referenced or quoted in the book, but the other pieces are unexpected and perhaps out of place. An exception is Bob Dylan's "The Times Are Changing" in the memorable opening credits scene. Though just a bit longer than "The Dark Knight" and encompassing many of it's themes in even darker, deeper forms, the pace is much different, and the quality of the overall experience remains the same. It's easier to sit through if you expect an epicurean murder mystery instead of a cheeky action-fantasy spectacular. As a product of it's generation, "Watchmen" is impossible to alter without losing a big piece of what has made it so great; it cannot be updated to the present day like "X-Men" (the script of which is also written by Hayter), or the story significantly changed like "Hellboy". There is a brand new subplot which may have unnecessarily erradicated many of the original elements that were replaced. It results in a different ending, but the outcome, messages and impact are still the same. I personally prefer the ending in the book, as, in my opinion, it lends itself to more philosophical interpretation.

     Despite many qualities that might deterr the general viewer, I still thoroughly enjoyed "Watchmen", and look forward to seeing it as many times as I can. Even if I were not a fan of the book, I probably would have had the same experience. It's one of the most inspirational, conformity-challenging and thought-provoking cinematic experiences since the original "Matrix" film. At the same time, it's just as brutally unrestrained, humanistic and emotionally touching as "Oldboy". In all it's socially unorthodox symbolism, unexpected turns and psychological trials, it fairly equates to yet adequately summarizes what is arguably the greatest comic book ever. While certainly not a movie for everyone, I consider Watchmen, in both film and book form, to be diamonds in the rough, standing against expectations like a candle in the wind.