Who reviews the reviewers
So, a link to the New Yorker's review of the Watchmen film got posted to reddit with predictable results—if I ever want to cause death by psychic shock I now know just how I'd do it. Ignoring all the accusations that the reviewer had never read the book (he clearly had, and why should it be required to review the film?) there was interesting bit in the review about how the film differs from the book. Watchmen (the book) does contain violence but I don't think it ever glories in it, and the review rather suggests the film does—sadly it is exactly what I feared we'd get when I heard that the director of 300 was at the helm.

The thing is people have always said that adaptations of Moore's works would have been much better if the film makers had stuck more closely to the text, but I don't think that's the problem. You could produce a film of a graphic novel that is almost a frame for frame reproduction of the book and still completely miss the tone, and I'm guessing that's what we've got here. The best adaptations between media are always the ones that capture some essential essence of the original and run with that, even if it means changing almost everything else.

I'll still go and see it, but I'm not hopeful about really liking it.