I will never understand these trekkies. You people do know what retconning is, right? You do realize that Star Trek is insanely full of it throughout its history, right? In case some of you forgot that your pal, Gene Roddenberry, has done quite a bit of it himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retcons#Star_Trek_in_various_media

They're using the same excuse they use every time they decide they want to change things: it's an alternate universe, things are different. Either you accept this one or you accept none of them. Get over it, nerds.

Having said as much, the movie was fantastic. I'm not much of a trekkie myself -- I find the series to typically be very boring -- but I truly appreciated this one. I was afraid that JJ Abrams would ruin it by completely ignoring the need for, you know, a plot. I was afraid he'd do what he's done in other movies, in that he'd just let the explosions do the talking. Thankfully, he did not.

This movie is to Star Trek in the 60s what the new Battlestar Galactica series is to the 70s series. It's a kick in the teeth. It's a story about human nature where space is the backdrop, not the other way around. The mark of a good show or movie is asking: if I took the setting out of this show, would it still be good? The answer is a big yes.

Do yourself a favor and see the movie - you will not be disappointed. Ignore the people who are afraid of change. Change is a good thing, especially in this situation.

I had high expectations going into this movie but was let down by the sub-par acting and the awful script. I really just did not feel like I was actually IN Paris. See other movies; I personally recommend "Space Dongs VII".

What kind of a review is that? "It is certainly not a family oriented movie"? So what? You couldn't have figured that out from the trailer, the movie poster, and the R rating? What's worse is you claim it's not a bad movie, but then proceed to give it one star for what I can only assume is your bias against movies that aren't specifically designed for you to bring your offspring to. The Jonas Brothers in 3D was showing right down the hall, feel free to take them to that instead - that just means one less kid kicking my seat in.

You know what? It's not a family oriented movie. Neither is The Godfather. Does that mean that The Godfather's a bad movie just because Little Timmy couldn't appreciate it? Absolutely not.

Don't get me wrong - Watchmen is not The Godfather. It's not close, however Watchmen the graphic novel is considered by many to be something of a Godfather of its kind. The movie does in fact carry the same plot and a relatively equal ending (all things considered). It's as close to a perfect representation of the novel as it's going to get. That is, in its entirety, why Watchmen is not being accepted by many people who were previously unfamiliar with the subject matter.

The problem with Watchmen is that it's a movie which requires you to think. American audiences are not big fans of this mystical ability we've been granted. It's easy to sit in front of a movie like The Dark Knight because every little plot issue is explained to you and the characters aren't incredibly deep. The Joker is a bad guy who does bad stuff and Batman is a good guy who sometimes crosses the line. Pretty easy stuff, and at the end Batman overcomes his challenges and wins like we knew he would. The problem people will have with Watchmen is that the characters don't win. They're not "good" and "bad", they're shades of gray. In real life we may see ourselves as shining examples of good (no matter how messed up all of us are), but the truth is that no one is Superman. No one is a perfect force of good in the world, and Alan Moore knows that. Alan Moore knew that if superheroes existed, they wouldn't be perfect either. He knew that many of their choices would not be as simple as stopping a speeding train and saving every person aboard and then throwing the bad guy in the slammer. With Watchmen he created fully three dimensional, living and breathing characters whose motives and actions are questionable. The graphic novel and the movie were never made to be "non-stop thrill rides" - they were made to help you understand what a farce most "superhero movies" and comics are. In this right, both the movie and the novel succeed.

Some of the movie did not quite work out like one would hope, and that is regrettable. Malin Akerman is one of the worst actresses in Hollywood, and Rorschach was really not written to be as psychotic as he's supposed to be, but these problems are merely simple flaws. The rest of the acting is quite good, and the cinematography is at times completely breathtaking. Bottom line? If you're expecting to go into this movie and have everything told to you, you will be disappointed. There's no Neo, and there's no Superman. Everything is not and won't be wrapped up in a neat little package. However, if you want a good movie that has a different perspective on life and will make you think, then Watchmen is it. It is as close to the graphic novel as one will probably ever get.