Who's going to watch "Watchmen"?

There are moments when I enjoy being a critic. Getting paid to listen to music or watch movies is about as sweet a gig as ever imagined. And there are moments when I regret being a critic. Not every album is a winner, and there's a certain inevitability that feelings will be hurt, reputations marred. Comes with the territory.

Then there are the moments when I truly hate critics, at least the ones at the top. These fellows make me want nothing more than to enter their ranks and set them straight about interpretation. Perhaps when you've been at it too long, even "Casablanca" would be just another movie to review. And it should never come to that.

The most glaring example is the latest string of reviews for Zack Synder's "Watchmen." A film adaptation of the classic 1980s graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, "Watchmen" seems to have set reviewers off in every way possible. It's been called too long, a waste of time, a film lacking any addition to the original work. To that claim, made by Washington Post reviewer Philip Kennicott, I ask: why must a film add anything to an original work? If that work is strong enough on its own merit, shouldn't a film adaptation spend more time capturing the spirit of the original and less time trying to make its own impact? The trail has already been blazed, folks. TIME ranked "Watchmen" in the top 100 pieces of English language literature of the 20th Century. No director is going to top that, no matter how much depth he tries to add.

I understand the cuts made to the original "Watchmen" story. The comic-within-a-comic "Marooned" was an allegorical trick made for print alone. Back history offered by interviews and book clips were better condensed in narration or dialogue. Not sure I understand the loss of the giant alien squid (which Pat laments as much as I), but Synder no doubt had reasons. I only hope his translation of Adrian Veidt's ploy is similarly brilliant.

I'll save judgment for "Watchmen" until I've seen the film for myself. But I won't be walking into the theater with high expectations. What Zak Penn did to X-Men 2 and 3 was appalling, attempting to condense two trilogy-worth arches like the Phoenix Force and the Weapon X Program to a mere movie and a half. The crimes committed against the Spider-Man saga, chiefly the botched attempt at squeezing Venom into the third film, should have Sam Raimi before some sort of fanboy judicial panel. Comic fans haven't been without vindication. "Iron Man" was an impressive modernization of the original Iron Man genesis, and "V for Vendetta" knocked my fucking socks off. Still, screenwriters seem dedicated to screwing up whatever classic heroes they can. And I don't predict "Watchmen" changing that pattern.

What I will complain about are the critics now using a film adaptation to take pot-shots at the original work. To say the film stinks is one thing. To turn around and attack "Watchmen" as a graphic novel too big for its britches is ludicrous. Kennicott calls into question the revolutionary reputation "Watchmen" has earned, suggesting (if not flat-out stating) that it won acclaim merely as a figurehead for rising pop culture in the 80s. Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that it re-wrote the way people view comic book superheroes and, as a direct result, their oh-so-real counterparts.

Sure, the premise of "Watchmen" is outdated. Its impact was felt much more widely at its publication, when Cold War fears were very much alive. The story has lost no more importance in years since. Instead of a statement on the rampant Red paranoia of a bygone today, "Watchmen" is now an example of how that paranoia shaped the literary products of the 80s. It is and always has been the near science-fictional concept of alternative history. What if Nixon had remained president through congressional changes through the 80s? What if America had the ultimate trump card in winning a war against Communism? Never mind the issue of "superheroes," who aren't your typical comic book capes at all but a group of average-Joes and Jans in masks. "Watchmen" is a story about humanity on the brink, a very grim and very real view of our past. And its a story about humanity's reaction when God gets fed up with our shortcomings and leaves to start anew.

"Watchmen" is not "pretentious" or "unreadable," as Kennicott states. "Watchmen" is universal. The comic gore and noire styling (here we're talking dialogue) are not problems to be overcome in a film adaptation. They are cultural relics to be treasured and respected. So forget where Synder's film might stray physically from Moore and Gibbons' work. Concentrate on the spirit and emotion the two versions might share in common. And hope that Synder had the good sense to put some briefs on Dr. Manhattan. The last thing we need to see is Billy Crudup's motion-captured junk.