?Watchmen?

D: Zack Snyder
S: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Malin Akerman, Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Matthew Goode and Billy Crudup

THE ENDS don?t always justify the means in the world of the ?Watchmen.? If you take your superheroes as staunchly?and rabidly?as do the followers of Alan Moore and David Gibbons? immensely popular ?80s graphic novel, you?ll hardly find fault in Zack Snyder?s riveting big-screen incarnation:

The year is 1985. In Moore and Gibbons? alternate reality, Richard Nixon, who?s on his third term as President of the United States, is on tenterhooks as the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union threatens to escalate into an all-out nuclear war.

Almost lost in the political chaos and bureaucratic mayhem of this grim world are the superheroes, who are forced to lurk in the shadows?and in their secret identities?because their hands are tied by a society that frowns on vigilante justice.

An increasingly amoral landscape is forcing these gifted superhumans to make a lot of Solomonic moral choices?especially after one of their own, Edward Blake aka the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), is murdered. Haunted by the mysterious death of his misogynistic former colleague, Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) embarks on an investigation that soon uncovers a plot to discredit and ?exterminate? superheroes.

In no time, Rorschach?s metahuman allies?Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), Daniel Dreiberg aka Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson), Laurie Juspeczyk aka Silk Spectre II (Malin Ackerman) and the godlike (and unapologetically naked) entity, Doctor Manhattan (Billy Crudup)?are forced to regroup to help Rorschach figure out the confounding puzzle: Who watches the Watchmen? But, are they ready for the answer?

Snyder?s screen version of the comic-book cult favorite has been stirring the box office since it debuted at No. 1 last weekend, but it has also divided critics?for instance, Chicago Sun-Times? Roger Ebert and Time?s Richard Corliss liked it, but reviewers from the Wall Street Journal and The Hollywood Reporter didn?t (and that?s putting it mildly)?which only shows how subjective, or divisive, moviegoing?and reviewing?can get.

If you derive cathartic pleasure from seeing the forces of good trouncing their evil nemesis, you?ll have to patiently traipse through a number of gray areas from beginning to end before you can winnow out the good from the bad. Yes, they are as humanly flawed as you and me.

And, be forewarned: These superheroes are the kind who scoff at Clark Kent and Peter Parker?s black-and-white sense of morality. If Bruce Wayne gets his edge mostly from his tragic past, the Watchmen get theirs from the amoral paths they trudge on to reach their objectives.

The film?s thematic ambitions are a source of visceral and cerebral thrills, but the lengthy way Snyder tells his story diffuses the excitement and tension the production?s novel new concepts initially generate.

In its attempt to be faithful to the original material, ?Watchmen? finds itself drowning in lengthy exposition?which is a pity, because judicious brevity would have made this dark, rough-around-the-edges cinematic gem a more cohesive and satisfying viewing experience.