Zack Snyder's Watchmen is certainly one of the most divisive comics adaptations ever released to multiplexes. Fans took to Snyder's intimately accurate recapturing of the book's imagery, while others felt it indicative of a lack of creativity.
If Reddit is any indication, the film is divisive even 12 years after its debut. Viewers still straddle the line between ripping it to shreds and singing its praises. In reality, whether or not a held opinion on the film is popular is mostly determined by the individual doing the reading.
Watchmen Is A Terrible Movie
A deleted profile titled their Reddit thread with the rather blunt "Watchmen is a terrible movie." The user then goes into some detail in regards to their view.
"I just watched this for the first time...Most of the action is boring and poorly choreographed." Many would disagree with this part of their assessment. Watchmen's action, even its slow-motion, was one of its most impressive achievements. They capture the look of the book while being extremely cinematic.
The Acting Was Bad
On the same Reddit thread, the deleted user says: "...the acting was laughably bad (except for the comedian and the detective guy), there was not a single likable or interesting character...." The accusation of unlikeable characters is acceptable. They weren't supposed to be likable (with the exception of Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl II). The acting accusation, however, is questionable (citing Jeffrey Dean Morgan's terrific performance as The Comedian, though, lends some credibility).
However, saying none of the characters are interesting (particularly The Comedian) is a massive stretch. Furthermore, this would be calling Billy Crudup's perfectly restrained Doctor Manhattan not up to snuff, which is missing the point. Dr. Manhattan was never supposed to be Thanos - overpowered, yes, but not a tyrant. Crudup's performance conveys internal struggle and does it well.
Rorschach Was Boring
Not unlike their thoughts on The Comedian, the deleted original poster also didn't care much for Rorschach. The Redditor, on the same thread, said about Rorschach: "Nah, he was pretty boring. I'd say the only character that was kind of interesting was the comedian."
The beaten-down Rorschach lives by a very, very specific code. That alone is far from boring. Furthermore, even if Watchmen was made in the 80s, few actors of the time could do better than Jackie Earle Haley.
Snyder Was The Wrong Choice
Some think that Zack Snyder lacks a certain gift for narrative, in favor of visual bombast. Others see him as showing reverence for source material all the while conveying (basically) the same message.
One user, goochcutter, said this on the matter: "Yeah, the movies not perfect don't get me wrong (too much blue d***) but I still enjoy Rorschach in prison and the comedians nihilism. But i think zack snyder was a wrong choice, he was still riding 300 fame at the time." They may not think that Snyder was the correct choice, but perhaps few would argue with the visuals he brought to the proceedings. This even if they feel he flubbed the narrative heft of the source material.
Zack Snyder's Watchmen Is A Fantastic Movie
This eponymous Reddit thread begins, naturally, with the original poster: moist_dentist. They said "Having seen the 3 and a half hour Ultimate Cut, I have no idea why this movie is hated on so much. It certainly has its flaws, the violence for one completely misses the point being made in the original graphic novel, but it's a faithful adaptation of something considered "unfilmable."
The point about the adaptation being faithful would probably not be disapproved of by even the biggest skeptics. However, the film version of Watchmen doesn't even have all that much more violence than the source material.
There's No Deconstruction
On the same thread praising Watchmen, demivisage went into depth about their issues with Snyder's direction. "It's not faithful. it's slavish. Snyder basically filmed the comic book panel by panel and missed the point entirely, in that watchmen is actually a story deconstructing the entire concept of superheroes. letter of the law, but not the spirit, and all that. it's enjoyable but not in the least faithful."
Many would argue that Snyder absolutely did capture the deconstruction, even if only parts of it. An example is Nite Owl II, who is no Batman in more ways than one. Dan doesn't thrive on being Nite Owl, and like most of the other superheroes in the film, he's put being a superhero in his past.
Dr. Manhattan's Personality Was Perfect
Some Redditors have disagreed with Snyder's handling of Dr. Manhattan (partially because of the somewhat cartoonish nudity). On a thread titled "Watchmen (2009) was a good film," Soft77 had this to say: "Plus they perfectly nailed Dr. Manhattan. That was the person I was the most worried about because of how overpowered he was. Instead they stuck very close on how bland and how much he simply doesn't care."
Some have said the character is overpowered in the film, but this user certainly has a point. Furthermore, Dr. Manhattan is just as quotable in the film as he is the source material.
The Script Was Lacking
In a thread titled "Watchmen Movie was great Watchmen TV series is pretty poor," one user thought that the screenplay for Watchmen was lacking.
This complaint arose every now and then, but for the most part, the consensus is that the script is neither Razzie nor Oscar-worthy. On the former side—the Razzie side—is HyruleGerudo. "The movie is shit tbh. It's terribly written and directed but has some cool parts. The show is done amazingly."