Very nice (and hard to see, in many cases) movie, and a refreshing vision of the canonical American super-hero cliché. Well, at least from my standpoint (I'm Italian, so I could miss a little bit the point here...).
Anyway, I'm the kind of person that wants to dig deeper after a nice movie, hence I'll buy the graphic novel sooner or later so I will be able to enjoy the differences :-D

It doesn't come out over here for ages yet, so I haven't seen it. But I'd imagine its almost impossible to capture all of the aspects of the book in a movie. So it'd have to be something you read first and then watch.
Something like Goblet of Fire, which would have made way less sense if you hadn't read the book, and was essentially a selection of the main points from the book, and your imagination filled in the gaps.
Luckily I'd watched star wars before I encountered Eragon, so i was already familiar with the story and the characters.... ;-)

prejudiced against hot chicks who sleep with dudes in owl costumes.

In my experience, wildly mixed reviews like that means it is actually a good movie and truly a work of art. As one of my former teachers used to say "Art is something that produces an emotional reaction in the viewer" (I'm sure she was paraphrasing someone far smarter). That reaction doesn't necessarily have to be positive, but when something produces such mixed reactions like this, it usually means the subject is truly artistic and worth viewing, even if you end up not liking it.

Well, they're all kind of messed up (as the novel explains, you kind of have to be to don tight leather clothing to fight crime), so it doesn't seem that much of a stretch. Dreiberg can't seem to get it up unless they're in costume, and once Laurie leaves Manhattan, she attaches herself to Dreiberg (I guess once you go super, you never go back).

Since movies are based (usually) around the experiences or fantasies of people and are usually extrapolated from real life, is it such a stretch that a lot of films have sex scenes? Humans and sex are intertwined after all.

Some movies have done it well, but when it's gratuitous and obviously done for the "oh well get the horny dudes in with this!" then it's definitely not something I'm interested in.
The movie is geared towards comic book fans, it may come as a surprise but the majority of those fans are male, and an extended sex scene just reeks of "we'll get the nerds horny!"
You can imply that people have sex, or have had sex, or are having sex, without it being gratuitous, you can quite easily do it and leave much of the actor and actresses dignity intact, but to me it just seems like an ad for a strip club, it's designed to get guys excited sexually, and that's it. There is no wealth beyond that, no hidden knowledge, no moving message.. just to stimulate your junk and do what exactly!? reproduce?! it's pointless and stupid. But people have to have it. "oh yeah, let's go watch that movie I want to get a boner!" really, does it take some lady on a fifty foot screen to arouse you?

I don't think the sex scenes in Watchmen are designed to pull in horny young men... given that they will be only very brief within a 2hr 30min-plus running time.
Given that one scene is an attempted rape, another is part of the reason two characters break up, and another shows a character is impotent (psychologically as it turns out, just lacking in self-esteem etc.) I think they are important to the characterisation in the story.
In other films, yeah, sex is just used as a way to (usually) get some naked female flesh on screen. Can't speak for the watchmen film yet, but the sex scenes in the book are brief and tastefully done, no nudity for the sake of it. In fact, the most nudity is Dr. Manhattan wandering around all blue and naked (also part of his character).

There's lots of words you can use to describe the sex scenes in Watchmen, but "tasteful" is not one of them. The scene in the ship goes on for a full minute, with an 80's soul rendition of "Halelujah" playing in the background. This has the subtlety of playing "Let's Get It On".

I guess the film won't be living up to the book in that respect then, I concede the point Weclock!

I haven't seen the film yet, but from what everyone is saying, it sounds like the sex scenes completely live up to the book, especially the one in the Owl Ship. I actually had "Let's Get It On' in my head the first time I read it.

I agree with Andy that Dr. Manhattan's nudity is simply used to symbolize his dissociation from humanity, he doesn't need clothes, and even though the audience may laugh at his blue penis, that's because the audience is freaking retarded. But I do also agree with you that the sex scene in Archie was for laughs, hence the Halleluja, and it felt a little bit too obvious, I would've appreciated a bit more subtlety.
I have to disagree with you, have you seen Irreversible? That rape scene made me sick. What about the "ass to ass" in Requiem for a Dream? Depressing. I feel like sex scenes are used usually to make us feel a certain way. Maybe the director wants to make us feel horny, just like the main character in the film, or maybe the sex scene is being used to advance the plot, or maybe it is just there to make us feel comfortable and then scare the living crap out of us (think seeing Hostel without knowing anything about it, you think it's a teen comedy and then halfway through you get all that nasty stuff). As for your second comment about scenes being gratuitous? What exactly does that mean, a human body is a human body, people have sex to procreate, why should that not be shown in a film to be tasteful? Why should they be "subtle" ie not say things straight as they are when a film, is rated R? We're all adults here. Was Saving Private Ryan gratuitous in it's opening or simply trying to prove a point on how horrible and devastating war can be?

as soon as you think "oh lets put some sex appeal in it!" to draw in human beings who can't think beyond where the next place they put their dick is gonna be, you have failed as a content creator.

So you're saying you should aim towards the lowest common denominator? While usually I'd agree with you with popular media, I love film too much to do so in this case (I think I may like film even more than videogames, and that's quite a statement!, trust me). I believe film can be done in two different ways, you can either make a dumb film while still being fun (ie Independence Day, there's nothing wrong with fun popcorn flicks, I enjoy them as much as the next one) or you can make something that is smarter (even though it may have the risk of being misinterpreted like Starship Troopers, a great satire that was thought to be a plain popcorn flick)

Oh, haha, sorry. I just understood your post, and apparently the whole paragraph I wrote 30 seconds ago has nothing to do as a reply to you, but this will: I agree with you "partially" I don't think there's anything wrong you with one catering to the masses, as long as you don't make it unbearable to the rest of the people. Also, I have noticed that sometimes I can be quite forgiving with films, there something about them that I find immensely enjoyable and appealing, being able to make people feel something by simply seeing images and not "living" them fascinates me. If somebody hates my rants let me know by the way!