I was flabbergasted when I read this “review” and even more so when I started reading some of “Debbie”s subsequent comments. I can’t believe people are even attempting to reason with her as she’s clearly an imbecile. A film critic who’s never seen a film. She refers to the “idiots on IMDB” in her capitalised responses but even the most intellecually challenged, text-languaging IMDB loser is Roger Ebert compared to this fucking retard.
I’m sure this won’t be “approved by the site owner” but Debbie as long as you see it through your Disney-tinted gawkers I’m happy. Quit this film critiquing game while you still have a chance. Burger King are always taking on and you can still find time to see the odd play and slobber over the themes in a post-production wine-sup with all of the other weekend intellectuals.

kingalan on March 9, 2009 at 3:38 pm

“In fact, the movie kind of has a peacenik-themed ending and “message” regarding nuclear weapons.”
Peacenik-themed? And your problem with that is….? I think the vast majority of officers who ever served in the armed services of the United States- or anywhere else in the world, for that matter- would tell you that it’s preferable to resolve conflict before anyone’s life is endangered. Ditto police officers.
Why do you think that this is marketed to kids? Because the characters where capes? Because they came from the world of comics? Because it’s advertised on television in prime time?
You know what else is advertised in prime time? Alcohol. The ratings system for alcohol is this: if someone is under 21 years of age, they can’t buy it- but this doesn’t stop beer companies from glamorizing their product at 12pm Eastern/9am Pacific on Sunday mornings, as millions of children watch their gridiron heroes.
BTW, there’s a way to respond to to commenters without going ALL CAPS- switch to WordPress, Drupal, or one of the many other engines that are on the market. Surely a successful lawyer who also makes money on the side from television and radio appearances can afford a pittance of an investment to upgrade her blog-site.

Andy K on March 9, 2009 at 4:07 pm

“If you see it yourself, you’re also probably a moron and a vapid, indecent human being.”
…well we know at least one person who saw it IS a “moron and a vapid, indecent human being.”
Although I’m not sure about the human being part.

natch on March 9, 2009 at 4:23 pm

First and foremost I agree that kids shouldn’t see this movie. Rated “R” tells most intelligent parents that up front. I never once thought it was advertised for kids. I have never seen the commercial on the Disney channel. The toys are showing up in Toys Ôø?R Us, I have seen this first hand. However, I am a collector so I expect these things. I am glad that they were Toys Ôø?R Us, so that they are easy to find. Most of the other stores that would carry these are usually over priced and never have them in stock.
I am actually disappointed that the movie wasnÔø?t as bad as this review states. I was expecting to see a lot more. Some of the other people have already commented on certain things, but I will repeat a few for those that skim posts like me.
1. The rape scene was an attempted rape that was foiled by other members of the crime fighting team. You go on to say that the daughter came from this rape. The rape never happened. Had you listened to all of the dialogue, you would have learned that she went back to the comedian to have an affair and at that point they conceived the daughter. Through consentual sex! No you never mentioned that did you. I do not condone rape and yes the scene was uncomfortable to watch. It did show that this Comedian character was messed up in the head. The scene gives you more reason to hate the character. You then can put together that it was good that he got his ass beaten and thrown through a window.
2. Seriously? You have a problem with seeing a computer generated penis? Ok so it would have been better to see a real penis? Uh, go see Forgetting Sarah Marshal. You wonÔø?t want to be seeing real penis on film. It makes total sense when you see the film that at certain points Dr. Manhattan couldnÔø?t have been wearing clothes. Ôø? Sex scene, shrinking down from being 40ft tall, etc. The times that he was in public, he wore some form of cover up. It goes with the story and with the character.
3. You mentioned that you see dogs tearing apart a girl. No, all you see is them fighting over the remnants of a leg. Gross yes but not any worse than other films. It sets up the emotion for the next series of scenes where the bad guy gets whatÔø?s coming to him.
4. Kid biting a giant chunk of fleshÔø?.not really all that giant. Very mild if you ask me. Go back and watch Raiders of the Lost Ark. Dudes head gets melted in that movie.
5. Comedian being a bad Robert Downey Jr. look a like. The actor is Jeffrey Dean Morgan and thatÔø?s just the way he looks. He also had a stint on GreyÔø?s Anatomy. He looks a lot like the character in the books.
6. Oh yeah the comment on Ôø?Slutty HeroineÔø?. What exactly defines her as a slut? The fact that Dr. Manhattan tells her that heÔø?s lost touch and understands and practically tells her to go to the arms of a Ôø?normal manÔø?. Really? WhatÔø?s your issue here?
7. How did you not understand that this was an alternate reality? They spell it out loud and clear.
You have every right to your own opinion and to express it, but get your facts straight. Do not mislead the public.
Unfortunately there are many people like you that continue to push the Ôø?puritan pilgrimÔø? way of life. Move on people. The gas pedal is on the right and there is a speed limit. The rest of the world has moved on without you. I refer back to agreeing with kids not seeing this movie. Yes, that is bang on. However, parents need to inform and teach their Ôø?teenagersÔø? and older children values and understanding of intimate relationships. Maybe we would have less under age pregnancies, sexual crimes, possibly even get rid of sexual harassment. Parents need to lead by example. Stop hiding what is natural and present the facts in a controlled environment. Instead our children gain easy access to materials on the internet or through cable TV that are misleading and outright wrong ways to view intimacy. Alright enough of that rant that is an entirely different subject. You got the point.

Spawn73 on March 9, 2009 at 4:51 pm

I read a few comments, and I’ve been noticing a trend; Debbie says that the movie is being marketed to kids and people correct you, so then she reiterates that people took their kids to see it and that is WRONG.
Yes, that is wrong. No one is denying that taking kids to see R-rated movies is wrong. Everyone agrees that the people who do this are horrible parents. However, that is NOT what the readers are talking about. Debbie, your readers (whom you insult the moment their opinion differs from yours) are trying to point out something that can be considered an outright lie: The Watchmen is not being marketed to kids.
Now, this is the part where Debbie would normally comment and repeat that people took kids to the movie. Okay! They took kids to the movie! But the movie didn’t make them do that! The parents had every warning that this would not be a kid-friendly movie, from the posters to the trailers. When you see The Comedian setting people on fire in the commercials, is that kid-friendly? And the people working in the theatre have the duty of making sure that those seeing it are old enough. However, if the kids are accompanied by an adult, those working can not stop them.
This is what’s trying to be explained, which Debbie refuses to understand (Now she’s going to flame me with the word “understand” thrown in just to show who is wittier). WB did not play the role of the evil tobacco company in enticing kids to see the gore and the sex.
Debbie will bring up the toys. The toys are meant for adults. Why are action figures being made for adults? Because in the story, Adrian Veidt has a toy line featuring the Watchmen, and a cartoon and everything else that goes along with it. Those story-toys are meant for kids in the story-world. These real toys actually being sold in the real world are an awesome nod to adult fans. I know that when I read the book, I thought that it would be neat to have a Rorschach action figure. Well, now I can!
I hope that this response isn’t too TL;DR for Debbie. I want her to read what I’m going to write next, and I want her to perhaps acknowledge that JUST MAYBE, all the people commenting on her article actually know what they’re talking about.
Debbie, you mentioned that there were many, MANY graphic scenes in which nudity and/or violence was shown. You don’t like the movie because of these scenes, which is perfectly fine, but then you go on to say that BECAUSE of the existence of these scenes, it is a bad movie. You said that you had to take notes just to keep track of them. Perhaps if you had been watching the movie rather than writing, you would have noticed that, for the most part, these scenes were very important to the story for very good reasons. There was a lot of plot advancement and characterization that you really had to be paying attention to, or else you would have missed it. I will admit that Zack Snyder amped it up a little, but for the most part they are necessary.
Here’s the TL;DR part where anyone who isn’t Debbie may become bored, but I suggest that you continue if you’re interested in story analysis.
“* Dogs fighting over, tearing apart, and eating a six-year-old girl–we’re shown them chowing down on and tearing apart the remaining leg and leg bone, with the sock and shoe still on the bone as the dogs wrestle over it;”
In the book, there is no shoe, as it is easy to reread the panels and figure out that it’s the girl’s bone. However, in a movie, you only get one chance to see it, and so the decision was made to make it a little more obvious. I personally could have done without the shoe, but it was put in for your benefit so that you wouldn’t have to ask the person next to you why Rorschach’s killing the dogs.
“* A close up of man repeatedly getting an axe-blade driven through his skull while he’s being butchered;”
Butcher knife, not axe blade. In the book, Rorschach chains the man to the furnace, gives him a hacksaw, tells him that it’ll take too long to cut through the handcuffs, and sets the house on fire. Would you have preferred that on the big screen? Rather, Zack cut out this horrible fire scene (awesome as it may be) and did two things; First, he shows Rorschach’s character. He’s violent, but he has a strong sense of right and wrong, particularly when it comes to kids, and his intense reaction illustrates this point. Secondly, it’s irony. The dogs had their heads chopped open. So did the man, who Rorschach now sees as a dog that must be put down.
“* At least two very graphic scenes of naked superhero “Dr. Manhattan” vaporizing people to just blood, limbs, and guts hanging from the ceiling or spread in the snow;”
In Vietnam, he isn’t naked. In Antarctica, this scene is supposed to be very emotional; note that every time something important is happening, you can’t see his ‘wang’, like when Lori realizes that Eddie is her father. Rorschach knows that Jon can’t let him tell the world what really happened; this is the Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object scenario. Rorschach knows that one of them has to give, and it won’t be Jon. Jon does what he has to do, and it is very sad.
“* Many scenes of Dr. Manhattan’s computer generated penis swinging about;”
Though graphic, the movie IS rated-R so you shouldn’t be surprised, especially when this is the most important part of Jon’s characterization. Since the accident, he isn’t human. Even real world transcendentalists will still wear a loin cloth. The fact that Jon doesn’t care means just that; he doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about humanity because he has no ties to it. People think he’s like a god but he is really the furthest thing from it. He hasn’t transcended, he’s just become something different, and throughout the movie he is struggling with this fact.
“* A kid biting a giant, bloody chunk of flesh out of another kid’s face–he grows up to be “Rorschach,” one of the superheroes’ compatriots;”
Again, characterization. Rorschach is a violent, messed-up character, due to his abusive mother. But rather than lashing out, he hurts only those he knows are evil. I am not condoning his actions, merely pointing out that this scene is illustrating what he is and where he comes from.
“* A man’s hands and arms being sawed off with an electric saw–we’re shown the bloody stumps and the bloody sawed off limbs in close up shots;”
This, right here, is the biggest example of what the movie is about; not senseless violence, but a reflection of what really happens. The movie is not supposed to make you feel good. It’s supposed to show you horrible things that take their basis from real life things. There are places where things like this happen every day (notably in Africa and the Middle East) and why? Because evil is destructive. Evil does this. Evil doesn’t care what it hurts, even if it’s hurting itself. Mr.Figure is evil, and doesn’t care about his lackey if killing him will bring him to his goal that much faster. There wasn’t quite that much gore in the book, but on screen subtlety had to be sacrificed in favour of time.
“* A man with vat of hot french fry oil deliberately thrown over his head–we literally see him fry, and he ultimately dies, we’re told (no kidding);”
The running theme of violence. Rorschach is surrounded by violence. That is his life. Note here that each character has a wildly different view, and Rorschach’s is bloodstained. It would be hard to show this if there was no violence.
“* Many, many scenes of people’s hands, arms, fingers being broken in half or crunched by the “superheroes”;”
Mostly Rorschach (see above). If you are referring to the mugging scene, it would be hard to defend yourself if your assailants could still walk. As Rorschach says, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
“* Cops being set on fire and burning to death by superhero compatriot “Rorschach;””
Rorschach is a genius when it comes to improvising weapons. Can you blame him when he does what he can to escape the treatment he soon receives upon being arrested?
“* Superhero “The Comedian” (a bad Robert Downey, Jr. look-alike) brutally beating and raping another superhero–tis movie concludes that the rape was a good thing b/c the slutty superhero had a slutty superhero daughter from him;”
Attempted rape, though it is no better. This right here is one of those parts where you should have been paying better attention. Eddie and Sally loved each other, but not all love is perfect. Theirs was flawed and very, very disturbed. Not everything can be Disney. They conceive Lori later, after he’s redesigned his costume. In the end, the movie does NOT conclude that rape is a good thing. Rather, Lori decides to forgive her mother for never telling her, and to leave her alone. Her mother is old, and ill, and if thinking of Eddie is all that makes her happy, even if it is sick, Lori doesn’t want to ruin it for her last years. The running theme in the movie that not everything is a happy ending.
“* Superhero “The Comedian” shooting and killing a Vietnamese woman because she’s pregnant with his kid;”
Huge characterization for both him and Jon. You see that Eddie is a ruthless sonuvabitch, and Jon doesn’t give a shit. Note that later, when The Comedian breaks down and goes to Moloch, he cries and comes as close to repenting as someone like that can. It’s obvious that the story itself does not condone killing pregnant women.
“* Superhero “The Comedian” being thrown off a roof of a tall building–we see his body hit the ground and the blood flow out;”
‘Kai. Your point being? That this is gorey? This is the essence of the story’s theme, and that is why so much time is spent dwelling on it. There is blood, and murder, and death, and it all exists here in the real world. The Comedian himself is like a more aggressive portrayal of Rorschach’s theme. Rorschach became what he was because of his contact with the bad parts of the world and reflected it back. The Comedian became the way he was because he chose to mirror the bad parts of the world. When he died, it was the punchline that even he can fall victim to the world, and the motif that the whole story hinges on.
“* Two superheroes have an explicit sex scene in a spaceship–she’s on top, then he’s on top, awesome–you can teach your young kids multiple sexual positions before they even reach puberty, by taking them to see this (there’s a less explicit sex scene between the slutty superheroine and another superhero not long before that).”
Except you don’t take your kids to see this movie for this very reason, and if you do, you’re trash. This movie is not kid-friendly, wasn’t intended to be kid-friendly, and was never made out to be kid-friendly (I think I’ve already mentioned that the action figures are meant for adults, in case they’ve been forgotten). But why is there such an explicit scene when it was merely an almost censored two panels in the book? Sex is saved for marriage because it is the purest form of finding a connection with someone. The movie showed Lori moving on a lot faster than the book, but the reason is the same. As Jon drifted further and further from all humanity, Lori could no longer connect with him. Isolated on the government base, she craved human company. One can go insane when alone for a long time. Dan was the complete opposite of Jon; he was nerdy, a little tubby, but he was all there. He was receptive to Lori and this scene represents the forging of the connection and fulfilment that adult humans need.
So you see, Debbie, the movie is not a cesspool of sex and violence. There is very real meaning behind every scene you had a problem with. I am not saying that you aren’t allowed to like the movie, as everyone is entitled to their opinion.
What I am saying is that you had it wrong when you said the movie was bad, unintelligent, or any of the other adjectives you used. You just had to be paying attention.
I suggest, like many others do, to read the book. It has far less gore and sex, but everything else is still there. The movie had to remove some sideplots, so you will get to read those, too. Once you are done, you will see the movie in a new light, if you can bear the gore.
Like I said when I began, I noticed a trend among the article, comments, and replies. Debbie, you now have the chance to break the trend, because it does not look favourably on you to belittle those who take the time to read your writing. If you reply to me as you have to others, in all caps, with sentences structured as “UM, NO U”, and generally misinterpreting what I have written as an insult to you, you will only be proving that you have an immature view and that maybe your writing isn’t worth reading in the future.
For anyone who has made it this far, awesome. Have a nice day.
-Brianna

Draconis on March 9, 2009 at 5:05 pm

Here’s the thing: if YOU are a parent, YOU (and you alone) are required to do the necessary research on a movie you’re taking your kids to see, book you’re letting your kids read, and any other media you allow your kids to consume.
IF you would have done the research, you would have realized what a dark and adult book Watchmen was.
It’s not Hollywood’s responsibility to tell you the truth about what you’re going to watch. I mean, I went to many movies where the previews were not accurate depictions of the movie or its contents.
Personally, I loved the movie. However, I AM a 23-year-old who did enough research to know what was coming!

Watchmen Fan on March 9, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Oh hai, let’s crucify a movie for being open and honest about its rating and content, and just completely let the parents off the hook.
Typical conservative bullshit. Why don’t we force the responsibilities on the parents that are too stupid to realize to not take their kids to see and R rated movie with these content descriptions, what’s what the ratings are there for. And, for the record, there were not kids at mine, but there were plenty of kids at Saw 5, a series with a long-running history and reputation of being the most violent movies ever.
And, you are incorrect at thinking this was more violent that Friday the 13th.
Get a life, and review your stupid romantic comedies, and leave the real movies to people that can handle some adult themes. At least until you grow up.

Jarai on March 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm

First off, I believe it is ignorant to say that anyone who liked this is “a moron and a vapid, indecent human being.” Just because you we’re misinformed and ignorantly took your kids to see a rated R movie does not mean that those of us who are mature enough to enjoy this are any less than you. I am sick and tired of people thinking that anything having to do with comic books(it’s a graphic novel by the way) or superheroes are for children. There are plenty of comics, cartoons, and movies that depict these types of characters that are INTENDED FOR MATURE AUDIENCES. The movie was in no way marketed to children but somehow you and many other horrible parents decided to bring their children to an R movie. The trailers alone should ward off most parents. There is a blue man, shirtless and never shown from the waist down, that you can tell is going to be naked atleast at some point. A woman wearing a very tight latex suit. A scene where the Dr. Manhatan literally makes three men explode. Another man is thrown from an appartment highrise. One of the “heroes” lighting several police on fire. How after seeing all of this could you even think for a second that it is for kids? Despite all of this information however, the story in the comic(from the 80’s) has become popular enough to become a major motion picture. This should tell you that perhaps the story, which you neglected to notice at all, may be good. After reading the novel and seeing the movie, I can say that they stick close together. That means that everything, the rape, death, sex, and (oh god forbid) nudity, was always there. There should have been no suprises with this movie and next time you should look into what you think you want to take your kids to.

Scott5686 on March 9, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Debbie,
You simply do not understand the context of any of this movie’s events.
It’s not ‘being cool’ by ‘getting history wrong’, it’s examining an alternate reality where superheroes exist. Things might not have played out exactly as they did in real life.
And on that note, the reason there is sex and violence and people with serious psychological and sociopathic issues is because in that world, the one where superheroes are real, you have to understand: anyone that dresses up and fights crime probably has deep seeded issues. That’s one of the biggest points of this movie and it’s preceding graphic novel, or, comic book, if you will.
Any parent who takes their children to see R-Rated movies is doing them no favors in general, especially not if they take them to a movie with such mature themes as Watchmen. Parents have the responsibility to research why movies are R-Rated and be the judge on whether or not to take their children to see them. I would never dream of taking a child to see this movie, but it’s not made for children – it’s rated R. For ‘Restricted’.
By the way, those action figures cost $15 to $20 bucks. There’s no way they’re for children – they’re for collectors.
– Andrew

watchmenismorecomplexthanyouunderstand on March 10, 2009 at 1:52 am

its impossible to have a civil conversation when you keep yelling at us. Your use of caps makes this whole thread look like the rest of the internet making arguments(that may or may not be valid) and then you yelling that you were right in the first place and they just cant see it. It makes you look hostile, and hostile people neither inspire confidence in their own arguments nor do they counter arguments terribly rationally.

markkers on March 10, 2009 at 3:41 am

Wow… really just wow. Debbie I wish I could say that I’m surprised at your review, but I’m not really.
Now, as someone who read the Watchmen when it first came out as a teen male who though that he knew it all, and suddenly realized that he didn’t the story introduced me to the concepts of Objectivism well before I even heard of the name John Galt.
I’ll be quite blunt, themes introduced in the Watchmen relating to what is good and what is evil, and whether you can achieve one by using a bit of the other, and most importantly standing up for my principles even in the face of Armageddon are part of the foundations of who I am today. Itís the themes introduced in this work that helped make Disney’s The Incredibles (a movie that was actually an adult movie marketed to children) a reality.
Now there are many above (hat tip to Brianna) who point out the absolute fallacy of your review and its underlying pretenses so I wouldn’t bother to jump onto that pile lest appear to be a version of Ann Coulter attacking Keith Olbermann over a Rutgers diploma or someone beating up a retarded kid with a spork to the soft side of his melon. However, I must say, that if you were to place your personal philosophy up against any of the archetypes presented in the movie, you would identify with the one character you had one of the most negative reactions to. Hell, the majority of us as conservatives would identify with the same character. It’s only the foolish among us who choose not to understand that the archetype is a hyper-stylized version in the same way of Jack Ryan or Leonitas.
While I was generally satisfied with the movie, I was disappointed with how they handled the practical joke. Now, unknown to you, the original version of the story had a gigantic squid from an alternative dimension appear and kill millions in New York City alone. The directors have said that in light of the new normal associated with 9/11, they changed it to show a destroyed New York, but lacking the emotional punch an event like that should convey. I for one would liked to have had the squid arrive, as it would have reconstituted the feelings that were catalyzed on 9/11 – the overall goal of both Ozymandius’ goal and Al Qaeda’s.
Hell, I would have even given you a bit of leeway if you even bothered to attempt to link the popularity and cult like following Veidt had and tried to compare it to our real life fascination with President Obama.
You passed up a wonderful opportunity to use this movie as a tool. Too bad the only tool you seem to be concerned with is blue.

Dave Montoya on March 10, 2009 at 5:42 am

Check out, a review by an adult 🙂
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997

dwhat on March 10, 2009 at 10:02 am

So Debbie. The movie sucked because it was ultraviolent and based on a book that was ultraviolent. So I guess you despised that snuff film named Passion of the Christ? It was based on the most violent book ever made. Lots more gore, rape, violence, and death in it than in every issue of The Watchmen combined. And when I saw Passion at the box office there were at least 30-40 kids in there. Should those parents have their parental rights stripped away for the abuse of allowing children to be exposed to violence???

Chuckles1 on March 10, 2009 at 11:43 am

Hello from Finland, Debbie!
“SOME OF US READ REAL BOOKS–I.E., WITHOUT PICTURES. BIG CLUE: CULTURAL LITERACY CONCERNS REAL CULTURE, WHICH YOU WILL NEVER KNOW OR SEE IN YOUR LIFETIME BY YOUR OWN STUPID CHOICE. YES, I’M SO IGNORANT BECAUSE I DON’T SEE THAT PUTTING CRAP AND HORRID DEPRAVITY IN A COMIC BOOK FIRST MAKES IT SOOOOO HIGHBROW.”
A very long time ago people thought that books, a new thing at the time, would be the end of the intellectual culture. In the ’40s it was all about how bad television was. Then in the ’50s and ’60s it was rock music. Now, I might be mistaken, but you seem to be saying the same exact thing about graphic novels. Not to mention you are extracting an artform from the surrounding popular culture completely.
As a finnish person, I am completely in awe in the good ol’ american stupidity. If the movie is rated R, I won’t take my kids to see it. It is as simple as that. That is the responsibility of the parents and the parents alone. If they are stupid enough to do something like that, then don’t blame the poor marketing folks. And no, I’m not saying that the movie is being marketed to children! Hell, I certainly wouldn’t buy a action figure that costs around 200-300 euros to my kid!
“YOU APPARENTLY HAVEN’T BEEN READING THE COMPLETELY OBSCENE DISGUSTING COMMENTS, MANY OF WHICH I’VE HAD TO REMOVE, AND THE PLENTY DERANGED AND INSULTING COMMENTS I’VE LEFT UP.”
I see the situation like this: It’s hard not to insult the blogger when she is calling people retarded, dumb, clowns and countless of other names. You could be a lot more respectful yourself, Debbie.
“WOW, I REALLY WISH WATCHMANIACS COULD LEARN TO READ. LOGICAL? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. LOGIC DOES NOT = “WELL IT WAS IN A COMIC BOOK FIRST, SO YOU JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND THE GREAT MASTER MEANING BEHIND DRIVEL.”
Of course that is not the argument! The movie is fairly true to the original story and what is the story? It’s about sick people, who decide to go vigilant with other nutjobs. The Comedian is pretty much a nazi and overall a really sick man, Rorschach is a violent sociopath and Hooded Justice was rumoured to be highly anti-semistic.
The list goes on and these characters are not healthy by any means and that is the point! The sad fact is that there ARE people like that in the real world. There are no omnipresent and morally 100% clean humans like Superman. There are rapists, killers and depraved perverts running around all around us and that is a fact.
That, my dear Debbie, is exactly what Watchmen is all about! People with HUGE faults and mental problems who just happen to dress up and fight crime. It wouldn’t be pretty in reality and it isn’t pretty in the graphic novel or in the movie.
And just to make everything clear, I am not a Watchmen nut! I have only read the thing once and I still haven’t seen the movie, but I know what to expect when the rating is R and I won’t bring my kids along for the ride.
– Stratosfear

Stratosfear on March 10, 2009 at 12:03 pm

After having read a fairly large portion of the comments I feel like I can contribute something worthwhile to this thread.
I am currently reading the graphic novel, before I go to see the movie, and one anecdote in particular has struck me.
The life of Dr. Manhattan has been explained in quite intricate detail, specifically how he acquired his blue body and wedding tackle.
A heavy emphasis is put on the consequence of actions, when it comes to this character specifically. He reflects on how a small insignificant object such as a wrist watch can carry such weighty memories. His whole existence as the Blue Giant is as a result of what happened to that watch.
Connecting this to Debbie’s actions and highly inappropriate political commentary(in the case of the Watchmen), she should really think about the things she says and does and what kind of consequences they can carry.
Secondly, before you get all fervent about the plot and ideas of Watchmen, read the graphic novel. You may still not enjoy the premise or understand the underlying themes and messages, but at least you will know the basic idea. Like it has been mentioned before all the characters in Watchmen are extremely messed up and far from fitting in the Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne mold. They are extremely flawed, be they racist, excessively and brutally violent,or big, blue and “oh my god” naked.
And finally, GRAPHIC (at least to me) insinuates that something is bound to be visually shocking and jarring. Apart from looking at the word in the literal sense I also believe it has other strong connotations.
Graphic novels have either startling colours or stark black and white layouts. These strongly visual formats mean the subject matter of such novels will be furthermore highlighted. Why do you think Dr. Manhattan is bright blue? To draw attention to his character and therefore his follies (and also the implied danger of hydrogen bombs).
My Final word, once again, is read the graphic novel. And if you can, do it before you see the film. OR EVEN BETTER, once you finish the novel don’t see the film, because for some the the film could ruin the whole aesthetic and message of the novel. Just like any other movie based on a book, be it graphic or purely text.
Oh and to answer the “dead-horse” question from Boobie, oh sorry I meant Debbie: “What don’t you understand?”
What I don’t understand is how you can have little notion of context and point of view. Instead of continuing to look from your high-horse (which you have figuratively beaten to death), take a step in the mud for a second and look at things from a different angle.

vihrea on March 10, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Hi there Debbie. 🙂 It’s taken me all morning to read through your write up and the subsequent responses. I understand that you feel this movie was advertised wrongly and, to some degree, it was. I feel it was touted as a ‘super hero’ movie when it was far from that. However you can’t really blame the movie (when it does clearly advertise it as rated R)when the parents themselves are the ones bringing their children. I think most of your ire should be reserved for the parents who did not research the movie their children wanted to see.
I didn’t know about the graphic novel until I saw previews for the Watchmen in the theatres. Intrigued I went out and picked up the book and by the end of it I had realized what a thought stirring ride it had been.
Overall I was very pleased with the transition from graphic novel to movie. I think though, that without having the knowledge of the book some things may have been missed.
Dr. Manhattan’s nudity, for example, was from his disassociation with human kind. He no longer felt connected to humans and therefore the rules of polite society (including clothing) were moot to him.
The sex scene was vital to the storyline itself, though it was fairly graphic it was important. In their ‘normal everyday’ persona’s the character “Night Owl” was impotent, both in body and in spirit. It wasn’t until he put on his super hero costume that he actually was ‘alive’. A living, functioning (in body and in spirit) person.
Again, I agree this movie is far from a kids movie — but I really don’t agree that it was advertised towards kids. 🙂 I think that, perhaps, this is more a case of irresponsible parenting then it is false advertising. 🙂

CeeCee on March 10, 2009 at 2:33 pm

Wow for someone whom is a critic and seems very educated you really have no clue. Did you do any research on the “Watchmen” before wasting one of the seats on the movie theater? By reading the Jibba Jabba you wrote I am going to say no. I mean at least Wiki it? This movie was based on one of the greatest graphic novels of our time. This is not just based on my opinion, but from others;
Hugo Award
one of Time magazines 100 best novels of all time
Comic Book lovers from around the world
I guess I could go on but there really would be no point as you have no idea.But if you do want the “Cliff Notes” as from reading your review you are that type of person. Please take a break from writing reviews, (and I do mean PLEASE) and Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen.
As far as parenting goes. I blame people for not researching it either. I read the book and knew not to bring kids, besides the rated “R” status. So there are bad parnets out there. But I assume that these parents are the same ones who brought kids to see 300! Which was not a kids movie either. So what can you do about dumb people? Oh and the Memorabilia for this movie is not for kids, but for collector’s. Until now there was not much for fans to buy, other then books and some t shirts. The Marketing of the movie isn’t at Burger King or in Happy Meals or in Saturday morning cartoons.It boils down to same fabric of humanity that this grapic novel addresses. I weep for the future!

RickJames on March 10, 2009 at 2:36 pm

DS,
So, in regards to your argument, you haven’t much to stand on. The toys are high-priced collector’s items available in comic shops, the film is rated R, and you have no evidence of nefarious advertising campaigns to prey on innocent children. If you have really seen one, I encourage you to write to whomever aired it and complain.
The problem is that uninformed (or misinformed) parents have taken their children to see a rated R film. That’s unfortunate. However, you defend them by placing the blame squarely on the media for misrepresentation and damning them as depraved. Well, they may be depraved, but that isn’t the issue.
Your essay, as incendiary as it was, is protected by the same rights as the film makers’. Freedom of Speech is a mutually harmful target.
The parents in question are, at best, ignorant or gullible. There isn’t a good reason to take children to see this film. That’s why “good parenting” has that quantifier. You don’t pass the class just by showing up.
Sometimes, believe it or not, it is the parent’s fault.

JonathanK on March 10, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Everyone stop trying to argue, there’s no point to it. Each side views the other as crazy and degenerate. Look through some of the posts and see how crazy some of the people here are, both sides of the argument are coming out like jackasses.
Let the people who hate the movie continue to post their one sided, and uninformed reviews, and if you liked the movie, stay away. There’s no hope trying to defend a movie, and you’re only giving this Debbie woman more notoriety and money. She wanted this kind of reaction when she wrote the damn review, just ignore her, it’s the best revenge.
I feel dirty just posting this here.

debbieblowsforfree on March 10, 2009 at 3:36 pm

After reading your review, if you call it that, I decided to make an account on here just so i could tell you how wrong you are.
* Dogs fighting over, tearing apart, and eating a six-year-old girl–we’re shown them chowing down on and tearing apart the remaining leg and leg bone, with the sock and shoe still on the bone as the dogs wrestle over it;
This was there to signify what happened to the little girl. You make it sound like it shows her getting eaten while she is still alive and that is not the case.
* A close up of man repeatedly getting an axe-blade driven through his skull while he’s being butchered;
On it’s own, you make it sound bad, but this is after the audience finds out what exactly he did to that girl. And if you don’t know, he raped and killed her. If that doesn’t make you want to hurt him, then check your pulse cause you probably don’t have a heart.
* At least two very graphic scenes of naked superhero “Dr. Manhattan” vaporizing people to just blood, limbs, and guts hanging from the ceiling or spread in the snow;
What part of rated R for violence don’t you understand. Do you get disgusted at every movie that has violence when it blatantly comes out and says that it does?
* Many scenes of Dr. Manhattan’s computer generated penis swinging about;
You make it sound like it’s there for the sake of the director saying “LET’S PUT A PENIS IN!!”. He is a being that has no need for clothes, he has no shame because he has no human emotions. Yet, he still manages to put on clothes for his public appearances. Even if he didn’t wear clothes at all, the people in the movie wouldn’t care because it was accepted that he had no need for them.
* A kid biting a giant, bloody chunk of flesh out of another kid’s face–he grows up to be “Rorschach,” one of the superheroes’ compatriots;
Rorschach is a messed up individual. I’m sorry you have a problem with his disturbed backstory.
* A man’s hands and arms being sawed off with an electric saw–we’re shown the bloody stumps and the bloody sawed off limbs in close up shots;
Once again, violence. Sorry you’re so squiemish.
* A man with vat of hot french fry oil deliberately thrown over his head–we literally see him fry, and he ultimately dies, we’re told (no kidding);
Umm…Violence? And when I saw the movie, all I saw was his skin become shiny from the oil on it before it the camera goes to Rorschach. Imagine you rub petroleum jelly on your hand, that’s what it looked like.
* Many, many scenes of people’s hands, arms, fingers being broken in half or crunched by the “superheroes”;
Nobody ever said these superheroes were the nice, clean, heroes you can find in a childs book. It’s called a GRAPHIC novel for a reason, besides the whole picture part of it.
* Cops being set on fire and burning to death by superhero compatriot “Rorschach;”
You mean where the flames distract the cops? There are no scenes in the movie where he burns cops. Their suits don’t even char.
* Superhero “The Comedian” (a bad Robert Downey, Jr. look-alike) brutally beating and raping another superhero–tis movie concludes that the rape was a good thing b/c the slutty superhero had a slutty superhero daughter from him;
So I guess you failed to notice any of that scene, because before The Comedian could do anything the other heroes come in and stop him. The daughter was the result of the mother having consensual sex with him later on.
* Superhero “The Comedian” shooting and killing a Vietnamese woman because she’s pregnant with his kid;
Violence. But, I shall agree with you on that, it wasn’t right.
* Superhero “The Comedian” being thrown off a roof of a tall building–we see his body hit the ground and the blood flow out;
You mean the scene where the body hits the ground like a sack of flour? And flow out? This was toned down from what would have normally happened! Blood would have been everywhere and he would have been demolished, but the body is intact and there’s a small stream of blood that comes out.
* Two superheroes have an explicit sex scene in a spaceship–she’s on top, then he’s on top, awesome–you can teach your young kids multiple sexual positions before they even reach puberty, by taking them to see this (there’s a less explicit sex scene between the slutty superheroine and another superhero not long before that).
It advertises these things for a reason. If the parents would actually look at what it’s rated R for, they would see there’s nudity and sex. It was their choice to take their children. And besides, at the age you claim this movie is being made for, they wouldn’t know what anything was anyway.
You make it seem as if the movie was just one big project to offend people, when in the real world it’s just a faithful adaptation to a book. Your review was nothing short of propaganda, making some key points sound like terrible terrible things.
Oh, and marketed towards kids? After watching the dark toned trailers I found nothing even hinting that children should see this, let alone be marketed toward them completely.
If you continue to review movies in the future, please make sure you are fully aware of every angle of the movie, as to not cause this kind of indecency again. Thank you.

Rorshach on March 10, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Do the world a favor and sterilize yourself you dumb, mouth-breathing cunt.

Torgo on March 10, 2009 at 4:53 pm

The whole premise of the column is flawed. Rated “R” films are NOT marketed to kids … just the opposite in fact. Regardless of costumes and superheroics, any parent who takes their kid to see an “R” rated film and then complains about it being inappropriate for children is cupable of bad parenting. And the indication that the marketing “tricked” the parents is offbase. The film is clearly labelled, and there is no question what “R” stands for: violence, sex, and language. It’s been that way since the rating systems was instituted, and it’s that way now. You have to be completely clueless to drag a minor to this movie … or disingenuous to suggest that this was all an outrageous surprise.
Oh, kudos for all the ad hominum attacks on comic fans. Nothing displays virtue and civility, and preserves the moral fabric of the nation, like personally insulting others with a dissenting view. Cheers for your use of the First Amdendment. Clearly this was what it was for: expressions of subjective preference reified as objective claims, that segue into personal attacks when someone disagrees. Way to lower the bar on public debate.

jsf on March 10, 2009 at 5:43 pm

First of all.
You are a flat out bitch. How dare you attack people that commented politely? What, because you are wrong?
Its rated R. When has a rated R movie been pushed towards kids? If parents brought their kids to see it, then they are morons. That isn’t the movie or its fans fault. Kinda like parents who buy their kids rated Mature games then complain that the game is gory. Really now, is that why its rated Mature?
And is that why its rated R. Because it contains graphic situations not suitable for children? Clearly you jumped the gun, made yourself look like a moron and are now trying to cover your tracks with bitchy replies. Frankly, I didn’t like the movie. It didn’t show the comics well at all. It took out plot for additional gore. It made the sex scene much longer than needed.
If you’re complaining about Jon’s penis showing in the film, then you clearly missed a point. He shed his clothing over time as he grew more and more distant from humanity. He didn’t feel human, why dress like a human. To put it in plain English. I doubt you would grab it any other way.
Let me make this all easier for you.
OMG THERE ARE CAPES SO CLEARLY IT IS FOR KIDS AND I’M TOO STUPID TO ACTUALLY PUT ANY RESEARCH INTO THIS MYSELF NOPE I’M GOING TO JUST LOOK AT ONE PICTURE THEN PISS MYSELF WHEN ITS NOT FOR KIDS.
NOW I’M GOING TO CALL ALL THE FANS STUPID BECAUSE I CAN’T GET WHATS GOING ON AND I DIDN’T LIKE IT SINCE I DIDN’T LIKE IT CLEARLY ITS STUPID AND THEY ARE STUPID.
Get off your high horse. You’re not special. You aren’t smart.
And – the toys aren’t for kids. They’re called Action Figures. They are sold in comic book shops. Not toy stores.
You could have just wikipediaed this info. Would have been that easy.

Wow on March 10, 2009 at 6:22 pm

I think all movies should be made like “classic” Disney. Not any of this new Disney with Pirates being the heroes and toys coming to life. Stories with princes saving princesses, slaying the evil dragon, and happily ever afters for all. In fact, what would life be like if all entertainment was like classic Disney’s work? There would be no need for this silly thing called the MPAA. What with it’s strange yet simplistic letters as warnings, who needs it? The values taught by these movies would teach right and wrong! What to think, what to do, and puts the thought of “What would the neighbor’s think?” into the minds of the young. That’s the exact thought that these children need to think! They need to behave how we want them to. We need to keep them in line.
Of course, now to be serious. To correct one error from poster Rorshach, a cop did get lit on fire. If I recall correctly it was the one to the side, away from the group. With that out of the way, research is needed for a critique. For proof, there is a New Yorker article critique on The Matrix talking about how it deals with Time Travel. However, I highly doubt that you would even take the time to look it up; You certainly didn’t do so for your numerous critiques on Watchmen.

Justthisguy on March 10, 2009 at 7:21 pm

oh, and honestly, the kid’ll be looking at the dead bodies and the scene will be going by two fast for them to read “LESBIAN WHORES.”
Saying this movie doesn’t have a plot is like saying whiskey isn’t drinkable. Just because you don’t like what it is doesn’t mean the rest of the world thinks the same.
And what are you doing to help out the world, exactly? Obviously not promoting free thought. Let me put it this way:
Your line of thinking tells us that you think cats are cute. You announce this publicly. Others disagree and tell you that they do, citing their reasons. You then slander those who don’t agree with you while making yourself look bad.

Justthisguy on March 10, 2009 at 7:31 pm

Um, Mrs./Ms. Schlussel – do you have any clue as to what you are babbling about? I don’t think you do. I am deeply under the impression that you hadn’t the slightest idea about this movie or what it’s based off of. I’ll be the first to say that I’m not completely familiar with the novel’s storyline or content – but I DID know that what the movie is based on is a dark story that has nothing to do with heroics such as Batman, Superman, Spiderman, etc, hence the R rating.
Why do you attempt to compare it to ANY of those when it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the likeness of any of them? Of COURSE it would be lack of better judgment to bring your child in to see the movie – um, it’s rated R, and for a reason. There’s nudity, violence, and blood. What were you expecting? Pretty princesses and fairy-tale bullshit?
Um, no, sorry, I don’t think you knew what you were getting yourself into before you saw the movie. This proves you did little to no research on the item you attempted (and poorly) tried to review beforehand.
Also, you’re insulting the people who speak out against you, and you ignore all the points everyone is making here. What’s the matter, you can’t take the heat of journalism? Go back to school, because I don’t think you were paying much attention.

HeartAttack on March 10, 2009 at 7:31 pm

Ma’am, you’re not going to soothe the savage beasts by stooping to their level.
It would help a lot if you would just admit that you were wrong.
Watchmen was a fantastic movie. <3

MashiAnkrekku on March 10, 2009 at 7:51 pm

“stoop to their level”??
Excuse me?
The first sentence of her review is an insult.
Followed by further insults and ad hominum attacks throughout.
Followed by further insults couched as commentary on posts.
Sure, some of the responses have been ugly … but then the review itself set the context for the discussion by intentionally disparaging others. The author provoked the “beasts” by acting like one herself initially. So don’t play the innocent card.
The first bit of mud was slung by the author of the review in her opening sentence. The wallowing around in the filth can be easily found in her following paragrapsh. That others have joined her doesn’t suddenly give her or her fans the right to magically claim the moral high ground. Most of the defenders of Watchmen wouldn’t even be posting here if someone hadn’t brought this denigrating review to their attention.

jsf on March 10, 2009 at 8:05 pm

I’m noency in 1988, they explain he got an amendment repealed to allow him to run for well over 2 terms. This, coupled with his overwhelming popularity in this time line, allows him to run so many times.
You need to realit going sit here and tell you that it was a great movie, although that is my opinion. However, what angers me in your review is that you simply have your information wrong.
They didn’t just feel like having Nixon run for presidze that these people are not superheroes nor are they made out to be either super or heroes. Rorschach even tells us that almost all of the Watchmen are insane, so constantly calling them superheroes is completely incorrect.
Then, the Comedian, who is constantly making disgusting inhuman decisions, is always frowned upon for doing them. They get the point across that rape and unnecessary violence is wrong, however, you make it out to promote such acts.
Then there’s the issue of you constantly telling us it is geared towards young children. This is COMPLETELY wrong, the GRAPHIC novel is sold in the back of Spencer’s for crying out loud, in case you don’t know what that means, the back of Spencer’s is a section for sex toys and books. The movie is rated R, it cannot be geared towards young children, the young children need their parents to buy them a ticket after they tell the parent what is in this movie. Also, this is perhaps one of the darkest movies I’ve ever seen. In no way could this be geared for children. They simply don’t understand these darker sides of life and shouldn’t. However, you have to accept that this evil does exist in people and showing it makes the characters that much less heroic and more human. That was the point of the “heroes” participating in the acts, not to please sadistic and deranged people.
This is the one thing that really pissed me off however.
“Mommy, mommy, what’s a lesbian? What’s a whore? And remember, this is just the opening credits.”
Is there something wrong with lesbians? Are you telling parents to shelter their child and hide them from people who are simply different so that when they get out into the real world they are that much more likely to have homophobic tendencies? This is a disgusting comment on your part, especially after they try to show the negative side of anti-gays. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a child knowing that women can be just as happy together as a man and woman. I’ll give you that a child shouldn’t be asking about whores, but how dare you say that a child shouldn’t know what a gay person is.
For you to come out and call people maniacs and insane for liking Watchmen is simply absurd.

Oishe on March 11, 2009 at 12:43 am

It seems my first couple of sentences got jumbled up so I’ll re-post them.
I’m not going sit here and tell you that it was a great movie, although that is my opinion. However, what angers me in your review is that you simply have your information wrong.
They didn’t just feel like having Nixon run for presidency in 1988, they explain he got an amendment repealed to allow him to run for well over 2 terms. This, coupled with his overwhelming popularity in this time line, allows him to run so many times.
You need to realize that these people are not superheroes nor are they made out to be either super or heroes. Rorschach even tells us that almost all of the Watchmen are insane, so constantly calling them superheroes is completely incorrect.

Oishe on March 11, 2009 at 12:48 am

My god anyone who takes you seriously should be shot. You are why all other country hate the United States. May i ask a question in all seriousness, would you kill a Muslim? I think you would. How about a Buddhist? I really dont think your one sided view on the masterpiece that is Watchmen is really what makes me angry. Its your blatant, self absorbed ignorance. I would love to argue with you about any topic under the sun. It would be my honor to make you feel like the true fascias pig that you are.

youarewetaded on March 11, 2009 at 2:02 am

I’LL TYPE IN ALL CAPS TOO SO THAT I CAN KEEP UP WITH DEBBIE HERE.
YOU KNOW DEB, I’M SURPRISED THAT A CUNT AS BIG AS YOU WOULD BE SO OFFENDED BY A BIG BLUE COCK. WHY IS IT THAT YOU RIGHT WING NUT JOBS FEEL THE NEED TO PUSH YOUR IDEA OF MORALITY ON THE REST OF US. IT’S QUITE SIMPLE, IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT…THEN FUCK OFF.
I FOUND THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST TO BE MUCH MORE OFFENSIVE THAT THIS FILM AND GIVEN THE CHOICE I WOULD LET MY KID SEE WATCHMEN LONG BEFORE THIS GLORIFIED SNUFF FLICK “PASSION”.
YOU ARE A VILE, HATE FILLED TWAT WHO IS NO BETTER THAN THE LIKES OF EVERYONE’S FAVORITE DRUG ADDICT, RUSH OR THE QUEEN OF CUNTS, SOMEONE I CAN SEE YOU’RE TYING TO EMULATE, THE CRIMINAL HERSELF, ANN COULTER. THANKFULLY YOU’RE ALL A DYING BREED THESE DAYS. BEEN FUN KNOWING YOU. FUCKING LOSER.

Swatter on March 11, 2009 at 12:57 pm

“Most of the defenders of Watchmen wouldn’t even be posting here if someone hadn’t brought this denigrating review to their attention.”
EXACTLY. I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW THIS TWAT EXISTED UNTIL I HEARD ABOUT THIS REVIEW. I’LL CANCEL MY ACCOUNT NOW AND REMOVE HER FROM MY WORLD. JUST NEEDED TO LET HER KNOW WHAT A VILE CUNT SHE WAS.

Swatter on March 11, 2009 at 1:00 pm

Hello Debbie from Britain!
First of all I must say that given you’re childish reactions to people you possess very little maturity. If Americans want to be stupid enough (as is their way it would seem, given you’re example) to take their children to R rated films then they have themselves to blame. Watchmen is a british Graphic novel and unlike you we have enough intelligence to know that when a film comes out and it has an 18 certificate than obviously it’s not going to be suitable for children. In future before you consider reviewing a film that obviously you have no knowledge on may I suggest you stick to chick flicks? Theire bland, safe tales should be plenty for you to be able to understand. There is a difference between giving a reliable professional review and creating attention for the sake of it. Because if what you’re implying is correct obviously im a sociopath who finds rape and child murder exciting not merely that I read a Graphic novel and was interested in its deeper philosophical meanings, but then how could one expect someone who looks as though they spent the last couple of years batting their eyelashes in order to attain a decent job to understand.

Charlotte on March 11, 2009 at 2:04 pm

First of all, neither the comic Watchmen nor the movie is meant for kids. You know that, and as a film reviewer, it’s disingenuous at best to suggest an R rated movie is aimed at children.
Second, the point of the work in question is the lengths to which humans will go for the “greater good.” That’s why your hyperventilating about the “peacenik” ending is hilarious: Veidt represents institutional war, Rorshach represents the revulsion of the individual to a scary world.
I find it instructive that your rhetoric so closely mirrors that of Rorshach’s Journal.

LapsedPacifist on March 11, 2009 at 2:07 pm

I would respnd to this point by point in here, but you know what, Debbie, I did on my website: http://www.tomhodges.com/?p=239

terri01 on March 11, 2009 at 2:08 pm

A couple of years ago, there was a movie that came out. It depicted a man being brutally tortured, bloodied, bashed, and nailed onto a plank while onlookers laughed and laughed.
That movie was called “The Passion,” it was Rated R, and it was marketed toward families.
Because it dealt with a subject matter that is “pityable” to some, it was okay for kids to see such violence, right? Wrong. It’s Rated R, kids should NOT see it, morals or not.
Same goes to Watchmen. I’m a huge fan of Watchmen, and I was shocked to see that parents brought their kids to see it — I, in fact, saw a child in tears by the end of it. But that is not the movie’s fault. It is only the parents’.
You blame advertising and marketing for someone’s lack of judgement?
How long has the MPAA been around? Well, let me break it down for you.
G – General Audiences, means that it’s family friendly for anyone of all ages.
PG – Parental Guidance suggested, most likely filled with cartoon violence or maybe one or two swear words.
PG-13 – Parental Guidance Suggested for anyone under 13, meaning that there’s probably violence, language or adult situations
…
R – Restricted to anyone not accompanied by an adult.
Most film posters (a means of marketing) will have just WHAT exactly the film received this rating for. In the case of Watchmen, it’s excessive violence, gore, language and nudity amoung other things.
For someone who is so “in-the-know,” you’re awfully naive. It is because of people like who, who generalize about everything:
Superhero = Kid Friendly
Action Figure = Toy for Children,
etc.
that leads to parents taking their kids to see this movie.
Does nobody read anymore?
I don’t mean reading the graphic novel, but a simple review/summary on the internet. It’s not rocket-science.
All I have seen you done to respond to the VALID points made on this board is repeat the same few words in your oh-so-eloquent Caps-Lock.
“YES HUH! IT IS MARKETED TO KIDS! WAKE THE HECK UP!”
Get a broader perspective before filling the already diseased internet with your ignorant tripe. If you’re so disgusted by reviewing movies like this, here’s a tip:
Don’t. Do. It.
Peace.

LaVieBoheme on March 11, 2009 at 2:30 pm

For one, I respect your opinion. I can see where you would be severely disturbed by some of the happenings in the movie. That’s the point.
However, you don’t have to insult anyone and everyone who likes or even just sees the movie. That’s just unprofessional and childish. As is calling people names.
I normally feel bad for blogs that end up being on the receiving end of angry spammers, but you really brought it upon yourself insulting any fan that happens upon this post. And believe me, lots of Watchmen fans will find you.

RC on March 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm

Debbie, You have made the repeated claim that “Watchmen” is being marketed to children. I don’t see it. Where are “The Watchmen” lunch boxes, sleeping bags, board games, jigsaw puzzles, Junior Novelizations or board books?. There aren’t any. There are a few collectible action figures, intended for adults, like this one of Silk Spectre: http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3416349
But there isn’t the marketing push that even “Dark Knight” got! (And THAT is another movie I would NOT bring a child to see either!) The few Watchmen “toys” I’ve seen are priced outside of kid’s budgets and not designed to be cute, cuddly or playful.
What children’s TV shows have been showing commercials for “The Watchmen”? My daughters watch a lot of Nickelodeon and Disney Channel. I can’t recall ONE Watchmen commercial there, not even late night.
You’ve said that the PROOF that the movie is being marketed to children is that you SAW several parents bring children to the movie. We can agree that children seeing this movie is a BAD idea. But a few parents having poor judgment isn’t the fault of the movie studio or the movie. The movie is after all RATED “R”!
Are car manufactures at fault when a parent decides to let their children ride in a car without a child safety seat or without buckling their seat belts at all? At some point, raising children becomes the PERSONAL responsibility of the PARENTS. We can’t legislate every aspect of good parenting.
Your review calls the characters of Silk Spectre “slutty.” I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I’ve read the novel. I never interpreted the characters as “slutty.” You say, “tis movie concludes that the rape was a good thing b/c the slutty superhero had a slutty superhero daughter from him;” Seriously? You think that’s the viewpoint of the story, writer, director or ANY of the characters? That rape is a good thing?
I really don’t think the story of “The Watchmen” advocates raping women because their daughters might turn out to be sexy superheroes. I think the rape scene is there to show that The Comedian isn’t the “Hero” that the Government describes him to be, but is instead an amoral sociopath.
Are you advocating the notion that women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped? That they are deserving of being raped? Are you advocating that victims of rape have a moral obligation to immediately attempt to get an abortion? You claim to have a conservative viewpoint. What is your conservative view? Should a woman who has been raped have the right to choose to have an abortion? Should she have the right to choose to have the child and raise it? Which is the better (more moral) choice?
See? Life is full of difficult moral choices. That is part of what story of the Watchmen is about. It’s a Morality Play: People who live by absolute moral codes (like Rorshach); People who have no moral code at all (like the Comedian); People who over intellectualize, until they have no gut sense of right and wrong (like Dr. Manhattan); People who want to do the right thing, but aren’t sure what that is (like Owlman); And people who are willing to twist their own moral codes to achieve what they think are necessary ends(like Ozymandias).
These are pertinent questions. Did the United States have the moral authority to break international law and our own laws and our own established moral codes by TORTURING people? What if the end was an attempt to maintain peace and order and fight “terrorism”? Do we have the right to become terrorists ourselves in our attempts at fighting terrorism? If our President decides he has the authority to lock up anybody just for suspicion of terrorism, who can stop him? Who watches the watchmen?
Yes, “The Watchmen” are NOT your classic funny-book heroes. I don’t think it was anybody’s intention to set up the characters as “Paragons of Virtue.” They are conflicted and sometimes very ugly. Some of them are morally degenerate. They are violent. They dress provocatively or not at all! (Do you think Dr. Manhattan deserves to raped because he runs about naked? Why do you think the character was naked? Was it just to be provocative, to shock you? You mentioned the computer enhanced penis THREE times in your review. Obviously it made an impression.)
Debbie, I think you got so caught up in your moral outrage at some parents inappropriately bringing their kids to this movie, that you missed the whole point of the story. And I really don’t think it was anyone’s intention to make this movie for children OR market it toward them! I think most people can agree, “The Watchmen” isn’t a movie intended for children.

Russ Rogers on March 11, 2009 at 3:40 pm

@jsf: Shhh, let her think that we’re “deranged” as she says because she’s the real deranged one.
Someone needs to call the nice men in white coats on this bitch. ;3

MashiAnkrekku on March 11, 2009 at 3:47 pm

hey fuck you you dumb cunt! if you can say what you want about the greatest movie of all time i can tell you that you are i dumb fuck who doesnt know shit about comic books! they didnt make this movie for people like you or little kids! they made it for comic book nerds like myself who enjoy graphic violence and swearing and rough sex scenes! so shove it up your dick hole! fuck you!

rorscach on March 11, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Debbie,
Obviously you have no respect for certain aspects of the American culture. For this you are retarded. You need to respect everybody, I don’t give a fuck if you didn’t like the movie or the comic book but just say so. Don’t fuckin get up here and say Gory this and Dirty that. So what if there is sex scenes so what if there is blood GET OVER IT. There is sex in the real world, there is blood in the real world, are you going to cover your kids eyes from what is happening around us every day? if so then your kid is going to be messed up because he thinks he lives in a utopia where nothing is bad. So Debbie, show some respect. And stop calling names to people who you don’t even know. You are stereotyping people who watch movies and read comics. You are the idiot here so go fuck yourself

Salzenator on March 11, 2009 at 5:52 pm

this is one of the rare times i wish i lived in communist china where cunts like you got aborted with a coat hanger.

ray thompson on March 11, 2009 at 7:04 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
that is the only correct response to your review

w00twatchmen on March 12, 2009 at 1:08 am

After reading all the lewd, disgusting and perverted comments that have nothing to do with the movie, all I can see is some people can’t contribute to an intelligent discussion. People can disagree about the merits of a movie. To attack the author of the post for expressing her opinion in terms that would make a hardened sailor blush has confirmed my view of people who defend the movie for reasons that have nothing to do with anything good in it and everything to do with their loathing of Debbie Schlussel. I absolutely despise them. I think they’re raving lunatics with a couple of screws loose. We should be thankful someone stands up for decency in this world and I’m glad to count Debbie as a friend of mine and people who put her down with spew no decent person would ever address to a woman are no friends of mine! And they are no lovers of wisdom and the soul. “The Watchmen” apparently elevates neither in the people who’ve seen it.
That’s all that needs to be said on the subject.

NormanF on March 12, 2009 at 1:39 am

Right. One must agree on the sense of lewdness being spurted by my fellow fans, but you must understand that it is not just the review Debbie is guilty of she also undermines any response in defence of the movie or indeed it’s original source. It truly shows that she herself possess little in the way of intellectual thought. In order to create an intelligent discussion one must first be able to provide an insightful, unbiased, review based on fact and research done by the writer themselves and Debbie has in fact done none of this. She has merely spewed forth a half page rant on Watchmen and it’s fans. Then without letting people have their say she continued to demoralise people here, there is only so much of which anyone can stand. It almost seems as though the woman herself derives some pleasure from mocking people and given her recent infractions one can understand entirely.

Charlotte on March 12, 2009 at 3:09 am

How old are you Debbie? 12? 13? Seriously lady, do some research and grow up.

Lirit on March 12, 2009 at 3:34 am

OH that made my blood boil. What a load of bull. I mean sure its true voilence/sex/cinfronting issues/glowing blue penis but who would take a small child to a movie that is clearly dark and confronting? Yeah, there is a penis but I’m sure if you take the clothes of every guy you know there will be a penis somewhere down there. So what you want there to be no blood and no sex and no confrounting issues and oh yeah you want all the guys to be ken dolls I’m sure they will keep that in mind for the next movie they make, Uh yeah no they won’t. Maybe you should stick to watching G-rated family flicks so you never have to go through the pain of seeing a decent movie ever again. What is wrong with a lesbian superhero might I ask? Seriously I feel sorry for your kids in fact I think they need this movie drilled into their head so that they might learn a lesson or two for examle 1: Men have penis’s.
2: Women can like other women.
3: Shit happens.
I am a 17 year old female and I freaking love Watchmen I am a comic book nerd and I am not twisted I have always watched cartoons Yes voilent ones and read oh you guessed it voilent comics too I am not messed up for life I get high grades at school and I have normal friends but you know what I’m stuck with stupid self loving bitches like you telling me that what I like is wrong. Watchmen is based on one of the most popular graphic novels of all time and you insult that and insult me and you insult the world wide fans of the author.
Oh, I bet you think that white single mother is single because she watches movies like this hm?
GROW THE HELL UP TELL YOUR KIDS WHAT A LESBIAN IS TELL THEM WHAT A WHORE IS BECASUE I’M SURE THAT HOW EVER YOU DESCRIBE THEM IT’LL BE BETTER THEN HOW WE MESSED UP COMIC FANS THINK OF YOU.
Oh and also G-d is still god and your still using the name in vein and you are still a dipshit.
Thankyou, goodbye, get off my internet.

Kannabikki on March 12, 2009 at 5:26 am

Here in Australia I have not once seen the movie advertised towards children (in fact I haven’t seen it advertised on tv at all!). In all the interviews I have seen or heard, the actors have said that the movie is not for children. And that’s all on top of the rating that would be shown clearly on any advertisement at that.
What is causing this controversy is the fact that people don’t do their research on movies. It’s not very hard to look in a local newspaper or watch the television for a movie review show. It’s even easier to search on the internet.
In this day and age we have to come to terms with people exploring the “darker” side of things, which enviably WILL get transferred to media and entertainment (Batman got considerable darker, for example). It’s like how video games are getting darker as well with each step and it’s about time parents started to clue up to what their children are seeing. Look at the ratings, take a little time to ask the clerk, even try to look up a review on the internet. You wouldn’t simply let your child walk into a video game store and let them purchase something you don’t agree with, right? The same needs to go for all medias, just as you are concerned with what your child is looking up on the internet.
It’s time to realise that not everything is going to fit a certain “mold”. People will always be coming up with new ways to change a genre in the face of so many Hollywood cliches being churned out. People should change their perspectives to expect this now, even by just a little. You’ll end up suffering a lot less stress and anger if you do.

Raine on March 12, 2009 at 6:52 am

So… let me get this straight, Debbie.
I’m a pervert for watching this.
But you’re NOT a pervert for actively supporting Torture. Oh, right – they’re “terrorists”, not humans. Sorry, forgot.
OK, whatever. Your rant is baseless and without a smidgen of credibility. That’s the wonderful freedom of the USA and, now, the internet. Throw up a blog, type up some Brain Vomit.
But that’s the part about being a conservative pundit – you are NEVER wrong in your mind, about ANYthing, EVER.

Bill Mogus on March 12, 2009 at 11:32 am