I will have my actual review of the movie up later today, but I had to write about this as soon as I got home from seeing it (I went to the 9 AM showing this morning, LOL)

Watchmen is Not for Children

Do not get me wrong, I loved this film - am already wanting to go back again, but this thing should have been rated "NC-17", not "R".

I strongly urge parents NOT to take their kids, even teens to see this. I especially caution parents of teenage girls about this movie. There are some elements that are just too graphic in my opinion - including a rape scene.

Michelle, you must not go to many R-rated movies to say that this one is somehow "worse" than all the others out there. All of the violence that was in the movie was in the graphic novel.

I don't get why parents think its okay to take their children to R rated movies anyway in the USA? I used to live there, and found it unbelievable what parents would let there children see. In the UK - if it's R or 18, then you have to be over 18 to get in, and that's how it should be IMO.
I also don't get why just because something is based on a graphic novel that children should appreciate it. I mean look at Sin City and others klike that...
But mainly, I think children shouldn't be let in, it also can spoil it for adults with children and young teens running around.

I don't want my kids reading the graphic novel, either.

I'm not saying it is worse than any others. I think there are plenty of movies out these days that are getting "R" ratings that should be "NC-17" - I'm thinking particularly of horror movies. I used to be a huge horror film fan - but realized that I haven't seen one in years, because they are all blood, gore and chopping people to bits.

I think it was the combination of everything all at once in the film. Like I said - for an adult that can take away the meaning behind the film, it is excellent. But I just don't think it is appropriate for kids who will not get the nuances, but will only see the visuals.

And I must admit that my personal experience with rape did put me in a very uncomfortable position with that one scene. It was very hard to watch, but it actually had a very important part in the film.

Some would argue that these scenes could have been left out and only referenced, and I don't agree with that. I think seeing these scenes made everything more powerful. I sat quite stunned through most of the movie. I just don't think it is for kids.

That is why I wrote 2 separate articles, one review - with my actual thoughts on the film, and this other with my thoughts about it being too graphic for kids.

My kids don't get to see "Sin City" or "300" either.

I don't get the whole R rating, it seems pointless, I don't know anyone that goes to see a movie before taking their children, if that's their intention.
I don't agree that all horror is overtly gory, it depends on the film.
This discussion all comes back to cencorship. If a child can go in a library or comic book store and read and see the visual violence that is also in the film, it's kinda pointless, but I agree children shouldn't see adult films.
I don't agree they should be stopped from seeing a naked man though, it's completley natural and like you said, he glows LOL. But then it all comes back to what one as an individual deams okay for their children.
A lot of kids will go and see this without their parents permission though, I know lotsa kids that do that. It can add to the thrill I think.

Ok - that was a very sweeping and unfair statement that I made. I've just been very frustrated with the number of "slasher" films vs psychological horror films lately. Venting my frustration I suppose.



For older kids - no this isn't such a bad thing, this statement I was thinking of the younger ones. The nudity itself is kind of - not important in the film. There's nothing sexual about it at all, it just kind of is.

The main reason I wrote this article was for parents who have not read the graphic novel, who have only seen the cool commercials on tv (or whose kids have seen the cool commercials.) This is for those parents that are thinking that this is going to be on the same lines as all the other comic book films like "Spiderman" and "X-Men". I can just picture a mom taking her 9 yr old daughter into this movie because her daughter thinks the Silk Spectre is this generation's Wonder Woman - and then Mom freaks out because her daughter just got a faceful of glowing, blue [censored].

The whole issue comes down to parents need to be responsible for what their kids see. They need to read the reviews, pay attention to the ratings - and WHY they got the ratings.

Oh, BTW -


You've just met someone. I even read books before my kids do. My oldest son almost did not get to finish the Harry Potter series because I felt it had gotten too violent and mature for him at the time. He had to wait an extra year. I read the entire Twilight series before I would let my daughter. And I always rent a film before we buy it (unless it is rated G or PG).

I'm actually quite pleased to meet a Responsible adult LOL. My aunt, and don�t get me wrong � I adore my aunt, she lives in Florida, and she took my 16, and 12 year old cousins to see �The Ring� � and they were absolutely terrified LOL. She wouldn�t even let them leave because she�d paid for the tickets, we all found it funny at the time, even the kids, after.

I just still find it so amazing that anyone with an adult (or appearing as an adult) can just go into see R rated movies which are stated as for over 17 - it amazes me, especially when I think how disturbing, gory and violent films have become over the last few decades. I think the U.K�s classification is much more responsible.

I agree with you about the Watchmen trailers, I just saw one and they�re aimed very much at children, I think. Then in the small print it says �violence etc� � but then again, over here, no kids will get in. They wouldn�t even let my cousin in over here to see that terrible re-make of �Prom Night� until she showed her ID � and there is no violence shown in that film, or swearing � its just all suggested.

I wouldn�t ever read a book before a child, even though some can be disturbing, I think that�s taking censorship too far in my opinion, and I don�t really see that it would stop someone intent on going to read a book when they can get it from the library. You must have well behaved kids LOL

My oldest son has Asperger's, and has a very difficult problem with rage, violence and a few other things. Even in reading books, I try not to let him be exposed to too much violence. This was when he was 12, now that he is 17 - of course he reads more. I just like to always read the books, too - so that I can discuss them with them.

As far as my daughter goes, she's only 11. I knew that the Twilight series was a vampire and romance series. I didn't know it was actually geared for younger readers. Being an Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton fan myself - I wanted to make sure there were not any sexual scenes in the book like those. She's not ready for THAT explicit, yet.

My kids know that all of our books in our library downstairs will one day be available to them, if not now. But being major SciFi/Fantasy and Horror lit readers - my husband and I have some books that are just not appropriate for their ages.

I can see why you would do that, it's just most ppl don't do they? So I guess you don't hear it that often, but if you're reading them anyways as well. What are the Twilight books like BTW? Worth checking out? I quite liked the movie - it was a bit tame, but sweet.
I was reading Point Horror and Nancy Drew books around 11 LOL - it takes me back. I think I read Carrie by King when I was around 12/13 - but I think that's quite a mild book, on a different subject - the most horrific book I ever read was named 'Lets Go Play At the Adams' by Mendal Johnson, which my aunt bought me, cos she knew I loved horror. This was at age 13 - and on the cover it said "more scary than Lord of The Flies and The Excorsist combined" - and OMIGOD - that book has haunted me all my life, I've never actually spoken to anyone else that read it - I know online it has a huge hate relationship.

I liked them. (Haven't seen the movie yet, so can't compare)

They are tame compared to Rice and DEFINITElY compared to Hamilton (to say the least!!!)

"FireStarter" was my first King book - in about the 6th grade, but it is much tamer compared to many of his other works as well.

I may have to check out this Mendal Johnson - never heard of him before, I've been looking for a new horror author (though I'm scrambling to keep up with everything right now, I always seem to make time for my "fun" books!) Loved Lord of the Flies and The Exorcist - the thought of combining those two is kind of strange thouhg - totally different types of scary.

Actually Michelle, and I've said this to anyone that read 'Let's Go Play At The Adams'' - I'd advise against it, unless you can handle really horrible psychological horror - as in horrific. It was the only novel Mendal Johnson did, he died right after writing it - I know this cos I did lots of research on it afterwards. The first time I read it, as I say, I was 13 or there abouts and it really upset me. Then two years ago, because I had never forgotten about it - I bought a copy of Ebay and read it again as an adult - thinking I might deal with it better. Well, I was SO depressed and upset by it. My mother asked me what was wrong, and I just burst out crying. I don't know if you've read Cujo by King, but that's a brilliant book in my opinion, but also really distressing - but that has nothing on this book LOL.

I think I'll read the Twilight books, I'm writing teen horror at the moment and it's such a popular franchise, I kinda want to see what the hype is about, and also why Y/A and teens love it so much. When I went to the cinema ppl were chanting for it to start - it was wild LOL.

I saw the movie last night. I didn't like it at all, but the person I was with loved it. I thought it was way too long.
There were parents that obviously didn't know about all the graphic scenes and had their kids in there. We went to the 8:30 show and there was even a baby in a stroller who kept crying and instead of taking the baby out, they stood in the entrance into the theater and continued to rock the baby while watching the movie...disgusting!!! Plus they had what looked like a 3 year old there too.

This is what I mean - a screaming baby! That's disgusting, I'd have gone to the staff and told them to throw them out, after going up to he mother and asking her to leave. It's not just the point that children shouldn't be in watching restricted movies period, it's just so rude.
I'm so glad the UK has it's rating system, how irresponsible to take babies and toddlers. I havn't been to see the movie yet - I don't really like the look of it or the comic, but I will give it a chance I 'spose. A lot of ppl are saying it's good because they think they should, I feel - which happens with a lot of movies - so now my expectations for the film are very high - and then it's harder for the movie to live up to them.

Watchmen, 300, and Sin City wree never intended for children. In my library they are in the adult graphic novel collections.

The baby was bad enough - but a 3 yr old?!? That child is old enough to actually be impacted by the visuals he sees. That is horrible!

As soon as I got home from the theater- I took a shower to wash away the horrifying filth of this movie. I made my calls right away and warned friends with children not to take them to this movie. besides the rape scene;

practically soft porn

horrifying pure evil- like the murder of the child then fed to the dogs.

murder of a pregnant woman from the "hero" who knocked her up.

blatant hate of gay life style which was obviously expressed


It was fine for adults but NOT by any means for a child to see.

Of course a child could not discern this, but Rorschach was a psychopath. His homophobia (to the extreme) was part of his character flaw.

The movie, like the graphic novel, was to make us take a hard look at what makes a "hero" and how there is always balance.

It was a very adult movie with grea questions raised, but it was too deep for any child to be able to comprehend. All they would know is that the superheroes were as much of bad guys as the bad guys.

You would be surprised just how many children were in the theater the night I went to see this. That bothered me quite a bit..

If I had to take an educated guess, the majority of the viewers were not aware just how graphic some of the scenes were and there was little sugar coating as well.

When my friends heard I had seen it, they asked me if they should allow their kids to see it or their siblings were considering taking their kids and so on, so that tells me not much awareness of the film.

It wasn't for me, but I am sure the film was well liked by others.

I'm sure that the parents who brought children did so because they thought they were going to see a "super hero" movie and knew nothing of the Watchmen. Theatres should have posted warning signs in the theater about the graphic images and children should not see it.

Parents should also take the time to check out movies they are going to see and take their children to.

This DID have an "R" rating on it after all, which really means it isn't for kids. Like Stephen pointed out above, we don't take our rating system very seriously here in the US anymore.