"The Watchmen" Review: 0/5 Stars

It has some stylish, comic-book action. That's about the only plus.

This is categorically my new least favorite movie, and anyone with any knowledge of history whatsoever might understand why. Though allow me to first state; even if you have zero understanding of history (I suppose I could merely insert "if you're a liberal" here) it's still a pretty mediocre movie- it drags out certain things much longer than necessary, and it's far too long- and I'm one who typically prefers longer movies. The rampant nudity and one full-out pornographic scene is entirely unnecessary and detracts a lot from the film, and you get absolutely nothing from the rest of the film as a whole.

The film's setting is a world in which Nixon is in his fifth term, the Soviet Union still exists, costumed heroes run about with vigilante justice, and the world is still under the threat of nuclear annihilation. To wit, it's absurd. The undercurrent of leitmotifs bring back everything the left was saying before and during Ronald Reagan's presidency: "detente" and "containment" (and in many cases, appeasement) are the best we can hope for, there's no moral difference between the Soviet Union and the USA, moralistic values are useless in the Cold War, etc etc.

The whole film is some liberal's fantasy world in which Nixon is some evil man who is practically dictator of America (let's see, which party were the candidates who ran or tried to run for more than two terms from again...ah yes, Democrats!) and thinks that losing the East Coast after launching a preemptive nuclear strike against the USSR is acceptable, the only thing keeping the Soviet Union in check is some superhuman, all-powerful being (most assuredly not God)...again, etc.

The entire time I was trying to figure out- even given Hollywood liberals' constant interjection of their inane politics into movies- how any of it had any possible contemporary relevance. The final answer: there was none.

At the risk of giving away the ending (meaning: spoiler alert, skip this paragraph if you plan on seeing this awful movie); the bad guy who kills millions in order to cause the USA and USSR together is portrayed as an actual good guy due to his all-knowing, "brilliant" scheme in order to create world peace by only losing a few million (American) civilians.

At this point, anyone in the audience should be thinking: "Hey wait, didn't we win the Cold War? Wasn't it done by a man who didn't need to sacrifice millions of Americans in order to cause peace?"

Yes, but liberals refuse to recognize this, and must subject Americans to wasting nine dollars a ticket in order to try to rewrite their concoctions of how history should have been- even though reality is demonstrably better. This movie would have been inane in the 70's- it's completely ridiculous after the Soviet Empire has already been defeated.

Almost throughout the entire movie; I was thinking: "Yeah...or..."

Reagan did precisely the opposite of what the film described: he unequivocally stated the obvious fact that the Soviet Union was an evil empire, detente does not work; and perhaps we should try to win- as opposed to his predecessors' policies of detente (which they came up with while wearing woman's underwear). His policies of bleeding the Soviet Union on many fronts, beating them in the arms race, and walking away from the negotiations table in Iceland after refusing to abandon Star Wars demonstrably caused the Soviet Union's collapse. Contemporary liberals were hysterical, saying Reagan would "blow the world up"- instead, he won. Without blowing anyone up, without firing a shot. He proved liberals had been wrong for fifty years straight- so of course they must use films to pretend as if his very policies this movie maligned were completely inconsequential. The only thing this film left out was the "dark night of fascism under Joe McCarthy."

As a final slight, they had to put a comment about Reagan being an "absurdity" in the very end of the film. This, simply enough, was breathtakingly infuriating. They slighted the man who caused the movie to be completely idiotic. He won the Cold War, so liberals will thank him for it by mocking him at the end of a movie about the Cold War being ended by means of a horrific lie- the very reason the movie had no contemporary value whatsoever was mocked by Hollywood know-nothings.

I left the theater so angry I was shaking, this being the main reason: my generation decides to get a lot of their historical data from movies. Now of course this movie's not going to cause people to believe the Soviet Union still exists, but the young idiots my age will come away without any actual knowledge apart from the film- based on how well public schools tend to do with things like history; they might actually think that detente was the only possible policy. Then of course, they will come away with the oft-repeated idea that Reagan was just some doddering fool who happened to be in office when the Soviet Union collapsed; as opposed to reality: Reagan's policies were the reason it collapsed. He was strong, he made Americans believe that they should win against godless, tyrannical mass murderers, he made liberals cry about "offending" the Soviet Union, he completely changed policies regarding the Evil Empire, and he won. There was a reason he won in the largest electoral landslide in history; carrying 49 states.

He is the greatest men in the past century, if not in American history- and liberal blowhards will forever hate him for proving them wrong. A man of this greatness does not deserve to be maligned by Hollywood know-nothings in girly-girl, eye-poking attacks called "movies."

I merely can hope that this nonsense will be refuted by more people than me.