The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews: Watchmen

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

HobbesMkii:
You know who would've blown that role out of the water? Kate Winslet. Then we could've had all three of the leads from Little Children.

As much as I'd like nothing more than to see Mrs. Winslet in Silk Specter's costume, I don't find much fault with Ackerman's performance overall. Doing a good job at playing a fairly shallow, whiny, immature character isn't the same as giving a shallow performance. Her character is really only granted ONE big "lose your shit" acting moment in either version of the story, and I thought she hit the right spot.

Regarding the often-derrided sex scene, I think it's close to the most tragically-honest depiction of "hopeless-dork-gets-to-nail-woman-way-way-way-WAY-the-fuck-out-of-his-league" captured on film in recent memory... which is of course not to say that it's not silly and awkward looking.

Hah, good job at the Rorschach rewrite in the beginning :P

But seriously, I'm amazed how well received this movie is. Internet is a hard person to please, yet this movie has managed to. I agree with you, splendid cast, you always felt at home with the characters, the same way they were in the comic book, it was a lot like the pictures coming to life.

It was missing a few things though. Cutting out the Tales of the Black Freighter was not devastating, but cutting out the guy who was reading it and everyone else at the newspaper stand was hurting it. They helped giving life to the universe, and added to the feeling of pending doom, in the movie you sort of forgot that the world was threatened by nuclear war. Also Rorschach's character was made a little less interesting since the full conversations with the psychoanalyst were not shown.

But otherwise I agree, splendid movie, can't wait for the director's cut. Zach Snyder is really a director with balls.

Edit: and learn how to pronounce Åkerman! :P

The only real problem I had with the film was that ozymandias didn't really have that much depth to him.

I wish they'd made it into an HBO series or something equally better paced. At least Stephen King had the sense to put a stop to any notions of doing The Dark Tower any other way.

What a load of toss!! CGI and fight choreography were great, but the other 2 hours and 20 minutes was a major snore fest. Don't get me started on the sex.

OK OK, not completely boring, Rorschach narrating was great and Comedian was one majestic prick, but as movies go, this just can't do.

P.S.
Didn't read the book, but watching the movie did make me want to.

Bob, I still like you and will continue to listen to/watch your reviews but I have to take you to task on this one.

First, cut the Rorschach voice bullshit. It gets tired quickly especially after being bombarded by the deluge of people lining up to inflict me with it.

Next, I didn't stop by to listen to you masturbate for six minutes. You liked the film. You thought it was important. People delivered their lines well; you want people to see it again. That's, what? thirty seconds?

You know why I like your stuff: the analysis. It seems though I'm only likely to get it from you when you review a movie you hate or consider ridiculous.

Watchmen was, at best, 3/4 of a good movie.

Laurie's actions don't follow naturally from her motives anymore now that she has been changed to be more emotionally well adjusted.

The pacing of the acting sucked. Although I don't blame the actors, rather I blame the editors. Moments with great gravitas are simply swept through so the the importance of things isn't something the audience realizes, it's something they must be told. We are barely given a sense of global tension and aren't given a sense of local tension. Why is society reacting the way they are to the masks? Why are they rioting? In the movie, we don't know.

Is this what I'm to expect from you; that unless a video game is the target of social criticism or a movie sucks that its not worth the time write anything other than filler?

If these aren't things you want to consider in the course of your review then tell me why they should be blown off.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

You see that is bull shit i waych the film befor i read the novel and i didn't read the novel because i was confuesd god you must be dumb it is about a murder case of course there will be back stories you problay got confused the moment the plot got away from action and zach snyder did an amazing job the novel is so amazing it is a mirical for him to pull it off watch it againe and pay attenion by the way i aint a fanboy if only got into 1 week ago

Mrmandude:
You see that is bull shit i waych the film befor i read the novel and i didn't read the novel because i was confuesd god you must be dumb it is about a murder case of course there will be back stories you problay got confused the moment the plot got away from action and zach snyder did an amazing job the novel is so amazing it is a mirical for him to pull it off watch it againe and pay attenion by the way i aint a fanboy if only got into 1 week ago

Unless you live in a third world country on the brink of Armageddon then there is no excuse for you not to have proper grammar and spelling.

Or at least something that doesn't look like you slammed your dick on the keyboard fifteen times before banging your head on it.

Seriously, there are MANY people to whom English isn't a first or even second language, and they don't have picture perfect grammar, but they make an effort to make it LEGIBLE.

Mrmandude:
You see that is bull shit i waych the film befor i read the novel and i didn't read the novel because i was confuesd god you must be dumb it is about a murder case of course there will be back stories you problay got confused the moment the plot got away from action and zach snyder did an amazing job the novel is so amazing it is a mirical for him to pull it off watch it againe and pay attenion by the way i aint a fanboy if only got into 1 week ago

They're called comma's and periods. They are your friends, use them. It would also help if you would write up a properly argued statement instead of just being an incoherent dick in general.

And you're totally a fanboy.

--------------------------------------------------------

Haven't seen Watchmen yet, but I definitely will give it a try. Not having read the comic I fully expect to be confused though.

Bob your fanboy bias came out so strongly on this review that i wanted to punch you in the face, if i could. It was no different than the way evangelicals preach with their underlying hatred fueling their fervor. The movie was ok, the only merits you gave it werent objective and filled with clips of big yellow words followed by you repeating great this and great that for 2 minutes. This comic book-movie had its moments but the crap completely outweighed it half way through. Rorschach (had it not been for the 4 foot blue IMAX penis) would have been the only reason to watch the film since he was the only character worth while. Dont go making this movie dogmatic or Godfather like when it clearly isnt at that level. Yes the comic is brilliant but this was not so much. Yes technically they could teach a class on this film and if they did ppl would walk out of it just like i saw lots of ppl walk out during this movie. Malin Ackermann was a pretty face in a tight outfit and nothing else. If your going to review take off the fanboy costume and put on a reviewers pants, if u find you cant do that dont call it a review. Call it an ode to blue penis.

2009: YEAR OF THE DONG!

I almost danced a little jig at this video. I thought the world had gone completely crazy for a minute there. The incredibly negative reviews on Metacritic from Wall Street Journal, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, etc. made me wonder if I had even seen the same review as those critics.

SomeBritishDude:
... and the most unintentionally hilarious sex scene I have ever seen is what killed the film for me.

From what I saw and (subsequently) read the sex scene was supposed to be hilarious. At the very least it was meant to be ironic.

Ant200tl:
Meaning the movie is for fans only, since people who have not read the book with leave the theaters highly confused (like my two friends I went to see the movie with)

The only reason people claim it is such a great movie is because of the rich source material and stunning visual effects.

As a counter example I submit myself: I didn't touch The Watchmen book until after I saw the film and I thought it was brilliant. It had some weak scenes or elements in scenes but overall I thought it was an awesome movie.

Ant200tl:
The soundtrack was a terrible selection of random mismatched periodic songs.

Have to disagree with you there.

HobbesMkii:
When Dr. Manhattan and Laurie are having their confrontation on Mars, her lack of good acting, of expressing the character's emotions appropriately, caused me to think Billy Crudup was doing a piss poor job.

The Mars scenes between Spectre and Dr. Manhatten bothered me as well. I never blamed Billy Crudup but now that you mention it Ackermann's acting in this scene wasn't particularly good. What bothered me more was

MovieBob:
Regarding the often-derrided sex scene, I think it's close to the most tragically-honest depiction of "hopeless-dork-gets-to-nail-woman-way-way-way-WAY-the-fuck-out-of-his-league" captured on film in recent memory... which is of course not to say that it's not silly and awkward looking.

Normally the obligatory sex scene would put me off but somehow, despite being graphic, it just seemed to fit. The blue lighting, choice of song, and timing in the context of the rest of the movie just made it seem like it was something that had to be shown, exactly as it was shown.

Listening to it right now.

I don't really think much of Watchman anymore, good idea nad story, etc. but i find a problem with the nakedness, yeah i know w/e f**k what your arguments are. If they were gonna do that they could definetly try to warn somebody about the CGI penis, in all of the trailers he wasn't there(Dr. Manhattan) I was alittle ok with how close they got to showing it at first but then it just came out of nowhere, i felt gay everytime it came on screen,i mean i suggested to my parents we go check this out, and bam(!). Please no little fanboy, or defender of the "goodness" of this try to cover that with what a Youtube commentor said to me(Rough Quote atleast):' Dr Manhattan is beyond the human need for close' I have two arguements to that, one involves nudist and i wont get into that, but if he is passed wearing cloths then why did he wear the tux and banana hamock? apparently Moviebob is wrong and you need to read the comic to understand this.

Other than Dr CGI (and the GAY guy who designed his genital area), i liked this movie, i was willing to forgive the sex scenes you know it's a rated R movie, thats gonna happen. My favorite character is probably Rorshac(someone should correct me on that name) i loved the mask probably mnore than his creepy loner style, added to his obserbor(remember Marvel's from the Civil War?) effect, liked the weird parkour abilities and his awesome work in the Jail, but of course you have to respect the whore(Silk, but i will call her as she is) wearing those heels and doing that, batrman ripoff (I never heard his name, if you are already correcting my names here please help again) did not look like he could win a slap contest much lessfight off half a prison of inmates.

It really feels like the guy who made the comic ripoff all his hereos except for the whore, but she may be from Wonder Woman.

Maet:

Frankly, I don't understand why Watchmen is considered "unfilmable," especially when the source material is essentially a storyboard that already cuts a large chunk of the work involved in the project.

You haven't read it though have you? Its more than just a storyboard. Moore made it with the intent of distinguishing comics from other mediums. Some elements of the comic can perhaps at best be mimicked by the film, but it could not be replicated.

I haven't seen the film yet but thats my general stance on most film adaptions.

Apologies for the double-post but I couldn't let the opportunity slip away to point out how right the antithesis was:

the antithesis:
While I also enjoyed the movie and agree with Bob on most points, it has come to my attention exactly why this movie will not be recognized for the masterpiece it is as an adaptation, a super hero movie, and a film in its own right: Dr Manhattan's penis.

...

This kind of shit pisses me right the fuck off, but what it proves to me is that the world at large is not only not ready for a movie like Watchmen. It does not deserve a movie like Watchmen. It may not even deserve the empty explosion fest that are Michael Bay movies. They refuse to grow up and good things are like pearls before swine.

This just in...

xmetatr0nx:
... (had it not been for the 4 foot blue IMAX penis) ... Call it an ode to blue penis.

SonofSeth:
2009: YEAR OF THE DONG!

Seriously, this is what you took away from Watchmen? Out of 160-odd minutes of well crafted film you took away maybe the 5 minutes that containted a blue CGI penis?

pigeon_of_doom:
You haven't read it though have you? Its more than just a storyboard. Moore made it with the intent of distinguishing comics from other mediums. Some elements of the comic can perhaps at best be mimicked by the film, but it could not be replicated.

I haven't seen the film yet but thats my general stance on most film adaptions.

No I haven't read it, but I'm not going to lie and say that I'm not interested since watching the film. I'm definitely going to have a look at it once I have time.

Anything can be filmed, and it's supremely pretentious to think otherwise. Saying Moore's work can't be filmed because he says so is like saying Shakespeare's works can't be filmed because movies didn't exist when he was writing. While you'll probably never get the source author's intended cut, it doesn't change the fact that the director's duty is to "adapt" the material and not replicate it verbatim. If that were the case, would that not outright defeat the purpose of adaptation?

In the end, we have a Watchmen film, and it's a pretty good one at that. I liked the movie, and I feel like reading the original material at one point.

The Extremist:
Apologies for the double-post but I couldn't let the opportunity slip away to point out how right the antithesis was:

the antithesis:
While I also enjoyed the movie and agree with Bob on most points, it has come to my attention exactly why this movie will not be recognized for the masterpiece it is as an adaptation, a super hero movie, and a film in its own right: Dr Manhattan's penis.

...

This kind of shit pisses me right the fuck off, but what it proves to me is that the world at large is not only not ready for a movie like Watchmen. It does not deserve a movie like Watchmen. It may not even deserve the empty explosion fest that are Michael Bay movies. They refuse to grow up and good things are like pearls before swine.

This just in...

Seriously, this is what you took away from Watchmen? Out of 160-odd minutes of well crafted film you took away maybe the 5 minutes that containted a blue CGI penis?

I think you missed the point of my post, it was about objective reviewing. And really we dont "deserve" a movie like watchmen? its just a movie kids get over it already, the studio does not need ur over zealous protection. No i didnt condense 162 minutes of a movie into a a few word comment about penises. You obviously loved the movie and are very concerned with letting ppl kno that if they didnt see it as anything close to god like as you did that they are wrong. Its just an opinion, dont take it so seriously.

I think MovieBob was far to gracious. I liked the watchmen, but even an uneducated film ditz like myself could find numerous problems with it. I would have liked to hear about some of the random ass scenes of over the top violence. I didn't much care for Ozzys performance either.

I'd like to go on a rant about this review, but something else needs a rant first.

get over the dick. You all (probably) have one. They exist. Putting one is a film does not make you gay, nor does seeing one. Penis Happens. There are two basic options in relation to the wang:

1) You noticed it, and shrugged and watched the actual film, and haven't bothered complaining about it

2) You noticed it, and became obsessed because you wanted to taste it. To hide this you whined/joked about it on the internet as if it were of relevance.

Pick one.

Anyway, on the review:

I think you are wildly overstating the films acting, script, story and...well, everything.

The guy who played rorschrach was ok, but not amazing - lets face it, for most of the film he was just voice acting. The guy who played John was pretty good too, although, again, mostly emotionless and voice acting.

Everyone else in the film was sub-par or worse. In some cases this is at least as much the fault of the character/script; the comedian isn't in the film long. But the others were just kind of...dull.

And the plot - please. There are single celled organisms in orbit around rigel 4 who saw that 'twist' coming from 30 minutes into the film.

Now, don't get me wrong. There were some excellently done scenes in this film, and it was cinemaphotographically spectacular. Not just the fight scenes - those were ok, even if all a bit samey - but a number of shots in the film which were obviously intended to clone the framing of sections of the graphic novel. The opening credits were actually excellent (with all the 'history' stuff). I didn't mind the soundtrack at all, and thought that several other scenes were individually very good.

I just didn't care in the slightest about what happened. And it was long. 2 hours and fourty minutes was longer than this film needed to be by a good fourty minutes.

Now...I do understand there is a lot of back story. And, heck, if there was *more* I might have enjoyed the film more. But if you're going to take almost three hours of my life I want to be enthralled, and I don't want pointless slow motion crap (oh look, a minigun!) that would probably look just as good in fast motion and take up less time.

What this film most felt like to me was a piece of self indulgent fanboyism. And I'm sure the self indulgent fanboys loved it to bits. But for other people - even those like me who love a good sf/f or superhero film - you need to make us give a damn about the characters.

Also, I think the nose prosthetic they used for richard nixon deserved its own name in the credits. That thing was massive!

Overall, I'd rate it about 3/5; it's good, but it sure as hell is no masterpiece.

jboking:
I think MovieBob was far to gracious. I liked the watchmen, but even an uneducated film ditz like myself could find numerous problems with it. I would have liked to hear about some of the random ass scenes of over the top violence. I didn't much care for Ozzys performance either.

Care to explain? Yeah Ozzy's a real dipwad, but I would like to know where these "random ass scenes" were, and how they spoiled the movie.

whaleswiththumbs:
Please no little fanboy, or defender of the "goodness" of this try to cover that with what a Youtube commentor said to me(Rough Quote atleast):' Dr Manhattan is beyond the human need for close' I have two arguements to that, one involves nudist and i wont get into that, but if he is passed wearing cloths then why did he wear the tux and banana hamock?

Manhattan's nakedness isn't really "explained" any better (or at all, really) in the book, but in a thematic sense the idea more or less IS that his lack of sexual modesty is a visual representation of his disconnect from humanity. That's why you only see him wearing his (literal) "fig-leaf" of covering in flashbacks from when there were still "public" superheroes (notice that he DOES wear clothes when he's "made" to for the occasion, i.e. the funeral and the TV show.)

Also... yeah, it (the penis) IS supposed to be funny. Occasionally lost (and I mean BY FANS) amid all the grimness is the fact that "Watchmen" in both forms isn't just a deconstruction of comics, it's also a SPOOF. Dr. Manhattan is one of those "energy being"-esque heroes like Silver Surfer or Captain Atom who are usually drawn as nude figures "painted" a certain color but conspicuously lacking genitalia. "Watchmen" being, of course, first and foremost about how awkward, strange and (ultimately) disasterous it would be to have "real" superheroes, has it's "energy being" walking around with his junk out.

In fact, it's definately not one of those "HAVE to know" things, but the "spoof" aspect might be clearer if more people were aware that these are all parodies/reworkings of specific characters, all from a long-defunct publisher called Charlton that DC comics bought and then contracted Moore to re-imagine as a miniseries. They ended up loving his story... except that they were hoping on still being able to USE the Charlton heroes in their main universe of books. So Moore (and Gibbons) reworked them into new characters concieved as satires on the Charlton heroes and the "types" of heroes they represented. Fans of the recent Justice League cartoons, for example, may recognize guys named Captain Atom and The Question who, in "Watchmen," become Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach.

Hooray for more MovieBob on the Escapist!
Nice review, can't really comment much else, havn't seen it myself or read any of the Watchmen novels.

Do they ever bother to rationalise how Rorschach can see, talk, or even breathe in that thing? Its plastic - fluid between two layers of clear latex. He's effectively walking around wearing a plastic bag on his head.

Well, other than the review being done in the most idiotic and uninteresting way posstible, I generally agree with his review. It's a great movie with a LOT of depth to it. But that's the problem with the movie, it's not going to appeal to a lot of the people who go to a movie to be entertained, not think. If it were any other type of genre, it might get a lot of credit and hype for this. However, for a superhero movie most people are going to give it the brush-off. Not the movie's fault, but that's the way it goes.

I would have appreciated if he had gone into two aspects of the movie a little more though. It is VERY violent. I know that harkens back to the graphic novel, but all the rape and gore is still pretty intense for a movie.

Also, there is a lot of penis. I mean a LOT. I get why it's there, I get how it relates to the characters, but I don't want to go see a superhero movie (well, any movie for that matter) and get bombarded with penis.

SonofSeth:
2009: YEAR OF THE GIANT BLUE DONG!

Fixed ;)

the antithesis:
While I also enjoyed the movie and agree with Bob on most points, it has come to my attention exactly why this movie will not be recognized for the masterpiece it is as an adaptation, a super hero movie, and a film in its own right: Dr Manhattan's penis.

Ok the book was giant blue wang-tastic, so I went to the movie looking for the colossal god stick. And was disappointed. But I see you guys complaining about it like it was all over the place and totally tasteless. Did I see a censored version (in England, so not likely), or was it really not that noticeable and everyone's making a big deal out of what was just a small reference to the way it was presented (ie. to your face!....mmmmmm) in the book.

Also can people point to the specific peno-centric scenes so when I get my own copy I can freezeframe!? ;p

NobleBear:

SonofSeth:
2009: YEAR OF THE CGI DONG!

Fixed ;)

No no, now it's fixed, there's one also in the GTA4 expansion, Lost and the Damned.

xmetatr0nx:
I think you missed the point of my post, it was about objective reviewing.

I get that you were concerned about objective reviewing, but your counter-points were very concerned about the big blue penis. The only negative comments in your post the don't involve the penis are a) People walked out of the movie and b) involve Malin Akerman's acting ability. Since 50% of your criticism was leveled at The Penis I had to infer that it bothered you somewhat.

Incidentally, by it's very definition reviews are not objective. They are opinions expressed with supporting arguments, no more.

xmetatr0nx:
You obviously loved the movie and are very concerned with letting ppl kno that if they didnt see it as anything close to god like as you did that they are wrong.

I call cum hoc ergo propter hoc on your argument. Whether I loved the movie or not what I *am* seeing is Watchmen being torn to shreds for trivialities. It's failings are blown out of proportion and it's successes glossed over. This naturally leads to rabid fanboyism in response in an effort to counteract the negativity which just leads to harsher criticism until neither the fanbois nor detractors have any perspective on the matter.

xmetatr0nx:
Its just an opinion, dont take it so seriously.

I merely responded in kind. You used some pretty strong language yourself.

mrverbal:
The guy who played rorschrach was ok, but not amazing - lets face it, for most of the film he was just voice acting. The guy who played John was pretty good too, although, again, mostly emotionless and voice acting.

That's what was so amazing to me. Billy Crudup (Doc Manhattan) couldn't express himself with his face or tone of voice. That's a very difficult role to play and I think he did well. Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach) got to do emotive scenes, such as where he gets surrounded, the scenes in the prison and the ending which contrasted nicely with the "just voice acting" parts.

mrverbal:
What this film most felt like to me was a piece of self indulgent fanboyism. And I'm sure the self indulgent fanboys loved it to bits. But for other people - even those like me who love a good sf/f or superhero film - you need to make us give a damn about the characters.

I guess here's where most people will differ. I didn't even know about the book until this movie, and I didn't read the book before seeing the movie. I didn't go near the hype, had no idea what to expect from the characters and was definitely no fan. And I really enjoyed the characters, especially Rorschach, Dr Manhattan and Ozymandias (in that order).

This isn't an attempt to offer proof by example, incidentally, merely a counter-example to your sweeping generalisation.

mrverbal:
Also, I think the nose prosthetic they used for richard nixon deserved its own name in the credits. That thing was massive!

That I agree with. It really detracted from the scenes with Nixon in. I don't know if it was intended to be ridiculous for some deep artistic effect or caricaturing Nixon or whatever, but it distracted from the rest of the scene.

well i'll go watch it then.

xmetatr0nx:

I think you missed the point of my post, it was about objective reviewing. And really we dont "deserve" a movie like watchmen? its just a movie kids get over it already, the studio does not need ur over zealous protection. No i didnt condense 162 minutes of a movie into a a few word comment about penises. You obviously loved the movie and are very concerned with letting ppl kno that if they didnt see it as anything close to god like as you did that they are wrong. Its just an opinion, dont take it so seriously.

I'd say you missed the point of my post. It really doesn't matter what the quality of Watchmen was or not. What matters is that to focus on Dr Manhattan's penis is fucking immature. It's barely in the movie and even when it is on screen, you can't make it out because they put a glow effect on it to obscure it. It's pathetic, really. Is male genitalia that... threatening?

for instance, I don't recall a single moment that even hinted at homosexuality in 300. So is this movie gay simply because it features half-naked men? Frankly, that's weak sauce. If that's true, then Forrest Gump is also gay because he's mildly retarded. Spider-Man is gay because Peter Parker is a nerd and wears glasses. The Dark Knight is super gay because he wears that rubber suit and has a butler around to "service" him.

What we're dealing with here is rampant immaturity, which I wouldn't worry about if it was only coming from people under the age of twelve which it isn't, and sexual insecurity. Not that they're all homosexuals in denial, although some probably are, but they are so worried about even appearing to be gay that they have to act like an immature ass about this.

It sickens me that it's even worth mentioning, but it just keeps coming up like the entire movie was two and a half hours of Billy Crudup swinging his schlong around. Which is why I say that the world does not deserve movies like Watchmen that try to be excellent (I'm still undecided on this point, but I was expecting to be disappointed but was pleasantly surprised) nor does the world deserve vacuous crap like Michael Bay movies. The world does not deserve anything. There is no point in trying to make great art because it will not recognize it. The world looks at Michelangelo's David and giggles because David's penis is hanging out.

Thanks MovieBob for your slightly unbiased help, slightly your still defending it alittle.

Makes some sense, still don't like that fact. It's like spoofing a spoof, just stupid ton do. I get that whoever(once again if you know help out) wrote Watchman in 1985 was trying to t(pr)each that to us he could have made it alittle better, maybe it's just the movie director's fault, Dr Manhattan is trying to be a serious character and his junk hanging around completely throws that out. It's just not good directing, you could have implied that stuff, i was fine with the ass scenes, you can see that anywhere, but i will never in my life see a naked guy working on almost sci-fi level equipment, and he definetly wont be blue.(hopefully) i had what i was going to say after this but i seem to have forgotten, might have been about the atrocities of The Comedian(the evil nazi) but w/e, it will come to me. Also if you have an idea where the whole going to mars shit was about. Yeah i know it's him trying to distance himself from mankind, but if he can see into the future he has control over space and time, he could just go to a latter date, perhapes one where a nuclear holocaust did occur and then etc. etc. lost my train of thought etc.

i have fucking dyselkia it's hard for me to do that shit man god

Dsylexia wanker and just because you like comething dosn't make me a fanboy god damn nerds are hard to talk to.

Actual:

the antithesis:
While I also enjoyed the movie and agree with Bob on most points, it has come to my attention exactly why this movie will not be recognized for the masterpiece it is as an adaptation, a super hero movie, and a film in its own right: Dr Manhattan's penis.

Ok the book was giant blue wang-tastic, so I went to the movie looking for the colossal god stick.

Giant? Collosal? Jon was actually, judging from my limitted experience, rather unimpressive, even substandard - I think you revealed something about yourself.

Hear hear!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)