Create an Account
Forgot your Password?
World of Warcraft
WowRiot
Starcraft 2
Starfeeder
Hellforge
Hellforge
 
Machinima
Myndflame
Left 4 Dead
Left 4 Dead
RazeTheWorld
RazeTheWorld
 
Quake Live
Quake Life
1337pwn
1337pwn
Limit Break
Limit Break
 
Resident Evil
Resident Evil Horror
Gameriot Store
Buy Games!
 
 
 
POST STUFF
close
New Blog Post
Add a Video
Host an Image
Upload a File
by Slapnuts, Level 70
Last updated at March 9, 2009, 4:50 am
Surprisingly I owe my love for Watchmen to a girl.  She will remain nameless but I should thank her nonetheless.  It is rare that someone "out geeks" me but she has her moments.  I had heard of it previous to her mentioning as it is almost a prerequisite of anyone with a solid interest in comics.  It was her rabid interest, someone who wasn't really big in to comics that sold me.  I picked it up the trade paperback and have been raving over Alan Moore's work ever since. 

Obviously I had a great interest in seeing the movie.  I have written about it constantly here at GR.  I have seen the worst the comic-to-movie world has to offer so there was no way I was going to miss out Snyder's adaption of the Watchmen; piss poor or Oscar contender.  Thankfully it leans much further towards the later though it does have its flaws. 

Almost every negative review I have seen compares the movie to the source material as if it someone was supposed to surpass it and because it didn't it is a failure.  If anyone can recommend me movies that were better than their source material I am all ears.  We all know this rarely happens.  You have to judge the movie on its own as a film.  Obviously we are going to compare the two as it is human nature but to dismiss a quality film just because it doesn't live up to the standard set by one of Time's All-Time 100 novels is absurd.  Spoilers ahead, so be warned.

What holds this back from being nearly perfect?  There are just a few things to be honest.  First off the ending does bother me slightly.  I know this has been discussed to death in the media but hear me out.  The point of novel's climax was to showcase something alien that would unite the world.  Instead of grief over New York we now have attacks across the globe "caused by Manhattan".  But the line "God exists and he is American" still has me feeling the attack isn't enough to bring the world together and not have the Russians suspecting us of being involved.  Would it be beyond the USA to attack ourselves to help defer blame as to spare us from WWIII?  With the movie you have to assume it is.  The alien/squid is a much more unifying device in my opinion.


A must own for any fan of the movie or comics in general.
A ton of content has to be skimmed over and cut out.  Even a run time of 163 minutes, which flew by, it still feels crammed.  I imagine the rumored 210 minute Blu-ray still will have to miss a few beats here or there from comic.  Many key moments like the death of Hollis Mason, the news paper stand, activity out on Veidt's island would have further fleshed out the story but for the sake of film had to be cut.  I have always claimed this would have made a fantastic HBO miniseries but we take what we can get.

Quite a few people have complained about Malin Ackerman as Laurie but I felt Veidt was surely miscast.  While Goode did great bringing the character to life he just didn't come close to looking like Veidt in the comic.  Ozymandius is supposed to be an Adonis, a physical specimen of perfectness.  Goode did not have the height of the build to fit the role and the character wasn't nearly as imposing as he should have been.

Other than these few gripes I have little to complain about.  Rorschach was nearly perfect.  Jackie Earle Haley did an incredible job of bringing the character to life both in and out of costume.  The "you are locked in here with me" line was epic and one of my favorite moments in the film.  These "big fans" were next to me in the IMAX and some lady got up to pee just as the lunchroom scene came on and I couldn't believe someone having some bad timing.  :)

I think Snyder did a fantastic job of filling in so much back story considering the time constraints.  The credit montage, which you can view here till it is pulled offline, was a fantastic way to catch people up on what was going on though I don't know that many people who hadn't read the graphic novel knew exactly what that was all about.  And Dylan over the top of them was a perfect choice.  The flashbacks were well done and timed nearly perfectly in step with the comic. 

The effects were stunning and not just "there is a blue dong on the screen" stunning.  Manhattan looks incredible.  The shots of Mars were breathtaking yet simplistic at the same time.  The CGI work on Manhattan and his transformation, his powers and the splitting of his body were pretty much flawless.  Crudup who was fantastic in Almost Famous now has a new role that I will always remember him for.

The music was great.  The soundtrack choices made for really grand moments within the film.  I did feel a couple of songs were a bit out of place; that while they still would have fit in the movie lessened a few moments that I felt were more serious in the comic. 

I am so glad they kept the New Frontiersmen ending in the movie.  While they hardly showed the the paper throughout the film the ending was an absolute necessity to the whole "what if".

Overall I have to say that Snyder did much more than I expected from the early going.  If you have seen the scripts and revisions and choices of actors over the years that have been attached to the film you would be horrified.  Arnie as Dr. Manhattan?  "GET TO DA CHOPPA TO GO to MARS".  Snyder came closer than anything in the past and I feel an honest love for the source material really helped his cause.  This wasn't Alan Moore's Watchmen on the big screen but it was Zack Snyder's Watchmen and that is an impressive feat in its own right.  He was able to make his movie, the way he wanted it, with minimal interference and we should thank Warner Brothers for that as well.  When this was first green lit ages ago I was prepared for some Uwe Boll'esque trash and instead I am ready to go see it again and can't wait to add it to my Blu-ray archive. 

Watchmen is a movie you should not miss out on.  Compare the two mediums if you must but judge the movie's quality on its own right. 
     
97 comments
ekaCbun
ekaCbun Mar 9, 2009 at 7:56 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
good review, cant wait for the almost 4hr version.
Seleukos
Seleukos Mar 9, 2009 at 8:11 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
Emptyishness
Emptyishness Mar 9, 2009 at 10:24 am
None
None
-1 votes
None
Looking forward to this coming out in Europe. (20 March)

In regards to: "If anyone can recommend me movies that were better than their source material I am all ears."

Fight Club for sure and Requiem for a Dream was at the least equivalent, but I guess you were directing that at comic/series texts.
LagSpike
LagSpike Mar 9, 2009 at 12:47 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
Fight Club was a thousand times better as a novel, you ******* retard. I MEAN IT'S NOT LIKE THE ENTIRE ******* MOVIE WAS RUINED BY THE SINGULAR AND EPIC ****HEAD DECISION TO CHANGE THE ENDING.




Get at me.
Emptyishness
Emptyishness Mar 9, 2009 at 5:04 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
LagSpike said
Fight Club was a thousand times better as a novel, you ******* retard. I MEAN IT'S NOT LIKE THE ENTIRE ******* MOVIE WAS RUINED BY THE SINGULAR AND EPIC ****HEAD DECISION TO CHANGE THE ENDING.




Get at me.
The change in question is the decision to destroy the credit rating databases instead of dropping a building on one (of countless) national museums, no? (Hey lets just martyr myself over one national museum...) Or are we talking the means by which Tyler was killed? Or that the explosives failed to detonate in the book 'cause Tyler, portrayed through out the novel as extremely calculated and knowledgeable, ***** up the explosive manufacturing? (Regardless, skyline falling + Pixies song > "oh he/I used paraffin")

I thought the storyline and direction of the film was far more concise, and that the ending actually justified the means. I liked the book and all, but the movie was better... by a good thousand times.
LagSpike
LagSpike Mar 11, 2009 at 4:33 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
I meant the decision for the explosions to actually go off. The entire book is far too nihilistic and self defeating far too high a priority in Tyler's philosophy for him to be allowed to succeed in the end.
Mazz
Mazz Mar 9, 2009 at 10:38 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
Keep It Simple Stupid.

Four words that could have saved Watchmen from mediocrity. A lot of decisions in the movie were overly influenced by the comic book series, and it seemed like the director cared more about making a Watchmen film adaptation, and less about making an engaging and compelling movie. Quite simply, aside from the Comedian and Rorshach (my apologies if I spelt that wrong) you just don't give a damn about these vigilantes, as the movie seems so focused on appeasing the Watchmen fanboys, that it forgets the rest of society who just went to see a highly anticipated super hero movie; we don't know the entire Watchmen history, we don't know the intricate pasts of all of these characters, and the movie does a poor job of building a profile of these characters (alieu the flashbacks) that can actually make us care for them (a couple of exceptions already noted). It may be enough for all of the Watchmen fans, but it isn't enough for everyone else.

Watchmen is great for the fanboys, but not for anyone else. Unless you're a Watchmen fan, you'll be hard pressed to give a damn about most of what's going on in the second half of the movie.
Seleukos
Seleukos Mar 9, 2009 at 10:59 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
If you havn't read it don't watch the movie.

I don't care if thats selfish but **** it, if you havn't read the comic you can't fully appreciate the movie.

Also the comic is one of the great pieces of Literature from the 20th century. It kinda like someone who has no idea about the Bible or christianity watching the Passion of the Christ.

There aren't fanboys, there a people who have read the comic and people who havn't.
Mazz
Mazz Mar 9, 2009 at 11:07 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
Everything has fanboys.

Yes, asking me to not see the movie if I haven't read the comic is a bit much; if the movie can't stand on it's own two legs, then it has not succeeded. If I have to go to another medium just to make the movie suck less, then it has failed as a movie. Of course I'm sure a lot of fans (perhaps fanboys was a little harsh) saw the movie as a great accomplishment for the franchise, someone who went in expecting a movie (not a comic book to film adaptation) saw it as a disappointment.
Seleukos
Seleukos Mar 9, 2009 at 11:14 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
A movie being a success is irrelivant.

Citizen Cane bombed at the box office, but now pretenscious movie fans and alot of Hollywood think it's the best movie ever.

I can dig that you didn't enjoy it, I can dig that from even someone who has read the comic, but saying that it failed in it's medium is, once again, like a non-christian saying The Passion of the Christ failed. Niether did, so far Zazk Synder's Watchmen has sold incredibly well.

The movie is for people who have read the comic not for people who havn't (unless you're into swaying blue dick :P).
Mazz
Mazz Mar 9, 2009 at 11:28 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
It's my opinion, which goes without saying. In my opinion, it failed to succeed as a movie. Spiderman 3 still broke records too, but it wasn't very good either. Obviously everyone has differing opinions, I'm sure some people think TDK was an overrated piece of trash, I'm sure Spiderman 3 was praised by many (of which need to be gathered and shot. =) I kid... maybe).

Perhaps saying it failed was harsh, but to be honest I was just very disappointed; blue schlong aside (wasn't that why everyone went to see it? =P), I was really looking forward to it, and I was just overly disappointed by the end result. You don't have to agree with me, hell you don't even need to agree with the paid critics who think the same thing, they're just people giving advice and so am I.
Uthgar
Uthgar Mar 9, 2009 at 11:39 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
I disagree with both of you. I have never even heard of watchmen before seeing this movie. After I saw it, I got very interested in the source material. It seeems like a deep and rich universe.

I think anyone with half a brain can focus on the movie and follow it cleanly till the end. Its always good if there is some mental candy you have to think about or talk to your friends to know what "really" happened. The director did a great job with making parts badass.

In short, you dont have to be a fanboy to appreciate the movie and you defintely can follow it if you don't know **** about the universe.
Mazz
Mazz Mar 9, 2009 at 11:45 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
It's not that it's hard to follow, it's that I just didn't give a damn about any of it. Because I didn't give a damn it didn't pique my interest to go out and buy the comic books. If you found it to be great, then that's fine, but it should be a given that this is all merely my opinions that I am expressing.
Uthgar
Uthgar Mar 9, 2009 at 11:50 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
Ya. Mine was an opinion too. People do have different tastes.

 You didn't find the comedian to be badass, or rorsach to be out of his mind don't give a **** ( he could have said bub, he felt so close to wolverine to me)? That bat suit guy was like a mix of batman and clark kent. The chick was hot... thats good enough for me, although she did have some semblance of a backstory. I always found myself wondering, who are these people and why are they the way they are? For the most part, the movie did a good job answering.
Mazz
Mazz Mar 9, 2009 at 11:56 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
I did like the Comedian actually (I believe I mentioned him and Rorshach as the two exceptions in the movie, as I do think that their respective actors molded the characters into their own). =)
Seleukos
Seleukos Mar 9, 2009 at 5:42 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
Thats what I'm saying. For alot of people the Watchmen did not fail. Perhaps it did for you, which is fair enough, but it did not for everyone. Most of the people it didn't fail for, I'd imagine, are those who have read the comic.
FWind
FWind Mar 9, 2009 at 11:35 am
None
None
+0 votes
None
The Passion was ******* awful, even worse than The watchmen. And it had basically nothing to do with Christianity.

And calling the Watchmen one of the great pieces of Literature from the 20th century can only be true for people who never read anything with hard cover before that.

And it did fail as a movie.
Seleukos
Seleukos Mar 9, 2009 at 5:45 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
What in your opinion is a better piece of Literature from the 20th century? And once you've settled on that please explain why it is better than a picture book you've never read.
jflanden
jflanden Mar 9, 2009 at 2:22 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
Seleukos said
If you havn't read it don't watch the movie.

I don't care if thats selfish but **** it, if you havn't read the comic you can't fully appreciate the movie.

Also the comic is one of the great pieces of Literature from the 20th century. It kinda like someone who has no idea about the Bible or christianity watching the Passion of the Christ.

There aren't fanboys, there a people who have read the comic and people who havn't.
If a movie is only good after reading the Comic, then it is truly a FAILURE, and is only "fully appreciated" because of blind fanboyism towards the graphic novel.
Slapnuts
Slapnuts Mar 9, 2009 at 3:46 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
the director cared more about making a Watchmen film adaptation, and less about making an engaging and compelling movie

this is the type of revered source material that almost demands that.  If he just made some movie loosely based on the source material than he could have just gone with an earlier script and cashed it all in.  If he doesn't stay close then he immediately has to deal with a negative word of mouth.  And think about all the negative reviews about it not being faithful enough as it is.  How bad would it have been then?
Godsmak
Godsmak Mar 9, 2009 at 11:15 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
Haven't seen, but everyone I know has said it is average, which is what I expect out of these types of movies.
daays
daays Mar 9, 2009 at 11:40 am
None
None
+2 votes
None
I always love reading negative reviews from sites.

Most of them are turbo nerds or ultra nerds complaining how that one scene in the comic that "brought the whole movie together" wasn't implemented, when they whole reason they liked it was because it wasn't the scene that brought the movie together. They just wanted to be different than everyone else.

Which is also why the movie will get bad reviews, because tons of people will like it. If tons of people like it then I don't like it.

Or they didn't delve into the past enough, elaborate on this, etc. etc.
But what most people forget is that 163mins is a long time to sit there and watch a movie, so of course they will cut stuff out.

But then again what review isn't biased ehh?

All and all I never read the comic, but thought the movie was amazing, graphic, and entertaining. I really didn't care about the time because I was into the movie.
glitch
glitch Mar 9, 2009 at 12:39 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
Now a saturday morning cartoon!

Edit: Embedding is working really ******* well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
LagSpike
LagSpike Mar 9, 2009 at 12:49 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
Anecdotal for sure, but the only people I've conversed with that didn't like it were too stupid to get it or they built up some stupid plot/movie in their head and what they received came nowhere near what they envisioned.
Aphyrax
Aphyrax Mar 9, 2009 at 1:24 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
Besides being probably inconprehensible to someone who did not read the book, the movie had one fatal flaw - the ending. And no, not the squid thing; the substitution worked really well. The problem was that the movie subly changed the message of the book.

In the book, Adrian is ultimately the hero. He did what had to be done to save mankind. And he found acceptance for it. In the movie, he is the villain. The others abandon him, Nite Owls gives him the you suck speech, and then afterwards the implication is that nothing really changed. Even his look is different. In the book, he is supposed to be the perfect human. Here he is too skinny, with a narrow face and eyes. He looks evil, not perfect.

In general, recent American superhero movies have been very anti-intellectual. The idea is that heart beats brain. This one continues the trend, and in doing so lost part of the source material.
Erz
Erz Mar 9, 2009 at 2:43 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
If Watchmen tells us anything about people it's that there is no
perfect human. Veidt's a narcissist with a god complex who believes
that ordinary people are beneath him and that he has the right to make
our decisions for us. Yet for all his planning and super-intelligence
the journal of a psychopath, dumb ******* luck and an idiot called Seymour might be enough to
undermine all his calculations. Some ******* hero.


Veidt's still just a man (even if he's forgotten) and Moore quoted the Shelley poem - "Look on my works, ye Mighty" - to remind
us that the historical Ozymandias was a massive twat as well.
Aphyrax
Aphyrax Mar 9, 2009 at 3:07 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
You are missing the point. In the book, everyone but Rorschach ultimately agrees with him. They might not have liked his method (who would) but they agreed that it was a net positive. They all chilled out at his place afterwards before heading home to a much improved world. In the movie they all left him. He stood alone while they boarded the Owl ship.

The dialog at mom's place also changed in ways that suggest that the world had not actually changed. The changes are subtle, but they are massive. Veidtwent from (albeit unlikeable) hero to sociopathic twat. Since the whole story ultimately hinges on him, the whole meaning of the movie is dragged down with him. Which is unfortunate. However, I can see why they did it, because making Veidt the hero would not have sat well with certain demographics.
viewtiful
viewtiful Mar 9, 2009 at 3:28 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
Who specifically wouldn't have sat well with him being the hero? And who would care? People who think he is essentially a terrorist?
Aphyrax
Aphyrax Mar 9, 2009 at 3:33 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
viewtiful said
Who specifically wouldn't have sat well with him being the hero? And who would care? People who think he is essentially a terrorist?
There is a strong anti-intellectual movement going on in some circles of society. The idea is that the dumb but good-hearted person is preferrable to someone who is smart but potentially of lesser moral integrity. That is how certain presidents got elected. Most recent heros have been of the dumb-but-well-meaning variety. See Superman. Even the new Batman is decidedly less brainy than its past counterparts.
viewtiful
viewtiful Mar 9, 2009 at 3:41 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
Hmm I never really regarded superman as being dumb, but I can see him being labeled as that just because of societies idea of strength = dumber, so with him being one of the strongest superheroes ever he gets stuck with that. I would think his job would have made people think otherwise.
Aphyrax
Aphyrax Mar 9, 2009 at 3:52 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
viewtiful said
Hmm I never really regarded superman as being dumb, but I can see him being labeled as that just because of societies idea of strength = dumber, so with him being one of the strongest superheroes ever he gets stuck with that. I would think his job would have made people think otherwise.
Superman IS dumb. He gets perpetually outsmarted by Lex Luthor, and uses his superior strength to win. Especially in the last movie. You basically had to root for the villain, because how can you really root for the guy who blindly steps into every trap laid out for him only to muscle his way out? The whole movie was superman lifting heavier and heavier objects.
Erz
Erz Mar 9, 2009 at 3:42 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
I'll have to disagree about which of us is missing the point. They accept that they can't do anything to him without causing greater damage - that's not the same as agreeing that his actions were right.

Veidt IS a sociopathic twat. Ending human conflict by murdering millions of people? That'll work.
Aphyrax
Aphyrax Mar 9, 2009 at 3:59 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
My point is this. The book leaves it open as to whether they agree with him or merely accept that what's done is done. They stay at his place afterwards, and the implications of the final scenes is that the world is indeed a better place.

The movie makes it very clear that they disagree completely and that nothing really changed. Which is one interpretation of the book, but one that leans very heavily in one direction. Veidt gets villified while the morally strong, upstanding heros get praised. Which I happen to disagree with.

The book leaves things open. The movie takes sides.
viewtiful
viewtiful Mar 9, 2009 at 4:00 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
It's the only thing that was guaranteed to get the attention of the world, and saving billions that inhabit it, utilitarianism ftw I guess - which is basically the main arch of the movie/comic.
Seleukos
Seleukos Mar 9, 2009 at 11:45 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
Rorschach agrees with Ozymandias as well, he just doesn't want to admit to it. The important things for understanding this is the fact that Rorschach does not attack Ozymandias because Bubastis is "in the way" and he lets Dr. Manhattan kill him, he basically asks him too because he does not want to admit Ozymandias is right even though he knows it.

How we know that Rorschach agrees with Ozymandias is the essay he wrote about his parents as a child.
jflanden
jflanden Mar 9, 2009 at 2:14 pm
None
None
-1 votes
None
This movie was terrible and way too long. The beginning was amazing and made me really want to get into the film and enjoy it, but sadly, the movie is just bad.
prosbloom
prosbloom Mar 9, 2009 at 2:37 pm
None
None
+0 votes
None
I enjoyed the film, but oddly enough what I did not enjoy was the plot line.  The fact that Veidt settled on the 'whats a few million people?' plan right from the start is just stupid.  Wouldn't you, I dunno, work out some alternatives, or try anything else before going with the whole 'whats a few million people?' thing.  I mean, at that point Manhattan was willing to help him with this whole renewable energy thing, under the idea that it would help bring peace to the world.  So why not just ask him to say, turn all the worlds nukes to stone?  The whole plot of the movie just seemed like, 'Really?  Theyre going with that?"  the whole time. 

Also, the bulk of the movie, the character development of the other heroes seemed to be useless.  It did hardly a thing to drive the main plot of the movie, as none of the heroes did anything to progress the Veidt kill a few million people plan.  What we basically watched was a movie with two separate plots that just happen to collide briefly in the end.  In essence we watched an episode of Law and Order, where in the courtroom scene, Jack Bauer shows up and disarms a terrorist plot. 

O yea, and the line "What if he(Dr. Manhattan) misses just one nuke?  It would mean the end of the world."  For starters, I'm fairly certain that he could grab em all, but one nuke destroying the world?  I understand it's a fairy tale world, but an 80's era nuke could take out a city, not the entire world.  I dunno, that line just angered me for some reason.
viewtiful
viewtiful Mar 9, 2009 at 3:31 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
I terms of taking out the entire world, I'm pretty sure that it was implied that once one goes off on so and so's soil, it will trigger world war 3 (aka planet goes kaboom).
Slapnuts
Slapnuts Mar 9, 2009 at 3:41 pm
None
None
+1 votes
None
They never said "1 nuke"

They said 1 percent, big difference.  Should probably watch it again and realize the anger was unjustified.  Basically their point was 1% of a few thousand warheads still meant near death for everyone.
Ainsophaur
Ainsophaur Mar 10, 2009 at 5:50 am
None
None
+1 votes
None
prosbloom said
I enjoyed the film, but oddly enough what I did not enjoy was the plot line.  The fact that Veidt settled on the 'whats a few million people?' plan right from the start is just stupid.  Wouldn't you, I dunno, work out some alternatives, or try anything else before going with the whole 'whats a few million people?' thing.  I mean, at that point Manhattan was willing to help him with this whole renewable energy thing, under the idea that it would help bring peace to the world.  So why not just ask him to say, turn all the worlds nukes to stone?  The whole plot of the movie just seemed like, 'Really?  Theyre going with that?"  the whole time. 

Also, the bulk of the movie, the character development of the other heroes seemed to be useless.  It did hardly a thing to drive the main plot of the movie, as none of the heroes did anything to progress the Veidt kill a few million people plan.  What we basically watched was a movie with two separate plots that just happen to collide briefly in the end.  In essence we watched an episode of Law and Order, where in the courtroom scene, Jack Bauer shows up and disarms a terrorist plot. 

O yea, and the line "What if he(Dr. Manhattan) misses just one nuke?  It would mean the end of the world."  For starters, I'm fairly certain that he could grab em all, but one nuke destroying the world?  I understand it's a fairy tale world, but an 80's era nuke could take out a city, not the entire world.  I dunno, that line just angered me for some reason.
You lose a lot of credibility when you get "angered" at a line that didn't happen. As slap said they clearly said he could stop 99% of them, and that there were thousands upon thousands of them.
blog vitals
The spot for my aimless musings dealing with off topic content like sports, entertainment and other randomness.
5 Subscribers
comments18    Likes: 13    October 24, 2009, 1:58 am
comments32    Likes: 9    August 5, 2009, 9:30 pm
comments28    Likes: 28    July 25, 2009, 2:49 pm
comments24    Likes: 16    July 6, 2009, 5:09 am
comments53    Likes: 13    April 26, 2009, 5:44 pm
comments27    Likes: 16    April 7, 2009, 12:19 am
comments97    Likes: 20    March 9, 2009, 4:50 am
comments24    Likes: 6    January 27, 2009, 1:23 am
comments45    Likes: 12    January 3, 2009, 12:53 am
comments34    Likes: 7    December 28, 2008, 3:15 am
comments9    Likes: 14    December 19, 2008, 2:34 pm
comments6    Likes: 9    December 19, 2008, 1:42 am
Started December 10, 2007
58 Total Entries
THE SPOTLIGHT
Arrested over tip, Hassan terrorist, Chuck, Avatar…
1 of 9
THE IMAGE FEED
224 images uploaded in the last 60 days. Got an image you need hosted?
Copyright ©2007-2009 GameRiot All Rights Reserved.