The Whatever Comics Spider-Man 3 Review Thread

Reaper · The Whatever Comics Spider-Man 3 Review Thread

****** MIGHT CONTAIN SPOILERS ******

So I saw it this morning at 10:30 in ye olde Odeon in Canterbury. And the verdict?

We all know what the story to this one is, if you've seen the trailers hell you've seen the entire film. Three bad guys New Gobby, Sandman and Venom. Gwen Stacy is introduced into the series as played by Bryce Dallas Howard and she looks niiiiice (worth watching the film for ahem).

As the film has been produced by the same team as the previous so the look of the film and camera work is obviously to a high degree. The area where the film is lacking compared to its predecessors is in terms of the script writing. SM2 had Alfred Gough, Miles Millar and Michael Chabon as the main script writers and they produced a tight, well paced story. The loss of these three writers and the use of Ivan Raimi, Sam Raimi and Alan Sargent (though he was on SM2 thinking about it) has given way to a badly paced film with some cringe worthy scenes.
Its badly paced because as is normal with comic films with too many bad guys, there is too much to show and develop in a small space of time. In SM3 they have to introduce and develop the Sandman (done with the stupid idea of tying him to Ben parkers death), make progress with Harry Osborn and show SM getting the symbiote, screwing up Brocks life, losing the symbiote and Venoms birth. The Venom story alone could have been an entire film. So none of the stories in Sm3 are really fully developed and no one is really given as much screen time as they need. Gwen Stacy for instance appears in about five scenes and then disappears except for a brief cameo at the very end, if you removed her sections from the film you wouldn't really miss all that much, its a waste of time.

There is the story of Harry losing his memory, which seemed to me to be a 'We need Harry in here doing something otherwise people will forget who he is' type of deal and it was a waste of screen time really, he and Spidey could have fought a couple of times and escaped from each other and still had the same end result. Thats a good 20 minutes of time that could have been spent on the Venom story or the 'love triangle' (I say that lightly as its about the same as the love triangle in X3). Its these kind of things that ruin the pacing of the film because all the stuff you need to see is given too little time to develop and make an impact.

Some of the random ideas they had in the film are awful, Peter Parker decides to look Emo when he gets the black suit.... awful bad and terrible. It looks tacky and stupid and detracts from the film, everytime he was on screen with the emo cut people were chuckling in the aisles, that shouldn't be happening. There is another scene where Bad Parker is walking down a street thinking 'hes all that' and coming on to various women, its cringe worthy and crap... WHO THE HELL THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA?!
The last scene I'm going to pick on is the Jazz Cafe scene with Parker dancing etc. While its fun, it's completely out of place and the idea they were aiming for could have been done in a much better way.

The depiction of Peter in places seems off though, I know he is meant to be geeky, they seemed to make it over the top in this one and he isn't like that in SM or SM2, in SM3 he is almost annoying at times.

You may be thinking by the end of all that that the film is cack or that I didn't like it. There were some good points, Venom is very well done (the actual symbiote etc) the animation is good and Topher Grace plays Brock and Venom pretty well. The problems between Mary-Jane and Parker are written appropriately and as the film goes on you see Spidey becoming more arrogant because of the praise he receives.
The SM animation gets better with each film, they manage to refine it and make it more realistic each episode. The same goes to the Sandman animation it is good though nothing particularly different to that of The Mummy.
The dialog between the main characters is very good and there are only a few bits I would say could be changed, of course this is all helped by the fact that all the actors are comfortable in their roles and good at their game.
The stories aren't bad but they aren't given enough screen time so a lot of it isn't as gripping as it should have been. The SM films have always produced very good battle scenes and Sm3 is no different. They're all very well done particularly the last one with Osborn and Spidey vs Venom and Sandman. They're fast paced (unsurprisingly) and keep you gripped which is what they should do. And they look cool!

Despite its flaws the film is very watchable it is by no means another X3 it's just a shame they couldn't repeat the strength of SM 1 + 2.

Anyway ramble over Very Happy

Zombix

It is absolutely incomprehensible how something like Spiderman 3 happens. The first two movies were hardly masterpieces, but they were good enough to be passable; good enough that, coupled with nothing more than modest expectations, I did not leave the theater angry. Spiderman 3 was produced by experienced professionals, shot by experienced professionals and directed by a competent if unexceptional director, so one would think that there would be a limit to how poor the movie could be. Sure, it might fall short of the first two, like an Olympic high jumper might not clear a bar he can usually jump with regularity, but it can’t be too awful, can it?

It apparently can. Whether deliberately or through a sudden mystifying incompetence, Sam Raimi did to a great comic book story what my intestines do to a great steak on the grill, except that I don’t get angry when my intestines do this and I can flush the resultant product away. Gone, apparently, are the eminently ordinary powers of this once proudly middling film director. He who yesterday was acceptable is now embarrassingly inept.

I am not going to waste a penetrating analysis on the problems with this movie any more than I am going to spend an hour contemplating Piss Christ, but a quick run down might give the good reader an idea of what he is walking into should he find himself with no option but to watch the film…

1) The movie tries to do way too much in the time allotted to it, forcing it to cut down to a laughably bare minimum certain important sequences and scenes which should have had far more planning and development. For instance, late in the movie Venom and The Sand Man meet and agree to gang up on Spiderman all in the space of about eight seconds.

2) As is increasingly typical with modern movies, potentially arresting parts such as when a newly minted villain discovers and learns to master his powers are glossed over in a single scene so that we can get to an explosion or destruction of some sort (contrast this with The Matrix, wherein Neo spends the entire movie learning to master his powers which made every fight interesting quite apart from the special effects involved).

3) The dramatic scenes have all the deftness of touch and subtlety of dialogue of a third grade Christmas play. Characters enter, deliver their lines directly and to the point in as efficient a manner as possible, let slip a tear or two, and then we cut to another scene with an explosion. In Orwell’s 1984, pornography was mass produced based on one of four templates which kept getting recycled with only minor changes to superficial details. I do believe the dramatic scenes in Spiderman 3 came from a similar cookie cutter template.

4) Characters say and do things at all the wrong times and in unbelievable situations so that all sense of real motivation and believability is destroyed. While the Police Captain’s daughter is hanging from the side of a skyscraper, and while her father is watching his daughter in such a predicament, her boyfriend – about as unconcerned by the situation as I would be if my son stubbed his toe – introduces himself to his girlfriend’s father and lets slip that he is dating her.

5) Tobey Maguire, an actor of very limited depth and scope to begin with, turns the film into a parody of itself when he is asked to go beyond the sweet innocence of the Peter Parker we all know. The result is tragically comic.

6) Every action sequence is rife with the most absurdly implausible circumstances. It is not enough for a crane to crash into a building, it has to crash twice, once just above and once just below a section of the building so that one floor partially collapses, leaving a young lady hanging off the side for dear life. Every single action sequence becomes so far-fetched that I don’t see how it could possibly draw someone into the story.

This is hardly a comprehensive list, but it is all I can bring myself to do for the moment. Rather than expound on the flaws, it might be more interesting to investigate how this movie happened, because there must have been copious opportunities to abort, or at least substantially rework the project. Of all the chances for intervention, the last was the most obvious. Surely the director and producers saw the final cut. Did they honestly believe they had a hit on their hands? Was it not painfully obvious that the movie was atrocious? Or did it not really matter, because they knew that everyone would go see a special effects-laden Spiderman movie no matter how bad the reviews?

Do me a favor and make me feel like this review matters a little: don’t go see Spiderman 3. Or at least wait until the dvd release. As long as we continue to allow special effects to entice us to part with our money, moviemakers will keep making the same drivel, keep putting in the minimum effort and allow the computer geeks to sell the product with their CGI. Even Sam Raimi is capable of better things than the offal I recently witnessed. Let’s demand more of him.

Reaper

Still regardless of my review I think its safe to say I liked it more than Zombix did Wink

waffle

I agree and disagree with some of the above.

If this were the first Spidey film, we'd be pretty happy. You'd walk out thinking 'hey - that's not bad at all. funny and energetic and moving and spiderific. imagine what Raimi can do with the next film'

the problem is of course, this is the third, and he's taken a huge step backwards after the excellence of the first two films. It's the Batman Forever to Batman Returns.

There's no way to dispute it, there's just far too much in this film, and it's at least 40 minutes too long. In the packed cinema, there were groans from almost everyone after each Return of the King-esque false ending.

Emo Parker is a huge mistake, and should be consigned to the compost heap of our collective memories forthwith.

As should all scenes that involved dancing. During that kitchen twist with Harry and MJ, the actors themselves looked embarrassed, as they rightly should.

And on the subject of MJ, let's be glad that this will be last Snagglefug's last Spiderman film. She becomes more unlikeable each passing day, and the contrast between her and Bryce Dallas Howard's Gwen Stacey spoke volumes. Not only was Bryce beautiful and charming, she actually managed to make you feel for her character in her extremely limited screen time.

Sandman was a good character, played very well. Shame he had to share baddie duties with a poorly conceived Venom.

Venom could have held the film had he been used correctly, unfortunately the result is a rush-job that makes the last 40 minutes of the film a messy muddle.

Personally, I liked the Harry/Peter storyline, and felt that Raimi should have made more of it. It's not like Harry is a marginal character who has only just appeared - the relationship between them should have been the central emotional pivot of the film, rather than the Peter/MJ break-up abortion.

Again - purely personal, and the same thing fcked me off massively in the first Spidey.. but what is the deal with THE GODDAMN AMERICAN FLAG!!
Most of the money from this film is going to come from outside the US (yes, there really is such a place), and for the most part, everyone hates 'em. Jeez - we don't care about the fckn stars and stripes any more than you guys give a shit about far older, more distinguished, more respectable nation's flags. Give it a rest.

I had the misfotune of watching the film with a massive bunch of kids, who cheered like spastics at every explosion, and booed ever baddie - so that dulled the experience for me somewhat as well.

Emotions aside - it was an okay film. Not worth spending money on at the cinema for sure, but definitely worth a watch.

It's a shame that Tobey Macguire and Sam Raimi have tarnished their reputations a little with this. I'll be interested to see what direction the inevitable fourth film goes in.

A change is surely needed.

Robin The Boy Wonder

Wow. I wasn't expecting to see such venom aimed toward Spider-Man 3 here. It was by no means the best of the trilogy (No 2 deserves that slot) but it was hardly the worst (the first is still a brilliant film but falls flat with a certain Power Ranger styled villain). Having torn myself out of my bed this morning at at the unsociable hour of 5.30, I needed something to rouse me from my slumber - and this film ticked that box for me. Despite the successes of the last two movies, this was still a damned good Spider-Man film - something the critics seems to be missing (perhaps because our expectations are too high - more on that later).

Firstly, let's begin with our leads. Tobey Maguire posted an excellent performance as Peter with only a couple cringeworthy moments. He clearly relished the fact he got to explore Spidey's darker side and embraces it wholeheartedly. He found an interesting balance between nerd and arrogant (remember how he gushed about Spidey in the restaurant?) which made his descent only far more humbling to the character by film's end. Peter takes a journey here through his own emotions and ends as the Peter Parker we all knew and loved from films 1 & 2.

One thing I would like to point out: Peter strutting his stuff down the sidewalk. Didn't anyone get the fact that, at this point, Peter thinks he's all that... but can never escape the fact he's a nerd. He doesn't see the 'you look so stupid' glances from the girls. You can take the man away from the nerd... but not the nerd from the man in Peter Parker's place. Cringeworthy? A little... but it spoke volumes about the character of Peter Parker, which was always the intent. The scene in The Jazz Club was odd... but not so far out of place when you consider his intent is to embarrass MJ and he then uses Gwen to do it.

Kirsten Dunst. Started so well... and has gotten progressively annoying with each passing film. She still delivered an excellent performance but I just wish we could have exorcised those singing scenes from the film. It's also slightly sad that, as per usual, only one gal can ever be in danger come the climax...

As for the villains... Sandman was very nicely worked out and, in hindsight, isn't enough of a character to carry the movie alone in the same way as Doc Ock. His is very interesting and I loved the sub-plot with his daughter. Sandwiching Sandman's story into the death of Uncle Ben was a sore point with me before the film... but worked out quite nicely come the finish. Yes, I wish they hadn't muddied those waters but they did and it's nothing I can't live with. Effects-wise, he was very impressive.

James Franco as Harry Osborn. I still think this film should have been all about him (perhaps Sandman as a sub-plot). The star performer of the movie, Harry didn't disappoint and his story was superbly rendered although it could have had more time. Sadly, being the sage of Spider-Man lore that I am, his particular ending was broadcast for me after only 15 minutes - but that didn't affect my enjoyment of him!

Venom was a curiousity for me. I loved Venom, don't get me wrong... but we really needed more screen time for Eddie Brock's fall from grace. That felt very rushed and everything happened all of a sudden. The effects were grand and the symbiote on its own looked awesome - but Venom really needs his own film to be fully fleshed out. This was a good introduction for the character - but we need more!

As for the bit-part players: JK Simmons was fantastic as JJJ (blood pressure in particular was a highlight), I fell in love with Miss Brant... but it's Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy who stole it for me. She looks so much like Gwen that I could eat her up - I wholeheartedly hope she comes back for a fourth, irregardless of what may happen with the director and main cast. James Cromwell was horrible as Capt. Stacy (no surprise after his poor performance in 24) and Bruce Campbell was very slick and funny as a French maitre'd.

The effects were superb but weren't too intrusive. CGI Spider-Man has only gotten better with each passing film and this is no exception. Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the scene with Gwen and her fall... if you're going to take out a skyscraper with a crane - do it with some style! The set-pieces were stunning and frenetically paced... and the characterisation was top-notch with the older hands very comfortable with their characters.

And now the bad: Did we really need Venom? No matter how cool he was, I still would've loved to have seen Brock's transformation at the very end of the film... hinting at a fourth film. Two villains would've balanced the dichotomy of the film perfectly... three made the film feel slightly rushed in far too many places. It's also worth noting that Venom was no Raimi's idea and was instead impressed upon him by Sam Raimi - and it shows. The running time was spot-on but, to carry these three characters, actually needed to be longer.

Anyhoo, time is running out. I'll comment more later when others post.

As for a rating: ****.

Reaper

Nice pun with Venom there Wink

Did you and CapO discuss the point about finishing three where Venom is born and using that in a fourth film? He mentioned it earlier in the shop. I know my review is rather critical but don't get me wrong, I did actually quite enjoy the film despite the flaws etc. Weird really, if I have that much to pick about most other films, I do't like them full stop.

Oh when you say it pressed upon him by Sam Raimi, do you mean Ivan Raimi?

Robin The Boy Wonder

I didn't discuss it with CapO earlier in the shop... although I think I did mention it on the boards a couple of months ago.

Venom is quite a complex character to handle in just the one film. You have to cover the story of the symbiote costume and its effects on Peter and simultaneously cover Brock's success against Peter and then eventual decline. The film covers that reasonably well but could have devoted more time to the subject.

We then have Venom himself. To do the character justice, you need to show Venom in all his glory as the anti-Spider-Man. We needed to see a running battle between the two as they swing high above the streets of NYC; we needed to see Spider-Man realise that Venom doesn't affect his spider-sense. I guess you could say we really needed to see an old school (McFarlane & Larsen era) Spidey vs. Venom battle.

The film could never have the chance to cover all of the above, even if Venom were the sole villain. My hope several months ago was that SM3 would cover the story of the costume and Brock's decline before then giving us a full-on Venom movie in SM4 (Sony have committed to six in all). We then get to see the very best of Venom and three or four battles between the two antagonists.

It could still happen. I felt Venom's ending was very open-ended and my hopes for a Venom appearance in SM4 is high - particularly as I doubt that Raimi will be directing then. Although I wouldn't be surprised if we get Carnage instead.

As for Sam Raimi; he's never hidden his disdain toward Venom. His original plan was always to use Sandman as both he and Tobey Maguire are fans of the character. We were always going to get a Harry Osborn-as-villain turn but there were also initial plans to use The Vulture before the latter idea was scrapped.

Venom was suggested by Avi Arad, using the reason that Venom was popular with the fans and that the fans wanted to see him. Clearly, Arad can be quite persuasive although Raimi has the last laugh as Venom is nowhere near as fleshed out as either Sandman or Harry.

The film isn't without its flaws but I still feel it was a very good Spider-Man movie. The characterisation and acting were strong (with only a couple weak performaces) with stunning action, CGI and set-pieces.

One flaw I absolutely hated: the kids in the crowd exclaiming 'Amazing' & 'Wicked cool' in the middle of the end battle. It really does take you out of the end sequence. Still, Raimi has done that before in his other two films... so why should this be an exception?

Reaper

There is strong talk of Raimi coming back for another, something posted on ign, a comment by someone involved in the series mentioned something about him coming back for 4, just now waiting on a script.

waffle

pffff - hand it over to someone else. someone fresh. someone who hasn't just taken a dump on their own doorstep.

Robin The Boy Wonder

I can't see Raimi working on Spider-Man 4 as a Director, but I wouldn't be surprised if he chose an Executive Producer role within the franchise.

I still think the rumours attaching his name to The Hobbit have more weight right now.

And Waffle, seriously, was it really that bad?

waffle

see - I fall into this trap all the time. If I don't love something, I'm quick to say I hate it, when I don't mean that at all.

Just like I wrote above, there are some things I really liked, but more often during the film, there were things I didn't.

I think that it is definitely time for a new MJ, and a new Peter. For different reasons though. Macguire is getting older, and he's starting to look it. It's also apparent from interviews that he's not doing the job for the love of the character anymore, and that's a shame, as there are younger, fresher actors out there who would do a far better job.

snagglefug... well, most of the planet dislikes her. And her recent comments about how the series would bomb if she wasn't involved are laughable.

I think she could have been replaced by a mountain goat in a ginger wig halfway through the film, and I wouldn't have noticed.

Raimi just hasn't lived up to the hype, or maintained his previous high standards. I think it's time for him to move on. if he didn't want venom in there, then he shouldn't have used him. the venom subplot shoehorned in made for a weaker movie.

and the dancing... ohhh dear the dancing. how the hell did he think people were going to react to that nonsense? it just didn't work, for the most part served very little purpose (and the plot points it did serve could have been achieved in other, less embarrassing ways), and were just more entirely redundant scenes in an already overlong film.

sandman was brilliant (when he didn't look like a deleted scene from The Mummy) and the Harry story should have been at the forefront.

I just think the series needs a fresh new vision, with a fresh new take on spiderman - although the current whispers of Jake Gyllenhaal are not making me happy.

Reaper

There have been talks about Jake Gyllenhaal taking over since the beginning of SM2 when Maguire couldn't do the role because of a dodgy back. He's a good actor atleast but not someone I'd instantly think 'Yeah'. They should do a superman and find a fresh newish person. Which they did do with Maguire to an extent.

Robin The Boy Wonder

I don't think they'd go to Jake Gyllenhaal - he'll skew at too similar an age to Maguire when they're perhaps better off going for someone who's in their early 20s.

As for MJ, just get rid. We have Gwen now!!! Very Happy

Reaper

Hmmm I don't know about that, you couldn't do that in the film I mean write out MJ. You just need to get someone more attractive to do it

Robin The Boy Wonder

Does Bryce Dallas Howard have an attractive sister we don't yet know about?

That or we could always cast The Queen! Wink

Reaper

GENIUS

Robin The Boy Wonder

Bet you've been watching George Bush closely the last coupla days, eh? Wink

Reaper

I almost... ALMOST wished I was him, but not quite Wink

Batmanuel

I really liked The Sandman, Like Jonah J Jameson, he looked like he had been plucked from the comics book page.
Shame they didn't' get Mary Jane that spot on.
Venom looked real cool.
But i did find myself wondering, i don't ever remember Spidey being so popular as to be given the key to the city.
and the bits where Peter started to act like a dick made me think out loud "What the hell is this"
All in All i much preferred the second film.

The Rascal King

Eddie Brocks backstory was pretty much spot on.

Only problem with Venom was the fact that he was reffering to himself in the Singular, instead of the Plural.

I enjoyed the movie.
The Jazz scene could have easily been done without.
In the same way as Jar Jar Binks could have easily been done without.

Reaper

I noticed that he didn't say 'we' thought it was an oversight really, though can you imagine the general populace understanding why?

The Rascal King

Yeah, but it'd have been so worth it.
Just a few minutes to explain that the Symbiote was concious, explain why Brock kept Spideys powers, and knew everything. Even why it could bypass his Spider Sense.

I did like that he called him "the Spider".

Reaper

From http://www.reallifecomics.com

The Rascal King

kingmouse

It's a bit of an odd one really. I can't say that I found any of it truely aweful (well the emo fringe was pretty bad but it's a family movie and kids like that kind of stuff so I'm willing to let that slide). The general problem was that there was just too much of it all. It was kinda like Rami was pretty sure it was the last one he was going to do so he wanted to jam in all the scenes left on his planning board.

I love Venom as much as the next overgrown child, but he really wasn't needed in that film. Topher Grace was fantastic as Brock and I'd have happily watched him without the symbiont for the whole film. It was a great reimagining of the character (lets face it Venoms original origin story is pretty flimsy). But Sandman was so well done and played so wonderfully (the performace of the film for me) that you could easily have carried the film on the strength of that character alone. The Uncle Ben twist wasn't too bad, it felt a bit crowbared due to the lack of development time for any one story but it gave relevance to the character and I've got no real objection to it in principle.

Harry's a good character but I think it would have been wrong to make him the main villain. We've seen this rivalry wobble about for two films now and it hasn't really gone anywhere. Franco never seemed confortable playing evil Harry and came off more like the villain in a teen slasher flick than a superhero blockbuster. That said he was really good during the memory loss period so it was a shame to loose that performance for the sake of playing superhero team up at the end. You could quite happilly have left him with the memory loss and have Pete and MJ deal with the moral implications of lying to him in order to stop him remembering.

CGI and fight scenes were stunning but it's a Superhero flick so they should be. Special props go to the fight between Harry and Pete at the start. the sense of pace and movement in that fight was fantastic.

MJ and Gwen were played well enough though i think Kirstin Dunst is starting to look a little tired in the role. To be fair on her she had to spend pretty much all of the film moping which isn't something she does very well. The point of Mary Jane Watson is that she's somethign worth fighting for no matter how dark things get for Peter, that was kinda hard to believe with her looking all mardy for the whole film. But the use of humour to break up what could have turned into saturday morning teen drama arguments was well done. Gwen was good as a spark for the tension between the couple, but she got so little development that she didn't really offer much impact beyond that.

On the whole it's still better than most hero flicks. But compared to the other two movies it was a bit flabby and could have done with more of an idea of what kind of story it was trying to tell.

Web of Fear

I've avoided this thread until I'd seen it. Impresseed with the detailed reviews.

Like many others have pointed out, there was too much going on. Sandman, Venom, the "Goblin", the symbiote, and a contrived love story.

With the villains, nothing seemed to be properly developed. Sandman's character showed some potential, but was just used as a big scary sandmonster. Venom gets the suit at what seemed like two thirds into the film, one fight, that's it. The Goblin loses his memory, regains it, and then teams up (Why didn't the butler tell him that Norman died from his own glider ages ago? Rolling Eyes

).

The film probably would have benefited if the whole Venom/alien costume sub plot was excised (though apparently Sam Riami didn't want to include Venom, the studio instisted on it). I guess that lots of villains means lots of action figures and tie in merchandise.....

I just didn't care about the romance. Kirsten Dunst just seemed so bland, and she gets kidnapped and put in jepoardy (again) at the end of the film.

It didn't seem like Spidey himself got much screentime, and when he does appear, the apperanaces seemed all to brief.

I did like JJJ's appearances (what was the buzzing chair about) and Bruce Campbell's Maitre'd at the resteraunt, but this wasn't enough in quite a long film.

Overall, 2 out of 5. Not being added to the DVD collection.

Reaper

The chair didn't buzz, it was the intercom between him and Betty that made him jump everytime it went off.

Web of Fear

Ahhhh. It was played like he was getting an electric shock from the chair. Smile

Reaper

Spider-Man 3 so far has won the battle for largest Domestic gross but lost the worldwide Gross to....... Unsurprisingly Pirates 3.

Spidey came in at £880 Million worldwide where as Pirates came in at around £940 Million

What are the chances that Pirates 3 will do another billion before it stops being shown?

Dog Welder

Whilst I agree that the movie was a disappointment, it's still upsetting that it grossed less than Pirates 3 (now THAT was a crappy movie).

I heard an interview on the radio where they said that Raimi's initial version of the movie was over 4 hours long (nearer to 5), and so he had to cut out entire sections of the movie. This might explain why he had to film new scenes in february (some of the expositional scenes perhaps....?), and may explain some of the more clunky scenes.

Reaper

Hi there Dog Welder, welcome to the Forums. Head on over to the I'm New Topic in the General Discussion and tell us a bit about yourself Smile

Robin The Boy Wonder

Guest

Me too!

Wait for the extended addition directors cut me thinks!