Cool News
DrMajorSgt discusses the roughcut of NEVERLAND starring Johnny Depp!
Hey folks, Harry here... Once again another of our brilliant chatters steps up to the plate in brilliant form, this time it is DrMajorSgt, known for his ability to snuggle and make everyone feel warm and cuddly, is here to tell us about a screening he got into of NEVERLAND, the film about J.M. Barrie and the beginnings of PETER PAN. We ran some pictures from the set quite some time ago and with a cast that included Johnny Depp, Kate Winslet and Dustin Hoffman... well, it is a film that gives cause for excitement. Better yet, this review by DrMajorSgt is something quite promising. Here ya go...
Hello, my screen name is DrMajorSgt
HEY NOW
I am a long time chatter, first time reviewer on AICN and I hope there will be more of these reviews in the near future.
I had the opportunity to see Neverland which is supposed to be released in 2003. Now of course the print I saw was rough, effects had to be filled in. Including some CGI. (Hears Fanboys scream!) But wait I haven't explain what's going on.
The story is about playwright and creator of Peter Pan J.M. Barrie played by Johnny Depp who once again fits the role like a glove. His character includes a scottish accent which Depp never drops and the accent isn't a bad Connery impersonation. It's that good. This is nothing new to Depp who continues to be a great actor who while comes off weird never fails to please us (See Fear and Loathing Las Vegas to know what I mean).
The movie is set in early 20-Century England (The movie didn't specify the year). It begins with Barrie watching the audience watch his latest play which doesn't go well. Soon enough Barrie is back at trying to come up with ideas. This is how the movie may seem like a rip-off of Shakespere in Love. Yes,both movies focus on writters of great fiction. Yes, there are moments that pretty much show how the writter got his ideas for his works. But Neverland is not a rip-off of Shakespere in Love for the fact it fills it's own purpose.
I've noticed that with reviews of Catch Me if You Can, the reviewer states it's a return to old-fashioned movie making. This I can say applies to Neverland. There is no cursing, no sex, no violence, there is death but it is handled in a repspectful way. This is another thing the movie has for it. It's isn't 100% pure saccrhine. Unlike Pay it Forward this movie doesn't go for emotion with a sledgehamer. It's thoughtful and doesn't tug at heart-strings for the sake of tugging them. There is a reason and you can understand why.
Now as for the rest of the cast. Note: Dustin Hoffman has a small roll in this movie and he pretty much comes off like Dustin Hoffman. Kate Winslet does very well in this movie as Sylvia Davie a widow with four children who doesn't come to Depp seeing a husband. In fact the movie plays with the idea of either Sylvia and Barrie are either in love or just friends. I believe that is up to the viewer to decide.
Next are the children and I aplogize for not having their names. The children come not as scene stealers but in their roll and play it. There isn't a wisecracker whose smarter than everyone else in the film. These are children who just felt a deep loss for their father. This loss is shown especially in the youngest who Barrie tries to make him still act like a kid instead of an adult.
Which leads into the fantasy aspect of the film. The film goes inbetween fantasy and reality especially when Barrie plays with the children. There are scenes of the Wild West, A Pirate Ship, Indians and yes even flying. Remember this is about the creation of Peter Pan. The original Peter Pan. Not the Disney version we know and NOT the bloated, Love or Hate HOOK. And no, Hoffman does not give any HOOK references in the movie. In fact the original stays true, at one point one of the children refer to the Indians as "Redskins". I felt no problem with this remark and deemed appropriate for the time. As you know Political Correctness has been around for at least 20 years.
Director Marc Foster blends fantasy and reality with whimsy. This is a family movie that is realistic when it comes to relationships and people. Barrie is an eccentric writter but isn't like a Robin Williams-style eccentric. There are shades of emotion and personality. Also there is no central bad guy in the movie. No one is looking to screw anyone over in the film. There is concern that Barrie who does have a wife himself maybe exploring an affair with Sylvia Davie. But as I said this is up to the viewer.
In conclusion, I have to say this movie is not like Chocolat or Shakespere in Love. It holds it's own, there is sweetness but not the kind that can cause cavity. There is whimsy and fantasy but it doesn't overwhelm the story. There is death and pain, but it isn't overwrought. As I said this film is basically yet another piece of old-fashioned movie making that works and works well. I give praise to Depp, Foster, Winslet, Hoffman and everyone else in the movie.
I just hope people see this film and Miramax doesn't fuck up the marketing for the wrong cuts could make it one of those period British "Comedies" that pretty much no one sees. When this movie comes, see it. Your money will not be waisted.
HEY NOW
DrMajorSgt
-
+ Expand All
-
If so then HOW COULD YOU FORGET TO MENTION ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL STARS IN FILM HISTORY!!!
-
Marc made Monster's Ball with Halle Berry's T&A shown while screwing Billy Bob Thorton - that sex scene almost got the film slapped with the dreaded NC-17 unless edited to quick bits. He isn't alone. Remember David Mamet's The Winslow Boy, Wim Wenders' Beuna Vista Social Club, David Lynch's The Straight Story, George Miller's Babe Pig in the City and Last Exit to Brooklyn director Uli Edel's The Little Vampire. Maybe Alex Cox, Kathryn Bigelow, Michael Mann, Sam Mendes and other prominent directors who specialize in sex-violence-profanity movies will turn 360 degree and make surprisingly good G rated movies to defy Hollywood convention that only mature film directors direct R movies. Look what it did to Alfonso Cuaron from Mexican AIDS comedy Live in the Time of Hysteria to A Little Princess and back again with the unabashedly erotic road movie Y Tu Mama Tambien - he's up next to direct the third installment of Harry Potter movie franchise hopefully keeping the darker and underlying adolescent sexual tension content within the PG boundary of the MPAA.
-
Damn. I coulda seen that too but I had other things to do. Curse you finals!!!
-
Well thank god for that. Reason enough to see it, as far as I'm concerned.
-
Will this film be dwelling on Mr. Barie's certain paedophilic impulses or the fact the boy Peter Pan was based on was teased about it his entire miserable life and ended up throwing himself in front of a train.
For more information, visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,857588,00.html -
Dec 13, 2002 4:36:00 AM CST
JM Barrie loved boys - and the scary thing about Peter Pan
by julius caeser
Every year for almost a century, around this time in December, normally careful parents - the kind who wouldn't dream of letting their children walk alone to the shop or see a scary video - do something extraordinary. They take their children to see a play that is brilliant but one of the most darkly disturbing ever written. It is the story of a strange, dysfunctional boy who refuses to grow up, who hangs around at a nursery window and lures its children away to a place where they meet a fairy who has the morals and murderous impulses of Lucrezia Borgia, and do battle with a wicked pirate who is both a distorted father figure and a walking, talking phallic symbol. It pops the idea into young, suggestible heads that "to die will be an awfully big adventure".
The story is, of course, Peter Pan and, like other great examples of Victorian and Edwardian wonderland literature, it was written by a man whose relationship with children was at best suspect. There is no evidence that JM Barrie ever acted on any of his impulses and most contemporary reports describe him as distinctly asexual, but his predilection for hanging around Kensington Gardens making friends with small children would today set alarm bells ringing and send social workers running to take protective action.
Peter Pan is undoubtedly one of the greatest plays of the past century. Even Peter Llewellyn Davies, the second son of the young family of five boys that Barrie befriended, and a man with more cause than most to loathe Peter Pan, called it "that terrible masterpiece". Llewellyn Davies was teased and haunted all his life for being the original model for Peter Pan; at the age of 63, he threw himself under a train at London's Sloane Square station.
Although it seems unimaginable now, the tale of Peter Pan didn't begin as a narrative for children. The character first appears in Barrie's 1902 novel for adults, The Little White Bird, an account of the interest taken in a small boy called David by a wealthy childless writer, who takes the child for walks in Kensington Gardens and tells him stories about a character called Peter Pan. David was the name of Barrie's elder brother, who died in a skating accident aged 13 and so became trapped in eternal youth. Barrie tried hard to replace David in his devastated mother's affections, even going as far as wearing his dead brother's clothes.
Even more creepily, The Little White Bird is a thinly disguised piece of wish-fulfilment, in which Barrie works through his relationship with the eldest Llewellyn Davies child, George. There is an undressing, bath and bedtime sequence that today we would recognise as having all the hallmarks of a paedophilic sexual fantasy. "At half past six I turned on the hot water in the bath and covertly swallowed a small glass of brandy. I then said, 'Half past six, time for little boys to be in bed.' I said it in a matter-of-fact voice, as if there was nothing particularly delicious in hearing myself say it."
Yet Edwardian readers saw nothing askew in The Little White Bird, just as they were not alarmed by Robert Baden-Powell's delight in young men's bodies and desire to set up a scouting movement. Baden-Powell was obsessed by Barrie's stage play of Peter Pan, which premiered in 1904, and saw it many times. As did many adults, who made up the bulk of the play's original audience. In her excellent book Inventing Wonderland, the critic Jackie Wullschlager writes of grown men cheering as Peter Pan declares: "I want always to be a little boy and always have fun." Well, don't they still?
In a sense, the play groomed an entire generation to go willingly to the slaughter in the first world war. "We hope our sons will die like English gentlemen," says Wendy, as the lost boys seem certain to be made to walk the plank. Ten years after the premiere, they did indeed start dying like English gentlemen on the fields of Flanders. George Llewellyn Davies was among the dead, yet another golden youth embalmed in time. Unlike Captain Hook he would now never have time snapping at his heels. But while it is easy to explain the appeal of Peter Pan to the Edwardians and post-first world war generation, who could see in the play an elegiac spectacle of endless summer days spent playing pirates and Indians, it is harder to explain its appeal to our own era, one fraught with stranger danger and anxiety about paedophiles. This is something Jonathan Church recognises. He is now directing a production of Peter Pan at Birmingham Rep, and says some rehearsal time was spent questioning the Darling parents' decision to go out to a party and leave the children protected only by the dog Nana, who is tied up in the kennel. "We decided they probably are careless, but no more than most," says Church.
Perhaps, though, Peter Pan endures because of the central figure of Peter himself, the boy who refuses to grow up. He made Edwardian men cheer, but in an age where youth is prized, adolescence officially lasts until the age of 35, children grow up but refuse to leave home, and regular botox injections and plastic surgery can leave you with a face as smooth as a baby's, the notion of eternal youth now appeals to both sexes. Yet that is an appalling idea. At best, a child who never grows up is - like David Barrie or the fourth Llewellyn Davies child, Michael, who drowned aged 21 in what was believed to be a suicide pact with his best friend - a dead child. At worst, he or she is frozen, unable to achieve independence and lose either their sexual or emotional virginity. "No one must ever touch me," declares Peter, surely one of the most tragic statements in the whole of English drama. Adults often respond to Peter Pan as being about their own loss of innocence, when in fact it is about its deliberate retention. That is infinitely more twisted and sad.
Tony Graham, artistic director of the Unicorn Theatre for Children, argues that Peter is seriously disturbed, and shows all the signs of a child who has not been nurtured and has been starved of love. "Pan is not just unhappy, he is deeply miserable," he says. "Flying is the external manifestation of what he cannot achieve: mature sexuality." Graham, who hopes to stage "this wonderful, impossible problem play" when the new purpose-built Unicorn theatre opens in 2004, argues that adults tend to have an affection for Peter Pan that blinds them to the terrible truths at the story's heart.
"I find it interesting that adults are so nostalgic about a story that is about how wretched and miserable a lot of growing up is. That nostalgia is based on an entirely false notion of what the nursery is," says Graham. He thinks that the refusal to confront the pain and darkness at the heart of Peter Pan is one of the reasons we still see so many bowdlerised versions of the story.
If we are ever really going to grow up, it seems crucial that we should confront the play's dark core, and deal with its disturbing psychological suggestiveness in a truly adult manner. We should stop wrapping it in a hazy gauze of nostalgia and acknowledge that Peter Pan is not just a work of genius, but a work of genuine horror
-
"This is nothing new to Depp who continues to be a great actor who while comes off weird never fails to please us (See Fear and Loathing Las Vegas to know what I mean)"
Can someone please translate this? -
Next time you decide to cut and paste in an article I'd already stuck up a link for at least have the courtesy to mention who wrote it, lest anyone think you did.
It was Lyn Gardener in the Guardian, by the way. -
But it's well known that even if JMB was interestted in kids, he was also basically asexual (ie: he didn't get any). A more rewarding criticism, (well, to me) is that Peter Pan is a reflection on the Scottish Literature of Victorian times. JMB was Scottish, though moved to England like many Scots writers of the time. The reason for this was that Scottish literary scene was immature, and writers wouldn't (or weren't allowed to)deal with sophisticated ideas, like psychology, or social issues. Barrie's use of a Boy who won't grow up from Never Never Land is interesting, seen in the light of this....
-
Not that anyone except me knows who Matt Green is.
-
Glynfaron stop chucking your dummy out of the pram. I posted the article because I read the Guardian site and had read it... not because I had seen your link. So get off your high horse - other people do actually read stuff apart from you. Napper
-
Dec 13, 2002 9:43:03 AM CST
Blah blah darkness blah blah paedophile blah blah horror
by rev_skarekroe
Nothing like a literary deconstruction to suck the joy out of something. Someone want to paste an article about Lewis Carroll's photographic passtimes in here? Anybody dig up some dirt on Roald Dahl we could spread around? Maybe Frank L. Baum was a serial killer or something. Somebody should look into it. sk
-
Dumb plagarising son of a bitch
-
"asexual" doesn't mean he didn't get any. It means he didn't want any.
-
British viewers of the film will be interested to see the great Paul Whitehouse playing the stage-manager at the request of Mr Depp. Mackenzie Crook, "Gareth'" from 'The Office' also has a role.
-
Kate Winslet and no nudity, why see it!
-
I was wary of this when I first heard about it. I figured maybe the Peter Pan author molested kids or something. But now it has been confirmed: This WILL be as tame as it sounds. I was hoping after the shocking surprises and wrenching emotion of Monster's Ball, Marc Forster would give us something just as exciting and controversial. I don't know. Maybe he will surprise me in other ways. Guess I'll just have to wait and see.
-
I reckon Paul Whitehouse could play any role asked of him. He should act more. Mackenzie Crook also has possibly the funniest comedy face since Steve Coogan.
-
for some punctuation. Why can't Johnny Use Commas...
-
Hmmm. "Hook" needs to be properly released on DVD.
-
http://bventertainment.go.com/movies/pirates/index.html
-
When Peter says that "to die will be an awfully big adventure," he is expressing bravery in the face of death, not a love of death. He is defiant.
-
As an historian, I've been subjected to all sorts of psychohistories of different people or groups of people over the years. That you can look back at someone's writings and analyze their predilections from those writings is a sketchy proposition at best, and certainly ridiculous for someone whose first calling is journalism to attempt. There is a theme in modern society, not only of historical and literary deconstructionism, but one of heroic deconstructionism. A joy that certain people seem to have in tearing down heroes or great personalities. Now, I'm all for knowing people "as they were" and for not trying to deify them; but, on the other hand, many seem out to specifically demonize them, and that is no better an impulse. Anyone who read that article and was swayed should do two things: read the entirety of the "Little White Bird," and then read a sampling, a healthy sampling, of Victorian literature. I think you'll quickly find that his word choice and the things he emphasized, and the WAY in which he emphasized them (distorted by selective quoting here), are in no way out of the ordinary. Journalists need to be held accountable for the "facts" that they recount.
-
Get a grip and do something about REAL problems. Which certainly include the ones you are talking around.
It's a classic and lamentable tendency to look for root causes of societal problems in art. It is likewise a mistake to equate ART with the artist. To dismiss art because you don't like something else the artist thought or did. Or don't like some deed that the perp, or an observer, blamed on the art. These are bad reasons to ban art.
The ONLY good reason to ban art is if it is itself an artifact that could not exist without the commission of a crime, such as a whale-blubber sculpture or a snuff flick. If Jackson Pollack painted his last painting by smearing himself and passengers on a billboard while driving drunk, sure, ban that painting.
A lot of artists, great chefs, great writers, etcetera, are horrible people. Which crosses over into perversity periodically.
Artists tend to be weird; of that there is no doubt. And weird can be bad weird. But is burning their books and paintings, and banishing them from the stage, going to help? When someone gives offense, should you salt their fields and burn their children (metaphorically)?
Victorian times were especially rife with criminal perversity, and the consensus opinion used to be that that was due to repression, not a lack of enough repression. Jack the Ripper and all that.
In all of history, the best book-burners and art-banners were the Nazis. And wouldn't you know, there are two artists commonly cited as root causes of Nazism (by the politically correct crowd of today). Those artists are Nietzsche and Wagner.
In a terrific piece about Wagner, Nietzsche made a very eloquent point that artists must not be equated with their art BECAUSE AN ARTIST IS THE SOIL OUT OF WHICH TH E ART GROWS. Two good examples are Roman Polanski and Victor Salva (Remember him? I had to look it up) the director of Powder. Both of these guys are outcasts: In Salva's case he did his time but probably will never work again; in Polanski's case he skipped the country but Hollywood goes to him. Each was a proven criminal. Each was, to paraphrase Nietzsche, a piece of shit.
Now some of the posters here seem to be in favor of banning Peter Pan, presumably also Alice in Wonderland and James and the Giant Peach (all cases where the authors were perverts of the potentially child-snatching variety). If not banning then defaming. To tell you the truth, I haven't even seen Powder: I was interested but then that story broke about the filmmaker and I got grossed out and didn't want to. It's understandable to get put off by the snakes and other sightless, slithering things under people's rocks. But an enlightened society, which no one believes we are today, knows how to read Plato without throwing the baby out with the BC-era boyloving bullshit.
On another front, you are going to complain about Peter Pan getting a generation of English ready to go and die? Please. Get real. What about the Lord of the Rings?
Don't the print adds with the back of Saruman's head look like a bit like you'd imagine Uncle Osama or any other swarthy Enemy of the Month. Not that I'M complaining, I think it's frikkin' great.
And back to the main gist of the argument: Talk about boys who never grow up? What the heck are Hobbits then?
And what's with all that ferreting about in warm and pleasant Hobbit holes? Why was Tolkien so reticent about an allegorical dissection of his works? What did he have to hide? See?
It's either you get a grip, or you yourself slither down a path to a peculiar madness that calls itself righteousness, but is in fact the downfall of all things truly holy and beyond reproach.
Namely: ART.
So please, give it a rest. Unless you're talking about Michael Jackson. I could live with his oeuvre being made unavailable now that there's documentary evidence of his not-so-smoothly criminal disregard for the welfare of the young. Just give the Elephant Man a decent burial in the process.
Damn? Has anyone ever made a list of how much culture you'd have to ban, broken down categorically by type and severity of offense and amount of subjective and real proof? That would be some huge list, huh?
Oh: One more thing. How exactly is shielding the young from any potentially harmful ideas (so tame as to be carried for decades unnoticed in school plays) preparing them for life in the real world? Are we trying to raise a society of docile farm animals?
Heck: Not my kid: It's going to be Shakespeare and Icelandic Sagas for bedtime stories from day one. -
The only way I'd even consider seeing this fucking thing is if Kate Winslet somehow manages to get fucked over a god damn table or pole. I want to see her back arched, tits jutting up in the air, and a hot beef injection (preferably from a chick wearing a strap on) into that red, firey crotch of hers. If this happens, I will have to restain myself from whipping it out right then and there. However, I WILL masturbate when I get in my car and pull over 5 miles down the road.
-
Get out much?
-
I do get very worried about all of the assumptions which automatically get made about someone like JM Barrie. Obviously its true that back in his time, the culture of deference, which ensured that a respectable man like him would rarely be even accused on inappropriate behaviour with children, no doubt meant that many paedophiles were never caught.
The problem which we have today is that the wandering predatory paedophile has become the creature which parents seem to fear above all else, even though they are very rare. I don't know how things are in the US but here in the UK, teachers (male and female) will not give a distressed pupil a cuddle for fear of being accused of being a paedophile. For the same reason, men in particular, will not go to the assistance of a child they see wandering alone around a park or a shopping centre. Just today, I heard on the news that Edinburgh council has told parents that if they want to take photographs of their children in the school nativity play, they will need the permission of the parents of every other child in the play.
About eighteen months ago, surprisingly large numbers of concerned parents / dribbling cretins rioted in a number of UK cities because they knew / suspected / had been told by some guy down the pub that there were paedophiles living in their housing estates.
Several people were driven from their homes. Some of these were indeed convicted sex offenders. The police knew where they lived and they were on the sex offenders register. No doubt children are much safer now that these people have been forced undergound and the police no longer know where they are.
In any event, not all the people so attacked were sex offenders. Many were totally innocent. One of them (I shit you not) was a paedetrician. It began with "paed," close enough, they thought. Blind idiot panic was apparently a more vaulable qualification for participation in these little displays than literacy.
But I stray a little from my point. My point is that nowadays, any interest in children is considered to be immediately suspect. JM Barrie liked the company of children. So do nursery staff and teachers. Its one of the reasons that they apply for the job. Does this mean that all nursery staff and teachers must be a bit suspect?
And he was unmarried. Of course, in the eyes of some people, that makes it pretty much conclusive. An unmarried man who likes children. Must be a paedo. Of course, he may have been gay. He may have had a low sex drive. He may have remained unmarried because he was having so much fun shagging the brains out of prostitutes every night. If we persist in finding something suspicious in every man who enjoys spending time with children, pretty soon there will be no male teachers. No male nursery attendants. No male paediatricians or nurses. No male social workers.
There is something quite ironic in here as well. The rioting concerned parents/shitbrained fuckwits were sparked off by a series of articles in a tabloid newspaper called The News of the World. It is one of those newspapers written be extremely clever people, and read by morons. The Guardian, whose articles is quoted exensively above, is left-wing, liberal broadsheet very popular amonst social workers and people who wear cardigans. The Guardian is usually extremely sniffy towards the News of the World, but here it is indulging in exactly the same sort of scurrilous fearmongering as its tabloid rival. Albeit using longer words, so that its readers can kid themselves into believing that they are reading something other than prurient tittle-tattle. Which they are not.
It is a shame that Kate Winslett doesn't get her tits out in the movie though. -
I, for one, would like to thank Peter Jackson for introducing Kate Winslet's tits to the world. They are indeed a rare treasure.
-
Psychonaut--Thanks. Exactly what I was saying--a great deal of accusations based on dubious interpretations deliberately setting out to demonize a particular author.****CJR--You still don't get it, cap'n. The whole point is not that we should divorce art from the artist, but that only people who go into Barrie's world looking for nastiness find it. It's a libelous thing to say what was said about him, and the only reason that The Guardian isn't being sued is because, of course, he's dead. And for the record, Victor Salva is still working--Jeepers Creepers.
-
Captain DANIEL Roe.
-
Dec 16, 2002 4:32:59 PM CST
The children come not as scene stealers but in their roll and pl
by wee willie
Just had to copy that one. I think it could win an award for the most poorly constructed sentence. ("To me winning isn't, you do". - name that movie) On another note Julius C!!! Whoa man, your post was the post dreams are made of. Intelligent, well stated, well researched, and readable. If all posts were like yours, Talkback would be better for it. Good show. Though you totally ruined Peter Pan for me. It's amusing that the fantasies of Victorian wierdos are now classics of children's literature. On that note, has anyone seen Dreamchild?
-
Anyhow Julius, thanks for posting it. .
-
alas its not a version of the birkin/ian holm mini series from 1978 :(
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0077045
i cant believe they are just gonna gloss over completly the weird more than slightly scary side of barries relationships here :(
egads..... -
i could catch a monkey.
-
It's people like you that make me think that the human race is destined for extinction. When the only thing that certain idionic visitors to a thread structured for commenting upon the movie above (NOT (I REPEAT NOT!!!) for commenting upon the lead actresses breasts or one's wild perverted fantasies) is to rant and rave over a filthy perverted obsession that they posess, or that I have to even write that comment again, I know that someday, either we're all just going to drop dead from our own stupidity, or if you believe in spiritual beings, then we're all going to be smited by some bolt from above (or below if you lean that way (or sideways even, but thats beyond me)). Could we please refrain from these pornographic rampages please if only for the excuse that some of us don't wish to read these things when we venture in here?
Incidentally (and on topic), I can't wait to see this movie. I don't know how I'll ever find time or money to see all of the movies I hear about on this site, most of which I'd never hear about any other way. Thanks to the crew here. Keep up the good work and keep out the perverts! -
...when I can beat down the bone instead?
-
There's a much better screenplay out there that's been floating around Hollywood for years called "Captain Shadow". It's a FICTIONAL account of how Barrie came up with the Peter Pan story and he's only 8 or 9 years old in it I seem to remember, and there's pirates and fairies, and Capt. Hook but he's not a Captain yet. :-) Very cool read. I forget the writer, but a friend had a copy from a copy and whatnot and it was the way I would LIKE to think he came up with the story. Much more aimed at kids.
JZ
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts