2009-03-09 15:40:06

THE WATCHMEN MOVIE: Nihilism for Dummies

Filed under: Film
Posted by: Craig

Who watches the Watchmen? Unfortunately, I did (along with about 5 million fanboys this weekend). While director Zack Snyder adheres to the rightfully revered graphic novel, the Watchmen movie adds almost no insight or originality. It makes a kinetic comic inert. Allow me to summarize Watchmen‘s conclusions (and perhaps save you ten bucks and almost three hours): 1) Humanity is capable of great evil. 2) Superheroes aren’t much better. It blows up the notion that salvation resides in us or our pulp heroes. Agreed. But while committed Calvinists may be pleased to see a Hollywood blockbuster address human depravity, Watchmen loves rubbing our face in it. We are bombarded by images of bones breaking, limbs sawed off, skulls cleaved in half, and dogs gnawing on what’s left of a little girl’s leg. That’s entertainment, circa 2009.

What was shocking and insightful when the Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons graphic novel arrived in 1985, now plays as perverse and pointless. We’ve already stepped inside a chamber of cruelty in Saw. We’ve seen superheroes riddled with doubt in forgettable films like Mystery Men. Even my little kids have even seen the interpersonal aspects of caped crusaders in Disney’s Sky High. Sure, all those lousy movies followed trails blazed by Watchmen in print. But Watchmen the movie arrives after so many riffs on flawed superheroes (Hancock, Hulk, Dark Knight) that it feels like a waste of time and money. Too much excess, too late. We’re steeped in so much angst and anger, they we’re almost post-cynicism. That well is dry (and so is Watchmen).

It wasn’t interesting, engaging or entertaining. Maybe the TV show Lost has already made Watchmen’s structure passe. There are so many flashbacks piled atop each other that I found myself in the theater trying to remember when there was any action in the movie. I thought surely there were some interesting sequences, weren’t there? The trailer looked cool. Where were those shots in the movie? Probably just at the beginning or ends of long scenes of expository dialogue. With no drama in sight, I found myself pulling for Archie, hoping Nite Owl would dust off his adorable flying ship.

Amongst the more annoying choices made by director Zach Snyder: the music. Could Watchmen‘s soundtrack have been any more obvious and on the nose? Bob Dylan’s “Times They Are A-Changin’” is used somewhat ironically over the only imaginative sequence in the film—the opening credits. Thereafter, the humor dies along with the Comedian. The music cues that follow make me question whether any irony was intended. “The Sounds of Silence” plays over a rain-soaked funeral. It feels as shallow as the puddles. Jimi Hendrix’s version of “All Along the Watchtower” sounds stale over Nite Owl’s flight into Antarctica. These earnest boomer anthems were already drained of their meaning by Forrest Gump (or even The Big Chill!).

When the Watchmen series arrived in the mid-eighties, we were already moving on to a new wave of music. When we enter Ozymandias’ corporate headquarters, Snyder serves up a muzak version of Tears for Fears’ “Everybody Wants to Rule the World.” Hmmm. Sounds like we should question Ozy’s eco-friendly intentions. If Snyder wanted to crib from the 80s, why not borrow from bands that reflected the Watchmen aesthetic? Bomb the Bass incorporated the comic’s bullet riddled smiley face into their pioneering mash ups. Goth leaning bands like The Cure, Echo and the Bunnymen, or even Love and Rockets would have added context and texture. What was Snyder’s worst musical offense? Incorporating Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” during an airborne sex (not love) scene between Nite Wing and Silk Spectre. She keeps (only) her black leather boots on to satisfy the director’s kink quotient. I have long advocated finding the sacred amidst the profane. But I’ve never been a fan of the obvious amidst the mundane. Actress Malin Ackerman must have an amazing agent, because as Silk Spectre, she registers zero onscreen appeal. Echoes of her horrific turn in The Heartbreak Kid haunted all her scenes in Watchmen.

As the plot unfolds, our fate resides in Dr. Manhattan’s big blue hands. The most god-like character in Watchmen has almost given up on humanity. His temptation is to flee to Mars for cosmic meditation. He can start over, building a new world on that desolate red planet. Onscreen, Silk Spectre convinces Dr. Manhattan to intervene. But the Watchmen movie doesn’t give the audience a compelling reason why he should dare to care. It tries to manufacture emotion and ends up as lifeless as the Martian landscape.

The one (nearly) saving grace is Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. He narrates the proceedings in classic film noir style. Rorschach’s dim view of human nature echoes Travis Bickle’s rants in Taxi Driver. Even behind a mask, Haley manages to inject humanity into Rorschach and his back-story growing up as the son of a prostitute. Heartache drives Rorschach’s crime fighting. On the outside, he’s all bluster. To a prison full of convicts he put behind bars, Walter boasts, “I’m not locked in here with you, you’re locked in here with me.” Behind the chutzpah resides a deep sense of hurt. Walter may recognize how limited his powers are, but he will go down fighting to the decidedly bitter end. Unfortunately, Rorschach remains one the rare Watchmen to demonstrate any heart or soul.

Watchmen‘s alternative American history was fun to ponder twenty years ago. We were still processing our defeat in Vietnam, digging out of the disgrace caused by Watergate. The nuclear build up felt like doomsday approaching. Author Alan Moore questioned the surety that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher brought to global leadership. But their brand of conservativism has nostalgic appeal in hindsight. They thwarted the Soviets and restored a sense of pride to bruised national psyches. At this point, no one wants to ponder an unending Nixon presidency. We don’t tremble at headlines from the Cold War. We remember it as the last battle we clearly won.

Zack Snyder and his screenwriters failed to update the subversive spirit of the Watchmen novel. Our unsolved issues are no longer Vietnam, but the Middle East. The Russian problem in Afghanistan has now become our problem. Our geo-political crises turned into an economic tsunami. The skepticism of Alan Moore still applies to all those fronts. We’ve seen what happened when no one was watching our financial watchmen on Wall Street. Unchecked greed left C.E.O.s and bond traders feeling like superheroes who operated above the law. They ruled like Ozymandias, deciding what was best for us, under the guise of the greatest good for all. We got hosed by their trickle-down economics.

But the cynical ending of Watchmen rings hollow because we’ve now seen through that lie. We know that must question our leaders, holding their feet to the fire. So what would counter-cultural artistic insight include? How about a way forward?! Watchmen reminds us how deceitful the human heart can be. Given the avalanche of recent evidence, we have no reason to dispute our depravity. But legitimate hope remains rare, elusive and essential. Superheroes offer a momentary lift, a chance to soar above our circumstances. Their box office triumph demonstrates how desperately we want to restore our faith. We seek comfort from masked men in tights! Alan Moore’s graphic novel pointed out the foolishness of such misplaced faith.

The Watchmen movie may be the end of this era of quick fixes and soaring heights. It probably won’t recoup the studios investment. Perhaps will tire of such dramatic dead ends. The Dark Knight descended to equal depths. But director Christopher Nolan showed us how an entire system could be stymied by one chaotic interruption. Perhaps only a deranged comic book character like The Joker could approximate the psychic terror unleashed by the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Watchmen aspires to equal importance (and profitability). But working with five times the heroes, Zack Snyder can’t muster a tenth of The Dark Knight‘s dramatic impact. The Dark Knight helped us make sense of a world gone mad. Unfortunately, such empathetic artistry remains in remarkably short supply. The Watchmen film is only nihilism for dummies.

Comments (19)

19 Comments »

1. The primary theme of the comic was not flawed superhumanity. The message of the story is not rooted in the period it was written in. Alan Moore’s story is about misuse of power and its corrupting influence. Keeping Nixon president underlines that message.

   The use of a uniquely American art form — super heroes — to tell the story, makes the Watchmen an indictment of American abuse of power in particular.

   Leaving the story and the time period intact in the movie — I think — makes both of these points clear.

   Comment by Tom — March 9, 2009 @ 4:08 pm

2. I would agree with some of your criticisms of the watchmen movie. I came into the film with a bunch of friends who are rabid Alan Moore fans. Ive read watchmen many times. I loved it. When my roommate told me they were gonna make a movie I freaked out like the Uber-geek that I pretend I am not.

   I think watchmen the movie, as based on the reviews and in talking with some is a roller coaster of emotion for people. Me and my friends went to dennys at three in the freaking morning in order to discuss it. There I think needs to be a clear separation between the book and the movie. I feel unfortunately torn. Zach Snyder loves the watchmen and i think some of that love translates onto the screen.

   I think the problem more is that Zack Snyder is well Zach Snyder. I hated 300. His style of action is to say a word “Annoying”. Im not saying Watchmen didn’t need to be violent but it didn’t need to be that violent.

   Chapter 1-4 of the graphic novel were executed perfectly, and I really enjoyed them. My friend Adam after watching the opening scene and title sequence said “If it ended right there, that would be awesome, and id be happy.”

   For a title sequence that had people amazed, and for such a strong start I have no idea what happened. I totally agree with you about the song “Hallelujah” it was just dumb. Perhaps I could have been upset because Ezekiel Conrad, the main character in the novel I am writing sings the song when he dosen’t know how to be spiritual at a funeral in a church, perhaps it was just really that stupid of a song choice.

   Rorschach on screen was almost as good as ledgers joker I though. He and Night Owl were the most developed of the characters.

   But i wanna touch on an important element I felt the film was missing. Humanity’s perspective. In the comic there is a newsstand owner, a cab driver, a boy who reads his comics gratis, at the behest of the newstand owner, and Rorschach doctor has an expanded role. I felt the film would have benefited greatly from them, but they were cut.

   The saddest thing to me is that people will probably not go back and visit the source material if they found the movie terrible or confusing. Read Allen Moores watchmen people. Oh, and what do you think it would have been like had it been a mini-series like Terry Gilliam had Intended originally?

   Comment by Brian Buster — March 9, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

3. P.s. Did you really watch “The Heartbreak Kid”, Craig? I avoided that trainwreck.

   Comment by Brian Buster — March 9, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

4. You got it right, Craig. Nice analysis. Paint by numbers Nietzsche.

   Comment by Brian Bird — March 9, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

5. Ahhhh, (sigh)….Thank You.

   Comment by Bryce — March 9, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

6. Thanks Craig. I totally agree. This film felt so hollow and just nasty to me. On top of everything you mention, it just wasn’t enjoyable to watch.

   Comment by Brett — March 9, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

7. I was wondering what I was feeling through that whole film and the following 24 hours. You hit it right on the head!

   Comment by Jessica — March 9, 2009 @ 5:46 pm

8. I actually thought Malin Ackerman was pretty good in “The Heartbreak Kid”! (Sorry, I haven’t seen “Watchmen,” this is all I have to pathetically add to this thread.)

   Comment by Chris Willman — March 9, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

9. geeze mate u cant even take in fantastic visual effects presented by the latest technology has to give? seemed like you just had a go at every second of it. you cant expect it 2 be in picture detail of the comic it self. It is a film you know. Big difference between a film and a comic.

   i walked out of the cinema with a big smile on my face. im throwing my self back in there to see it again.

   i had never even heard of the original comic book or anything. i just walked into an action flick (according to the TV trailers) and was pretty dam satisfied. was brilliant.

   im no hater towards any of it. i go in for entertainment, and christ i was entertained. And it dosnt meen all big bangs, the story WAS there. I followed it, nothing wrong with it (from the non comic book person side), given the years it was set in i found it interesting since i wasnt even alive back then.

   but i do hav questions like where the HELL did that cat thing come from at the end. as well as mr Manhattans glass sculpture on mars, was there and gone. Pointless parts i hav to say.

   Over all, great flick.

   Comment by Rhys — March 9, 2009 @ 8:01 pm

10. I love your music analysis….I remember watching movies with you at The Manor back in the late 80s and listening to those groups. I gotta love a review that’s gives props to Bomb The Base…”Beat Dis”. Keep bringing it Craig…and friends from your distant past will continue to enjoy keeping up with you. Take care Bro!

    Comment by Kevin Warren — March 9, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

11. Craig,
    I have agreed with just about all of your reviews of films in the past, but I must say that I am not with you on this one. As gratuitous as this film may be in the areas of sex and violence, Watchmen’s themes run deeper then just exposing human depravity. In the Biola University film program (of which I am a student) we are taught to view films and find the worldviews within; Godawa 101. To do this we often must look past things that might immediately turn us off as Christians (I recall your stellar reviews of Dogma and Magnolia in Matrix of Meanings). Apply this to Watchmen. Each character strongly, unflincingly represents a worldview.

    Dr. Manhattan is clearly from the eastern religion strain (he’s blue for crying out loud), Veidt is a true Benthamite (ends justify the means), Rorschach is a black and white conservative (which the movie makes consistent in his character, as the comic book blends this with existentialism although by his actions Rorschach by no means resorts to relativism), Dan and Laurie attempt to carve their own destinies yes, but they also represent what is good and worth living and dying for in humanity; they are who the audience is to relate with, and lastly the Comedian is the catalyst for all of the other characters- exposing or affirming the other mask’s true worldviews and convictions. Watchmen raises the question of evil and then lets each character or worldview try to answer it their own way. This isn’t Nihilism for Dummies but rather Philosophy for Dummies.

    Although the author and filmmaker’s worldviews might bend the film’s one way, at least it tries to represent the differing views on the the problem of evil.And this is refreshing in today’s marketplace of ideas, because the Watchmen puts them all on the table for the audience to choose from. Although being a little on the nose for some of us, the chance to discuss and actually think about of viewpoints and worldviews in film is made accessible for once to general audience member.

    Watchmen also presents some sense of a case for evil and sin being wrought by mankind, not God. Note the added line of Rorschach’s for the film “God didn’t make the world this way, WE did.” I can’t remember the last time any character in any film said that God wasn’t to blame for the evil and sin in the world, but rather WE the sinners are.

    Lastly, about the music. I agree with you on “Hallelejuah,” and I admit I was startled by the choices of the others at first. However going back to the source material, most of the other songs (like the opening Dylan tune and the closing Hendrix) are actually quoted in those specific moments, and on a second watch they worked great.

    In conclusion, I think this a very important film for our culture to see today because at the very least it is one that can be talked about in-depth by film critic and everyday moviegoer alike. Most audience members that cheered for the lesbian kiss at the beginning joined the rest of us in favoring Rorschach’s character over the others. What a great opening question to ask our post-modern, relativistic friend after the flick, “Why is that you liked Rorschach so much?”

    Comment by Austin — March 9, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

12. Sweet D,

    You been duped.

    That’s what so often happens when worldview meets art. Our need to have our own worldview reflected in our tastes blinds us to quality. You write so often about redemption in the context of pop culture that it’s clearly a litmus test for you. There must be something “redemptive” in a work of art for it to qualify. But at some point redemption, too, becomes just one more complacent formula.

    Am I immune from being duped by art? Not at all. But I try to keep an eye on myself, and you might consider doing the same. The Dark Knight is a bloated work of merchandising trying to be something more. Watchmen isn’t perfect, and it’s not really a work of art, but it’s alive and urgent, even if wasn’t hip enough in its musical choices. Hipness—another huge trap on the way to art. For the record, I thought the choice of Hallelujah in the sex scene was bizarre and basically goofy, but that the scene itself should be criticized because it was about sex alone and not love—oh brother. You try to distance yourself from the problems Christians have with sex, but you present exhibit A right there.

    Anyway, brother, you know I love you, but you got punked on this one, as did a lot of smart critics, so you’re in good company. My sense about the critics is that they are trying to send a larger message. They’re tired of comic book movies, and they’re tired of the noise and tired of the violence. So am I, as I say in my review of the Watchmen over at http://john.purplestateofmind.com/?p=365. It’s a mistake, however, to dismiss this movie, which is one of the two or three truly ambitious and memorable entries in the genre, because it reflects a trend that you dislike.

    You call this piece “nihilism for dummies”, but I wonder if it might better be titled “dummies for Nolan”.

    John

    I thought the This is certainly the case with the Dark Knight

    Comment by John Marks — March 10, 2009 @ 6:44 am

13. Craig,

    Your aesthetic responses and mine often diverge wildly — witness our epic post-”Memento” argument years ago (still the best fight I’ve ever had with anyone over a movie). Our overall moral/spiritual “worldviews” are radically different in certain respects. But you know what? This time we’re on the same page. The more I think about the Watchmen movie, the more I loathe it. Thought you might be interested in my take.

    You know that while my affinities lie more towards the experimental side of the film spectrum (early Todd Haynes or Dziga Vertov, anyone?), I’m not a genre snob. I’ve enjoyed other superhero films. I loved The Dark Knight. Appropriately enough, I saw it (for the second time) and Watchmen exactly one week apart in virtually identical viewing conditions — same multiplex, same time of day, even the very same IMAX screen. TDK was ending its theatrical run and I wanted to see it in optimal viewing conditions one last time. The comparison was instructive and not flattering to Watchmen.

    TDK has significant flaws (some clunky dialogue, a not-quite-up-to-snuff Aaron Eckart). But overall it not only held up but improved significantly on a second viewing. Key elements were even stronger this time round — the sleek kineticism of the visual style, the gritty real-world feel of the “Gotham City” (aka Chicago) setting, the humor, the mounting moral dilemmas, and above all, Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker: deep, rich, strange, and (as you so perceptively noted in your original review) extraordinary in the compassion it extends to a “monster”.

    Coming off that cinematic high, I was primed for Watchmen. I had read and admired the graphic novel. I didn’t see 300, but liked Zach Snyder’s remake of Dawn of the Dead. I really, really wanted the film to be good. And it seemed to be — for about 10 minutes. But once we got past the Comedian’s murder and the admittedly inventive opening credits, the film began a steep decline. I rolled my eyes so many times I was afraid they’d get stuck.

    You’ve already enumerated many of the aesthetic failings. The heavy-handed music cues. The performances, which range from flat to flat-out bad (only Jackie Earle Haley escapes unscathed). I’ve got a strong stomach for film violence — no one else I know has sat through Pasolini’s “Salo” twice, willingly — but the gratuituous, repetitive gore repelled, then bored me. To your list I’d also add the multiple stylistic tics: overuse of slow motion, the endless swooping pull-aways, etc. TDK has a few visual flourishes, some unnecessary, but next to the pointless affectation of Watchmen it looks like Ozu.

    About halfway through, I started to experience a strange sensation. I wasn’t watching a Watchmen movie. I was watching a simulacrum, of both the Watchmen universe and of…a movie. The characters, the overall contours of the story, even the colors and compositional scheme of the graphic novel were there. There were actors, sets, editing, special effects — just like a real movie. Yet it felt to me like a bad videogame had taken over the screen — one that was neither original, nor entertaining and which permitted no interaction on the part of the viewer. Like a technically fluent musician who manages to hit the “right” notes without actually feeling (hence understanding) the piece he’s performing, Snyder mimics both his source material and the filmmaking process without ever fully entering into either. For me, the all-too-literal, deadening “fidelity” to the book is, paradoxically, a sign that he doesn’t really have a handle on the essence of it. This shows up most glaringly in the instances where he *does* depart from the graphic novel.

    For starters: the violence, omnipresent in the book but never fetishized as it is here.

    Another example — your first commenter asserts that the true theme of the piece is the corrupting efffect of power. I concur with that reading, but I disagree that this is made clear in the film. One principal reason is astutely identified by your second commenter — by removing some of the “minor” non-masked characters, the movie has cast the principal characters into a dramatic vacuum. They (and this viewer) were cut off from the perspective of “ordinary humanity” and the consequences of Ozmandias’ actions are therefore abstract, bereft of the horror that should be felt.

    Lastly, the specific nature of the culminating disaster has been changed from the book. Many reviews have characterized this as a “slight” alteration. Not by me. SPOILER ALERT: I think the “alien” nature of the threat Ozymandias unleashes in the graphic novel works on at least two levels. It’s both integral to his intended goal of coerced world peace and yet so utterly, viscerally grotesque as to undermine (at least in this reader’s mind) his ostensibly “noble” motives.

    From a film standpoint, it would be a beast (literally) to pull off, but so what? If you’re not up to the challenge then let it alone or leave it to a real director like Darren Aronofsky or Terry Gilliam. Alan Moore was wise to remove his name from this mess.

    One might argue (as you seem to suggest above) that any genuine strengths in the movie are obscured due to the source material’s pervasive influence — in other words, we’re already used to the innovations it pioneered. Maybe. But to me this film is ultimately DOA from any angle I can think of — dramatically, aesthetically, thematically.

    However, in the spirit of generosity I’ll give the film credit for two accomplishments:

    1) Inclusion of full-frontal male nudity in a grown-up way, neither as titillation nor as a punchline (cf, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) in a mainstream American film. That this could only be done with a computer-generated character and apparently still has Ted Baehr up in arms over Dr. Manhattan’s glowing blue penis is both hilarious and pitiful. Although I disagree with virtually everything else John wrote, he makes a valid point with his comment about the problem Christians (some Chrisians at least and, let’s be honest, many other people in this country) have with sex. For the matter, the body in general.

    2) Bad movies sometimes generate good writing (see Pauline Kael on “The Sound of Mucus”). For me, the “Watchmen” movie almost (but not quite) justifies its existence by inspiring your passionate, insightful, and well-written take-down.

    In short: lousy movie, brilliant review. Bravo.

    Comment by Robert Little — March 10, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

14. I count my blessings today. I have discovered the sweet friendship of John and Craig. Who needs superheros? I have a crush on the intellect and the hearts of these two guys. Type on brothers.

    Comment by leigh anne bishop — March 11, 2009 @ 4:08 pm

15. [...] Craig didn’t just hate it. He reviled it. He despised the movie so much that he called it a work of “Nihilism for dummies” on his blog. Here’s an example: “What was shocking and insightful when the Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons graphic novel arrived i… [...]

    Pingback by Purple State of Mind — March 12, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

16. [...] our my very insightful friend, Craig’s review of this film here. Tags: martin scorsese, movie reviews, off topic, watchmen, zac snyder Post a Comment or Leave a [...]

    Pingback by Should You Watch The “Watchmen”? | "The Sheol Express" — March 13, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

17. I am so exhausted by defending this movie that I no longer have the energy to even try.

    I suppose this was bound to happen sooner or later–you and I agree on films so very often Craig that a schism simply had to occur at some point. This is that film. I can’t tell you how much I liked it! Does that represent the creep of nihilism in my own life? Hmmmm…

    http://BrandonFibbs.com/2009/03/05/watchmen/

    Comment by Brandon FIbbs — March 14, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

18. Craig-

    I wrote my review before I read yours (so not to be influenced,) and I think that it’s fun that both you and I hit on the Taxi Driver similarities (anyone up for a Watchmen remake by Scorsese?) as well as Snyder’s seeming failure to grasp the source material.

    As a fellow in arms that disliked the movie with every bone in my body, I’ve found that the people who seemed to like the movie were the ones that took the movie more at face value – put together the visuals with the dialogue with the story and essentially saw the graphic novel with motion on it – which is what Snyder made.

    But perhaps it’s people who are more into the general “feel” of the movie, who are more intuitive rather than sensing people, who cry foul at Watchmen. As you and I both said, I think that it’s main problem is just that we didn’t feel that the director understood what the movie was about! It didn’t feel like he understood why the violence was there, why the sex was there, why the dirt and grime and Soviets and Nixon were there! But he put them in anyway, thinking that to truly make a great adaptation you’ve got to go frame-by frame. But the heart was missing, as you and I both saw.

    John’s response seems unfair – he calls the film “alive and urgent”, but it’s not, and he gives no evidence for that reading. Our problems are precisely with this, that the film comes off as dead and irrelevant, because Snyder (and probably the screenwriters and actors) didn’t understand what it was actually about, and couldn’t make the small, detailed directorial decisions that make comprise the tone of a film. Snyder is clearly adept at looking at graphic novels, then transposing them to the screen, but when it comes to the small decisions of real directing, to communicating the themes of a book (which themselves are definitely alive and urgent), Zac Snyder has failed, both the movie and the book.

    My thoughts: http://storytellersink.net/sheol/blog/?p=276

    And I really, really am sad that this content has been ruined for anyone else to direct it. *Sigh*.

    Comment by Ryan Patch — March 18, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

19. I loved it, Craig. Saw it with my son. He loved the novel, was blown away with the film. We bonded over it. Nuff said.

    Comment by John Schmidt — March 23, 2009 @ 11:45 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website