I'd like to thank Netflix and some recent insomnia for allowing me to see a number of movies recently... and whatever luck that most of what I've seen recently has been pretty good. Quick rundown:
The Departed ****
I'm generally not a fan of Scorsese or DiCaprio, but I thought this was excellent. A dizzying spiral of who's-working-for-who and who's-betraying-who. Loved the parallel stories of the Matt Damon and DiCaprio stories - nice to see Damon has some range, here playing the bad guy for a change - with increasing tension as you know eventually they're going to come to a head. Jack Nicholson is over-the-top as ever, but there's a very nice understated Martin Sheen to balance him out. Pretty bloody, but not so much as a lot of gangster movies.
Children of Men *** 1/2
Dystopian near-future story, fabulous cinematography. Well-done overall.
Casino Royale ****
Worth watching for the few seconds Daniel Craig is in the blue bathing suit. Just kidding, husband of mine! Seriously, the best action movie I've seen in a long time, as it's just as character-driven as action-driven. The riveting opening action sequence involves "Free Running", starring the founder of this unique sport himself. The film tells the story of Bond just after he's been made a 00 agent, and he's a very different Bond... gritty, physical, ruthless, street smart, tough. Not so much the buttoned-down tuxedo-wearing martini-drinker of later films. Nice to see a smart, quick-witted Bond babe, too.
Curse of the Golden Flower ** 1/2
Thought this was going to be an Arty Kung Fu movie, along the lines of Hero... was disappointed that it was mostly Arty, not so much Fu. Depressing, tragic, full of opulent cinematography.
Cars ****
My 2-year-old son's favorite movie, I think he would watch it twice a day if I let him. Fortunately it's quite good, with two very nice voice performances by Paul Newman and Owen Wilson, and a little lesson about stopping and enjoying life rather than racing through and focusing on fame and glory.
The Devil Wears Prada ***
Light little movie, lots of fashion and a silver-haired and silver-tongued Meryl Streep.
The Prestige *** 1/2
Well-done, suspenseful, great performances by Michael Caine and Christian Bale. Rival magicians in 19th century England sabotage each other's careers and personal lives. I was shocked that I figured out the big twist of the end partway through the movie and turned out to be right. I never see these things coming but I thought this one was telegraphed... still a good movie. Disturbing the lengths to which a man will go for his art/career.
Munich ** 1/2
Very, very violent. Moving on some levels, but not sure it really worked. Seems like it wants you to sympathize with the Israeli assassins hired to retaliate for the murder of Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists, but that didn't work for me. Sort of questions the wisdom of retaliation and the endless cycle of killing the other side, but not enough.
13 April 2007
08 April 2007
CHILDREN OF HEAVEN
A nice look into a different culture, and a small but engaging story about childhood.
Children of Heaven is an Iranian film from 1998. The director is Majid Majidi, who has over a dozen films to his credit, several of them festival winners. This one was up for an Oscar, in fact, but lost out to Life is Beautiful.
It's the story of nine-year-old Ali and his younger sister Zahra, who live with their parents in a poor part of what I assume is Tehran. Chipped paint, ancient buildings and open storm drains in the street. We're talking poor, here: a single room, carpets but no furniture, some crockery, a cooking pot on a camp stove. The landlord comes by when Dad is out, to scream at Mom about the unpaid rent. Mom is sick, Dad is angry. There may be love in this home, but not much in the way of laughter.
Behind the opening credits, we watch a cobbler repairing a torn pair of pink sneakers, and the story is set in motion when Ali loses them on the way home. They were his sister's only shoes, and now she has nothing to wear to school. He suggests they share his sneakers until they can figure something out. She'll get them in the morning, he'll get them in the afternoon.
There are some side excursions from this narrative, but that's the main line. Of course, she'll be embarrassed, wearing dirty boy's sneakers that are much too large. She'll be delayed, so he'll be late. The Vice Principal will see him, ruler in hand, and demand explanations.
What struck me most was how consistently grim, authoritarian and unreasonable was the world of the adults. They almost never smile, are suspicious of the children and quick to anger. Think Oliver Twist in Persian. I wouldn't want to be a kid in the world of this film, and I can't remember if that's how adults seemed to me when I was a lad.
One of the few bright moments comes when Dad and Ali bicycle to the rich part of town, to find work as gardeners. Dad is as humbled by this world of money, mansions and faceless intercoms as his son is by the adults of his own neighborhood. But one old man agrees to put him to work, and Ali spends an afternoon playing with this man's grandson while Dad mulches flowerbeds and sprays fruit trees. Dad gets to do good work that he enjoys, and Ali gets to be a kid.
The big finale is a foot race, in which the third prize is a new pair of sneakers. It's beautifully shot, and great to watch as Ali tries desperately not to win, but to come in third. Winning would be comparatively simple, when you think about it. Third is much harder.
I don't know if I'd call it "heartwarming," which is a word that appears in many reviews. But it was watchable and sometimes touching.
Children of Heaven is an Iranian film from 1998. The director is Majid Majidi, who has over a dozen films to his credit, several of them festival winners. This one was up for an Oscar, in fact, but lost out to Life is Beautiful.
It's the story of nine-year-old Ali and his younger sister Zahra, who live with their parents in a poor part of what I assume is Tehran. Chipped paint, ancient buildings and open storm drains in the street. We're talking poor, here: a single room, carpets but no furniture, some crockery, a cooking pot on a camp stove. The landlord comes by when Dad is out, to scream at Mom about the unpaid rent. Mom is sick, Dad is angry. There may be love in this home, but not much in the way of laughter.
Behind the opening credits, we watch a cobbler repairing a torn pair of pink sneakers, and the story is set in motion when Ali loses them on the way home. They were his sister's only shoes, and now she has nothing to wear to school. He suggests they share his sneakers until they can figure something out. She'll get them in the morning, he'll get them in the afternoon.
There are some side excursions from this narrative, but that's the main line. Of course, she'll be embarrassed, wearing dirty boy's sneakers that are much too large. She'll be delayed, so he'll be late. The Vice Principal will see him, ruler in hand, and demand explanations.
What struck me most was how consistently grim, authoritarian and unreasonable was the world of the adults. They almost never smile, are suspicious of the children and quick to anger. Think Oliver Twist in Persian. I wouldn't want to be a kid in the world of this film, and I can't remember if that's how adults seemed to me when I was a lad.
One of the few bright moments comes when Dad and Ali bicycle to the rich part of town, to find work as gardeners. Dad is as humbled by this world of money, mansions and faceless intercoms as his son is by the adults of his own neighborhood. But one old man agrees to put him to work, and Ali spends an afternoon playing with this man's grandson while Dad mulches flowerbeds and sprays fruit trees. Dad gets to do good work that he enjoys, and Ali gets to be a kid.
The big finale is a foot race, in which the third prize is a new pair of sneakers. It's beautifully shot, and great to watch as Ali tries desperately not to win, but to come in third. Winning would be comparatively simple, when you think about it. Third is much harder.
I don't know if I'd call it "heartwarming," which is a word that appears in many reviews. But it was watchable and sometimes touching.
17 March 2007
On the Great Low-Budget Drama
Let us reflect briefly on the simple, unpretentious drama. The anti-blockbuster. The kind of movie that no one lines up for, and that often is never advertised on TV. Yet these small, humble, overlooked films are sometimes the best examples of film making.
What am I talking about? Well, "Monsters Ball" and "The Woodsman" are great examples. A powerful story, light-handed direction, and a group of fabulous actors. That's what it takes. But these are the movies that don't get much press, and even less buzz among fans. Such movies rarely draw major stars, and unless they do, they are sure to get little financing. (and there's a sort of uncertainty principle at work here.... when such films DO draw major stars, and big money, they often become too Hollywood... and then fail to realize the script's original potential.)
I've recently seen two films that got it right.
"The Trip to Bountiful" (1985) was written by Horton Foote, adapted from his stage play, and directed by Peter Masterson. It's not a great movie, but just see it for Geraldine Page's leading performance. She's an old woman, living with her son and daughter in law, desperate to see her old home one more time before she dies. Ms. Page won the best actress Oscar that year, and it's easy to see why.
Sadly, the movie as a whole never really feels like a movie. It is very visibly a stage adaptation, and at times you can darn near feel the proscenium just off camera. A better director would have made it more cinematic, and that would have helped. But don't let this deter you. The story is outstanding, and the actors are all first rate.
Horton Foote (also of Tender Mercies fame) has a very recognizable world view: "Life goes on." There are never any dramatic turns of fate in his stories, no miracles. The cavalry never comes to the rescue, and there is never a Hollywood ending. His is an honest view. He believes in what seem to be very small victories, which nonetheless are very large for the characters involved.
But now, a real gem.... "Affliction" (1998), written and directed by Paul Schrader. Wow.....
This is a "must see" film, in my opinion. Consider...
- A fabulously real character study
- probably Nick Nolte's best performance ever
- great roles by Sissie Spacek and James Coburn
- scene direction that is so simple and fluid it's virtually invisible
If I had to pick a perfect example of a a truly GREAT low budget drama, this would be it. It's not a perfect movie, but it's darn close.
I'm reluctant to say too much about it. It's dark, disturbing, and brutally honest, and just a great, great movie. High art, this film. Please give it a look.
PS: ...and I just thought of another one: "The Sweet Hereafter," 1997, writen and directed by Atom Egoyan, adapted from the novel by Russell Banks. If I had to compare them, I think this is an even stronger film than "Affliction."
What am I talking about? Well, "Monsters Ball" and "The Woodsman" are great examples. A powerful story, light-handed direction, and a group of fabulous actors. That's what it takes. But these are the movies that don't get much press, and even less buzz among fans. Such movies rarely draw major stars, and unless they do, they are sure to get little financing. (and there's a sort of uncertainty principle at work here.... when such films DO draw major stars, and big money, they often become too Hollywood... and then fail to realize the script's original potential.)
I've recently seen two films that got it right.
"The Trip to Bountiful" (1985) was written by Horton Foote, adapted from his stage play, and directed by Peter Masterson. It's not a great movie, but just see it for Geraldine Page's leading performance. She's an old woman, living with her son and daughter in law, desperate to see her old home one more time before she dies. Ms. Page won the best actress Oscar that year, and it's easy to see why.
Sadly, the movie as a whole never really feels like a movie. It is very visibly a stage adaptation, and at times you can darn near feel the proscenium just off camera. A better director would have made it more cinematic, and that would have helped. But don't let this deter you. The story is outstanding, and the actors are all first rate.
Horton Foote (also of Tender Mercies fame) has a very recognizable world view: "Life goes on." There are never any dramatic turns of fate in his stories, no miracles. The cavalry never comes to the rescue, and there is never a Hollywood ending. His is an honest view. He believes in what seem to be very small victories, which nonetheless are very large for the characters involved.
But now, a real gem.... "Affliction" (1998), written and directed by Paul Schrader. Wow.....
This is a "must see" film, in my opinion. Consider...
- A fabulously real character study
- probably Nick Nolte's best performance ever
- great roles by Sissie Spacek and James Coburn
- scene direction that is so simple and fluid it's virtually invisible
If I had to pick a perfect example of a a truly GREAT low budget drama, this would be it. It's not a perfect movie, but it's darn close.
I'm reluctant to say too much about it. It's dark, disturbing, and brutally honest, and just a great, great movie. High art, this film. Please give it a look.
PS: ...and I just thought of another one: "The Sweet Hereafter," 1997, writen and directed by Atom Egoyan, adapted from the novel by Russell Banks. If I had to compare them, I think this is an even stronger film than "Affliction."
12 March 2007
Why Do Movies Suck?
This isn't a review of my own (I regret to say), but it is a pointer to a David Weinberger article that was published in the March 2007 issue of the Journal of the Hyperlinked Organization (JOHO). I've been a fan of his writing for years, and am sad that his newsletter has largely been replaced by his blog. I haven't quite evolved into the person I want to be -- a person who will be able to keep up with things in the blog world. But I'm trying.
Anyway, it's an interesting observation. It would be a good conversation starter, especially with some snacks nearby, and a glass at hand. You can read it here.
Anyway, it's an interesting observation. It would be a good conversation starter, especially with some snacks nearby, and a glass at hand. You can read it here.
07 March 2007
Six Feet Under
Six Feet Under was an HBO series that ran for five years, completing its run in 2005. All of the episodes are now available on DVD and if you've never had the pleasure of indulging in this provocative drama, I heartily recommend that you do so. I recently watched the entire series and continue to find its all-too-human characters and all-too-realistic situations invading my thoughts.
The series centers on the Fisher family, who run an independent funeral home in LA. The scripts are laced with wit, philosophy and black humor. With the central characters constantly confronting death, how could it not be? All of the characters, both major and minor, are fully realized human beings with endearing qualities as well as frustrating ones, flaws as well as virtues. They are some of the most three dimensional, complex characters that I have ever encountered in any medium. And they are depicted by marvelous, nuanced performers from the actors.
Nathaniel, the patriarch of the family, meets an untimely demise in the first few minutes of the initial episode. However, he still appears to his family members from time to time to chat with them and give them his take on their current situations. These visitations are not depicted as paranormal phenomena. Rather, they are projections of the living characters, imagining what the late Nathaniel might have to say to them at this time. It may sound hokey, but the device is seamlessly integrated into the narrative. Other deceased characters also take advantage of the opportunity to berate and advise.
Nathaniel's widow, Ruth, is an amazing admixture of middle-aged confusion, longing, whining and at times, a surprising wellspring of maternal strength and warmth. It is actually her sons, David and Nate, who run the family business. David begins the series as a closeted gay man and over the course of the show he slowly emerges. He and his partner, Keith, have more than their share of ups and downs. But they are the most realistically portrayed gay characters that I have encountered on the screen. The youngest Fisher is daughter Claire. We meet her in adolescence and watch as she grapples with rebellion, angst and hormones to become a quirky, talented young woman.
The series is laced with dark humor and each episode opens with the last few minutes before the death of a character. This is usually someone we have never seen before, but somehow the death will be integrated into the plot before the final fade to white, which is utilized in the series instead of the ubiquitous fade to black.
Before I began viewing, I had heard nothing but accolades for the final episode. I was not disappointed - it was nothing short of magnificent, building on everything that had come before. It is well worth your time to check out this series and at this date you have the advantage of never having to wait months for the resolution of a cliff-hanger, as those who viewed it over the course of five years often had to. It's a big commitment in terms of time, but well worth the investment.
The series centers on the Fisher family, who run an independent funeral home in LA. The scripts are laced with wit, philosophy and black humor. With the central characters constantly confronting death, how could it not be? All of the characters, both major and minor, are fully realized human beings with endearing qualities as well as frustrating ones, flaws as well as virtues. They are some of the most three dimensional, complex characters that I have ever encountered in any medium. And they are depicted by marvelous, nuanced performers from the actors.
Nathaniel, the patriarch of the family, meets an untimely demise in the first few minutes of the initial episode. However, he still appears to his family members from time to time to chat with them and give them his take on their current situations. These visitations are not depicted as paranormal phenomena. Rather, they are projections of the living characters, imagining what the late Nathaniel might have to say to them at this time. It may sound hokey, but the device is seamlessly integrated into the narrative. Other deceased characters also take advantage of the opportunity to berate and advise.
Nathaniel's widow, Ruth, is an amazing admixture of middle-aged confusion, longing, whining and at times, a surprising wellspring of maternal strength and warmth. It is actually her sons, David and Nate, who run the family business. David begins the series as a closeted gay man and over the course of the show he slowly emerges. He and his partner, Keith, have more than their share of ups and downs. But they are the most realistically portrayed gay characters that I have encountered on the screen. The youngest Fisher is daughter Claire. We meet her in adolescence and watch as she grapples with rebellion, angst and hormones to become a quirky, talented young woman.
The series is laced with dark humor and each episode opens with the last few minutes before the death of a character. This is usually someone we have never seen before, but somehow the death will be integrated into the plot before the final fade to white, which is utilized in the series instead of the ubiquitous fade to black.
Before I began viewing, I had heard nothing but accolades for the final episode. I was not disappointed - it was nothing short of magnificent, building on everything that had come before. It is well worth your time to check out this series and at this date you have the advantage of never having to wait months for the resolution of a cliff-hanger, as those who viewed it over the course of five years often had to. It's a big commitment in terms of time, but well worth the investment.
21 February 2007
Who has time for movies?
Thanks, Don, for your reviews. 'Red Eye' is on my netflix queue.
But I have seen three movies this year... including DVDs... so am at an all-time low for film commentary.
In brief:
Notes on a Scandal: Pleasant but unpersuasive diversion. Two noted actresses, though I noticed nothing about their acting, really, or the writing.
Children of Men: I rate this along with BLADERUNNER as an effective set design and evocation of a dystopian near-future. I followed the story of this fairy tale with close attention in the theater, but little stuck with me after I'd left beyond the images and the swift and striking changes in mood. I needed a little less fairy-tale-thin premise to get me into the time and place of the drama, so I never got into the characters who lived in it. But scenes taken in isolation were very visually and sensually persuasive... though not emotionally persuasive.
The Banff Mountain Film Festival: Every year Pat and I go to see this road show in Washington at the National Geographic auditorium. It's usually the highlight of my film year. But this year it ranged from pleasant to indifferent.
Asiemut: One film followed a man and woman who biked from Mongolia across China to India. For those of you who can read French [sigh], here's a link to their site. [http://www.asiemut.mine.nu/] It's a simple but eloquent story of two people who, in their own words, wish to go beyond their own limits. They succeed... and the story is enriching and moving.
Patagonia, a travel to the end of the world: The Patagonia icecap lies between the Andes mountains, and is frequently exposed to strong winds and whiteout. Norwegian Børge Ousland and Thomas Ulrich from Switzerland started from a small village in Chile to cross the world’s third largest icecap from the west to reach the eastern shores of Argentina. They had to carry all their equipment und food supplies for the 54-day-long expedition with skis and special kayaks, because they had no outside help. They used their kayaks as sled, and did some admirably manly and ill-advised lashing-together of kayaks to make rafts. Very Huck Finn. And cold and crazy and a tribute to Y chromosones and their epic adumbrations of common sense.
The most accessible films... not very interesting as films, but for their content... are the 'Kids Who Rip' films. These are very young kids doing extreme sports. These films are cute in the irrefutably compelling sense of talking dogs and cats playing pianos. They are fun to watch. Go here to watch a few. [http://www.kidswhorip.com/portal] - download a short teaser in several formats. I am, of course, far cooler and sick-awesome than any of these kids. I am extreme typing now, yeow, in the tube!
I have also been watching 'The Wire' on video. Yeaah! Sweeet! Maybe not as much fun as 'Homicide'. But it's been a slow year for me.
But I have seen three movies this year... including DVDs... so am at an all-time low for film commentary.
In brief:
Notes on a Scandal: Pleasant but unpersuasive diversion. Two noted actresses, though I noticed nothing about their acting, really, or the writing.
Children of Men: I rate this along with BLADERUNNER as an effective set design and evocation of a dystopian near-future. I followed the story of this fairy tale with close attention in the theater, but little stuck with me after I'd left beyond the images and the swift and striking changes in mood. I needed a little less fairy-tale-thin premise to get me into the time and place of the drama, so I never got into the characters who lived in it. But scenes taken in isolation were very visually and sensually persuasive... though not emotionally persuasive.
The Banff Mountain Film Festival: Every year Pat and I go to see this road show in Washington at the National Geographic auditorium. It's usually the highlight of my film year. But this year it ranged from pleasant to indifferent.
Asiemut: One film followed a man and woman who biked from Mongolia across China to India. For those of you who can read French [sigh], here's a link to their site. [http://www.asiemut.mine.nu/] It's a simple but eloquent story of two people who, in their own words, wish to go beyond their own limits. They succeed... and the story is enriching and moving.
Patagonia, a travel to the end of the world: The Patagonia icecap lies between the Andes mountains, and is frequently exposed to strong winds and whiteout. Norwegian Børge Ousland and Thomas Ulrich from Switzerland started from a small village in Chile to cross the world’s third largest icecap from the west to reach the eastern shores of Argentina. They had to carry all their equipment und food supplies for the 54-day-long expedition with skis and special kayaks, because they had no outside help. They used their kayaks as sled, and did some admirably manly and ill-advised lashing-together of kayaks to make rafts. Very Huck Finn. And cold and crazy and a tribute to Y chromosones and their epic adumbrations of common sense.
The most accessible films... not very interesting as films, but for their content... are the 'Kids Who Rip' films. These are very young kids doing extreme sports. These films are cute in the irrefutably compelling sense of talking dogs and cats playing pianos. They are fun to watch. Go here to watch a few. [http://www.kidswhorip.com/portal] - download a short teaser in several formats. I am, of course, far cooler and sick-awesome than any of these kids. I am extreme typing now, yeow, in the tube!
I have also been watching 'The Wire' on video. Yeaah! Sweeet! Maybe not as much fun as 'Homicide'. But it's been a slow year for me.
12 February 2007
Altered States
How long since you've seen "Altered States?" If it's been over ten years, time to see it again.
I bought this DVD maybe 5 ago, during a sort of spasm of video acquisition that hit me right after I bought my first player. But I didn't actually watch it until Friday. My, but this is a good movie. "Bladerunner" usually gets the nod as the best sci-fi picture of the last 25 years, maybe ever... and I'd support that. But "Altered States" comes in a close second, for my money, anyway.
Such an interesting pairing: script by Paddy Chayefsky (aka Sidney Aaron), who brought us such sharp dramas as Marty, Network, and The Hospital. Combine with director Ken Russell, better known for surreal, skin-revealing romps like Tommy, Valentino, and Whore. But what a lovely thing these two men created between them. (I heard a story that Chayefsky hated the film when he first saw it, because he felt the actors' machine-gun delivery kept people from understanding the dialogue. Chayefsky wouldn't even put his name on the film, and instead was credited as Sidney Aaron. Interesting that this DVD has both names in the credits.)
For star William Hurt, this has to be a personal best. His portrayal of a driven, somewhat insane medical researcher is brilliant, maybe the best performance in science fiction, ever. Comparable work from Blair Brown, Bob Balaban, and Charles Haid. (It's worth seeing this movie just for Charles Haid's portrayal of medical colleague Mason Parrish.)
The special effects need special mention. This is 1980, remember. Not just pre-digital. Pre a lot of stuff we now take for granted. Russell did something very smart here: he hired Bran Ferren, who was an effects designer for theater, not film. Brilliant! This guy was able to create things that actually happened in front of the camera, often creating immediate, seamless shots that required little or no post production work. This gives the movie a wonderfully honest, genuine quality.
One final note. The musical score was created by classical composer John Corigliano. Awesome music. What a difference it makes when you bring in a pro with experience and talent like this.
In discussing this movie with people over the years, I've realized it's pretty polarizing. I've heard some folks say they absolutely hated it, either because it's too sentimental, or too sappy, or too bleak. Well, okay. It is all of those things. And it's a great movie. Worth a look, if you've not seen it in while. If you've never seen it, then you surely should check it out.
I bought this DVD maybe 5 ago, during a sort of spasm of video acquisition that hit me right after I bought my first player. But I didn't actually watch it until Friday. My, but this is a good movie. "Bladerunner" usually gets the nod as the best sci-fi picture of the last 25 years, maybe ever... and I'd support that. But "Altered States" comes in a close second, for my money, anyway.
Such an interesting pairing: script by Paddy Chayefsky (aka Sidney Aaron), who brought us such sharp dramas as Marty, Network, and The Hospital. Combine with director Ken Russell, better known for surreal, skin-revealing romps like Tommy, Valentino, and Whore. But what a lovely thing these two men created between them. (I heard a story that Chayefsky hated the film when he first saw it, because he felt the actors' machine-gun delivery kept people from understanding the dialogue. Chayefsky wouldn't even put his name on the film, and instead was credited as Sidney Aaron. Interesting that this DVD has both names in the credits.)
For star William Hurt, this has to be a personal best. His portrayal of a driven, somewhat insane medical researcher is brilliant, maybe the best performance in science fiction, ever. Comparable work from Blair Brown, Bob Balaban, and Charles Haid. (It's worth seeing this movie just for Charles Haid's portrayal of medical colleague Mason Parrish.)
The special effects need special mention. This is 1980, remember. Not just pre-digital. Pre a lot of stuff we now take for granted. Russell did something very smart here: he hired Bran Ferren, who was an effects designer for theater, not film. Brilliant! This guy was able to create things that actually happened in front of the camera, often creating immediate, seamless shots that required little or no post production work. This gives the movie a wonderfully honest, genuine quality.
One final note. The musical score was created by classical composer John Corigliano. Awesome music. What a difference it makes when you bring in a pro with experience and talent like this.
In discussing this movie with people over the years, I've realized it's pretty polarizing. I've heard some folks say they absolutely hated it, either because it's too sentimental, or too sappy, or too bleak. Well, okay. It is all of those things. And it's a great movie. Worth a look, if you've not seen it in while. If you've never seen it, then you surely should check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)