What have you been watching? (DVD or Films on TV)

Betamax and beyond

Postby Doc Holliday on Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:45 am

I've got a completely different take on it - need far more time than I have today, but I'll get into it tomorrow and see what you think.

The clue is in the very last scene, where he's back in the tunnel, at full weight, then gets distracted and then the screen goes bright white for about two seconds before the credits roll.

It wasn't a dream.....that's not how I see it.
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:53 am

SPOILERS


No, I'm not saying it was a dream. Just that some of those things that we and him were seeing were imagined or were bent out of reality by him. Part of the idea that he had forced himself to forget the events that happened a year ago, the consequences and knock on effect of that disillusionment that he had created and what he had forced himself to believe (that he didn't hit that kid).

Tell me more about that white fade out tomorrow then.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16623
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby HollywoodBabylon on Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:59 am

Capt Kirks 2pay wrote:
Doc Holliday wrote:
Ribbons wrote:The Machinist

I wasn't really sure what I was in for when I started watching this film. I knew that Christian Bale lost a looooot of weight for it and I knew that it was a psychological thriller that had some supernatural elements to it as well. And I knew that for some reason, I wanted to see it really badly. I still don't know why; I think it was probably because some critic compared it to Kafka (although the movie is actually full of references to Dostoevsky, which I guess I can see. I'd say it's more like a mix of the two). Anyhow, I'm glad I did.

I'll admit, for the first twenty minutes or so of this film, Christian Bale's physique was incredibly distracting. I read a couple of reviews for The Machinist when it first came out where the critics said they couldn't get past how obscenely thin he'd become, and at the time I thought those people were just being superficial. But it's hard, man, it really is. There are scenes where he leans over and his shoulder blades are practically threatening to burst out of his back, and his ribs are constantly protruding, and something about it all just seemed wrong, or painful. I found myself wondering how Bale was able to exist like that for so long. But I sort of became used to it after a while, and I was able to focus more on Bale's performance than his appearance. I thought he was pretty awesome, too. There are a few scenes in the movie where his character seems to be behaving weirdly, almost like, out of context. But once you finish watching the film and know what's going on, his decisions make more sense and I tip my cap to either Bale or Brad Anderson for thinking to create that difference in behavior. Most of his actions in the film have immediate context though. More and more you see the character of Trevor Reznik start to unravel. He becomes desperate to find out what's really going on, to make sense of his world, and Bale conveys that torture, that sense of frustration, really well.

HERE BE SPOILERS

I don't know if I wanna get too into spoilers, because I don't think this review is really important enough for people to spoil themselves for it, so I'll write down a couple of things about the plot while trying to be vague about others.

Trevor Reznik is a machinist. He has no wife, but he spends a lot of time with a prostitute (Jennifer Jason-Leigh) and gets his flirt on with a waitress at a diner in the nearest airport, where he always goes "just in case he feels like leaving." He doesn't sleep at night, he doesn't even really take naps. He just gets to a point where he becomes so tired he dozes off every now and then, like sitting in his car or while reading a book. There are several references to how thin he's become in the last year as well, but they're all in passing. As far as we know, nothing much has changed. But a lot changes in the next two hours. At the beginning of the film, he starts seeing a new guy, Ivan, hanging around the factory where he works. The guy pretty much shakes Trevor's whole world upside-down. He harrasses Trevor throughout the movie, leading Reznik to pursue him and even do dangerous things as a result, the worst of those things being accidentally chopping off a co-worker's forearm.

At the point in the movie where "Ivan" showed up, I was basically like "Oh, great. So he's crazy, and Ivan is really a part of his personality, a figment of his imagination, etc. This whole movie is basically going to be one man's journey to discover he's actually not sane, but crazy. And so on," which I'm pretty sure isn't how it works in real life, BTW. But, of course, I was wrong. That's not what was going on in the movie at all. I guess in a way, Reznik IS a little bit crazy. Delusional, hallucinatory at least, maybe partially from a lack of sleep. But all the things that he was seeing that weren't really there were manifestations of other feelings. The way it all came together at the end really surprised me in a good way. And once you can go back and sort of realize what's going on and understand where Rzeznik's coming from, I think the movie seems better for it. Then again, that process of unraveling the truth is gone.

Some of it doesn't work. I'm still not sure why what happened to Reznik happened at the time it did; I guess the answer to that is that he had just gotten to a point where he couldn't take it anymore. There's also a red herring of sorts with this crazy, stalker fisherman that I guess was necessary to keep the plot going. Once everything's revealed, though, you just kind of look back on it and realize how it ultimately didn't have anything to do with the story.

I really liked Anderson's style. I've never seen Session 9, and I don't know how similar it is to The Machinist, but the sickly cinematography, the spare music in the background and the setting of the film were all really atmospheric, and I think that they enhanced the story being told. There's also a lot of doubling (I don't even know if that's a real word) used in the script, where a character says something at one point in the film and then somebody else or the same character says it again later, and while that gag sort of tends to annoy me, I think that the couple of times it was used here worked pretty well. And the last line, "I just want to sleep," really got to me for some reason. It's a very sympathetic film, and I felt pretty bad for Trevor at the end.

So all told, a good little meditation on crime and punishment, with a bit of a Romantic bent in its view of machinery as unhealthy and destructive and more than enough atmosphere to justify both viewpoints. I think I'd give it 6-7/10, maybe? I'm not really good at these scale things. But that's high for me. I recommend it.


AT last! I'm quoting this because its taken me my entire lunch hour to go through this thread and find it again. I saw THE MACHINIST last night and thought ti was a great movie - I'm giving it 9 out of 10 right off the bat. I'm coming back to this tomorrow - I have a lot to say about this film - I just went to Wiki to see what their take on it was and either I've imagined a whole other movie (not impossible by any stretch of the imagination) or they've missed approximately 50% of the symbolism this film is absolutely packed to the hilt with.

Either way - sorry it took me so long Ribbons, but it was your review that switched me on to this movie back in September last year, so it seemed only fair to remind everyone of its excellence.


I dunno you guys. I seriously relished the whole film up until the end and obviously Christian Bale's performance was magnificent, not only his unbelievable physical transformation but how he still can be so different a person through his physical acting alone, how his facial expressions and tics, mannerisms hardly seem alike from this film to the next and how he can completely set himself apart from other characters by doing this alone.

But the ending felt like a cop out. So many mysteries and questions going on, how on earth are we supposed to explain all of this? What single thing(s?) ties it all up? And the answer is... SPOILERS


Oh, it was aaaallll psychological. Motherfucker, you might as we ll just have said it was all a dream. Such an easy palm off excusing way to explain away an ending. Yes it is extraordinary and strongly shows the way a mind can bend reality and how horrific it can make things, but MAN! We had a brilliant puzzle going on in this movie. We really wanted to know how these pieces all fitted together. Then we find out that so much of it was practically, physical - real. Just takes away anything clever that the explanation had.

Really took way from the film and was a major letdown for me. Otherwise you're looking at a dark cult movie gem. A great film instead of a brilliant one.


I have to say the movie impressed when I saw it not long ago on DVD - and confirmed for me that Bale is one of the best film actors around. His performance in this was uncomfortably compelling....a peculiar and unusual portrait of a man trapped in the nightmare shadows of his own unreal reality by way of both physical and psychological neuroses. Definitely an overlooked movie IMHO.
User avatar
HollywoodBabylon
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:55 pm

Postby DerLanghaarige on Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:13 pm

Casino Royale

Best Bond ever my ass!! That was one boring piece of film, starring the wrong actor (And I really wanted to give him a chance!).
But LeChiffre was cool. And the showdown.

5/10
Image
User avatar
DerLanghaarige
Lohman's Wet Shirt
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Postby EdmundoDupont on Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:55 am

Spoilers, kinda...

I just watched Stranger Than Fiction and I have to say, I kinda enjoyed it. But, one thing just didn't add up.

The whole plot revolves around this masterpiece being written - its crowning moment being the death of the main character. But, when you watch the film and listen to the narrative, I can't for the life of me ascertain how his death would have added to the plot, at all. The bus driver and the kid seemed completely extraneous to the plot.

If the original plot of the story was actually carried out it would have been a book about a buttoned down office worker who met a free-spirited lass, fell in love, and then got hit by a bus. And, I'm not sure if you all agree, but that kinda sounds like a lame ending to a masterpiece.

Granted, the audience may have only been privvy to the plot line in the book that related to his character - but, I still can't fathom how the main character's death would have added to the plot.

Other than that, I thought it was a pretty godamm good film... but, I would have appreciated an explanation as to how his death fit into the whole thing.

It's like that film Magnolia... I know this is going back a while...but there was that whole sequence at the beginning that explored how sometimes an extraordinary event will happen, and that extraordinary event will lead to an even more extraordinary occurence. But, P.T. Anderson doesn't follow through with that hypothesis. When the frogs rain down in Magnolia, it doesn't act as the catalyst to an extraordinary event - people just stand around all slack-jawed saying "well, fuck... Frogs are raining down... y'don't see that every day".

But, apart from that, I really enjoyed Magnolia, too.

Ah, this is getting dangerously close to rant town. But, I guess, I just find it a tad disappointing when you have high concept films, that don't give you the goods. High concept films always seem to have plague-ridden third acts.

What do y'all think?
Goo Goo Ga Goohan!
EdmundoDupont
GLIB
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:48 am

Postby Ribbons on Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:00 am

EdmundoDupont wrote:Spoilers, kinda...

I just watched Stranger Than Fiction and I have to say, I kinda enjoyed it. But, one thing just didn't add up.

The whole plot revolves around this masterpiece being written - its crowning moment being the death of the main character. But, when you watch the film and listen to the narrative, I can't for the life of me ascertain how his death would have added to the plot, at all. The bus driver and the kid seemed completely extraneous to the plot.

If the original plot of the story was actually carried out it would have been a book about a buttoned down office worker who met a free-spirited lass, fell in love, and then got hit by a bus. And, I'm not sure if you all agree, but that kinda sounds like a lame ending to a masterpiece.

Granted, the audience may have only been privvy to the plot line in the book that related to his character - but, I still can't fathom how the main character's death would have added to the plot.

Other than that, I thought it was a pretty godamm good film... but, I would have appreciated an explanation as to how his death fit into the whole thing.

It's like that film Magnolia... I know this is going back a while...but there was that whole sequence at the beginning that explored how sometimes an extraordinary event will happen, and that extraordinary event will lead to an even more extraordinary occurence. But, P.T. Anderson doesn't follow through with that hypothesis. When the frogs rain down in Magnolia, it doesn't act as the catalyst to an extraordinary event - people just stand around all slack-jawed saying "well, fuck... Frogs are raining down... y'don't see that every day".

But, apart from that, I really enjoyed Magnolia, too.

Ah, this is getting dangerously close to rant town. But, I guess, I just find it a tad disappointing when you have high concept films, that don't give you the goods. High concept films always seem to have plague-ridden third acts.

What do y'all think?


Welcome to the Zone, Edmundo. Nice review(s); I definitely see where you're coming from, although I haven't seen Stranger Than Fiction yet. But I felt similarly after watching Magnolia.

I think a lot of storytellers have those moments where there's an idea or a theme that they really want to express but they don't necessarily come with a cohesive plot attached, so they have to write backwards, in a way, which sometimes leads to situations such as the ones you mentioned. At least they're often admirable efforts, eh? :)
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 14026
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:24 am

EdmundoDupont wrote:Spoilers, kinda...

I just watched Stranger Than Fiction and I have to say, I kinda enjoyed it. But, one thing just didn't add up.

The whole plot revolves around this masterpiece being written - its crowning moment being the death of the main character. But, when you watch the film and listen to the narrative, I can't for the life of me ascertain how his death would have added to the plot, at all. The bus driver and the kid seemed completely extraneous to the plot.

If the original plot of the story was actually carried out it would have been a book about a buttoned down office worker who met a free-spirited lass, fell in love, and then got hit by a bus. And, I'm not sure if you all agree, but that kinda sounds like a lame ending to a masterpiece.

Granted, the audience may have only been privvy to the plot line in the book that related to his character - but, I still can't fathom how the main character's death would have added to the plot.

Other than that, I thought it was a pretty godamm good film... but, I would have appreciated an explanation as to how his death fit into the whole thing.



SPOILERS












It's Pathos quite frankly dude. I know that sounds cliched, but the whole point of what would make it a masterpiece is that this ending would have affected the reader more and made them think about life etc. It basically was about a guy that discovered how wonderful life was and how he as a person had only just woken up and became alive, in a sense of course. Then out of nowhere for no related reason, he is hit by a bus and killed - whilst also saving the life of someone else, hence sacrificing his NEWFOUND life (whereas before he was metaphorically dead or comatose) so that another could continue there's and make the most of it, like how Will Ferrel did, though he did it just too late. But it's really about what I said before, how Ferrell's character as soon as he was given life - it was taken away from him, hence showing both at once how beautiful life can be, and how cruel and sadistically horrible it can be. Also how limited it is. You are left to make of life what you will from thinking about this ending. This book was meant ot make you think about life and maybe, reconsider yours. In a way it's like the movie Awakenings where - SPOILERS -
















Robert De Niro awakes from a coma and discovers life and how great it is to be 'alive' and to be happy - only to slip back into the coma so immediately and become 'dead' again.

So, the novel's ending was meant to be deep, solid and really upsetting to the point where your views on life were perhaps changed. This is my idea on why it was considered a 'masterpiece'. Does this help? Lemme know.


If you like, go here and you can discuss this or other matters in greater detail.


Welcome to the Zone.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16623
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby EdmundoDupont on Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:18 am

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
EdmundoDupont wrote:Spoilers, kinda...

I just watched Stranger Than Fiction and I have to say, I kinda enjoyed it. But, one thing just didn't add up.

The whole plot revolves around this masterpiece being written - its crowning moment being the death of the main character. But, when you watch the film and listen to the narrative, I can't for the life of me ascertain how his death would have added to the plot, at all. The bus driver and the kid seemed completely extraneous to the plot.

If the original plot of the story was actually carried out it would have been a book about a buttoned down office worker who met a free-spirited lass, fell in love, and then got hit by a bus. And, I'm not sure if you all agree, but that kinda sounds like a lame ending to a masterpiece.

Granted, the audience may have only been privvy to the plot line in the book that related to his character - but, I still can't fathom how the main character's death would have added to the plot.

Other than that, I thought it was a pretty godamm good film... but, I would have appreciated an explanation as to how his death fit into the whole thing.



SPOILERS












It's Pathos quite frankly dude. I know that sounds cliched, but the whole point of what would make it a masterpiece is that this ending would have affected the reader more and made them think about life etc. It basically was about a guy that discovered how wonderful life was and how he as a person had only just woken up and became alive, in a sense of course. Then out of nowhere for no related reason, he is hit by a bus and killed - whilst also saving the life of someone else, hence sacrificing his NEWFOUND life (whereas before he was metaphorically dead or comatose) so that another could continue there's and make the most of it, like how Will Ferrel did, though he did it just too late. But it's really about what I said before, how Ferrell's character as soon as he was given life - it was taken away from him, hence showing both at once how beautiful life can be, and how cruel and sadistically horrible it can be. Also how limited it is. You are left to make of life what you will from thinking about this ending. This book was meant ot make you think about life and maybe, reconsider yours. In a way it's like the movie Awakenings where - SPOILERS -
















Robert De Niro awakes from a coma and discovers life and how great it is to be 'alive' and to be happy - only to slip back into the coma so immediately and become 'dead' again.

So, the novel's ending was meant to be deep, solid and really upsetting to the point where your views on life were perhaps changed. This is my idea on why it was considered a 'masterpiece'. Does this help? Lemme know.


If you like, go here and you can discuss this or other matters in greater detail.


Welcome to the Zone.


Heya, Cpt and Ribbons...

The warm welcomes were much appreciated. And, Cpt, your commentary about the ending of Stranger Than Fiction was enlightening. I guess the one thing I never took into account was that the author's novel was hackneyed shit. :wink:
EdmundoDupont
GLIB
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:48 am

Postby Seppuku on Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:33 pm

Edmundo, you don't happen to have a sister called Alexandra DuPont who is a Goddess amongst movie geeks, do you? If the answer is yes, I know this is kind of a creepy thing to ask her brother, but you don't happen to have any...woo'age advice do you? I think we'd hit it off, but it'd be nice to have a head start for once.

I'll let you marinate on it for awhile Edmundo, but make sure you get back to me, OK.
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby justcheckin on Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:49 pm

Watched Blood Diamond, Eragon, and Rocky Balboa. Pretty good weekend for movies. :)
User avatar
justcheckin
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2751
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Down the street, take a left.

Postby minstrel on Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:25 pm

justcheckin wrote:Watched Blood Diamond, Eragon, and Rocky Balboa. Pretty good weekend for movies. :)


Eragon? I haven't seen it, but I've heard it's vomit-wrenching. You must have a strong stomach.

:)
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby justcheckin on Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:47 pm

minstrel wrote:
justcheckin wrote:Watched Blood Diamond, Eragon, and Rocky Balboa. Pretty good weekend for movies. :)


Eragon? I haven't seen it, but I've heard it's vomit-wrenching. You must have a strong stomach.

:)


Actually it wasn't THAT bad... it was a cross between Lord of the Rings and H@rry Potter. Had I not read those books and seen those movies, it maybe would have been pretty good. Not enough character development in the movie though... seemed sorta rushed. Anyways... :)
User avatar
justcheckin
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2751
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Down the street, take a left.

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:55 am

I know one of you gentleman reviewed this already, but how fucking awesome is The Hidden?

Greatest. Baddie. Evar!

seriously, all that slimy slug-like body jacker does is take, take, take. Whatever it desires, it just takes it. Kinda works as a metaphor for the 80's in some ways, no?

Sure, it jacks the cop-killing rampage from Terminator, yeah, it kinda rips off Alien, Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Thing but it does it in it's own unique way. True, as the gf suggested, maybe it gives away the premise a bit early (or as the gf said, they should've waited about 20minutes, instead of 12 (my argument that the big reveal of Kyle MacLachlan as being the true twist fell on drunk, high, vicodined ears)).

But it's funnier than it has any right to be, the direction is solid, and the casting is perfect.

and that ending? So sad, yet so poignant as well.

it's really great when beloved flicks from your youth end up being even better than you remembered them...
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:09 am

justcheckin wrote:
minstrel wrote:Eragon? I haven't seen it, but I've heard it's vomit-wrenching. You must have a strong stomach.


Actually it wasn't THAT bad... it was a cross between Lord of the Rings and H@rry Potter.


Was it really? I never would have a guessed a that from a the trailers, eh?
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby Doc Holliday on Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:13 am

I heard it was a cross between Star Wars and.....no, sorry, that was it - just Star Wars. But with dragons.
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby havocSchultz on Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:18 am

Doc Holliday wrote:I heard it was a cross between Star Wars and.....no, sorry, that was it - just Star Wars. But with dragons.


That tagline was already taken by the epic Dungeons and Dragons movie...

But it was: "Star Wars...with dragons, and one of the Wayans..."

Worked for me...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby MonkeyM666 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:34 am

I hate to tell you guys but Eragon was pretty bad.

*SPOLIERS AHEAD*

*The story was fairly rushed, especially the coming of age of the Dragon... it literally went from a little baby to a huge telepathic monster in five seconds.

*There was absolutely no sense of the passage of time in this film. It went from the middle of the day, to the middle of the night with a cut and no explanation. Throughout the movie I was consistently confused on how long things took, as well as the obvious usage of 'choice shots' just to fill holes.

*The main character, Eragon was still the same sheltered boy from the farm at the end as he was when the film started. He only learned like 3 'magical words' and that helped him save the day. The same words/tricks again and again. <claps very slowly :roll:>

* The character development was all very superficial and felt more like a rushed videogame adaptation rather then being fed from a detailed book. The bad guy (John Malkovich) was very flat and just 'evil' because he had a dark wizard, pointed beard and lounged in his castle infront of a huge map.

*The final fight was rushed (they barely introduced the mountain king, or who ever it was and BANG! We're in the final fight) It's a film for 10 year olds with head injuries...


I haven't read the books, or even really know what the deal is with the saga, but it really seemed to be catering to ADD kids with no taste.

That's IMO, but I usually get into the tween flicks and am not too critical knowing the audience it’s directed at.
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5406
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby havocSchultz on Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:54 am

MonkeyM666 wrote:
*There was absolutely no sense of the passage of time in this film. It went from the middle of the day, to the middle of the night with a cut and no explanation. Throughout the movie I was consistently confused on how long things took, as well as the obvious usage of 'choice shots' just to fill holes.




I see the director went to the Brett Ratner Film School of Logic...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Nordling on Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:02 pm

I watched BEFORE SUNSET this weekend. A remarkable film. Linklater nailed the current 30-something mindset perfectly. I'd be lying if I said I hadn't felt some of what these characters are talking about. If you're a fan of the first film, this one's a must. If you're in your 30s, you'll relate a hell of a lot to this one.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Flumm on Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:35 pm

I'd agree, Nord.

A nice example of experimentation and deconstruction really serving the material, rather than over powering it, I think.

None of the ideas n' techniques used feel like anything approaching a gimmick or a hook to throw a movie around, which is a very present reality when approaching something like this from the head as much as anywhere else.

I would gladly watch BS/AS over most, if not all, romantic mainstream drama/comedy made in the same period...

In fact, as films to me, they're more rewatchable because of the nature of the way they're made. That drifing along in the moment sentiment, the naturalness, the awkwardness, with the bitterness of the moment as well as the sweet, pulls you with it, compared to more traditional fair, which can feel condescending and insincere at the best of times, let alone on repeat viewing.

And I think they sustained and yet moved on with what they had over the two films as well. It wasn't an easy task, but they really make strong companion pieces to eachother.

Be interested to see if they all get together again and revisit the world for a third time around, like they seemed to genuinely want to from the DVD doc...
User avatar
Flumm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5601
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Yesteryonder

The Shield

Postby yaz67 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:15 pm

Getting my Chiklis fix watching the first 5 seasons of the Shield leading up to the Season 6 premiere. Good stuff.
yaz67
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:40 pm

Postby The Vicar on Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:51 pm

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:I know one of you gentleman reviewed this already, but how fucking awesome is The Hidden?

Greatest. Baddie. Evar!

seriously, all that slimy slug-like body jacker does is take, take, take. Whatever it desires, it just takes it. Kinda works as a metaphor for the 80's in some ways, no?

Sure, it jacks the cop-killing rampage from Terminator, yeah, it kinda rips off Alien, Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Thing but it does it in it's own unique way. True, as the gf suggested, maybe it gives away the premise a bit early (or as the gf said, they should've waited about 20minutes, instead of 12 (my argument that the big reveal of Kyle MacLachlan as being the true twist fell on drunk, high, vicodined ears)).

But it's funnier than it has any right to be, the direction is solid, and the casting is perfect.

and that ending? So sad, yet so poignant as well.

it's really great when beloved flicks from your youth end up being even better than you remembered them...


So very happy to see The Hidden get a little love around here.
If I have my chronology correct, Kyle McLaughlin puts in his first turn as a weird FBI agent in The Hidden.
Fans of Babylon Five will enjoy seeing Claudia Christensen somewhat out of uniform; fans of Michael Nouri ( including, primarily, Michael Nouri ) will get whatever they get from him.
I don't know if it's on the accompanying commentary track, but I'd heard somewhere that the director kept looking at Michael Nouri, thinking he was such an amazing speciman and wondering "Why in hell isn't this guy bigger?" Then he started to work with him.
And he understood.
Gods I love that story.
THe Hidden is great, solid fun that tries not to waste your time. Coming in at 98 minutes isn't always just tight editing.
Always enjoy revisiting The Hidden.
Makes a great twin bill with Return of the Living Dead.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby The Vicar on Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:31 pm

But I came tonight, not to sing the praises of a nice popcorn chewer like The Hidden.

CHILDREN OF MEN SPOILERS - DON'T BE A DOUCHE AND BLAME ME LATER IF YOU READ THIS NOW & RUIN THE FILM YOU SHOULD HAVE BLOODY WELL SEEN ALREADY. HONESTLY. INSTEAD OF NACHO LIBRE. OI.

I have a copy of Children of Men.

The sight of that one armed woman, staggering out of the blast of the cafe, carrying her missing limb....haunting.

Jasper's first appearance...couldn't fight a smile.

The director's use of sound - the way the cafe explosion continues to ring in our ears as in Theo's........

Then Jillian came downstairs & I have to restart from the top after she's down for the night.
Won't mind a bit.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:13 am

The Vicar wrote:I don't know if it's on the accompanying commentary track, but I'd heard somewhere that the director kept looking at Michael Nouri, thinking he was such an amazing speciman and wondering "Why in hell isn't this guy bigger?" Then he started to work with him.


Hehehe... surely a the Vicar, he is old enough a to remember a the "Cliffhangers" series onna the NBC, no? With a the Michael Nouri as a the Dracula?
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby Cha-Ka Khan on Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:21 am

I just received "Babel" from Netflix, and still have "They Live" and "This Island Earth" to watch from the library.

I've only ever seen the first half of "They Live." I thought it should be something I finish to earn my geek credentials.
User avatar
Cha-Ka Khan
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 am

Postby Nordling on Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:29 am

CHILDREN OF MEN is a bonafide classic. Watched it last night after seeing it in the theater twice and it still has so much power in it. My wife said afterwards, "How in the hell did that that not get nominated?"
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Doc Holliday on Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:34 am

Show me somebody with a satisfactory answer to that one Nordling and I'll show you a liar....
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby MonkeyM666 on Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:35 am

It's English.... Now call me what you like 8)
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5406
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Doc Holliday on Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am

On account of you living here, my opening gambit would be 'hypocrite'

(my folllow-up would be "You baitin' ole bastard...")

:P
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby MonkeyM666 on Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:53 am

oooooohhh..... AHHHHHH! That cuts deep man.... no, STOP! IT BURNS!!!!!











<ahem> Sorry Doc, what were you saying, I was just going to the loo.









I'm sure that it's widely known that COM is in my top 10. I can't believe that it didn't win best picture, let alone be nominated for it. It just proves that the Academy has no idea any more.
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5406
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Doc Holliday on Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:24 am

You assume too much - I have no idea what films you like and don't like

(walks off, muttering something about 'wheat' and 'chaff' and Monkey's posts)

I see how you meant your comment though....belatedley
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby MonkeyM666 on Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:27 am

Doc Holliday wrote:You assume too much - I have no idea what films you like and don't like

(walks off, muttering something about 'wheat' and 'chaff' and Monkey's posts)

I see how you meant your comment though....belatedley


Wheat? Chaff? Wa?

I don't usually do top 10 lists as I'm too fickle and forget shit that I really like. COM is in the top 10, LOTR (trilogy) is in there too...
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5406
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby The Vicar on Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:31 am

DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
The Vicar wrote:I don't know if it's on the accompanying commentary track, but I'd heard somewhere that the director kept looking at Michael Nouri, thinking he was such an amazing speciman and wondering "Why in hell isn't this guy bigger?" Then he started to work with him.


Hehehe... surely a the Vicar, he is old enough a to remember a the "Cliffhangers" series onna the NBC, no? With a the Michael Nouri as a the Dracula?


Omigawd.
Another one creeps out of the musty vaults ( circa 1979 ), courtesy of Dino - The Human Time Capsule.
NBC sure ran the living crap out of the "rotating stories" format they did so well with Name of the Game.
They didn't do it so well in this case.
Amazing that it's remembered at all, not counting Susan Anton's contribution.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby The Vicar on Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:33 am

Nordling wrote:CHILDREN OF MEN is a bonafide classic. Watched it last night after seeing it in the theater twice and it still has so much power in it. My wife said afterwards, "How in the hell did that that not get nominated?"


Truest thing said yet today.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:45 pm

Mutual Appreciation.

you can either tag this as Cassavetes-light, substituting Cassavetes heavy melodramatics with a blase 2000's attitude, or Scott Pilgrim-heavy, minus the surreal whimsy with extra non-cutesy angst.

Andrew Bujalski is making a name for himself making these ultra low budget, talky, 20something malaise indies, and while I'm a fan of the genre, the style, and the ethos, he hasn't really impressed me yet.

which isn't to say that I haven't gotten some enjoyment from his two films. His depiction of the life of a 20something as being socially awkward, with characters who hem and haw and don't really know how to express themselves, is filled with acute observations of social ineptitude, of a yearning for connection that the characters themselves can't even begin to express, is at times frightfully spot on.

However, if you loathe seeing "yourself", as the gf attested to while watching both of his films, don't bother, 'cuz the recognition can be painful.

he also, to his credit, doesn't make his NYC characters "hipsters" or the "cool kids"...dorks, nerds, geeks, sure, but they're never cooler than thou. Even while the protagonist of his latest, an indie pop musician played by Dylan look alike and actual indie pop musician Justin Rice of Bishop Allen (non)fame, isn't so much rock star aloof as goofily blase about his effect on people.

and if you like lo-fi indie-pop, the highlight of the film is the pretty darn good performance with Rice on guitar and a drummer that was filmed at Northsix, from what I've heard a pretty good club in Brooklyn.

the pacing is often bore-noying, you may find yourself wanting to bitch-slap the main protagonist, and the meandering dialog at times borders on tedious, but Bujalski's efforts are commendable, and here's hoping he grows a bit as a writer and director, 'cuz we need more filmmakers like him.
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby havocSchultz on Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:55 pm

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:Mutual Appreciation.

you can either tag this as Cassavetes-light, substituting Cassavetes heavy melodramatics with a blase 2000's attitude, or Scott Pilgrim-heavy, minus the surreal whimsy with extra non-cutesy angst.

Andrew Bujalski is making a name for himself making these ultra low budget, talky, 20something malaise indies, and while I'm a fan of the genre, the style, and the ethos, he hasn't really impressed me yet.

which isn't to say that I haven't gotten some enjoyment from his two films. His depiction of the life of a 20something as being socially awkward, with characters who hem and haw and don't really know how to express themselves, is filled with acute observations of social ineptitude, of a yearning for connection that the characters themselves can't even begin to express, is at times frightfully spot on.

However, if you loathe seeing "yourself", as the gf attested to while watching both of his films, don't bother, 'cuz the recognition can be painful.

he also, to his credit, doesn't make his NYC characters "hipsters" or the "cool kids"...dorks, nerds, geeks, sure, but they're never cooler than thou. Even while the protagonist of his latest, an indie pop musician played by Dylan look alike and actual indie pop musician Justin Rice of Bishop Allen (non)fame, isn't so much rock star aloof as goofily blase about his effect on people.

and if you like lo-fi indie-pop, the highlight of the film is the pretty darn good performance with Rice on guitar and a drummer that was filmed at Northsix, from what I've heard a pretty good club in Brooklyn.

the pacing is often bore-noying, you may find yourself wanting to bitch-slap the main protagonist, and the meandering dialog at times borders on tedious, but Bujalski's efforts are commendable, and here's hoping he grows a bit as a writer and director, 'cuz we need more filmmakers like him.


Soooo...

Is this Bujalski fella kinda Kevin Smith-esque...?

Or is he his own entity...?

Is he the complete polar opposite...?

I only ask because of the mention of 20-somethings and talkiness and what-not...

Is it okay that I said "Polar" without one reference to me having sex with a big white bear...?
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:09 pm

Night of the Comet.

oh man, another one of those films from my yoof that somehow manages to stand the test of time.

sure, the awful 80's haircuts induce a pretty severe case of the howling fantods, and while the fashion was pretty abysmal for the time frame, I swear, if those of Latin stock were to appropriate Hector's fashion to the now, those fuckers would get pussy by the truckload. And speaking of pussy by the truckload, great early appearance from the PUSSY WAGON himself, Michael Bowen (how's THAT for a segueway, eh?).

not exactly funnier than I remembered, as Kelli Maroney's ditzy yet automatic weapons versed Valley cheerleader still, after all these years, cracks me the fuck up, but my young eyes didn't perceive the witty social commentary going on beneath the surface.

and my ears certainly never picked up on the fucking brilliant use of diegetic music throughout the film, particularly when our not-as-hapless as the appear heroines head to the one awfully cheesy 80's synth-shit blaring music station still operable. I thought it may have been a coinky-dink with the "bad man" lyrics when Hector makes his first appearance, but every scene in the station is set to appropriately cinematical music cues.

and how can you not love a flick that has our heroines, after realizing the world is theirs, head off to the mall for a "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" montage of epic silliness.

the delightfully cheesy effects are a hoot, the action scenes are fucktardedly woeful, but this flick holds up and stands the test of time.
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:15 pm

havocSchultz wrote:Soooo...

Is this Bujalski fella kinda Kevin Smith-esque...?

Or is he his own entity...?

Is he the complete polar opposite...?

I only ask because of the mention of 20-somethings and talkiness and what-not...


even with his budget limitations that keep him in the Clerks range, Bujalski the superior filmmatist.

but his plots don't really go anywhere, unlike KS, who even at his thumb up the ass of the establishment best (still Clerks, for me), pretty much adhered to strict Robert McKee 3 part structure.

the performances/dialog are much more naturalistic, characters just don't start riffing on the nuances of pop-culture. And there are no one-liners either.

short answer long, distant non-kissing cousins, hence why I compared him to Cassavetes rather than KS.
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby havocSchultz on Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:21 pm

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
havocSchultz wrote:Soooo...

Is this Bujalski fella kinda Kevin Smith-esque...?

Or is he his own entity...?

Is he the complete polar opposite...?

I only ask because of the mention of 20-somethings and talkiness and what-not...


even with his budget limitations that keep him in the Clerks range, Bujalski the superior filmmatist.

but his plots don't really go anywhere, unlike KS, who even at his thumb up the ass of the establishment best (still Clerks, for me), pretty much adhered to strict Robert McKee 3 part structure.

the performances/dialog are much more naturalistic, characters just don't start riffing on the nuances of pop-culture. And there are no one-liners either.

short answer long, distant non-kissing cousins, hence why I compared him to Cassavetes rather than KS.



So he moves the camera...?


Thnx for clarifying though...
And from the little bit of Cassavetes I've seen - I can kinda see what you're saying...

Appreciate the heads up...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:29 pm

havocSchultz wrote:So he moves the camera...?


Funny, HaHa!

'yup.
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby unikrunk on Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:49 am

Children of Men -

Watched last night, finally; holy shit.

I can't write a review for this film, it would not do justice to the material. “One could write books focused on certain themes the film presentsâ€
He can't' love you back...
Image
User avatar
unikrunk
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 4845
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:48 am

Postby burlivesleftnut on Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:29 pm

Holy crap, I just got done watching Happy Feet. It was fucking great, but terrifying too. What the hell... After the whole Penguin habitat thing, I kind of get the feeling that the rest of the movie is some weird Mumble fever dream. Totally brilliant, but really psycho and depressing all at once. George Miller is nuts!
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby Brocktune on Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:35 pm

unikrunk wrote:(thank you R. Scott)


RANDOLPH SCOTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Image
User avatar
Brocktune
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6490
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Pico & Sepulveda

Postby The Vicar on Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:04 am

burlivesleftnut wrote:Holy crap, I just got done watching Happy Feet. It was fucking great, but terrifying too. What the hell... After the whole Penguin habitat thing, I kind of get the feeling that the rest of the movie is some weird Mumble fever dream. Totally brilliant, but really psycho and depressing all at once. George Miller is nuts!


This much is certain.

Sometimes it works in our favor.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby minstrel on Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:08 am

I just watched Casino Royale. I was mightily impressed. Best Bond since Connery. Maybe even beats Connery, and I'm a big-time Connery fan.

Almost erases the bad taste of many, many disappointing Bond films over the past couple of decades.

Big thumbs up from me!

:)
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby burlivesleftnut on Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:45 am

Haha, I just watched it too! I had seen it in the theater and loved it, and I just had to buy the DVD. I concur. Best bond in a LONG time.
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby LeFlambeur on Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:07 pm

I recently saw a wonderful little documentary by Wim Wenders called Room 666. Filmed in a hotel room in 1982 at Cannes, various are left alone in the room with a running camera and a sheet of questions, mainly pertaining to what the future of cinema is. Godard's rant is the first. He was the only one who read the entire sheet. After a while it becomes difficult to tell what the questions on the sheet are, and what his comments are. The entire thing converges into an inspired rant, with some uniquely telling (yet offhand) moments about his approach to cinema at the time. His was almost like a short film in and of itself. Herzog's was another standout. First he takes off his shoes and socks "You can't answer a question like this with your shoes on." Then he begins to predict banking via television, and grocery shopping via video. Fassbinder (in one of his final recorded interviews), Antonioni, and Wenders himself, all make appearences. Speilberg complains about movie costs, and claims that E.T. had only "one shot in the forest." A facinating time capsule and small treasure.
LeFlambeur
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:28 pm

Postby Cha-Ka Khan on Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:33 am

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:I've only ever seen the first half of "They Live." I thought it should be something I finish to earn my geek credentials.


Well, I finished it, and it looks like I didn't miss much. That was one bad film. Talk about mourning the loss of an hour...
User avatar
Cha-Ka Khan
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 am

Postby magicmonkey on Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:49 am

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:
Cha-Ka Khan wrote:I've only ever seen the first half of "They Live." I thought it should be something I finish to earn my geek credentials.


Well, I finished it, and it looks like I didn't miss much. That was one bad film. Talk about mourning the loss of an hour...


:shock: Sure the fight early on is a highlight, and I must admit that as a tyke I would often fall asleep only an hour in (it was always on tv late at night), but, a bad film? Nooo! It's a wonderfully wry tribute to the uneducated underclass serving socially elite "aliens". Roddy Piper is a legend and he kicks ass when he's all out of bubble gum. :lol:
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Postby Al Shut on Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:42 am

Yesterday, or rather today very early in the morning, I watched Chandramukhi, a Bollywood movie with a less spastic style than the ones I previous tried to watch so I was able to see it all the way to the end.

The boss of an construction project, his wife and the family of the woman he was supposed to marry but didn't (don't ask me) all move into a haunted mansion. So you've got unersolved family issues and a revengful ghost to fill the aproximately 3 hours runtime.

By far the most silliest, goofy, ALF movie I have seen in a while.

But the real point of my post is to sing the praise of my new hero, and I say this without any hint of irony or sarkasm.

Dr.Saravanan, played by Super Star Rajinikanth (that's how he's credited), the brother of the construction boss is a womanizing, kung fu fighting psychiatrist. And not any psychiatrist but the worlds best psychiatrist. He can even read your very thoughts just by looking at your face. And apparently it's also working when he looks in a different direction.

Sure the fight scenes look a bit strange given the fact that the actor is well in his fifties, not a professional martial artist and not in the best physical shape (combined with effects of dubios quality and what seemed to be random freeze frames) but the role is played with a gazillion tons of genuine charisma and cool. The only thing I cn think of right now to compare it to woild be Chow Yun studly.

I'm even tempted to search out some of Rajinikanths other movies just to see more of that guy. I know I won't because I'm too lazy but I'm really tempted .


PS: The lookm of the possesed woman looked oddly familiar. HAve I seen her round here anywhere? I can't imagine where else.

Image
Note to myself: Fix this image shit!
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6234
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

PreviousNext

Return to DVD / Blu-ray

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron