When you have guys like Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers making movies, it makes you wonder if there are any moviegoers today who even care about a good story. However, amidst all the crazy special effects and extreme emphasis on CGI, there are a few filmmakers today who demonstrate genuine imagination in there work. Three in particular stand out to me: Christopher Nolan, J.J. Abrams, and Peter Jackson.
From Batman Begins to Inception, there hasn't been a Nolan film that hasn't blown me away. What really stands out about him is how he is able to manipulate viewers in a powerful way. The first time I saw The Prestige, I was amazed at how he utilized the story to capture my attention, and used so many great tactics to invoke a deep level of emotion within the viewer's imagination. He does such a superb job of bringing these fictional worlds to reality and ensuring that every viewer believes his characters. Look at Inception. We never learn how dream-sharing was discovered or who developed the concepts of Extraction and Inception, but you become so captivated and entranced by the story and characters nevertheless. That is the mark of a good filmmaker. One who leaves you with unanswered questions, but you remain blown away by the presentation of the story. Even in The Dark Knight, which is heavily based on comics such as Batman: The Killing Joke and Batman: The Long Halloween, he still brought his original touch to keep it from being strictly an adaptation. As a director, producer, and screenwriter, Nolan is a pure genius.
Most notable for the Star Trek reboot and his recent work Super 8, J.J. Abrams is another favorite filmmaker of mine. Watching five minutes of any of his pictures, you can tell that he values story above anything else. My favorite moment in Super 8 is at the very end when Joe and all the main characters are watching Cooper return home. The build-up to it is remarkable combined with the incredible score. Not only does the cinematography in his films blow your mind, but the way in which he composes each scene demonstrates his brilliance. That wow factor in his movies really makes him the next Steven Spielberg (which is cool because Spielberg produced Super 8).
Last but not least, Peter Jackson is a superhero among nerds. I honestly don't think J.R.R. Tolkien ever expected his classic fantasy series to be made into one of the greatest movies of all time. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a cinematic masterpiece which brings to life Tolkien's extraordinary tale. Jackson's visionary mind is demonstrated in every aspect of it. From costuming to visual effects to extraordinary screenwriting, the film is more than a favorite among nerds. The detail in Jackson's pictures combined with his use of every element of film makes him such an excellent storyteller.
Despite the typical American perception of film, and the average viewer's content with good effects and explosions, there are still those today who really care about a good story.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
3-D: Revolutionary or Overrated?
Since the release of James Cameron's Avatar in 2009, 3-D has become very widespread, marketing itself as a very popular viewing option for moviegoers. But does it really serve a cinematic purpose? Or is 3-D just a way for the box office to make some extra cash?
Critics like Roger Ebert are very opposed to this film technique. You can read about it in his article "Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too)". He sees it as a dimension that contradicts the very fundamentals of cinema. While I'm not as radically opposed to it as he is, I have a problem seeing it everywhere. Before we know it, romantic comedies are gonna be using it and some stupid CGI effects. There are some films where the cinematography is better appreciated two-dimensionally. When people say 3-D is a way of enhancing the director's vision from a visual standpoint, it makes me wonder what exactly people look for in movies today. It's as if audiences depend on the flashiest techniques out there to draw them in. A good filmmaker should be able to capture the attention of the viewer in a powerful way without all the big, flashy, Hollywood tactics.
That's what I love about Christopher Nolan. He never uses CGI, and while his films are blockbusters and popular among younger audiences, he defies the Hollywood trend for moviemaking. If you have the Inception Blu-Ray combo-pack, I encourage you to watch the Extraction Mode feature, and look at how Nolan displays genius cinematic techniques. It just goes to show you that you can make a groundbreaking film, and a science fiction one for that matter, today without 3-D to utilize it from a visual standpoint.
What I'm getting at here is that I don't hate 3-D, but I don't love it either. There are directors like Michael Bay who rely way too much on it to enhance their visual effects. You'll see shots in Transformers 3 that were made just for 3-D, and were terrible with or without it. The widespread popularity of this dimension makes me concerned about the future of cinema, and if people ten years from now are even gonna care about a quality story.
Critics like Roger Ebert are very opposed to this film technique. You can read about it in his article "Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too)". He sees it as a dimension that contradicts the very fundamentals of cinema. While I'm not as radically opposed to it as he is, I have a problem seeing it everywhere. Before we know it, romantic comedies are gonna be using it and some stupid CGI effects. There are some films where the cinematography is better appreciated two-dimensionally. When people say 3-D is a way of enhancing the director's vision from a visual standpoint, it makes me wonder what exactly people look for in movies today. It's as if audiences depend on the flashiest techniques out there to draw them in. A good filmmaker should be able to capture the attention of the viewer in a powerful way without all the big, flashy, Hollywood tactics.
That's what I love about Christopher Nolan. He never uses CGI, and while his films are blockbusters and popular among younger audiences, he defies the Hollywood trend for moviemaking. If you have the Inception Blu-Ray combo-pack, I encourage you to watch the Extraction Mode feature, and look at how Nolan displays genius cinematic techniques. It just goes to show you that you can make a groundbreaking film, and a science fiction one for that matter, today without 3-D to utilize it from a visual standpoint.
What I'm getting at here is that I don't hate 3-D, but I don't love it either. There are directors like Michael Bay who rely way too much on it to enhance their visual effects. You'll see shots in Transformers 3 that were made just for 3-D, and were terrible with or without it. The widespread popularity of this dimension makes me concerned about the future of cinema, and if people ten years from now are even gonna care about a quality story.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
What to Look Forward to in DC Animation
From Justice League: The New Frontier to Batman: Under the Red Hood, DC Animation has produced some really remarkable films in recent years. I grew up watching the 90s Batman cartoon, and Justice League. The work of Bruce Timm, Alan Burnett, Sam Register, Lauren Montgomery and so many others continue to get better and better.
Since the conclusion of Justice League Unlimited, DC Animation has worked on adapting critically acclaimed graphic novels into 75 minute films. Their most recent works are Superman/Batman: Apocalypse and All-Star Superman.
This October, they are releasing Batman: Year One, based on Frank Miller's classic graphic novel. Christopher Nolan used this work as heavy inspiration for Batman Begins. It was written in 1987, and gives a more in-depth look at the origins of The Dark Knight. It's a great depiction of the first meeting between Batman and Gordon, and the fantastic art by David Mazzuchelli provides a great basis for the film's animation. Also, Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston is doing the voice of Gordon, which I think will be one of the highlights. The DVD/Blu-Ray release date is October 18.
Next year, the big news is that one of the most groundbreaking graphic novels in comic book history, The Dark Knight Returns, is being adapted into a two-part film. TDKR is also a work by Frank Miller, and its sheer grit changed the face of the comic book medium forever. It's a futuristic story depicting an aged Bruce Wayne who must come out of retirement to take back Gotham from vile street gangs and psychopaths. The stakes are high as the Mutant Gang strikes terror into the hearts of citizens, and The Joker is being recognized as legitimate by doctors at Arkham. While there aren't many details regarding the film at this point, it's rumored that Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill will return to do the voices of Batman and Joker. On a side note, if the film stays true to its source material, I wouldn't be surprised if this will be the first R-rated Batman film. In terms of story, it's one of the most intense and gritty in DC history. There are things they could tone down to make it PG-13, but it's certainly not one for the kids. The release date is not known at this time.
Lastly, Justice League: Doom, based on Mark Waid's JLA: Tower of Babel, will also be released next year. This is a great story, as it deals with the ethics of trust v.s. caution. Years before the story takes place, the League was under mind-control, and after it was all over, Batman put together files detailing the strengths and weaknesses of every member as a precaution. Yet when extremist Ra's al-Ghul gets hold of this information, the entire League is put in jeopardy. An extraordinary piece with great visual art, I look forward to its adaptation in 2012.
So that's a preview of DC Animation's upcoming projects. If you read this post and knew what I was talking about, I commend you. You are a true nerd.
Since the conclusion of Justice League Unlimited, DC Animation has worked on adapting critically acclaimed graphic novels into 75 minute films. Their most recent works are Superman/Batman: Apocalypse and All-Star Superman.
This October, they are releasing Batman: Year One, based on Frank Miller's classic graphic novel. Christopher Nolan used this work as heavy inspiration for Batman Begins. It was written in 1987, and gives a more in-depth look at the origins of The Dark Knight. It's a great depiction of the first meeting between Batman and Gordon, and the fantastic art by David Mazzuchelli provides a great basis for the film's animation. Also, Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston is doing the voice of Gordon, which I think will be one of the highlights. The DVD/Blu-Ray release date is October 18.
Next year, the big news is that one of the most groundbreaking graphic novels in comic book history, The Dark Knight Returns, is being adapted into a two-part film. TDKR is also a work by Frank Miller, and its sheer grit changed the face of the comic book medium forever. It's a futuristic story depicting an aged Bruce Wayne who must come out of retirement to take back Gotham from vile street gangs and psychopaths. The stakes are high as the Mutant Gang strikes terror into the hearts of citizens, and The Joker is being recognized as legitimate by doctors at Arkham. While there aren't many details regarding the film at this point, it's rumored that Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill will return to do the voices of Batman and Joker. On a side note, if the film stays true to its source material, I wouldn't be surprised if this will be the first R-rated Batman film. In terms of story, it's one of the most intense and gritty in DC history. There are things they could tone down to make it PG-13, but it's certainly not one for the kids. The release date is not known at this time.
Lastly, Justice League: Doom, based on Mark Waid's JLA: Tower of Babel, will also be released next year. This is a great story, as it deals with the ethics of trust v.s. caution. Years before the story takes place, the League was under mind-control, and after it was all over, Batman put together files detailing the strengths and weaknesses of every member as a precaution. Yet when extremist Ra's al-Ghul gets hold of this information, the entire League is put in jeopardy. An extraordinary piece with great visual art, I look forward to its adaptation in 2012.
So that's a preview of DC Animation's upcoming projects. If you read this post and knew what I was talking about, I commend you. You are a true nerd.
My Thoughts on Reboots
Remaking is an art within itself that should not be taken lightly. Over the last few decades we've seen some really good reboots (J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, Christopher Nolan's Batman, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) and some bad ones (The Day the Earth Stood Still, Alien V.S. Predator).
We are now in an age where it seems like all Hollywood can come up with is remaking classics or doing as many sequels as possible. I'm especially disturbed by the Spider-man reboot, "The Amazing Spider-Man", set to release in theaters next summer. This is a project I've known about for a few months now and I'm very opposed to it, mainly because it doesn't fit my qualifications for a reboot. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man was only released about ten years ago, and its last sequel was in 2007. That's just not a big enough time span for a reboot to be necessary. Which brings me to my next point. A reboot has to have a legitimate purpose. I really don't see the point in doing one for Spider-Man. The first one was great. It did a fantastic job of chronicling the origins of Peter Parker, was good from a cinematic standpoint, and appealed to a wide range of viewers. Sure the third one was pathetic, but if they made a good fourth one or just left the series alone for a while, it'd be fine.
Then you've got a franchise like Superman, which also has a reboot coming in the next few years. That I completely see the reason for. Don't get me wrong I love the classic Richard Donner version, but Nolan and Snyder (Christopher Nolan will be writing/producing, Zak Snyder will be directing) want to both appeal to a modern audience, and to base the story on more modern comics and graphic novels, so as to really delve into the seriousness of the character. There you've got a good amount of time in between this and the original, and a definite purpose.
Then you've got some series that just need to be left alone. I recently read an article that George Lucas has been planning to remake all six Star Wars films since the release of Revenge of the Sith, and to use James Cameron's Avatar as heavy inspiration for how it will be filmed. Meaning 3-D, modern effects, everything. ARE YOU KIDDING ME! A New Hope is a cinematic masterpiece! There is no reason it should be messed with. Come on Lucas, have some sense and leave your greatest work as it is!
I'm also seeing stuff about a Batman remake once TDKR is out. NO! Nolan's work glorifies Batman and demonstrates brilliant filmmaking. Dark Knight is this generation's Empire Strikes Back. Stuff like this makes me concerned about the future of Hollywood and about what modern audiences look for in movies.
We are now in an age where it seems like all Hollywood can come up with is remaking classics or doing as many sequels as possible. I'm especially disturbed by the Spider-man reboot, "The Amazing Spider-Man", set to release in theaters next summer. This is a project I've known about for a few months now and I'm very opposed to it, mainly because it doesn't fit my qualifications for a reboot. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man was only released about ten years ago, and its last sequel was in 2007. That's just not a big enough time span for a reboot to be necessary. Which brings me to my next point. A reboot has to have a legitimate purpose. I really don't see the point in doing one for Spider-Man. The first one was great. It did a fantastic job of chronicling the origins of Peter Parker, was good from a cinematic standpoint, and appealed to a wide range of viewers. Sure the third one was pathetic, but if they made a good fourth one or just left the series alone for a while, it'd be fine.
Then you've got a franchise like Superman, which also has a reboot coming in the next few years. That I completely see the reason for. Don't get me wrong I love the classic Richard Donner version, but Nolan and Snyder (Christopher Nolan will be writing/producing, Zak Snyder will be directing) want to both appeal to a modern audience, and to base the story on more modern comics and graphic novels, so as to really delve into the seriousness of the character. There you've got a good amount of time in between this and the original, and a definite purpose.
Then you've got some series that just need to be left alone. I recently read an article that George Lucas has been planning to remake all six Star Wars films since the release of Revenge of the Sith, and to use James Cameron's Avatar as heavy inspiration for how it will be filmed. Meaning 3-D, modern effects, everything. ARE YOU KIDDING ME! A New Hope is a cinematic masterpiece! There is no reason it should be messed with. Come on Lucas, have some sense and leave your greatest work as it is!
I'm also seeing stuff about a Batman remake once TDKR is out. NO! Nolan's work glorifies Batman and demonstrates brilliant filmmaking. Dark Knight is this generation's Empire Strikes Back. Stuff like this makes me concerned about the future of Hollywood and about what modern audiences look for in movies.
Captain America: The First Avenger
****
Dir. Joe Johnston
This is a character I've looked forward to seeing on the big screen for quite some time now. While Iron Man is still my favorite Avengers movie so far, I was very pleased with director Joe Johnston's adaptation of the classic Marvel Comic.
First off, I thought it was very well casted. Chris Evans really brought the character of Steve Rogers to life for both fans and non-fans as well. He had that innocence in his voice and facial expressions, as well as that firm patriotism that defined him. However, from a comic fan standpoint, he did lack that lion-like leadership ability that makes him the Superman of the Marvel Universe. I mean in Civil War, the Cap leads the superhero rebellion in response to the Registration Act, and ends up slamming Iron Man to the ground. But overall, Evans' performance was very well executed. But the best was Hugo Weaving as Red Skull. What he brought to the character combined with the outstanding costume design was brilliant. While it saddens me that for many this was their first and only look at the iconic characters, I really like how they were depicted here.
As far as how Johnston structured the story, I thought he and the screenwriters did a really good job of chronicling the key events. It was not an easy task given the amount of material they had to cover. In addition with the Cap's background, they also had to explain the origins of H.Y.D.R.A. and S.H.I.E.L.D.
Another really good aspect about the film was that it maintained the WW2 feel throughout, and did a good transition at the beginning and end when Nick Fury rescued Steve from the iceberg in the present day. The action scenes were very well done. Nothing mind-blowing, but solid visual effects that correlated with the mood of the story. However, the fight between the Cap and Red Skull wasn't as climactic as it could've been. It felt a little too rushed because Johnston wanted to get to the crash and confrontation between Steve and Col. Fury. Perhaps length and more sound effects would've enhanced its intensity. Overall though, I was very pleased with Johnston's adaptation and really look forward to Avengers this spring.
Dir. Joe Johnston
This is a character I've looked forward to seeing on the big screen for quite some time now. While Iron Man is still my favorite Avengers movie so far, I was very pleased with director Joe Johnston's adaptation of the classic Marvel Comic.
First off, I thought it was very well casted. Chris Evans really brought the character of Steve Rogers to life for both fans and non-fans as well. He had that innocence in his voice and facial expressions, as well as that firm patriotism that defined him. However, from a comic fan standpoint, he did lack that lion-like leadership ability that makes him the Superman of the Marvel Universe. I mean in Civil War, the Cap leads the superhero rebellion in response to the Registration Act, and ends up slamming Iron Man to the ground. But overall, Evans' performance was very well executed. But the best was Hugo Weaving as Red Skull. What he brought to the character combined with the outstanding costume design was brilliant. While it saddens me that for many this was their first and only look at the iconic characters, I really like how they were depicted here.
As far as how Johnston structured the story, I thought he and the screenwriters did a really good job of chronicling the key events. It was not an easy task given the amount of material they had to cover. In addition with the Cap's background, they also had to explain the origins of H.Y.D.R.A. and S.H.I.E.L.D.
Another really good aspect about the film was that it maintained the WW2 feel throughout, and did a good transition at the beginning and end when Nick Fury rescued Steve from the iceberg in the present day. The action scenes were very well done. Nothing mind-blowing, but solid visual effects that correlated with the mood of the story. However, the fight between the Cap and Red Skull wasn't as climactic as it could've been. It felt a little too rushed because Johnston wanted to get to the crash and confrontation between Steve and Col. Fury. Perhaps length and more sound effects would've enhanced its intensity. Overall though, I was very pleased with Johnston's adaptation and really look forward to Avengers this spring.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
****
Dir. David Yates
This franchise, like many others, has had its ups and downs. Goblet of Fire was unwatchable, and 5 and 6 were filled with disappointments as well. However, I'm glad that the series came to an admirable conclusion and was fitting for fans of the books and movies alike.
Picking up right where Part 1 left off, this film chronicles the final battle between Harry and Voldemort for the Wizard World. Seeking to locate the last of the Horcruxes, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) must return to Hogwarts which is now under the control of Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). As he embarks upon this quest, the origins of the young sorcerer are fully revealed; and fate will come to determine the boy's destiny. With stirring visual effects and a good amount of emotional depth, this is hands down the best of the epic saga.
Yates is a superb visual storyteller, and his direction provides the basis for the gritty feel of this film. Drawing on elements of classic horror, he immerses audiences in the shadowy atmosphere of this universe. By juxtaposing images from previous films with that of the bleak reign of the Dark Lord, significant contradictions are made so as to emphasize the now distorted reality.
The script is for the most part a strict adaptation of the second half of the novel. While it contains some corny dialogue here and there (not as bad as previous installments), it captures the vision of J.K. Rowling in an effective manner. Snape's death scene was for me the most compelling, as it gave Alan Rickman the opportunity to give a really emotionally gripping performance.
Looking at the battle scenes, Yates did an effective job of making it graphic enough but not overly so. There are bloody images to enhance the eery tone of the story, much different from how the series began. Voldemort was done justice here, as Fiennes' acting complimented the vision of Yates so as to present the character as the manifestation of terror.
As far as the rest of the cast, they came together to really demonstrate solid ensemble work. Radcliffe was never great, but decent enough to where he could express the internal conflicts of the character. The best acting was of course done by the other British actors in their supporting roles. As mentioned above, Rickman embodied Snape's tormented spirit even more powerfully than in the past. Then there's Dumbledore, Lupin, and a host of others who are brought to life beautifully.
Harry Potter swept across the globe from its beginning as a literary phenomenon, and will continue to have a long lasting impact no doubt. While the film adaptations have been mixed with successes and failures, the series went out with an artistic film that will penetrate the hearts of fans everywhere. Good work Yates.
Dir. David Yates
This franchise, like many others, has had its ups and downs. Goblet of Fire was unwatchable, and 5 and 6 were filled with disappointments as well. However, I'm glad that the series came to an admirable conclusion and was fitting for fans of the books and movies alike.
Picking up right where Part 1 left off, this film chronicles the final battle between Harry and Voldemort for the Wizard World. Seeking to locate the last of the Horcruxes, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) must return to Hogwarts which is now under the control of Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). As he embarks upon this quest, the origins of the young sorcerer are fully revealed; and fate will come to determine the boy's destiny. With stirring visual effects and a good amount of emotional depth, this is hands down the best of the epic saga.
Yates is a superb visual storyteller, and his direction provides the basis for the gritty feel of this film. Drawing on elements of classic horror, he immerses audiences in the shadowy atmosphere of this universe. By juxtaposing images from previous films with that of the bleak reign of the Dark Lord, significant contradictions are made so as to emphasize the now distorted reality.
The script is for the most part a strict adaptation of the second half of the novel. While it contains some corny dialogue here and there (not as bad as previous installments), it captures the vision of J.K. Rowling in an effective manner. Snape's death scene was for me the most compelling, as it gave Alan Rickman the opportunity to give a really emotionally gripping performance.
Looking at the battle scenes, Yates did an effective job of making it graphic enough but not overly so. There are bloody images to enhance the eery tone of the story, much different from how the series began. Voldemort was done justice here, as Fiennes' acting complimented the vision of Yates so as to present the character as the manifestation of terror.
As far as the rest of the cast, they came together to really demonstrate solid ensemble work. Radcliffe was never great, but decent enough to where he could express the internal conflicts of the character. The best acting was of course done by the other British actors in their supporting roles. As mentioned above, Rickman embodied Snape's tormented spirit even more powerfully than in the past. Then there's Dumbledore, Lupin, and a host of others who are brought to life beautifully.
Harry Potter swept across the globe from its beginning as a literary phenomenon, and will continue to have a long lasting impact no doubt. While the film adaptations have been mixed with successes and failures, the series went out with an artistic film that will penetrate the hearts of fans everywhere. Good work Yates.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
*
Dir. Michael Bay
To say that Michael Bay sucks at making movies is an understatement. There's better quality in the crap they play on Disney Channel than in any of his "films". I didn't think it was possible to make something even more pathetic than the epic failure of Revenge of the Fallen, but Bay never ceases to amaze me.
The "story" of this sequel is not only undeveloped and lacking even a hint of originality, but it is virtually absent altogether. Not only does the film fail to engage viewers with an apocalyptic tone and make this bogus world Bay has created even remotely interesting, but it has absolutely no characterization. I was even looking at my watch during the "thrilling" final battle, which consisted of nothing more than a prolonged series of explosions.
There's also a series of pathetically executed close-up shots which serve no purpose whatsoever. Like when Sam's new girlfriend (who was even worse than Megan Fox) is just standing in the middle of the city while everything around her is exploding, and we get to watch her Barbie expressions for a painful 30 seconds. When the camera's not directed at her cleavage, it's pointing at giant robots battling the big bullies of outer space. Then we see Sam and Colonel Annox are hanging from a rope attached to Starscream, looking like idiots.
And then there's the fact that Optimus, Megatron and all the other aliens hardly got any screen time outside the battle. I could care less about the stupid human drama, show me the characters in the title! Beyond this, a 5 year-old could've easily written a better screenplay. It's probably the most unnatural dialogue I've ever heard.
I would venture to say that a person could lower his or her intelligence just by watching this mess.
Dir. Michael Bay
To say that Michael Bay sucks at making movies is an understatement. There's better quality in the crap they play on Disney Channel than in any of his "films". I didn't think it was possible to make something even more pathetic than the epic failure of Revenge of the Fallen, but Bay never ceases to amaze me.
The "story" of this sequel is not only undeveloped and lacking even a hint of originality, but it is virtually absent altogether. Not only does the film fail to engage viewers with an apocalyptic tone and make this bogus world Bay has created even remotely interesting, but it has absolutely no characterization. I was even looking at my watch during the "thrilling" final battle, which consisted of nothing more than a prolonged series of explosions.
There's also a series of pathetically executed close-up shots which serve no purpose whatsoever. Like when Sam's new girlfriend (who was even worse than Megan Fox) is just standing in the middle of the city while everything around her is exploding, and we get to watch her Barbie expressions for a painful 30 seconds. When the camera's not directed at her cleavage, it's pointing at giant robots battling the big bullies of outer space. Then we see Sam and Colonel Annox are hanging from a rope attached to Starscream, looking like idiots.
And then there's the fact that Optimus, Megatron and all the other aliens hardly got any screen time outside the battle. I could care less about the stupid human drama, show me the characters in the title! Beyond this, a 5 year-old could've easily written a better screenplay. It's probably the most unnatural dialogue I've ever heard.
I would venture to say that a person could lower his or her intelligence just by watching this mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)