|
Install Gentoo posted:Oymandias is also a huge corrupt semi-randian businessman. Veidt Enterprises and its subsidiaries controls all kinds of things. If you read the supplementary written materials that come with the graphic novel its very clear that he's a liberally minded social democrat who happens to believe that the end justifies the means. Keep in mind that Watchmen was writen in the 1980s when memories of Vietnam were much fresher. The American establishment back then was broadly Liberal very much in the way that Ozymandias was, but they were also ready to justify massive violence againt the Vietnamese people as part of a utopian project to free the world from communism. Like I said, the fact that Moore made a commited Liberal the ultimate villain, someone whose plans horrified the more Thuggish characters like Rorscrach and The Commedian, was one of the best parts of the comic book. Jack of Hearts posted:It's hard to regard most of that list as "fascist," though, in any meaningful sense. In particular: Most scholars would consider those to be the defining characteristics of fascism. The only big ones I left out were leader worship (definitly present in 300) and the obsession with a big and powerful state that organically expresses the will of the community in a purer form than representative democracy. None of these traits are unique to fascism, fascism is just what happens when those different strains of authoritarian thinking merge together in an industrial society. quote:To varying degrees, all this stuff was present in the classical world, and probably pops up in most cultures with a heavy martial slant. I distinctly remember the comic book describing the battle as the last chance to preserve democracy and "reason" from the forces of ignorance and barbarism. I mean I think those are almost the opening lines of the comic book, whether or not they ended up in the movie. I confess I wasn't even remotely sober when I watched the movie so my memories of it are a bit hazzier. quote:Yeah. I'm just a little pedantic about people projecting fascism two millennia backwards to describe the Spartans and the Romans. Neither Herodotus nor Livy were "fascist," no matter how much Mussolini wanted to sell Italians on Roman heritage. We're talking about a late 20th century comic book and movie, not Antiquity, and Herodotus was a Hellene, not a Roman.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
I really think this is a fairly facile attempt to link 300 with "fascism." (For the record, 300 sucks. Herodotus had already crafted a story for the ages, Miller just messed it up and reduced its power.)Helsing posted:Most scholars would consider those to be the defining characteristics of fascism. The only big ones I left out were leader worship (definitly present in 300) and the obsession with a big and powerful state that organically expresses the will of the community in a purer form than representative democracy. You're really diluting the meaning of "leader worship." Leonidas didn't control the state, and was only able to command 300 men. Yes, they were devotedly loyal, but so were Robin Hood's merry men. Are we going to compare the leader of a small military unit to Der Fuehrer and il Duce? Helsing posted:I distinctly remember the comic book describing the battle as the last chance to preserve democracy and "reason" from the forces of ignorance and barbarism. I mean I think those are almost the opening lines of the comic book, whether or not they ended up in the movie. I confess I wasn't even remotely sober when I watched the movie so my memories of it are a bit hazzier. I looked it up, and it was "reason" and "justice." "Democracy" would have been an incomprehensible choice. And as shallow as Miller is, I'm not sure we're to take the propagandist narrator at face value. Helsing posted:We're talking about a late 20th century comic book and movie, not Antiquity, and Herodotus was a Hellene, not a Roman. I phrased that sentence poorly, but yes, I know who Herodotus was. And inasmuch as 300 was very heavily based on Herodotus I don't see what your objection to my objection is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 21:24
|
|
Helsing posted:Prizing violence as morally purifying and aesthetically pleasurable, portraying "the West" as a unique bastion of higher civilization in a world of barbarism, portraying anyone opposed to military solutions as effete, cowardly and corrupt, portraying a noble but doomed military expedition that has been "stabbed in the back" by traitors on the homefront, portraying the enemy as literally being subhuman monsters, using physical appearance as a crucial marker of moral character (ugly = evil, attractive = good), valorizing military sacrifice. Indulging in a homo-erotic celebration of the virile young male warrior. The list goes on and on. This would be pretty typical of a story told by the Romans, to be honest.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I really think this is a fairly facile attempt to link 300 with "fascism." (For the record, 300 sucks. Herodotus had already crafted a story for the ages, Miller just messed it up and reduced its power.) Like I said the elements that lead people to call 300 "fascist" are the same elements that go into most succesful Hollywood movies, and as Armyman notes they'd be pretty much at home in an ancient Roman ballad or poem. I'm not trying to argue that Miller is an actual fascist and that 300 is an actual piece of propoganda, I'm just pointing out that there are enough similarities in tone and style that the criticism isn't ridiculous. Now The Dark Knight, by contrast, I would argue comes a lot closer to fitting the bill for actual fascist apologism, though even there we'd be stretching the definition a bit. Which is ironic, given that The Dark Knight was a much better movie. quote:You're really diluting the meaning of "leader worship." Leonidas didn't control the state, and was only able to command 300 men. Yes, they were devotedly loyal, but so were Robin Hood's merry men. Are we going to compare the leader of a small military unit to Der Fuehrer and il Duce? I meant that the comic indulges in leader worship, which I think it clearly does. The fact that the noble king is denied sufficient funding and manpower for his war actually reinforces this narrative, especially given that historical fascists are almost universally obsessed with a conviction that internal enemies are undermining the home front. quote:I phrased that sentence poorly, but yes, I know who Herodotus was. And inasmuch as 300 was very heavily based on Herodotus I don't see what your objection to my objection is. I'm not really seeing how 300 is heavily based on Herodotus. Both of them are about a battle that takes place at Thermopylae in 480 between a small force of Spartans and a larger force of Persians. I guess some of the specific details like the last of the Spartan's being pincushioned with arrows are reflective of Herodotus, but most of the movie really isn't. The plot of a movie is typically one of the least significant aspects of that movie. What is more significant to me about 300 is the way its shot and the way the actors are characterized. Most of the movie is just slow motion images of people battling and throw away dialogue spoken between waves of attackers. The movie also leaves out the naval battles that were going on, and it completely rewrites history at crucial points. For instance, the story is being told by the only Spartan survivor of the battle. Historically I believe two Spartans did indeed leave Thermopylae to warn the city that the pass had fallen, but they weren't greeted as heros when they got to Sparta. Instead they were shamed for leaving the battle and spent the rest of their lives in infamy because they were the only members of the expeditionary force who hadn't thrown down their lives (I'm pretty sure all of this is retold in Herodotus but maybe I'm confused on this particular point). The movie also glosses over the fact that there were none-Spartans at the battle and under rates their performance so that the 300 actual Spartans will look more heroic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
Letter to the Editor: From the Bowmanville, Ontario local paper. 10 years later, still coming up with new and exciting gimmicky things to blame for the WTC collapse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
What there are people who actually are pro-asbestos  What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Like I said the elements that lead people to call 300 "fascist" are the same elements that go into most succesful Hollywood movies, and as Armyman notes they'd be pretty much at home in an ancient Roman ballad or poem. I'm not trying to argue that Miller is an actual fascist and that 300 is an actual piece of propoganda, I'm just pointing out that there are enough similarities in tone and style that the criticism isn't ridiculous. That's not actually true at all. Roman poetry is rife with internal moral conflict about military endeavors and violence; I can't think of any poet who just straightforwardly goes for it. The fascists tried to paint Romans as all about the glory of the state and the cathartic power of conquest, but the sources are a whole lot more ambiguous. Helsing posted:The movie also leaves out the naval battles that were going on, and it completely rewrites history at crucial points. For instance, the story is being told by the only Spartan survivor of the battle. Historically I believe two Spartans did indeed leave Thermopylae to warn the city that the pass had fallen, but they weren't greeted as heros when they got to Sparta. Instead they were shamed for leaving the battle and spent the rest of their lives in infamy because they were the only members of the expeditionary force who hadn't thrown down their lives (I'm pretty sure all of this is retold in Herodotus but maybe I'm confused on this particular point). The movie also glosses over the fact that there were none-Spartans at the battle and under rates their performance so that the 300 actual Spartans will look more heroic. Not to mention being homophobic as all poo poo even while being the closest thing to gay porn ever shown in mainstream cinemas. The hilarious irony is that the standard stereotype that every other city held about the Spartans was that they were all effeminate nymphomaniacs who loved to take it in the rear end; you see it all the time in any Aristophanes play that has even one Spartan character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
ts12 posted:What there are people who actually are pro-asbestos The best part is that he attributes the difference in the collapse time to the difference in the asbestos application. And ignores that the asbestos was no where near the floors that were on fire (around 20 storeys below), and the huge difference in the number of floors above the impact point. Oh, and also that they were two unique goddamn aircraft impacts, and so the damage to the structure of the building is going to be inherently different. But no, totally, let's put loving asbestos all over everything. Because terrorists. Cinnamon Bastard fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Nov 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
That guy is a real loving monster. He's blaming people who want to live in a world free of horrible cancer causing chemicals for the tragedy of 9/11. It's a ridiculous and thoroughly vile extension of the old, "things would be better if not for all the granola eating tree huggers ruining our country," line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
There is a point buried in that crazy piece. After the harm caused by asbestos was discovered, the upper floors of the Twin Towers were finished without fireproofing, which probably contributed to the collapse. It certainly doesn't mean we should start putting asbestos over everything, though. Asbestos-related diseases have killed far more people than 9/11. Many New York firefighters now have mesothelioma or neurosarcoidosis, conditions which can be caused by asbestos dust. But let's put asbestos on everything because terrorism 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Another thing is that the plane he says crashed into the Empire State Building didn't exist. He says it was B-52 instead of a B-17. The former is a gigantic multi-engined jet as opposed to a prop-plane that could literally be parked under one wing of the B-52. But let's grant that it was just a typo. The comparison is still idiotic. The two planes that hit the towers had fuel capacities of around 24,000 gallons. The B-17 that hit the ESB had less than five thousand gallons. And the speed difference was massive, and the towers were nothing like the ESB structurally, and....
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Another thing is that the plane he says crashed into the Empire State Building didn't exist. He says it was B-52 instead of a B-17. The former is a gigantic multi-engined jet as opposed to a prop-plane that could literally be parked under one wing of the B-52. It was actually a B-25 EDIT: Betty Lou Oliver and the terrible, horrible, no good very bad day: Wiki posted:Oliver was working on the 80th story of the building on July 28, 1945. On that day, due to thick fog a B-25 Mitchell bomber crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The plane struck the 79th floor of the building. Oliver was thrown from her post and badly burned in the accident, though she survived, while 14 others did not. Riptor fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Nov 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Now The Dark Knight, by contrast, I would argue comes a lot closer to fitting the bill for actual fascist apologism, though even there we'd be stretching the definition a bit. Which is ironic, given that The Dark Knight was a much better movie. This made me really curious. Could you elaborate on this point? Vigilantism, violating rights to protect from terrorists, maybe even torture apologism (although it does fail badly in the movie), I could see those. But fascism? I really don't see that in The Dark Knight. It's more Boondock Saints than Triumph of Will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
Riptor posted:It was actually a B-25 Hi everyone, I'm a loving idiot who corrected an inaccurate dipshit with another inaccuracy. Hurf durf.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If you read the supplementary written materials that come with the graphic novel its very clear that he's a liberally minded social democrat who happens to believe that the end justifies the means. Keep in mind that Watchmen was writen in the 1980s when memories of Vietnam were much fresher. The American establishment back then was broadly Liberal very much in the way that Ozymandias was, but they were also ready to justify massive violence againt the Vietnamese people as part of a utopian project to free the world from communism. Like I said, the fact that Moore made a commited Liberal the ultimate villain, someone whose plans horrified the more Thuggish characters like Rorscrach and The Commedian, was one of the best parts of the comic book. I agree that it was one of the more interesting features of the graphic novel, especially since the Comedian and Rorschach both explicitly talk about and basically revel in the thought of society devolving to the degree that everyone suffers and dies (e.g. "The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!'... and I'll look down and whisper 'No.'"), but they are probably those most horrified by what Ozymandias wants to do. This makes it seem like even these cynical, basically fascist characters are far more empathetic and less cynical/nihilistic than they'd like to acknowledge. Helsing posted:I distinctly remember the comic book describing the battle as the last chance to preserve democracy and "reason" from the forces of ignorance and barbarism. I mean I think those are almost the opening lines of the comic book, whether or not they ended up in the movie. I confess I wasn't even remotely sober when I watched the movie so my memories of it are a bit hazzier. What's puzzling about the film version of 300 (I haven't read Miller's original graphic novel), is whether Snyder is satirizing this position or not. There are elements that make it seem like the movie is strongly hinting at how awful the Spartans were and how contrary they were to the values most American probably hold, e.g. eugenics in killing the weak (including babies), ostracizing and demeaning anyone who isn't up to their ideals (like the way they treat the Arcandians and the "barbarians" employed by the Persians), etc. but it's certainly possible for people to be obtuse enough to not realize the Spartans aren't "good guys" or at least aren't morally superior to the Persians. If Snyder had made the movie more historically accurate and included the massive numbers of slaves and helots that Sparta relied upon on a day to day basis, then it would have been a clearer satire of jingoism and authoritarianism cloaked in propaganda about "freedom."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 05:45
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:That's not actually true at all. Roman poetry is rife with internal moral conflict about military endeavors and violence; I can't think of any poet who just straightforwardly goes for it. The fascists tried to paint Romans as all about the glory of the state and the cathartic power of conquest, but the sources are a whole lot more ambiguous. What about Caesar's letters from Gaul, or the propaganda about Mark Antony and Cleopatra?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:What about Caesar's letters from Gaul, or the propaganda about Mark Antony and Cleopatra? Point; I'll grant you that. I suppose it's not terribly surprising that the dude doing the conquering glorifies conquest. Still, straightforward gung-ho militarism is quite rare in Roman literature, and the fact that Caesar's commentaries are carefully-crafted propaganda pieces makes them, it seems to me, the exception that proves the rule. That's not to say that the makeup of Roman society wasn't militaristic to its foundations, of course; that was one of the things that made it attractive to fascists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
I found this via Right Wing Watch.quote:November 10, 2011 I try not to be a smug, rear end in a top hat atheist, but it's like these people are intentionally trying to get me to say something mean and condescending.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 10:19
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:What's puzzling about the film version of 300 (I haven't read Miller's original graphic novel), is whether Snyder is satirizing this position or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 11:47
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I think the core problem with 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch alike is that Snyder's loving terrible at satire and yet keeps trying to do it. He seems like one of those people that does things in earnest, hoping that people will agree with and like what they have done, but if anyone criticizes them, their backup excuse is that it's actually a satire, so you can't really criticize them for the poor production and execution, you have to criticize the themes, genre, and other topics they're lampooning.  "Hey guys, look at this awesome movie I made about badass Spartans at Thermopylae." "Are the Spartans supposed to be the good guys? They seem a lot worse than the Persians that are supposed to be the bad guys. Hell, they kinda seem like Nazis with spears." "Um...No, wait, it's actually a satire of all those bad things those Spartans represent."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 12:05
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:He seems like one of those people that does things in earnest, hoping that people will agree with and like what they have done, but if anyone criticizes them, their backup excuse is that it's actually a satire, so you can't really criticize them for the poor production and execution, you have to criticize the themes, genre, and other topics they're lampooning. Oh, so he's Troy Duffy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 12:42
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Oh, so he's Troy Duffy. Exactly. I just saw Boondock Saints II a month or two back and it was surprisingly worse than the first movie. The entire scene at the docks with the forklift is a perfect example of what I was talking about with Zack Snyder. Duffy wants people to take his movies seriously (possibly in terms of Tarantino), but after how poorly the first movie was received, he threw in a joke scene so that he had something to hang his satire excuse upon. I think my favorite part of the movie was how Reedus, Flanery and Benz kept losing their accents throughout the film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 13:22
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I think the core problem with 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch alike is that Snyder's loving terrible at satire and yet keeps trying to do it. It's pretty much this. Snyder's a poor man's Paul Verhoeven.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Hi everyone, I'm a loving idiot who corrected an inaccurate dipshit with another inaccuracy. Hurf durf. At least it wasn't anachronistic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
Charles Krauthammer: How Obama lost Iraqquote:Barack Obama was a principled opponent of the Iraq War from its beginning. But when he became president in January 2009, he was handed a war that was won. The surge had succeeded. Al-Qaida in Iraq had been routed, driven to humiliating defeat by an Anbar Awakening of Sunnis fighting side-by-side with the infidel Americans. Even more remarkably, the Shiite militias had been taken down, with American backing, by the forces of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They crushed the Sadr militias from Basra to Sadr City. quote:Welfare drug tests? Sensible
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I think it's more this:Bruce Leroy posted:He seems like one of those people that does things in earnest, hoping that people will agree with and like what they have done, but if anyone criticizes them, their backup excuse is that it's actually a satire, so you can't really criticize them for the poor production and execution, you have to criticize the themes, genre, and other topics they're lampooning. than this: quote:It's pretty much this. Snyder's a poor man's Paul Verhoeven. Snyder makes crappy, offensive movies, and to parry the criticism he deserves for making such garbage, he claims his intent was satirical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Snyder makes crappy, offensive movies, and to parry the criticism he deserves for making such garbage, he claims his intent was satirical. Anyone who's seen at least the first five minutes of Zardoz knows that that claim is ALWAYS bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Snyder makes crappy, offensive movies, and to parry the criticism he deserves for making such garbage, he claims his intent was satirical. I felt like Sucker Punch was fairly impressive. He worked really hard to make every scene that would have, in another film, been exploitative feel really, really uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:I felt like Sucker Punch was fairly impressive. He worked really hard to make every scene that would have, in another film, been exploitative feel really, really uncomfortable. Well uncomfortable to most people at least. There's still tons of assholes who just thought Sucker Punch was "totally awesome and hot".
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Yeah, I think it's more this: "It was actually satire, I swear!" is what the guy who made the Room now claims.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
I don't know that the Watchmen movie was particularly crappy but I thought it was a pretty straight take on the source material. Did anyone ever claim it to be a satire? If anything it seemed to be uncommonly true to the original.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
YoungBuns posted:I don't know that the Watchmen movie was particularly crappy but I thought it was a pretty straight take on the source material. Did anyone ever claim it to be a satire? If anything it seemed to be uncommonly true to the original. Snyder's adaptations so far have been extremely faithful to the source material. Everything I've seen about his movies being satire has been people applying that after the fact, most often with 300, regardless of any sort of evidence of intent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
YoungBuns posted:I don't know that the Watchmen movie was particularly crappy but I thought it was a pretty straight take on the source material. Did anyone ever claim it to be a satire? If anything it seemed to be uncommonly true to the original. Watchmen (the movie) was quite faithful to the original comic, with the exception of updating the time period and thus the politcal statement, and changing the ending to be more modern and less goofy. 300 and Sucker Punch were embarrassing but I think Snyder did a very, very good job with Watchmen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 21:29
|
|
|
Dawn of the Dead was pretty kick rear end.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
What do some of you more economically more knowledgeable guys think of this. WWII was not the quintessential Keynesian miracle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What do some of you more economically more knowledgeable guys think of this. WWII was not the quintessential Keynesian miracle. Not an economist, but even on a general scholarly level, if you're referring only to your own work when making a contentious argument, it's pretty likely that you're a crank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Not an economist, but even on a general scholarly level, if you're referring only to your own work when making a contentious argument, it's pretty likely that you're a crank. Or an Austrian economist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What do some of you more economically more knowledgeable guys think of this. WWII was not the quintessential Keynesian miracle. Well the main problem is that he never really bothers to explain why WWII was not the quintessential Keynesian miracle, which is supposedly the entire point of the article.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What do some of you more economically more knowledgeable guys think of this. WWII was not the quintessential Keynesian miracle. quote:Almost immediately I saw that unemployment had disappeared during the war not because of the beautiful workings of a Keynesian multiplier, but entirely because about 20 percent of the labor force was forced, directly or indirectly, into the armed forces and a comparable number of employees set to work in factories, shipyards, and other facilities turning out war-related “goods” the government purchased only after forcing the public to pay for them sooner (via wartime taxes and inflation) or later (via repayment of wartime borrowing). Honestly, this guy is supposedly an economist, but he doesn't understand how what he's describing here is basic Keynesian economics? Any college student in Econ 101 could easily identify that what Higgs listed in his article is an affirmation of Keynesian economics, not a refutation. You could just substitute getting Americans to work on WPA projects for drafting them into the military and public works projects (e.g. the national highway system, dams and bridges, etc.) for war goods, and you'd have him describing the New Deal. Nothing on any of Breitbart's websites should ever be trusted or regarded with any respect or credulity. Also, the comments are worse than the article. quote:I'm all for going to War with and attacking all Muslim Nations to get the USA out of this new Great Depression. quote:I look forward to a Muslim Free World. quote:Not exactly mentioned in the article is an important fact: for the US, WWII lasted less than four years. The American people put up with conscription and rationing and censorship and military tribunals, high taxes and coerced purchases of war bonds, because the situation was desperate and the goal was total victory. quote:or as someone* once put it when asked what can we do to peacefully co-exist with islam? "As far as they're concerned, we can pack up and move to new planet."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Dominion posted:Watchmen (the movie) was quite faithful to the original comic, with the exception of updating the time period and thus the politcal statement, and changing the ending to be more modern and less goofy. While Watchmen was very faithful to the comic, Snyder still seemed to miss the point by a country mile. He presented the cast as actual super heroes and not just crazies playing dressup. All the wall punching and bone breaking undermined what's supposed to be one of the most jarring moments in the story, where Ozy actually catches a bullet. quote:Dawn of the Dead was pretty kick rear end. Dawn is so good, I often forget he directed it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 16:36
|
|