|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz75IWt8YuA&t=2s lol
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2019 10:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
I've always loved Elfman's Spider-Man and Shirley Walker's Batman. In both cases they are dealing with characters that are equal parts tragic and heroic, and that combination of sadness and heroism is beautifully combined in both themes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
The minimisation of Uncle Ben is my single biggest problem with the Marvel Spider-Man. That death, Peter's culpability in it, and the guilt that drives him to risk his life day after day is such a fundamental part of his character, that it just felt weird that Homecoming had an almost intense desire to not mention it lest it get saddled with the same sort of jabs that The Amazing Spider-Man series did. No one is asking for another scene of Uncle Ben being shot, but maybe a quick line and a photo, or a quick moment by the grave maybe at the start of the film essentially saying "this has already happened, you know the jist, moving on". As it stands it feels a little off. To be fair The Amazing Spider-Man film's decision to have the death and then have it not really matter and then just have Peter forget about it while adding in a bunch of bullshit about his parents and a secret spider destiny that also ended up not mattering, is the single worst story decision anyone could have taken. Those two films are very, very bad. Spider-man and Spider-Man 2 are the best superhero films, so is Spider-verse for that matter. .....Spider-Man 3 is good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2019 11:22
|
|
|
God I hope Cernovich is crying about it. The one thing he ever achieved, and if anything, it has ended in a stronger Gunn, with two massive franchises under his lead now rather than just the one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
teagone posted:Here's a series of video essays that takes a critical but levelheaded look at the MCU and its more popular issues that's worth a watch imo. They do a pretty good job informing those popular issues in a way that isn't fanboy-ish or vitriolic; they're well presented and put together, mimicking the style/feel of Every Frame a Painting's essays pretty well. Those videos are well argued. I just wish that he, and a lot of youtubers in general, would quit it with the skits and framing devices. They are always the most skip worthy section of the videos.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
If I recall correctly The First Avenger secondary title was a fallback in case the title Captain America wouldn't play internationally. I remember hearing a lot about that as a concern when the first film was being released, though it ended up not really being an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:e: also after listening to his other video about music bios, which also had some good points, it does seem he has the same flaw that anyone who would take the insane amount of time to make these videos seem to share, thinking the stories they have in their heads would be so much better than what is already on the screen. Eh, I dunno about that.... I think that can be a hard needle to thread. Any form of criticism requires a value judgement with the implicit notion that there are other alternatives that the artist could have taken. I think it can be sometimes hard to make a criticism without at least implying a different version, but there is a line, and I think criticism where it's just "it would have been better if" can be tiresome. I think Willems re-writing Winter Soldier veers too much into that territory, but he rights the ship later by using Spider-Man 2 as a comparison, because using another film and explaining where it succeeds is I feel a better method of highlighting another film's shortcomings. Karloff fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 18, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Once Endgame is out, I think it would be wisest for the MCU to wind things down a bit and focus on solo films for a while before doing something big. The scale of Infinity War/Endgame goes into reality tearing cosmic wackiness, I'm not sure they can possible go "bigger" without it coming off as a bit silly at this point. It might even be cool if they just took a year off, just a little time for more of a taste to build up. I'm a fan of what they've done, but the shared universe thing is both a tremendous advantage and a millstone around the neck. On the one hand, it has allowed them to do riskier things with their films - giving them explicit political points of view, courting audiences that Hollywood has traditionally ignored - because they know that whatever character they choose to adapt, wide audiences will definitely turn up because it might have clues to the next crossover or whatever. It's a sort of marketing snowball effect. But, on the other hand, the longer it goes the more dense the continuity becomes and the more concessions will need to be made for any individual film to fit into an increasingly complicated internal mythology. Karloff fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Mar 18, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I thought the CG in black panther was particularly bad so my favorite action scenes are the two shirtless waterfall fights. Yeah, I'm not sure what happened there. On a narrative, thematic, production/costume design level it's the best, but the CG fights were just kind of bad. Can't have it all I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2019 05:42
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:The opening monologue is so unintentionally hilarious. You know when the writer came up with the line "A beautiful lie", they sat back in their chair and thought "nailed it". I think the funniest part of that monologue is "what falls...is fallen"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2019 11:41
|
|
|
Parklife!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
I challenge McCloud to a push-up contest.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
No, for real. Sincerely, I do have a lot of respect for Zack Snyder, I have difficulty fitting my exercise regimen around my relatively normal job. Making mega-budgeted films while staying in good shape is legit an achievement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
A realistic interpretation of Batman would not be a Batman who kills, a realistic interpretation of Batman would be a Batman walks into a room and instantly gets shot. Batman, as a character, from top to bottom is inherently absurd, Snyder's Batman is not realistic because he's still a dude who walks into a room full of guys carrying automatic weaponry and beats them all up with martial arts, ropes and boomerangs. There's a reason why you don't hear about someone doing that in Syria or other war zone, because it's ridiculous. The violence is not gross, it is awesome, when he punches a guy so hard he smashes through the floor, no one was thinking "oh no, how terrible", but many, myself included, were thinking "that was rad". Snyder Batman is still just a fantasy. Which is fine. But it's not a realistic take at all, nor does it have anything much to say about vigilantism or the idea or brutalising criminals, other than it's bad (until it's good). I like Snyder, he seems like a nice person, I like some of his films, but I do not like some of his other films, BvS being one of them, I think it's boring, shallow, has bad politics, is badly written, and is unintentionally hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 08:42
|
|
|
I'm gonna give him a pass. We've all been drunk and chatted a bunch of poo poo. I am sure he is frustrated, and I reckon these screenings are some much needed catharsis for him and his fans and I am glad they are enjoying them. However, these "dunkings" on people who didn't care for a not very good super hero film from a couple years back are not quite the world ending burns that some people think they are. If you think that, you are, lol, living in a dreamworld.* Like, there is a great irony in calling people nerds because they didn't, repeat, didn't care for the Batman vs Superman movie. Edit: poo poo, joke already made.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
The greatest action beat, not scene, but beat in any super-hero film is in Spider-Man 2 when that police car flips through the air and then stops like someone hit the pause button. And then that lady is all like "it's a web!? Go Spidey go!" and he swings in and the camera follows his arc down and he slides between the cab of a lorry and the back. That bit was sooooo sick! There has been five Spider-Man films since and they haven't even come close to doing something as bodacious as that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
I think the dark mirror stuff is very much present. The way I always read is that Doc Ock hosed up and got someone he loved (his wife) killed, just like Peter hosed up and got someone he loved (Uncle Ben) killed. The difference is that Peter accepted responsibility for it and became a hero. Ock refuses to take responsibility and becomes a monster. He insists that he couldn't have miscalculated and the tentacles (representing his ego) push him forward, and so the desire to do his experiment again and make it work is to prove that his wife's death was not his fault.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Godzilla 14 is awesome. Gareth Edwards directed the poo poo out of it. It had the feel of an early 60's Godzilla film in a way, some of the sequences in it such as The Golden Gate attack are some of my favourite set-pieces of the last decade or so. Script could have been better, but it was hardly horrible. I feel anyone annoyed by it due to the lack of monster action are gonna have those criticisms more than accounted for in King of the Monsters though. On balance, I'd say I'm more excited by King of the Monsters than Endgame, but Godzilla has always been my poo poo so that's not surprising. As a pop-cultural thing though I don't think anything can really come up against the impact that Endgame is gonna have this year, not even Star Wars 9 I reckon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
I am very curious about this. There's often a hint of pathos and tragedy to the Joker, which is something that Heath Ledger especially brought out in his performance with those tortured eyes of his. However, even in those takes where the Joker is a tragic figure, there's also no attempt to make his actions any less than monstrous or deranged; in The Dark Knight he tries to murder hundreds of people, and Killing Joke obviously has the infamous shooting scene. He never steps into anti-hero territory, he's always a villain. In contrast, this take seems to be almost setting him up as a folk hero. That's interesting but I wonder how it will play. After all, despite always being a villain before, plenty of odd souls on the internet have made him a de-facto hero, at least in their own minds, and sort of embraced the Joker's psychopathic nihilism as a philosophy. A film that makes him into a genuine heroic figure, or at least someone who the audience is cued to root for and empathise with, will run a tight-rope I think between condemning and celebrating that sort of edge-lord nihilism that he can represent, and also making him someone to empathises with and even care for but not absolving him of any evil acts. That said, who knows what kind of take this is gonna be. The folk hero feel might be me just misreading things, and I've yet to see King of Comedy so there may be a context I'm missing. It's a cool trailer and Phoenix looks great, as does the imagery and tone. Mostly I'm just glad that this may spell the end of Jared Leto's take, because to me, that truly was one of the most uninspired and lame versions of the character I've yet seen.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m pretty sure that trailer only spoils the first quarter of the movie at best I don't know, Sony have a real bad habit of just recounting the entire plot of the film in their trailer, check out the second trailer for Spider-Man: Homecoming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39udgGPyYMg It goes through pretty much every act and gives you a precis of the entire thing. It shows the ferry sequence but not only that, but shows you how it's resolved. It shows Iron Man admonishing Peter and Peter losing the suit. Then it goes into the final act, shows you pivotal moments from the final battle, and though it doesn't tell you the one big twist it gives you enough that you can piece it together with little effort.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Is there any confirmation as to whether The Batman is in the DCEU, or whether it is it's own thing? I know it was conceptualised as such when Affleck was a part of it, but it seems easier now that he's gone just for it to be a reboot and to sack off what has gone before. If it's a prequel it is somewhat indebted to be an interpretation of the character that one could feasibly see turning into the Batman from BvS which seems like an unnecessary millstone for a film to carry. But then again they're gonna want to continue with Aquaman/Shazam/Wonder Woman which are in continuity, so will the DCEU just not have a Batman going forward with Batman in his own separate universe, with another separate universe for Joker. It's all very confusing.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
I would like to see a very vulnerable Batman. I think some of the best elements of the Nolan Batman are when they played up his humanity, but I think Batman is often portrayed as this unstoppable badass who's so much smarter than everyone else, and it so preposterously good at fighting and gymnastics that he can dodge bullets or whatever. I think super awesome turbo badass Batman is what appears in the Arkham games, and to a slightly lesser extent the DCEU, which are two of the more recent media interpretations and it may be a symptom of Batman having to operate in a world where he's just a normal dude and all his mates have got super-powers (though Justice League, for all it did wrong, did have a couple of interesting moments where we see him struggling to keep up with the rest of the team.) Put it this way; if Reeves is doing a noir story as he has said he is doing, then you can have all those cool scenes where the detective is talking to a guy but the detective is a bit on edge cause he doesn't know if the guy's gonna pull a gun, or is leading him into a trap. Those kind of moments are gonna be a way more effective with a Batman who knows and is aware that one good shot will be the end of him, and not a Batman who's pretty nonchalant about the whole situation because he's such a ultra-sweet mix-master martial arts master that he'll be instantly able to disarm the guy because he'll be able to sense his fore-arm muscle contracting and knew he was going for a gun or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
One of the big problems with X-Men: Origins: Wolverine: The Beginning: Chapter One is that it's telling the story that a previous film (X-Men 2) kind of explored in enough depth. In that film, Logan learns that what he was doesn't really matter, it's what he is now and what he can be that does. But it's a lesson the executives at Twentieth Century didn't learn, and so we got the inevitable origin story. But if they felt they had to make it, they hosed it up by not even utilising the material in X-Men 2 in an interesting way. What that film showed of his origin made it seem really compelling and interesting and none of that is followed up on. In X2 Stryker says that the old Wolverine was a real monster, except Origins reveals that, well, no he wasn't, he was roughly the same in personality and morality. The flashbacks in X2 to the Weapon X experiment portrays this nightmarish mess of metal, guys in gas masks with syringes, a screaming Wolverine overwhelmed with terror and covered in blood screaming at the claws coming out of his hands, but in Origins, all that is swapped out with this lame super-duper Wolverine sequence where he looks awesome coming out of tank and does all the standard Wolverine poo poo like growling at people and deflecting bullets. I mean, compare the two scenes: X2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkXtmEWB8dw Wolverine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvLeNgzmjcE I reckon it would have been better if they had truly followed up on the whole Stryker "you were a monster" thing. They could have made Wolverine the villain of the film, and in the finale the heroes could finally stop him with an Admantium bullet. Like the Terminator with claws. It would have been risky, but probably more interesting. You could even have one of those heroic characters return in a later sequel and have them try to deal with the new kinder Wolverine, when they remember him as a monster that killed all their friends. However, the reason why the film, as bad as it is, didn't slow down Jackman's Wolverine is that Jackman is by far the best thing in it. He's great, and he makes otherwise inert scenes work just through the force of his charisma. Karloff fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jun 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
In some ways they're the most successful super-hero series. Idly trucking along without the hard-reboot button being pressed, endlessly adapting to the environment, and only finally being executed via one company being consumed by another. The first X-Men film came out in 2000, and Dark Phoenix is still working off character interpretations and continuity which that film established. Spider-Man and Batman have both been hard rebooted twice in that time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
Dawgstar posted:Yeah, they've got the budget I think they just spend it in super boring ways. I think some of the leads' contracts were up after Apocalypse, so they probably had to pay a pretty penny or two to get them all back. When it comes Lawrence, Fassbender, McAvoy and Hoult, the series in its current state needs them a lot more than they need it, so I bet Fox really had to dig into their production budget in order to get them on board.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
One of the weird things I found about Apocalypse was that Magneto kills millions of people, and then at the end all the X-Men are like "you're welcome at our house" just because he had a last second face turn. I only saw it once though so maybe I'm forgetting something, was he mind controlled, or just "influenced"? Either way, it's still hosed up for the X-Men to just invite him round for tea.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 09:31
|
|
|
FFH thoughts: I've got to say that the emotional power of the Spider-Man story to me is the guilt aspect; imagine causing someone you love to lose their life, and how that would define your life from then on. Despite all the people Peter saves, he can't forgive himself for that, and that's what causes him to keep doing the Spider-Man thing despite the strain on his personal life. Every time he does something good as Spider-Man the unbearable guilt goes away, if only for a moment. That's why he can never quit for long. I understand that's an aspect that means something to me personally, and other people may be more attracted to other aspects of the character. But I gotta say the MCU Peter Parker doesn't seem to suffer from that guilt (if Ben's death did happen, it hasn't been the core motivation for his Spider-Manning), his core motivation seems to be more of being, well, being a really good super-hero, and living up to Tony Stark, which is even more front-lined in this films. The film plays lip service to the idea that Spider-Man "shouldn't be the next Iron Man", but then kind of walks that back by having lingering shots of Happy seeing Peter making a new suit and being reminded of Tony, so in the end it does seem that the core conflict here is "Can Spider-Man be an effective Nu-Iron Man?". There is a specific moment where they play up the idea of Spider-Man being guilt-ridden, but it's regarding Stark, and it's a poor substitute for Ben, because unlike Ben, Stark's death was absolutely not Peter's fault nor responsibility. There is nothing Peter could have done. I get this isn't really a flaw with the film, just a reason why this is #notmyspider-man, I just find it much less emotionally engaging. I understand everyone was sick of Uncle Ben, but I do feel that core motivation is important, and it being mentioned briefly in Civil War, and then not factoring into the character arcs of either solo film makes me feel a little less interested in this Spider-Man. That said Mysterio is excellent, and what I love about him is just how ruthless he is. One thing that is very common in Spider-Man stories, and especially effective in ones where Spider-Man is a teenager, is the idea that this is pretty much a child going up against hardened criminals, and that he is way out of his depth. There's a wonderful scene in this that communicates this perfectly, where Mysterio just fucks Spider-Man up and it rules.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
None of this matters. What matters is how we get Spider-Man into the Fast and Furious Universe. Sony's got Spider-Man for now, but F&F is Universal, so we should be most concerned about them making a deal. Sack off Disney, let them make mouse cartoons or whatever. Universal has a Spider-Man ride at their parks, which is a start, so I reckon with a little bit of leverage we can introduce Spider-Man into Fast and Furious 10. He would need to have a car of course, but I think there was a Spider-Mobile in the comics, so that can easily be done. Throw in Big Wheel as the villain (the perfect villain for the Fast series really) and bob's your uncle, fanny's your aunt, you've got a motion picture event!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
I actually think that Bale in Begins feels pretty definitive. A big part of that is that the structure of the film and Bruce's development within it is about finding purposeful character based reasons for all the bits of characterization that we associate with the post-seventies primary continuity comic Batman.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Bale's Batman voice is perfect in the scene where he first meets Gordon (when he's dressed in a balaclava). A low, menacing whisper. They should have kept it as that - it fitted the ninja training idea - but instead they kept dialling it up until DKR when he's roaring unintelligibly during what should be normal conversations.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
The main thing is that Phillips' claims of "John Wick kills people too" is just a weirdly dumb take for a guy who kind of stealth said that his Joker film is the first "real" film made from a comic book. I would expect him to be smarter if that were the case. As others have noted, it's just a bad comparison. A film about a hardened assassin killing unsympathetic criminal characters, is different from a film about someone who feels unseen, misunderstood, and victimized self-actualizing through violence against innocent people. There are many other films that would make a better comparison. Phillips' comments are just dumb, but hey, we all say dumb stuff from time to time. The thing with the Joker is that as a character, there's an element of power fantasy for those who wish to pursue it. He's tragic in some respects, he's feared (i.e respected), he's got serious hang ups with social norms, and is almost always depicted as the smartest guy in the room. His philosophy is often portrayed as being seductive, though most Batman media results in his philosophy being proven wrong. I don't know how this film is gonna take it, but though I think that claims that it will inspire a shooting are overblown, and incendiary in their own way. I also think it's fair to criticize such a film as being vulgar or in bad taste, if it exonerates or glamourizes the character's crimes. Karloff fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Sep 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
Isn't the term for whatever SS2 is a requel? So, kind of like a sequel but one that is largely jettisoning most of the elements and plot threads of previous entries, and kind of taking a new tone, whilst still keeping vague continuity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Part of the problem with the premise is that the requirement for SS to fit into a shared universe undercuts it. If it was just a black ops team full of criminals that Waller creates because no one will miss them if they get got, then that would be fine. But, instead, in order to fit in with the DCEU it's shown that the team is made to potentially respond to a Superman level threat, which is a lot harder to buy. None of the Squad seem to be equipped to deal with someone who could decimate a skyscraper by sneezing too hard. I mean what's Captain Boomerang gonna do? But, plenty of films have got by with dodgy central conceits before and blasted through with strong execution. As discussed though, the film-making of Suicide Squad is so catastrophically misjudged that it's hard to point to any single element that survives the process. Margot Robbie's performance maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I thought Joker was pretty good. In fact, I'll say it's the first DC movie I would like to see a second time since The Dark Knight. It's not perfect or the best I've ever seen, but it kept me interested. I still don't get that, did the film confirm Beets death in anyway? I might have missed something
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
I think they should release it (if that's possible). I will probably skip it, but it will make a lot of people happy I'm sure, and maybe inspire them to chill the gently caress out a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Narratives about strong heroes committing righteous violence for the sake of justice or whatever has been a thing since forever. It wasn't invented with superheroes. And yes, you sure can make arguments about these escapist fantasies having toxic elements, and how they are infantile in their own way, but to say it's a modern phenomenon and that the obsession with super-heroes is materially different from the obsession with the muscle-bound action heroes from the eighties, or the a-typical lawmen of the Westerns, or even back further until you hit pulp heroes and greek mythology is a little off-base.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I mean it's a moral failing in that we're supporting capitalism and the ever-oncoming death of humanity instead of spending the millions of dollars spent to make a Marvel movie on something productive or helpful. Eh, be active in your community, donate (if you can) to researched charities, try not to eat animal products, be kind to people you meet, etc These may be drops in the ocean and obviously there are bigger systemic problems that need facing, but of the moral failings, someone enjoying a popular film, music, video-game, theme park or whatever is so low down the list to almost be negligible. At least to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Not sure Tommy Lee Jones can lecture anyone about dodgy comic book films. Brilliant actor though he is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Something that never get mentioned when talking about Super Heroes and the power fantasies around them, is no one ever mentions that a core to almost all heroes is that they think nothing of giving of themselves. Yeah, I think sacrifice is a core component to super-heroes and just the tradition of heroes in general. Most super-hero cinema deals with the idea of heroism being a burden, but something that never-the-less must be done. It was a core component of the Raimi Spider-Mans, the Captain America films, Nolan Batmans etc. I think it's something that resonates a lot with an audience, because a lot of people have to make small sacrifices in their daily lives all the time, so it's something that can help the audience empathise with these otherwise gigantic and absurd figures. Like anything, super-hero films are a grab bag of positive and negative ideas, but they are at this point too broad a genre to really pin down into a cohesive set of ideals. I think the problem with the hot-takes are they are trying to take this whole genre and make a conclusion about it, but really, every super-hero film and every expression of this concept needs to be taken on it's own terms. In terms of action cinema I'd say that super-hero films probably lean toward more positive vibes because super-heroes are typically more pitched at saving people rather than just killing the bad guys. I'd say there are more positive ideals in modern super-hero films then there are in eighties action cinema, but again, it's not a zero sum game, and I'm not sure I've heard a really convincing argument as to why these films are inherently bad. asecondduck posted:When I rewatched it a few years ago I hit upon the notion that Tommy Lee Jones was doing a Jim Carrey imitation and I couldn't shake it for the rest of the film It doesn't help that there's nothing on the page for Tommy Lee Jones to do. Most of the interesting aspects of Two-Face character have been stripped away in the film (the dude has one of the great super-villain origins but the film starts off almost in media res with him already a bad guy). They don't utilise the coin or his hosed up chance philosophy, he's written as a second-rate Joker, and so that's what Jones played.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
I do find a lot of streaming services choose baffling images that make the film look kind of lame. No idea why.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2019 19:24
|
|