Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 19, 2021, 02:15:10 PM
:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Rate The Last Movie You Saw
1 Member and 6 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
: 1 ... 942 943 [944] 945 946 ... 1335
: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  ( 4159674 )
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6204


Lonesome Billy


« #14145 : October 22, 2014, 07:09:58 AM »

Am I imagining things, or do you suddenly have a lot more time to read and respond to silly posts? I hope you didn't just get fired. Maybe you're "between projects" (as they say)?

I'm between projects: finishing derivative stuff with human deadlines for the movies I did the last couple months while getting ready for the next row of projects (starting this weekend). Not enough time in between to do some serious work on personal projects. I've also been updating my editing hardware and software so it leaves me a lot of time just waiting and be ready to move. Hence, here I am.

Dude, if you can hear Arkin deliver the line "Argofuckyourself" and not laugh, there is no help for you.

This one was funny. I forgot about it.

« : October 22, 2014, 07:12:21 AM noodles_leone »

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9668

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #14146 : October 22, 2014, 07:37:19 AM »

Hyper titoli-itis (acute loss of a sense of humor)

I thought that was my problem?  ???


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15625

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


« #14147 : October 22, 2014, 08:34:32 AM »

Your problem is ADHD. Oh yeah, I think I found the medication you should be on: http://www.strattera.com/?WT.srch=1&srcid=strsem_msn_ub_ub-gen-adhd_43700005470808073_e



"McFilms are commodities and, as such, must be QA'd according to industry standards."
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9668

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #14148 : October 22, 2014, 11:25:30 AM »

RE: our discussion of Eastwood, auteurism, director's style, etc:

I just happened to be reading some movie articles, and came across two pieces by Jim Emerson, who writes on rogerebert.com. I couldn't possibly disagree with him more. I'll quote the relevant portions: (the particular movies the articles are discussing are beside the point; the issue I am focusing on is whether lack of directorial "style" is a bad thing) :

In the first piece http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/can-one-bad-shot-ruin-an-entire-movie he is discussing whether one bad shot can ruin an entire move, and the relevant portion (6th and 7th paragraphs) says:

The first time I met Ramin Bahrani (director of "Man Push Cart," "Chop Shop," "Goodbye Solo") at Ebertfest in 2006, he said something on stage about why "Mystic River" was a badly made movie. An involuntary cheer arose from my throat, because that movie had been favorably reviewed and I see it as a godawful mess. Slick as hell, but a factory-crafted product directed on auto-pilot. (Give just about anybody a crew of seasoned pros -- the best cinematographer, the best production designer, the best editors -- and shoot it in classical Hollywood style (master shots, two shots, over-the-shoulders, close-ups) and you'll get some kind of movie. Heck, that's one reason the factory style was invented -- so producers and studio moguls would have plenty of options when they assembled the pictures. Think of it this way and you'll understand how directors like Ron Howard can win Academy Awards.)

Ramin cited a scene in "Mystic River" in which a gun goes off in somebody's kitchen. There's a cutaway to a hole in the ceiling. He cited that as an example of what's wrong with the movie. You know the gun went off. Why do you need an insert shot of the hole? Was there somebody upstairs who got hit? It's not a big deal, it's just a cliché, a lazy choice, a momentary distraction that inadvertently raises questions the movie has no intention of dealing with. That particular shot doesn't "ruin the movie," but it's indicative of the kind of over-baked decisions throughout the film that make it a less-than-inspired achievement.


The second article http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/eastwood-now-and-hereafter is discussing the movie Hereafter; but the portion relevant to our discussion (2nd through 5th paragraphs) says:

... it got me to thinking: I'm not sure I could identify a Clint Eastwood movie on sight. Is there an identifiable Eastwood directorial vision or style, apart from a certain willfully "classical" gloss applied to a professional reserve that sometimes borders on indifference? Is he like a William Wyler or a Robert Wise, a journeyman, capable of making some very good movies, whose sensibility is identifiable primarily through the combined talents of his collaborators? Who is Clint Eastwood, the director?

Eastwood hires top-of-the-line folks (after all, he can), has them do their things, and prides himself on shooting the script as written, on time and on (or under) budget. Some very good directors I know don't consider what he does to be direction so much as project management, because they don't see anything particularly distinctive in the results, film after film. Still, Eastwood can get movies made that perhaps nobody else could, based on the strength of his commercial reputation and long association with Warner Bros.

Some critics I greatly admire find his work impressive and moving. Many of those who've worked with him describe the atmosphere Eastwood fosters on the set as his greatest contribution to the picture: He creates the conditions he needs to get the movie he wants from he people he's hired -- which is, to a lesser or greater extent, what all good directors must do. (See Robert Altman for a striking example.) But, when watching a post-"Unforgiven" Eastwood picture, I frequently detect a peculiar detachment, a feeling that I'm watching something coasting along on auto-pilot without any particular human or artistic vision to guide it.¹ I respond to directors who have been accused of glacial misanthropy -- from Antonioni to Kubrick -- and that is integral to their worldview. With Eastwood, I simply sense an almost mechanical disengagement from his material. Parts of some of these movies seem to have been made by robots.

"Hereafter" is a network narrative (see "Crash," "Babel") unlike anything Eastwood has directed before, and yet it displays the self-consciously sedated rhythms and monochromatic glumness (visual and emotional) familiar from "Mystic River," "Changeling," and other latter day Eastwood movies. (It's a rather affected style, but is that all there is to the Eastwood signature?)


To me, this is horseshit. Maybe I'm not intellectual enough, or not nerdy enough, but IMO, watching a movie is above all else about being entertained. This doesn't mean movies are not art; I don't think art and entertainment are mutually exclusive, and I can greatly admire the brilliance of a piece of music or a painting while at the same time be entertained by it. In fact, being entertained by it IMO is really what makes it great. If something doesn't entertain me, I don't give a damn how difficult it may have been to make or dream up; to me, it's crap.

And this snobbery of putting down directors without a distinctive visual style is laughable. The fact that Emerson can put down William Wyler shows how wrongheaded he is. I just finished reading Peter Bogdanovich's book of interviews with dorectors "Who the Devil Made It," and when the interviewees – many of them auteur directors – are discussing other directors whom they admire, my recollection is that Wyler may have more mentions that anyone else. Billy Wilder, in his book of conversations with Cameron Crowe, praises Wyler very highly, and says The Best Years of Our Lives is the greatest-directed movie ever. Wilder himself wasn't one of those highly stylized directors; he believed that shots shouldn't call attention to themselves. (The one real famous stylized shot Wilder made was the final one of Ace in the Hole.) This doesn't mean there is a lack of ability or imagination on the director's part; it's often a conscious decision to let the story or the action or the scenery or the music speak for itself.
Watch this interview video with Wilder from 2:54–5:20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=953TcU5JgiM in which Billy specifically says that tries his best for the camera not to call attention to itself.

For people like Emerson who can't appreciate filmmaking like this, all I can say is, I feel bad for them for being unable to be entertained while there is a bug up their ass.

« : October 22, 2014, 12:57:53 PM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6204


Lonesome Billy


« #14149 : October 22, 2014, 12:27:00 PM »

Some of the stuff he says are true.
What doesn't work, though, is that it's very easy to describe Eastwood as an auteur: he's been working on the same very distinctive themes for decades, even when he was just an actor. He's one of the very few guys you can say "it's an Eastwood movie" even when he's playing in it but not directing it. Every single time he releases a movie, critics start arguing about the political standpoint of Eastwood: is he a conservative-republican or a progressive-republican? Is he individualist or a defender of communities? What about races and racism? What does he think about religion/euthanasia/self justice?

The only movie he recently did that avoided these debates was Jersey Boys.


drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9668

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #14150 : October 22, 2014, 01:28:25 PM »

Some of the stuff he says are true.
What doesn't work, though, is that it's very easy to describe Eastwood as an auteur: he's been working on the same very distinctive themes for decades, even when he was just an actor. He's one of the very few guys you can say "it's an Eastwood movie" even when he's playing in it but not directing it. Every single time he releases a movie, critics start arguing about the political standpoint of Eastwood: is he a conservative-republican or a progressive-republican? Is he individualist or a defender of communities? What about races and racism? What does he think about religion/euthanasia/self justice?

The only movie he recently did that avoided these debates was Jersey Boys.

woah, I think you are taking things a little too far here. Which movie besides Million Dollar Baby addresses euthanasia or assisted suicide? What does Mystic River or The Bridges of Madison County, IMO his two greatest movies as director, have to do with his politics, or with his individualism vs. communities? Invictus obviously addresses racism, but which of his other movies as director do so? I think Invictus and J. Edgar are the only two movies he's made that address politics in the past 3 decades or so. (And btw, I am saying this all from memory, I am not looking at any lists of his.) And btw, I don't view Million Dollar Baby as a political statement on assisted suicide; to me, it's just a story about a particular person in a particular situation. And IMO, that's what many of Eastwood's movies are about, just a good story that he wants to film, not a "message picture." Sure, there are some political movies, but anyone who tries to find a political thread going through all or most of his movies is IMO reading something that's not there.

And btw, while I haven't read the debates about the auteur theory, I don't see how not having a distinct style necessarily conflicts with being considered the author of a work. Is it not possible to be the author of a work – i.e. the primary artistic force behind it, the "reason" it is an interesting work – even if there aren't any obvious artistic touches that run through all of one's work? is it not possible to say that if someone consistently puts out terrific movies, you can feel he is the author of the work – that it wouldn't have been as good with someone else making it – even if there isn't a consistent artistic style that runs through all the work?

To be clear, I don't really care much about technical definitions/discussions of auteurism; what I do care about are snobs putting down movies just because the director doesn't scream, "LOOK AT ME!"
(For me, some of the more outlandish "look at me" stuff is highly annoying. Like Godard, I've only seen 4 of his films, and like much of what I saw, but his most blatant stylistic stuff for me was very annoying.) For me, it should never be forgotten that while movies are art, they are more importantly a source of entertainment.

Roger Ebert, in the very last line of his (wonderful) BRD commentary on Casablanca, says Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever, but Casablanca is the one he enjoys the most. For me, that sort of distinction generally doesn't work. The difficulty and technique and 'genius' behind a work are all a means to the end of being entertaining.

Of course, nothing is completely black and white, there are exceptions. E.g. if a movie (like Citizen Kane) theoretically was very innovative in its day but not enjoyed as much now because it's been imitated a million times, I can give it credit for what it meant in its time and how it influenced moviemaking and how it made future movies better, etc. But the point is that seeing the innovation – or seeing the artistic touches of a director – are in itself entertaining, and that's why they are great; not as an end, but as a means to an end, because seeing great art is entertaining.

If you watched that Wilder interview I linked to: I don't agree with Wilder that if a viewer notices a shot, it's a failure cuz now he is no longer involved in the movie. I can enjoy great shots. My favorite filmmaker, Leone, was obviously very stylized. And I love seeing - and noticing – great camerawork. I love Ophuls's elaborate tracking shots, etc. But I can't stand auteurism just for auterism's sake. And I don't think there's any doubt that that's what some auterism is about: saying "look at me; I'm a director" (which perhaps often happens because the director is afraid that critics like Emerson won't take him seriously otherwise).

« : October 22, 2014, 01:30:28 PM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6204


Lonesome Billy


« #14151 : October 22, 2014, 01:54:43 PM »

woah, I think you are taking things a little too far here. Which movie besides Million Dollar Baby addresses euthanasia or assisted suicide? What does Mystic River or The Bridges of Madison County, IMO his two greatest movies as director, have to do with his politics, or with his individualism vs. communities? Invictus obviously addresses racism, but which of his other movies as director do so? I think Invictus and J. Edgar are the only two movies he's made that address politics in the past 3 decades or so. (And btw, I am saying this all from memory, I am not looking at any lists of his.) And btw, I don't view Million Dollar Baby as a political statement on assisted suicide; to me, it's just a story about a particular person in a particular situation. And IMO, that's what many of Eastwood's movies are about, just a good story that he wants to film, not a "message picture." Sure, there are some political movies, but anyone who tries to find a political thread going through all or most of his movies is IMO reading something that's not there.

And btw, while I haven't read the debates about the auteur theory, I don't see how not having a distinct style necessarily conflicts with being considered the author of a work. Is it not possible to be the author of a work – i.e. the primary artistic force behind it, the "reason" it is an interesting work – even if there aren't any obvious artistic touches that run through all of one's work? is it not possible to say that if someone consistently puts out terrific movies, you can feel he is the author of the work – that it wouldn't have been as good with someone else making it – even if there isn't a consistent artistic style that runs through all the work?

To be clear, I don't really care much about technical definitions/discussions of auteurism; what I do care about are snobs putting down movies just because the director doesn't scream, "LOOK AT ME!"
(For me, some of the more outlandish "look at me" stuff is highly annoying. Like Godard, I've only seen 4 of his films, and like much of what I saw, but his most blatant stylistic stuff for me was very annoying.) For me, it should never be forgotten that while movies are art, they are more importantly a source of entertainment.

Roger Ebert, in the very last line of his (wonderful) BRD commentary on Casablanca, says Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever, but Casablanca is the one he enjoys the most. For me, that sort of distinction generally doesn't work. The difficulty and technique and 'genius' behind a work are all a means to the end of being entertaining.

Of course, nothing is completely black and white, there are exceptions. E.g. if a movie (like Citizen Kane) theoretically was very innovative in its day but not enjoyed as much now because it's been imitated a million times, I can give it credit for what it meant in its time and how it influenced moviemaking and how it made future movies better, etc. But the point is that seeing the innovation – or seeing the artistic touches of a director – are in itself entertaining, and that's why they are great; not as an end, but as a means to an end, because seeing great art is entertaining.

If you watched that Wilder interview I linked to: I don't agree with Wilder that if a viewer notices a shot, it's a failure cuz now he is no longer involved in the movie. I can enjoy great shots. My favorite filmmaker, Leone, was obviously very stylized. And I love seeing - and noticing – great camerawork. I love Ophuls's elaborate tracking shots, etc. But I can't stand auteurism just for auterism's sake. And I don't think there's any doubt that that's what some auterism is about: saying "look at me; I'm a director" (which perhaps often happens because the director is afraid that critics like Emerson won't take him seriously otherwise).

I was reading far on purpose, because I don't really care either. He's a good director, that's enough to me. But I've read a lot about Clint Eastwood (books, articles...) and those debates are real stuff. Mystic River was often accused of being dangerously ultra right-wing (because of Penn's wife speech towards the end), and that's a movie that spends quite a lot of time on the themes of roots, family and community ("you should never have come back"). Unforgiven is all about Justice (in the larger possible meaning of the word). Absolute Power has a strong scene about self-justice toward the end (a scene that isn't necessary for the plot) and many of his films (as a director and as an actor) are based on this ideal. Josey Wales and Bronco Billy are about individuals who've been hurt by society and build communities to defend their own individual freedom. I'm just throwing examples, but even even Madison is about freedom and responsibility.

You can argue that if you look deep enough, every movie, even Jurassic Park 3, have a political point hidden somewhere. I'm not saying those films are political statements, I'm saying that if you look at every Eastwood film, you know what this guy think of human beings, society, America and many things. This is pretty rare and if that's not an "auteur" in a way, I don't know the meaning of the word.

« : October 22, 2014, 02:14:54 PM noodles_leone »

noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6204


Lonesome Billy


« #14152 : October 22, 2014, 02:20:36 PM »

Roger Ebert, in the very last line of his (wonderful) BRD commentary on Casablanca, says Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever, but Casablanca is the one he enjoys the most. For me, that sort of distinction generally doesn't work. The difficulty and technique and 'genius' behind a work are all a means to the end of being entertaining.

No. I know a lot of masterpieces (movies, books, paintings...) that aren't even trying to be entertaining. I also know masterpieces that are nothing else than entertaining. But culture ISN'T entertainment. It's not above, it's just something else. The level of accessibility of a work of art has nothing to do with its quality. It has only to do with its box-office.


stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3411



« #14153 : October 22, 2014, 02:21:47 PM »

This is IMO one problem with how far people take the auteur theory, or their opinion of what art should be, or whatever.
A guy (Eastwood) who makes really good films but doesn't have a distinct style is not gonna be praised as much.
To me, a guy who makes that many good movies is doing something right. Maybe he "merely" chooses good scripts. Maybe he "merely" chooses good actors. Maybe he "merely" has good scores. Whatever he is doing right, all I know is that I've enjoyed watching almost every drama he ever made. To me, that's a great filmmaker, even if he doesn't make the sort of films that you could watch for one minute and instantly recognize, "That's an Eastwood film."

The point is not that they lack a distinct style, they may have one which I then do not recognize, the point is that his films could be so much better if he were a stronger director (that is, what I understand as such). As a result I do not enjoy his films that much, not that much beyond their entertainment value. They are mostly entertaining, some are even pretty good, but they rarely fascinate me. They lack this extra which makes other films for me great.

And like Noodles said, he is an auteur for the recurring themes and ideas in his films. He is so much an auteur that I call all films in which he acted and which were produced by his company Malpaso as Eastwood films, whoever directed them (Dust Devil won't accept this). Only exception are those by Don Siegel, who was a mentor and a huge influence on Eastwood. And the artistic father he could accept, unlike the other one, from which he unsuccessfully tried to distance himself.


noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6204


Lonesome Billy


« #14154 : October 22, 2014, 02:27:28 PM »

I can get that.
(Still cannot get your Gone Baby Gone rating)


stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3411



« #14155 : October 22, 2014, 02:29:34 PM »

No. I know a lot of masterpieces (movies, books, paintings...) that aren't even trying to be entertaining.

I think they are entertaining, but only for a minority, that small minority which are able to appreciate and to understand them.

Quote
But culture ISN'T entertainment.

I think it is. Or it should be.
If a film/book/comic/song is not entertaining it is not art for me. But being entertainment is only the minimum a work of art should also be. For being art it must also reach deeper levels in me, it must absorb me, it must fascinate me.
So then everything is art when it has at least one true defender ...


stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3411



« #14156 : October 22, 2014, 02:31:02 PM »


(Still cannot get your Gone Baby Gone rating)

Main thing is that I can get it. (see above)


drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9668

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #14157 : October 22, 2014, 03:32:23 PM »

No. I know a lot of masterpieces (movies, books, paintings...) that aren't even trying to be entertaining. I also know masterpieces that are nothing else than entertaining. But culture ISN'T entertainment. It's not above, it's just something else. The level of accessibility of a work of art has nothing to do with its quality. It has only to do with its box-office.

To be clear, I am certainly not saying that the best movie is the one that the most people like, and if a movie has a bad box office, that means it is a "bad" movie.

IMO there is no such thing as objectivity in art. Everything depends on the individual viewer. I'm just saying that while part of the entertainment level is dependent upon the art level (i.e., great achievements in art are entertaining to watch), art shouldn't be a goal for art's own sake without regard to entertainment. I don't wanna get too abstract here – then I'd sound like these snobby, nerdy critics who I am bashing  ;) – but my essential point here is, to make a style just to be noticed, to say "look, I'm a director," is silly; and to criticize artworks due to a (perceived) lack of director's style, and being unable to enjoy something that really can entertain you out of a snobbish insistence that non-stylized filmmaking is shallow, to me seems ridiculous.


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9668

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #14158 : October 22, 2014, 03:53:04 PM »

I was reading far on purpose, because I don't really care either. He's a good director, that's enough to me. But I've read a lot about Clint Eastwood (books, articles...) and those debates are real stuff. Mystic River was often accused of being dangerously ultra right-wing (because of Penn's wife speech towards the end), and that's a movie that spends quite a lot of time on the themes of roots, family and community ("you should never have come back"). Unforgiven is all about Justice (in the larger possible meaning of the word). Absolute Power has a strong scene about self-justice toward the end (a scene that isn't necessary for the plot) and many of his films (as a director and as an actor) are based on this ideal. Josey Wales and Bronco Billy are about individuals who've been hurt by society and build communities to defend their own individual freedom. I'm just throwing examples, but even even Madison is about freedom and responsibility.

You can argue that if you look deep enough, every movie, even Jurassic Park 3, have a political point hidden somewhere. I'm not saying those films are political statements, I'm saying that if you look at every Eastwood film, you know what this guy think of human beings, society, America and many things. This is pretty rare and if that's not an "auteur" in a way, I don't know the meaning of the word.

I think you're getting carried away here. A movie about how a particular person acts in a particular situation isn't necessarily trying to make a political/ideological point.

I certainly, never for a single moment, believed that the movie sympathizes with Penn's wife's speech at the end justifying Penn's actions. No way. Penn is a bad character, and his wife is a bad person; what Penn did was wrong, her justification is wrong, and the movie is not in any way condoning him. To me, Mystic River is about loss and pain: the death of a child, the loss of innocence due to sexual abuse ... (btw, while the Robbins character obviously was permanently scarred by the incident, somehow I think the movie tries to imply that Penn and Bacon were as well; to me, that doesn't really work, but whatever).

In Absolute Power, I don't think there is any attempt at a  real-life justification for what the movie character does. Movies are often a different world, with a different set of rules, than real life. Often when a movie character kills someone – even when the audience is rooting for him to kill that person – it doesn't mean that we'd justify that killing in real life. Of course, there are some "message films" that specifically do try to make a message about real life, where the "rules" of morality are the same as real life, the movies that are made in a more realistic tone. But then there are some movies that are obviously made in a different, closed, movie world, with suspension of disbelief, etc. I never for a moment felt that Absolute Power was operating within real-life rules, that Eastwood's point is that in real that killing would be okay in real life. RE: Unforgiven, it's a friggin' Western (even if a revisionist one), because a killing is justified in the "rule of the Western" doesn't mean the director is condoning any idea of vigilante justice or whatever in real life. Like TMWNN is great as a Western hero; i real life we'd say he is a murderer. I think you are going waaaaay too far in reading political  motives into man of these movies. (I haven't seen Bronco Billy.) Eastwood definitely made some political movies (as actor or director) but IMO not nearly as many as you believe; I would not call him a "message-film maker" or a "political filmmaker." Just because he spoke to Obama's empty chair doesn't mean his movies are so politically motivated  ;)


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6204


Lonesome Billy


« #14159 : October 22, 2014, 04:12:17 PM »

I never said he did political movies. I've been very explicit about the fact that he has no political agenda with his movies. However those themes are in his movies and are discussed by thousands of critics, journalists and intellectuals all over the world (if you don't believe me, google it: there are tens of books about it). But more importantly, I said that I know Eastwood and what he thinks because I've seen his movies. That was my only point.

Still, don't underestimate the Unforgiven. It's about Justice. Everything in this movie that isn't about demystification is about Justice.

I agree with you on having a shiny style having nothing to do with someone being a good director.
I agree with Stanton when he says he needs to feel the director isn't interchangeable.

« : October 23, 2014, 01:49:08 AM noodles_leone »

: 1 ... 942 943 [944] 945 946 ... 1335  
« previous next »
:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
0.11163