Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Why Not Released???

Reply
Thread Tools

Why Not Released???

 
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2005
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:21:34 GMT, The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:
>
> Well, then perhaps the only difference between then and now was
> audiences were smarter.


There's two things horribly wrong with that statement.

The first thing wrong is the presumption that intelligence is directly
correlated to taste. This is a nice fantasy that many film enthusiasts
have to make themselves feel superior to the "common" filmgoer. The truth
is though that there is no clear correlation between how smart someone is
and what films they like. Like the old cliché says, there's no accounting
for taste.

Secondly, the statement was made based on a very clouded view of the past.
The movie studios when they first started put out *more* shlock, not less.
The sheer volume of films demanded quick turnaround times, meaning even
less individual care went into the films then as they do now. Can you
imagine a film director today just handing a film over to an editor and
moving on to the next project?

Also, of the films regarded as classics today, some were successful, but a
good number of them we flops as well. Casablanca made a reasonable amount
of change when it came out, but it wasn't a knock-out hit or anything.
Citizen Kane and It's a Wonderful Life were both flops, ignored by the
public at large. Wizard of Oz didn't make much bread either. These films
became classics not because of the instant fame afforded by the "smarter"
audiences of the time, but simply by the filtering process of history.
More often than not, good films rise to the top while the lesser films are
quickly forgotten, no matter how successful they initially were. The fact
that the lesser films get forgotten, despite being much larger in number
than the classics, is why people sometimes view the past as having higher
quality material all around, when in reality is was probably just as
frequent an occurrence as it is today.

-Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2005
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:35:00 GMT, The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:

> Jay G. wrote:
>>
>> Take the most cynical example of studio manipulation: Producing a cheap
>> Fantastic 4 movie so that you can hold onto the movie rights. Even with a
>> budget of nothing, the creators of this shelved film have said that they
>> tried to make the best film that they could. I'm sure the cast and crew
>> gave it their all and thought, on some level, they were making a good film.
>>

>
> Actually that's not true. In the old days they did debate plot points
> and character motivation. No, not with Three Stooges movies, the kind
> the studios did churn out, but with their "A" list films they did.


I never said they didn't. I'm just saying they do today as well.

> The filming of the climactic scene of Bridge on the River Kwai was
> held up half a day with hundreds of extras and tons of expensive
> equipment sitting around because David Lean and Alec Guinness got
> into an argument over exactly how Guinnesses' character should fall
> onto the detonator, whether it was deliberate or a lucky accident.
> Today I imagine....


That's where you lose me. You think today's directors and actors don't
care about the films because you *imagine* them not to. You have no hard
proof that this is true, but you believe it because it fits the stereotypes
and generalizations you have about the film industry today.

> Contrast this with trash like Independence Day, where Jeff Goldblum
> hacks into an alien cilization's computer code and rewrites it in a
> matter of hours. (Boy, I'll bet he had no trouble making his Mac talk
> to his PC!)


You could just as easily contrast it with Earth vs. the Flying Saucers
(1956), which came out a year before Bridge on the River Kwai. In fact,
that comparison is particularly apt, since ID4 was aiming more towards
"Earth vs." then it was "Bridge". Bad movies get made, and so do films
that are merely entertaining. And so do classic films, or films that will
become classics given enough distance from the present. In none of these
cases, even the really awful ones, can I really see a motivation from the
studios, cast, and crew to aim to make a film less than "merely
entertaining."

-Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mac Breck
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2005
"The Man Behind The Curtain" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mac Breck wrote:
>
> > However, some stuff looks OK, but turns out to be crap when you see

it
> > in the theater.

>
> True in theory, but in reality if anyone excepts a movie with a number
> after the title that was modelled on a formerly crappy movie, a movie
> based on a 70s or 60s TV show,


"Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan" was a nice surprise after the pretty
bad "Star Trek - The Motion Picture."




> or a movie directed by Michael Bay to be good,
> they're pretty gullable or easily satisfied.


Pretty much.




> In other words, try the track record of the director, producers,
> writers.


True.



> If their main credits before were making music videos for
> Mariah Carey, they'll probably suck.


Well, yeah, if you already know that info., or do that research before
seeing the movie....

How many see a movie because of seeing a good trailer? I think we've
all done that.

--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Galen: "There is always hope, only because it's the one thing that no
one has figured out how to kill yet."
(Galen's obviously never met Warner Brothers, TNT-Atlanta or Sci-Fi.)

"Brimstone" (199
[Stone lights a candle for the dead in a Catholic church]
Gina: Who's that for?
Ezekiel Stone: Me.




 
Reply With Quote
 
The Man Behind The Curtain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2005
Mac Breck wrote:

> "Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan" was a nice surprise after the pretty
> bad "Star Trek - The Motion Picture."


Have to confess I've never seen that one, though I did see No. 1. I'm
not much of a Trekkie; still, I do want to see ST2 one of these days...

> Well, yeah, if you already know that info., or do that research before
> seeing the movie....


Tis what the internet, and especially the IMDB, was invented for.

> How many see a movie because of seeing a good trailer? I think we've
> all done that.


No, at least not since the internet came around. A trailer makes me
aware of a film I potentially might be interested in; however, the
people who cut the trailers have nothing to do with the people who make
the movies. Most of the time the director has no control over how his
movie is promoted and advertised, unless you're someone like Spielberg
or Lucas. And the trailers are often cut by people who, believe it or
not, have not seen the movie! They just get a "brief" on the what the
film is about, with what angles to emphasize in the trailer, or some
suggested lines or visuals (actress with her top half off) they want to
plug, and they cut away.

And in a few cases it can backfire. I did *not* (regretfully) see The
Shawshank Redemption in theaters because I did see the ads and thought
it looked like a very downbeat
based-on-a-true-story-about-some-miscarriage-of-justice-involving-a-black-man-in-the-60s
type of film, and those always depress me. I know the world is unjust
and I don't need to sit in a darkened room for close to three hours and
have a movie tell me that all over again. But one day, after the
picture came out on VHS, a friend brought it home for a dinner party I
was invited to, and since I was a guest and he had already picked out
the movie, I couldn't object. So I watched it--and was blown away. So
I suspect every once in a while I throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Still, the times I've wasted two hours sitting in a theater watching
diappointing films, if not outright trash, greatly outnumbers the times
I've missed a rare gem like SS Redemption.



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 
Reply With Quote
 
The Man Behind The Curtain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2005
Jay G. wrote:

> That's where you lose me. You think today's directors and actors don't
> care about the films because you *imagine* them not to. You have no hard
> proof that this is true, but you believe it because it fits the stereotypes
> and generalizations you have about the film industry today.


No, I believe it because they are intellectually lazy, the ID4 example
being a pretty good one.

If I see them struggle a bit more with the script to surprise me, to
make me go "Ah!" then I'll be impressed. ID4 could have been a great
sci-fi film on the level of Star Wars if it had cared. But it wasn't
very ambitious. It just ripped off a hoard of other films and made me
want to see them again instead.

>>Contrast this with trash like Independence Day, where Jeff Goldblum
>>hacks into an alien cilization's computer code and rewrites it in a
>>matter of hours. (Boy, I'll bet he had no trouble making his Mac talk
>>to his PC!)

>
>
> You could just as easily contrast it with Earth vs. the Flying Saucers
> (1956), which came out a year before Bridge on the River Kwai.


The difference is everyone knew E v. FS was a B piece 'o trash. I now
hear people, even critics, talk about ID4 as a "great film," even a
"classic."

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 
Reply With Quote
 
The Man Behind The Curtain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2005
Jay G. wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:21:34 GMT, The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:
>
>>Well, then perhaps the only difference between then and now was
>>audiences were smarter.

>
>
> There's two things horribly wrong with that statement.
>
> The first thing wrong is the presumption that intelligence is directly
> correlated to taste. This is a nice fantasy that many film enthusiasts
> have to make themselves feel superior to the "common" filmgoer. The truth
> is though that there is no clear correlation between how smart someone is
> and what films they like. Like the old cliché says, there's no accounting
> for taste.


I don't believe something just because a cliche says so. You'll have to
do better than that.

And you are the one confusing "smarter" with the concept of "taste."
There were many people in 1971, who, I'm sure, thought A Clockwork
Orange was in bad taste. I might even be pressed to agree with them, on
a subjective, emotional level. Surely I have trouble watching much of
it, even today. But tell me it wasn't an *intelligently done* film, a
film Kubrick and company cared about and didn't just cynically grind out
to titillate us, and we part company. I can appreciate its
intelligence, even though it's not to my taste.

And occasionally vice-versa. I know South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut was
no great artistic achievement, but I liked it because it summed up how I
feel about a lot of things. But if you started talking about it along
with Bridge On The River Kwai, I'd say you were an idiot.

> Secondly, the statement was made based on a very clouded view of the past.
> The movie studios when they first started put out *more* shlock, not less.
> The sheer volume of films demanded quick turnaround times, meaning even
> less individual care went into the films then as they do now. Can you
> imagine a film director today just handing a film over to an editor and
> moving on to the next project?


Yes, if that editor is good and shared my vision and wasn't willing to
pander. I don't think there's a correlation of greater quality and a
director having final say. I think some of the biggest mistakes of the
last two decades are directors cuts of classic films. Aside from A Star
Is Born, I can't think of one film that is indisputably better in its
director's cut version. Most are far worse.

And by the way, I'm not necessarily talking about films from just the
factory town era of the 30s and 40s. Films were smarter just fifteen
years ago. Twenty five years ago and holy cow, what a difference.
Films were *about* something. I don't know if it was the influence of
the French auteur theory or what, but they had a personal vision, they
said something (look at most of the Oscar nominees from 1967 to about
1983 for examples of what I'm talking about, then compare them to
Titanic, Gladiator, The Aviator, etc.); they weren't corporate
entertainments that have all the person vision of a Disney thrill ride.
Some people point to indie films today as the solution, but to that I
say 1) if the small and shriveling indie film industry is all you can
find to support this, we are indeed in bad shape, and 2) I find most
indie films today (American ones, at least) to be shallow and
narcissistic in the extreme, masquerading as "art," and their
writer/directors masquerading as "artistes." So many are about goateed
20-somethings living in the Valley who deal drugs or live like slobs
while getting involved in the romanticized seamy underside, written by
some goateed 20-something who fantasizes he's a rebel but who's never
been closer to the seamy underside of life than a Starbucks.
(Admittedly some of those places can be pretty seamy.) I hope this
trend dies soon. It's time for a Wayans Brothers-type parody.

> Also, of the films regarded as classics today, some were successful, but a
> good number of them we flops as well. Casablanca made a reasonable amount
> of change when it came out, but it wasn't a knock-out hit or anything.
> Citizen Kane and It's a Wonderful Life were both flops, ignored by the
> public at large. Wizard of Oz didn't make much bread either. These films
> became classics not because of the instant fame afforded by the "smarter"
> audiences of the time, but simply by the filtering process of history.


True. No argument. And I would be very supprised if the future
generation bestows the same honors on...any film that's come out this
year. Any one. To think that Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind,
Stagecoach, The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, Gunga Din, Drums
Along The Mohawk, Ninotchka, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Of Mice and
Men, Beau Geste, Grapes of Wrath, etc., were all made the same year
boggles the mind. No, even I don't like all of them, that's my "taste,"
but still, what a list!

Or just go back to 1983, which I happened to be thinking about this
morning. The fact that The Big Chill, Zelig, The Right Stuff, Raging
Bull, and Never Cry Wolf all came out within a couple months of each
other boggles my mind. I remember not having enough time to see all the
movies I wanted back then. Haven't experienced that in ages. Heck,
Shakespeare In Love was made just six years ago, but I doubt it could
get made in today's climate. They'd probably be told it was waaay over
people's heads and be asked to dumb it down. ("He's already got a
goatee and he's a writer--that's cool. Now, could he and Gwyneth do a
dance in a nightclub, or have a scene where The Bard draws his guns and
fires at a rival playwright while uttering a cool line like "Hasta la
vista, rogue"?)

> More often than not, good films rise to the top while the lesser films are
> quickly forgotten, no matter how successful they initially were.


That's basically true. But I see PR being used today more than ever to
leverage movies that otherwise would die a quiet and deserved death. I
know PR in Hollywood is nothing new, but I think it's reached new
heights of hype--the publicity is more important than the product
itself. And what today's PR flacks choose to push from the past, choose
to resurrect, is going to be very interesting to see. Citizen Kane and
Casablanca didn't become known to audience because they were resurrected
by the studios' PR departments hungry for DVD fodder or were candidates
for remakes. The French New Wave and other grass-roots, if you will,
cinema movements made them known again. I'm trying to figure out who,
not tied to the financial interests of the studios themselves, is doing
this sort of work today. Maybe someone is, but I'd like to know who.
Where's the French New Wave of today? Where's the neorealist movement
of today? Who's today's Andre Bazin? Is he...Roger Ebert? I hope not,
because he's a corporate whore whose private views of films (I've met
him) are rather different than his published one, or his more recent
published ones (read his first book, A Kiss Is Still A Kiss, for a dose
of undiluted Ebert, before he became part of the media scene he covers).
PR has become something of an almost perfect melding of an art and a
science, while the art of screenwriting, it seems, hasn't only not
advanced but has taken leaps backwards, worrying more about entertaining
audiences through action and stunts than through clever twists, insight
or even *dialogue* at all. (I know, they play better on foreign screens
that way.) I see so many movies today and think "If they put as much
thought into the script as they did into the promotion..." ID4 is a
great case in point. The idea that Jeff Goldblum could hack into the
alien's computer overnight and just jigger some code is the work of a
lazy writer--one who probably made a million dollars, conservatively,
for his "script." "I don't know how the **** to write Act III, so I'll
just have this miracle moment." I understand that War of the Worlds,
though I haven't seen it, suffers from the same problem. 95% of the
movies I see today--and that's no exageration--suffer from this problem.
But the campaigns to promote these movies are often brilliant, clever,
witty, smart, and often *do* want me to go see the film. (You have no
idea how high my hopes were for ID4, and how mugged I felt afterwards.
The whole third act makes no sense, even if you accept the bullshit
fantasy world on the story's own terms.) I feel that's where the brains
go today--into the PR department. That's where our "best and
brightest," as David Halberstam would put it, are working, just like in
the car industry they're working in the finance department and in the
music industry they're working in the A&R department. And just as
offering you cars at employee discounts is a temporary band-aid at
best, hyping mediocre trash on DVDs and HDVDs and Blue-Ray and Sting-Ray
DVDs and special editions and director's cuts and superduperpooper
editions will work...for a time. The only difference vs. autos is in
the field of movies we don't have the equivalent of the Japanese raising
the bar.

> The fact
> that the lesser films get forgotten, despite being much larger in number
> than the classics, is why people sometimes view the past as having higher
> quality material all around, when in reality is was probably just as
> frequent an occurrence as it is today.


Obviously...

But I can't wait to see what films from the '00s decade will be
considered classics. And I don't just mean decent films--films that
don't pander and do the basics that any film should--but genuine
classics. I really do.... On the other hand, with references I hear on
TV to "remakes of classics like 'Superman' and 'The Poseidon Adventure'
.... if they're now considered classics, I will be right and the
hypemeisters and PR machines will have taken over.



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mac Breck
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2005
"The Man Behind The Curtain" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mac Breck wrote:
>
> > "Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan" was a nice surprise after the

pretty
> > bad "Star Trek - The Motion Picture."

>
> Have to confess I've never seen that one, though I did see No. 1. I'm
> not much of a Trekkie; still, I do want to see ST2 one of these

days...

I'm not much of a Trekkie, either, ...anymore.

Here's the IMDb ratings for all of the Trek feature films:
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) 5.8/10 (11174 votes)
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982) 7.6/10 (16955 votes)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) 6.2/10 (10183 votes)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) 7.1/10 (12095 votes)
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) 4.8/10 (9551 votes)
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) 6.9/10 (10754 votes)
Star Trek: Generations (1994) 6.2/10 (13110 votes)
Star Trek: First Contact (1996) 7.3/10 (25701 votes)
Star Trek: Insurrection (199 6.3/10 (13878 votes)
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) 6.5/10 (12417 votes)

IMHO:
ST2 is very good.
ST3 is pretty good.
ST4 is very good.
ST5 is utter trash.

As for the rest, they're ~tolerable~.




> > Well, yeah, if you already know that info., or do that research

before
> > seeing the movie....

>
> Tis what the internet, and especially the IMDB, was invented for.




Looks like "The Island" (Directed by Michael Bay) isn't bad (6.9/10), if
we're to believe IMDb. I'll check a few critics I trust.



> > How many see a movie because of seeing a good trailer? I think

we've
> > all done that.

>
> No, at least not since the internet came around. A trailer makes me
> aware of a film I potentially might be interested in; however, the
> people who cut the trailers have nothing to do with the people who

make
> the movies. Most of the time the director has no control over how his
> movie is promoted and advertised, unless you're someone like Spielberg
> or Lucas. And the trailers are often cut by people who, believe it or
> not, have not seen the movie!


Seeing the movie would seem to be a prerequisite for making a trailer.


> They just get a "brief" on the what the
> film is about, with what angles to emphasize in the trailer, or some
> suggested lines or visuals (actress with her top half off) they want

to
> plug, and they cut away.


That could explain the lack of truth in advertising in some trailers.


--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999)
Galen: "There is always hope, only because it's the one thing that no
one has figured out how to kill yet."
(Galen's obviously never met Warner Brothers, TNT-Atlanta or Sci-Fi.)

"Brimstone" (199
[Stone lights a candle for the dead in a Catholic church]
Gina: Who's that for?
Ezekiel Stone: Me.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2005
"Mac Breck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:VAPEe.21545$(E-Mail Removed)01.us.to .verio.net...
> Here's the IMDb ratings for all of the Trek feature films:
> Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) 5.8/10 (11174 votes)
> Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982) 7.6/10 (16955 votes)
> Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) 6.2/10 (10183 votes)
> Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) 7.1/10 (12095 votes)
> Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) 4.8/10 (9551 votes)
> Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) 6.9/10 (10754 votes)
> Star Trek: Generations (1994) 6.2/10 (13110 votes)
> Star Trek: First Contact (1996) 7.3/10 (25701 votes)
> Star Trek: Insurrection (199 6.3/10 (13878 votes)
> Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) 6.5/10 (12417 votes)


My personal opinion of the Star Trek movies is fairly
close to the numbers you posted from IMDb.

I would however rate IV and First Contact a little higher than Khan.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeff Rife
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2005
The Man Behind The Curtain ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> Then, after immersing yourself for long periods of time in films like
> The Godfather, All About Eve, Psycho, Bridge on the River Kwai, All That
> Jazz, Patton, The French Connection, Sophie's Choice, Atlantic City,
> MASH, Five Easy Pieces, Bonnie and Clyde, Network, Chinatown, The Right
> Stuff, Never Cry Wolf, Singing In The Rain, M, Fitzcarraldo, Being
> There, Broadcast News, New York New York, Raging Bull, Jaws,
> Deliverance, Brazil, 2001, Dr. Strangelove, Citizen Kane, The
> Magnificent Ambersons, Spriit of the Beehive, The Third Man, The Lady
> from Shanghai, Lost Horizon, Plenty, Lawrence of Arabia, Rules of the
> Game, Grand Illusion, Woman of the Year, The Philadlephia Story, His
> Girl Friday, The Man In The White Suit, The Apartment, Some Like It Hot,
> Casablanca, A Lonely Place, State of the Union, North By Northwest,
> Strangers On A Train, The Gold Rush, City Lights, Annie Hall, Manhattan,
> Zelig, Broadway Danny Rose.....just to name a few off the top of my
> head


The most depressing thing about this list is that although I don't like every
movie listed, they are *still* better movies than...

> Charlie's
> Angels 6 and Indiana Jones 29.


--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Zits/CheckTheGigabytes.gif
 
Reply With Quote
 
The Man Behind The Curtain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2005
Jeff Rife wrote:
> The Man Behind The Curtain ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>
>>Then, after immersing yourself for long periods of time in films like
>>The Godfather, All About Eve, Psycho, Bridge on the River Kwai, All That
>>Jazz, Patton, The French Connection, Sophie's Choice, Atlantic City,
>>MASH, Five Easy Pieces, Bonnie and Clyde, Network, Chinatown, The Right
>>Stuff, Never Cry Wolf, Singing In The Rain, M, Fitzcarraldo, Being
>>There, Broadcast News, New York New York, Raging Bull, Jaws,
>>Deliverance, Brazil, 2001, Dr. Strangelove, Citizen Kane, The
>>Magnificent Ambersons, Spriit of the Beehive, The Third Man, The Lady
>>from Shanghai, Lost Horizon, Plenty, Lawrence of Arabia, Rules of the
>>Game, Grand Illusion, Woman of the Year, The Philadlephia Story, His
>>Girl Friday, The Man In The White Suit, The Apartment, Some Like It Hot,
>>Casablanca, A Lonely Place, State of the Union, North By Northwest,
>>Strangers On A Train, The Gold Rush, City Lights, Annie Hall, Manhattan,
>>Zelig, Broadway Danny Rose.....just to name a few off the top of my
>>head

>
>
> The most depressing thing about this list is that although I don't like every
> movie listed, they are *still* better movies than...
>
>
>> Charlie's
>>Angels 6 and Indiana Jones 29.

>
>


Precisely my point.



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why :: ? Why not : ? Why not . ? <- less clutter ?!? Skybuck Flying C++ 16 08-25-2007 09:48 PM
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
why why why does function not work Horace Nunley ASP .Net 1 09-27-2006 09:52 PM
Cisco 2611 and Cisco 1721 : Why , why , why ????? sam@nospam.org Cisco 10 05-01-2005 08:49 AM



Advertisments