Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:28 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
What makes a bad film "bad"? 
Author Message
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 258
Post What makes a bad film "bad"?
I'm in the middle of watching Can't Stop The Music, the film that inspired the Razzies. I'll admit it's pretty bad in many ways, but it's also kind of funny in some ways. The sort of film that would work pretty well at a party. Yes, the acting, writing, etc. are all terrible, but there's still some entertainment in the film none-the-less.

Am I the only one to feel that there's less consensus when it comes to bad films than there is with regards to good films? What exactly is it that makes a bad film "bad"?

I ask as there are tons of films out there that are, techniclaly speaking, awful, yet people still watch them for the entertainment value. See Plan 9 From Outer Space.

I mean, filmmakers all the time try and emulate the techniques of bad films in the hopes that they'll be able to make something "good" or entertaining from the material. Usually it's for parody, but not always. Tarantino pretty much built his entire career around doing this, although the Grindhouse would be the most obvious example. Who ever heard of a filmmaker mimicing a good film in the hopes of making a bad one?

If a film can be watched and enjoyed, plus have other filmmakers try and emulate it, is it really "bad"?

Just ramblings from my mind.

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:57 pm
Profile WWW
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1709
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
Well here's my honest take on it, which others might not agree with. A truly bad film is often one which fails to reveal its badness until you are more than halfway through it. Often, in fact, I have to get through the entire thing to fully realize it's atrociousness. So it's never as simple as instantly recognizing poor acting or poor cinematography, writing etc. I believe that a film must be seen in its near-entirety for a real evaluation of those things to be possible.

I have to see the whole thing in order to get a feeling for what was behind its creation, and that's what ultimately determines badness. The worst films of 2012 were actually kinda fun for a while, but felt like Chinese water torture by the end.


Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:59 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3582
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
For me the worst sin a film can commit is being incredibly dull, Battlefield Earth is a bad film yes, but it's also a pretty fun one. Whereas films like Alexander and Troy are just plain tedious to sit through. With comedies it depends on your sense of humor, what one person finds funny someone else will find excruciating, like most people seem to hate "That's My Boy" though I personally thought it was hilarious and a lot more enjoyable then Sandler's early efforts like The Waterboy, which I did not find very funny by comparison.


Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:35 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 258
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
Vexer, you probably won't find Stone's The Final Cut any better, but for me it was a huge improvement. I suppose I shouldn't find that you found Troy tedious that surprising, but I thought that there were some good fight scenes.

MGamesCook, you may be on to something. I probably spoke a little too soon about Can't Stop the Music. As it went on, the thing became more and more tedious as the gap between songs got longer and filled with more and more dumb dialouge and "character development". The only way the thing could have justified a two hour long length was if it had replaced the "characters interact" stuff with more Village People songs. Chinese water torture is a good analogy.
-Jeremy

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:12 pm
Profile WWW
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
I'm with Vexer in that the worst thing a movie can do is to be mediocre--to aim low, to be bland and inoffensive in every way. I don't think those movies deserve points for succeeding. It's like bowling. Losing a real game isn't as embarrassing as winning with the kiddie bumpers activated. It's easy to win when you're attempting very little.

When a movie is really, really bad, when its misfires are enormous and its reach goes way beyond its grasp, when it is outright aggressive in its failures, it has gone around the circle and become interesting again. The extreme movies, even if they're extreme at the "zero star" end of the spectrum, are paradoxically better than the middle-of-the-road "two star" movies. They're more entertaining, and that's at least the bare minimum of movie achievement. I'm talking about movies like Troll 2 or The Room, which don't just do things wrong, but gloriously, deliriously fucking wrong.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:32 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
Vexer wrote:
For me the worst sin a film can commit is being incredibly dull, Battlefield Earth is a bad film yes, but it's also a pretty fun one. Whereas films like Alexander and Troy are just plain tedious to sit through. With comedies it depends on your sense of humor, what one person finds funny someone else will find excruciating, like most people seem to hate "That's My Boy" though I personally thought it was hilarious and a lot more enjoyable then Sandler's early efforts like The Waterboy, which I did not find very funny by comparison.


Not to be a dick, but I don't think Vexer should be allowed to answer this. Most of the movies he likes are dogshit (Ecks vs Server is not a good movie, it's an awful one).


Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:47 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3582
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Vexer wrote:
For me the worst sin a film can commit is being incredibly dull, Battlefield Earth is a bad film yes, but it's also a pretty fun one. Whereas films like Alexander and Troy are just plain tedious to sit through. With comedies it depends on your sense of humor, what one person finds funny someone else will find excruciating, like most people seem to hate "That's My Boy" though I personally thought it was hilarious and a lot more enjoyable then Sandler's early efforts like The Waterboy, which I did not find very funny by comparison.


Not to be a dick, but I don't think Vexer should be allowed to answer this. Most of the movies he likes are dogshit (Ecks vs Server is not a good movie, it's an awful one).

Well that's just your opinion, not a fact, and that is kind of a dickish response.


Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:08 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 766
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
I always try to avoid very bad films by checking Rotten Tomattoes and the IMDB scores. Sometimes, for the movies I see, it happens that I liked more or less than the average.

I would say if a minimum of 25 critics saw a particular and no one liked then that film must be very bad which is the case for the positions 14 to 1 in the following countdown

RT: Worst of the worst (2000-2009)

Be aware that for instance the one in positition 100 (7 % fresh) , I particularly liked it lol

For IMDB in the bottom 100 I have not seen any and I do not intent to either lol
the number 100 has a score of 2.6 with 69,619 votes Yikes!

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:28 am
Profile WWW
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
I would recommend checking out at least a couple of those worst-rated movies, because A. it adds to your cinematic literacy to know how low the bar can go, and B. let's face it--some of these movies are great comedies, even if they don't mean to be.

Plus, several of these (such as "Manos: the Hands of Fate", "Space Mutiny") have resulted in classic Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. Those are available on DVD and are well worth tracking down.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:35 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2466
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
Vexer wrote:
For me the worst sin a film can commit is being incredibly dull, Battlefield Earth is a bad film yes, but it's also a pretty fun one. Whereas films like Alexander and Troy are just plain tedious to sit through. With comedies it depends on your sense of humor, what one person finds funny someone else will find excruciating, like most people seem to hate "That's My Boy" though I personally thought it was hilarious and a lot more enjoyable then Sandler's early efforts like The Waterboy, which I did not find very funny by comparison.


I don't entirely disagree with your formula, but Alexander is worse than merely dull. It's horribly inept in every way possible. Casting; acting; writing; even the action sequences are boring; the whole project is overblown and just ludicrous in its execution. In a way Alexander successfully defines "bad" on a number of different levels. It covers "bad" in the whole remit of action, drama and adventure.

The other type of bad we see today is in the comedy form. I despise smugness in mediocrity. It's enough to make a moderately bad film become awful. I know you disagree with this, Vex, but for me Friends with Benefits and Easy A both define bad comedy in its modern guise. Smug, sneering unlikable characters in cliched and borderline insulting stories, completely divorced from any kind of moral base. Also, these kind of films often end up displaying an ironic kind of prejudice about their adopted pet causes. For example, in the awful Friends with Benefits, the usually likable and still often underrated actor, Woody Harrelson plays quite on offensive characterisation of a gay man who isn't like any gay man I ever met. One of my best friends is gay and I know a couple of other gay fellas and even in the most drink fueled of evenings none has said to me "I just love the cock" any more than I would refer to a woman's parts whilst talking to them.

And Easy A and Friends with Benefits both have Patricia Clarkson playing the same awful, slutty Mum character that would probably damage a child in real life. Then again perhaps this is the secret reason the characters in these films are all asholes.

My 2 cents.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:26 am
Profile
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2187
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
I kind of agree with Vexer. I'd rather watch an enjoyable bad movie than a boring well made one.

Take Lockout and The Master as an example. With the exception of a fun performance from Guy Pearce, Lockout is a pretty bad movie. But it was fun. I'd rather sit through Lockout again than The Master which was a technically accomplished, well acted movie but it very nearly bored me to death.


Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:46 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1290
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
For me, a truly awful film is one that is genuinely painful to sit through. That's why the films of, say, Ed Wood can never be truly awful since their sheer incompetence makes them amusing. There's still nothing worse than an unfunny comedy for me... which, of course, raises problems since comedy is so subjective. :|


Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:32 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 622
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
Acting, editing, or composition that distracts from the story enough to destroy continuity. A story that just plain sucks or is already disjointed. There are movies that provide enough comedy, or sometimes tension, to overcome all of those things, but the bad ones don't.


Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:35 am
Profile
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
Well I fully agree that the effect on the viewer is the most important aspect to be taken into account.

A few days I watched (again) a re-run of the 1971 german film: "Die Bettwurst" (the title refers to a neck pillow in the form of a sausage, which is a christmas present at some point in the story). It is a parody of a love story. A rather unattractive and dimwitted 50+ year old lower middle class woman (complete with bad blonde wig) meets an unemployed dimwitted and self-loathing 20something guy who reveals that he is involved with criminals but wants out, and they both fall in love. The intended fun stems from the ultra-trashy "petit bourgeois" (1960s german - style) woman and the fact that the "romatic lead" is all out gay and half illiterate (the obviously improvised dialogue is filled with redundancy and hilariously bad grammar). We don't laugh at the two, we laugh at the brilliant idea of a director (Rosa von Praunheim, out of the closet from the word go), casting friends and family members and the hilarious results of their combined incompetence.

This ultra low budget movie, shot on standard 3:4 format 16mm film and co-financed by the german state tv channel "ZDF", is probably the trashiest movie I ever saw. Everything about it is very bad and most of the humor is unintentional (some of it is obviously intentional, but the "laughing your ass off" - humor stems from the acting which is beyond words. Everything except one thing: the completely incompetent amateur "actors" plus incompetent directing (trust me: "Plan 9 From Outer Space" looks ultra professional when compared) are 100% authentic.
I was unable to find out if this movie was ever shown as theatrical 35mm prints. Wikipedia and IMDB.com don't label it a "tv movie", so I guess this counts.

My point is (besides recommending it to people outside of german speaking countries): this movie is bad, really bad, but very enjoyable and never offensive or gross, even though it sometimes borders on both. Beside all the ultra-funny stuff, we actually sort of feel for the characters. This movie has a small cult following in Germany.

Technically this is one of the worst movies I know, but I second and third the opinion that: if it's enjoyable (even if only to a few fans who "get" its wackiness), it's at the very least not a bad movie. Bad movies, I think we all agree, fail on every level and have no redeeming qualities.

Check the links :

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065465/

YouTube clips (I hope they work) - no need to understand the dialog:

(WARNING: very light male nudity!!! - I will remove the link if moderators require) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMfDaVEQyDI

Probably the worst love scene ever (NO nudity!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRO6DIF_RcU


Last edited by Threeperf35 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:56 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1561
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
thered47 wrote:
If a film can be watched and enjoyed, plus have other filmmakers try and emulate it, is it really "bad"?


Vexer wrote:
For me the worst sin a film can commit is being incredibly dull, Battlefield Earth is a bad film yes, but it's also a pretty fun one. Whereas films like Alexander and Troy are just plain tedious to sit through. With comedies it depends on your sense of humor, what one person finds funny someone else will find excruciating, like most people seem to hate "That's My Boy" though I personally thought it was hilarious and a lot more enjoyable then Sandler's early efforts like The Waterboy, which I did not find very funny by comparison.


To an extent I agree with Vex. Albeit not on Battlefield Earth which isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It's far worse. Snakes On A Plane for instance isn't a great movie or even a very good one for that matter. But if you watch it with a crowd and a certain sense of drunken rowdiness it can be fun. Watch it as a comedy and it can be enjoyed.

Or take Killer Klowns From Outer Space. Sure it's a grade-z feature. But it's more enjoyable, more funny and more iconic than unfunny stuff like Bio-Dome or Daddy Day Care or big budget nothings like Judge Dredd or The Scorpion King or Hudson Hawk.

The aforementioned Alexander, in addition to being deadly dull, was also incoherently edited. The director's cut, while not making it into a hidden masterpiece, did solve a few of the problems. Worse than Alexander was King Arthur from the same year which suffered from being deadly dull, badly scripted, badly lit and characters who often ended up with a serious case of the stupids.

Movies that are so bad that they're funny or at least entertaining can be better than those that are just mediocre.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:17 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3582
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
NotHughGrant wrote:
Vexer wrote:
For me the worst sin a film can commit is being incredibly dull, Battlefield Earth is a bad film yes, but it's also a pretty fun one. Whereas films like Alexander and Troy are just plain tedious to sit through. With comedies it depends on your sense of humor, what one person finds funny someone else will find excruciating, like most people seem to hate "That's My Boy" though I personally thought it was hilarious and a lot more enjoyable then Sandler's early efforts like The Waterboy, which I did not find very funny by comparison.


I don't entirely disagree with your formula, but Alexander is worse than merely dull. It's horribly inept in every way possible. Casting; acting; writing; even the action sequences are boring; the whole project is overblown and just ludicrous in its execution. In a way Alexander successfully defines "bad" on a number of different levels. It covers "bad" in the whole remit of action, drama and adventure.

The other type of bad we see today is in the comedy form. I despise smugness in mediocrity. It's enough to make a moderately bad film become awful. I know you disagree with this, Vex, but for me Friends with Benefits and Easy A both define bad comedy in its modern guise. Smug, sneering unlikable characters in cliched and borderline insulting stories, completely divorced from any kind of moral base. Also, these kind of films often end up displaying an ironic kind of prejudice about their adopted pet causes. For example, in the awful Friends with Benefits, the usually likable and still often underrated actor, Woody Harrelson plays quite on offensive characterisation of a gay man who isn't like any gay man I ever met. One of my best friends is gay and I know a couple of other gay fellas and even in the most drink fueled of evenings none has said to me "I just love the cock" any more than I would refer to a woman's parts whilst talking to them.

And Easy A and Friends with Benefits both have Patricia Clarkson playing the same awful, slutty Mum character that would probably damage a child in real life. Then again perhaps this is the secret reason the characters in these films are all asholes.

My 2 cents.

I don't see how Harrelson was "offensive", he was portrayed a fairly normal guy who just happened to be gay(or as TvTropes calls it, Straight Gay), it was refreshing to see a gay characer who wasn't an over-the-top campy sterotype like say Jack on "Will And Grace"
It seems a bit silly to be offended by a line like that, I know gay people too and they don't talk anything like that either, but that dosen't mean it's offensive, at least I don't see it that way. As for the mother characters, I strongly disagree that they would "damage" kids in real life, that's an overly broad generalization and there's no basis in facts for that, and that seems like nitpicking, you can't expect characters in films to behave like people do in real life(unless it's a biopic, and even then some liberties will be taken)

For me the Twilight films stand out as truly awful and offensive, not to mention creepy with the single most unsettling romance of all time, many have said Twilight sets womens rights back 50 years, and it's hard to disagree with them on that.

I almost forgot about King Arthur, really bad film that one.


Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:25 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3582
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
H.I. McDonough wrote:
For me, a truly awful film is one that is genuinely painful to sit through. That's why the films of, say, Ed Wood can never be truly awful since their sheer incompetence makes them amusing. There's still nothing worse than an unfunny comedy for me... which, of course, raises problems since comedy is so subjective. :|

For me the worst comedy was "I Heart Huckabees", which was painfully unfunny, uninvolving and horrendously acted by everyone, i'll gladly watch watch Bio-Dome over that piece of shit any day.


Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:31 pm
Profile
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
Ken wrote:
I'm with Vexer in that the worst thing a movie can do is to be mediocre--to aim low, to be bland and inoffensive in every way. I don't think those movies deserve points for succeeding. It's like bowling. Losing a real game isn't as embarrassing as winning with the kiddie bumpers activated. It's easy to win when you're attempting very little.

When a movie is really, really bad, when its misfires are enormous and its reach goes way beyond its grasp, when it is outright aggressive in its failures, it has gone around the circle and become interesting again. The extreme movies, even if they're extreme at the "zero star" end of the spectrum, are paradoxically better than the middle-of-the-road "two star" movies. They're more entertaining, and that's at least the bare minimum of movie achievement. I'm talking about movies like Troll 2 or The Room, which don't just do things wrong, but gloriously, deliriously fucking wrong.


Well I cannot agree more. Unfortunately I learned the hard way that life isn't like that. Aiming high and failing is still failing. Aiming rather low and succeeding still is succeeding. I never liked anything lukewarm, I prefer going for broke, then crash and burn - rather than being "reasonable", but that's what any truly creative person (highly talented or not) is all about. Still I understand the reason behind mediocrity: don't offend the audience, play it safe, don't go in over your head. That's why there is (and always was) so much mediocrity around. I always loved movies (and music for that matter) with the balls to do something different than "playing it safe". BTW: I just received my BluRay of "Heaven's Gate". I will take my time to watch it. Perhaps it really is a bad movie on all levels, but if I find it ballsy enough, I might put it on my "failed but at least went for broke" - movie list.


Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Movies that are so bad that they're funny or at least entertaining can be better than those that are just mediocre.


This post, along with Ken's earlier post, get to the heart of the matter - not all bad movies are created equal. Whether you're drinking beers with friends and making fun of a movie, or watching MST3K, or just vegging out, some bad movies provide quite a bit of entertainment. The experience of watching them is often pretty enjoyable. It's like listening to Foreigner. My girlfriend and I laugh our asses off every time we hear a Foreigner song because they're the worst songwriters possibly ever (although I will admit to legitimately enjoying Juke Box Hero), but I'll be damned if I'm not thoroughly entertained for those 3-4 minutes. The same can be said for countless bad movies.

This whole thread reminds me of the love/fear classroom scene in Donnie Darko. Human emotion isn't meant to be lumped into one of two categories. The entire spectrum of human emotion is much too vast to be boiled down in either love or fear. Movies are the same way, just replace love/fear with good/bad.


Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:14 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2466
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: What makes a bad film "bad"?
Threeperf35 wrote:
Well I fully agree that the effect on the viewer is the most important aspect to be taken into account.

A few days I watched (again) a re-run of the 1971 german film: "Die Bettwurst" (the title refers to a neck pillow in the form of a sausage, which is a christmas present at some point in the story). It is a parody of a love story. A rather unattractive and dimwitted 50+ year old lower middle class woman (complete with bad blonde wig) meets an unemployed dimwitted and self-loathing 20something guy who reveals that he is involved with criminals but wants out, and they both fall in love. The intended fun stems from the ultra-trashy "petit bourgeois" (1960s german - style) woman and the fact that the "romatic lead" is all out gay and half illiterate (the obviously improvised dialogue is filled with redundancy and hilariously bad grammar). We don't laugh at the two, we laugh at the brilliant idea of a director (Rosa von Praunheim, out of the closet from the word go), casting friends and family members and the hilarious results of their combined incompetence.

This ultra low budget movie, shot on standard 3:4 format 16mm film and co-financed by the german state tv channel "ZDF", is probably the trashiest movie I ever saw. Everything about it is very bad and most of the humor is unintentional (some of it is obviously intentional, but the "laughing your ass off" - humor stems from the acting which is beyond words. Everything except one thing: the completely incompetent amateur "actors" plus incompetent directing (trust me: "Plan 9 From Outer Space" looks ultra professional when compared) are 100% authentic.
I was unable to find out if this movie was ever shown as theatrical 35mm prints. Wikipedia and IMDB.com don't label it a "tv movie", so I guess this counts.

My point is (besides recommending it to people outside of german speaking countries): this movie is bad, really bad, but very enjoyable and never offensive or gross, even though it sometimes borders on both. Beside all the ultra-funny stuff, we actually sort of feel for the characters. This movie has a small cult following in Germany.

Technically this is one of the worst movies I know, but I second and third the opinion that: if it's enjoyable (even if only to a few fans who "get" its wackiness), it's at the very least not a bad movie. Bad movies, I think we all agree, fail on every level and have no redeeming qualities.

Check the links :

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065465/

YouTube clips (I hope they work) - no need to understand the dialog:

(WARNING: very light male nudity!!! - I will remove the link if moderators require) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMfDaVEQyDI

Probably the worst love scene ever (NO nudity!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRO6DIF_RcU


Fucking hell, that is seriously inept. It's like amateur soft porn minus sex!

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:01 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr