Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:18 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Armond White - Still as classy as ever 
Author Message
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 1144
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
As someone who has read JB since 1998, I feel I have a pretty good grip on what he's attracted to in movies. He penned a Reelthought some years ago where he contrasted his perspective to that of Roger Ebert, saying that he looks at movies from a story/character perspective while Ebert is more art-conscious, or something like that. It would take me all day to find it, so if/when I do, I'll drop a link in here.

I also don't think it's fair to say JB is completely ignorant of the technical side of filmmaking. Here's an excerpt from his review of Steve McQueen's SHAME:

"McQueen speaks as strongly with his camera as with the characters' lines. Especially early in the film, we do not see the faces of Brandon's naked bedmates. When Brandon pads around his apartment naked, his genitalia are framed in the center of the screen (not in close-up). The nudity, which contributed to the MPAA's NC-17 rating, seems more organic than erotic (the possible exception being the playful scene with Marianne and Brandon). It would be disingenuous for the tale of a sex addict not to depict all aspects of the man's life."

And as for me bringing up Jay Mariotti in relation to Armond White, I only did so as it relates to how a controversial writer that I like can ultimately lose my respect. Obviously what the former did was 100 times worse. But the fallout was also 100 times greater. Even though charges were eventually dropped, Mariotti's career as a columnist was finished. White is still writing, and it wouldn't surprise me if some other critics group eventually gave him a second chance if he'd just be more respectful. That's all.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:05 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 444
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
While I agree that it unfair to label JB ignorant of all technical aspects of filmmaking, the passage cited by KWRoss doesn't show any knowledge in this respect. Everybody can see what's in the centre of a frame, regardless of whether you know how to make movies. And that's where I disagree with MGamesCook (if I understand his point correctly): You don't need to know much about the technical aspects of filmmaking to have an informed opinion on a movie, because you are judging the finished product and not the process. For example, I don't need to know how to light a particular scene to know whether it is underlit, because that will be evident from the the scene being too dark.

I do agree very much with MGamesCook concerning the subjetivity (if that's a word) of film criticism and film viewing in general, though. Actually, I believe that all art is subjective. Of course, there are a few objective criteria. You can't criticise a black and white movie for its bad use of colour (although you could criticise a movie for being in black and white rather than in colour). However, we all bring our personal preferences, aversions and experiences along when we go to watch a movie and they determine to a large extent whether we appreciate a movie or whether we don't.

To provide an example: My wife doesn't like to be scared, shocked, frightened or disturbed and she has a slightly superstitious fear of the supernatural. For her, a horror movie, particularly a ghost story, isn't entertaining at all and unpleasant to watch. From her perspective, 'The Exorcist' couldn't be a good movie because watching it would be a bad experience for her.


Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:30 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 373
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
Mgames...

You still haven't provided any kind of logical answer as to how White knows McQueens intentions?


Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:55 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
Unke wrote:
While I agree that it unfair to label JB ignorant of all technical aspects of filmmaking, the passage cited by KWRoss doesn't show any knowledge in this respect. Everybody can see what's in the centre of a frame, regardless of whether you know how to make movies. And that's where I disagree with MGamesCook (if I understand his point correctly): You don't need to know much about the technical aspects of filmmaking to have an informed opinion on a movie, because you are judging the finished product and not the process. For example, I don't need to know how to light a particular scene to know whether it is underlit, because that will be evident from the the scene being too dark.

I do agree very much with MGamesCook concerning the subjetivity (if that's a word) of film criticism and film viewing in general, though. Actually, I believe that all art is subjective. Of course, there are a few objective criteria. You can't criticise a black and white movie for its bad use of colour (although you could criticise a movie for being in black and white rather than in colour). However, we all bring our personal preferences, aversions and experiences along when we go to watch a movie and they determine to a large extent whether we appreciate a movie or whether we don't.

To provide an example: My wife doesn't like to be scared, shocked, frightened or disturbed and she has a slightly superstitious fear of the supernatural. For her, a horror movie, particularly a ghost story, isn't entertaining at all and unpleasant to watch. From her perspective, 'The Exorcist' couldn't be a good movie because watching it would be a bad experience for her.
It's sort of the same with me, I don't like films with really graphic rape scenes, so stuff like The War Zone and Irreversible can't be good films for me(though Irreversible is terrible on many other levels)


Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:51 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 438
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
MGamesCook wrote:
And at the end of the day, who knows...maybe it takes a truly subjective perspective to be able to do those two things with confidence. Besides which, objectivity has no meaning when almost no critic is qualified to objectively evaluate a film from a technical standpoint. White understands filmmaking from a technical perspective, and therefore from the filmmaker's perspective.


On what are you basing this opinion that White knows filmmaking from a technical perspective? Are you saying White is totally objective from a technical standpoint?

MGamesCook wrote:
I would trust a critic who praises technically superior, swiftly paced, aesthetically interesting, entertaining movies (which White does) and who pans pretentious, overlong, oversized, boring crap (which White does).


If White's opinion matches up that well to you, more power to you. No intelligent person can make a case that White is stupid. Dishonest, maybe, but not in any sense dull or dim-witted. I think he's a fairly lousy writer from a prose standpoint, but I don't think he's an idiot. Sure, he can be construed as wildly inconsistent, but that's true of anyone who publishes reviews. My biggest issue, as mentioned (and you can certainly disagree) is that I simply don't believe him sometimes. There are reviews he's written that I disagree with strongly, but I believe in his stance and his passion. There are other reviews where he bashes or praises a film against the grain when I feel like his heart just isn't in it -- even when I happen to agree with him. That's my biggest problem.

But dude, you do understand that some people genuinely disagree with him (and you), right? You seem to think that people enjoy pretension and don't want entertainment. You say that anyone who likes a popular film is merely following the consensus, that everyone who praises a widely liked film didn't come to that opinion honestly and is wasting their time voicing it. That's the part that kills discussion.

The problem I have with White's antics is that while he can certainly have any opinion he wants (and should voice it heartily through the proper channels), when he acts like this, it's abundantly clear that his real focus is on him and his fame, and not at all on the work or the art. It's hubris masked in mock moralism and intellectual hypocrisy, and it makes it awfully hard to take him seriously. His attacks on McQueen's goals in making 12 Years is pure poppycock.

That said...

roastbeef_ajus wrote:
He said the following in his Lone Survivor review:

"Berg’s style–and his problem–centers on a non-craftsman’s pathetic, unoriginal handling of imagery and character. Going along with the TV and commercials and video games revolution, Berg brings zero cinematic craft to his attempts at seriously conveying the visual and emotional experience of battle." Really? Why don't you ask some Navy SEALS or anyone else who has served if he conveyed a visual and emotional experience of battle? If any of you have seen it yet, it probably conveys the most realistic aspects of battle since Black Hawk Down.

The guy might be intelligent and knowledgeable, but he is a batshit lunatic if he really believes the stuff he writes: Thus he must only do it to get a rise out of people, making him a hypocrite and a hack.


...that's absurd. Lone Survivor is not particularly well made, not an itsy-bitsy bit original in its ideas about how to convey the horrors of war. I've yet to come across any soldiers -- personally or otherwise -- who have had anything good to say about the actual depiction of battle. They appreciate the tone of seriousness and respect the film takes, but the battle scenes themselves, while perhaps visceral, don't scream realism. The gore in particular is just about the opposite of realistic. That's fine, because most don't know or need to know that, but this seems like an awfully silly film to take issue with White on, Mr. Beef.


Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:53 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 373
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
Shade2 wrote:
...that's absurd. Lone Survivor is not particularly well made, not an itsy-bitsy bit original in its ideas about how to convey the horrors of war. I've yet to come across any soldiers -- personally or otherwise -- who have had anything good to say about the actual depiction of battle. They appreciate the tone of seriousness and respect the film takes, but the battle scenes themselves, while perhaps visceral, don't scream realism. The gore in particular is just about the opposite of realistic. That's fine, because most don't know or need to know that, but this seems like an awfully silly film to take issue with White on, Mr. Beef.


After Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter, etc., can a movie that centers on a war have any original idea left about how to convey the horrors of war? I don't know.

Next, from a technical standpoint, how are the battle scenes not well done? Am I just stupid for not realizing it? I don't know anything about "film technique," but the scenes seemed real enough to me. Apparently White knows everything about film technique and gives dogshit like Jonah Hex a positive review. I guess the director of Jonah Hex, Freebirds, and Horton hears a Who knows how to properly frame a shot, and can "reach into the soul and evoke some new political response of the human condition..." or some such bullshit.

And I'm not promoting Lone Survivor as my favorite movie...it wouldn't make it into my top 25 of the year...but I think that it is well made.


Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:47 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 438
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
After Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter, etc., can a movie that centers on a war have any original idea left about how to convey the horrors of war? I don't know.


Absolutely it can be done. Remaking the wheel isn't what makes a film good, but the fact that great war films exist doesn't take away the possibility.

roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Next, from a technical standpoint, how are the battle scenes not well done?


I didn't say anything about technical merit. You said that the film "conveys the most realistic aspects of battle since Black Hawk Down" and that White should "ask some Navy SEALS or anyone else who has served if he conveyed a visual and emotional experience of battle." There's nothing technical about that. The battle scenes well finely done, in their way. You articulated that they were realistic, which is where I differed with you and took exception.

roastbeef_ajus wrote:
I guess the director of Jonah Hex, Freebirds, and Horton hears a Who knows how to properly frame a shot, and can "reach into the soul and evoke some new political response of the human condition..." or some such bullshit.


This is malarkey. You can't take words from one review and infer them to another or assume his stance.

roastbeef_ajus wrote:
And I'm not promoting Lone Survivor as my favorite movie...it wouldn't make it into my top 25 of the year...but I think that it is well made.


Technical merit works both ways: you scoff at White assertions that Jonah Hex is well made, but want me to praise Lone Survivor because it is? You're welcome to enjoy any film for any reason. I think Transformers 2 is incredibly well-made, technically, but you'd have to pay me more than $100 to sit through it again.


Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:30 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1899
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
Quote:
It would be interesting to see what films you think White is wrong on, because there's no conceivable way you could agree with his heavily subjective opinions all, or even most, of the time.


Sometimes I just can't get into a film he likes. Not that it's bad, but I simply can't get into it. Whit Stillman's latest, the latest Alain Resnais...couldn't really get into Vincere by Mario Bellochio, which White went nuts over. Much of what he recommends is stuff that no one would say is BAD, just not that it's not the type of thing they would seek out. Everlasting Moments by Jan Troell; don't know how anyone could call it bad or inept or anything, but a lot of people may simply be indifferent toward it (personally, I could take it or leave it).

Going back to the olden days, I think he overrates Lawrence of Arabia in a way that seems contradictory to his current sensibility. The side of White that interests me less is the high-minded side, but there's never much controversy on that end anyway. I can't find much to disagree with in terms of him championing "low-brow" action fare. I just have too much fun with it (but find aesthetic fulfillment as well).

Quote:
On what are you basing this opinion that White knows filmmaking from a technical perspective? Are you saying White is totally objective from a technical standpoint?


He has a knowledge of stylistic trends and he seems to be a fan of the idea that style and substance are one and the same. I think he sees style in terms of the director's technique and methodology rather than just the style's effect on the viewer.

Quote:
But dude, you do understand that some people genuinely disagree with him (and you), right? You seem to think that people enjoy pretension and don't want entertainment. You say that anyone who likes a popular film is merely following the consensus, that everyone who praises a widely liked film didn't come to that opinion honestly and is wasting their time voicing it. That's the part that kills discussion.


His approach isn't for everyone. He prefers what could be classified, I think, as introverted cinema. I think if one were to do a study classifying films as introverted vs. extroverted, the dividing line might fall between White's camp and the camp of the critical mainstream. So there's something in that. As for the other thing though: if people genuinely enjoy pretension, then that IS their entertainment. But really, I just can't get a read on the other perspective sometimes. It's like a whole different frequency, an entirely different approach to movie-watching. But I can see that sometimes you have to agree to disagree.

Quote:
I think Transformers 2 is incredibly well-made, technically, but you'd have to pay me more than $100 to sit through it again.


Being well-made does a lot for me. Good directors are first and foremost technicians; they have to be. Often, the technical approach becomes what the style is. Even if I don't care about the storyline in Transformers 2, the technical aspect does a lot to entertain me, up to a certain point.


Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:59 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 373
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
Shade2 wrote:
You articulated that they were realistic, which is where I differed with you and took exception.


What parts were unrealistic? I'm not talking about what liberties were taken with the story, but what actual aspects of the SEALS up against the enemy seemed unrealistic?

Shade2 wrote:
Technical merit works both ways: you scoff at White assertions that Jonah Hex is well made, but want me to praise Lone Survivor because it is?


I don't want you to praise Lone Survivor. You can hate it for all I care. I just can't fathom how someone can think Jonah Hex has more technical merit than...well...anything.


Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:00 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1899
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
Quote:
I just can't fathom how someone can think Jonah Hex has more technical merit than...well...anything.


It's just classical coverage. I don't think there's anything exceptional about Jonah Hex, but the photography is competent apart from a few transitional shots which are too darkly lit.


Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:38 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1402
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
I thought you hated Transformers 2, mgames?


Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:32 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 1:43 pm
Posts: 328
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
peng wrote:
I thought you hated Transformers 2, mgames?


Maybe you're confusing him with virtually every other person in the world.

_________________
Sometimes I think I have felt everything I'm ever gonna feel, and from here on out I'm not gonna feel anything new. Just lesser versions of what I've already felt.


Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:51 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 1144
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
Hmmmmm, maybe we do need to lay this issue on the table after all. What "works" for us in movies? What do we look for in a critic? Are Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic just fun (and occasionally useful) curiosities? Or do they really sway movie-goers too much in one direction?

Sounds like a topic for a brand new thread. Coming soon.....

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:52 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1899
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
peng wrote:
I thought you hated Transformers 2, mgames?


I never hated the 2nd, I did hate the 3rd when I first saw it. I REALLY hated it at the time. Since revisiting it at home, in 2D, I find things to enjoy about it. The Transformers movies are just pretty decent romps. 2.5 hour trips into absurdity. Too long, but they have their moments.


Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:03 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
MGamesCook wrote:
peng wrote:
I thought you hated Transformers 2, mgames?


I never hated the 2nd, I did hate the 3rd when I first saw it. I REALLY hated it at the time. Since revisiting it at home, in 2D, I find things to enjoy about it. The Transformers movies are just pretty decent romps. 2.5 hour trips into absurdity. Too long, but they have their moments.

Glad you like them, I find them pretty enjoyable, even the 2nd one, though it has have some pacing issues(mainly due to the script being penned during the writers strike)

Metacritic and Rottentomatoes do not sway me one bit, I see whatever looks good to me regardless of what the critics say about it.


Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:08 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 438
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
MGamesCook wrote:
I think he sees style in terms of the director's technique and methodology rather than just the style's effect on the viewer.


I get what you're saying and I think that's a fair read. Certainly, no matter what, everyone but the maker is affected by the style, it's just in which ways and to what degree. I agree with the notion that it comes down to what one cares about as an individual viewer.

MGamesCook wrote:
His approach isn't for everyone. He prefers what could be classified, I think, as introverted cinema. I think if one were to do a study classifying films as introverted vs. extroverted, the dividing line might fall between White's camp and the camp of the critical mainstream. So there's something in that. As for the other thing though: if people genuinely enjoy pretension, then that IS their entertainment. But really, I just can't get a read on the other perspective sometimes. It's like a whole different frequency, an entirely different approach to movie-watching. But I can see that sometimes you have to agree to disagree.


The bolded part is my only issue, and is at the heart of why there's conflict sometimes, I think. Now let me be clear: in no way am I trying to talk down, or speak in platitudes that I don't understand, or insinuate that I'm in any way smarter than you (I know I can come across all those ways at times and I'm sincerely trying not to). Here's the thing: it seems you quite often make that distinction (White's opinion/your own vs. mainstream/consensus). First of all, as I think you know, White is hardly consistently contrarian, and quite often goes with the crowd -- heck, the guy adores Spielberg and Lean, so he can't be accused of disliking critically acclaimed stuff. More importantly, intentional or not, when you draw that line there, problems can crop up. Because it seems like quite often when someone expresses love for something popular/widely praised (whether in a one sentence "that's so incredibly incredible" post or in a long dissertation) you dismiss it out of hand, call them a consensus follower or say that there's no point in praising what other people already like. I think that's what infuriates people at times, because (again, intentional or not) you're dismissing opinions and tearing down people's feelings and credibility without merit. I totally understand when you feel/say "come on, guys! No one needs to defend QT!" But sometimes that feeling is expressed in a way that makes people feel attacked. Fair enough? Again, just my two bits.

It's totally fine that you genuinely don't get the opposing opinion at times; certainly we all feel that as viewers with certain films/filmmakers.

MGamesCook wrote:
Being well-made does a lot for me. Good directors are first and foremost technicians; they have to be. Often, the technical approach becomes what the style is. Even if I don't care about the storyline in Transformers 2, the technical aspect does a lot to entertain me, up to a certain point.


Oh, I get that. Like I said I wouldn't revisit it, but the tech merits are the only things I can enjoy about it and I did, to a degree.


Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:33 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
Vexer wrote:
Metacritic and Rottentomatoes do not sway me one bit, I see whatever looks good to me regardless of what the critics say about it.
My use for critics, and I suspect yours too, mainly comes into play after I've seen the movie. If it's something I'm interested in seeing for any reason, critical opinions don't hold much sway over my decision. It's after I've seen the movie that I seek out the opinions of critics and fellow movie watchers. Those opinions, whether by corroborating or contradicting my expierience of the movie, can enrich my involvement and thinking and emotions regarding that movie.

The catch is, this approach requires that the other parties be honest about their own experience of the movie, without infecting their appraisal of it with ulterior motives or other agendas not relating to an honest confession about what the movie made them think, feel, and want.

_________________
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.


Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:41 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 373
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
Everyone in here who desnt like what i like...go fucj yourself....and yes imma drum,ies.


Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:49 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:22 am
Posts: 419
Location: Chennai, India
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
Ken wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Metacritic and Rottentomatoes do not sway me one bit, I see whatever looks good to me regardless of what the critics say about it.
My use for critics, and I suspect yours too, mainly comes into play after I've seen the movie. If it's something I'm interested in seeing for any reason, critical opinions don't hold much sway over my decision. It's after I've seen the movie that I seek out the opinions of critics and fellow movie watchers. Those opinions, whether by corroborating or contradicting my expierience of the movie, can enrich my involvement and thinking and emotions regarding that movie.

The catch is, this approach requires that the other parties be honest about their own experience of the movie, without infecting their appraisal of it with ulterior motives or other agendas not relating to an honest confession about what the movie made them think, feel, and want.

Spot on!

I've also recently found that I better enjoy films when I read nothing about them beforehand. No reviews. No blog posts. Not even forum posts here. I find that reading any such thing has the tendency to direct my attention to something particular in the film, whether that be a scene, a shot, a piece of music, acting or whatever. Whereas when I enter the theater without reading anything, sometimes without even knowing what the film is about, I essentially experience the virgin viewing experience. And in the past year, I've found that my enjoyment of the film is multiplied manifold when this is the case. I still check out JB's star ratings or MC/RT consensus ratings, but that's about it.

Post my viewing of the film, I actively seek out every opinion I can find and bite into it. Everything I've ignored before, I read now. And I agree with you in that they add so much more to the film. Now, my understanding of the film is essentially multiplied manifold. A great example would be The Master thread from Reelviews last year. The discussion on the thematic content of the film was simply a joy to read.

Of course, the problem with this approach is that it is impossible to do this for older films and acknowledged classics. When seeing something like 2001, I am simply under too much pressure to enjoy the film. And when I don't "get" some well-known classic, every muscle in my body tells me I simply am wrong. There's no way a film that has drawn such a consensus can be bad. I've never faked my appreciation of a film I didn't "get", but I have revisited several classics only for my opinion on them to change for the better.

_________________
Balajithots - Last Updated 21-Jan - Frozen (2013)
This list... is an absolute good. The list is life. All around its margins lies the gulf.


Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:06 am
Profile WWW
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Armond White - Still as classy as ever
I never feel like i'm "wrong" for not enjoying widely acclaimed films like 2001, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, etc. I can see why people like them, they just simply don't appeal to me.


Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:42 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Thief12 and 7 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