The Hot Blog

At least it'll be truly harmless excrement.

Uh-ohhh...I sense someone will predict $200 million for HAIRSPRAY and that TRANSFORMERS will be the biggest movie of the summer. Hold onto yer hats HotBlog readers!!!

Ummm, what's gonna happen? Who's going to write this stuff? Did I miss something?

Oh, wait, I see what David is saying now. Those dumb wrapup reports you read at the end of the summer.

Does AMERICAN GANGSTER look Oscar-worthy?

Or, we could just relax in the sun as summer begins to wind down and Good Movie Season (aka Fall) begins to come closer.

Completely off-topic but I figured this would be the place to land the answer:

I can't remember the title for the Bergman "horror" film. Its not "Hour of the Wolf"... it was done in color and I remember a scene where a woman was being lowered down toward a pit of fire or something. Saw this about a decade ago and, for the life of me, can't remember the title...

Anyone know?

Isak Borg and the Temple of Doom?

Moneypenny,
I think you are referring to The Serpent's Egg from 1977 starring Liv Ullman and David Carradine. It was set in Berlin after World War One. If you can't remember it, I would advise you not to try any further. The film was Bergman suddenly going historical and political. It was neither. It was utter rubbish.

David,

Regarding your above statement:

"This is that brutal time of year when people get really stupid when they feel a need to pump something out into the news cycle... because there just isn't much legitimate news."

I hope you were referring to yourself, and the topic of your latest column.

How can you continue to criticize the Times for bringing up the 2005 box-office story, and then write a column about how there seems to be a 'cultural divide' in America. Really Dave? You mean that people in the South have different values than people in NY/LA? Who-da thunk it?

"The issue of the cultural chicken and the egg is far more complex than ever seems real."

Wow! This wasn't obvious for the last seven years with the Bush presidency, and people on both sides of the aisle, both in terms of culture and morals? People in this country have become so apathetic with each others viewpoints, that it seems like reaching a common ground, or accepting freedom of speech from someone who disagrees with your viewpoint, isn't even possible anymore. To point that out by suggesting that cooking classes or eating Southern food will somehow connect you to a culture that you don't understand is both demeaning and insulting.

I've been a faithful reader of yours from day one, but these wistful columns about issues outside your territory need to stop. You can criticize Sharon Waxman as much as you want for her coverage of the movie industry, but at least she isn't writing columns about how she senses a change of mood in the South through politics, food, and film.

Go back to what you do best. You obviously have a gift as a writer, and you know more about the industry than most of us hardcore movie fans can ever dream to know. Continue to prove that to us, and leave the politics out of it.

"People in this country have become so apathetic with each others viewpoints..."

Actually, Jack, apathy isn't the problem. The problem is that people have been so intolerant of each other's viewpoints.

Joe,

I see your point about 'intolerance'. But do you really think that 7 out of 10 people in this country disapprove of Bush or Congress? Or is it that half of those people don't care, and the other half have strong opinions on both sides? Or any other combination of that? It is really easy to look at media criticism of any viewpoint on both sides and say "those people are to blame for my problems". And if you're at that point, isn't that true apathy?

The apathetic will always be with us. But, yes, I think George Bush really is, if not actively despised, then at least -- well, yeah, "disapproved of" by the vast majority of Americans. I mean, look, I'm old enough to remember Watergate and Nixon, and I'm sensing pretty much the same vibe now that I did then in regard to a presidency going down the tubes. True enough, even back then, there were people who defended Nixon, and argued that, hey, he didn't do anything that every other president did. But, as I said: The apathetic will always be with us. Bush should consider himself lucky that we don't still have a draft. If we did, he would have been impeached a long time ago. Seriously. Can you imagine the mood in this country if middle- and upper-class kids were in danger of being conscripted by the thousands and shipped off to Iraq right now?

A draft has been my idea to get rid of Paris Hilton, Brandon Davis, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan etc for a long time. Americans should seriously consider it because I think it would be worth it.

And "American Gangster" looks Oscar worthy to me. I saw the trailer for it before "Bourne Ultimatum" yesterday (and Bourne is the best movie I've seen all year), and I am excited to see it. I'll go with Denzel Washington for another Best Actor Oscar. Sure it's early but so what, it feels right.

I would say that the apathetic have always been with us, but have definitely grown to be a majority since the Nixon years. If anything, the whole Nixon resignation and Vietnam in general started us down a path of apathy.

The executive branch was at its highest point of respect (at least in modern times) following World War II and the JFK years. The assasination of JFK, Vietnam and the Nixon presidency gave people reason to doubt our government.

People still have the same reasons to doubt our that government, but don't do anything about it. How do you not say a majority are apathetic when roughly 50% (at most) vote in a presidential election, and we're lucky to get 25% in the midterm years? Not to mention the fact that people didn't do anything about letting a man not elected by the popular vote become president, wage war in Iraq, and then get re-elected? Bitching doesn't count as political protest.

I think we're on the same page here Joe, and I can't claim to have lived with history as long as yourself. I also didn't mean to turn this into a political discussion. I'm just tired of reading columns about "we are in the middle of a cultural divide, and it's going to be hard to fix it" from people who seem completely out of touch with culture in general. How long do we have to keep re-hashing to obvious?

Yeah, maybe he can tell us what everyone's predicting he'll say, at Hollywood Elsewhere, about "In The Valley of Elah."

Did I miss something? When did I make what I wrote about the quaint south? The examples of this week are about where I am, but it is what I see all around the country, outside of the big cities.

Sorry if you don't like the wistful ones... others will come along soon enough... the way it has always worked at the hot button...

PS... I don't we are in such a significant cultural divide. That is kinda one of my points. The myopia of LA and NY is its own unique thing... even in the cultures of those cities. You don't read me whining about how the smart people like this and the dumb people like that. But I read it elsewhere all the time.

And by the way, your urge to set "my territory" for me is as bad, if not worse, than anything you are accusing me of. "Stick the to shoe shine stand, Isaiah! You need not confuse your head with politics." Extreme, but...

I honor your right to disagree. And you did so just fine before then (even if I think you overstated my notion and took it more specifically than it was offered, though that could be my failing as a writer). But don't tell anyone to shut up and stick to what you think they know. It's rude and diminishing.

On the other hand, I think you should feel free to suggest to anyone that they get better educated about what they think they know.

And if you are really serious about not just rehashing the same old shite, offer more than your wish to silence the conversation.

I am David Poland and I approve this message.

I haven't read Hollywood Elsewhere in over 6 months, T Holly... and I couldn't be happier to be free of the bilefest.

Jack Walsh,

"Not to mention the fact that people didn't do anything about letting a man not elected by the popular vote become president,..."

Of course if more people understood the concept of the electoral college, maybe they wouldn't be as frustrated and confused. These are the types of things that should be taught in university/high school...but are not.

"The assasination of JFK, Vietnam and the Nixon presidency gave people reason to doubt our government."

Perhaps. But it was not helped by the baby boomers beliefs in vast conspiracies that have been proven wrong (JKF assassination) and the fact that they could not understand the philosophical contradictions inherent in communism/Marxism. That is why you have people like Penn claiming Bush is a dictator then cosying up to a true communist dictator who silences like Chavez. Let's not forget JFK initiated both Vietnam and the embargo against Cuba. If he were alive today, he might not be a Democrat.

Not as B&W as you think.

Joe,

"Can you imagine the mood in this country if middle- and upper-class kids were in danger of being conscripted by the thousands and shipped off to Iraq right now?"

Of course, it was a Democrat, Charles Rangle who pushed to have the Draft reinstated. Just wondering Joe, if you as a progressive, feel progressives have respect for the average soldier and think they understand what they are doing or do you just think they are a buch of 'dumb hicks and rednecks'? Does it bother you that soldiers in most films post 1970 are usually portrayed in this condescending light.

And let's not forget, if the draft were re-instated the majority of rich kids that would be going would be from university educated far left wing families. Not Republican. The largest corporations in America right now are held by as many liberals as conservatives. It is not as B&W as you make it.

I also wonder what you think of a president such as Ronald Reagan. Are there any Republicans/conservatives you have liked in your lifetime? Do you hold - any - conservative views or are you just very left wing through and through?

I am just wondering. I find on many issues the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

I don't wish to silence the conversation Dave, I wish to change the topic. If you're going to talk about these type of cultural issues between big cities and the rest of the country, why not address why they are happening, or delve deeper into the issue?

I read your columns because I respect your opinion as a journalist. I'm sorry if I demeaned you by implying that I want to silence you, or anyone else who puts their writing out there. However, on a day-to-day basis, I find reading internet columns and newspapers alike, becoming more and more tedious for not asking "why?" more often then asking "what?", and "whos to blame?". That was the entire reason I pointed out the apathy of the American voters; they have given up caring because nobody ever asks "why?" enough to current events, budget situations, or their officials to ever end up holding them accountable.

As per your column: you're surprised to see big box stores? They've been popping up since the 80's!

Isn't it somewhat obvious why the most popular media (eg: movies, primetime tv) gets out of synch with the fragmented overall culture? First, there's the production lag, which for TV isn't as bad as movies, but still.

But most problematic is the regression to the mean that must occur for the most widespread media (eg: movies, primetime tv) to maintain its appeal to the increasingly fragmenting audience. Sitcoms, reality shows, and cop/law shows, and popular blockbuster movie genres are the only forums proven to appeal to this audience - so it should be no surprise that we can't ever break away from these themes.

The thing that I think you get most wrong is in claiming that the new mass culture (big box restaurants, hollywood style theme franchises, mass franchise restaurants) are somehow a degradation of what was previously available. These things, seem to me, to be a gigantic improvement on what was previously available.

The availability of cheap products at big box retailers, pretty affordable and high quality meals at franchise restaurants, and affordable high quality entertainment have brought to the middle and lower-middle classes what was previously only available to the upper-middle and wealthy classes.

It's telling that the wealthy now have to buy massive yachts and take $100K uber-trips to distinguish themselves, because they used to just eat high quality meals at country clubs and attend broadway shows to do that.

I'm not a huge fan of bix box stores / restaurants / entertainment, and I agree with the essence of your point that these things are not at all "authentic" (a term you didn't mention, but could've used in your argument). But so what? There is an entire culture of authentic businesses out there, but the variation in quality requires some trial and error to find the best ones, and the inordinate price of some of these businesses really can't be justified. I don't think the "big box" and "authentic" cultures are competing as much as complementing each other - they apply pressure to each other and improve the customer experience for both. (eg: Olive Garden drives independent Italian restaurants to distinguish themselves with service and food, and the best independent Italian restaurants inspire better food at Olive Garden.)

I've offered 'more than my wish to silence the conversation', so feel free to respond in kind.

Well then you don't know what people are saying you'll say about "In The Valley of Elah."

Nicol: I will get around to answering your questions when you get around to answering mine. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me what you think Iraq had to do with 9/11, and why Cameron Diaz was silly when she stated there was no connection between the two.

And BTW: That cliche about progressives hating soldiers -- yet another Right Wing Talking Point. Even to the point of using the new RWTP technique of trying to demonize the word "progressive," the same way you've demonized "liberal."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/31/8320/85486

Geez, you are so predictable. Of course progressives care about soldiers. That's why we don't want any more of them killed in the crossfire of a civil war. That's why we want to give them a pay raise (which Bush has threatened to veto).

David: Actually, as someone who has spent all his life in Flyover Country, I thought what you wrote was repsectful and perceptive. As opposed to, say, Jeff Wells' comments about Houston being a cultural wasteland after he'd spent about, oh, five or six hours in the city. LOL. He backed down -- a bit -- when I razzed him about that, but still....

Nicol, I hope you understand Charlie Rangel's reasoning for his draft proposal, because it sounds like you don't - he was pointing out that

Also, I think there's a disagreement as to how 'soldiers in most films post 1970' are portrayed. I'd say that the majority of military guys in films of that period are portrayed as no-nonsense heroes in the Rambo mode. Of course, your perspective may vary. Also I don't see what 'the philosophical contradictions of Marxism' have to do with Americans distrusting our own, non-Marxist government.

Joe:

I agree with you more often than not politically than Nicol, but I beg of you not to link to Daily Kos regarding respect for the military:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/soldier_censored_at_kos_conven.php

BTW, I know your link wasn't about the military. I just despise DK and don't think their message adds any value to any discussion.

Nicol,

"Of course if more people understood the concept of the electoral college, maybe they wouldn't be as frustrated and confused. These are the types of things that should be taught in university/high school...but are not."

I'm not one to praise the education system in America, but pretty much everyone I know who took a history class in middle or high school learned about the electoral college. Maybe my opinion is biased because they are teaching it nowadays whereas they might not have twenty-thirty years ago, and the boomers could have that disadvantage.

"That is why you have people like Penn claiming Bush is a dictator then cosying up to a true communist dictator who silences like Chavez. Let's not forget JFK initiated both Vietnam and the embargo against Cuba. If he were alive today, he might not be a Democrat."

I'm not excusing Penn's behavior, nor exonerating JFK for Vietnam. I'm saying that the mere existence of the war gave people a huge reason to doubt their government. We're obviously in a time period where history is repeating itself.

Joe,

"I'm still waiting for you to explain to me what you think Iraq had to do with 9/11...,"

I never said it did, Joe. You just assumed I did and then gave a snarky link saying it did not. That was really about it.

"...and why Cameron Diaz was silly when she stated there was no connection between the two."

People can believe the right things for wrong reasons and the wrong things for right reasons. Diaz is no intellect, she just has a very uber left wing Hollywood view. 'Member, on Oprah when she said if you think rape should be legal you should vote Republican? She is a silly rabbit indeed. Intelligence is not always what you believe, it is the thought process by which you believe what you believe. I disagree with Bruce Springsteen but I do not think him a fool. Sean Penn has the same views as Bruce Springsteen but he is a fool. Different thought process.

"That cliche about progressives hating soldiers -- yet another Right Wing Talking Point. "

Joe, I never said progressives hated soldiers. I asked you if you - thought- progressives hated soldiers. Your response without reading my post was actually a left-wing talking point.

"Of course progressives care about soldiers. That's why we don't want any more of them killed in the crossfire of a civil war."

Then why did no progressives that I know of speak up en masse when Al Gore moved to discredit their votes in 2000? Why do military personel en masse and the public percieve differently?

You say you care by not wanting more of them killed, but isn't the inherent assumption in that belief the notion that soldiers are too stupid to understand the situation they are in? Caring also means respecting that women and men who enter the military understand the risk they take and the danger of the job.

And not saying things or espousing the belief that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (as many progressives do). Remember Joe, just saying I am uttering talking points, is in fact a left wing talking point.

And again, now that I have answered your questions: How did you feel about Ronald Reagan? Are there any conservatives or Republicans that you liked in your life time?

Joe, I am not trying to be a prick. You actually come off like a decent guy to me. I am just wondering what your overall world view is? Do you have views that are left and right (like say a Joe Lieberman or a Ron Silver) or do you just go left across the board on any issue? Myself, I have many left wing views on things such as rehabilitation of prisoners to the death penalty to socialized medicine.

Jeff,

"I hope you understand Charlie Rangel's reasoning for his draft proposal, because it sounds like you don't..."

Please tell me, Jeff.

"I'd say that the majority of military guys in films of that period are portrayed as no-nonsense heroes in the Rambo mode. "

Can you name some? Not crappy Cannon action films, I mean real A list films.

And what does the Rambo mode mean? Stoic, silent and heroic, or dumb, bombastic and unquestioning? By the late 80's the term Rambo itself became a pejorative.

"Also I don't see what 'the philosophical contradictions of Marxism' have to do with Americans distrusting our own, non-Marxist government."

If one comes from a neo-Marxist perspective, which most modern progressives do, then even a center or center right government will seem extreme, when it is actually the critics themselves who are extreme. That is why someone like Sean Penn will claim Bush is a theocratic fascist who does not allow dissent and then cosy up to Chavez who shuts down opposing television stations. Because Penn himself is an extremist.

Nicol:

(a) I don't know what you would define as an 'A-list film 'and I don't know why b-grade action movies should be excluded. They're part of the culture, aren't they?

(b) I lost part of my sentence. Rangel's point was to illustrate that lower-classes and minorities are currently disproportionately represented in the military, and that a draft would do some work to even out the imbalance; also to make the point that the draft is deeply unpopular all around, which is why the government's Iraq plan was undertaken in the way it was - 'war on the cheap'.

And (c): "If one comes from a neo-Marxist perspective, which most modern progressives do"

I disagree with this.

Also thanks to Manwithnoname for that Pajamas link. In the discussion area, you could swap out a few buzzwords and the comments would be indistinguishable from what you can find in the Dkos discussion boards.

it's really not a good idea to talk politics here. it never ends well. as someone said earlier, one side does not want to hear the other and vice versa.

we've had two recent examples of how both the LA Times and NY Times have done shoddy reporting on fairly minor issues (not necessarily to us, but the world at large). and yet, the concencious here seems to believe everything said about the war.

i would recommend to those interested to read michael yon:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

as far as movies go, recent soldier movies:

"300" - obviously not american soldiers, but still...

"we were soliders"
"flags of our fathers"
"letters from iwo jima"
does that pathetic jon cena film count?
"the last samurai"
"tears of the sun"
"kingdom of heaven"
"hart's war"

are the few that come to mind

jeff,

charles rangel is a grandstander that would go to the opening of an envelope just to get press. i know you didn't bring him up, but please do not attribute motives to the man he does not have.

he brought up the draft when no one was talking about the draft because he knew that would dominate the news cycle

The Weinstein Company just delivered a Halloween goodie bag filled with Hershey mini-chocolates. Yum!

(The "a non-news story deserves a non-response" NM)

Hendhogan, I wouldn't dispute that, I'm just making sure that Nicol isn't under the assumption that Rangel was actually _serious_ that he wanted to reinstate the draft, that it was all political rhetoric.

fair enough.

Nicol: Let's put it like this -- my positions on NAFTA and immigration are probably a lot closer to Pat Buchanan's than Hillary Clinton's. Come to think of it, Pat was against the invasion of Iraq. (Maybe I was wrong -- maybe a stopped clock can be right thrice a day.) Hil voted to sign Bush's blank check. Sheesh!

And as for soldiers: No, I am not saying they are stupid. But by their very nature of being soldiers -- well, they have to follow orders. If they are ordered into harm's way, they move into harm's way. And you're right, that's the job they signed up for. As far as Iraq goes, I would not have ordered them into harm's way in that case. And I sure as hell would be ordering them out right now.

BTW: Just curious -- You're under 30, right?

Just to defend, crazy Jeff Wells.

Houston is a cultural wasteland.

But the titty bars are awesome!

Does anybody wanna argue about Michael Bay some more?

that's soooo last month

Are we really doing this in here? Really?

"Just to defend, crazy Jeff Wells..."

whoa whoa whoa Mason.

once you cross that line, there's no turning back.

Couple of Kos haters, huh? Nice to see you have something in common with Bill Orally.
Half a million page views, that's more than most cable stations. Take a good look, you might actually interact with libralz!
BTW, Just so you know where I'm coming from, here's my Kossack diaries.

Interview with SCARY Markos here

Well, T Holly, I can tell you that the only two people who really know what I think of Elah are Paul Haggis and my brother-in-law, who attended the screening with me.

As for Jeffrey, he has become nothing but a stalker. And I mean that literally. If you find it funny, I wish one on you.

So if Paul Haggis knows what you thought about it, you probably didn't hate it...?

You seem to think this is a game for me, J-Mc. It's not. You will know what I think when I write it. Unlike some people, I honor my agreements.

If you honor your agreements, Dave, why no response to my posts after this morning? You wanted me to contribute to the conversation rather than diminish it by suggesting 'silence' to your viewpoint. I have done so, and the conversation that I started has been silenced.

You called my argument both 'rude and diminishing'. Don't I deserve a response?

DP, I like cookies.
I want to see how you spin that into some personal attack on yourself. Jeez.

Well, Jack Walsh… I don’t think we disagree all that much, really.

There is no “guilt” because there is nothing that anyone has to apologize for. And I agree that the overall standard has been raised, for food and for retail. But it is still a problematic conversation in which to engage. Is the world well served by all retail and food services being provided by 100 corporations?

Ironically, the most capitalistic nation on the earth has, as you described it, become oddly socialist… the same opportunities for all, with the uber-rich forced to seek ego amusement on some insane level seen on My Super Sweet 16 and at $200,000 Bar Mitzvahs.

There is also little doubt, whether in food, retail, or the film business, that there is a possibility of entry and success for outsiders. But like film, especially since the studios bought the indie business, it has become more rare. The active attempt to create barriers to entry have become fewer… but the actual likelihood of surviving entry is much, much less.

Personally, I think “authentic” is a buzz word. There is nothing more authentic about a private 4 star restaurant than a McDonald’s. They are not there for the same purpose. But make no mistake… Olive Garden doesn’t make private Italian restaurants better. Olive Garden makes them disappear. Perhaps the private restaurants simply cannot compete or need to be operated quite differently in order to survive. But there is no “deserve.” Great Thai in Los Angeles is not “authentic,” in theory. But every storefront is a little different, better or worse, thriving or failing based on customer response.

Yes, I find a fast food complex with four brands taking up a city block to be a surprise. I have seen plenty of what have long been known as “bog box stores” in my time. But never anything quite like the scene in North Myrtle Beach… not in any of the many, many pre-fab malled towns I have traveled through.

Thing is, if you take away the killing of people over 30, is Logan’s Run a good way to live or a bad way to live? Does it really matter if Soylant Green is people? Really!

I don’t claim to have an answer, for me, much less for everyone in the world. I am just reflecting on it. And writing a column to sell you a position, as opposed to opening myself to a lack of sureness? Not for me.

But we are engaging now… and that is why I still work in this medium.

P.S. I was writing my response while you were complaining that I hadn't responded, Jack. I haven't been at the computer until just now.

J-Mc... you are not stupid. Please stop trying so hard to prove me wrong.

DP, my 9:45 post was not a dig. It was not a prod for an early review. It was a mere logical projection based on the available information. It didn't even require a response. I'm sorry if you thought it was intended to be mocking, but it absolutely was not.

Fair enough DP-I'll reflect on your answer, and hopefully have more of an answer for you in the morning...

The one thing I have to respond to, upon immediately reading your response:

"There is nothing more authentic about a private 4 star restaurant than a McDonald’s."

Do you think Frank Bruni or Leslie Brenner would agree with that statement, and if not, does that make them elitists' (which I wouldn't argue against, nor particularly agree with), or does that make individuals who have been hired to do a job in the same way that the cashier/cooks at McDonalds are hired?

Also:

"Is the world well served by all retail and food services being provided by 100 corporations?"

Isn't this the basic argument for capitalism? If the top 100 corporations can please the majority of people, the majority of the time, isn't the system working? Not to bring politics back into the discussion, but this is exactly why politicians get re-elected without any plausible reason. If you don't piss people off, voters stick with the status quo.

As Sorkin wrote: "People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty; people drink the sand, because they don't know the difference."

Isn't that a great explanation of why people keep putting up with the mindless entertainment that plagues Hollywood day-in and day-out for the past 15-20 years. Not to mention re-electing politicians who were never elected in the first place?

Sidenote:

I haven't been to an Olive Garden in years, but I also don't think my local Italian restaurants provide anything that is amazing in the sense that they can't justify cheaper and more accessible competition. I do think there is something to the idea that competition helps mom-and-pop stores either adapt to the needs of their customers, or fail because the large chain stores can meet their needs more efficiently/at lower cost.

I hate to see the local stores die out as much as anyone (and I have only just turned 25, so I haven't had a lifetime relationship with very many stores), but I think it is a huge fact of life that my generation has to face.

We also have to look forward to paying for the retirement of the baby boomers, facing the national deficit, and helping our peers and our children find jobs that might be half as lucrative as many of the jobs that the boomers were lucky enough to get, without nearly the same education levels.

That said, I go back to my original question. Do you agree that more journalists in every subject area need to be asking "Why?" more often, and if they get a BS answer, shouldn't they be asking "Show me proof?"

Yes, Jack... the failure of entertainment journalism right now is a failure of thought. Quotes are press releases and press releases are stories and the truth is something over there that isn't treated as relevant.

Doing Movie City News has reminded me more and more about how the talking points become the "pointed opinions" of otherwise smart journos all over the country.

There is no "proof." But the healthy cynicism that has traditionally marked other strains of journalism are all but dead in the entertainment realm… except over cocktails… and then the cynicism flies, but the ideas tend to be daft, at best.

Not answering questions is a kind of answer. Answering questions is a kind of silence. Publicists in this game have become so much more sophisticated than the journalists that most of us are simply unequipped to keep up.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: