May 15, 2008
Comments On Sex & The City (Though There Really Isn't An Embargo)
New Line has made the Lord of the Rings of Chick Flicks… not that it’s anywhere near as good, emotional, artistically made or worthy of box office or awards…
IT’S 2 HOURS AND 25 FUCKING MINUTES LONG!!!!
I’m not kidding!
Michael Patrick King didn’t make an extended episode of his series, Sex & The City… he made a whole damned season shoved into the phallic sausage casing of a near two and a half hour long epic of been-there-done-that.
That said, I am revising my box office estimates for the film to about double what was being bounced around the studio just a few weeks ago. In the last decade, I have never seen the New Line screening room this full… not for Rings… not for nothing. If the fire marshall had shown up, at least a dozen women would have been thrown out before they could show the film. And it was 88% women in the room. And 8% gay men. And me.
This movie will open big. Prada opened to $28 million. Look for this number to be more like $40 million. And for a total anywhere between $95 million and $125 million. I have no idea, really. And amazingly, for this comedy, based on a TV show, New Line could be costing itself millions in the first two weekends with this looooooong running time.
But I haven’t said much of anything about the film…
We were asked, before the screening, not to give away the surprises in the third act. And I won’t. But SURPRISES?!?!?!?! Really? To anyone who had ever seen a season of this HBO sitcom? Impossible!
I would be willing to be real money that if you took a poll of people who had seen at least one full season of the series, asking them for the 10 surprises they might suspect will happen in this feature film, at least 90% would get all 5 of the actual “surprises” in the film.
You want a review? Watch the DVDs of the series. There is not a single idea in this film that was not conceived, discussed, and beaten to within an inch of its life during the run of the show on HBO. Not ONE!
Nor was there a tick or a schtick or a flick that these four very good actresses haven't done to within an inch of my vomit reflex on the show that isn't recalled here... with little more. Maybe... maybe... SJP will exhaustion make-up is the only new thing... but maybe they already did that... I know Mr. Broderick has. (All husbands have.)
And let me add this… Mr. King is perhaps the worst writer of dramatic dialogue that I have witnessed so far this year. Sparkling wit… yeah, he can do that. Drama? Horror. The only genuinely emotional moment I experienced in this film came to pass in a moment where the characters actually shut up for a couple of minutes and had what seemed to be a genuine moment. And yes, King wrote that too. But whoever told him to fill his movie with at least 50% an effort to be dramatic was very, very confused. It’s not what he does well.
Have I mentioned that this movie is not a spritely 98 minutes… or a long 110 minutes… or two frickin’ hours followed by long credits?
And of course, we get another utterly meaningless penis sighting! Thank God for women (and gay filmmakers) being able to objectify men just like men have always objectified women! That penis was really a major political moment for cinema!
And by the way… there was some gossip report about Kristin Davis NOT doing a shower scene in the film. She did the shower scene… wearing skin colored latex over her darker fleshy bits. Yawn. And we do get, as usual, to see everyone but “Carrie” have sex. Yawn redux.
This may, however, be the first time a release of excrement actually has its own music cue. You know, The Theme From Bridge Over The River Kwai, Princess Leia’s Theme, Diarrhea Joke! Fantastic stuff! Or as the movie tells you itself, “really, really funny!”
I expect the reaction of women to be much the same as the reaction to the last six episodes of the series. Some will be disappointed that it wasn’t more adventurous or profound. Some will love it because it is familiar and on-the-nose as a refrain of Happy Birthday (“Oh my god… I sang Charlie instead of Charles, like everyone else!” is about the level of complexity.) Some will wonder why all their friends are watching this crap.
But in a summer where Anne Hathaway is playing with boys and Meryl Streep is in a movie that Universal is now trying to sell to the High School Musical set with the unknown blonde girl and there is not really a single film for women of all ages all summer long… this one is going to be a big, stinky hit.
Can’t wait for Sex & The City: The Movie: Episode Two – The Same Shit One More Time For 3 Full Hours in 2010 in which Samantha is actually in a coma through the whole film and appears in a total of four scenes with Sarah Jessica Parker, blinking out her dirty jokes, with a catheter that looks a lot like a dildo and makes her blink really fast when it is turned on.
Really, really funny.
Posted by poland at 10:33 PM | Comments (2)
May 14, 2008
The Trouble With Trouble
We are in some rough water, folks.
There is no question.
The indie world is being squeezed, doc side first. The studios are trying to trim down to what works while dumping out of most of the funding responsibilities. And some are in serious trouble.
There are two stories on the web today that may be 100% true… but also concern me deeply. It’s not about pulling back the curtain. That’s the job. But there is a kind of malignancy in the idea that what has always been gossip is now being published by bloggers as “news”… and then, followed up on, even without any real confirmations of anything nefarious, as a way of self-glorifying… even getting down to the “send me your complaints about people who pay you late so I can humiliate them too!” gamesmanship. But who can blame Ms Finke for her gutter urges. They have gotten her so much attention so far!
When AJ Schnack sends out a blog entry as “BREAKING,” when it is, in fact, neither breaking or news, you have to wonder. Again… the unnamed sources who are trying to get paid – and there has been quiet talk that Think paid Alex Gibney off almost completely after he ran a threat through Stu Van Airsdale at Defamer – may be telling the story 100% straight. Or they may not.
The reason there are rules in journalism on sourcing is not because some crazy ass sources are not sometimes right… but because once someone is smeared in the press, it is hard to take it back.
Capitol and Think may be going under. They may not. But the feeding frenzy around their troubles tends to make a lot of assumptions… some of which may be true and others which may not be.
Crazy Nikki, on the other hand, is dancing on The Weinstein Company, thrilled to be getting calls from Harvey to respond to the anonymous gossip she ran yesterday. Again… The Weinsteins may be in deep trouble. They may not be in that much trouble. We don’t know anything for sure, other than they have been a bit cash strapped from the beginning of their new company and that the savior, Grindhouse, didn’t save anything.
Of course, Nikki is taking responsibility for shaming The Weinsteins into paying their bills. Yeah.
And she is running an EXCLUSIVE!!! statement from the DGA that is spectacularly vanilla and does not suggest the trouble that Nikki was trying so hard to stir up:
"The DGA has had a long and productive working relationship with The Weinstein Company and its predecessor. It is sometimes the case, with various companies, that residuals payments are late. We are working directly with TWC to resolve this issue and see that our members receive prompt residuals payments."
But hey… Nikki may still get a “Toldja” out of it. But as a journalist, it would be nice if she actually found some news in here… like actually knowing whether there is a cash crunch involved at TWC. She cannot and does not offer this. And that is the only thing that would rise in any of this past the level of insider gossip of the most obvious level.
And now, she wants more of the same… unidentified people complaining about who owes them money.
This is what passes as journalism.
And keep this in mind… this is not an abstract issue for me. We carry payables from many studio advertisers and the financial issues at both large and small distributors are of real concern. But it would never occur to me to embarrass these people or companies publicly as tool to reach my personal business ends. I can handle my business like a businessperson... and my journalism as a journalist. News is news and no one gets away without scrutiny. But gossip is just gossip.
Posted by poland at 05:27 PM | Comments (2)
May 07, 2008
Speed Racer Review
Dancing on the cutting edge is a unique challenge. Just pushing the envelope can draw attention, but as we often see, it is really easy to get caught up in simply stunting.
The Wachowski Bros have turned expectations upside down in four of their five films so far. First, in Bound, they pushed the lipstick lesbian into a studio movie before anyone else, with a lot of flash and style (the style not being as breakthrough, as it was reminiscent of some of The Coens’ work.) The Matrix defined action for years after its release, melding Asian cinema with kink and American grime (with an Australian accent). And while there were some critical brickbats, The Matrix Reloaded pushed the envelope even further in new ways, building image creation ideas that still have not been topped.
And now, Speed Racer.
Speed Racer spins some people’s heads right near off their axis. But to be unable to see the complexity of the imagery is to fail to appreciate the depth of what The Wachowskis are doing here.
The Matrix took a lot of ideas from Japanese anime’, but kept its feet on the ground, allowing for the fantastical, but keeping most of the film in the mind’s eye of real people. The first rule of Speed Racer is that we live in a world of all kinds of visceral inputs and we have learned to leap from one to another… why can’t we do that in a movie?
The actors are real, including the scene-stealing monkey, Chim-Chim. But very little else, except the pancakes, is. And while the racing scenes – which is probably most of what you’ve seen, if you haven’t yet seen the film – are exciting and brain-straining and have what, to me, is the desired movie effect… they have you shifting with the vehicles in your movie seats… it is the more intimate sequences that are at the heart of Speed Racer.
You will know whether this is a movie that will stay in your heart early on, when young Speed imagines himself racing. I won’t give away what the imagery of the scene is, but if you find yourself as charmed as delighted as I did, put on your seatbelt, because you’re in for a great ride.
The story is simple. The Racer family is Pops and Mom and Rex and Speed. They are one of the last truly independent racing teams in the world. Speed, like Rex before him, is recognized as one of the great emerging drivers in the world. Will they sell out to the massive corporation… or not?
That’s pretty much it.
But you are already into some strong stuff, because The Wachowskis are not satisfied to make a simple action racing movie. The moral dilemma of good and evil and how you choose to live your life is there in every frame. For some, it’s redemption. For others, it is proving themselves. And for others, it is about holding onto ideals so tightly that they have lost perspective. And they aren’t shy about embracing the power of love in their film. The love of parents for their children, children for their parents, sexy but not sexual love between young men and women, and the love of family in general are at the heart of this film. There is no winning of The Race just to win a race. The stakes are high and then higher and then higher again.
The core of it all is family love and commitment. Speed Racer is, amazingly, a Pixar film with a bit more aggression. But if you felt it as Marlin went to find Nemo or were elated when Remy’s family came to save his butt in the most unexpected way in Ratatouille, you will feel The Racers.
Then there are the bad guys.
In a cartoon universe of bright colors and impossible physics, it is hard to create a villain that can not only talk a lot, but can break through the visual clutter. The Wachowskis do it by, again, raising the stakes.
And really… who can resist ninjas?
Did I mention... Speed Racer is a whole lot of fun.
You could complain about the car not looking like they are of a realistic weight (they look at lot more so in IMAX), but that complain loses relevance when you realize – as you have to – that reality is not where these races live. They are you and your best friend playing with Matchbox cars on a rainy Saturday, racing and smashing and crashing all over.
The fights are the same way. And the same way one of you would inevitably play a little too hard and smash a toe or slam your head into the wall or otherwise do Boy Damage, your mom and dad are there to make you feel better when you do… only it’s Speed’s Mom and Pops. Spritle and Chim-Chim are everyone’s irritating precocious brothers. Trixie is every boy’s fantasy of a girl who is loving and sexy and able to handle a wrench when need be.
And did I mention, the visuals will blow you away. You truly have never seen anything like it before. And just when you think it’s too much, some new idea comes flying at you and you are blown away all over again.
The Wachowskis did what all smart filmmakers who are looking for a way to bring familiar music alive and renewed do. They hired Michael Giacchino, who takes the themes of the cartoon and makes them both familiar and new to us, while adding plenty of his own new music. And the credit sequence, as in most of Giacchino’s films, is a treasure trove of stuff that didn’t fit into the film, but is well worth the sit through many, many credits. In this case, that includes a new version of the old theme and a pop tune built around the Japanese version of the original theme.
The cast is pretty much perfection. Emile Hirsch brings a light touch to Speed. The Christina Ricci/Susan Sarandon similarity in looks as Trixie and Mom makes for some good Oedipal goofiness than no kid will ever get. Who else but John Goodman could be Pops Racer? And Paulie Litt is a perfect Spritle, but equally good are the kids who play Young Speed and Young Trixie, Nicholas Elia and Ariel Winter.
There is a great cast outside of the family as well. Matthew Fox kills as Racer X, embodying the stiffness of the cartoon character. Roger Allam, who you might recall from V for Vendetta, is the smiling snake oil billionaire, Mr. Royalton. And The Wachowskis fill the film with international familiar/unfamiliar faces, like Moritz Bleibtreu, Richard Roundtree, Togo Igawa, the original She-Devil Julie Wallace, and Korean pop-star Rain.
But it is The Wachowskis who are the stars of Speed Racer. Their use of the virtual camera is well beyond anything we have ever seen in a movie theater before. The topper to that virtuosity, however, is the most shocking thing about Speed Racer… it’s a truly great family film, even if it is 10 minutes too long. It’s a sweet CG treat in a retro summer. While there is zero question that it will be burning up TV screens in family homes for decades to come, I actually think that it will stick with adults of discretion long after the stomach ache of sweetness wears off.
Posted by poland at 11:09 AM | Comments (5)
May 05, 2008
The Billion Dollar Paramount '08 Illusion
Paramount is not the first studio to suffer their success. But we are getting a wave of spin from a few voices that seems to be deep in the bag with the denizens of Melrose.
Here’s the deal…
Go back to 1999… Fox releases The Phantom Menace. It “won” the summer, grossing $138 million more domestically than any other film. But all Fox had the rest of the way was Lake Placid and Brokedown Palace, a breakeven comedy and a red ink drama. A $472 million summer meant net revenues for the studio of about $50 million… and roughly another $50 million from Star Wars’ international release.
In 2001, Fox had Planet of the Apes and Disney had Pearl Harbor. The Apes did around $180 million domestic and Pearl just under $200m. Apes barely broke even in DVD and Pearl Harbor was saved by international box office with another $250m… but just barely. It, too, needed Home Entertainment to get out of the red.
(Ed Note: 5/6/08: The graph above was edited to reflect a $20 million mistake on the Pearl Harbor domestic gross.)
Sony’s billion dollar summer of 2002 – Spider-Man was a cash cow. But Men in Black II carried such a weighty burden of gross point players and an expensive pricetag that $450 million worldwide didn’t come close to making it profitable. Stuart Little II was so expensive that when it didn’t hit, it drained cash from the company. And Revolution Studio’s heavily hyped xXx managed only $277 worldwide… which left it gasping for every ancillary dime to hover near breakeven.
2003 - Terminator 3, Bad Boys 2, Hulk, and Charlie’s Angels 2 were all $100 million domestic grossers that were extremely expensive and/or had big gross players and may or may not have hit black.
2006 – Warner Bros became the poster child for avoiding trouble by selling off the costs of production to funding organizations. Superman Returns lost over $50 million… but not for Warner Bros. They sold off half the huge production budget then collected their distribution fees and marketing fees before any money went back to production, covering their part of the loss. The sold off at least half of Poseidon. The also covered their butts via Legendary, in the cases of Lady In The Water, The Ant Bully, and Beerfest.
You might remember that it was only a few years ago when Sherry Lansing and financial architect Jon Dolgen were getting creamed in the media for not risking enough, finding financial partners on pretty much every single movie they made for Paramount.
That complaint could emerge again this summer, as their four biggest likely grossers this summer are all deals that will not be terribly profitable for the studio.
First up is Iron Man. Marvel stock rose almost 10% today. Paramount’s part of the split Viacom stock? Down 2.6%.
Why? Because Marvel funded the film and Paramount will make no profit except for a distribution fee.
Indiana Jones? Funded by Paramount, but to get the movie made, they gave away 87.5% of the movie to Lucas/Spielberg/Ford after breakeven. So if the film makes $500 million worldwide, no one makes anything, except for Paramount’s and the producers’ overhead costs. But if the film makes $1 billion worldwide, Paramount will make about $70 million, while L/S/F takes home over $450 million. And this is before DVD and other ancillaries.
Kung Fu Panda is DreamWorks Animation. Paramount has a 10% distribution fee (which they paid to get) coming to them… and that’s it. So if the film matches a movie like Madagascar and does $500 million worldwide? $50 million to Paramount… hundreds of millions to DreamWorks animation.
And Tropic Thunder, which is one of the most dangerous of the films in play, a broad comedy with a production cost of just around $100 million, is a DreamWorks film made with Viacom money. So if this film can find profitability… which is a question mark… Ben Stiller will be eating a nice percentage of the back end. (If the film does Dodgeball business, $170 million worldwide, it is still a question mark to break even, even with DVD.)
(Graph above edited for budget and gross players, 5/6)
So… if these four films were to actually push Paramount distribution up over $2 billion in worldwide grosses for the summer, the studio is looking at around $150 million in net revenues.
$2 billion is an impressive number. Less than 10% profit on that number, which is about as good as it gets on a macro level, is not.
Success and failure in the film business is not being terribly well reported these days. The big story is, as it has been for a couple of years now, that the multinationals that own the studios are getting out of the business of funding movies. There is too much risk there, while distribution and marketing is profitable, even if the movie is a loser.
The trick is to own the movies that the studio feels are near-locks outright. This is Warners’ great success on Harry Potter. Not only does it generate a gross of at least $800 million worldwide each time, but they own the franchise, with only the author getting a big bite. That said, Warners has been selling off a lot of stuff as well. This summer’s The Dark Knight is split with Legendary.
Disney has one split, Prince Caspian and one owned film (though it’s Pixar, so there are probably some personal points in play), Wall-E.
And Sony stands to have the movie that is most profitable for any studio this summer with Hancock, which they own outright, though Will Smith and James Lassiter’s Overbrook Entertainment will eat a big piece of the gross… though not nearly as much as on Indy.
In fact, Sony has the real chance of being the most profitable studio of the summer while not being close to the top in gross. They have Hancock. They have Adam Sandler, whose box office clout and limits the company knows quite well. Step Brothers was made on a tight budget. And they have two lower budget films with a lot of potential upside in The House Bunny and Pineapple Express.
And that, in the end, is the game. Amy Pascal learned this lesson years ago. You don’t give up everything for an image success. Profits first. All else is publicity.
Posted by poland at 09:30 PM | Comments (0)
May 04, 2008
Is Hollywood Stepford Or Just Doing Business?
It seems like we all need a reminder of some of the basic rules of Hollywood… again. I will proceed down that track at another time, but the thought hitting my brain pan today is this one…
Hollywood is neither monolithic nor terribly interested in the content of what they sell.
The brilliant – and that is a straight forward compliment – Manohla Dargis makes this miscalculation extravagantly in her “Where are the women at?” piece in the Summer Preview at The New York Times this weekend.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that there is, as there has been for year after year, a dearth of movies with female leads in the summer season. Never mind the ironic truth that this summer has more women in lead roles than has been the norm, as Hollywood chases – 2 summers later – the The Devil Wears Prada dollars that they didn’t believe were there in nine figures until it happened.
But the urge of Manohla, as it is for most critics, I find, is to ascribe some sort of intent on the part of "The Industry." This, I disagree with… no matter how vacuous, silly, vain, arrogant, misogynistic, and foolish execs can be.
"Hollywood" is driven, before anything, by trends. It is one of the troubles of Hollywood, as there is this 18 month to 3 year lag in bringing studio films to market and trend chasing can be absolutely deadly. But still, they do it over and over and over again.
The only $100 million movie defined by a female lead last summer was Hairspray… and one could argue that the female lead was a man in a dress. (I would argue that Nikki Blonsky was the lead, but Travolta was very effective bait. In any case…)
The same reality was there in Pre-Prada 2005, when only Mr. & Mrs. Smith – arguably a two-headed phenom – was the only $100 million summer movie with a female lead.
Of the 28 films last year that grossed $100 million domestic, a total of 3 had female leads.
In 2006, there were three $100 million female-led grossers – the three lowest grossers on that list – one was Dreamgirls, a very specific kind of ensemble with little star-launching power, one was The Break-Up, starring the real Mrs. Pitt with the Wedding Crashers-hot Vince Vaughn, and Prada.
In 2005, there were only 4 movies with female leads with $100 million domestic… and all 4 had the women as co-stars with dominant male performances (Johnny Cash in Walk The Line, Jim Carrey in Fun With Dick & Jane, Pitt as Mr to Jolie’s Mrs Smith, and King Kong dominating Ms. Watts).
That is the trend line.
Continue reading "Is Hollywood Stepford Or Just Doing Business?"
Posted by poland at 06:55 PM | Comments (0)
April 01, 2008
The End of An Era: Episode One - The Critics
David Ansen joins the parade of film critics heading out the Traditional Media door at 62. He will, as Time's Corliss and Schickel, remain in the game. But unlike some outlets, Newsweek will surely establish a new critic, likely from their familiar gene pool.
I'd be shocked if the answer they come up with is not someone like Dave Karger from EW, Rebecca Keegan from Time, their own Ramin Setoodeh or some other young, New York media savvy, non-critic who has been around the industry for years.
The whole series of anti-criticism events demands a look at the bigger picture. I was asked last week about whether I thought all of these firings (with plenty more to come) really hurt independent film. And the answer is more complex than I would like it to be. Let me start with the punch line and then go back to the detail work ...
The weight of responsibility is now on exhibitors who want to be in the Indie business - and not just the Dependent business, which is rarely "indie" in any real way these days - and the distributors and the publicists to find the new dynamic to get audiences to show up at "art house" movies. The lack of as large a poll of critics to use as promotion to sell these films is a small issue compared to finding the screens around America to show these movies on and the uphill fight against scores of millions of dollars spent to sell "bigger" movies every weekend of the year.
Moreover, the studios have unthinkingly (with a few exceptions) conspired to turn even the critics who are keeping their jobs into worthless players. On the one side, you have a total whore like Peter Travers - when his name or that Rolling Stone logo on top of an ad now assures that a movie is suspect ... which is a shame for the good movies he is quoted for - who has become about as valuable as David Manning because no one reads his full reviews and he is so shameless about quoting that no one wants to do so. Doesn't it occur to studio ad departments that the only people who care about critics' reviews are the same people who know that Travers and Roeper are not remotely reliable? (Roeper is not a quote whore ... nor is his taste often horrible ... but he adds little in terms of ideas to the mix and is still referred to as "that guy" in most conversations I wander into with people.)
It is, obviously, arguable that studios are not responsible for promoting new critical talent. But at the same time, if they want critics as a truly valuable marketing tool, they need to make real choices about seeding the next generation. However, the mind set remains, "quote from the biggest, most legitimate possible media outlet, regardless of who the critic is."
When is the last time you saw a quote from The Baltimore Sun's Michael Sragow? Well, it was likely either in The Baltimore Sun or in a national ad for a movie that got weak quotes from a dozen other outlets before they even turned to the list that Sragow was on. And since Sragow - as an example here - doesn't write to be quoted, they would probably be adjusting his quote to make it hotter even in that situation, finding it easier to use a quote whore from the junket circuit who gave some mouth-breathing year's best kind of praise.
The flip side is The Indies, whose system of releasing films relies heavily on New York, then Los Angeles, then Chicago, and then on to another dozen markets, and then beyond, if things go well. But Indie advertisers still have the mindset of majors ... they want the biggest media outlets for quotes.
Continue reading "The End of An Era: Episode One - The Critics"
Posted by poland at 07:07 PM | Comments (0)
February 19, 2008
The SAG Missive Crisis
I was not in favor of WGA going out on strike when it did. I felt it was premature and poorly timed. Nothing about the settlement has changed my perspective on that. I feel that the AMPTP gave WGA almost exactly what they were always willing to give up. And WGA, by striking, gave AMPTP an extra gift that they may not have had to give AMPTP… force majeur and an excuse for in-house “layoffs.”
Truth is, we will never know for sure whether the strike was necessary. The contract WGA got, and DGA before them, is fine. It was not a great step forward… but it was not a step backwards either. The elephant in the room remains the $100 million-plus a year in DVD residuals in the life of this contract that came off the table and more than paid for any concession that AMPTP made, at least in the life of this contract. And the house cleaning opportunity made this 100 day strike a likely money maker for most AMPTP members.
That said… the growing wave of pre-contract civil war at SAG is making the WGA guys look like a bunch of unmitigated geniuses.
There are three fronts in the war.
1. We Don’t Want Another Strike This Year
2. SAG vs AFTRA
3. Qualified Voting
The biggest problem facing SAG leadership right now is trying to separate the three issues… a problem made harder by questions of who might be lurking behind some of the maneuvers. But first, a brief primer on the three fronts.
1. We Don’t Want Another Strike This Year
This is where I am willing, at least until proven otherwise, to give Clooney, DeNiro, Hanks, and Streep the benefit of the doubt in this situation. They took out this ad in Variety:
The does not speak to any of the major issues facing the Guild, internally or as a part of the AMPTP negotiation. It simply asks that there be forward motion.
One of the problems, again, with this situation is that the Guild’s internal issues – which may be much more dangerous than the AMPTP – have the most political members of the Guild wanting to open those issues to debate in the same period as the AMPTP contract is being negotiated. Why? Because that is the time when membership is most likely be willing to listen to the debate over these issues.
Having had the chance to speak to Clooney about the WGA strike in November, he was pretty confident that the town would be shut down until the end of summer. That is not the case. And I am completely willing to believe that he simply wanted to take a position that the tone that precipitated the WGA strike should not overtake SAG.
However, there are a few problems with this ad.
Continue reading "The SAG Missive Crisis"
Posted by poland at 06:44 PM | Comments (0)