Reviews written by registered user
Aidan McGuinness

Page 1 of 20:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
192 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

20 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
My little cynical eye - different, reasonably refreshing movie that falls apart by the end, 13 November 2002

It is reasonable to describe this movie as Big Brother done with the style of the Blair Witch Project, although it would be unfair to label this movie as a Blair Witch Project seeing as how it implies that every horror movie done in a `documentary/realism' style with unusual camera positions is an actual homage to that movie.

Set-up here is pretty simple: 5 people in a house. Must stay in house for six months. Cannot ever leave the house at night. If any one person leaves they all lose and do not get the one million dollars awaiting them at the end. Grand. However, surprise ahoy, things start going weird towards the end and they must begin to wonder: Who is paying to view them? Why are they bothered? And will any of them survive?

Problems with the movie abound. Firstly we've dull characters. Some are so dull they blend into one another and become hard to distinguish, which is rather unfortunate since we're meant to. Only one character - the paranoid cynic - had any `depth' to them and their role was way too obvious. Sorry you can't misdirect me like that, I've seen it before and done better. Secondly we've got the structure of the movie. The first two-thirds are a hit and miss affair with tension. The `jump' moments are too sparse, too unconnected. There's an atmosphere built up by them, which has dissipated too much before the next event. It doesn't create unease so much as a greater indifference towards the movie. The final third is too derivative of the `hack-and-slash' genre and adds nothing to it except for an ending, which I admittedly enjoyed.

It's not all bad though. There is the way the movie is done. It's viewed primarily through web cams. Thus we're treated to some interesting point-of-views and techniques as the cameras focus on the participants. There's a nice night-vision element where everyone is in green with eerily lit eyes. There're also some nice sounds via a white noise effect. Some found this grating, but I found it more effective in creating a sense of things being off kilter than the traditional orchestral effect. There's an ending which made me smile and, despite their scarcity, one or two relatively decent `jump' moments. The sense of it being just that bit different helps lift it out of forgettable mediocrity but it cannot elevate it to a description of being good. I think a 5.8/10 is about fair.

Red Dragon (2002)
I am the Red Dragon. Do you see? I am another pointless re-make. Do you see? I am a cash cow. Do you see? Yes I see!, 13 November 2002

Boo, hiss, another remake (sort of). There're a few I've enjoyed, such as `John Carpenter's 'The Thing' and `Cruel Intentions' but generally they're an inferior lot to their original (say hello `Vanilla Sky'! Say `Hi there!' Gus Van Sant's `Psycho'). Maybe this would be an exception though - it's got a good cast and it's just another adaptation of a book, not solely a remake. However `Manhunter' (the original movie of `Red Dragon') was pretty good. so was this a worthy new version? Nope.

Plot? It's based on a book so it can't gain much in the way of points: Lector (Hopkins) was captured by Agent Will Graham (Edward Norton), but only after nearly fatally injuring Graham and causing Graham to leave the FBI. Graham now must seek Lector's help in solving the murders caused by the mysterious Tooth Fairy killer (Ralph Fiennes). Lector weaves his mysterious web, and Tooth Fairy his mysterious ways. Can X stop Tooth Fairy and, can he stop himself being embroiled in the beguiling evil of Lector?

Let's take a look at the acting. Critics seem to be in two camps about Hopkins returning as Lector here - masterful or woeful. I'm leaning more towards the latter. While Hopkins has made the refined gentlemen insane killer his own. there's something lacking here. It's as if Hopkins isn't trying to reserve himself too much. There's almost a gleefully camp element to the manic psycho. Sure Lector is intense, but his intensity here is too much visibly in the fore and voice, rather than in the sharp glittering of the eyes that `Silence of the Lambs' gave us. Norton is as good as ever. He's never bad. He's able to perfectly give all the motions required and do them convincingly. Witness the talent he clearly has when he switches character roles, towards the end. It's not just a tone of voice - Norton has the ability to convert his whole body language subtlety (check him out in `The Score'). However, and I hate to be critical of Norton, I'm not sure this is the ideal role for him. It's a fault of his youthful look more than anything else - the part calls for a darker, older, more embittered character. Now Norton can play dark (`American History X') but he can't artificially add age to himself. It's a shame because otherwise he is as wonderful as ever.

Ralph Fiennes is unnerving as the Tooth Fairy. There's a wonderful insane quality in his performance, as if it's permanently itching under the skin even when he's being relatively normal and trying to pursue a romance (which is surprisingly touching). You cannot help but feel empathy for him. When he's in his Red Dragon persona (and utterly mad), he's also good - his voice rings with sincere conviction, supreme belief in himself that he cannot find elsewhere. Well done today Fiennes!

However Brett Ratner, directing here, doesn't let `Red Dragon' live. It's all a bit too clean, a bit too austere. In his original adaptation, Michael Mann realised the darkness inherent in the movie. `Red Dragon' is a bit too clean, a bit too refined. It needs more edge and grit. The pacing is somewhat weak and certain elements become frustrating - such as waiting for Graham to pick out the way the killer knows his victims, despite the audience having been told an hour previously. That's weak. The burning chair moment, and others, are never handed with enough `oomph'. Perhaps it's knowing how the original went that spoils any tension here, because I never felt that involved in the proceedings. Nothing innovative was used - it was all handled with competence that left me indifferent. Never a bad movie, `Red Dragon' never really became a good movie either. I had expected more but it never got delivered. 6.1/10.

`Snap' up this film with Robin Williams in great acting shock!, 13 November 2002

Well this movie proves one thing - `Insomnia' was not a one-off for Robin Williams. He's capable of doing dark roles and doing them very well. In `One Hour Photo' he plays Seymour Parrish, a photo developer, who becomes obsessed with pictures, and the family, of one his clients. How far will this obsession go?

Well I won't spend an age talking about the plot. There's not too much there - more a gradual decline by Seymour as his obsession with the Yorkins grows. There's an element of Yorkin being crazy - having visions. The photos of course act as a tool - showing how Seymour can only relate to people from a distance, contemplating from afar. There's a great sadness in them. Much of this is helped by an excellent performance by Robin Williams. He carries Seymour with a great sadness in him - in his eyes, his posture, and the lines on his face. Even when angry, you can see Williams is showing that the anger is directed not so much at the person in front of him, but at the ghosts of his past. This movie is essentially about Williams and that's one of the problems. No one else really gets a look in. Sure we see the Yorkins but we mostly only see them through Seymour. We don't ever really get to know them and so we cannot empathise with them as Seymour's obsession grows. It's a flaw but it's not a killing blow.

Mark Romanek, who wrote and directed, shows some nice skill with the set-up of scenes. Seymour is decked out in light colours - typically cream. Dressed blandly and inoffensively, he blends into the dull workplace and home. He doesn't want to be seen. He also allows a bit of humour into the movie, with Seymour's wonderful discourse about his customers' photo habits. It not only alleviates the tension in a generally downbeat movie, but allows Seymour to become than the brooding-weirdo cliché. The movie is structured in a relatively conventional scene, recounted in flashback form with Seymour at the police station. It allows the audience to wonder how he got there - and is it for the reasons we think. The final few minutes are very satisfying as a result.

`One Hour Photo' is very character based and succeeds because of (and not in spite of) Robin Williams' performance. You cannot help but feel sympathy for this man and watch with sadness as his tale unfolds. Shot well, scripted with enough care that you are left bored, it's a movie that - while not maybe worthy of many viewings - is certainly worth seeing. 7.5/10.

Engaging piece of romantic fluff, 13 November 2002

Bridget Jones works in publishing. Her mother is constantly trying to find her a man, none of which have ever worked out. She fancies her boss, despite knowing he embodies every quality in men that she despises. She starts to keep a diary of her life, and how she plans to re-organise it to achieve her goals. We get to follow her along on her journey.

`Bridget Jones's Diary' was far more engaging than I had expected. It's as deep as a wet piece of paper and you know how it winds up within the opening minutes. Nonetheless the characters - thinly sketched as they are - are enjoyable. Special note goes to the titular character, played wonderfully by Renee Zellweger. She effuses her character with warmth and an indescribable cuteness. You feel affection towards her and want her to succeed. She has a genial clumsiness and awkwardness that's very endearing because it grounds as being more human than a lot of other rom-com efforts - she could be one of us. Hugh Grant went against his foppish norm (as he did again successfully in `About A Boy') to play her shallow but charming boss. Gone are the stuttering mannerisms that launched Grant's career - he's playing someone far more astute and assured here and it works well (though not as well as in `About A Boy'). He's ultimately not up to too much but he's entertaining. More fun is the secondary love interest - Darcy, played by Colin Firth. There's a great air of cynical observation off of him, a nice balance to Bridget's own self. A quiet, fairly reserved man, he's got far more pride and standards than Cleaver (Grant). There's also good chemistry between all three, which helps greatly as the film becomes a love triangle. They're fleshed out by a fairly forgettable support cast, with only Bridget's heart-broken father (played by the excellent Jim Broadbent) making an impression.

The script is quite witty and funnier than I would have expected. Naturally it's often from character observation but there's a nice dash of physical humour there. Watching Bridget and Darcy make the most inappropriate choice of comments this side of the BBC's `The Office' is a lot of fun. Sharon Maguire, in the directing seat, adds a few nice touches, such as the onscreen appearance of extracts of Bridget's diary. They all help add to the warmth. The locations, set designs, naturally reflect their characters well, if a little simplistically (clean cut designs for shallow Cleaver, disorderly haphazard for Bridget, etc.). The pacing is spot on so you're never bored, even as you await the inevitable. I'm not sure if it would stand up to repeated viewings but it certainly would point me to seeing the sequel and recommend it as one of the finest examples of the (typically woeful) rom/com genres. It's no `Amelie' but it could be the next best thing in recent years. 7.0/10.

Red Dragon (2002)
I am the Red Dragon. Do you see? I am another pointless re-make. Do you see? I am a cash cow. Do you see? Yes I see!, 13 November 2002

Boo, hiss, another remake (sort of). There're a few I've enjoyed, such as `John Carpenter's 'The Thing' and `Cruel Intentions' but generally they're an inferior lot to their original (say hello `Vanilla Sky'! Say `Hi there!' Gus Van Sant's `Psycho'). Maybe this would be an exception though - it's got a good cast and it's just another adaptation of a book, not solely a remake. However `Manhunter' (the original movie of `Red Dragon') was pretty good. so was this a worthy new version? Nope.

Plot? It's based on a book so it can't gain much in the way of points: Lector (Hopkins) was captured by Agent Will Graham (Edward Norton), but only after nearly fatally injuring Graham and causing Graham to leave the FBI. Graham now must seek Lector's help in solving the murders caused by the mysterious Tooth Fairy killer (Ralph Fiennes). Lector weaves his mysterious web, and Tooth Fairy his mysterious ways. Can X stop Tooth Fairy and, can he stop himself being embroiled in the beguiling evil of Lector?

Let's take a look at the acting. Critics seem to be in two camps about Hopkins returning as Lector here - masterful or woeful. I'm leaning more towards the latter. While Hopkins has made the refined gentlemen insane killer his own. there's something lacking here. It's as if Hopkins isn't trying to reserve himself too much. There's almost a gleefully camp element to the manic psycho. Sure Lector is intense, but his intensity here is too much visibly in the fore and voice, rather than in the sharp glittering of the eyes that `Silence of the Lambs' gave us. Norton is as good as ever. He's never bad. He's able to perfectly give all the motions required and do them convincingly. Witness the talent he clearly has when he switches character roles, towards the end. It's not just a tone of voice - Norton has the ability to convert his whole body language subtlety (check him out in `The Score'). However, and I hate to be critical of Norton, I'm not sure this is the ideal role for him. It's a fault of his youthful look more than anything else - the part calls for a darker, older, more embittered character. Now Norton can play dark (`American History X') but he can't artificially add age to himself. It's a shame because otherwise he is as wonderful as ever.

Ralph Fiennes is unnerving as the Tooth Fairy. There's a wonderful insane quality in his performance, as if it's permanently itching under the skin even when he's being relatively normal and trying to pursue a romance (which is surprisingly touching). You cannot help but feel empathy for him. When he's in his Red Dragon persona (and utterly mad), he's also good - his voice rings with sincere conviction, supreme belief in himself that he cannot find elsewhere. Well done today Fiennes!

However Brett Ratner, directing here, doesn't let `Red Dragon' live. It's all a bit too clean, a bit too austere. In his original adaptation, Michael Mann realised the darkness inherent in the movie. `Red Dragon' is a bit too clean, a bit too refined. It needs more edge and grit. The pacing is somewhat weak and certain elements become frustrating - such as waiting for Graham to pick out the way the killer knows his victims, despite the audience having been told an hour previously. That's weak. The burning chair moment, and others, are never handed with enough `oomph'. Perhaps it's knowing how the original went that spoils any tension here, because I never felt that involved in the proceedings. Nothing innovative was used - it was all handled with competence that left me indifferent. Never a bad movie, `Red Dragon' never really became a good movie either. I had expected more but it never got delivered. 6.1/10.

Pray for Michael Sullivan. Pray he gets a better script next time!, 12 November 2002

`Road to Perdition' is a gangster movie. Tom Hanks is Michael Sullivan, a gangster working for John Rooney (Paul Newman). He has a nice little family where the kids are unaware of what daddy does for a living, despite some homely moments where they question him. Unfortunately one of his sons, Michael Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin), sees him on the job. Rooney is worried what this might do if Michael Jr. spills the beans. what happens next! Go see the movie!

Firstly credit to Hanks. About time he tried a character with more grit as opposed to the lily-livered roles he normally adopts. He works quite well as an efficient murderer whose only true love is his family (whom he has grown distant from - what do you think the chances are that he gets closer over the movie as he learns a valuable moral lesson?) He's not 100% convincing - he looks too charming - but he almost gets there. Hoechlin, as the young frightened son, is quite good and Newman fits into his role as sad, old, man with aplomb. No problems with the cast here..

However Mr. Script has a lot to answer for. How are you doing Mr. Script? You're a bit obvious and cliché ridden aren't you? Perhaps this is because of the movie's graphic novel roots, but I felt let down here. The ending, for example, is heavy-handed and extremely obvious to any casual viewers of cinema. The moralising and family values segments are too limp and uninspired - there's only one inevitable course of action and that's the root the film takes. There's also the anvil-subtlety of the dual meaning of the film's title. While the actors do good jobs with their parts, their characters are often feeling a bit flat, trying to add depth solely through a tenuous `family' thread that runs in the movie. It means there's a lack of suspense in the movie and that's not good.

What is good is Mendes direction. In fact it's very good. There's one particular scene, towards the end of the movie (so I can't reveal it), where there is a superb use of lighting and sound to highlight a particularly eventful moment. The movie - it's a periodical - looks the part throughout, with good costumes and scenery. There's some nice directorial touches in the movie (corridor viewpoints, etc.) and Mendes once more has a beautiful score that recalls his work on `American Beauty' (well it would - same composer). The pacing is generally spot on, and there's no real flaws here that I could detect that upset me from a production point of view.

So `Road to Perdition' stands out because it's made nicely. If it had had a better script than it did, it would have been a very good movie. As it is, the forced characters and thin plotting lets it down. Still one of the best of the crop in a very weak year for movies. 7.0/10.

Signs (2002)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Great suspense marred by preachy overtones and awful finale, 12 November 2002

Shyamalan please don't preach at me! - That's one of the first things that I think of when I reflect on `Signs'. I hate preachy movies.

`Signs' is a good flick. In the year of 2002 when a good flick is virtually non existent, it was a nice and welcoming relief. It's the story of an ex-preacher, Graham Hess (Mel Gibson), who lives out in the cornfields with his son and daughter, grieving over his dead wife. Suddenly crop circles begin to appear in his corn and strange goings on happen. It's a `sign' of stuff happening. But what is happening? What are the crop circles appearing everywhere indicating? Is it some other worldly force? And can Hess pull himself out of his despair and fight them? Hmmm.. Well - can he?!

Acting here is all solid. Gibson isn't called to stretch himself - look angry here, look sad there, shoulder a burden of grief, question his faith, and so on. He's still well cast in his role though and never really lets the side down. The two kids are quite good. One is the Cute Girl #3 act going for, but we can expect that. It's Hollywood. Rory Culkin, as the young son Morgan, is actually one of the best surprises of the movie. He has a remarkable maturity to his acting, and is very believable as a quiet, introverted son. Hope he gets more work for himself, unlike his brother. Speaking of brothers, Joaquin Pheonix plays Gibson's brother, Merrill. He's there to provide the more light-hearted elements later on, but also as a foil to Gibson's taciturn nature. Pheonix is good, but not remarkable, failing to get into the role the way he could in, for example, `Gladiator'.

Script wise? Well there's not much of one. It's `Close Encounters of the Third Kind' meets `Night of the Living Dead'. There is some ham fisted dialogue, principally when Shyamalan (writer and director here) gets all preachy and tries to teach us A Big Lesson. It's mostly when Gibson starts moralising and pondering aloud in the tired old `why me? Why this?' routine. The moments aren't quite too far and few between to be erased from my memory and it does detract from the enjoyment at time. I can watch a movie without being talked down to. Oh and that little bit with Pheonix's character? Too heavily fore-shadowed and sign posted. Subtlety is lacking in this script.

That subtlety is lacking in the script is strange because it's certainly not lacking in the directing. It's what makes `Signs' move from an average movie to a sharp little thriller. Shyamalan uses a nice slow build up, that's ever increasing the paranoia and the tension. Wisely he eschews ever taking the camera much further than the farm land, creating a sense of isolation to the viewer. The jumps are not obviously sign posted, and dramatical music cues are minimalist to score maximum effect. The camera work is tight and focused, building up the eerie tension, and the lighting is spot on, with just the right level of creeping darkness. The sound work - sharp, crisp - is also very good. I don't think I've ever jumped so much at a cinema screening and it's a credit to the movie that it made me do that. It's only let down at the end with the weak ending and incredulous plot device. Still fair dues to Shyamalan for using his director's chair well.

`Signs' is one of the best movies of 2002. Now that's not saying a whole lot as there's been little good (I'm pinning all my hopes on `The Two Towers') but this is certainly a movie worth seeing with the lights turned down. It can't be a classic due to some hammy writing on Shayamalan's part, and its obvious roots, but it's a very effective little thriller (in the scare sense) and worth your time. 8.0/10.

89 out of 134 people found the following review useful:
Excellent. Sharp, clever, funny, inventive, with great values all round., 12 November 2002

Ah it's a movie that's in IMDB's Top 20, and it has good reason to be. For starter's let's look at the simple premise - James Stewart is L. B. Jeffries, a photographer who is currently recovering from an injury on assignment. With his broken leg he's stuck in his apartment, with nothing better to do than spy on his neighbours and be visited by his girlfriend, Lisa Carol Fremont (Grace Kelly), his officer friend Wendell, and his nurse, Stella. Jeffries observes the coming and goings of the various apartments he can observe (from his rear apartment window) and it is one of these - a Raymond Burr - who draws his attention because. could it be that the man has committed some heinous crime? Let's find out.

One of the beautiful things about the movie is its superb use of location. The whole movie, bar a couple of brief scenes, is set in the apartment. This would seem claustrophobic but Hitchcock never inhibits us like this - he lets us escape through Jeffries binoculars and camera lenses, and his roving camera swoops down to let us see what the characters see (but never, thankfully, anything more than that - this is how you do suspense!). The set design is wonderful - the apartment is just the right size and is nicely laid out. However the real praise is for all the other apartments visible to Jeffries - an actual habitable set with multiple stories where characters can be observed only as they pass by their own windows (yeah, they don't care much for curtains). There's a sense of individuality gone in to each home, despite the fact we can only see barely elements of each. This is helped by a nice, differing range of characters inhabiting each and going about their daily lives - there's a mini soap-opera contained in the movie, all observed at a distance. Excellent stuff.

Acting? It's great here. There's some nice depth to the characters here, with them feeling like actual real people rather than slick one-dimensional tags. Stewart is very proficient in this type of role - he was born to it - and Kelly proves she is more than just a pretty face, managing to effuse her character with both grace (*groan*) and steel. Even supporting characters like Stella are good (she has a wickedly black sense of thinking that's hilarious). What's so incredible is that the characters we observe from a distance in the other apartments (and with whom we never actually interact with) have as much depth as most main characters in movies nowadays. Excellent script and acting in this movie.

I've already praised Hitchcock's set location and camera work, so I won't prattle on about him much more. He does a stellar job here and, in my opinion, this is the best piece of work he's done (that I've seen). It's virtually flawless and you're never let down (or bored). Well done. It's a shame he lost out on an Oscar (although he did have tough competition that year with `On the Waterfront').

`Rear Window' is a great example of how you can successfully have sharp acting, script, and directing and not feel the need for a slew of swear words and gratuitous violence. Regarded as a classic, and deservedly so. 9.1/10

Scarface (1983)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A weak entry in the over crowded mob/gangster genre, 12 November 2002

I expected a lot more from `Scarface' than I got. I expected something sublime and intelligent. What I got was gaudy, ostentatious, weakly directed, and pretty mundane material. Oh well.

Al Pacino is. being Al Pacino in this. Look at me - I am a hard edged Cuban! Look at my accent and my ability to be unfazed my murder! His accent here grated on my nerves throughout the movie, sounding too thick and enforced. Michelle Pfeiffer, as Love Interest, barely registered a flicker in my brain - look she's steely but also vunerable. Yawn. In fact the characters here all seemed wafer thin (depth wise). With the likes of `The Sopranos' fleshing out deeper gangster mob members, I was thoroughly underwhelmed by the people here and - fatal flaw - didn't care what happened.

The trouble is that Brian De Palma seems to screw this movie up that bit more. It's mired in eighties culture, making it seem already outdated in the way that more skilful directors would never let their creations go. The suspense is laughable as the overwhelming score has the subtlety of a large number of anvils. The camera work similarly made me curl my lips in distaste. De Palma got nominated for a Golden Raspberry award here - I can see why. Cringe inducing Brian.

Is the movie then thoroughly awful? Well no, it's not. It's watchable. The script isn't up to much either of course, as the whole drug empire thing has been done before, with more brains and creativity behind it (sorry Mr. Stone!). It's all just so. forgettable. The only moment that made me smile was the ludicrously over the top finale with the quotable (and ham fisted delivery): `Say hello to my little friend'. Oh well, better luck next time. 4/10.

Lolita (1962)
3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
LOL - it a good Kubrick black comedy that doesn't quite make the grade, 9 November 2002

Ah Kubrick, courting controversy here with his adaptation of `Lolita'. It tells the tale of Humbert Humbert, a professor staying at the lodgings of one Charlotte Haze. There he becomes smitten with her 14 year-old daughter, the titular Lolita. The smitten becomes obsession becomes necessitation, and yet it's all balanced out with a humour blacker than my ire at `A Beautiful Mind' winning all those Oscars.

Humbert is played by James Mason. I'm not familiar with the original source material, so I'm not sure how accurate Mason's portrayal is. Here he starts off genial, even convincingly feigning romantic interest in Charlotte (in order to remain close to Lolita). There's a convincing sense of desperation injected later on by Mason - his movements become more agitated, eyes darting more, his voice becoming shaper. There's no real sense of credible darkness about him - more a sense of loneliness. The object of his affection, played by Sue Lyon, is cutely brattish. She knows the power she has and, even an ever so `butter would not melt in my mouth' demure fashion, she is able to abuse it to her will. Although (naturally) there's no real chemistry between the two, the two play the relationship well together and it's interesting to see how it develops later on, when it becomes less comic and more dark. The other participants, such as Charlotte and the man on Humbert's trail, Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers) are all decent characters and all acted well. Sure there's a congeniality there that was necessary due to censoring laws, but this is meant to be blackly comedic.

Kubrick again is on the ball. His talents aren't quite as strikingly shown as they are in his other works, given that he's less room to manoeuver into anything spectacularly fancy. The use of narration doesn't grate (it often would), and we're left to use our own imaginations often about what's going on, with just the subtle of clues before the camera pans away. There's a nice sense of mood used through lighting, especially later on in the movie as Humbert's obsession grows deeper (but it's Kubrick, so I expected as much). No complaints, as usual although I was not as overwhelmed as I was with the beauty he evidences in `2001' or `Barry Lyndon'.

`Lolita' is surprisingly amusing and, even if only by implication, quite risqué (check out the suggestive conversations Mrs. Schiller has with Humbert, for example). Certainly it's not immediately comparable to another movie (besides its remake) but. I wasn't left with the impressed feeling that I normally get from Kubrick. Perhaps the movie was too light, considering the possibilities, but I just didn't feel as satisfied as I expected. Still worth a catch, and above the usual mess. 7.5/10.


Page 1 of 20:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]