Reviews written by registered user
|31 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Your reaction to this movie will depend entirely on where you stand in
relation to action movies. If you like high octane movies with
anti-heroes talking in gravelly tones; you'll love this movie. If
you're a fan of DIE HARD (1988) and the recent THE RAID (2011); you'll
love this movie. If you think SIN CITY (2005) rocked and JUDGE DREDD
(1995) sucked; you'll love this movie. If you like blood and guts
served up with a smattering of humor and cooler than all hell visuals;
you'll love this movie. If you enjoy tightly scripted films that stay
true to the source material yet are equally accessible to new fans;
you'll love this movie. As a matter of fact, if you like action, then
there's every chance you'll love this movie!
The 2000 AD comic strip, Judge Dredd, and its eponymous character, which is the source for DREDD 3D, was created by John Wagner and Carlos Ezquerra way back in 1977, which, in comic book terms, means it's just about as old as Methuselah. It also means that there's plenty of fans of the original comic book, fans who were bitterly disappointed by Sylvester Stallone's woefully poor JUDGE DREDD (1995).
Those fans can relax. I'd bet my bottom dollar that Alex Garland, writer and producer of DREDD 3D is a big-time fan of the comic book and he has penned a movie that stays true to the original, while creating a film that in no way demands viewers are familiar with the comic strip.
Garland penned 28 DAYS LATER (2002) and the novels THE BEACH and the far better THE TESSERACT, which were both turned into films with varying degrees of success. He hits all the right notes with DREDD 3D, it's the rarest of things; a comic book film that stays true to the original comic while simultaneously scaling new heights.
For those unfamiliar with the comic strip, Judge Dredd is a judge in an America of the not too distant future. On the East Coast of the US, running from Boston to Washington DC, lies Mega City One, a vast, violent metropolis where criminals rule the chaotic streets. The only force of order lies with the urban cops, called "Judges", who possess the combined powers of judge, jury and instant executioner. Judge Dredd and his fellow Judges are empowered to arrest, sentence and even execute criminals on the spot. Known and feared throughout the city, Dredd is the ultimate Judge.
For DREDD 3D, Dredd is asked to cast a watchful eye over a new recruit, Anderson, to see if she has the makings of a real Judge. Anderson has completed her training but has fallen just short of the grade, Dredd's superiors decide to give her another chance because of her psychic powers but want Dredd to make the final decision after a day of on-the-job training. He and Anderson go on a routine call and end up trapped in a battle with a gang led by Ma- Ma, a ruthless former prostitute and drug dealer, who sells SLO-MO, a new drug that allows users to experience reality at a fraction of its normal speed.
So is it any good? Hell, yes it is!
Keith Urban does the best gravelly voiced anti-hero since Clint Eastwood. DREDD 3D is a DIRTY HARRY (1971) of the future, while Olivia Thirlby puts in a star making performance as Anderson.
Everything about this movie is class; the performances, the script, the action. Even the 3D is amazing. SLO-MO as a drug is a genius plot device, allowing the filmmakers to slow down reality so the viewers can experience 3D in all its depth defying brilliance, while also vicariously experiencing the effects of the drug addled characters.
DREDD 3D is a character study fueled by violence and action and, as such, it won't change the world. It won't alter your political view. You won't be touched by its poignance or moved by its emotional core. But so what? Who cares?
That's not what you go to action movies for. You go for balls-out confident action. You go for super-violent, well thought out set pieces. You go cos you wanna sit at the edge of your seat, gasping for breath. You go for bombastic thrills and for heroes that fight with a fury that is charmingly diabolical. DREDD 3D does all that and more! If you like action movies, you'll love this film!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
TRON: LEGACY is a joyous celebration of big-screen, mind-blowing 3D and
while the storytelling is a little pedestrian at times, I dare you to
notice! With a pumping sound-track by Daft Punk and vector visuals that
suck you into the screen, TRON: LEGACY is an adventure story for the
little boy in all of us!
The story behind the high-tech adventure focuses on Sam Flynn, the genius son of the even more genius Kevin Flynn, the always wonderful Jeff Bridges. Kevin was sucked into a computer way back in the mists of time when Sam was but a baby and poor Sam has spent that past 25 years wondering why Daddy left.
His pain has been somewhat soothed by being the largest shareholder in his Dad's company, so while his soul might be bare, his cupboards are not. He surrounds himself with toys any multi-billionaire would be proud to own and shows himself to be quite the intrepid sort by playing an audacious trick on the CEO and board of his Dad's company.
Soon after, Kevin's loyal confidant Quorra receives a text message from the site where Kevin disappeared all those years ago. He tells Sam and Sam goes to investigate. Lo and behold Sam gets sucked into the computer too, where he teams up with his Dad and they battle the forces of evil.
And this is where the real movie and the real enjoyment starts. There's simply no denying how much fun this movie is, despite the storyline, which is just plain silly at times, and the writing, which leaves a bit to be desired. The experience is big enough and bold enough to easily bat away the little clunky failings.
TRON: LEGACY is an enormously entertaining film, it's a Hollywood screen spectacle and proud to be unadulterated entertainment. Go watch it and enjoy!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
A Christmas Carol is possibly one of the best know and best loved
Christmas stories of all time. It's a classic in the true sense of the
word with more than 40 adaptations, the first of which hit cinema
screens over a century ago, way back in 1908! Disney's A Christmas
CAROL, however, is a little different in that it comes to our screens
in gloriously animated 3D and, while 3D was long dismissed as a cheap
gimmick, there has been a recent surge in both the number and quality
of 3D movies.
Disney is synonymous with animation and is similarly placed at the cutting edge of 3D technology, as anyone who has visited Euro Disney and seen HONEY, I SHRUNK THE AUDIENCE will attest. Not only are the Euro Disney 3D effects absolutely fantastic, the cinema is littered with little water spray guns which add a sensory element to the visual 3D rain, while at one point thousands of rats run towards the audience and, as the 3D rats run past, little air guns at ankle height puff out air creating a terrifying effect of rats brushing against your shoes. Everyone in the audience, myself included, actually screamed while pulling their feet from the floor. Brilliant! Cinemas that play A Christmas CAROL have, obviously, not been retrofitted with such devices but I'd wager that they're not too far away. Robert Zemeckis, the director of A Christmas CAROL, has been churning out successful movies for decades from the BACK TO THE FUTURE trilogy in the 80's to FORREST GUMP in the 90's. Of late, though, he has concentrated on motion capture technology, bringing THE POLAR EXPRESS (2004) and BEOWULF (2007) to screens with varying degrees of success.
The premise of A Christmas Carol is well known, but to recap very quickly Ebenezer Scrooge, who is played to wonderful and amazingly life like effect by Jim Carrey, begins the Christmas holiday with his usual old misery-guts contempt, barking orders at his faithful clerk, played by Gary Oldman, and his cheery but broke nephew, played by Colin Firth.
But when his dead partner visits and the ghosts of Christmas, Past, Present and Yet to Come take him on an eye opening journey to the past, present and future, they reveal truths that old Scrooge is both reluctant and scared to face. He realizes he must open his heart to Christmas cheer and undo the years of ill will before it's too late.
This is a classic Christmas story, made by a classic animation studio, in the hands of a classic director. And I absolutely loved it. If you want to do something with for Christmas then this should be it. It's a magical film that stays wonderfully true to the source material, right down to much of the dialogue. It's terrifying in parts, heartbreaking in others and the animation and 3D wizardry are simply breath taking.
Against that there is a drawback, and at the risk of sounding a bit like Scrooge, it's the cost. A Christmas CAROL will set you back 11 euro in Tralee as opposed to 9 euro for a regular movie. And while I was gobsmacked to pay over a tenner for a cinema ticket, the movie was worth it in the end. It's a wonderful Christmas movie and maybe the best adaptation of Dickens' tale to date.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is an epic adventure about a natural disaster and the struggle for
survival in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, callous
politicians and a media interested only in the money shot, personal
misery be damned. Sounds like the lot of the all too many flood victims
either in New Orleans in 2005 or in Ireland in the last few weeks but
it's actually the premise of a new movie, 2012.
Roland Emmerich, its director, has brought us a whole slew of apocalyptic movies in the past, including INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996), which I loved, GODZILLA (1998), which I hated and THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (2004), which didn't make much of an impression one way or the other.
His latest comes to the theatre with an Oscar-calibre cast, including the always watchable Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover and Amanda Peet and the seldom less than wonderful John Cusack. So I was hoping for a film as laugh out loud enjoyable as INDEPENDENCE DAY, a witty, roller coaster thrill of a movie, with all the visceral spills in all the right places. What I got, unfortunately, was closer to THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, a film which, while by no means as dreadful as GODZILLA, never really scales the heights, happy to just float along, a piece of flotsam and jetsam in the ocean of disaster movies, not good enough to break through the clutter but not bad enough to be remembered for being truly brutal.
The basic premise is ridiculous, but that in itself is no bad thing. The Mayan's, apparently, believed the world would end in 2012 and so, as is the way of such films, out comes the dodgy science to explain the apocalypse. The sun's activity is ramping up and a new type of nuclear particle has been formed. The new particles act in a similar manner to microwaves and are heating the earth from within and, as the core heats up, the crust is becoming unstable, leading to a series of earthquakes and tsunamis, which will, eventually, overwhelm the entire planet.
Humans, of course, being clever little buggers, have cottoned on to what's happening. Well, some scientists have and a few eccentrics, like the hilarious Woody Harrelson. The scientists are well on the way to building 'ships' with the capacity to save a tiny fraction of the population, along with a number of important art works and a selection of animals. John Cusack, though a series of coincidences that are so wild as to almost beggar belief, finds out about the 'ships' and sets off to rescue his kiddies and his childhood sweetheart, Amanda Peet.
As the movie progresses it delivers on what was promised in the trailer, but that's about it. All the best bits are in that, and, while it's fun watching well known landmarks disappear in a puff of smoke, the movie doesn't really have enough, either by way of plot, character, set pieces, or truly outstanding special effects to sustain it for its close to two and a half hour running time.
Given the immediacy of global warming and the disastrous floods of recent times, surely a movie like this could have wonderful characters that the audience can empathise with, a horrifying story and amazing special effects? Now wouldn't that be something to see? A movie with characters you genuinely care about while things are falling down and blowing up! Or they could just give the $200 million that this cost to make to the victims of flooding but I suppose that's too unbelievable a story-line for even a movie.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
CREATION received wonderful reviews when it premiered at the
prestigious Toronto Film Festival but, those reviews notwithstanding,
the film had difficulty picking up a distributor in the US, apparently
because of the fear that it would offend the religious right.
The film is based on the book, Annie's Box, which was written by Darwin's great-great- grandson, Randal Keynes, so I don't suppose there's any doubting its veracity. Against that the film is very much focused on Darwin's family situation and the death of his young daughter, Annie, in particular and not on the great man's work. It's a sometimes powerful yet strangely uneven telling of the tale. We see Darwin as a family man who struggles to accept his daughter's death, a man who is torn between his love for his deeply religious wife and his own growing belief that God has no place in the world. He finds himself caught in a battle between faith and reason, between love and truth, all the while dealing with the death of his favourite daughter, Annie.
Charles Darwin is played by acclaimed British actor, Paul Bettany, probably best known for his role as the mad monk in THE DA VINCI CODE (2006), while Mrs. Darwin is played by Bettany's real life wife and Oscar winning actress, Jennifer Connolly.
There's a palpable tension between the actors, Connolly is particularly good as the understated Mrs. Darwin driven to distraction by the loss of her daughter and the consequent loss of her husband. Darwin's master-work, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, comes to light and the film depicts a cosy little world of English gardens in turmoil as a happy marriage is ripped asunder by the loss of a child.
As a film that deals with the loss of a child and the resultant impact on what had previously been a perfectly happy marriage, CREATION works well. It's beautifully shot, with some touching scenes, not least of which concerns the death of an ape, which, when you think about it, is quite apt. What's less apt is hearing Darwin muse, "What if the world stopped believing that God had any sort of plan for us?" Why on earth would he care whether a God he no longer believes in has a plan or not? Which brings up the main problem with the film - as a movie about Darwin and the writing of Origin, it completely misses the boat. It's all religion and no evolution. Where's the Beagle? The Galapagos? Where are the vampire finches? Or woodpecker finches for that matter? Darwin has figured the whole thing out before the movie starts, he's even written most of the book, the film is solely concerned with the question as to whether he should publish or not.
This is a film that, far from offending the religious right, plays straight into their hands by focusing not on the genius of Darwin but on the moral and religious dilemmas which he faced. It's an awful pity that a film about Darwin is mired in religion, particularly given that he was such a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects and that it was his stated object to avoid writing on religion, confining himself to science, believing, as he did, that the disciples of differing theories should not attack one another with bitterness regardless of their beliefs.
It's just a pity that the religious loo-las of today aren't quite as even tempered, though I suspect such wilful ignorance would quickly melt even the great man's resolve. They have long since melted mine. And with that in mind, I strongly recommend going to see the film if for no other reason than to annoy the nuts from the religious right.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"I wanted to prove myself and for my sins, fate taught me a lesson,"
says Ewan McGregor's voice over in THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS, invoking
the classic Martin Sheen voice over in APOCALYPSE NOW.
Both films take a look at the absurdity of war but whereas the latter film focuses on war, GOATS focuses squarely on the absurdity. And, boy, does it focus. The main characters focus on a whole slew of things throughout the film, from George Clooney focusing on clouds in an effort to 'burst' them to Stephen Lang, who plays Brigadier General Dean Hopgood, focusing on a wall before attempting to run straight through it! GOATS is a laugh out loud look at supposedly real life events that are almost too bizarre to believe. A reporter, played by Ewan McGregor, who has been brutally dropped by his girlfriend, discovers a top-secret black-ops wing of the US military when he accompanies an enigmatic Special Forces operator, George Clooney, on a mind bending mission in Iraq. Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), a shadowy figure, claims to be part of an experimental U.S. military unit, the New Earth Army, a legion of Warrior Monks, or Jedi's, with unparalleled psychic powers that was put together by General Hopgood under the tutelage of Bill Django (Jeff Bridges).
Intrigued by his new acquaintance's far-fetched stories, McGregor impulsively decides to tag along. The pair set off on a mad-cap adventure, eventually tracking Django (Bridges) to a clandestine training camp run by renegade psychic Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey). McGregor becomes trapped in the middle of a grudge match between the forces of Django's New Earth Army and Hooper's personal militia of super soldiers, a match that can only be decided by a liberal dosing of LSD.
THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS was inspired by Jon Ronson's non-fiction bestseller of the same name, and is an eye-opening and hilarious exploration of the government's attempts to harness paranormal abilities.
The jokes and the pop culture references come thick and fast or maybe, fed on a diet of conspiracy theories, I'm just making connections that aren't even there. Django is surely a reference to the classic spaghetti western of the same name while Clooney's Cassady and Lang's Dean Hopgood have got to be a reference to Neil Cassady's Dean Moriarty character in Jack Kerouac's ON THE ROAD.
The funny thing is this all those old hippy types genuinely thought that a little LSD could change the world, that happiness was available in little tabs. Hell, even Lennon, with his Love In, and his 'Give Peace A Chance' slogan bought into the new cosmic consciousness. So what's to say that the Military didn't buy into it too? And, if they did, then chances are something like this may well have happened.
"More of this is true than you would believe," states the opening epigraph to THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS and fortunately, given the nature of man and the absurdity of war, that's probably the case, which to my mind, at least, makes the movie all the funnier. If the sight of a fully grown man trying to run through a wall is the type of thing that makes you laugh, then GOATS is most definitely for you.
And one thing is for sure, whether this film is true or not, it's hard not to laugh at the petty squabbling that is at the root of most arguments and, by extension, most wars. It doesn't take much to see that the problems of people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, and it's pretty hard not to laugh at people making a big deal of beans. Or maybe I just dropped one too many tabs. Either way I loved the movie.
From Thriller, to Bad, to Dangerous, to baboon poo crazy, Michael
Jackson went from being the most brilliant performer on the planet to
being the oddest. From the largest selling album of all time, to the
most groundbreaking music videos ever created, to rumours in the press,
to court cases taken by alleged victims, the self styled King of Pop,
led a life that was fed, at first, by media adulation driven by the
critical success and commercial brilliance that characterized his early
career and, latterly, by the media obsession with the sad little soap
opera that his life had become. Jackson, like many before him, bears
witness to the horrifying maxim that those whom the God's wish to
destroy they first call promising. His last two decades were, from this
fan's point of view, at least, filled with too much madness to the
detriment of the music and this film, unfortunately, follows that path
entirely. Too much madness and not enough music.
If Jackson were still alive than doubtless the footage recorded here would see the light of day, but only as an extra on the live concert DVD. It would never have been released as a movie and there's good reason for that it's simply not strong enough.
I'm a huge fan of Michael Jackson, Billy Jean is the best pop song of all time, but, seriously, who wants to watch the best performer on the planet rehearsing? I want to watch him perform! Rehearsals are merely dry runs for the real thing. This is a concert movie without a concert, and where's the point in that? That's like watching THE GODFATHER (1972) without Marlon Brando. It's like eating a banana split without the ice cream. There's no pay off.
There's no denying Jackson's brilliance, but, damn it, everyone on the planet knows that Jackson could sing and dance! There's no fire in the film, there's no screaming crowds, there's no adoration, and without that there's nothing to whip him into full frenzy. All you're left with is the sad knowledge that you're watching a man that lived to perform, getting ready to perform, and in the back of your mind you know that he'll never actually do it.
THIS IS IT was most definitely made for the fans. It was made to wring money out of them and it's working perfectly. As someone who had tickets to go see Jackson in the O2 in London, I was looking forward to seeing the film. All it did, however, was remind me that the greatest pop performer the world has ever seen will never be seen again.
My opinion notwithstanding, fans will, for the most part, I suppose, enjoy it. Those obsessed with Jackson will claim it proves he was back to his best, and it certainly contains moments when Jackson appears to be in full flight, but these are all too fleeting and are, naturally enough, interrupted because that is, after all, what happens in rehearsals! All the marketing for the movie claims it will only be in theatres for two weeks. And that's probably true. But that, I suspect, is because they want to rush the DVD out in time for Christmas, grab some more money.
As a money-making machine, then, THIS IS IT is it. It will undoubtedly rake in the millions. As a great Jackson film, however, or as a great concert film, a great documentary, or even simply a great film, THIS IS IT isn't even at the races.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Centering around eleven-year-old Mary, played by newcomer Niamh McGirr,
who lives with her estranged parents on a struggling farm in rural
Antrim, THE RACE is an Irish film that's both inspirational and,
ultimately, uplifting. With her exasperated mother and proud, stubborn
father, played by Colm Meaney, constantly at each other's throats over
lack of funds and the future of the farm, life at home is far from
But Mary has plans big plans. Ever since she can remember, she has dreamed of becoming a racing driver, so when the local, rich big-wig sets up a go-cart race down in the valley, she can't resist the chance to enter. But with opposition from home, general scorn from the community, most especially at school and the fact that she is a girl trying to make it in a boy's world, the road to success is never going to be easy.
But Mary doesn't give in. With perseverance, determination and a little help from her loyal friend, Tom, she sets about building a go-cart and, eventually, her spirit and dedication win over the most unlikely hearts. THE RACE is an inspirational drama in the best tradition of BILLY ELLIOT a film guaranteed to warm the heart.
The film maintains a wonderful balance between young Mary's dream to be a racing car driver and the realism of the difficult financial times in which it is set. Because the story is relatively straightforward the brilliance comes from the performances and the subtle touches throughout the film. The movie is charming and entertaining in equal measure and will be a treat for all, young and old alike!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
FISH TANK Director: Andrea Arnold Country: UK Year: 2009 Language:
English Runtime: 123 Minutes Rating: 16
FISH TANK is driven by a simple little idea. The star of the picture is Mia, a fifteen year old girl, whose life is turned upside down when her Mom brings home a new boyfriend.
The film is the latest from director Andrea Arnold and stars Katie Jarvis and Michael Fassbender. Now Andrea Arnold is a wonderful director, her short film WASP (2003) picked up countless awards at film festivals all around the globe including the prestigious Toronto Film Festival and the Sundance Film Festival. It went on to win an Oscar. So there's no doubting the caliber of the director.
Let's now turn to the leading man, Michael Fassbender. He is, quite simply, brilliant. When I first saw HUNGER (2008) I was absolutely blown away, Fassbender puts in one of the best performances of all time. To my mind, it's a crime that the film wasn't picked up by a bigger distributor because with someone like Harvey Weinstein promoting the film, it would have walked away with Oscars, and Michael Fassbender, instead of being simply one of the best young actors on the planet would be bigger than Jesus.
So much for the director and the leading man but what of Katie Jarvis? FISH TANK is really her movie. It's her first picture, having never acted in anything ever before, and that's a lot of weight to place on the shoulders of a young girl. If she wasn't up to the task then the whole castle could come crashing down around her ears, regardless of how brilliant the director and how magnetic the leading man. Jarvis was, apparently, found by a casting director, standing on a train platform arguing with her boyfriend. My God that's some find! She's as brilliantly intense, thoughtful, shy, rude and obnoxious as a teenage girl can be.
The film takes you to places that you never expected to go and the absolutely flawless performances from both Jarvis and Fassbender are pitch perfect. While it can be uncomfortable going at times, the movie is a vivid portrait of life at the margins of society, set as it is in a high-rise on a council estate in England. Mia dreams of being a dancer but spends most of her time fighting with her Mom or drinking cider and dossing school. Her life seemingly takes a turn for the better when her Mom brings home a new boyfriend, the enigmatic Fassbender. There's an electricity between him and the much younger Mia and the film simmers with tension between the two leads.
FISH TANK won the Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year and it's easy to see why. It's chock full of beautiful imagery and outstanding performances. And while, like most kitchen sink dramas, it's depressing in parts, it's ultimately more uplifting than many of its contemporaries. This is a forceful movie, simple yet powerful, it's poignant without being overly emotional. And while you won't come out of the cinema full of the joys of life, you'll marvel at the realism, the griminess of life in the council flats of Essex and two of the most outstanding performances of the year.
There was a time when Halloween was inextricably linked to Michael
Myers. He was as terrifying as the holiday and when the original
HALLOWEEN came out, way back in 1978, he scared the bejesus out of
people. In the over 30 years since then Halloween has become the second
biggest holiday of the year. Let me say that again Halloween is the
second biggest holiday of the year. People spend more money at
Halloween then at any other time of the year, except Christmas. And so
you can hardly blame movie studios for trying to cash in.
So I can forgive them for digging up Michael Myers and putting out another Halloween movie, which they did in 2007. And I can forgive Rob Zombie for directing it. I can even forgive people for going to see it. What I can't forgive, however, is Zombie's latest attempt at resurrecting the franchise.
According to the director, he was exhausted after the first remake. "When I finished the first Halloween, I was burnt out, exhausted and never wanted to hear the words 'Michael Myers' again," said Zombie. "But I feel that way after I finish anything that's exhausting." He initially relinquished the responsibility but, ultimately, affection for the characters made him rethink his decision. "I started getting possessive about it. That's when it became something I wanted to do. It was my Michael Myers, my Laurie Strode and my world. I didn't want someone else taking charge of it." So both Zombie and Michael Myers are back. Again. And it's an awful pity. For some unknown reason Rob Zombie's first HALLOWEEN was something of a hit it grossed almost $80 million at the worldwide box office, which isn't a fortune in film terms, but it's not a bad return on a movie that cost less than $20 million to make.
Rob Zombie's H2 picks up at the exact moment that his first HALLOWEEN stopped and it follows the aftermath of Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) murderous rampage through the eyes of heroine Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton).
In this latest film, Michael Meyers has returned home to sleepy Haddonfield, Illinois to take care of some unfinished family business. Unleashing a trail of terror, Myers stops at nothing to bring closure to the secrets of his twisted past. But the town's got unlikely new heroes, if only they can stay alive long enough to stop the unstoppable.
This latest is a snooze fest unless, of course, you like particularly incoherent films about people killing other people in particularly brutal ways. It's an insult to anyone that liked John Carpenter's brilliant original. If you want to watch a Halloween movie then I suggest you go rent his!
|Page 1 of 4:||   |