It is currently Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:53 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:29 pm 

Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:02 pm
Mr Sausage wrote:
The end of the movie is most definitely not saying that everything is pathetic and empty and whatever. The sisters don't have have a pathetic, empty death precisely because we already have an example of that--Kiefer Sutherland's death--which stands in contradistinction to the sisters' deaths. Melancholia is, really, a perverse affirmation: oblivion is lovely.


[Reveal] Spoiler:
Yeah, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think that Von Trier thinks that "these comforts like love are pathetic — as pathetic as sitting in a stick hut waiting for the world to end — but they're all we have" is an affirmative statement in its own weird way, and I just disagree that it's affirmative. I personally don't see any difference between the way Kiefer Sutherland died and the way the main characters die, but I guess that has more to do with me than the movie.


Anyway, my original point was that I don't like the way that Von Trier often conveys the hollowness of existence by purposely making his movies feel cold and hollow, and that I wish he would make more movies like Breaking The Waves. Although you've managed to convince me that Melancholia might not be totally cold and hollow, I fear that this movie will be like that given that Von Trier has described it as "a celebration of the idea that life is evil and soulless."


Last edited by Peter-H on Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
As a depressed person, I will say that I can second Sausage's argument in saying that Melancholia was the first film I've seen that truly captures the awful feeling that the only death that wouldn't be frightening is utter oblivion, without anything to miss in its wake. It's not a pretty thought, but it is one that I was emotionally overwhelmed to find out that I wasn't alone in. That makes it a beautiful film to me - emptiness is not hopeless to everyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:17 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Peter-H wrote:
I don't think that there's really any difference between the way Kiefer Sutherland died and the way the main characters die, but I guess that has more to do with me than the movie.

You don't think there's anything different between, on the one hand, taking your own life and leaving your family to deal with the consequences on their own and, on the other, staying with your family to help comfort and support them in the end? If not then, truly, you feel death makes everything pointless and value impossible. But plainly this is not the case for Von Trier, otherwise he wouldn't have taken such pains to dramatize this distinction in his movie. Nor taken such pains to show how the family member so fucked-up by depression that they are a burden to those around them can, in the end, use their depression to comfort and solace their family and create a moment of unity, whereas the stable, paternal figure of authority is incapable in the end of actually being there for the family he made the pretense of protecting. Von Trier is, again perversely, finding a kind of value in the depression that haunts him. This is a rather beautiful film, and we don't need to let the extinguishing of the world prevent us from taking something aesthetically and emotionally valuable from the ideas that Von Trier is dramatizing.


Anyway, why do you think Von Trier's films are showing the hollowness of the world by being hollow? What about them is hollow? I never got the sense his movies were enacting the thing they're criticizing; there usually seems to be a distance from the material wherein you can feel Von Trier watching and judging. What am I missing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:12 am 

Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:02 pm
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Peter-H wrote:
I don't think that there's really any difference between the way Kiefer Sutherland died and the way the main characters die, but I guess that has more to do with me than the movie.

You don't think there's anything different between, on the one hand, taking your own life and leaving your family to deal with the consequences on their own and, on the other, staying with your family to help comfort and support them in the end? If not then, truly, you feel death makes everything pointless and value impossible. But plainly this is not the case for Von Trier, otherwise he wouldn't have taken such pains to dramatize this distinction in his movie. Nor taken such pains to show how the family member so fucked-up by depression that they are a burden to those around them can, in the end, use their depression to comfort and solace their family and create a moment of unity, whereas the stable, paternal figure of authority is incapable in the end of actually being there for the family he made the pretense of protecting. Von Trier is, again perversely, finding a kind of value in the depression that haunts him. This is a rather beautiful film, and we don't need to let the extinguishing of the world prevent us from taking something aesthetically and emotionally valuable from the ideas that Von Trier is dramatizing.


I would say although someone has a moral obligation to comfort their family members in that situation, being moments from imminent doom would feel equally bad whether I'm alone or with others. You may disagree, but that's how I feel.

My original point in talking about Melancholia was to say that its worldview seems to be opposite that of Breaking the Waves, and I said that this is probably because he was a Catholic then but isn't now, but I no longer think that, so whether or not Melancholia is nihilistic isn't really relevant now.

Mr Sausage wrote:
Anyway, why do you think Von Trier's films are showing the hollowness of the world by being hollow? What about them is hollow? I never got the sense his movies were enacting the thing they're criticizing; there usually seems to be a distance from the material wherein you can feel Von Trier watching and judging. What am I missing?


Perhaps it's not purposeful like I said it was; maybe Von Trier doesn't literally think "I'm going to make my movie feel hollow to represent the hollowness of existence," but I do thinkhis nihilistic worldview seems to be reflected in the feel of his movies. For instance, look at the way his characters act. Almost all of them act like robots who are programmed to be evil and have no empathy:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Take the way that Seligman in Nymphomaniac listens to all of these stories about Joe completely destroying lives and marriages, and seems baffled at the idea that she should feel bad about it. Or take the way that seemingly not-evil characters throughout the movie inexplicably turn out to be completely evil; like that girl who fell in love with Joe and was so devoted to her that she was willing to become her protege, but then out of nowhere apparently hates her so much that she stands by as she is brutally beaten, gets fucked in front of her just to spite her, and then pisses on her. Or take Seligman all of a sudden becoming a rapist. In both of these cases, we have characters who could be construed as good turning out to be extremely evil, despite the fact that there doesn't seem to be any reason for them doing the things they do, because in Von Trier world, the answer to "why did this character do this evil thing?" is always just "people are evil, duh."

Or take Melancholia. Here we have more examples of a seemingly good and loving people turning out to be quite unlikable and selfish: her father and the guy she's getting married to abandon her in her time of need. Then there's that scene where she randomly fucks that guy on the golf course. I mean, I understand how her doing that is a demonstration of how deep her depression is, but the idea that the guy would go along with it seems pretty ridiculous. Most people would not have sex with a girl they just met on her wedding day. Again, the answer to the question of why he does this is "people are evil, duh." Also, Kiefer Sutherland and the mom are portrayed as fairly horrible and unlikable people, so basically everyone in the movie is pretty horrible except for Claire and the kid.

Dogville is another example. The people of Dogville deserved punishment, but the movie seemed to acknowledge that the specific form of punishment that Grace meted out was unjust on some level; for instance, take the way that the camera focuses on a defenseless crying baby being executed. It's also the case that Grace ends up deciding to work for her father, and so will presumably end up doing all sorts of evil things herself. So it seems that every character in the movie is either evil or becomes evil, and a lot of the time the reasons for why people turn evil don't make that much sense; take Tom's motivation for turning Grace into the mob for example. I understand that this movie is Brechtian and so it's not supposed to be realistic, but it still support's my point about the "humanity is evil" trope being ubiquitous in Von Trier films.

My problem isn't that he portrays humanity as evil; it's that every character feels like a chess piece that he moves around to get across his misanthropic point. The worlds of his movies feel empty in the way that a world filled with automatons would feel empty. That's what these characters feel like; automatons who are wired to be maximally horrible. Even the dialogue sometimes feels like it's being spoken by automatons: I never once bought the idea that the conversation between Joe and Steligman in Nymphomaniac was one that two real people would have. I actually really like Dogville because I think the Brechtian style suits the artificial feel of Von Triers stories and characters, but that artificiality doesn't work as well in his other films. Overall, it seems like Von Trier has no respect for humanity, and so doesn't care if his characters act like humans or if his films have any humanity in them.

But it's not just that, it's the relationships as well. For example, while it's true that Claire is one of the few genuinely good and loving people in Von Trier's filmography, the relationship between her and Justine still felt hollow when compared to the similar relationship (in both cases a woman is taking care of someone who's mentally ill) between Dodo and Bess in Breaking The Waves; in that movie, there are all these beautifully warm and tender moments between the two. For instance, take when Dodo chokes up while she's giving the speech at Bess's wedding. Or take that scene towards the end when Dodo Tells Bess that her husband is dying, and at that moment Bess realizes that she's going to have to sacrifice herself, and Bess looks into Dodo's eyes and says "I know you love me," and Dodo smiles warmly at her and just nods. I feel like there's nothing even close to those moments in Melancholia or in any of Von Trier's post Dancer In The Dark work; there's more humanity in those two little moments than in all 4 hours of Nymphomaniac.

Also, while there's lots of tragedy in his films, we're not supposed to empathize with the characters who are going through it, rather we're supposed to view them as if they were a bugs under a microscope, and so tragedy — just like everything else in his films — is stripped of humanity.

It even feels like his movies are often physically pervaded with a sense of emptiness. The unsettling austerity of many of the environments in Nymphomaniac, the eerie silence of Eden in Antichrist, the empty and desolate mansion in the second half of Melancholia, the way that The Boss Of It All is shot so that there's often lots of unnecessary space in the frame, and the minimalist set of Dogville are all examples of this.


My point is that Von Trier says that life is "soulless and evil," and that's exactly how the worlds in his movies feel to me: soulless and evil.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:34 am 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
You're wrong about Melancholia, oddly enough because you're being more reductionist and judgemental of the characters than Von Trier (hard to believe, I know, but here we are). You're making the mistake of thinking that because someone makes a bad choice, or behaves unlikeably at some point, they're a bad person. Agreeing in the moment to someone's aggressive seduction (especially when you've spent the evening being very attracted to them) does not make you a bad person, and surely the character we're referring to can at most be described as 'passive' in that moment. The husband and father do not leave because they are bad people; it's because this is the toll of mental illness. It drives others away. So, yes, some turn out to be awful, some seem like fine or neutral people who make bad or stressful decisions, and some seem like regular, decent people with their share of flaws. Melancholia is not a movie about the cleansing of human garbage; it's about depression. If the world were indeed merely awful, empty, and ugly, then it wouldn't be depression, it'd be common sense.

As for the rest of the films mentioned, sure, why not. Movies or novels of ideas are always liable to turn characters into pieces for the artist to move at the behest of his ideas, and Von Trier has always been open to the criticism that he treats his characters like he's a sadistic puppetmaster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Von Trier creates a spiritual vacuum, which necessarily suggests hope - a filmmaker should not be castigated for making movies only about aberrations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:49 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am
I hate to tell you, but LvT's stated impetus for making Breaking the Waves was to make women cry. So the emotional manipulation on display there was maybe not as heartfelt as you might believe. I would look elsewhere for affirmation. I think his only advantage at being a nihilist over a peer like Bela Tarr is he's got A sense of humor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
His intentions don't really matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL
And it's not like he's above saying something just to troll the world, either. Putting any faith in that quote seems like bigger folly than trying to read the film for his intentions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC
Mr Sausage wrote:
I don't think the ending of Melancholia has anything to do with hope. There is no hope in the movie
As another person who lives with depression I concur with everything you've written in this thread, but am interested in what you mean by this? I'm not sure if the ending of the film had anything to do with hope, but personally I found it hopeful if not triumphant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:28 am 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
Hope in the traditional sense that I felt the poster was using, like hope that things can be better, or a hope for a traditional redemption, or a hope for humanity (not very applicable at the end of humanity).

I kind of overstated my point because, yeah, the hope of release is arguably there at the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Björk has accused von Trier of sexually harassing her throughout the filming of Dancer in the Dark. From her Facebook page:

Björk, capitalization is verbatim from the original post, so (sic) implied where applicable wrote:
in the spirit of #metoo i would like to lend women around the world a hand with a more detailed description of my experience with a danish director . it feels extremely difficult to come out with something of this nature into the public , especially when immediately ridiculed by offenders . i fully sympathise with everyone who hesitates , even for years . but i feel it is the right time especially now when it could make a change . here comes a list of the encounters that i think count as sexual harassment :

1 after each take the director ran up to me and wrapped his arms around me for a long time in front of all crew or alone and stroked me sometimes for minutes against my wishes

2 when after 2 months of this i said he had to stop the touching , he exploded and broke a chair in front of everyone on set . like someone who has always been allowed to fondle his actresses . then we all got sent home
.
3 during the whole filming process there were constant awkward paralysing unwanted whispered sexual offers from him with graphic descriptions , sometimes with his wife standing next to us .

4 while filming in sweden , he threatened to climb from his room´s balcony over to mine in the middle of the night with a clear sexual intention , while his wife was in the room next door . i escaped to my friends room . this was what finally woke me up to the severity of all this and made me stand my ground

5 fabricated stories in the press about me being difficult by his producer . this matches beautifully the weinstein methods and bullying . i have never eaten a shirt . not sure that is even possible .

6 i didnt comply or agree on being sexually harassed . that was then portrayed as me being difficult . if being difficult is standing up to being treated like that , i´ll own it .

hope

let´s break this curse

warmth

björk

Though this was a response to the initial, more vague allegation and not the detailed post above, this is von Trier's response:

Variety wrote:
Von Trier denied the allegations on Monday, telling the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, “That is not the case — although we didn’t get along, that’s a fact. … On the other hand, she delivered one of the greatest-ever performances in my movies.”

Producer Peter Aalbæk Jensen added, in a comment that may have lost something in translation, “As far as I remember, we were victims. That woman was stronger than both Lars von Trier and me and our company together.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
Well that's very troubling. This is one of my favorite movies, and both she and he did great work in it. There is probably an argument that she needed to be in a troubled state to pull off this performance but there are other ways. Like, you know, acting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
This isn't going to go down incredibly smoothly here but......here I go anyway:

I think that even compared to a few short years ago, we are living in a much more open, enlightened, and informed era today than we were even when Dancer in the Dark was made. There have been enough stories about von Trier over the years to know that making films with him is far from an enjoyable experience for anyone involved - that has always been the price of admission of watching them, and I'm not necessarily sure that this [brave, detailed] admission from Björk necessarily changes that fact. She said herself in her other post that it sounds like his style of working has softened greatly since then, and none of this excuses any of that behavior, but if this opens the floodgates for a litany of accusations of a violent and/or sexual nature against von Trier, obviously we're having a different conversation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am
All sounds pretty Weinsteinian. It really seems like a strange kind of blindness on the part of men like this – like, an assumed reciprocity that, for the other party, clearly isn’t there. Also, a telling (both social and film industry) cultural observation that it’s taken this long for Björk to publicly discuss the specific details of what LvT did, even when her unhappiness about the shoot was already such public knowledge. That it is (and so many other stories are) coming out now surely represents progress. As Julian Assange (yes, I know) says, “lights on, rats out”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
I guess the question (which feels far too respectful of von Trier's perspective on these incidents) would be whether he was trying to push buttons or was sincerely making overtures that were (ugh) romantic in nature. It makes the world's smallest modicum of difference from the perspective of someone being victimized in that way but it does sort of make it veer into that "anything for the art" territory that Weinstein had zero interest in - he was just trying to get sexual gratification in a fashion that made him feel powerful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
There's a world of difference between verbally propositioning someone (possibly even as a joke in the teller's mind, even if that doesn't translate) and disingenuously scheduling meetings in hotel rooms where you await in a bathrobe. But actresses shouldn't have to deal with either. There's "difficult" and then there's abuse.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:53 pm 

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am
I think it's resoundingly clear that Von Trier was an addict, joker, and exceedingly politically incorrect. It's also clear that Bjork is a fierce and independent person with a history of speaking out and acting out. Her unhappiness with him was broadcast loud and clear at the time of production. His film previous to Dancer he directed completely nude....I'm sure he's secretly relishing his full transformation into Perverted SS Captain. As an aside, I met His producer Peter Albaek Jensen at Cannes, and dude was straight up nice. Gave me, a snot nosed kid (I was an intern), his personal business card, and answered his phone himself when I called it. He had nothing to gain.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am
I don't think anyone here is suggesting this, but any idea that von Trier's directorial mystique and power depend on his behavior as a sexual predator is complete nonsense. Dancer in the Dark is not a good movie because Björk had to ward off his poorly and eccentrically coded sexual advances. That is just part of the "edgy brooding artist" myth stemming from so-called "outlaw" cinema: "Yes, he's an asshole, but look at the beauty he [inevitably 'he'] created." It's a bunch of macho horseshit. I have always recoiled from the auteur theory almost on this basis alone: its potential for excusing cruelty. Any system or theory that lends the individual too much power within a cohesive group is rife for this kind of abuse, whether it's director-as-god or studio-head-as-god.

Without evidence to the contrary, we need to err on the side of believing the victim. We should know by now that "due process" is most often at the mercy of deep pockets, and to say merely that so-and-so will have her day in court--that we should therefore abstain from all judgment--does no service to justice. Björk has nothing to gain by exposing herself to the ridicule and doubts of von Trier's predominantly male coterie of fans. I say this as someone who really enjoyed DitD, Breaking the Waves, The Kingdom, Europa, and Antichrist. We need to stop freaking out defensively and inhibiting victims when our favorite directors are implicated. Cinema is problematic in many respects; there will always be Polanskis and Allens and Cosbys and Weinsteins and Warners and Gibsons and Afflecks and von Triers that we need to reconcile with our personal (and, frankly, comparatively meaningless) enjoyment of film. Cinema is not sacrosanct to the point of running roughshod over women.

The whole #metoo exposure is incredibly bracing. My wife, my mother, and virtually every woman I know has had to deal with this despicable bullshit at one time or another. I apologize for ranting--I have respect for this forum, and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir--but all of the Weinstein revelations really frost me, almost more so for the cagey responses from his male friends and colleagues who HAD to have known what was happening.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Less in the camp of "this behavior made Dancer in the Dark a better film" and more in the camp of "Dancer in the Dark is a great work of art with and without these revelations." Felt that clarification was necessary as I'm largely in agreement with your post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am
Understood. Like I said, I realize I'm in like-minded company to the point of making my post nearly superfluous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
I'm in the camp of "Dancer in the Dark is an insufferable film, just as von Trier is an insufferable person," so the news somehow doesn't surprise me.

[ducks]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom
gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:
Without evidence to the contrary, we need to err on the side of believing the victim.

I'm not like-minded with that approach, which looks indistinguishable from a presumption of guilt.

Here in the UK, at one time (less so now I suspect), the police used to remember their ABC - Assume nothing, Believe nobody, Check everything.

gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:
...the cagey responses from his male friends and colleagues who HAD to have known what was happening.

The predicament facing Weinstein and von Trier now might separate real friends from also-rans. I'm not aware of any friend of Weinstein who has offered him the support that a friend or spouse should in time of adversity, even if it turns out to be adversity that the subject brought on himself or herself.

Regardless of whether an allegation is true and someone knew it to be true, we should never expect a person to betray a friend. The law in some places respects that position for spouses, but not for friends.

It's sad that some people condemn such loyalty. When Donna Karan tried to support Weinstein (somewhat clumsily, by her own admission), Rose McGowan saw fit to call her "scum".

On reflection, in a similar situation, I might insist that my friends, for their own sake, not support me. Maybe Weinstein and von Trier have done that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:45 am
I remember reading/hearing that Nicole Kidman was staying in a hotel room next to LvT during the filming of “Dogville,” and he constantly had porn blasting from his room. I don’t remember any mention of any sexual advances, but none of these revelations are too surprising, unfortunately.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lars von Trier
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Colpeper wrote:
Regardless of whether an allegation is true and someone knew it to be true, we should never expect a person to betray a friend. The law in some places respects that position for spouses, but not for friends.

It's sad that some people condemn such loyalty.

Huh? I'm glad that you're pleased with the idea of a person allowing their personal or professional friendship with someone to blind them to the writing on the wall about that person, but by no means should anyone expect anyone to delude themselves out of some sort of misguided concept of loyalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection