It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:45 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 169 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true
I am continually surprised by how little commentary I see on these boards for the work of the Portuguese master Oliveira. I know that he's well respected here, of course, but I'm curious by how little has been said (that I have been able to access at least). For me, he is profoundly great and incredibly influential. I wonder how the rest of you see him and what your experiences with his work have been like. For a true laugh, or a mind numbing scare, just dial up any of his films on the good ol' IMDB or the reader reviews for what is available on Amazon. The comment that's posted on the main page for The Letter sums these responses up rather well: "SO BORING".

I wonder if this kind of thing is why he gets so little distribution or acknowledgment in the States. Even film professors I know seem often resistant to his techniques as they so clearly are indebted to the stage and literature. Yet what he does within his own predetermined parameters demonstrates what can be done within the form of cinema in its most refined and rareified state. His esoteric ambitions and his majestic understanding of irony do, I suppose, work against him sometimes, especially with those who could best benefit from his wisdom. Just witness those aforementioned Amazon reviews of A Talking Picture. It appears that viewers either hated the film or loved it for numbingly prosaic reasons--i.e. "What a great travelogue!"

What I most admire about Oliveira as an artist is his astonishing confidence in the face of indifference or dismissal. He evidences clear comprehension that the gretaest and most sublime accomplishments demand accepting the inevitability of total misreadings. For instance, when I saw his recent Magic Mirror the audience seemed overwhelmingly inclined to take the whole thing as pure comedy. While it certainly is very funny it is also rich and philosophically rewarding, its screenplay structured like a series of Socratic dialogues. But he does not force us to recognize those elements any more than he forces us to share his devotion to Ema in Abraham's Valley or his deep respect for Chiara Mastroianni's character in The Letter. All is part of a constituent whole and no one element has absolute authority over others or is privileged at the expense of others.

The state of Oliveira on DVD is pretty wretched. The R1 releases of Party, The Convent and Voyage to the Beginning of the World are passable at best, dire and uninspiring at worst. So much can be said about this work and the best I've seen is Richard Pena's informative but lackluster commentary on Oliveira's big "cross over" hit I'm Going Home. Many of his greatest and most important works, like Francisca, Doomed Love and No, or the Vain Glory of Command have no representation at all. And for God's sake don't get me started on the abysmal Vanguard transfer of his best work of the 90's, Abraham's Valley.

So, where do we turn for decent DVDs? Well, BlueplanetDVD has a great selection of titles (including the complete cut of Abraham's Valley in the proper aspect ratio and with the original Portuguese soundtrack; also, No, The Letter and Word and Utopia). Apparently there are several new French releases as well but I have not seen those to compare. The Blueplanet Portuguese editions come highly recommended as they each contain terrific and valuable supplements.

But what I'd give for a Criterion version of The Satin Slipper or Rite of Spring.

Maybe the forthcoming Belle Toujours will stoke up some interest in the necessary quarters.

Yeah. Right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
The problem I have with this dude, which is a problem I have with many directors, is there seems to be an uncritical assumption among his fans that everything he has made is brilliant. Plus people cut him a lot of slack because he's old. I've seen a large number of de Oliveira's films, because until recently they played annually at the NYFF. I've also seen some of the earlier ones, including The Satin Slipper which played for about a week in NY many years ago. Of those, only Abraham's Valley was in my mind an indisputable masterpiece. I also liked The Uncertainty Principle. But many of his films are undistinguished cinematically and extremely verbose and obscure. It is just tiresome to see the festival circuit greet his annual film as "de Oliveira's latest masterpiece!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true
Barmy wrote:
The problem I have with this dude, which is a problem I have with many directors, is there seems to be an uncritical assumption among his fans that everything he has made is brilliant.


You may have me there. I have yet to see several pieces (Day of Despair, Divine Comedy, and, perhaps most significantly, Aniki Bobo amongst them) but I find little fault in his work. I would like to think this is not the result of an "uncritical assumption", however. My position in respect to Oliveira has been hard won. My first exposure was a screening of The Convent which I initially despised. Some lingering quality remained, however; some hidden coherence drove me back. It rewarded me well upon my return. As I said before, Oliveira does not demand your affection, just your attention. His concerns may well be obscure, even sepulchral as one French critic suggested, but when did that become an inherently bad thing? Couldn't the same be said of Bunuel?

Sure, Oliveira's work is mostly of a piece formally but that doesn't make it undistinguished cinematically. To say so seems absurd. His technique is carefully considered, precise and sophisticated; it may well also be alienating. It requires a commensurate shift in audiencing technique, a more nuanced reception. Couldn't the same be said for directors like the Dardennes, the Straubs, Loach and, of course, Bresson?

Barmy wrote:
Plus people cut him a lot of slack because he's old.


They cut him slack? Are you kidding? I can think of few whose work is as formally rigorous or as philosophically dense. If I ever mention his age it is only to marvel that he is not just making films but making great ones.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:05 pm 

Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
Indeed he is.I fell in love with his work when I saw Mon Cas -- a Pirandello variation that has never been shown in the U.S.

I have an excellent Japanese DVD of The Letter. I'm Going Home is still my favorite, for obvious reasons.

There's no one remotely like him -- and not just because he's getting close to 100 years-old.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: San Diego
Perhaps Manoel de Oliveira's reputation suffers because he made the poor career choice to be born in a smaller country lacking the population or resources to stand on the world cinema stage. Theo Angelopoulos (Greece), Sergei Parajanov and Ardavazt Peleshian (both Armenian) and to a lesser extent, Binka Zheliazkova (Bulgaria) and Mircea Daneliuc (Romania), are masters whose work gets overlooked partly because they hail from "less sexy" regions than France, Italy, Japan or, more recently, southeast Asia. Saying you're into Greek cinema just doesn't have the same ring as, "I'm into French film," or at least it doesn't seem to in many people's eyes. Perhaps it's a simple case of cultural snobbishness, or maybe just ignorance. Whatever the reasons, someone like Oliveira can produce as many masterpieces as they like - and I think he's made several, starting with Aniki-Bobo and including the recent The Uncertainty Principle - and still fail to win the critical consensus bestowed upon many other (equally deserving, I might add) directors hailing from recognized cinema centers.

Of course, Barmy has a point - the man is respected enough to be greeted with cries of "masterpiece" upon the release of each new film. Such behavior by blinded fans can actually hurt an artist's cause - how many masterpieces can someone produce? Isn't it possible Oliveira might have an off picture? But all in all, I think he deserves his accolades. And yes, his age counts for something. He may not carry the same weight as Antonioni, but I think of them as brothers in arms. Both are in their 90s and still working. They represent the mere handful of legendary living film artists - the world will be a much lesser place when both of these men are gone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 4:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
I respect him for making one film every year, just like Woody (i.e. the American Oliveira). But no one can write/direct a great film on an annual basis. So I think there is a quality control issue as well.

He attended the NYFF in person in 2001 and looked pretty darn spry!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 5:55 pm 

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm
Location: Rain City, USA
Quote:
The problem I have with this dude, which is a problem I have with many directors, is there seems to be an uncritical assumption among his fans that everything he has made is brilliant.


I virtually had never heard of Oliveira before this thread (the exception being "A Talking Picture," which I haven't seen yet). I also haven't seen him discussed anywhere here, and beyond the film I mentioned, not very much abroad either, but his work sounds very interesting. What film would members here recommend as an introduction?


Last edited by Dylan on Mon May 01, 2006 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 6:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: San Diego
John Cope and David Ehrenstein may have some additional recommendations, and they seem to have surer footing on this than I do, but as Ehrenstein hinted, you could very well start with his more recent and mainstream offering, I'm Going Home, the "hit" that kind of brought his name into more common parlance here in the states. A little more character-driven than some of his earlier films, it has a wonderful performance by Michel Piccoli as an older actor struggling with tragedy off stage. That sounds extremely cliched, but I assure you, the film is not. The painful scene where a miscast Piccoli clumsily tries to stand in for a sick Buck Mulligan (during a James Joyce stage adaptation) is both funny and kind of heartbreaking. And that's how the film goes on, lurching gracefully between wit and bleakness.

Incidentally, here's a nice overview of Oliveira by Randal Johnson, a professor of Luso-Brazilian culture and Portugese cinema.

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/ ... veira.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 7:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am
Gemini Video is preparing a DVD set of Oliveira's The Satin Slipper, to be released in 2006.

Edit: After more than two years, no word on this, despite the CNC subvention. On the other hand, much of Oliveira's 1970s and 1980s work has been released in Spain, with Spanish subtitles.


Last edited by jonah.77 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:29 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 1:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true
I guess I would recommend I'm Going Home as well to start out with, though in some ways its the least Oliveira-ish of his recent (post Cannibals) work. It may be beneficial though as it gives you a pretty good idea of his stylistic tendencies without being as confrontational or potentially alienating as much of the other stuff. After that, and of the films which are readily available, I'd probably direct you to Voyage to the Beginning of the World or Talking Picture. It's hard to say. I adore Party for instance, but even many fans seem to hate it. I wouldn't recommend The Convent as a way to ease into his aesthetic but someone else might find it more immediately accessible, perhaps especially if one is feeling puckish.

To address this idea once again of supposed blind critical indifference to degrees of quality I can only say this: certainly Oliveira has made some films I prefer over others but if the form remains consistent as does the underlying philosophy why fault him for having mastered it?

And, yeah, he still looks good (a result maybe of being an athlete in his younger years). He appeared at the Chicago Film Fest last year for, apparently, the first time, in support of Magic Mirror which was being screened in competition. He was affable and willing to spend a lot of time with the audience afterwards. Despite all this, I do recognize that at this point every film we get is a genuine blessing. He has a number of projects lined up but I really do hope he'll complete the trilogy which began with Uncertainty Principle and continues with Magic Mirror. Late career trilogies such as the ones he and Angelopoulos are embarking on always make me a little wary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 4:26 am 
They call us neo-cinephiles
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:51 am
Location: Malmo, Sweden
John Cope wrote:
I really do hope he'll complete the trilogy which began with Uncertainty Principle and continues with Magic Mirror.

I saw Magic Mirror recently and had no idea it was related to The Uncertainty Principle (which I haven't seen). How are the films connected?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 10:44 am 
"Without obsession, life is nothing"
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
I hope I'm not making a blunder here (me being portuguese and all) but I think that both films are connected in that they are adaptations of two books by the same author: the equally portuguese and equally important Agustina Bessa Luís.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 3:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true
That's right, Annie. She and Oliveira have had a long lasting working relationship and these titles are based on her novels. Basically Oliveira uses some of the same actors in both (perennial muse Leonor Silveira, Ricardo Trepa, Leonor Baldaque and the ever estimable Luis Miguel Cintra) and there are suggestions that Magic Mirror is a continuation of The Uncertainty Principle. This is not entirely clear as the actors play different characters, with the possible exception of Trepa whose character remains enigmatic connective tissue, a teasingly ambiguous tether to the first film's concerns. In that sense then, Magic Mirror is not a traditional sequel. Actors take on identities in the new film that are often diametrically opposed to their previous incarnations in the last film. As always, this is a meditation on philosophical and epistemological ideas framed like a dramatic narrative. Characters represent different ideologies in conflict or dialogue. The film itself may be considered in dialogue with its predecessor. Oliveira sets it all in motion and we take in the results.

BTW, ola t, you didn't mention your response to Magic Mirror. For me, it's one of his richest works yet. It's a shame that a DVD may be years away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 10:51 am 
They call us neo-cinephiles
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:51 am
Location: Malmo, Sweden
John Cope wrote:
BTW, ola t, you didn't mention your response to Magic Mirror.

I'm afraid I was too tired (that's the downside with film festivals; I had to pick a late night screening of this or I'd have missed a couple of other films I also wanted to see) to be able to plumb its depths, as it were, but I did enjoy the elegant visuals and the late-Bunuelian comedy aspect of it. I'll definitely see it again when I get the chance.

Most of the Copenhagen audience seemed quite hostile. For some technical reason, the film was shown with a brief intermission, and during the break you could hear people muttering that the large amounts of dialogue (and very small amounts of camera trickery) were a sign of Oliveira's senility, and someone was pleading loudly, "Can't we leave? Can't we leave?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 12:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
That is a common reaction to Oliveira on the festival circuit, and you cannot dismiss it as a reaction by the ignorant. After all, presumably the festival audience is a bit more refined than the general public. (Also look at the imdb reviews, which are so hostile it's quite funny.)

I appreciate his unique style, and as I said before he has done a handful of great films. But I think it is a bit pretentious to uncritically support his repeated use of gobs and gobs of obscure dialogue, coupled with the lack of any particular stylistic flourish.

So we can still hold out hope for Satin Slipper II?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 7:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true
Am I misguided to suggest that part of the reason he is not received with overwhelming enthusiasm by everyone (as though that's ever going to be possible) is that his concerns, his philosophical approach and his deeply religious sensibility simply aren't fashionable? Certainly the Dardennes, for instance, are also Christian artists but they don't foreground that detail; you don't have to contend with Oliveira's trenchant theological rhetoric; the implications are submerged within social parables.

And once again, Barmy, why is obscurity automatically a bad thing? The work is not impenetrable, it just requires patient consideration, which, admittedly, you're more likely to give it if you feel the subjects under discussion are worthwhile.

As to festival audience reception, and at the risk of implicating myself, I think it's clear that festival attendance is not some instant bestowal of "sophistication", though many might like to think so. Sometimes it all ends there.


Last edited by John Cope on Thu May 04, 2006 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 12:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
I have no issues with CINEMATIC obscurity or impenetrability. And, personally, I don't give a damn what the festival audience thinks. Nevertheless, film is a communicative art. At EVERY NYFF screening of an MO film I have attended (there have been many), it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of the audience hate his films. Not just dislike...HATE.

My principal issue is the gobs of OBSCURE dialogue (and don't dare compare him to Rohmer, as that article did--Rohmer's gobs of dialogue is not "obscure"). Valley of Abraham proved that MO had the ability to make cinematically arresting films. He has never even come close since then to equalling that achievement.

Ultimately, it's a matter of taste. I would MUCH rather spend my time with the obscurities of Jancso and Robbe-Grillet, for example, because if nothing else they are doing something that is visually interesting. Reams of subtitled, difficult, Portuguese or French dialogue are, to me, not worth the trouble of repeat visits if we are just watching fixed shots of actors jabbering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true
Thought it might be interesting to get some responses about this one. As per usual, Manoel de Oliveira is set to deliver his yearly offering of cinematic greatness (that one was for you, Barmy). This time he's made the audacious decision to give us a sequel to Belle de jour. From the mouth of the master himself, here's his explanation:

Quote:
Belle toujours occurred to me unexpectedly and, as I had the will to pay my tribute to Luis Buñuel and Jean-Claude Carrière, I was happy to have found a way to do so, perhaps the best, and I started working. What is it about? Taking two of the strange characters from the film Belle de Jour, and make them relive, thirty eight years later, in the strangeness of a secret which was only in the possession of the masculine character and a knowledge that had become crucial to the female character. Thus, passed this time, they meet again. She tries to avoid him by all means. But he stalks her and eventually manages to gain her attention with the intention of revealing the secret that he alone can unfold. They set a meeting, a dinner, where she expects that all will be revealed. During dinner, she, now a widow, awaits the expected revelation: what he had told her husband while he was mute and paralytic because of a gunshot wound fired by a lover of hers. The situation is tense and she ends up in despair without being able to find out what in truth happened. He is satisfied in his sadism and in his particular revenge from the ways of that woman, who deep down desired him but whose haughty ways never allowed him to possess her.

The interesting thing here will be to see how much this movie will owe to its predecessor in terms of style, tone and theme. For despite the fact that Oliveira has often been compared to Bunuel I tend to think of it as a kind of lazy comparison (sort of like lumping all avant garde artists from the first half of the last century together under the broad label of "surrealist"). They do share certain similarities, especially in terms of the social milieu their works tend to inhabit and the value they place on irony, but their underlying life philosophies are tremendously different. Really, I think that if some people see an upper class gathering (especially around a dinner table!) in a film that also has smatterings of obvious satire, its automatically Bunelian (not meant to indicate you, bunuelian)--whatever that is.

Another interesting facet here is the very likely possibility that Belle toujours will premiere at the Venice Fest. This is interesting because Catherine Deneuve is presiding over the jury this year and, evidently, Oliveira had asked her to reprise her role and she turned him down (it went to Bulle Ogier). Deneuve and Oliveira have worked together before and one would assume that she would be particularly excited about this opportunity. It could be that she had something else scheduled or maybe she didn't want to return to this after all but somehow that seems unlikely to me as she would probably recognize the great potential here, especially with a director she seems to admire so much. Could they have had a falling out about where Oliveira intended to take this character? Could this be a conflict of interest?

Oh, and Barmy, to countermand your presumptive comment up front, you will hopefully get a chance to attend yet another Oliveira film you will actively dislike at the NYFF this year and can report back on how everyone in the audience howled with disgust and threw their programs at the screen. Damn those autocratic festival programmers. When will they ever listen to the voice of the people?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Belle toujours
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:49 pm
Location: Cologne
Very interesting. Certainly Belle toujours will put Oliveira's name out there to a greater extent, and probably it'll make the leap from the festival circuit to relatively wide theatrical release faster than his other films. It's unfortunate that Deneuve couldn't/wouldn't be in the film. I'll definitely watch for this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Belle toujours
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
Wow, dude is going commercial! His next project: Basic Instinct III (again starring Ogier).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:18 am 

Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
I interviewed Joao Pedro Rodriques yesterday and he told me that Deneuve and De Oliviera had a big falling out. She gave a cover story of not wanting to do the film out of loyalty to Bunuel, but apparently the antipathy goes deeper.

The mind boggles at the thought of a fight between a movie goddess and the world's oldest working filmmaker.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true
In the most recent Film Comment, Phillip Lopate wrote about Belle toujours as seen at Cannes earlier this year:

Quote:
One of the happiest discoveries at Cannes was Manoel de Oliveira's Belle toujours. This sly, witty work by the nonagenarian Portuguese master was not invited to any competition categories but turned up in the Market. Its premise is to revisit Bunuel's Belle de jour some 40 years later, or at least two of its characters, marvelously played by Michel Piccoli and Bulle Ogier (la Deneuve declined to participate, apparently having had her fill of working for Oliveira, so Ogier obliged by taking the part of the aging/ageless blonde). In Piccoli's protagonist, the years have wrought their changes: lust has given way to a cheerfully acknowledged alcoholism and obsessive curiosity; he stalks Belle through Paris, only to catch up with her at last to find her reformed and rueful about her past promiscuity. The comedy of manners between them is both delicate and delightful. There is also a wonderfully generous freedom in this tribute that one major director pays another, and Oliveira catches something of the dry perversity of Bunuel's later period, while bringing his own verbally bubbling spirit to the table.

Given the fact that Belle toujours is not in the official competition at Venice, Deneuve at least won't have to deal with awarding it anything.

Two contrasting takes on the film are now up at d+kaz and The House Next Door.

Little doubt as to whose point of view I'm more inclined to accept (I'll be seeing this at the Chicago Fest in a couple of weeks). So, those of you who saw this in Toronto (or New York), what are your thoughts on it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:58 pm 

Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:28 pm
It's good. Not Oliveira's best recent film (The Uncertainty Principle) but not his worst either (A Talking Picture). (To be fair I've seen only 8 of the last 13 features, so I may have yet to see the best and/or the worst.) I prefer it somewhat to the Bunuel, which I find a bit unengaging. But then, I despise Catherine Deneuve, so take that for what it's worth (then again, I'm not terribly fond of Bulle Ogier either). It's breezy, funny, beautiful and poignant. A very good, if slight, film from a master.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
fred wrote:
But then, I despise Catherine Deneuve, so take that for what it's worth (then again, I'm not terribly fond of Bulle Ogier either).

The members of this forum never cease to shock me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Matt wrote:
fred wrote:
But then, I despise Catherine Deneuve, so take that for what it's worth (then again, I'm not terribly fond of Bulle Ogier either).

The members of this forum never cease to shock me.

I agree. Mystifying. Especially when such opinions are expressed in the manner of a drive-by shooting.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 169 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


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