Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

The Missing (2003)

Recommended Posts

One of the Ted Baehrisms I like to gripe about the most is his claim that Ron Howard's The Grinch was a basically "Christian" film, for no apparently better reason than the fact that Howard supposedly goes to church. I wonder, then, what Baehr will make of The Missing, which is basically all about the interweaving of Christian and pagan spirituality -- I would even say it is about the erasing of the line between religion and magic (to the extent that there IS a line; among anthropologists, I gather the subject is a matter of some debate), except we see no formal "religion" in this film beyond the personal faith of Cate Blanchett's character, her boyfriend, and her daughters.

THEMATIC (BUT NOT REALLY PLOT) SPOILERS

Suffice to say, though, that by the end of this film, there has been an exchange of spiritually-significant jewelry -- Cate is wearing Tommy Lee Jones's Apache necklace to ward off a curse, and Tommy Lee Jones is wearing Cate's cross. And this linking of Native American magic with Christian faith is made explicit in one scene in which an Indian healing ceremony is performed on a certain person while someone stands off to the side, reciting the "begats" at the beginning of Matthew's gospel. Now, while it is true that the Epistle of James talks about anointing sick people with oil, and while I think the Book of Acts even alludes to people being healed because items blessed by the apostles were brought to them, and while all of this may seem phenomenologically identical to "magic", I cannot think of anything in the Bible which would indicate that we should just recite any old text at random in order to heal someone, especially an almost meaningless string of names; during this scene, I was reminded of the amulets and incantations collected in one of the books on my shelf, namely Ancient Christian Magic, edited by Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith.

I could say more about this film, but I haven't got time at the moment. Might later, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG   

Whoa. Thanks for the heads-up, Peter. I'm seeing it tomorrow (Wednesday) night. It was a choice between that and Timeline on Thursday; I wonder if I mischose? Then again, maybe not.

while I think the Book of Acts even alludes to people being healed because items blessed by the apostles were brought to them

Yes, even articles like handkerchiefs going out from the apostles produced healings, just as touching Jesus' robe healed the woman with the issue of blood. This goes very much to the Catholic spirituality of relics.

I seem to recall discussing prayer vs. magic with you once. It seems to me that prayer and religion essentially involve a calling to conform one's will and self to a higher reality, whereas magic is essentially a technique for conforming lower reality to one's own will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I gotta wait until next Tuesday, but a couple of critics are going so far as to call it Howard's most well-crafted film. Agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I gotta wait until next Tuesday, but a couple of critics are going so far as to call it Howard's most well-crafted film. Agree?

I found very little to criticize in Apollo 13 so I think that's staying at the top of my list of Ron Howard films. But this may be a close second. An excellent script. Blanchett was very strong and IMHO, it's one of Jones' best performances. There's a lot going on and multiple levels at which to enjoy the film - the abduction and the chase - the relationship between Blanchett and Jones - the character arc of the older daughter (and for that matter, the younger daughter) - Christian faith vs. Indian spiritualism - and one really evil bad guy. Howard wove them together very nicely. It's a fine film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

Are your all-lower-case subject titles a response to my typical ALL CAPS subject lines? :|

Here's my Ron Howard rundown:

Missing, The - ..........

A Beautiful Mind, A (2001) - B

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) - C

Edtv (1999) - Haven't seen it.

Ransom (1996) - B

Apollo 13 (1995) - B+

Paper, The (1994) - Haven't seen it.

Far and Away (1992) - Haven't seen it.

Backdraft (1991) - C+

Parenthood (1989) - B

Willow (1988) - C+

Gung Ho (1986) - C+

Cocoon (1985) - B

Splash (1984) - Haven't seen it.

Night Shift (1982)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anders   

Anyone seen Grand Theft Auto? I haven't either, but it's his first feature film (as a director, but he also starred), and the cover looks pretty funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

solishu wrote:

: Jeffrey, wasn't Willow a George Lucas movie?

George Lucas hasn't directed anything but Star Wars movies ever since 1973 ... when he directed American Graffiti ... starring Ron Howard.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:

: Howard directed it, Lucas wrote and produced it.

Methinks it would be more fair to say that Lucas produced it and hired Bob Dolman to write it. I'm not really sure just how significant the "story by" credits are on a Lucas film. (Interestingly, Dolman also wrote Far and Away, which is one of the few Ron Howard movies, or Tom Cruise movies for that matter, that I have never seen. Dolman's only film since then was The Banger Sisters, which he also directed. Not a great track record, methinks.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, SDG, what did you think? I find myself thinking that this film goes to some lengths to blur that line between magic and miracle and medicine while respecting the strengths of all three (though perhaps magic and miracle could be conflated into one supernatural category).

The question is, where is Christian faith in all of this? The film begins with the girl reading Psalm 23 in the background while one of Cate's patients waits for her to do her thing -- is the Bible merely soothing poetry that helps us through the scientific process? Then there is that scene with the 'begats' -- is the Bible merely another magic device? It is tempting to say that the film lacks the personal-relationship-with-God element of Christian faith, but wait, there ARE scenes of Cate praying (to 'Mother of Jesus', even, which leads me to wonder, Is she Catholic? Is there any other indication in the film that she might be Catholic? Do any other Christian sub-groups, apart from the Orthodox who I think would be most unlikely to be pioneers in 1880s New Mexico, pray to Mary? And don't Catholics normally say 'Mother of God'?), as well as scenes of Tommy Lee Jones praying to the spirits that he venerates.

On the moral front, alas, I think the Indians come off better than the Christians. I really appreciate the fact that the film leaves the paternity of Cate's elder daughter a bit of a mystery, instead of having some drawn-out expository scene in which the girl's origins are spelled out for us in detail. But still, it's a bit disturbing that Cate, this "good Christian woman", should have such a dim view of marriage and should refuse to marry a person who obviously WANTS to marry her and who she allows into her bed anyway. I know, I know, people are flawed and we need to accept that in the films that we see, otherwise there is no truth and no drama, but when a film presents us with, shall we say, rival worldviews, and when the non-Christian worldview appears to be the superior to the Christian worldview in this department, then I cannot help but be a bit disappointed.

: I seem to recall discussing prayer vs. magic with you once.

Yeah, I can try digging up that thread if you want.

: It seems to me that prayer and religion essentially involve a calling to

: conform one's will and self to a higher reality, whereas magic is

: essentially a technique for conforming lower reality to one's own will.

You still get blurry lines, though. I mean, any sacramental ritual that goes beyond mere symbolism involves a bit of both (conforming the lower reality, i.e. the bread and wine, to the will of the person who performs the ritual, while at the same time conforming one's will and self to a higher reality, i.e. God). And certainly there are biblical stories that read exactly like stories about magic, e.g. when Elisha levitates the axe-head through a technique, i.e. throwing a stick into the water (II Kings 6:1-7). And given how often people chant the names of their god(s) when they perform magic, I think the question of higher vs. lower realities is beside the point -- the people doing the chanting are seeing to it that their is will done, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG   

Sorry for the delay in responding, Peter... I've been busy cranking out rhymes. smile.gif

My opinion converges with yours. I do think some of your comments above might suggest a more polarized view of the issue than I would take, but then that may go to our respective ideas about the line between magic and religion / prayer / miracle.

Anyway, I would say that lexio divina, sacred reading, can always be a prayer, even when it's the begats of Jesus' genealogy. Furthermore, the choice of the text being in the hands of a young girl, it's not hard to credit her simple intention to honor God by venerating his word in all its parts, and not hard to understand her opening to the first page of the New Testament.

It must also be observed that the mother's sickness is given a possible naturalistic explanation -- was it bad drink? -- and her recovery, if supernatural, could be attributed to either of the spiritual traditions represented at the scene. It's true that Tommy Lee Jones, in practicing his Native American rituals while instructing the girl to read the Christian scriptures, takes a syncretistic approach, and true also that the girl succumbs to a degree of syncretism in taking the protective charm. But it doesn't absolutely follow that the healing power was NOT solely in the lexio divina.

Having said that, the movie does give us an impassioned eyewitness defense of real paranormal power in Native American spirituality, specifically in the uncanny things Tommy Lee Jones professes to have seen witches do; no such testimony is claimed on behalf of Christian engagement of the supernatural.

And, like you, I'm disappointed that this "good Christian woman" permits a man to share her bed without marrying him (and him ready to marry her, too). I also note the casual sexual mores of Jones's Indian friend (who used to ride north to fool around with a fat native girl until she began liking him too much), which might be thought to suggest that white Christians and Indians alike engage in what Christians call immorality, but in the case of the Indians there is no indication that this constitutes hypocrisy or conflict of belief and practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: Anyway, I would say that lexio divina, sacred reading, can always be a

: prayer, even when it's the begats of Jesus' genealogy.

Can be, yes. But in what context? Who is setting the terms here?

: Furthermore, the choice of the text being in the hands of a young girl, it's

: not hard to credit her simple intention to honor God by venerating his

: word in all its parts, and not hard to understand her opening to the first

: page of the New Testament.

But it is Tommy Lee Jones who tells her to read the Bible in the first place, and in the context of performing a Native healing ceremony. Indeed, the very fact that he doesn't much care WHAT she reads suggests that he isn't much interested in the Bible or its contents beyond the idea that the reciting of any old passage will attract the attention of a divine or supernatural power.

: It must also be observed that the mother's sickness is given a possible

: naturalistic explanation -- was it bad drink? -- and her recovery, if

: supernatural, could be attributed to either of the spiritual traditions

: represented at the scene.

Two problems. First, we in the audience know that she is suffering for supernatural, not naturalistic, reasons; indeed, even Jones seems to know that, when he asks Cate Blanchett what she left behind. Second, there is really only one 'spiritual tradition' on display there, and it isn't the Christian one -- unless there is an established Christian tradition of reciting any old text at random whenever someone gets sick.

: It's true that Tommy Lee Jones, in practicing his Native American rituals

: while instructing the girl to read the Christian scriptures, takes a

: syncretistic approach, and true also that the girl succumbs to a degree of

: syncretism in taking the protective charm. But it doesn't absolutely follow

: that the healing power was NOT solely in the lexio divina.

I don't see how it's possible to read the film AS a film without concluding that the healing power was not solely in the lexio divina.

: Having said that, the movie does give us an impassioned eyewitness

: defense of real paranormal power in Native American spirituality,

: specifically in the uncanny things Tommy Lee Jones professes to have

: seen witches do; no such testimony is claimed on behalf of Christian

: engagement of the supernatural.

Yep. And it is Jones who talks to the birds and solicits their help, etc. The film does not merely give us an eyewitness ACCOUNT of Native paranormal or supernatural power, it makes US eyewitnesses of these things too. And interestingly, the Christian character is described as a "healer", but she heals people through science, not through any sort of faith-based power.

: I also note the casual sexual mores of Jones's Indian friend (who used to

: ride north to fool around with a fat native girl until she began liking him

: too much), which might be thought to suggest that white Christians and

: Indians alike engage in what Christians call immorality, but in the case of

: the Indians there is no indication that this constitutes hypocrisy or conflict

: of belief and practice.

Ah, right, I had forgotten that scene. That bit between Jones and his friend is an interesting exchange, indeed, though I believe Jones does go on to say that Indians expect men to look after their families, or words to that effect; at any rate, I came out of the film with the impression that the pagan Native characters were more honourable than the Christians in that department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG   

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

: Anyway, I would say that
lexio divina
, sacred reading, can always be a

: prayer, even when it's the begats of Jesus' genealogy.

Can be, yes. But in what context? Who is setting the terms here?

The larger Christian tradition.

: Furthermore, the choice of the text being in the hands of a young girl, it's

: not hard to credit her simple intention to honor God by venerating his

: word in all its parts, and not hard to understand her opening to the first

: page of the New Testament.

But it is Tommy Lee Jones who tells her to read the Bible in the first place, and in the context of performing a Native healing ceremony.

But we've seen her do the same thing at the behest of her mother, and not in the context of a Native healing ceremony. So her intention can't be defined solely in terms of his intention in telling her to do it.

: It must also be observed that the mother's sickness is given a possible

: naturalistic explanation -- was it bad drink? -- and her recovery, if

: supernatural, could be attributed to either of the spiritual traditions

: represented at the scene.

Two problems. First, we in the audience know that she is suffering for supernatural, not naturalistic, reasons

I disagree. I think the movie is pulling an X-Files, giving us events subject to either ordinary or paranormal explanation. The fact that Blanchett gets sick as the witch performs his voodoo does not mean that it WASN'T bad drink that made Blanchett sick.

indeed, even Jones seems to know that, when he asks Cate Blanchett what she left behind.

We know where Jones stands on interpreting the events in question, but the film doesn't tell us that he's right.

Second, there is really only one 'spiritual tradition' on display there, and it isn't the Christian one -- unless there is an established Christian tradition of reciting any old text at random whenever someone gets sick.

There is an established Christian tradition that all scripture is sacred and therefore reading any scripture whatsoever is of spiritual value.

I don't see how it's possible to read the film AS a film without concluding that the healing power was not solely in the
lexio divina
.

I think you are insufficiently appreciative of the deliberate ambiguity built into the film -- though I agree with you that Christian tradition is given less credence than Native American.

at any rate, I came out of the film with the impression that the pagan Native characters were more honourable than the Christians in that department.

Sure. Even the dishonorable Native American slaver antagonists were tainted with European-ness by making them Army collaborator-deserters. And the film clearly had more sympathy toward prejudicial Indian attitudes toward whites than vice versa: We're clearly meant to be mildly put off by Blanchett's distaste for natives ("I don't usually operate on Indians," etc.), if not actually by her revulsion for their spirituality; but when the Indian says disparagingly "You people always look pissed off," we're meant to find that entertainingly candid and possibly even insightful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...

I can go see "The Missing" tomorrow. Or I can go see "The Last Samurai."

Which do you think I should attend? (I'm leaning toward "The Missing" because I am so tired of the "Samurai" preview.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Missing is passable entertainment, but hardly compelling.

My friend Danny remarked on the way out, it's just one of those films when you realize you've seen all of this so many times before. The element of having the Mama figure be the gun-toting hero is not exactly a jarring invention at this point in cinema history.

Cate Blanchett gives her all, as always, but she doesn't have much to do besides predictable grief, predictable anger, predictable trouble getting along with her elder traveling compaion.

Tommy Lee Jones is admirably understated, but I found myself convinced by him only part of the time.

The mix of Christianity and Indian spell-casting is treated with far too much fear of offending. We're left with the feeling that it doesn't matter WHAT you believe, just that you believe it sincerely and with good intentions.

The villain is made into a monster so nobody feels like the film is saying anything critical of Native American culture. His face is butt-ugly and he's a wicked wicked witch doctor who likes to play with snakes. His cohorts are compelled by money. Thus, all other Native Americans are set apart as honorable and admirable family folk. Hey, I find a lot to admire about Native American culture, especially their way of valuing the natural world, but this is rather a white-wash (if you'll excuse the term.)

One thing that really did impress me: James Horner delivers one of the most understated and nuanced soundtracks of his career. Those two adjectives are not words I usually relate to his work.

The cinematography is attractive. But the storytellers just don't find much interesting or inventive to do. The frequently-visited subplot about "the missing" and what is happening to them is as bland as bland can be, giving the promising Evan Rachel Wood little to do beyond looking desperate.

Once again, the hype gives me some hope for a Ron Howard film, and once again I come away completely underwhelmed.

C+/B-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: : Can be, yes. But in what context? Who is setting the terms here?

:

: The larger Christian tradition.

Um, are we watching the same film? It is Tommy Lee Jones's character who sets the terms. The girl reads her Bible within the context of an Indian healing ceremony. Her Bible reading is subordinate to the pagan ritual.

: But we've seen her do the same thing at the behest of her mother, and

: not in the context of a Native healing ceremony.

Right, in that case, the Bible is subordinate to medical science; in fact, when Maggie tells Dot to read the Bible, it is purely as a stalling tactic (and perhaps to try to soothe the patient's feelings).

: : First, we in the audience know that she is suffering for supernatural, not

: : naturalistic, reasons . . .

:

: I disagree. I think the movie is pulling an X-Files, giving us events

: subject to either ordinary or paranormal explanation.

I am frankly surprised that anyone schooled in film grammar could make that argument.

: : Second, there is really only one 'spiritual tradition' on display there, and

: : it isn't the Christian one -- unless there is an established Christian

: : tradition of reciting any old text at random whenever someone gets sick.

:

: There is an established Christian tradition that all scripture is sacred and

: therefore reading any scripture whatsoever is of spiritual value.

So you would say Dot reads the scriptures NOT because they have any miraculous power in and of thesmelves, or because they can help to solicit divine intervention in the healing of Maggie, but purely because hearing the scriptures might be soothing to Maggie's soul somehow?

: Even the dishonorable Native American slaver antagonists were tainted

: with European-ness by making them Army collaborator-deserters.

Ah, good point.

Jeffrey Overstreet:

: The Missing is passable entertainment, but hardly compelling.

Y'know, I may have been nicer to it in my review than I intended to; after seeing people here praise the film, and after hearing my Vancouver colleagues tell the Sony Pictures rep that the film was "excellent", I guess I figured my own slight boredom was just due to me being in the wrong mood or something, and since I was more interested in the religious stuff than the dramatic stuff anyway, I just focused on that and made a passing remark about this being one of Howard's best films (which I still think is true, but it also isn't saying much). But then I read Katrina Onstad's review in the Post this morning, and she was actually pretty nasty to the film, calling it boring and a few other things besides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boring? Yeah, I agree. Well, yeah, I was at times bored by it because nothing terribly interesting was going on. It feels like Howard wanted to make a Western, so he made a Western without waiting for any grand ideas.

The showdown at the end was entirely unremarkable. The major tensions of the film get resolved in conversations, quietly, long before the action ends. And yet, we still have to go through this big violent conflict, which just feels like an obligation. When the fight is finally over, it's been merely a conflict of might... of guns versus guns. Nothing about the way the fight ends resonates as meaningful or crucial to the story. It's just a typical gun-and-knife fight.

I remember thinking, as the credits appeared, "That's it?" I wanted to be left with something to think about, some question or ambiguity, some insight into how all of this has changed Magdalena or her daughters. Instead, it just ends. What have we learned? That girls shouldn't go to town to hear their own voices on a gramaphone?

Regarding the scripture-reading... I thought it was one of the film's more interesting moments. I was even a little moved by the thought that the girl KNEW that Scripture was the place to turn, even if she didn't know which part to read. I think God would have been pleased too, and would have blessed her for her whole-hearted response, even if it was just the "begats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:

: Boring? Yeah, I agree. Well, yeah, I was at times bored by it because

: nothing terribly interesting was going on.

Ah, but did not Chesterton say that the real problem was not that the film was uninteresting, but that we in the audience were uninterested?

: When the fight is finally over, it's been merely a conflict of might... of

: guns versus guns. Nothing about the way the fight ends resonates as

: meaningful or crucial to the story. It's just a typical gun-and-knife fight.

Really? The element of redemptive sacrifice didn't impress you here, the way it did in The Matrix Revolutions? (My tongue is only partly in my cheek here.)

: I was even a little moved by the thought that the girl KNEW that

: Scripture was the place to turn . . .

Really? Even though it was actually Tommy Lee's idea for her to read it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Persona   

Very good observations here. El Boringo. A film that had nothing new to offer, a story that had a thousand points of entry, all of them done before and all of them boring before. If i wanted to play cowboys and indians i could stay home and dress up.

I can't believe i actually sat thru the whole thing. What a waste. I could've been doing something important, like cleaning hot gum off the bottom of my shoe or something.

For those of you who have limited cash and want to see a good film this Christmas season, don't bother with this one. The rest of you, contact me personally and i will show you better ways to spend your hard earned eight bucks.

-s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Mark Steyn reviews it -- I guess it just opened in England:

But the big problem is Ron Howard, a nervous nellie of a director who spends so much time covering his politically correct bases that in the end the story goes missing. Howard is a foursquare dramatist, which on the right project (Apollo 13) can work perfectly well. But here it just seems ham-fisted. The bad guy, amazingly, is still an Injun, the baddest Injun you ever met, played by Eric Schweig with a face covered in prosthetic pock marks. Evidently he did a lot of drugs in the Sixties -- the 1860s, that is. The white slavery thing is even more perplexing. There appears to be zero historical evidence that Indians were involved in any cross-border sex traffic, and you can't help marveling at Howard's saddling them with it. But then he includes a scene, right after the kidnapping, where it's explained that the gang won't rape the womenfolk or even slap 'em around a little, in case they damage the goods before they get them to market. And you realize the whole white slavery gig's a sham -- a way of ensuring that Howard doesn't have to show the Indians doing to young Lily what most abductors in that period would have done to her. And then he reveals that anyway they're rogue Apaches who used to work with the US forces -- ie, this is all the white man's fault. Oh, and there's palefaces in the Apache gang anyway, apparently "celebrating diversity" -- just as the good guys also benefit from a couple of helpful Native Americans. It's all a bit too self-conscious. Miss Blanchett plays a devout Christian and, whenever she starts praying to her God, Tommy Lee Jones starts chanting to his. The mystical shamanesque aspects seem more like a gloss of California New Age mumbo-jumbo than anything you'd be likely to find in New Mexico 120 years ago. By contrast, Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House On The Prairie books have a refreshingly honest attitude to religion out west. But Howard is so busy covering himself he doesn't seem to notice his characters are burdened by so many sensitivity requirements they never come to life.

For what that's all worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anders   

I saw this one a couple weeks ago when it came out on DVD. Stef had it right.

El Boringo

Nothing particularily compelling about anything in this film, and I usually like Tommy Lee Jones, Cate Blanchett and thought Evan Rachel Wood was great in Thirteen.

If you want to watch a better western, go watch Open Range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this one a couple weeks ago when it came out on DVD.  

...

Nothing particularily compelling about anything in this film, and I usually like Tommy Lee Jones, Cate Blanchett and thought Evan Rachel Wood was great in Thirteen.

Yes, but the DVD did include three short "Westerns" that Howard directed in high school/college. Those were admitedly amateur, but better, I thought, than this film.

biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Reed   

Glad I didn't read all the "we've seen it all before" pooh-poohings before renting this one, since I might well not have. I enjoyed it - even though, yes, I'd seen most of it before. (Frankly, give me Tommy Lee Jones over John Wayne ANY day!) Found the first half very tense - the photos that guy wears, and the rattlesnakes in trees! Yeesh. It got more conventional in the latter stretches, but I was engaged. (Though I certainy agree that OPEN RANGE is the better film: one of Duvall's all-time-great performances, the way it captures the men's relationships in the unhurried and extended opening section, and a take on frontier violence that I find all the more substantial the more I mull it. Only the love story got mucky.)

The spiritual stuff in THE MISSING also caught my attention. Yes it's a tad syncretistic, but I think we err when we nail all that stuff down too firmly anyhow: sure, Jesus is Lord, but beyond that, all kinds of weird stuff goes on. Frankly, I'm interested to see Christianity appear at all in such a film, and to come off fairly well at that. Here it's a pretty superstitious brand of the faith, leaning in the direction of scripture as magic spell, cross as talisman, but I don't find that any different from the way the Catholic faith is rendered in, say, THE ROOKIE. Which doesn't seem to give anybody big problems.

The "good Christian woman" has had two husbands, and isn't married to the man she's sleeping with at the beginning of the film, but is anybody on this board going to maintain that sort of thing doesn't happen? I found her believable, including the messy mix of religion and marital stuff - particularly in a woman who'd gone through what she'd gone through. And Blanchett's performance was very good.

And hey, all that aside, the film had one truly nifty passage of dialogue;

"Inside you are two dogs.

Edited by Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×