Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

Waitress

Recommended Posts

Saw this last night. Liked it a lot. Was surprised by how emotionally involved I got, considering it's such a quirky and slightly absurdist comedy -- I realized halfway through one tense scene that my heart was pounding pretty fast, and I was caught off-guard by the moistness in my eyes at the end. Beautiful music. And more moral than you might expect.

Maybe moral is the wrong word; it sounds too judgmental, and this film isn't that -- well, with one glaring exception. Compassionate? Humanist? Let's just say that multiple characters commit adultery in this film, but some of the characters know it's wrong and some don't, and the film never gives us any reason to believe that any of the adulterous match-ups are a good thing (in other words, in each "couple", there is at least one person who has a spouse that the other characters recognize as a good and decent person who probably shouldn't be cheated on this way).

It's sad beyond sad that writer-director-costar Adrienne Shelly was murdered before she had a chance to see this film with an audience. But I am relieved to say that her last film is a good one, and worthy of an expression like "she left us a good legacy." (Just for the record, I haven't seen her two other feature-length directorial efforts, but I have seen the films she made with Hal Hartley way back when.)

Fans of Keri Russell (Felicity, Mission: Impossible III) and Nathan Fillion (Firefly, Slither) should get a kick out of this. Andy Griffith also has a fun supporting role.

And Jeremy Sisto -- yikes! what a psycho! The friend with whom I saw this film said he was used to seeing Sisto as a bad guy but not as such a DUMB bad guy (apparently he has a role on Six Feet Under?)... but to me, he will always be either Jesus (in that 1999 mini-series) or Holly Hunter's supportive boyfriend in Thirteen, so seeing him in a role like THIS was definitely a change of pace. (After Sisto's character makes a routine disparaging remark about his pregnant wife being "fat", a middle-aged woman sitting across the aisle from me barked, "F--- off!" Yup, those are the kinds of emotions this character elicits, all right.)

Oh, did I mention that this film is about a pregnant woman? Nope, the fact that I have two toddlers of my own isn't affecting my response to this film, nope, not one little bit.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lou Lumenick explores whether Waitress is reminiscent of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974) which was inspired by My Dream Is Yours (1949) which was a remake of Twenty Million Sweethearts (1934).

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, my first film this year that gets 5.0/5

Absolutely wonderful. Nary a misstep in the whole film.

I wouldn't be upset if the AMPAS showed some love to Andy Griffith come nomination time.


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it last night. 6:30 show in a fairly well-filled theater (almost every seat except those in the very front rows) of a giant multiplex, mixed audience from teens to senior citizens. I said to my niece, "Some people are here for Keri Russell or Nathan Fillion, and some for Andy Griffith." But soon we didn't care, because we were completely engaged by this funny, compassionate, well-written film about real people with real problems. Loved it. Nathan Fillion should become a big, big star. Keri Russell was remarkably good, too. I never watched Felicity and had no preconceptions about her; I'd love to see her do more.

Darrel, I really like your review & commentary, too.


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't have time to write a review... heck, barely had time to see the movie (But who can turn it down when Luci Shaw invites you out to a movie?!)... but let me add my thumbs-up to the mix. I really enjoyed it. Funny, thoughtful, occasionally surprising (although sometimes surprisingly predictable). And oh so painful to watch knowing what would soon happen to the bright beautiful mind that imagined the movie for us.

Fillion should have a long, successful career in romantic comedies.


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you liked it, Jeff.

And not that this means anything artistically, but... Waitress cracked the weekend's Top 5. It's behind only the three mega-franchise threequels and Bug. But it's playing in only 510 theatres, compared to the 1,632 to 4,362 theatres every other film in the Top 8 is playing in -- so presumably the theatres showing Waitress were a little more packed than all those other theatres.

Like I say, the figures don't mean much. But I don't think any other Adrienne Shelley (or Hal Hartley, for that matter) film has done so well, so I am happy to see that this one is finding an audience.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is only one story.

A particularly zen aphorism, Mr Manson. Care to expand?


I've posted a couple hundred of my Soul Food Movies write-ups at letterboxd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might, but to explain Zen really goes counter to the entire experience.


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: But I don't think any other Adrienne Shelley (or Hal Hartley, for that matter) film has done so well . . .

Just for the record, I cannot find the box-office stats for either of Shelley's previous feature films -- Sudden Manhattan (1997) and I'll Take You There (1999) -- at BoxOfficeMojo.com or the IMDb.

As for the feature films of Hal Hartley:

  • The Unbelievable Truth (1989) -- $546,541
  • Trust (1990) -- $356,122
  • Surviving Desire (1991) -- N/A
  • Simple Men (1992) -- $141,554
  • Amateur (1994) -- either $757,088 (as per BOM) or $856,422 (as per IMDb)
  • Flirt (1995) -- $263,192
  • Henry Fool (1997) -- $1,338,335
  • The Book of Life (1998) -- $9,740
  • No Such Thing (2001) -- $62,703
  • The Girl from Monday (2005) -- N/A
  • Fay Grim (2006) -- $85,897 so far (it opened just 10 days ago)
So Waitress, with an estimated $6,517,000 as of today -- only 3.5 weeks after it went into release -- has far out-grossed all of Hartley's films COMBINED.

I just realized that Shelley starred in only two of Hartley's feature films, namely the first two. (She was also in one of his shorts.) So maybe it's not fair to compare them like this.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record, my wife made Bad Baby Pie for lunch yesterday. It's good.

I wonder if anyone will put out a Waitress pie cookbook.


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for the record, my wife made Bad Baby Pie for lunch yesterday. It's good.

I wonder if anyone will put out a Waitress pie cookbook.

I don't know about that, but over at the official Waitress site, there are links to online pie recipes, and you can name your own pie. Top contender:

"I'd-Pay-Good-Money-to-Watch-Nathan-Fillion-Eat-This-Pie Pie"

Who wouldn't? ::blush::


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to a related post about Christopher Orr's thoughts on Hollywood and abortion.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget to rate this work by clicking "Rating", above, selecting a rating, and clicking "Rate". When five users have submitted a rating, the group rating will be displayed.

For guidance on selecting or understanding ratings, please click here.

Guess I have to play the scold again, huh?

I rated it two stars, and haven't felt this disillusioned by the reviews on this board since Million Dollar Baby (a much more serious film, but equally flawed). As with that film, my wife was very disappointed, but since this one was her choice (unlike Million Dollar Baby), I guess that makes us even.

UPDATE: I braced myself before accessing the Crosswalk and CT reviews after posting here, thinking that I remembered both being positive, based on star ratings or link descriptions (I hadn't read the full reviews). I was wrong and wish I HAD read these reviews.

Fascinating that the three male reviewers in this thread all enjoyed Waitress but the two female film reviewers at Crosswalk and CT saw through this film.

I particularly liked this bit from Camerin's review (which my wife heartily endorses!):

Ultimately, I just can't get past the ew-factor of a pregnant woman having an affair with her gynecologist. And I'm no movie prude; I've found myself secretly (and guiltily) rooting for marriages to end, Bad People to die, and other things that don't synch up with my values in other flicks. But for some reason, watching an eight-months pregnant woman being seduced by her lab-coated medical care professional in his exam room just went too far for me.

(Peter, this part of the film didn't bother your wife?)

And this bit from Christa's review:

Of course, the pair doesn

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian wrote:

: I particularly liked this bit from Camerin's review (which my wife heartily endorses!):

: Ultimately, I just can't get past the ew-factor of a pregnant woman having an affair with her gynecologist. And I'm no movie prude; I've found myself secretly (and guiltily) rooting for marriages to end, Bad People to die, and other things that don't synch up with my values in other flicks. But for some reason, watching an eight-months pregnant woman being seduced by her lab-coated medical care professional in his exam room just went too far for me.

Eh? Why is she blaming the man? The attraction seemed pretty mutual to me.

Having been in the room while my own pregnant wife was being examined by a male doctor, and having processed some of those weird feelings about how wonderful and subjective and discrete and one-flesh-y my own interactions have been with my wife while that other guy's interactions with her were so clinical and objective and probing, I can certainly understand that there would be a bit of an "ew-factor" here. It seems a bit implausible to me that a woman would fall for a guy who has seen her, up close, warts and all (so to speak). But, I dunno, stranger things have happened. And this movie was MADE by a woman, so I'm not about to generalize and say that no woman would buy this story.

: (Peter, this part of the film didn't bother your wife?)

She hasn't seen it.

: And this bit from Christa's review:

: Of course, the pair doesn't hit it off initially (which provides some of the film


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, When we saw it we thought they definitely should have a pie table in the lobby for it was one excellent advertisement for pie!

Although an enjoyable film, it has a pervasive lack of spirituality. The fact that she is encouraged to "do the right thing" and does, is a redemptive moment.

Denny


Since 1995 we have authored a commentary on film, cinema in focus. Though we enjoy cinema as an art form, our interests lie not so much in reviewing a film as in beginning a conversation about the social and spiritual values presented. We, therefore, often rate a film higher or lower due to its message rather than its quality of acting or film-making.

Cinema In Focus Website

Free Methodist Church of Santa Barbara Website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(in other words, in each "couple", there is at least one person who has a spouse that the other characters recognize as a good and decent person who probably shouldn't be cheated on this way).

There are a lot of :spoilers: in this post, many of which I tried to black out. But I'm not sure the text I left visible doesn't contain spoilers, so read at your own risk.

Sorry not to address your more recent post, Peter -- I just got into work and don't want to take the time right now -- but I did want to follow up on this part of your earlier post.

Did the main character, whose name already escapes me, "recognize" that her lover had a good and decent spouse BEFORE the film had, oh, say, 10 minutes left? I don't think she did. And that was a big part of my problem.

Yes, I do realize (addressing one part of your more recent post) that people enjoy affairs, for a time. But this enjoyment seemed to last for half of the film's running time. Does that make it unrealistic? No. But it's unpalatable ... for me, anyway. As I shared in my posts on "Notes on a Scandal," I recognized the reality of marital infidelity and can handle movies that address it to some degree, but I have a hard time with movies that show affairs for extended periods of time. (EDIT: Re-reading this, it occurs to me that I think "Little Children" may be last year's best film. Hmmmm. I'm not sure what that says about my assertion here.)

If Waitress struck you as honest to its characters, I don't know that I can dispute that, or that I can legitimately criticize the film for not telling the story I would have liked it tell. I know that character integrity is inherent to film appreciation and honest criticism.

But I would hesitate long and hard before recommending the film to others. We're all grown-ups; we know our limits. And I do like several films that I'd probably never recommend to Christian friends.

That said, I do think my gripes with Waitress have at least as much to do with character and story integrity as they do with my own limits regarding appropriate/acceptable behavior. I highlighted Camerin's review because the idea of a pregnant woman goin' at it like a rabbit with her doctor did seem a little far-fetched. I'm going to step into some subjective territory again, but let's just say that my wife, whose had three kids, didn't buy the level of the waitress' sex drive. Maybe that's just a reflection of Sarah's experience, and not most pregnant women, although it's very curious that she used the excuse that she's "not feeling well" to keep Earl off of her in bed. Does she love Earl? No, she doesn't. But does that mean she invented this excuse, and that it had no basis in reality. I seriously doubt it.

OK, maybe all a pregnant woman needs, especially during her first trimester, when morning sickness is common (as shown in the movie), is a hot doctor to get her in the mood. But it still seemed phony.

Rather than engage in a tit-for-tat back-and-forth, however, let me raise an issue here that also clouded/influenced my judgment of this film, and which may dwarf the preceding concerns.

I'm not convinced Earl was hopeless. I'm not convinced that he wasn't about to change for the better.

Call me naive, but when he has his meltdown over the hidden money and appears to be on the verge of another act of physical violence, his wife's explanation about money for the crib -- which should have pushed him OVER THE EDGE, considering his earlier comment that his wife must always put him first, and the baby second -- reduces him to a blubbering, shaking mass, who falls to his knees and apologizes.

Then, in the delivery room, he's there for her, although the movie telegraphs our heroine's reaction as one of disgust, even though he doesn't do anything wrong in the delivery room. Sure, he's not the hugest help, but he's not an unsupportive cretin either.

I honestly thought that when she held the baby and saw his features, she'd be moved to give Earl another chance. It's not the movie's undoing that this didn't happen, although I continue to be puzzled that she firmly decided to ditch Earl just as he MAY have been wising up.

Look, I realize Earl was verbally and mentally abusive, even physically abusive (although this isn't shown to be a regular thing, not that that's any excuse), and that women get trapped into relationships with abusive men that they would be better off ending. Still, I would've found the break more convincing had Earl proven one last time to be an ungrateful SOB, rather than a man on the verge of a change of heart.

So, did I misread the ending? As always, I'm open to correction.

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although an enjoyable film, it has a pervasive lack of spirituality.

Hmm. Maybe. But Waitress falls under the category of Wisdom lit (which is becoming my favorite genre in film -- and increasingly so in scripture).

And, in response to Christian, I think it helps to see it as wisdom, because we know that the affair with the doctor is ill-conceived. Indeed, he would lose his license if this were uncovered. There should be an "ew factor" to this. This is an affair that shouldn't bring fulfillment, happiness, goodness (the fruits of wisdom) -- and doesn't. We may have a bit of attraction to the affair at the beginning, but we want it to end before it does even more damage.


A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not convinced Earl was hopeless. I'm not convinced that he wasn't about to change for the better.

I say, not a chance. And here is why:

Then, in the delivery room, he's there for her, although the movie telegraphs our heroine's reaction as one of disgust, even though he doesn't do anything wrong in the delivery room. Sure, he's not the hugest help, but he's not an unsupportive cretin either.
Doesn't do anything wrong in the waiting room? Didn't you see the distance his face fell when the doctor announced "It's a girl"?

The film definitely wants us to see Earl as an egocentric, self-absorbed bastard right up to the end. He was only interested in a son; a daughter was an incomprehensible disappointment.

His reaction was so pronounced that my dad, watching the film with me, thought that it was his disappointment that finally irrevocably hardened Jenna's heart against him.

But I said my dad was wrong: Jenna's heart was long since dead to Earl; all that happened in the delivery room was she suddenly had an all-consuming reason to fight back. Suddenly she loved something as she had never loved herself, and that gave her the fulcrum, the place to stand, that she needed to push Earl away once and for all.

Call me naive, but when he has his meltdown over the hidden money and appears to be on the verge of another act of physical violence, his wife's explanation about money for the crib -- which should have pushed him OVER THE EDGE, considering his earlier comment that his wife must always put him first, and the baby second -- reduces him to a blubbering, shaking mass, who falls to his knees and apologizes.
Falling to his knees I remember. Did he apologize?? I don't remember THAT. I do remember him forcibly imposing his unwanted lips onto Jenna's mouth. I can't see that Earl was ever about anything other than coercing Jenna into being what comforted his neediness for her to be.

I honestly thought that when she held the baby and saw his features, she'd be moved to give Earl another chance. It's not the movie's undoing that this didn't happen, although I continue to be puzzled that she firmly decided to ditch Earl just as he MAY have been wising up.

Look, I realize Earl was verbally and mentally abusive, even physically abusive (although this isn't shown to be a regular thing, not that that's any excuse), and that women get trapped into relationships with abusive men that they would be better off ending. Still, I would've found the break more convincing had Earl proven one last time to be an ungrateful SOB, rather than a man on the verge of a change of heart.

So, did I misread the ending? As always, I'm open to correction.

I think you did, yes.

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's helpful, SDG. Thanks. I can't remember his crestfallen look upon learning he was having a girl.

Did he apologize to her during the earlier scene? Maybe not. But what does his posture say? You remember one "forcible" action, but it seemed like desperation to me, a man who realized he was in the wrong, and out of control. In need of ... forgiveness?

I'm willing to admit I may have misread the ending -- remember that I was hopeful right up until the closing credit of Million Dollar Baby that Swank would rise up out of that bed and accept Eastwood's offer of help. So I recognize that my revulsion to these two films has something, maybe mostly, to do with my own hopes and expectations for the characters. Or maybe I prefer characters capable of change, rather than, in this case (not so much in MDB), cardboard villains.

But keep in mind that this movie lost me long before the final 10 minutes. Long before. Sarah, as well, was apologizing to me for selecting it long before the conclusion. Not our cup o' tea.


"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's helpful, SDG. Thanks. I can't remember his crestfallen look upon learning he was having a girl.

Did he apologize to her during the earlier scene? Maybe not. But what does his posture say? You remember one "forcible" action, but it seemed like desperation to me, a man who realized he was in the wrong, and out of control. In need of ... forgiveness?

... So I recognize that my revulsion ... has something, maybe mostly, to do with my own hopes and expectations for the characters. Or maybe I prefer characters capable of change, rather than, in this case (not so much in MDB), cardboard villains.

But keep in mind that this movie lost me long before the final 10 minutes. Long before. Sarah, as well, was apologizing to me for selecting it long before the conclusion. Not our cup o' tea.

As the only female poster to have admitted publicly (so far) that I've both seen and enjoyed this film, I guess I'll just say a few more words here.

Earl didn't seem like just a cardboard villain to me, and in an ideal, real-life situation, I would certainly like to see a person like him change. But he was pretty much a classic example of a verbally abusive partner. As such, he was essentially a narcissist and although he was capable of feeling remorse, it was very unlikely to lead to longterm change(s) without serious counseling, because another quality of verbal abusers is denial that anything is their fault. Earl was a pathetic character, and probably had a sad childhood in which he himself was the target of abuse, but as long as he could keep Jenna under his thumb, he had no motivation to change. No way was he "on the verge of a change of heart." It seems very unlikely that a child, of either gender, would improve things in that marriage. A lot of verbal abusers are controllers, and children don't fit easily into their world.

On the other hand, I agree that the apparently guilt-free adultery is a problem. Except that the guilt-free affair is not between Jenna & Dr. P, it's between her waitress friend & the cook. That did bother me, but it also seemed realistic, though I could have done without it. As for the affair between Jenna & Dr. P,

Darrel said:

This is an affair that shouldn't [emphasis added] bring fulfillment, happiness, goodness (the fruits of wisdom) -- and doesn't. We may have a bit of attraction to the affair at the beginning, but we want it to end before it does even more damage.

Even Jenna and Dr. P. want the affair to end--they try to end it repeatedly, and fail--the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. They both really want something else: she wants real love and respect; there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the doctor's marriage, but he does seem to be feeling a bit disconnected in a strange town where his wife is busy with a fellowship (IIRC--was she also not actually in the same town--it seemed pretty rural). That doesn't excuse them, but maybe explains. Still, I didn't feel that they needed to be "caught"--they were catching themselves all along, and as Darrel points out, the audience knows it can't last--or we should. This is how stuff happens. You think it can't happen to you? Better be careful. [ETA: Note that by "you" I mean the audience in general, not anyone posting here in particular.]

I'm certainly not recommending adultery as a cure for abusive marriage. If this movie is "wisdom lit," the wisdom is "What do you really want? What is your heart's desire?" If you're settling for anything less, there's something wrong. Step back, focus, start over. The fairy-tale glow over the ending is another tip.

And finally, more than you probably want to know about sex during pregnancy.

Edited by BethR

There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beth: It occurred to me, while thinking about this thread last night (yes, I do think about A&F even while not online), that in mentioning the three males who spoke favorably, I may have overlooked your views. I remembered that you'd posted, but couldn't remember if you'd actually seen the film. My apologies.

Now to, ummm, visit that link you provided. ::blush::

EDIT: Here's the second paragraph, FWIW (emphases mine, although I do recognize the word "may"):

A woman’s desire for sex during pregnancy can fluctuate month-to-month or trimester-to-trimester. During the first trimester, fatigue, vomiting, and nausea may put a damper on sexual activity. By the second trimester, many women regain their energy levels and feel more aroused due to physical changes such as full breasts, increased vaginal lubrication, and increased blood flow to the pelvic region. Once the third trimester arrives, fatigue and body aches and pains may contribute to a decrease in your sexual desire.

EDIT: I realize the movie does show the title character struggling with sickness. I guess what I'm saying is that said sickness, despite its label as "morning," tends to cast a pall over the entire day, and can put a damper on intimacy. In all cases? Of course not.

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...