Jump to content

The New World (2005)


Recommended Posts

Christian, too bad you and I don't live closer to each other, or we could take in a second viewing together. The New World is exactly the film I was expecting, and that in itself is a bit of a disappointment. I need to process it all a bit more, but at the moment I'm not able to muster much enthusiasm for the film.

I think I'll join you guys. I saw the film yesterday and thought the music, acting, and especially the photography were awe-inspiring, and yet the film as a whole left me completely underwhelmed. Malick's visual poetry is easy to appreciate but hard to love-- in fact, much of the film just alienated and frustrated me.

Partner in Cahoots

www.cahootsmag.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which screening did you hit, Josh? I was at the 4:20. One of these days we really need to get together.

I've been reading reviews of The New World by critics I admire, and so far I've yet to find a piece that offers a really convincing argument on its behalf. I'll say, first of all, that I do love Malick's "visual poetry" (as everyone seems to agree it should be called). I especially like the way he cuts with an emotional logic. Need to show that Smith is conflicted? Fine, cut together the most beautiful images of Smith looking conflicted and the viewer will come to empathize. In that sense, Malick's style isn't too far removed from Soviet montage.

The voice-overs seem to work at the same level. I'm convinced that the sound of their voices is more important than the words they're saying. In fact, I kind of wish Pocahontas's v.o. had been in Powhatan rather than English. Hell, in both this film and A Thin Red Line the actors could be reading from the phone book, as far as I'm concerned. The voice becomes this almost fetishistic, aestheticized object, not disimiliar from the grass and trees.

So defenders of the film are lifting up its "visual poetry" and its critique of Western expansion and the follies of Enlightenment "progress." Okay. I, too, really like the shots of muddy puddles inside the walls of Jamestown, which seem to encapsulate that idea perfectly. But is Malick offering us any especially useful insights into the issue that weren't already offered during the Enlightenment? Because I like Malick's earlier work -- and my mind certainly isn't closed on this film -- I'm willing to spend more time looking and listening for the complexity and ambiguities in his argument, but right now it seems to be little more than a pining for the Eden of nature, generally, and of native America, specifically.

That's a start . . .

Edited by Darren H
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as I said in my review, which had very little to do with Enlightenment critiques, I focused on the way he handled the love story, which I thought was brazenly honest and mature, running counter to what audiences want to see in a love story.

Here's a movie that invests the audience in one particular romance and then, when one of the participants proves to be too self-absorbed and "ambitious" to commit, that guy moves on, the woman is crushed, and along comes someone else who's better.

Wow. The rogue doesn't get the girl, really.

In fact, the guy who gets the girl is the guy who exhibits characteristics usually reserved for villains: he's a Christian, he's traditional, he's ... yikes... a TOBACCO farmer! And he's faithful and true to her, wanting her to love him and choose him honestly. Instead of having to PROVE himself to her, he is patient, even though it hurts.

When Pocahontas goes to see the rogue who still has hold of her heart, does she run off to have long-delayed sex? Does she breathe a sigh of relief that she's out of the sight of her oppressive and confining husband? Does she pledge her TRUE heart to Smith and then return to a sham marriage to count the days until she can see him again? Does she continue obsessing about her passionate courtship on her own Brokeback Mountain, and dream about reuniting once a year for "a high-altitude f---"?

No. She returns to her husband, and what he has allowed her... a chance to discover the resolution to her relationship with Smith... and she leans into him with humility and gratitude. At last, she is free to be devoted to him, because she sees now, by comparison, his devotion to her.

I've already said one review that says it's her love for Smith that triumphs in the end, and I don't see that at all. I think that's what the viewer WANTS to see. Smith all but admits he's completely blown it. "Did you find your Indies, John?" "I think I might have sailed past them." Indeed.

Sure, this is only one of the film's many storylines, but it's the one that struck me as unique as a big screen love story. What other film has the guts to break up the main romance almost 2/3rds of the way through the film and bring along a better candidate, showing up the more hormone-driven romance as ultimately lacking? I fully expect audiences to come out "dissatisfied" with that part of it. When most people go to see a classic love story, they want the independent spirits to win out in the end, the ones who defy authority, who blaze their own original trail, who escape to indulge. And oh, that looks so good on the screen. But boy does it ever tear up lives when people try to make that work in the real world.

I've been hard-pressed to find examples of film that celebrate love in this way, and now I finally have one. For that, I'm enormously grateful.

Oh, yeah... and then there's all of that stuff about the Enlightenment, which seems to me to be the lens through which Malick sees, not a pulpit on which he's pounding. There's a big difference.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really interesting, Jeffrey. I hope I'm not becoming a cynical bastard in my old age, because the love story never felt at all real or significant to me. I wonder if this is just a case where the intertexts (American history class, other Pocahontas stories, Malick's other films) came between me and the film I was watching. It's not that I was questioning the film's historical accuracy -- I couldn't care less if it's "accurate," actually -- but I did always feel as though I were watching a kind of American myth that had been deliberately chosen because of its mythic quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is easily the best film I've seen in the past couple years, and I, once again, appreciated Jeffrey Overstreet's review. I loved how the film played with the relationship between what the characters perceived and what we, the audience, perceived. Somebody already pointed out that Smith observes the lack of jealousy in the Natives just as Pocahontas' former flirtation looks wistfully at Smith/Pocahontas. In addition, the piano softly playing that chamber music over the images of a wildly different society showed how European-ized John Smith's thinking was. Especially when he's bartering with the snippy natural later in the film, you can see how his original conceptions were false.

I think this also works really well in terms of the historical inaccuracy of the movie. Everybody knows that the central romance is fabricated, and the film also includes the story of the Native American travelling to Europe and notching a stick for each European seen (I think this is aprocraphyl? Was it even connected to the Jamestown settlement before?). So much of the movie takes place on these levels of myth and memory; it reminded me of Days of Heaven in that respect.

I also loved how it's the first Malick to follow the evolution of a single character: the couple in Badlands seem stilted in one place as their lifestyle drastically changes, the characters in Days of Heaven are too distantly perceived to see evolution in, and The Thin Red Line doesn't feature much character development either. Watching Pocahontas change like that (the sequences as she rebuilds her life with the help of the kindly nurse!) was really beautiful to me. Malick characterize the glum of depression as strongly as possible before gradually building up into that penultimate moment of worship at the end of the film. I like how slowly that change effects itself - you can see it subtly creeping in her moments of happiness in the mud or with her child, and it keeps building and building.

I also have to say, I was really impressed with the little segment toward the end of the film that followed the transplanted native. The filming made England seem such a strangely symmetrical and bizarre place - the crazy garden with the strange trees - it really emphasized the shock of civilization. I also appreciated how the images of the church evoked the same feeling as some moments in the Native's worship or in the moments of holy courtship between Smith and Pocahontas.

I must admit, I had a little bit of trouble understanding Malick's intentions regarding Pocahontas' interpretation of Europe. I think that whoever said above that the voiceovers reflect the simplistic view of the characters is right - and I understand that Pocahontas didn't understand the ramifications of what was going on around her. I like that the film has a balanced potrayal of Europeans and Natives, but it seems like there'd be a bit more consequence to an event that wiped out an entire way of life like the colonialization of America did. I also had difficulty with Pocahontas' reaction to the John Rolfe character - but Jeffrey's review is making me think along a new train of thought. I guess she's not really compromising her life and passion so much as she's finding a new way to express it.

Edited by Sundered

I reason, Earth is short -

And Anguish - absolute -

And many hurt,

But, what of that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Darren H wrote:

: So defenders of the film are lifting up its "visual poetry" and its critique of Western expansion and the follies

: of Enlightenment "progress."

Are they lifting up the film's critique, or are they imposing their own critique on the film?

As I say in my own review, it is tempting to think that Malick is pulling a Disney here, saying how great these noble savages are while also saying how bad those European explorers are. But the film is, in fact, more complicated than that; and Smith's Edenic utopianism is, arguably, more of a "regress" than a "progress".

Sundered wrote:

: Somebody already pointed out that Smith observes the lack of jealousy in the Natives just as Pocahontas'

: former flirtation looks wistfully at Smith/Pocahontas.

Yeah, that was a point the producer made at the junket, when someone asked her about the "utopianism" of the film (which is actually not the FILM'S utopianism, but SMITH'S utopianism).

: I think this also works really well in terms of the historical inaccuracy of the movie. Everybody knows that

: the central romance is fabricated, and the film also includes the story of the Native American travelling to

: Europe and notching a stick for each European seen (I think this is aprocraphyl? . . .

I don't know about the stick, but the producer said that it was actually someone else who went with the Rolfes to England -- someone who, in the film, is killed during a skirmish between the Natives and the English. So in the film, it is Pocahontas's uncle who goes with the Rolfes to England instead.

: I also loved how it's the first Malick to follow the evolution of a single character . . . Watching Pocahontas

: change like that (the sequences as she rebuilds her life with the help of the kindly nurse!) was really

: beautiful to me.

Yes, agreed!

: I also have to say, I was really impressed with the little segment toward the end of the film that followed

: the transplanted native. The filming made England seem such a strangely symmetrical and bizarre place -

: the crazy garden with the strange trees - it really emphasized the shock of civilization. I also appreciated

: how the images of the church evoked the same feeling as some moments in the Native's worship or in the

: moments of holy courtship between Smith and Pocahontas.

FWIW, to quote a pertinent section from my blog:

[Producer Sarah] Green again, on the scene in which Pocahontas "saves" John Smith:
We spent a lot of time with the elders of the Virginia tribes that are existing today, and talking with them about some of their oral traditions, and how she would have expressed herself, but also what some of these classic events -- like her saving him from death -- what that might have meant. And one of the things we learned is that, yes, we don't know, he might have had his life in danger, he might well have been about to die and she might have thrown herself upon him, [but] it might well have also been a tribal ritual that was a death and rebirthing in order to control this new tribe that had come into Powhatan's land, and that's how they would have done it. They would have inducted the leader into their tribe, and made them subjects. So we tried to shoot things in a way that allowed you to interpret -- ritual, reality, what is it?

This is a fascinating comment, and I wonder if we ought to be comparing this scene to the later scene in which Pocahontas is baptized by the English. If we understand Pocahontas's baptism as an expression of social conformity rather than spiritual rebirth -- and I haven't a clue what side the historical Pocahontas would come down on this, or the filmmakers for that matter -- then it may be fair to say that the film draws a parallel between the Natives and the English by indicating that both groups had rituals for trying to control foreigners and make them their subjects.I have to say I've been mulling this possible parallelism over a fair bit the last few days.

And as for the "symmetry" of English culture -- well, on one level, perhaps it shouldn't have been all THAT big a shock, since Rolfe WAS growing tobacco in a formalized, symmetrical fashion for the purposes of trade, etc., right? (Question: what sort of agriculture did the Natives have, if any?)

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, to quote a pertinent section from my blog:

[Producer Sarah] Green again, on the scene in which Pocahontas "saves" John Smith:
We spent a lot of time with the elders of the Virginia tribes that are existing today, and talking with them about some of their oral traditions, and how she would have expressed herself, but also what some of these classic events -- like her saving him from death -- what that might have meant. And one of the things we learned is that, yes, we don't know, he might have had his life in danger, he might well have been about to die and she might have thrown herself upon him, [but] it might well have also been a tribal ritual that was a death and rebirthing in order to control this new tribe that had come into Powhatan's land, and that's how they would have done it. They would have inducted the leader into their tribe, and made them subjects. So we tried to shoot things in a way that allowed you to interpret -- ritual, reality, what is it?

This is a fascinating comment, and I wonder if we ought to be comparing this scene to the later scene in which Pocahontas is baptized by the English. If we understand Pocahontas's baptism as an expression of social conformity rather than spiritual rebirth -- and I haven't a clue what side the historical Pocahontas would come down on this, or the filmmakers for that matter -- then it may be fair to say that the film draws a parallel between the Natives and the English by indicating that both groups had rituals for trying to control foreigners and make them their subjects.I have to say I've been mulling this possible parallelism over a fair bit the last few days.

And as for the "symmetry" of English culture -- well, on one level, perhaps it shouldn't have been all THAT big a shock, since Rolfe WAS growing tobacco in a formalized, symmetrical fashion for the purposes of trade, etc., right? (Question: what sort of agriculture did the Natives have, if any?)

I interpreted the scene as a ritual, although I was expecting to see ambiguity when I entered the movie. In the formalism and speed of Pocahontas' movement, and especially in the immediate entrance of several other women cooing and petting John Smith, I definitely saw foresight on the part of the natives. I also like how, in this moment which was obviously highly significant to the Amerindian culture, Malick steps away from John Smith's perspective and gives us insight into the minds of these people - the subtitles reflecting the fear and trepidation of the tribe (correct word?) and the sounds of female crying over words of pain and displacement.

I guess the symmetry was mostly remarkable because it takes place on a huge tree-like level and was the first time symmetrical shots had entered into the film's aesthetics. Just seeing the effects of a wholly different civilization seemed startling and strange - as they'd no doubt appear to the man beholding them. I'm not sure what exactly qualifies as agriculture, but Powhatan asks Pocahontas if she has given them 'the seed'. That would seem to be a step away from the strictly hunter-gathererer lifestyle.

Also, very curious about the new cut that's going around. My version was 150 minutes both times I saw it.

I reason, Earth is short -

And Anguish - absolute -

And many hurt,

But, what of that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
the piano softly playing that chamber music over the images of a wildly different society showed how European-ized John Smith's thinking was

Thanks, Sundered. I like that. This is where I'm feeling the rub, I think. After just one viewing, I can't decide how much irony to read into the film. Smith's Utopian perspective on the naturals might be naive, but I'm hesitant to read it ironically -- as I do, for example, with Holly's romantic v.o. in Badlands -- because Malick goes to such lengths to depict the natural world as an earthly cathedral, especially when compared to the mud of Jamestown and the grime of London's streets.

Edited by Darren H
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, had I written a 10-second review of this movie on the way out of the theatre it might read something like: "Sitting through this movie is exactly like watching bees pollenate flowers while listening to really bad high school love poems."

But as much as I hate to admit it--only because I like to stick to my guns--Jeffery might have a point with the love story. But that is the ONLY redeeming quality of this movie for me.

I swear I heard music from Braveheart several times during this movie.

Edited by finnegan

I have a blog? here at A&F that I sometimes post in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the film over the weekend. Overall, I thought it was a masterpiece of cinematic technique, and the romance was, as Jeffrey stated, mature, elegantly handled, and engaging. However, I felt that the Indians were naively characterized as innocent, wise, and peaceful until they could handle European oppression no more (much like the Muslims in Kingdom of Heaven). I had been hoping that both the Europeans and the Naturals would be characterized as mixed groups of good people and not-so-good people (i.e., The Last of the Mohicans), but alas, the depiction is one-sided. It's funny how John Smith describes how wonderful and non-jealous they are even as he's being held prisoner by them.

Ultimately, the film works as cinema and drama, even if it isn't a well-balanced exploration of colliding cultures. Still, it gets two out of three. There is indeed much here to admire.

Q'Orianka Kilcher's performance is breathtaking. She's checked in not just the best female performance of the year, but one of the best in many years. Colin Farrell's turn is surprisingly powerful as well; he handles the comparatively silent role with subtlety and class. The supporting ensemble is good as well, though I would have liked to see more of Christopher Plummer, David Thewlis, and Wes Studi.

The voice-overs didn't bother me too much, though sometimes they became amorphous to the point of randomness. There are times where the imagery would have been better served with mere silence.

To be honest, the prospect of a longer version interests me. I thought the scenery, music, and acting were so beguiling that I could've sat through a lot more of the same without getting bored. The DVD extended cut will be interesting indeed.

-"I... drink... your... milkshake! I drink it up!"

Daniel Plainview, There Will Be Blood

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the question of '05 or '06...

The Faith and Film Critics Circle will be classifying this as a 2006 film, and so will I for my own lists.

Why? Because the film did not exist until a couple of weeks ago.

What was shown for critics earlier was an unfinished cut. So the Academy is so very wrong to classify this as a 2005 film... or perhaps the fault belongs with the studio for rushing matters.

Christianity Today Movies is listing it as a 2005 film, but I find that unfair to the movie because the CT critics didn't get to see it before they assembled their list of nominations. It's the same thing that happened with Born into Brothels, which never had a chance to score a place on their lists in 2004, and yet it doesn't qualify for lists in 2005.

It's really too bad. It would have been my #1 movie of 2005. As it is, it is now my #1 movie of 2006, setting the bar very very high, as it's really my favorite film since, oh, 2003.

Why does this matter? Because people read lists, and they get curious, and the movies on those lists get more attention than they would have otherwise. I think The New World deserves a lot more attention than Brokeback Mountain.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a very beautiful film. I loved the way the camera framed the nature scenes, and some of those images continue to linger with me. Q'Orianka Kilcher's performance was excellent, very moving. The romance was well-done, mature, and believable, not Hollywood-ized. It was an interesting look at both passion and duty in romantic relationships. I would be interested to see the longer cut on the DVD, but I think the nature shots would lose too much on the small screen. That is, unless I find some rich uncle who wants to donate a Plasma TV to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or is anyone else intrigued by the fact that The New World made its first appearance in the weekly top ten on the same weekend that End of the Spear did?

finnegan wrote:

: I swear I heard music from Braveheart several times during this movie.

Well, yes, both scores were written by James Horner. And I have listened to the soundtrack to The New World frequently over the past five weeks, and bits of it do remind me of Horner's scores for 1995's Braveheart and 1997's Titanic (though there are also motifs or techniques that go back at least as far as 1992's The Rocketeer and 1989's Field of Dreams).

Jeff wrote:

: However, I felt that the Indians were naively characterized as innocent, wise, and peaceful until they could

: handle European oppression no more (much like the Muslims in Kingdom of Heaven).

Interesting comparison!

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote

: Christianity Today Movies is listing it as a 2005 film, but I find that unfair to the movie because the CT critics

: didn't get to see it before they assembled their list of nominations. It's the same thing that happened with Born

: into Brothels, which never had a chance to score a place on their lists in 2004, and yet it doesn't qualify for

: lists in 2005.

Yeah, that's a real bummer in both cases. (Though more so in the case of Born Into Brothels, because documentaries like that are not produced by major studios and therefore cannot HELP but follow release strategies that see them opening in theatres AFTER the major awards are handed out. With The New World, there is just a little more merit to the idea that it's the studio's fault for not letting critics see the film in advance. Although, hmmm, wait, in this case, the studio DID let critics see the film in advance -- that's how I got to see it TWICE in December!)

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you make of Sailer's politics, there is some fascinating info on Captain Smith in particular here:

The New World, Virginia Dare, And The Historical American Nation

As Smith, Irish pretty boy Colin Farrell, last seen stinking up the screen in Oliver Stone's Alexander, once against plays a military legend as a self-pitying mope. It doesn't help that Malick gives him little to do other than moon like a lovesick adolescent over Pocahontas.

As the Algonquin maiden, 14-year-old Q'Orianka Kilcher is better than Farrell (although her buckskin minidress bears a distracting resemblance to Betty Rubble's).

It's striking, though, that in a movie celebrating the superiority of American Indians, Malick couldn't find a full-blooded Native American to cast as his heroine. Kilcher's Swiss mother is the cousin of blonde babe singer Jewel.

Eventually, Christian Bale shows up as the reserved widower John Rolfe (who launched the tobacco business in Virginia). After Pocahontas had become the first American Indian to convert to Christianity, Rolfe married her in 1614. This brought about a much-needed six years of peace between the Algonquin Indians and the English.

Rolfe took Princess Pocahontas to England in 1616. Malick depicts England as an oppressive place -- although in fact it was liberating enough to have fostered William Shakespeare, who died that year.

Pocahontas charmed the royal family and high society. But she died suddenly in 1617 as the family was headed back to America.

Their son, Thomas Rolfe, moved to Virginia when he became an adult. Today, most of the venerable families in the Old Dominion claim Pocahontas as an ancestor. By one estimate, Pocahontas has about 100,000 living American descendants today. . . .

Steve Sailer, VDare.com, January 22

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick thoughts

There are two parts to the film, and they both contribute positively to the overall structure of it. The first part strikes me on the surface as the basic "native=good, European=bad" kind of stereotype that isn't all that interesting as an idea. However, and this is where the love story plays in, we see Pocahontas end up with Rolfe, and in doing so, it isn't an all bad arrangement. There's love and tenderness there. There's beauty in the English culture, even as it is of a very different kind. And she has happiness there, with her son in the garden, and in the embrace of her husband. I think to read the film as a whole as the boring stereotype above, you have to see the final conversation between Smith and Pocahontas as completely tragic, which I'm not sure I do. It strikes me as more ambiguous, and in the same way, the European entrance into the New World is also steeped in ambiguity and complexity. There is evil done by the settlers, but there's also good. I'm not sure I want to suggest a simple one to one relationship between the characters and the groups they represent, but I do think there are connections we can make there. In that sense, it reminds me of Graham Greene's The Quiet American.

Also, in thinking further about the beautiful early section of the film, with Smith and Pocahontas, it seems as if their relationship is a bit na

Edited by John

All great art is pared down to the essential.
--Henri Langlois

 

Movies are not barium enemas, you're not supposed to get them over with as quickly as possible.

--James Gray

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, in thinking further about the beautiful early section of the film, with Smith and Pocahontas, it seems as if their relationship is a bit na

All great art is pared down to the essential.
--Henri Langlois

 

Movies are not barium enemas, you're not supposed to get them over with as quickly as possible.

--James Gray

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff wrote:

: Remember that before the "war" between the natives and colonists breaks out, she goes to him at night and

: begs him to come away with her. He says something to the effect of, "Where would we go?" It doesn't seem

: like he's getting cold feet about their actual relationship, but rather the practicality of taking it further.

<Gandalf> I have no memory of this place. </Gandalf>

I wonder if this is one of those scenes that was added to the 135-minute version. Either that, or I have a very bad memory, since I did see the film twice and all ...

Well, there's also the possibility that you're not describing the scene very well, but I won't jump to that conclusion. :)

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG, which version of the film have you seen? Your first comment on the film was posted here on January 1, at a time when the 149-minute version was the only version that anybody had seen. Have you seen the 135-minute version now, too, then?

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work, SDG. I'm glad you at least kind of liked it. :) I think the Passion of The Christ comparison is very interesting, and valid too. It didn't cross my mind at all until you pointed it out.

This interested me a lot:

As the Indians storm the fort, Malick

-"I... drink... your... milkshake! I drink it up!"

Daniel Plainview, There Will Be Blood

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.


×
×
  • Create New...