Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

Inception (2010)

Recommended Posts

Andrew   

FWIW, I've been reading this thread the whole time, and nothing I've seen convinces me the film's achievement is anything less than astonishing.

Me, too. I watched this three times on the big screen, and would go see it again if it were still playing. I enjoy seeing grand spectacle at the movies, but CGI pseudo-wonders increasingly leave me with a 'meh' reaction. Inception felt very different - with each viewing, I gasped as I watched the streets of Paris fold upon themselves (and what a pleasure to hear my kids respond similarly when they joined me for the second go-round). To my brain, Nolan and company created something both visceral and dreamlike - the thud of the body on the windshield seemed to resonate more powerfully than in other action/car chase movies, the fall into the bathtub and the awakening on the airplane resonated with my own sensations waking up from a dream.

Just as importantly, Inception has an emotionally authentic core for me. The obsessive quality of grief - revisiting past scenes, hoping to redo them or see the ending work out differently - the magical blessing or curselike power of a loved one's final words, teasing out the meaning of what was said or unsaid - was excellently evoked here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG   
Last summer I took my kids and their cousins through a combination tandem story / roleplaying game (we do one each summer) involving extensive time travel, bifurcating time lines and terrible plot devices called timebombs and timeworms that had the ability to destroy entire temporal branches or even eliminate the entire existence of someone or something across all timelines.

Uh... teach me how to do this. Please. I will name a character after you.

I have no idea how to do it. I made it up.

I started three years ago on our family trip to the Outer Banks with a high fantasy scenario: I assigned all the cousins races and skills (elf, warrior, wizard, etc.), established a conflict premise (evil wizard to be defeated), gave them some leads and some ground rules, and let them decide how to proceed. I also kept a couple of characters in the mix whom I controlled in case I needed to push the story one way or another.

Oh, I also gave them each a secret that they weren't supposed to tell the others, each of which had a payoff at some point in the story. (The funny thing about the secrets was that they knew one of their group was secretly a traitor, and each of them thought it might be any of the others. In reality, the traitor was one of the characters I controlled. Tricky, tricky Uncle Steve...)

Usually in each day's play I gave them choose-your-own-adventure type options: Do you split up into teams and pursue individual goals, or do you stick together and aim for one goal? I worked out general contingency plans depending on what they chose.

Sometimes, unbeknownst to them, apparent choices were only window dressing: If they decided to stay at an inn or press on in the dark, and I wanted them to meet with a band of marauders, the only thing that changed was the venue of the attack. So this wasn't like a mapped-out D&D dungeon where all the traps and monsters and such were planted in advance. I was a benevolently arbitrary god.

Sometimes the choices were real choices -- and when they split up, I wouldn't let them interact with players who weren't on their teams. This led to the best play in the whole game, in which Zach's team went to see a foreign wizard to borrow a magic gem that was supposed to help them, and he wouldn't let them have it -- and then, on their way out, they saw the gem standing unguarded by the door.

David, who wasn't on their team, knew me well enough to know that the unguarded gem was a test, and he was beside himself with mute fury, literally thrashing in his chair with frustration that he couldn't warn Zach. Zach (a wizard) told Sarah (an elf princess) to pick up the gem. Sarah, who I don't think saw the trap but did know that they had no right to take the gem, flatly refused Zach's order, even though he was in charge. "You have to do what I say," he told her. "Not if it goes against my conscience," she retorted, genuinely stressed by the moral conflict of it all. Gosh, I was so proud.

So Zach had his character saunter over and pick up the gem -- and bam, his arm turned to stone, and the foreign wizard appeared and told them that he would have given them the gem had they not tried to take it. So they slunk off in disgrace. Sarah was so upset that she almost quit playing, but I strongly assured her that in fact I was in charge and she should trust me.

The whole time I had a couple of different thoughts about how to defeat the evil wizard, depending on which courses they took. In the end I decided that they were going to succeed too easily, so I frustrated their plans and made them go with plan B. Of course I was careful to be sure that they faced various problems along the way that would require each of their unique skills to solve. Oh, and I also established from the outset that one of the characters was going to have to die before the evil wizard was killed. It turned out to be Zach, who was happy to go out in a blaze of glory.

Two years ago it was a sci-fi space opera. The gimmick that year was that I split them up into opposing teams, more or less Empire vs Rebel Alliance. All different alien races with different gifts. Individually, I told each group that they were in the right and the other side was wrong. Of course, I didn't really want to end things with one side winning and the other side losing, so in the third act, I introduced a major new threat that obliged them to put their differences aside and work together to defeat the common enemy. And of course it turned out that the moral issues between the two groups were trickier than initially appeared. Also, to make them take their choices seriously, I killed off a number of them early in play when they made mistakes, and let them come back the next day as new characters.

Last year, they played themselves, on vacation in the Outer Banks, present day. I even introduced actual events and dialogue that had occurred earlier on the first day of play. But then I introduced a time-traveling Blackbeard (Edward Teach lived in the Outer Banks, so it was a natural connection), AND I literally killed them all off at the end of the very first day -- but in such a way as to make it seem that it was a consequence of their own choices. They were stupefied.

The second day, I began the story again just as it had begun the day before, as if nothing had happened -- and slowly revealed that they were in a time loop, and had to break out of it somehow. I think they died three or four times the same way before they finally managed to break out of the loop.

Their travels took them back and forth in the history of the Outer Banks to precolonial days, Blackbeard's day, the Civil War, the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk, John Smith and the lost colony of Roanoke (I researched all this on Wikipedia in the weeks before our vacation) and two different future periods from which the sci-fi elements came, including the time travel. (Turns out one of them grew up to become a historian, was contacted by historians from the future, received time travel tech (T3, we called it) -- and accidentally became responsible for letting Blackbeard get T3 and get loose in the timestream.

We outfitted Blackbeard's ship, the Queen Anne's Revenge, with flight and T3 -- and at one point I think we had multiple versions of the Queen Anne's Revenge from different points in time battling each other at the same time. Somehow I did my best to dovetail variant timelines, so that on Tuesday they encountered future versions of themselves, and then on Thursday we went through the same events from the other side.

Oh, and halfway through the week I outfitted them with nanobots that gave them superpowers. They REALLY liked that.

But the whole time travel thing was complete nonsense. I mean, I did my best, but it was wildly inconsistent, pure misdirection. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Sounds like the last season of Doctor Who (and that's a good thing). B)

Believe it or not, the connection has been made -- not by me, but by a friend who just gave me the last season of "Doctor Who" on DVD for Christmas, in part for that very reason. I haven't yet watched it, though.

Edited by SDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The obsessive quality of grief - revisiting past scenes, hoping to redo them or see the ending work out differently - the magical blessing or curselike power of a loved one's final words, teasing out the meaning of what was said or unsaid - was excellently evoked here.

Well, not to rekindle an earlier debate, but VERTIGO does all of that much more effectively than INCEPTION.

I love INCEPTION in concept. I positively adore the idea of individuals sharing a lifetime together in imaginary space, being separated by bitter tragedy, and then one of them constructing an artificial dreamspace--a memory palace, practically--where they can still be together. That's fodder for a thoughtful, deeply moving, profound film. But, as usual with Nolan, it over-complicates things, short-changing some of the most fascinating aspects of the story. Nolan tosses in character after character, crams the film full of exposition, and then gives us some none-too-compelling action sequences.

Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBooth   

SDG:

Believe it or not, the connection has been made -- not by me, but by a friend who just gave me the last season of "Doctor Who" on DVD for Christmas, in part for that very reason. I haven't yet watched it, though.

Well, I can't predict your reaction, but to my mind it was the best the series has been since Eccleston; more cohesive as a season with a powerful emotional core. I've seen others disagree with that sentiment. But that's a discussion for another thread. (I should also add that I find Moffat very Nolanesque in his plotting style).

BTW, your storylines? Awesome. :D

Ryan H:

Well, not to rekindle an earlier debate, but VERTIGO does all of that much more effectively than INCEPTION.

There are few films that are as effective as Vertigo at anything it does.

But, as usual with Nolan, it over-complicates things, short-changing some of the most fascinating aspects of the story. Nolan tosses in character after character, crams the film full of exposition, and then gives us some none-too-compelling action sequences.

Exposition I'll grant, but for some of us the over-complicatedness is part of what makes this movie so insanely fun to watch.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exposition I'll grant, but for some of us the over-complicatedness is part of what makes this movie so insanely fun to watch.

Okay.

But the question isn't whether INCEPTION is fun to watch ('cause I think it is) but whether it succeeds as something more than a good slice of popcorn entertainment. What elevates INCEPTION above, say, THE MATRIX, beyond the fact that it doesn't have lousy sequels?

Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M. Leary   

But the whole time travel thing was complete nonsense. I mean, I did my best, but it was wildly inconsistent, pure misdirection. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Wow. I need more kids. Thanks for that excellent post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBooth   
What elevates INCEPTION above, say, THE MATRIX, beyond the fact that it doesn't have lousy sequels?

The fact that The Matrix stalks around with a serious expression on its face with all its Messiah-posturing while generally delivering pretty banal philosophical points, whereas Inception at least has the good grace to let the audience figure out some things for itself (even granting exposition, as I think this thread shows)? The fact that The Matrix does virtually nothing with its concepts, while Inception does (for instance, with the layering of dream states)? The fact that, while Inception can seem half baked in its human emotion, The Matrix really is hollow to the core?

IMHO, The Matrix is a banal "what if reality was all a dream, man?" type movie, and consequently pretty boring after the initial elation has worn off. Inception invites us (at least, as I read it) to try to come to grips with the fact that we are all a tissue of memory who "host" each other to varying degrees. The stuff it's getting at--even if it's not entirely successful--goes far beyond the surface-level observations of the older movie, and that ambition alone elevates it above a rock-em-sock-em starring Keanu Reeves.

The fact that Inception is fun? Let's not discount the element of fun; I don't think anyone here has suggested that it's more than a very smart popcorn movie (I've been careful to add that disclaimer every other post or so). Inception is what it is, and does what it does, very well. I don't think the same can be said of The Matrix, which is dreary, dull, and full of the kind of self-importance that's mostly appealing to freshman Philosophy majors (and I know--I was one once).

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG   
But the whole time travel thing was complete nonsense. I mean, I did my best, but it was wildly inconsistent, pure misdirection. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Wow. I need more kids. Thanks for that excellent post.

approve.gif Anything that elicits a response like "I need more kids" was time well spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut reaction is that I liked the Matrix more than Inception. I think it's more innovative in its cinema.

Edited by Buckeye Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG   
What elevates INCEPTION above, say, THE MATRIX, beyond the fact that it doesn't have lousy sequels?

The fact that The Matrix stalks around with a serious expression on its face with all its Messiah-posturing while generally delivering pretty banal philosophical points, whereas Inception at least has the good grace to let the audience figure out some things for itself (even granting exposition, as I think this thread shows)? The fact that The Matrix does virtually nothing with its concepts, while Inception does (for instance, with the layering of dream states)? The fact that, while Inception can seem half baked in its human emotion, The Matrix really is hollow to the core?

IMHO, The Matrix is a banal "what if reality was all a dream, man?" type movie, and consequently pretty boring after the initial elation has worn off. Inception invites us (at least, as I read it) to try to come to grips with the fact that we are all a tissue of memory who "host" each other to varying degrees. The stuff it's getting at--even if it's not entirely successful--goes far beyond the surface-level observations of the older movie, and that ambition alone elevates it above a rock-em-sock-em starring Keanu Reeves.

The fact that Inception is fun? Let's not discount the element of fun; I don't think anyone here has suggested that it's more than a very smart popcorn movie (I've been careful to add that disclaimer every other post or so). Inception is what it is, and does what it does, very well. I don't think the same can be said of The Matrix, which is dreary, dull, and full of the kind of self-importance that's mostly appealing to freshman Philosophy majors (and I know--I was one once).

What NBooth said, more or less, although I think The Matrix is a pretty impressive achievement itself; one of my earliest impressions of Inception was "The Matrix for grownups."

I know The Matrix has blown a lot of young minds, but I can't say I remember being particularly surprised by anything myself, whereas Inception surprised me again and again. The way the movement of the van affected the gravity in the hotel, for example. And you'll search The Matrix in vain for anything like the emotional truth of Cobb's final farewell to his projection of Mal, so inferior to the real woman in "all her complexity, all her perfection, all her imperfection." ("You can't be dead because I love you" doesn't cut it.)

My gut reaction is that I liked the Matrix more than Inception. I think it's more innovative in it's cinema.

True, The Matrix's groundbreaking use of bullet-time was a Star Wars-like cinematic advance in a way that nothing in Inception is. But The Matrix doesn't leave me pondering it the way I continue to ponder Inception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as importantly, Inception has an emotionally authentic core for me. The obsessive quality of grief - revisiting past scenes, hoping to redo them or see the ending work out differently - the magical blessing or curselike power of a loved one's final words, teasing out the meaning of what was said or unsaid - was excellently evoked here.

Right, the core of the film is its strength, but does Nolan even know that this is the core of the film? He's too busy working out the father/son energy price-fixing blah blah blah stuff to make the film better than a near miss.

Ask people who've seen Inception what they think the strength of the film is. Their reply will be, "I love the way that one guy walks on the walls and ceiling!" THAT'S what people like about Inception. (Yes, I've asked.) And I think that's what Nolan wanted.

Mission accomplished. To each his own.

Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this one was boring as hell. A lot of bad performances and poor dialogue, too. In my opinion, "Inception" is a film made for movie-goers who are too lazy to do any research and watch stimulating, well-crafted films about dreams.

And considering that's 90% of audiences these days, the result was massive hype and praise. At this point, Nolan could film himself waking up and going to the bathroom, and I swear that there are a lot of people out there who would love it.

You are being way too hard on Nolan, the audience, and depending on the use of your words "well-crafted," Inception, too.

I guess the audience in particular, because as you can see here, there are a lot of fine film readers in the film's audience.

I think you're being way too easy on Nolan, the audience, and "Inception".

Settle for trash and they'll keep feeding it to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBooth   

Christian:

Right, the core of the film is its strength, but does Nolan even know that this is the core of the film? He's too busy working out the father/son energy price-fixing blah blah blah stuff to make the film better than a near miss.

I dunno, the more I see this movie the more convinced I am that the father/son stuff was meant to be a parallel to Cobb's own emotional issues. The way Fischer achieves catharsis by reconciling with his memory of his father is in some ways similar to Cobb's eventual reconciliation with his memory of Mal. The overarching idea--that these characters need to let go of past regrets--is pretty unified between the two storylines, for all their differences.

Ask people who've seen Inception what they think the strength of the film is. Their reply will be, "I love the way that one guy walks on the walls and ceiling!" THAT'S what people like about Inception. (Yes, I've asked.) And I think that's what Nolan wanted.

Fair enough. I think that's a bit simplified, but it's a reasonable approach (it doesn't match up with conversations I've had both here and in the real world about the movie, though).

Mr. Brown:

Settle for trash and they'll keep feeding it to you.

You might have a point if we were talking about Jonah Hex. :)

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG   
Settle for trash and they'll keep feeding it to you.

We should be so lucky. If a third of the top-paid directors in Hollywood had a third of Nolan's ambition and inspiration, Hollywood summers would be at least three times more interesting than they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:

: Inception invites us (at least, as I read it) to try to come to grips with the fact that we are all a tissue of memory who "host" each other to varying degrees.

Ooo. I think this may be favorite thing, of all the things that have been written or said in connection with this film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that Inception is fun? Let's not discount the element of fun; I don't think anyone here has suggested that it's more than a very smart popcorn movie (I've been careful to add that disclaimer every other post or so). Inception is what it is, and does what it does, very well.

But is INCEPTION even a marvelous popcorn film? I'm not sure I can take any vantage point on INCEPTION where it comes across as a bonafide success. It doesn't grapple with themes very compellingly. Its characterization leaves much to be desired. And, aside from a handful of moments, it doesn't offer some spectacular action or remarkable visuals.

I don't think the same can be said of The Matrix, which is dreary, dull, and full of the kind of self-importance that's mostly appealing to freshman Philosophy majors (and I know--I was one once).

Your points about THE MATRIX--a lousy film, if you ask me--are well taken. And you're right that INCEPTION is better (though that scene with the dreamers in the basement, and that question--was it something like "Who are you to say the dream isn't more real"?--struck me as pretty MATRIX-y in its kind of entry-level philosophy course-ness). Though I do think THE MATRIX has INCEPTION beat when it comes to visuals and action sequences.

And you'll search The Matrix in vain for anything like the emotional truth of Cobb's final farewell to his projection of Mal, so inferior to the real woman in "all her complexity, all her perfection, all her imperfection."

If only that scene wasn't so bogged down in terrible dialogue. Or if it hadn't been undercut by the heist material and Robert Fischer's catharsis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anders   

NBooth wrote:

: Inception invites us (at least, as I read it) to try to come to grips with the fact that we are all a tissue of memory who "host" each other to varying degrees.

Ooo. I think this may be favorite thing, of all the things that have been written or said in connection with this film.

Yes. Excellent. I think this gets at something I've been trying to articulate. Right now I'm taking a course on Memory and Art Cinema. I think INCEPTION is Memory and the Blockbuster 101.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, the core of the film is its strength, but does Nolan even know that this is the core of the film? He's too busy working out the father/son energy price-fixing blah blah blah stuff to make the film better than a near miss.

Ask people who've seen Inception what they think the strength of the film is. Their reply will be, "I love the way that one guy walks on the walls and ceiling!" THAT'S what people like about Inception. (Yes, I've asked.) And I think that's what Nolan wanted.

Mission accomplished. To each his own.

1233928590_citizen%20kane%20clapping.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG   
And I think that's what Nolan wanted.

I think this, at least, is clearly wrong. Nobody makes a movie this complicated and full of this many ideas and themes, however well or poorly anyone may think they work, fundamentally in the service of a guy walking on ceilings and floating in space. There are much more economical ways to do a lot more of that sort of thing if that's what you're after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the same can be said of The Matrix, which is dreary, dull, and full of the kind of self-importance that's mostly appealing to freshman Philosophy majors (and I know--I was one once).

Your points about THE MATRIX--a lousy film, if you ask me--are well taken.

[blink]

[blink]

I... I've found company! At last, I've found company!!

GROUP HUG!!

The fact that Inception is fun? Let's not discount the element of fun; I don't think anyone here has suggested that it's more than a very smart popcorn movie (I've been careful to add that disclaimer every other post or so).

See, I can't even go there. The blaring soundtrack, the constant and oppressive thunderousness of its own self-importance, the perpetual exposition (I prefer to call the film Explanation)... I really, really wanted the movie to be fun. I don't remember having much fun at all. The movie didn't give me a chance.

A few days back, someone referred to a film's script as "airtight", and I objected. Inception's script is airtight. And I couldn't breathe.

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, I can't even go there. The blaring soundtrack, the constant and oppressive thunderousness of its own self-importance, the perpetual exposition (I prefer to call the film Explanation)... I really, really wanted the movie to be fun. I don't remember having much fun at all. The movie didn't give me a chance.

Yeah, there isn't much joy in INCEPTION.

And like THE DARK KNIGHT, he structures and edits the film in such a way that it doesn't really have an alternating rhythm of give and take. Other "rollercoaster" films, like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK have lulls and then full-throttle excitement. Nolan's sense of a rollercoaster is nothing but a perpetual, rushing, exhausting descent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that Inception is fun? Let's not discount the element of fun; I don't think anyone here has suggested that it's more than a very smart popcorn movie (I've been careful to add that disclaimer every other post or so).

See, I can't even go there. The blaring soundtrack, the constant and oppressive thunderousness of its own self-importance, the perpetual exposition (I prefer to call the film Explanation)... I really, really wanted the movie to be fun. I don't remember having much fun at all. The movie didn't give me a chance.

A few days back, someone referred to a film's script as "airtight", and I objected. Inception's script is airtight. And I couldn't breathe.

Another issue for me was that terrible score, as well. God only knows how that putz still has a job making music for motion pictures.

The best part, however, was that people loved it. Personally, I'd rather put my ear by the tailpipe of a tractor trailer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SDG   
But is INCEPTION even a marvelous popcorn film? I'm not sure I can take any vantage point on INCEPTION where it comes across as a bonafide success.

What can I tell you, Ryan? I have a marvelous popcorn experience with it. I find the plotting and execution of the caper thoroughly engaging. Conceits like Cobb's "Mr. Charles" boldly revealing to Fischer that he's dreaming while pretending to be a projection of his security-trained subconscious are delicious. The notion and problem solving of the "kick" concept works for me. The characters may be one-dimensional, but I get a kick out of Eames's needling relationship with Arthur. The problem of Cobb trying to stay one step ahead of his subconscious resonates for me on a deep level with my own experience of lucid and non-lucid dreaming. And, like I said, I keep turning it over and over in my mind looking for the solution.

If you think The Matrix is a lousy film, though, I'm not surprised that your experience of Inception is so different from mine.

If only that scene wasn't so bogged down in terrible dialogue. Or if it hadn't been undercut by the heist material and Robert Fischer's catharsis.

How does Fischer's catharsis "undercut" that scene? Isn't the whole point about real versus illusory catharsis? Fischer gets catharsis, but it's illusory. Cobb turns away from his projection of Mal because she's illusory. Then he goes home to his kids. Is that catharsis real or illusory? Are we the audience willing to accept it without knowing? Does positive emotion trump negative emotion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And like THE DARK KNIGHT, he structures and edits the film in such a way that it doesn't really have an alternating rhythm of give and take. Other "rollercoaster" films, like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK have lulls and then full-throttle excitement. Nolan's sense of a rollercoaster is nothing but a perpetual, rushing, exhausting descent.

I agree, although I like The Dark Knight because it actually has much more lifelike, interesting characters - and much more interesting performances - than Explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBooth   

But is INCEPTION even a marvelous popcorn film? I'm not sure I can take any vantage point on INCEPTION where it comes across as a bonafide success.

What can I tell you, Ryan? I have a marvelous popcorn experience with it. I find the plotting and execution of the caper thoroughly engaging. Conceits like Cobb's "Mr. Charles" boldly revealing to Fischer that he's dreaming while pretending to be a projection of his security-trained subconscious are delicious. The notion and problem solving of the "kick" concept works for me. The characters may be one-dimensional, but I get a kick out of Eames's needling relationship with Arthur. The problem of Cobb trying to stay one step ahead of his subconscious resonates for me on a deep level with my own experience of lucid and non-lucid dreaming. And, like I said, I keep turning it over and over in my mind looking for the solution.

See, here I was trying to formulate why I thought Inception was fun, and SDG was already there with an explanation. There's lots of fun to be had in sheer plottiness. Sure, you don't get charming stuff like Indy and Marion bantering, but you do get the pleasure of seeing the complicated workings of the heist unfold. If you don't dig it, fine, but (like SDG) I had a blast each time I watched it.

If only that scene wasn't so bogged down in terrible dialogue. Or if it hadn't been undercut by the heist material and Robert Fischer's catharsis.

How does Fischer's catharsis "undercut" that scene? Isn't the whole point about real versus illusory catharsis? Fischer gets catharsis, but it's illusory. Cobb turns away from his projection of Mal because she's illusory. Then he goes home to his kids. Is that catharsis real or illusory? Are we the audience willing to accept it without knowing? Does positive emotion trump negative emotion?

Nice.

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  

×