Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

Inception (2010)

Recommended Posts

Well, for one thing, as the movie books say, Orson Welles broke a lot of rules with Citizen Kane and invented some new ones, as well -- even if they were all on the level of technique. Are any of Nolan's films game-changers on that level?

If Memento isn't, then no narrative film will ever be again.

I liked Memento. I thought the device of telling the story backwards in order to put the audience in the position of the protagonist, a man no longer able to process short-term into long-term memories, was clever and effective. But it was such a specific problem to solve that I can't think of any movie since that has had need of that method again. And so, in my non-expert view, it seems to have left the game as a whole pretty much untouched and didn't really change it. But you know much more about movies than me (and perhaps were thinking of something different than its central narrative reversal): What movie (or movies) do you think would have been different if Memento had never been made?

Well, in the first place, I'm not sure I'm so much more of an expert than you, but since you ask, the first movie that comes to mind is (500) Days of Summer -- not a backwards narrative but similarly fragmented, nonlinear episodes that gradually acquire context as they progress. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the filmmakers were influenced by Memento.

But based on Peter's question I took "game changers" as synonymous shorthand for "breaking a lot of rules and inventing some new ones," i.e., an assessment of what the filmmaker himself did, more than what other filmmakers did afterward and whether he was "influential" in that sense, which I don't think is the best measurement of a filmmaker's "visionary" cred or lack thereof.


“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
We also see this in the way Leo says his wife is now just a "shade", a projection of his own subconscious, and not the real, full, flesh-and-blood person who had an independent existence of her own and was capable of surprising him with her otherness. (He doesn't quite word it like that, but that's the gist of it -- and it's VERY A Grief Observed.)

Yes indeed, very much so.

I can see that. But, as good a job as Leo does embodying those issues, they are largely related to the audience through exposition, which gives them a somewhat abstract feel. They feel disembodied somewhat, if I can put it that way.

Well, I think it should feel somewhat abstract and disembodied, in a sense, given the situation. But that said, I think Cobb's issues are very much Onscreen:

There's an elevator and level under level of memory and regret and grief. There's a train that comes roaring out of nowhere, sideswiping his plans. There's the back of the kids' heads, and the kids running away over and over. There's that spinning top and the blowing curtains and a broken champagne glass. There's the beach with its disintegrating architecture and the flooded remains of the city of their life together. There's Cobb's unwillingness to play the architect. There are the actual flashbacks we have of the two of them, and Mal's own presence at key junctions in the story. And there's the big Grief Observed scene at the end.

About the corporate espionage, you mean? Yeah. And in this particular case, the movie almost gives us a justification for what these guys are doing; if memory serves, Saito implies that it would be a bad thing if Fischer's monopoly got any bigger. (Doesn't he say they own 90% of whatever industry they belong to, or something like that?)

Yeah, how they'll become a new superpower, and the world will benefit if their plan succeeds. Especially Saito! But it seems kind of tacked on.


“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

SHUTTER ISLAND is the superior film?

Hm. I don't know what to make of that. I don't think SHUTTER ISLAND is all that impressive. It's decent fare, probably the best of the Scorsese/DiCaprio collaborations, but if it's the better DiCaprio film of 2010, then I really need to lower my expectations for INCEPTION.

Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sense is that Shutter Island knows what it's about -- emotional trauma -- and inexorably takes us there, while Inception is about that at heart (I think) but fills its movie with lots of other stuff, lots of other characters, none as well developed as the Cobb and his situation. Some may see that other stuff as a strength, but I found it to be a distraction from what interested me.

Also, Chris Orr has a review up, and although I don't agree with all of it, I really appreciate this line:

Though questions may linger at the film's conclusion, they are less likely to be moral than mechanical.

THAT is a qualm I have about any number of sci-fi films.


"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

SDG wrote:

: Yes indeed, very much so.

Incidentally, I really appreciate the way this film emphasizes that Leo KNOWS his wife is only a "projection" of his subconscious now; a lesser film would have had him thinking the illusion was reality, etc. But it's precisely BECAUSE Leo knows she's not real that his inability to leave her in the past has as much pathos as it does.

: Well, I think it should feel somewhat abstract and disembodied, in a sense, given the situation. But that said, I think Cobb's issues are very much Onscreen . . .

Onscreen, yes, and I appreciate the inventory here. But they are still onscreen in a somewhat abstract and disembodied way. The actual flashbacks are fleeting and fragmentary for the most part -- not unlike the flashbacks in Memento and Batman Begins -- and the one truly sustained flashback (or set of flashbacks) is bracketed and sustained by exposition.

Chris Orr wrote:

: Though questions may linger at the film's conclusion, they are less likely to be moral than mechanical.

Yeah, I think that's been my experience so far, even just within this thread. With Shutter Island, on the other hand, I seem to recall discussing questions that were closer to the "moral" end of the spectrum (e.g., what does it really mean to be a "monster" instead of a "man", and which of Leo's options would really, truly, honestly take him in either of those directions?).

BTW, on the question of which film is better... I don't know. I found Shutter Island a bit disjointed and confusing, and then came the end where everything -- and I do mean EVERYTHING -- was explained at some length. Inception was more enjoyable, at least on first watch, because everything made sense as it happened and we weren't waiting for a big set of speeches in the final act to clear everything up for us. However, I wonder what each of these films would be like on second viewing. All the disjointed stuff in Shutter Island might hold my interest more, now that I know what it all "means", for example; whereas with Inception, I feel like I already "got" the film the first time around, so a second viewing might just clarify some of the details ... but in doing so, it might also expose plot holes I hadn't considered yet.


"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

Scott Foundas @ L.A. Weekly talks to Nolan. A few interesting excerpts:

"I made a slightly smart-ass crack at somebody the other day, because they asked me, 'What's your interest in the mind?' " says Nolan with a sardonic chuckle, surveying the June gloom that has enveloped Los Angeles from the windows of a Beverly Hills hotel suite. "And I said, 'Well, I've lived in one my whole life.' " . . .

"I am fascinated by our subjective perception of reality, that we are all stuck in a very singular point of view, a singular perspective on what we all agree to be an objective reality," Nolan tells me. "Movies are one of the ways in which we try to see things from the same point of view." Movies, of course, may be the greatest "shared dream" of all, which is why Inception feels, at times, like an illustrated tour of Nolan's — and our own — cinematic subconscious, as we pass by familiar sights and signposts from Nolan's own earlier films and those that inspired him. "The film is shameless in its regard for cinema, and its plundering of cinematic history," he says. "What's fun is that a lot of people I talk to come up with very different movies that they see in the film, and most of them are spot-on. There are all kinds of references in there. This wasn't really a conscious thing on my part; I didn't set out to make a movie about movies. But what I wanted was for the dream imagery to be resonant not just to me, but on some kind of shared level. And I think naturally, as a filmmaker, I just gravitate toward cinema as the collective memory we have of imagery and symbolism." . . .

Watching Inception, I tell Nolan, I made a note that the movie — really, his entire filmography thus far — is for people who regard "2 + 2 = 4" not as an inviolable absolute, but rather as a man-made construct subject to multiple variations and interpretations.

"The world is founded on paradoxes," he answers, grinning. "2 + 2 = 4 ... we can see why that's true, we can observe that, but when I talk to my kids about numbers, they have already completely taken aboard the idea that you can't ever have two identical objects, meaning, on some level, that numbers don't exist. Everything in life is inherently paradoxical. You can't prove anything. But we accept that and we live with that and we just sort of deal with it, and what you try to do with a film like Inception is to pull at a few of those threads.

"One of my favorite brainteasers, or things to occupy my mind with when I have spare time, is that if you look in a mirror, left and right are reversed, but up and down are not. How is that possible? I've been trying to wrap my head around that for decades and I make no progress. If any of your readers have the solution, I'll be interested."


"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

Kurt Loder @ MTV:

The movie all but nudges us to notice that some of these characters’ names refer to celebrated figures outside the story. But this is cute to no purpose. Ariadne shares no qualities with her mythological namesake, and Eames displays none of the talents of a famed architectural designer. (Anyway, wouldn’t that be Ariadne’s turf?) Similarly, there’s nothing poetic about a lawyer called Browning (Tom Berenger), and an industrial heir named Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) offers no indication of a chess-master’s cunning. Then there’s Cobb’s estranged wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who haunts his dreams and does her best to screw up his every plan: as her name unnecessarily denotes, she be bad. And what about Dom Cobb himself? Is his unlikely moniker meant to suggest Dummkopf, the German word for a dope? That would seem entirely counterintuitive. But, as I say, whatever.

Kyle Smith responds:

But isn’t Mal kinda like malware — a dream virus — in the story? As for Ariadne, well, the name at least connotes mazes and the Ellen Page character is a sort of expert maze-builder. Browning? I was thinking not of the poet but of Brownian motion, i.e., you can never be sure where Browning is at any given moment since he is a master of disguise. And Cobb? I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean. Actually, dummkopf might have been a good name for the character DiCaprio played in “Shutter Island.”

FWIW, I "got" the Ariadne reference but all the other ones flew right over my head. And I'm not even convinced about this "Mal" business; everyone in the movie pronounces her name "Moll", so I assumed it was short for Molly or something (or meant to invoke the concept of a gangster's "moll", etc.). It wasn't until I started reading some reviews etc. that I realized the character's name was spelled "Mal".


"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

I listening to several Washington Area Film Critics Association critics talk about this film with the greatest superlatives you could possibly give to any film. So I guess our Best Picture of the Year award is in the bag. :(


"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

As far as cinematography, sound design, performances, characters, and dialogue go... I enjoy Shutter Island more. As far as summer movie geeking-out moments and brain teasers, Inception rates higher. And they land about even for me on the resonance of the stories they tell. Yeah, I think if I had to choose which one to see a second time, Shutter Island is just a more appealing option for me. I was impressed with Inception. I enjoyed Shutter Island.


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

I wonder what it says about this film that I can agree with pretty much every single criticism made by Nick Schager @ Slant, yet still like Inception as much as I do.

Meanwhile, David Hudson @ Mubi begins his review round-up with this amusing 'graph:

By this point, long after that euphoric wave of first impressions, a roundup on Christopher Nolan's Inception is going to have to include more than snippets from the latest reviews; mention, at the very least, will have to be made of the reviews of the reviews, fired off in comment sections and hate mail over the past couple of weeks — in short, we'll have to touch on the reception of Inception.

Christian wrote:

: I listening to several Washington Area Film Critics Association critics talk about this film with the greatest superlatives you could possibly give to any film.

Heh. I'm familiar with the hyper-superlative tendencies of at least one of those Washington Area Film Critics, so I can only imagine.


"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

As far as cinematography, sound design, performances, characters, and dialogue go... I enjoy Shutter Island more. As far as summer movie geeking-out moments and brain teasers, Inception rates higher. And they land about even for me on the resonance of the stories they tell. Yeah, I think if I had to choose which one to see a second time, Shutter Island is just a more appealing option for me. I was impressed with Inception. I enjoyed Shutter Island.

What hurts SHUTTER ISLAND for me is the lack of suspense. The film is pretty and well-acted, and some of the dream imagery is compelling, but it's without a pulse. For a thriller, it feels strangely dead-in-the-water. There's not even much of a chill. It's playing so grandly/cartoonishly that no sense of paranoia ever really sets in. It got by on one viewing, but when I tried to watch it again, I became bored and switched it off halfway through.

I'll be seeing INCEPTION twice--tonight and tomorrow--so we'll see how it holds up to the return visit.

Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, according to the thread search engine we're 10 pages in without a single mention of Waking Life, one of the two films I used to 'explain' this film to my wife just now. And not much discussion of how this film relates to Solaris, which given Leo's final decision and the prevalence of Mal throughout, seems to have been a major influence. Just for my own records it kind of figures like a mix of - The Matrix, Waking Life, Solaris, Eternal Sunshine, Memento and some others I'll add later when I think of them.

I love films like this. Ryan for me this is way better than TDK, and The Prestige (whic I saw coming).

Peter,

I too came out wondering if the ending might be anything more than a tease particularly given the children at the end. Our first glance of them is the same shot we have seen at various points in the film, and when we finally see their faces their hair colour seems to have changed noticeably yet they don't really look old enough to fit with Leo's desperation to be home.

But I really enjoyed this. Also the interview for Juno seemed a bit weak. She took three times to get that? He couldn't get it in a circle. Yet they both design whole worlds in their subconcious?

Matt

PS I quite liked Zimmer's score. Groupthink that!

PPS anyone else reminded of that Smirnof add from 15 years ago?

Edited by MattPage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MattPage wrote:

: Our first glance of them is the same shot we have seen at various points in the film, and when we finally see their faces their hair colour seems to have changed noticeably yet they don't really look old enough to fit with Leo's desperation to be home.

Oh... good point.

: Also the interview for Juno seemed a bit weak. She took three times to get that? He couldn't get it in a circle. Yet they both design whole worlds in their subconcious?

Well, there's the time-limit angle too. I actually liked the fact that she had only two minutes to design a maze that he couldn't solve in one minute -- it's all relative to their individual skills, and I just accepted it as a shorthand way of indicating that one genius was auditioning another.

: PS I quite liked Zimmer's score. Groupthink that!

Heh. Christian Toto -- a Washington Area Film Critic, of all things! -- liked it too, albeit in a review that skews kind of negative on the film as a whole.

: PPS anyone else reminded of that Smirnof add from 15 years ago?

Um... not I. A print ad, or a TV ad, or...?


"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

Andrew O'Hehir @ Salon.com:

So, yeah, if you approach "Inception" with lowered expectations it's a pretty good time. Problem is, there are no lowered expectations around Christopher Nolan, whose adherents have proclaimed him as the heir to Kubrick and Hitchcock and declared "Inception" a masterpiece. I don't want to get sidetracked here, but let me suggest that the comparisons aren't entirely misguided. They're just not helpful. Nolan has inherited some of Kubrick and Hitchcock's worst tendencies, most notably their defensive, compulsive inclination to work everything out about their stories and characters to the last detail, as if human beings and the world were algebraic or geometrical phenomena requiring a solution.

But the mysterious power of Hitchcock's "Vertigo" cannot be explained by the ludicrous official story revealed in the final act -- indeed, it nearly scotches the whole movie -- and the attack of "The Birds" is never explained. As Kubrick's career progressed he was increasingly drawn to stories that defied or challenged rational analysis, like "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "The Shining." (I think I'd put "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut" in that category too, but let's discuss some other time.) Nolan seems to have learned exactly the wrong lessons from these mentors. For all the complexity, craftsmanship and color of "Inception," it's yet another of his ultra-serious schematic constructions with no soul, no sex and almost no joy, all about some tormented dude struggling with his ill-managed Freudian demons. That same guy sitting next to me cracked that Nolan needs to
stop
seeing a therapist; there's not nearly enough sublimation in his movies. . . .


"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 got back from my first viewing. I liked it, but I don't think I loved it. I now entirely understand why INCEPTION has received the reaction it has; it's easy to see why some would love this film and why others would find it wanting.

We'll see what I think after seeing it a second time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inception is basically a more extravagant but less exciting version of Joseph Rubin's Dreamscape. Where the latter is tightly structured, the former is slow and cumbersome (though thankfully nowhere near as tortuous as The Dark Knight). Rubin's film also has a more exciting hook--political assassination committed within dreams--than Nolan's ho-hum corporate espionage plot. Of course, the entire mission is clearly a Hitchcockian "MacGuffin" designed to temporarily distract us from the real business at hand: DiCaprio coming to grips with his guilt over his wife's death. But even that doesn't quite have the impact it should.

Nolan makes the talkiest blockbusters on Earth. A whole hour grinds by before the elaborate ideas begin to pay off (e.g., the zero-gravity fight scene), and even then the movie never really captures the horror or hilarity of dreams. I'm not asking for Caligari-like sets, exactly, but something other than the car chases and running gun battles that have become so groaningly familiar. Cronenberg's eXistenZ traverses similar territory with more ingenuity and fewer special effects.

Edited by Nathaniel

"A great film is one that to some degree frees the viewer from this passive stupor and engages him or her in a creative process of viewing. The dynamic must be two-way. The great film not only comes at the viewer, it draws the viewer toward it." -Paul Schrader

Twitter     Letterboxd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For all the complexity, craftsmanship and color of "Inception," it's yet another of his ultra-serious schematic constructions with no soul, no sex and almost no joy

YES.


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

Since the birth of our kids, I haven't ventured to the movies as much as I once did. But an oppty sprang up yesterday, and I made this a priority. From my interpretation of the final scene, it is as thrilling as the ending of _Brazil_, one of my all-time faves.

Incidentally, the three last first-runs I had caught upon it's initial week of release, all starred this guy:

Dileep Rao.

Not sure what that means, except that he must have one real awesome agent.

ETA: I may be in the minority, and I don't think this is a spoiler, but I do not consider the opening sequence to be a flash forward.

Edited by Nick Alexander

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the entire mission is clearly a Hitchcockian "MacGuffin" designed to temporarily distract us from the real business at hand: DiCaprio coming to grips with his guilt over his wife's death. But even that doesn't quite have the impact it should.

The Macguffin thing occurred to me last night. I'm sure I read the term in reviews and discussion (here?), but it didn't register until yesterday, and it made me wonder if my problem with the film stands up. If the inception mission is the Macguffin, then the film really IS about DiCaprio's character, and I misjudged how the film played out.

But I don't think NOLAN thinks the film is about Cobb. He emphasizes the Macguffin, spends all that time setting it up, populating it (just like a dream!:) ) and carrying out the mission.

I read the reviews, and the film's biggest fans seem fascinated with the outcome of the mission, with the finale of the film across multiple levels (cross-cutting!), how Nolan keeps it all going and makes it coherent. But ... that's not what the film is about, is it?

Unless it is. And I think Nolan thinks it is. Hitchcock always knew what the Macguffin in his films was, and what they were really about. For all the talk about Nolan being an heir of Hitchcock, I don't think he gets that.

Jeffrey: Thanks for the O'Hehir link. I don't think there's another critic working today with whom I agree more often, not just in the overall judgment of a film's worth, but in all the particulars as to why a film does or doesn't work.


"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

ETA: I may be in the minority, and I don't think this is a spoiler, but I do not consider the opening sequence to be a flash forward.

How does that make the slightest bit of sense?

Explaining how _is_ spoilerific, and my itouch device doesn't make spoiler tags easy to navigate. Let's just say that I think Cobb's toy top is the key to everything the movie is about.


Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I don't think NOLAN thinks the film is about Cobb.

Well, yes, I think he does: Cobb is emphasized every bit as much as the MacGuffin/mission. Perhaps moreso. The reason the MacGuffin/mission also gets significant time is that it's meant to compliment Cobb's story. Which is why I actually wouldn't bother to call it a MacGuffin. It's not a disposable distraction.

Jeffrey: Thanks for the O'Hehir link. I don't think there's another critic working today with whom I agree more often, not just in the overall judgment of a film's worth, but in all the particulars as to why a film does or doesn't work.

I always enjoy O'Hehir's reviews. He's one of my "pet critics," along with Manohla Dargis, Stephanie Zacharek, and Glenn Kenny. But I do think he's selling INCEPTION way short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the complaint that Inception has no "soul" and "almost no joy." I disagree, but I understand the complaint.

Critics who complain about sexlessness in a film, or a filmmaker's work, lose my sympathy and attention real fast. (Tolkien got that complaint too.)


“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
I can understand the complaint that Inception has no "soul" and "almost no joy." I disagree, but I understand the complaint.

Yes, I think I disagree too. Part of the reason I suspect folks say INCEPTION has no soul is that part of its soul is a very strange, sci-fi narrative with which it takes a lot of imagination with which to relate. Cobb's story is uniquely his.

Critics who complain about sexlessness in a film, or a filmmaker's work, lose my sympathy and attention real fast. (Tolkien got that complaint too.)

I suspect O'Herir is noting it because of how easily dreams drift into sexuality/sensuality. He's not the first critic to note Nolan's is a very chaste dreamscape (but it's a very restrained, orderly dreamscape in other respects, too, so it's not as though sex is the only thing Nolan isn't going after full-throttle).

I rather wish Nolan had really let loose with dreamscape. He spends time setting up all these rules, and they get pay-off, but I feel like things should have, and could have, gotten stranger. What if the subconscious of the other team members also started to eke out into the dreamworlds, in harmless, albeit quite strange ways? The casualty of sharing a dreamspace?

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...