Jump to content

Return of the King


Overstreet
 Share

Recommended Posts

For the record, SDG, the Star Wars Universe never tries to ground itself in the level of realism that Jackson does with FOTR. Thus, when things seem to break that boundary in LOTR, it bugs me. In Star Wars, especially the first one, the tone was set: This isn't going to make a whole lot of sense. But the way Empire takes a Saturday-morning-serial movie like Star Wars and heightens it to the level of an Arthurian romance, the way it digs deeper and surprises us with what were, at the time, unconventional twists, I think it's a landmark film.

Raiders... well, that too is a Saturday-morning-serial style adventure. It's got gobs of rather ludicrous ideas. But it's not trying to convince us of its real-world-ness. So I give it a lot of slack.

Jackson's got guts to ground LOTR in as much real-world grit as he does. And I'm in awe of what he's achieved. I have to be honest, though... there are many points where, while I'm watching ROTK, my critical faculties are kept distracted and busy, whereas when I watch FOTR, I am almost entirely swept up in the drama.

Another way to say it: The death of Boromir versus the death of Theoden. Boromir's death is the most heartbreaking and convincing onscreen death I can think of. Theoden's is moving, but it doesn't come close to what the Boromir scene does to me.

EXTENDED EDITION SPOILER AHEAD!!

By the way, another small nitpick: In ROTK (Extended Version), we will see Saruman fall to his death (an embellisment), Denethor fall to his death (an embellishment), Gollum fall to his death (the real thing), and Sauron's eye falling (sorta true to the text.) Why, with all of this falling, Jackson has to give both Saruman and Denethor plunges... I don't know. Why not try something original?

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 410
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Come to think of it, why couldn't Gandalf call on Gwaihir to carry the Fellowship over the mountains? Even if there's a reason, shouldn't the subject come up?

Perhaps the subject should come up because a lot of newcomers ask why Gwaihir couldn't just fly Frodo to Mt. Doom and let him drop the ring into the fire. But Tolkien always insisted the Eagles were not at the characters' beck and call. They only give help in the most dire of circumstances (granted, most of them are pretty dire). And they cannot be used as a machine of war.

Now, I've always wondered: Is Sauron the only one who can wear his ring without disappearing? It's a little strange that we see him striding across the battlefield in FotR, the ring clearly on his finger, but when Isildur puts it on a couple of minutes later, he disappears. No explanation of that is given, either. I'm guessing that's how it plays in the book? I'd need to check The Silmarillion.

Diane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sauron is the MASTER of the One Ring. He made it. Anyone else, in putting it on, becomes the Ring's slave, and thus Sauron's.

And you are exactly right about the Eagles, Diane. Gandalf gets their help in The Hobbit because they owe him a favor. In the books, Gwahir's rescue of Gandalf the first time is a big deal as well.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WORTH NOTING:

TheOneRing.net notes: Peter Bradshaw, the head film critic in the UK Guardian, has finally been won around by the Return of the King. A self-confessed Tolkien atheist, he hated Fellowship giving it just 2 stars out of 5 and complaining of its overblown, shallow pomposity. Towers only slightly mollified him, gaining three stars. Return of the King has 4 stars -- this constitutes a conversion of Damascan proportions.

quote from Bradshaw: "It may seem churlish to remember how shallow The Lord of the Rings is, when the Peter Jackson movies have turned out to be such terrifically enjoyable escapism. I started the series an atheist and finished an agnostic."

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an email I received:

Judged as a film apart from the books, LOTR:ROTK is ... insert thesaurus entry for "great". I was twelve when Star Wars came out, and ROTK had a similar impact on me now at 38. I didn't find it too long at all; in fact when the armies were approaching the Black Gate, I found myself thinking, "please, no, don't end it so fast!"

Judged as an adaptation of Tolkien, I rate the film very good, but flawed. Most of the changes to the story work very well (in contrast to the awful mangling of the Faramir and Treebeard stories in TTT). I thought the episode where Gollum tricks Frodo into abandoning Sam was particularly clever and effective.

There was one jarringly false note, and that was the moment when Gandalf takes over control of the Gondorian armies from Denethor. The change from the book (where Denethor volunatarily surrenders control) was totally unnecessary, but more importantly it is completely untrue to Gandalf's character. Tolkien's Gandalf would never, ever, seize military power by force.

This is one case where I think Peter Jackson's indifference to Tolkien's religious beliefs comes through in a bad way. For the most part it doesn't matter because the story is so powerful that the moral and spritual themes can't be suppressed, but whenever Jackson changes the story he runs the risk of ruining an important point. The same thing happened in TTT in the first encounter with Gandalf the White.

I was also generally disappointed with the characterization of Denethor. He came across as a villain (the audience cheered when Gandalf clobbered him and again when he fell over the cliff in flames) rather than as a tragically flawed noble man. It's a pity they couldn't work in his corruption by the Palantir.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:

For the record, SDG, the Star Wars Universe never tries to ground itself in the level of realism that Jackson does with FOTR.

A fair point, and with this caveat I don't think there's much point to my going on to nit-pick Raiders to death. However, I still think that FOTR is subject to the same sort of death by nit-picking, as documented above. I've always had problems with FOTR, from the word go; I ended my review by writing, "I mention these points, but I will not dwell on them. To do so would be ungracious. Peter Jackson took on a monumental task with enormous responsibility with this project; and he has delivered with transcendent brilliance." I feel the same way about ROTK.

Beyond that, I don't know if it is possible, or desirable, to maintain the kind of "grit" and focus of what is necessarily a smaller and more intimate story as that story swells into full epic climactic world-war mode. ROTK is doing, and must do, something fundamentally different than FOTR. There is no way to take the way that Jackson filmed that one horse on the road to Bree and apply that to armies of thousands, or even flying fell beasts. A brilliant fiddle solo has one kind of magic, and you just can't reproduce that with a full orchestra; what you do with the orchestra is inevitably going to be different, though we may hope that it has a special magic appropriate to its own scale -- as in fact I think ROTK has.

Jackson's got guts to ground LOTR in as much real-world grit as he does. And I'm in awe of what he's achieved. I have to be honest, though... there are many points where, while I'm watching ROTK, my critical faculties are kept distracted and busy, whereas when I watch FOTR, I am almost entirely swept up in the drama.

So far, I haven't found that to be the case. Both movies sweep me away, though at the same time I have critical issues with both films.

Another way to say it: The death of Boromir versus the death of Theoden. Boromir's death is the most heartbreaking and convincing onscreen death I can think of. Theoden's is moving, but it doesn't come close to what the Boromir scene does to me.

I daresay something similar is true of the book! Boromir's death comes at a time and place in the story when nothing else hangs on the outcome of the battle; the death itself is the enemy's goal at the moment, and is the center of the scene; it's a climax in itself, and the story comes to a halt for that moment. Theoden's death occurs in a completely different context, in the middle of a much bigger battle in which one death is neither the point for the enemy nor the ultimate tragedy for the heroes; the battle isn't about it and doesn't halt for it. The story is so much bigger than that by that point that it's no longer possible to feel one death as acutely as we did at the end of FOTR.

A more appropriate comparison might be Boromir's death to Gollum's... both climactic, both tragic, both in the shadow of the lure of the Ring. There, I daresay, ROTK gives FOTR a run for its money.

“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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeffrey wrote:

: I reluctantly give the extended cut of Fellowship an A+, in spite of (here

: it comes Peter, the 2 complaints) Galadriel's awful transformation and

: the near-corny quality of Elrond's council.

Wow, these things actually gall you more than Arwen's first line of dialogue? I actually don't mind these two things, if only because they don't violate the internal logic of the story.

: The Eagles arrive at the Black Gate: An embellishment, but a fantastic idea.

IS this an embellishment? My memory may be failing me here, but I could have sworn we see this happen in the cartoon version too, which would lead me to think that it was there in the book.

SDG wrote:

: Beyond that, I don't know if it is possible, or desirable, to maintain the

: kind of "grit" and focus of what is necessarily a smaller and more

: intimate story as that story swells into full epic climactic world-war mode.

Exactly. Jeff, when you say with regard to TFotR's climactic battle that "less is more", I can't help thinking that the whole THRUST of these stories is towards more and more, even in Tolkien's books. Jackson can hardly be faulted for giving us thousands of orcs in the second and third films, instead of the mere dozens of orcs he gave us in the first film.

Good points, SDG, about the differences between the death scenes of Boromir and Theoden. To those, I would add the fact that Boromir's death has extra oomph for us because he is wracked by guilt and doubt and his death is an atonement, of sorts, for his failure to resist the Ring, whereas Theoden dies full of purpose and hopeful anticipation.

BTW, does anyone care about box-office stuff here? The Return of the King apparently set a new record for best Wednesday opening ever (its $34.5 million for that day beating The Phantom Menace's $28.5 million in 1999); it also had the third-best opening day of all time (after Spider-Man's $39.4 million on a Friday last year and The Matrix Reloaded's $37.5 million on a Thursday this year). And for those who are really numbers-obsessed, click here for a chart comparing its daily performance to The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers.

"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 comment
Share on other sites

Alan,

NOW DATS WHAT I'M TALK'N 'BOUT!!! biggrin.gif/

Brandon

"God is so great and merciful that he does not require that we name him precisely. God is even willing to be anonymous for a time. Remember how God led the Three Wise Men from the East to Christ? The Wise Men did not know the God of Israel or Jesus. They worshipped the stars. So God used a star to lure them."--The Twelve Steps for Christians

myspace-animation-codes121.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Russell Lucas

I'd rate the film an A, and an almost unimaginably satisfying conclusion to the trilogy. It's so hard to find a perfect comparitor-- do you measure the books against Tolkien alone, or other fantasy sci-fi series, or what?-- but I know I've never felt so satisfied by the resolution of a trilogy.

There are a couple of missteps. My books-knowledge is hazy and fairly-faded, but I'm excited about reacquiring that level of familiarity with Tolkien's universe as my daughters grow older. Denethor's descent here, though, is clumsy and distracting. His motivations are just a bit too inexplicable. And Frodo's leaving at the end could have used a little more clarity, for my tastes.

Two great filmmaking choices by Jackson:

1. He doesn't show anything of the actual slaughter of Faramir's men. He cuts from that great, intense gorging to the Uruk-hai readying their arrows. It's so much more intense that he doesn't show us the violence (and doesn't need to). And, of course, it would have been just one more battle among so many.

2. He doesn't cut to a reaction shot of Eowyn after Aragorn and Arwen marry. We really don't want to see her look at her feet or manage an unconvincing smile. Eowyn's arc is one that is somewhat different from other main characters-- she'll have to content herself with the warrior queen role, and we can feel certain she'll find happiness without having to see her nose rubbed in it.

Galadriel and Arwen are somewhat strange characters in all of this. I look forward to rereading the books to find out how Tolkien envisioned them.

Solid movie, though. I love the ante-uppings and the momentum shifts in the battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say "less is more", I'm not saying the ROTK wars should have been fought with a handful of orcs. I just mean that I find the battle at the end of FOTR more compelling as far as storytelling goes than a vast battle. There is a sense in Jackson's war scenes that he wants to show us every possible way to kill an orc. To me, that's entertaining, but it's just not as involving. Again, I'm not saying Jackson's done something bad. I'm just explaining why I find one film more engrossing than the other.

I prefer small-scale character to stuff to vast tableaus of war. In ROTK, too many of the character moments are used just to stir us up with grand statements about the war, and too much of the time that could have been used for more particular character interaction gets used for scenes of massive spectacle. Thus, I prefer FOTR.

Again, I am not sitting here throwing stones at ROTK. Of the two or three films I'll take away from this year and cherish, it's definitely one of them. The subject was Which film is superior? I'm just expressing a preference.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there REALLY novelizations of these movies? I know there are novelizations for everything from Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to Dr. Suess' The Cat in the Hat, but I have not seen any such thing for THESE films, not yet.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:

: When I say "less is more", I'm not saying the ROTK wars should have

: been fought with a handful of orcs. I just mean that I find the battle at the

: end of FOTR more compelling as far as storytelling goes than a vast battle.

I think I agree with you, though perhaps not for the same reason. Perhaps I should quote my review of John Woo's Windtalkers:

John Woo movies may be famous for their over-the-top action sequences, but what really makes them work is the way he focuses on the intense personal rivalry between his main characters. In films as varied as the Hong Kong classic The Killer and the Hollywood hit Face/Off, it's the battle of wills between cop and criminal, and the spiritual struggle within the protagonists, that drives the gun battles and the slow-motion pyrotechnics. Like those other films, Windtalkers -- a World War II movie about Navajo code talkers and their uneasy relationship with their fellow marines -- is also about a conflicted friendship and a man who wrestles with his conscience. But this time, the violence takes place on such a grand scale that it dwarfs the characters, who are, after all, just cogs in a larger military machine.

In that sense, I do agree that we have something PERSONALLY invested in the fight scene at the end of TFotR, in the sense that the fights are more or less character-driven, whereas the battle sequences in TTT and especially TRotK tend to overwhelm the individual characters.

"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 comment
Share on other sites

When I say "less is more", I'm not saying the ROTK wars should have been fought with a handful of orcs. I just mean that I find the battle at the end of FOTR more compelling as far as storytelling goes than a vast battle...I prefer small-scale character to stuff to vast tableaus of war.

I guess this a point on which we wil have to agree to disagree, because I find the grand battles extremely compelling. I'm not saying that I dislike character stuff, it's just that in the epic/saga narration of LOTR, this works so much better. And as someone pointed out earlier, Tolkien's books work the same way, getting grander and grander in scale, and the storytelling (even as interepreted by Jackson) still works for me.

In the end, I realize that I was a wee-bit defensive in my earlier post, but I tend to get that way about things that I like.

I saw the movie again on Friday afternoon, and I found that certain things (like the Denethor scene which I think we all agree was a bit much) actually bothered me less, because I was used to them and the film still stands up to my initial impressions. Far and away the grandest, most impressive, most emotionally stirring and for me, the best film of the year.

"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no new themes or motifs

Ummm... Shelob has something close to a theme.

And the melody of the song "Into the West" is woven in long before the end credits as a powerful theme. I love it.

The Rohan theme is used effectively, and not OVER-used, fortunately.

The over-used Isengard theme is fortunately let go, along with Isengard itself. I had grown tired of that one by the end of "Fellowship."

I love this soundtrack, and I'm playing it a lot more than I ever did TTT.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wanted even MORE weeping!?!?

AlanW wrote:

: And did anyone else catch Jackson's cameo?

Yup. And don't forget his children, who appear in the crowd at Minas Tirith.

"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 comment
Share on other sites

Along the way, someone has complained about the lack of new motifs in the ROTK soundtrack. I'm no music major myself, but this subject was broached in interviews with Howard Shore in LA a couple weeks ago, and I think he'd object to that complaint. If anyone's interested, I could supply a transcript of Shore's comments.

Greg Wright

Managing Editor, Past the Popcorn

Consulting Editor, Hollywood Jesus

Leader of the Uruk-Howdy, Orcs of the West

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Barbara strikes again!

AMEN! AMEN! THANK GOD, REINFORCEMENTS!

Give this reviewer a medal somebody! I second this whole review of ROTK and particularly wish I had been the first one to write this part...

"...Also troubling is the amount of violence in this film. Believe me, you'll get no inkling of the film's ferociousness from the family friendly merchandising tie-ins. But it is one of the most violent films I've seen in quite some time. Not much blood, but there's torture, duels to the death, main characters are killed, nightmarish sequences pop up every time someone puts that ring on, and hordes of demonic-looking villains bent on eliminating our little band of wood imps."

Did he mention the eighty guys who march out with Wurtaniknak who get decapitated and whose heads we get to see catapulted into the Castle of Flomfork? How about the three or four hundred people who get impaled on the terrible tusks of the Gnunimmies and then tossed high in the air, only to be brutally trampled under hoof? And then there were the several sequences of the flying Yukmucks who pick off scores of humans from the air and claw or swallow them?

Please give me a family movie like Kill Bill so I can exhale....

By the way, that's Phil Boatwright she's linking to.

But then again, her blog hero Mark Shea writes:

By the way, finally saw ROTK last night. An awesome achievement, not only in terms of spectacle but in terms of the sheer power of the emotional impact. I could cavil at little details, but why should I? My overwhelming reaction is gratitude for the sheer greatness of what Jackson has achieved in these films, particularly the last one. It was not only spectacular, it was beautiful and profoundly moving. Moreover, it was deeply Catholic. Few stories have managed to evoke and, by pure miracle, convey the sadness of this world while making the hope of heaven so desirable and palpable. Jackson may think he had "not an ounce" of interest in Tolkien's Catholic vision, but by some unknowable gift of the Valar, he was graced to communicate it anyway. If you've not seen it yet: Do!

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still recall Boatwright's original negative review of "Fellowship." He complained about how load the horses were, insinuating the film was all sound and fury, without much substance. Sensory overload for Phil.

I try not to hold that review against him. I don't know what he thought of "Two Towers," but his "Return" comments aren't unexpected. I did, however, see another mainstream review -- can't remember where this was -- that said "ROTK" was the most violent movie of the year, besting "Kill Bill." That's striking, considering how so many of the "ROTK" reviews don't stress the violence, while nearly every "Kill Bill" review did so. I suppose "Kill Bill" was about the violence, whereas "ROTK" is not.

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian wrote:

: I suppose "Kill Bill" was about the violence, whereas "ROTK" is not.

I think it may have more to do with the fact that The Lord of the Rings is a war-movie trilogy, whereas Kill Bill is about a single person getting her revenge against a few other people -- selfish vengeance as opposed to selfless sacrifice for the cause, or something.

The Lord of the Rings may not have the gallons of blood that Kill Bill has, but the sheer relish Peter Jackson takes in following arrows as they zip into the skulls of orcs, or in following huge chunks of stone as they fall and crush enemy armies, indicates to me that his films ARE "about the violence", on some level, and in a wow-this-is-cool sort of way that is not unlike what Tarantino does. (Compare those computer-animated projectile shots in Jackson's films with, say, the moment in Kill Bill's anime section where we follow a bullet into someone's brain.)

"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 comment
Share on other sites

Saw this note on TheOneRing.Net concerning the Extended Edition of "ROTK", which led to this post on DVDAnswers.Com...

Apparently, the Extended Edition could run anywhere from 4 hours and 15 minutes (the original length of the theatrical cut) to 5 hours (according to Ian MacKellan). Good grief... just how much did they cut out (aside from Saruman, The Houses Of Healing, etc.)?!?

"I feel a nostalgia for an age yet to come..."
Opus, Twitter, Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies if someone has already posted this blurb from DVDanswers:

- - -

Nothing clear yet on the release date, let alone the disc specs for the third installment of The Lord of the Rings, however since both previous films had Extended Editions released on DVD it is fair to assume this will happen again, especially after it is rumoured Peter Jackson said the following at the Copenhagen premiere. Basically he commented that the first cut of Return of the King had a running time of four hours and fifty minutes. When asked why this was too long for theatres but acceptable for DVD, he said:

"It is different with the DVD version. People watch it at home. They can lay on the couch or spread the experience over two or three nights. That is the amazing thing with DVD. It gives a whole new dynamic and I can assure you that the DVD version of Return of the King will be longer than 4 hours and 50 min."

Unless any of our Danish readers have can confirm this then it is still rumour, however if true, this really is interesting news.

By David Beamish

- - -

In the follow-up posts, Ian McKellan is also quoted to the effect that the extended cut could run to five hours -- though someone else says the Peter Jackson quote here is a mistranslation, and what he actually said was that the DVD version "will be longer than 4 hours and 15 minutes." Still, at any rate, this means the extended version will have at least an hour of new footage -- which makes you wonder just how much of the film's production budget was spent on scenes that never made it to the theatres.

"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 comment
Share on other sites

In Los Angeles, Jackson told the group of press I was with that "four hours and fifteen minutes" was the length of the first cut of ROTK.

And BTW, Jeffrey: I checked and I do NOT have Shore's comments about the motifs on tape. So my memory will simply have to serve as a defense for his opinion that there were many new themes in the ROTK score. Many of these, of course, do not make it into the official Soundtrack; but he also commented that Jackson is encouraging him to release a boxed set of CDs containing the ENTIRE score of the combined extended versions of the films -- and as they are scored and recorded in the films. (Soundtrack albums frequently contain rescored versions of various tracks.) Shore also mentioned that his two-hour LOTR symphony had just debuted in New Zealand. (This may be old news -- I don't know.)

Greg Wright

Managing Editor, Past the Popcorn

Consulting Editor, Hollywood Jesus

Leader of the Uruk-Howdy, Orcs of the West

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg Wright wrote:

: Shore . . . also commented that Jackson is encouraging him to release a

: boxed set of CDs containing the ENTIRE score of the combined extended

: versions of the films -- and as they are scored and recorded in the films.

Kind of like the "special edition" soundtracks of the original Star Wars trilogy, or that two-CD "ultimate edition" of The Phantom Menace? That COULD be interesting, but I have to say, sometimes the edited soundtrack-album versions of some tracks are better.

"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 comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...