Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Link to our thread on The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

Link to the R-rated trailer, which had both my wife and me laughing.

"He's playing fetch. With my kids. He's treating my kids like they're dogs." (Heck, I do that with MY kids!)

"Do you really want to?" "Well, NOW...!"

"Trust me, you're not even close." (Oh, boy, does that one bring back memories.)

Yeah, I think I'm looking forward to this one, even though I had a mixed reaction to The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

- - -

SXSW Film Festival: Knocked Up

"Knocked Up" is uproarious. Line for line, minute to minute, writer-director Judd Apatow's latest effort is more explosively funny, more frequently, than nearly any other major studio release in recent memory. Indeed, even more than the filmmaker's smash-hit sleeper "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," his new pic is bound to generate repeat business among ticketbuyers who'll want to savor certain scenes and situations again and again, if only to memorize punchlines worth sharing with buddies. Currently set for a June 1 release, this hugely commercial comedy likely will remain in megaplexes throughout the summer and, possibly, into the fall.

Joe Leydon, Variety, March 13

"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

Interesting. The trailer IS funny, but not in an uproarious way, at least to my mind. That said, I am definitely looking forward to this movie, as someone who found tFYOV a surprisingly wonderful experience.

That's just how eye roll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom Line: Laugh-filled blend of blunt banter and heartfelt romance makes a charming follow-up to "The 40-Year-Old Virgin."

It will be interesting to watch how the family-values crowd responds to the film. Should they denounce it for the crude title and sexual attitudes, hope kids see it as a terrifying cautionary tale, or be content that, having sinned, the protagonists do the right thing? Apatow's gleefully raunchy movies are, in an odd and charming way, extremely family-friendly.

John DeFore, Hollywood Reporter, March 14

"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
Bottom Line: Laugh-filled blend of blunt banter and heartfelt romance makes a charming follow-up to "The 40-Year-Old Virgin."

It will be interesting to watch how the family-values crowd responds to the film. Should they denounce it for the crude title and sexual attitudes, hope kids see it as a terrifying cautionary tale, or be content that, having sinned, the protagonists do the right thing? Apatow's gleefully raunchy movies are, in an odd and charming way, extremely family-friendly.

John DeFore, Hollywood Reporter, March 14

I concur. Films like 40YoV, Wedding Crashers, and (it seems) this film all examine sexual behavior with a view toward morality. The funniness and raunchiness are just incidental to the over-arching moral journey the film takes us on.

BTW, I heard ("heard" as in I dunno if this is really true) that the script that 40YoV is based upon was originaly written by a Mormon, part of the reason for the bicycle thing in the story line.

INT. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH - SANCTUARY - NIGHT

FATHER LORENZO

So now that you've told me all of this: why do you hold such a deep aversion to discussing angels?

PASTOR DAVID

Because I don't wanna get it WRONG! To stand up in front of my congregation--AND in front of God-- and screw it up! Do you hold much stock in that passage from James that says "We who teach will be judged more strictly"??

FATHER LORENZO

Yes... in fact .... I consider that one scripture to be an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? I don't get the bicycle thing.

One thing that will be interesting to observe is what effect the casting of Paul Rudd as a pathetic married man, rather than as a pathetic sexually active single guy, will have on this film's "family-friendly" quotient. It was pretty easy to say of The 40-Year-Old Virgin that the film, for all its bawdiness, ultimately affirmed traditional values because all the non-virgins were more screwed up than the virgin protagonist. But what happens now that the married guy appears to be pretty screwed up himself (presumably more so than the non-married protagonist)?

"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
Eh? I don't get the bicycle thing.

Do not Mormon missionaries in Canada ride bikes? Mormons on bikes has become a cliche image in comedy films of late. Did you see Millions and do you recall the three Mormon missionary guys in that film, complete with bikes?

One thing that will be interesting to observe is what effect the casting of Paul Rudd as a pathetic married man, rather than as a pathetic sexually active single guy, will have on this film's "family-friendly" quotient. It was pretty easy to say of The 40-Year-Old Virgin that the film, for all its bawdiness, ultimately affirmed traditional values because all the non-virgins were more screwed up than the virgin protagonist. But what happens now that the married guy appears to be pretty screwed up himself (presumably more so than the non-married protagonist)?

Hmmm... I didn't catch in the trailer any implication that the married couple was screwed up. (I saw the trailer in theatre last week, and I am unable to download your links here because my processor sucks and can't handle video.) My impression was that they were exploring the "oops!" of getting pregnant. I saw little emphasis on the married couple. I'll have to look more closely next time.

But my overall impression is that they're trying to show that an accidental pregnancy is NOT a good basis for a relationship.

INT. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH - SANCTUARY - NIGHT

FATHER LORENZO

So now that you've told me all of this: why do you hold such a deep aversion to discussing angels?

PASTOR DAVID

Because I don't wanna get it WRONG! To stand up in front of my congregation--AND in front of God-- and screw it up! Do you hold much stock in that passage from James that says "We who teach will be judged more strictly"??

FATHER LORENZO

Yes... in fact .... I consider that one scripture to be an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plot Device wrote:

: Do not Mormon missionaries in Canada ride bikes?

Um, not especially, at least not that I've noticed. I've always thought of them as the walk-from-door-to-door types. Or I see them on buses, in pairs, with their white shirts and name tags. But bikes? Nope. Then again, lots of people ride bikes in Vancouver, so maybe Mormons just don't stand out when they do. Maybe they should ride on bikes built for two.

: Did you see Millions and do you recall the three Mormon missionary guys in that film, complete with bikes?

I recall the missionaries. I don't recall the bikes.

: Hmmm... I didn't catch in the trailer any implication that the married couple was screwed up. (I saw the trailer in theatre last week . . .

Ah, well, the only trailers I've seen are the international trailer and the R-rated trailer, both of which use the f-word, so if the trailer you saw didn't use that word, then you must have seen some third version. Suffice to say that, in the R-rated trailer, Rudd's character describes marriage as being like an episode of Everyone Loves Raymond that isn't funny, or words to that effect ...

: My impression was that they were exploring the "oops!" of getting pregnant. I saw little emphasis on the married couple.

Yeah, the film's main theme concerns Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl and the accidental pregnancy between two strangers. But the married couple seems to be there as a sort of "foil", too.

"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

Ah well. Bikes aside, an unsubstantiated rumor has it the original 40YoV was written by a Mormon.

As for the "Everybody Loves Raymond" comment, I do recall that from the trailer now. But even if they are a dysfunctional married couple, it STILL seems the producers are trying to show that marriage is a serious matter, in spite of the frivolous irresponsibility of hopping in bed with someone on a lark.

INT. HOLY TRINITY CHURCH - SANCTUARY - NIGHT

FATHER LORENZO

So now that you've told me all of this: why do you hold such a deep aversion to discussing angels?

PASTOR DAVID

Because I don't wanna get it WRONG! To stand up in front of my congregation--AND in front of God-- and screw it up! Do you hold much stock in that passage from James that says "We who teach will be judged more strictly"??

FATHER LORENZO

Yes... in fact .... I consider that one scripture to be an occupational hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Gotta love a movie in which the main character says he's from Vancouver. (And Seth Rogen is, indeed, a native Vancouverite.)

There are a lot of good one-liners, and a few great ones, too, though I'm not as over-the-moon about the film as the critic above was. And I do think it "crosses the line" more than it needed to (two words: lap dancers).

But I do come out of the film thinking about one thing. It's not a major part of the film, but still. Early on, the Heigl character has to deal with the question of whether or not to abort. Her mom TELLS her to abort, and refers to another woman (her sister, I think) who had an unwanted pregnancy and chose to "take care of it", and then, several years later when she was ready, she had "a real baby" instead. That line is so callous. And I think it's SUPPOSED to sound callous. I think we are SUPPOSED to find that line a little... odd, just like we find so many other lines a little... odd.

I'm not necessarily saying the filmmakers were trying to go all pro-life on us. But I do think they were at least finding comedic value in subverting conventional wisdom, and if the conventional wisdom is pro-choice...

"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
  • 4 weeks later...

Judd Apatow's Family Values

Both of the films Apatow has directed offer up the kind of conservative morals the Family Research Council might embrace -- if the humor weren't so filthy. In "Virgin," the title character is saving himself for true love. "Knocked Up," which opens on June 1, revolves around a good-hearted doofus who copes with an unplanned pregnancy by getting a job and eliminating the bong hits. In each of the films, the hero is nearly led astray by buddies who tempt with things like boxes of porn, transvestite hookers and an ideology about the ladies possibly learned from scanning Maxim while scarfing down Pop-Tarts. By the end, Apatow exposes the friends as well meaning but comically pathetic and steers his men toward doing the right thing. . . .

"If you're walking with Judd and say, 'Hey, look at that hot chick,' he gives you the death stare," Adam McKay, the director who had Apatow produce his comedies "Anchorman" and "Talladega Nights," had told me. "You can say, 'Hey, I still love my wife; I was just looking,' and he still hates it."

"He's right," Apatow told me later when I brought up what McKay said. "I'm the guy who gets uncomfortable. That's why I was able to write 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin' and 'Knocked Up.' I believe in those guys. There's something honorable about holding out for love and not breaking up for the sake of the baby. I see people get divorced, and there is a part of me that thinks, I wonder how hard they tried?" . . .

New York Times Magazine, May 27

"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
  • 2 weeks later...

Canadian writer Rebecca Eckler says makers of 'Knocked Up' ripped off her book

The Calgary-based writer is accusing Hollywood filmmakers of stealing the premise from her 2005 book, "Knocked Up: Confessions of a Hip Mother-to-be." In a lengthy piece for Maclean's magazine, Eckler details similarities between her book and the film, in which an up-and-coming television reporter gets drunk at a party and then gets pregnant from a one-night stand. Eckler notes that in her book, she's an up-and-coming newspaper reporter who gets drunk and "knocked up" after celebrating at her engagement party.

Canadian Press, June 4

"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

Being that this is my first post, it should also be noted that I am a huge Judd Apatow fanboy... that being said here goes...

I don't believe Judd Apatow has been scanning the earth for a little known book from Canada (my apologies, I love Canada) to rip off this movie. Both of his movies come from mostly improv from his usual cast of comedic geniouses. That being said, her job only is used in the movie to have the contrast between the up and comer Heigl from the slacker Rogen. That would be the only similarity (and a joke from Ryan Seacrest). But it was a great article to read in the mean time.

Also, the 40 year old virgin is a concept that Steve Carrell from NBC's "The Office" came up with during his days at Second City, it revolved around a guy at a poker table with buddies, and he had to hide the fact he was a Virgin, so I highly doubt a Morman had any part in the idea.

Also, as my first post, i'd like to say this forum is great, and I've loved lurking for the past while. And as previously noted, I'm a huge Apatow fanboy, so I think the movie is better that the 40-year old virgin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not getting 'Knocked Up'

"Knocked Up" will clearly be the sleeper hit of the summer, but one question still nags at me: Is "Knocked Up" so downright hilarious that we should overlook the fact that its story is, well, fucked up? Are we so "values driven" that we're prepared to overlook the fact that the "values" of this film defy credibility?

Peter Bart, Variety, June 4

"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

I really enjoyed the film. Judd Apatow is brilliant at writing funny scenes involving an ensemble cast, and he's getting better at making complete films. The pacing of Knocked Up was better overall than 40-Year-Old Virgin. About twenty minutes could have been easily been cut, but it's so much fun watching these scenes with the ensemble cast I don't mind it. I was impressed with the chemistry between Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl, and they sold me on the fact that maybe these two people might actually have a relationship, as improbable as it was. I think Seth Rogen could be the John Goodman of his generation. Paul Rudd was brilliant as well, as well as the way the married couple was portrayed as real people who could only blame themselves on some of the problems in their marriage.

With this film and Virgin, Apatow is doing something really interesting and smart, showing how people struggle to make right moral choices in the midst of an immoral culture. I do wish he would show some restraint though. He tends to pour on the F-words and sexual stuff more than is necessary to establish these characters, going beyond humor to overkill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan Kay on why 'Knocked up' is overrated

The first major plot problem is this: In any real-life version of this story, the girl would get an abortion just about 100% of the time. . . . The film tries to deal superficially with this issue -- but it is hardly convincing. It would have been far better to introduce some plot device (medical status? condition of trust fund? religion?) to justify her anomalous decision.

The second thing that no thinking viewer will be able to swallow is the idea these two people can stand each other's company for more than five sober minutes. They are complete opposites in just about every way. In fact, the only thing they have in common is their biological connection to a baby. (Quick question: You're a super-hot blonde in Hollywood. In the marriage olympics, do you settle for a dirt-poor, overweight sweathog? Didn't think so.)

In this respect, Knocked Up actually has a negative message for prospective young parents. It teaches them that shared parenthood can act as a bridge over differences. In real life, the opposite is true: Parenthood only exacerbates the stresses in young, mismatched couples. Knocked Up has some funny moments. But it is grossly unrealistic and perhaps even socially pernicious in its message.

Full Comment, June 5

Is that my baby on the screen?

The Canadian author of 'Knocked Up' on why she's suing Judd Apatow and Universal over Apatow's new movie

Rebecca Eckler, Maclean's, June 11

"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
Is that my baby on the screen?

The Canadian author of 'Knocked Up' on why she's suing Judd Apatow and Universal over Apatow's new movie

Rebecca Eckler, Maclean's, June 11

Interesting read. Knowing a bunch of writers in Hollywood, I can attest to 1) how easy it is to have an idea ripped off, and 2) how possible it is for two ideas to be almost identical based on nothing more than pure coincidence. Who knows whether or not Apatow or someone involved with the film knowingly ripped off anything from the book, though the martini glass illustration thing IS pretty damning circumstantially. I certainly wouldn't think Apatow had to "scan the earth for a little known book from Canda" if it was indeed reviewed in the LA Times. Who knows, maybe he had always had the idea, but then stole the title and cover illustration after someone mentioned the book because he liked them. As the article says, those aren't copyrightable.

Either way, I feel for her.

"You guys don't really know who you're dealing with."

"Oh yeah, and who exactly are we dealing with?"

"I'm the mother flippin' rhymenoceros."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave Apatow another chance, after disliking the overrated "Virgin."

Surprise, surprise... I truly enjoyed "Knocked Up."

To prepare for the film, I read the "memorable quotes" section of "Virgin", reminding myself how horrid and unrealistic the public conversations were. But this film--kept the conversations real. That is the film's strength; no matter the choices made, or the unrealistic situation of the four slackers... the ensuing conversations from the film's four principal players are simply outstanding.

There was, certainly, some raunchiness... but this was a raunchiness that I could wholeheartedly believe, having been there (and going thru it as we speak... two weeks to go 'til the babies are due) or believing how the principal characters could be there. The conversations in "Virgin"... maybe people do talk like that in public, but I'm happy to not know for certain.

As to those who didn't like how the film got to where it went... the conversation with her mother was the clincher. I liked how the film made a gentle push towards the woman's positive decision using an understated conversation that sounded sour and off. I was grateful that Heigl's character existed, and Heigl imbued her with such humanity (all the four principals were multi-dimensional, and nearly all supporting actors/actresses had a great moment). I was able to buy it.

And Apatow's girls are just cute.

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Alexander wrote:

: As to those who didn't like how the film got to where it went... the conversation with her mother was the clincher.

If, by "how the film got to where it went", you mean "how the film got around the social probability that this woman would have had an abortion", then yes, I agree, absolutely. I don't find it all THAT unlikely that Rogen & Heigl would hook up for a night, or that Heigl would choose to keep the kid.

What I DO find rather unlikely is that Rogen & Heigl would try to have an actual RELATIONSHIP, simply because their one-night stand produced a pregnancy. It's like a shotgun wedding, but without the shotgun and without the wedding -- and I have never, ever thought that "shotgun weddings" were a very good idea.

Not only that, but the actors/characters never quite "sold" me on the idea that they would tryto make the relationship work. There is a scene, relatively early, where the characters say they "love" each other, and it just didn't feel real. At all. At least not to me. I just didn't feel that the characters would have made their way to that point by then ... if, indeed, they would EVER have made their way to that point.

"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
Nick Alexander wrote:

: As to those who didn't like how the film got to where it went... the conversation with her mother was the clincher.

If, by "how the film got to where it went", you mean "how the film got around the social probability that this woman would have had an abortion", then yes, I agree, absolutely. I don't find it all THAT unlikely that Rogen & Heigl would hook up for a night, or that Heigl would choose to keep the kid.

Yep. That's what I was referring to. For all those who disliked the film, this sole plot point stood out. (Of course, Seth Rogen had an interview with The Onion where he stated that the film simply didn't want to dwell as to why she chose to keep the child for very long, because that was not the story they wanted to tell. They didn't want to make it a polemnic... they were filming a comedy. They filmed a lot of scenes, chose the best ones, and moved on).

What I DO find rather unlikely is that Rogen & Heigl would try to have an actual RELATIONSHIP, simply because their one-night stand produced a pregnancy. It's like a shotgun wedding, but without the shotgun and without the wedding -- and I have never, ever thought that "shotgun weddings" were a very good idea.

Not only that, but the actors/characters never quite "sold" me on the idea that they would tryto make the relationship work. There is a scene, relatively early, where the characters say they "love" each other, and it just didn't feel real. At all. At least not to me. I just didn't feel that the characters would have made their way to that point by then ... if, indeed, they would EVER have made their way to that point.

Fair enough. However, this is something that Heigl's character initiates, probably due to the influence of her sister's family. And in all fairness, she

refuses his proposal, breaks off the relationship

, and only turns to Rogen's character when

there was nobody around to help her when her water broke.

That he surprised her in his newfound maturity and take-charge attitude was cinematic joy,

especially since there was always that chance that she never would have seen him again

.

We do not know the long term outcome of the relationship, and I think the movie's fine by that, particularly from the inclusion of Harold Ramis' dialogue "I was divorced three times, what are you asking me for?". I admire that there were two characters trying hard to do the right thing (one initially so, and the other warming up to it), and for all intents and purposes, that was the story the film was trying to tell, regardless as to whether the kid turned out all right or not.

For that answer, I, along with many other critics, anticipate a follow-up, maybe every 7 years. (That's what you get when you cross Apatow with Apted) :lol: .

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

This movie has been out two weeks. Is Christianity Today Movies going to review it? You know, I've not seen it, but from the title and the previews, I'm guessing it is about premarital sex. And, if Apatow's former endeavor is any indication of his current release, then it is bound to be fairly vulgar.

Alas, RT has given this very positive reviews. I am just wondering if not publishing a review of this film at Christianity Today Movies is conscious. If it sucked, it'd be easy to rip apart on CT, but if it is good, how can CT give this film a positive review?

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, this one fell through the cracks due to conflicting schedules. None of the reviewers could get to their screenings, or something like that. I couldn't do it because of my other asssignments. Peter can probably explain further. But it's a shame, yeah... this would have been one of the most challenging reviews for any of us at CT, I think.

Write to CT Movies' editor if you want him to pursue a late review. He might be open to that idea.

Edited by Jeffrey Overstreet

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
Write to CT Movies' editor if you want him to pursue a late review. He might be open to that idea.

Will he let me write it?

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Todd wrote:

: Is Christianity Today Movies going to review it?

I don't know if CT Movies has ever run a review of a film weeks AFTER it went into wide release, so I can't answer THAT question.

What I CAN tell you is that the movie was not on the original list of CT Movies assignments for the summer (and so when I saw it over a month ago, I was seeing it just for my own sake, without taking any notes or anything like that), but then one of the other writers persuaded our editor to let her review the film, but then she got another job somewhere else and so I was asked to pinch-hit, and I said I could but I would have to see the film again, but then I was sick the day of the one remaining preview screening, and so it all just kind of didn't happen.

AUG 19 UPDATE: Whoops, after a quick double-check, it turns out the film WAS on the original list of assignments sent out in April (though it wasn't on the pre-assignment list).

: I am just wondering if not publishing a review of this film at Christianity Today Movies is conscious.

It was, then it wasn't.

: If it sucked, it'd be easy to rip apart on CT, but if it is good, how can CT give this film a positive review?

Definitely an interesting question. I'm not sure how positive my own review would have been, though. I liked a fair bit of it and would have been more than happy to defend it against its critics, at least on some levels... but there are definite problems, too, not least of which is the fact that the central relationship is neither plausible nor advisable (see my earlier comments about shotgun weddings etc.).

: Will he let me write it?

Feel free to ask him... though I believe he's on vacation for another week.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"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

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...