The Films of 2020

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Films of 2020

#101 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:02 pm

Mr Sheldrake wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:26 pm
The Invisible Man

An effective Elizabeth Moss vehicle, she delivers emphatically as a terrorized woman in peril, escaping the clutches of spousal abuse, and then struggling with the invisible force of its memory. The film is at its best in the early slow building tension, Whannell teasing the audience with potential scares and then pulling back.

Once the battle erupts full scale, he gets a bit carried away with the gruesomeness, too much collateral damage. It overwhelms the abuse metaphor while upping the ante on the scares. I nearly jumped out of my seat a couple of times. Moss is superb here in her resilience. There’s a vast modernist mansion used as a setting that is as eerie as the proverbial haunted house of old, Whannell demonstrating how to dramatize interior space. A terrific looking film considering an 8 million dollar budget.
I thought this was as theoretically creative as the buzz suggested: spinning the attention away from the manipulative toxic male as even a co-protagonist and reducing him to the shadows to make his victim solely worthy of surrogate alignment and empathic validation. The first half is a nice slow-burn, though I didn't expect it to go full-Gaslight using the strategy of relational aggression via indirect emotional abuse as the primary method of violence. As Sheldrake points out, this can only last for so long, and although I suppose it needs to get wilder, I wish Whannell found a path to raise the stakes while remaining in that grounded discomfort of brutal manipulation for the duration. Whannell does his best to keep this as the key weapon even between bits of violence, though a third-act narrative decision seems to exist solely to add another half hour to this film, feed into expected wish-fulfillment (why jump the shark now?), and comes off as cheap and unearned.
SpoilerShow
The choice of showing us the villain, and allowing him to flaunt his sociopathic behaviors in the flesh, is aimed at granting us catharsis; yet this undermines the film's central conceit in the process, personifying what was best left to our imagination as a stand-in for the person such feelings elicit in each audience member. Making him specific spoils the metaphor of a woman disempowered by ubiquitous -invisible yet debilitating- patriarchal energy as well, and I couldn't help but roll my eyes at how Moss uses his own tools to best him in the end, something that's a) metaphorically reinforcing a problematic lens that women are able to use patriarchal platforms to actualize their equality, and thus, b) out of step with any encouragement of women relying on their own strengths for empowerment (or is the strength in exposing male weakness?) I suppose I can get on board with the reading that this is showing how, on an even field, women are more cunning than men, and that by showing us this guy as a pathetic individual powerless beyond his suit invalidates his power over Moss... but then why did he have power over her for so long? Because she let him have that narrative? I don't know, it all feels a bit disingenuous when picked apart, even if I understand why they felt this was necessary to shift power drastically for the viewer's satisfaction.
Before this unfortunate extra chapter, the consistent deliberate pace and gradual, patient camerawork induces tension just a few notches below the norm, enough to stand out without detaching the viewer. I was reminded of David Sandberg's shorts during the best moments here, and even if it runs a bit long with frustrating developments, overall I remained impressed with the commitment of dragging this out until all the traumas of domestic abuse were excoriated.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: The Films of 2020

#102 Post by DarkImbecile » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:57 am


User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Films of 2020

#103 Post by knives » Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:13 pm

I was worried we wouldn’t get one this year.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: The Films of 2020

#104 Post by DarkImbecile » Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:02 pm


User avatar
Pavel
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: The Films of 2020

#105 Post by Pavel » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:06 pm

He's raised well over $7,000 in a few hours, so it seems pretty certain we'll be getting one for 2021.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Films of 2020

#106 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:17 pm

I laughed when the raft in First Cow was edited moving back and forth to Sabotage's DJ scratching

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Films of 2020

#107 Post by knives » Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:01 pm

It’s probably because I had my mid year evaluation today and I react toxicly to them in all cases, but I was incredibly open to Sound of Metal which is just one of the best first features in years. It’s smartest decision is to hire Riz Ahmed for the lead and let him just control the scene. The films empathy for him allows him to be fully sympathetic even when he’s a twat.

That’s been talked about a lot now though so I want to shout out for Olivia Cooke as well who does everything a supporting actor needs to giving us an entryway into a rough situation and also giving us a reprise from being Ahmed when that becomes to emotionally overwhelming.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Films of 2020

#108 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:33 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 5:17 pm
I laughed when the raft in First Cow was edited moving back and forth to Sabotage's DJ scratching
I did as well, and thought it may have been a nice allusion to the moment in Tenet where the same thing briefly happens to the imagery!

Is it just me or were a lot of Ehrlich's top films very orally fixated in nature? Lots of gaping mouths and swallowing things going on over the last year, it appears! Also it is interesting to note that the director of Minari is about to direct the live action remake of Your Name as their next project.

User avatar
senseabove
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am

Re: The Films of 2020

#109 Post by senseabove » Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:51 am

Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets — The last eighteen hours in the life of a dive bar, and it's really a dive, not a trendily decrepit backdrop for a trend-setting crowd sipping cocktails on Friday night. The walls are papered with torn and faded pictures of regulars. There are no IPAs on tap—I don't think there are any taps at all, actually. And these folks are the lifers, whether they're 25 or 60, and all of them already know it. The barstool is palliative care. The movie's strength is that it refuses to pathologize its characters: no sob backstories or sad excuses or recitations of trauma (well—we get some of those, but they're not presented as justification or explanation, just the traumatic facts of exploitation and loss). Everyone here is intimately familiar with all of the character beats in the day, from the tipsy heart-to-heart to the end-of-night braggadocio to the morning blear. It's not exactly empathetic toward alcoholics so much as serving up proof that even the sad, failed, and fully aware of it are not only sad, failed, and fully aware of it. I don't even know that I'd call it humanist, as the movie doesn't concern itself with convincing us of the value or dignity of anyone here, but it's aware that there is community even in such depths, and it's not healthy or pretty, but it's no less real a comfort.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: The Films of 2020

#110 Post by hearthesilence » Wed Jan 27, 2021 6:09 am

MLK/FBI

Technically a 2020 film, but it's starting to roll out in more virtual cinemas. It just finished its Lincoln Center run, but if you're a MoMA member, you can view it in their virtual cinema until the end of this month.

This was one of the very best films I've seen from last year, and it was spurred by newly declassified FBI documents on MLK. Among the handful of interviewees is an unseen James Comey.

The broader points have been discussed many times before: that the FBI had MLK under surveillance and that through surveillance they knew of his extramarital affairs. Thanks to the sheer amount of detail, much of which is new, a lot of this can be put in a far more damning context, and the way this is framed soberly reminds us that MLK was highly unpopular with the American public - it's not just a history lesson, the public's arrogant dismissals and the refusal to engage on issues of racial inequality resemble a clear and damning reflection of what continues to this day.

As the film depicts the maliciousness of Hoover's growing obsession with King, we're constantly reminded that his actions are never out of step with mainstream America - if anything, he was the embodiment of mainstream American values, and he garnered far more approval than King. Some of this was by design - Hoover made sure the FBI was promoted in American culture as not only keepers of the peace but as the guardian of American values. It's mentioned (and shown) how Hollywood played a big role in fostering this idea in the culture, and it arguably continues beyond Hoover's death. I've already mentioned the Oscar-nominated hit Mississippi Burning in other threads and how Julian Bond and others have called out its gross distortions of history - the film gets no mention here, but the case does, as MLK mentions it as one of several horrendous civil rights abuses where the FBI had yet to make an arrest. (By this time, the Civil Rights Act has been signed into law by LBJ, which also puts the FBI in charge of enforcing it.) The topic comes up because it’s part of MLK’s rebuttal when it’s reported that Hoover has called MLK one of the country's worst liars, and it's later implied that Hoover may have been openly critical because he was outraged that MLK had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The low point is when the FBI actually fabricates a letter to MLK, pretending to be one of his followers and telling him that he needs to kill himself for his extramarital deeds (all of which is still secret to the public). This accompanies a graphic tape recording of MLK engaging in one of these affairs. Comey confirms this, admitting he has seen the actual letter (which they show). That pathetic act alone is sickening, but the FBI's own surveillance also shows that it succeeded in throwing MLK into emotional turmoil. The possibility of his secret affairs being leaked or reported not only threatened him but also the entire movement, which was indeed the FBI's intent - they believed the Civil Rights Movement was a threat to internal U.S. security and wanted to undermine it by bringing down King.

It's also been suspected that the FBI had informants planted within African American organizations - very difficult given how Hoover recruited very few African Americans to begin with, but not impossible - and MLK's close associates warned King because they had very strong suspicions of who might be an informant. Those suspicions have been confirmed with the film identifying one associate within the SCLC and astonishingly a photographer who has taken some of the most widely-seen photos of King as he took part in high profile protests.

There are more revelations, but at the end, we're reminded that all of the FBI's audio tapes will be released to the public in 2027, so who knows what else is there? It's pointed out that one of the FBI's reports had a bizarre and unusual hand-written update that inserts the damning assertion that MLK observed a young woman's rape. A lot about it is highly dubious and most likely it's slander - it came when Hoover was ramping up his efforts to discredit MLK because he was now speaking out against Vietnam, something MLK was reluctant to do because it was certain to ruin his relationship with LBJ. (It pretty much did.) However, in light of the possibility of more revelations, it leaves a fairly uncomfortable end to the film.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Films of 2020

#111 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:38 pm

There's no Promising Young Woman thread, but for those who have seen the film, this Variety article about Carey Mulligan's response to Variety's apology about their ironic critique of her casting is a worthwhile read

User avatar
TheKieslowskiHaze
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:37 am

Re: The Films of 2020

#112 Post by TheKieslowskiHaze » Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:26 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:38 pm
There's no Promising Young Woman thread, but for those who have seen the film, this Variety article about Carey Mulligan's response to Variety's apology about their ironic critique of her casting is a worthwhile read
And then, if you like your discourse extra vertiginous, WaPo responded to Variety's response to Mulligan's response to Variety.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Films of 2020

#113 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:41 pm

TheKieslowskiHaze wrote:
Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:26 pm
therewillbeblus wrote:
Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:38 pm
There's no Promising Young Woman thread, but for those who have seen the film, this Variety article about Carey Mulligan's response to Variety's apology about their ironic critique of her casting is a worthwhile read
And then, if you like your discourse extra vertiginous, WaPo responded to Variety's response to Mulligan's response to Variety.
What a stupid article. Not that I disagree that things were blown out of proportion relative to the initial quote- but this writer's points are all over the map, and if she thinks that the Variety critic misread the film, hoo boy I wonder what film this critic saw. Honestly the original comment didn't seem to be as connotative as the media's made it out to be, but it was an off-the-cuff comment that had no purpose, and attaching the attractiveness of an actress to a believable seductress runs completely counter to the film's hypothesis that men aren't attracted to beauty as much as women they can wield power over in all forms. Both critics, this one even moreso, seem to be doubling down on that thesis by missing the point.

Plus she spoils the film so don't read the article if you haven't seen it.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: The Films of 2020

#114 Post by hearthesilence » Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:59 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Sat Dec 12, 2020 10:05 pm
I've watched two of Steve McQueen's Small Axe films so far, going in order of shortest to longest (though only four of the five have been released) and it'll take some convincing to continue with the others. Alex Wheatle was a completely uninteresting biopic, that takes a good approach in theory to the largely-boring dramatic subgenre by showing a portion of the man's life in a brief time, barely pushing the one-hour mark. Unfortunately, instead of taking that small window as an opportunity to really whittle down the biopic trappings to some pulsing drama, McQueen crafts a well-made but totally empty slice of life. I was worried that Lovers Rock would be similarly vapid, but at around the halfway mark I found myself utterly consumed by the atmosphere put forth. The camera drifting around the room of dancing, peering in at various characters coming in and out of the narrative and then returning to the groove, that its rhythm devolves into the hypnotic daze of culture mirroring as the marijuana smoke physically populating the space. This seems to be the favorite of the bunch so far, but if anyone sees the others and puts in a good word, I'll give them a shot.
I'm finally catching up with Small Axe as MoMA is now streaming all five episodes (though the first three will expire soon).

The prospect of watching any episodic show wears me down. Some like Richard Brody have argued that these are really a handful of features rather than an episodic series, so it was tempting to see only Lovers Rock or at least see it first. But I decided to watch this in the proper order simply because this is how the series was ultimately chosen to be shown, and some thought must have gone into that decision.

I just finished the third, and so far the result is greater than the sum total of its parts. Lovers Rock is a standout - as a standalone feature, it probably would play much better than the other two, but it also gains something in the proper context.

The first episode, Mangrove, is basically the mission statement, and that felt like a burden on the episode as it moved along. It's much longer than the other films - over two hours whereas the rest are well under 90 minutes with some getting close to an hour. That's not a mundane detail, it's a reflection of how much more is packed into the film, and it's a dense two hours. Based on a real-life, landmark incident, it's written as a detailed and accurate procedural while expressing its ideas in the clearest, most direct way possible. It was engaging, but it left me wondering if it was setting a tone that was too didactic for the series to be much more than a political statement (that is, it wouldn't play out as great art or a greater dramatization of sociopolitical ideas rather than preaching a cause).

As expected based on word-of-mouth, Lovers Rock was a departure, but seen right after Mangrove it carries a charge from the start. The setting may be about a decade later, but it gained quite a bit of power after seeing more or less the same community struggling to live happily and freely in Mangrove. It felt like a community that had taken back its life while keeping a wary eye on the same prejudice-fueled threats that continued to surround them.

Now with Red, White and Blue (early '80s, probably a few years later?), the series' momentum continues to build. The filmmaking and storytelling here is more potent yet relaxed, particularly with the great, effortless set pieces that suggest the great genre filmmaker McQueen could be. (This probably comes as no surprise to anyone who's a great fan of Widows - I still haven't seen it myself.) More importantly, it builds off the prior two films (particularly Mangrove) rather than just our knowledge or experiences for context. At this point, I get the impression that Mangrove is by design a platform for the entire series - more than establishing the ideas, it could be supporting the weight of everything that will unfold.

FWIW, Red, White and Blue is also based on a true story, a remarkable one. However, while Mangrove seemed obligated to go through all the details (understandably ending with title cards that detail the aftermath), Red, White and Blue doesn't take that approach, even when there's a well-earned happy ending to the real-life story. The focus is on the obstacles and the struggle, and it ends with a simple chat/drink between two people that felt beautiful. I found out that they wrapped production on Red, White and Blue around the same time nationwide protests over George Floyd's death began to emerge. It's a stunning example of another work of popular art mirroring the zeitgeist as it unfolds - it's also the sad truth that doing so with this subject matter has become so frequent because the same damn problem has been happening over and over. But I think Red, White and Blue stands out because it's the one that offers the most hope. As its real-life subject mentioned this past year, it feels like we've slid back twenty years. It's demoralizing. But the film reminds us how it was like before any successful effort at reform, and it emphasizes how daunting it seemed. That's where it more or less ends, and knowing what became of Leroy Logan and what he goes on to accomplish gives everyone a great, genuine reason to hope.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: The Films of 2020

#115 Post by hearthesilence » Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:31 am

I forgot to mention, one thing the Small Axe series has done is deepen my appreciation for Jamaican music, as well as that of the Clash and hip-hop (specifically the beginnings of hip-hop). I was already an enormous fan with a general understanding of the history and context of those records, but while I was aware of the connections between each, the series does flesh them out in a way that makes them even more resonant and logical. To be clear, the Clash isn't heard once, and hip-hop makes a brief but prominent appearance via "White Lines (Don't Do It)" in Red, White and Blue during Logan's first time on patrol as a police officer. But in its own way, the show gets across the place and impact each have in their respective communities very astutely and organically without seeming academic. After Duke Bootee's recent death, I was listening to a lot of hip-hop from the early '80s, and it was often noted that the toasting that goes on in Jamaican music (see Lovers Rock) eventually morphed into the beginnings of rapping through Jamaican immigrants in the Bronx. Duke Bootee's "The Message" was hailed in his obituaries as a quantum leap, bringing social awareness and political commentary into a new kind of music that had been mostly apolitical party music, but given the political heft of Jamaican music and it's place in the immigrant communities we see in London, that eventual development in hip-hop feels more organic and inevitable as they feel more like parallel cultures. The Clash came to mind because it's the most prominent example you can find of a popular English band tapping into the West Indian diaspora in London, ignoring social barriers and doing so as a means of connecting with other cultures rather than co-opting it. It now seems more appropriate that they'd take to hip-hop when they were introduced to it in NY.

(On another note, Lovers Rock has deepened my appreciation for dub records. As a Midwesterner listening to records in the middle of nowhere, it was tough to hear more than their face value as long instrumentals, not unlike listening to incomplete backing tracks. But records - or rather musical cultures - really flourish in clubs and on dance floors. It's always been an extension of social activity, and if you've never been to a club, you can still walk away from Lovers Rock understanding how vital and essential dub records were in expanding Jamaican music.)

I bring all this up because Alex Wheatle emphasizes Jamaican music to great effect. I didn't find the film disappointing at all. Again, it may have helped that I viewed it after the first three films because it does continue the momentum built up in those other films, drawing on what we've seen and echoing and developing many of the same ideas. (Once again, The Black Jacobins is mentioned as vital educational, and this time there's a better understanding of why. Previously, it was a humorous reference - a book that was too advanced for the children that were mentioned. Without nailing it on the head very hard, it's organically presented to a young man who we've seen grow from childhood over the course of an hour.)

And the series actually returns to children's education for the very last film (appropriately titled Education). The only visual element that really stands out is the look of grainy vintage film. Otherwise, the overall approach was pretty conventional and very straightforward, but it was still effective and very edifying, especially when public education has been kind of a blind spot for me. With no children of my own (i.e. no personal stake in that area), I've never been able to get past the overwhelming and daunting nature of its problems to have any real understanding of them, much less a good opinion on how to address them. Witnessing Kingsley's struggles with illiteracy was indeed overwhelming and daunting - it sank in that I wasn't aware of anyone I knew personally who was illiterate, at least during the time I've known them, so the painful struggle with the simple act of reading came across as both abstract and demoralizing. Given a variety of factors like Kingsley's age, his original school, how articulate he otherwise seemed to be and how well his sister was doing in school, I had a tough time grasping how that was possible. For a long stretch, I thought the problem lay solely in the failure of his new school, which wasn't going to help him, but then the film slapped me in the back of head, pointing out that I actually looked past the real problem even though it was right there in front of me - literally spelling it out, an illiterate grandfather points out that he's never spent a day in school, yet how is he seeing illiterate children who have completed 12 years of it? Rather than educating those who need it most, too many were being consigned to oblivion, and now they were doing it under the false pretense of giving them a "special" education.

Anyway, I had expected the series to end with something larger and even more ambitious, but rather than following the usual convention of ending a series in a big way, this seemed relatively low-key. There wasn't a complete sense of closure to the series, and that's probably the point. These films are all dealing with ongoing concerns. There can't be a sense of closure - if there were, these real-life events wouldn't seem so relevant decades later. And the subject of the final installment kind of underlines the real intent of the series - if you want to move things forward and break down cultural isolation, you're ultimately trying to educate the public.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: The Films of 2020

#116 Post by Michael Kerpan » Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:07 pm

Naomi Kawase's True Mothers (Asa ga kuru literally Morning Comes) has been picked up by Film Movement and has been showing virtually here and there (probably its virtual run is near its end). It struck me as a return to form, of sorts. I certainly liked it more than any other Kawase film I've seen in many years. The basic story involves a middle schooler (Aju Makita) who gets pregnant and gives up her baby for adoption. The baby is adopted by a couple (Hiromi Nagasaku and Arata Iura) who have been able to have a baby of their own, despite best efforts. Then, one day a scruffy girl claiming to be the birth mother enters the story. The best aspects of this are the performances of Makita and Nagasaku -- and the often (nostalgic to me) documentary feel of many bits of the film. It is a longish movie (around 2.5 hours), but while slow-moving most of the time, it did not feel overly long. If you want to see this, you may need to act fast.

Theaters are listed here: https://www.filmmovement.com/true-mothers

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: The Films of 2020

#117 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:54 pm

Kawase's True Mothers is currently streaming (apparently for free) via Japan House in LA:

https://www.japanhousela.com/events/fil ... e-mothers/

User avatar
OldBobbyPeru
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:15 am

Re: The Films of 2020

#118 Post by OldBobbyPeru » Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:09 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:54 pm
Kawase's True Mothers is currently streaming (apparently for free) via Japan House in LA:

https://www.japanhousela.com/events/fil ... e-mothers/
I watched this last night via that link and quite enjoyed it, so thank you for posting that. She's really good.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: The Films of 2020

#119 Post by aox » Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:31 pm

TheKieslowskiHaze wrote:
Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:02 pm
Minari (Dir. Lee Isaac Ching)

I got to see this with Lincoln Center's virtual cinema.

There are a few moments that come close to crossing the line into sentimentality, but, in my view, it never does. It's genuinely lovely. A tension--due to race, American religious fundamentalism, and/or capitalism--undergirds the whole thing, but so does a genuine appreciation for the beauty of family and the American landscape. Shades of Malick and Steinbeck. I was legitimately moved. Also, the music is great, punctuating scenes without taking over, heightening the sublimity of it all. I recommend this movie pretty strongly.
This was the surprise of the year for me. It seemed to balance the line a melodrama and sentimentality quite well. It never went for the cheap and easy portrayal of racism and instead remained nuanced focused on larger issues of both (im)migration and integration. It's an expensive rental, but well worth it if you have been saving money this year not going to the cinema during lockdown. I cannot wait to revisit this again.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: The Films of 2020

#120 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:33 pm

True Mothers is probably my favorite Kawase film since her Sharasojyu back in 2003.

Post Reply