rate the last movie you saw

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3016 Post by AndyDursin » Fri May 05, 2017 9:45 pm

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL 2
8/10

In the Marvel stable this is clearly the most unpretentious and consistently amusing series from the "brand," a confident and occasionally very moving fantasy that really sings in its best moments. The problem -- another protracted, ENDLESS climax that drags on for seemingly the entire last third of the movie. Just like the film's predecessor (equally good natured), director James Gunn is in dire need of an editor, because there's just no reason why a movie that's driven by character and humor has to end on yet another mind-numbing, forgettable special effects spectacle that just goes on...and on...and on...and on. It may be even worse than its predecessor in that regard.

Otherwise, it's pretty great -- even the Kurt Russell CGI in the opening sequence works! -- but it could have been even better if Gunn knew when to quit...or if someone told him to.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5043
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3017 Post by Monterey Jack » Fri May 05, 2017 10:48 pm

Pretty much my take on Guardians 2...yeah, they amusingly lampshaded the video game finale with ACTUAL 8-bit video game sound effects, but underlining a cliché doesn't stop it from being a cliché. :? Still, what the movie gets right it REALLY gets right, including some legitimately moving character moments in-between the crowd-pleasing comic shenanigans. Kurt Russell was fun, Sylvester Stallone was wasted, Dave Bautista's hearty guffaw made me laugh every damn time, and Baby Groot was adorable. By this point, it's not even worth complaining that the last 25% of each Marvel movie devolves into a game of Galaga...I'd rather focus on what the movies get right, and I'll take 75% of a terrific movie any day of the week. 8/10

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3018 Post by AndyDursin » Sat May 06, 2017 4:46 pm

By this point, it's not even worth complaining that the last 25% of each Marvel movie devolves into a game of Galaga...I'd rather focus on what the movies get right, and I'll take 75% of a terrific movie any day of the week. 8/10
It'd be better, though, if the 25% that didn't really work wasn't always the final act of every one of them. I liked the movie a lot, but I'll probably never watch it again because of those last 30-45 minutes. It was rough the first time, can't imagine what a second helping of it would entail.
Sylvester Stallone was wasted
What was the point of him, Ving Rhames and Michelle Yeoh? Can't imagine they're getting a cinematic spin-off, so what was it, a backdoor Netflix pilot?

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3019 Post by AndyDursin » Sat May 13, 2017 9:27 am

GET OUT
6/10

The unlikely box-office phenomenon of comedian Jordan Peele's directorial feature debut, GET OUT, is hard to figure. Stripped of theatrical audience engagement, the movie plays like a pedestrian Twilight Zone episode, one that's telegraphed so far in advance you can see precisely where the film is headed and no surprises of any kind are thrown at the viewer.

It's a perplexing case of a movie's premise -- as opposed to the film itself -- capturing the mood of the times as Peele's thriller is framed against the "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" backdrop of a young African-American man (Daniel Kaluuya) heading to his white girlfriend's (Allison Williams) home to meet her parents (Bradley Whitford, Catherine Keener). They're your typical, liberal suburbanites albeit with black servants who act odd -- and decidedly "not black" -- around Kaluuya's hero, who quickly finds her parents and their friends to be perfectly Stepfordian in their quirkiness...and even stranger in their apparent motivations (thinly explained as they are).

After hearing all the rave reviews for "Get Out," I kept waiting for Peele's movie to kick into another gear. Unfortunately, it never does: the movie is a prolonged slow (and I mean lethargic) burn that breaks into a clumsily executed, bloody climax that's right out of the playbook of its producers, Blumhouse (they of the low-budget horror hits "Paranormal Activity" and "The Purge"), but is so straightforward and devoid of wit that it's stunning how absurdly praised this film was. Peele drops a line or two of dialogue about race relations here or there but the social commentary component of the film was blown way out of proportion -- "Get Out" is basically just a simple riff on Stepford and the Body Snatchers, and Peele's script misses one opportunity after another to engage its mostly wasted cast (Whitford and Keener, in particular, have ultimately almost nothing to do here). It's a clunky, no more than watchable little thriller that doesn't say nearly as much as some claim it does -- except that viewers seem to be desperate to latch on to anything beyond the usual "tentpole franchises" in 2017.

Universal's Blu-Ray combo pack (out May 23rd) includes a wisely unused alternate ending with Peele's commentary plus additional deleted scenes; a featurette; Q&A with the cast; and commentary on the film itself. The 1080p (2.40) AVC encoded transfer and 5.1 DTS MA sound are fine, and a DVD and Digital HD copy are bundled within.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3020 Post by Paul MacLean » Sat May 13, 2017 11:42 am

Casino

While he’s made some undeniably great films (GoodFellas chief among them) I have to admit I am not Martin Scorsese's biggest fan (and hold to such blasphemous opinions as Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ and The Departed being not particularly good movies).

So I was never terribly interested in seeing Casino when it was first released. To me it smacked of being a retread of Goodfellas — it was likewise based on the work of GoodFellas scribe Nicholas Pileggi, and while it was inspired by a true story (the names were changed) it shared a similar narrative arc with Goodfellas (small-time operator is promoted to top mob position, then his world eventually falls apart). It featured two of the stars from GoodFellas (plus the gal from Basic Instinct — whose casting felt like a commercial rather than artistic choice to me) and used the same type of pop/rock soundtrack. I suspected that Scorsese had pondered the tepid reception of Cape Fear and Age of Innocence (the success of Barry Levinson's Bugsy can't have been lost on him either), and decided to regurgitate the same formula which had resulted in a previous success. I passed.

Having finally viewed the movie, despite many similarities, Casino manages to carve-out its own identity, and proves an enormously compelling picture, which I’d place among Scorsese’s best work. In the role of "Ace" Rothstein, Robert DeNiro gives one of his most impressive performances, as a man with a checkered past, who simply wants to run a legitimate casino, marry the woman he loves and have a normal life. While he's not above strong-arming people who have crossed him, he is generally a decent, sympathetic guy.

Joe Pesci is likewise excellent as Ace's psychotic mobster buddy Nicky Santoro. Yes, the character is very similar to GoodFella’s Tommy DeVito -- and casting Pesci as Nicky is arguably makes him seem almost like the same guy, but Pesci is nevertheless is excellent in the role -- edgy, unpredictable and scary.

Sharon Stone was rightly Oscar-nominated for playing DeNiro’s love interest Ginger, who is outwardly charming, but inwardly narcissistic and given to substance abuse, and hopelessly infatuated with her worthless ex-lover Lester (James Woods, who also delivers a stand-out performance). The character of Ginger hits home for me in many ways; while I haven't been involved with any junkies (!) I have had relationships with women who remained obsessed with the jerks and losers they were previously involved with (despite how well I treated them).

I do think the casting of Don Rickles is odd, as he is such a well-known personality playing a nondescript supporting role — one that neither calls on his comedic skills, nor gives him any opportunities to break-out of his typecasting as a comedian (this role would have been better suited to a more anonymous character actor).

Like GoodFellas, the use of music in Casino is all “needle drops” (whereas an original score would have given the film a more distinctive identity). That said, I was struck by Scorsese's highly effective use of Georges Delerue's theme from Godard's Contempt, which does contribute a genuine poignance to the scenes in which it is used. (The theme from Elmer Bernstein’s Walk on the Wild Side makes an appearance as well!)

Ultimately, although Scorsese probably was "playing it safe" by making another film so similar GoodFellas, Casino remains an outstanding effort, which for the most part transcends its similarities to his previous picture. GoodFellas was also a more entertaining film, with a healthy dose of black comedy to offset the darker aspects of the story. Casino has little if any humor, and is much more of a tragedy, which does not glorify the sleazy society it depicts (whereas GoodFellas did glorify the mob in some ways). A compelling story, superlative performances and an uncompromising and candid depiction of violence, and vice (and the bitter end to which they lead) all contribute to a powerful, and at times even mesmerizing experience.


*Andy -- your board does not recognize the word "poignance"!

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5043
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3021 Post by Monterey Jack » Mon May 15, 2017 1:13 pm

Prometheus (2012): 8/10

Image

Dammit, despite all of the nitpicky crap that's been slung at this movie endlessly over the past five years, I still think Ridley Scott's Alien quasi-prequel is gorgeous, tense and underrated. YES, there are moments of head-slappingly illogical behavior, and YES, maybe it's not what people were expecting from a well-established series, but I applaud Scott for trying something unique and ambitious within the vague framework of the franchise he laid the groundwork for decades earlier, and there are fine performances from Noomi Rapace and especially the terrific Michael Fassbender. I even like the majestic "questing" main theme by Harry Gregson-Williams (shame none of it made it onto the soundtrack album). A few more script polishes would have taken some of the rough edges off the final product, but Prometheus is still the only really satisfying film to come out of the Alien franchise since 1986, and I'm keen to see what Scott's Covenant brings to the table this Friday.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3022 Post by AndyDursin » Tue May 16, 2017 1:26 am

THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST
6/10

Image

Lawrence Kasdan’s 1988 adaptation of Anne Tyler’s book just feels “off.” Backed by an outstanding cast, “The Accidental Tourist” mostly comes off as a flaccid ‘80s studio tearjerker, telling the story of a travel author (William Hurt) who finds out his wife (Kathleen Turner, second-billed for a performance that barely comprises a half-hour of screen time) is leaving him, following the death of their teenage son.

A relationship with a kooky dog trainer/single mom (Geena Davis, in her Oscar winning performance) nearly breaks him out of his funk in a movie that’s beautifully shot in widescreen by John Bailey and sensitively acted – it’s the awkward script by Kasdan and Frank Galati that doesn’t really work, making one feel Tyler’s prose better suited her characters than Kasdan's stilted brand of cinematic “quirkiness." What's more, characters seem to shift their mood or motivations from scene to scene, dictated by the mechanics of the plot but without those shifts having been believably laid out ahead of time.

Thankfully, John Williams’ gloriously moving, often understated score -- which I have even more respect for after watching this film again -- instills a beating heart to the drama, making one wonder how ineffective this picture would’ve been without it.

mkaroly
Posts: 4357
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3023 Post by mkaroly » Tue May 16, 2017 11:12 am

I love THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST...Williams' score to this one is probably my favorite of his low key scores. What I enjoy most about the film is the way Hurt brings out the very subtle transformation of Macon Leary from a reclusive introvert into someone who shows a little outwardness. It's the little things - a facial change in expression, a different body movement, the clothing shopping scenes, the change of tone in his voice. I can see his struggle to open up and to take the opportunity to redefine who he is, to take advantage of the second chance he has with Muriel. I have watched this film more times than I care to admit, but watching Hurt act is a sheer joy for me. He and Williams' score make the movie work for me.

PROMETHEUS is an outstanding film and a great addition to the ALIEN universe. I cannot wait for COVENANT this weekend!

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3024 Post by AndyDursin » Thu May 18, 2017 11:06 pm

ALIEN COVENANT
6.5/10

Really a very strange "less is less" sequel that's half ALIEN rehash and half PROMETHEUS follow-up, albeit with none of the latter's theoretical "bigger questions" actually being addressed.

This latest Ridley Scott affair sends a colony ship into deep space, where its crew comes across another radio signal (sound familiar?) that leads to crazy robot David, now the sole inhabitant on the Planet of The Engineers along with some creepy crawly creatures he's as fond of as his new human guests.

After a promising start establishing the Covenant, Scott then turns the picture into the Michael Fassbender show, with all the other characters (including fetching Katherine Waterston's Ripley-esque heroine) taking a backseat to sequences of two Fassbenders talking and the true mystery of whatever happened to the Prometheus survivors -- including Noomi Rapace -- solved at long last. Err, sort of.

Reasonably effective with some bloody special effects, "Covenant" nevertheless manages to be ultimately less than the sum of its parts. There's not enough of the Engineers and their world here -- in fact, the planet is so sparsely decorated that you feel like you're watching a '60s Star Trek episode, with David as the Squire of Gothos. The "Prometheus" element aside, the movie is laid out like a typical ALIEN film, with the requisite shocks you expect, but it's all been done before -- at this point, what can anyone do to make the Alien and its friends interesting, beyond perhaps introducing musical numbers? What's worse, the ending serves up a downbeat twist (telegraphed from miles away), cynically intended to lead into another sequel like any other cheapjack horror movie from decades past.

It makes you wonder what Scott's endgame is with all of this -- beyond just making more stacks of money -- but there is, at least, a delicious irony in watching a movie open and close with the very same Jerry Goldsmith theme that the director threw away in 1979!

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3025 Post by AndyDursin » Fri May 26, 2017 10:33 am

TOUGH GUYS
7/10

Image

For a studio that must have dollar bills plastered all over its walls, it’s disappointing how poorly Walt Disney has treated its live-action back catalog, particularly on Blu-Ray. The studio that once broke away from “kiddie product” to form Touchstone Pictures back in the mid 1980s has absolutely turned its back on that mission from decades ago, eschewing “adult fare” for a steady diet of animated films, Marvel comic-book flicks, and Star Wars sequels. That has left a void in the care of its box-office hits that weren’t aimed at little tykes, with even blockbuster smashes like “Three Men and a Baby” – the singular highest-grossing film of 1987 – still never having been released in widescreen on home video at all, much less Blu-Ray.

Thankfully, a few independent labels have snatched up less-popular Disney live-action titles that the studio has been willing to license out, releasing them in drips and drabs. So while we wait for the likes of “Three Men and a Baby” or “What About Bob?,” Kino Lorber has jumped into the fray and added portions of the Disney library – apparently titles that have never been released on DVD in the U.S. – to their growing Studio Classics line.

The first release from their Disney deal is TOUGH GUYS, the amiable final teaming of Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, playing Harry and Archie – bank robbers just released from prison in time for the cultural apex of the mid 1980s. After spending decades together behind bars (unlikely as that probably was), the duo are ordered to split apart, Harry headed for the hell of a nursing home, Archie into the arms of a trendy young woman (Darlanne Fluegel). Ultimately, both have issues acclimating to the world of 1985, and opt to spring one last job with the old crew – most of whom have grown very old indeed.

“Tough Guys” is formulaic stuff, right down to James Newton Howard’s “Axel F”-like synth score, but the lead performances from Kirk and Burt make this Touchstone comedy – released to modest box-office in October of ‘86 – enjoyable enough. Dana Carvey is fine in a straight dramatic role as the boys’ parole officer, Eli Wallach is onhand as a hitman (Adolph Caesar was the first choice but died on-set, during the first day of production), and future “Body By Jake” exercise guru Jake Steinfeld fills the role of the nursing home heavy (as a sidenote, I had no idea actress Hailee Steinfeld is actually his niece!). Another major plus is the superb widescreen lensing of King Baggot, which for years made the film unwatchable in terribly cramped pan-and-scan versions.

While overseas territories saw a DVD release of “Tough Guys,” somehow this one never reached the format in North America. That makes Kino Lorber’s marvelous 1080p (2.35) Blu-Ray transfer something to savor, as the colors and details of the AVC encode are just terrific, finely detailed minus extensive noise reduction. Newton Howard’s score packs some punch in the 2.0 DTS MA stereo mix, though as director Jeff Kanew notes in the disc’s commentary, he had wanted Burt Bacharach to score the film. Alas, issues with Bacharach’s music publishing curtailed that plan, though the songwriter did contribute a main theme from Kenny Rogers, played over the opening credits. That director commentary, recorded with Code Red’s William Olsen and an associate of his (Kanew sarcastically asks them what they had to do with the film at the start of the track!), is the disc’s supplement of note, in addition to trailers for other Kino Lorber titles.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3026 Post by Eric Paddon » Fri May 26, 2017 2:17 pm

I saw this a couple times back when it was released and we commented before how amazing it was that Lancaster and Douglas could still have a lead in a film in 1986 since that period just *seems* so far removed from 1960 when you look at the history of films whereas 2017 doesn't seem inordinately far from 1986!

I remember a critic at the time noting that given their characters its hard to believe they would have served the full sentences of their original crime and not been paroled along the way! I didn't know that detail about Adolph Caesar but that would imply an integrated heist job back in an era where I doubt very much that would have happened.

I should revisit this at some point. I think the biggest shock will be seeing Dana Carvey playing "straight" since at the time he was far away from his eventual fame.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3027 Post by AndyDursin » Sun May 28, 2017 1:45 pm

I saw this a couple times back when it was released and we commented before how amazing it was that Lancaster and Douglas could still have a lead in a film in 1986 since that period just *seems* so far removed from 1960 when you look at the history of films whereas 2017 doesn't seem inordinately far from 1986!
Yes, exactly, and cinematically speaking, there is less a difference between 1986-2017 studio filmmaking than there is between 1960-1986...that gap is much wider.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3028 Post by Eric Paddon » Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:05 am

Pride Of The Yankees (1942) 7 of 10

-There is a brand new book about the making of this film that just came out today by New York Times media reporter Richard Sandomir. I watched the film to coincide with my getting the book which I devoured very quickly and got to experience the film on a level that hasn't been possible before with all details unearthed about its production history and various stages of script gestation. Not to mention the inside scoop on the behind the scenes input of Lou Gehrig's widow Eleanor on the making of the film, and how out of necessity to find appeal with a mass audience, the hostility that existed between her and Gehrig's domineering mother needed to be downplayed so that in the end Gehrig's mother could still emerge as loving but misguided even as the dominating side is still there.

-As one who knows the inside story of Gehrig and his career, "Pride Of The Yankees" doesn't have much to recommend for it in terms of accuracy but as the book makes it clear, these kind of biopics from this era did not engage in accurate telling of a person's life and it certainly didn't bother to get the baseball history part right since that would have gone against the tone of Sam Goldwyn's desire to make this ultimately more of a romance pic and minimize the baseball as much as possible. Paul Gallico who wrote the first draft of the script, had been one of the nation's top sportswriters in the 20s and 30s and he knew going in that it would be impossible to please the hard core sports enthusiasts who knew better. So the film had to be constructed essentially for a mass audience that wasn't necessarily baseball crazy, despite the fact that baseball's status as the national pasttime was never higher.

-It's impossible to envision anyone by Gary Cooper in the part of Gehrig but the book notes how at the time there had been a push from some to cast Eddie Albert in the part, which would have been wrong. The book also lays to rest the myth about Cooper being so inept at trying to duplicate Gehrig's left-handed hitting that he wore a reversed uniform and would run to third base. A study of the film shows that there is no reversal in any of the scenes used in the film and that from a logistic standpoint it would have been tougher to do that given how everyone else would have had to wear reversed items including fielders with gloves on the wrong hand!

-The book also reveals details about scenes that didn't survive to the final draft, and how one planned scene involving the kid Lou Gehrig would have had him dreaming of facing big league hurler Christy Matthewson. They even cast an ex-minor leaguer to play Matthewson for this sequence but the scene was dropped before filming began. It reveals how Babe Dahlgren, who replaced Gehrig in the lineup in 1939 caused numerous difficulties over his fee when they wanted to have him play himself for authenticity in the scene. They chose not to use him. These details are interwoven around the story of Gehrig's final years as well so the book is a combination baseball bio and film history that is a great read especially after just watching the film.

-The film itself is flawed today but its iconic quality is unmistakable and its what helped contribute to the long-term iconic quality of Gehrig's farewell speech (it's interesting to note that no complete film or audio exists of Gehrig's actual speech. All that exists are four segments from newsreels including the famous "Today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth" line) and of Gehrig himself. And seeing Babe Ruth at the tail end of when he was still healthy (a crash diet got Ruth back down to his playing weight and allowed him to credibly portray himself) also adds an extra dimension to it as well.

-The book mentions a postscript about Teresa Wright that I remember well from her final years. In 1998 for the first time since 1942 she was invited to Yankee Stadium and after having no interest in the game her entire life became a rabid Yankee fan up until her death!

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3029 Post by Paul MacLean » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:50 pm

The Talented Mr. Ripley

Unimpeachably well-made, and exceedingly well-acted by a first-rate cast. Fine Gabriel Yard score too.

But man, what a disturbing movie.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3030 Post by Eric Paddon » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:33 am

Goliath Awaits (1981) 6.5 of 10

-This two part 1981 TV movie that aired in syndication (the "Operation Prime Time" banner) was a big event back in the day thanks to its off-the-wall premise of 240 people living for 40 years on the bottom of the ocean inside a sunken ocean liner. I was 12 when it aired and all of us were sucked in by the TV spots showing a diver seeing the face of Emma Samms inside the ship through a porthole!

-I still have an early 90s cable replay of the original uncut miniseries which boasted a big name TV cast headlined by Christopher Lee as the genius who saved everyone but who has now become a tyrant ruling over his own kingdom who doesn't want to let go of it. I was struck for the first time how much the miniseries owes itself to the Twilight Zone episode "On Thursday We Leave For Home" which had James Whitmore as the leader of a stranded group of space colonists who had helped them survive the years of ordeal but when rescue from Earth finally came he was unable to let go of his authority. The parallel isn't complete but it made me for the first time realize that those who laughed at the film's premise really missed the point that it was really operating in the tradition of "Twilight Zone" tales of using the fantastic to explore some interesting ideas. Because this is an outsized miniseries weighed down with some sidebar subplots (including one about a lost secret government document that really goes nowhere and makes no sense whatsoever even after its final "revelation") and not a compact piece of storytelling like TZ, its easy to lose sight of those matters and that's why this can't rate too high but at the same time not too low because the transformed sets built inside the Queen Mary to resemble a society in stasis after 40 years remains irresistible. Plus, there is something a little uncanny in how the whole aspect of finding and discovering the wreck of a big liner on the ocean floor presages the eventual discovery and exploration of the Titanic (which happened four years later).

-The all star cast gives us great performances from Lee and Jean Marsh (playing a conflicted Doctor and who gives a moment or two that echoes her performance from the great TZ episode "The Lonely"), a so-so performance from the film's heroic lead in Mark Harmon (sporting a bad 70s moustache) and a couple embarrassing ones like Alex Cord who is supposed to be playing a Doctor from Scotland but whose halting attempt at an accent ends up sounding like an American southern one before he gives up! The one that surprised me the most was Frank Gorshin as Lee's evil henchman. Most of the time whenever Gorshin appears in something that isn't the Riddler he comes off like an impressionist who doesn't belong among professional actors but this time even despite his Irish brogue, he at least delivers the goods. John Ratzenberger, post-ESB appearance but not yet "Cheers" (sans moustache) also appears.

-This miniseries also has a George Duning score I'd get a CD of if one were available!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest