824. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1990)

Running Time: 83 minutes
Directed By: John McNaughton
Written By: Richard Fire, John McNaughton
Main Cast: Michael Rooker, Tom Towles, Tracy Arnold, Mary Demas, Kristin Finger
Click here to view the trailer

OH HENRY!

After this one, there are eighteen movies left for me to watch from the decade of the 90s (not counting a handful I tucked away for finale time). So expect me to jump around throughout those eighteen, as I reserve the right to jump around randomly. Anyway, today I took a sick day from work, because I toughed it out earlier in the week and because I still wasn't feeling up to snuff. With my wife at work, I curled up under a warm blanket, inside my warm bed and watched a not so warm movie.

"Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" uses the story of real life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas as a blueprint and casts Michael Rooker to perfection in the title role, telling the story of a man who uses murder as a means of getting off and letting off steam. The film begins with a dead woman lying in a field, her body beaten and bloodied - surely the work of Henry,  our title villain. The film plays like a real life horror movie, following a mild mannered, seemingly normal Henry in the day and showing us the monster that is unleashed during the night. The film picks up when Henry's roommate, and later accomplice, Otis invites his sister to stay with them for a little while. Her name is Becky and for some reason she is fascinated with Henry and the story of why he was incarcerated - for supposedly killing his mother, because she molested him and forced him to watch her have sex. Becky is as normal as they come and she thinks Henry is too, but little does she know is that Henry is a monster. Later, Henry takes Otis under his wing and shows him how to be a successful serial killer: never killing anyone using the same method, never having a motive, etc. After a while, the two come into possession of a video camera and begin filming their murders and watching them later.

SPOILER ALERT!

Boy, I gotta' tell you, watching this after watching a handful of foreign films probably wasn't a good idea. For starters, I really liked this and because I really liked it, I kind of felt like a miscreant. I mean, the film really scrapes the bottom of the barrel, both in subject material and in production values and is probably the polar opposite of the beauty that Kieslowski and his cameraman were able to capture. Of course, the subject matter that we're dealing with shouldn't be told in the same way that Kieslowski's subjects should be, so I guess making a comparison between the two is unfair. With "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" we're talking about a film that had a $110,000 budget and inexperienced actors. I'm always fascinated by films with small budgets, the kinds of movies that turn chump change into a real life, moving picture - it's amazing. The acing, in my opinion, isn't that great - but again, the bad acting almost lends itself to the deplorable storyline and it all seems to make some sort of odd sense.

What you have to do is realize that this is a horror film. It can be viewed in the same vein as "Night of the Living Dead" or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", in that it's gritty and ugly, but that it needs to be both of those things in order to be genuine. The film is disturbing too (in places), as we're taken inside the home of a family, during a home invasion and watch as they're murdered, in cold blood. Add to that the fact that Otis, after the fact, takes it upon himself to attempt some necrophilia. We also deal with incest in this very scummy, grimy, ugly picture that really makes your skin crawl and makes you feel like you need a shower when you're done with it. There's also a sequel to this, released in 1996, but no Rooker means no buys for this movie goer.

RATING: 7.5/10  Really good stuff, but watch don't watch it amongst a bunch of beautiful French films; it's like drinking orange juice right after you've brushed your teeth.

PS. I have no clue why THE BOOK lists this as released in 1990, as all other sources have it being released in 1986. They apparently really messed this one up....

MOVIES WATCHED: 762
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 239

November 15, 2013  5:38pm

Read More

842. La double vie de Veronique/The Double Life of Veronique (1991)

Running Time: 98 minutes
Directed By: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Written By: Krzysztof Kieslowski, Krzysztof Piesiewicz
Main Cast: Irene Jacob, Philippe Volter, Claude Duneton, Wladyslaw Kowalski, Sandrine Dumas
Click here to view the trailer

MORE KIESLOWSKI

Technically, I should have probably done this in conjunction with the "Three Colors" trilogy, but I didn't and now, here we are. This will be the final Kieslowski film for a while, as I plan to stash away "The Decalogue" for the finale.

So this film is just a little bit confusing, so beware heading into it and be prepared to give it your full attention. In fact, maybe confusing isn't even the right word - just know that it DOES need to have your undivided attention. Irene Jacob stars in a dual role, first as Weronika, a Polish opera singer. Toward the beginning of the film, Weronika travels to Krakow to be with her sick aunt, telling her father goodbye and leaving behind a boyfriend. In Krakow, Weronika auditions for the lead in an operatic concert and gets the part. Later, during the first performance of the concert, Weronika passes out and is declared dead. Skip to France, as Veronique (also Jacob) makes love to her boyfriend and is overcome with sadness. From here on out, the film becomes more and more about the fluctuating emotions of Veronique and the advances of a puppeteer named Alexandre (Volter). Strange things begin happening to Veronique, as she receives an empty cigar box and a shoelace in the mail, with no return address. She is also awakened one night by a reflection from a neighboring apartment. I'll just go ahead and let you experience the rest for yourself, because trust me, the film is an experience.

SPOILER ALERT!

But is it an experience I enjoyed, that is the question? Well, I don't know. Man, I've been kind of undecided and wishy washy lately haven't I? Oh well, I reserve that right! But, for those of you who have seen this, I think you'll agree that this is a tough nut to crack (damn, I've been overusing that phrase lately too). Anyway, in my view Kieslowski presents to us a slice of life version of French/Polish life, but then doesn't really give us a slice of life movie. The movie that we get is an extremely poetic, extremely artsy film that is sometimes a little overwhelming and sometimes, just sometimes, a little dull. Now, don't get me wrong, the film is beautiful, filled with an unbelievably emotional performance from Irene Jacob (who has surely never been more stunning) and comes off more like a 'come to life poem' than a motion picture. However, for as beautiful as the film is, I feel like we, the audience, were kind of stiffed on the plot and set up for something that could have been really interesting and didn't get it delivered.

And yeah, the movie is a little confusing too. Apparently Kieslowski is suggesting that we are all connected somehow, or perhaps he's saying that we all have someone, whom we do not know, but whom we are emotionally and spiritually tied to, not to mention looking exactly like them. It seems to me that the physical appearance isn't so important and really Irene Jacob could have just played Veronique while another actress altogether played Weronika, as long as we knew they were connected. Also, why such a short time with Weronika? Why not bounce back and forth between the two, so that we could draw parallels. Remember at the end when the puppeteer suggests his new story, about two doppelgangers, one burning their hand on a stove and the other ALMOST burning their hand on a stove? Why not run with that and actually show us things like that. Again, I feel like this was an opportune time to play the plot a lot more than it was played upon. Beautiful film though, I can't say that enough.

RATING: 6/10  Beautiful doesn't always equal best though and I think a '6' will suffice for now, until such time as I can give this one a rewatch.

MOVIES WATCHED: 761
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 240

November 15, 2013  12:25pm

Read More

854. Ba wang Bie Ji/Farewell My Concubine (1993)

Running Time: 171 minutes
Directed By: Kaige Chen
Written By: Wei Lu, from novel by Lillian Lee
Main Cast: Leslie Cheung, Zhang Fengyi, Gong Li, Ge You, Lu Qi
Click here to view the trailer

LET IT BE OVER!

Now this was a rough one to get through! Of course we're talking today about "Farewell My Concubine" - a 1993 Chinese film that gained worldwide attention when it won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes film festival that year and was purchased by Miramax, for release in the U.S. Gotta' tell ya', if I was in Bob & Harvey's shoes, I'd have taken a big 'ol pass on this one.

Let's see here...plot, plot. Look, I'm going to level with you, I watched a good forty-five minutes of this one before mentally checking out and I won't lie, from that point on I was watching but I wasn't paying much attention. I kept reading the subtitles, but I had other things on my mind and what I really wanted was for this to just end. I can tell you that the film was about a couple of male actors, who were brought together at a young age at an acting academy, where everyone was groomed as if they'd be the next big stars. I'm talking about the main characters: Dieyi (Cheung) and Xiaolou (Fengyi). In their case, they did grow up to be China's two most popular actors, starring opposite one another in the opera, "Farewell My Concubine". Xiaolou is a boy, who plays female roles on the stage and a hint of homosexual undertones can be sensed, especially when Dieyi gets engaged and Xiaolou becomes enraged with jealousy. Their bond is tested over the course of fifty years, which include a war with Japan and the Cultural Revolution. That's all I got for ya, plot wise.

Here's the deal: I'm not going to spend a lot of time detailing why I didn't like this one, because I'm going to say - and I'm confident that this explanation has never been more true than it is in the case of "Farewell My Concubine" - that this just wasn't for me. Call it a culture clash, call it something completely out of my taste range, call it whatever you like, but it was clear to me from the get go that I wasn't going to take to this one and that the audience for this picture was elsewhere. I'm not going to lie folks, I tried, I really did. After a good ninety minutes, when I knew the plot wasn't going to recapture my attention, I tired to focus more on the cinematography, the sets, the costumes and the score, to try and find something redeemable about this movie, but even those aspects failed to really capture my attention and I was left with a head full of thoughts, none of which had anything to do with this picture. You know how sometimes when you read a book and your mind will wander off elsewhere, but you'll keep reading the words even though you really have no idea what you're reading? That's how I was when I was reading the subtitles to this. I had so many other things going through my mind and no matter how much I tried to concentrate on the film, I just couldn't stay focused on it. It was like I had temporary ADD or something. And no, it wasn't the cold medicine, because I hadn't taken any around the time that I watched this.

So there you have it. Not a very elaborate or eloquent viewpoint, but this was never meant to be anything more than a public diary of my progress through the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book. And in this diary entry, I choose to write little and simply say that the film wasn't my cup of tea. I take full blame and I'm sure that the movie earned whatever awards and praise that it was showered with, but as far as this viewer is concerned, it's something that I guarantee I'll never sit through again.

RATING: 1/10  Yup, for me personally, it doesn't get any lower. 'Nuff said.

MOVIES WATCHED: 760
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 241

November 14, 2013  10:48pm

Read More

852. C'est arrive pres de chez vous/Man Bites Dog (1992)

Running Time: 96 minutes
Directed By: Remy Belvaux, Andre Bonzel, Benoit Poelvoorde
Written By: Remy Belvaux, Andre Bonzel, Benoit Poelvoorde, Vincent Tavier
Main Cast: Benoit Poelvoorde, Remy Belvaux, Andre Bonzel, Malou Madou, Jenny Drye
Click here to view the trailer

IT HAPPENED IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD

Wow, I've made it all the way back to 1992, moving in reverse chronology. The goal within the next forty movies is to finish off the 90s (except for a couple that I've set aside for the finale) and continue movie chronologically backwards through the 80s too. Then, next season, I'll likely tackle the 50s and start moving in regular chronology. Anyway, I'm jumping the gun by a mile and we've got a movie to talk about - "Man Bites Dog"...

...is a mockumentary wherein a camera crew follows around  serial killer, documenting his kills, his motives and his techniques. It's more of a comedy because the serial killer that we're talking about is actually quite entertaining and funny. His name is Ben (Poelvoorde) and he's very natural in front of the camera, treating the film shoot as his personal claim to fame and speaking with a tone that more implies he's curing cancer, as opposed to taking lives. He's cocky, confident and never feels remorse for the brutality he dishes out. Along the way, the camera crew (consisting of characters named Remy and Andre - played by co-writers Remy Belvaux and Andre Bonzel) begin to assist him in his spree; helping him sink bodies and even accepting financial help from Ben, in the form of the loot he steals from his victim's homes'.

To be honest, the film doesn't have much of a point, except maybe to poke a stick at the media and the way the eat up random acts of violence with a spoon and then try to feed it back to the public, by filming it and showing it over and over. It's not particularly a subject that I found riveting and satirizing usually leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth and "Man Bites Dog" was no exception. Sure, I'll be the first to admit that Benoit Poelvoorde was a talented guy - I'd go so far as to call him extremely talented, keeping tied to this picture, even when I wanted to just mentally check out. He was funny and had a knack for being in front of a rolling camera and knew how to keep us watching, whether we wanted to or not. Otherwise, this one just didn't do anything for me. No, it wasn't the violence that turned me off either. I can take as much violence as you want to dish out and it doesn't offend or horrify me. It was just pointless to me and I just couldn't settle into it. It surely wasn't meant to be taken seriously and that's a big problem for me, because I like to take my movies seriously. It was too silly to be anything meaningful. I'm just not sure how I was supposed to leave this film feeling. Was I supposed to leave laughing? Was I supposed to leave with a new opinion and something to talk about with the water cooler gang? Was I supposed to be horrified? I don't know....It was a tough nut to crack, but ultimately, I'd rather just give up on the nut and throw it to the squirrels.

RATING: 4.5/10  It kept me interested for the entire duration, thanks to Benoit Poelvoorde, so I have to give it credit for that. Otherwise, take a pass on this one. Sorry for the short review - still sucking on cough drops, if you get my drift.

MOVIES WATCHED: 759
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 242

November 13, 2013  2:46pm

Read More

867. Trois couleurs: Rouge/Three Colors: Red (1994)

Running Time: 99 minutes
Directed By: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Written By: Krzysztof Kieslowski, Krzysztof Piesiewicz
Main Cast: Irene Jacob, Jean-Louis Trintignant, Jean-Pierre Lorit, Frederique Feder, Samuel Lebihan
Click here to view the trailer

DISAPPOINTMENT

Man, I even warned myself at the end of my review for "White", not to let myself get too hyped up for the finale to the "Three Colors" trilogy, or else I'd only be setting myself up for disappointment. A nasty cold (which I still have) kept me from anticipating it too much (hard to think about movies when you can barely breathe and sleep eludes you), however, "Red" came with a heap if disappointment for this viewer.

The main character this time is Valentine (Jacob), a woman who has the world on a string. She's a student of dance, a model of fine clothing and the girl who appears on the billboards, in the middle of busy streets. She maintains a long distance relationship with her boyfriend Michel and she's always bright eyed, polite and ready to tackle the world. One day, while driving home, she accidentally hits a dog with her car. She goes to the home of the owner of the dog and tells him what she's done. The dog's owner is a former judge, Joseph Kern (Trintignant), and he doesn't really seem to care that his dog's just been injured. Valentine leaves the house, gets the dog looked after and then takes her home, deciding to just go ahead and keep the dog for herself. Later, circumstances lead her to meet up with the judge once again, where she returns the dog and finds out that the judge has a hobby of listening in on his neighbors' telephone conversations. Valentine tells him how despicable his activities are, but Kern doesn't really seem to care about anything or anyone. The two continue talking and eventually Kern sees the error of his ways. Meanwhile, Valentine's neighbor, Auguste (Lorit), also shares some of the film's focus, as his relationship with an over the phone weather girl is chronicled.

SPOILER ALERT!

I hadn't had a proper night's sleep in three nights. The cold, that initially resided in my throat, decided to get a divorce, with half going to my head and the other half taking the kids and going to stay with it's mother, in my chest. I'd wake up at all hours of the night, coughing, hacking, sniffling, sneezing and peeing (hey, bladder's don't take time off for cold's), then I'd turn around and get up at around 6ish to go to work. So, it wasn't out of the question that since I was off today, that last night I'd decide to take a big, slightly oversized dose of NyQuil and get the Zzz's I so desperately needed. So I woke up this morning, after a night of no tossing, nor turning and ready to have a go at a movie. So maybe it was that slightly oversized dose of NyQuil that made me a little loopy and ultimately led to my dissatisfaction of "Red". I doubt it, but have to make heads or tails of this. I mean, we were so damn close to having such an amazing trilogy of films and then...kaput! And, not to mention, "Red" is the most acclaimed of all three of the "Three Colors" films. So why didn't I like it?

Okay, I did kind of LIKE it, but compared to the other two, I didn't like it at all. Maybe it had too much of a plot. I mentioned before that "Blue" really didn't have much of a plot at all; simply a woman trying to heal after the death of her family and that for my money, "Blue" is more about mood and atmosphere as opposed to plot. Then you've got "White", which has a plot that I relied on, yet it wasn't too intricate and it was really basic stuff. Then there's "Red" which doesn't focus on just one character (like the other two films), but rather, several characters and has a more intricate plot than the other two, by far. Not to mention the fact, that I really didn't fully understand everything that was going on in "Red", especially the ending. Why do all of the main characters survive the ferry crash? Why does Kern's life seem to mirror Auguste's?

I did some perusing of the IMDB message boards and found one poster's answer, that I liked the best: Perhaps all three films are just dreams of the Kern's? Now normally, I'm not a fan of the "it was all a dream" defense unless it makes a LOT of sense, but I think it does here. For starters, Kern DOES mention something about a dream he's had to Valentine, near the end of the picture, so obviously his dreams are at least a little bit significant here and obviously we know he has vivid dreams. There's also the fact that "Blue" focuses on one character (Julie), as does "White" (Karol), yet "Red" is the final culmination, the one where we actually meet the dreamer and therefore focuses on a few characters (Valentine, Auguste and the dreamer a.k.a. Kern). Also the theme of color seems to have this theory make sense too. How many times have your dreams been bombarded by a certain color? You wake up and you can't remember much, but "damn, the color red was all over that dream" or "wow, there was a girl and...and...well there was a lot of blue". I don't know...

At this point, I'm just talking out of my ass and probably trying to have it all make sense so that I can just accept this as one of the greatest trilogies ever produced. And I just really really wanted to love this one and I didn't. It didn't make complete sense (to me anyway) and it was too busy (especially considering "Blue" and "White"). Perhaps a rewatch someday will spell a better fate for "Red", but for now call this one the worst in the trilogy, with "White" being the best, with "Blue" trailing at a very close second.

RATING: 6/10  So still a good rating, but I opted to focus on the negatives, instead of any positives because I was SO disappointed with this one. Should've been a '10'.

MOVIES WATCHED: 758
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 243

November 12, 2013  11:01pm

Read More

BONUS REVIEW: Trois couleurs: Blanc/Three Colors: White (1994)

Running Time: 92 minutes
Directed By: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Written By: Krzysztof Kieslowski, Krzysztof Piesiewicz, Agnieszka Holland, Edward Zebrowski, Edward Klosinski
Main Cast: Zbigniew Zamachowski, Julie Delpy, Janusz Gajos, Jerzy Stuhr, Aleksander Bardini
Click here to view the trailer

RESURGENCE

Still waging war with "Old Man Winter" in the form of a pretty nasty cold (which can't decide whether it wants to reside in my head or in my chest and for now, is content with hanging out in my throat), I pop in the second of Krzysztof Kieslowski's "Three Colors" trilogy - "White". Remember, "White" is NOT in the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book and I'm only reviewing it here for completist purposes and because, why not?

This time around, our lead character changes from a woman to a man, as we zoom in on Karol Karol (Zamachowski), a Polish born hairdresser, who moved to France when he married French citizen Dominique (Delpy). At the film's beginning, the two are waging war in the courtroom - going through divorce proceedings, Dominique arguing that the marriage was never consummated. Long story short, the honeymoon is over and Karol Karol is broke as a joke, with nowhere to go and no money to get there. He lands in a subway terminal, where he wraps a handkerchief around a comb, making an effective kazoo and trying to earn a few coins to get a hot meal or maybe, just maybe, a warm bed. He is approached by a fellow Pole who offers to help him get back to Poland. The two make friends and when all is said and done, Karol decides to stowaway inside of a trunk and pretend to be luggage on a flight from France to Poland. Not without a hitch, Karol makes it back to Poland and to the location where he practices his hairdressing skills. He's still down on his luck, tired and worn out, but he has plans to get back on his feet. And that, my friends, is the movie: Karol Karol's journey from makeshift kazoo player to self made millionaire - all the while, never forgetting his long, lost love Dominique.

SPOILER ALERT!

In my review for "Blue", I said that the film lacked a certain enjoyability, but still managed to win me over with it's artistic integrity and a somber mood that appealed to me. With "White", the tables turn, as the enjoyability factor is cranked up a few notches, with Kieslowski and fellow writing collaborators focusing less on establishing a perfect atmosphere & mood and more on developing a worthwhile plot, while letting the artistry fall to the wayside. That's not to say that the film doesn't play host to more than a handful of beautiful shots, fine performances and a certain vision that Kieslowski surely had, but only to say there is a much more prevalent plot, whereas "Blue" wasn't really plot driven. Anyway (ramble ramble ramble) I totally enjoyed this and I might even say I liked it just a little bit more than "Blue". I totally clung to the Karol character and wanted to see him succeed, at all costs. The story goes that Kieslowski re-shot the ending to make Dominique seem like less of a monster and in my view, that didn't quite work out, as I still left the film not caring much for her character and thinking she got everything she deserved. In fact, speaking of the ending, that's one of the major flaws here, as I didn't care for the whole thing with Karol going to the prison and having a sign language conversation with Dominique. It just didn't work for me.

However, it's not a major gripe and I can totally live with it. Who doesn't love a good underdog story and it's french too, which is just gravy. Coupled with "Blue", I'd have to say that these two films together have me extremely excited to see "Red", the most acclaimed of the "Three Colors" trilogy.

RATING: 8/10  Gonna' go a smidgen higher with "White" and here's hoping "Red" totally knocks my socks off. I should probably lower my expectations a little bit, so as not to be disappointed.

November 10, 2013  5:33pm

Read More

861. Trois couleurs: Bleu/Three Colors: Blue (1993)

Running Time: 98 minutes
Directed By: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Written By: Agnieszka Holland, Slavomir Idziak, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Krzysztof Piesiewicz, Edward Zebrowski
Main Cast: Juliette Binoche, Benoit Regent, Florence Pernel, Guillaume de Tonquedec, Charlotte Very
Click here to view the trailer

HEALING

Probably should have done some sort of "Kieslowski Week" thing or even posted an announcement saying that the "colors movies" were upcoming, but I went for the "spring it on you" option instead. As a bonus, I'll also be writing a full, formal review for "White", which should probably be up tomorrow.

Julie de Courcy (Binoche), her husband Patrice (a famous composer) and their little girl Ana are involved in an automobile accident, at the beginning of the film - an accident which kills Patrice and Ana. In the hospital, Julie dons a neck brace, an arm cast and several bumps & bruises and is inconsolable when it comes to the loss of her family. She tries to kill herself by taking a handful of pills, but can't go through with it and instead, upon her hospital release, decides to distance herself from everyone she knows. She sells the family mansion, throws Patrice's unfinished compositions in the garbage, allows herself to be sexually taken by a family friend whom has always had a crush on her and then moves into a small apartment, where she plans to live as a recluse. During her healing process, Julie meets and befriends her next door neighbor, a stripper named Lucille (Very), whom everyone in the building wants evicted, save for Julie. Julie spends her nights in a local, public swimming pool, exercising herself out, perhaps a way of escaping the tears that won't seem to come for her perished family. As the title suggests, blue is the prevalent color in the picture, with many of the set pieces and props being blue, not to mention the mood of the main character.

I had seen this one once before, but for the life of me, couldn't remember the bulk of it. Therefore, this was really a fresh watch for me and to be honest, this one was a tough nut to crack. By that, I mean I'm still trying to decide whether it was a masterpiece or whether it was just really boring, with a plot that was barely enough to make a short film, let alone a feature. At about the thirty minute mark, I'd decided that "Blue" wasn't doing much for me and I'd ride it out, write up a negative review and be done with it. However, the damn thing just kept sucking me in and I'll be damned if I didn't end up really liking it. What I liked about it, I do not know - perhaps the mood, the atmosphere, the subtleties, the artistry, the somber nature of the whole thing...who knows. All I can tell you is that this is one of those films where the enjoyability of it all is NOT important, but rather the experience and the fact that you just KNOW you're watching something a little more special than all the other tripe being produced.

Keep peeled eyes for the outstanding performance from Binoche, who performs a seminar on how to BECOME heartbreak and depression. There are some other people in there too, but let's be honest - this is a one woman show and that show is named BINOCHE. I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention the name Slawomir Idziak, the cinematographer of the picture and a brilliant one at that. You know you're watching the work of someone who knows what they're doing and not just some schmuck that had a degree.

RATING: 7.5/10  It's probably going to be one of those movies that is a "love it or hate it" deal. It could easily be construed as boring, if seen by the right eyes, but it also oozes master filmmaking.

MOVIES WATCHED: 757
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 244

November 9, 2013  5:42pm

Read More