Logo

Cool News

AICN-Downunder: The House of Wax; Born Into Brothels; Anatomy of Hell; Empire Falls; Shrek 2; Intermission; TinTin

Published at:  Jun 26, 2004 6:30:33 PM CDT

THIS JUST IN !!! 11am CDT USA June 27, 2004

Father Geek reporting... in a bit of what can only be called Karmic Irony the word has just arrived here at Geek Headquarters in the heart of Texas that a "controlled" fire stunt on the set of the remake of the HOUSE OF WAX filming in Australia went terribly wrong today and fed by the wax props spread to and consumed the entire set, equiptment, sound stage, etc... BUMMER!!! Hope no one was hurt... But I can't help but think that somewhere Vincent Price and Charles Bronson are having a little satanic chuckle... more on this later...

Now back to our original column as it was posted late Saturday (the 26th) night...


Father Geek here at my rolltop desk work station in Austin, Texas with the latest weekend report from Latauro and the wilds of Central Australia (that large plot of rabbit infested land just West of New Zealand)... What's happening in film down there... well, read on geeks, because here's AICN's regular weekly column...

The Downunder Report...


Did you know I can hold my breath for 3 minutes and 33 seconds?

AICN-DOWNUNDER

This week is momentous. It marks the release of THE PRINCE AND ME, starring
Julia Stiles. For years to come, people will proclaim this as being the
greatest week of cinema Australia has ever seen. Grandchildren will ask
their elders to relate the story of what it was like to walk into the cinema
and see it for the first time. June 24th will forever be Prince And Me Day.

No, I haven't seen the film, and no, this isn't an ad for a scathing review
further down the column. I'm mentioning it because - and I don't know if
anyone outside of Australia and Denmark is aware of this - the prince of
Denmark, mere weeks ago, married a girl from Australia. I don't know how
similar their meeting was to that of Ms Stiles and *her* Danish prince, but
I can almost certainly assure you that in real life, THE PRINCE OF DENMARK
SPOKE DANISH.

It's a conceit that must surely piss most of Europe off. All European
characters speaking with English accents, to indicate 'foreign' to US
audiences. Even Australia is victim to it: I haven't heard an American do an
Australian accent without it becoming thick English cockney (yes, even Meryl
Streep's accent sucked). I dread to think what will happen if they attempt a
New Zealand accent (yes, there is a difference between Aussie and NZ
accents, and even Aussies mostly suck at NZ accents). Is it really that hard
to get right? Is it really something that's difficult for audiences to
grasp? Given the sheer amount of people who claim that foreign accents are a
huge turn-on, wouldn't you want to try to nail down the exotic speak?

Maybe they will soon. Maybe one film will hit it big, and there will
suddenly be a slew of films trying to be the Next Big Accent. Watch. It'll
happen.

In the meantime, if you want actual reviews (and not two-word sentences
designed to make my friends laugh, as with last week), I've reviewed SHREK
2, INTERMISSION and DAWN OF THE DEAD. One film gets praised, one gets
trashed, and the other gets a 'pretty good, but not great'. Think you can
guess which is which? You may be in for a surprise.

Also, there's a bunch of news from Australia and New Zealand. What more
could you want? Porn? Really? Maybe next week!


NEWS

* NZ-based John Finn's Wife (love the nick, dude) has been speaking lately to
some people involved in "Tintin" licensing. After a meeting with Nick
Rodwell (The Top Dude at Tintin Inc, also married to Mrs Herge), these
people said that contracts with Spielberg had been signed and that Tom Hanks
may be Captain Haddock. To be taken with a very large amount of sea salt
(see what I did there?), but John Finn's Wife suggested Oliver Reed. Were he
not dead, of course. More newsies as they come to hand...


* Jerry Goldsmith has been replaced by Paul Grabowsky as score-maker for Fred
Schepisi's four hour telemovie EMPIRE FALLS, starring Paul Newman, Ed Harris
and Helen Hunt. Grabowsky has previously composed the scores for Schepisi
films LAST ORDERS and IT RUNS IN THE FAMILY.

* Oh, it's great that every week we get to listen to the bullshit from the
Australian Family Association. Concerned that society as we know it will
collapse if ANATOMY OF HELL plays in cinemas, the AFA has complained to the
Office of Film and Literature Classification about the R18+ rating given to
Catherine Breillat's film. ANATOMY contains (gasp! shock!) sex, so with any
luck people over the age of eighteen will be spared such depravity. We'll
let you know how it turns out.


AWARDS AND FESTIVALS

30TH SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL

Australian documentary BORN INTO BROTHELS (from Zana Briski and Ross
Kauffman) won Best Documentary from the audience awards. Australian film
MARIA FULL OF GRACE also won an audience-voted award, to Catalina Sandino
Moreno for Best Actress.


BOX OFFICE

Who could have possibly predicted that the DreamWorks sequel would beat out
the rest? Yeah, big surprise there. DAWN OF THE DEAD and SUPER SIZE ME just
came in short of the top five this week, though Morgan Spurlock's
documentary did beat BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE's record as Australia's biggest
opening weekend for a doco.

Annnnd the top money went to...
  • 1. SHREK 2
  • 2. HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
  • 3. THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW
  • 4. TROY
  • 5. RAISING HELEN



RELEASED THIS WEEK

MURDER BY DEATH meets "Temptation Island", Lindsey Lohan (who?) continues to
battle Hilary Duff (who?) for the coveted tweenies (the coveted what?),
everyone in Denmark suddenly gets English accents, and snow + dreams =
snowdreams.

Here's what's new downunder...
  • CLUB DREAD
  • MEAN GIRLS
  • THE PRINCE AND ME
  • TOUCHING THE VOID



REVIEWS

SHREK 2

I didn't like the first one.

I know that puts me in the minority section, similar to my views on
CATWOMAN, cheese and Jesus. But it just did nothing for me. There was no
story. There were a couple of plot points, but the vast majority of the film
was padding. It was sloppy storytelling, particularly for a film that's
poking fun at fairytales.

So, when I promised to take my cousin to see any film of her choice for her
twelfth birthday, I should have known she'd pick SHREK 2. Every kid is
hanging out for it, most adults too. Being the dutiful cousin that I am, I
happily took her along to see it, putting on a big smile every time I spied
her looking up to check my reaction.

Well, it was better than the first. But, coming from me, that's still not
saying much.

I'm trying so hard to judge it on its own merits, because all I keep
thinking is how lame the whole thing is compared to Pixar. You may consider
it a tired comparison, but the SHREKs would not exist were it not for TOY
STORY. Unfortunately, like all the major studios, they completely missed the
point of TOY STORY. It's not the computer animation that makes them so
successful; it's the story, it's the characters, it's the fact that we're
not being patronised.

But, yes, the animation is an issue. So let's address it. I really like
ANTZ. I love Woody Allen, and enjoyed the film as a whole. But when BUG'S
LIFE came out, there was no comparison. BUG'S LIFE was simply a better
story, and didn't need to resort to the clichés that ANTZ did. If there was
an action sequence in there, it wasn't to fill in the time or simply change
the pace - it served the story. But what got me more than anything when
comparing the two was the character design. The ants in ANTZ had the correct
number of legs, they were (roughly) the correct colour. They went for
accuracy. BUG'S LIFE gave the ants two arms and two legs, and coloured them
whatever they felt like (Flik was blue, for crying out loud). Yet they were
a million times better. There was no awkwardness to the movement, it was all
real. Yes, they went down the anthropomorphism route, but what other choice
did they have? Bottom line: in my opinion, the bugs from A BUG'S LIFE looked
about a zillion times better than their counterparts in ANTZ.

The same is true for SHREK 2. The standard of computer animation is set by
Pixar, and SHREK just doesn't look as good. I keep flashing back to a quote
from Leela in "Futurama": 'They're so lifeless-like'. All the characters
look like plastic designs with fish-hooks pulling bits of their faces into
expressions. They never feel like real people. If Pixar can convince me that
a fish is real, if Weta can convince me that a clearly-CGI character has a
soul, then surely DreamWorks can try harder with a character that is human?
Or with a human-like ogre?

Another big thing that most studios constantly get wrong is the humour. I'm
so sick of hearing how clever the makers of SO-AND-SO were for putting in
jokes that only adults will get. One joke for the kids, one joke for the
adults, one joke for the kids, one joke for the adults. The biggest laugh in
SHREK 2 (at least in the cinema I was in) ? When Shrek farted. Meanwhile,
the adults are chuckling knowingly to themselves when Fiona kisses Shrek
upside down, like in SPIDER-MAN. Why is that clever?! Why do people think
taking a recent pop culture moment and reconstructing it on screen is
brilliant? It's like SCARY MOVIE 2. Not a single joke in the entire thing,
just scenes from horror films re-done with the Wayans brothers smirking
throughout. My advice to the makers of SHREK 2: go watch the Pixar films
again. Listen to the jokes. They're character-based. The slapstick moments
are earned. Sit in a cinema and listen to who is laughing. It's everybody.
It's not the adults laughing at one moment and the kids laughing at the
next. It's universal humour that everyone can appreciate, not a dividing
line between demographics.

So what did I like?

I liked Eddie Murphy. And I really hate Eddie Murphy. I've never found him
remotely funny or watchable in anything he's done, but I think he's good as
Donkey. He fits the role well. Not that I think any of Donkey's lines are
particularly funny, but I do enjoy the character. I liked when Shrek turned
into Howard Keel. I liked some stuff that the overrated Puss In Boots did. I
liked Larry King. I liked a couple of the scenic shots.

It's not a bad film. It's just bad storytelling dumbed down. Like I said, I
know I'm in the minority... but I'll keep sighing every time I hear how good
SHREK 2 is, and keep counting down the days until THE INCREDIBLES comes out.


INTERMISSION

What can I say about INTERMISSION that hasn't been said before? Quite a lot,
actually, as I've seen practically no mention of it anywhere. I did glance
at a review on imdb.com which said that the dialogue was completely
incomprehensible. This I found funny, as the reviewer lives in New York, and
INTERMISSION is Irish. Very Irish.

The most refreshing thing was seeing Irish and not Oirish. Oirish is THE
DEVIL'S OWN. It's DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE. It's THE GHOST AND THE
DARKNESS. Though I don't purport to be any sort of expert on Irish culture,
the film felt genuine. A lot of the time, though, it felt like it was trying
very hard to feel genuine - a task that wasn't helped by repeated descent
into cliché - but on the whole it worked.

It's a multi-character piece about love and crime and other things, set
against the working class of Ireland. You want a better summation? Let me
quote the poster:

'It's LOVE ACTUALLY meets TRAINSPOTTING - Ain't It Cool News'

I love that quote. It's like the cover of AMERICAN PSYCHO 2 ('10/10 -
imdb.com'). But I digress.

The film featurs Colin Farrell, Cillian Murphy (whose work I'm enjoying
heaps), Colm Meany, Kelly Macdonald and Shirley Henderson (from BRIDGET
JONES'S DIARY and the second HARRY POTTER). It's a good cast, and a clever
one. Not only do they all suit their roles to a tee, but it's a recognisable
enough cast to ensure international distribution.

So, is it any good? Well... yes. If you have to divide everything into
either 'good' or 'bad', I think in the wash INTERMISSION would come out as
'good'. It's not without faults - in fact, it's filled with them - but
there's a sweetness to it that eventually saves the film. Yes, that
sweetness tap dances dangerously close to pap at some points, but it's a
welcome respite.

It's a good film, mildly distracting, mildly distracted, but worth your time
if you're a fan of the multiple character flicks.


DAWN OF THE DEAD

I now have to make a confession that will no doubt strip me of my geek cred:
I have not seen the original DAWN OF THE DEAD. I'm sorry, it's just never
come up. I've never been in a position to see it, and rarely have the time
to actively seek out old films I should have seen by now (though I always
swear I'll amend this).

I was, however, in a position to see the remake. I wasn't chomping at the
bit to, but that situation did present itself, so I went. In fact, I went
with a friend who had just come of a fourteen hour work day, and I myself
had been working to an insane degree lately. The point is that we both
looked like the living dead, and I was worried that we'd be more inclined to
identify with the zombies. But, in complete honesty, I wasn't expecting it
to be good.

When the little girl on the roller skates appeared at the start, I thought
Sarah Polley was going to have to protect her and it would get all
schmaltzy. When Mekhi Pfiefer said all he wanted to do was bring his baby
into the world, I figured he'd die saving it from the zombies. At one point,
I expected the film to fall into the predictable subtext of "WHO ARE THE
*REAL* ZOMBIES?". I was wrong on all counts. In fact, my expectations were
completely turned downside up.

There's been a raising-of-the-bar with zombie films of late. UNDEAD was
funny and brilliant, and knew exactly where it was going. 28 DAYS LATER
(which was, in fact, both a virus film *and* a zombie film... they were
bloody zombies!) applied a video game structure and an indie style to the
genre. I haven't seen SHAUN OF THE DEAD, but I love the idea of a romantic
comedy zombie flick (and I'm pissed I didn't think of it first). The
resurgence of the zombie film has been a quiet, barely-noticed phenomenon.

DAWN OF THE DEAD feels like no zombie film has ever been made before. It
feels like the scriptwriter just came up with the concept of dead people
wanting to eat alive people, and this is the film that resulted. The
direction isn't too much, or too little. I've never heard of the director
before, but it was expertly handled. Even the casting managed to avoid
cliché.

I look forward to seeing the original DAWN and DAY (I've already seen
NIGHT... does that get me out of the geek doghouse?), but as a stand-alone
film, the 2004 DAWN OF THE DEAD is really very good.


NEXT WEEK

- Uwe Boll beats out Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and God for directing
duties on ALIEN VS GARFIELD

- David E. Kelley pitches new "Star Trek" series about Starfleet lawyers and
the affairs they have with each other

- M. Night Shyamalan signs on to direct HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE
PHOENIX, when he suggests a new ending whereby it is revealed that Harry is
actually Voldemort, and Dumbledore can be killed with air


Peace out,

Latauro

AICNDownunder@hotmail.com



    + Expand All

    Readers Talkback

  • Jun 26, 2004 6:52:33 PM CDT

    'UNDEAD was funny and brilliant'

    by cash bailey

    Um... no it wasn't. Either of them. For a second.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 26, 2004 7:08:54 PM CDT

    "Tom Hanks may be Captain Haddock"

    by docpazuzu

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 26, 2004 7:16:37 PM CDT

    Evil Angels

    by muz

    I defend Streep's performance constantly from Aus folk who think her accent was crap. But it was consistent and Lindy Chamberlain was born of Kiwis, lived a somewhat insular family and then lived a long time in North Queensland. Which is a recipe for an accent from Hell. People forget these things and she doesn't really talk like she used to, so Streep cops it for the accent. But I reckon it's pretty close.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 26, 2004 7:38:37 PM CDT

    CASSERN: Wacky, Random Question

    by hungryjoe

    So...any news on CASSHERN. You know, in the way of reviews and any potential release in the U.S., theatrical or DVD????????

    P.S. Yay...in reference to the above article, finally a review of the SHREK films that I can agree with! That SHREK was the first film to take home the Best Animated Feature Oscar will forever blemish that particular award. Ack.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 26, 2004 8:09:28 PM CDT

    No Story in SHREK??? HUH????

    by russman

    What the hell?? He was trying to get his fucking swamp back. That's the story! Christ! Just say it wasn't your sense of humor and you didn't think it was funny. Or shurg your shoulders and say that you didn't get it - because there were a hell of a lot of people laughing in the theater when I saw it.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 26, 2004 9:26:58 PM CDT

    never liked anything eddie murphy has done...

    by speed

    BH COP, TRADING PLACES AND BOWFINGER. 3 excellent performances from Mr Murphy. i remember being in grade 10 and taking the day off school to go see a special advance sceening of Beverly Hills cop. loved it ( well i was only 15 AND nicking off from shcool). BUT i did watch it again recently and apart from the NEUTRON DANCE i still enjoyed the buggery out of it. it's 80's cinema at it's best...or maybe it's just nostalgia

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 26, 2004 9:28:24 PM CDT

    "Look at the chooks"

    by mrs danvers

    ...was Meryl's best line in Evil Angels. She did almost manage an NZ/Oz hybrid but Lindy Chamberlain didn't speak like that anyway.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 26, 2004 9:51:06 PM CDT

    Undead would have been better...

    by warrenperso

    ...if they edited a good ninety minutes or so out of it. Basically, if they never made it at all. Ever.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 26, 2004 11:14:39 PM CDT

    Shut up - the Aliens in Undead were funny as hell

    by monkey butler

    And the Aussie flag falling behind the chick was sheese at it's finest... And I didn't really like the first Shrek (too Disney-sweet, which is pretty ironic)but I loved the second one. I know that Donkey and Puss in Boots are contrived characters that exist only for comic relief, but IMO they were still pulled off very well. The adult joke-kid joke thing is a pretty fair comment, but as logn as I'm laughing most of the time, I don't really care. And the movie references, while a bit tired, were used sparingly, and the Alien one was gold. But I think the one thing that really made S2 work for me was the fact that this time it actually worked as a fairy tale. That and dragon-donkeys are the funniest thing I've ever seen

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 27, 2004 12:09:20 AM CDT

    Bug`s Life

    by wyrdy the gerbil

    Of course it had a better story than Antz`s ....kurasawa wrote it

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 27, 2004 1:09:29 AM CDT

    Sorry to say it Lat, but to not like Shrek 2 for the reasons you

    by theginger twit

    I thought Shrek 2 was one of the best sequels ever made. I thought the story was very clever, and I was laughing all the way through it. And I didn't once make a comparison to Pixar... in fact I was dazzeled by how good the Animation was, when you look at things such as rain, tree closeups and the likes. As much as I agree with everything you said about Bug life, quite honestly, Shrek 2 has better animation.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 27, 2004 4:02:33 AM CDT

    I didnt really like Shrek 2 that much

    by jon e cin

    I thought it was a little bland. Puss in Boots was fucking hilarious I must say!
    I just thought Shrek and Fiona were flat and unfunny. Donkey was only ok.
    I liked the first one better.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 27, 2004 6:00:09 AM CDT

    Finally someone who get's it

    by nerfherder

    Totally agree with Latauro on the whole Shrek thing.

    It's based on incredibly primitive humor no one will find even remotely funny 10 years from now. Movies that focus on the gags instead of the story don't age very well. Like the earlier Jim Carrey movies people are gonna wonder what the fuss was all about a few years from now.

    Do like the animation though and actually prefers AntZ to A Bugs Life. Totally unrelated. Can't wait to see Polar Express get crushed by The Incredibles later this year.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 27, 2004 10:30:49 AM CDT

    Nerfherder... by you're very reasoning, the same could be said a

    by theginger twit

    10 years from now LOTR will be reduced to very long, dull and boring movies that only supream hardcore fans will still rave about. and the joke will be that there are even longer versions.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 27, 2004 11:03:27 AM CDT

    Well...Zombie firsts...

    by stlfilmwire

    Technically it's not a zombie flick but the ole comedy My Boyfriend's Back was pretty cool... where a guy is trying to pick up the hot chick he lusts after... all while his body is decaying.

    Good times.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 27, 2004 12:37:46 PM CDT

    Tom Hanks for Haddock is ridiculous.

    by thing-fish

    But the question is, who should play Haddock? Assuming it's going o be an English-speaking actor, my vote would either go to Michael Gambon (from "The cook, the thief, the wife & her lover", and Harry Potter 3) or maybe Brendan Gleeson or someone like that, maybe.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 27, 2004 6:55:38 PM CDT

    shrek 1 and 2 are just trash

    by simpsonsquoteman

    i've said it since the first time i saw the first one: just corporate, empty, void, useless McCinema.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 27, 2004 7:38:36 PM CDT

    Yeah, but LOTR are a bit overrated

    by nerfherder

    TheGingerTwit.

    I can actually go with that reasoning. The LOTR movies didn't really do it for me. Liked the first one because I felt some sort of emotion in the characters. For me Sean Bean character Boromir was the highpoint of the series. Gandalf got boring after he turned white and the fighting is too poorly made to keep my interest.

    I guess you can admire the movies for their technical qualities.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 27, 2004 9:30:49 PM CDT

    I saw the fire bring down stage 8. I have pics. hehe

    by theginger twit

  • Jun 28, 2004 2:55:26 AM CDT

    Pixar isn't THAT great...

    by marco_xavier

    ...I feel they're exceedingly overrated, in fact. Are you telling me those silly looking humans in "Finding Nemo" were any better than those in "Shrek"? I've only seen either Shrek movie once. I recall quite liking the first film, but was thoroughly unimpressed by the sequal. Fact is, my reaction to the Pixar films I've seen ("Nemo," "Monsters, Inc." & "Toy Story") wasn't much better than "Shreck 2." I'm not enough of a computer geek to appreciate the technological advancements, so to my eye they don't look much more realistic than cell animation. Sure, there's more a sense of depth, but they're all still cartoony, and the stories don't inspire me. I've seen "Antz" twice, though, and it will probably become my second major CGI purchase on DVD (after Final Fantasy:Spirits..."). What I've seen of "A Bug's Life" irritated the hell out of me, and I even like Dave Foley normally. Now about "Dawn Of The Dead 2004"... give me a fuckin' break. It was a mean-spirited piece of Saturday afternoon fluff, and that's it. The only "twist" I didn't see coming was the fate of the guy from "American Gothic," because you knew by the credits what kind of mentality went into the feature. Coming from someone who loves the blackest of comedies (like "Happiness" and "Very Bad Things"), I was offended not by the brutality, but the banality and hateful handling of the cardboard characters. However, going into the original "DOTD," you have to remember that a good chunk of the movie IS devoted to the "who are the REAL zombies" schtick. With NOTLD, it invented that cliche. Still the best zombie movie ever, though.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 28, 2004 11:46:12 AM CDT

    FRED WARD for HADDOCK

    by fletchwon

    MAN YOU PEOPLE DONT EVER LISTEN! FRED WARD FOR HADDOCK....THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION..... "blisterin' barnacles Tin-Tin"

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 28, 2004 9:11:28 PM CDT

    Uwe Boll and Antz vs A Bug's Life

    by rowox

    Has anyone else seen the statement (apparently) made by Uwe Boll to the people that laughed long and hard at him and House of the Dead? If it's genuine, then that is the funniest thing I have read all year. It should still be at chud.com if anyone is interested. Who are these producers that give this loser money? And like someone above said about Bug's Life being based on Seven Samurai - the whole story of A Bug's Life was a cliche! Antz was much more original, just not pulled off as well as ABL.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 28, 2004 9:42:45 PM CDT

    Tom Hanks may be Captain Haddock?

    by cyberskunk

    Tom Hanks may be Captain Haddock?

    I kept saying that to myself because I couldn't see him in the role. I kept seeing Tom's very un-Captain Haddock face. But, maybe he could play the part. I guess I'll go back to lurking and occasionally thinking, "Tom Hanks as Captain Haddock?"

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 28, 2004 10:07:24 PM CDT

    Uwe B. quote?

    by latauro

    Rowox: what was the quote?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 28, 2004 11:20:46 PM CDT

    Latauro - Uwe Boll

    by rowox

    It was in the 'Steady Leak #66' section at chud. Basically Mr Boll - or someone pretending to be him - wrote a letter to the editor at chud (and others who have dissed him) whining that they were being unfair with their negative comments about his films. He compares House of the Dead to Resident Evil(!) and Underworld(!!)(if you're going to mention films, aim for something higher buddy), he also mangles the English language(not his native tongue, but no excuse for not using spell/grammar checks) and goes on wild tangents about Tarantino etc that make no sense whatsoever. Happy reading, Nick Nunziata's rebuttal is pretty funny too - "Kanada" hurr hurr:)

    Reply to Talkback

User Login

Forgot password? Retrieve it here

or register as new user

Quick Talkback Form

Please login to post talkback