Cool News
Report on the latest A.I. TV Spot!
Hey folks, Harry here and I really and sincerely want to see this spot now... if anyone nabbed it or finds it online, let me know. And the red letters popping up... well... this is creepy sounding. Of other note, it seems that just about everyone is hoping Spielberg has hit a homerun on this one. McTiernan asked about it. And Moriarty tells me that Sony's Michael Barker quizzed him about them in Florida. I think as the summer slate begins to suck a little harder, the hope that something brilliant on the horizon keeps hope alive. We'll see...
Harry... 00101010 here. I just finished up my daily dose of the Simpson's
and what should I behold but a brand new trailer for that glorius stream of
celluloid that we are all awaiting with baited breath. It was very quick,
and ENTIRELY different than the others. This one was dark... dangerous...
frightening. Jude Law speaking something to the effect that humans are
afraid only because that they know that once they are gone, the machines
will be all that's left. A picture of Haley Joel Osmet being caught in a
net and looking horrified. A female voice saying "They made us too
intelligent, too fast". And for all my Cloudmaker brothers out there...
bright red letters in the credits... "THIS IS NOT A GAME". It gave me
CHILLS! Hopefully someone'll have a QUICKTIME version of it up soonest!
Thanks for your hard work... hanging out with McT must be hard!
00101010
-
+ Expand All
-
1st.... A.I. looks more like Disney than Kubrick....
-
The problem is that I live overseas, and it's going to be too painful for me to wait. "Too fast?" WONDERFUL "Too smart?" GREAT. Please, god, don't let Stevie dissapoint us.
-
What goes through the mind of people who post shit like A.I. = E.T.? Do you sit back smugly after pressing the Post button? Pleased with your clever and insightful contribution? How long did you actually think for before writing that? Was it something you mulled over for a while, or is it your finely tuned filmic instincts talking? Let me break it down for you, as I suspect you are a moron. You know next to NOTHING about A.I, like the rest of us. What you do know is that Haley Joel Osment plays an android who yearns to be human. That Jude Law plays a sex-robot of some kind and that the film is set in a kind of dystopian future. OK, let's break it down even further. A.I = futuristic tale of an android boy who's mentor is a sex robot in a world where robots are ostracised and marginalised from society. E.T = alien who is stranded on present-day earth and wants to get home. Hmmmmm...I dunno, do YOU see any similarities? Other than the fact that they are both FILMS? Made on EARTH? With some HUMANS in them? Christ the idiots who drag their knuckles onto these talk-backs astound me to this day. If you had said A.I = Futuristic Pinocchio-type-film...well, that's a different story. There is at least SOME argument for that type of comparison. Note to all....STOP FUCKING JUDGING FILMS BASED ON 30 SECOND TEASERS MONTHS BEFORE THEY COME OUT! YOU KNOW NOTHING UNTIL YOU *SEE* THE FILM! IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THE ABOVE TWO SENTENCES YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND? To any non-imbeciles reading this, apologies for shouting.
-
You're giving too much credit by claiming that guy's seen a trailer; "A.I.=E.T." indicates the judgement is based on the titles alone. They both have intitials so they're the same movie. F.Y.I. - "Duel" and "Jaws" have the same number of letters.
-
everytime i download a quicktime file, i lose my internet connection. I still havent seen the "J&SBSB" trailor. I need it and this on WMP!!!!
P.S.Does anyone know where I can get the J&SBSB trailor in WMP? i need it bad -
the AI=ET thing is shit.
-
Sitting here.... extremely surprised... My regular weekly watching of Titanic (nooot...).... Well, yes, i DID see titanic yesterday.... and suddenly I realise.... Is that our big pal HARRY KNOWLES? Kan someone tell me this story???
-
Mostly because I do not watch television. How many trailers are ther eof this film, now? 3? 4? I have seen 3, thus far. If there are more, let me know. Also, is this all Spielberg is planning on releasing? Don't get me wrong, I love the trailers I see now. But, does he plan on releasing a "Full" trailer. That would be something. Anyone know?
-
Don't take it so literally. The person who posted that just meant that the child-orientated themes are the same... It does seem more Disney than Kubrick.
-
I'm not sure, but I *THINK* I saw a HTTP address right where the "This is Not a Game" is, in the previous frame of credits. While I'm not sure what the addy was, it has to do with the on-line "game" that CNN keeps talking about, the one where the first promo had a secret phone number embedded and such...
-
but damm if he doesn't come close!
-
Well said Splinter (if a little vehement...) - I'm fed up with people shouting 'hack' and 'rip-off' before they've seen the movie. Bunch of frustrated filmmakers with no talent themselves. Kind of reminds me of the old Far Side cartoon about the annual DLDWWS meeting (Didn't Like Dances With Wolves Society)... 3 people in a big hall saying things like "...and those buffalo didn't look real..."
-
The key emotional theme for both films seems to be child alienation (excuse the pun). They are both stories that tap into the concerns a lot of children have, i.e. that they are different and there is something wrong with them. The actual story may be very different (although none of you know this for sure) but the themes explored seem to be strikingly similar. Believe it or not, exploring human emotions and addressing common themes of dissatisfaction and alienation in society can happen in 2 films with a different story.
-
Hey Spielbiggs I gotta a little revision for the tag line for this film I'd like you to make for this film. It pertains to you. "His story is Kubrick .... BUT HE DAMN SURE IS NOT!". Nuff said.
-
"Believe it or not, exploring human emotions and addressing common themes of dissatisfaction and alienation in society can happen in 2 films with a different story." I wholeheartedly agree. What I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with is this. A.I. = E.T. I don't know about you, but where I come from, the 'equals' sign denotes something being exactly the same as the other. That's what got my goat up (and apologies for that, I flew off the handle a bit).______________ By your rationale, I can say The Terminator = Nightmare on Elm Street. How well do you think that would go down? But wait!! They both deal with seemingly indestructible, relentless, non-human pursuants, directly targeting vulnerable women!!! They're the same! The saaaame!______________ See what I mean chief? You can compare ANYTHING to ANYTHING, but writing something off by implying it's just a retread of familiar ground when it is quite patently NOT...well, that winds me up. Now, anyone for Gone With The Wind = Resevoir Dogs?
-
They banned E.T. in Sweden. They banned A Clockwork Orange in the U.K. U.K. and E.T. are both initials for longer phrases. Sweden and the U.K. are both countries. A Clockwork Orange has scenes that take place in the country. Which proves my point that Spielberg and Kubrick are BOTH film directors. So, bearing this little morsel in mind, answer me this: How tall is Jude Law? Huh? Answer me that!!!!
-
One of the reasons Kubrick did not direct this film is not becuase he ran out of time, but because, in his words, the subject matter ran "more to Steven's sensibilities" (that may not be the exact quote - lets not get anal here people) - the point is that if you look at the source material (the short story) and read the rumours about its production, you see that content-wise, Spielberg has stuck very much to Kubrick's conception of this film. Its not like Spielberg said "Yeah Stanley, that's great, but do you think we could instead, make it about a little boy with troubling parental issues like all the rest of my movies?" - that's simply not what happened. What you will see when AI comes out is Steven Spielberg carrying out the vision Kubrick had for the film BUT WHICH HE KNEW HE HIMSELF COULD NOT DELIVER!! - Kubrick understood his limitations regarding generating emotion and sensitivity - which is why he was so interested in having Spielberg direct it. Once again - THIS IS NOT SPIELBERG HIJACKING KUBRICK'S VISION SINCE KUBRICK'S VISION WAS TO HAVE SPIELBERG DIRECT IT!!! Personally, I am expecting an excellent piece of work and an attempt to build some tradition Kubrick trademarks into the narrative - but this will be very much a Spielberg film.
-
I hated this movie the first time I saw it, when it was called Bicentenial Man...coming soon "Buffy Bot, the Movie"
Side Note : Haley Joel Osment is the best child actor I have ever seen. -
Hey Moviejones!
Get out, your officially to stupid to be here. That has to be the most idiotic comment I've seen posted in awhile, which I guess is an accomplishment considering what gets posted here on a daily basis. -
The longer A.I. doesn't have a rating, the more I'm worried that Spielberg is chopping it up for a PG or PG-13. It being Kubrick in some way, shape, or form, I think A.I. is R-Rated material. Any news on the rating? Any way, this is the movie I'm most looking forward to in 2001. Please, Stephen, don't ruin Kubrick's final film!
-
If you go to Variety.com, theres an animated AI advertisement that I came across....and in the bottom left hand corner is the PG-13 symbol
-
This kid is good at crying but he's totally humourless and without the vitality of the really great child actors like Tatum O'Neal. In fact, I think Spielberg feels the same way and that's why he cast the kid to play a robot. Think of any of his performances (in movies, award ceremonies, interviews, etc.). He could be an AI robot in any of these. If the twist at the end of the Sixth Sense was that he was really a robot, I would totally believe it. That scene on one of the AI TV spots, by a swimming pool, where he does that scary laugh...THAT'S HOW HJ OSMENT REALLY LAUGHS. Very creepy. I can't wait for this movie. By the way, in my irrelevant opinion, Spielberg is 50% master, 50% hack. Hack: The Color Purple, Hook, Always. Master: ET, Close Encounters, Sugarland Express, Jaws, Duel, Empire of the Sun. The rest of his films are 50/50 hack and master (including Saving Private Ryan, Amistad and Schindler's List which, while very serious, are not immune to serious criticism). I love Spielberg but Kubrick was way more consistent and sophisticated, in his filmmaking. Nonetheless, I think Spielberg has the best first 4 films of anyone (except maybe Mike Nichols). Even the old masters like Orson Welles and Ernsty Lubitsch had duds early in their careers.
-
This kid is good at crying but he's totally humourless and without the vitality of the really great child actors like Tatum O'Neal. In fact, I think Spielberg feels the same way and that's why he cast the kid to play a robot. Think of any of his performances (in movies, award ceremonies, interviews, etc.). He could be an AI robot in any of these. If the twist at the end of the Sixth Sense was that he was really a robot, I would totally believe it. That scene on one of the AI TV spots, by a swimming pool, where he does that scary laugh...THAT'S HOW HJ OSMENT REALLY LAUGHS. Very creepy. I can't wait for this movie. By the way, in my irrelevant opinion, Spielberg is 50% master, 50% hack. Hack: The Color Purple, Hook, Always. Master: ET, Close Encounters, Sugarland Express, Jaws, Duel, Empire of the Sun. The rest of his films are 50/50 hack and master (including Saving Private Ryan, Amistad and Schindler's List which, while very serious, are not immune to serious criticism). I love Spielberg but Kubrick was way more consistent and sophisticated, in his filmmaking. Nonetheless, I think Spielberg has the best first 4 films of anyone (except maybe Mike Nichols). Even the old masters like Orson Welles and Ernsty Lubitsch had duds early in their careers.
-
"The Color Purple" is hack-work??? Do you have fucking eyes? Your taste is in your mouth. You'll be lucky if in the entirety of your life you know an ounce of the kind of talent Spielberg has--gimme' a break. I get so sick of all these talk-backers taking pot-shots at Spielberg just to be contrarian, or hip, or too cool for school. I mean shut the fuck up. I think you're 50% frustrated artist and 50% complete loser.
-
Actually, Asimov's Bicentennial does cover similar territory to A.I. Although "Supertoys last all Summer Long" doesn't get too deep, Bicentennial is totally consumed with the rights of sentient artificial beings and how society treated them. Granted, Robin Williams et al destroyed Bicentennial, but that doesn't mean A.I. isn't in the same philosophical space.
-
Jun 08, 2001 9:19:15 AM CDT
Judging a movie by its title is like judging a book by its cover
by hardyboy
I always like to tell myself that the moviegoing public is smarter than it's given credit for--and many of my favorite TBers (Buzz, Sleazy G, etc.) have proven me right--but reading some of these comments about AI's TITLE are making me think again. Sheesh: does everyone know that "Artificial Intelligence" was added to the title because the studio feared too many people would confuse the movie with AI steak sauce? This reminds me of the time the Bond film Licence Revoked had its title changed to Licence to Kill because the producers feared that American audiences would either confuse it with having a driver's license revoked, or that they just wouldn't know what "revoked" MEANS. Sigh, grumble, groan. . .
-
Any director who can put out Jurassic Park and Schindler's List in the same year (two completely and drastically different films) and six months from each other to boot, is a director worthy of respect.
Spielberg, like Hitchcock, will always receive criticisms for his films, even though they both revolutionized the Hollywood film. They made more successes than duds, but like any artist, each time you put yourself out there, you stand to fall on your face.
Spielberg's failures are considered failures only because of the extraordinary success that he's had. ALWAYS (which, although it didn't make money, is still a decent - note, I said decent, not great - film) is a better love story than say, oh, PEARL HARBOR. And techinically, the film has some amazing camera movement, tunes by John Williams, decent performances (TRIVIA NOTE: Also features the first ever pairing between Marg Helgenberger and Brad Johnson, who recently act on T.V. as love interests on C.S.I.) , and is just an old-fashioned Hollywood film. Besides, it had Audrey Hepburn in her last role - good pedigree. Her mere presence indicated an attempt to recall the great Hollywood love stories of old - the film itself was a remake, and I think it captured a really strong Capraesque feeling to it that films like THE FAMILY MAN strived for, yet failed to reach.
Would you say that THE MUMMY RETURNS is a better film than 1941 or ALWAYS? T.M.R. made a killing at the box office, but years later we still discuss how ALWAYS was a bomb. Will people even give T.M.R. the time, or depth of discussion, that we have given to ALWAYS or even HOOK?
Hitchcock had his failures as well. FRENZY, ROPE, and that courtroom drama with Gregory Peck that I can't remember the name for, THE PEREGRINE AGREEMENT, or something - they were all considered failures. Hitch's last film, FAMILY PLOT, also failed (coincidentally composed by John Williams, thereby completing the Kevin Bacon link between S.S. and A.H.), but does that mean he's still not one of the most remembered and referenced film directors of all time?
Kubrick has been mentioned in reference to A.I. How he's never made a bad film. I argue that if you are allowed to take ten or fifteen years in between films, and give them the obsessive care that Kubrick was known for, the chances are greater for success (and I would argue that to some viewers, Kubrick's films are boring, tedious, and uninvolving emotionally - consider BARRY LYNDON).
Here's a baseball analogy. The good ball players, the really valuable ones, are the players who have a great batting average. .350 to .400 is amazing, and they're the players everyone wants. Then you get certain players like Mark McQuire, who become famous for hitting the ball out of the park, but is lacking in most other areas. Still, they remember him for the homeruns, and not the dry spells in between.
Spielberg and Hitchcock are great players. They prefer to work consistently, to keep their averages up. They believed in a body of work, good or bad. It is impossible to hit the ball out of the park one hundred percent of the time, which Kubrick attempted to do.
S.S. and A.H. prefer to continue to turn out product, and, box office aside, I believe that philosophy is the key to becoming a valued filmmaker.
And one final note to put ALL this into perspective:
Steven Spielberg accepted a lifetime acheivement award from AFI a few years back, honoring him for his producing and directing (1993, the year of SCHINDLER'S LIST). After two hours of retrospective, George Lucas presented him with the award. He was humble in acceptance, then mentioned a fact about a director oft cited as his primary influence: John Ford.
To paraphrase:
"John Ford, one of the all-time greats, in the span of his career, made about 125 films. I've only made about fifteen. I have to get off my ass."
Thanks for reading.
Hagrid
-
Who cares if it covers the same ground, if one is crap and the other is not than there is no point in making a comparison beyond saying that one blew and the other did not. Ofcourse the fact that none of us has yet to even see A.I. makes it even more idiotic to compare it to anything. That is the point I am trying to make, the movie can have a carbon copy script of Bicentenial Man and still not manage to be as bad of movie as Bicentenial Man clearly was.
LETS HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FUCKING OPTIMISM AROUND HERE FOR PETE'S SAKE! -
Jun 08, 2001 12:02:02 PM CDT
Deac Speaks..... have you seen A.I.? no you have not seen A.I.,
by deacon
you've never seen A.I. none of you... so you CANNOT compare... you simply cannot... you can't say it sucks and you can't say it rocks or anything else besides it LOOKS good or it LOOKS bad... so sit down and shut the hell up, complain about something worthwhile and not a fucking movie ok? 8 bucks spent, either it was good or it was bad, but thats it... ok? as for Speilberg... he's made too many great films to be called a hack.. if he made more bombs then hits i could understand why an idiot would say such things but he's made way too may hits for even an idiot to call a hack... do you think a hack could do close encounters or jurassic park or indiana jones or schindler's list or jaws? i think not... as for Hook.. it starred robin williams, we all knew it was doomed from the start...... http://www.geocities.com/deaconfrost99
-
Jun 08, 2001 12:18:37 PM CDT
The way I see it, you ladies owe me for one jelly donut!
by billy talent
Not everyone likes every Kubrick film, but none can be dismissed, each is a unique and vastly influential work. That some viewers don't "get" '2001' or 'Barry Lyndon' by no means diminishes those films' astonishing quality. It is hardly surprising that two artists as dissimilar as Kubrick and Spielberg could share an affinity and admiration for one anothers work. Steven Spielberg knew Stanley better than any of us, and he's made 'A.I.' with the blessing and assistance of Kubrick's family and associates. The extremely talented Mr. Spielberg is well aware that he's inherited the work of an imeasurably more advanced artist, and said work must be treated with the greatest of care. Like 'The Shining', 'A.I.' has a child as its central character. That does not instantly mean that it will be cloyingly sacharine. Haley Joel Osment is a lot closer to Danny Lloyd than Jake Lloyd. He's not an irritating little moppet, he's a sad old man trapped inside an eleven year old boy. He's as discomfittingly unusual a presence as Christopher Walken. While still relatively little is known about the film, its rumored world of S&M clubs, hate groups and cryptic murder conspiracies sounds an awful lot more like Stanley Kubrick than Walt Disney to me. The brilliant advertising campaign and the fascinating game are covered in the masters fingerprints. It's sort of like having Lloyd the bartender set you up with another round. You set it up and I'll knock it back, Lloyd. You were always the best of them, best God damned bartender from Timbuktu to Portland, Maine, or Portland Oregon for that matter. Here's to two miserable years without a new Stanley Kubrick film, and all of the irreparable harm it's caused us.
-
...and i think most of the talkbackers who shit on about The Man being a hack etc etc e-fucking-tc feel the same. The man has redifined cinema..his influence is everywhere... example 1.- the scene in jaws where roy schnider's character is sitting on the beach and notices someone being attacked, look at the seamless editing used, u probably dont notice it because its been used so many times since. (its possible given my relativly short time on this planet that it was used b4..but i havent noticed it, but feel free to correct me if im wrong i know you will). example 2. the camera work in Saving Private Ryan. Gladiator, and even an episode of Star Trek... my point is, he is the best director working today at telling a story. he may not be the greatest auteur, but his skill is mesmerising. and its this skill that makes me jealous of him, what aspiring filmmaker isnt??? A.I for me means, the combination of minds of the greates auteur, if not the greatest with one of the greatest if not the greatest entertainer of all time. hmmmm... am i excited... yes.
-
I'm no longer a talk back virgin...someone critiqued my comments!!! I couldn't be happier if I'd done a kitten in a NY bathroom!!!
(My comparison comments between Bicentenial Man and AI was in their conceptual makeup and done in a David Spade voice btw)
-
I don't know why ALWAYS is put in the wastebasket so easily. Fine, it's not going to be on any list of great movies, but it's not without merit. I thought it had some nice acting as well. Spielberg has given me some of the most memorable movie moments of my lifetime, certainly if you only consider movies made in my 20 years of moviegoing. Obviously they are of the big-budget variety, and it's usually neither daring or risky stuff, but nevertheless. And did I just read some idiot put The Color Purple in the "misses" section, and "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" are hack-jobs? Eh?
-
I don't know why ALWAYS is put in the wastebasket so easily. Fine, it's not going to be on any list of great movies, but it's not without merit. I thought it had some nice acting as well. Spielberg has given me some of the most memorable movie moments of my lifetime, certainly if you only consider movies made in my 20 years of moviegoing. Obviously they are of the big-budget variety, and it's usually neither daring or risky stuff, but nevertheless. And did I just read some idiot put The Color Purple in the "misses" section, and "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" are hack-jobs? Eh?
-
A.I. is not E.T. It is Astro Boy: a robot, built like a child, and designed to act like part of a human family? Sounds like Astro Boy to me. Except that Astro Boy could fly and had guns in his ass, and his parents were robots designed to act like humans too, but had not guns. And Astro Boy had a cool looking arch-enemy that flew around on a robot horse.
Astro Boy! Astro Boy! Something Something... Astro Boy! Man, that theme song was annoying.
-
Even now, supplied with a remarkable idea and a marvellous story, Spielberg appears to have fallen back upon PITY - the virtue of the decadent, of the actor-playing-musician, of people who aspire sweatily for artistry, and come upon only hugeness. --- To those expounding Spielberg over Kubrick (I've seen at least three in this talkback), I ask but one question: where in Spielberg, ever, can you find a sequence to match the shuttle docking of 2001? I do not mean in technical terms, or impressiveness of scope; only in BEAUTY. Spielberg is only huge and grotesque - he cannot be exquisite or horrifying.
-
Looks cool...I think this movie holds more promise than Spielberg's more recent works. It's not a concept-driven blockbuster (Jurassic Park), or dependent on action set-pieces (Saving Private Ryan). This movie will work if the drama works, and when Spielberg doesn't have the above mentioned crutches to lean on, he can do transcendant work (E.T., Schindler's List, Close Encounters). Of course, he can also overcompensate and make overwrought melodramas (Color Purple, Empire of the Sun). We'll see which group A.I. belongs too.
-
Just caught the new TV spot, and I just cant wait till this movie comes out! I think they've done an excellent job at slowly promoting this movie and building up the anticipation. I'm a huge fan of Kubricks' work and Speilberg has made some really great films also. I was happy to hear that the torch was being passed on when Kubrick died. Knowing that Kubrick wanted Speilberg to direct this film, and Kubrick act as the producer, plus his family getting the project going in Speilbergs direction-We should just know that Kubricks intentions are being carried out, and thats whats important. Comparisons between the two directors was inevitable, but I think Speilberg knows what hes doing and probably is making this a homage to Kubrick. I think We'll be calling Speilberg a genius after this film comes out!!
-
I think that many people who enjoy movies love both Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick and for vastly different reasons. They are both great filmmakers in their own right. These comparisons, although unavoidable with A.I., are like comparing apples and oranges.
The bottom line is that Kubrick developed alot of the treatment for A.I. and determined that his friend Steven Spielberg was better suited to bring what he wanted for the project to the screen. I have tremendous respect for Kubrick and his understanding of film. Kubrick's family has said that Stanley wanted Steven to do A.I. and that they are pleased that he has taken on the project (go get the Summer Movie Preview edition of Premiere Mag.).
A.I. will most certainly be a Steven Spielberg movie because Kubrick wanted it to be one...and Spielberg has taken great care to helm the project the way his friend entrusted him to.
We're only a few weeks away from the opening of A.I. and I think its going to be a great film.
It's interesting how people keep throwing Spielberg and Disney together in a negative sense. Walt Disney's legacy doesn't need defending...and neither does Mr. Spielberg's. -
You have it exactly right. I salute you, sir (ma'am?). Salut!
-
Until now, my only 3 reasons for seeing this movie were Haley Joel Osment, Steven Spielberg, and Evan Chan. Now I notice there's a lot more to pin you to your seat than just Evan Chan. Steven Spieberg is a total genius! Can't wait to see this wonderful blend of sci-fi, drama, and horror! But for now, I gotta see that TV spot!
-
this smacks of Asimov's robot novels and I can't wait to see it!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- A hot redhead (not Harry) is set to play lead in Fede Alvarez's remake of EVIL DEAD! -- 170 total posts 170 posts
- The Friday Docback Spelunks 'The Caves Of Androzani'!! DOCTOR WHO Story #136, And More!! -- 103 total posts 86 posts
- Here Comes THE GODMOTHER! -- 74 total posts 74 posts
- Rest In Peace Ben Gazzara -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- UPDATED: Talkbacker Bob Orci tweets STAR TREK old set pics! -- 244 total posts 51 posts
- ABC Has Cast The Lead In Its Future Nuclear Nation Pilot!! And They’ve Chosen Wisely!! -- 44 total posts 44 posts
- RIDDICK Sequel Details Via A New Press Release!! -- 88 total posts 40 posts
- AWAKE, This Season’s Best Broadcast Pilot, Gets NBC’s Old ER Slot March 1!! THE FIRM To Burn Off On Saturdays!! -- 38 total posts 38 posts
- INSIDIOUS-ER? -- 120 total posts 31 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day is going on an overnight drunk and in 10 days it’s going to set out to find the shark that ate its friend and destroy it. -- 31 total posts 31 posts