News: Now showing in theaters: CRY MACHO, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood!


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: MYSTIC RIVER comments (WARNING: SPOILERS ALLOWED)  (Read 28402 times)
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14884



View Profile WWW Email
« on: October 15, 2003, 10:10:15 PM »

In this thread, spoilers are allowed. Anyone who has seen Mystic River and has more to say than can be safely posted in the "No Spoilers" thread, please give us your thoughts, comments or full-fledged review!
Logged
Brendan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6030



View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2003, 09:16:33 PM »

MYSTIC RIVER

As many of you probably know my favourite Clint Eastwood film is ‘Unforgiven’. But after seeing ‘Mystic River’ I feel that Clint has made a masterpiece that is just as good as ‘Unforgiven’. MR has just become one of my favourite, all-time, Clint Eastwood movies ever.

I heard about MR last year. When I found out who was cast in it I was amazed. What an incredible cast. How could this movie BE bad? It just wasn’t possible. The screenwriter is a good one (sure I didn’t the script for ‘Blood Work’ but all can be forgiven). The crew has worked with Clint for years and has done a great job all the time. There was no wrong for this at all.

And I am glad to say that I’m right. There was no wrong in this movie. Everything was beautiful about it. The direction, the acting, the script, the score, the casting, the characters, the cinematography, the lighting, the editing just everything was great.

When I found out the movie was being released in October of this year, I decided I would do the same thing I did for ‘Blood Work’ and that was, too buy the book and wait to read it until after I saw the movie. Of course I couldn’t wait with ‘Blood Work’, so it goes with-out saying, that I couldn’t do the same for MR either.

I loved the book. I don’t read much, well actually tell a lie I’ve read about nineteen (I’m on my twentieth now) in about a year and half. But after reading MR I knew that this book would be an amazing movie. I knew the book was in good hands with Clint.

Now onto the movie, despite having some punk teenagers talking through-out it behind me, I loved this thing.

I loved the way Clint made the opening. I loved the way he decided to have it change between events at the beginning with the use of fading to black, then popping up for a few lines and then back to black. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Clint hasn’t done anything like that before. It was a good way to move the story along quickly with-out really forcing it on us.

 The scene where Dave is introduced is great and tells you a lot right away. When he looks down at the names in the cement, you know he’s still hurting after all these years. The uncompleted name shows you that Dave is no more. He is only half what he used to be.

The performance by Tim Robbins was great. The transformation he makes from being the quiet, shy guy living with a dark secret, to the dreadful, scared, loud man was great. The way he played the part was great. His physical appearance was right on as well. If Dave just looked like the normal Tim Robbins it wouldn’t have been half as believable as the way he looked in the film. Good job by Robbins.

But I must agree with mostly everyone else when they say Sean Penn’s performance is terrific and Oscar worthy. His performance sold me, not in the scene where he and Dave are talking on the porch, but it’s when he and his father-in-law, Theo, are speaking in the back room at his house. I knew then that Penn is truly one the greatest actors that has ever graced the screen and he is gifted.

The rest of the cast perfect and I didn’t see anything wrong with anyone’s performance at all. Kevin Bacon, dealing with marriage problems (Which is a minor cliché for a cop, but I’ll let it slide) and dealing with the case and the fact it’s bringing up past memories, brought the right amount of flavour to the role.

I can’t say enough about this film. It was great. I’m very proud for Clint, the crew and the cast with this film.

The way it deals with the issue of how child abuse just doesn’t go away, and the way it deals with how a murder can affect people’s judgments. When America’s Most Wanted host, John Walsh, lost his son Adam, he couldn’t eat or sleep for days. He was made almost everyone, even though they were to help, and he wanted to get even with the man who kidnapped and murdered his son. Just like Jimmy.

Come Oscar time, I can see this film getting nodes for acting (Sean Penn), writing and cinematography and picture. I can also see it possibly getting nodes for directing and editing. The reason I say possibly for directing is because we all know how many times Clint’s been screwed over. It is Oscar worthy direction, but will those people see it that way?

I’ll wait for further reviews or comments on the film before I add more to the discussion.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2003, 02:15:41 PM by Brendan » Logged
D'Ambrosia
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3838



View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2003, 11:21:13 PM »

Can't wait to see...  I repeat...  Can not wait to see... ;D

-----------------
Must worn others...

 :)
Logged
Xichado
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2003, 08:52:45 PM »

I don’t quite know where to start. I watched Mystic River on Thursday night and I feel a little bit disappointed about it and I say so because the main factor that makes me like a movie is its plot, its originality, the intrigue and the suspense… and, from my point of view, THE PLOT of Mystic River is weak, clichéd and lacks the intrigue/suspense that I like to see on the silver screen.

Mystic River was beautifully done, the colors and the settings are dark and somber and they are perfect, Clint directed Mystic River in a way that I have no words to describe it (… brutally real, maybe?? –and brutally being used in a good sense since I enjoy realism in a movie).

The acting was great, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins did an excellent job, the latter had a more complex character and from my point of view did a way better job than Penn. Kevin Bacon was just ok, nothing outstanding in his role as Sean.

This movie is soaked in symbolism, and I saw it in always every scene. Here’s a few symbols I remember:

# Dave’s name that was left incomplete in the cement block, representing the innocence that was cut short by the two men that kidnapped and sexually abused Dave (Later on, after Dave’s death, the name is shown again but this time I believe it represent the incomplete word DAD or DADDY which was taken away from Dave’s son, a circle of pain).

# the ring with the crucifix that the priest is wearing when Dave is being kidnapped. I conclude he was a man of the cloth and being born and educated in a religious family, a priest is someone to trust and to believe in… but this priest went too far and I am not sure if Jesus died for his sins. The ring representing a double standard of someone taking a vow and dishonoring that same vow.

# I found the same thing in the three marriages that are featured in the plot, all of the characters have really thick wedding bands –predominant through out the movie- which made me think about the really meaning of marriage and the secrets that are shared behind closed doors. (wedding rings are circles).

# the bedroom curtain that Dave’s mother rolled down and just allowed dark shades to be seen, like a secret that everyone knows that no one dares to talk about it
or clearly look into it.

# Katie was found dead in a circle –I’m not sure what that was, it seemed to be a well that dried up and was covered with dirt and foliage-, at the same time her sister is receiving her first communion. I interpreted it as a religious symbol, a cycle, the younger sister is confirming her faith while Katie should be receiving her sacraments, as one’s faith is being born someone else’s faith is dying. Also, a few yards from where Katie is found, there is a sculpture on the wall of two human shapes holding up a circle.

 # as Jimmy hears about his daughter’s death, he and his men try to break the police lines around the crime scene only to be surrounded by police men –more circles. I should mention that Jimmy and his men communicated mainly by whispering and over the shoulder, they ravel in secrecy and everyone in the neighborhood knows it but, like in Dave’s case, people just look the other way and kept it in silence.

At this point, I had two words in mind: circles and silence.

Silence… and why everyone wants to be silent like the deaf kid. And to be honest, I felt the deaf kid was someone to keep an eye on… I also had an eye on Annabeth (Jimmy’s wife), her character was too perfect and I felt she probably had a disagreement with her stepdaughter and they had an argument that ended in the wrong possible way. And I kept seeing "circles" around Jimmy, and I thought it was someone close to him that was involved in his daughter's death.

As a spectator, I like to feel like a detective and look into all the small details that are shown in the screen and try to put them together. So, it wasn’t a surprise for me when one of the killer’s identity was revealed. I didn’t figure out the reasons behind the crime, but once the killers were revealed it didn’t surprise me at all.

I felt the scene when Dave arrives home, in the middle of the night, hurt and with blood in his hands was a cliché. I have seen plenty of movies to know that the guy with blood on his hands isn’t the killer -True Crime is an example- and sooner or later this character will suffer terrible consequences because he can’t prove his innocence. And Dave was an innocent man, he had the scars of the abuse he suffered as a kid and I can’t see him hurting another (innocent) being –especially since he buried his ghosts inside himself and didn’t allowed himself to release them. Dave’s death also came with no surprise.

I wonder if the slow pace of the movie and its lack of intrigue and mystery were done to represent the life in a small working class neighborhood, where life moves slowly and today and tomorrow tend to be just like yesterday. I have no problem with slow paced movies, in fact I liked that in Mystic River since allowed Clint to explore the natural and spiritual dark shades… but I also like a little of suspense and as I mentioned above, I felt Mystic River lacks suspense/intrigue and the slow pace made me feel like the story was just dragging and dragging and the only lesson I took away from it was: in the end the bad guys win.

Probably the plot of Mystic River will grown on me after a few more viewing but, for now, this is my review.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2003, 08:20:01 AM by Xichado » Logged

"I'm an idealist. I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my way." Carl Sandburg
eustressor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 480


Undeterred.


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2003, 10:05:56 AM »

Before I say another word, I want to thank you, Brendan, for creating and maintaining your fine Mystic River website. That's where I first became familiar with the film's premise and promise. That's where I went to build up anticipation by looking at stills and bouncing around links. Bravo!

I can't recall a movie which more effectively pitted what you think is going to happen against what you want to see happen. Dave is marked for a tragic end from the get-go, but in Robbins' hands he is such a sympathetic character. He is repeatedly, in spite of his pain and suffering, a fine, upstanding man. Penn has yet to turn in anything less than an Oscar-caliber performance since At Close Range, at least in the films I have seen. But I think his real breakthrough performance was I Am Sam. Kevin Bacon is great, too. He's no small potatoes either, and I've found he generally turns in great performances as consistently as any actor working today. I think his real breakthrough performance was his excellent turn in Murder In The First. But Robbins' film history, with it's unmatched pattern of commercial-vehicle-to-fund-personal-interest-projects, has been a bit harder to pin down. He always turns in great performances, but sometimes the fare is rather... light. In Mystic River, he will make a believer out of any who doubted his talents. This is his breakthrough performance.

Marcia Gay Harden's character? I just wanted to smack her, which means she did it right. And I always enjoy watching Laura Linney – this was no exception. Her role is small, but important, and she handles it well. That unexpected push at the end, to get Jimmy BACK into a life of crime, where they could run the city – that was interesting, to say the least.

The score. The score. I liked it, but I have to say that after a string of Lennie Neihaus scores, which are minimalist to the nth degree, it sometimes seemed heavy-handed. I see this as a "1st impression" thing, based on the last several Eastwood film scores. The truth is, I did really like the music. I think further viewings will help dispel the feeling that it may have been, comparatively, too pervasive.

The completely unexpected major chord when Dave takes that bullet was brilliant. It helped me to better understand Dave, in his lone, moment of death. A perfect call by Clint, both as director and composer.

Better than Unforgiven? No, but that needs to be qualified. Clint had over ten years to gradually plan and shape The William Munny Killings into a perfectly-realized, stylistic tour de force. Unless he's been hiding and nurturing a similar gem from us, we won't see that from him again. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity to craft a cover-to-cover masterpiece. A film that was as easy to enjoy visually as emotionally. Never again will Clint have such a complete and well-thought out idea of what he wants every scene to look like. Honed to perfection.

By comparison, subsequent film projects with a lesser lifespan in the director's mind can hardly be expected to shine quite so brightly. But that doesn't mean that they don't shine, or even that they don't shine with the same light. Just not quite so intensely, perhaps. Mystic River only suffers in that it is not nearly as stylized, nor does it have that haunting, capstone-to-a-genre feel that was so carefully woven into Unforgiven.

But Mystic River is an amazing movie. It raises disturbing questions. It paints a bleak picture. It moves, breathes, and broods. One feels afterwards that we have been observed, perhaps by some dispassionate, alien mind, and one cannot help but fear that we have been judged and found wanting. This is important. We need to be shaken up from time to time, and we need art to perform that function. In that respect, I found Mystic River to every bit the mover and shaker that Unforgiven and A Perfect World were.

Xichado, about halfway through the movie, I found myself thinking a lot of the same things you mention in your post. As a writer myself, I recognized the "tag" on the litte mute brother, and was pretty sure he was the killer by the middle of the film. So I was thinking to myself, "What's Clint going to do, where's he going to go with this? Did I spoil my chance to enjoy the plot by reading too many reviews? Didn't I already see all of this coming, shouldn't there be more uncertainty, less convention in the unraveling of the plot?"

Then came the scene by the river, between Jimmy and Dave. Then came that major chord. Everything which followed was just aftermath and closing thoughts. To me, the plot was merely a vehicle to carry the performances and the implications. There is sublime beauty in the most mundane of occurrences, and an elaborate, wholly original plotline would have overlooked that fact. A run-of-the-mill murder investigation proves that there is nothing run-of-the-mill about the pain, loss, and tragedy of the lives involved. That the damage spreads out much further from the victim's epicenter than is typically acknowledged would have been diluted, I think, by a sensational plot twist. This film was not about answering questions. In true Eastwood style, it was about asking questions.

Precious, brilliant art. :D
Logged
Brendan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6030



View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2003, 10:32:29 AM »

Before I say another word, I want to thank you, Brendan, for creating and maintaining your fine Mystic River website. That's where I first became familiar with the film's premise and promise. That's where I went to build up anticipation by looking at stills and bouncing around links. Bravo!


Danke sir.  8)

One part I lked in the film was when, I believe, Sean said it seems like all three of them got into that car when they younger.

In a way they did.

It was at that point all of there lives took a huge drastic turn and they all broke apart soon after that. What if that didn't happen? Would Jimmy have turned into a crinimal? Would Dave have been a man just trying to survive in the world and just barely support his wife and kid? Would Sean have become a cop to stop those kinds of things from happening to other friends?

Thats another thing I like about this movie, how one single event can change everything, and even Jimmy alluded to that when he was speaking with Sean and Whitey.
Logged
zanderman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2003, 02:34:01 PM »

I just saw MR today. I have seen every Clint Eastwood movie since Magnum Force(my first R rated movie) at the theater within a day or two of opening day. This was a special movie. The acting, direction, script, score, editing-everything was great. Clint just keeps on kicking butt. I am sure this movie will get great word of mouth and do very well long term at the BO. I am very proud of Clint. I hope he stays with making quality movies like this for a long time to come.
Logged
Conan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2943


JP


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2003, 06:22:19 PM »

  This my favorite Eastwood film since "Unforgiven".  I was caught up in "Mystic River" from the very beginning.  The acting was great all across the board.  The story was well written with great dialogue spoken by some of the best actors around - the casting was nearly perfect (no Paul Rodriguezes).  Sean Penn really stood out for me, I felt every second of his pain and quest for revenge.  I was sure Robbins character wasn't responsible, simply because it was too obvious - though that didn't matter since I enjoyed the suspense leading up to the discovery of the real perps.  I was basically on the edge of my seat.  And I have to add, Eli Wallach was great as the liquor store owner and its good seeing him again.
  Thumbs up here!
« Last Edit: October 19, 2003, 06:24:16 PM by Conan » Logged

Brendan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6030



View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2003, 07:25:40 PM »

So what did you all think about the ending?

Mainly Jimmy telling Sean, "Only if you had of been quicker." and then Sean not doing anything?

What are your thoughts?
Logged
Conan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2943


JP


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2003, 11:14:27 PM »

  They did treat Robbins character's (Dave) death with some indifference at the end.  I think Bacon's character (Sean) figured it would be best not to pursue.
  On a side note, I went to "Mystic River" with my Dad up in Va.  His two comments about the movie:  "Penn's been lifting." and then after the movie he said, "I didn't know Clint was capable of a movie like that!".  He now knows what we all already knew.  My Dad was previously only a fan of Clint's westerns and the first "Harry".
Logged

ajay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


man with no name


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2003, 07:29:57 AM »

mystic river yet to release in india,but saw the website i feel the work would be great,we need to watch out the next academy awards.
Logged

rowdyyates
MC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2003, 09:04:01 AM »

I think Bacon's character (Sean) figured it would be best not to pursue.

Maybe. But Bacon's ambiguous actions in the final scene, at least to me, are part of what makes Mystic River one of the boldest endings of Eastwood's career.

Check out Bacon's facial expression when he comes face-to-face with Harden. It looks to me like this is a man wrestling with his conscience.

The final finger point toward Penn? I'm still not sure what I think it  means, but it seems like it may leave open the possibility that Bacon will yet be coming for Penn. Or not.

Many more comments to come...

Logged
Conan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2943


JP


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2003, 10:39:06 AM »

Maybe. But Bacon's ambiguous actions in the final scene, at least to me, are part of what makes Mystic River one of the boldest endings of Eastwood's career.

  I really liked the ending, but I didn't have much to go on (finger-gun included) to predict what will happen in the future between Penn and Bacon's characters - so I guess that he lets him off.  It was a nice way to keep the brain working after the credits.
Logged

Xichado
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2003, 12:16:13 PM »

The final finger point toward Penn? I'm still not sure what I think it  means, but it seems like it may leave open the possibility that Bacon will yet be coming for Penn. Or not.

I felt that the silent finger-gun pointing meant that Jimmy will, in a way or another, be punished. Dave kept his ghosts hidden and spoke about them in parables while telling bedtime stories to his son. But the ghosts/wolves/vampires had haunted him constantly.

I believe the same thing will happen to Jimmy, if the legal system won't chase him down then his ghosts will and I believe his ghosts will dwell on violence and will be manifested in an external way –as opposed to Dave’s-  since Jimmy and his toughs live by the sword (gun) and they will die by the sword.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2003, 02:11:21 PM by Xichado » Logged

"I'm an idealist. I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my way." Carl Sandburg
Brendan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6030



View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2003, 01:45:17 PM »

I figure Sean didn't do anything becuase had no evidence to go on. Dave was just missing at that point, and so for all Sean knows Jimmy could have just threatend Dave and told him to leave town. Which would allow for the , "Only if you were quicker" line.

I suppose Sean could have brought Jimmy in for questioning, but with out the murder weapon, the body and any witnesses (who would be to afriad of Jimmy and The Savage Brothers to come forward) Sean would have had to let him go.

And again, how does Sean know, with out a shadow of a diubt that HE killed Dave. Maybe one of the Savage Inc. brothers took Dave out to some woods and off'ed him. Sean can't be certain/

The "finger-gun" makes me beleive that Sean was saying, "I'll get you. I know what you did and you know what you did. You'll pay." And then the Jimmy rebutal was, "Go ahead, try and bring me down. You got nothing. I'm untouchable."
Logged
eustressor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 480


Undeterred.


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2003, 06:23:20 PM »

I felt that the silent finger-gun pointing meant that Jimmy will, in a way or another, be punished.

I agree. It certainly raises the specter of punishment owed.

One thing worth mentioning is that, by the end of the film, Sean has good reason to believe that Jimmy has killed two individuals, Just-Ray (love that whole Ray thing) and Dave. Sean also clearly had doubts about treating Dave as a suspect in the first place, which leads one to believe that he truly was sympathetic towards Dave. He knew of the burden Dave carried ever since they were childhood friends. He also knows Jimmy. Jimmy's not a nice guy. He's definitely a gangster and quite likely a two-time killer in Sean's eyes.

I see the finger-gun as a slender gesture of hope in an otherwise bleak story. Sean sort of embodies the conscience of this movie. In the case of his wife, it took a while, but he eventually did the right thing. There's no saving Dave anymore, but at least there is the suggestion, however subtle, that perhaps justice will be done... someday.
Logged
Xichado
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2003, 07:25:21 PM »

There is sublime beauty in the most mundane of occurrences, and an elaborate, wholly original plotline would have overlooked that fact. A run-of-the-mill murder investigation proves that there is nothing run-of-the-mill about the pain, loss, and tragedy of the lives involved. That the damage spreads out much further from the victim's epicenter than is typically acknowledged would have been diluted, I think, by a sensational plot twist.

And I couldn't agree more with you, eustressor. I find beauty and interest in the small things and, often, mundane aspects of life... and I wasn't interested in a more complex plot but one that would captivate me more, a plot that would drawn me in and wouldn't allow me -or my thoughts- to stay indifferent. But I only found that about Dave and I didn’t find the rest of the characters and their stories that interesting.

At one point, I compared Mystic River's slow-paced plot to the plot of Jose Saramago's The Cave. Different stories but they both need to advance in slow steps and in mundanes ways for us to understand the characters and their point of views. The Cave by the  final chapters forced me to look into myself and to pay a little more attention to the small things I take for granted (because they might be gone tomorrow). Mystic River, as it came to an end, revealed no form of violence or type of human action/reaction than I haven't witnessed or came in contact before.

This film was not about answering questions. In true Eastwood style, it was about asking questions.

hmm! I believe that's where my problem with the plot resides... I left the theatre with no questions to ask.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2003, 08:14:32 PM by Xichado » Logged

"I'm an idealist. I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my way." Carl Sandburg
Xichado
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2003, 10:22:38 AM »

How do you guys interpret the fact that Dave was abducted by (what it seemed to be) a policeman and a priest and later on these two institutions -law and religion- are represent by Sean and Jimmy and again, these two institutions will victimize Dave? (The Law which wasn’t fast enough in solving a crime; Religion, embodied by Jimmy, will not be merciful)
« Last Edit: October 22, 2003, 10:23:23 AM by Xichado » Logged

"I'm an idealist. I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my way." Carl Sandburg
Brendan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6030



View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2003, 03:37:30 PM »

If I remember correctly, in the book, the two men weren't police officers at all, they just posed as them.

So that's how I took it in the movie as well. I can agree with the statement that the one guy was a priest, or former priest, but I beleive the other guy wasn't a cop. He just posed as one to scare children and get them in the back of the car.

Unless they said in the movie he was a cop, I can't remember. :-[
Logged
Xichado
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2003, 01:26:19 PM »

Thanks for pointing that out Brendan.

I thought one of the men -the one that was outside the car- had told the kids that he was a cop, and if I recall well, he had a set of handcuffs.

Anyway, I searched the MR reviews thread and found a few passages that referred to the two men as being cops or pretending to be cops. Here's one (from Doug's post):

Quote
When a car pulls up and two men, claiming to be cops, abduct Dave and hold him captive for four days

And it was my belief that the man that remained inside the car was a priest. I think it was the ring that made me think so  ??? hmm! probably he was a cop too (or pretending to be one)
Logged

"I'm an idealist. I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my way." Carl Sandburg
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
 




C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T