The Red Letter Media Archive DVD is back in stock! You can purchase it here:
Also, Plinkett gives an update on his next review.
Filed in: General Updates • Plinkett Reviews • Short Films
It’s about time somebody cut Sinatra down to size. Here’s hoping Mel Torme is in the next Plinkett Review.
Let’s see, first it was Matrix Sequels… then it was Kill Bill… now my next guess is Waterworld?
I don’t know, maybe it’ll be another dog movie.
But then I’d have to kill myself.
This is exciting
Maybe the 20th Century Fox fanfare Plinkett did is a clue. Looking forward to it.
there are many movies by fox, you know
I guess it’s gonna be Be Cool. Yea, that’s it, that horrible, horrible sequel to the awesome Shorty. Made by Fox. The clue gave it away! Looking forward…
Fuck Paul Anka.
Judge Harold T Stone approves. [no wiki search allowed]
I’m just excited for more reviews. Plnkett, Half in the Bag, whatever. I love this schlock.
When is the next Plinkett review?!
Squeeee. Every day I click the tantalizing ogre face on my favorites bar, hoping. Pleading. And soon it will be here. I Burn for you, my knees tremble, my lip quivers..(oh god, I’ve gone too far, I’ve gone too far in a few places)
*goes to search on wikipedia*
Dat ❤ Rich Evans ❤ ♥_♥ !! .
Prometheuses is next review.
It’s gonna be great.
Sinatra? Talk about an obscure reference. Hopefully it´s some kind of romantic comedy. That´s the genre, which desperately needs a Plinkett treatment.
At any rate, please grow beyond George Lucas and Star Trek. I know this character can be more.
I just wanted to know who does the music with Redletter Media? I noticed during reviews there are a lot of hip-hop tracks used in the background. I love it. Is that Mike’s preference of music?
Also, how does Mike and Jay feel about the Wisconsin elections next week? Are they voting Dem or GOP? lol.
Well, Frank’s daughter Nancy Sinatra’s “Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)” is featured on the Kill Bill vol. 1 soundtrack. So I’m sticking with my original prediction.
It’s still Kill Bill. See my very informative and predictive post above or below.
Lucasfilm bought Disney!? :O
Im betting on kill bill 1 or 2.
Nonetheless what I REALLY want to see is a more detailed review of babies day out. What was that bullsh!@##! ?!?! a 20 minute review ?!?!? F!#@ prometheus
Fu!@##!, now I wont be able to concentrate on anything untill I get a review of some dumb movie by a murderous sociopath.
fu^%$ the pain away
fu^%$ the pain away
fu^%$ the pain away
fu^%$ the pain away
fu^%$ the pain away!
Figuring out what the next Plinkett review is, is now quite easy. You just have to see all the clues:
2. More Rich Evans than ‘you want to see’
3. Frank Sinatra
Deducting from this it is absolutely clear what the next review is.
Cassettes are mostly used from the seventies to mid-ninties. But they could also refer to VHS Tapes, which are also some kind of cassettes. Half in the Bag is about VHS Repair guys, so this got to be the first clue. So take the number 70, 80 and 95 plus the alphabetical number of the letters V, H and S, which are 22, 8 and 19.
The next clue: Rich Evans. If you put the letters in different order you’ve got: Hans Vire.
That makes not much sense, but still, there is more than ‘You want to see’. If you put that last one in symbols it would be: U 1 2 C. U is 21st letter in the alphabet and c is 3. So it translates: Hans Vire 21.12.3, which can’t be an english date, for there isn’t a 21th month. But in foreign languages the day/month paradigm switches, so 12 is the month and that means December.
The last clue is very easy to decipher. Frank Sinatra was a nightclub singer like Vic Fontaine. Vic Fontaine played a part in the Star Trek Franchise, also in the middle of the ninties. So we have enough clues to solve this mystery: The name Hans and the foreign date must mean that we deal with a foreign film, possibly a german movie. Released in december 1995. So, I have no idea which film that could be, but I guess someone else can ftake over from here.
Will there ever be a dvd of all the Half in the Bag episodes? Or all the Plinkett reviews? I would buy those in an instant!!
Cause I DO like physical media I can put put put in the machine like Cauz-et tapes
“They will have to call them Peter. Or Williams. SHIT!”
So one of the movies Peter Williams stars in?
Clearly it’s a review of Ocean’s Eleven. The original.
Also when is the next Plinkett review?
My god man just…. my god.
Okay, so the movie involves a Hans and was released 1995- Hanz Zimmer is a famous German film composer who has composed for such movies as Inception, Dark Knight, and Gladiator.
The film he worked on that was released in 1995 was Lion King so there you go – we are going to get a 90 minute movie review on The Lion King from the oldest serial killer film critic we know of.
And of course we have confirmation for this entire line of reasoning with how he went out of his way to mention Disney and place such emphasis on it. It’s all clear to me now!
You should totally review the Final Countdown with Kirk Douglas and Martin Sheen… Captain Kirk is awesome in this movie. It’s also cute listening to Martin Sheen talk about the grandfather paradox.
Can’t wait for the review. Not even going to venture a guess, though I will say, I actually prefer it when they do the obscure movies like Baby’s Day Out, or Cop Dog. Though I learn more with the big named blockbusters. Either way, I’m cool.
Thanks for pointing it out, but I already assumed it’d be Kill Bill, because I don’t like that film, Plinkett alluded to it, and I got the feeling like that’s a film that deserves a Plinkett review. I was joking about the Waterworld thing, there’s no reason to beat a dead horse by reviewing that movie.
P.S. – Nancy Sinatra is also featured on the Full Metal Jacket soundtrack. So maybe Plinkett reviews Full Metal Jacket? No, probably not, because FMJ is a fantastic film and there’s just about nothing in that film that could be dissected and proven to be “bad”. It’s pretty much flawless.
Kill Bill it is.
I’m pretty sure it will be Spider-Man, or possibly just the gawdawful third Spider-Man. The clue at the end of Nadine’s Revenge may indicate this.
Whoa…he did CRIMSON TIDE you fuck. THE LION KING came out in 1994.
Fuck both parties.
Please please PLEASE let it be the first part of a Twilight trilogy review series. Yea, i know they’re easy targets, but it’d be great to have something nice to email a couple of twilight fans i know.
Mike and jay should write the seventh Star Wars
Peter Williams has played in a few movies, but i’m betting its going to be Stargate: Continuum, keeping with the theme of Sci-Fi movies. Maybe he’ll review the whole Stargate franchise!
Why would he review a movie that is literally a 120 min homage film. So what if you didn’t like it. What is he going to complain about, the unrealistic physics that were put in on purpose?
It’s going to be great.
Since they both seem to have souls, and better not be making more than 250,000 dollars with this crap, im going with democrat.
I’m all in for a surprise, but I honestly don’t even know how he would start dissecting it – it’s a Tarantino movie (one of the directors he listed in the EpI review as capable of subversive storytelling) with a huge amount of meta-cheese.
Something about character development? Plot holes? People monologuing for too long? Acting like stylish cartoons rather than real people?
What COULD be cited as flaws in something like Matrix Reloaded, because that movie still obviously tries to follow its characters and plot in conventional ways, suddenly stops being this in a movie like Kill Bill, where it’s all part of the fun.
I dunno… I guess it’d be fun if he did that
To be fair, there’s a lot to criticize in Kill Bill on a film level. The decision to split it into two movies, and the way they went about doing it, killed it. Vol 1 had this awesome insane energy that wasn’t present at all in Vol 2, and that ended up dragging both movies down. There was a distinct, arrogant lack of concern for the audience, and was in dire need of editorial controls (just like Star Wars… see?). A tighter narrative and some self-control in the editing room could have made it one of the greatest movies ever, but instead, it ended up being something of a mess.
So considering that it was a highly anticipated movie, from a highly respected director, that lacked cohesion, displayed a great many bad production choices, and turned out not to be quality product it *could* have been, I could see it being a strong candidate for a Plinkett review. I don’t particularly care what the next review is, but I’d enjoy seeing RLM’s take on it.
When’s the next Half-in-the-Bag review?
Watch it be another dog movie… haha.
Please hurry up with your review of Dollar Store Cashier Wife.
This what you see happening here is my life falling to pieces. I thought I understood things. Which plinkett film was next, life, women, the internet. Now I realize I could be wrong about all these things.
Hey I’m not finding any Crimson Tide Disney movies what’s up with that?
Hunter: Rivetti, what’s up?
Petty Officer First Class Danny Rivetti: I’m sorry, Sir. It’s just a difference of opinion that got out of hand.
Hunter: What about?
Petty Officer First Class Danny Rivetti: It’s really too silly to talk about, Sir. I’d really just forget about…
Hunter: I don’t give a damn about what you’d rather forget about. Why were you two fighting?
Petty Officer First Class Danny Rivetti: I said, the Kirby Silver Surfer was the only real Silver Surfer. And that the Moebius Silver Surfer was shit. And Bennefield’s a big Moebius fan. And it got of hand. I pushed him. He pushed me. I lost my head, Sir. I’m Sorry.
Hunter: Rivetti, you’re a supervisor. You can get a commission like that.
Petty Officer First Class Danny Rivetti: I know, Sir. You’re 100 percent right. It will never happen again.
Hunter: It better not happen again. If I see this kind of nonsense again, I’m going to write you up. You understand?
Petty Officer First Class Danny Rivetti: [No answer]
Hunter: Do you understand?
Petty Officer First Class Danny Rivetti: Yes, Sir.
Hunter: You have to set an example even in the face of stupidity. Everybody who reads comic books knows that the Kirby Silver Surfer is the only true Silver Surfer. Now am I right or wrong?
Petty Officer First Class Danny Rivetti: You’re right, Sir.
Hunter: Now get out of here.
Petty Officer First Class Danny Rivetti: Yes, Sir.
Hey guys… would love to see a half in the bag where mike and jay discuss the sale of all things star wars and indiana jones to disney… do you think its gonna be a good thing or the final nail in the star wars coffin? (indie already recieved the nail in the form of a 1950’s fridge and an A-bomb)….. personally i cant wait to see what they can come up with and im overjoyed that george wont get the chance to fuck things up more than he already has… roll on 2015, episode 7 here i come….
.. oh and we might just get those original prints weve been begging for for the last 15 years!!! YIPPEE!!!
It just occured to me that along with Indie and Star wars Disney would have also got the rights to Willow… i hope they do something with it… would love to see Warrick Davis in a starring roll again… He rocks
“Vol 1 had this awesome insane energy that wasn’t present at all in Vol 2″
Nah, Vol 1 was full of action, while Vol 2 was full of dialog. (In the sense that this was the majority and focus.)
The dialogues, the acting, was fucking RAD, just top notch. I was in the audience, and felt very satisfied by all that.
See, this is what you get when you take a purposefully and ironically subversive movie and start applying “standard” values to it – it didn’t have enough “cohesion”, the “character arc” wasn’t tight enough, etc.
Hey, those guys in Reloaded just kept talking on and on, that was totally a flaw , right? So why wasn’t it in Death Proof? And the narrative in Basterds was, like, just totally weird!
Seriously, hasn’t “Plinkett” already set the standard for doing this, kind of? Tarantino obviously doesn’t have to follow conventions and rules… because he can do without them, and something cool actually is created because of that.
So… take something like Pulp and then try to analyze why that works at being “different” but Kill Bill somehow doesn’t.
Also, the latter is much more of an “unapologetic” fun over-the-top ride, so just comparing it to the in many places straight, rough thriller drama that was Pulp or Dogs, wouldn’t be valid, either.
I’m afraid it’d take some serious thought… to dismantle this piece. You can’t just go “oh no they had something trivial stretched for 10 minutes, Michael Madsen is this total bore and isn’t as awesome as that ninja fight, that’s like totally self-indulgent”… should be a little harder than that
Although if the next review is really gonna be Kill Bill (I seriously doubt that), I’m obviously pumped to see that
Because Volume 2 is a piece of shit and this fact deserves to be shoved into the faces of people who think it’s not.
Same with Fight Club
That’s gonna be great
I didn’t see Kill Bill Vol. 1 all the way through, but I saw Kill Bill Vol 2 all the way through, and I had LOTS to say about it that was negative.
One of the major things is that Kill Bill is a combination of Western and Kung Fu movies, which have exactly opposite themes – Kung Fu movies are usually anti-western in tone, so it makes no sense. There’s also a few plot holes I noticed. Basically, Kill Bill has zero heart and also fails as fan service in my eyes. So Plinkett could easily make a pretty big review on just how much Kill Bill fails, that is, if Mike thinks that Kill Bill does fail.
You can say whatever you want about its “narrative cohesion” or whatever, but the scenes it consists of are pretty much exclusively awesome, and no movie that can say that much about itself can ever, ever be called a “piece of shit”.
You probably just feel really cool and smart by calling a popular movie a “piece of shit”, but ironically it’s not based on any amount of thought
“One of the major things is that Kill Bill is a combination of Western and Kung Fu movies, which have exactly opposite themes”
Westerns can be very, very different from each other you know, just like “Easterns” – and the movie would need to combine those “opposite themes” in a really bad way itself before qualifying as some kind of clusterfuck.
Plot holes a bad movie not make, in fact they’re probably the lowest on the importance list as far as movie flaws go.
A “serious” movie that tries to portray a completely believably scenario with plot holes in it is one thing, but fun adventure movies… just so much less.
“Kill Bill has zero heart”
Not sure what “heart” is supposed to be, but if it has anything to do with “bursting with wit and awesomeness while rooting for the main character”, then I’d beg to differ.
Overall, I don’t think I really get your points.
But a review (although I highly doubt this is what’s it gonna be) certainly would be interesting either way
My main issue with it was that the two movies were very, very different. And I don’t just mean in what was in them – action verse dialog – but in tone and presentation. It was like they collected all the crazy, cheesy, throwback action for Vol 1, and then Vol 2 was much more serious and dialog driven. So yes, the first one was forward-moving and energetic, and the second was slow and introspective, with characters like Bud making it more a sombre piece than the first. Almost depressive. What the purpose of that? It felt like wallowing. It was all very well-acted, but the tone was completely different. Not bad, but not the same as the first.
I’m not saying that Vol 2 was terrible or that there’s no place in the world for dialog-driven movies, but there’s still something off about the way it was all edited. I think leaving the two as one, and cutting out some off the chaff, would have made it a more cohesive and interesting story. It was written that way, as I understand it – what would you call it, a director chopping up a story like that, except over-indulgence? The non-linear nature of it would have been better, IMHO, if it had been more combined. Instead, Vol 2 was almost completely linear in nature, except for the coffin flashbacks.
Can you imagine how Kill Bill would have been if the House of Blue Leaves had stayed the climax to the entire film? How it could have been, transitioning from that to the quiet introspection and resolution of Bill’s house? How much more interesting Bud could have been if we’d started with him shooting The Bride in the chest and then burying her alive, instead of the fifteen minutes of ultimately unnecessary exposition about his character? If Taratino had made the choice to rein himself in a little and leave some mystery to his characters, instead of trying to put it all out on the screen?
Hence my comment about editing. Not everything that goes through a
director’s head needs to make it on the screen. Even great directors make basic mistakes like that. Sometimes less is more.
I didn’t hate Basterds either, but you can understand why people DID. It wasn’t the movie that was being advertised. Instead of some kick-ass WWII movie with a group of awesome soldiers running around killing Nazis, we got a handful of good “Basterds” scene, a truly disturbed Eli Roth slaughtering people in a way that was uncomfortably creepy, one barely relevant scene with Michael Fassbender, and a whole lot of talking about 1940s cinema. Was it bad? Maybe the last ten minutes was a little over the top. Was it different? Yeah. Was it indulgent? I’d argue yes, which doesn’t have to be a problem… but was it what everyone went in expecting to see? Heck no, and that’s where the hatred started up.
So honestly, what’s the burden on the filmmaker? When does fully realizing your unconventional vision have to give way to wider audience enjoyment? Movies don’t have to be watered-down or linear or constructed to appeal to the most number of people possible, but there is still a need to establish and foster a connection with the audience. Taratino seems to have forgotten that in his more recent works.
I agree that Kill Bill is nowhere near as offensive as Star Wars or Star Trek has been. Honestly, my money’s more on the Matrix Revolutions, Prometheus, or some kiddie dog movie. The same sorts of issues are running through it, though. That’s all.
One could also argue that no matter how great the scenes are, there has to be some kind of narrative cohesion and meaning to it. And that defending a Taratino movie, no matter what it’s problems are, is nothing more than garden-variety college counter-culture groupthink.
Not saying I’m right and you’re wrong, but the fact remains that your argument about feeling really cool and smart by holding X opinion can apply to just about any position out there.
It’s Carrot Top’s: “Chairman of the Board”.
I thought every individual scene of Kill Bill that I saw was crap. And that includes the entirety of Kill Bill Vol 2, and most of the action scenes in Vol 1. By extension, I have yet to see a single Tarantino scene that I thought was decent, apart from The Gold Watch segment.
Um… look up “Star Wars”…
he’s already reviewed three movies that are literally 120 minute homage films.
F*** you Rick Berman… wait…
That’s my question too
Kung fu and Westerns are supposedly completely opposite?
You’ve obviously never saw the show called “Kung Fu” and probably don’t know much about Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee was a huge Western fan and wanted a lot of Western style shots in his films.
A perfect example is Way of the Dragon.
Plinkett reviews suck…..go review “Skyfall” for “Half In Th Bag”!
Don’t even try.JohnWaynman is a pompous douchebag with over inflated sense of self worht.His farts don’t stink and his shit smells of roses.
It’s gonna be The Simpsons Movie, guys. Mike said “Booooourns” once a few months ago. Everything he’s done since then has been an attempt to distract us from the truth.
Sinatra was considered for the original iteration of Die Hard – it’s possible Plinkett’s reviewing Live Free or Die Hard, comparing it to the original 3 and putting it in historical context.
Or it’s a big Red Letter Herring. Media.
“there has to be some kind of narrative cohesion and meaning to it.”
Well, there is SOME obviously, as well as meaning (the character motivations and personalities aren’t an enigma etc.).
But my point was, if the scenes are great you can’t call it a “piece of shit”.
“no matter what it’s problems are”
I said identifying those problems should be much harder than when judging a more “conventional” movie (=every movie Plinkett’s reviewed so far). That doesn’t go just for Tarantino, but EVERY unconventional director.
For example, Death Proof – it lacks a lot of “narrative” because both halves are essentially people talking a lot about plot unrelated things, and then suddenly attacked by Kurt Russel. But… that was kind of the point of the movie. No “story arcs”, no “narrative” in that sense… but people talking in a bar for hours before fending off Kurt Russel.
And its brilliant execution justifies the idea.
“by holding X opinion can apply to just about any position out there.”
Well, what can I say, we seem to occupy two entirely different worlds. I can’t even wrap my finger around such a sentiment.
But I can say, with such an outlook, such a general distaste for everything Tarantino is known for, there almost wouldn’t be any point to reviewing it, you know? I mean, you can, but that’d be like reviewing some over-the-top shooter movie, on the basis that…. you hate over-the-top shooter movies.
You can explain why you hate the genre… but reviewing a movie based on that?
I kind of can’t see Stoklasa putting together a review with an attitude like this – but, what could be really cool is if he did a huge review breaking down all the “downsides” of Tarantino’s style, in every movie
People focus a lot on what his movies gain by being the way they are… not so often on what they lose. That might be interesting
I will not rest until I see you prosecuted for my murder..
Also something I feel I should point out – wasn’t the Golden Watch chapter kind of the one with the hugest plot holes in the whole movie? You know… if you hate plot holes?
There may’ve been some elsewhere… but none of them had:
-Butch coming home and only surviving because his killer just happened to be dropping lizards at the moment and had left his gun on the dinner table
-that killer’s boss just happening to cross the street in front of Butch
-Butch falling down near a taxi driven by a woman who’s definitely not gonna rat him out
-just bursting into a gun store that happens to be run by a rapist redneck with a torture cellar and a gimp, who has a buddy in the police joining him in his shenanigans every once in a while, and has a chopper. Who’s Zed?? Zed’s Dead, baby, Zed’s Dead.
Release the fucking review already
“Not bad, but not the same as the first.”
Well… let’s see Plinkett saying he doesn’t like things that are different for 2 hours, I’m sure that’ll be fun!
Sorry, just not an acceptable argument, at all.
If you dislike that, then fine, but what you’re doing here is basically just… bashing the movie for going against a convention. It does a different tone/genre in the sequel… so it’s somehow bad because of that.
The Belvaux trilogy (not comparing it to Kill Bill by the way, not *really*) consists of a thriller, comedy and melodrama, all involving the same characters. That’s not how it usually goes, usually a trilogy has the same tone throughout.. that’s weird and different, should better go tell the writers how to do it properly…
Apologies, but that’s not being a critic, that’s just being fickle.
That’s another thing – over-indulgence can be great fun if done well. ESPECIALLY if it’s done with irony. It’s not always automatically a flaw!
It may be out of place in some places… but not when the entire movie is basically an ode to over-indulgent cinema.
“Can you imagine how Kill Bill would have been if the House of Blue Leaves had stayed the climax to the entire film? How it could have been, transitioning from that to the quiet introspection and resolution of Bill’s house?”
That could’ve been great (and you absolutely could’ve prefered that), but the way it was done also ended up being interesting.
The simplest reason being beacuse of how it subverts expectations – you’d EXPECT the giant climax to be at the end, but this time it was just the hardest enemy to beat, and it happened in the middle.
That alone would justify it being the way it is (just like there not being a climactic showdown in No Country), and you can only pile on top of that from there.
“How much more interesting Bud could have been if we’d started with him shooting The Bride in the chest and then burying her alive, instead of the fifteen minutes of ultimately unnecessary exposition about his character?”
Or one could say that made him MORE interesting, because seeing him do that after being introduced as such a calm, almost pleasant character, contemplating whether he or the Bride deserve to die / revenge in this conflict, is much more unexpected, but at the same time still falls in line with what he said.
Again, a “conventional” movie would only have its “character exposition” exactly then, and only then when it’d fit into the plot structure as a “necessary” set-up.
This, on the other hand, is a movie that plays around with all these rules and tropes – one can’t just cite that basic approach as a flaw.
Do all the “trivial conversations” in his other movies provide any necessary exposition?
“If Taratino had made the choice to rein himself in a little and leave some mystery to his characters, instead of trying to put it all out on the screen?”
That could’ve been just as cool – but while the movie loses that for going down the road it did, it gains something in return.
Not every story needs a “mystery” – sometimes the idea, or appeal is that the mystery is laid bare from the start.
“but you can understand why people DID”
I can see why they hated it, but I always laugh at people actually trying to CRITICIZE it for things that it so, so obviously did on purpose.
“Instead of some kick-ass WWII movie with a group of awesome soldiers running around killing Nazis, we got a handful of good “Basterds” scene, a truly disturbed Eli Roth slaughtering people in a way that was uncomfortably creepy, one barely relevant scene with Michael Fassbender, and a whole lot of talking about 1940s cinema.”
Well so there we have it again, apparently just the fact that it wasn’t “what expected” counts as some kind of criticism… uh, no, it doesn’t. That’s just silly.
The “barely relevant” just falls in the line with the kind of fickle attitude described above – apparently, scenes have to be “relevant” just like in a conventional movie (where it not being relevant is just so much easier to spot as a flaw), so because that scene with August Diehl is too long or something, or they talk about King Kong instead of important WW2 stuff… it now somehow sux.
Because they should talk about WW2 not King Kong, damnit! Look at the first Star Wars movie, did Han Solo and Luke discuss pop culture for 10 minutes when sitting in that pub? No… they just said what’s necessary, and the plot went on, perfect! Why d-did they put that on.. °_°
“When does fully realizing your unconventional vision have to give way to wider audience enjoyment?”
That seems to fall in line with something Confused Matthew once said in a review, that “movies should be for everyone”, and sorry I just don’t get the hang of it.
First of all, no one ever said movies have to be done “for audiences”, they can entirely be made for the creators themselves, and the audiences just to take part in that.
That goes ESPECIALLY for “independent” (as opposed to indie) auteur works that aren’t “canonical continuations” of franchises with a large fan base.
Or they can be made for audiences with a specific taste – that would get its “enjoyment” specifically out of it being the way it is. So to answer your question: whenever you feel like it.
“but there is still a need to establish and foster a connection with the audience.”
There was enough connection there for me.
Ironically, I turned off Ghostbusters after 20 minutes, because I felt I was asked to laugh at and sympathize with a protagonist I rather found uncomfortable watching. The “connection” was lost. Funny how that works, isn’t it
(I’m not criticizing Ghostbusters here btw, I guess I’ll give it another watch some time anyway.)
I should again stress though, this “connection” can’t be put into an easy “Plinkett formula” at all times – it can when you deal with some more conventional adventure film; but a lot of the times, the enjoyment can come from the main character being a complete tabula rasa (the Mission Impossible show; the Matrix movies to a degree), or being over-the-top douchebag badasses with little or no other traits of personality (Shoot em Up, Crank), or fulfilling some other kind of viewer fantasy.
If a viewer is looking to be confused or surprised by main characters turning into side characters, pointlessly stretched out scenes or jarring narratives, they’re gonna “find a connection” to movies that do exactly that, as well.
That’s just how it works, and my point was, this is kind of what you can expect from walking in a Tarantino movie (or any other director known for their unusual ways), maybe less so when you try to watch a sequel to Lord of the Rings or something and then come out totally disoriented.
But all this smart talk aside, I thought Basterds rather easily created audience connection with its female protagonist. She was pretty much introduced as the main character from the start, and Brad Pitt with his cartoony speech patterns seemed more like a side character than anything. So the movie didn’t lie to you, just the posters
“Honestly, my money’s more on the Matrix Revolutions, Prometheus, or some kiddie dog movie. The same sorts of issues are running through it, though. That’s all.”
And that brings me back to an earlier point, namely that what could be easily described as a flaw in Matrix Revolutions, can’t just be applied to a Tarantino movie 1:1.
Revolutions can be judged by “conventional standards” much more so than Kill Bill – because the Matrix movies are just so much more closer to telling a “conventional story”, and you don’t really get the feeling that some action sequence was stretched out for 5 minutes for the fun of being different and edgy, more like that it was simply done to have a cool action sequence at this point, because it’s an action movie.
The plot stopping for some character to provide a 10 minute monologue… isn’t it doing this on purpose to subvert narrative techniques, it’s just the plot stopping for 10 minutes for a long monologue.
With Tarantino… it’s exaclty the other way round. The whole POINT is that these characters just sit down at the table and play cards for 10 minutes, while any other movie would’ve made that scene maybe 2 minutes long with building-up suspense music because it’s not that relevant to the plot.
So (although I really, really like most of that stuff in the Matrix sequels and how it was done), it’s kind of easy to say “look, you’ve kind of lost your sight a bit, take a glance at the first movie again and how it mostly avoided this or that”.
Not… anywhere this easy with Tarantino.
Having that said, I respect your opinion and all, I just think if Plinkett took on one of these movies, his points would be much, much more interesting than that – because that’s what it would take to tackle those movies;)
Oops, a long response just got lost… I guess “well fuck it then” is what they say
Oh wait, there it is… nvm :O
Please let it be Twilight. Please, please, please!
Shut up, faggot.
Rumor has it that Rich Evens is packing some serous dong. apparently he took it out when he got really loaded once and made a major party foul.
… and suck that dick, yea I know the drill.
Also, “I’m Rick James, bitch”.
Severe case of verbal diarrhea.
Verbal diarrhea is something that doesn’t make sense, not just any post with lots of text in it.
You should check your thesaurus on that one….
No one is touched by a sword in the entire second movie. The scenes are fucking boring too.
Of course a movie with great scenes can still be a piece of shit. See the second and third Matrix movies.
Um, those aren’t plot holes. Those are just coincidences. A plot hole is Marvin getting shot in the face at point blank range, and the bullet somehow gets lodged in his head even though his head basically explodes. It’s a plot hole because in a logical version of that scenario, the bullet would have shattered the glass of the back window, thus completely changing the course of events.
Well I’m on the “Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch” side of film-making, for reference. Kubrick is too smart to have plot holes, and David Lynch is too surreal to have plot holes.
I don’t “hate” Tarantino, I just see massive flaws with every aspect of film-making for him. If I were to review an over-the-top shooter movie, I’d review it on the basis of it’s film making qualities, it’s thematic qualities, it’s plot qualities. The Dark Knight, for example, is totally worthy of review because it’s plot makes no sense at times, it’s poorly edited which makes scenes end up becoming plot holes, and it’s themes are only really high school level in depth at best.
Meanwhile, a Kubrick film, just about any Kubrick film, does not have enough negative things to talk about because Kubrick was a master of cinema.
“See the second and third Matrix movies.”
Yea, that’s because among the great scenes, and good scenes, they also contain quite a number of so-so scenes, and some just plain awful scenes.
(Although, thanks to the overwhelming amount of good parts, they actually aren’t “pieces of shit” movies, just disappointing and flawed.)
It’s another thing completely when… THE ENTIRE MOVIE is made of nothing but great scenes.
Wow… now that’s a valid argument against a movie if I ever heard one. “No one is touched by a sword” – brilliant.
Now apparently a movie isn’t good unless at least one sword cuts off at least one limb, right?
You seem to be some immature teen fanboi, so I’m not wasting any more time on you.
Although you might’ve forgotten that, while no one’s touched by a sword… one is touched by an eye. If you can follow me… that should kinda make up for lack of sword touching, shouldn’t it?
Btw, Pai Mei did “touch” a sword, so you’re even wrong on that account
He also touched a fish.
Get out of my living room !!!
When a plot is built around huge fantastic coincidences, that’s almost as bad as plot holes, and is often listed among plot holes, as well.
In terms of detrimenting effect, the list generally goes:
2) Plot holes, inconsistencies. (although these two can change positions easily), and
1) Illogical, disconnecting character behavior.
Oh, and 4), physical implausibilities, because that’s what the bullet thing was, it wasn’t a plot hole. Maybe a head hole… and not wasn’t, but rather caused.
“It’s a plot hole because in a logical version of that scenario, the bullet would have shattered the glass of the back window, thus completely changing the course of events.”
How so? They’d have some shattered glass flying around, and then by a magical coincidence, cops just wouldn’t happen to drive by and pursue them.
The Wolf would’ve brougt along a car window replacement… no big deal.
“Well I’m on the “Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch” side of film-making, for reference. Kubrick is too smart to have plot holes, and David Lynch is too surreal to have plot holes.”
Well that’s great for them, but quite often, plot holes simply don’t matter that much even if taking place in reality.
A lot of the times, even if it’s not openly “surreal”, a story/plot/sequence will rely on breaking the rules of logic, plausibility or realism in order to be satisfying.
But you brought up those two guys – you realize that films by Kubrick or Lynch couldn’t be broken apart or criticized with the same ease as the movies previously reviewed by Plinkett?
That if he just pointed out “oh look they’ve got normal gravity on the moon”, the probability is too high that it’s some kind of intentional clue, and the critic should tread more carefully?
Plot holes and physics-breaking aside, there are many movies which, if they spent too much of their duration on showing ships floating through space (or cars through the desert) and had lacking character and story arcs, could be criticized for that.
With 2001, anyone who watches it, even disregarding all the possibilities of symbolism or hidden images everywhere, immediately realizes that it’s SUPPOSED to be this way, even if just for a stylistic reason, that it’s SUPPOSED to show all those day-to-day activities, and assault the viewer with a sudden burst of surrealism after 2 hours of painful grounded realism.
You could try and approach it like a conventional movie, but you’d just feel fucking stupid while doing that, because this movie just so, much, is subversive and different on purpose.
Say you hate this style/genre, sure… but not obliviously go “oh look that other movie is like full of dialogue and this one’s not”, because that’s just laughable. Duh no shit, Sherlock, the creator would say. Tell me something i don’t already know.
Same with Tarantino – the stuff he does would, under circumstances, be flaws in other movies, but while one can try to criticize it here as criticizing it there, it would just feel pointless, because it’d be criticizing the movie for doing exactly what it sets out to do, with a huge pointer and exclamation mark right next to it.
The same logic even applies to simplistic over-the-top rides like Shoot Em Up or Crank – it just makes so little sense to criticize their plots, their moral compass or their characterization in a way one would do it with a more grounded movie… because they so obviously are doing it on purpose.
It’s not about how smart a movie, or a style/genre is, it’s about what it sets out to do (reasonably deducted from what it is), and how it achieves that.
“I don’t “hate” Tarantino, I just see massive flaws with every aspect of film-making for him.”
Well that’s just a question of degrees – if you’d “hate” them, you’d hate them because of the flaws, and those flaws still have to be told apart from intentional devices.
!If I were to review an over-the-top shooter movie, I’d review it on the basis of it’s film making qualities, it’s thematic qualities, it’s plot qualities. The Dark Knight, for example”
And here you go, TDK isn’t an “over-the-top shooter movie”. An actual over-the-top shooter movie, like one with Statham or Arnold, can’t be judged by the same standards – by “film-making qualities”, sure, but those qualities will be used to put on an excellent, bombastic show of badassery; same with the plot and “themes”, they’ll all serve this visceral purpose first and foremost.
Often, a plot making no sense will SERVE the film rather than drag it down. A certain lack of characterization can do the same.
“The Dark Knight, for example, is totally worthy of review because it’s plot makes no sense at times, it’s poorly edited which makes scenes end up becoming plot holes, and it’s themes are only really high school level in depth at best.”
Well you see, but the Batman films are CONVENTIONAL storytelling – and while TDK is just a little bit more unusual, and actually purposefully tries to portray the Joker as some kind of “force of nature”, it’s still fairly conventional otherwise, and is built on a VERY conventional predecessor.
In addition, the Nolan series set out to be more grounded and realistic, which is why it can be held up to certain standards of realism.
Batman Returns, for example, is much more obviously a “dark fairytale”, very self-indulgent and “weird” on purpose, so that’d be a somewhat harder nut to crack, but still doable.
Tarantino movies… are not.
A couple points:
“it’s plot makes no sense at times”
When it comes to the Joker (and possibly just him), the ease with which he gets everything done and so forth also should be looked at as at least partially intentional, before proceeding with the criticism.
“it’s poorly edited which makes scenes end up becoming plot holes”
It’s got some choppy editing in it (no, not the “clowns are still in the hotel” one, that was in the script), most jarringly I think the cut from the threat video to the party scene, but also some really good one – most notably when a new Joker plot was unravelling on multiple locations and the film kept cutting between them, building up tension and suspense.
I remember rewatching the movie recently, after a long time of just viewing some of its individual scenes, and I noticed how well it was done.
“and it’s themes are only really high school level in depth at best.”
So what, a movie isn’t required to have themes at university or sage level to work – it’s more about whether it fulfills its pretense, how ever high or low.
Although TDK somewhat fails at its own level, simply because everytime they started talking about their moral issues or dilemmas, there was always some argument, some middle-ground position that no one seemed to acknowledge.
So it was a little bit flawed in that regard.
it’s not kill bill. i bet with anyone on that.
maybe someone doens’t like the movie(s), but 1: it uses a pretty strong language of cinema, unique visual style (which mike and plinkett likes a lot) 2: technically excellent in every possible way 3: you just simply can’t argue with the script. maybe you hate the style and approach, sure, but you can’t say it doesn’t work. if you’re on the train, it does work, if you’re not, than just forget the whole thing.
i hope it’s quigley.
basically i can’t see how plinkett could hate kill bill, even if he doesn’t like it. you just simply can’t hate that kind of movies. especially if you’re a big movie geek.
and what’s the point of a plinkett review if he doens’t hate the subject? sure, he made star trek, but that was a one-timer.
oh and by the way tarantino is an independent director in the sense of he does what he fuckin’ wants, he has his own style, and doesn’t give a crap about trends, children, the market, or anything like that.
why would redlettermedia attack someone like that?
Well, so does Nemesis and First Contact, especially the latter is quite a strong movie (and with some excellent acting and characterization), but that didn’t stop him right
Granted, Plinkett was much more of a “nitpicker” back then (although those old TNG reviews are actually my favorite of all, but that’s another thing), and Mike later explained in HitB that the TNG movies were set in a universe with certain expectations, whereas the movie they were reviewing was not.
But still, you could technically criticize it, comparing it to previous Tarantino films or maybe just by itself, but that would be a hell of a lot more difficult to do than any movies he’s reviewed previously.
Terminator 4 would be more plausible because he’s already done that kind of thing before… this, on the other hand, would totally be an… undiscovered country. ((;);))
The review doesn’t have to be a wholly negative dissection. It could be a mixed review, with a focus on Tarantino’s obsession with paying homage to earlier films–something like the Star Trek reboot review and its focus on Hollywood’s obsession with sequels, prequels, and franchises.
Because Tarnetino makes shitty films, and he’s overrated to boot
That’s some damn low standard for “shitty film” you’ve got there… I’m actually kind of offended
If you believe some people on here, apparently it doesn’t take anywhere as much effort as usually believed to create a shitty movie… ahh, things aren’t as they used to be…
Inteligent people are able to relay their thoughts and opinions in short and straight to the point offerings of expressions,i.e.written or spoken sentences.
A massive quantity of senteces,insuferably large amounts of text no matter how sensible to the author tende to produce the same effect as nonsensical gibberish,giving the intended reader a very unpleasent experience and irritable reaction,aversion to the said utterance,therefore verbal diarrhea.
Does it make sense to you to write the next “great american novel” in the comment section of some random site?
Would it not be prudent to express your thoughts and opinions in an abridged and consise fashion,straight to the point and you know, short like?
I find it that such manner of comunication reaches a broader audience and makes for a more effective and succesfull way of comunicating.
Besides actual diarrhea although unpleasant usually makes sence.
Please forgive any spelling/grammar mistakes.
“Inteligent people are able to relay their thoughts and opinions in short and straight to the point offerings of expressions,i.e.written or spoken sentences.”
“Intelligent people can relay their thoughts and opinions and short and straight words/sentences.”
Could I be wrong, or does someone else here enjoy hearing themselves talk, as well, just a bit?
“tende to produce the same effect as nonsensical gibberish,giving the intended reader a very unpleasent experience and irritable reaction”
Uh no, if the unnecessarily stretched out, self-indulgent style of expression is somehow witty or entertaining, readers actually often prefer that to your “short economical version”.
It’s only perceived as “unpleasant” if the wording is hokey and awkward, like in your case.
But even that aside – “nonsensical gibberish” lacks a certain property that is fairly abundant in my posts, namely SENSE.
And as long as I make sense, I sincerely and honestly don’t care what “irritating effect” it may have on the hypothetical overwhelmed ADD reader who doesn’t bother to actually read any of that.
“Does it make sense to you to write the next “great american novel” in the comment section of some random site?”
Yes, because I’m that awesome. Now please go away and quit stalking me with your petty off-topic bullshit whining, under a new guise each time.
I respond on topic, and I don’t follow users around different threads to criticize their writing style, so there’s no reason for you to do it, either.
I’ve been checking RLM several times a day for the next Plinkett review…your site might just be more addicting than cigarettes
Ooh! How about the second Highlander movie? If anything deserves a good b*tchslap, it’s that POS.
“over inflated sense of self worht”
That’s as much an ontological impossibility as it is a word that doesn’t exist in any known dictionary.
No, it’s fucking boring and you should be ashamed to like it.
The entire movie isn’t made up of great scenes. There’s a whole lot of FUCKING BORING scenes too. Forgot those?
A guy named William Shakesman once said:
“Brevity is the soul of wit”
This just means don’t waste my time. You keep it nice and simple.
Also, SHUT THE FUCK UP, STOP TYPING WALLS OF TEXT, AND GET OFF MY WEB ZONE.
This comment would be completely lame if written by “your fellow douchebag” under a new name, and completely awesome if gratuitously self-quoted by Mike Stoklasa – I guess I’ll never know, so I’ll pass on that one.
I’m not gonna take this from a guy who complains about no one being gutted by a sword throughout a movie, and calls it “fucking boring” while it just so happens that it mostly consists of dialogue.
You seem to be some idiotic teen below the age of, like, 20, so I’d say this discussion has run its course.
Since when is 4 books and 5 movies a “trilogy”?
you hate it, all right. but why would redlettermedia hate it?
It wasn’t and you didn’t.
Also your detailed anal-isys of every unfavorable response to your drivel with qoutations kinda implies your insecurity.Any other normal person would shrug it off with a witty comment or a insult.Both short mind you.
And don’t flatter yourself.Mike does not give a flying fuck about you.Why would he?
But it’s almost fun.Especially the part when you loose your shit over somebody saying you are a pompous douchbag..You can hide it behind sensible writting but it still shows.Your feelings are hurt.
Because you are.
A pompouse douchebag.
Yes ,your douchbaggery is inevitable.Just like gravity.
“But it’s almost fun.”
So you admit to being a trolling sock?
“when you loose your shit over somebody saying you are a pompous douchbag”
“Losing shit” isn’t exactly how I’d describe… the following:
“Well, I attacked someone that attacked me. You just attacked someone who hadn’t attacked you – so who’s the bigger douchebag here, idiot :D”
Yea, right… sounds real angry to me.
“kinda implies your insecurity.”
There are generally two motivations for reply to stupid troll attacks, which are:
Everybody likes to own the shit out of some stupid, obnoxious idiot once in a while, it’s one of the most entertaining pastimes on the internet.
And, your flat, boring attacks obviously couldn’t ever amount to triggering anyone’s “insecurities”, no matter how strong or sensitive… it’s rather cute that you think this of yourself, but sorry, you’re really just a welcome punching bag.
I’m saying “welcome”, although of course I really do mean UNwelcome, considering that you’re basically kind of just cluttering up this page with your pointless bullshit right now, if you think about it… which is, of course, what this is all about.
“There’s a whole lot of FUCKING BORING scenes too. Forgot those?”
No, they were just boring to some immature little action fanboi who wanted to see lots of swords.
There’s some great, witty, stylish dialogue and tons of awesome delivery, in each scene of Kill Bill 2.
Since you’re not interested in that kind of stuff, but rather in “sword touching”, I honestly don’t see what you’re even still doing here.
You realize that “Plinkett” isn’t gonna stoop down to your teen bopper level, right? Complain that there’s too much dialogue and no one cut by swords? You’re really, REALLY in the wrong place here, kid.
“Any other normal person would shrug it off with a witty comment or a insult.”
Which is actually exactly what I did…
“Mike does not give a flying fuck about you.Why would he?”
So you’re going with “completely lame”, then? Great!
FYI, sometimes admins go into the pits of their forums and post some snippy, insulting comment before buzzing off to admin heaven again. They don’t have to specifically “care about” the random anonymous dork they’re responding to to do that, and they often do exactly that.
So there’s another thing you just learned, and I believe your posting here has run its course, kind of.
JESUS CHRIST STOP WRITING ESSAYS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION
Also, I bet a golden delicious that the next review will be Prometheeheeus
to everyone talking about kill bill……..this isnt a fucking kill bill discussion board, and even if it does turn out to be the focus of plinketts next review,. we care about his opinions, not yours… if your opinion was worth hearing you’d have your own fucking website! now shut the fuck up and stop distracting mike from his editting!
Why are so many assholes talking about “Kill Bill” like it’s a movie Plinkett would bother reviewing? First of all it’s a good movie and secondly, even if you don’t like it you can’t say it sucks badly enough for a review. “Death Proof” sucks major ass if you want to talk about a QT movie that stinks.
The movies he should be reviewing are the 2 Matrix sequels, Christian Bales Terminator movie or the 3 Pirates Of The Caribbean messes that preceded the original.
A long time ago, in SPAAAAAA-
Review Half in the Bag’s review of Red Tails and let’s get this fucking apocalypse started, already.
You want me to mock up a Plinkett review of Tarentino movies for you. Yeah, hold your breath for that
“I bet you wish you knew what movie it was.”
Awesome, can’t wait.
That’s not what he’s asking. He’s asking you to express your opinion with a bit more intelligence than just “boo he sucks.”
Rich Evans has a massive dong.
The secret is out, folks!
They can’t sell it as they have a lot of footage of movies they don’t own the rights too. Buy their shitty movies, er us, great films, to support them.
Speaking a shitty movies, whatever happened to Space Cop?
You are still a pompous douchebag.
the nest review is ….Star Wars Episode 7?
when is the next Plinkett review?
Someone said it’s coming out this Sunday…
Sunday…. SUNDAY… S U N D A Y ! ! !
“if your opinion was worth hearing you’d have your own fucking website”
Nah, I’d have my own fucking website if I made myself one
“”Death Proof” sucks major ass if you want to talk about a QT movie that stinks.”
Does it? I actually don’t see how, I thought it was really fine…
The Matrix Trilogy.
when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review when is the next review
I hope he ignores you all and does a double review of Freddy Got Fingered and Baby Genusies 2
Im waiting for a video of ‘eating pussy: a guide to feline meat’
this felt like a black dynamite scene….
when they decipher Greek mythology to discover that the Man’s Malt Liquor makes your dick small.
Oceans 12 or The Matrix Sequels ?
World War Z review from a Time Traveling Plinkett?
It’s gonna be great (it’s gonna be great) It’s gonna be great (it’s gonna be great)….
It leaves only one thing: Ally McBeal
RIP Tony Scott
Wouldn’t that be all teens?
Holy mother of god, look at this wall of crazy.
Lol, dude, get a hobby. I mean, shit.
Surprising coincidences != plot holes
hi there …loooong time watcher …first time caller …
could you do a review of the re-animator …or beyond re-animator..
they are both amazing
Im pretty sure you watched it …
Would really like to hear what would you say on the matter ..
I reckon it’s gonna be Jaws 3. Or Jaws 2. Or Jaws 1. Possibly Jaws 4.
it’s gonna be a review of a remake which original movie had sinatra in it. either the manchurian candidate, or ocean’s 11
which originally had sinatra in it.
SOrry folks. I’d try using fucking english next time
i think mike and jay are extreme alcoholics that go on super benders and wake up weeks after they put a review update.
Please make it Vampire Dog. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2071648/
Crimson Tide has a similar title to the 1982 film Bloodtide starring James Earl Jones who was of course in both Star Wars and The Lion King.
Please do your next Plinkett review on Skyfall. That movie was utter trash and a complete mockery of the name Bond. Even Prometheus was a better movie than Skyfall.
Frank sinatra was supposed to star in the first die hard (I am not joking) so maybe he’s going to review die hard 2-4,
I don’t know what your next review is going to be, but make the one after that Skyfall. Someone has to take that movie to task for its plot conveniences and numerous plot holes
my guess issss…… a shitty film no one has ever heard of, or a brand name only sequel like Home Alone 5, leaving with a promo for a bigger film….. hmm…. Terminator 3?
so its the dark knight trilogy
i was hoping for the matrix trilogy
you don’t know, it could be the spidermans, or the oceans 12s 4 all we know.
i wanted to hear him review the Millennium trilogy.
all good ideas, maybe one day
what if he did game of thrones?
plinkett will die before all of the requests can be made
pizza rolls with weep and cats will grow too fat and walk bow legged meowing door to door for another man as him
i’d cook dat pussy
id dip dat wiener into da pussy and complement it with pizza rolls
dip that D in that V
shit now i caught the stupid
its okay, if someone calls you out on being stupid on the internet, just say you were being sarcastic, its a failsafe….. a very pathetic failsafe.
to dip the dick is to plunder with ones penis into a hole of some sorts, plunder the butt
i want Kill Bill, that would be interesting.
maybe if y’all just said he was right to begin with, he would have shut up. thats how i handle my little brothers naive/ignorant friends
okay bro, ur right, ur right
Stanley Kubrick Films would be interesting too, like he could love them for the art or hate them for the boring, it would be cool to hear his opinion there.
You know what else guys? Having more reviews from Mr. Plinkett will be great.
you know something else about those great reviews? Its going to be great too!
i just want to be seen right here.
ah, yeah, feels good.
I feel like he should just do more recent movies, i get enough critiques of classics in my classes ill be dropping.
fuck all your wonderful names
i wanna see Homeward bound because its just out of left field to be acceptable
go rent it at your library then, leave plinkett alone, all ou want is more more more
i like relishing in memories past of interwebz, meme-ories past
so whats this about toast and nothing as a subjective existence?
im pulling for Plinkett being a classy asshole and doing the whole “does a double review of Freddy Got Fingered and Baby Genusies 2″ thing, that would be a good middle finger to my brain and to my time.
one hundred and eighty six comments, we did it.
oooop ruined it, guess im a troll now!
nah im just a goblin. or a ghoul. :'(
dont be so hard on your self youre alive, thats what counts, not many things get to do that, and be aware of it.
practice makes better
i need to make breakfast soon
it just got dark here in tokyo
d0 some Bill Murray movies, like lost in translation, except not that one.
You need to do The Hobbit. They added too much fucking bullshit. Bilbo’s gradually earned respect? Gone! He is BFF at the end of the first film. The dwarves are not super warriors. Bilbo shows compassion by not killing gollum to become a murderer in the next scene. Adding the albino orc and not letting him show up during the battle of the 5 armies, cause peter “fat fuck” jackson had to show his hand instantly. haha “He died of infection” next scene, he’s not dead. FUCK YOU PETER JACKSON YOU COCKSUCKING FAGGOT.
nevermind, I see half in the bag on it. watching now
↑ Back to Top