Profile for Ariel Escasa > Reviews


Ariel Escasa's Profile

Customer Reviews: 29
Top Reviewer Ranking: 6,404,870
Helpful Votes: 576

Community Features
Review Discussion Boards
Top Reviewers

Guidelines: Learn more about the ins and outs of Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
Ariel Escasa RSS Feed (the Philippines)

Page: 1 | 2 | 3
High School Musical (Encore Edition)
High School Musical (Encore Edition)
DVD ~ Zac Efron
Price: $9.08
318 used & new from $0.01

23 of 38 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars As Juvenile as the Title Suggests, January 24, 2007
And if that title doesn't serve as sufficient warning of what sort of silliness this piece of fluff has in store for you, then maybe the opening scene should. At a New Year's Eve party, two youngsters are picked at random from among the crowd to sing a karaoke duet. They don't know each other. The guy is a varsity basketball player, the girl is a science geek, who wastes no time establishing her character by sitting by herself and reading a book - at a party. And guess what? They both sing well. Not just that, they're both good-looking. Talk about contrived openings. After the impromptu showstopper, they talk, get to know each other, discover their common love for music, and exchange phone numbers. Of course, the mutual attraction has begun. Yawn.

From that point on, you may want to continue watching this movie in the hopes that it will get better. Trust me, it doesn't. It starts out bad, and it stays bad.

The girl's geek friends tell her, and the guy's basketball teammates tell him, not to waste their time trying out for the musical. And they do it in song and dance. Duh... don't join a musical, they say, but they're in one. Creative license? No, it's just plain dumb. (I was almost expecting some equivalent of that Pirates of the Caribbean character to enter the scene and tell these kids, "You better start believing in musicals. You're in one!")

And what exactly is the point of that "Stick to the Status Quo" number? So what if an athlete bakes, a skater plays the cello, and a geek girl likes hip-hop? Would their friends really go "no, no, no, no!"? If anything, I imagine they would find these revelations interesting.

The characters are as flat as pancakes. Funny how a movie that purports to be all about breaking stereotypes, being true to what you want to be, and not limiting yourself to what others expect of you, fails so miserably at at least making the characters interesting.

Earlier-mentioned geek and baller not only pass the audition, they get the lead parts, over the school's two most frequent lead players, based on one song they sing at the callback. Excuse me, but shouldn't you show your acting and dancing prowess as well as your musical skills before you get the lead parts in a musical?

The songs are mediocre at best. Nothing really jumps out at you the way songs in a musical should. Sure, they mostly have nice, bouncy, danceable tunes, but nothing here is particularly memorable. You don't find yourself humming any of the songs after viewing the movie.

The ending is even more contrived than the beginning. In fact, it's so bad, it's sickening. Hey, let's all be friends now, we're all in this together. Ugh.

And please don't tell me, hey, lighten up, it's a movie for kids, etc., etc. That's no excuse for shoddy storytelling, scripting, characterization, songwriting and acting. Look at Disney's past theatrical releases: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, and Tarzan are just a few of the made-for-kids Disney films that adults can enjoy. Why? Because they had good stories, good scripts, good songs, and good characters. You won't find any of these in HSM.

My recommendation: skip this trash. You'll be doing your kids, and yourself, a favor.
Comment Comments (5) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Aug 11, 2007 7:32 AM PDT

No Title Available

14 of 24 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars It's Been Ten Years. Are You Still Raving?, October 23, 2006
The first time I saw this movie, I didn't like it. When I saw it again on cable TV, I still didn't like it. Since it first came out, it's earned its place at the top of my most-hated-movies list. But to an extent, I did understand why so many were taken in by ID4 when it first showed in 1996. The special effects were unquestionably spectacular. Unfortunately, that was all it had going for it. Right off, I saw that the producers were out to make a quick buck without actually thinking about such basic things as good storytelling, decent acting, character depth, and credible dialogue. They didn't care that their so-called story had plot holes the size of lunar craters. They didn't care that their so-called script was riddled with moronic dialogue and annoying, unfunny jokes that kept repeating. They didn't care about anything, except the special effects, and the profits.

And now, this. A tenth anniversary edition that only serves as a numbing reminder to the thinking moviegoer that the same people who made this one of the most commercially successful movies ever still think it's a great piece of filmmaking. I for one thought, and hoped, that people would soon enough wise up to the fact that ID4 is a huge dud. I actually hoped they would realize that after the novelty of the special effects has worn off, what you're left with is garbage. I really believed that after being exposed to the likes of The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, films which combined terrific special effects with good storytelling, they would see ID4 for what it really is: an enormous pile of dung.

Sadly, I was mistaken. Emmerich and Devlin are still making big bucks out of this singularly awful attempt at filmmaking. And what I find particularly disturbing is, the fan base for this movie has apparently not only remained loyal, it actually seems to have increased in number.

Know this, I have nothing against mindless fun. I am fully capable of appreciating a movie that allows me to leave my brain at the door and just sit back and enjoy. But see, mindless and stupid are two different things. Even the Abrahams brothers, who gave us no-brain belly laughs with the likes of Top Secret, Airplane and Naked Gun, should be credited for thinking up all those gags. And mind you, that takes a lot of imagination. Emmerich and Devlin, on the other hand, clearly made no such effort. And therein lies the difference between mindless and stupid. The mindless enjoyment should be on the part of the viewer. The producers still have a responsibility to think through their story. When they fail in that responsibility, what they come up with, more often than not, is stupid filmmaking.

I remember a behind-the-scenes featurette wherein Emmerich, in an interview, said, "I don't care about critical acclaim. I just want to have fun." Fine, who doesn't want to have fun at his job? But if his idea of fun is inflicting stupid films like ID4 on the movie going public, well, that's something I simply can't endorse.

Of course, there are strong indications that a lot of people have no problem at all with this type of attitude. To these people, I say go ahead and buy your copy of this tenth anniversary DVD release. Just be aware that you are contributing to the bank account of someone who didn't care about quality filmmaking, and just wanted to have fun. And know that he's succeeding at your expense.
Comment Comments (3) | Permalink | Most recent comment: May 25, 2014 1:17 AM PDT

Snakes on a Plane (Full Screen Edition)
Snakes on a Plane (Full Screen Edition)
DVD ~ Samuel L. Jackson
Offered by Viki's Little Shop
Price: $4.25
181 used & new from $0.01

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars If Nothing Else, this Deserves a Truth-in-Advertising Award, September 8, 2006
Let's start with the title. I can't recall any film in recent history that had a more unpretentious, straightforward, descriptive title than this one. I toyed with the idea of coming up with alternative titles, pretending I was part of the production team, and came up with such clunkers as Venom at 30,000 Feet, Air Reptilia, and Slither in the Sky. I saw the producers glowering at me and asking me, what the hell is wrong with Snakes on a Plane?? And I sheepishly nodded and said, yeah, you're right.

Now, how about the pre-release hype? At no time did the filmmakers make us believe that this was anything more than a good old-fashioned thrill-ride. At no time did they promote this as the next Oscar contender. And after viewing the trailers, we knew exactly what to expect: pure, unadulterated, leave-your-brain-at-the-door entertainment. And that's exactly what we got. Some argue that the movie was overhyped. But can there really be such a thing when the hype is done so honestly?

As for the storyline itself, well, here's the deal: a guy witnesses a mob kill, and Nelville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) is the FBI agent assigned to protect him. Flynn escorts the witness on a plane ride from Hawaii to LA, where the witness will testify against the murderer. Said murderer, the leader of a big-time international drug syndicate, devices a plan to see to it that the witness never takes the stand. He smuggles 500 deadly snakes onto the plane, housed in a crate with a time-release lock. And to get them agitated once they're out, he sprays the leis that the passengers are to wear with snake pheromones. That's right, he's willing to take down an entire plane because one of the passengers is the key witness against him.

Silly? Sure.

Fun? Absolutely.

Those three elements -- the title, the advertising, and the absurd premise -- were all designed to tell us that this is a movie that refuses to take itself seriously. And the cast goes along with the gag with total aplomb. Jackson is perfect for this sort of thing. You have to admire his ability to go through this joke of a film while keeping a straight face. And once an actor of his stature gets into that tongue-in-cheek mode, the rest of the cast finds it that much easier to follow suit. Oh, and so do the CGI snakes.

If you're looking for a fun no-brainer that entertains and nothing more, I say, go watch Snakes on a Plane. But if you're looking for Oscar-worthy material, I suggest you look elsewhere.

The Beast of Yucca Flats
The Beast of Yucca Flats
DVD ~ Larry Aten
Price: $7.79
25 used & new from $2.44

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Touch the `Play' Button. Something Weird Happens., September 6, 2006
This review is from: The Beast of Yucca Flats (DVD)
In the realm of bad movies, there is the good-bad, and there is the bad-bad.

And then there's The Beast of Yucca Flats. I call this the good-bad-ugly.

The good: it runs for only 54 minutes.

The bad: that's 54 minutes too long.

The ugly: Tor Johnson.

Some fans of truly bad films may like this. I am a fan of truly bad films, and I didn't like this. For the most part, at least. Sure, it has its moments. The whole notion of Ed Wood regular Tor Johnson playing a Russian scientist defecting to the US is, on its own, pretty laughable. But once that's established and the movie rolls along, you're pretty much done laughing at that idea.

So you ask yourself, what's next? How about the narrator's lines? Hmm, we may be on to something here. There is not a single line that makes sense. I'll say that again, not a single one. But do they pass the good-bad test of making you laugh? Well, yes, but the laughter is often accompanied by groans of disbelief and wrinkling of the brows. By comparison, such classics as Robot Monster and Plan 9 are laugh-out-loud hilarious.

Hey, how about plot twists? Look, we have Tor kissing a rabbit at the end. How's that for a surprise ending? Uh, doesn't work for you? Ok, I didn't think it would.

Conclusion: The Beast of Yucky, excuse me, Yucca Flats is not bad enough to be good-bad. The laughs are too few and far-between. And it's too boring to be that much fun. But still, you have to credit Coleman Francis for scoring some remarkable feats with this piece.

1. He manages to bore us in just 54 minutes.

2. He actually made money out of this. Ok, maybe that's not all that remarkable, since you really can't lose when you start with a budget of $0.

3. So how about this: he succeeded where Ed Wood failed. He killed Tor Johnson's career. That's right, this abomination of filmmaking was the ex-wrestler's swan song.

What a way to go.

Wrong Turn
Wrong Turn
DVD ~ Eliza Dushku
Price: $4.79
216 used & new from $0.01

3 of 8 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars The Woods Have Eyes, August 7, 2006
This review is from: Wrong Turn (DVD)
Listen up, people. This is really nothing more than a formula B-movie. I mean, really, haven't we seen this many times (actually, too many times) before? A group of youngsters goes on a camping trip in some deep forest (or desert, or mountain), where they can allow their young hormones to, uh, run wild, and then find themselves terrorized by not-quite-human malevolent denizens that are so damn difficult to kill.

Honestly, I cannot remember a single title from among the many late 70's and 80's films I saw that followed this formula. They were all that forgettable, except for the granddaddy of them all, The Hills Have Eyes (the 1977 version). Ok, so that one featured a family and not a group of teens. But the numerous slasher-in-the-woods babies it spawned had that same numbing consistency of featuring teens or young adults out for an adventure that quickly turns to terror. And, as you might expect, the acting of these B-movie hunks and bimbos was always so bad, they drew more moans, groans and chuckles than terror.

Now, on to Wrong Turn. Does this movie offer anything that the aforementioned slew of B's does not? I would have to say yes. We have the lovely Eliza Dushku and Emmanuelle Chriqui, and the able Desmond Harrington, Jeremy Sisto and Kevin Zegers. (I can still recall the guys in the audience whispering to each other, "There she is, at last!" when Dushku finally made her appearance some 15 minutes into the film.) These names may not make up what you'd call an ensemble cast, but they're certainly not B-movie fodder either. Their performances range from decent to pretty good, and that has to count for something. The question is, how much?

The answer: not much. They could have put the highest-priced stars in place of these five, and the movie would still have turned out bad. There's only so much you can do with a formula storyline that's pedestrian to begin with.

Oh, and never mind that these youngsters weren't out on a camping trip. That doesn't change the fact that this film is really nothing more than a B out of the 80's. A well-acted one, sure, but still a B.

Anacondas - The Hunt for the Blood Orchid
Anacondas - The Hunt for the Blood Orchid
DVD ~ Morris Chestnut
Offered by UltimateDiscountsCANADA
Price: $14.99
229 used & new from $0.01

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Hey, It's Not That Bad, July 22, 2006
And no, I will not follow that up with a statement like "It's much worse."

The title of my review may seem to contradict the rating I give this flick, but here's my point: this isn't a case of "I would give it zero stars if I could." Anacondas deserves the one star, nothing less. And I'd also like to point out that as bad as this movie may be, I believe that certain posters here who have mercilessly pummeled this film have exaggerated more than a little in their reasons for doing so.

Not a few make a point of the schlocky special effects. I agree that they're pretty bad, but I wouldn't describe them as abysmal. Take the scene where the boat plunges down the waterfall. That shot taken from the upper end of the boat as it goes off the edge of the falls and the occupants hang on for dear life, is actually pretty impressive. Nothing great, mind you, but not bad at all. Then there are the top shots of the snake visible under the surface of the water as the characters cross the river. Those weren't so bad either. As for the scenes of the snakes outside the water, well, some were awful, while others were actually quite passable. The snake in the original Anaconda, by comparison, was consistently bad. And if you want to see some really cheesy monster special effects of recent vintage, try Crocodile and Curse of the Komodo.

As for the acting, I agree that this cast of unknowns is likely to remain so. But I also believe that they do have careers ahead of them, mainly in the realm of B-movies and maybe occasional appearances in TV show episodes. Nothing to be thrilled about, of course, but my point is, they will have jobs. Their performances were bad, but not disastrously bad. I wouldn't place these actors anywhere near the ranks of Ed Wood's stable of regulars.

Next, the storyline. A pharmaceutical company has discovered that a rare orchid may actually prolong human life by several decades. Problem is, the orchid can only be found in the deep, dark, inhospitable jungles of Borneo (where, for the record, Anacondas are not found), and it only blossoms for a few months every seven years. Ok, so that little plot contrivance makes for a convenient urgency for the company to send a team of scientists. And sending out an entire team of scientists (who by the way look like they spend more time in the gym than in the laboratory) to look for this orchid was about as bad a plot device as you'll find. Also, you'd think that the company would set aside a decent budget to rent a helicopter instead of leaving it up to the scientists to look for and hire a local guide. Yeah, plot holes abound, and they're hard to ignore. But I've seen worse.

In sum, I would say that Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid is, at best, a brainless popcorn movie. At worst, it's an awful piece of filmmaking not to be watched. Either way, it deserves one star.

Coach Carter (Widescreen Edition)
Coach Carter (Widescreen Edition)
DVD ~ Samuel L. Jackson
Offered by Mercury Media Partners
Price: $4.98
279 used & new from $0.01

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Rises Above the Cliche, July 22, 2006
We've seen this sort of thing before. An undisciplined, underachieving team is taken over by a tough, no-nonsense coach who turns them into winners. Gene Hackman did his turn as the coach in Hoosiers. Heck, even Goldie Hawn (Wildcats) and Cathy Lee Crosby (Coach) played the pivotal mentor role, which just goes to show that Hollywood will do anything, including crossing gender boundaries, to cash in on the coach-turns-losers-into-winners storyline.

But Coach Carter manages to rise above the cliche. There are several reasons for this, the first and most obvious being Samuel L. Jackson's gritty performance as the title character. Jackson, a man of enormous talent but unfortunately not known for being very selective with his roles, made a good decision with this one. In a resume that covers a range of movies from the outright disastrous to the so-so to the pretty good to the very good, his work in this movie certainly ranks among his finest performances.

A close second reason this movie works in spite of its formula storyline is the fact that it's based on a true story. The same can be said for Hoosiers, but what sets Coach Carter apart is the fact that Carter demanded that his players be not just good athletes, but also good role models. Your typical sports movie is usually just about the sport, about the winning attitude, what makes champions, etc. Carter's definition of a champion was not limited to on-court performance. He took the concept a step further, requiring his players to follow a dress code, maintain good grades, and observe proper behavior off the court.

Now, on the down side: I don't know how accurate the depiction of Carter's drill sergeant tactics was, but I do know that having high school students do 500 pushups is utterly ridiculous. A typical healthy human body can barely do 100. Also, can someone please explain how one man (Carter's assistant, Clyde) can keep count of eight or nine players' pushups and suicides? (This is during the scene where the players help Timo Cruz get back into the team by doing these exercises for him.) In another scene, Carter interrupts a teacher in mid-lecture -- in mid-sentence in fact -- to ask about one of his players who's supposed to be in that class. I used to be a teacher, and I know that whether you're a fellow-teacher, a coach, or even the principal, you do not walk into a classroom (or a laboratory, as in this scene) and interrupt a teacher while he/she is talking to his/her students. Not even with a polite "excuse me." Then there's the scene in the final seconds of the game against St. Francis. The ball is inbounded, and the clock is ticking while it's still in the air. The time shouldn't run until it touches a player. Another poster here also pointed out that some people in the gallery were smiling during these final tense seconds, a completely unnatural behavior under those circumstances. I agree with him.

Still, in spite of these flaws, Coach Carter delivers. Proof that even a by-the-numbers story, when well-told, can work.

Oh, there's one other reason this film rises above the cliche, and that's the way it ends. I won't give away any more than that. If you haven't seen this film, I urge you to give it a shot. You don't even have to be a sports fan to appreciate it, because this isn't just about sports. It's about being a winner, both on and off the court.

The Hurricane
The Hurricane
DVD ~ Denzel Washington
Price: $6.54
323 used & new from $0.01

13 of 17 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars The Story Of Rubin Carter, According To Rubin Carter, March 9, 2006
This review is from: The Hurricane (DVD)
The first thing you should know about The Hurricane is that it was based on two books, one of which (The Sixteenth Round) was written by Rubin Carter.

The second thing you should know is that Rubin Carter is not a man of exemplary honesty.

The third thing you should know is that the other book (Lazarus and the Hurricane) on which this movie was based was written by two of the Canadians who bought into Carter's hokum, as have so many after them.

I will not go into a point-by-point list of the patently false claims that Carter makes in his book, since other posters here have already done a good job of that. Instead, I'd like to offer some reactions to those here who have given this movie glowing reviews. These are divided into three groups.

The first is composed of those who did not know they were taken for a ride. If you belong in this group, I do not fault you. Hollywood has a way of perpetrating some very repugnant deceptions on the unsuspecting public. But let me ask you this: if you were presented with hard evidence that this movie is just one big lie put forward by the title "hero," would you still rate it highly?

If your answer is "yes," then you belong in the second group, those who gave this movie a thumbs-up on the basis of its being a powerfully moving drama, and never mind the glaring factual inaccuracies. To this group, I have this to say: if a filmmaker wants to present a true-life story, he has a responsibility to see to it that he has his facts right. It's called integrity, and it means placing truthfulness far above profitability. You say this is a dramatization and not a documentary? Well, even a dramatization should be done with some integrity. I can go along with some minor embellishments here and there, but when a movie is based on a series of disgustingly blatant lies and tries to pass itself off as a true story, that, in my book, is unforgivable. And so what if it was a rival studio that went out of its way to expose this movie's dishonesty? Vested interest does not render their arguments invalid.

Finally, to the third group, those who actually believe that Carter is in fact a martyr-scholar, I ask you to please open your eyes. There is absolutely no documentation to support Carter's claims that he defended his friend from a pedophile, that he was a civil rights activist, that he was robbed of a crucial ring victory, and so many other proclamations aimed at propping up his hero image. On the other hand, there are reams of documents that present virtually irrefutable evidence that these very proclamations are a product of one man's delusional fantasies. You say that Cal Deal, the man behind, is a racist? Please visit /carter/racism.html. Also, know this: Deal went into the Rubin Carter case actually believing that Carter was innocent. It took just one interview for Deal to see the many glaring inconsistencies in Carter's statements. He went on to uncover numerous documents and testimonies that exposed Carter as a liar.

Many accounts today have it that Carter is a changed man. I sincerely hope this is a real change, and not just a show. But whatever the case, the fact remains that he owes it to the public to admit that his book and this movie are just a lot of hogwash.

I'm not counting on that, though.
Comment Comments (4) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Dec 24, 2014 11:53 AM PST

Duel (Collector's Edition)
Duel (Collector's Edition)
DVD ~ Dennis Weaver
Price: $9.15
63 used & new from $4.49

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Precocious Kid Surpasses Budget, Timetable, And Expectations, December 30, 2005
This review is from: Duel (Collector's Edition) (DVD)
Picture this: a 23-year-old directs a cast composed entirely of actors older than him (with the exception of a bunch of school children whose scene lasts just a few minutes), exceeds the producers' budget, fails to meet the imposed deadline, and comes up with a piece that still packs enough chills to terrify motorists 35 years later.

Eschewing plot intricacies and character depth, Spielberg brings us back to the time when movies were vehicles for no-frills storytelling. The sheer simplicity of the plot is in fact what makes Duel so frighteningly real to anybody who has gotten behind the wheel and traveled alone, especially on long stretches of highway.

One thing I noticed that was not mentioned by any of the other reviewers here is the fact that Duel plays out in real time. With the exception of one scene where a time lapse is compressed into just under a minute (when David Mann hides his car behind some bushes and waits it out for an hour or so before continuing his trek), the entire movie's events take place in the same amount of time as the movie itself. So what's the significance of this? It makes the entire experience of our protagonist even more real. You get more of that "oh-my-God-this-could-very-well-be-me" feeling when you see the events unfolding with virtually no time lapses.

Spielberg holds the distinction of being the only director with five entries in the American Film Institute's list of the 100 Greatest Movies Of All Time (from 1896 to 1996): Jaws, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T, and Schindler's List. I'll go out on a limb here, folks, and declare that Duel remains Spielberg's best movie. The others have not aged all that well. The awe and wonder of his fantasy flicks have faded, and so has the pathos of Schindler's List. On the other hand, the terror that Duel elicits has remained real as ever.

So does that lead me to the conclusion that Duel deserves to be in the 100 Greatest Movies list, in place of one of these five Spielberg films? It's a tough call, but I would have to say that at the very least, Duel just has to be the greatest made-for-TV movie of all time.

Ed Wood (Special Edition)
Ed Wood (Special Edition)
DVD ~ Johnny Depp
Price: $9.85
30 used & new from $4.55

75 of 80 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A Loving Tribute to Ineptitude, November 12, 2003
This review is from: Ed Wood (Special Edition) (DVD)
Why make a movie about the man universally regarded as the worst filmmaker of all time?
Well, simply because the word "worst" does not even adequately describe Ed Wood. He was the absolute, undisputable worst, unrivalled in his mindless disregard for decent production values, coherent storytelling, credible scriptwriting, and competent acting. If he were just "the worst," he would be no more than a mere footnote in cinematic history. But by single-handedly redefining the standards of ineptitude, Wood achieved that rare status of lovable loser. I mean, really, you have to admire someone who approaches his craft with so much grit and determination and so little talent.
It takes an A-grade cast to bring to life this story of Z-grade moviemaking. And we have one. Johnny Depp delivers a performance of fire in the title role, giving us a lot of insight into the character that Ed Wood was. Martin Landau (in an Oscar-winning performance) doesn't just portray Bela Lugosi. By golly, he becomes Lugosi, almost convincing us that the horror movie legend was resurrected for this project. Sarah Jessica Parker, Jeffrey Jones, Bill Murray, George "The Animal" Steele, and Lisa Marie comprise the ensemble cast that portrays a motley crew of rank amateurs. Think about it, these people had to re-enact the shooting of Wood's movies, looking serious but coming out funny, and doing all that with a straight face.Try that, folks.
Appreciate too, the film's most memorable line. At the premiere night of Plan 9 From Outer Space, Wood declares with unqualified conviction: "This is it. This is the one I'll be remembered for."
Whether you're a fan of bad movies or not, you simply have to see Ed Wood. It's not often that a film comes along that makes you like a man who so admirably succeeded at being a failure.
Comment Comments (2) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Apr 28, 2013 8:50 PM PDT

Page: 1 | 2 | 3