|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take my heart....please! (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket,  in Movies
Limbic Distem,
Tragic, really. I remember when Kmart was as low as you could go on the socioeconomic bargain-mart ladder, but it turns out there's an even lower rung. I wonder if the Weekly World News sells well at Walmarts?
If I was Weekly World News, I think I would refuse distribution there. It would hurt my credibility.
Well, right. The first step is always securing the enslaved, unpaid manual labor. After all, it's their backs I'll be clambering up to attain my lofty evil heights.
Unpaid man labor. You're like Yurtle the Turtle! That means always beware of man uprising in the lower, Wal-Mart-esque rungs of your man-labor ladder.
Is this like being true to your school? What kind of refreshments do they serve in Hell, do you think?
It's exactly like being true to your school. You get a ring and everything. I ring of fire, that is.
I believe, in Hell, they serve poutine and red-hots. And all the nasty, stale, raisinettes you can eat.
*Bow-chicka-wow-wow*. Can somebody get Alastair Mackenzie on the phone? I'm really seeing him as the lascivious lung. Do lungs make good kissers, I wonder?
Who is this Alastair Mackenzie of whom you speak? Is he worthy of the much coveted role of the lung lothario? What are his credentials as far as playing body parts? I'm looking at Sam Rockwell to play the spleen - it's a juicy role, that one.
Sueprapygal
|
May 11 '04
8:46 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take my heart....please! (Reply to this comment)
by disinclined
Cardiopulmonary Suestem,
Someday that K Mart is going to close. I think they'll move on to a Wal-Mart in Tulsa.
It's the end of an era. Tragic, really. I remember when Kmart was as low as you could go on the socioeconomic bargain-mart ladder, but it turns out there's an even lower rung. I wonder if the Weekly World News sells well at Walmarts?
this will have to wait until after throne making and man slave taking
Well, right. The first step is always securing the enslaved, unpaid manual labor. After all, it's their backs I'll be clambering up to attain my lofty evil heights.
The Palace of Dis - The Theater From Hell. It's nice to pay homage to your evil city.
Is this like being true to your school? What kind of refreshments do they serve in Hell, do you think?
I was picturing you as the plucky sleuth. But I completely understand your desire to be the seeping (well, not too much), pumping inner core instead. That's where all the action's at - the multi-organ action, that is!
*Bow-chicka-wow-wow*. Can somebody get Alastair Mackenzie on the phone? I'm really seeing him as the lascivious lung. Do lungs make good kissers, I wonder?
distic fibrosis
|
May 10 '04
4:57 pm PDT
|
|
Re: on my desk in duplicate by morning (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Brian,
you give me the best understanding yet of what the hell the movie is _about_.
Well, it took me two days to figure it out, so I thought I should share that knowledge with others ;)
Plus i appreciated the plug for Chris Nolan.
I really like him. Both Following and Memento make brilliant use of the same sort of style that fails here. He manages to make it an important and more or less organic part of the story, as if it simply couldn't be told any other way. I very much look forward to more of his work.
But your overall point was sad for me to hear.
And painful for me to watch.
Amores Perros, Inarritu's previous film, completely blew me away - it was another interaction of three stories, but as best as i can recall, it was told completely in order. In other words, i don't see where the guy needed to lack confidence.
I haven't seen that film, but I'd like to. The guy has to have some major talent to pull out the performances he did - and have that show despite the stylistic mess. I can't imagine why he would lack confidence in the story, the actors, or his ability - but I'm just at a loss to explain why he would mess with this so badly if he felt sure of those things.
I suspect this is the kind of movie that's much stronger the second time through. Which, normally, is a sign of richness, and i'll assume that's what he was going for. Except that watching a film a second time should be a treat, a little present to the self; if it's homework, something went wrong.
Exactly. I'm not going to watch this again just to humor the guy and try to decipher his masterpiece when I didn't like it the first time. Movies just have too short a half life to expect people to watch them repeatedly and grow to love them. If they don't catch on first viewing, that's really pretty much it - unlike a book that you can put down after a hundred pages and then go back to. The medium just doesn't support something that requires repeated viewings to be enjoyable. Well, at least that's what I'm thinking............:)
Sue
|
May 09 '04
9:05 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Moose,
You've made your points quite well, even though I don't agree with a lot of them.
Booo! Hisssss! No, I'm just kidding - thank you.
My take on this movie is that it's a little too complicated, even for the really experienced movie viewer, to be seen just once.
Someone else mentioned that, and it may well be the case. I guess I find it irritating even on that level. What's the point of making a movie you have to see several times to get anything out of? For me this isn't one of those movies that I love and want to see again and again - I would have to force myself to re-watch this. I don't think I care enough to do that.
As hard as the story is to take, I still find myself enjoying the little moments of brilliance scattered all throughout this fine film.
Even with one viewing I can think of several of those moments, and I'm sure that more do shine through with repeated viewings - that just isn't enough for me, though. I want a cohesive whole to pick through as well. I wanted to like this movie, though. I really did, especially given that I liked the performances so well. I'm glad you got more from it than I did.
Great work, nevertheless!
Thanks, Moose - it's always good to hear from you!
Sue
|
May 09 '04
8:53 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Wow... (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Marsha,
Damn you! You know me too well!
Mwahahahahahahaha! You know it, sister.
Sue
|
May 09 '04
8:45 pm PDT
|
|
on my desk in duplicate by morning (Reply to this comment)
by voxpoptart
Nice review, especially since (in typical Sue style) you give me the best understanding yet of what the hell the movie is _about_. Plus i appreciated the plug for Chris Nolan. But your overall point was sad for me to hear. Amores Perros, Inarritu's previous film, completely blew me away - it was another interaction of three stories, but as best as i can recall, it was told completely in order. In other words, i don't see where the guy needed to lack confidence.
I suspect this is the kind of movie that's much stronger the second time through. Which, normally, is a sign of richness, and i'll assume that's what he was going for. Except that watching a film a second time should be a treat, a little present to the self; if it's homework, something went wrong.
cheers,
- Brian
|
May 09 '04
10:31 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Wow... (Reply to this comment)
by katmar
Damn you! You know me too well!
|
May 08 '04
11:00 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Take my heart....please! (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Dis-embodied,
That's how they get all their best news stories! And their most accurate ones, I might add.
Someday that K Mart is going to close. I think they'll move on to a Wal-Mart in Tulsa.
Note to self: after taking over the world with Sue, build giant old-fashioned "palace" theater with olde tyme marquee out front. The Evil Palace? The Dis Palace? Will finalize name later.
Of course, this will have to wait until after throne making and man slave taking, but an excellent idea! I think it should be called The Palace of Dis - The Theater From Hell. It's nice to pay homage to your evil city.
We'll be the first prime-time show to depict inter-organ adultery, or bust!
You just have a thing for that Judith Light lung.
I want to be the crime-fighting heart. Just get some petite little chick to play the detective. It doesn't matter who - they'll be tuning in to see my heart-wrenching antics, anyway.
Oh! I misunderstood - I was picturing you as the plucky sleuth. But I completely understand your desire to be the seeping (well, not too much), pumping inner core instead. That's where all the action's at - the multi-organ action, that is! It'll be a festival of bodily functions. I predict an Emmy.
Sue-perior Vena Cava
|
May 08 '04
8:29 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excessive excess (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Becky,
Just beware, you could have a dream like I did after playing Parcheesi with someone else... You should buy one of those Dream Catchers.
Aaaaaaaaaggggghhhhh! Forget the Dream Catcher - I'll just stay awake forever.
Sue
|
May 08 '04
8:19 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Wow... (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Marsha,
That might be one of the best descriptions I've ever read of any actor's performance, in any film, in the entire f*cking history of film. You nearly took my breath away with that one, girl. (I'm genuflecting before you.)
You just want a cut of my Bingo troll doll winnings. You can't fool me.
And I do understand what you're saying about the film. Some things stay with you whether you really like them or not. I don't think it will stay with me, primarily because I found the style so annoying, but I can certainly understand why it would.
There are so many really interesting topics touched on by these characters - regret, redemption, vengeance, second chances and the price paid for them - that it should stay with us. But it doesn't (or it does, but not in the way we want it to), because for all the inherent power in those themes they are indeed only touched on.
You're right that we don't get inside the characters enough. For that I blame the style, for others it may be different. But for whatever reason, we don't get enough of the story to really get into it as we feel we should - or could. And it seems I can blather forever :)
I count my Bingo troll prizes every day, I'll have you know ;)
Sue
|
May 08 '04
8:18 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Take my heart....please! (Reply to this comment)
by disinclined
Suectomy,
it was actually passed on to them by the spirit of Elvis in a K-Mart in Toledo
So? That's how they get all their best news stories! And their most accurate ones, I might add.
If theaters still had outdoor marquees, that would look fabulous in hundreds of tiny light bulbs.
I know! Note to self: after taking over the world with Sue, build giant old-fashioned "palace" theater with olde tyme marquee out front. The Evil Palace? The Dis Palace? Will finalize name later.
The whole romance angle will open new frontiers in TV sex scenes.
Think of the possibilities for dramatic subplots with the organ-host romance storyline. I mean, the heart is crammed in there all the time with a dozen or so moist, plump other organs... the spleen, the liver, the appendix. We'll be the first prime-time show to depict inter-organ adultery, or bust!
the job is yours! Who shall play the heart? Pierce Brosnan?
No! Didn't I make it clear? I want to be the crime-fighting heart. Just get some petite little chick to play the detective. It doesn't matter who - they'll be tuning in to see my heart-wrenching antics, anyway.
triple coronary bydis
|
May 08 '04
12:17 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Excessive excess (Reply to this comment)
by beckytcy
I was innocently playing Parcheesi.
Good for you! So was I! Just beware, you could have a dream like I did after playing Parcheesi with someone else... You should buy one of those Dream Catchers.
B
|
May 08 '04
8:56 am PDT
|
|
Wow... (Reply to this comment)
by katmar
Benicio Del Toro plays Jack, the greasy ex-con who’s found God, so skillfully you can almost smell the week old sweat emanating from the character.
That might be one of the best descriptions I've ever read of any actor's performance, in any film, in the entire f*cking history of film. You nearly took my breath away with that one, girl. (I'm genuflecting before you.)
As for your annoyance with the film's sequencing, oddly enough, I found it provocative, and not annoying at all.
(And you liked "May" and "Magnolia," and I abhorred them... just different tastes at times, I guess.)
I agreed with you about the performances, though, and you made a lot of good points.
Here's my thing about this film, though, Sue... It's eaten at me since I watched it -- which was several months ago now -- and I'm not sure why. I thought it was powerful, and at the time, quite involving, but I think I was left with the question: "What did it mean?"
Were these snapshots of tragedy shown to us to shake us, move us, haunt us, make us cry, make us angry????? I guess I like to know what I had for dinner instead of being left wondering. Especially when the meal refuses to ever leave my mind. But does that mean it was a good meal, or just a memorable one? You know what I'm trying to say?
A few minutes before I came online, I was thinking about this film (what else is new?). And I think one of the problems was that I didn't care enough about any of them. The snapshots went by too quickly.
I think part of what the director was trying to accomplish was this: show three people's lives, in three dimensions. Could he have done this if the film played "normally"? I don't think so. It would have ended up five hours long. I think the trick he had to pull off, was to let us know these people, what they'd gone through before, and what they're going through now, within a reasonable amount of time. That's a hard thing to pull off. Obviously, to some, he failed badly. But to others, like myself, I found his risk-taking fascinating.
What I think got lost in the attempt to know their lives, was our chance to know them. I empathized with Watts, but I didn't know her well enough to feel her loss - beyond her wrenching display of that loss. You know what I mean? We weren't allowed to just walk with her, and see her everyday grieving. We were just shown pieces. And for me that wasn't enough. Same for the other two.
I've pondered what my own review of this film would say, but it's remained in the pondering stage since I saw it. I still don't know what to make of it. I think I would have given it four stars, as I'm more likely to applaud a director who takes a big chance and fails, rather than laud one who sticks to formula and fails. God knows we have enough of those.
Anyway, excellent job. Your writing never ceases to make me want to try and be a better writer, so that maybe one day, I can come close to the magic you create on these pages.
Hats off, neighbor.
Marsha
|
May 07 '04
8:41 pm PDT
|
|
Re: The 22 Gram . . . (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Macresarf1,
At the risk of interrupting this love fest, might I say that there is nothing wrong with non-linear movies or Sean Penn as an actor.
Oh, no. Dissent is a good thing. It adds texture to the love.
I agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Sean Penn as an actor - he's excellent. Though personally I do get a creepy vibe off him sometimes.
As for non-linear films, I agree there as well. I've enjoyed some immensely, but I'm tiring rapidly of the overuse of the style. When it serves the story, or is part and parcel of one of the characters, it's great. When it's excessive and gimmicky, it's not.
The problem with 21 GRAMS is that the sequencing is arbitrary.
Indeed, and as a result the film falls apart.
As for Sean Penn, his character in MYSTIC RIVER is secretive, gives nothing away, which is why he and the movie are so good. In 21 GRAMS, his character is needy and gushing.
My feeling about the two characters is that in Mystic River he didn't need to stretch. That character was really rather a cliche, and his hysteria on discovering the death of his daughter not much more than a one note stereotype of a grief reaction. It was big and flashy, but didn't have much nuance. I liked the 21 Grams character better because he was more complicated. His emotions were right on the surface, but they were interesting, emotions born of an intriguing situation.
Penn does both characters marvelously. It is not his fault that, for all its considerable critical acclaim, 21 GRAMS fails him.
Absolutely not. Those three stars I gave this movie can be considered one for each principal actor. All were excellent.
And if you have not seen DON'T LOOK NOW, millinocket, hurry down to the blockbuster.
I haven't seen it - and feel sort of stupid to never even have heard of it. It's on my Netflix queue and I'm very much looking forward to it.
Excellent review, caveats to one side.
Thank you very much!
Sue
|
May 07 '04
8:12 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Excessive excess (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Dream a Little Becky,
Ack! I blame you and Steph for the dream I had last night.
Why I have no idea what you could possibly mean. I was innocently playing Parcheesi.
I couldn't get through that book, so I won't be seeing the movie. Run, Lola, Run annoyed the hell out of me.
I haven't tried the book, yet. I feel like I should, since I've heard that it's far better than the film, so it's on my list.
Sue
|
May 07 '04
7:57 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Take my heart....please! (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Dis,
That's the Weekly World News's motto. In fact, I think they invented the saying.
Well, they sort of invented it - it was actually passed on to them by the spirit of Elvis in a K-Mart in Toledo.
"SPUNKY LUNG.......................DISINCLINED"
If theaters still had outdoor marquees, that would look fabulous in hundreds of tiny light bulbs. And who could say no to the irresistible pull of such drama?
Damn right! Who could resist the hilarious hijinks of a crime-fighting heart and its sexy host? Maybe we could introduce a romance between them in season 2.
No one, that's who. They could put it on right before the WWF marathon. We'll be millionaires!!!! The whole romance angle will open new frontiers in TV sex scenes.
Me! Me! Me! Even though I haven't seen a size six since I was six.
Well, since if we want a size 6 we'll have to actually get a six-year-old - which would ruin the hijinks entirely - the job is yours! Who shall play the heart? Pierce Brosnan?
Sue
|
May 07 '04
7:55 pm PDT
|
|
Re: What an outstanding review...... (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Ginger,
Thanks you so much for the kind compliments. I'm glad you liked the review!
If you do see the movie, the performances are great. Not worth the irritation for me, but great nonetheless.
Thanks again,
Sue
|
May 07 '04
7:48 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Sue, I'm Awfully Blue... (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Jack,
...because all I can allow myself to read is the first paragraph of this sure-as-I-love-boobies-it's-a-Very-Helpful review
Holy cow, you are sure!
I don't want even the merest inkling of a hint as to what might or might not happen. Will be back to read it after I've seen this.
I'll be interested to know what you think. And I'm not even being sarcastic and snotty.
(By the way, I heard that Naomi Watts shows some serious nipple pokies here. True, Sue?)
Not even an inkling, Jackie my boy.
Sue
|
May 07 '04
7:45 pm PDT
|
|
Re: @[xxxx]§:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Tim,
OH MY GOD, Suey, you are my hero!
Cool! Do I get a superhero costume? 'Cause that would rawk.
I knew I couldn't be the only one who was a little jarred by this whole thing, not to mention perturbed by its 8.0 rating at IMDb.
No, you aren't - on both counts. I noticed the IMDb rating, too, and really found it quite confusing. Much like the movie itself as a matter of fact.
But yes indeed, those are some of the best performances around. If only the reasons for such rage and tension had been clearer, we might have been able to grab onto those feelings better.
Agreed. I was so impressed by all three leads that the failure of the movie to put everything together was that much more disappointing.
This strikes me as one of those movies that's probably actually really good around the 10th or 12th viewing
Oh, I couldn't take that. I was annoyed enough after one.
See ya and WAY TO GO
Thanks, Tim :)
Sue
|
May 07 '04
7:44 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Richard,
FINALLY! Someone who agrees with me Re: Sean Penn.. I may spontaneously combust yet.
Oh, don't combust - who would be Cleo's pet? The other problem with Sean Penn is that every once in a while, in the middle of some very dramatic role, I will have a random flashback to Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High - it tends to break the tension. But this is probably more my problem than his..........;)
Noooooo. Spacey's a big hunk o' burnin' love by comparison.. and I can't believe I just called someone a "Big hunk o' burnin' love" . Ah well, it's true!
Hey, you have to call 'em as you see 'em. If the man is a scooter ridin' hunk o burnin' love, so be it.
Yep, definitely twins. Are you being Arnie or Danny? Wait, you're too nice to be either, and I'm neither Austrian nor 4'10", so that won't work.
No, no, we'll be far better twins. Neither of us will try to be Governor of California and we'll wear matching outfits for our scooter rides. Beanies or berets?
Sue
|
May 07 '04
4:52 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ~~@~~ (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Tom,
I hate when a film goes non-linear sheerly for the purpose of trying to be 'artsy.' When used properly it can be powerful, but there are so many instances when it just doesn't work.
I really get the impression from watching this film that the sequencing was done as a stylistic choice - it seems not to service the power of the story or the plot at all. They overshot artsy by a country mile.
I still haven't seen this one, but it will work it's way up on my Netflix queue sooner or later!
Because I have the queue from hell, I moved this one up. I sort of wish I'd let it linger down around #200........;)
Sue
|
May 07 '04
4:46 pm PDT
|
|
The 22 Gram . . . (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
Dear millinocket: At the risk of interrupting this love fest, might I say that there is nothing wrong with non-linear movies or Sean Penn as an actor. While I agree with you that 21 GRAMS does not use the format very well, there is nothing inherently bad about presenting scenes out of sync. The Director's AMORES PERROS proves that. The problem with 21 GRAMS is that the sequencing is arbitrary.
As for Sean Penn, his character in MYSTIC RIVER is secretive, gives nothing away, which is why he and the movie are so good. In 21 GRAMS, his character is needy and gushing. Penn does both characters marvelously. It is not his fault that, for all its considerable critical acclaim, 21 GRAMS fails him.
And if you have not seen DON'T LOOK NOW, millinoket, hurry down to the blockbuster. It is very close to a true horror story, near to the best one ever made -- because until the very end the horror is both and suggested.
Excellent review, caveats to one side.
With great regard.
[Macresarf1]
|
May 07 '04
2:44 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Excessive excess (Reply to this comment)
by beckytcy
Sue,
Heh. I know it has special meaning for you.
Ack! I blame you and Steph for the dream I had last night.
They don't do too much of the repeated scene thing, but if that really bugs you, never see Catch-22.
I couldn't get through that book, so I won't be seeing the movie. Run, Lola, Run annoyed the hell out of me.
Becky
|
May 07 '04
2:02 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Take my heart....please! (Reply to this comment)
by disinclined
Sue.E.O.,
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
That's the Weekly World News's motto. In fact, I think they invented the saying.
Didn't Lifetime do this, starring Judith Light as the lung?
If not, I'm volunteering for the part as of now. I've always wanted to see my name in lights:
"SPUNKY LUNG.......................DISINCLINED"
I watch enough crap TV to realize a winner when I see it
Damn right! Who could resist the hilarious hijinks of a crime-fighting heart and its sexy host? Maybe we could introduce a romance between them in season 2.
Who should star? It should be someone sporting a curvy size six, I think.
Me! Me! Me! Even though I haven't seen a size six since I was six.
dis
|
May 07 '04
9:16 am PDT
|
|
What an outstanding review...... (Reply to this comment)
by 4paws
The movie may have been a bust, but not this review. The review was riveting. I usually don't read the reviews that show major parts of the movie until I've seen it and I haven't seen this yet. But, your review sucked me in. I may have to watch it anyway to see the performances you spoke about. Thanks for a very nice read.
Ginger
|
May 07 '04
9:15 am PDT
|
|
@[xxxx]§:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> (Reply to this comment)
by flamepillar
OH MY GOD, Suey, you are my hero! I knew I couldn't be the only one who was a little jarred by this whole thing, not to mention perturbed by its 8.0 rating at IMDb. But yes indeed, those are some of the best performances around. If only the reasons for such rage and tension had been clearer, we might have been able to grab onto those feelings better.
This strikes me as one of those movies that's probably actually really good around the 10th or 12th viewing, though... I just ain't got that kind of time though!
See ya and WAY TO GO :)
TIM
|
May 07 '04
5:20 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by dpjohansen
FINALLY! Someone who agrees with me Re: Sean Penn.. I may spontaneously combust yet.
I don't have this problem with Kevin Spacey.
Noooooo. Spacey's a big hunk o' burnin' love by comparison.. and I can't believe I just called someone a "Big hunk o' burnin' love" . Ah well, it's true!
Yep, definitely twins. Are you being Arnie or Danny? Wait, you're too nice to be either, and I'm neither Austrian nor 4'10", so that won't work.
Richard
|
May 06 '04
8:14 pm PDT
|
|
~~@~~ (Reply to this comment)
by tbthorn
I hate when a film goes non-linear sheerly for the purpose of trying to be 'artsy.' When used properly it can be powerful, but there are so many instances when it just doesn't work. I still haven't seen this one, but it will work it's way up on my Netflix queue sooner or later!
nice one,
Tom
|
May 06 '04
4:01 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: well (Reply to this comment)
by millinocket, in Movies
Sadgit,
Oh, I'm looking stoopid, now. I'm sort of surprised I haven't heard of it as well. I love Donald Sutherland and this sounds right up my alley. I'll have to add it to my Netflix queue - thanks for bringing it up.
I'm glad someone pays attention! :)
Sue
|
May 06 '04
2:33 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: well (Reply to this comment)
by sadgit
Sue, "Don't Look Now" was done in 1973- a psychological horror film shot in Venice, starring Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, based on the book by Daphne Du Maurier.
I mentioned it because it made use of twists, final revelations and moments out of time that were quite sophisticated and new for the time it was made, and even today it's ending still blows me away.
I'm actually surprised you haven't seen it.
|
May 06 '04
2:25 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.