Living in Podunk, Missouri makes me miss the days when I had access to a university library. The library I use now has a fairly poor selection (mostly old John Wayne type stuff, old crime movie from the ’30’s to ’50’s, Hitchcock, which I don’t have a problem with, some old ones with Brando, and so on). So far I’ve checked out Fritz Lang’s “M,” Preminger’s “Anatomy of a Murder,” Hitchcock’s “Dial M for Murder,” and Coppola’s “The Godfather,” which for some reason, I haven’t seen yet, though I know I should have. I sent in some requests for movies through inter-library loan, but I’m not getting my hopes up.
I loved it, though I may want to see it again before passing final judgment on it. Unfortunately, my second viewing will likely not be in a theater, but who knows. Since I got back from the theater, I have been reading just about any review I can find, professional or amateur and reading the comments to these reviews to get an idea of what others thought and I have to say I disagree with those who thought it was slow. Honestly, I wouldn’t have minded if it were longer as I would have liked to have known the rest of the Basterds a bit more (Samm Levine, anyone? C’mon, I haven’t seen this fellow since Freaks and Geeks and then he’s only on-screen for two seconds?!) along with the British spy, if only so that I can get a bit more accustomed to seeing their faces and knowing who’s who before they die.
I don’t think Tarantino’s films are just popcorn movie fare. His movies (I’ve only seen “Reservoir Dogs,” “Pulp Fiction,” and now “Inglourious Basterds,” however) give me something to think about. Of course, like Fredo says, he’s not Bergman, so I don’t find myself thinking in the same way or about the same things as when I’m watching Bergman. Tarantino blends the high brow and low brow in his films, making them into films that can be read as just popcorn flicks even though they probably shouldn’t be. I really ought to see “Jackie Brown,” the Kill Bills, and “Death Proof” before I go on and on about Tarantino and I won’t deny that some of his movies may be just popcorn flicks, because Tarantino loves those kinds of movies and they’re probably fun to make.
But I can’t believe there’s nothing redeeming about Tarantino’s movies except sheer entertainment. If it was just entertaining, then why wouldn’t we be watching Michael Bay? Because, like Fredo says, Tarantino knows what he’s doing. Bay does, too, obviously, otherwise he wouldn’t consistently make such shitty films that get such great box office turnouts. QT makes for a good discussion on the differences between high brow and low brow, in my opinion.
Also, for any Pynchon fans out there: Landa reminded me of Dr. Hilarius from “The Crying of Lot 49” and Lt. Weissmann from the chapter Mondaugen’s Story in “V.”
Ryan said that this movie is about historical biases and such. Has it occurred to you that the Basterds will be the ones given full credit for the assassination at the cinema, while Shosanna gets no credit for her part because herself and her partner died and there were no other survivors? When you think about comments that Tarantino made beforehand about how WWII movies make Jews into victims, I think this is telling, because Shosanna, the French-Jew who stood up to her oppressors, will be forgotten. The other Jews who will be remembered? The Basterds, which I don’t think is that far from history, because there were surely Jewish-Americans who fought in WWII, just not in the same capacity as the Basterds.
Justin, how do you know Tarantino “doesn’t really give a shit about any of [that]”? Earlier today I was watching on Charlie Rose’s website an old interview with him from just after “Pulp Fiction” where he mentions that in school (even though he never graduated) one of his favorite subjects was history, essentially because it consisted of the telling of a story. Now, despite the fact that he never did finish high school and as evidenced by his accomplishments, he is no stupid person. From what I’ve seen, quite the opposite, actually. I’m going to have to watch the movie again (which I intend to do soon) in order to know how likely it is that he is or isn’t making some kind of comment about history and such in this film, but if those who argue that Tarantino is making some kind of statement should have a truly compelling argument backed up by facts, shouldn’t your argument that Tarantino doesn’t give a shit about that kind of thing be equally as compelling in order for others to take it seriously?
Cinema has never dealt in facts. I think Dave-O is reading up the wrong art.
“Photography is truth. The cinema is truth twenty-four times per second.” — Jean-Luc Godard
“There are deeper strata of truth in cinema, and there is such a thing as poetic, ecstatic truth. It is mysterious and elusive, and can be reached only through fabrication and imagination and stylization.” — Werner Herzog
Wait, so Justin, your argument against Tarantino’s films not having depth is that he loves films, directs his actors by referring to other films, oh, and that one of his favorite films of the last fifteen years is “Speed”? Also on that list was “Dogville,” so what’s your point? He likes stories, he likes action, he likes to put them together. I’ll agree with you that he loves movies and loves to take people on a ride, but I don’t believe that is the full extent of what he does with his movies.
Also, I’m not calling him Tarkovsky or anything when I say his movies have depth to them.
“As I Lay Dying” — William Faulkner
“The Brothers Karamazov” — Fyodor Dostoevsky
“The Road” — Cormac McCarthy
“Johnny Got His Gun” — Dalton Trombo
“God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater” — Kurt Vonnegut (I read “Slaughter-House Five” too long ago for me to pass judgment on it now)
“Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said” — Philip K. Dick
“A Scanner Darkly” — Philip K. Dick
“For Whom the Bell Tolls” — Ernest Hemingway
Those are just a few. I’ve read some recently that, though I thoroughly enjoyed them, I’m having difficulty deciding what I really think about them. “Blood Meridian” (by Cormac McCarthy) is going to demand another read, as will “Absalom, Absalom!” (by William Faulkner) and “V.” (by Thomas Pynchon). And as Pynchon has already been brought up, I think I’ll chime in on whether it is to be enjoyed or to be understood: it’s both. It’s hard sometimes (especially with “V.”, which I thought was a bit clunky), but once you get going, it is just fun. Makes you think a bit, too.
Sometimes I feel like a cliché because I read DeLillo, Pynchon, and McCarthy. I’m thinking about going more genre soon and trying some Elmore Leonard so I won’t be such a pompous ass.
On DeLillo, I’ve only read “White Noise” and “Underworld,” the former of which I did not enjoy. I thought “White Noise” tried too hard and for all that trying, didn’t go far enough.
I really enjoyed “Underworld.” As a Big Book, it did a good job of balancing out it’s bigness with a little bit of smallness here and there, which I’m sure was done intentionally to contrast between Nick and Matty’s experiences working with a large garbage removal company and the government, respectively. The sections with Lenny Bruce (which I think serves as an example of the smallness that contrasted with the novel’s obvious bigness) were some of my favorites, as were J. Edgar Hoover’s. It’s arching theme of secrets was one I found compelling in the way it was dealt with and gave me something to think about for quite a while. The writing, as well, was quite superb — some people have complained about the repetitiveness of his style, but I found that it worked quite well, especially in the way that it complemented, say, the repetitiveness of the newscasters showing the tape of the murder.
Was “Inherent Vice” good? I’m working my way through “Gravity’s Rainbow” right now and the Wikipedia page on “Vice” is still pretty shabby. It’s a shame that there isn’t a metacritic/rottentomatoes type website (that I know of, anyway) that deals with books.
Denby says of IB, “In a Tarantino war, everyone commits atrocities.” I wonder what he thought of “Apocalypse Now”? I also wonder if criticizing Tarantino for making a war film where “everyone commits atrocities” might be whitewashing war just a bit.
Just saw it again. The first time was fun, but I think the second time I was able to be a bit more objective about it. (You’ll have to excuse me if I get a bit carried away when I see a movie in a theater — it’s not something I get to do often, so it really is quite a treat.) So, yeah, I’m not as impressed this time around as I was the first. The violence I could care less about. Whether it is there or not doesn’t really matter much to me. Of course, it would be a bit strange, actually, if Tarantino didn’t have the violence in the movie, so that’s that. What really disappoints me most is that he hints at these themes of identity and history, but never does them justice. For example, when Landa offers Raine and Utivich the ability to end the war, we don’t really see why they would want to end the war so badly except that it was probably the only way to get out alive. The Basterds were doing such a good job at fighting the war (and enjoying it!) that you have to wonder if they even would have wanted to end the war if they hadn’t been captured.
QT’s defenders don’t like it when people ask that Tarantino grow up already. Well, I have to ask that Tarantino grow up already. I don’t mind the violence. In my opinion, the violence works quite well in “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs.” But in “Inglourious Basterds” it ends up going nowhere.
Meh. The conversations in Inglourious Basterds leave a lot to be desired in my opinion and part of the reason for that is that neither Landa nor Waltz (as two sides of the same coin) have nobody to play off of, no one to be their equal. The only person who comes close is Raine/Pitt, who only does so by brute force, not by wit.
I doubt a group of guerrilla soldiers would take prisoners. Would they kill their enemies with baseball bats, scalp them, and carve swastikas into their foreheads? No, but they wouldn’t be taking prisoners, either.
Carson, I didn’t find Shosanna to be particularly sadistic. She had the opportunity to take out the German high command and she took it. Her means were limited, but so what? The Basterds were decidedly more sadistic.
I don’t think that the violence in IB will bleed into real life. People already know if they find the violence of IB to be acceptable in real life (whether or not they find it to be acceptable in the movie). Quentin Tarantino is more a product of the world we live in than we are a product of Quentin Tarantino.
In comparison to the Basterds, no. I have to admit, though, I did forget about that scene. But as I think about it some more, no, I don’t really find her to be that sadistic. Was blood ever drawn in that scene? I don’t think so, but if there was, I’ll admit to having a very poor memory. How does that scene really compare to Raine sticking his finger in von Hammersmark’s bullet wound or carving swastikas in the foreheads of German soldiers?
You’re really reaching when you use the fact that she shot Zoller in the back to back up your argument that she is sadistic. What was she supposed to do? Hold his hand while he’s in a position to ruin her plot? I think not. And as far as the film she made — better they know it wasn’t just a freak accident that got ’em, eh?
My personal opinion, the characters of “Magnolia” are more relatable than those of “Boogie Nights.” The themes of loneliness, self-worth, and seeking redemption are well done and all, but the characters in “Magnolia” are more like your average person, whereas “Boogie Nights” is about, well, porn stars and they all seem to be of below average intelligence. Or maybe not even below average intelligence, but they’re people who put out below average effort, while in “Magnolia,” everyone seems to be trying as hard as they can, even when their misplaced desires cause them to try as hard as they can at the wrong things.
Who said it was “only a movie about the porno industry”? It’s obviously about people in the porno industry, which isn’t the same as being a movie about the porno industry.
I should make my own Native American revenge fantasy. One, in particular, where the Native Americans storm the Capitol and butcher Andrew Jackson and Congress with the help of former African-American slaves. It would be a riot. Or if anyone wants to steal that idea, go ahead since there’s no way I’m making it.
I mean, seriously, “Poltergeist”? “The Shining”? Those are Native American revenge fantasies for the weak of heart (though, “The Shining” is a great movie — haven’t seen “Poltergeist,” but the idea of a haunting being the best anyone can do for a Native American revenge fantasy is pretty pathetic.)
I’m bumping this thread because I unwittingly rented the R-rated version of “Y tu mamá también” and now I’m pissed. If I had realized beforehand that I was looking at a censored work, I wouldn’t have rented it in the first place. Good thing I saw the title card at the beginning saying that the film had been edited for language and “content.”
GO TO YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY almost 3 years ago
Living in Podunk, Missouri makes me miss the days when I had access to a university library. The library I use now has a fairly poor selection (mostly old John Wayne type stuff, old crime movie from the ’30’s to ’50’s, Hitchcock, which I don’t have a problem with, some old ones with Brando, and so on). So far I’ve checked out Fritz Lang’s “M,” Preminger’s “Anatomy of a Murder,” Hitchcock’s “Dial M for Murder,” and Coppola’s “The Godfather,” which for some reason, I haven’t seen yet, though I know I should have. I sent in some requests for movies through inter-library loan, but I’m not getting my hopes up.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
I loved it, though I may want to see it again before passing final judgment on it. Unfortunately, my second viewing will likely not be in a theater, but who knows. Since I got back from the theater, I have been reading just about any review I can find, professional or amateur and reading the comments to these reviews to get an idea of what others thought and I have to say I disagree with those who thought it was slow. Honestly, I wouldn’t have minded if it were longer as I would have liked to have known the rest of the Basterds a bit more (Samm Levine, anyone? C’mon, I haven’t seen this fellow since Freaks and Geeks and then he’s only on-screen for two seconds?!) along with the British spy, if only so that I can get a bit more accustomed to seeing their faces and knowing who’s who before they die.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
I don’t think Tarantino’s films are just popcorn movie fare. His movies (I’ve only seen “Reservoir Dogs,” “Pulp Fiction,” and now “Inglourious Basterds,” however) give me something to think about. Of course, like Fredo says, he’s not Bergman, so I don’t find myself thinking in the same way or about the same things as when I’m watching Bergman. Tarantino blends the high brow and low brow in his films, making them into films that can be read as just popcorn flicks even though they probably shouldn’t be. I really ought to see “Jackie Brown,” the Kill Bills, and “Death Proof” before I go on and on about Tarantino and I won’t deny that some of his movies may be just popcorn flicks, because Tarantino loves those kinds of movies and they’re probably fun to make.
But I can’t believe there’s nothing redeeming about Tarantino’s movies except sheer entertainment. If it was just entertaining, then why wouldn’t we be watching Michael Bay? Because, like Fredo says, Tarantino knows what he’s doing. Bay does, too, obviously, otherwise he wouldn’t consistently make such shitty films that get such great box office turnouts. QT makes for a good discussion on the differences between high brow and low brow, in my opinion.
Also, for any Pynchon fans out there: Landa reminded me of Dr. Hilarius from “The Crying of Lot 49” and Lt. Weissmann from the chapter Mondaugen’s Story in “V.”
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
Ryan said that this movie is about historical biases and such. Has it occurred to you that the Basterds will be the ones given full credit for the assassination at the cinema, while Shosanna gets no credit for her part because herself and her partner died and there were no other survivors? When you think about comments that Tarantino made beforehand about how WWII movies make Jews into victims, I think this is telling, because Shosanna, the French-Jew who stood up to her oppressors, will be forgotten. The other Jews who will be remembered? The Basterds, which I don’t think is that far from history, because there were surely Jewish-Americans who fought in WWII, just not in the same capacity as the Basterds.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
Justin, how do you know Tarantino “doesn’t really give a shit about any of [that]”? Earlier today I was watching on Charlie Rose’s website an old interview with him from just after “Pulp Fiction” where he mentions that in school (even though he never graduated) one of his favorite subjects was history, essentially because it consisted of the telling of a story. Now, despite the fact that he never did finish high school and as evidenced by his accomplishments, he is no stupid person. From what I’ve seen, quite the opposite, actually. I’m going to have to watch the movie again (which I intend to do soon) in order to know how likely it is that he is or isn’t making some kind of comment about history and such in this film, but if those who argue that Tarantino is making some kind of statement should have a truly compelling argument backed up by facts, shouldn’t your argument that Tarantino doesn’t give a shit about that kind of thing be equally as compelling in order for others to take it seriously?
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
Cinema has never dealt in facts. I think Dave-O is reading up the wrong art.
“Photography is truth. The cinema is truth twenty-four times per second.” — Jean-Luc Godard
“There are deeper strata of truth in cinema, and there is such a thing as poetic, ecstatic truth. It is mysterious and elusive, and can be reached only through fabrication and imagination and stylization.” — Werner Herzog
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
Wait, so Justin, your argument against Tarantino’s films not having depth is that he loves films, directs his actors by referring to other films, oh, and that one of his favorite films of the last fifteen years is “Speed”? Also on that list was “Dogville,” so what’s your point? He likes stories, he likes action, he likes to put them together. I’ll agree with you that he loves movies and loves to take people on a ride, but I don’t believe that is the full extent of what he does with his movies.
Also, I’m not calling him Tarkovsky or anything when I say his movies have depth to them.
Go to Comment
Favorite Books almost 3 years ago
“As I Lay Dying” — William Faulkner
“The Brothers Karamazov” — Fyodor Dostoevsky
“The Road” — Cormac McCarthy
“Johnny Got His Gun” — Dalton Trombo
“God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater” — Kurt Vonnegut (I read “Slaughter-House Five” too long ago for me to pass judgment on it now)
“Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said” — Philip K. Dick
“A Scanner Darkly” — Philip K. Dick
“For Whom the Bell Tolls” — Ernest Hemingway
Those are just a few. I’ve read some recently that, though I thoroughly enjoyed them, I’m having difficulty deciding what I really think about them. “Blood Meridian” (by Cormac McCarthy) is going to demand another read, as will “Absalom, Absalom!” (by William Faulkner) and “V.” (by Thomas Pynchon). And as Pynchon has already been brought up, I think I’ll chime in on whether it is to be enjoyed or to be understood: it’s both. It’s hard sometimes (especially with “V.”, which I thought was a bit clunky), but once you get going, it is just fun. Makes you think a bit, too.
Sometimes I feel like a cliché because I read DeLillo, Pynchon, and McCarthy. I’m thinking about going more genre soon and trying some Elmore Leonard so I won’t be such a pompous ass.
Go to Comment
Favorite Books almost 3 years ago
On DeLillo, I’ve only read “White Noise” and “Underworld,” the former of which I did not enjoy. I thought “White Noise” tried too hard and for all that trying, didn’t go far enough.
Go to Comment
Favorite Books almost 3 years ago
I really enjoyed “Underworld.” As a Big Book, it did a good job of balancing out it’s bigness with a little bit of smallness here and there, which I’m sure was done intentionally to contrast between Nick and Matty’s experiences working with a large garbage removal company and the government, respectively. The sections with Lenny Bruce (which I think serves as an example of the smallness that contrasted with the novel’s obvious bigness) were some of my favorites, as were J. Edgar Hoover’s. It’s arching theme of secrets was one I found compelling in the way it was dealt with and gave me something to think about for quite a while. The writing, as well, was quite superb — some people have complained about the repetitiveness of his style, but I found that it worked quite well, especially in the way that it complemented, say, the repetitiveness of the newscasters showing the tape of the murder.
Go to Comment
Favorite Books almost 3 years ago
Was “Inherent Vice” good? I’m working my way through “Gravity’s Rainbow” right now and the Wikipedia page on “Vice” is still pretty shabby. It’s a shame that there isn’t a metacritic/rottentomatoes type website (that I know of, anyway) that deals with books.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
Denby says of IB, “In a Tarantino war, everyone commits atrocities.” I wonder what he thought of “Apocalypse Now”? I also wonder if criticizing Tarantino for making a war film where “everyone commits atrocities” might be whitewashing war just a bit.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
Just saw it again. The first time was fun, but I think the second time I was able to be a bit more objective about it. (You’ll have to excuse me if I get a bit carried away when I see a movie in a theater — it’s not something I get to do often, so it really is quite a treat.) So, yeah, I’m not as impressed this time around as I was the first. The violence I could care less about. Whether it is there or not doesn’t really matter much to me. Of course, it would be a bit strange, actually, if Tarantino didn’t have the violence in the movie, so that’s that. What really disappoints me most is that he hints at these themes of identity and history, but never does them justice. For example, when Landa offers Raine and Utivich the ability to end the war, we don’t really see why they would want to end the war so badly except that it was probably the only way to get out alive. The Basterds were doing such a good job at fighting the war (and enjoying it!) that you have to wonder if they even would have wanted to end the war if they hadn’t been captured.
QT’s defenders don’t like it when people ask that Tarantino grow up already. Well, I have to ask that Tarantino grow up already. I don’t mind the violence. In my opinion, the violence works quite well in “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs.” But in “Inglourious Basterds” it ends up going nowhere.
Go to Comment
films that made you love film almost 3 years ago
“Apocalypse Now.” It got to my soul.
Go to Comment
This May Well Be My Masterpiece: Quentin Tarantino's Conversation Pieces almost 3 years ago
Meh. The conversations in Inglourious Basterds leave a lot to be desired in my opinion and part of the reason for that is that neither Landa nor Waltz (as two sides of the same coin) have nobody to play off of, no one to be their equal. The only person who comes close is Raine/Pitt, who only does so by brute force, not by wit.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
I doubt a group of guerrilla soldiers would take prisoners. Would they kill their enemies with baseball bats, scalp them, and carve swastikas into their foreheads? No, but they wouldn’t be taking prisoners, either.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
Carson, I didn’t find Shosanna to be particularly sadistic. She had the opportunity to take out the German high command and she took it. Her means were limited, but so what? The Basterds were decidedly more sadistic.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
I don’t think that the violence in IB will bleed into real life. People already know if they find the violence of IB to be acceptable in real life (whether or not they find it to be acceptable in the movie). Quentin Tarantino is more a product of the world we live in than we are a product of Quentin Tarantino.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
In comparison to the Basterds, no. I have to admit, though, I did forget about that scene. But as I think about it some more, no, I don’t really find her to be that sadistic. Was blood ever drawn in that scene? I don’t think so, but if there was, I’ll admit to having a very poor memory. How does that scene really compare to Raine sticking his finger in von Hammersmark’s bullet wound or carving swastikas in the foreheads of German soldiers?
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
You’re really reaching when you use the fact that she shot Zoller in the back to back up your argument that she is sadistic. What was she supposed to do? Hold his hand while he’s in a position to ruin her plot? I think not. And as far as the film she made — better they know it wasn’t just a freak accident that got ’em, eh?
Go to Comment
PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON - Oeuvre almost 3 years ago
My personal opinion, the characters of “Magnolia” are more relatable than those of “Boogie Nights.” The themes of loneliness, self-worth, and seeking redemption are well done and all, but the characters in “Magnolia” are more like your average person, whereas “Boogie Nights” is about, well, porn stars and they all seem to be of below average intelligence. Or maybe not even below average intelligence, but they’re people who put out below average effort, while in “Magnolia,” everyone seems to be trying as hard as they can, even when their misplaced desires cause them to try as hard as they can at the wrong things.
Go to Comment
PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON - Oeuvre almost 3 years ago
I enjoyed “Boogie Nights,” I just like “Magnolia” more and I might like “Punch Drunk Love” more than that and “There Will Be Blood” even more.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
I’d like to point out that I would LOVE a Native American revenge fantasy.
Go to Comment
Philosophy and films almost 3 years ago
Nietzsche’s philosophy is beneath contempt. He worshiped violence and was essentially a social darwinist.
Go to Comment
Philosophy and films almost 3 years ago
Heidegger was highly influenced by Nietzsche.
Go to Comment
PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON - Oeuvre almost 3 years ago
Who said it was “only a movie about the porno industry”? It’s obviously about people in the porno industry, which isn’t the same as being a movie about the porno industry.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
I should make my own Native American revenge fantasy. One, in particular, where the Native Americans storm the Capitol and butcher Andrew Jackson and Congress with the help of former African-American slaves. It would be a riot. Or if anyone wants to steal that idea, go ahead since there’s no way I’m making it.
I mean, seriously, “Poltergeist”? “The Shining”? Those are Native American revenge fantasies for the weak of heart (though, “The Shining” is a great movie — haven’t seen “Poltergeist,” but the idea of a haunting being the best anyone can do for a Native American revenge fantasy is pretty pathetic.)
Go to Comment
Marvel Acquired by Disney almost 3 years ago
Of course not. It simply means that Disney makes more money (even if they’re just ripping off comic book nerds).
Go to Comment
Censorship almost 3 years ago
I’m bumping this thread because I unwittingly rented the R-rated version of “Y tu mamá también” and now I’m pissed. If I had realized beforehand that I was looking at a censored work, I wouldn’t have rented it in the first place. Good thing I saw the title card at the beginning saying that the film had been edited for language and “content.”
Go to Comment
The beginning bit of the trailer. almost 3 years ago
If I see “The Road” I fear I’ll hear the words “Mr. F” every time I see Charlize Theron.
Go to Comment