TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Films
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-04-2008, 12:07 AM   #1
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,568
The Best Thing About the Bourne Films . . .

. . . .is Moby's Extreme Ways.

Well I don't really mean that . . . after all there's Joan Allen, Julia Stiles actually acts by the third film (plus she has a great pout and neat streaky hair) . . . and the world is the stage for the Bourne films. But apart from these facets what else is there to commend the Bourne franchise?

And why pose this question now?

Well, it seems -- after reading the recent Vanity Fair article -- that Indy IV was benchmarked against the Bourne films by Lucas and Spielberg.

Quote:
The Bourne movies, the last two of which were directed by United 93 virtuoso Paul Greengrass, have made an impression on Lucas also. The series seems to have become the new action-movie gold standard, or at least a widely admired point of reference in filmmaking circles. Lucas says he appreciates the Bourne movies for their relative believability [and Spielberg for the film's quick-cutting].

For years, an on-again/off-again topic on this board has been how an Indy IV film will stack-up against today's faster-paced offerings -- whether it be the Bourne films or a disposable film like The Transporter . It's interesting that the slower pace of the Indy films is on Spielberg's mind -- and I'll be fascinated to see how Indy IV stacks up. Despite what is said in the article, quick-cuts or no -- there's no way the action sequencs in Indy IV unfold in the same leisurely pace as in Last Crusade.

And as for the Moby? I'm more of an Eminem kinda guy. . .
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 04:17 AM   #2
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,919
That's a nice notion. Odd though that you failed to mention that there's a direct person connection between the Bourne franchise and Indiana Jones - producer Frank Marshall.

Of course, I dunno if it's of any relevance to your intended topic, but thought I'd mention.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 08:08 AM   #3
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,402
Yeah, I should chime in too, because this is a worthy topic. Only problem is, I haven't seen the Bourne films (contemporary cinema, ironically, is a bit of a gap in my knowledge). I've never given very much thought to the pacing of the films, although I did when I watched all three for the first time in awhile just a few days ago, I was struck by how Temple of Doom really is the roller coaster ride it is often purported to be, not having interludes of the same length that Raiders and Last Crusade do once it really gets going. Even that, however, is a statement limited by its relation to the other two films. Make no mistake, I feel like these movies do cram a lot into two hours or less, but this isn't the genre I know the best; indeed, that's the Western, which is known for its languor, so maybe it's never really hit me. I certainly have had the experience of thinking that some action films I've seen can go a bit too fast, and whether this tendency does creep in, particularly with this well-regarded source, is worth watching for.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 09:49 AM   #4
deckard24
IndyFan
 
deckard24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,589
Good thread Joe! It will be interesting to see how KotCS stacks up against todays film standards. We do seem to live in a more fast paced ADD world than in the 80's. More than ever films are churned out with pacing akin to an episode of Law and Order...the whole let's wrap this thing up in an hour mentality. Also, when modern day shows or films take on slower moments, you know it's just a matter of time before they dial up the explosions and FX to keep people interested. As for the Indy films, with the exception of LC they all had imo a very fast pace. Attila, you go it right, ToD is literally a roller coaster ride. For that matter RotLA is as well.
deckard24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 10:47 AM   #5
jonesissparrow
IndyFan
 
jonesissparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 274
Yeah but me personally I think films and TV shows should have a balance because if you just action material and you did all that fast editing stuff all time it will get very old quick. So I think you need the old fashion and the quick editing at the same time, I hope KOTCS will stay true to the original Indy style.
jonesissparrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 11:25 AM   #6
Katarn07
IndyFan
 
Katarn07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,234
The action is awesome. Bourne's resourcefulness in a fight is awesome. The "relative believability" Lucas mentions is awesome. The globe-trotting is awesome. The cast is awesome (I love the tagline "Matt Damon is Jason Bourne" because in my eyes, he is and can never be recast). Most importantly, the story is awesome. Without the mystery of him finding out who he is and the suspense of him getting away from the guys who know more than him that are out to kill him, it'd probably be just a step above Die Hard, Transporter, or a Seagal movie....

Indy isn't outdated, by the way. As noted, Temple of Doom is crammed with nearly non-stop action that by today's standards really isn't out of place. And the truck chase in RotLA is still one of the most thrilling action sequences of all time for me. I get an adrenaline rush at that scene every time I see it.
Katarn07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 12:04 PM   #7
roundshort
IndyFan
 
roundshort's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Napa CA
Posts: 4,052
Joe,

My first thought was the Kennedy?Marshall connection that Finn brought up. I remember how excited they were before the second one.

I think you have to look at the last 007, a total revamping of the series, that well seemed like it is chasing Bourne. Which, after the last 007 was a welcome thing!

But, unlike Indy who can/could have endless story lines, will Bourne become boring? We have seem Bourne do the same thing the last 3 movies and I hope that the strike settles and they can write a new twist for him.

Will Indys age be a factor, Damon and Craig were able to sell the type of abuse their characters take, which other than Die Hard 1, Indy is one of the only other character to sell that type of abuse, but Indy in his 60's?

I would rather see a slow action/adventure that requires some good "dective work" with some nice ulta-violent" thrown in.
roundshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 01:55 PM   #8
oki9Sedo
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,181
I understand that Paul Greengrass uses shaky cameras and fast cutting to give the audience a huge adrenaline rush, and its very exciting, but I do like to be able to actually see the moves and understand the geography and thats why I prefer Spielberg's and Cameron's direction styles.
oki9Sedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 04:34 PM   #9
No Ticket
IndyFan
 
No Ticket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South America, 1936
Posts: 2,447
I like the Bourne movies, really I do. But I never admired the shaky camera bullcrap as some sort of way to invoke an adrenaline rush on the audience. In my opinion, that sort of thing is distracting. The last time I watched the Bourne movies here's what went through my head the whole time.

1.) Ok, so the camera is gonna be hand held and shaky..
2.) Here comes a camera zoom... zoom out....
3.) Quick cuts...
4.) Zoom in..... zooom out....
5.) Resume shaky hand held camera bit

... yeah. It distracted me from the movie and actually confused me during fight scenes. NO NO NO. I like the fight scenes and all, but I did not think the camera work was all that great.

And personally, I would've preferred the more steady camera work along the lines of Spielberg. I like being able to tell what's going on in a fight scene, personally.
No Ticket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 04:41 PM   #10
oki9Sedo
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Ticket
I like the Bourne movies, really I do. But I never admired the shaky camera bullcrap as some sort of way to invoke an adrenaline rush on the audience. In my opinion, that sort of thing is distracting. The last time I watched the Bourne movies here's what went through my head the whole time.

1.) Ok, so the camera is gonna be hand held and shaky..
2.) Here comes a camera zoom... zoom out....
3.) Quick cuts...
4.) Zoom in..... zooom out....
5.) Resume shaky hand held camera bit

... yeah. It distracted me from the movie and actually confused me during fight scenes. NO NO NO. I like the fight scenes and all, but I did not think the camera work was all that great.

And personally, I would've preferred the more steady camera work along the lines of Spielberg. I like being able to tell what's going on in a fight scene, personally.

The shaky handheld camerawork, washed-out cinematography and fast cutting are all deliberate decisions by the film-makers, not sloppiness. They were trying to make it less filmic and more real and gritty.

That said, I much prefer a fight scene where I can actually see what's going on clearly (eg. Indiana Jones, Bond etc), but it was definitely a good move for those films.
oki9Sedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2008, 08:50 PM   #11
No Ticket
IndyFan
 
No Ticket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South America, 1936
Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by oki9Sedo
The shaky handheld camerawork, washed-out cinematography and fast cutting are all deliberate decisions by the film-makers, not sloppiness. They were trying to make it less filmic and more real and gritty.

That said, I much prefer a fight scene where I can actually see what's going on clearly (eg. Indiana Jones, Bond etc), but it was definitely a good move for those films.

I never said they weren't deliberate. I said they suck. I understand that "real and gritty" thing they're going for, but I don't really like it when they CONSTANTLY do it throughout the whole movie. ... but I still liked those films.
No Ticket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 01:13 AM   #12
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,568
I agree that the overall pacing of the story in Indy IV will match past Indy flics -- but I bet there will be a difference in the staging of the action sequences.

Coincidentally, I can use two recent Frank Marshall products to discuss the point (frankly, I forgot Marshall's involvement in the Bourne franchise).
  • While not a PG-13 action/adventure/suspense thriller, Eight Below was a very traditional survival/rescue film with a very structured, linear narrative where the story flowed cleanly into each action sequence. There are no surprises -- and the film is Indy-esque in its pacing. The audience only has to worry about the scene that is unfolding before them, one locale at a time. For example, the starving-but-still-cute dogs cross the wastes and come upon a killer seal. There's a quick CGI fight for survival on a bad set -- and the scene is over with the dogs resuming their journey.
  • In the Bourne films, audiences are served up a scant story in between very long -- but engrossing -- action sequences. Notably, the start of an action sequence is a choppy affair: we're lucky if we get a few quick establishing shots, and then a few even quicker-cut shots of the blank Bourne moving in and out of the shadows -- and then BANG! the action starts. However, during a Bourne action sequence there is always some secondary action taking place typically in some other locale -- for example, either the evil manipulator or Joan Allen (who, while pensively clutching herself, is doubtlessly thinking 'am I really this skinny?') cursing big screens going to static as Bourne dispatches another nameless 'asset'.

The advantage of these different locales is that they allow the Bourne films to sustain more plot lines during the course of the action sequence -- and this differs from the standard old time action film where there are no real moments of discovery or plot points during the course of an Eight Below/Indy-type action scene. The dogs fight the seal and move on. Indy gets the Ark back from the Nazis and moves on. There's not much to it. Other than Raider's Long Night sequence (Indy getting the Ark as Marion tries to drink herself free of Belloq) there is no other prolonged scene in the Indy franchise where the action unfolds in more than one locale (and don't give me any BS about (i) Henry in the tank, (ii) Brody at the train station, or (iii) Shortround punching that turban kid).

With Indy's IV largish cast, my prediction is that we see action unfolding simultaneously in more than one locale. I agree with Spielberg that we need geography -- I just wonder if there will be more than one geography in play at a critical time in Indy IV -- and it will be interesting to see how quick the cuts are between the action.
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2008, 05:31 PM   #13
Michael24
IndyFan
 
Michael24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Brody
With Indy's IV largish cast, my prediction is that we see action unfolding simultaneously in more than one locale. I agree with Spielberg that we need geography -- I just wonder if there will be more than one geography in play at a critical time in Indy IV -- and it will be interesting to see how quick the cuts are between the action.

You mean kind of like, say, the Battle of Endor in Return of the Jedi where there's three major encounters going on at different locations at the same time? You've got Han and the strike team on the Moon of Endor, Lando and the Rebel fleet battling Imperials in space, and Luke dealing with the Emperor on the Death Star. There's so much going on for the last thirty minutes of that movie, but I like that we get to spend some time with each location before it cuts to the next one. It's all very exciting and action-packed, but well-paced.

As for the Bourne movies, I didn't even know Frank Marshall was involved with the series. I only saw the first one and didn't care much for it. It looked nice and all, and some of the action was cool, but I'm not a fan of Matt Damon and just didn't buy him in the role.
Michael24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2008, 09:10 AM   #14
Bjorn Heimdall
IndyFan
 
Bjorn Heimdall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland
Posts: 283
Bourne has been called the best film of last year but I think it's rather overrated. Even the story has some gaps, with pretty much everyone being astoundingly stupid except for Bourne himself. And the Shakycam just goes on my nerves although I guess it's probably more tolerable to watch at home then on the big screen. I saw some making of material and you can actually see the cameramen shaking the camera deliberately, which is just... wrong. With all those incredibly choreographed sequences, why not actually show them instead of making them look like anyone could do them?
Bjorn Heimdall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2008, 10:19 PM   #15
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjorn Heimdall
Bourne has been called the best film of last year but I think it's rather overrated.

I agree with you 100% -- that's where I really wanted to take this thread and dismantle the Bourne franchise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjorn Heimdall
Even the story has some gaps, with pretty much everyone being astoundingly stupid except for Bourne himself.

Bourne Ultimatum's script is so seriously flawed that I believe that the audience is not meant to follow the story at all. Two examples: (i) at the beginning of the film, Jason Bourne making contact with the reporter at the exact moment the CIA locks in on the reporter is an unforgivable coincidence, and (ii) Bourne putting the Julia Stiles character on the bus is the most brazen writing off of a leading lady since we watched the staff car bearing Elsa Schneider drive out of the frame at the beginning of the tank chase in Last Crusade.

I love how critics talk about Bourne's blankness as if it were a strength. But bottom line, there's no depth to the character. In Ultimatum, Bourne and the Stiles's character have a scene in a diner. Julia Stiles earns her pay as she intimates that the two have a past -- but Damon as-per-usual delivers nothing. The scene has these stupid close-ups of Stiles's fingers on the table -- trying to convey something -- but how does it end? A punt. Two beat cops walk in and Bourne says "we've got to get moving". Talk about wasting my time.

Bottom line, all of the emotional resonance in the Bourne films comes from the Moby track (which is why I mentioned it in my first post). In Raiders it doesn't come from the score -- it comes from the actors. Say what you will about Ford, but he does deliver -- and at least in Raiders there was an effort to convey something human about the characters (you're talking to the guy who thinks that the Sallah terrace scence is one of the greatest scenes in an action/adventure film ever).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael24
You mean kind of like, say, the Battle of Endor in Return of the Jedi where there's three major encounters going on at different locations at the same time? You've got Han and the strike team on the Moon of Endor, Lando and the Rebel fleet battling Imperials in space, and Luke dealing with the Emperor on the Death Star. There's so much going on for the last thirty minutes of that movie, but I like that we get to spend some time with each location before it cuts to the next one. It's all very exciting and action-packed, but well-paced.

[In my best dripping-with-contempt Toht voice] You Indyfans are all the same. Always revealing yourselves as closet Star Wars fans at every opportunity. At least you didn't mention the big fight at the end of Episode III.
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2008, 02:45 AM   #16
Michael24
IndyFan
 
Michael24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,469
Haha!! I've tried to block Episode III (and most of the Prequels) from my memory, so I don't even remember the big battle at the end of it.

And I'm not a "closet" Star Wars. I love the originals. Just not the Prequels.
Michael24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2008, 10:04 AM   #17
Bjorn Heimdall
IndyFan
 
Bjorn Heimdall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Brody

Bourne Ultimatum's script is so seriously flawed that I believe that the audience is not meant to follow the story at all. Two examples: (i) at the beginning of the film, Jason Bourne making contact with the reporter at the exact moment the CIA locks in on the reporter is an unforgivable coincidence, and (ii) Bourne putting the Julia Stiles character on the bus is the most brazen writing off of a leading lady since we watched the staff car bearing Elsa Schneider drive out of the frame at the beginning of the tank chase in Last Crusade.

I love how critics talk about Bourne's blankness as if it were a strength. But bottom line, there's no depth to the character. In Ultimatum, Bourne and the Stiles's character have a scene in a diner. Julia Stiles earns her pay as she intimates that the two have a past -- but Damon as-per-usual delivers nothing. The scene has these stupid close-ups of Stiles's fingers on the table -- trying to convey something -- but how does it end? A punt. Two beat cops walk in and Bourne says "we've got to get moving". Talk about wasting my time.

I agree with your points there. What I have never really understood about the Bourne Films, (especially Ultimatum) is that they get away with lazy writing and clichés that would get hammered in pretty much all other films! It's like some people get hypnotized by the shakycam and can't see past it.
Bjorn Heimdall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2008, 09:15 PM   #18
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjorn Heimdall
I agree with your points there. What I have never really understood about the Bourne Films, (especially Ultimatum) is that they get away with lazy writing and clichés that would get hammered in pretty much all other films! It's like some people get hypnotized by the shakycam and can't see past it.


It's the music. . . .

Actually, it's the total packaging: (1) the music, (2) a lead that brings in the female audience, and (3) instense, fast-paced/well-edited action sequences -- all against the back drop of (4) gritty-shot-on-location realism that gives the product a premium quality.
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2008, 10:22 PM   #19
ReggieSnake
IndyFan
 
ReggieSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by oki9Sedo
I understand that Paul Greengrass uses shaky cameras and fast cutting to give the audience a huge adrenaline rush, and its very exciting, but I do like to be able to actually see the moves and understand the geography and thats why I prefer Spielberg's and Cameron's direction styles.
I agree. I think the shakycam was appropriate for Bourne, though I don't personally prefer it as a style and I hope it was not used for Crystal Skull

I also agree with Joe Brody that it is the music and the action that drives the adrenaline, not so much the shakycam. This is one reason (music+cut-action+shakycam) why I enjoy Indy more than Bourne is that Indy, with it's still camera and beautifully ochestrated score, allows the viewer to surrender a little more of his concienceness into believing the story than Bourne, which is just to uncomfortable a reality to enjoy, at least to me. Bourne is exciting and I liked it for that, but as an experience it just wasn't as much fun to watch as Indy.
ReggieSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 03:14 AM   #20
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,617
I hadn't watched any Bourne films before, but I can now speak for the first two.

The best thing about the Bourne films?

So far it's the character who's calmly figuring out exit strategies everywhere he goes and with every problem he encounters. As the director of the first one explained, Bourne would do it without the aid of James Bond's gadgets, making him a more self-contained and self-reliant force to be reckoned with. He also does it without any corny witticisms.

Identity was more grounded than a Bond film in terms of action apart from the odd instance, such as using the body to break his fall down the stairwell near the end of the film.

Supremacy was marred by faster cutting and too many jump cuts. Ultimatum, I read, will be similar.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 07:03 AM   #21
Henry Jones VII
IndyFan
 
Henry Jones VII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Portugal
Posts: 231
I'm a big fan of these movies (own them on blu-ray). Love the character with all it's flaws and capacities.

Maybe in few aspects it's actually an action movie character we the audience can relate to better than most action "heroes".
Henry Jones VII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2013, 03:11 PM   #22
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Brody
. . . .is Moby's Extreme Ways.

And as for the Moby? I'm more of an Eminem kinda guy. . .

Ditto.

Now, I just pulled a netflix and watched the last three in succession. 3 By far held the pace the best, in my opinion. Legacy suffered from editing and pacing issues, but only in compression to the rest of the series, not certainly in relation to the films of current cinema. Based on the discussion in THIS thread I still see an effort to develop character, which (though more understandably developed better in the books) is a real treat over the course of four films.


Quote:
Well I don't really mean that . . . after all there's Joan Allen, Julia Stiles actually acts by the third film (plus she has a great pout and neat streaky hair) . . .

I love Joan Allen. That aside, I agree with your perspective on how the films develop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oki9Sedo
I understand that Paul Greengrass uses shaky cameras and fast cutting to give the audience a huge adrenaline rush, and it’s very exciting, but I do like to be able to actually see the moves and understand the geography and that’s why I prefer Spielberg's and Cameron's direction styles.

Greengrass is now on my radar. But damnit...stabilize that camera a little please.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 10:55 PM   #23
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,568
Just finally got around to watching 2016's "Jason Bourne."

Watchable but glad I waited until it hit HBO NOW.

Sad to see the Julia Stiles character superseded by an actress 10 years younger (but I get where the franchise is going) and Marshal gets a pass for Joan Allen's previous work.

The Athen's scene is interesting -- but overlong to the point that's it is laughable to think that the Greeks could muster that much molotov cocktail fueled rage.

Speaking of Athens, I've praised the globe hopping aspect of this franchise, but this time it all felt, very, very flat and irrelevant. Maybe it was just having the climax in Vegas. I'm surprised the film did $415M in the US.
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 10:35 AM   #24
JasonMa
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Brody
Speaking of Athens, I've praised the globe hopping aspect of this franchise, but this time it all felt, very, very flat and irrelevant. Maybe it was just having the climax in Vegas. I'm surprised the film did $415M in the US.
I know the Athens scenes were filmed in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, I don't know if that contributed to the flatness.
JasonMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 01:59 PM   #25
Moedred
Administrator
 
Moedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
damnit...stabilize that camera a little please.
Probably there's a fan-stabilized version somewhere. The Bourne Stability.

I'm skeptical of the CIA's hacking skillz depicted here, after the real FBI paid $1.3M to unlock the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone. Bourne's ongoing internal affairs investigation leads to a Blues Brothers sized demolition derby in Vegas. If only they could get over themselves and back to work. Maybe team up and rescue Jeremy Renner from somewhere before the actors turn 50.
Moedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 PM.