It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:02 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 4:20 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6483
Location: Indianapolis IN
Here is the first review of Star Trek I have seen. This is certainly one I want to see should be exciting.




May 02, 2009
Star Trek

A movie review by James Berardinelli



Spoiler Warning! This review contains spoiler elements, especially for those unfamiliar with the general premise.

In a culture where seemingly everything is remade or re-booted, even Star Trek, the venerable science fiction TV show and movie series, could not avoid this trend. Despite having existed for 28 years (1966-1994) with a single group of actors in the major roles, there comes a time when concessions must be made to age. This is one of the motivating factors behind Star Trek's rejuvenation. Another no less practical reason is economic. Paramount Pictures, which has for decades viewed the Star Trek property as a "cash cow," wants this to continue. For that to happen, a new generation of Trek fans must be born and the series must reach out to a wider audience. 2009's Star Trek has been designed with the lofty goal of keeping current fans, repatriating lapsed ones and, by re-branding the name, opening the Trek universe to millions of new viewers. J.J. Abrams' attempt has mostly succeeded.

By employing the services of Leonard Nimoy in the role that made him famous, Abrams has cemented the connection between "new Trek" and "classic Trek." Nimoy's presence allows the movie to be seen as sequel as well as prequel, although the time travel aspects of the story are weakly developed and poorly explained. (The original series, it's worth mentioning, rarely did time travel well.) If Nimoy's performance as Old Spock (or, as the credits refer to him, "Spock Prime") is a Valentine to longtime fans, there are also numerous Easter Eggs - from obscure references to whole passages of dialogue (even a Tribble). These are incorporated in ways that will not be distracting to viewers who are unaware of their place in Star Trek's mythos. When Old Spock says, "I have been and always shall be your friend," it's a natural statement within the context of the moment. The words, however, will mean so much more to those who have lived - and died - with Kirk and Spock through the years.

Like nearly all "origin" stories, this one displays some narrative cracks as it goes through the obligatory process of gathering the characters, providing them with perfunctory backstories, and generating a story that allows for plenty of space battles and hand-to-hand combat. One weakness with Star Trek, as with all movies charged with reworking established universes, is that only at the end do the characters seem primed to move in new and interesting directions. Abrams and his screenwriters, longtime Trek fans Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (the duo responsible for the abysmally dumb Transformers), do their best to keep things engaging despite the tremendous constraints of the "origin" format, but there are times when the material feels rushed. When considering pace, this is most definitely that anti-Star Trek: The Motion Picture. No loving, languid shots here.

Star Trek opens with a rousing space battle between the U.S.S. Kelvin, temporarily commanded by George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth), and the Romulan vessel Narada, newly arrived from 120 years in the future. Nero (Eric Bana), the Narada's commander, has come to the past with specific objectives, one of which is genocide. After his devastating attack on the Kelvin, Nero remains in hiding for 25 years, awaiting the inevitable arrival of his hated enemy from the future. Then, and only then, will he act.

Meanwhile, in Iowa, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) grows up to be a brilliant but undisciplined young man. He is recruited into Starfleet by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), who sees vast quantities of untapped potential in the young man. When Pike's crew is called to emergency duty aboard the newly completed flagship of the fleet, the U.S.S. Enterprise, Kirk is on board, as are First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto), Doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban), Communications Officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and Navigators Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin). The Enterprise's chief engineer, Scotty (Simon Pegg), will join later. It's the job of the Enterprise to stop the Narada, despite being massively overmatched and outgunned. Fortunately, they have an unexpected ally.

Star Trek is clearly an action-oriented motion picture, with an intensity that exceeds even that of The Wrath of Khan. The pace is blistering, and the movie is littered with the eye candy of expertly realized space battles. The special effects are beyond those seen in any of the previous ten Star Trek features; in terms of technical aptitude, they are in line with what George Lucas delivered in the Star Wars prequels. In addition to the battles, there are also chases, fight scenes, and all the other staples one expects from an action movie. Those hoping for some kind of "message" or "idea" will be disappointed. Star Trek spends some time on relationship development - especially the crucial one between Kirk and Spock - but there is little in the way of depth. Breadth, yes. Depth, no.

So how do the actors fare stepping into such well-worn shoes? Perhaps the most pleasant surprise is Chris Pine, who suggests William Shatner without mimicking him. Pine captures Kirk's cockiness and charisma, mixing in enough humor and humanity to prevent the character from becoming a prima donna. Zachary Quinto is marginally less successful as Spock, perhaps because the original portrayer of the part is in the movie. Zoe Saldana boosts Uhura's sexy quotient (and provides a most unexpected romantic element), John Cho reminds us of Sulu's physicality, and Karl Urban is spot-on as McCoy (even some of DeForest Kelley's vocal inflections are represented). There are problems with both Anton Yelchin's Chekov and Simon Pegg's Scotty - primarily because both characters are marginalized for comic relief. It's unclear whether the problem is more with the acting or the writing. For his part, Nimoy provides a Spock who has not been this relaxed and comfortable in his skin since before his "death." It's amazing that after a gap of 18 years, Nimoy is able to return to the character without missing a beat. Eric Bana's Nero is a flaccid and underutilized villain; he is neither a Khan nor a Kruge nor a Chang, although he's certainly a step up from V'Ger or the God Who Needs a Starship.

One thing missing from Star Trek is the Enterprise as a character. Although it looks like a sleeker version of the iconic starship, here it's little more than a prop. Throughout the original series and into the movies, the Enterprise was always more than just a location. It was as much a part of the Star Trek family as Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the others. Some fans shed tears when it was destroyed in Star Trek III, and nearly everyone felt the loss. In this film, it's a piece of hardware, an excellently rendered special effect. But it generates no warmth or feeling. It's generic and sterile. It is not home.

Music has always been an important element in the Star Trek movies, from Jerry Goldsmith's epic score to Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Cliff Eidelman's gloomy, Holst-inspired work for Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Michael Giacchino's contribution is in the Goldsmith/James Horner vein. Giacchino holds back on incorporating Alexander Courage's original series theme until the end of the movie, much as was the case with Monty Norman's "James Bond Theme" in The Quantum of Solace. It works as a way to end the film on a triumphant note, but one hopes Giacchino, if he returns as the composer for the next Star Trek movie, will do as most of his predecessors have done and rely a little more on at least the "Star Trek Fanfare."

Ultimately, when the end credits roll, we're left with the sense that Star Trek represents a good beginning. As a film tasked with getting all the characters together, re-booting a timeline, and finding a way to return a veteran actor to his beloved role, Star Trek works. There is some awkwardness here - it feels like the "hybrid" it is (or, as it has been called, "Not Your Father's Star Trek") but, considering how ponderous and stilted the Star Trek movie series had become, perhaps that's not a bad thing. Still, as with any prequel/re-start, the real test will arrive with the next movie (purportedly in two years - assuming this one does not flop at the box office). The setup is complete; now it's time to see whether the implied potential of this first entry into a new series can be realized in its sequel. Let's hope the human adventure is once again only beginning...

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 12:41 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6483
Location: Indianapolis IN
Sorry guys still haven't seen the movie but plan on it tomorrow or the next day.The box office ticket sales are doing very well for the movie so I think it should be very good to see.

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 11:01 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25564
Location: North Carolina
I saw it last weekend. I enjoyed it. I thought the story was a pretty good, and the acting was pretty good. This movie may not be for everybody, like the hardcore Trek fans, but I think it's really about as good as it gets for what it's supposed to be.

And that's basically a restart to the franchise. We'll see what comes of it (more movies, possible TV show, etc.) in the future, but if this is the pilot, I think this is a very good one.

I think the good thing about this movie is that you don't have to be a Trekkie to enjoy it. I think if you're a hardcore Trekkie, you probably won't really enjoy it. And if you are completely new to Star Trek, you may like it, but not love it. IMO, this movie is probably perfect for the people like me that like Star Trek, but don't love it.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 1:13 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6483
Location: Indianapolis IN
Thanks for letting me know Pudge. Looks like tomorrow might be a good time for me to see it. I am a trekie but can accept the new movie.I loved the old Star Trek any other Star Trek series I didn't like though.

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:54 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6483
Location: Indianapolis IN
I saw Star Trek tonight it was interesting movie. I would give it a A- some of the things in the movie surprised me. I don't want to give to much away but the relationship with Ohura and Spock I found well fascinating. Some of the things Kirk does didn't seem like it fit the movie either. The two Spocks was shocking and at the end of the movie Live Long and Prosper was a funny moment or rather not saying it.

Yahoo reviewers give it an A the top movie of the year so far. I wouldn't give it an A but an A-. I thought Bones Mccoy and scottie the way they met Kirk kind of odd especially Scotty. Chekov the right character didn't play him maybe it was the curly hair? Spock's mother I didn't understand if this was early Spock and she dies why was she in the reg Star trek series on some episodes? The phaser guns seemed more modern than the ones in the old series.

I wonder what Gene Rodenberry would have thought of this movie?

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:24 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25564
Location: North Carolina
The time travel angle allowed them to not be stuck with sticking to the canon. It was ingenious if you ask me.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:07 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6483
Location: Indianapolis IN
That certainly was a surprise (time travel) but has I mentioned some things just didn't seem to mesh with the characters. They did pick a better looking Ohura I have to admit. The Romulon ship was weird looking also and Sulu isn't he on the White Castle movies ?

The next big movie looks to be Denzel Washington and Travolta. Denzel said Travolta is still broken up by his son's death and is taking it hard. Although I can't imagine losing a young son but when I lost my mom almost 2 years ago seems like yesterday I was talking to her and it hit me hard. I if you've never gone through grief losing a loved one its hard to understand but it also depends if your close. It's still early for Travolta and I don't think you ever get over moments of grief that can hit you in a moment.

Anyway on a lighter not the Will Farrell movie don't know what to make of it. It could be a bomb but then again funny. The GI Joe preview looks good and Transformers also.

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:29 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25564
Location: North Carolina
I didn't see the original, but I'm not that keen on the Pelham movie. Looks like your typical action/thriller movie. I saw most of Deja Vu and I've already seen Speed, so it doesn't look like I'll be missing too much with this movie.

As for Land of the Lost, I'm afraid it might be a movie (like the Hangover) where all the funny parts are in the trailer. But I'm willing to give Will Ferrell another chance. Semi-Pro and Blades of Glory were just OK, and I'm not sure he is still able to carry a movie like he could in the past with Talladega Nights, Anchorman, Elf, etc.

I want to see it, but I might wait until August when it comes to the $1 theater near me rather than paying $9 to see it now.

G.I. Joe, I don't have high expectations for. I didn't have high expectations for Transformers last year, and was pleasantly surprised. So I will go into G.I. Joe with similarly low expectations. As for the new Transformers, I'm caught in a hard place of whether to decide to expect it to be as entertaining as the first one, or to again have to lower my expectations. While there seems to be a bigger promise of more robots fighting, the plot looks kind of weak (by Michael Bay standards), so I don't know how that will balance out.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:25 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6483
Location: Indianapolis IN
I am always leery of certain movies since the trailers try and make it look so great and when you go you get let down. Night At The Museum seems to be getting decent reveiws from moviegoers and it is supposed to be better than the first. I like to post my thoughts on this board since it might help others go or not see a movie thats why I value others opinions and don't want to get ripped off $9 dollars.

Glorious Bastards looks interesting and usually Pitt picks good movies but that's later on . Will Farrel he's been in some ok movies others good so it's take your chance with him. Think I'll wait to see what other movie goers say not the critics. Transformers hard to predict if it will be good. Megan Fox the good looking girlfriend of Shia Lebow in the movie in real life thinks she is getting passed over because she's to good looking. Gee, what a terrible problem to have to good looking. The article I read mentioned Halle Berry and others don't seem to have that problem maybe Megan needs to brush up on her acting skills or lower her self esteem being entitled to parts.

Travolta and Denzel usually pick good movies but some movies still bomb. Again, I'll see what the critics say and the same goes for GI Joe. I usually wait to see a movie a week since the theaters get to crowded on the weekend and I hate crowds. Not sure if this has happened to you but when you go opening week during trhe summer and everyone wants to see a movie you show up and the theatre is packed. You sit in your chair with barely any elbow room, smelling popcorn and hearing people eating that always bugs me. Oh it was the Johnny Depp movie Pirates of the Carribean and like every middle school to high school kid in Indianapolis showed up to see the movie. You see all the childish things kids do to impress their friends, all the parents etc etc ... nope I like a calm atmosphere and the fewer the better at the movie.

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:07 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25564
Location: North Carolina
I didn't think the first night at the museum movie was all that, so I have no plans of seeing the new one. Not a bad movie, but nothing I'd pay $9 bucks for. Sorry, I'll just wait until it comes on cable.

I don't think the Pelham movie will be bad. But it doesn't look like one of the movies that I have to see. Again, I can wait till it comes on cable.

Megan Fox isn't really getting passed over. Just last week she turned down the chance to do a future Wonder Woman project, saying the part was lame. The problem is that nobody in Hollywood takes her seriously, because she acts your typical hot, uppity 23-year old. It's the same complaint that Lindsay Lohan had when Scarlett Johansson kept getting all the good roles. If you want to be taken seriously Lindsay, then start acting seriously!

I too prefer to the quiet confines of a theater a week or so later, but some movies I'll make an exception to. I went to see the Dark Knight at midnight the night before it was released. Packed theater, but you just had to show up an hour earlier than you would normally. Went with a bunch of friends (like 8), but we all couldn't sit together.

You just kinda need to know what people are giong to see this type of movie. Some movies will attract teens and preteens, and if you're a crusty old man, not exactly your scene. :lol: So maybe you wait a week or two for that movie. Like Harry Potter. But for a movie like Transformers, which will be full of all kinds of people, I got no problem seeing that opening weekend.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:08 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6483
Location: Indianapolis IN
Here's some of the article on Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful Megan Fox.........right Megan 99.999% of women would change looks with you. I used to like Jessica Biel and she is in the same article. Yep beauty is certainly a curse for some people. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/Megan- ... 48.gallery

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:12 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6483
Location: Indianapolis IN
Pudge, you mentioned Lindsey Lohan what a joke she has turned out to be. I guess some actresses or actors in show business to party and have a good time. They'll burn out quickly and Hollywood will forget about them since you have to have acting chops,professionalism and respect for the craft not out partying all the time.

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:26 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25564
Location: North Carolina
I think they are right, that they don't get offered good roles because of their looks. It's not just that, but it certainly doesn't help you land certain types of roles. Part of it is age. There just aren't that many good roles for smoking hot 23-year olds like Fox. Same goes for Biel who is only 27. They just aren't going to get the same type of roles that someone like Jennifer Garner (age 37) or Katherine Heigl (31) are going to get offered.

You can somewhat buy Katherin Heigl as a girl that could fall for a regular dude like Seth Rogen (Knocked Up) or Johnny Knoxville (The Ringer). Maybe Biel could pull that off, but definitely not Fox.

I don't know much about Megan Fox and this could be biased journalism, but every interview I've read of hers, sound bite, or quotation that she's done, she comes off as a super-hot bitch. Most of the women I think that we now admire for their beauty in Hollywood today, I'd bet tended to be the mousy, bohemian, awkward girl that was in all the school plays/musicals rather than being the head cheerleader at all of the football games.

I don't have a problem with Megan Fox, and I think being beautiful often is a gift, but there certainly can be times when it's a curse (I wouldn't really know).

There really aren't that many good roles for women in Hollywood. Either you're doing romantic comedies or you're playing across some A-list actor as his girlfriend or wife.

And there are some good roles, but people like Julia Roberts, Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett, Scarlett Johansson, etc. are going to be the first people that studios, directors, and agents call to do those roles.

Without being a Hollywood insider or knowing really what types of roles she gets offered on a daily/weekly basis, but my recommendation to her is to tone down her personality issues and probably be a bit more willing to accept to small paycheck in order to do the smaller independent films in order to build a better 'repertoire' so to speak.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:57 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6483
Location: Indianapolis IN
I have to agree with you Pudge on Megan Fox. She needs to build her resume up and the best way to do that is independent films since their are few roles for actresses her age that have any depth. Drew Barrymore was written off but she came back and while Drew had a big following when she was young with ET and a movie she did has a teenager (Wild Orchins)still she had to overcome alot of problems. Fox needs to break out and do different roles so people take her more serious. You don't want to be pigeonholed has an actress who can only do one type of role.

Now of course I don't know how serious of an actress she is either maybe she wants to party half the time and be a movie star the other half. Worse case scenario for her is she can't find better roles fades into oblivion and marries a rich dude. She already has a name and many rich guys want to marry a beautiful woman. If she truly cares about her acting she will pursue roles that maybe don't pay has well but get her experience.

Scarlett Johanson I would say is at the top of the list in terms of getting the best parts but still she hasn't diversified from her usual role in playing sexy parts in movies.She's young however has you said how many serious roles are their for young women in the movies? Seems like producers can't get their vmovies backed with investors unless you do the usual blockbuster type and no one wants to invest in something out of the norm. I mean if a movie maker had a script of a drug addict with kids trying to survive and the role called for a young mid 20's actress or close who would play that role? You don't see these type of movies being made probably because of no financial backing. If someone was luck y to make a quality movie and it did well at the box office you would see more copykats with the same formula.

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:50 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25564
Location: North Carolina
It seems that Hollywood actresses tend to peak sometime between age 27 or so and age 35. Look at Julia Roberts. She did Pretty Woman when she was 22, but she didn't really become a Hollywood bigwig until she did Erin Brockovich at age 32. Reese Witherspoon did Walk the Line around age 29, when she was still doing movies like Legally Blonde at age 25 or so. Jennifer Connelly worked a ton in her teens and early 20s, but then kinda fell off until she turned 30 and did A Beautiful Mind.

Scarlett Johansson is still fairly young, she won't turn 25 until November. But in 5 years she could probably be what Julia Roberts was 5 years ago.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Review by James Beradinelli
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:42 pm 
Offline
2009 Mock Contest Winner
2009 Mock Contest Winner
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 6:16 am
Posts: 12231
Location: Aschaffenburg, Germany
I watched Die Hard 4.0 . Enjoyed it. Also watched "The Wrestler" (thanks Gus). Loved the acting...hated the depression that followed. Getting ready to watch "The Happening". Heading to Normandy in the morning. Will say hello to the Chosen One for you. :mrgreen:

_________________


Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Vince Lombardi

"None are so old as those who have outlived enthusiasm".
Henry David Thoreau

Fail to prepare and you prepare to fail.

"Luck is the residue of design." - Branch Rickey


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  


cron