Capitalism: A Love Story (2010)

Title: Capitalism: A Love Story (2010)

Director: Michael Moore

Review:

I’m not a political person at all. In fact, I despise politics with every fiber of my being. Doesn’t matter what side of the fence politicians come from, they always lie, they always steal, and they always squeeze the life out of the very people they are supposed to be protecting. Take one look at today’s headlines and you will see what I mean. Look at the revolts going on in Thailand and in Greece. Take a look at what is happening in Puerto Rico. People are on revolt in the streets. Fighting to survive, fighting to request a bit more of the proverbial pie. A piece they very much deserve. After all, doesn’t every man and woman have the right to a job, and to have enough money to live and survive in this world? Problem is, the 1% who are rich are greedy selfish bastards who want to gorge on the pie all by themselves. And what about the poor, the needy, the less fortunate? The rich seem to turn a blind eye on these. They don’t care if their way of life, their way of doing business is destroying society; all they care about is making the cash, and making obscene amounts of it.

"Be honest! Be fair! Treat people with respect! Why cant we all just get along?"

Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story exposes Capitalism for what it is. A creature that is devouring people whole without remorse. I know many think that Michael Moore’s documentaries are not to be trusted, but usually, the ones saying this are the ones making the money. Of course they don’t want you to see this documentary, it makes them look exactly like what they are. Greedy bastards! There is a saying that says that “a picture can speak louder than a thousand words” and this is the case with this documentary. It has scenes that speak a truth that you cannot deny. Take for example the films opening sequence. A montage of people robbing banks all across the nation. Is this not the perfect example of the state of things? People are so desperate that they have no other choice but to turn to robbing banks. I live in Puerto Rico, and this it is no different here. The crime rate has gone up ever since the economy went bad.

There is another scene that was filmed by a family who’s home was being repossessed. The bank came to this family’s home with the police, bashed the families door down and broke in. The family was being notified that their home was being taken from them. Entire families are being left out on the streets because there are not enough jobs out there and the jobs that do exist don’t pay enough. To top things off, everything is way too expensive. When you have to decide between paying a mortgage of feeding your kids, what will you choose? Should you even have to be put in a position where you have to make that choice? As a result of the high cost of living, foreclosures have sky rocketed and an alarming amount of people are being kicked out of their homes and left out on the streets! There is a heartbreaking scene in which an entire family who was kicked out of their home is living inside of a truck. The community decides to give the family their home back! So the whole community decides to sit outside of the families home, and confront the police and the bank people. And this is just a small example of people fighting for their right to live. Im not an expert in economy, and I’m no expert in politics either. But I know the difference between wrong and right, and things just aren’t right in the world when this kind of thing happens.

What are they afraid of?

Michael Moore shows a letter that some CEO’s from Citibank wrote where they say that they are the new “kings of the world” the new feudalism. And what are they afraid of? As the letter says, they are afraid that the people will fight back, and request more money to survive. This is the way it should be. People shouldn’t have to live in such a struggle. The system happy to make you start life in debt by charging astronomical amounts for college education, so that when you actually get a job, you will be paying that loan your whole life. Lets not forget the fact that if the education is as expensive as it is, poor people wont be able to go to college. And keeping the poor uneducated is part of the plan. Believe me, I did my research on how much an education in film would cost me, trust me, it wasn’t pretty. This is the main reason why I am an independent filmmaker.  Screw the system, Im doing this on my own!

Billionaire CEO’s are running the world. The Presidents of our nation answer to them. They decide what the government tells the people, I guess their big plan right now is, fuck the poor, lets make as much money as we can. I really hate it when rich people think of the poor as something less than them. We are all human beings; we should think of each other collectively, we should all think about each other. With so much money being made by mega corporations, it makes one wonder why they don’t give a little back. Especially when it comes to the less fortunate. I’m all for starting things over or maybe modifying things. But the way things are, just isn’t right. Watching this documentary might get you sad, and even outraged. I was watching it with a friend of mine (Hey Manny, that’s you I’m talking about!) and it really got to us after a while. You just feel angry because they actually know they are doing a lot of wrong, but they don’t care.

The documentary does show a positive side to things. For example, there is a company that is showcased in which everyone in the company is an owner of the company. Everyone makes the same amount of money, every one is dignified, and there are no slaves there. The president of the company makes the same amount of money that some one in the production lie does. People work happily, with a positive vibe to them. It seems that part of the solution is not working for “the man”, but working for ourselves. Some might accuse Moore of being a little melodramatic, and what can I say, he is, but at least he drives the point home, he says what he has to say and isnt afraid to say it. So Mr. Moore, I salute you for becoming the voice of the people. I’m watching The Corporation next; I want to sink myself deeper in despair. But hey, at least Ill know what’s really going on.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Food Inc. (2009)

Title: Food Inc. (2009)

Director: Robert Kenner

Review:

This world is fucked up. That’s what documentaries make me think about. I mean, if one was to watch Who Killed The Electric Car? (2006) Jesus Camp (2006) Jonestown: The Life and Death of the Peoples Temple (2006) Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Living (2005) Sicko (2007) Capitalism: A Love Story (2010) and now Food Inc. (2009) one after another, one would not want to go on living in the world as we know it. And honestly, I find it so sad that the world is the way it is. You know what they say, the more you know about how things really are, the more bitter you get. I guess you learn to find happiness in other things in life, but the reality remains that this world is one sad place when we really stop to look at it. Still, I like to watch these documentaries, psychologically torturous as the may be, because they are like a bitter pill that the world needs to take in order to get better. When we look at ourselves in the mirror, that’s when we know we have to fix our tie. When we look at these documentaries, we know what is wrong in the world, and what we can do to make it better.

Hey, where did that pretty American Farm go to?

In this case, the bitter pill has to do with the food we eat. Every day, we eat chicken, pork, soy beans, vegetables, corn, yet we don’t really know where they come from. We see a neat little package in the supermarket, we buy it, but do we ever stop and think what the food in the supermarket has gone through to get there? Food Inc. shows you exactly what it went through, and it isn’t pretty. The documentary focuses on three areas, the production of meat, the production of grains and vegetables like soy and corn, and finally, the documentary focuses on the power these gigantic companies have, crushing smaller farmers and using legal tactics to shut them down, just so they can have a complete monopoly over food production. Like I said, it’s sad the way the world really is. It’s a dog eat dog world in the food industry, and its sad to see the smaller farmers putting up the good fight against these giant multinationals. How weird is it that one of these giant companies can actually genetically alter a grain, and then own it? As in no one else can grow that grain of soy, but them? I mean, arent grains part of nature? How can a company own a freaking grain? Ask the giants, they've deviced a tricky way of doing it. It’s strange to see farmers acting all scared in front of the cameras, like they are showing some dirty secret that they are going to get punished for talking about. And sad part is, they probably are going to “get it” for talking about how the food we eat is handled. The bravery shown by some of these farmers who were willing to open up the doors of their farms to show us how our food is handled is commendable.

You’ll see how chickens are grown in complete darkness, and grown so fat that they can’t even take three steps without falling down! The chickens can’t even hold their own weight! Really, it’s the mass production of it all that sickens me. These companies need to produce so much food, so fast and on a day to day basis, that the quality of the food goes down because they take short cuts to produce more, bigger and faster. I enjoyed how the documentary also focuses on smaller farms, the organic kind. These farmers produce less food and don’t want to ever get huge or multinational. They want to remain small, and produce quality food for their neighbors. Id love to support farmers like these, unfortunately, where I live, people live off of the supermarket and the supermarket alone. I think it’s sad when you think that not many people grow their own food anymore. The idea is so remote from their minds! The way things are set up in the world, we only have time to go to work, come back, and eat something we bought at the supermarket. We don’t know what its like to grow our own food, because we don’t have the time to do it.

"Hey, they left out that extra order of saturated fat that I ordered!"

A quick drive to McDonalds or Burger King can solve your hunger problem in a jiffy, its cheap, but its crap. Unfortunately, when you make little money (as many families do in our current economical reality) going to a fast food joint is sometimes the ONLY option to get the whole family to eat. I mean, how unfair and messed up are things in the world when buying vegetables in the supermarket is way more expensive then getting a happy meal at McDonalds? How wrong is that? Shouldn’t the good food be cheaper? It should. It would be the right thing, but we live in a world where what is done is the wrong thing. Just take a look at all those documentaries I mentioned earlier. But its not all gloom and doom, thankfully, the documentary does offer up good points on how we can improve our eating habits, how we can kill the giants, by not buying the crap with pretty packages that is sold to us at the supermarket, but by consuming organic products sold on Farmers Markets, amongst other things. In other words, know what you eat! Watching this documentary will help you do that. I support this kind of documentary because it lets us see things the way they really are, not a false exterior, but the real truth of it all which we seldom get in this world. Highly recommended viewing.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Lolita (1997)

Title: Lolita (1997)

Director: Adrian Lyne

Writer: Stephen Schiff

Cast: Jeremy Irons, Dominique Swain, Melanie Griffith, Frank Langella

Review:

On my review for Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita (1962), I mentioned that that particular version was a prisoner of its time, and it's true, the book on which the film is based on (Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita) is a novel about a  man who falls in love with a 12 year old. For all intents and purposes, it’s a story of pedophilia. Surprisingly as this may sound, considering how sexual a lot of Stanley Kubrick's films are, his version of Lolita is restrained in the sexual aspects of the story, failing to go where its story begs for it to go to. It fades to black in key sequences, and lets the audience imagine what is happening between Professor Humbert and Lolita. Fast forward more than 30 years later and director Adrian Lyne decides he wants to do another take on Nabokov’s novel. Was this version also restrained, or did it go further?

Lolita is the story of Professor Humbert Humbert, and man who suddenly finds himself playing with the notion of falling in love with a 15 year old girl, a child. He even goes as far as marrying Lolita’s mother so that he can be closer to Lolita! Will Humbert control his aberrant thoughts? Or will he move forward with his desires? And what will the outcome of his actions be?

I was a bit disappointed with Kubrick’s version of Lolita. Not that its badly directed or acted or anything. It was just one of those films that are kind of hard to digest. It was deliberately slow paced, it didn’t go all the way with its themes because of the conservative times it was made in, but the performances pulled me in and the story of course grabbed me, because I wanted to see how Humbert and Lolita would end up, would their crazy idea of a relationship work? But mostly, I stuck with Kubrick’s film all the way to the end for one main reason: its Kubrick, and I have to watch every Kubrick film before I die no matter what I do. I ended up liking the film even with its ‘flaws’.

On the other hand, Adrian Lyne’s version of Lolita was actually a pleasure to watch. Not that Im into stories about pedophiles, Im speaking more of the way the film was shot, wow. Lyne really captured some beautiful imagery on this film. He framed every shot perfectly, he filmed in beautiful locations, and got the best performances he could out of these actors. He pulled of a story that is not easy to tell, in a very beautiful way. My hands down to Mr. Lyne for filming such a beautiful looking picture. I really enjoy Lyne’s directing style. He frames things perfectly and beautifully, but he also gets right in there in the action, making you feel as if you are right there in the movie with the characters. There is one scene where Lolita comes back into the house running through the stairs to meet with Humbert so she could say goodbye to him. When Lolita is going up the steps, you feel like you are right there with her because of the way the scene was shot. Bravo, Mr. Lyne. Its no surprise this director has made one of my favorite horror films ever: Jacobs Ladder; yet another film that is visually striking. So be ready for some beautiful imagery with this version of Lolita.

The theme for this film are controversial, some might think the film favors pedophilia, which it doesn’t. Humbert and Lolita’s outcome is a testament to that. This film did come closer to capturing the developing intricacies of Humbert and Lolita’s strange relationship. It focuses on those little details, those little moments that are decisive in moving forward with a relationship, in this sense, I have to say that this film developed everything better than Kubrick’s version did. Kubrick's version was afraid of its themes, while this version embraces them. You see Humbert oogling on Lolita, you can see machinations forming in Humbert’s brain, you can tell this man wants Lolita in his arms. And Lolita is more of a provocateur in this film, she is the one pushing Humbert’s buttons as well. Dominique Swain, the actress who plays Lolita was only 15 when she shot this, but Adrian Lyne filmed her more erotic scenes with a body double. This illusion works perfectly well, for I didn’t notice it until I recently read about it. Still, the sex scenes are not graphic at all, it’s the idea that grabs and shocks you. But we're not here to see Jeremy Irons making out with a 15 year old girl, this film is after all a morality play, we want to explore what is the right thing to do. And if you choose to do the wrong thing, what are the consequences?

What I loved about Kubrick’s version more than anything was Peter Seller’s performance as Claire Quilty. The guy who tries to “rescue” Lolita from Prof. Humbert’s claws. It was such a crazy performance, the character comes off as kind of nuts, psychologically damaged. On Lynes film this character is played by Frank Langella, a solid actor if there ever was any. Langella brings an air of disgust and depravity to his character. Quilty is on screen for a very short time on this film, yet he is incredibly mysterious, and at the same time intensely revolting. A sexually aberrant individual. A despicable character, but a great performance!

All in all, a great movie. The controversy surrounding the thematic elements made it difficult for this movie to take off at the box office. It actually got a very small theatrical run and was later premiered on cable tv. I was surprised to discover that this film didn’t even get any Oscar Nominations when it so obviously should have gotten many awards. I guess this shows just how conservative the members of the academy are. This movie should have at least been nominated for cinematography, but alas, it was ignored by the academy that year. I guess Titanic was “king of the world” on that year and Lolita was completely ignored because of that. A shame, because even though this films thematic elements speak of a very ugly truth; this is actually a very beautiful film to look at. A true work of art.

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

Patrick Still Lives! (1980)

Title: Patrick Still Lives! a.k.a. Patrick Vive Ancora (1980)

Director: Mario Landi

Review:

The oiriginal Patrick (1978) is an Australian horror film about a comatose hospital patient with Telekinetic powers. A doctor constantly performs a series of experiments on him to see what makes his telekinetic powers tick. Meanwhile, Patrick has plans of his own, like falling in love with his lovely nurse! You see, his comatose state doesn’t stop him from getting the hots for her. So, Patrick tries to constantly contact her by typing messages on her typewriter. Problem is that while she accepts that Patrick is contacting her through the typewriter, no one believes her. Patrick ends up getting dangerously jealous of her, in a psychotic sort of way and there's nothing more dangerous than a psychotic telekinetic! Patrick ends up using his telekinetic powers to kill everyone who gets between him and his nurse. It was an interesting horror film, nothing mind blowing, but I remember enjoying it. The director Richard Franklin went on to make bigger and better movies, like Psycho II (1983). He had written a sequel for this film called Patrick II: The Man Who Wasn’t There, which had something to do with a religious cult who finds Patrick’s dead body and brings it back to life. And interesting premise, unfortunately this proposed sequel was never made. It ended up lost in development hell. Still, this didn’t stop the Italians from making their own indirect sequel to Patrick called Patrick Still Lives! How was this trashy Italian flick? 

A tragic accident turns Patrick into a paraplegic telekinetic!

Nothing connects this film to the last. This is an entirely different Patrick only this time, the story develops in Italy for some reason. The story starts out with Patrick and his dad having a road side accident. While they are on the side of the road, a car passes by and someone from the car hurls a bottle out their window, the bottle smashes on Patrick’s face! Patrick ends up comatose after this accident. Fast forward a couple of years later, and Patrick’s dad is the owner of a hotel/spa. He has invited five strangers to stay at his home. But for what dark purpose? Will Patrick ever get revenge over those who left him comatose?

So basically, this film is also about a bedridden telekinetic who kills people with the power of his mind. That’s the basic premise of the original, and this one follows the same basic premise, only with a few differences here and there. For example, on this film Patrick feeds off the negative energy coming from three criminals to augment his telekinetic powers and execute his revenge. While the first Patrick film took place in a more believable scenario, this Italian rip off goes into cheesy territory. Patrick’s dad keeps Patrick locked up in a special room of his hotel, a room that looks like some cheesy laboratory in a bad sci-fi movie from the 50’s. Complete with panels of useless blinking lights and levers.

Certain things make this movie hilarious. First of all, it’s so freaking sleazy. By that I mean that the movie wastes no time in getting its actresses naked. I’m serious here! Every single actress in this movie will be naked at some point, not just showing their boobs either, these girls go full frontal on this movie! The movie uses any excuse it can to get its actresses to have a cat fight and rip their clothes off during the whole process. It has Patrick using his telekinetic abilities to perform what can only be described as a 'vagina impalement death' that is hilarious because the character that is impaled sees this floating metal poker coming for her genitals and she just sits there waiting for it to happen. It felt like a death sequence in a Lucio Fulci movie. You know how Fulci would drag the hell out of a death scene? Same with the impalement scene on this one. I guess the director wanted to torture his audience, but the scene comes off as funny instead because the girl simply freezes and lets her self get impaled. This type of scene goes in accordance with Italian Horror Film Rule #576: Make as little sense as possible!

But when we really get down to it, this movie was just an excuse to show naked girls. For example, there is one scene where a character walks into a room and there’s this gorgeous Italian lady sleeping in her bed entirely naked! Not only that, she starts moaning! She looked great and all, but I tried looking for some meaning to the scene, and I found none because this scene was a text book example of what a gratuitous nudity scene is all about. Still not convinced? Then you should see a scene in which Patrick falls in love with his fathers smoking hot secretary and manages to get her to do a strip dance for him! And she ends the dance by playing with her self! As you can see, this movie is more about the sleaze than about Patrick and his revenge. At least the film manages to squeeze in a couple of cheesy death sequences in the middle of all the tits and ass.

Sadly, the telekinetic side of the story is delivered very poorly. One scene has Patrick conjuring up a wind storm making the trees and bushes move around a lot. Funny part is that you could tell the trees and bushes were being moved by people off camera and not by the wind! That’s right folks; there was not enough budget to rent an industrial size fan to get that scene right. Patrick makes the pool water boil! Even funnier is the fact that every time Patrick uses his telekinetic powers, the screen turns fluorescent green and Patrick’s eyes appear superimposed on the screen! It’s cheesy to the max!

So basically, Patrick Still Lives is just a cheesy Italian rip-off wannabe. But as many of you out there know, there is a certain level of enjoyment to be had with this kind of movie simply because of how sleazy and bad it is. You won’t believe some of the lines these characters spew. One scene has a doctor examining a death victim and he actually says “I believe his death was due to fatality”. This movie follows all the rules of a bad Italian Horror Film: Lots of nonsensical events, lots of tits and ass, lots of cheesy deaths filled with cartoon gore and blood, and of course a poorly written script that could not have taken long to write. A fun movie simply because it’s so sleazy and bad.

Rating: 1 1/2 of 5

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Title: Iron Man 2 (2010)

Director: Jon Favreau

Writer: Justin Theroux

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell

Review:

The first Iron Man (2008) film was an incredible box office success. It was a hit for Marvel Comics Productions, a company that has been producing some of the best (and worst) superhero movies ever. Iron Man was one of their really good ones. Jon Favreau brought together an excellent cast and production team, the end result was pure superhero magic. Not to mention the film single handedly brought Robert Downey Jr. back into the spotlight, making one of the best comebacks in recent history. And of course, after such an incredible success, a sequel just had to be churned out. I mean the name of the game with commercial films such as this one is making money. Was Favreau able to catch lightning in a bottle again?

This time around, Iron Man has become something of a celebrity, everyone knows who he is, he has brought world peace to the planet and has essentially become something of a god on planet earth. Righteous and invincible. But what happens when ever one individual gets to powerful and too successful on his own? The Government wants a piece of him now! That’s right, government is salivating at getting their hands on Tony Starks Iron Man armor. They want to use it for military applications, while Tony Stark is interested in using it to keep world peace, and since no one can challenge the awesome power of the Iron Man suit, well then, Iron Man remains the protector of the planet. Or at least of the United States. But the question that comes into play with this movie is: Is Tony Stark the right man to wear this powerful armor?

Expectations for this movie are high for various reasons. It’s a sequel to a very successful film that many loved. The original made so many millions at the box office, that it is expected that for a sequel, Hollywood would treat its new cash cow with some respect and made sure they delivered a decent superhero film. So a huge budget and big stars is something to be expected with this sequel. In my opinion Hollywood delivered. This film has lush production values and a impeccable cast! Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell as villains? That’s a winning combination right there! Scarlett Johansson and Gwyneth Paltrow as the hot super hero babes? Double knock out! Don Cheadle as the sidekick who is awesome on his own? The Icing on the cake! So at least casting wise this movie headed in the right direction. In thing that I found kind of funny is how Jon Favreau gave himself a bigger role this time around. On the first film he was just Tony Starks limo driver. On this sequel he still plays Starks limo driver/body guard, only thing is this time around he actually ends up kicking some ass and serving as comedy relief in an action scene. I guess being the director has its privileges.  

Script wise, the film develops at just the right pace in my opinion. Many people complained that theres not enough action, but I don’t think I agree with these comments. Sometimes people complaint that there isn’t enough character development in a film, that the film is hollow and has no heart, but then when they give them a movie that fills those gaps, they complain that there isn’t enough action. If you ask me, this movie had the perfect balance between awesome action sequences and good character development. The film was written by Justin Theroux who wrote the super funny comedy Tropic Thunder a couple of years ago and has also acted himself on a couple of films like David Lynch's Inland Empire and Mullholand Drive. I think he wrote a good superhero film. It explores its characters and doesnt only concentrate on action and special effects. We get to know Tony Stark a little better this time around. We get to know about his past, his father, how he grew up, why he is who he is.   

In my book the flaws on Iron Man 2 were not many. The only thing that I can complaint about is that I wished the ending had been just a tad more elaborate and spectacular. Destruction had to be on gargantuan levels, yet they never peeked with the climactic action sequence. It is a good and extended action sequence, but it needed a little extra oomph to take it into epic and spectacular levels. It needed to be a bit closer, more in your face. More visceral. We needed to see Iron Man getting into bigger trouble, be in more peril. As it is, during the last action sequence you never feel the hero is in peril. Whenever he has his suit on, the guy is invincible. This guy’s body armor is indestructible, nothing harms it. Iron Man's invincibility takes away the tension, the peril. The final fight with Whiplash (Rourke) needed to be something that would wow us, instead, it ends with a whimper. This is really the one and only problem I had with the movie.

The rest of the film is fantastic in my opinion. It explores Iron Mans darker side when we see Tony Stark getting drunk in a party while wearing the Iron Man suit. This is an element that I loved in the movie because it comes straight out of the comics. I mean, Iron Man has always been a hero that’s had to battle with his drinking problem. There was a story arc called "Demon in a Bottle" which showed us a Tony Stark going into drunk rages, going all sorts of evil and crazy, kind of like that time that Superman turns into "evil Superman" in Superman III. They translated that struggle in the film really well. It offers us one of the movies funniest moments. Robert Downey Jr. is a pleasure to watch in the role of Tony Stark, he is lively, funny, and spontaneous so it never gets boring whenever he is on the screen. Mickey Rourke pulled off a pretty convincing Russian accent in the film, which can be a problem when not done well. Speaking of his character, he looks bad ass with those electrical whiplashes; the scene in the middle of the car race is awesome. If only they had more of that awesomeness during the films last frames and the movie might have been perfect.

Iron Man going on one of his drunken rages, it gets pretty ugly in the comics

The biggest draw about this movie is the introduction of the War Machine character, played by Don Cheadle. I have to say that it was pulled off very well. The character looks exactly the way he does in the comics. I loved how he serves as Tony Starks conscience, telling him things like “you are not worthy of wearing that armor!” The teaming up of the two in the ending is awesome, if only it had been more complex than getting chased around by a couple of flying drones!

The thing about reading Marvel Comics (or any comic series for that matter) is that they usually leave you with a cliffhanger; they always have some sort of continuity to them to get you involved so you can come back next week for the next issue. This element of reading comic books has been effectively translated to the silver screen with films based on Marvel characters. Samuel L. Jackson returns as Nick Fury agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. I love how he has been a constant through out all these movies…lets just hope that that Avengers movie thats coming in a few years (supposedly Josh Whedon will be directing) lets him truly shine in the role. Samuel Jackson has a more elaborate participation on this film, but his performance in Iron Man 2 remains an extended cameo of sorts. So was Iron Man 2 better then the first? Well, I had fun with it. It has excellent production values, the effects and action sequences were great. I really dont have anything bad to say about this movie save for the short fight between hero and villain in the climax. A fun summer blockbuster, made better because its excellent cast. As with most Marvel Comics movies, theres a little something extra after the credits. Hint: it has something to do with Mjollnir!

Rating: 3 out of 5