It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:54 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:27 pm 
~_~
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ
Quote:
ALL MOVIE GUIDE: Wim Wenders' sprawling cyberpunk noir epic — shot in no less than nine different countries — is set in 1999 and stars Solveig Dommartin as Claire, a young Frenchwoman who comes into contact with a large sum of money stolen during a bank heist; in her travels she picks up a mysterious American hitchhiker (William Hurt), who himself steals some of the money before parting from her company. Upon discovering the theft, Claire sets out on his trail, with both a Hammett-styled German private eye (Rudiger Vogler) as well as her former lover, a novelist portrayed by Sam Neill, in tow. The hitchhiker is really Sam Farber, the son of an underground scientist (Max Von Sydow), and his mission is to travel the globe in order to acquire the funding necessary to develop the technology which will allow his blind mother (Jeanne Moreau) to "see" visual recordings of her family members; the second half of the film takes place largely in the Farbers' compound in the Australian Outback, where Sam, Claire and the others take refuge while attempting to bring the sight project to its fruition, in the meantime pondering earth's future in the wake of a nuclear disaster in outer space. Wenders' most ambitious film to date, budgeted at $23 million, Until the End Of the World is also among his most seriously flawed efforts — despite a keen sense of cultural perception, a fascinating sci-fi take on life in the near-future and stunning Robby Muller cinematography, the picture never quite gels. Much of the blame seems to fall upon its distributors — upon its wide release in 1991, the movie was drastically cut to a running time of 2 1/2 hours, resulting in a disjointed narrative that doesn't shift gears so much as grind them as the action moves from country to country. Still, while a three-hour version, issued on laserdisc in Japan, comes closer to realizing the full scope of Wenders' epic vision, rumors of a five-hour director's cut — said to have been screened to thunderous applause at a handful of film festivals — continue to persist, suggesting that a masterpiece may well exist here after all.


Quote:
AMAZON.COM: Shot on location in numerous countries, this ambitious Wim Wenders fantasy takes Sam Neill, Solveig Dommartin, William Hurt, and a ragtag group in pursuit around the world and back again. Though set in 1999 under the shadow of impending disaster as a wobbly nuclear satellite threatens to Chernobyl the planet, the leisurely gait of their worldwide escapades has a distinctly '40s-era decadence. The ultimate object of their quest is a machine that records visual information from one person and reconstructs it in the brains of others--granting the miraculous power of sight to the blind for one thing, but even more mystically, enabling a person's dreams to be recorded. When the film seeks resolutions on the most intimate questions of the human soul which dovetail with the possibility of a destroyed world, the film is hampered by the VHS running time, which subtracts several hours from the laser disc version. But numerous joys, not least among them Jeanne Moreau and Max von Sydow as Hurt's parents, inhabit this thought-provoking film.


I wasn't crazy for Wings of Desire, but I really like science fiction. Can anyone recommend this as a blind buy? Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:56 pm 
Kitano kyoushûsei
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
I can easily recommend it. It is not really that much science-fiction, as its many of its sci-fi elements today almost are science-fact, like video phone booths. But I consider it one of Wenders best films and this directors cut has its original three part structure.

But since you didn't liked Wings of Desire, I really doubt if you would like or even get this film.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:16 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:06 pm
Is Anchor Bay still releasing the 6 hour/3 part version of this?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:41 am 

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am
BWilson wrote:
Is Anchor Bay still releasing the 6 hour/3 part version of this?


There were some rights difficulties reported about a year ago and nothing has been reported since.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:03 am 

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:01 pm
Location: London, England
I've always felt this film was best forgotten. It seems to go on until the end of the world, and none of its ideas ever spark. It marks the point where Wenders begun to get too close to the rock world [see the starry soundtrack for this effort] and gets burned as a result [see this, Faraway So Close, Million Dollar Hotel etc - or better still, don't].


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:40 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
I remember watching this when it first appeared on the movie network in Canada, before I even knew who Wim Wenders was (saw it listed with William Hurt, Sam Neill and Max von Sydow and thought "what the hell" and watched it) and remembered enjoying it but could tell it had been cut to shit. The whole thing did feel disjointed and all over the map. I was still entranced by it and watched the whole thing and even watched it a couple of more times, but I only have vague memories of it now, except for that invention that recorded memories, at least I think that's what it did.

I definitely wouldn't mind seeing it again, though would prefer a longer cut. My biggest annoyance with it, and the only thing that stopped me from buying the tape, was that it felt so sloppily edited and figured there was a longer cut somewhere. The flow seemed so off I figured it had to be a studio hack job. I figured 3 and a half hours, though. This 6 hours I've been reading about, at least to me, seems to be pushing it, but then of course I haven't seen it and it could be the most amazing thing ever. Would definitely still buy it. I remember the tape was released by Warner Bros. I'm assuming they still hold the rights to it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:24 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:06 pm
DVD Savant loves it: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s53until1.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:09 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
If it wasn't for Fellini 8 1/2, then Wings of Desire would be what I would call - "the pinnacle achievement in cinema" - but this comes close by a molecule. Such a revitalizing film - probing and thoughtful. Every time I embark on the angels wings, I get reminded of an old man who once lived down the road from me. He told me that if he could do it all over again, he'd have smoked more cigars if it wasn't for his long-dead wife's nagging. I've seen this film so many times that I memorize every line. Nearly 20 years later after the film's premiere, now watching this film evokes amazing nostalgic feelings in me - for instance, the scenes in which Marion and the young folks dance to Nick Cave bring me right back to my late '80s haunts in NYC every time - the clothes, the mood/atmosphere & everything. Marion is the woman I would go to the battle for - so impossibly beautiful and soulful. The long close up of Marion's luminous face as she speaks to Damiel on the meaning/understanding of love is miraculous and I know that some folks find this scene annoying. But not me.

Wings of Desire is among the most beautiful works of art and cinema was made for films like this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:35 am
Location: Mexico City
kieslowski_67 wrote:
The problems with Wenders is that quality of his movies are so uneven. However, "Paris, Texas" and "wings of desire" are absolute masterpieces no matter what.


I agree totally with your remark. the worst part is that Wenders' golden age is long gone. Paris Texas is my favorite movie of all time, and I regard Wenders as a great director, but outrageously uneven.


Axel.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina
kieslowski_67 wrote:
The problems with Wenders is that quality of his movies are so uneven. However, "Paris, Texas" and "wings of desire" are absolute masterpieces no matter what.


To be honest, I actually prefer The American Friend to all his other movies -- even WoD. I guess this places me in the minority. But then again, I prefer Herzog over Wenders, and I've always thought that American Friend is the most Herzog-like of all Wenders' films.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:17 am 
Wenders' Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:59 am
Location: Columbus OH USA
kieslowski_67 wrote:
The problems with Wenders is that quality of his movies are so uneven. However, "Paris, Texas" and "wings of desire" are absolute masterpieces no matter what.

I disagree. :)

The problem with his movies is that for the past decade they've all sucked. Throughout the 70s and 80s everything he made ranged from merely good (The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick, Hammett) to masterpiece (Im Lauf der Zeit, Paris, Texas, and Wings of Desire). Of the (non-documentary) movies he's made since the fall of the Berlin Wall, only Faraway, So Close! and Lisbon Story have been watchable, IMO.

Clearly I'm not happy with "the state of things" regarding his current output.


Last edited by wendersfan on Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true
As per Barmy's recommendation, I am porting this over from another thread...

I used to be of the mind that Wenders' early work was obviously and by far better than everything since Wings. I no longer believe that. I've returned to the later work recently and begun to reappraise it. I think it's misjudged and that I misjudged it. It isn't all perfect, of course (though I do like Million Dollar Hotel, a position which I'm sure will serve to invalidate anything else I say in the eyes of many); nonetheless, it is operating very much according to its own internal logic and it is meeting its own requirements more often than not. Wenders has much in common with other great post modern filmmakers like Lynch, Rudolph, Maddin, Mann, Almodovar and Zalman King in that he embraces artifice as a means to an emotional end. All of these directors understand fully the intoxicating allure of surfaces and they are sympathetic to those similarly bewitched, lost along with their real feelings inside a whirl of role playing. To dismiss late Wenders or the work of any of these other artists on the grounds that it does not comply with our preconceived aesthetic demands and expectations is just narrow minded and ignorant.

In a lot of ways, a film like Don't Come Knocking is more daring and visionary than something like The State of Things which complies immediately with those preconceived expectations. It simply doesn't challenge us in the same way. Don't Come Knocking was slammed by "sophisticated" critics for being naive and out of touch. But out of touch with what? It is, apparently, hard to believe that Wenders could be (like Lynch, Rudolph and King) willfully embracing a kind of socially perceived naivete, not as a glib and ironic device but rather as a truth to be taken seriously. What Wenders has been doing since Wings is not fashionable, especially in contemporary European film terms, and is thus not engaged with seriously; his achievements and great advances are not acknowledged.

I remember reading moronic critiques of DCK which, amongst other things, railed against all the supposed logical fallacies--the fact that Spence would not be a movie star in this present climate, that Westerns as a popular genre were hopelessly passe and demonstrated how hermetically sealed Wenders and Shepard's world was, and, my favorite one, that George Kennedy could never be a movie director in this day and age. I don't remember who said that but somebody did. All of these comments actually just indicate how out of touch with Wenders' aspirations most critics are. Does anybody really think that Wenders and Shepard don't realize the anomalous social position of their hero? That maybe, just maybe, they might be suggesting that that is the point? That this is not meant to be read in strictly literal terms?

Because Wenders does not attempt to deconstruct archetypal myths like Brokeback does but rather investigates thoroughly their surface allure he and his work are of no use to contemporary tastemakers, who are interested in demystification and have less investment in human sympathy unless it furthers their fashionable political stances. The ideas of family and home in DCK and Land of Plenty or, for that matter, the ideas of violence in End of Violence are presented to us directly but they are not explored in simplistic terms unless you consider the ramifications of emotional investment to be irrelevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Quite a few interesting points here. My personal 'break-up' with Wenders was not after "Wings of Desire", but only after his return to the US, that is, with "The End of Violence". I followed all his films including DCK, nevertheless, but am rather unsure what to make of them. My main problem is that he tries to tackle social (and partly spiritual) problems of the US as an outsider. This might make for an interesting perspective, but he tries to outdo the Americans by looking with a stance which is the European's eye of how the world and especially America seemed to be and should be, and thus he indeed uses approaches which only end up with clichés and an incredible naivité . The end of "Land of Plenty" with the two main characters looking at Ground Zero might have come out straight of some patriotic Oliver Stone movie, and it is so unnecessary to 'point with the finger' at a possible connection between the spiritual homelessness of the characters and 9/11. DCK makes for more interesting viewing, imagewise, but it suffers from a lack of depth both in portraying Sam Shepard's character's personality and that of the people he meets. It all seems clichéd, which would be acceptable if the film had an ironic approach, but it hasn't. "The End of Violence" is plain unbearable with its idea of the sudden personal change of that Hollywood producer, only becuase he stays with those Mexican (?, can't remember now) immigrants. All these films present idealized, almost 'feel-good' versions of what Wenders seems to believe is the 'real' America.

John Cope wrote:
(though I do like Million Dollar Hotel, a position which I'm sure will serve to invalidate anything else I say in the eyes of many);.

Not in mine. That's the only of his late films that I really like. It's also not exactly great, but here he does what he does best: present some extraordinary, 'poetic' characters, create a universe of their own, and manages to get a great unity of images and music. One of the reasons why I like his post-"Wings" period best is the incredibly style and 'fairy-tale' atmosphere he creates by simply commenting on the action by music, by enhancing the images and the story with this simple means of evoking a 'spiritual' mood. This goes especially for "Lisbon story" and "The End of the World" (which really only should be judged in the long version; the shortened theatrical version is a failure, but it was not Wenders' fault), but it is also apparent in a seemingly simple film like "Notebook on Cities and Clothes". None of these films is exactly 'critical' or 'relevant' if you're concerned with social criticism (although "End of the World" tries to), but as pure visual works they are sometimes truly breathtaking. And I can't help it: the acting was much, much better in these films than in his newer works. It is perhaps this combination of things that makes these films so emotionally compelling, but never sentimental. And because they function as films, they can carry a 'message' successfully, whereas "Land of Plenty" and "End of Violence" start with the message and are somewhat clumsy attempts at then illustrating it.

John Cope wrote:
In a lot of ways, a film like Don't Come Knocking is more daring and visionary than something like The State of Things which complies immediately with those preconceived expectations. .

Very true. "State of Things" suffers from being over-intellectualized, by presenting us the message quite openly right from the beginning. I lost all interest in these characters after 30 mins. I really can't understand why "State of Things" is so highly regarded by many critics. For me, it's one of his worst films. It may be highly critical and self-reflexive, but that alone doesn't make a good film, and I also don't feel challenged by it.

John Cope wrote:
It is, apparently, hard to believe that Wenders could be (like Lynch, Rudolph and King) willfully embracing a kind of socially perceived naivete, not as a glib and ironic device but rather as a truth to be taken seriously. What Wenders has been doing since Wings is not fashionable, especially in contemporary European film terms, and is thus not engaged with seriously; his achievements and great advances are not acknowledged. .

Very true, but the immediate post-Wings films successfully express this apparent naiveté (without being naive, because here he KNOWS what he's talking about, and there is a lot of European romanticism in them), whereas the American films lack this success for me. That the 'emotional' approach was not popular with our hyper-socially-conscious intellectualist film critics is not very surprising; and I wouldn't very much care for it. The images in "End of the World" are still so fresh and unique (and were very inventive, technically, at the time) , and I admire the way how he reflects on the history of his trade in the films of that period in a 'loving' way expressing his enthusiasm for all things cinematic (check out the very charming "Brüder Skladanovsky" in this respect). The critics of DCK are even right when they say it's a hermetically sealed world, because you could say that for a lot of his films. But can that be a valid criticism? A filmmaker need not want to change the world, and the problem with his latest films is only that he tries to do precisely this. If you do not only not want to 'demystify' the world, but rather show the validity of myths it can become problematic if you bring them into too close contact with specific social realities (for instance post 9/11 America). These last films neither present America 'as it is' nor the 'mythic ideal' of America to a full extent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:00 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:40 am
John Cope wrote:
In a lot of ways, a film like Don't Come Knocking is more daring and visionary than something like The State of Things which complies immediately with those preconceived expectations. It simply doesn't challenge us in the same way. Don't Come Knocking was slammed by "sophisticated" critics for being naive and out of touch. But out of touch with what? It is, apparently, hard to believe that Wenders could be (like Lynch, Rudolph and King) willfully embracing a kind of socially perceived naivete, not as a glib and ironic device but rather as a truth to be taken seriously. What Wenders has been doing since Wings is not fashionable, especially in contemporary European film terms, and is thus not engaged with seriously; his achievements and great advances are not acknowledged.

I finally saw Dont Come Knocking this past weekend. I had extremely high expectations for it. The expectations were possibly unfair cause few films really could match Paris, Texas in my mind, but I saw Shepard/Wenders and I allowed myself to hope....

I was not disapointed in Don't Come Knocking because of it's naivete. I was disapointed because the story just didn't seem to be there. And after watching it with the directors commentary for clues it only seemed to reinforce my opinion that Wenders just really wanted to make a movie in Butte, Montana. But, sadly, he just didn't have a story to tell, or maybe it was the wrong story.

I mean in Paris, Texas there was the connection between Travis and the child against the backdrop. In Wings of Desire Berlin was the backdrop where there seemed to be many beautiful connections and interactions. Bruno Ganz's was just one of many. But in Don't Come Knocking nobody ever seems to connect. Without Sarah Polley's character, Sky, I am unsure I would have even made it through this. She almost singlehandidly saved the film. I almost wished it was focused on her more than Sam Shepard's character. But, of course Sam wrote this as a comedic role for himself, so...[/i]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
I re-watched DCK yesterday, partly triggered by this discussion here. I had formerly only seen it in the cinema, in a German dub. Having seen the original version now, I have to take back some of my former statements. For example, I find now that the film has precisely the ironic stance and characterization I missed before. I think it has a lot to do with how Shepard speaks that brings around the deeper involvement and emotionality, nicely balancing between his character's public persona and the deep insecurity and emptiness underneath. Also a lot of the fun in the dialogue was missing in the German translation. That scene with Roth and Lange discussing the various ways to prepare potatoes is priceless.
It's interesting to see some of the deleted scenes in the extras; this scene and also the encounter with the Indian on the parking lot were much longer originally, and Wenders says he shortened them because they would have become too self-sufficient. He's right, of course, but having them in full length would perhaps have helped the film by highlighting some absurd moments, which might have served as a contrast to the somewhat clichéd main story. But I think now it's not a bad film at all, although the detective's role (good as it is) never quite reaches Rüdiger Vogler's various appearances in similar roles in "Until the end of the world" or "Lisbon Story". I agree with the previous comment on Polley: she's plain marvellous as Sky, although it never becomes quite clear when and how Howard managed to get her into the world in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
From DavisDVD:

Quote:
Wim Wenders Collection vol. 2

Anchor Bay Entertainment will release the Wim Wenders Collection vol. 2 on December 5th. This eight-disc boxed set includes the films The Scarlet Letter (1973), Wrong Move (1978), Lightning Over Water (1980), Tokyo-Ga (1983), A Trick of the Light (1995), The American Friend (1977), Notebook on Cities and Clothes (1989) and Room 666 (1982), along with a documentary featuring Wenders probing some of the greatest directors in the world - Akerman, Antonioni, Demme, Fassbinder, Godard, Herzog and even Spielberg - during the Cannes Film Festival by simply asking "What is the future of cinema?" Bonus materials include commentary tracks on each feature and a 16-page booklet. Retail is $89.98.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
Quote:
and Room 666 (1982), along with a documentary featuring Wenders probing some of the greatest directors in the world - Akerman, Antonioni, Demme, Fassbinder, Godard, Herzog and even Spielberg - during the Cannes Film Festival by simply asking "What is the future of cinema?"

So it includes Chambre 666 II?

Anyway, I will be getting this, although there is a fair amount of dross there and the selection seems a bit random.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true
The end of Wim's love affair with the US? Maybe...

Will this mean a Verhoeven like "return to form"?

At this point, what would that be?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm
Wings of DesIIIre?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:29 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Actually, Wenders has said several times before that he was planning to return to Germany because he found the political and film-making atmosphere in the US to be increasingly difficult for him. But it's hard to imagine what he would do back here, as Germany is probably the most americanized of all European countries now. I would assume that he wouldn't have any success with the critics here if he made a film like "Wings of desire" now, let alone something like "Until the end of the world". On the other hand, even an average Wenders film would be welcome considering the rest of the stuff currently produced and being successful by other German filmmakers. And I think that the Guardian critic is overly harsh in dismissing his post "Wings"-work so thoroughly. Wenders' films from the 90s and 2000s are a mixed bag, for sure, but apart from "End of violence", they are all engaging one way or other. And if Mel Gibson dismisses "Million Dollar Hotel", it's almost a definite sign that the film is good. And it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:37 am 

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:42 pm
Gee, whatever happened to KINGS OF THE ROAD. Am I the only person left on this planet who thinks that one is a masterpiece and should be released on DVD???????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:32 pm 

Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
Not a masterpeice, but it should be released on DVD.

I'm a big fan of The State of Things. Not sure what "themes" its supposed to have, however. It's just about trying to make a movie and not getting killed in the process. It should be seen in tandem with Ruiz's The Territory for reasons that are fairly obvious.

What killed Wenders career was Fundamentalist Christianity -- a loathsome infection of the cerebral cortex.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:17 pm
Location: London, UK
stroszeck wrote:
Gee, whatever happened to KINGS OF THE ROAD. Am I the only person left on this planet who thinks that one is a masterpiece and should be released on DVD?

I've not seen it for a while, but I also think it's a masterpiece and probably Wenders' finest and most characteristic film (though I've still never seen The Goalie's Anxiety... or The State of Things).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
David Ehrenstein wrote:
What killed Wenders career was Fundamentalist Christianity -- a loathsome infection of the cerebral cortex.

Ahm....I'm not sure whether I get the drift here... do you suggest that Wenders is a Christian Fundamentalist because his films are rooted in some general Christian beliefs? He surely declared he is a Christian, but it is so obvious that he is opposed against ANY sort of fundamentalism and disrespect /mistrust for other religions. "Land of Plenty"'s storyline alone should prove that, and if the film alone doesn't do it, listen to the audio commentary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:49 pm 

Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 pm
Well if so that's news to me. Christianity is a highly intolerant and wildly paranoid delusional system.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


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

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection