Sin City Movie Review
April 03, 2005 | 
40 Comments
Summary: Sin City is quite possibly the best comic to movie adaptation ever and a great movie to boot.
Sin City was brilliant.
Put simply it was Frank Miller’s books put to motion and sound. Nothing more, nothing less. It is, beyond any doubt, the most accurate comic to film adaptation ever, the only real differences being small and very well done vignettes placed in to help tie the three story-lines together.
The dialogue, the art direction, the make up, the score, the acting, well, everything was perfect. If there would be any complaint it would be that it was too perfect. If you’ve read the comics, it was almost as if you’d already seen the movie. There are virtually no discrepancies, and nothing to nit-pick. At least not that I could see.
So, what about for those who don’t know the comics? As a movie, standing along, was it good?
Hell yeah it was good.
Sin City has been one of the best written comics out there and a good movie often starts with a good story. Since they did such a good job translating it to film what the viewer gets is a direct line into some very well written story.
It’s brutal, sometimes shockingly so, but at the same time it’s so pulpy you have to giggle a bit in the midst of the chaos. The one liners are great and the action intense. This is what a pulp action movie should aspire to—regardless of the source material, which in this case is amazing.
I’ve got to admit. I’m a comic book junkie. I love comics and I love it when my favorite books are made into movies. Part of me even likes it when they don’t do a very good job, as I can see it almost as a completely new creative take on characters, scenes and stories I love.
With Sin City they took the books, cast them perfectly and screen by screen, panel by panel, recreated them. Huge props need to be given to everyone involved. The makeup is stellar, just look at Marv’s face or Yellow Bastard. Oh, and did I mention, the acting is superb. Again, Yellow Bastard, played by Nick Stahl (who also plays Ben Hawkins in the outstanding Carnivale) is perfect and I can’t say enough about Mickey Rourke’s take on Marv.
But all the acting was good, to be honest. Every one played their roles perfectly as far as I could tell. Elijah Wood as Kevin — perfect! I could go on…
Behind the scenes Miller and Rodriguez did such an amazing job. I mean it was unreal. I’m almost at a loss for words. I’m not going to say that this is how a comic movie should be made, because I don’t think all comics would benefit from this treatment. But I will say this is how the Sin City books should be made. The only way they should be made.
If they do more, and I hope they do, let’s hope they can keep it all together.
If you like a good action flick, with lots of style and substance. Sin City is for you. Highly recommended.
My Rating: 5 out of 5
Filed under: Review
Comments
1. huphtur said:
How about Alba?
Posted on April 3, 2005 08:20 PM | #
2. Chris Vincent said:
Saw it last night. The movie was amazing.
Elijah Wood as Kevin was incredibly creepy. A very different role from Frodo, that’s for damn sure.
The composition of the scenes was astoundingly close to the comic book. I saw a website somewhere showing side-by-side comparisons; they did a fantastic job at transferring the monochrome noir environment to film.
And I’m with Huphtur on this… we can’t not mention Alba’s appearance.
Posted on April 3, 2005 08:27 PM | #
3. Keith said:
Alba’s very hot and she makes a great Nancy. The funny thing is, her character is the one that is least accurate in my mind, not that it’s bad. But in the books she’s more…raw. She’s sexy in the movie, but not quite “stripperish” as her character in the books.
And that’s important because of how it effects Hartigan. They do a great job of working around it, mainly because Alba is so sensuous and sexy but she isn’t quite as accurate as the other characters.
But, yeah, she’s smokin’.
Posted on April 3, 2005 08:35 PM | #
4. B. Adam said:
Hehe, here I go again, maybe I’m just incapable of agreeing? :)
Going into this movie on Friday I was all prepared to make mental notes and write an in-depth fanboy review when I got home. After all, as a kid I collected all Miller’s comics and even created my ‘own comics’ using some of Miller’s work.
But … reading a comic about heads of girls mounted on a wall and seeing it in live action are two totally different things. Reading about a little yellow bastard getting his balls ripped off is one thing but … well, you get my point.
And also, I didn’t feel any tension. Since it was so faithful I knew exactly what was going to happen, you know?
Now I really did enjoy Rourke as Marv and I think Del Toro did a great job, too. But going in I was fully expecting Sin City to reign supreme and knock X-Men 2 off as my favorite comic book adaptation – and it just didn’t happen.
Posted on April 3, 2005 08:40 PM | #
5. Keith said:
Adam – I can see what you mean by “..it was so faithful I knew exactly what was going to happen.” That was probably the only niggle I had.
As far as my favorite comic adaptation, this isn’t mine. I think it was the most accurate and as a movie I think it warrants high praise, but I also enjoyed X-Men 2 more. And Blade, and Hellboy…but with all those movies I felt there was something to knock. With Sin City it was really hard…
I gave it a 5/5 but there are movies I’ve given a lower rating that I thought were more “fun.” If that makes any sense?
Posted on April 3, 2005 08:54 PM | #
6. Ramin said:
Whatever you do, do NOT go to www.sincity.com and expect to see pictures and information about the movie. It’s definitely not the official movie website!
Posted on April 3, 2005 08:56 PM | #
7. B. Adam said:
Ramin: Haha, I did that exact thing. And of course, since the movie’s so violent you click the “Over 18” button thinking to yourself, “Oh, how conscientious of them to keep out the kids …”!
Keith: Yep, makes sense to me. With X-Men 2 the ridiculous Cyclops sobbing scene at the end is almost physically painful it’s so bad – but Sin City was perfect as far as execution goes.
Isn’t that funny? In our new world of DVDs and watching movies in crystal clear clarity over and over again, “perfect execution” has now become an expectation. Unlike back in the day, say … Terminator 2, where you can see Arnold’s arm underneath his jacket after he supposedly got it ripped off. You know what I’m talking about? And you’re just sitting there saying to yourself, “Um. Terminator, you’re arm’s just under your jacket there. You just need to put it back through the armhole. No, you’re still missing it, up a little more …”
Posted on April 3, 2005 09:11 PM | #
8. Daniel said:
I couldn’t agree more with your thoughts on the movie. I’ve been waiting for this movie since September… and it’s been a long wait. I had the Comic Con trailer on my fan site for awhile… then I blew my bandwidth (15gbs).
I also agree with you on Alba’s character… she is supposed to be to say the least “more slutty” but that doesn’t matter too much as Brittany Murphy was also super hot… and on top of that the movie was just excellent. I really hope this goes really big and makes Rodriguez and Miller a bunch of money
Posted on April 3, 2005 10:08 PM | #
9. Tim said:
Couldn’t agree more. It was simple a fantastic movie. Rourke as Marv was absolutely brilliant.
Of course, you have to set up your movie experience the right way. Six all took a half-day off of work, went to Hooters for lunch (beer), then to the Emagine theatre (which serves alcohol) for the 12:30 showing. Watching that movie with a giant beer in hand was pure heaven.
Posted on April 4, 2005 04:08 AM | #
10. Arikawa said:
They might have decided to tone down Alba’s character because she wouldn’t do nude scenes (interview I saw somewhere).
Posted on April 4, 2005 06:40 AM | #
11. Lea said:
Here here! *pounds table* I saw this movie twice this weekend. It was great both times. Clive Owen + red converse sneakers = SWOON! :D
Marv/Mickey Rourke was gold.
Posted on April 4, 2005 07:48 AM | #
12. Small Paul said:
Crikey. People liked X-Men 2? I guess me being a Star Trek fan meant I placed a little too much emphasis on the fact that they took Patrick Stewart, and did nothing with him save sticking him in a room with a little girl.
Posted on April 4, 2005 07:50 AM | #
13. Jason said:
I saw it on Friday and, having never read the books, I went into it pretty open minded. I was expecting an interesting story and excellent visuals. I’m happy to say I wasn’t disappointed. I particularly enjoyed the cuts to white silhouettes on black. They had incredible impact.
Posted on April 4, 2005 09:22 AM | #
14. Kevin Tamura said:
Oh I loved Sin City, I thought they never could of pulled it off even when I saw the test reel with Josh Hartnet, wow. My only two griped with ti are that it was too faithfull to the book (hmm seems like I’m not the only one) and I wanted more of the silhouetted shots mixed in. Honetly though these are such mnior things and didn’t curve my enjoyment of the movie what so ever.
One of my favorite parts was Benicio Del Toro’s dialogue with Dwight in the car (Not goignt to spoil it for those who haven’t read the books. I remeber laughing out loud when I read it and the movie adaption was just as good.
Let’s hope this gets Miller to do so more, it’s been too long since there was a new instalment of Sin City.
Posted on April 4, 2005 10:14 AM | #
15. John B said:
Sin City Newbie here. Just one question. Were the stories presented out of order, ala Pulp Fiction, or does Frank just start with a clean slate for each novel? I’m referring to a certain character who dies (one of many, but one in particular) in the first half and show up in the latter half. I’m trying my best not to spoil anything for anyone who hasn’t seen it.
Posted on April 4, 2005 12:43 PM | #
16. B, Adam said:
Saw this browsing round for others’ take on the movie:
http://www.filmrot.com/images/sincity-comparisons/sincity.html
It’s some shot by shot comparisons between the comics and the movie. Pretty cool, actually.
Posted on April 4, 2005 05:13 PM | #
17. Wraither said:
I have no complaints.
I hadnt read the book prior to the movie, but seeing the movie, it was easy to see with all the effort put into this that there would be a perfect adaptation.
Many of you said the only small problem they had was the fact that it was so well adapted that they knew what was happening.
I didnt, as I had said, I had not read the books, but now I have and am very happy.
This is one of those movies that will really boost millers readers. I think that it gives us the choice whether we want to read or watch and still gain the same thing from it with only tiny differences.
Art.
Posted on April 5, 2005 11:48 AM | #
18. Creford said:
Thanks for this nice news! I’ll go to see this movie.
Now I just can view the Photo gallery from here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401792/photogallery
Posted on April 6, 2005 12:02 AM | #
19. Donna said:
I have never seen such an awful movie. There was no real plot. Save your money.
Posted on April 6, 2005 01:31 PM | #
20. Christian Watson said:
Overall, I guess I enjoyed Sin City - if ‘enjoyed’ is the right word for a movie so chock full of sadistic violence. After a while it started feeling like violence for its own sake rather than being wound into the story.
By the way, if you’re into stylized violence and misogeny towards women, you might want to check out Ichi The Killer, which left me feeling much like Sin City - liking the film for various reasons (style, acting, art direction, etc), but feeling at the same time that there were significant moral reasons why I should really be feeling quite differently.
Posted on April 6, 2005 10:36 PM | #
21. mitch said:
worst movie i’ve ever watched i dont see how you any of you could say that movie was good.
Posted on April 9, 2005 08:28 AM | #
22. David Torrey said:
Best movie (of it’s type), maybe.
A “bad” movie? Hardly.
Like some of the folks who posted here, I hadn’t read the graphic comix so everything was fresh and unfamiliar territory. If you like neo-noir, BDSM and unconventional, thought provoking cinema, you’ll LOVE this film.
The interwoven plot threads are subtle, but very cohesive so any naysayers just weren’t paying much attention. There are also strong moral elements to Sin City which removes it from the ranks of mindless exploitation flicks.
A truly great film … well scripted, acted and flawlessly executed.
Posted on April 9, 2005 02:22 PM | #
23. Tom M. said:
I saw the movie with my wife this weekend trying to go out and have a good time and spend the day together. Both of us were shocked on the entire movie. Had to be the WORST movie ever that I have seen in my 38 years on this earth. Bruce Willis must be desperate to want a part in this movie. “NOT” one of his best movies at all. I am surprised he can sleep at night knowing he starred in this movie. Out of a possible scale from 1 - 10 I would give this movie a .000001 and that is being generous. This is a “MUST NOT SEE” movie and don’t bother wasting your money.
Thanks
Tom
Posted on April 9, 2005 04:44 PM | #
24. David said:
I have to agree with Tom. I took my wife out to see this movie not having read the comics. My wife never read comics but she has enjoyed most of the movie adaptations I have taken her to see. With an all star cast, I figured this had to be a great movie. Unfortunately I didn’t realize Quentin Tarrantino was the director. Had I known that, I wouldn’t have bothered. This was a sick gore-fest the likes of Kill Bill and I cannot fathom why this sick freak is allowed to continue making movies. It wasn’t enjoyable and I nearly walked out halfway through but I figured, hey all these actors can’t have willingly been party to such graphically violent tripe without some redemption at the end. Well, I have to say I started to have hope when Bruce Willis’ character was going to save Jessica Alba’s character. I though, well after all the violence setting the stage, at least there is nobility here. Perhaps Tarrantino was attempting to show the great divide between the good and the evil of the city. Of course, I was sorely disappointed when Willis’ character dove right into Tarrantino’s pit of senseless and graphic violence with the rest of the filth.
Comic books are one thing. There is lots of violence in comic books that seeing in still frame isn’t incredibly disturbing. I am no comic book prude, I enjoyed Spawn and Marshall Law which were some pretty edgy titles. Taking something this dark, however, and transposing it to live action was just something that should have been left to the imagination.
I also feel some anxiety that so many posters felt this was an excellent movie and seemed to have no issues with the morality of it.
I am truly worried about the state of our society when movies like Kill Bill and Sin City fail to generate any reaction or public outcry and when twisted freaks like Tarrantino are allowed to continue their assault on the minds of America’s youth.
‘nuff said. In short, I wouldn’t see this movie again if you paid me to and I wouldn’t walk across the street to piss on Quentin Tarrantino if he was on fire!
Posted on April 10, 2005 09:06 AM | #
25. Alana said:
Um, David… You do realize that Tarantino only directed one small scene right? Robert Rodriguez directed the movie along with Frank Miller, the creator of the comics.
Posted on April 11, 2005 02:07 PM | #
26. Jim Amos said:
“Somebody think of the children!!!”
Hilarious.
The movie was downright awesome. Mickey Rourke was especially great in his role. And my wife liked it too.
Posted on April 13, 2005 07:52 AM | #
27. theleftnut said:
i loved this movie,it was something diffrent in a time full of crappy movies, even in dvd rental there a ton of crappy movies. i am going to buy it when it comes out on dvd, hopefuly before the republican sex police have it pulled from the shelves!!!
Posted on April 14, 2005 01:48 AM | #
28. deusxmachina said:
I don’t know how anyone can say this is a bad movie. Not their cup of tea, too violent for them, etc, sure, but it is certainly well-made. There is no need for a public outcry for the youth of America when it’s rated “R” and no one under 17 should be seeing it anyway if they have lousy parents who didn’t teach them right from wrong and personal responsibility and can’t separate fiction from reality.
I’m a longtime comic reader but never read this one. Anything Frank Miller does is at the worst decent and at the best groundbreaking, and this movie was more the latter than former. Once again, it’s not for everyone, but you’ll be hard-pressed to see another movie like it this year. So many movies nowadays are just plain bad and unoriginal.
The movie is violent, but, like many other over-the-top movies, it’s done with a bit of a wink and a smile to the audience. “Saw” is reality violent. Sin City (and Kill Bill) is more “hey, we know it’s a movie” *wink* violent. And, as usual, even if the hero resorts to violence, it is generally to punish those who have hurt others.
Seeing Sin City made me re-read Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns. Now THAT’D be a movie!
Posted on April 16, 2005 01:53 PM | #
29. not so average girl said:
Okay, I confess I have never read the comic prior to seeing the movie, but then I am not much of a comic book reader. I will say that those of you who didn’t like the movie had to have been focused solely on the gore and violence, which is obviously-Not Your Thing. If you actually take a close look at the actors and the characters they play, then it was very well done. In accordance with comic books; blood, gore, violence and nudity are all to be expected. If you were shocked, then you haven’t been paying close attention.
The color scheme, black and white with splashes of red, blue, green, yellow, had the desired affect a comic to movie should have. Given that this a comic, people should not be so surprised by what took place.
One thing I do have to say, is most living males believe that they will be every 20something girl’s dream when they are pushing 70……Are you for real?
This is one of those movies which is very obviously not real life. It is a great movie, with excellent characters and moderately easy to follow story line. To sit back and lose yourself for a while, I would recommend “Sin City”. Maybe then you would realize how much worse your life could be.
Posted on April 17, 2005 08:45 PM | #
30. Allen said:
Did any of you understand the linnk between the three stroies? how the characters all played a part in eahothers minin stories? can any1 pleae explain it to me? because i dont think i understodd it all…..
Posted on April 29, 2005 12:26 PM | #
31. Sam "I hate people who rant about how movies are corrupting the youth" Haft said:
OK: I am going to start off my review by saying that I am fifteen years old and LOVED this movie. You know what? I also thought Kill Bill Vol. 2 and Shaun of the Dead were great movies! Have I become a mass-murderer? No! Do I cut myself? Occasionally, but not on purpose, and only when preparing meals.
Movies do not corrupt people. People do.
Maybe I liked the movie so much because I have a young enough psyche that I can see PAST the blood and gore (which there was a lot of, although is was not realistic, as most of it was black or yellow), and you know what I saw? I saw the most incredible art direction that Hollywood has ever seen. I saw breathtaking cinematography. I saw a great film. I, unlike most “SWEET JESUS DO NOT SEE THIS FILM! THIS IS VIOLENT! I HAVE NEVER SEEN BLOOD! I AM EMBARRASSED TO SEE WOMEN IN THEIR UNDERWEAR” parents, know a thing or two about film, and this was brilliant.
The worst thing Bruce Willis has ever done?! Are you JOKING me?! What was the best thing he did? The kid?! Please tell me this is some sick joke.
To the question about how all these stories tie together? Simple:
-Marv (Mickey Rourke)is a tough-as-nails street-fighter who goes on a murderous rampage of revenge when his true-love is killed in bed with him by Kevin. Kevin is a mentally disturbed orphan with cannibalistic tendancies who is taken in by Cardinal Roark (Rutger Hauer), who keeps Kevin on the Roark estate, a farm just out of town. Cardinal Roark’s brother, Senator Roark (Powers Boothe)’s son Junior (Nick Stahl) is a twisted pedophile pervert who is pursued by Hartigan (Bruce Willis), who tries to save Nancy Callahan (Jessica Alba), and punish Junior once and for all. Coincidentally, Junior happens to conduct his perverted business at the Roark estate, mentioned earlier.
-Hartigna first: It’s Hartigan’s last day as a cop before retirement, and he has a bad heart condition. He has one last loose end he needs to tie up. Junior has abducted young Nancy (young nancy played by Makenzie Vega, little sister of Alexa Vega, star of Spy Kids, another Rodriguez picture), and against his Partner (Michael Madsen)’s wishes, pursues Junior. He saves Nacny and shoots Junior three times, before being shot by his partner. Hartigan is jailed for eight years for allegedly molesting young Nancy. He is not let out of jail because he does not sign a confession. When he gets a piece of mail conttaining Nancy’s finger, he signs the confession and goes in search of Nancy. He finds Nancy perfectly fine, but he leads Junior to her as well. After a fight with Junior, junior is presumed dead, and Hartigan and Nancy go back to her flat where Junior attacks Hartigan and hangs him. Weevil and Shlubb, two hitmen go to clean up after the hanging. Hartigan is not dead, and escapes, following Junior to teh estate, where he murders him, saves Nancy, then kills himself.
-Back to Marv: He is framed for the killing of his true-love, Goldie (Jamie King). He goes to Old Town to find answers. Old Town is a section of Sin City ruled by the hookers. There is a shaky truce between the Old Town hookers and the Sin City police. The police stay out of Old Town, and the Old Town women keep justice on their own turf. In Old Town, Marv kills and tortures Weevil and Shlubb (Tommy Nix and Nick Offerman respectively), and gets a lead to the Roark estate. He goes there and gets attacked by Kevin. He loses, and wakes up in Kevin’s cellar. There he finds his parole officer Lucille (Carla Gugino) in a state of shock after she has watched Kevin eat her hand. They sneak out of the cellar. In the cover of the woods they see a bunch of cop cars arrive at the estate. Lucille goes out of the woods, showing that she is a cop. The other men pump her full of lead. Marv, stunned, heads back to Old Town to nurse his wounds and get some weapons etc before coming back to take revenge. Back in Old Town, Marv is attacked by someone who he thinks is the late Goldie, but who actually is her twin Wendy (also played by Jamie King), who after knocking him unconscious, takes him in front of the Old Town girls to be interrogated. He is interrogated by Wendy and Gail (Rosario Dawson), who find out that he was framed. They give him some supplies to kill Kevin with, and with Wendy, he departs for the Roark estate. At the estate, he knocks Wendy unconcious, not wanting her to see what takes place. He kills Kevin and turtures him brutally, not getting a word or even a scream out of him as he kills him. He gets a hunch that Cardinal Roark is behind this. He goes to the Cardinal and shows him the severed head of Kevin, then kills him. The cops arrive on the scene and pump him full of lead. Marv being Marv, he does not die. He is brought back to life by medical science, and is then promptly jailed. In jail he gets a visit by Wendy before he is given the chair. It takes two tries on the chair to kill him.
-Now on to Dwight (Clive Owen), and ex photographer who had to have his face changed after he murdered someone. He follows Jackie-Boy (Benicio Del Toro) from the apartment of a girl who he has been harassing, Shellie (Brittany Murphy). He follows Jackie to Old Town, where Jackie Boy runs afoul of a hooker, and gets killed by Miho (Devon Aoki), Old Town’s one-woman army. The Old Towners soon learn that Jackie-Boy is a well-known cop called “Iron” Jack Rafferty. Dwight goes to dispose of the body, but loses the head to some henchmen of Manute (Michael Clarke Duncan) and must get it back. When in Old Town, he stops by the bar where Nancy is an erotic dancer for, seeing Marv, and commenting about him, saying everyone thinks he’s crazy, but he was just born in the wrong century, and that he’d be at home on some ancient battlefield.
That’s how they intertwine.
Your friendly neighborhood critic,
Sam
Posted on April 30, 2005 08:33 PM | #
32. Bill said:
This thing has got to rank up there…
In the top 3 WORST friggin’ pieces of garbage that I’ve ever seen. MAJOR letdown! Comicly stuipd! Jokingly absurd at frequent intervals.
I want a refund…
Posted on April 30, 2005 09:08 PM | #
33. Allen said:
I still dont understand how the stories mix in to eachothers,, wut u wrote sam,is in my eyes just a summary of the movie.. But as the Sin City movie, i got the feeling that a deeper msg was lying underneath… i just cant figure it out..
Posted on May 5, 2005 03:04 PM | #
34. therightnut said:
this movie is the coolest but i never seen the movie!
Posted on May 20, 2005 12:14 PM | #
35. tom said:
Does anyone know what the end of the film was about? the guy who kills the lady in the red dress at the start is the same guy who is in the elevator at the very end, what is the link?
Posted on June 15, 2005 03:07 PM | #
36. Jatin said:
The best movie I have ever seen!!
Posted on June 25, 2005 03:45 PM | #
37. johnny said:
Hi there all you sin city fans!
I absolutely loved the film and understood how each story intertwined \etc. could someone please explain the begining and the end with josh hartnett character? i have not seen any original comics etc so a bit lost with that?
cheers
Posted on July 26, 2005 08:12 AM | #
38. Nicolas said:
The movie was very good. The fotography was very elaborated, with only a few colors that gave to the movie a strong stetic charge.I liked very much how the actors make their rols because they had something on common: fylthy, strong, murderers, smokers… . I think that the title talks a lot of how the movie is: A city were everybody makes sins with no excuses, supuestamente there are no bad-good relations but I think that in the deep there is that kind of relation. The music was very good adapted. Sometimes very funny too but always with that charge of violence that I liked very much. The scipt was very similar of how the comic is written, I the first person and very critical, Like if you were reading the character s mind, o feelings. Tahts very weel done.
Posted on August 6, 2005 10:31 AM | #
39. Gregor said:
Just rented the DVD, “SIN CITY” was Surreal, comical in its sick gore, Totally amazing in its
darkened film noir style yet a surprisingly unique comic book adaptatation. If 1989’s Batman
re-introduced film noir (i.e. Darkened / mystical
suspense) to todays generation, …this movie
“kicks” that level up a couple noches and sets
a new standard. As a comic book reader of the 60’s
and 70’s, and 80’s (but not during the last decade) this movie has all the surreal
fantasy yet underlying theme that could be expected. It was pleasure to see Rourke slug an acting role out of the ballpark. Willis was pure
Willis, a acting style that has served him well. Thankyou Carla Cuigino for busting out of Spy Kids Rated G type Cast..Riskier roles might boost her career,,,aka like Terry Hatcher’ path. Its too bad M_Rourke may be considered over the hill for a Comic Adaptation on “Nick Fury” (howling era & modern era)..that would be “Way to Cool”.
Posted on August 21, 2005 10:23 PM | #
40. JAY said:
Sucked ass. Tarantino sucks ass. One thing I can say for every other movie ever made is at least it’s not as bad as sin city. SUck my NUTS!!!!
Posted on August 22, 2005 03:42 PM | #
Comments are now closed