A Spooky Horror Movie Montage for Halloween!

Trick or Treat!!!

Here’s a fun little montage of ghoulishly spooky horror movie scenes to celebrate Halloween. It is very nicely edited to the Love & Rockets song, “So Alive.” It’s amazing — just seeing Leatherface for a few seconds still gives me the chills. Yuck!

Enjoy Your Halloween Everyone!!!








Yoda Pug Says, “Happy Halloween!!!”

I thought this made for a nice blend of movie homage and canine awesomeness…to celebrate the Halloween season!

This, of course, is an adorable pug dressed as Yoda from Star Wars. I love his holiday spirit….


Be Safe & Have Fun!!!

One of my former students was thoughtful enough to send this picture…thank you Rich, for sending my way!

Gimme 5: Favorite Film Animals!

What do they say? Never do a movie with a child or an animal? I suppose this old adage stems from the fear of being upstaged by an adorable little girl in pigtails or a cute, furry creature. But there have been some wonderful movies centering on animals – and those films where an animal just has a few scenes, but steals the show! For decades we have had scores of unforgettable animals (Toto, Bambi, Spielberg’s Great White); many woven into the fabric of cinema history. To celebrate Halloween, I was going to do a “scary movie” Top 5, but I used that one up when the “Gimme 5” feature just started – so I chose this instead. I want all you movie/animal lovers out there to try this one – if you don’t, I’m calling PETA.


I will start…

1. Otis the Pug & Milo the Cat (1989)
(this should come as no shock to anyone familiar with my site. These two cuties made the best of friends though)
2. Elsa the Lioness (Born Free, 1966)
(Love the score to this film, but Elsa is the movie. Watching a human couple raise this orphan lion cub is a marvel to watch)
3. Virgil the Chimpanzee (Project X, 1987)
(this little guy breaks my heart. I always have a tough time watching this film – mainly because of his adorable facial expressions)
4. Dumbo the Elephant (1941)
(those blue eyes, that sweet disposition, those awesome ears! Tell me him being cradled on his mamma’s trunk while she is incarcerated doesn’t break your heart — and I’ll tell you that you’re without a soul)
5. King Kong (1933)
(The mighty king of ’em all…I used to watch this every year they played it on TV around Thanksgiving time. A superb film)

Now It’s Your Turn!!!

Mel Gibson Ousted from “Hangover II” – What A Joke!

I’m sure many have already heard about this bit of news, but I wanted to get my two cents in on the subject anyway. So, in a rather brilliant casting move, Mel Gibson was set to make a cameo appearance as a Bangok tattoo artist in the much anticipated Hangover II. When I first heard about this, I thought it was ideal casting and a perfect move on two fronts: (1) it would help to bring Mel back in the public eye in a positive way and (2) it would just be downright hilarious…a much funnier cameo than Mike Tyson, would you not agree? OK, a third non-related front would be that I am really anxious to see The Beaver (directed by Jodie Foster and starring Gibson) and this would help to bring that to the screens in quicker fashion.

But last week, Warner Brothers — a studio that Gibson has helped make a gazillion dollars for — dropped the controversial star from the project. Why??? Apparently a number of the film’s stars objected to the casting of Mel and were “in deep protest” (to use Zach Galifianakis’ words) about the decision. They have since replaced him with Liam Neeson — a much safer bit of casting, but not nearly as funny for a comedy that is supposed to give off the no-holds barred kind of vibe.

This decision is a joke and a shame. Galifianakis is the only one who has thus far publicly voiced his personal protest of Mel’s presence in the movie (without naming names), saying he was “up in arms” about a certain movie he was working on. Very brave of you, Zach…if you’re going to call someone out, be a man and call that person out. Don’t hide behind ambiguity. What upsets me further is this absurd “Holier Than Thou,” self-righteous attitude that these stars (and select crew members) have taken…in Hollywood of all places!!! The irony of it all reeks of hypocrisy.

Mike Tyson wasn’t bothered at all. In fact, of everyone involved, Tyson said it perfectly — “I’m not going to ever in my life point my finger at anyone. I don’t live in a glass house. None of us do.” Amen, champ. What has the Oscar-winning Gibson done for other celebs in their hour of crisis and need? What did he do with Brittany Spears and Robert Downey, Jr., among others? The man went out of his way to reach out and help these troubled stars when no one else seemingly would. It is a disgrace that in his time of need, these Hangover stars (including Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms) cannot find it in themselves to do the same. And let’s face it — The Hangover made these guys. Sure they were working, but this movie made them huge. I’d love to see just one of them showcase the talent remotely close to Gibson’s as a polished actor and/or an extraordinary filmmaker. Perhaps the virtuous Mr. Galifianakis will surprise us all by doing something minutely different from everything else he has done to date, which is, let’s face it, the same character over and over and over again. But I won’t hold my breath.

I hope these stars never say the wrong thing, never make a bad decision that goes public or never do anything considered to be remotely immoral. Because by having Mel axed from this soon-to-be blockbuster film, they are saying that they are too good and too upstanding for those who have made bad mistakes and poor choices. Again, I am in no way condoning Mel’s recent behavior, but who do these guys think they are? This protest — that eventually led to the firing of one of their brethren — stinks of pretense and insincerity.

Film Review: “Waiting for ‘Superman'”

I don’t think I’m breaking any news here by saying that American children are getting dumber every year. State test scores confirm this — and according to Davis Guggenheim‘s latest documentary Waiting for “Superman” — among 30 developed countries, the United States ranks 25th in math and 21st in science. This is only one of the many staggering statistics cited in Guggenheim’s frightening and thought-provoking film. Where did our once mighty country go wrong in a domain as essential as education? The film doesn’t explore this issue in as much depth as perhaps it should, but it does serve as a brilliant indictment of the public education system in America and an important wake-up call to those who have the power to begin to do something about it.

The film examines five promising young children (of the 40+ million sitting in public school classes today) and their families who are looking to get a better education and, in doing so, improve their lives. Most of the documentary centers on schools in poverty-stricken communities, but the filmmaker makes sure to cite that pointing the proverbial finger at such schools because they don’t have the economical means is not the primary reason for such failures. It surely makes for an easy “out,” but Guggenheim shows that it doesn’t matter what the socio-economic stats of a given community are — schools across the board are failing our students and what the film illustrates is that bureaucracy and the hypocritical teachers’ unions are the major obstacles from turning this nationwide epidemic around.

Two administrators prominently highlighted in the film are looking to better serve the educational needs of our children. Harlem Children’s Zone CEO, Geoffrey Canada is a true visionary in the educational field and has been fighting for reform for years and backing up his many theories with action…and promising results. Born in the South Bronx, Mr. Canada’s school takes full responsibility of a student’s academic progress, getting children through high school and college, in areas where far too many drop out in high school. Canada comes off as inspiring, prophetic, and relentless. Michelle A. Rhee (the seventh superintendent of the Washington, D.C. school system in the last ten years) is the other champion of the film, and has challenged the languid status quo with fierce determination since taking on the Sisyphus-like position. Ms. Rhee has tried to eliminate teachers who have proven to be ineffective by fighting the mighty unions who make it nearly impossible to fire a teacher who has been granted tenure. Along the way, Ms. Rhee has made many an enemy though her sole objective is a simple one — to provide the students of Washington, D.C. with a proper education. Everyone agrees that something is seriously wrong with the system, but no one has the gumption to do anything about it — this is what the film illustrates in magnificent fashion. Ms. Rhee knows that drastic measures are needed — but when the Washington Teachers’ Union refuse to vote on an act that would eliminate tenure, but grant teachers a much higher salary — you can see why the schools are failing and understand why the superintendents before her have failed.

The resistance to reform and the removal of poor teachers is exemplified in Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers. The awarding of tenure in this country is remarkably easy (as shown in a recent CNN special on the subject) and once granted, it is next to impossible to fire an unproductive teacher. The film provides some eye-popping statistics on this issue and what is done with teachers who have proven to be failures to their students. The infamous New York Rubber Room (costing citizens over $100 million a year) where tenured teachers sit around all day and collect full salary and benefits, and the “Dancing of the Lemons” (where a district simply has schools swap one defective teacher for another) are sad realities and a waste of tax-payer money. Unlike most professions where one would be terminated for poor performance, a tenured teacher remains and receives an increase in pay each year. Weingarten fights for this as our students’ test scores drop lower and lower.

The most moving moments in the film come from the five children. Realizing that their children’s’ lives are in the hands of inadequate public schools, the parents of these children try to gain admittance into charter schools who are showing more promising results. But admission is done by lottery, as there are only so many slots available and the demand is high. The sequence of these separate lotteries is fascinating to watch and the look of devastation and hopelessness in a mother’s eyes when her child’s number is not called is hard to shake. Though she doesn’t say anything at all, you can just see her thinking to herself, “What do I do now?”

In the film, Mr. Canada states that watching an effective teacher is like watching “a work of art.” As a former high school teacher, I certainly agree with this comparison. It is a remarkably challenging job. I worked for two public schools and the difference between them was night-and-day. The first school was devoted to providing its students with an exceptional education. The English department that I was a part of was filled with dedicated and creative teachers who all excelled at their craft. We met on a regular basis to discuss departmental philosophies and our performance was monitored in proper fashion. In short, we were held accountable. Fast forward to the second school, which, like so many other negligent schools in our country, specialized in passing undeserving students through the system. I can vividly recall my first week of teaching there — I had a senior English class and had assigned them to read two short chapters of Of Mice and Men for homework over the weekend. My mentor — the man responsible for showing me the way at this particular school — looked at me, laughed, and said, “We don’t do that here.” I would say of the 20+ teachers who made up this particular English department, perhaps 3-5 of them are qualified to teach the subject. Most were concerned with hoarding departmental books in their closets, leaving school grounds faster than their pupils when the last bell rang, and telling their students not to submit essays longer than 1-page (because they didn’t want to do that much reading). It was a sad sight, and probably why Guggenheim’s film hit home to me. I saw first-hand how a successful school was run…and one that serves as one of our country’s failure factories. I can only imagine what is going on at other schools who refuse to take responsibility. To those who have children and for anyone interested in the state of our country’s educational system, this is a must-see film.

Year:       2010
Director: Davis Guggenheim

Film Review: DeNiro and Norton in “Stone”

Stone is a peculiar (and, at times, thought-provoking) movie that has the appearance and makings of a mainstream thriller, but plays out in much more of an independent fashion; a film that dares to challenge its audience to come up with their own answers to the many questions left unsolved. I normally chalk that up as a strength since having everything spoon-fed to me leaves me feeling insulted as a viewer. But it’s not clear what kind of film director John Curran is trying to make and the script (by Angus MacLachlan) doesn’t give us enough to come to our own conclusions by the time the movie abruptly ends.

It opens on a horrific and inexplicably evil act. Jack and Madylyn Mabry are a young, married couple who have a small daughter. Jack is fixated on watching golf on television, completely ignoring his wife in the process. When Madylyn decides to approach her husband with something that has obviously been weighing heavily on her mind, Jack commits the malevolent and unforgivable deed. Cut to many years later — Jack (Robert DeNiro) and Madylyn (Frances Conroy) are still married in the same modest home (much more worn) and Jack is just a few weeks away from retiring as a corrections officer. By now, the job has left Jack sickened and disillusioned and his marriage certainly seems to be a loveless one. Enter Stone (Edward Norton), a crude and tightly-wound criminal who is up for parole after serving eight years of a 10-15 year sentence for arson. His case — and his very freedom are put in the hands of Jack, a man who has done a good job of hiding his own personal demons over the years. Stone is so anxious to get out from behind prison walls that he talks his over-sexed wife Lucetta (Milla Jovovich) into approaching Jack and doing whatever she must to convince him to free her husband. An intriguing premise filled with great promise — and with the talent at hand, sure to make for an entertaining thriller. But alas, the film has loftier expectations and, though it does play out this tete-a-tete between Jack and Stone quite nicely, it goes a bit off course in places we are not expecting.

The four lead actors give solid, and at times, riveting performances. It is wonderfully refreshing to see DeNiro, after years of starring in silly comedies and subpar thrillers, play a character he can really sink his teeth into. If nothing else, this is a small reminder of how gifted he really is. His scenes behind the desk chatting with Norton crackle with tension and the back-and-forth between the two (as in 2001’s The Score) makes for great drama. Norton, all decked out in cornrows and a raspy southern drawl, is his usual magnetic self, and it is hard for us take take our eyes off of him. The religious epiphany he undergoes is an ambiguous one and we are never sure if this is a genuine transformation or one completely invented to fool Jack. Conroy is perfectly cast as DeNiro’s ultra-religious wife — she walks through the movie half comatose, showing that the decades of marriage to this man has left her completely numb to the world around her. Jovovich also delivers a strong performance, holding her own against such heavyweights…and then some. We’re never sure what her true intentions are and she seems completely natural and at ease in utilizing her sexual prowess. I particularly admired the art direction (Kerry Sanders) here, with such special care being paid to the Mabry home and everything in it. The impression given of the elder couple living there — from the washed-out living room chairs to the TV to the mildly scratched headboard of the couple’s bed — is clear and authentic.

I am afraid many expecting a “DeNiro/Norton” commercial thriller will walk away disappointed and frustrated. There is certainly much to admire and enjoy here, most of all the performances. But the film gets bogged down a bit in all of the religious overtones (a religious radio station is constantly playing in between scenes) and the conclusion may be too ambiguous for its own good. It seems to want to cover more ground than it should, which is admirable, but derails from the drama taking place. My biggest concern was the overall pacing of the film, which is painstakingly slow at times. I wish it had delved more deeply into Jack’s life — he is such a miserable and emotionally-blocked man, it would have been interesting to have a better understanding as to why (though he does try to open up at one point to the local pastor). A commendable effort, with its pros and cons…I would recommend to any DeNiro fan who has been waiting for him to give an impressive performance — or for anybody into these sparse independent dramas. If nothing else, it is surely deserving of a rental.

Year:       2010
Director:  John Curran

Tommy Wiseau’s Follow-Up to “The Room”

A couple of months ago, I did a piece (click here) on the fantastically awful cult film, The Room, after having the pleasure of viewing it with an enthusiastic crowd at a midnight showing in Dallas. If you haven’t had the good fortune of seeing this monstrosity yet, then I am sure you have heard all about it. The film stars Tommy Wiseau, who also wrote & directed — and he put millions into the making of it. But that film (still popping up on screens throughout the country) was made in 2003. What has the remarkably frightening and bizarre Wiseau been up to?

Well, funny you should ask. My good friend Phil sent me a link this past week and it will give you a good idea. The 12+ minute comedy-horror short is called “The House That Drips Blood on Alex” and for anyone familiar with Wiseau, you must give it a peek. For those not familiar with his fine acting skills, but have heard all the hype — then you must definitely watch and see what all the fuss is about. Phil says that he should start his own acting school. He is probably onto something. Perhaps he would put Uta Hagen, Stella Adler and Lee Strasberg to shame. Or…perhaps not. It should be of no shock to anyone that Wiseau here is ridiculously awful. He plays Alex, a man who makes a deal with a mysterious stranger for a very special kind of house. Watch as he enters it like it’s the first time he’s entering the home; when he signs the “deed” to the home and exclaims, “Wow this is a fancy pen! – quack, quack, quack!!!” It is absolutely hilarious. Also, as he stands outside his landlord’s “office” and says it looked different before…“Like a business office place, Thomas!” All great stuff and a must-see for any fan of The Room. (btw, don’t let the bloody image here fool you into believing it’s scary….it is not frightening in the least.)

To watch the short film, “The House That Drips Blood on Alex,” click here.

Gimme 5: Clint Favorites!

The name — is Clint. An indisputable living legend and at 80 years old, his new film, Hereafter (starring Matt Damon) opens nationwide today. A 4-time Oscar winner, Clint Eastwood has done it all…actor, producer, composer, and filmmaker. His 35+ year relationship with Warner Brothers Studios has been beyond reproach and, like a fine wine, he only seems to be getting better with age. I recently posted my favorite directors in the “15 Directors Meme,” and I had to include Mr. Eastwood for his diverse canon of impressive work. I must admit that I hadn’t really thought of him as being one of our greatest directors, but with films like Mystic River, Bird, Unforgiven, and Letters From Iwo Jima, he is simply too talented to ignore.

Simply put, Eastwood is a Hollywood staple…an artist who broke into TV in the 1950’s before starring in the spaghetti western, A Fistful of Dollars (1964). I always look forward to seeing his movies and this week, I’d like to celebrate the man by asking you to share your 5 Favorite Clint Flicks – ones he starred in or directed…or both! With 60+ acting credits & 31 films behind the camera, there are plenty to choose from! So go ahead…make my day, and


I Will Start…


1. Absolute Power (1997)
(I love this one! Clint is a lifelong thief who is witness to a murder involving US President, Gene Hackman. Great stuff!)
2. Unforgiven (1992)
(Unlike any western you will ever see; his performance here is grand. His direction, masterful)
3. A Perfect World (1993)
(Very underrated. Eastwood is a US Marshal hunting down an escaped convict – Kevin Costner in one of his greatest roles)
4. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
(I saw this before I heard the buzz & it completely shocked me. A warm, powerful, & at times, humorous film. A mighty, unforgettable work)
5. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (1966)
(The final installment of the “Dollars” trilogy, Clint is dynamic as “Blondie,” one of 3 gunslingers competing to find a buried fortune…a classic!)

Now It’s YOUR Turn!!!


One Film Lover’s Opinion – Roger Ebert Should Retire

Sometimes the great ones just stay around too long. They are the ones who, for whatever reason, can’t say goodbye. The ego is accustomed to the spotlight that has been shining on them – and still craves it. They enjoy what they do too much and the prospect of “hanging ‘em up” sends chills down their spines. So they linger…they stay. And in doing so, the legacy takes a hit. The work weakens, the talent deteriorates. Athletes are notorious for this. I was never old enough to watch the renowned Willie Mays play, but his outstaying his welcome is legendary, as every baseball fan knows that he was a shell of his former self when he was traded from the San Francisco Giants to play haplessly for the New York Mets. I witnessed Michael Jordan dominate the basketball court for years, seizing every MVP award and championship that he could. How many times did he “retire” before being outplayed by a younger generation as a member of the Washington Wizards? Of course, it isn’t just athletes that suffer from this inability to make a graceful exit. I’m sure it happens in many walks of life – and apparently, a career in film criticism is no exception.

So, ok…I’ll be the one to say it. Roger Ebert and the most famous thumbs in the country need to retire. In fact, this should have happened a few years ago. Political correctness and being kind simply for the sake of being kind can be damned. I’m just telling it like it is. As a film enthusiast, I have read and learned from countless reviews by Mr. Ebert, watched the famed “Siskel and Ebert” program, and bought a few of his books on film criticism. His writing never analyzed and appraised films academically or as in-depth as colleagues such as Pauline Kael or Jay Hoberman, but his clarity and conversational tone always did the trick. He seemed to review movies for the everyman – and since the mid-70’s, there hasn’t been a more famous film critic, a name with more marquee value than his. Hell, he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1975 – how many film critics can say that? I particularly love his writing from the 1970’s – a remarkable decade for film – and the selected reviews for his Great Movies books.

But let’s face it, the once mighty 68-year old critic isn’t much of a critic anymore. Have you read some of his recent reviews??? This guy likes just about everything nowadays! He is not nearly as discerning as he once was, finding greatness in the mediocre and lacking the wit and bite that put him on the map in the first place. Mr. Ebert has made obvious factual errors from time to time and even posted a film review, while openly admitting to watching only the first 8 minutes. Talk about mailing it in! I know a number of film bloggers who take their websites more seriously than this — many who write very intelligent and insightful film critique and would kill to be making a career out of it. I used to look forward to reading his reviews of the movies I was looking forward to and putting some credence in it. I haven’t felt that way in years, looking elsewhere for sharp and astute criticism. When I see a movie trailer or billboard boasting a small quote with his name beneath it, I am aware that it is there because the name ‘Roger Ebert‘ carries with it tremendous cache, as it should. After all, the man worked hard to earn that reputation. We see his name and think, “Oh, it must be good. Roger Ebert liked it!” But that hasn’t been the case for some time now.

Of course, Mr. Ebert has been fighting a courageous battle since being diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer in 2002. He has undergone numerous surgeries, lost his voice, underwent rehabilitation and has encountered many setbacks (i.e. a hip fracture in 2008) during the past eight years. And, thankfully, he is still with us. I don’t believe the man should retire because he is ill — or because he is older. That is not what I am saying at all. But since he decided to fight his serious health problems in such a public venue, it has become painfully obvious that his weakening condition (he has a full-time live-in nurse since early this year) has affected his work. He is Willie Mays making that egregious error in centerfield for the New York Mets. He is a shadow of his once formidable self. And as a tremendous fan of his past work, it is upsetting to see. Fans want to see their heroes bow out gracefully…while still on top. We don’t want to see the slow collapse of talent and success, having only the memories of old to cling to. Mr. Ebert still screens films and writes about them. And God bless his determination and will. But it is only human nature that, as we age, most of us grow more forgiving, kinder, and less judgmental — all fatal traits in describing any film critic worth his weight in salt. I would speculate that these attributes are magnified more so when that age is coupled with such considerable health issues.

I don’t write this intending to be a slap in the face to Mr. Ebert. Far from that. I write this because I love movies — and his work has played a small part as to why I love them so. I am an admirer…a fan. I wish him well.

Happy 25th Anniversary to Tim Burton & Danny Elfman!

I have never done any advertising at all on the Lantern and do not use the site to promote merchandise, but I was recently contacted by someone in the marketing department at Warner Brother’s Records who asked if I would post the video seen below. The video is celebrating the release of a new 25th anniversary music box set commemorating the 25-year partnership between visionary director Tim Burton and the prolific music composer Danny Elfman. The 16-disc set features over 18 hours of music, including 7 hours of music never heard before, some Burton illustrations, a 250-page hardcover book and a lot more. I am posting simply because I think this would be of tremendous interest to any fan of their remarkable work together — from Pee Wee’s Big Adventure to Batman to Alice in Wonderland — and just in time for the holidays too! Now I’m the one who sounds like I’m working for Warner Brothers. Regardless, it does look pretty impressive, and any fan of film must certainly respect and admire the collaboration of these two artists. Take a peek!

Weekend Humor: Turturro on Playing “The Jesus”

The Coen Brothers film, The Big Lebowski is easily one of my favorite all-time comedies. Most “movie people” I know can’t get enough of it. I find it astonishing that the movie has developed such an enormous, devoted following over the years — complete with “Lebowski Conventions” that have appeared across the country. And though the film stars Jeff Bridges (by Law, I have to say how awesome he is), John Goodman, Julianne Moore, and Steve Buscemi — it is the cameo appearance by the brilliantly versatile John Turturro as master bowler, Jesus Quintana who absolutely steals the show for me.

Turturro has been one of Hollywood’s most underrated actors for some time now, delivering sensational performances in films like Barton Fink, Miller’s Crossing, Quiz Show, Unstrung Heroes, and the seldom seen Mac. It is a shame that he has gone completely unnoticed by the Academy, garnering zero nominations in his illustrious career. But it is Turturro’s immense talent and imagination that turns about 8 minutes of polyester-clad screentime into something much more memorable. In this short video, Mr. Turturro discusses how the character was created and how he went about approaching this iconic, alley-dancing intimidator. It’s very funny and surely, worth watching for any fan of the film. And always remember…

Nobody fucks with the Jesus!

Gimme 5: Sweeping Epics!

According to Wikipedia, the epic film is one “that emphasizes human drama on a grand scale.” They are more ambitious in scope, have high production budgets, and usually have a much longer running time. From historical epics (The Birth of A Nation and Lawrence of Arabia) to war epics (Patton and El Cid) to romantic epics (Out of Africa and Doctor Zhivago), Hollywood has been making them for decades. I will try not to be repetitive in my film choices here (or else I would certainly put The Godfather films as epics) and Woody Allen doesn’t make these kind of movies, so sadly, no Woody on this “Gimme 5.” I will try and list my favorites of those most commonly viewed as a “saga” or “epic.” Really, the definition is up to you. So for this week, I am asking you to think big, think saga, think glorious and grandiose — and



I Will Start…

1. Fanny and Alexander (1982)
(not your typical “epic,” but Bergman’s 312-minute autobiographical film is everything that movies should be)
2. Reds (1981)
(Warren Beatty’s romantic epic is gorgeous from beginning to end)
3. The Ten Commandments (1956)
(Cecil DeMille’s last film; I’ve seen this story of Moses so many times & it never wears on me)
4. Braveheart (1995)
(Mel Gibson’s retelling of William Wallace’s story is a cinematic triumph. Freedom!!!)
5. Gone With the Wind (1939)
(I know it’s cliché, but there is a reason for it. And yes, I do love this outstanding achievement)

Now It’s YOUR Turn!!!

%d bloggers like this: