What's new

I DID IT! (1 Viewer)

Professor Echo

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
2,003
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Glen
Warren, how does it work at UCLA? I live in LA and I did some research in going there about ten years ago, but still haven't made it. There is so much playing here in town and then with my own massive collection, I have no shortage of stuff to watch. It would be nice to check out some rare titles though. Does it cost money? Do you watch the film itself, say on an editing machine, or are they on video?
 

Adam_S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2001
Messages
6,316
Real Name
Adam_S
The UCLA films are on video from in house telecines. They've had The White Parade for decades, but it was only telecined in 2010 for the very first time, I think. East Lynne has had two UCLA telecines, one in the 70s and one in the last couple years.. I finished watching all of the BP nominees sometime last year or two years ago, except the two that are just a couple miles away at UCLA (if I can't be bothered to make the effort, imagine what he went through, flying to LA to see them, wow!). I started actively trying to see all the ones I'd not seen about a year and a half or two years since I finished. I'd seen about two thirds of the nominees, I think, maybe a bit less, and the best film of what I hadn't seen was the film I chose to end the AFI challenges and begin my best picture challenge, The Hustler. (I can't believe I'd never seen it, holy hell and christ almighty what a monumentally great film).


I thought it was tremendous fun to see all the BP nominees. The thirties were definitely the Worst decade, on average for BP nominated films. The nineties are by far the best decade. 1928/29 is by far the worst year and 1993 is easily the greatest year of nominations. In the thirties, here were a great deal of truly atrocious films being nominated (block voting by studio, yay). It cleaned up pretty quickly by the forties and fifties though, and there were only occasionally rankly awful films nominated for Best Picture (Rose Tattoo or Out of Africa, for example). Most of the nominees and definitely almost all of the winners are at least good films, there are relatively few I'd consider time wasters. Not all of the good films qualify as good art, but some of the bad films are at least interesting art and many of the films, good and bad have something they're trying to say/do and they tend to do it quite well.

My favorite discoveries from seeing all of them are: the Hustler, The Lion in Winter, Z, Marty, A Room With a View, Tender Mercies, The Piano, The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming, In which We Serve, The More the Merrier, The Music Man, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Lenny, Five Star Final, Test Pilot, In the Name of the Father, A Thousand Clowns, Wings, & Wilson (I'd rate all of these as within the top 105).


The biggest surprises were: Z, A Room with a View, Tender Mercies, the More the Merrier, Five Star Final, Test Pilot, A Thousand Clowns, Wilson, Battleground, Friendly Persuasion, and 7th Heaven


The worst films were really atrocious (in descending awfulness): The Rose Tattoo, Cleopatra, Trader Horn, a Farewell to Arms, Romeo and Juliet (1936), The Robe, Alexander's Ragtime Band, Out of Africa, Naughty Marietta, Broadway Melody, One Night of Love, Cavalcade, One Hundred Men and a Girl, Flirtation Walk, Anthony Adverse, Imitation of Life.
 

battlebeast

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
4,445
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Real Name
Warren
Originally Posted by Point-Blank

I thought it was tremendous fun to see all the BP nominees. (IT WAS). :D)

The thirties were definitely the Worst decade, on average for BP nominated films. The nineties are by far the best decade. 1928/29 is by far the worst year and 1993 is easily the greatest year of nominations. In the thirties, here were a great deal of truly atrocious films being nominated (block voting by studio, yay). It cleaned up pretty quickly by the forties and fifties though, and there were only occasionally rankly awful films nominated for Best Picture (Rose Tattoo or Out of Africa, for example). Most of the nominees and definitely almost all of the winners are at least good films, there are relatively few I'd consider time wasters. Not all of the good films qualify as good art, but some of the bad films are at least interesting art and many of the films, good and bad have something they're trying to say/do and they tend to do it quite well.

My favorite discoveries from seeing all of them are: the Hustler, The Lion in Winter, Z, Marty, A Room With a View, Tender Mercies, The Piano, The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming, In which We Serve, The More the Merrier, The Music Man, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Lenny, Five Star Final, Test Pilot, In the Name of the Father, A Thousand Clowns, Wings, & Wilson (I'd rate all of these as within the top 105).


The biggest surprises were: Z, A Room with a View, Tender Mercies, the More the Merrier, Five Star Final, Test Pilot, A Thousand Clowns, Wilson, Battleground, Friendly Persuasion, and 7th Heaven


The worst films were really atrocious (in descending awfulness): The Rose Tattoo, Cleopatra, Trader Horn, a Farewell to Arms, Romeo and Juliet (1936), The Robe, Alexander's Ragtime Band, Out of Africa, Naughty Marietta, Broadway Melody, One Night of Love, Cavalcade, One Hundred Men and a Girl, Flirtation Walk, Anthony Adverse, Imitation of Life.


30's, worst Decade> Yah. 50's a close second.


90's Best decade? That's tough. I do like many films from the 1980's. But the 90's does have my all time favorite, The Shawshank Redemption, and one that really caught me off guard, Life is Beautiful. (Powerful, great acting, emotional.)

The 80's had another of my favs, Born on the Fourth of July, ET, Raiders, Fatal Attraction.


I HATED Marty, Trhe Music Man and A Room With a View, but the others on your list I mostly loved. Clowns, Five Star, Four Weddings, Name of the Father, and Wings. (If you knew what Wellmn went throught to get it made...)


Would you be interestd in seeing my "Making of Wings" documentary?

Worst Films: No, I thought The Robe was a powerful film, and Trader Horn was a very fun, interesting film to watch.Slow, yes, but fun.

The Rose Tatoo was one of the worst film I've EVER seen. I couldn't stand it! And the fact that the lead actress won the Oscar for screaming and shreeking for 2 hours is horribly inexplicable.


The Other films on your list of "worst" weren't the greatest; I'd add some like Bad Girl, Alibi, Tom Jones, State Fair.


Interesting... very interesting.
 

Professor Echo

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
2,003
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Glen
Warren, thank you so much for all the info! I will definitely get over there one of these days.

And CONGRATS on your achievement! Now you need to get started on great films that never even got a single nomination. Like VERTIGO!
 

Adam_S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2001
Messages
6,316
Real Name
Adam_S
Originally Posted by battlebeast

30's, worst Decade> Yah. 50's a close second.


90's Best decade? That's tough. I do like many films from the 1980's. But the 90's does have my all time favorite, The Shawshank Redemption, and one that really caught me off guard, Life is Beautiful. (Powerful, great acting, emotional.)

The 80's had another of my favs, Born on the Fourth of July, ET, Raiders, Fatal Attraction.


I HATED Marty, Trhe Music Man and A Room With a View, but the others on your list I mostly loved. Clowns, Five Star, Four Weddings, Name of the Father, and Wings. (If you knew what Wellmn went throught to get it made...)


Would you be interestd in seeing my "Making of Wings" documentary?

Worst Films: No, I thought The Robe was a powerful film, and Trader Horn was a very fun, interesting film to watch.Slow, yes, but fun.

The Rose Tatoo was one of the worst film I've EVER seen. I couldn't stand it! And the fact that the lead actress won the Oscar for screaming and shreeking for 2 hours is horribly inexplicable.


The Other films on your list of "worst" weren't the greatest; I'd add some like Bad Girl, Alibi, Tom Jones, State Fair.


Interesting... very interesting.
Yeah the fifties are the second worst decade for the oscars after the thirties. I think that's because they got bit by the epic bug and we have a lot of lugubrious and lengthy timewasters getting nominated against far superior tightly written and fantastically acted films from the television mold like Marty and 12 Angry Men. Still the fifties were the transition from the all-audiences filmmaking of the forties, into filmmaking where films could be made that were not for everyone. In a single year of 1951 we had a Place in the Sun and A Streetcar Named Desire. What had once been aspects of film that had to be smuggled or outright supressed began to be freely expressed.

I've thought for the last couple years that the 90s are the best decade, but I think I might have to reconsider and rank the Aughts as the best decade. the last ten years have only four films I'd rate below average, A serious man, Sideways, Mystic River and Chocolat, pretty much everything has at least been a bit above average and a great proportion of the nominees have been outright stellar, but that's the lowest number of stinkers in a single decade in all of oscar history imo.


I made a spreadsheet when I decided to watch all the BP nominees, and when I made that spreadsheet I rated all the BP nominated films I'd seen on a hundred point scale. Over the next eighteen months, every few months I'd rate all the films I'd seen up until that point, but I'd rate them without looking at the old ratings, fresh eyes every time. Sometimes viewings would radically change after another viewing (Gone with the Wind jumped twenty or thirty points after I'd seen it on film), and sometimes they'd be amusingly different, but often they were within reasonable range. I made all these ratings because I know that my feelings on films can fluctuate somewhat depending on what I've seen or experienced recently. For example, I might be inclined to rate a terrific film like Remains of the Day quite a bit lower because I had just seen a wretched, but somewhat similar film like Howard's End and still had the awful taste in my mouth. So when I finished watching all the films, I had this nice wealth of data. I was able to create both average rankings and the standard deviation of all the rankings I"d made. That let me sort the entire list really nicely. and it smoothed out the wrinkles of all those odd rankings. using more number crunching I can create objective lists of my subjective rankings, which I rather like.


The Robe was awful. horrifically awful writing accompanies by rather overwrought acting, poorly made to the point the story felt moderately incoherent and perhaps of all it felt completely insincere to me, and I tend to quite like biblical epics, that one was almost as bad as DeMille's stinker the Sign of the Cross, it's not quite the worst biblical film, but it's up there.


Trader Horn was horribly racist, imo, but I don't remember much else about it other than the b-roll.


I quite liked Bad Girl, it was interesting as a continuation of silent film style storytelling in a dialog world, I thought it rather quaint and charming in its own way (it had been as hard to find as East Lynne and White Parade before it's release). Alibi wasn't very good. but not horrible either. State Fair I really liked, due to being completely charmed by Will Rogers once again. Like all the Rogers films, none of them are particularly excellent, but all of them are quite enjoyable, imo. It's a shame it doesn't have a decent release.


Tom Jones, like A Room with a View I loved because I think they're both laugh out loud funny. I find both to be marvelous entertainments, witty, playful, charming.


Marty is fantastically brilliant, such a powerful and moving story of one, sad yet uplifting night for two souls the world has passed by all too cruelly.


I expected to dislike the Music Man because I'd seen some extracts before and hadn't much cared for it. But from the Trouble song, I was completely one over and laughed continually at the great lines, terrific lyrics and perhaps all too cliche story. :-p


It really should be reiterated a fourth time in this thread just how awful Rose Tattoo is, and to think I was looking forward to it because I'd never seen a Burt Lancaster film I'd disliked. Awful movie, A good screaming and weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth performance, but the story to go with the performance is atrociously bad.
 

battlebeast

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
4,445
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Real Name
Warren
[*] Adam S> I like this! You like some films I hate, I like some you find bad, but we agree on a alot.
[*] Marty> I disliked the film because, just when it was getting good, BOOM! it ends. It's like Burt Lancaster and the other producers ran out of money, said, "hey, lets end it," and that was that. I did, however, think Ernest gave a good performance.

1951> Agreed. I LOVED the acting in Streetcar, and I thought Sun was robbed. Paris... well, it was danced well, and Gene Kelly is a fantastic dancer, but it wasn't better than Sun.


The Robe> I thought the acting was good, not great; but the writing was below average. I think the Academy got caught up in Widescreen fever. Yes, the 50's had several long-winded epics that probaby weren't all that great. But I do love The Ten Commandments, and Ben-Hur was pretty good too.


You know what? I realised that I ahd to keep track of every film I watched, and when, and my rating, so I too started a spreadsheet. It has my rating out of 5;


0, .5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 4.75, 5.


0 = 0

.5 = 0

1 = 0

1.5 = 8

2 = 17

2.5 = 18

3 = 44

3.5 = 37

4 = 143

4.5 = 113

4.75 = 9

5 = 83

-------------

472


This excludes 3 films: The Music Man and Barry Lyndon (For some reason, I forgot to write down their ratings, I could guess but I'll watch 'em again and rate 'em again.) and The Patriot (I can't rate a film I've only seen a minute of via a trailer.)


This doesn't include this year's ten because I didn't include them in my spreadsheet, but I did see every one of 'em.)


My 4.75 rating is a special rating; it means a film was near perfect, but there were one, maybe two things in the film that i disliked snough to say "darn, that's a terrific film but if only for that one part, it would be perfect."


One film is Saving Private Ryan. (The opening shot is an American flag... Not that I have anything against it, but did Steven Speilberg have to wave American patriotism in our faces? I thought D-Day was an ALLIED invasion? And, the other part was where the coward won't go up the stairs when his comrads are being slaughtered. I was so frustrated over this scene, I was literally screaming at my TV.)


Some films, like Mr. Smith, or A Thousand Clowns, were superb up untill the ending. Mr. Smith ended awkwardly, while Clowns was great, hilarious, well acted by Jason Robards, but the ending didn't fit the beginning.


Overall, there were many films I gave 4; A film could get points in my book for many things; Acting, Writing, Visual Effects, Cinematography, one scene (Anchors Aweigh's Animated dance scene, for example). Film could have Sub-par acting, or be very slow/plodding, but have a great visual effects and camera work (Like Wings) and make it a great film.


When I go through the films again, to review them, I am going to do EXACTLY as you did: not look at my original rating, and then re-rate.


Can we say for a FIFTH (FIFT? lol) time jsut how bad Tatoo was (is)?


Trader Horn was racist, to a degree, but again, it's like Song of the South A product of it's time. I enjoyed seeing all the shots of wild Africa (but not the shots at animals, the killing of a rhino.)


BTW, 7th Voyage Productions released a film entitled Trader Horn: the Journey Back, A documentary on the making og Trader Horn with it's star's son, Harry Carry Jr., last tuesday. Or so they were supposed to have... the film was made in 2009, but only just released... I emailed them in January and they said it would be released March 15th, 2011, but I can't seem to acess their website, 7thvoyageproductions.com... it's got some Jules Verne game... ???


I enjoyed Mrs. Miniver, but it could have easily been retitled the War of the Roses.


I'll have more to say soon.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328
Originally Posted by Adam_S
1993 is easily the greatest year of nominations.

Seriously? I thought 1993 was a mediocre year of BP noms at best. "Schindler's List" is one of my least favorite winners, and the competition wasn't killer. I like "The Fugitive" a lot, but I'd find it hard to view it as a "Best Picture". The others are okay - "In the Name of the Father" is probably the best, with "The Piano" and "Remains of the Day" filling out the roster.


Just staying in the decade, I think 1991 and 1994 were MUCH stronger than 1993, and most of the other years were superior as well, IMO...
 

Adam_S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2001
Messages
6,316
Real Name
Adam_S
yeah, 93 was an embarassment of riches, It's as far ahead of the number two year as the number two year is ahead of the number nine year. :-p


In the Name of the Father, The Piano, The Fugitive and Schindler's List are all extraordinary filmmaking that I rate as at least a ten. two of them are masterpieces, even. Remains of the day is also outstanding and easily a 9. That puts it well ahead of the rest of the pack, as there is almost always a bum film in the BP lineup.


1991 had Bugsy and Prince of Tides nominated. Two average films at best. It also had JFK which was wonderfully made, particularly the editing (I have heard more stories about the poor souls who have worked on cutting stone's film than of any other filmmaker in this industry), but not, I felt, terribly compelling. the scientist part of my brain kept saying "yes, but Confirmation Bias!," "No, that's not self-evident, selection bias!" so I had a hard time buying in to the conspiracy, and felt that the construction of the film was trying so hard to sell me on the conspiracy that I felt it was obviously leaving out all contrary evidence, of which there was probably 10,000 times more than there was of the positive evidence. But still, a solid 8 that movie.


1994 is an extraordinary year as well, I rank it fourth. I might as well give my list of the five best years for best picture nominations:

1. 1993

2. 1976

3. 1964

4. 1994

5. 1995


1994 had three brilliant films, Forrest Gump, Shawshank, Four Weddings and a Funeral and two outstanding ones, Pulp Fiction and Quiz Show. It's a great line up of competiiton


1995 would probably be the second best year if they swapped out the fine Il Postino for something great. A lot of people on the internet hate Braveheart. Some because the movie is obnoxious in how much it does not give a shit about history, which I don't care about because I think the film is more inclined to revel in legend and myth than historical accuracy. Some because the movie was so beloved by frat boys at the college they went to (doesn't bother me, I never was around frat boys, so their tastes don't influence mine), some because they hate mel gibson the way previous generations had people who hated John Wayne, and their films suffer in their eyes because of his ideology, and some because they would much rather another film had won. I enjoy the hell out of the film, though and never get tired of it.


@Battlebeast

Never thought about seeing how many films were ranked what before, let's give it a go.

I do not review films on a number score, but when I was doing the BP challenge myself I used rankings out of a hundred, because a five point, ten point, grades, or stars simply did not allow for enough variation. When you're rating more than 450 films, you need more shades of gray, I found.

nor do these rankings line up perfectly to a ten point scale. using a smaller scale is more subjective, ranking a film a ten really does encompass a much wider range of films than ranking a film a 100. There's maybe 5 or 6 films I'd rate a perfect one hundred, but there are hundreds of films I'd rank a ten. So I'm not really sure where the cut off mark is for a ten, probably around 93.


Number of films in the following ranking ranges:


00-10 - 3

10-20 - 4

20-30 - 6

30-40 - 14

40-50 - 24

50-60 - 27

60-70 - 41

70-80 - 97

80-90 - 139

90-95 - 80

95-99 - 44

100 - 3


482 films. :-p
 

battlebeast

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
4,445
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Real Name
Warren
Originally Posted by Adam_S
In the Name of the Father, The Piano, The Fugitive and Schindler's List are all extraordinary filmmaking that I rate as at least a ten. two of them are masterpieces, even. Remains of the day is also outstanding and easily a 9. That puts it well ahead of the rest of the pack, as there is almost always a bum film in the BP lineup.


1994 is an extraordinary year as well, I rank it fourth. I might as well give my list of the five best years for best picture nominations:

1. 1993

2. 1976

3. 1964

4. 1994

5. 1995


1994 had three brilliant films, Forrest Gump, Shawshank, Four Weddings and a Funeral and two outstanding ones, Pulp Fiction and Quiz Show. It's a great line up of competiiton


1995 would probably be the second best year if they swapped out the fine Il Postino for something great. A lot of people on the internet hate Braveheart. Some because the movie is obnoxious in how much it does not give a shit about history, which I don't care about because I think the film is more inclined to revel in legend and myth than historical accuracy. Some because the movie was so beloved by frat boys at the college they went to (doesn't bother me, I never was around frat boys, so their tastes don't influence mine), some because they hate mel gibson the way previous generations had people who hated John Wayne, and their films suffer in their eyes because of his ideology, and some because they would much rather another film had won. I enjoy the hell out of the film, though and never get tired of it.


@Battlebeast

Never thought about seeing how many films were ranked what before, let's give it a go.

I do not review films on a number score, but when I was doing the BP challenge myself I used rankings out of a hundred, because a five point, ten point, grades, or stars simply did not allow for enough variation. When you're rating more than 450 films, you need more shades of gray, I found.

nor do these rankings line up perfectly to a ten point scale. using a smaller scale is more subjective, ranking a film a ten really does encompass a much wider range of films than ranking a film a 100. There's maybe 5 or 6 films I'd rate a perfect one hundred, but there are hundreds of films I'd rank a ten. So I'm not really sure where the cut off mark is for a ten, probably around 93.


Number of films in the following ranking ranges:


00-10 - 3

10-20 - 4

20-30 - 6

30-40 - 14

40-50 - 24

50-60 - 27

60-70 - 41

70-80 - 97

80-90 - 139

90-95 - 80

95-99 - 44

100 - 3


482 films. :-p


I LOVED In the Name of the Father. Very compelling with great performances from Postlewait and Lewis. The Piano was much better than I ever thought... ever since I saw Paquin win the Oscar all those years ago, I could never figure out why untill I saw the film. Loved it.


The Fugitive Was a terrific suspence story, great cat-and-mouse action and some pretty good visual effect (IE the train Crash.)


And what can one say about Schindler's list? It's definatly one of the best of all time, IMHO. A very powerful story with suprb direction. It's not a film you can watch many times, but it really does hit home. Great acting and terrific writing.


I happen to be one of the people who LOVEd JFK and belive in a conspiracy that Oswald wasn't alone. there has just been WAAAAY to much evidence I've seen over the years to lead me to belive there was more than just him in Dealy Plaza on November 22nd. That date, BTW, is the date I watched JFK.

The film was fast paced, and it really was well editied (hence why it won the Oscar) and I thought well acted. Loved the score and well, pretty much everything about it.


1991, 1993, 1999, 1982, 1994 were my top five; bottom five included 82) 28-29, 81) 1961, 80) 32/33, 79) 31-32, 78) 1935



1995> Both Roger Ebert and MArtin Scorsese ranked Leaving Las Vegas as the best film of 1995, and I tend to agree; how they nominated Babe and not Vegas is beyond me when the former is a magnificent film.


I have a convoluted ranking system I am still trying to figure out... :P to me!
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328
Just gonna say I really disagree with some of the best/worst years listed. Still think 1993 was a weak year for BP, and can't imagine why 1961 would be cited as one of the worst. With "West Side Story" as the winner and nominees such as "The Hustler", "Guns of Navarone" and "Judgment at Nuremberg", I can't see how this could be viewed as the second worst crop ever!
 

battlebeast

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
4,445
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Real Name
Warren
1961> I LOVED The Hustler, but I thought Guns of Navarone was too long and boring. West Side Story had too much dancing and prancing in it; I just didn't think it was a good as people made it out to be. Fanny was OK. Judgement at Nuremburg was too long as well, but had some really good courtroom scenes and powerful film footage. .
 

Eric Vedowski

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 30, 2002
Messages
378
Location
Chicagoland
Real Name
Eric
Musicals are my all time favorite genre (followed by gangster movies) and I've never been able to sit through "West Side Story" and I am a huge Bernstein, Sondheim & Robbins fan. My mom said the original stage show was stunning but she didn't like the movie either. Miscasting the leads and some questionable dubbing work on the songs (Moreno thought the white lady who dubbed her was channeling a stereotypical Mexican) kill it for me. My two cents.
 

battlebeast

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
4,445
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Real Name
Warren
Originally Posted by Eric Vedowski

Miscasting the leads and some questionable dubbing work on the songs kill it for me. My two cents.

I don't think Natalie Wood was a convincing Puerto Rican, either.


They wanted Elivis for the film, but col. parker nixed the idea. I would LOVE to have seen Elvis Presley in the lead role. Elia Kazaan always wanted to work with him. Hell, I would have killed to see what Elia Kazaan could have done for him.


To this day, I maintain that col. parker ruined him. But that's another story. Just imagin Elvis in West Side Story... or a Kazan film...
 

Adam_S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2001
Messages
6,316
Real Name
Adam_S
btw, the total running time of all the best picture nominees including the 2010 nominees is 60,501 minutes.


That is 1008 Hours 21 Minutes


42 Days 0 hours 21 Minutes


That is a LOT of movie watching in one year, battle beast, more than a month!
 

battlebeast

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
4,445
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Real Name
Warren
Holy ****... I never realized it was THAT Long... WOW. I'm speechless.



That doesn't include the several times I fell asleep, and rewatched parts of the movies, nor does it include the 8 or so OTHER films I saw... WOW.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,526
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top