now, y'all need to sit there and be wise. i will agree that both have made better films RECENTLY, but what i'm saying is--and what this thread SHOULD be about--that neither one of them dudes has made a movie as polished and cohesive as The Sixth Sense.

i don't care how long ago it was. i don't care about how funny you think his name is.

his best is BETTER than theirs. GOOD!

though it's a quality film. but i enjoyed or loved Signs, Unbreakable and even The Village. Never got to see Lady In the Water, but The Happening and Airbender were just terrible films. Overall I feel M Night takes very unique and original angles to horror and sci-fi and gets all kinds of unwarranted hate.

I'm really excited M Night, Will and Jaden bout to make a high quality popcorn family action flick, and high-minded critics gunna be salty ass shit when it happens. I'm also relieved racist ass Hollywood aint give up on him, and is still funding his projects. Him going the independent route would struggle 'cause his cinematic vision, IMO, needs that big money.

i wont get into the director agenda posting

I dig Sixth Sense a lot, but Unbreakable has better character depth and I appreciated the pace at which the story unfolds

Now, as far as agendas go:

Oops, looks like the troll bait has fallen off the hook...

___________________________________________________________________________
We out here trying to function.

No reason to be mad.

Its reality kicking in


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

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

__________________________________________________________________________
We out here trying to function.

and I think it's better than 6th sense, too

That's not even a slight to the Nolan Batmans. But Unbreakable is the Hitchcock superhero flick.

Doesn't get as much credit as it deserves, IMO

that first time i saw it in a theater i was just captivated. grade A film making. Sure on repeated viewings some things have "fallen apart", but yeah whateva whateva... M Night good in my book

need to see it again soon

other than that some of the fat could've been trimmed. it felt taxing on my first viewing, but all in all, felt like a great movie.

for TDKR, i was submerged in the movie, entertained throughout, and it whizzed by like a 90 minute flick, but all in all, didn't come close to impressing me the way Unbreakable did.

the 2 could from each other.

but the OP of this post is dead wrong especially about QT.

Its clearly a ball, but y'all gonna either swing and
foul it off or dance outta the way.



Hell, Ba might even let y'all get close to a walk.



Nobody gonna connect squarely with this pitch. Y'all
will take a few and foul a couple off.



He's patient. He got time before he throw the slider:

http://tinyurl.com/d4yg9ly




Its gonna *BANG* the outer half of the
plate for strike 3:

http://tinyurl.com/ccdhpuk




Y'all will be mad:
http://tinyurl.com/d6l6oqy




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

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Hell, Tony Scott directed Tarantino better than Tarantino in True Romance.

Still, in this round of Director Warz, I'd go:
1. Reservoir Dogs
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Memento
4. Unbreakable
5. Sixth Sense

I could see an argument for Unbreakable at #2 but I think Reservoir Dogs locks down the top spot.

at a very basic level. no wonder bruce willis best performances came in two night dogg films

nolan and QT dare you to offer very basic film criticism because we're all too busy dealing with the sheer spectacle and "FUN" of their films.

momento and pulp fiction were boring stories told in a ultra-stylized way. nothing more.

>momento and pulp fiction were boring stories told in a
>ultra-stylized way. nothing more.

Again, I had to lay off of Tarantino after one of y'all
said my posts were giving you nightmares, so I'll keep
it light

But truer words have never been spoken

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

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

And no, I'm not saying Memento or Pulp Fiction are Kane's equal but the same style over substance complaints have, rightfully, been lobbed Welles's way. Personally, I still love Citizen Kane even though the story itself is a rather standard rags-to-riches-to-rags tale.

Part of the challenge of modern filmmaking, since most every story has been done to death by now, is trying to find new ways to present the same old stories. If the style didn't work for you, fine, I'm not going to argue that it was some revelation in terms of story. But I found the style with which they told the stories to be highly entertaining and I believe credit is due for that.

cause if so, i do

Your argument has you coming very close to the Latte Sipping set's argument as to why art house films are better than popcorn films. Yes, Unbreakable is a deeper humanity film than Reservoir Dogs but that IMO isn't an argument as to why it is necessarily better. That just means their focus is different, it is not a reason why, on its face, one film is better than another.

While Nolan's spectacle does little for me (one reason why I liked Shutter Island better than the ultimately similar Inception), Night's looks at basic levels of humanity doesn't outweigh the style of Pulp Fiction or Memento for me. And I just think Reservoir Dogs is just a better film and doesn't suffer from a major flaw like the rather jarring ending of Unbreakable.

>at a very basic level. no wonder bruce willis best
>performances came in two night dogg films

this is very true. the humanness of Nolan's characters gets lost in the grander of cinematic universe he creates, and just down right shitty development of the characters, while Tarantino, with the exception of Inglorious Basterds, literally drowns his characters in the caricature of his dialogue/monologues.

>nolan and QT dare you to offer very basic film criticism
>because we're all too busy dealing with the sheer spectacle
>and "FUN" of their films.

you wrote that as though that's a bad quality

>momento and pulp fiction were boring stories told in a
>ultra-stylized way. nothing more.

agree on Momento, just no on Pulp Fiction. but again you wrote ultra-stylized like that was a bad thing

http://www.gifflix.com/files/56c85cbc449b.gif

.

And I have a love for Man on Fire that probably more than it deserves but still, I'd take it.

If there's a marathon on TV of these directors' best films, I'll watch the Tony Scott one, no question.

but we >.< on Man on Fire. absolutely love that movie. one of my favorite Denzel performances, even though he ultimately saving white folk, from bad brown folk. i think i had it in my top 20-30 films of the aughts

n/m

Sixth Sense? Yes.
Unbreakable? Better than Sixth Sense in my book.
Signs? The first three quarters is better than the first two, potentially... it just massively falls apart at the end.

But I'd put Unbreakable over Jackie Brown, imo the best QT flick, and I'd put Unbreakable and Sixth Sense over The Prestige, imo the best Nolan flick.

You could leave EVERYTHING the same and just make Joaquin vs. The Alien scene a little more even and realistic and the film would have been MOUNDS better. Give it a full fledged effective 3rd act, MAYNE that movie woulda been bananas.

M. Night got lazy on that one.

cmon.

It might be some of Night's best work.

One of the reasons that the ending is so disappointing (on top of being stupid) is because the first half or so of the movie is so good.

did you want more of a battle between humans/Mel's family in the end, or just the water angle kilt it.

And the cut in half wife was straight out of an ER episode so it wasn't as effective for me. Surviving the asthma attack and having it save him also got a groan.

I felt like it built up very well and then the payoff was nothing but nonsense and pulled punches. It's kind of like Night couldn't think of an ending and just said, "Fuck it. War of the Worlds had an anti-climatic ending too so whatever..."

Honestly, for half of the movie I was hoping it wouldn't be aliens at all. I think the movie I was hoping for finally came out last year in "Take Shelter" (although that was more art house than Night's more mainstream touch.)

Like I said, it's really everything building up to the aliens entering the house. It starts slipping there, and then COMPLETELY derails when you see the alien holding the kid.

I rewatched it a few weeks ago... and even TODAY knowing how it ends, I so thoroughly enjoyed so much of it. It's his funniest movie, and maybe his scariest too. He mixes the jumps in with the slow burn scares flawlessly. I show the scene with Gibson in the cornfield to my tech class for sound editing/mixing. The technical aspects of this film (again, until the alien) are SO first rate.

It just fucks up so badly at the end. His career has never been the same since that alien nabbed that kid.

I'd go:

5. SIXTH SENSE
4. JACKIE BROWN
3. RESERVOIR DOGS
2. UNBREAKABLE
1. PRESTIGE

But if we're doing overall average, I'd go Tarantino > Night > Nolan. I just feel that Night's missteps are greater than Tarantino's missteps. And it weighs down his average.

(these rankings are all just my opinion. You're more than welcome to disagree)

Tarantino:
1 Reservoir Dogs
2 Jackie Brown
3 Inglourious Basterds
4 Pulp Fiction
5 Kill Bill Volume 1
6 Death Proof
7 Kill Bill Volume 2

M. Night:
1 Unbreakable
2 The Sixth Sense
3 Signs
4 The Village
5 The Happening

(I still have not seen Lady in the Water or The Last Airbender oh, or his early jawns)

Nolan:
1 The Prestige
2 Inception
3 Batman Begins
4 The Dark Knight
5 Memento
6 The Dark Knight Rises
7 Insomnia

(much like Night, I'm missing the early jawns)

Overall:
N1 > MNS1 > T1> T2 > MNS2 > T3 > T4 > N2> MNS3 > N3 > T5 > N4 > MNS4 > T6 > T7 > N5 > N6 > N7 > MNS5

It isn't fair with me not having seen 2 of Manoj's cuts, but if you drop the two lowest ranking QT & Nolan films.... statistically in this ranking, for me it goes QT > Nolan > M Night.... but Nolan only topping Night by one point. Without dropping, it goes Night > QT > Nolan. Now I really wanna catch WATER and AIRBENDER, because even though there's a 'genda goin' on here, I think these three directors size up very well against each other.

Nolan? Ehhhh, Night's film's are smarter than nolan's, but nolan makes bigger/better high-end popcorn films.

I call'em about even

http://i.imgur.com/Mh917.gif

"goofy white boy cool". Remove that from his work, and you got nothing

.

And was really shocked at how much I disliked it. Believe me, I didn't expect - or want - to hate it. I bought it one day when I saw it on sale because I remembered liking it when it came out and thought highly of it. Took it home, popped it in, and couldn't believe how much I didn't feel it this time.

I certainly wouldn't have bought something just to hate on it. I was just really surprised at how sugary it was. To me, it was just a notch above Lifetime or Hallmark channel status. I was legitimately disappointed. I cringed a lot. HJO's acting was grating as fuck this time around.

I remember really liking Unbreakable at the time, too. I'll eventually get around to watching it again, but after this, I'll scale back my expectations a bit.

...when people are judging films.

The experience of watching Memento or Sixth Sense will never be the same after the first viewing. I don't think the power of the first experience should be downgraded because a film doesn't hold up over multiple viewings.

To me it's like saying a certain dish isn't good because it isn't as good after you put it in the fridge and reheat it later.

I don't think I agree.

I hadn't seen it a single time since it came out in 1999. I was 14 at the time. The positive recollection I had of the movie was the positive recollection of a 14 year old. I'm 27 now and obviously approach the way I watch movies much differently than the way I did when I was in middle school. If I was 27 in 1999, I'm pretty sure I would have had the same reaction as I had last month.

Knowing what I know now, I no longer think The Sixth Sense is a good movie, even though I used to. The point is, opinions evolve - I don't see any reason why I need to hold firm to the the first opinion I ever had of a movie.

The food analogy doesn't really hold up imo. Food is -meant- to be eaten in one sitting. Well-made movies (and books and music) should theoretically should be made in a way that they can be enjoyed repeatedly, at least in my opinion. (A lot of my favorite movies and albums are ones that I was lukewarm on the first time I saw/heard them, for example..)

>I hadn't seen it a single time since it came out in 1999. I
>was 14 at the time. The positive recollection I had of the
>movie was the positive recollection of a 14 year old. I'm 27
>now and obviously approach the way I watch movies much
>differently than the way I did when I was in middle school.
>If I was 27 in 1999, I'm pretty sure I would have had the same
>reaction as I had last month.

Perhaps but the fact remains that when you watched it now, it was a completely different viewing experience. If you had never seen the film, you might have been more engrossed in the story and you might not have noticed the other stuff. I mean, 14 year old version of you wasn't the only one impressed by Osment's performance; kid got nominated for an Oscar for it.


>The food analogy doesn't really hold up imo. Food is -meant-
>to be eaten in one sitting. Well-made movies (and books and
>music) should theoretically should be made in a way that they
>can be enjoyed repeatedly, at least in my opinion. (A lot of
>my favorite movies and albums are ones that I was lukewarm on
>the first time I saw/heard them, for example..)

I don't think all films are made the same. If a film is focused on the first viewing, it shouldn't lose points for that. Requiem for a Dream will never have the same affect on me and I absolutely don't ever want to watch it again but that doesn't make it a worse film.

i agree the initial impact of watching a film for the very first time, no matter what age, shouldn't be diminished because a much older version of ourselves now views the film in a different light. but...the debuting of an opinion is always subject to (and restricted by) place and time, so no one's trying to, say, DeLorean their way back to 14yrs of age in order to watch and proclaim a different opinion thereby altering reality as they know it (27yr old opinion but within the 14yr old body). cos thats pretty much the only way to change that opinion.
dude. lol.
i do however think anyone is allowed to change their overall opinion on a piece of creative work as the years progress. i dont think BUILDING on an initial opinion and feeling is wrong or automatically tarnishes the first-time experience. its simple as shit and i dont see how it warranted ur posts on it. i mean...its an evolving opinion. the dude stated it plainly. to colour it as WRONG is just...i dunno, stuffy? cos how is an opinion on movies ever locked in for life and without further pontification based on multiple viewings throughout a persons lifetime?
is this real life?

u cant unequivocally state that a 27yr old version of a person watching a film for the first time is guna have the exact SAME reaction as their 14yr old counterpart. thats just dumb. variables are built in to that equation simply becos of a 13yr GAP. hell he coulda watched it for the first time NOW as a 27yr old and hated it, or have been lukewarm instead of the positive reaction his 14yr old self had.

how do you know Requiem won't look and feel different to you on a second viewing if you never actually get around to watching it ever again? that means u have a static opinoin on that movie based on one static viewing, it's an opinion that exists in a bubble. and how u don't understand that is really, really weird. i think its entirely possible (and logical) that while an opinion can change over time, the adoration for a film can still be upheld when it comes to the debut viewing experience (if one is having a positive reaction that is, but what about the negative ones?) i hated "Punch-Drunk Love" the first 3 times i watched it, and it later became my favourite film of all-time by viewing #5 or #6 (ive seen it at least 20 times, and each successive viewing has only BOLSTERED that no. 1 spot for me).

so in essence...i have absolutely no fucking idea what ur on about.

V.

Where did I "state that a 27yr old version of a person watching a film for the first time is guna have the exact SAME reaction as their 14yr old counterpart"?
I wrote that he MIGHT have been engrossed in the story and not focused so much on the acting. To me, knowing the ending of Sixth Sense is a bigger difference than the age of the viewer.

Why do you assume that I haven't tried watching Requiem for a Dream again? I can say that I absolutely don't ever want to watch it again because I've tried and always turn it off.

Perhaps the reason that you don't know what I'm going on about is because you're projecting things that I never said, that don't make sense or you're taking my comments and assuming that I have no backing or that my rational is illogical.

Honestly, it makes me wonder what I've done to you to elicit such a resposne.

he really tarnished his resume with that other bullshit.

However, neither Nolan or QT has done a film nearly as bad as M. Night's worst. Or three worst.

The Happening was at least so bad it's good territory. I don't remember the following but I remember being bored so I might put that down there as well.

Death Proof was just tediously bad.

But I know that "The Happening," "The Village," and "Last Airbender" were really, really, REALLY bad.

I'd rather have watched a blank screen.

its not as bad as you'd think.

apparently in china, you have to ask for the needle.

Death Proof has Kurt Russell; it has the bar/strip scene; has the car chase scene; and has 3 beautiful woman kick the shit our of Russell in the end. it creates a nice inversion of the serial woman hater/murderer being done in by film's typical victims.

if it wasn't for all the fuckin' talkin'... cliche ass trying to be slick and cool Tarantino dialogue in the first half of that film, I'd LOVE Death Proof, but because it does have that shitty first 45min (sans the bar scene) i only like it.

Last Air Bender was terrible

Also the Village is a good ass movie. the end

I remember bringing up the feminine angle on Death Proof and getting shitted on for it

And you know, hyperbole rules and shit now

__________________________________________________________________________
We out here trying to function.

.

i'm out.
_____________________
"WHOLESALE REUSABLE GROCERY BAGS!!"
@etfp

lol Pulp Fiction is DEFINITELY better, dawg. foh.

You could make the argument for everything else though.

"...as polished and cohesive as The Sixth Sense."

Puffy's first record is more polished than Wu-Tang's first record, but not better.

Pulp Fiction is more influential, more original, stands up better to repeated viewings, has a far better cast, has more memorable scenes, is more well-written (honestly, Sixth Sense's writing is like a Lifetime Movie of the Week), won way more awards (and acclaim), and they both did strong box office numbers. It's one of the defining movies of the 90s.

What did The Sixth Sense do? It's just an extremely syrupy, inconsequential movie that got tons of buzz from a great twist ending.

I don't hate your boy either. I actually liked The Happening the one time I saw it, and I remember Unbreakable being really good (but I haven't seen it in a decade...)

In 100 years people will still talk about Pulp Fiction. 6th Sense, not so much.

And don't say that's apples to oranges, because that's exactly what 6th Sense to Pulp Fiction is.

Charlie Wilson's War is more polished and cohesive than Beasts of the Southern Wild.
Electric Light Orchestra is more polished than the Rolling Stones.
Friends is more polished and cohesive than Louie & Curb.
Etc.

(Don't get me wrong, by the way, I reycognize and respect polish - it just doesn't automatically make something better.)

Also:

>Pulp Fiction is more influential, more original, stands up better to repeated viewings,
>has a far better cast, has more memorable scenes, is more well-written (honestly,
>Sixth Sense's writing is like a Lifetime Movie of the Week), won way more awards and
>acclaim, and they both did strong box office numbers. It's one of the defining movies
>of the 90s.

There’s a storm coming. You and your friends better batten down the hatches cause when it hits you’re all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us"-Selina Kyle

I won't defend Night's worst against Nolan's worst, as even Nolan's worst isn't as bad as Night's last couple.

But Death Proof is worse than the lot. Outside of maybe Mike Myers' The Cat In The Hat, the most unpleasant and dull and pointless experience I've ever had in a theater, bar none.

I saw it after everyone shit all over it so I went in with no expectations but it wasn't horrible on the base level and while it wasn't perfect I really liked the modern fairy tale angle. It also was interesting with the critic killing angle and from a metareading with Night's ego writing checks his skills can't cash. It wasn't good but it had some interesting elements.

I'll also concede that I don't give a shit about car chases but apparently if you're into that, Death Proof is supposedly pretty cool.

And Death Proof had an enjoyable one... AFTER TWO HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES OF NOTHING AT ALL, lol.

I also agree that the badness of Lady in the Water is overblown. The only reason it's easy to target is he cast himself as the writer who saves the world with his brilliant art and the bad guy who dies is a pompous asshole movie critic, lol.

>And Death Proof had an enjoyable one... AFTER TWO HOURS AND
>FIFTEEN MINUTES OF NOTHING AT ALL, lol.

I don't know if you were purposely exaggerating because it just *felt* that long, but the theatrical cut of Death Proof was less than 90 minutes.

I mean, it was a throwaway/gimmick movie anyway - half of a fake double-bill that purposely emulated shitty movies, complete with missing reels, damaged film, and intentional technical gaffes. Not sure why people judge it on a standalone basis when it wasn't conceived or even exhibited that way (except in Europe). Sure, I agree that *even for what it is* it's not that great, but I look at it more of a side-project/experiment that didn't work than as an actual full-blown feature film like any of his other projects.

(loved the Philly landscape & the scenes being at my folks' church) but I never go back to that flick, after you know the big reveal it's not really all that interesting or entertaining.

I'd rather watch any of the Batman flicks, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, maybe even Jackie Brown than that movie from this point forward.

Just thought I'd highlight that fact.

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

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

.

Do you.

I'm always gonna shine thine light on the
truth, though


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

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

this nigga here...

which is your inalienable right.

It's just that I've been endowed since birth with an abnormally high capacity for veracity so sometimes that might step on some toes.

peace.

I agree with you.

***throws down ninja smoke bombs***

***backflips out of here***

I honestly don't care who's movie is better. I enjoy sixth sense and unbreakable just as much as the three batman movies.

__________________________________________________________________________
We out here trying to function.

___________________________________________________________________________
We out here trying to function.

and have never had a favorite director. all i care about is whether the movie is good or not. all 3 have made some great movies.

But as you can see...

__________________________________________________________________________
We out here trying to function.

maybe i'm just used to it in the sports board. here tho, it seems weird for some reason.

And you're not wrong that all three have made good movies... but playing "which film is better?" is a timeless movie nerd game that always results in shouting matches. That's all this is.

There’s a storm coming. You and your friends better batten down the hatches cause when it hits you’re all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us"-Selina Kyle

I could tell you you're in "agenda world" for ignoring the quality filmmaking in Unbreakable and Signs (til the end).

Instead, I will simply say I disagree with your opinion, and furthermore, one could argue Sixth Sense isn't as good as Unbreakable or Signs (til the end).

Does that make me sound agenda ish?

It's just called preference and debate, man. Everyone has preference.

I prefer Jackie Brown to Pulp Fiction.
I prefer The Prestige to The Dark Knight.
I prefer Unbreakable to The Prestige and quite possibly to Jackie Brown.

Where's the agenda in stating one's preference? Lol.

..i know the spiritual connections it was making and the whole water thing put ppl off (among other shat), but it always managed to entertain and spook the shit out of me. i duno it always worked for me.
The Happening was the last time i went to the theatres for a longass time. the only time ive ever actually regretted laying down the dosh to pay for tickets n snacks (an average of $50 if its u and a friend/wifey). it was a terrible film. the few scenes of carnage were done well, but in the end...i had zero interest. was a complete airball and im not an apologist one way or another for whichever director ppl ride or die for. i wanted to love it, but i actively disliked it and felt stupid for spending the money. ive since seen it again on TV, just to see if anything had changed, but it was still maddeningly dumb. and completely unsure of its own tone (is this funny, or is it sad, or is it both? the movie didnt know so i had no fucking idea either).

i never even got around to seeing Village or Lady In The Water. i probly wouldnt have seen another Night Dogg flick if he werent (randomly) directing the big-screen adaptation of Avatar: The Last Airbender. which i got to see on an international flight and enjoyed for the most part. if it had nothing to do with the source material it would be fine as a standalone thing, but the spirit of the toon was severely lacking. and the main characters were pasty fucking white. which can always be argued as trivial when ur in the make believe world of feature films but...why? im not even sure why he was even directing this film franchise (well...only one film so, non-franchise franchise). visually i thought it mostly worked for me, but lil creative tweaks like renaming the central character to "UNG", definitely didnt work. at all lol. call em fanboy gripes but a LOT of ppl were shitty bout that one. dude couldnt even keep the name right. i duno. like i said, was entertaining enuf for wat it is. but the cartoon completely blows it away.

V.

There’s a storm coming. You and your friends better batten down the hatches cause when it hits you’re all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us"-Selina Kyle

There’s a storm coming. You and your friends better batten down the hatches cause when it hits you’re all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us"-Selina Kyle

Nahhhhh(c)Lisa McDowell


Pulp fiction better

Except for reservoir dogs and kill bill, he made movies so that "nigger" could be used 50 times.

I mean hipsters get off on that "irony" but come on...

but fairly forgettable. don't get me wrong, i enjoyed it. bruce really brought it. but it just doesn't rank with me.

i've never been as consistently impressed with any the previously mentioned directors as i have with nolan. NONE of them have gotten a better performance out of an actor than nolan did with heath ledger, imo.
-------------------------------------------
INFIN8 Photography
http://www.infin8photography.com
http://www.facebook.com/INFIN8Photography
http://twitter.com/infin8photo

so they are better, all that other shit doesnt matter

<------ Boho Model Madness Presents: Andy Allo

http://www.gifsoup.com/view3/2298233/andyallo2-o.gif

http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://djshinobishaw.tumblr.com/
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c) T510