Search
Search results
Nick Beaty (70 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019 (Updated Nov 26, 2019)
And the Oscar goes to...
First things first, you can not start a review of Joker without mentioning the lead performance from Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck. I would say he is probably an evens favourite to take home the best actor Oscar at next years ceremony.
As for the movie itself, Tod Phillips take on Joker almost feels like a tribute to early Martin Scorsese movies, with the most obvious being Taxi Driver & The King of Comedy, both starring Robert De Niro who also appears here. This is certainly not a bad thing as they are brilliant pieces of cinema, that will stand the test of time. As will Joker in my opinion for it's excellent cinematography & gritty authenticity, I think people will still be talking about this movie for many years to come.
There are a few very slight flaws that I could point out. The first being that because it is so Scorsese like, for me it loses the feeling of being set in Gotham city and just feels very much like we are in New York city. Secondly the Wayne's and Alfred are very much portrayed as the bad guys in this movie, in my opinion I felt myself siding with Arthur/Joker a little too much maybe, which makes you lose all sympathy for the reason Batman became the Dark Knight in the first place. Last but not least the very controversial choice of adding a Gary Glitter song at a pivotal point of the movie, is a strange choice to say the least.
Overall Joker is an exceptional character study of a very disturbed individual with many mental health issues, add to that a superb performance by Joaquin Phoenix and I think you have a movie that will only get better with time and become a genre classic. With the huge box office success, I just hope DC keep this grim, very true to life approach for their future Batman projects.
As for the movie itself, Tod Phillips take on Joker almost feels like a tribute to early Martin Scorsese movies, with the most obvious being Taxi Driver & The King of Comedy, both starring Robert De Niro who also appears here. This is certainly not a bad thing as they are brilliant pieces of cinema, that will stand the test of time. As will Joker in my opinion for it's excellent cinematography & gritty authenticity, I think people will still be talking about this movie for many years to come.
There are a few very slight flaws that I could point out. The first being that because it is so Scorsese like, for me it loses the feeling of being set in Gotham city and just feels very much like we are in New York city. Secondly the Wayne's and Alfred are very much portrayed as the bad guys in this movie, in my opinion I felt myself siding with Arthur/Joker a little too much maybe, which makes you lose all sympathy for the reason Batman became the Dark Knight in the first place. Last but not least the very controversial choice of adding a Gary Glitter song at a pivotal point of the movie, is a strange choice to say the least.
Overall Joker is an exceptional character study of a very disturbed individual with many mental health issues, add to that a superb performance by Joaquin Phoenix and I think you have a movie that will only get better with time and become a genre classic. With the huge box office success, I just hope DC keep this grim, very true to life approach for their future Batman projects.
The Other Mother
8.5
Rate It
Book
“An atmospheric and harrowing tale, richly literary in complexity but ripe with all the crazed...
mystery thriller
ClareR (5911 KP) rated The Glass Hotel in Books
Aug 27, 2021
The Glass Hotel is a book that I really didn’t think I was going to like - but I did. It’s about a failed Ponzi scheme - I had to look up what that actually was. I had absolutely no idea. It’s where someone, a real or fake advisor, planner or investor, promises to invest your money with a certain rate of return. Instead of putting your money in whatever investment they promised, they keep it for themselves. If you want your money back, they take it from other investors to give to you. I couldn’t read a whole book where this was constantly referred to and not find out what it was!
However, this book isn’t just about Ponzi schemes. It’s a character driven book, and there are a fair few of them.
Vincent was a fascinating character - she starts her life in a remote village in Canada, only reachable by boat. When it looks like she’s losing her way, she gets a job at a hotel and meets Jonathan Alkaitis - the organiser of the Ponzi scheme. Vincent is completely unconcerned at where the money she spends is coming from, she just spends it, lives in their luxury apartments, living the life she never had as a child. When that money is gone, Vincent moves on - she’s a survivor, and I really like that about her.
I couldn’t believe the length of Alkaitis’ prison sentence - I’m assuming 140 years or more is normal for a fraud of this scale. He doesn’t cope well. He has visions, sees ghosts of the people whose lives he destroyed. This was really eerie: were they real? Was it his imagination?
Leon Prevant shows what happens to a lot of older people when they have no income: he becomes one of the nomadic people, travelling in a camper-van from job to job. No savings, no home. The fear as they get older, of illness or infirmity.
So yes, I really enjoyed this. I liked that it’s completely different to Station 11, and I’m very glad I read it!
However, this book isn’t just about Ponzi schemes. It’s a character driven book, and there are a fair few of them.
Vincent was a fascinating character - she starts her life in a remote village in Canada, only reachable by boat. When it looks like she’s losing her way, she gets a job at a hotel and meets Jonathan Alkaitis - the organiser of the Ponzi scheme. Vincent is completely unconcerned at where the money she spends is coming from, she just spends it, lives in their luxury apartments, living the life she never had as a child. When that money is gone, Vincent moves on - she’s a survivor, and I really like that about her.
I couldn’t believe the length of Alkaitis’ prison sentence - I’m assuming 140 years or more is normal for a fraud of this scale. He doesn’t cope well. He has visions, sees ghosts of the people whose lives he destroyed. This was really eerie: were they real? Was it his imagination?
Leon Prevant shows what happens to a lot of older people when they have no income: he becomes one of the nomadic people, travelling in a camper-van from job to job. No savings, no home. The fear as they get older, of illness or infirmity.
So yes, I really enjoyed this. I liked that it’s completely different to Station 11, and I’m very glad I read it!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Four Days of You and Me in Books
May 7, 2020
I hate writing less-than-positive reviews, especially for authors I typically enjoy, but this book was not a favorite of mine. It's told across Lulu and Alex's four class trips (one per year) with flashbacks to other times. I simply could not warm up to Lulu or Alex. Honestly, of the two, I probably liked him better, but we don't hear his side. It took nearly half the book for the story to engage me even a little bit, and I thought about giving up, but for some reason, I have a tough time just stopping a book.
Now, I read YA a ton, so it's not that I don't enjoy YA novels. I read one right after this and *loved* it. But I found this story way too simplistic, and I feel like teens would too. There is so much better YA out there--for all of us. The book just felt simplistic in its writing and the "will they / won't they" storyline was boring. I did not care if they did or not. Honestly, there was a side plot about Lulu's gay best friend Max that was much more interesting--I would have rather read about him!
Supposedly Lulu is an artist/writer and that's her thing, but that felt forced. Mostly, the book felt about a girl (and her friends) all trying to find boys to like (and like them back). That's what they cared about and talked about. I felt no huge connection between Alex and Lulu and hence no reason to root for them to choose each other. They didn't feel destined for one other, as most couples do in a good romance. The story does pick up a bit near the end, but by then, I just felt burned out.
So maybe this story would resonate a bit more with a teen set (and it should be an older teen set, due to language and themes), but there are a lot of other better books out there. Now, others seem to enjoy this more than me, so maybe I just got caught in a bad mood. 2.5 stars for me, though.
Now, I read YA a ton, so it's not that I don't enjoy YA novels. I read one right after this and *loved* it. But I found this story way too simplistic, and I feel like teens would too. There is so much better YA out there--for all of us. The book just felt simplistic in its writing and the "will they / won't they" storyline was boring. I did not care if they did or not. Honestly, there was a side plot about Lulu's gay best friend Max that was much more interesting--I would have rather read about him!
Supposedly Lulu is an artist/writer and that's her thing, but that felt forced. Mostly, the book felt about a girl (and her friends) all trying to find boys to like (and like them back). That's what they cared about and talked about. I felt no huge connection between Alex and Lulu and hence no reason to root for them to choose each other. They didn't feel destined for one other, as most couples do in a good romance. The story does pick up a bit near the end, but by then, I just felt burned out.
So maybe this story would resonate a bit more with a teen set (and it should be an older teen set, due to language and themes), but there are a lot of other better books out there. Now, others seem to enjoy this more than me, so maybe I just got caught in a bad mood. 2.5 stars for me, though.
tonidavis (353 KP) rated The Fandom in Books
Aug 8, 2017
I got a proof of this book at Yalc. Just by the description on the cover I thought I would like it. However the story itself wasn't what I thought it would be.
When I started to read it took me a few chapters to get into it but once I got into the story I loved it.
There is an obvious comparison for anyone who grew up 80 early 90s with the story being reminiscent of dungeons and dragons. There were points I was tempted to jump to the end just to make sure they make it home. As someone who grew up loving this show the book was somewhat sentimental for me.
The premise itself is good I don't know anyone who hasn't at lasted toyed with the idea of being trapped in there favorite fandom world. that being said there were point where I was okay that's just straight matrix moment.
As a whole I loved this book it had a lot of thing I love and the dungeons and dragons feel just made me so nostalgic. It's a great fantasy's read.
When I started to read it took me a few chapters to get into it but once I got into the story I loved it.
There is an obvious comparison for anyone who grew up 80 early 90s with the story being reminiscent of dungeons and dragons. There were points I was tempted to jump to the end just to make sure they make it home. As someone who grew up loving this show the book was somewhat sentimental for me.
The premise itself is good I don't know anyone who hasn't at lasted toyed with the idea of being trapped in there favorite fandom world. that being said there were point where I was okay that's just straight matrix moment.
As a whole I loved this book it had a lot of thing I love and the dungeons and dragons feel just made me so nostalgic. It's a great fantasy's read.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Feb 24, 2018
Pretty visuals are just not enough any more
As usual I am late to the party as to just watching this movie tonight, but I was not impressed overall.
In the days of every high budget movie now has striking visuals the last 15 years, it is not impressive enough to me to just have a movie look good. I am all about nonlinear storytelling, or movies that are vague and not all tied up in a know at the end, but this movie just felt like it was missing something.
I'm sure Harrison Ford got a health paycheck (as he always says on all the talk shows he's on promoting his films these days) to reprise his role from Ridley's Scott's 1982 classic, but he really doesn't have much to work with here. This time Deckard is a hideaway recluse with some loose ends in his life.
This film puts to rest some of the hanging threads in the many versions of the original film and there are a few surprises too.
Overall, I would say interesting film with some cool visuals, but ultimately disappointing.
In the days of every high budget movie now has striking visuals the last 15 years, it is not impressive enough to me to just have a movie look good. I am all about nonlinear storytelling, or movies that are vague and not all tied up in a know at the end, but this movie just felt like it was missing something.
I'm sure Harrison Ford got a health paycheck (as he always says on all the talk shows he's on promoting his films these days) to reprise his role from Ridley's Scott's 1982 classic, but he really doesn't have much to work with here. This time Deckard is a hideaway recluse with some loose ends in his life.
This film puts to rest some of the hanging threads in the many versions of the original film and there are a few surprises too.
Overall, I would say interesting film with some cool visuals, but ultimately disappointing.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The River of No Return in Books
Dec 21, 2018
At nearly 600 pages, this isn't a short read (although the font is quite large.....) and although, after a slowish start, I did really get into the book, the ending left me feeling disappointed - not enough to give 4 starts this time. The right ingredients are all there, it's just that this is a pretty long book and at the end of it we got very little explanation or resolution of story threads. It was more like Part One of a larger novel than book one of a series because so little is resolved at the end of this, so it doesn't really work as a standalone novel.
My more usual reading matter tends towards historical fiction/mystery/romance, do maybe this was why I was happier once we were back in the Georgian period than in the modern, or maybe it just took a while to get going. We are nearly a third into the book before the big jump back in time takes place, so maybe it wasn't just a feeling. A lot of the stuff beforehand is trying to explain and set up the plot rather than just let it happen.
My more usual reading matter tends towards historical fiction/mystery/romance, do maybe this was why I was happier once we were back in the Georgian period than in the modern, or maybe it just took a while to get going. We are nearly a third into the book before the big jump back in time takes place, so maybe it wasn't just a feeling. A lot of the stuff beforehand is trying to explain and set up the plot rather than just let it happen.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
13 years have passed since Alice first visited Wonderland. She was just a little girl back then. A mad, little girl plagued by a nightmare. Now, almost 20, Alice finds herself thrust headfirst into adulthood yet continues to have the same dream for as long as she can remember. On the verge of being thrown into a marriage she's unsure of, Alice finds herself easily distracted by the simplest things. What would it be like to fly? What if women wore trousers and men wore dresses? Or the fact that wearing a corset is similar to wearing a codfish on your head. The White Rabbit eventually distracts Alice long enough to lead her back down the rabbit hole for a return visit to Wonderland, but Alice is still under the impression that it's all a dream and has no recollection of her first trip there. Since Alice's first visit, however, the Red Queen used the Jabberwocky to relinquish the crown from her sister, the White Queen, and now reigns supreme as the queen of Wonderland. As the creatures of Wonderland debate whether this Alice is the "right Alice" that is destined to kill the Jabberwocky and end the Red Queen's reign, Alice struggles with trying to wake up from this very realistic dream.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Sinner - Season 1 in TV
Nov 30, 2017 (Updated Nov 30, 2017)
Barely any of the characters were sympathetic or relatable (3 more)
The ending was dissatisfying
So many wasted episodes
It was only 9 episodes long, but it felt far longer
A Sin That This Wasn't Better
This show came highly recommended to me by sources that I usually trust, but it turned out to be a total let down. The show opens with a young family going to the beach. The mother who is played by Jessica Biel, suddenly walks over to another young man on the beach and stabs him to death in front of over a hundred witnesses in broad daylight. She is then arrested and the show spends the next 8 episodes clumsily trying to explain why she committed this heinous act.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
I like Jessica Biel, I like Bill Pullman and I like Christopher Abbott, who plays the husband to Biel's Cora Tannetti. I like mysterious shows about crime and murder. I should have loved this, but I thought it was a train wreck from start to finish. During the first episode we see the murder occur in graphic detail, then the next couple of episodes ask why she did what she did and then you start to wonder, "how are they going to manage to drag this out for another six episodes without it getting stale?" The answer is, they aren't and it gets old fast. In this sense, the writing is a mess.
Sometimes though, a show can have messy writing, but be saved by it's cast of characters. However, that is absolutely not the case here. Cora is the main character of the show, so I think we are supposed to feel some sort of connection to her, yet she is so grossly off-putting in every way, I was actually was hoping to see her get the death sentence. At first you see her committing this atrocity, which obviously causes you to take an instant dislike to her, but you expect as the show goes on and we learn more about her, that we will eventually feel sympathetic towards her. In fact, the exact opposite is true, every new facet of information that I learned about her backstory just made me hate her more and at no point did I feel like I was on her side.
There is also a flashback subplot going on, which shows Cora as a suspiciously old looking teenager, as for some reason Jessica Biel is still playing the role of the teenage Cora. Through this we see her family life growing up, but her family are some of the most dislikeable characters I have seen in a TV show in years. Her mother is a religious nut to the point of insanity, her father is sleeping with the next door neighbour and her terminally ill sister is such a little shit that you don't feel any sympathy towards her for her illness and you end up hoping she will die sooner rather than later.
I'll try to discuss the ending without giving away any major spoilers, but for those who haven't yet seen the show, you may want to skip to the final paragraph. At around the episode 5 mark, I was very close to giving up on this show, but I had heard that the ending was amazing, so I stuck with it. What a waste of time that turned out to be. The reveal itself was a huge let down and after everything was revealed, I still felt that the murder victim didn't deserve to die and I thought that Cora pretty much getting away with murder was so dissatisfying and undeserved.
Overall, this show is pretty awful. There are so many plot threads that go nowhere, the writing thinks it is far more clever than it actually is, actors that I normally like are playing entirely dislikeable characters and the whole thing seems far longer than just nine episodes. The ending isn't worth sticking around for and really the show is just tons of wasted potential. Do yourself a favour and give this a skip, there are far better shows available to watch on Netflix.
James Bagshaw recommended track It's Raining Today by Scott Walker in Scott 3 by Scott Walker in Music (curated)
7.0
Album
Favorite