Lucky Number Slevin - (555's review)

555 · Mar 12, 2006

Now this is how you make a film!

Josh Hartnett is Slevin, a guy mistaken for his friend Nick & taken to see 2 differenct crime bosses, (Morgan Freeman & Ben Kingsley) who apparently Nick owes money to, thus he owes them money. Throw in Bruce Willis as Smith, "a world class assassin ****head" & Lucy Lui as Nicks feisty energetic neighbour, and you've got yourself the makings of a good movie.

Then you add a script that you would swear is written by Guy Ritchie (i refer to Lock,Stock & Snatch days). Plus some damn cool camera work, style that would make Tony Scott embarassed and you've got yourself an even better sounding movie.

As i have bigged this movie up a fair bit from the above to paragraphs you would guess that i liked it........... YES! This is the best film i have seen in ages, the best of '06 so far, better than anything in '05, possibly the best film in the 2000's. Its not just for the above mentioned reasons, its everything, Slevin is a excellent film.

All the lead cast is fantastic. Lucy standing out the most, she is great, Linsey (her character) is so funny aswell, imagine the energiser bunny but much cuter. Bruce is great as Smith, even if he probably has the least smart dialogue. Ben & Morgan are slightly run of the mill character's, but again its the script that sets them apart, its so clever & sounds class to listen too. Everytime either of them are talking with Josh (Slevin) the witt is spot on, but neither have the upper hand in any conversation, its so much fun to watch. Josh, not everyone's cup of tea, but he is great in this, a smart mouth knowbody "in the wrong place at the wrong time".

Ok, so all the actors are good, why is it that good though? Well after all the clever writing in terms of dialogue, we get all the twists & turns. Writers of 24 pay attention, this is how you do it. There has to be a good 7 or 8 clever twists in this, all of which are good, none of which i guessed (and i nearly always do). One of them half the cinema actually went "huhh" at, it was that good.

The flaws?? ok, there are 2. Ben Kingsleys accent is a bit odd & they do have one twist to many at the end, they couldve ended it a minute or two earlier. But hey its hollywood.

Top-notch film-making, best film have seen in years!

9/10

Anyone else seen it?

Dave A · Mar 12, 2006

Not seen it yet and deliberately read your oening comments and not much more, but I should be seeing it tomorrow and I'll be posting my opinion of it then.

Famine · Oct 8, 2006

Just caught this and... I liked it, but wholeheartedly disagree with nearly everything in the opening post.

555
Josh Hartnett is Slevin, a guy mistaken for his friend Nick & taken to see 2 differenct crime bosses, (Morgan Freeman & Ben Kingsley) who apparently Nick owes money to, thus he owes them money. Throw in Bruce Willis as Smith, "a world class assassin ****head" & Lucy Lui as Nicks feisty energetic neighbour, and you've got yourself the makings of a good movie.

Yes and no. Hartnett isn't all that good - at one point Slevin and Lindsey compare him to Bond (later deciding on which Bond), but he has none of the charm associated with a Bond. He's just playing on boyish cheekiness. Given the character's supposed upbringing it's 50:50 whether this is how he's supposed to have turned out or it's just Hartnett's usual "acting".

Lucy Liu is a pain in the arse. As usual.

Freeman, Kingsley and Willis are all fairly absent. Willis seems to have dropped into a "The Jackal" mode again for this film, Kingsley into his "Thunderbirds" persona and Freeman into "Chain Reaction". We all know how that trio of films turned out.

But...

They all seemed to cobble together a reasonably interesting whole, even if their individual parts don't bear much scrutiny.

555
Then you add a script that you would swear is written by Guy Ritchie (i refer to Lock,Stock & Snatch days).

No. Guy Ritchie insists on inserting pointless pseudo-London-speak ("Mockney") and has all the scripting talent of Elton John's underpants.

Not that this script was particularly good. It ticked along okay though - made Lay3r C4ke look like crap.

555
This is the best film i have seen in ages, the best of '06 so far, better than anything in '05, possibly the best film in the 2000's.

Forgive me if I'm confusing you with someone else, but didn't you rate Jet Li's "Unleashed" phenomenally highly too?

I watched both. Unleashed wasn't a patch on anything coming out of Hong Kong in the 70s and Slevin, enjoyable though it is, is just another stock revenge movie with gangsters. If that's your kind of thing, Batman Begins does it far better (and gets a better performance from Freeman).

555
Ben & Morgan are slightly run of the mill character's, but again its the script that sets them apart, its so clever & sounds class to listen too. Everytime either of them are talking with Josh (Slevin) the witt is spot on, but neither have the upper hand in any conversation, its so much fun to watch.

And that should tell you something. Two ma-hoo-ssive New York crime bosses, and some "lowlife nobody" they think they're setting up backchats them like he's a naughty kid in front of teacher. It's a scripting weakness - Slevin walks into their offices like he owns the place, not the compulsive gambling nothing he's supposed to be (or rather that they think he's supposed to be).

The plot of the film requires The Rabbi and The Boss to both be idiots - the Rabbi especially. While you might make a play for complacency and paranoia clouding their judgements, it doesn't sit with their supposed 20 year reign of fear. They have a sum total of three bodyguards each. They don't bother to check that they have the right guy, ever (even though the Rabbi knows he isn't the right guy he still lets it carry on - and given the later reveal this is absolutely staggering). And they let some punk kid walk into their homes off the streets and cheek them.

555
Well after all the clever writing in terms of dialogue, we get all the twists & turns. Writers of 24 pay attention, this is how you do it. There has to be a good 7 or 8 clever twists in this, all of which are good, none of which i guessed (and i nearly always do). One of them half the cinema actually went "huhh" at, it was that good.

We called them all, between the two of us, well before they were revealed. Whereas 24 keeps getting us every now and then.

My other half called the guy in the train station. I called Slevin's whole purpose. She got the baseball reference. I called Goodkat's part in it all. She got the "he was my bookie" line-drop.

I'm afraid it was all run-of-the-mill fare, as far as "twists" go.

Not to mention the 20 minutes at the end explaining it all - when we already knew it anyway. Plus that's something I always hate - explaining your plan to your enemy in a film.

555
Top-notch film-making, best film have seen in years!

9/10

Brain-off amusing. Beats Guy Ritchie to a pulp, but Guy Ritchie has never made a good film anyway.

a6m5 · Oct 8, 2006

I agree with a lot of what Famine said. I did like "Lock, Stock" though, also that BMW Films' short he did with Clive Owen. That was NICE!.

Lucky Number Slevin, I wasn't really impressed with. 555 didn't believe me when I said it, but I really did find the movie predictable and I explained little bit more in this post.

555 · Oct 8, 2006

You be quoting a hell of alot there Famine!

I get if people guessed some of the twists, if your looking for them. If your not enjoying a film, then your going to analyse it to look for all the plots. If like me you was really absorbed into the film (seeing it at the cinema helped), then your not looking for the plot twists. And no offense, but i don't beleive that you guessed the very end twist, that was very clever.
It was over-explained & on 2nd viewing it wasn't as good, but i'd still give it 8/10.

Guy Ritchie never made a good film?? I think alot of people would disagree with you there. Lock Stock is frequently called a modern classic, and i personally love Snatch & Revolver. The scripts aren't mockney. He may well be a mockney, but his scripts are generally how people sound in London. Being from a family full of Londeners i do know this first hand.

Back to Slevin for a sec, as long as you liked the film. Good for you.

Famine · Oct 8, 2006

555
You be quoting a hell of alot there Famine!

It's an addiction...

555
I get if people guessed some of the twists, if your looking for them. If your not enjoying a film, then your going to analyse it to look for all the plots. If like me you was really absorbed into the film (seeing it at the cinema helped), then your not looking for the plot twists.

Can't agree.

Script-writing these days - with the notable exception of David Lynch - seems to be mainly about nailing an implausible plot twist in the plot and seeing how much of a clue you can give before people get it. Even directors get in on the act - focussing for a little too long on a certain item (the backpack in Ocean's Twelve, for instance).

The twists in Slevin were put on a plate - the accountancy registers in the very opening sequence got me looking for their relevance almost instantly.

555
And no offense, but i don't beleive that you guessed the very end twist, that was very clever.

I didn't - my girlfriend got it and I saw what she was saying almost instantly. These two lines were a dead giveaway:

"Bernie Begin - killed by a baseball." - that told me who his killer was and, by elimination, who Slevin was.
"Between you and me, 20 years ago he was my bookmaker - I signed my paychecks over to him." - that told me why he was killed, confirmed who Slevin was and told me Brikowski's real part (and fate).

They really over-egged the "20 years" lines throughout.

555
Guy Ritchie never made a good film?? I think alot of people would disagree with you there.

And that's the beauty of personal taste.

555
Lock Stock is frequently called a modern classic, and i personally love Snatch & Revolver. The scripts aren't mockney. He may well be a mockney, but his scripts are generally how people sound in London. Being from a family full of Londeners i do know this first hand.

Honestly, my only response to this last sentence is "" - do you think no-one else has "first hand" experience of London?

It's not "generally how people sound in London". It's generally how people from a small area of London are imagined to sound - and Dick van Dyke was nearer the mark than Guy Ritchie. London encompasses hundreds of accents - speaking Ritchie-speak in Finsbury Park will get you a fatwah, and the only people who sound like that in Ealing are the plumbers. Ritchie's version is sub-Del Boy, and about the only people who sound close to genuine on a Ritchie script are Vinnie Jones and Jason Statham - probably because they can mask the gaping flaws with actual East London accents.

Lock, Stock, Snatch, Revolver and L4yer Cak3 - though I can't blame Ritchie for that last one - are all of a similar ilk. They pander to a teenager desire for violence, slap on a barely coherent pretext of drugs and gangsters and coat with the F-word and an "apples and pairs, mutton jeff, china plate" Mockney accent (to make their characters seem more "down to Earth"). The end result is a film teenagers like - shock!

Slevin is much the same, but a little funnier and slightly better thought out.

555
Back to Slevin for a sec, as long as you liked the film. Good for you.

Without knowledge of the twists - just guessing them as we went along - it was enjoyable enough. With foreknowledge of the twists on a second viewing I doubt it'd be even that.

Dave A · Oct 8, 2006

live4speed
Not seen it yet and deliberately read your oening comments and not much more, but I should be seeing it tomorrow and I'll be posting my opinion of it then.

And 7 months later here's my opinion :lol:

.

I thought it was average, it was worth the watch but it was nothing compared to true great films. I didn't get all the film before it happened but I figured out who Slevin was in good time and Willis' part. I knew that him and Slevin were playing the two supposed big gun's against each other. Not as bad as Revolver by a long shot though, I really wasn't keen on that film.

555 · Oct 9, 2006

Twists are all down to how much i am enjoying a film. If i'm deeply absorbed in a film, like in this or in Narc, then i tend not to get the twists. If however i find the film to be ****, like Sixth Sense, then i will guess the twist.

I know that nobody agree's with me on Revolver, but i really liked that film. I think it's if you "get" it. I don't mean in the twists & such, i mean just "getting" it.

I think the main reason i liked Slevin was the script/dialgoue. I love films that are billed as serious thrillers & then have a damn funny script. Like in Crank or Snatch.

Der Alta · Oct 9, 2006

I watched this over the weekend, based on 555's review. I also had an inkling to watch this before reading it, but 555 made me layout the cash. I guessed the relationship before it was revealed and a few of the twists. I didn't guess the wife killer, as I wasn't too interested in who/why at that point. At teh end, I was disappointed, as they really explained more than they really needed to.

Usual Suspects did it much better. THey revealed the entire plot twist in about 30 seconds. With images, not a long dialogue. That is perhaps what killed my desire to see Slevin a second time. Most movies I'll watch multiple times and catch new things through out. In fact this weekend, I watched "The Matrix" again for the umpteenth time and caught something new.

That is what makes a great movie experience. Sixth sense is good twice. Once to watch the movie and get the twist, a second time to see it all fit together. Slevin won't get that chance.

Yes, I somewhat enjoyed it. Lady DA didn't. Too much violence, not enough content.

Wasn't it "The Incredibles" that made a joke about monologues?

Famine · Oct 9, 2006

Der Alta
Usual Suspects did it much better. THey revealed the entire plot twist in about 30 seconds. With images, not a long dialogue.

Yes, that was good, and extremely funny at the same time.

FoolKiller · Oct 9, 2006

555
I love films that are billed as serious thrillers & then have a damn funny script. Like in Crank or Snatch.

I haven't seen Slevin yet, but it is on the rental list. I just had to respond to this.

They have got to be billing these movies differently where you live because most of the Snatch trailers I remember showed Brad Pitt speaking with a bad unintelligible Irish accent and showing people trying to figure out what he said. The Crank ads just showed the doctor saying, "If you stop moving you die." I laughed at that. The Crank tagline was: Poison in his veins. Vengeance in his heart. I heard that and immediately knew it would be more about laughs than suspense.

Are you going to tell me next that Snakes on a Plane was billed as serious horror?

a6m5 · Oct 9, 2006

Der Alta
I watched this over the weekend, based on 555's review. I also had an inkling to watch this before reading it, but 555 made me layout the cash. I guessed the relationship before it was revealed and a few of the twists. I didn't guess the wife killer, as I wasn't too interested in who/why at that point. At teh end, I was disappointed, as they really explained more than they really needed to.

Usual Suspects did it much better. THey revealed the entire plot twist in about 30 seconds. With images, not a long dialogue. That is perhaps what killed my desire to see Slevin a second time. Most movies I'll watch multiple times and catch new things through out. In fact this weekend, I watched "The Matrix" again for the umpteenth time and caught something new.

That is what makes a great movie experience. Sixth sense is good twice. Once to watch the movie and get the twist, a second time to see it all fit together. Slevin won't get that chance.

Yes, I somewhat enjoyed it. Lady DA didn't. Too much violence, not enough content.

Wasn't it "The Incredibles" that made a joke about monologues?

Sixth Sense and the Usual Suspects, there you go. I agree completely. I mentioned those movies too, in prior discussion with 555 on "Lucky Number Slevin". One more successful example I mentioned was Se7en with Pitt and Freeman. Now, those were "twists".

555 · Oct 9, 2006

OK, maybe not Snatch (i cant remember the trailers of that to be honest). But you get what i mean. Films that are suprisingly funny, like this, Hellboy or recently Crank. Snakes on Plane wasn't that funny though, and its clearly advertised as a tongue-in-cheek film.

The Usual Suspects, Se7en & Fight Club i think are the definitve twists in movies (24 for TV). So many films copy Fight Club now its ridiculous.

a6m5 · Oct 9, 2006

555
The Usual Suspects, Se7en & Fight Club i think are the definitve twists in movies (24 for TV). So many films copy Fight Club now its ridiculous.

I agree on Fight Club. How did I forget that movie! :banghead:

Anderton Prime · Oct 9, 2006

Josh Hartnett is a curious actor for me to comment on. At times he is so horrible in a movie I will swear never to see another movie starring him ever again. But every now and then he impresses me enough to abandon that oath. Lucky Number Slevin: I remember it was good when I saw it in theatres, but I knew the end before I got there, and that's my only complaint. Would definitely have been a satisfying rental.

vladimir · Oct 9, 2006

555
I know that nobody agree's with me on Revolver, but i really liked that film. I think it's if you "get" it. I don't mean in the twists & such, i mean just "getting" it.

I think the main reason i liked Slevin was the script/dialgoue. I love films that are billed as serious thrillers & then have a damn funny script. Like in Crank or Snatch.

i agree.

loved revolver, lock, stock and lucky number slevin.
why do people get so worked up on that "i figured out half the twists" thing. that should make you proud, not sad. especially if then compared to something like 24 where twists are drawn from a hat all the time just in order to keep the story going for another two hours. i sometimes thought that the complicated relationship issues within CTU where a lot more dangerous than all the terrorists they fought...

a6m5 · Oct 9, 2006

vladimir
i why do people get so worked up on that "i figured out half the twists" thing. that should make you proud, not sad.

If it was well crafted, yes. I've called it "predictable" in another thread(got 555 worked up

), but as I've said before, I believe that there are too many movies like this that cheapens the technique. When they lay out the answer to the "surprise" early in the movie, I can't help it but to roll my eyes the rest of the movie.

555 · Oct 9, 2006

What one person finds predictable, someone else dosent. It's as simple as that.

I still didn't find Slevin predictable, the only bit that i did guess was the (admitidly) annoying end with Lucy Liu. And wherever it was that said her character was annoying. Thats really weird, she seems to be one of those love or hate characters. I loved her, she was brilliant.

Good taste there Vladimir. In 24, it was only really Season 1 & 2 that had the best twists. Season 3 has some but they were poor & season 4 just had none. Season 5 had the best death "twists", Edgar will always be a sad moment.

vladimir · Oct 11, 2006

i just watched the usual suspects now and i wasn't all that convinced.

it was a good film, but nowhere near as entertaining as revolver or lucky number slevin. the twist was very well done, but a film should have more than just a great twist.
and if you look hard ernough you can find just as much flaws in the usual suspects like you might find in lucky number slevin.

why does "keyser söze" plan this whole massacre just in order to get the one man who knows him?
ok, that copper first gets the impression that keaton was keyser söze, but it should not be impossible to find out whether keaton was between the death or not via DNA fingerprints. and with such a massacre in mind we should expect the cops to do a proper investigation.
furthermore a lot of stuff remains unexplained; where and why does kint get his support from so that he is imediately released from custody? in the beginning there is some talk about how a lot of important people raised their voice for him, which makes it look like kint/söze is a really large number, but then he has to set up such a large scale attack in order to get rid of one body?
i think that is similar to lucky number slevin and it reminds us of one simple fact: they're films, not reality.
and as a film i very much prefer slevin for the entertainment value. now i'm not the guy who likes the regular hollywood cinema. i don't watch king kong, superman, lord of the rings and all that garbage and i absolutely enjoy films in which nothing really happens (i recently watched cachè, voksne mennesker and don't come knocking at the cinema and i totally loved them) but i don't mind a bit of entertainment.
whats especially annoying is that in the end you realize that half the film and actually all the exciting parts were probably just made up by verbal kint.
the films of guy ritchie and lucky number slevin also had very strong visuals and sound(track) which contribute very much to the whole experience.

Famine · Oct 11, 2006

vladimir
why does "keyser söze" plan this whole massacre just in order to get the one man who knows him?
ok, that copper first gets the impression that keaton was keyser söze, but it should not be impossible to find out whether keaton was between the death or not via DNA fingerprints. and with such a massacre in mind we should expect the cops to do a proper investigation.
furthermore a lot of stuff remains unexplained; where and why does kint get his support from so that he is imediately released from custody? in the beginning there is some talk about how a lot of important people raised their voice for him, which makes it look like kint/söze is a really large number, but then he has to set up such a large scale attack in order to get rid of one body?

...

whats especially annoying is that in the end you realize that half the film and actually all the exciting parts were probably just made up by verbal kint.

Verbal
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.

Which just about explains the lot.

Incidentally, why do you dismiss King Kong, Superman and Lord of the Rings as "garbage" if you haven't seen them?

a6m5 · Oct 11, 2006

vladimir
i just watched the usual suspects now and i wasn't all that convinced.

it was a good film, but nowhere near as entertaining as revolver or lucky number slevin. the twist was very well done, but a film should have more than just a great twist.
and if you look hard ernough you can find just as much flaws in the usual suspects like you might find in lucky number slevin.

why does "keyser söze" plan this whole massacre just in order to get the one man who knows him?
ok, that copper first gets the impression that keaton was keyser söze, but it should not be impossible to find out whether keaton was between the death or not via DNA fingerprints. and with such a massacre in mind we should expect the cops to do a proper investigation.
furthermore a lot of stuff remains unexplained; where and why does kint get his support from so that he is imediately released from custody? in the beginning there is some talk about how a lot of important people raised their voice for him, which makes it look like kint/söze is a really large number, but then he has to set up such a large scale attack in order to get rid of one body?
i think that is similar to lucky number slevin and it reminds us of one simple fact: they're films, not reality.
and as a film i very much prefer slevin for the entertainment value. now i'm not the guy who likes the regular hollywood cinema. i don't watch king kong, superman, lord of the rings and all that garbage and i absolutely enjoy films in which nothing really happens (i recently watched cachè, voksne mennesker and don't come knocking at the cinema and i totally loved them) but i don't mind a bit of entertainment.
whats especially annoying is that in the end you realize that half the film and actually all the exciting parts were probably just made up by verbal kint.
the films of guy ritchie and lucky number slevin also had very strong visuals and sound(track) which contribute very much to the whole experience.

And I think the Usual Suspects are in the totally different league way beyond the reach of Lucky Number Slevin. Acting, plot, direction, nothing in "Lucky" came remotely close to what I saw in "The Usual Suspects". And those things equal to "entertainment value" for me. But to each his own. Agree to disagree.

P.S. The Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece. You might not have liked it, which is perfectly fine. But you can't get away with calling that trilogy a garbage. King Kong, maybe, but not the Lord of the Rings.

vladimir · Oct 11, 2006

Famine
Which just about explains the lot.

no that does not answer any of the questions i have raised.

Incidentally, why do you dismiss King Kong, Superman and Lord of the Rings as "garbage" if you haven't seen them?

Click to expand...

i healthy dose of prejudices saves you a lot of time.

a6m5 · Oct 11, 2006

vladimir
healthy dose of prejudices saves you a lot of time.

At least check out the first installment of the Lord of the Rings, will you? Even if you end up not liking it, it wouldn't be a waste of your time. I promise.

vladimir · Oct 11, 2006

i was actually forced to watch that and i was bored to death.

a6m5 · Oct 11, 2006

I give up. You are almost as bad as 555.

vladimir · Oct 11, 2006

Famine · Oct 11, 2006

vladimir
no that does not answer any of the questions i have raised.

It answers all of them.

Keyser Soze is a mysterious underworld figure. Everyone who has ever supposedly met him has died and no-one ever works for him - even waaaay down the chain - twice. No-one alive has ever seen him. Ever. In fact, he's so mysterious and faceless that he may as well not exist at all... And, thanks to Verbal's elaborate story, we're not even sure that he does exist... Or if he does but Verbal doesn't...

Verbal
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.

vladimir
why does "keyser söze" plan this whole massacre just in order to get the one man who knows him?

Because one man knows him, and no-one who sees Keyser Soze lives - and no-one works for Keyser Soze twice. Killing everyone - or rather "terminating with extreme prejudice" is a pretty good way of ensuring that...

vladimir
ok, that copper first gets the impression that keaton was keyser söze, but it should not be impossible to find out whether keaton was between the death or not via DNA fingerprints. and with such a massacre in mind we should expect the cops to do a proper investigation.

You'd need Keyser Soze's DNA in order to compare it...

vladimir
whats especially annoying is that in the end you realize that half the film and actually all the exciting parts were probably just made up by verbal kint.

Exactly. All of that totally plausible story, full of colourful information and vital leads to Keyser Soze - all the stuff the police could use to find him - and suddenly, as soon as Kint is out of the door, it all turns into nothing.

Verbal
And like that... he's gone.

555 · Oct 11, 2006

Enough with the quoting!!

Vladimir your taste is films is brilliant, except for the Usual Suspects. That is one of the greatest films possibly ever. Its so clever, it's not just the twist, everything about it is brilliant.

I totally agree with you on King Kong. Peter Jackson is extremely over-rated in my eyes. Parts of it are good, but the green screen is horrid & the end, i really just wanted the damn ape to hurry up and die!

I cannot beleive we have gone from Lucky Number Slevin to King Kong. Talk about going off topic.

vladimir · Oct 11, 2006

555
Vladimir your taste is films is brilliant, except for the Usual Suspects. That is one of the greatest films possibly ever. Its so clever, it's not just the twist, everything about it is brilliant.

well, thanks indeed sir! :lol:

i'm not saying its a bad film, it just didn't really get me all that excited. maybe i'll have to watch it again.

Famine
It answers all of them.

Keyser Soze is a mysterious underworld figure. Everyone who has ever supposedly met him has died and no-one ever works for him - even waaaay down the chain - twice. No-one alive has ever seen him. Ever. In fact, he's so mysterious and faceless that he may as well not exist at all... And, thanks to Verbal's elaborate story, we're not even sure that he does exist... Or if he does but Verbal doesn't...

but technically, those guys did work twice for him.

Because one man knows him, and no-one who sees Keyser Soze lives - and no-one works for Keyser Soze twice. Killing everyone - or rather "terminating with extreme prejudice" is a pretty good way of ensuring that...

true...

You'd need Keyser Soze's DNA in order to compare it...

if one would like to know whether keaton was keyser...true.

Exactly. All of that totally plausible story, full of colourful information and vital leads to Keyser Soze - all the stuff the police could use to find him - and suddenly, as soon as Kint is out of the door, it all turns into nothing.

interesting point.

Lucky Number Slevin - (555's review)

TreVoR fan for life

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

#ChopOn

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

TreVoR fan for life

Official GTP Bouncer

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Don't be a fool.

#ChopOn

#ChopOn

#ChopOn

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

#ChopOn

#ChopOn

#ChopOn

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Similar threads