When I was young, I was a serious fantasy reader. I read George R. R. Martin, and Tolkien, and Robin Hobbs. I didn't have time for this children's series. These books about a kid who goes to wizarding school. I scoffed at them. And then I went with my family to see the first movie. And I was hooked.In the intervening years, I have become a Harry Potter convert and super-fan. My wife and I frequently talk about it, still. We've been to the theme park. We have wands. I have a Gilderoy Lockhart Pop Vinyl figure on my desk (as well as a few others). Harry Potter is a big deal in my household.
I was always going to see Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. But, in the wake of a series wave of bad reviews (it currently sports a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes), and having really enjoyed the film myself, this review is going to take a bit of a different tack. It is going to be both a review of the film, and a defense of it. Because I am not entirely sure I think a lot of the criticisms leveled at it are fair.
I. What's Eating Gellert Grindelwald?
Let's get this right out of the way: Johnny Depp is all wrong for this part. I am going to sidestep the man's personal life and any reservations or judgements that I have regarding his recent troubles, and anchor my critique in his performance. But do your own research: there is a reason Depp has fallen from grace, and a legitimate reason that many people, Potter fans especially, take umbrage with his casting. But this review is neither the time nor the place for such a discussion.
The truth of the matter is that Johnny Depp doesn't have anything left to offer us other than a recycled Captain Jack impression. Even his return to the character in Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) marked a tired, phoned-in performance that set a roaring fire to my nostalgia.
His Grindelwald lacks the essential charisma that would make such a character effective and successful. He has two-colored eyes, a shock of bone-white hair, and a fish-belly complexion that screams "I'M A BAD GUY!" Look, no one in their right mind would follow Depp's Grindelwald. And that's a shame. Because we are to believe that he captured the heart and mind of the greatest wizard of a generation, Albus Dumbledore. He captures the hearts and minds of half the wizarding world. The script that Rowling has written for him hit all the right beats: he says the right words, capitalizes on the right fears, and exploits all the right weaknesses. His monologue in the mausoleum perfectly captures the way a maniac can play on the ugliness in people to convince them to do bad things "for the greater good." But Depp's performance is lacking. Whatever charisma he had as a younger man is gone, now. One cannot help but feel a tug of regret that we are stuck with his performance for the duration of the series. Especially when Colin Farrell did everything so much better in the first film.
During Depp's very public troubles, calls for his replacement were immediately sounded, but director David Yates and wizarding maven J.K. Rowling stuck by him. They insisted that he was the right actor to bring this incredibly fascinating figure to life on screen.
They were wrong.
The truth of the matter is that Johnny Depp doesn't have anything left to offer us other than a recycled Captain Jack impression. Even his return to the character in Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) marked a tired, phoned-in performance that set a roaring fire to my nostalgia.
His Grindelwald lacks the essential charisma that would make such a character effective and successful. He has two-colored eyes, a shock of bone-white hair, and a fish-belly complexion that screams "I'M A BAD GUY!" Look, no one in their right mind would follow Depp's Grindelwald. And that's a shame. Because we are to believe that he captured the heart and mind of the greatest wizard of a generation, Albus Dumbledore. He captures the hearts and minds of half the wizarding world. The script that Rowling has written for him hit all the right beats: he says the right words, capitalizes on the right fears, and exploits all the right weaknesses. His monologue in the mausoleum perfectly captures the way a maniac can play on the ugliness in people to convince them to do bad things "for the greater good." But Depp's performance is lacking. Whatever charisma he had as a younger man is gone, now. One cannot help but feel a tug of regret that we are stuck with his performance for the duration of the series. Especially when Colin Farrell did everything so much better in the first film.
During Depp's very public troubles, calls for his replacement were immediately sounded, but director David Yates and wizarding maven J.K. Rowling stuck by him. They insisted that he was the right actor to bring this incredibly fascinating figure to life on screen.
They were wrong.
II. The Gentle Masculinity of Newt Scamander
Now that the ugly part is through, I can move on to what I really like about the movie, and the series so far.
Newt Scamander is not a typical Hollywood hero. He is soft-spoken, often accused of being a serial mumbler; he refuses to look anyone in the eye, demurring constantly; he seems to get on better with his fantastic beasts than he does with any single human being. And I love all of those things about him. Because he is a real underdog. He isn't a hero. He isn't made for this. And yet, he has been thrust here with a serious task.
Eddie Redmayne is a fine actor, and his performance has alienated as many people as it has endeared, but I find myself in the latter. His Newt is soft, but convicted; he is a man who finds little use for violence, but is not all-together unsuited to it. He will fight for what he needs to, and capably.
He does not possess Harry's brashness, or Hermione's keen intellect, or Ron's smooth humor, or even Dumbledore's intense calculation. He is a good man. He cares for his friends, and is willing to sacrifice his own good for theirs. Sometimes that is enough. Case in point: when Newt is trying to remove the chains from the Zouwu (that magnificent cat dragon in the film), he lies prone, and allows himself to be ragdolled around until he gets close enough, until the Zouwu thinks him harmless enough, to get ahold of the chain and release it. His power is in offering comfort and understanding, not a barrage of offensive spells. I really like that.
I don't know that we get that often enough in Hollywood films.
And because he is a grown man, we are not watching him grow up, as we did with Harry. We are watching a man comfortable in his own identity and life-style face difficult change. We are watching a man be placed between a rock and a hard place, and we watch him both advocate for his own morals and beliefs while reckoning with the complexity of the world around him. As a man who grew up reading the Potter novels, it's nice to have a hero my own age to root for in this wizarding world.
Newt Scamander is not a typical Hollywood hero. He is soft-spoken, often accused of being a serial mumbler; he refuses to look anyone in the eye, demurring constantly; he seems to get on better with his fantastic beasts than he does with any single human being. And I love all of those things about him. Because he is a real underdog. He isn't a hero. He isn't made for this. And yet, he has been thrust here with a serious task.
Eddie Redmayne is a fine actor, and his performance has alienated as many people as it has endeared, but I find myself in the latter. His Newt is soft, but convicted; he is a man who finds little use for violence, but is not all-together unsuited to it. He will fight for what he needs to, and capably.
He does not possess Harry's brashness, or Hermione's keen intellect, or Ron's smooth humor, or even Dumbledore's intense calculation. He is a good man. He cares for his friends, and is willing to sacrifice his own good for theirs. Sometimes that is enough. Case in point: when Newt is trying to remove the chains from the Zouwu (that magnificent cat dragon in the film), he lies prone, and allows himself to be ragdolled around until he gets close enough, until the Zouwu thinks him harmless enough, to get ahold of the chain and release it. His power is in offering comfort and understanding, not a barrage of offensive spells. I really like that.
I don't know that we get that often enough in Hollywood films.
And because he is a grown man, we are not watching him grow up, as we did with Harry. We are watching a man comfortable in his own identity and life-style face difficult change. We are watching a man be placed between a rock and a hard place, and we watch him both advocate for his own morals and beliefs while reckoning with the complexity of the world around him. As a man who grew up reading the Potter novels, it's nice to have a hero my own age to root for in this wizarding world.
III. Absolutely Gorgeous
No one can accuse these films of being hard to look at. Stuart Craig's production design is pristine and beautiful.
Colleen Atwood's costumes are smart and elegant: they feel lived in, but also tell a great deal about the characters wearing them. Newt is decked in grey, which reflects the fact that he refuses to take sides. Leta Lestrange is constantly wearing bold colors and chic fashion: she's been treated like a freak her whole life, and has finally embraced the fact that people are constantly looking at her. She's turned her trauma into power, and her wardrobe reflects that.
Anna Pinnock's sets are lavish and bring the wizarding world to life. The French Ministry of Magic, in particular, is a stunning sight. It is all nouveau sweeping lines and fanciful artwork. I believe that the French, of all people, would make their facilities a work of art. Pinnock brings the wizarding world to life in vivid and alluring fashion.
The CG is wonderful: the creatures are distinct and radiate life. The spells and magic feel real and vital.
This movie made good use of every penny in its budget, and you cannot deny its inherent beauty.
Colleen Atwood's costumes are smart and elegant: they feel lived in, but also tell a great deal about the characters wearing them. Newt is decked in grey, which reflects the fact that he refuses to take sides. Leta Lestrange is constantly wearing bold colors and chic fashion: she's been treated like a freak her whole life, and has finally embraced the fact that people are constantly looking at her. She's turned her trauma into power, and her wardrobe reflects that.
Anna Pinnock's sets are lavish and bring the wizarding world to life. The French Ministry of Magic, in particular, is a stunning sight. It is all nouveau sweeping lines and fanciful artwork. I believe that the French, of all people, would make their facilities a work of art. Pinnock brings the wizarding world to life in vivid and alluring fashion.
The CG is wonderful: the creatures are distinct and radiate life. The spells and magic feel real and vital.
This movie made good use of every penny in its budget, and you cannot deny its inherent beauty.
IV. It's Not a Movie; It's a Chapter
I think Rowling is doing something different with these films. That does not necessitate that everyone will support or understand that choice. You see, she isn't making a set of interconnected films. She's plotted out a visual novel, in which each installment acts as a chapter. It is difficult to see, in the moment, how a single chapter fits into the larger story. We may very well come to see each film in a different light once all is said and done.
Some have criticized the film for being overstuffed, and lacking real conclusion. But those things only make sense when you view the movie as a traditional movie. When you consider the film as a piece of a larger puzzle, almost an episode of a larger TV series, it is easier to get past these seeming failings. This series was greenlit as five separate pieces. She isn't adapting a novel. She is writing a series of films as a larger novel.
Of course I will admit that this approach to storytelling doesn't naturally gel with the film medium. We are going to have to wait another year or two for the next chapter of a story we are invested in now: that sucks. But we also don't get enough of some characters. I wanted more of Yusuf, the wizard on a quest for revenge. I wanted more of Leta Lestrange. I want to know more about who Nagini is. Because this film is setting up so many things, we get scarcely any time with the characters. I have a feeling that we will get to know them more in the ensuing chapters, but it kind of sucks to be left wanting.
Again, it remains to be seen whether or not Rowling can pull it off. But I am with her. I am willing to follow this thread to its conclusion.
Some have criticized the film for being overstuffed, and lacking real conclusion. But those things only make sense when you view the movie as a traditional movie. When you consider the film as a piece of a larger puzzle, almost an episode of a larger TV series, it is easier to get past these seeming failings. This series was greenlit as five separate pieces. She isn't adapting a novel. She is writing a series of films as a larger novel.
Of course I will admit that this approach to storytelling doesn't naturally gel with the film medium. We are going to have to wait another year or two for the next chapter of a story we are invested in now: that sucks. But we also don't get enough of some characters. I wanted more of Yusuf, the wizard on a quest for revenge. I wanted more of Leta Lestrange. I want to know more about who Nagini is. Because this film is setting up so many things, we get scarcely any time with the characters. I have a feeling that we will get to know them more in the ensuing chapters, but it kind of sucks to be left wanting.
Again, it remains to be seen whether or not Rowling can pull it off. But I am with her. I am willing to follow this thread to its conclusion.
V. The Pieces Are Moving, and Away We Go
By the film's end, we have clearly delineated sides in the coming war. Some characters have shuffled places, all for believable reasons, and it feels like we are barreling head-long into wizarding war.
Grindelwald has played the forces of light for fools, and established his big sell. Good people have bought what he is selling, and others have been galvanized against him. The stakes are made clear: love and compassion are poised on the alter of human ugliness. And there's a dagger plunging towards their heart.
Personally, I find it hard not to be excited for the next chapter.
Grindelwald has played the forces of light for fools, and established his big sell. Good people have bought what he is selling, and others have been galvanized against him. The stakes are made clear: love and compassion are poised on the alter of human ugliness. And there's a dagger plunging towards their heart.
Personally, I find it hard not to be excited for the next chapter.
VI. Let's Talk About Queenie
In order to delve into this, I am going to have to discuss spoilers. If you'd like to avoid all that, take this: Queenie makes some drastic decisions in this film, and people have thoughts (and feelings) about it.
If you don't mind spoilers, press on.
Queenie makes some very human mistakes in this film. Her fears about losing her love are preyed upon and exploited by Grindelwald. She joins his forces because he appeals to the idea that the current order doesn't adequately serve her needs. It doesn't matter that Queenie can't see that he has no intention of letting her marry a muggle and live happily ever after. She is caught up in the fact that Grindelwald is offering her understanding and a new paradigm. Because she is blinded by her emotion, she cannot see beyond that.
Some have criticized the character for losing her strength. But I don't know that that is fair. No one is strong forever. Queenie is a great character, and she makes her decisions for understandable reasons. Real humans are exploited in this fashion all over the world and throughout history. Most of those real people thought of themselves as strong, too.
Let's get some historical context: the tragedy of Hitler's rise to power was that he didn't come to power on the backs of weak people. He rose to power with the aid of powerful people. He got to where he did with the aid of people who should have known better. Queenie isn't poorly written, even if you don't like the direction her character took. Her character is human, and falls prey to all of the weaknesses that entails.
In all likelihood, Queenie probably thinks she IS being strong by joining Grindelwald's team: it's a drastic choice, but it has to be done to shock the system. That is far more compelling to me than some cardboard strong woman archetype that stays static. I feel like this film is setting in motion an epic character arc for Queenie. We just have to be patient for it.
If you don't mind spoilers, press on.
Queenie makes some very human mistakes in this film. Her fears about losing her love are preyed upon and exploited by Grindelwald. She joins his forces because he appeals to the idea that the current order doesn't adequately serve her needs. It doesn't matter that Queenie can't see that he has no intention of letting her marry a muggle and live happily ever after. She is caught up in the fact that Grindelwald is offering her understanding and a new paradigm. Because she is blinded by her emotion, she cannot see beyond that.
Some have criticized the character for losing her strength. But I don't know that that is fair. No one is strong forever. Queenie is a great character, and she makes her decisions for understandable reasons. Real humans are exploited in this fashion all over the world and throughout history. Most of those real people thought of themselves as strong, too.
Let's get some historical context: the tragedy of Hitler's rise to power was that he didn't come to power on the backs of weak people. He rose to power with the aid of powerful people. He got to where he did with the aid of people who should have known better. Queenie isn't poorly written, even if you don't like the direction her character took. Her character is human, and falls prey to all of the weaknesses that entails.
In all likelihood, Queenie probably thinks she IS being strong by joining Grindelwald's team: it's a drastic choice, but it has to be done to shock the system. That is far more compelling to me than some cardboard strong woman archetype that stays static. I feel like this film is setting in motion an epic character arc for Queenie. We just have to be patient for it.
VII. The WWII Metaphor
The Great Wizarding War, from the time it was first mentioned in the books, was always a WWII metaphor. Grindelwald was always wizard Hitler. His goal was to subjugate and dominate an entire section of humanity because he, and his kind, were superior.
The film, however, does something a little more clever. You see, Grindelwald has had a vision. He sees the next World War. And he leverages that with the attendees of his rally. He shows them the tanks, and the devastation, and the planes zipping by. And then he shows them the atom bomb.
This is shocking for two reasons: 1) The Great War (WWI) just ended. It was to be the "War That Ends All Wars." There was never supposed to be a sequel. When Jacob whispers, "There's gonna be another war?" you can see the horror on his face. He served in the first one. The one that killed a generation of young men. The power of such a revelation, to people in this time, cannot be understated. 2) Grindelwald uses humanity's own destructiveness as the greatest argument against it. The Muggles are going to do this; what is to stop them from doing this to us? If we have the power, and the will, it is our DUTY to stop them.
There are now people who will join Grindelwald because they believe he is doing the world a service. Unlike Voldemort, who was always fairly transparent about his motivations, Grindelwald is playing a game. He knows he has to couch his dreams of domination in the right kind of language to get acquiescence of people who would never normally give him the time of day.
The film, however, does something a little more clever. You see, Grindelwald has had a vision. He sees the next World War. And he leverages that with the attendees of his rally. He shows them the tanks, and the devastation, and the planes zipping by. And then he shows them the atom bomb.
This is shocking for two reasons: 1) The Great War (WWI) just ended. It was to be the "War That Ends All Wars." There was never supposed to be a sequel. When Jacob whispers, "There's gonna be another war?" you can see the horror on his face. He served in the first one. The one that killed a generation of young men. The power of such a revelation, to people in this time, cannot be understated. 2) Grindelwald uses humanity's own destructiveness as the greatest argument against it. The Muggles are going to do this; what is to stop them from doing this to us? If we have the power, and the will, it is our DUTY to stop them.
There are now people who will join Grindelwald because they believe he is doing the world a service. Unlike Voldemort, who was always fairly transparent about his motivations, Grindelwald is playing a game. He knows he has to couch his dreams of domination in the right kind of language to get acquiescence of people who would never normally give him the time of day.
VIII. Young Dumbledore
Jude Law was inspired casting. He has a subtle dialect shift to reflect Gambon's performance in the later films, and the makeup department did wonders pushing his hair back and gently aging him for the role. He exudes cool calm and a command of every situation. We have seen Dumbledore as an old man, and it is fascinating to see him younger, in his element, reckoning with the demons of his brash younger self. I am excited to go on this journey with Jude Law.
IX. Yates is Fine... And That May Be a Problem
David Yates has been a Potter-verse stalwart. He's been directing the films since 2007's Order of the Phoenix. He is a fine director. He sets up competent shots, and knows how to put together a movie. But I can't help but feel that the wizarding world needs new blood. I'd love to see the franchise be handed over to another Alphonso Cuaron: a director with auteurish vision and sensibilities. It's not going to happen, as Yates has been signed up for the entire Fantastic Beasts series through 2024. But a boy can dream of what could have been.
I don't blame Warner Brothers, or Rowling, even. Yates is a safe choice. These movies will be competently made. He knows how to handle this franchise, and he knows how to handle a gargantuan production where hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line.
But. I'd still love to see the world through someone else's lens.
I don't blame Warner Brothers, or Rowling, even. Yates is a safe choice. These movies will be competently made. He knows how to handle this franchise, and he knows how to handle a gargantuan production where hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line.
But. I'd still love to see the world through someone else's lens.
X. It's Rowling's World, and We All Just Live In It
There have been some comparisons to George Lucas and the botching of the prequel series in the Star Wars film canon. I feel like these comparisons are a bit of a hot take that don't hold up under scrutiny. And I am going to try and explain that, here.
Rowling has been accused of making her world smaller, by focusing on Dumbledore and bringing in Nagini. 1) Dumbledore is an incredibly important figure throughout his life. He was an instrumental figure in the Wizarding War. You can't tell this story without him. 2) Voldemort was obsessed with prestige magic items: it's the reason he found all of those incredibly powerful items to use as horcruxes. Did you ever really think that Nagini was just a snake? That Voldemort went to PetSmart and got a giant snake, and said, "yeah, this is my pet, now?" Rowling is setting up a Shakespearean tragedy with Nagini, given that we already know where she ends up in the Potter books. Don't you want to know how that happened?
Then there's the point that she keeps adding to her lore. She has introduced terms like "obscurial," and "maledictus" into the wizarding world, and people are upset. But, it's HER world. She has kept a tight reign on the Potter lore since the first book was published. Just because we didn't know about these things in the Potter books doesn't mean that they weren't established lore in the world. Why would Harry need to know about a maledictus? Why would he need to know about an obscurial? There are things about OUR world, right now, that people don't know about or mention on a daily basis. To say that Rowling should have mentioned all of this stuff earlier is a bit foolhardy.
I don't feel like Rowling's world is getting smaller. I think it is getting richer, with more history and detail. She's the author, here: it's her story to tell. I am going to let her tell it.
Rowling has been accused of making her world smaller, by focusing on Dumbledore and bringing in Nagini. 1) Dumbledore is an incredibly important figure throughout his life. He was an instrumental figure in the Wizarding War. You can't tell this story without him. 2) Voldemort was obsessed with prestige magic items: it's the reason he found all of those incredibly powerful items to use as horcruxes. Did you ever really think that Nagini was just a snake? That Voldemort went to PetSmart and got a giant snake, and said, "yeah, this is my pet, now?" Rowling is setting up a Shakespearean tragedy with Nagini, given that we already know where she ends up in the Potter books. Don't you want to know how that happened?
Then there's the point that she keeps adding to her lore. She has introduced terms like "obscurial," and "maledictus" into the wizarding world, and people are upset. But, it's HER world. She has kept a tight reign on the Potter lore since the first book was published. Just because we didn't know about these things in the Potter books doesn't mean that they weren't established lore in the world. Why would Harry need to know about a maledictus? Why would he need to know about an obscurial? There are things about OUR world, right now, that people don't know about or mention on a daily basis. To say that Rowling should have mentioned all of this stuff earlier is a bit foolhardy.
I don't feel like Rowling's world is getting smaller. I think it is getting richer, with more history and detail. She's the author, here: it's her story to tell. I am going to let her tell it.
XI. Credence Clearwater Revival
So I need to talk about Credence. And I decided to do so by making a shitty joke about a 70s rock band. Sue me.
But really, here there be spoilers. Read on at your own peril.
Still here? Great. So, that twist, huh. Credence is a Dumbledore. There are people who are angry about this. I do not have a problem with this. Partly because I have no idea where Rowling is taking it. And neither does anyone else.
Grindelwald knows he can't fight Dumbledore, because he made a blood pact with him. He needs a weapon, then to face the most powerful wizard in the world. He needs someone like Credence. It is entirely possible that Grindelwald is lying to Credence. That he is playing on Credence's wish to be someone special. It is entirely possible that Grindelwald wants to turn the obscurus in Credence into a magical atomic bomb to destroy the one man he can't. It's also entirely possible that Credence IS a Dumbledore and that Grindelwald knows it because he and Albus were so close in their youth.
I feel it a bit petty to judge a film for a twist that has no context, yet. And, look, if this one crashes and burns, I'll be the first to admit that Rowling got it wrong. But she hasn't crashed just yet. We're still in Chapter 2, after all.
But really, here there be spoilers. Read on at your own peril.
Still here? Great. So, that twist, huh. Credence is a Dumbledore. There are people who are angry about this. I do not have a problem with this. Partly because I have no idea where Rowling is taking it. And neither does anyone else.
Grindelwald knows he can't fight Dumbledore, because he made a blood pact with him. He needs a weapon, then to face the most powerful wizard in the world. He needs someone like Credence. It is entirely possible that Grindelwald is lying to Credence. That he is playing on Credence's wish to be someone special. It is entirely possible that Grindelwald wants to turn the obscurus in Credence into a magical atomic bomb to destroy the one man he can't. It's also entirely possible that Credence IS a Dumbledore and that Grindelwald knows it because he and Albus were so close in their youth.
I feel it a bit petty to judge a film for a twist that has no context, yet. And, look, if this one crashes and burns, I'll be the first to admit that Rowling got it wrong. But she hasn't crashed just yet. We're still in Chapter 2, after all.
XII. It's Dark
This movie is rated PG-13, and it earns it. People die. Children die. This is not a film for your five year old. But I do not believe that it ever was pretending to be. Rowling is letting the series grow up, film by film, just like she did with the Potter books. You can't discuss wizard Hitler without having him do wizard Hitler things. Grindelwald was the worst dark wizard the world had ever known until Voldemort showed up. We cannot undersell that. Which means that things need to get dark.Rowling finally puts into canon what everyone feared about the imperius curse: it can be used by predators to kidnap and rape women. We never see that. Rowling doesn't show us the act. But the implication is there. Leta Lestrange's father puts a woman under the imperius curse and absconds with her. That is horrifying.
Grindelwald kills an entire family, even their young baby, to stake his claim in their house.
Again, we are going dark, here. And I think we only get darker with each successive film. But these films aren't about plucky preteens. All of our characters are adults. And it looks like Rowling is finally telling us a full-blown for-adults wizarding world story. I am pumped.
If you have small children, you might not be.
XIII. Should You See It?
Are you a fan of this series? Do you like fun magical creatures? Are you looking for some big, explosive entertainment for the holidays? If you said yes to those questions, go and see this movie. It is fun, it is emotional, and it is magical. It is, by far, the darkest of the movies so far, so be careful if you have young children.Miscellany
- Like Alan Rickaman before him, Jude Law has been given secret details about Dumbledore's past to help him play the role.- Colleen Atwood took inspiration from black and white films for her costume design, notable The Third Man (1949).
- Most of this movie was shot in Leavesden's Warner Studios, which means that almost all of the locations are actually in-studio sets.
- Newt's basement design is based on Escher's "Relativity."
- In Nicholas Flamel's cabinet, eagle-eyed viewers will spot the Philosopher's Stone.
- Grindelwald wields The Elder Wand in this film.
- The film has a $200 million budget. According to Box Office Mojo, it's worldwide debut clocks in at $253 million.
- This is the longest review I have written, and I am not sure anyone is going to care for it.
Comments
Post a Comment