TopBilled

TopBilled’s Essentials

625 posts in this topic

Essential: EMMA SMITH, MY STORY (2008)

 

 

5f8b2-screen2bshot2b2016-12-012bat2b6-40

This month’s theme is ‘Significant Journeys,’ and it seems to me that Emma Smith had a journey that was quite unlike most of her contemporaries. As the wife of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, she encountered a great deal of hardship as they moved from New York to Illinois during the years of their marriage. She sort of lives in the shadow of her famous husband, but this film attempts to share her unique story.

 

2bda7-screen2bshot2b2016-12-012bat2b6-47

I chose this film to review because it’s essential in several ways. First, it’s an essential look at how a religious group sees one of its leaders. It doesn’t matter if the viewer believes in the same things or not. Second, it’s an essential document of conservative feminism. And third, it’s essential as a historical biopic depicting life during a certain period of American history. I should also point out that this film is a companion piece to another project presented by the Mormon church, called JOSEPH SMITH: THE PROPHET OF THE RESTORATION. Both movies were directed by T.C. Christensen and Gary Cook. Cook was really the producer who took a co-directing credit; and Christensen who has worked as a cinematographer gives both films their distinctive, highly polished look. They’re visually stunning, given the rather modest budgets involved.

 

51132-screen2bshot2b2016-12-012bat2b6-45

The actors are all professional, but vary in experience. Nobody gives less than a competent performance. I was astonished at how much the performers look like the actual people they play. They don’t seem to be using heavy make-up or other acting tricks. I think Christensen and Cook just happened to find the right people who could embody Joseph and Emma. There are two Emmas– one is younger and played in the flashbacks by Katherine Nelson; and the other one is older, reflecting over her life’s experiences, played by Patricia Place. Miss Place has over 100 credits on the IMDb, and she does an extraordinary job conveying the quiet strength of the older and wiser Emma Smith. I really felt connected to the character when watching her scenes.

 

9c5f3-screen2bshot2b2016-12-012bat2b7-02

The film that focuses on Joseph was produced first, to coincide with his 200th birthday in 2005. It was screened at Mormon visitors’ centers until 2015. Imagine a motion picture that remains in theaters for a decade. On that count alone, it must be highly influential. The second film, about Emma, uses leftover footage from the first film, plus new footage (probably the scenes with the older Emma) and it’s a half-hour longer. I feel it was probably put together so the women in the LDS faith had something they could look at in order to draw inspiration.

 

7d508-screen2bshot2b2016-12-012bat2b6-41

There is no way even the most casual viewer cannot be inspired by Emma’s story. The things she endured were beyond belief. She was disowned by her parents for marrying Joseph (they considered him a radical, and he certainly was); she lost her first few children at childbirth; she was kicked out of towns– make that states– because of the enemies her husband and his followers made; she served as counsel for the men in the church and wasn’t afraid to be called rebellious if she disagreed with their limiting patriarchal views; and of course, she was widowed with young children when Joseph was killed with his brother by an angry lynch mob.

 

0667f-screen2bshot2b2016-12-012bat2b6-42

There was also the polygamy issue, which this film does address. I won’t spoil the scenes, but I think the filmmakers handle it very responsibly and you feel a sense of pity that a man’s legal wife had to put up with such things because her husband insisted his god called him to have other wives. Emma was not a fool; and she certainly had to be a remarkable woman to tolerate the polygamy not only from within the community but from outside it, as her husband became persecuted for it. This motion picture could easily have gone much longer to cover all the ramifications of the other wives. But it’s not about them, and it doesn’t need to get hung up on polygamy. The main point is to present Emma’s journey– the years she had with Joseph, as well as the years without him.

 

31856-screen2bshot2b2016-12-012bat2b6-46

One more thing impresses me about this production. You have to know a bit of Emma’s personal history to understand that she broke away from the church when her husband died. She and his successor, Brigham Young, were not in agreement on many things. In fact, she did not go west to Utah; Emma remained in Illinois for the rest of her life and she helped her son, Joseph, reorganize the church. That off-shoot is still in existence. All this notwithstanding, the filmmakers do not lessen the importance of Emma’s life or her role in their own modern faith, despite the fact she did not remain a “traditional” Mormon. The film is to be commended for showing us Emma not how Joseph or his church might wanted her to be, but how she actually was. Detractors might say the production is a form of LDS propaganda, but I see it as a tribute to a most remarkable woman of faith.

 

836bc-screen2bshot2b2016-12-012bat2b6-40

EMMA SMITH, MY STORY can be streamed on Amazon Prime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This movie may be "rather interesting" in how it covers religion, but the 1830s-50s were "rather interesting" decades in America with an explosion of all kinds of radical faiths. Surprisingly many were quite progressive, not only in race relations (a.k.a. the abolitionists), but also in "free love". Sex wasn't all that taboo and many of these spiritual mid-19th century folk were not much different than the Woodstock generation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This movie may be "rather interesting" in how it covers religion, but the 1830s-50s were "rather interesting" decades in America with an explosion of all kinds of radical faiths. Surprisingly many were quite progressive, not only in race relations (a.k.a. the abolitionists), but also in "free love". Sex wasn't all that taboo and many of these spiritual mid-19th century folk were not much different than the Woodstock generation.

 

Thanks for the reply. Never considered that before. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great read is American Way of Sex: An Informal Illustrated History (1978, pre-AIDS) by Bradley Smith. Religion is either TOTALLY against it or TOTALLY supportive of it depending on what "era" you reside in. The Mormons of the mid-19th century have their own section. Sometime you need to visit historic Ambridge (Old Economy Village), Pennsylvania where one religious community went without... and substituted with something else: making money. Worked quite well for a time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be posting my twenty-second essential tomorrow.

 

7108d-screen2bshot2b2016-12-082bat2b2-45

 

It's a different sort of documentary film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: DARWIN, THE VOYAGE THAT SHOOK THE WORLD (2009)

 

7108d-screen2bshot2b2016-12-082bat2b2-45


This dramatized documentary was made in Australia a few years ago. Certainly it is not a conventional choice for me to include as an essential. The subject matter is not wrong, and possibly even the aims of the project are not wrong, but the approach seems very wrong. In fact, several historians who were interviewed for this film have since denounced their participation. If you take a look at the video, you might see what I do– a clear violation of truth, but a shining example of how media can be used to manipulate viewer outcomes. On that count alone, it’s essential– and people should watch it.
 

screen-shot-2016-12-08-at-3-00-12-pm.png


In 2008, Fathom Media sent a letter to the participants who had agreed to be interviewed for this look at Darwin’s historic journey on the HMS Beagle. To be fair, the producers told the historians they wanted to explain why Darwin took a five-year trip on the Beagle. They also wanted to examine his influences (meaning his scientific and religious values), and they hoped to show what happened when Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species’ was published. It all sounded good. They also said they would include nature footage; dramatic re-enactments (with paid performers); and actual writings by Darwin from his own diaries. Again that seemed reasonable, and I’m sure it’s why the historians agreed to take part in the project.
 

5eaf0-screen2bshot2b2016-12-082bat2b2-41


But here’s where it went wrong, incredibly wrong. The historians were not told the 52-minute video was being funded by a Christian ministries group. That Fathom Media was a ‘dummy company’ of sorts to conceal the fact a Christian group was making this particular documentary. The historians later claimed they would not have agreed to be interviewed if they knew the inherent bias and how their comments might be misconstrued to sound as if they were not endorsing Darwinism but Creationism instead.
 

Screen%2Bshot%2B2016-12-10%2Bat%2B7.38.1


In all honesty, it’s a very provocatively made short film, and the questions raised are worth pondering. One thought I took away from this is how much science has changed since Darwin’s time. Organized religion has probably changed just as much. I didn’t feel the historians’ comments were being undermined at every turn, though it was noticeable every time one of them made a sensible argument in favor of evolution, the film-makers quickly cut to a reverend or some sort of ‘believer’ who could potentially refute the information or at least make a counter-claim. If these segments had been presented in reverse, with the historians’ comments coming after the the ministers’ comments, it could just as easily be seen that they were successfully refuting the notions put forth by the Creationists.
 

b611c-screen2bshot2b2016-12-082bat2b2-40


Another thought I took from this film was what Darwin had dealt with earlier in his life that caused him to lose faith in religion. Also, what might he think if he were still alive to see this documentary. The journey he took around the tip of South America from 1831 to 1836 was so significant we still discuss it today. A Christian ministry group finds it necessary to superimpose its own views on his journey and the meaning others may take from it. Doesn’t that bending of truth seem unfair? If Darwin’s views didn’t matter, nobody would even care about it now.
 

fc800-screen2bshot2b2016-12-082bat2b2-44


DARWIN, THE VOYAGE THAT SHOOK THE WORLD can be streamed on Amazon Prime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Topbilled... ha ha!... you must really like Gregory Peck's Atticus in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. You never really know somebody until you walk in their shoes.

 

Trouble is... I often walk in others' shoes in order to understand THEM but so many of them are way too stubborn to walk in mine. I try my best to be flexible, but it is a challenge when dealing with a human version of the Rock of Gibraltar.

 

 

 

My favorite line: "What about dinosaurs? Were dinosaurs on The Ark? Sure they were! We don't know."

 

The guy totally contradicts himself!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: THE JEWISH CARDINAL (2013)

 

My grandmother’s family was Jewish. They converted to Catholicism when they came to America. So in that regard, I identify with the main character of this movie, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger. He was a man from a Jewish family who embraced Catholicism, despite fundamental differences between the Judaic and Christian cultures.

 

cdabb-screen2bshot2b2016-12-122bat2b9-01

THE JEWISH CARDINAL, also known as LE METIS DE DIEU, is a French telefilm. The production values are outstanding and most of it seems to have been shot on location. Settings include the Archdiocese in Paris where Lustiger worked, as well as the Vatican where he was occasionally summoned to meet the pope; and of course, Auschwitz which figures prominently in the last third of the story. The title in French means ‘half-breed’ or ‘cross-breed’ of God. Lustiger called himself a metis when describing his dual faith.

 

da084-screen2bshot2b2016-12-122bat2b9-03

Lustiger’s position as a high-ranking cardinal met with controversy. In this dramatization the conflicts he experiences are realistically portrayed by Laurent Lucas. Lustiger often ran the risk of alienating traditional Jews who might have felt he betrayed the faith by accepting Christ as the messiah; and Christians who might not have been much different from Nazis in their anti-semitism. It was a fine balancing act; he was in the middle of issues that involved both groups– especially the acknowledgment of Jewish suffering during the Holocaust.

 

42971-screen2bshot2b2016-12-122bat2b9-04

This film was made by a Jewish director, which is to its advantage. It delicately explores the anti-semitism of Catholics as well as the wiseness of Catholics who recognize the connection their church has to Jewish faith and culture. But more critically, the story examines problems that occurred in the mid-1980s when Carmelite nuns refused to move a convent they had established at Auschwitz. Lustiger and his contemporaries had meetings to address the situation, but the nuns (the film’s villains) had no intention of leaving. This became a political nightmare as well as a religious and cultural dilemma. In some ways, the pope supported the nuns so their convent and the church’s presence in Poland could stand in defiance to Communist control over the country.

 

7bb2a-screen2bshot2b2016-12-122bat2b9-03

Eventually, Lustiger was able to reach the pope on not only a spiritual level, but an emotional and patriotic one. For as we know, Pope John Paul II was really Karol Wojtyla, a Polish-born man. Auschwitz signified the suffering of Jews (which could be interpreted as a symbol of the suffering of Jesus) but it also signified the suffering of the Polish people under the Nazis. The film ends with Lustiger’s death, but not before telling us the pope did convince the nuns to relocate their convent to a nearby location. The film’s conclusion also underscores the fact that Auschwitz did not become a center for Christian matyrdom, but rather a museum about Jewish history.

When I finished watching the film, I felt the Catholic church might be compared to Communism. Members of the Church (the Carmelite nuns in this case) try to tell the world how to believe (by erecting a cross at Auschwitz) in the same way communists and atheists try to tell the world how not to believe. Also, in several instances, it seemed as if these holy men were grappling with earthbound concerns as opposed to higher spiritual ones.

 

83835-screen2bshot2b2016-12-122bat2b9-05

THE JEWISH CARDINAL was directed by Ilan Duran Cohen and can be streamed on Amazon Prime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When I finished watching the film, I felt the Catholic church might be compared to Communism. Members of the Church (the Carmelite nuns in this case) try to tell the world how to believe (by erecting a cross at Auschwitz) in the same way communists and atheists try to tell the world how not to believe. Also, in several instances, it seemed as if these holy men were grappling with earthbound concerns as opposed to higher spiritual ones.

 

 

You caught me off guard at first with this paragraph, but I understand what you meant in context to the article. Under Stalin especially, religion was occasionally suppressed in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries like Poland. However "and atheists" is a rather loose statement because only a select number of atheists and agnostics (most having little association with major governments) have waged war on the devout. Usually... probably 75% of the time, the devout is busy waging war on The Secular "Sinners". One example is seen in the posted video a few comments down with passionate politicians forcing the Texas school boards to teach creationism over evolution in their text books in an effort to keep America as religious as possible. Of course, there is a difference between having faith in a divine power and demanding that an ancient text be followed literally (and guessing that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You caught me off guard at first with this paragraph, but I understand what you meant in context to the article. Under Stalin especially, religion was occasionally suppressed in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries like Poland. However "and atheists" is a rather loose statement because only a select number of atheists and agnostics (most having little association with major governments) have waged war on the devout. Usually... probably 75% of the time, the devout is busy waging war on The Secular "Sinners". One example is seen in the posted video a few comments down with passionate politicians forcing the Texas school boards to teach creationism over evolution in their text books in an effort to keep America as religious as possible. Of course, there is a difference between having faith in a divine power and demanding that an ancient text be followed literally and assuming dinosaurs were in the garden of Eden.

 

I included the paragraph (it easily could have been dropped from the end of the article) because I felt it was necessary in a way-- I do believe atheists wage war on the devout, since their whole stance is built not on absence but on removing presence of religious faith. Most of the devout (over)react to this and that's where we get a lot of fanaticism which is meant to be protective of the expression of faith. 

 

In this case, I think the nuns deliberately used the site of an old concentration camp as a way of "baptizing" the unbelieving Jews who were slaughtered there. Cardinal Lustiger saw what they were doing and objected. He had to appeal to the Pope's Polish background to get help to push the nuns out. It would be no different than if a group of nuns in the U.S. took over a sacred native/tribal burial ground and erected a convent on top of it. They are erecting crosses and forcing their views on a population that has different traditions and religious customs. But as I said, I feel atheists do this too, in an intellectual sense against believers. Part of the on-going religious wars. In this case, Lustiger's dual faith allowed him to see the hypocrisy on both sides and to mediate a peaceful solution by using the church's heirarchy and psychology/nationalism in a very clever way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that a war requires two armies. SOMETIMES... you see The Secular do some fighting on their end. Sometimes. Not as often as the other in recent decades, but when it does happen it gets plenty of exposure by those who are appalled by it. One famous example involved a Ten Commandments "piece" in a public courtyard some years ago and all of the hullabaloo it caused when it would have been easier to just leave it alone and let those who didn't like it simply ignore it. I guess the situation with the nuns semi-fits here since they personally were not viewing their location in the same way so many others were.

 

I am not going to distract the direction of this thread, but we have humorously discussed Bill O'Reilly's imaginary war on Christmas on these forums from time to time. He is quite a character, viewing the whole situation in his own very unique way. Even though he considers himself religious, he insists that the non-believers must say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" even though the non-believers (and many Jews) aren't fond of the "Christ" part. He thinks America as a whole is supposed to be OK with the word "Christmas" because, as he tried to convince a Catholic priest on one of his shows, Christianity is as more a "philosophy" than a religion anyway. Like I said, he is quite unique. :P:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to distract the direction of this thread

 

I appreciate that! When I sat down to decide which theme I would cover in December, a set of holiday films seemed too obvious (though I might end up doing that next December). I wanted to look at people in different walks of life, and different faiths, and pick films that examined their individual journeys. I feel Cardinal Lustiger's journey is/was rather unique and significant. Next weekend I am looking at a film that features a hip hop singer who was a child soldier in Africa. So his journey is not as religious as others, but like the others, he was caught up in something historic and it affected his whole life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fun to discuss all of this, rather than debate it all like on the "off topic" political forums. Everybody gets quite passionate about their "side" and the discussions really go off the deep end. Like I joked with you before, you idealize Atticus Finch and want to walk in as many shoes as possible. I just replied that some of the shoes are worn by folks who are a lot more stubborn than I will ever be and do not agree that one-size-fits-all. Lol!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: WAR CHILD (2008)

 

This film will probably make you cry. I cried at the horror of what children go through in war. And I cried at how a Sudanese war child named Emmanuel Jal survived it and chose to use his experiences to inspire others. So you might say these were tears of sorrow followed by tears of joy.
 

screen-shot-2016-12-23-at-11-20-12-am.pn


Emmanuel is kind of a human chameleon. My guess is he became that way, because in order to survive, he had to quickly adapt. If you look at images of him now, eight or nine years after this documentary was produced, he has evolved even more as an artist and as a human being. In fact, you might never know what sort of background he had in the 1980s and 1990s. He’d likely tell you his evolution is not complete, but it’s certainly been remarkable.
 

screen-shot-2016-12-23-at-11-19-40-am1.p


What I love about this documentary is how it’s not done as a propaganda piece, though it certainly could have been. And it’s not done to promote the music he creates as a hip-hop musician. In fact, he seems too smart and too sincere to be crassly commercial. But the music is definitely featured on the soundtrack, and it’s a large part of his identity. He tells viewers the music is his way to remember his people, what they went through, and how he can educate as well as entertain today’s audiences. You might say it’s about putting down a gun and picking up an instrument or a microphone and letting the song overtake the violence.
 

screen-shot-2016-12-23-at-11-21-09-am.pn


Another great thing about this documentary is how the editors have spliced in footage of Emmanuel as a child. His mother died and his father was arrested, so at a tender age he and thousands of orphans were taken off to refugee camps. International news reporters “discovered” him in the camps. Because his personality was so vivid as a youngster, he was a natural on camera– there is interesting footage of him being interviewed by CNN and other news organizations. This is juxtaposed with his modern-day visits to children in schools, where he tells the kids what happened to him. Some of it is shocking.
 

screen-shot-2016-12-23-at-11-19-16-am.pn


At one point, he talks about how he and the others were used to gain the sympathy of U.N. relief workers. This was done to make sure the U.N. gave them food and other supplies. But the U.N. was unaware that the kids were also being trained as soldiers to kill. Emmanuel describes how he and his peers wanted revenge on those who had slaughtered or imprisoned their parents. So they became warriors fixated on a cause. A lot of them moved around from one African region to the next and were shot in battle. It makes Emmanuel’s survival all the more astonishing.
 

screen-shot-2016-12-23-at-11-20-31-am.pn
 

WAR CHILD can be streamed on Amazon Prime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential: THE FRANCIS EFFECT (2014)

 

This type of documentary probably appeals to two main groups. The first group would be die-hard Catholics who feel Pope Francis is the best thing since sliced bread from heaven. They believe he will help restore the Church to glory. The second group would consist of lapsed Catholics who are checking back in to see if improvements are really occurring.

 

5b5f6-screen2bshot2b2016-12-282bat2b6-58

The documentary was made in 2014, about a year after Francis assumed power. So, technically, while a lot had happened in those initial twelve months, it was a relatively short window of time to effectively gauge anything substantial about the holy man and his actions. It should also be mentioned that this is a propaganda piece. It features reporter Sebastian Gomes (pictured below, shaking the pontiff’s hand); and is produced by Salt + Light, a Canadian Catholic media group.

 

screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-7-27-43-am.png

Though somewhat lopsided in its presentation of facts, I think it is to the filmmakers’ credit how they include counterclaims– or at least questions of doubt that may arise about the new papal authority. For instance, we are asked if this is just a honeymoon phase with Francis, and if he will eventually be flummoxed by the deep-rooted hierarchical issues that drove his predecessor out of power and into a self-imposed, historic early retirement. Also, there is some concern that Francis focuses less on Scripture than other popes. It is questioned whether he may lead followers to a weakening of the Church’s moral center because of his relativism with statements on homosexuality and the role of women.

 

screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-7-29-34-am.png

The film also touches on scandals that have affected the Church in recent years. The clerical abuse cases are gone over, and so is the financial reform of the Vatican. No quick solutions are rendered. But we do get a sense that Francis’ journey is a profound one. He has a very specific vision of what his place is in history. And how he can reach the people who share his faith, even if it’s been severely tested.

 

screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-7-28-14-am.png

THE FRANCIS EFFECT can be streamed on Amazon Prime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could make a copy of this post for the "off topic" Pope Francis thread too. There was a lot of discussion there a year and half ago when Kim Davis and her political "boyfriend" Mike Huckabee were insisting that the Pope (who blessed Kim among a crowd of tourists) "endorsed" her refusal to sign marriage certificates in Kentucky. The Vatican denied that, which did not make those two happy campers. Although he may stick to the Vatican laws, he himself is rather neutral regarding same sex relationships and has a very close friend married (or in a longterm relationship, I can't remember) to another guy. Of course, you don't need to support one's lifestyle in order to be friends with them.

 

Some posters here have debated with me, taking Kim Davis' stance. One time I posted a video interview of ex-president Jimmy Carter saying he *thinks* Jesus would have been OK with same sex marriage. Ooooohhh boy! There was a LOT of disagreement on this forum as to whether or not Carter should even be considered a "Christian".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could make a copy of this post for the "off topic" Pope Francis thread too. There was a lot of discussion there a year and half ago when Kim Davis and her political "boyfriend" Mike Huckabee were insisting that the Pope (who blessed Kim among a crowd of tourists) "endorsed" her refusal to sign marriage certificates in Kentucky. The Vatican denied that, which did not make those two happy campers. Although he may stick to the Vatican laws, he himself is rather neutral regarding same sex relationships and has a very close friend married (or in a longterm relationship, I can't remember) to another guy. Of course, you don't need to support one's lifestyle in order to be friends with them.

 

As you can see in the poster for this movie, they have included his quote "who am I to judge?"-- which was his response to reporters when asked if same sex unions were sinful. It became one of Francis' catchphrases and it was probably applied to other sensitive topics, not just this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is very judgemental of humans polluting the earth and seems to think there's some truth to global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is very judgemental of humans polluting the earth and seems to think there's some truth to global warming.

 

Interesting. Thanks for the comments, Jlewis. Always appreciated!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screen%2Bshot%2B2017-01-01%2Bat%2B1.30.0

 

Theme for January 2017: Woody Allen in the 70s & 80s

 

Saturday January 7, 2017

ANNIE HALL (1977), starring Woody Allen & Diane Keaton. Studio/production company: United Artists. Source: Amazon Prime and TCM.

 

Saturday January 14, 2017

INTERIORS (1978), starring Geraldine Page & Diane Keaton. Studio/production company: United Artists. Source: Amazon Prime.

 

Saturday January 21, 2017

HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986), starring Woody Allen & Mia Farrow. Studio/production company: Orion. Source: Amazon Prime.

 

Saturday January 28, 2017

BROADWAY DANNY ROSE (1984), starring Woody Allen & Nick Apollo Forte. Studio/production company: Orion. Source: Amazon Prime.

 

 

Screen%2Bshot%2B2017-01-01%2Bat%2B1.25.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us