Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Top 5 Horror Heroines.

Let's take a moment to honor some women that make my enjoyment of horror movies possible. It's time to give the good girls of horror a standing ovation. These ladies saved the day/the world/themselves from the terrifying situations they faced. Here are my top 5 heroines.

"I'm into survival."
#5 -- Nancy Thompson of "A Nightmare on Elm Street". She woke HERSELF up from nightmares that killed everyone else and defeated that mean old Freddy Krueger without ANY of the men in her life helping her out.

#4 -- Sidney Prescott of "Scream". She's got PTSD and she still snarks and outsmarts the killer.

#3 -- Alice from "Resident Evil". She's stylish, badass, and a woman that employs both an economy of words and actions. I dig that a lot.

#2 -- Ellen Ripley from "Alien". She was against the whole "bring the alien on the ship" thing from the very beginning. She was the only professional in the whole crew and the only one that survives all four movies. Do. NOT. Fuck. With Ripley. or her cat.

"I'm the chosen one...and I CHOOSE to be shopping."
#1 -- Buffy Summers from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". Ok, so I didn't watch this movie as part of my horror movie reviews but the movie is technically the beginning of this character and horror is part of the Buffy brand. It counts, I tell you! No one is better than Buffy. She eclipses genre and pop culture medium!

Monday, November 2, 2015

Horror Movie Review: Cabin in the Woods

The Cabin in the Woods (2011) is a meta-analysis of the entire horror genre. It's funny, self-aware, and gruesome. Lots of spoilers ahead as per usual, but this time, if you haven't seen the movie (and you should if you like meta-horror or Joss Whedon) DON'T read on. This movie is best viewed without spoilers.

I was really really super-psyched about this movie when it came out because it is a horror written by Joss Whedon. I knew he would subvert the genre and flip it on its head. He did and this is a really great horror film, but it also disappointed me this time around...just a bit.

We have the traditional horror formula here. Hot dude and hot chick are in a relationship, stoner dude, smart dude, and "virgin" girl protagonist. The film has interesting ways of letting you know that these are out-dated archetypes and if these are the rules, perhaps it's time to break the rules and start over. Buuuuut, they still employ these outdated stereotypes of horror. We still see gross displays of the over-sexed blonde, including her topless. That disappointed me. It's not like you HAVE to have it. They could have shown the reaction to it without showing it, if they wanted to make the point that it's part of the process.

I do like that the movie ultimately threw the gauntlet of horror at you and then blew it up. Like see, we can be done with this formula now, ok? But again, it used the formula to make the movie that thinks the formula should be blown up, sooooo....

I don't know what to think. The meta of horror was done better in "Scream" without showing boobs. The music is pretty good in this film, but the score wasn't even noticeable. Joss has terrible taste in music for the most part though, so that wasn't a surprise. All three of the boy-protagonists are hot, so that's a bonus you don't normally get in horror.

I enjoy that the take-away is supposed to be a big reset button on horror as we know it, but I didn't enjoy it as much this time around as I did the first couple of times watching it.

I would have liked seeing the personalities of the characters a bit more before they were brainwashed. I would have liked this movie a LOT more if they had simply treated the "over-sexed blonde" character with a little more respect. They didn't have to be so overt. We know this character already. Don't hit us over the head with it. AND it was Joss! The film would have benefited from his patented flip-the-gender technique here. We could have seen Hemsworth's character being the oversexed one. Wouldn't that have been nice? He could have been the "whore" archetype! Damn it, why didn't they do that?

Other random notes:
*Joss. Why you gotta always have a big fuck-off snake?
*Sigourney!!! How perfect was that moment when she showed up? No. One. Else. Could have been that character.

If you're a horror aficionado, this movie should be up your alley, because it makes fun of everything you love while still DOING the thing you love. If you want to be genuinely freaked out by your horror, this probably isn't for you. Other than that, pretty great horror film.

Aesthetics: 3

Plot: 4

Characters: 4

Score: 3

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 3

OVERALL: 20.5

Horror Movie Review: The Haunting

"...a house that was born bad."
The Haunting (1963) inspired a lot of haunted house horror. It includes several female characters, passes the Bechdel Test, and even includes a lesbian character. Its imagery is intriguing with composed shots and decadent set-pieces. It included some snarkiness, particularly from the character of the probably-lesbian Theo. There's not really any sexism present here either, which is very surprising for 1963.

The two main female character's relationship to one another is interesting. They yell at each other, share sexual tension and help comfort one another all in the space of a minute effortlessly. There's almost zero passive-aggressiveness between them, besides the shade thrown by Theo frequently. I really like Theo.

Beyond that, I didn't find this movie scary or the main character Nell's psychological downfall particularly intriguing, and I think that's what the film is mostly about. I can see why this film is considered a classic in horror, but I probably won't be watching it again. I had to buy the DVD to see it, and I'll be donating it to the library, so look for it on the shelf to check out in the next month or so if you're interested in seeing it.

Aesthetics: 2.5

Plot: 3

Characters: 3

Score: 2.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 1

OVERALL: 15.5

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Horror Movie Review: Carrie


Carrie (1976 & 2013) is THE horror icon for me. I saw Brian DePalma's version (1976) back in middle school and immediately rechecked it all summer from the library (I guess they allowed multiple renewals back then?) and showed it to my friends one by one. I think they all thought I was as damaged as Carrie White herself for loving this movie so much at the age of 12. That is a little messed up, isn't it? I have seen the original movie probably more times than any other film. I made a Carrie-inspired Barbie back in high school using corn syrup. She was very sticky. All of this is leading up to the fact that I just want to let y'all know that I am very biased when comparing these two movies. I have seen the '70s version like 25 times at least and the new version I've seen only twice. Also, this comparison is for people that have seen both films mostly, because my comparisons are mostly about details within. That said, here's my comparison between these two films.

They both pass the Bechdel Test almost immediately. This film is about the antagonistic relationship women have to one another in our women-fearing culture. The casting and performances from both films are pretty great, but Spacek's Carrie wins for me. Chloe Grace Moretz is an intriguing actress, but she is too pretty to be Carrie and she just doesn't bring the menacing enough for me. I enjoy Julianne Moore's performance as Carrie's mother in the new version. It has a bit more nuance and you feel more sympathy for her. I don't like how controlling Carrie became to her mother in the new version, though I get it. The sympathy Sue still felt for Carrie at the end of the new version seems really unjustified after all the brutal murders Carrie just performed. I don't think Sue would have tried to help her at that point. She would have been too scared.

I enjoy the added scene of Margaret giving birth to Carrie alone, not knowing she was pregnant and almost killing baby Carrie right after she was born. I feel like that's exactly what happened. The newer film serves for me as a retcon for the old film. I will be able to watch the old film now inserting the details from the 2013 version that I liked in my mind, enhancing a movie I've loved for two decades now.

I have a bit of a problem with the casting of Tommy and Sue. They're so vanilla and boring-looking to me. I prefer the original definitely here. I prefer the aesthetics of the '70s much more than the aesthetics of 2013, so I missed the visuals in general from the first one while watching this one. It's a total bonus that we don't have to endure John Travolta in the new version, though. There are a few people of color (two even with names!) in the new version, though, so major points for that!

Ok, let's compare the bloodbaths at the end. The blood is more realistic in the new version, which is one of the only parts of this scene I prefer to the original. The biggest part that bothers me about the new version is Carrie's movements and expressions. In the old version, she is wide-eyed, robotic, and emotionlessly ruthless as she kills. She walks slowly with her arms rigid at her sides. The killing is coming entirely from her mind. No movement is necessary. I think that makes her scarier. In the new version...first of all, they do an instant-replay of the blood hitting Carrie. That is SUPER cheeseball, and I don't like it. Carrie in the new version used her hands a lot, which I could forgive if she held them tightly in a way that makes it feel like she's really causing the damage with them. I don't really believe Moretz's Carrie is a tortured soul, despite what I've seen her go through. She just looks too innocent or something here.

I think the new version trimmed a bit of the fat from the old one in this scene, however. The old version's scene at the prom after Carrie gets hit with the blood is longer than it needs to be. The editing in the new version during this scene is tighter. But, Carrie's ruthlessness once she leaves the prom in the newer version is a bit much. That slow-motion-Chris-going-through-the-windshield thing is where the film really loses me. I think the car-flip in the original is a much better way to show Chris' death. I do love a girl-villain walking away from fire she's caused, however, and both of these films have it. I think the main issue I have with the destruction Carrie causes in the new version is the fact that she's displaying emotion as she does it. She looks like she's cognizant of the terror she's causing and I felt that the wreckage caused by the original Carrie was more like a trance...a blackout of destruction she wakes up from when she goes home to her mother. Carrie in the new version awakes from this trance in the same tub-scene, but she never looked catatonic, so I don't believe it. I like the catatonia of the original Carrie much better. I can't enjoy the killing if she is aware she's doing it and is enjoying it. Not sure what that's about, but there it is. There are some great little moments in the new version's ending but I grew up on the old version, so nothing could ever eclipse it for me.

Most of my criticisms come down to performance. I actually think some aspects of Moretz's Carrie could have been added to Spacek's. Honestly, this remake is quite good and both movies are worth your time if you like female villains in horror. I'd say choose the old version if you like the aesthetics of the '70s and choose the new version if you're into more realistic blood and Julianne Moore and if you REALLY hate John Travolta, because he is at his most annoying in the original.

Carrie (1976)
Carrie (1976) -- 

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 4

Plot: 4

Characters: 3.5

Score: 3.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3

Rewatchability: 5

OVERALL: 23

Carrie (2013)
Carrie (2013) --

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 3.5

Plot: 4

Characters: 3

Score: 2

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 3.5

OVERALL: 19.5

Horor Movie Review: Young Frankenstein

"It...could...WORRRRRK!"
Young Frankenstein (1974) is a perfectly fun parody of the "Frankenstein" movies. It's a good movie to have in the background while you're doing something else. I found that paying close attention to the movie for this review caused me to become restless and bored. It has its very quotable moments (mostly from Madeline Kahn), but it is mostly a fluffy rip-off of "Bride of Frankenstein". I was surprised to find that it's from 1974. I think the comedy feels more '80s to me, so it was ahead of its time.

Without Gene Wilder and Madeline Kahn, this movie would have lost me. It's the kind of film that benefits from repetition, but again, as long as you're not paying your FULL attention to it. I think it could have really benefitted from being about 25 minutes shorter.

Here were the only notes I took on this film:

"It...could...work!!"
Love Gene's mascara! What a proper queen, he is.
"Taffeta darling!"
Bechdel Test passed- 1hr and 26min in

This review is making it sound like I don't like the movie. Quite the contrary. It is a very quotable play-while-making-Halloween-crafts-or-putting-on-Halloween-costume movie. It's fun. I love Madeline Kahn so much and Gene Wilder's hair is on FLEEK in this movie!

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 2.5

Plot: 2.5

Characters: 2.5

Score: 2.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 2

Rewatchability: 4

OVERALL: 16

Friday, October 30, 2015

Horror Movie Review: Scream


Scream (1996) is THE horror film of the '90s. Straight-up slasher film with meta-commentary on slasher films built into every crevice and a female protagonist that breaks all the "rules" of horror and still outsmarts the killer. Bonus: it's 1996 so you get the fashion, ambience, and music of 1996!

It passes the Bechdel Test even before two MEN talk to one another. I used to find Sidney's PTSD slightly annoying but now I totally get it and I don't really think she was over the top about it. The women aren't overly sexualized in the film. Even the more sexual Tatum is an attentive friend to Sidney, isn't portrayed as stupid, and doesn't shame Sidney for being shut-down. There are three competent women in this movie and even the opening scene with Drew Barrymore doesn't portray her as being overly stupid for getting killed. There's a lot of victim-blaming in horror, portraying women as stupid and therefore maybe deserving to die, but Craven obviously wanted to subvert that trope in this film. I really really like that. I loved this film way before I called myself a feminist.

Dewey with the ice cream cone: one of the best sight-gags ever in horror.
No people of color, though. Man, where are the people of color in horror?

An interesting flip on the only-virgins-live trope in this film is that not only does Sidney have sex and then live, but immediately after the sex, the smoke seems to clear for her and she starts to put everything together, almost like the sex cleared her head. That sort of makes it sound like she needed the D, but it was really more subtle than that. It was like the sex didn't phase her at all. She didn't look guilty or super in-love as a result of it. She just put her clothes back on and continued with a conversation as if it wasn't a big deal. Having sex for the first time really isn't a big deal, of course, so it was nice to see it portrayed that way in a film. Judging by his boob-grab technique, I'm sure Billy wasn't a great lay either, so she was probably avoiding the "Was it good for you?" question anyway. Ooh, maybe it was like, "I'm sooo over you now that I know I was waiting so long for THAT. Might as well fill the time by accusing you of murder."

Oh, and Matthew Lillard's performance in the last few scenes is just...I won't ever not laugh at that. How did he not get more acting work? I need to see "SLC Punk" again.

I love this movie. It's funny and smart and just a great time. I don't even like slasher-films but this one isn't focused on the maiming of women, so hey, maybe that's why I can like it. Definitely in my top five horror films ever.

Aesthetics: 3.5

Plot: 4.5

Characters: 4.5

Score: 3.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 5

OVERALL: 24.5

Horror Movie Review: Shaun of the Dead

Shaun of the Dead (2004) is half slacker-bro film and half zombie parody. The tone feels similar to "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". The best bit of this movie are the opening credits comparing humanity to zombies. You go in knowing this movie is going to be about zombies and you realize that the plague hasn't happened yet when the film begins, though everyone is lumbering, looking at their phones, and shuffling along to work. This film is unique in the fact that the outbreak is only starting to creep in as it begins. The cool part about that is that people aren't noticing it. You're seeing zombies in the background and when the characters see them, they think the zombies are drunk or think nothing at all, which is probably how humanity's reaction to zombies would really happen.

Beyond that, this movie is a pretty typical slacker-bro film wherein the bumbling 30-something protagonist that can't manage to do anything with his life save for playing video games and going to the pub somehow saves the day when the zombies come. The part that makes me forgive this a little is that the zombies are REALLY slow and ineffectual and Shaun isn't really THAT competent at fighting them at all. The reaction to the zombies by the characters seems mostly believable. No real heroics take place except that everyone seems to inherently trust Shaun to be their leader for no real reason other than he is acting like he knows what to do. Which I suppose is kinda believable too.

I didn't plan to watch "Shaun of the Dead" again because it seems that the further into his career he gets, the more Simon Pegg forgets that women exist too. This movie doesn't pass the Bechdel Test until an hour in, which is particularly infuriating because Liz (Shaun's girlfriend) is roommates with a woman and they're in several scenes together before you see them interact. This movie suffers from the my-girlfiend-is-cool-and-competent-but-no-other-women-are trope as well. The roommate Dianne seems like she might be really cool but they don't give her anything to do and then she just anticlimactically runs out into the zombie hoard at one point. No one mourns her. All of the sudden I'm like, "Where's Dianne?" That's how little they paid attention to her demise. Shaun's mother is also very clueless. They give her no personality other than "mother". There is another female character that is the leader of a group identical (with switched genders) to Shaun's but she's mostly there as a sight gag. Another big feminist issue I have with this film is that both Shaun's mother and BFF Ed become zombies by the end. Shaun kills his mother but chooses to keep Ed around, chained in his shed with video games so he can still "sneak off" to hang out with Ed despite his new living-with-girlfriend existence. Why was Ed important enough to keep around, but mom had to be "dealt with"? Also, Liz spent the first part of the film breaking up with Shaun because their lives were stagnant and then after the zombie fiasco she's shown being totally FINE with a stagnant life. Her needs weren't met and she was talked out of even having any anymore. Also, why is no one upset that EVERYONE else died? I know this is supposed to be a comedy, but Shaun had to kill his mother and stepfather and Liz lost her roommate! They wouldn't just be all cozy on the couch talking about tea without any baggage.

There are ZERO people of color in this film. Maybe a stray black zombie, but none of note even. There's also the use of "gay" as "lame" in several jokes. I used to make that joke too in 2004 without knowing any better.

Overall, it's an enjoyable stoner-zombie movie, but I don't think we should trust Simon Pegg anymore. He's a nerd that is fighting for his fellow straight white male nerds, perhaps, but he doesn't create female characters with their own agency/personality and he doesn't care about people of color. His later films are WORSE in all of the slightly annoying aspects (stoner dude humor, slacker types being heroes, women on the periphery, etc) this film presents.

Aesthetics: 3.5

Plot: 2.5

Characters: 2

Score: 3

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 2.5

Rewatchability: 3.5

OVERALL: 17

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Horror Movie Review: The Descent

The Descent (2005) is one of the top 5 scariest horror movies I've ever seen. It combines the adventure/disaster film with creature feature. Most of the fear here is grossness and startle response, but it has both of these factors in amounts that are so far beyond over-the-top that you can't even see the "top" anymore.

Michael and I call this movie "Chicks in a Cave". Six women embark upon a spelunking adventure in a cave that turns out to be crawling with humans that have evolved into creepy blind cave-dwellers. The first 2/3 of the film is just a straight claustrophobic cave adventure. The women are all skilled explorers. They have, and are proficient in the use of, all kinds of spelunking gear. Several of them have distinct personalities, though I would have been a lot happier had there been more diversity in the cast.

That brings me to the issues I have with this movie. Though it obviously passes the Bechdel Test with a cast of six women going on an adventure together, I am disappointed that only one of these women is non-white. The ONE non-white character is also the only one of the bunch that's morally corrupt. In fact, she lies to the group about the cave they are going into. They think they're doing a relatively safe and mapped out caving expedition, but Juno takes them to a cave that's never been explored (she THINKS it hasn't been explored, anyway) without telling them. Six women in a dangerous situation that only one of them consented to and no one knows where they are because they filed a "flight plan" for the location they thought they were going to. To add to the tragedy, Juno was having an affair with Sarah's (main character pictured above) husband before he and Sarah's daughter were killed in an accident with Sarah in the car a year earlier. Once the cave-dweller-creatures start attacking the women, Juno kills several of them with her pickax and it is SUPERbadass but THEN she accidentally puts her pickax through Beth's neck. Instead of Juno apologizing profusely and staying with Beth or helping to end her suffering, she freezes in horror and backs away, abandoning Beth to die slowly and alone. Sarah ends up having to end her life when she comes upon Beth later.

For most of the last third of the movie when the horror starts happening, Sarah and Juno are alone, both separated from the other two surviving women. They're seen becoming ruthless killers separately and alone, though Juno is losing her humanity while Sarah is keeping hers. There are some moments of complete badassery as these two women fight the creatures with their pickaxes, but the film never lets you bask for even a MOMENT in their victories. Everything is just awful for them every step of the way and they are seen becoming savage. These women are smart and competent. I wouldn't even mind Juno's moral-corruptness if she wasn't the ONLY woman of color in the cast. It's ok to not be a good guy, but it just feels icky when almost everyone else is a blond white woman that isn't at ALL corrupt.

I kept getting really distracted by how much PTSD Sarah will have for the rest of her life should she survive this. Her husband and daughter died in front of her in a car accident. One of her best friends was having an affair with her husband, a fact she doesn't discover until sometime in the cave. Most of her friends are killed in this damn cave; one of them SHE had to kill. And then, you know, just the entire cave situation. At the end, Sarah pickaxes Juno in the leg and I think we're supposed to fist-pump at that because bitch stole her man and brought them there without consent. I'd like the stole-my-man part of the plotline to not be there because I want the reason Sarah pickaxes Juno in the leg to be because she brought them to the motherfucking cave, not because of a man.

I wouldn't have wanted to live through this experience. The ending is ambiguous, too. You don't see her get out in the UK version of the film. You're left to assume Sarah is the only living member of the group, but she's still trapped in the cave.

This movie employs the wet=scary equation that the most terrifying horror movies know to use. There is more blood in this movie than any other movie I've ever seen. Like unexplained levels of blood. Like WHY is there so much blood? The imagery is very striking, but there's really no logical explanation for all the blood. I'm all about chicks and blood, though, so I'll let it slide.

In summation, "The Descent" is one of the most terrifying horror movies ever. It is mostly not sexist, but if a remake was done, there should be more diversity in the cast. Oh, and drop the bitch-stole-my-man plot-point.

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 3

Plot: 3

Characters: 3.5

Score: 2.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 2.5

OVERALL: 18

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Horror Movie Reviews: Resident Evil

Resident Evil (2002) is a nearly perfect zombie film. The creation of zombies by science experimentation and corporate control (they got that from "Return of the Living Dead 3", remember?) is plausible and laid out in a pretty logical way in this film. The transition to zombie after being bitten is slow and gradual, which I really like.

There are three people of color in the main cast of 10 and two women. It passes the Bechdel test. Everyone dies except Milla. Milla is hot. The score is done by Marilyn Manson. When I first saw the movie, this gave me hope that Marilyn's music would eventually transition into scores and ambient music. I think this was a logical progression for him, but he hasn't gotten there yet. This score could be considered Manson's last great work, if you ask me. No one did, but that's my two cents. One of the only downsides in this movie save from there being a shortage of women is that all 6 white dudes in this movie were indistinguishable from one another. I seriously could not tell the white dudes apart until the majority of them were picked off. They were like vanilla Backstreet Boys of indiscriminate features. The only eye candy in this film was in the form of Milla Jovovich and Michelle Rodriguez, and theirs is an excellent candy for eyes, so I'll allow it, though I would have loved to look at a hot boy or two.

Milla's fighting style is mechanical with an economy of moves, which is my favorite fighting style. There's this really great iconic scene at the end with Milla walking down a post-apocalyptic street with a partially shaved head, hospital gown and a giant gun (ahem, "28 Days Later"--you big copy-offer!) and you just know that she's going to be a complete badass for four more films. I can't believe there's that many, but I think I'm going to watch them all now.

Resident Evil is a really very spectacular zombie film. The women, though few they be, have agency and personality. Michelle/Rain isn't treated like a "thing" at all even ONCE after she's bitten early on in the film. Her decision to stay with the group and continue fighting is never questioned, though they all know she could turn at any moment. They treat her as a human, refuse to leave her behind, and don't taunt her for the zombie she will soon become. Milla's character is a person in power that has been taught to fight and trusted with big corporate secrets. She also cares about humanity and is a freaking hero.

The most empowering zombie movie I've ever seen.

Aesthetics: 4

Plot: 4

Characters: 3.5

Score: 4

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 4

OVERALL: 23

Horror Movie Review: Alien


Alien (1979) is one of the first horrors in space. It's truly terrifying mostly because of stupid-decisions-humans. There's android science guy that only cares about studying the creature. There's helpless chick. There's a few complete asshole dudes and one bumbling captain. It's not really a military style crew, however, so I did find their bumbling-ness to be mostly believable reactions as hired space crew members of the future. I assume it's the future, anyway.

A lot of beautiful slow shots in this movie. Sigourney Weaver is the only person with any brains on the entire crew. Seriously, NO character is competent or has any depth whatsoever except Ripley/Sigourney. It passes the Bechdel Test. There are two women on the small crew and 2 (?) people of color. The white dudes die first. There's a bunch of scenes with a cat.

Visual Effects: most of the set pieces and the design of the aliens was done by an artist named HR Giger. His art is grotesque, intricate, and literally FULL of penises, vaginas, rape, etc. Most of Giger's art in the film is more metaphorical-penises and vaginas, but you do have to see wayyyy more of the first dude killed than you'd like. I mean, what is that underwear he's wearing? The visuals in this movie are tamer than the typical Giger-fare, but the alien's head is a penis for Pete's sake! And the eggs have vaginal openings! And there's ejaculate everywhere! Gross. This movie's visuals are really really gross and also mesmerizingly beautiful. "Beautiful and grotesque...and all the rest of that bug stuff."

Also, what's the deal with the ship's computer being called "Mother"? That's a little Freudian-weird, right?

This movie is a legend and I can mostly see why. Sigourney is pretty freaking amazing. She is rational and a problem-solver throughout. She even saves the cat!

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 3

Plot: 2.5

Characters: 2.5

Score: 2.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 2.5

OVERALL: 16.5

Followers