Manhole Eunuchsbane

Logan-First R Rated Wolverine Movie?

262 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, briantw said:

I agree that their films largely follow a template, but it's a template that works.  I think people want the X-Men to go to Marvel mostly because Fox has been so inconsistent with the franchise, whereas Marvel's films have largely been pretty solid.  Even the worst Marvel films (Iron Man 3, mostly) have been watchable and halfway decent, whereas films like X-3 and Apocalypse (and the first Wolverine movie...seriously, fuck that shit) were abominations. 

I agree that Marvel is a safe bet but I guess Fox could just copy the template - it's not that tricky a one to imitate.

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I also think that outside of a couple of characters (prof X, Wolverine, Magneto) they have never really gotten any of the characters right and haven't known how to really hit that balance of goofy and serious social commentary in the Xmen movies. Not sure Marvel would do it much better but Fox have rarely gotten to grips with the property. I really liked Colossus in Deadpool, possibly my favourite incarnation of an X-Man. 

I feel that they too often want to turn the X-Men into Harry Potter or teen-lit. 

It's funny how the one weakest of Marvel is its villains and that Fox and Sony have an abundance of good ones we'd all love to see in the Marvel universe. Honestly, they could strike a deal just to use the villains and the MCU would be much richer for it. I really hope we'll get to see Osborn, Venom and Dr Octopus show up in the MCU proper. At the moment it seems more like Marvel just want Spidey but maybe after the Spidey film we'll see how the villains are incorporated.

I'd still argue the villains are a flaw in the MCU in the sense it's a problem with the studio/their template. I think they've sat down and decided it's more important to connect with the hero than the antagonist because they've all been pretty dire with the exception of Loki (and I sometimes think he shines because of the poor field there is to compare him to). Even weirder is the fact in almost every case they've had an excellent actor playing the villain. I'd agree that Dr Doom and Magneto are intrinsically better villains to work from but there's no excuse why they couldn't have made Ultron, Red Skull (who wasn't that bad) or the Mandarin good villains. Zemo almost worked except for his weird final act performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, red snow said:

I agree that Marvel is a safe bet but I guess Fox could just copy the template - it's not that tricky a one to imitate.

It must be trickier than we think, as every DC movie now seems to be an absolute clusterfuck of bad writing and too many characters.  It's like they're trying desperately to follow the Marvel template to make an ungodly amount of money but have no idea what the fuck they're doing or who to put in charge of it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This movie is awesome. No fancy tricks or reaching with big ideas, just pure good storytelling and action from start to finish.

 

 

9 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'm of the opinion that FF are a pretty lame bunch of superheroes and its very difficult to do them well,which is why they keep going down different paths each time. I actually in some ways like the hyper campy appeal of the earlier fox FF movies, I just wish they had doubled down on that instead.


I'm not a huge fan of the FF, though mostly because I didn't grow up reading their stuff, but I wouldn't call them lame intrinsically. What I've read of Hickman's run is fantastic, for example.

I mean, The Incredibles is basically an FF movie and it's one of the best superhero movies ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, briantw said:

It must be trickier than we think, as every DC movie now seems to be an absolute clusterfuck of bad writing and too many characters.  It's like they're trying desperately to follow the Marvel template to make an ungodly amount of money but have no idea what the fuck they're doing or who to put in charge of it all.

DC Stuff:

Spoiler

 

They aren't really trying to follow the mould though. Simplistically: Marvel go Fun, DC go Dark, Marvel started with solo films, DC did one film then a Justice League prelude, and a supervilain team up. The Marvel formula is a very familiar well defined 3 act structure, the DC films seem more convoluted.

I'm not one to defend the DC films as I haven't enjoyed one yet, but they aren't trying to copy the 'Marvel Formula,' beyond trying to have a shared universe.

I also think they've definitely had an awful lot of studio interference. I don't believe Suicide Squad was the film David Ayer signed on to make. Zac Snyder I am less sure about, but the email trailer segment of BvS reeked of interference.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, briantw said:

It must be trickier than we think, as every DC movie now seems to be an absolute clusterfuck of bad writing and too many characters.  It's like they're trying desperately to follow the Marvel template to make an ungodly amount of money but have no idea what the fuck they're doing or who to put in charge of it all.

I agree with Blackbear in the sense WB aren't trying to be like Marvel - they are trying to make all the DC superheroes fit the Nolan (or worse) Frank Millar mould. A WB imitation of Marvel would have had a superman who is probably an awkward reporter who as superman is a wisecracking superhero. Thinking about it MCU doesn't really do dual personalities - most often there is no differentiation between super and civilian personalities (the acquisition of spidey may be their first opportunity to explore this)

All of the DC films, so far, have been on the "super gritty and miserable" side.

It's the same trap i fear for Fox thinking their treatment of Deadpool and Logan means all of their x-franchises should be the same.

Don't worry - I plan on watching the film next week and, as my comments on Fox in general may imply, I'm actually really wanting "logan" to be great. Hell, I wanted "the wolverine" to be great and think it was almost there (along with the title sequence to "origins"). Even if the film fails to deliver I think I could almost live with the trailers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from seeing it. Thought it was amazing. Forget about best X-Men film (which it is by far imo), it's one of the best comic movies in general. It's probably in the running with Sin City and The Dark Knight as my favorite. I have to give Hollywood major props on the quality of child actors they're finding recently. Stranger Things, the girl from The Nice Guys, and now Laura from Logan. She was sooo good.

Ngl I choked up a bit when she turned the cross into a X at the end.

Perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed regarding the child actors, where are these kids coming from?  Must be some Julliard for 6 year olds around I haven't heard of, truly incredible talents.

I've seen Logan twice now, something I rarely do for films while they are in the theater.  It's the best super hero/comic film yet made IMO, Patrick Stewart was incredible, he just keeps getting better, and he was great back in Excalibur and on stage 30 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dark Knight of X-Men franchise. Wolverine just works best as Rated- R which is why he wouldn't fit into MCU universe and their genre. They would have to make him less violent and not blood, gore, violent he should be. Deadpool to certain extent too is not fit for them. Not like it's a bad thing for MCU becaus their formla works, DC are trying to make everything dark and it's a not a good idea. Every movie and character should be accordingly done and not in same dark mode. Which is why MCU works better. Hope that FOX will do justice to their characters and their movies won't be Rated-R given their success.

To the movie.

Truth be told it's an amazing experience with flaws along the way. It's gritty, dark, emotional, depressing at times especially towards the end.But stil love the fact no matter in how much of shit they were in, they still fight. Charles' words to Logan about family, love, home... then Logan talking to X-Men 23 Laura realizing that he's dying and what it is like to have a family or closest to it. Her saying "daddy" was for some people a bit weird but it works. Also cross she made for him was pretty good touch. Wolverine was weapon X. I loved the part when Wolverine went full berserker mode on them and we see what an animal he is, rage, ferocity, beast. Even tho he couldn't much of a run but he still fight.

Props to Hugh for going with the best movie possible, Patrick Stewart played Charles Xavier brilliantly and with Charles' Alzheimer state truly convincing performance. Basically he killed bunch of X-Men and mutans in an accident when he had that seizure like in the motel. Also, liked the when Logan the real one told him it wasn't him who stabbed him.

People criticized Logan's clone X-24 but I think it was a good touch because only person who should kill Wolverine is Wolverine. Seeing that young Wolverine at his peak was truly amazing, what he can do. Logan faced his demons which is Wolverine in this mode. Also, nice that they didn't spoiled it in promos. Dafne did a realy good job, Not an easy job for a child actor to play alongside Hugh Jackman and Sir Patrick Stewart but she was amazing. Just by her facial expressions, body movement and eyes she conveyed emotions. It has that TLOU feeling to it or Unforgiven western type of movie. As Hugh said, it was one of their inspirations and inspiratio nalso for Old Man Logan comicbook series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it, and by far, it was Fox's best Marvel movie. I loved how small it felt and want more films like it. With the X-Men continuity so fucking erratic, it's best to tell these slice of life-type stories to ignore what a cluster the bigger picture is.
 
Stewart and Jackman acted the shit out of these roles, and I don't blame them for wanting to walk away. Like Singer should've done with DoFP, they need to do here. They will never outdo this. That little girl they got as Laura? She is Eleven/Millie Bobby Brown-types of wonderful. That scene between Logan and her after the Urgent Care scene? Incredible.

I loved this movie. My only nitpick, I think, was including all the random kids at the end. At that point, the movie started to feel Singer-ish. I just didn't like how all of these characters we had no attachment to just showed up, blowing shit up...this ain't your movie, brats. Kidding...kind of. I was a little geeked to see Rictor, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lord Friendzone said:

The Dark Knight of X-Men franchise. Wolverine just works best as Rated- R which is why he wouldn't fit into MCU universe and their genre. They would have to make him less violent and not blood, gore, violent he should be. Deadpool to certain extent too is not fit for them. Not like it's a bad thing for MCU becaus their formla works, DC are trying to make everything dark and it's a not a good idea. Every movie and character should be accordingly done and not in same dark mode. Which is why MCU works better. Hope that FOX will do justice to their characters and their movies won't be Rated-R given their success.

To the movie.

 

  Hide contents

Also cross she made for him was pretty good touch. Wolverine was weapon X.

 


Err, that's not why she did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I tried to go into this film with few expectations, but I failed. Some of those expectations were met and others weren't. Similar to the Lego Batman Movie, I'm sure I'll enjoy Logan more on a second viewing once I know what to expect. 

The Good

* Performances! These are the best performances of any X-Men film yet, save maybe Deadpool. Patrick Stewart owns the 2017 Best Supporting Actor Oscar as far as I'm concerned. The rest of the cast was also on point--Stephen Merchant's Caliban and Boyd Holbrook's Pierce especially. And finally, this girl playing Laura/X-23 gave a truly honest and sincere performance of rage, pain, and vulnerability. 

* The action! Finally, a Wolverine film that has the fight scenes I’ve been waiting to see since I started reading Wolverine comics back in junior high school. Even though there was yet another battle in the woods (it’s basically an Wolverine trope at this point) I still thoroughly enjoyed the full on Wolvie rage. Some of the X-23 fights were cut a bit too much, but I give that a pass as I’m sure most of her stuff was a mix of stunts and CGI.

* Representation of the “not too distant future” in 2029. Subtle but impactful notes were put into the script to remind the audience this wasn’t present day.

* And finally, something important the filmmakers paid homage to from the comics…

 

was they basically kept Logan’s (most recent) death the same as it was the comics. In the comics a vat of melted adamantium is poured over Logan and it hardens in this statuesque pose on a rooftop as the sun sets. What really kills Logan in the film isn’t X-24, but it’s the adamantium wearing down his healing factor to the point he’s mortal. So the adamantium kills him from the inside out in the film and not from the outside in like the comics. I see what you did there screenwriters, and I like it!

Speaking of death scenes, that burial of Xavier had me misty eyed. It goes back to the performances compliment, but this may’ve been Jackman’s best scene. He went from understated and vulnerable to full on shovel rage. It was a very well done scene.

 

Logan’s final words were also pretty damned perfect. I wanna say I remember another character using those as final words, but until someone proves that, I’ll give it to Logan.

 

The Bad

* Overly complex plot! If you want to make a superhero Western mash-up, then keep the plot simple. There was way too much new info to process, and this leads me to my second criticism…

* Too many important plot points are left to minimal exposition or just plain left unexplained. Granted, if this was a stand alone film then the minimal explanations would be great service to the pacing of the plot. However, that’s not the case here! LOGAN is in a universe with nine previous fucking films built behind it. And LOGAN implies way too much with no explanation. These giant plot points (Yes, plural.) that were left unexplained became extremely distracting for me. Here is a list:

 

1.Wait, why are there no new mutants born in the last, what’d Xavier say, 25 years? Please, ‘splain dat to me again Dr. Rice!?!?

2. WTF happened “a year ago” with Charles in Westchester and which X-Men did he kill? The radio report made it sound like Xavier killed seven X-Men. Who?!? How? Why is implied, but the rest needed a flashback.

3. Why is it Dr. Rice and not Mr. Sinister the main behind the scenes pulling the strings? I get Rice has ties to the Weapon X project, but Age of Apocalypse and Bryan Singer told us we’d have fucking Mr. Sinister! http://collider.com/wolverine-3-mister-sinister-bryan-singer/ [My guess is he was supposed to be the big bad Wolvie fights to the death, but they thought it’d be all symbolic” if the only thing that could kill Wolverine was another Wolverine, hence X-24.

4. When, how, and why did the X-Men go from hated and feared mutant scum to beloved superheroes like the Avengers? Why are there X-Men comics and toys in this universe now?

5. What’s Eden and who runs it? Why is Eden even necessary if the X-Men made mutants viewed as superheroes in this world!?!? And if these kids aren’t “natural mutants” what makes Eden so eager to take these kids in? Yeah, just Eden in general is a big fucking question mark.

 

And some less crucial points that still irked me:

6. Why are Dr. Rice & the Reevers only in pursuit of Laura? Why not the other escaped kids?

7. Speaking of which, who got those other X-23 kids to the rendezvous point in North Dakota? Presumably the other nurses, but where are they?

8. How the hell did Laura get Logan in to the hospital after Xavier’s burial? Please tell me there’s not a dead fisherman and his dog back by that pond/lake! “What’s in the box, Laura? What’s in the boooox?!?”

9. Why did Logan ask Caliban to help with Xavier? And why is he a complete 180 from the Caliban in Age of Apocalypse?

10. How do Dr. Rice & co. know where Logan and Xavier are hiding but not the US government? You’d think after what’s implied to have happened in Westchester that Xavier be on their most wanted list.

11. How are those X-23 kids gonna be on a time crunch to cross the border to Eden but have enough time to move and bury Logan? Shouldn’t other government agencies still have been in pursuit of them after the first wave was wiped out? 

 

The Ugly

* The heavy handed symbolism.

Turning that cross into an X at the end should’ve been a moving moment, but I was so burned out on the heavy handed symbolism with Shane that it just came off as so utterly corny to me. Ditto for Laura reciting that Shane monologue at Logan’s grave. This was an opportunity for some great original writing, but instead they just cribbed it. Not cool. After nine movies with this character he deserved his own memorable send off. Came across as lazy writing to me. [But Logan’s actual final words, as I mentioned earlier, were near perfect.

 

And the other bit of heavy handed symbolism was X-24. I mean, *ugh* wasn’t the adamantium poisoning enough to get across Logan is his own worst enemy? I think a character may have even spoken those exact words in the film. So why did Mangold feel the need to literally clone Logan and have him fight “himself” to get that point across? *sigh* It just felt like another missed opportunity for originality.

Edited by PetyrPunkinhead
Formatting nightmare!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Err, that's not why she did it.

 

I know but it's a symbolic to viewers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Friendzone said:

I know but it's a symbolic to viewers.

Yeah, but surely it's symbolic to both her and the viewers of the same thing, ie

him being an X-Man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PetyrPunkinhead said:

 

Spoiler

 

1.Wait, why are there no new mutants born in the last, what’d Xavier say, 25 years? Please, ‘splain dat to me again Dr. Rice!?!?

2. WTF happened “a year ago” with Charles in Westchester and which X-Men did he kill? The radio report made it sound like Xavier killed seven X-Men. Who?!? How? Why is implied, but the rest needed a flashback.

3. Why is it Dr. Rice and not Mr. Sinister the main behind the scenes pulling the strings? I get Rice has ties to the Weapon X project, but Age of Apocalypse and Bryan Singer told us we’d have fucking Mr. Sinister! http://collider.com/wolverine-3-mister-sinister-bryan-singer/ [My guess is he was supposed to be the big bad Wolvie fights to the death, but they thought it’d be all symbolic” if the only thing that could kill Wolverine was another Wolverine, hence X-24.

4. When, how, and why did the X-Men go from hated and feared mutant scum to beloved superheroes like the Avengers? Why are there X-Men comics and toys in this universe now?

5. What’s Eden and who runs it? Why is Eden even necessary if the X-Men made mutants viewed as superheroes in this world!?!? And if these kids aren’t “natural mutants” what makes Eden so eager to take these kids in? Yeah, just Eden in general is a big fucking question mark.

 

And some less crucial points that still irked me:

6. Why are Dr. Rice & the Reevers only in pursuit of Laura? Why not the other escaped kids?

7. Speaking of which, who got those other X-23 kids to the rendezvous point in North Dakota? Presumably the other nurses, but where are they?

8. How the hell did Laura get Logan in to the hospital after Xavier’s burial? Please tell me there’s not a dead fisherman and his dog back by that pond/lake! “What’s in the box, Laura? What’s in the boooox?!?”

9. Why did Logan ask Caliban to help with Xavier? And why is he a complete 180 from the Caliban in Age of Apocalypse?

10. How do Dr. Rice & co. know where Logan and Xavier are hiding but not the US government? You’d think after what’s implied to have happened in Westchester that Xavier be on their most wanted list.

11. How are those X-23 kids gonna be on a time crunch to cross the border to Eden but have enough time to move and bury Logan? Shouldn’t other government agencies still have been in pursuit of them after the first wave was wiped out?

 

 

Spoiler

 

Rice did explain why there were no new mutant births. Diet. Governments treated food to combat the X-gene, so people stopped giving birth to mutants. Mutants became a blip on the radar and were "cured" out of being birthed.

I think it's interesting that you characterize this plot as "complex." I thought the plot was beyond simplistic. Ultimately, you wanted answers to questions that, in my opinion, were irrelevant. We didn't need to know about Haven because this movie wasn't about Haven. All we needed to know is that this Haven place is a refuge.

Society at large might have come around on mutants, but you need to take into account that the reason why the mutant kids were being hunted was not because they were mutants, specifically, but because they were "failed" experiments the big bad wanted to take out.

You also can't assume that the other kids weren't being followed -- all those kids were being chased. We followed Laura's journey because her handler decided to go to Wolverine for help, and this was his movie. I'm sure all of those other kids had similar experiences. We could question what happened to their handlers, but again, this isn't their movie/story.

Does it truly matter if Sinister wasn't in the movie after he was teased? He didn't end up being in the movie -- it's not a failure on the movie's part. We judge based on what we got, not what didn't make the cut.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the greatest superhero films of all time. It's great to see a somewhat out of continuity film that allows for real stakes. Jackman has never been better and Stewart was great too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a good film, and one that's not quite like any other superhero film I can think of. For all their past faults Fox in the last year have been doing some refreshingly different things with their superhero adaptations between Deadpool, Legion and this (although the less said about Apocalypse the better). It's good that at the third attempt they finally managed to make a Wolverine movie that lived up to its potential. Jackman and Stewart were unsurprisingly great, they've always been good as those characters but I think this is the best performance by both of them. The supporting cast was also good, particularly Dafne Keen as Laura. 

By this stage it's probably best not to try to figure out how any X-Men film fits in continuity with the other X-Men films, but I think this managed to stand its own, I may be curious about the details of what happened in Westchester but I don't think it's necessary for this film to know the details.

Although this vision of the future is relatively light on futuristic elements, I did like the subtle elements like the AI-driven trucks or the giant mechanised harvesters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bastard of Boston said:
  Hide contents

 

[1]Rice did explain why there were no new mutant births. Diet. Governments treated food to combat the X-gene, so people stopped giving birth to mutants. Mutants became a blip on the radar and were "cured" out of being birthed.

[2]I think it's interesting that you characterize this plot as "complex." I thought the plot was beyond simplistic. Ultimately, you wanted answers to questions that, in my opinion, were irrelevant. We didn't need to know about Haven because this movie wasn't about Haven. All we needed to know is that this Haven place is a refuge.

[3]Society at large might have come around on mutants, but you need to take into account that the reason why the mutant kids were being hunted was not because they were mutants, specifically, but because they were "failed" experiments the big bad wanted to take out.

[4]You also can't assume that the other kids weren't being followed -- all those kids were being chased. We followed Laura's journey because her handler decided to go to Wolverine for help, and this was his movie. I'm sure all of those other kids had similar experiences. We could question what happened to their handlers, but again, this isn't their movie/story.

[5]Does it truly matter if Sinister wasn't in the movie after he was teased? He didn't end up being in the movie -- it's not a failure on the movie's part. We judge based on what we got, not what didn't make the cut.

 

 

RE: The plot gaps in general under my "The Bad" heading

They were distracting, so that does make them relevant to my movie-going experience. 

[1]This is the only one of my points that's technically explained in the film, and I allude to that with my Dr. Rice reference in my original critique. However, the explanation for such a HUGE shift in this X-Men universe is in the middle of a loud, adrenaline fueled action scene on the heels of Xavier being murdered by a Wolverine clone! That's a lot to fucking process. The basic "M-Day" type extinction of mutants is given to rushed exposition and not afforded the gravitas it deserved in the film.

[2] It's not just a stand alone film. This is an X-Men film. So I believe those questions are relevant if this is to be the end of a franchise before another reboot. I'll just quote myself here again: Granted, if this was a stand alone film then the minimal explanations would be great service to the pacing of the plot. However, that’s not the case here! LOGAN is in a universe with nine previous fucking films built behind it. And LOGAN implies way too much with no explanation.

[3] I'm in agreement with you here. This wasn't even a criticism of mine or point of confusion for me. I'm guessing you misread something I wrote, which is understandable because it was long af. :)

[4] I agree, but a line or two of dialogue from Rictor or another kid is all it'd take to clear it up. We just followed this badass girl and two of the most powerful mutants in history for an hour as they struggled to make the rendezvous. These other little fuckers just showing up magically without one mention of any problems they ran in to just rang false to me. It was jarring.

[5] Again, I realize my original critique was a long post, but I put it in my very first sentence that I went into this film with expectations. And Sinister was a BIG expectation I didn't see met. I was hoping no real mention of him NOT being in the film meant he'd be a secret reveal, so I was waiting through the entire film up to the very last scene for that moment that never happened. The filmmakers allowed me to have that false expectation. So, yes, I definitely can and will label that as a fault of the film.And I definitely don't think me faulting the film for something it was missing is anything radical. People judge cinema on what's NOT in the film just as much as what is IN the film all the time. Hell, I've still got friends who're pissed Jackman never put on the mask in any of the nine films!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it on Saturday night. I liked it.

Having the movie set in 2029 I thought was odd, in that it's not all that far in the future in terms of previous movies. It almost seems like it's a rounding off of the consequences of X-men 3, which seems to be no longer movie canon.

So where are they going with X-Men? We're going to continue with a number of X-Men movie set in the past with Mcavoy and Fassbender without Wolverine? Are they going to tell the tale of the destruction of mutants? Are they going to pick up where Logan has left off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that was great, up there with TDK. I would like to see more of these smaller, simpler movies in future. I'm glad Jackman and Stewart were able to do one great movie before leaving. 

Two minor disappointments:

The villains weren't great. I liked Donald Pierce for the first half of the movie, but when Rice and X-24 showed up he didn't do very much.

I also wish Sabretooth was involved, somehow. I liked Schreiber in Origins and have been hoping that he would return at some point, but it seems pointless without Wolverine now. He may have been a good X-24, given he and Logan lived the same life for a very ling time and both participated in Stryker's programs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Petyr Pumpkinhead, I have a few questions which I thought were unexplained, or we missed the explanations.

Any thoughts on the below?

1) What is killing Wolverine? Reference is made to something being inside of him by Caliban and the doctor that he meets. Why does he not want this removed from his body, and what is it that is inside him? And how did it get there?

2) What did Charles Xavier actually do? Why is this never explained in the film even though it kept being hinted at? Also, is it ever mentioned what illness he has? Alzheimer? I guess this is not that important but I was just looking for confirmation.

 

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