Ottawa

I usually don't think movies are boring, and it doesn't matter how slow the film is, that to me makes no difference on the picture's execution. Nonetheless, Solaris was boring to the point that it's almost impossible to watch from start to finish. Sure Clooney gives a riveting performance, but the movie appeals nothing to me.

3/10
christensonj_filmcritic@ - 95 reviews
12.5.2011 - age: 13-17

To be honest, it's the worst movie ever made. It's a complete dull bore. It made no sense.

1/10
n.oved@ - 62 reviews
29.5.2008 - age: 13-17

A good psychological film that carries a good erriness at times, despite being slow moving the film is very interesting and keeps you watching.

8/10
cfh_trendkill@ - 4 reviews
6.12.2006 - age: 18-25

All you haters out there need to stop watching 'Star Bores' and start realising that science fiction lays within our perception of life and thus death, not within the realm of fantasy. Technology is not science fiction... its science fact. Lem's novel is more likely to be found in the 'Literature' or 'Fiction' section at your local used bookstore... not the 'Sci-Fi' paperback blowout sale rack! This film delves further into the unknown while simultaneously uncovering the known better than most films of the past 3 decades. All this banter about the plot, theme, characters, story, etc... straying from this (the novel) or that (the other film) is trite opinionism by hyper-fanatic 'purists'. If a film is only its actors/characters, image, story, plot, and sound, then this film is much greater than then sum of its parts. Remember folks, its BASED on Lem's novel... it's not the novel itself!

10/10
lordchops@ - first review
5.3.2005 - age: 26-35 - 2 replies

I am sorry I missed it on the big screen... Since then I saw it at least five times on the movie network and I would see it agian and again... It's hard to explain why this movie is so great but I just loved it and I can not imagine how anyone could not love it!!!

10/10
d.litwin@ - 6 reviews
26.6.2004 - age: 26-35

Probably the best movie I will ever see.

10/10
kpovydade@ - first review
29.2.2004 - age: 18-25

I saw Solaris for the first time on satellite last night. It was an amazingly well-done film. The sci-fi environment is simply there as a necessity to setup the events of the film, and the set design is right on... not overblown at all. And the performances of the actors fit the film quite nicely... I don't know who or how it could have been done better. The true subject of this movie is the natue of human emotion and our perception of what is real and what is not. Even here on Earth, when we meet somebody and get to know them... how well do we really know them? We only know as much as that person allows us to. The ending is left open to allow the intelligent viewer to make his own conclusion. I agree that this can be frustrating, but I don't always like being told what to think by a movie. I am thankful for the opportunity to provide my own interpretation (within myself) of the films ending. Finally, just a note regarding many of the reviews posted here... I respect low scores when the reviewer gives me a real reason why he/she didn't like a film. I ignore comments such as "this is crap" and "the worst movie ever" when the writer gives no support for his statement at all. In the end, these people simply underline their own ignorance and lack of intellect... this film was never meant for them in the first place..

8/10
bucksport71@ - first review
1.2.2004 - age: 36-49

Possibly the most boring movie ever. I class it with boxing helena... obviously budget is not the key for a good movie. I would recommend this one to any insomniacs... might find a cure in it.

2/10
remorazz@ - first review
16.12.2003 - age: 26-35

I saw this movie over the weekend and I thought it was okay. My mind is an open one so maybe it was that. BUT I'm still confused about the ending. I like movies that make me think a little, but not to the point where I really don't understand. Overall, the movie was good, but only for people who have an open mind.

7/10
ang174@ - first review
8.12.2003 - age: 13-17

This movie was so bad... it really is the wurst movie made!

1/10
mr_mugoo@ - 2 reviews
3.12.2003 - age: 18-25

This movie did not potray the themes of existence, humanity etc... etc any better than your average episode of Star Trek! I can't believe how people can over analyse such a simple plot.

3/10
tony@ - first review
10.10.2003 - age: 26-35

Solaris is in a very close running with my list of all time worst movies I have seen. I believe this movie is more powerful than any sedative mankind can make. Clooney, take some advice, be more picky about the scripts you choose. Maybe staying on ER wouldn't have been such a bad idea.

2/10
caespo@ - first review
22.9.2003 - age: 36-49

What a mess! This movie could be a good one, but I have a little problem whit an important fact; what about the original one, THE Solaris movie made by the russian team many years before (+- 1972)? The american one treat the subject as the habitual; they take the viewers for a bunch of dumbs! They are saying everything in details, substracting the pleasure to understand by our own the essence of the movie and the novel of Stanislaw Lem... Anyway, go get the original russian movie and see the difference by your own eyes...

6/10
jonart2003@ - first review
5.9.2003 - age: 26-35

There's not much to say here... it has all been said, very well. Solaris will be in my collection, the book on my shelves. To quote someone here "By reading those empty, sensless comments above, I realize, now more then ever, that open-minded people are needed on this very small planet..." Word.

10/10
dawnstealer01@ - first review
23.8.2003 - age: 13-17

Solaris: Schrodinger's Cat gets out of the box and goes Quantum Leaping. You'll need all your lights on for this one. Brilliant.

10/10
baktrak@ - first review
23.8.2003 - age: 50+

I have just watched Solaris on DVD, well I say watched we both fell asleap and woke up 10 mins before the end, I skipped back the DVD and we watched it again. This wasted even more of out time, what a BAD movie. I do get it, but I just think there is very little point in this movie. So what we all get things wrong in our head. If that was the only point of the film, I really didn't need 2.5 hours of boring rubbish to tell me that. Please do not see this movie..

1/10
rich@ - first review
21.8.2003 - age: 26-35

I saw this movie on DVD and I just had to write something because it's a really good movie. I think it's George Clooney's finest role ever. I personally think this type of role really suited him. The story keeps you thinking until the very end. Rent it, see it, then write about it.

10/10
sacoca_@ - 597 reviews
20.8.2003 - age: 18-25

Zzz... zzz... my wife and I got the best sleep this week..

3/10
steve.birchard@ - first review
17.8.2003 - age: 36-49

Although the premise of the movie was mildly interesting, it went pretty much to waste. A spacecraft is in orbit around what appears to a planet, which has the mysterious ability to create people, straight out of the minds of, well, whoever is close enough to the planet. Kelvin, a psychiatrist, (George Clooney) is sent to investigate. You'd think a shrink would know how to keep his cool and be helpful, but no. The resident geek scientist is more helpful. From the beginning it's all downhill. The acting oscillates between mediocre and camp, with one hilarious exception: The character named Snow is clearly stoned throughout the entire movie. Perhaps he's telling us something...

4/10
skrivmejinte@ - first review
16.8.2003 - age: 50+

[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
The premise of the movie is moderately interesting: What seems to be a planet is a strange entity that has the capacity of bringing to life crucial characters in people's minds, even dead ones. Some astronauts in a space ship orbiting the planet are confronted with these creations, and understandably, go insane. What's more, the things are indestructible. Kelvin (George Clooney) is a psychiatrist sent to investigate. You would expect him to be most likely to keep his cool, but he's not. He gets embroiled in a creepy rehash of his disastrous marriage instead. Although the original idea wasn't bad, it is not well developed. The acting, with one exception, is generally from mediocre to downright bad. I'll be generous and put Clooney in the mediocre category. The only exception in my view is Snow, a hilarious crew member who is clearly seriously stoned throughout the entire movie. Everyone else is appropriately moody, or freaking out. All in all, the movie was disappointing. It aims for a lofty goal and misses, and it isn't even entertaining.

5/10
alfredol@ - first review
16.8.2003 - age: 50+

I just bought the DVD, Solaris, tonight. I have yet to remove my jaw from the floor. I am in total and utter shock at how extremely senseless this movie is. I find it quite ironic that anyone would consider this an intellectual film when there is absolutely no substance in this horribly put-together movie. This will go down as my all-time least favorite movie. I don't even like to call it a movie; it's more like two hours of time and 20 bucks wasted. There's nothing more to say because, simply put, it truly isn't worth my time writing about it or your time reading about it.

1/10
pawprint74@ - first review
11.8.2003 - age: 26-35

Wow, can we say DULL.

1/10
crooker41@ - 127 reviews
3.8.2003 - age: 36-49

[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
The movie "Solaris" I rented yesterday got mostly reviews that were either 4-5 stars out of 5, or they were 0-1 stars out of 5, split equally. Its one of those movies that you either love, or hate. There are 2 basic settings going on in this film. The first being space, and the second being the human mind. And with both settings comes 2 themes. The first being that as humans we have the need to always try to understand and comprehend things----especially the hidden mysteries of space. Humans try to make meaning of things when we do not have the capability of understanding. So it is a movie about the human being always trying to understand, even when it doesn't. The second theme that comes out of the movie is how our memories effect us, and what they stand for. Apparently the movie really brings home the fact that our memories do not always reflect the true nature of what happened. Our memories are more perceptions from our own character, and those perceptions can often times be wrong----or at least can be corrected. The main reason I liked the movie, and I think I understood it, and most people who did reviews on it didn't understand it, is the fact how both themes come together at the end. The unexplainable mystery and space somehow becomes explainable in Clooneys character at the end. Solaris (the planet) helped him to realize that his memories were incorrect. At the end of the movie, he was able to correct his misperception of what happened to his wife. For the longest time he was trying to rationalize and understand why his wife died. But the meaning at the end was that sometimes it is better not to rationalize everything b/c you miss out on the emotion. Basically, he forgot the love part in his memory. Just as we are being human, we remember things that are negative or the little things we could and should have changed. He was only wishing to go back and to correct things, to have said things different (he somehow felt guilty for her death b/c of the things he was in a rage and said to her, maybe those things possibly drove her to suicide) At the end of the movie, he finally was able to not be so focused on this, but on how there was love in their relationship. So rare nowadays, and some people have it and don't even know it. The tranquility of the soundtrack and the slowness of the movie was intended to allow the audience come to understand this movie. You have to be in the right frame of mind, and allow your mind to free flow. Those who disliked the movie were trying to rationalize it too much. It's a movie like those 3-D pics that came out about 10 years ago. Some people were able to see the images, and others were not. Those that were able to see the images in the pictures were only able to do this b/c they looked at the picture almost like cross-eyed. Just as when you put your index finger up and the middle finger, some peope see 2 fingers, and others can see the "V" that is made by the 2 fingers. This movie is the "V". Steve.

9/10
stevenss@ - first review
31.7.2003 - age: 36-49

The original 1972 movie was one of the most boring pieces of celuloid I had ever seen but that was a long time ago because I bought it the other day in dvd and that film grows on me every time I see it again because I think I have reached the perfect age to be able to realy understand it and connect with it. If you think this new Solaris version was a slow movie you should try to sit through the 1972 russian one. Compared to the Tarkovsky's Solaris this new version is The Matrix!!! The original novel is one of my all time sci-fi favorites and I can tell you that both movies are among the worst novel adaptations I ever saw. Both movies throw the book out the window and focus on the love story aspect, forgetting that the movie should be about SOLARIS itself. Altough we understand the female character to be a part of SOLARIS, what Solaris realy is, is never explained on any of the movies. Gone is the whole story of the planet exploration, gone are a few characters and situations and all that's left is a love story wich ends up not be fully explored, exactely because both mmovie plots lack the story and information that's inside the book. I love both movies, but that's probably because I read the book and I clearly understand why things are happening in th story. I can imagine what goes through the mind of the viewers who have not read the book while watching any filme versions of Solaris. This is either a movie you hate or you love and the key to enjoying it is to get some kind of connection to the story. Both movies have endings that left you wandering what the heck has just happened. Hollywood movies are ofen acused of being just for kids with everything explained in detail for everybody to understand, but in this case of Solaris its exactely the oposite. This is a movie that deserved an explanation at least at the ending for the regular movie goer to take anything out of that story at least. The problem is because all the book was throwned out the window there's not much on to base all the explanations that could have been useful to the general audience and this is the greatest weakness of this new version as already was in the 1972 russian version, (altough the 1972 version is much more detailed in regarding what the planet Solaris realy is) But I love this new version anyway. It's good adult science fiction like we never saw in (I guess) decades now. Beautiful soundtrack wich unfortunely could be illustrating a much better story and now seems it was wasted. Great interpretations by the actors. With almost everything from the book gone it's a miracle there was still some good character compositions here. Beautiful special effects for its simplicity, the docking sequence is the only space sequence I ever saw that can rival with 2001 Space Odissey. The love story bit its well done, considering that there was nothing much to work on after they totaly ignored the story background from the book. In fact there is only one thing wrong with this movie in my view. Those flashbacks are totaly useless, the amount of time they spent filming the past of the characters could have been used to adapt the bits in the book that were realy important to the love story and were totaly ignored in favor of soap-opera romantic scenes. Anyway, I enjoyed the movie a lot, the way its filmed is realy beautiful and the whole atmosphere is at least diferent. But we can never avoid feeling that we are looking at an unfinished movie. Sometimes it seems we are looking at a fantastic colection of great sci-fi sets where someone forgot to film a movie. But this is a very hard movie to classify, because with all its weakness still is a great experience, but its definitely not for the regular movie (popcorn) goer and definitely not for the regular teenager who thinks that sci-fi is watching Matrix and Star Wars. This movie is for adults and not because of any sex scenes. You have to be an adult (or feel lkie one) to be able to relate to what's happening in this story. So to finish this, I guess I'll give it the top marks, for originality, atmosphere and for the excellent way it was shot. If you hated the movie, read the book and you'll be looking at it from a diferent perspective. Who knows, you might even end up liking as much as I do like both versions because the book is great. Despite being a terrible adaptation of a great book wich either could have been a suspance story, a realy fantastic love story, a very detailed and imaginative sci-fi story and it was not, I still thing it's a good movie, but its one of those movies you shouldn't see without reading the book first. Believe me. If you read the book first, you'll love the movie (because you'll have a fantastic background to understand it) If you see the movie first there's not much chance you'll want to read the book after and that's a shame, specialy if you like sci-fi and never read this novel Solaris. So watch the movie, but read the book first. Its that good.

9/10
l.peres@ - first review
30.7.2003 - age: 26-35

I liked the movie a lot. I saw it after I read terrible reviews... and mostly when the reviews are terrible it means that there is something of substance to watch in a movie. I didn't think it was that bad... Soderburgh was very successful in giving me this morbid feeling that he enfolded his film with... Clooney is a great actor trapped in shallow roles and in this film and oh brother he proved his worth... The camera was great... disturbing scaring you when there is nothing to be scared of. The story is vague... kind of a David Lynch story... but hell I love Lynch and if you can like Erasure head then Solaris is a walk in the park in comparison. I just don't understand the ending quite well overall it is a good movie watch it witout expecting light sabers or jedi knights and you will be ok...

10/10
kholiette@ - first review
21.7.2003 - age: 26-35

Without a doubt this one is a great movie I've never seen a film like this, it's difficult to explain, but it caused a feeling in me, wich impressed me, what others call boring, I call enjoying and scary at the same time, great atmosphere with a genious soundtrack characterizes the movie SOLARIS...

8/10
specialist2000@ - first review
20.6.2003 - age: 18-25

Probably the most beautifull movie I have ever seen. In my opinion, to appreciate this movie, you have to be a sensitive person whose really fond of romantic movies... , of cinema in fact but not a person that "think" that he or she "knows" something about cinema. So believe me, it's a really really good movie and words are missing to tell how much it's good.

10/10
s.milos@ - first review
8.6.2003 - age: 18-25

I was at first puzzled with how I felt Solaris, as this film has many highlight scenes and slower scenes. I liked the introduction and the build up scenes towards getting into space. However, I thought the characters of Snow and Gordon should have been used to a larger extent for greater effect. I can see why many people would not enjoy this film, I found myself squirming from time to time as most people would. But with a little persistance, this movie was alright.

7/10
jjjon666@ - first review
5.6.2003 - age: 18-25

I had no choice but to watch the movie because it was shown on the airplain... after 30 mins I wanted to jump off the plane it was soooo bad!!! And I am sure that people that saw russian Solaris would agree that it was a big disappointment!

1/10
innuendo555@ - 43 reviews
30.4.2003 - age: 18-25

Well... looks like the crowd is split. I personally beleive that it's good cuz its original, and, I don't know why, the whole movie I was with my stomach in my throat. Crazy feeling. I will watch it again. It is not an action movie. Its more psychological and it makes you wonder about alot of things. This is the kind of movie that you should see from time to time. Those who rated the movie less than 5 expected an action movie and they didn't get it. If you're smart enaugh, go see it, and when you'll get out, you will think about many things. Worth seeing. Really.

10/10
feyerv@ - 47 reviews
1.4.2003 - age: 18-25

Well, looks like everyones split down the middle on this one, went with 4 mates, 1 didn't like it, 3 were unsure what to make of it and I loved it. If you like films like Vanilla Sky, Memento and Mulholland Drive then you will like this. Goes against all the usual film format where it has a start, middle and end and you get everything and can make complete sense and everything is explained. I love films that don't explain everything and have underlying messages. My friend was saying, whats with all the going into space to a planet for and why's it so slow. Forget the planet, forget space and forget time, just watch it and feel the emotion that soderberg and Clooney obviously felt making it. If you don't like it then fine, I think Vanilla Sky is one of the best films ever but know a lot of people who hate it. Would say to anyone watch it and make of it what you want, you'll either love it hate it or be completely blank, I'm just glad I got to see a great film in days when budgets, effects and big guns seem to be the only thing people go to see. Excellent.

10/10
draco_uk@ - first review
5.3.2003 - age: 18-25

Though I didn't quite understand this movie completely, it really made me think. At first, I thought it was a boring movie like 2001 Space Oddessy, but it isn't. If you watch it, you will get what I mean... haha.

10/10
lilaznyingjai33@ - 5 reviews
5.3.2003 - age: 13-17

There are people who will be incapable of letting go and being swept along by this movie. If you are capable of that, the mystery and the wondering will pick you up at the beginning and carry you through. There are very few cinematic flaws that break that flow. There are even a few bits of wry humour. There is loving which nowhere close to the requisite love scene, but is magic; consciously knowing the character is "George Clooney" does not detract from the passion and beauty and does not disrupt the moment, which says worlds about his acting here. The music is also exceptional. I went in feeling tired and slightly angry and left feeling uplifted and restored and inspired. I didn't want to leave. What does this movie mean? Does it matter? The next time I see it, which I will, I'll be more cinematically objective; but perhaps the fact that I could be carried into the film with mind and feeling is objective validation enough. There are people to whom I would highly recommend this film. There are others I know could never like or appreciate it, unfortunately for them. And anyone who could find this film "boring" is definitely telling us what they lack, not what the film lacks. Go in with no preconceptions.

10/10
l_sigrid_c@ - first review
1.3.2003 - age: 36-49

Don't buy the pseudo-intellectual tripe about this movie - there is absolutely nothing there. This is one of those movies that people that think they have huge brains love to "get", but is mind numbing to anyone that actually does have a brain and realises that the thought provoking questions aren't that thought provoking. These themes have been brought up a million times before in much bettter films and books, its sci-fi cliche masquerading as high art. Long and boring and pointless, with no story arc, no good dialogue, no good characters, nothing. I've never seen so many people walk out in the middle of a movie. It's just that bad.

1/10
chrdupre@ - first review
27.2.2003 - age: 26-35

Solaris 2003 doesn't even begin to match Tarkovsky's. At its best, it's just a pretty movie, and I'm sorry if this is not a compliment. The good part comes only in the last 5 minutes: too little and too late, and this is funny, since it is here that Soderbergh departs most from Lem's book.

6/10
ndg.afc@ - first review
25.2.2003 - age: 36-49

Great science-fiction. It is amazing how the film was narrated.

10/10
jmhperez@ - first review
23.2.2003 - age: 26-35

"Solaris" (2002) is second attempt of Stanislaw Lem's book written in 1959 adaptation. I've read book several times to be able to analyze all aspects of it. Because of that I do understand how difficult was to make a movie. Since action is placed in sci-fi scenario it was decided to make high budget art movie. As always - it was expected to be a profitable production. That's why - in my opinion - director frightened of going to deep into main aspects of the novel. However (just) some signs of main Lem's idea can be found is in the movie. I've heard interview with S. Lem (I'm Polish) when he described the main idea of his book: to analyze the impossibility of perception of different (I. E. alien) existence due to human cognitive apparatus we use, including sophisticated human technology. It was "a trunk of the book". All other aspects of it are just "leaves of the tree". Of course everyone is entitled to read book different. [...] Soderbergh had to make a lot of choices and I don't blame him, but he just touched ideas he presented and then quickly moved back (chicken!) I agree that this movie may be boring for all who didn't read the novel but it's not a synonym of "horrible", "crapy" etc. It's important to know how to watch it and the key is in a book. Many questions without answers are raised in this film unfortunately some of them are beyond the context (I guess since I've read the book) These spread opinions reminds me one of my favorit films "Blade Runner" - based on Dick novel (very different than adaptation!) - which is now sci-fi classic movie. Anyway, acting (bravo to Natascha McElhone) , mood, music, space are worth to see and feel it. BTW: I don't know Tarkowski's adaptation but I know that S. Lem was involved in script writing at the beginning of the project but then he called Tarkowski "durak" which in russian means "fool" and banged the door - it was the end of his work on script :) Lem didn't like that version.

8/10
trust_no_one@ - first review
21.2.2003 - age: 26-35

The best science-fiction movie since Kubrick's Space Odyssey. Is it slow? No, it's taking its time. So should you!

10/10
woodyisking@ - first review
21.2.2003 - age: 26-35

This movie is challenging, so most people who don't know how to watch film will not like it.

7/10
andywarholterrorist@ - first review
17.2.2003 - age: 18-25

I have never walked out on a movie in all the years that I have enjoyed the theatres. Even the gratuitous exposition of Clooney's butt couldn't save this movie. Good thing they give you refunds if you walk out before an hour. It is undoubtedly the slowest, most painstakingly uninteresting movie I have ever had the patience to sit through 30 minutes for. Such a shame... had higher expectations. And just because the lot of us didn't enjoy this movie, does not mean that we have pea-brained intellects and require loud explosions and obvious plots to enjoy a good movie. It just didn't grab you, it didn't engage you and it didn't draw you in or make you feel... that's the simple truth. Save your money, don't even bother renting it.

1/10
heylucygirl@ - 7 reviews
27.1.2003 - age: 26-35

The movie is based on a great classic novel written by one of the greatest minds. So did it could only be polish, Stanislaw Lam.

10/10
twitek@ - first review
20.12.2002 - age: 26-35

I see the 'old' version of the movie when I was 20 years old. I think that the original version it's a masterpiece. The 'american' version it's very interesting and talented. [...] Stalker, Solaris, 2001 space odessy, Ghost in the shell, Angel's Eve and many other are film that make the soul of the people grow. If don't like the movie because don't have a serial killer, lot of guns, and speak very much, go and hire jackass and be happy. Think different!

10/10
jaiglesias_z84@ - first review
19.12.2002 - age: 26-35

The rating I'm giving on my review of this movie is actually the number of people that stayed in the theater till the end! I guess I stayed to know if the movie was ever getting better or would of had an interesting development... Yeah right, the only thing that was good of the movie was the concept! The acting is average, the cinematography is weak and boring as hell!

1/10
stevens_cel@ - first review
18.12.2002 - age: 26-35

My god... I mean my god.. the worst movie... I can't... holy cow. What crap. I'll give it 2 just for managing to make the same as sphere, which wasn't that good a movie.

2/10
kinze_earn2@ - 2 reviews
18.12.2002 - age: 13-17

I don't really know if I liked it or not because I didn't really understand the movie. I could only say that the video taping in space was awesome, so if you like space and pictures you should see this movie.

7/10
dkouli@ - 6 reviews
18.12.2002 - age: 1-12

I thought the idea of the movie was cool, but the production of the movie never lived up to it.

4/10
bruce_jlk@ - 5 reviews
18.12.2002 - age: 18-25

If you like hollywood dumm sci-fi action movies for 30-40 y.o. children - don't go to see Solaris. If you like to think, to analyse - this is movie for you. At the same time, for non-commercial movies it is very weak. If anyone has ever seen famous Russian/European Tarkovsky's "Solaris" made in 70s, you'll understand what I mean. THAT was a masterpiece. But today's Solaris is a weak atempt to repeat it. It proves that Hollywood lack talents.

5/10
vichstan@ - 2 reviews
18.12.2002 - age: 26-35

I would dare say this is one of the worst 10 movies ever made, Clooney's butt in our face so often... guess he's telling us he got paid to do such a lousy movie and we paid good hard-earned money to see it.

1/10
drysf@ - first review
17.12.2002 - age: 50+

Great science-fiction.

10/10
loh@ - first review
17.12.2002 - age: 18-25

Great movie for an above-average intellect. The movie actually gives you something to think about even after you leave the theater. Different from Hollywood mass production movies we are so used to:overpriced, stupid and meant for children or mentally challenged.

9/10
a98311914@ - first review
17.12.2002 - age: 18-25

Note: The user reviews posted on this page are personal opinions of our visitors. We are not responsible for their content.

Click to see more reviews:
[1-50]  [51-100]   [101-145]