Wednesday, June 23, 2010

A Child's Plaything


Evaluating the films of Pixar poses a unique dilemma, as the pictures have praise so readily heaped at their feet that any critic using superlatives must preface the review with something on the order of "Sorry, but I really do think it's that great". In addition to this, since the film's target audience is allegedly children (I would argue that the 'target audience' is really said children's parents, who must take their kids to the latest family fare as surely as they must buy into the latest fad, but I digress), this forces some to attempt to render any effort of examining the film critically in the positive or negative sense moot with the reminder that "It's just a kid's movie". Third, any dissenting opinion generally incites one, if not all, of the following comments: "99% of people like it, therefore the 1% who don't are wrong", "It's just for kids" or "You have no soul/hate children/just want attention/are insane" and so on. Pixar Studio's unique place in modern culture - at once regarded as high art by critics and loved by audiences - creates this flaw in the evaluation of their movies.

All Pixar is wrought with compromise, and the latest installment in the Toy Story franchise is no different. What I find so frustrating about Pixar is that all their films contain hints of what they are capable of if they weren't forced to create art with hundreds of millions of people's expectations in mind, and if ever a film illustrated the folly of giving the people what they want (or what men in suits think they want), Toy Story 3 is it. It begins with a stroking of the audience's nostalgia by providing a literal recreation of the first film's opening sequence, but making it a large scale action set piece invalidates the original's point, which is that imagination is the most exciting thing of all, but that's not even the real problem: the sequence is just mindless, unimaginative spectacle. This proved to be the tipping point that, instead of treading new ground, Pixar is content to simply rehash what has come before.

It's a shame that the plot never becomes anything more than hodgepodge of the first two, because the concept is inspired: Andy, now leaving for college, winds up donating the toys to a local daycare, and the toys band together and believe in each other and work with one another to escape from it (of course, it was a misunderstanding that led to the toys being donated - it would be too harsh for Disney to admit that a young man has no use for hunks of plastic anymore). This would seem to open the door for ruminations on the nature of love and mortality, but as usual with Pixar there is a wide gap between the kind of movie the film's makers wanted to make and what is actually presented on the screen. I respect that they try to lend weight to the characters that have become so iconic, but the fact is that by not exploring the toys' existential crisis more in depth Pixar actually trivializes the suffering they're attempting to depict (and, in some cases, Pixar even plays said suffering for laughs - such as when Barbie™ is abandoned by Andy's sister). It feels as though Toy Story 3 wants to be a much more serious movie than it can possibly be, more serious than it's allowed to be, and this makes much of the largely low brow humor seem disingenuous, as though it wandered in from a different movie. While the first two films had clever writing, Toy Story 3 relies on toilet humor (literally, in one instance) and lowest common denominator pop culture references to provide cheap laughs.

Never has the need for compromise in the work of Pixar been more evident than in the picture's climax, which has already become a famous sequence in its own right. The toys, through a convoluted series of misadventures (no, really) find themselves on a conveyor belt that leads to an incinerator, and this sequence is some of the most effective imagery Pixar has ever created; the flames are animated so vividly that you can almost feel the heat (and I saw it in 2D). This sequence culminates in the most fully realized individual moment in any Pixar film, as the toys fall in to the incinerator and interlock hands with one another, and Woody, always the hero thinking up clever ways of escape, realizes he is powerless and accepts his implicit fate. Only it's not implicit, as a literal Deus Ex Machina comes in to save the day, morphing the sequence from an examination of mortality and family into just another cheap thrill in literally the blink of an eye. Coming from someone who grew up with these films (I was 7 when the first came out), it's impossible to deny this sequence's effect, but it's devoid of any real consequence because it's not even a remote possibility that Pixar will kill the toys, even though that's probably the most fitting ending imaginable. After this, we're given an embarrassingly saccharine ending where Andy gives the toys to a neighbor's child, playing with them one last time before moving into adulthood. It's one of those moments like Pauline Kael described in her review of The Sound of Music, where you can hear all the noses blowing in the theater at once. This is yet another of Pixar's manufactured sentiments, a cheap and borderline insulting attempt to package the depth of human experience in a nice little bow.

All of Pixar's films contain brilliant, fully realized moments, but for every moment they force you to step back and marvel at their artistry there are many more moments that are compromised, mechanical, and banal; context is everything. While Pixar attempts to create art in an environment that exists only to stifle it, they - unwittingly or not - take part in the great lie that we have always told, and will continue to tell, children: that things will always turn out alright in the end if you just have faith, stick together, and believe in each other. The bad guy will get his comeuppance and all will learn a valuable lesson. It's the Disney way.

41 comments:

Tony Dayoub said...

Come by my site later. While I don't plan to directly address your post (which is very well argued... you should blog more often), I should have a response in opposition to someof the points you make here.

Ryan Kelly said...

I'm there, Tony. And thanks for the encouragement... since I published my piece on The Ghost Writer I've been working so much (running back and forth between two jobs) that I've barely had time to watch movies (I was watching between 7 and 8 a week, now more like 3 or 4) let alone write about them. But that's not a good enough excuse anymore. I'm just gonna have to trade sleep, but that's what coffee is for!

Ed Howard said...

"All Pixar is wrought with compromise."

That says it all, and is exactly the point I kept trying to hammer home when Jason and I had our Pixar conversation a while back. I'm always frustrated by the hints of better, more fully realized movies that lurk within each Pixar film, sabotaged by the need to pander, to dilute the seriousness with silliness, to avoid anything too challenging. Ironically, I wouldn't be nearly as peeved if they were just the usual kiddie fare and didn't strive for more - but, of course, since they do make that effort, it's maddening that they can only take it so far before they have to retreat from the implications of their themes.

This is a great piece, Ryan, and I agree with Tony that you should blog more often - though I wouldn't want you to go without sleep for it!

bill r. said...

You're insane.

Also, I haven't seen TOY STORY 3 yet. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Adam Zanzie said...

One thing I do agree with you here on is the toilet humor. I assume you're referring to the "Lincoln Logs" line, which I knew was coming since they kept playing it in the trailers. Pixar is better than that. Pixar didn't make a career off crass humor; the Shrek movies did. Now, of course there was also toilet humor in A Bug's Life, but that shouldn't have been there, either.

I'm less with you there on the criticisms against Toy Story 3's sentimentality. It's like what Eva Yojimbo once said: it's most likely that Lasseter and Lee Unrich made this movie in a sentimental fashion because that's how they really feel about the material. Your complaint that the filmmakers are "lying" to the children in the audience kind of reminded me of the same complaints that Spielberg's work is always getting. Translate "it's Disney Land" into "it's Spielberg Land" and your criticisms would probably have the same meaning.

I wouldn't say that Toy Story 3 transcends as well as Finding Nemo, Ratatouille or Wall-E, but it's got enough soul to prove that it's above cheap box office fodder. Sure, there's no way the toys were ever going to actually be incinerated in the furnace sequence, but as Rob was saying, it was still a nice way of visualizing the crossroads that Pixar has reached.

I also wanted to ask you something, Ryan: did you truly want this movie to end cynically? You said that you found it insulting that Andy would take the time to play with his toys one last time before heading off to college, and I'm curious to know what you would have preferred.

Ryan Kelly said...

Ironically, I wouldn't be nearly as peeved if they were just the usual kiddie fare and didn't strive for more - but, of course, since they do make that effort, it's maddening that they can only take it so far before they have to retreat from the implications of their themes.

That so beautifully sums it up, Ed, and so many give Pixar's films a pass because of this fact, because a 'kid's movie' dares even hint at complex themes we should apparently accept any execution, no matter how underdeveloped (or poorly developed) it may be. When I would criticize Wall-E when it first came out - still the most glaringly compromised of Pixar's films - its defenders would tell me that I had to separate the film's two distinct acts, like it's a different movie. It's all part of the dilemma that I referred to in my opening paragraph.

And thank you very much for the kind words, Ed. Feeling like my writing has been missed is extremely touching, and I'm going to try my hardest to write more consistently.

Ryan Kelly said...

Bill, I'm not insane, I'm an aer-o-plane. How could an aer-o-plane be insane? Get real brutha'.

VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Ryan Kelly said...

Adam, not just the lincoln logs line, but the scene where Woody escapes through the bathroom and throws down a piece of toilet paper onto the seat. I mean, come on... You're right that it doesn't belong in A Bug's Life either, but A Bug's Life is almost as cleverly written as Toy Story, whereas it doesn't even feel to me like Toy Story 3 was written at all. It's little more than a rehash of the first two, and a witless one at that.

My problem with the ending is that it's too concrete a resolution - Spielberg, at his best, challenges you and doesn't wrap things up quite so neatly. But that ending struck me as a phony attempt to connect to my (our?) generation, the ones who grew up with the first two and are just now entering young adulthood. Just like the opening, it's meant to create a feeling of nostalgia and to lift our spirits - but what of the dark themes that are lurking under the surface of the film?

And no, Adam, I didn't 'want' it to end cynically, but once Pixar opened the door to that ending it got me thinking of how stunning it would have been, and how Pixar will never, ever be able to do anything like that so long as DisneyCo distributes their movies. It's heartbreaking and maddening at the same time.

But do you really think the toys dying is cynical? I can't imagine a more fitting end to the series - neither could Pixar, apparently.

Krauthammer said...

I haven't seen Toy Story 3 yet so I can't really judge, but your description pans out with my general impression of Pixar. There are moments at the beginnings of Wall-E and Up, to name the most recent examples, that I genuinely admire, only to almost watch in horror as they become more and more banal and formulaic. I'd still say I like them I suppose, but the praise they've gotten (a recent article compared Toy Story 3 to Da Vinci for God's sake!) has always weirded me out.

Carson said...

Great write-up. I'm with you on Pixar's compromising nature, as well as their half-hearted attempt at moralizing. To me, Toy Story 3, which I saw tonight, is really just a very straightforward action/adventure movie, which was a bit refreshing in comparison to the patronizing message-making of Wall-E and to some extent Up. However, I agree with you that the ending was beyond frustrating. Too many attempts at tear-jerking, when the movie really should have done something unexpected after the incinerator scene. While they were all holding hands, I was genuinely moved, but the claw (once again made into a joke) came in and ruined it. I don't think it would have been cynical to kill off the toys. As you say, the feeling before the claw comes in is actually one of warmth and communitarian spirit. Their death would have been bittersweet, which to me is a lot better than sickly sweet.

Ryan Kelly said...

Krauthammer, you and I seem to have the same general feeling about Pixar, but their pandering seems to be bother me more than it does you. Ultimately, I think Pixar fails at making sophisticated works of art, and I think they fail at making enjoyable movies, and Toy Story 3 is a perfect example of that.

And the comparison to Da Vinci, one of the greatest and most brilliant human beings to have ever lived, is so crazy that it actually depresses me.

Ryan Kelly said...

Carson, I agree with you one hundred percent about Pixar's moralizing, though thankfully it was pretty much absent from Toy Story 3 (unless you count the short Day & Night, which was another of Pixar's condescending indictments of humanity). It's probably why I didn't hate Toy Story 3 as much as I hated their last two. But, like you say, it's pretty much a generic family action/adventure movie that tries to load it with a lot of meaning that, frankly, I don't think is there.

Thanks for reading and for the thoughtful comment.

Sam Juliano said...

It's a great piece, but I don't agree with it.

The overwhelming critical reception for this latest masterpiece is well earned, and I dare say it's a work of extraordinary emotional resonance. I am aware that you haven't issued anything remotely negative, but I would just like to say this film, WALL-E and UP are supreme masterpieces forme, and I do not see anything "wrought with compromise."

Ryan Kelly said...

So does that mean I can assume that your comment left at the estimable Cinema Viewfinder, where you ask why young bloggers choose to 'strut their stuff' by taking a negative stance on Pixar, isn't meant to refer to me, in spite of the fact that my review was the jumping off point for Tony's piece?

I appreciate your support, truly - you've been very kind to me and supportive of my blog, and it means a lot to me - but if you're going to level those accusations I'd prefer that you do so here, and cite evidence from my review and flaws in my argument. As I pointed out in my opening paragraph, the fact that so many like it doesn't invalidate the viewpoint of those who do not.

Sam Juliano said...

Ryan, I'm sorry if I came off as hostile, and no I wasn't speciafically referring to you, but at a youthful critical fraternity that I predicted would run to disparage as soon as I saw this film had received a nearly unanimous 100% crtical concensus from the professional establishment.

I have come here in the past to praise your work, which for a 21 year old has been truly extarordinary. You are also a big favorite with some of the more distingished bloggers for your talent and personality, which I further extend kudos to you for.

However, your own specific contributions aside, I made a written prediction that TOY STORY 3 would be attracting some naysayers in the blogger ranks right after I saw it and observed the overwhelming reaction.

Ryan, you write extremely well, and you are unfailingly polite and affable, but in this instance I'm afraid I must assert that your reaction to this film (and perhaps all other Pixars) are couched in your sensibilities. This is perhaps where a film review doesn't have the same value for some that it has for others. What incited me on a personal level was the insult you regaled the film with at the end, where you compared the emotional ending with Pauline Kael now infamous attack on the nose-blowing conclusion of THE SOUND OF MUSIC. The emotional wallop at the end of TOY STORY 3 was well earned, and not at all the end coda of any kind of sustained saccharine overflow, but as a valid reaction to how much astonishing love that can be bestowed on a pile of plastic.

Ed Howard,another young blogger like yourself with incredible talent (and a person I do admire a lot) joins with you in asserting that "all Pixar is wrought with compromise" and then goes on to charge that there is a lamentable 'lurking,' 'pandering' and 'aversion of real challenge' and then he poses they do go beyond conventional parameters. Look, you can't have it all both ways. Pixar's work has been fully consumated, and it's achive an incredible emotionality that has reached the deepest levels of resonance. The artistry has been on an exceedingly consistent lvel, and the great majority of the ideas have worked.

I will always come back here to read whatever you write, as I do believe you a fine young man (with a bright future) who is always gracious and humble, but I vowed to go to the mat for this film (that had me crying on two occasions), and I need to make clear that if this response is emotional indifference, I have no beef, as therein lies the power of the last three Pixar releases, and the surefire sign of a more complex maturity.

Ryan Kelly said...

Well, you can see how I could assume why I took that as a slight towards me, but you are a man of your word and if you insist it wasn't I believe you. And I'm sorry if I came off as hostile, too (tried my best not to, text can only convey so much), but it seemed that you were accusing me of disliking it on purpose, a pretty serious charge.

But isn't this 'backlash' you refer to an element of healthy discourse? Sure, there are going to be people who dislike it just to get attention - but don't you think that there are just as many people praising it disingenuously, to not rock the boat too much? I read the two dissenting reviews that have 'spoiled' the film's perfect 100 on Rotten Tomatoes, and they're awful. Dreadful pieces of writing, incoherent and mean spirited. I tried my best to engage with the substance of the movie, which I concede is there, but not as developed as I feel it should be. I went in hoping to like it, hoping that it would be as entertaining and poignant as many reviews by many people I respect had led me to believe. The first, as you may know, was and is something of a touchstone movie for me so not liking this new one is something of a disappointment; not exactly a crushing one, but a disappointment nonetheless.

Sam Juliano said...

Aye, it is a healthy discourse Ryan, and I do think enough of our conversation here to log in at an internet cafe around the corner from the Cinema Village, where I will be seeing DOGTOOTH at 8:00 P.M.

As I stated Ryan, I had made a "prediction" well before you ever penned a review, and to be honest I was thinking particularly of another blogger I am associated with, who is pretty much against every ixar release. I assure you (and thanks for your confidence) I wasn't thinking of you and just came to your review as a result of hitting Tony's place first. I know you've been inactive as of late, and was surprsied to see this essay up.

You must understand my mind set Ryan. When I genuinely adore a film (as is the case here as it vies with Audiard's UN PROPHETE as 2010's Best Film thus far) I take no prisoners. If you might recall Igot a little hot at Greg's site over AVATAR. Please don't take it to heart; I genuinely do this out of passion and not to be hurtful.

I do honestly believe that some bloggers will issue contrarian reviewsto stand alone. You are not (and would never be) one of them. You have written nothing but honest and straightforward reviews, and your work has been of the highest caliber. Your popularity as a writer and as a person is a reflection of your stellar online character, if I can be allowed to say so.

I appreciate the engagement, my friend, and again I am sorry for my defensive "mad dog" routine.

Of course I really do love this film so much.

Ryan Kelly said...

No need to apologize, Sam. And if it's any consolation, the people who take negative stances on popular works just to be a rabble rouser make me crazy, as well, because they detract from (and distract from) the meaningful discourse around a work. Tony's piece, which I couldn't disagree with more, is as thoughtful and well argued as any piece on Toy Story 3 on the internet. Ditto Kenju Fufishima's, which is mostly positive, but with reservations. It's about the quality of the argument, not the argument itself.

Adam Zanzie said...

What was condescending about Day and Night?

Ryan Kelly said...

Because it rams the whole "fear of the other" shit down your throat. It was touched on wordlessly but Pixar doesn't trust their audience to pick up on things that are only hinted at, so they always cheapen their ideas with obvious manifestations of them. Ignoring the patronizing message, Pixar expresses that message in a patronizing way by not trusting their audience to pick up on it.

I admired the technique - especially as a fan of animation, the hybrid of 2D and 3D animation was particularly eye popping, and the use of audio was pretty impressive as well - but even at a few minutes long, it was too long.

Sam Juliano said...

Ha Ryan! I saw DOGTOOTH, and hated it! And 88% of the critics loved it.

So now it is I who pratically stands alone!

Ryan Kelly said...

You're just an attention whore!

But seriously, I'm sad to hear that. I have a screener of it waiting for me, so I guess I'll have to make up my own mind...

Adam Zanzie said...

I'm rather confused by your logic, Ryan... "fear of the other"? That's not really patronizing messagery; it's just a type of story. What's patronizing about it? Aren't Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland and especially The Fox and the Hound all about different species/races that initially have prejudice against one another? What Day and Night does is follow the formula of those movies and then find a creative, unique way of its own. It has things I've never seen before.

Would you mind elaborating? I'm just having a difficult time imagining why Day and Night could be offensive. That's a little like charging that Geri's Game is "condescending" because it might supposedly imply that old men are so pathetic that they have nobody to play chess with except themselves.

Sam Juliano said...

LOL Ryan!!!!!

I am facing some heat from others on DOGTOOTH, and one even astutely noticed I hadn't liked HEADLESS WOMAN, nor OLDBOY, so he expected my reaction. You may wind up loving the film, but you'll have to have a strong stomach, even with the parody. I did like ANTI CHRIST though, so it wasn't only the violence, but an aversion to it's disjointed narrative arc and what seemed to be some obvious padding.

I must say that Drew McIntosh, in a divided response really sized this one up beautifully.

Ryan Kelly said...

I never said it was offensive, just patronizing and not as effective as it could have been, because Pixar felt the need to explain through dialogue that which was expressed through images perfectly (when they wind up at the radio station and they hear the speech about the 'feat of the other' - because they have to make movies with the morons who won't get the point in mind). This is the critical flaw of their work, that they don't trust their audience to do any work on their own. I liked it just fine, as I do most Pixar shorts, but it illustrates my big problem with them - inventive use of technique, but in service of a fairly obvious message boiled down to its simplistic essence so as to not ruffle anyone's feathers.

Tony Dayoub said...

The major flaw in your argument is you're not judging the movie on its own terms. You're judging it according to criteria you've set on what you would like the film to be, not those it has set for itself.

Pixar movies are aimed at a younger audience with sufficient material to sustain interest in adults. It is not the other way around. This seems to be the crux of the argument.

You are disappointed because it doesn't speak to you. I, on the other hand, am satisfied with the fact that it speaks to my children and includes me in the conversation.

Now if that makes the film commercial, so be it. I don't believe Pixar movies have ever held themselves up to be anything else (critics may have). But great works of art have and can still be created under the constraints of commercial intent.

Ryan Kelly said...

That's fair, Tony, but I'm also not judging it by the standard of it being a 'children's movie'. I don't hold anything that's marketed towards the children/family demographic to a different standard, you may say that's because I don't have kids, but I also don't see why they should be treated differently. I don't think Happy Feet or Miyazaki or Fantastic Mr. Fox is great in terms of art for children, I just think they're great. Holding Toy Story 3 to those standards, or even the standards set by the first two, doesn't endear the movie to me any more.

And I confess that I'm, in part, judging the movie by what I would like it to be. But not totally (isn't that kind of unavoidable with a sequel, anyway?). I did love the first movie to death growing up, and it will always be an important movie for me, so I have complaints on the fan-expectation level, but those I can set aside, because no sequel is ever going to please everyone. The story was basically a retread of the first two, and I didn't find it engaging on an emotional level, as many have. Basically, I wasn't entertained and I wasn't moved. I don't have the ability to see it through the eyes of a child, even though the film tried to forge a connection to my childhood with references to the first two.

Roger L. said...

Are you sure you meant to say "Happy Feet"?

I have to agree with Mr. Kelly that the film seems more dependant upon our love of the first 2 and the characters rather than earning or exploring what is suggested in the text but not _of_ the subtext. That's okay, but to suggest this film is "darker" or concerned about mortality is to misread what viewers are bringing into it. TS3 seems very much an adventure yarn with, as Ryan says, more convenient mishaps than true plot developments.

R

Tony Dayoub said...

Only a superficial reading would ignore the allusions to mortality which don't lay too sub- in the text, Roger. Ignoring the films apocalyptic bookends as a rather obvious example, the initial parallels between Sunnyside Daycare to a stagnant and often life-threatening (or at the very least, life-diminishing) retirement home foreground the film's concerns with quality of life issues which generally rear their head at the end of one's life.

Thomas said...

I'm glad I saw your review Ryan, I was going to bring my little siter to see this movie.

Ryan Kelly said...

Thomas, while I find it very flattering that my review was persuasive enough to dissuade you from seeing the movie, that was in no way my intent, as little as I care for Toy Story 3. I'm not a critic who attempts to be a what to watch guide and, in fact, write my reviews assuming that anyone who reads it has seen the movie. What I hope for most is that I convey my feelings about a particular movie and, whether you agree or disagree, you at least see where I'm coming from. Plus, everyone I know with kids says they loved it, so if you're looking for something to make yous sister happy, Toy Story 3 is probably it.

Thomas said...

Excuse me Ryan, I didn't know until I posted that my username didn't appear. This is Webized.


Even though It's been a long time since I've seen any of the Pixar/Dreamworks movies, we both share fond memories of growing up to Toy Story, when it was released. It was something new. Now, well, cgi has gone to television as well, Jimmy Neutron being one popular example. Actually, I had passed by Cartoon Network the other day, and discovered this new "Garfield" cartoon. I don't know what It's called exactly, but it's horrendous! Then again, I know Garfield by the cartoon from the early 90s, "Garfield and Friends". Also, I haven't seen either of the movies that came out, and don't plan on it.


Anyway, my little sister isn't THAT little, she's in her early teens. It's unlikely we were even going to see TS3 together anyway. I'm probably a little guilty of just wanting to say hello. I've read your blog for a while now, and enjoy it. I especially liked your piece on Fort Lee and the early days of cinema.

Ryan Kelly said...

Oh, that Thomas. How the hell are ya dude? It's been too long!

I agree that there was a certain freshness to Toy Story when it first came out - how many films can really claim to be the first of a kind? - a freshness I feel it retains in spite of the proliferation of computer animated films, the films of Pixar included. I hope that's not nostalgia talking, but I really do think the film is remarkable - and it's perfect that the first CGI animated movie is about the old fearing the new (a theme Pixar would rehash over... and over... and over...). It's not just that computer animated films are so common now, but that so many of them are uninspired; the last American one that I really, really love is Miller's Happy Feet.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by. Don't be a stranger! Maybe we could get together sometime.

Lianna Albrizio said...

Out of curiosity, how would YOU have liked to see the movie end? :)

Ryan Kelly said...

In a way that wasn't a cheap saccharine cop out. As Tony says, we have to judge the movie by what it is as opposed to what it isn't, but in the case of Pixar it's hard to not imagine what it could have been if they weren't as rigidly married to formula as the are.

how to download movies for free said...

Toy story do have made children happy by familiarizing with lots of new toys that they do adore. Not only children love them but I do also like the toys and really feels that such kind movie should be made.

Anonymous said...

omuuzush [url=http://www.monclerjackennoutlets.info/]www.monclerjackennoutlets.info[/url] kvpwycsl ixmdwt pzbegr [url=http://www.longchampoutletsttaschen.info/]longchamp le pliage[/url] zitfay [url=http://sbac.org/de/monclereaby.aspx]moncler[/url] oyuxmv [url=http://www.deralphlaurensaleoutlet.info/]ralph lauren online shop[/url] oemkdmsr [url=http://www.monclerjackennoutlets.info/]moncler[/url] aycarl [url=http://www.glouisvuittontaschenoutlet.info/]louis vuitton outlet[/url] uzcwru gxtfyid kcffiaaax

Anonymous said...

Security is needed for a secured financial loan remember that need easily will not be tough to achieve [url=http://www.fasttemporarycarinsurance.co.uk/]1 day car insurance[/url] temporary car insurance These kinds of financial institutions offer suddenly the best way Fifteen hundred as loan amount http://www.dyjku.co.uk/

Anonymous said...

If all your credit credit cards have large interest rate therefore you can't take care of it nowadays, you might like to consult an expert to get advice [url=http://www.payday-weirdo.co.uk/]pay day loans[/url] pay day loans Quote, however, that you can be finding a lot of calling from extreme brokers http://www.paydayfreakuk.co.uk/

Anonymous said...

Hmm it appears like your blog ate my first comment (it was super
long) so I guess I'll just sum it up what I submitted and say, I'm
thoroughly enjoying your blog. I too am an aspiring blog blogger but
I'm still new to the whole thing. Do you have any helpful hints for inexperienced blog writers? I'd definitely appreciate it.


Feel free to surf to my blog post - massachusetts auto insurance

Anonymous said...

This options may include, like arrest when the jackpot is won, [url=http://www.bbvcpaydayloans.co.uk/]http://ukpaydayloans.blog.co.uk/[/url] payday loans entirely chips put but wickedness until, appearing out-of-nowhere and simply seconds ahead you force past it, is the over-embellished flashing neon mark to the casino entree. http://www.oiupaydayloans.co.uk/