Devs (TV Mini Series 2020) Poster

(2020)

User Reviews

Review this title
712 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Brilliant.
jdrosen-16 March 2020
Ponderous. Strange. Tense. Artistic. It's a brilliant piece of filmmaking that won't appeal to everyone. But if you like thoughtful scifi with strong drama and plot twists, this is for you. A bit of Kubrick meets Nolan. I loved the first two episodes and can't wait for more!
299 out of 399 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
What makes us human?
lee_eisenberg5 June 2020
Alex Garland's "Devs" is one of the most complex shows that I've ever seen. There have been plenty of techno-thrillers, but not like this one. Like "The Good Place", it focuses on what it means to be human. If you only know Nick Offerman from comedic roles, you'll be impressed with his performance here.
62 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great show with the most unlikeable lead character ever
The whole atmosphere and story is amazing, but I really can't figure out why the lead actor was chosen. She's as interesting as watching the grass grow, and as deep as a sheet of paper.
414 out of 615 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
DEVS may need a little more time to find its audience, but eventually it will
gogoschka-116 May 2020
Describing what Alex Garland's DEVS is about would be spoiling it, which makes it a show that isn't easy to sell or advertise. And indeed, judging from the votes and reviews here on IMDb, it hasn't quite found its audience yet - and that, my friends, is a shame. This show, or rather this mini-series (consisting of 8 episodes), is excellent. Though granted: it's not for everyone. Some have described it as slow, but I'm not sure I agree. Moody perhaps, and there is an almost "ethereal" quality about it (for lack of a better word), but there is so much going on and it's such a thematically rich narrative that I was mesmerized throughout.

Also, there's a lot of understated humor in this compelling tale (if of the darker sort), and it would be a pity if people were turned off by certain reviews because they thought this was some bleak and depressive slog. What is true though is that if you don't find the central themes and ideas around which this show is built fascinating, there's a chance you won't like it (again: finding out what the show is about is part of the fun, so I won't give it away).

But even if DEVS' most satisfying thrills lie more in the concepts presented and less in spectacular action scenes or special effects, its structure is still that of a violent mystery thriller, and the production values are great. Every frame in this show looks gorgeous; the cast - especially Nick Offerman in an unusual turn (whose casting was simply a stroke of genius) and Zach Grenier (in a darkly funny role also playing against type) - is fantastic, and the show's unique, almost transcendent atmosphere is enhanced by a beautiful and haunting musical score by Geoff Barrow, The Insects and Ben Salisbury.

Admittedly, I'm a sci-fi nerd - and one who loved all of writer/director Alex Garland's previous work at that - but as far as I'm concerned, the creative mind behind such films as SUNSHINE, EX MACHINA or ANNIHILATION has once again crafted a beautiful and compelling piece of science fiction that confronts the viewer with fascinating ideas and philosophical questions (btw. if you want to check whether my taste in films generally aligns with yours or not, just click on my name at the beginning of this review and you'll find a list of my fifty favorite films).

DEVS may need a little more time to find its audience, but this mini-series is simply too good to be ignored. I'm positive it won't be for long.
296 out of 340 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Shocked by the poor reviews
jadyn-thomas5 March 2020
At the time of writing this, I'm surprised to see a handful of poor reviews and can't help but wonder if we watched the same thing? I think Devs is quickly becoming my favorite series and it has only just begun.

Alex Garland's writing and direction are on point. The cinematography was amazing, every frame a painting. Casting is on point and the actors are believable in their roles. Loving Nick Offerman's range as we see him in a more dramatic role.

Overall it's the perfect amount of SciFi, Mystery and Philosophy for me. I don't feel any drag if exposition as I'm still very curious to learn more about this world. My only complaint is the Hulu format of making us wait a week for each episode - but hey, I'll take it.
439 out of 605 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Interesting, intelligent science fiction
Tweekums18 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Lily and her boyfriend Sergei work at Amaya, a company involved in quantum computing. Forest, the company's CEO invites Sergei to join 'Devs' the companies secretive research department. He never returns from his first day working there... CCTV shows him departing then returning later and setting himself on fire. Lily can't believe that he killed himself and starts trying to uncover the truth. She learns things about Sergei she never imagined and later realises she is in danger too. Meanwhile we see what is going on within Devs and learn just how powerful it is with implications that would change the opinions on the very nature of existence.

I really enjoyed this series; it raised lots of interesting ideas and kept me gripped from start to finish. There may be no mystery about what really happened to Sergei, the audience is shown what really happened, but that didn't make Lily's search for the truth any less interesting. The scenes inside Devs were just as interesting; the site is impressively designed and even though many of the scenes moved at a deliberately glacial pace I was never bored. Much of what we see is clearly meant to be symbolic; Forest may state that he knows there is no God or higher power but there is frequent religious imagery. I know a lot of reviewers didn't like the casting but it worked for me; Nick Offerman stood out as the morally ambiguous Forest; Sonoya Mizuno may not be a typical lead but for me she worked as Lily Chan; Cailee Spaeny's casting as Lyndon was most interesting as a young woman playing a boy created further ambiguity. Overall I'd say that this won't be for everybody but it really worked for me; I liked the ideas, the look and the way the story was ultimately resolved.
67 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good show. OK ending. Lead character annoying
crstuder8716 April 2020
Overall great show that is worth watching. I only have two complaints. The lead character annoyed me and I found myself not caring about what happened to her. I'm not sure if she was purposely written this way, but I found myself just tolerating her for the story, which was mostly great. This leads me to my second complaint, the ending. It wasn't bad. It was just a "yeah that's fine I guess" type of thing, which is not what I had hoped for after such a great story up until than. These two complaints are still well worth putting up with to watch the show. Also, Nick Offerman nailed his role in this.
191 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Beautiful to look at, haunting to listen to. Substance? I think so.
octomancer18 April 2020
From the first few seconds the haunting music grabbed me. Throughout I thought the sound design was mesmerising and really added a lot to the mix. The DEVS installation itself is a wonderful artistic creation with its square fractal design. The whole thing beautifully photographed.

So the real question is, does it have anything to say? I have to admit, my opinion of this existed in a superposition of states (sorry) most of the way through. I flip-flopped from "It's genius" to "It's pretentious rubbish" many times. Ultimately though, the science is authentic. I have tried to absorb as much about quantum physics as I can, short of actually trying to learn the mathematics, and it seems to me that all the science in this is spot on.

I thought the human side of the story was very good too. The characterisation was very good and all the characters made reasonable, human type decisions, not plot-driven decisions as is too often the case in any fiction. Determinism and free will were explored. I loved the messianic themes too.

There's no denying that it is slow and ponderous at times, but I found that the artistic photography and haunting sound design was more than enough to carry me through. The pacing and sparsity of this reminded me of Sharp Objects, which I also loved, although I'll admit the central acting performances in SO were of much higher quality.

I absolutely loved this from start to finish. After I watched S1E2 on a Thursday night, I had binged the rest of the episodes before noon on Saturday.

You might love it, you might hate it. I suggest you give it a chance :-)
76 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Somewhat pretentious
ukbiffa5 April 2020
Just finished episode 5. A lot of the reviews complain about the lead, but I found Alison Pill far more obnoxious. There are too many sociopaths in the show, some it seems you are meant to feel some level of empathy for. The sci-fi aspects often remind me of films of the 70s, which I did enjoy. And Jin Ha is a definite bright spot.
44 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Mesmerizing philosophical TV
cherold2 July 2020
If you're a fan of Alex Garland's films Ex Machine and Annihilation you should know what to expect of Devs: striking visuals, a mesmerizing story, a bunch of deep philosophy, a ton of uncertainty, and some really depressing stuff.

The story involves a young woman investigating a tech company with a mysterious division called DEVS. DEVS is doing some nutty stuff, nutty people are doing that stuff, and some of those nutty people are acting like pschopaths.

Philosophically the movie explores determinism and multiple worlds, and I found some of it unconvincing at first. But when I read some threads on reddit I realized that even some of the least convincing things make sense if looked at from the right angle.

Which is to say, at the end of this you'll have questions and you'll find there are multiple answers. And if you know Alex Garland, that's exactly what you'd expect.
67 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Some lousy devs...
vegeta-julian17 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It really annoys me that at no point no one ever even tried to not do what they saw in their prediction. That should be one of the first things a developer does with a system like this: See what happens when you try to break it.

Lily seems to be the first one ever to see the prediction and willfully decide to act against it.

Overall, the cinematography of the whole season was good, the sound design was very weird most of the time (to be expected, so not a complaint), but it felt like it lived a bit short off the potential it had.
37 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great story. W-E-A-K actress.
cjwsbw15 March 2020
Great story. I'll watch the entire series, but not because of Sonoya Mizuno She is NOT a headliner. Not even close. More like a first week acting student...not convincing at all.
273 out of 438 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Interesting story, horrible lead actress
tchriste52-807-23359012 April 2020
The story is interesting and binge-worthy on a rainy day or during a quarantine. I don't see the point, however, for the very, very irritatingly slow pace as this isn't artsy enough to warrant it. I've made it through to episode 7 and every week the actress playing Lily gets more and more impossible to watch. There's no sugar coating the fact she can't act. Everyone else is terrific which puts a spotlight on Sonoya Mizuno's vast shortcomings.
39 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
So much promise.
psychotaff28 April 2020
The first few episodes show so much promise. But overall this series suffers from an affliction that a lot of the current tv series suffer from. The idea for a decent 2 hour movie spread over 8 hours. It sprawls out and relaxes, loses any sense of urgency and puts the viewer in a virtual coma. A great movie and idea given too much room to spread out. "Slow tv" I guess it's called. "Coma tv" would be more accurate.
190 out of 300 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Brilliant is too weak of a word for this show.
deloudelouvain11 May 2020
In all fairness I have absolutely no clue why somebody would rate this show negatively. I thought it was just brilliant, probably one of the best writing of a show I've ever seen. You have to pay close attention though, to be able to understand the whole story. I guess those negative reviews come from people that just want a show where you have not to think at all, or maybe it's just too complicated for them to understand. Anyway, everybody is entitled to his opinion, mine is for sure super positive. I binge watched this show in two days, and after seeing the end I understand there won't be a second season. It's a nice ending, can't see anything to add to it, so it's a one season show. And that's understandable but still it makes me a bit sad. Devs is definitely one of the better shows I've seen in a long time. I also don't get why people are bashing Sonoya Mizuno, to me she did a good job playing her character. Nick Offerman was my favorite though. I've been a big fan of him since Parks and Recreation and was very curious if he could play something else than comedies. Here he showed us he's a really good actor, I'm glad he did this show, it will open doors for him and I will watch everything he acts in. Devs is futuristic, the kind of sci-fi that makes you think, dream and wonder. Every episode is a surprise you won't see coming. I've been blown away by the quality of the writing. Whoever wrote this is a genious and should make more of these gems.
64 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Open your mind
holmes35 March 2020
If you have seen any of Garland's works, you pretty immediately know what kind of journey you are in for. With ex-Machina being extremely well thought through as a three-act story and Annihilation being a wile goose chase, this series so far falls in between. Personally, from the first 2 episodes I attained just enough apéritif ahead of the main dish of this story. Creepy mood? Hackers? Meta? Mysterious machine? Even more mysterious Nick Offerman? Sign me up! My advice is let go of the prejudices of our real world and let the story guide you step by step
131 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Time disappeared watching this.
FKDZ1 May 2022
If you like anything Alex Garland don't continue reading and start watching. This is a phenomenal little mini series. I'm a bit based as I love these sci-fi tech themed shows and movies and this is just that. The acting is fantastic, directing even better and the story is great. Also the sound design needs a special shout out, it's weird, it's interesting and most of all engaging. I love the main theme with the saxophone...so good.

In general the show might act a bit more abstract and weird than the story essentially is. The story is simple. The concept's that enable it are the ones that are abstract and will wreck your brain. But also leave you with a infinite amount of unanswered questions.

Set design also deserves a shout out as the location is stunning, in and out. VFX work is very good all around, especially the particle effects. But the big Amaya statue never really seems real which just made it look even more out of place. Also *the* reveal scene for Forest...honestly a huge mistake imo to not have the VFX done better there, I laughed (sadly). Action (not much of it) is done well though.

Overall another really good show. Really remined me (as a story) of the Black Mirror episode, San Junipero. Which I loved. Can't wait to see more from Garland.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lifeless acting makes this show hard to enjoy
butcherbob10 April 2020
The show has some good ideas but the implementation and acting ruins it. The acting comes across as trying too hard to be understated and the result is just lifeless.

The main actress is particularly bad but even the other actors are terrible. Everyone in this show speaks their lines without any emotion. Even when people die right in front of them they just continue to half-whisper with toneless voices. It makes it impossible to become immersed in a show when the way people talk is so unnatural.
199 out of 331 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Art Is Subjective
brklynbomber6 March 2020
This show proves one thing to be true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How anyone can watch this show and give it a low rating is beyond me. I really want to know what these perfectionists find to be acceptable viewing. This show is amazing!
126 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Very interesting but...
sasquach17 March 2020
The lead actress Lilly is just plain irritating. I really hope they kill her off at some point. Wishful thinking however her presence is annoying
161 out of 301 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great show minus Sonoya Mizuno
tuzzolojoe-143133 April 2020
First, let me start off by saying the story itself is fresh, creative and interesting. Definitely worth giving a shot if you're into the psychological thriller genre. For the most part, casting is on point. Nick Offerman as Forest, the enigmatic CEO of Amaya and Zach Grenier as Kenton, the Ex-CIA officer turned to head of Amaya security are both phenomenal in their roles. Offerman plays the role of his career, while Greniers character is this shows Mike Ehrmantraut. On the opposite end, the main protagonist and heroine, Lily, played by Sonoya Mizuno, is a gigantic casting error. She is by far the only quarrel that I have with the show itself and it's to the point where it becomes annoying because she lacks the qualities that a protagonist should have. Shes extremely monotone and has the same facial expressions regardless of her emotions. All in all, worth a watch. Recommended if you can bare with Mizunos acting.
131 out of 221 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Quantum of solace
southdavid17 June 2020
I'll believe you if you tell me that you enjoyed the artistic flourishes that Alex Garland sprinkles throughout this mini-series, but for me it bloated a decent two hour film into an eight hour experience that I nearly gave up on so many times.

The story revolves around Lily Chan (Sonoya Mizuno) whose boyfriend Sergei (Karl Glusman) apparently commits suicide following his first day working in the secretive Devs department of the tech company they both work for. With the help of her ex-boyfriend Jamie (Jin Ha) Lily tries to uncover the truth about what happened to Sergei and what happens in the highly funded secret department.

There's lots of this show that I liked. Really liked. Sonoya Mizuno is great, as is Jin Ha. Nick Offerman adds a lot as the leader of the tech firm whose interest has focused on the DEVS department since the death of his wife and daughter. The performance is very vulnerable, which is different from the roles that he is more commonly associated with. I liked the bones of the story too, even the conclusion that I can imagine would have lost some people with its "what is life really" philosophical ending, but I quite appreciated that.

But as I say, my issue was that there's maybe two hours of material in this that's worthwhile and it's padded by lots of slow motion establishing shots of San Francisco, or the woods around the campus. I also hated the musical choices, mostly ambient style electronica that sits over these many and various establishing shots. There are aspects of the story that could have been cut without too much of a loss. Did we need to spend so much time on the Russian Conspiracy aspect? Or with the other members of the DEVS team? I feel like rather than giving Garland the chance to tell the story properly, the extra time was just space that needed to be filled and so filled, and stretched it was, but to its own detriment.
23 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Hooked up from the first minute
aposva6 March 2020
I was looking forward for anything new from Alex Garland because i liked everything he has done and i wasn't disappointed! It is mind bending and thrilling. I am looking forward for the next episodes.
88 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The espionage aspect of this ...
MetroSkunk21 May 2020
... show is far more interesting than the sci-fi part. Two things annoyed the hell out of me watching this. Lily is the most lifeless, boring character imaginable. Everything she says sounds like she's out of breath. Did she smile once the entire series? Second, there was too much artsy-fartsy stuff thrown in for looks and no purpose. Best example, that giant statue of his daughter. Just dumb. Also, the loud orchestral music during the roaming environmental scenes was irritating. There was too much effort making this series seem more thought provoking than it needed to be.
17 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Making sense of DEVS
griper25 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I will not go into the details of the acting or directing here. In my view all of these are fairly average. One should be allowed only so many shots with a character staring in a distance for a protracted time after all, and it definitely feels like in this show 20% of screen time are just those. I mention this because for me it is one of these red flags predicting that the movie or show is trying to look deep, while being shallow in reality. Another flag is gratuitous invocation of Bible references. The show is also full of them.

Here I am trying to make sense of the plot, so major spoilers ahead.

The plot has a central fantastic assumption that qualified the show as sci-fi. The assumption is that a Silicon Valley company developed a computer that can model the Universe precisely. To me it sounds more like a fantasy than a science fiction. It is absolutely impossible and one of the reasons is even mentioned in the show. The most compact and precise model of the universe is an identical universe. Everything else is a model, which would behave like an original only in a range of conditions. And how did they collect the data about everything in the universe? How did they know what to collect? They have to know how everything in the universe really works to build that kind of model. As I said, this is not science fiction.

So having that out of the way, let's give the show its main premise and move on. The plot is briefly described below, so major spoilers ahead.

1. Forrest and Katie based their project on the idea of absolute determinism. Everything is determined by the prior events starting from Big Bang. If they can model the reality precisely, they can look into the future and the past as far as they want. But the images of the past generated by their computer a fuzzy and silent.

Lyndon (Cailee Spaeny), a very young genius member of the team is dissenting from this absolutely deterministic view. She creates a new model which is based on Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation and reprograms the machine in accordance with it. The multiverse theory posits that everything that can happen happens. Every event creates a new universe where this event has happened and the other one where it has not. This is, of course, not a provable theory since there is no way to observe these other universes. The machine programmed according to this explanation suddenly starts producing crystal clear images and sounds of the past. Lyndon and the team are elated by success, but Forrest, instead of praising Lyndon for her achievement, fires her. Many-worlds is a wrong explanation for Forrest. For his personal reasons he needs absolute determinism to justify himself in the tragic auto accident, where his wife and daughter were killed. He needs a certainty that it could not have happened in any other way.

>>> Does it make any sense? How could an introduction of a many-worlds model improve the predictions? If anything could happen, then the machine would not have been able to interpolate any events at all! Every run should have produced different results, but in the show it does not. The machine's projections are still entirely deterministic.

2. Katie suggests Lyndon a weird test of her belief in many-worlds theory. She says that if Lyndon would make a dangerous trick of standing on the edge of bride, she will get her back in DEVS. If Lyndon really believes in many worlds, Katie says, she should not be afraid to die because in some other world she definitely would not and getting back to DEVS is, in fact, a certainty. Lyndon fails and falls from the bridge.

>>> This is one of most non-sensical things in the plot. First of all, it is not clear why Katie wants Lyndon dead. Katie also believes in many-worlds theory and she either should facilitate taking her back or not. What was the reason for killing her?

>>> The test suggested by Katie does not make sense either and "smart" Lyndon is unable to see through it. Following Katie's own logic in some other universe Lyndon has always stayed in DEVS and this conversation between them has never happened. Does it make this Lyndon in this universe any happier? Is it relevant to her in any way? The only result of the test is that she dies, there is no other. Basically pure suicide for no reason.

>>> During this conversation Katie also tells that she knows what exactly would happen to Lyndon, whether she survives the test or falls. She says that she saw the prediction from the DEVS machine. This does not make any sense either. If many-worlds theory is true, which of these worlds machine has predicted?

3. Lily and Jamie decide to thwart the predictions by staying all day at home. Loose canon Kenton comes to their apartment in the last ditch attempt to contain the spread of information about his crimes. He kills Jamie, but gets killed himself. Lily survives, picks up Kenton's gun and goes to DEVS campus.

>>> It is not explained why she decides to do that. We can only guess that she wants a exact a revenge on Forrest for exterminating all her boyfriends and attempting to kill her. Nevertheless, she follows the prediction she was eager to break earlier and prove Katie wrong. This is sort of trope in sci-fi exploring the determinism when a protagonist is forced to do something predetermined even when he is aware of a prediction and wants to break it. Typically this involves some other actor or series of events which limit the choices of the protagonist forcing him into fulfilling the unwanted prediction. In this show the author does not even bother to make it believable.

4. Lily arrives in DEVS lab, where Forrest shows her a machine's prediction of how events are going to unfold further. Machine predicts that Lily would kill Forrest and die herself as well because her bullet will breach the containment and she would be exposed to near vacuum. Everything unfolds exactly as predicted until a moment when Lily is supposed to pull the trigger. Instead she just drops the gun out of her reach. The fated outcome still occurs thanks to one of the DEVs, Stewart, triggering the breach of containment himself. Both Lily and Forrest die by asphyxiation. Katie understands that the machine's predictions were failing past this point because Lily used her free will to thwart them.

>>> Another plot move which completely defies any logical explanation. Why only Lily was capable to behave in way not predicted by the machine? Why anyone else could not? It seems pretty easy to behave in way contradicting a prediction. Why machine was unable to predict the move made by Lily while succeeding in predicting everyone else? What was so special about this decision that made it so unpredictable?

5. Lily suddenly finds herself in the scene which opened show in the first episode. She and Sergei are going to work. Lily perceives this as a massive deja-vu until she meets Forrest, who provides the explanation of her life-after-death existence. They are both not a real people, but just a simulations inside the machine, which modeled a better universe for them. One where Forrest's family is still alive, as well as both of Lily's boyfriends. They are the only people in this simulation who know about the existence of the real world and have a memory of it. Everyone else in this simulation think that it is a reality. Despite knowing that the only choice they have is to enjoy the rest of their lives in the simulation surrounded by the people they love and it is a great outcome to be appreciated.

>>> Did not expect that. Why would Forrest arrange for such a thing? Did he just liked an idea of a computer running a simulation of him after he dies? What difference did it make for him? His own family is still dead and now he is dead as well. The whole upload thing makes as much sense as caring about other universe in many-worlds interpretation. Yes, there might be some other world or a computer simulation where things are different, but why would one care? It is not you who is in them. If you die, you die and that's it. Some hypothetical guy like you in another universe is not you as well as a piece of software is not you.

>>> It is quite an ethical conundrum as well. The people inside the simulation are sentient entities indistinguishable from humans. Does one have a moral right to create them and make them play by the rules one defined at his pleasure?

As you can see, I was not able to make much sense out of the DEVS plot. It seems to me confused and full of logical holes. I am very disappointed with these shortcomings. I think that stories must make sense in some way to be satisfying. But that's just me.
176 out of 279 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed