Madame X (1937) Poster

(1937)

User Reviews

Review this title
20 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A Brilliant Performance By Gladys George!
Handlinghandel3 November 2004
Other versions of this women's picture I have seen are creaky. This one is not melodrama, or doesn't play like it. It is drama, thanks to its title character.

Gladys George is a sadly neglected actress who worked steadily for her short life. She was attractive but, as in this movie, willing to look like a sloven if the script called for that. Her gravely voice was unique. And what skills as an actress!

The rest of this is more stylishly directed than other versions of "Madame X." But the other performers are mediocre.

This is a must-see for a performance that truly ought to have won an Academy Award for Ms. George.
29 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Gladys George as Madame X
blanche-29 September 2010
Gladys George is "Madame X" in this 1937 version of the famous story - it's 1937, and this is already the second remake. The first was in 1929. The film also stars Warren William, John Beal, and Henry Daniell.

MGM pared down this production after a deal fell through which would have brought Tyrone Power in as Jacqueline's adult son and Shirley Temple in "The Wizard of Oz" from Fox and taken Gable and Harlow to Fox for "In Old Chicago." Harlow's death killed the deal, and I think all of the actors involved were better for it, except, of course, for Harlow. Power got to star in the important "In Old Chicago" instead of a supporting role; Judy Garland ended up as Dorothy; and Gable was able to stay away from another disaster film after "San Francisco."

There are story differences from the 1966 Lana Turner film, and I'm not sure which version is more accurate to the book. One thing that is definitely more accurate is Jacqueline's addiction to absinthe in the 1966 version, which isn't mentioned in 1937. Since the 1929 version has the alternate title of "Absinthe," I guess it was part of that script, and most likely the book a well. In this version, Jacqueline is thrown out by her husband (Warren William) for infidelity, and the boyfriend is murdered by another woman; William doesn't have a mother who engineers the exile to avoid a scandal after the accidental death of a man pursuing Jacqueline. The rest of the story is about the same.

Warren William by this time was playing flirtatious detectives - this role really hearkens back to the days when he played a villain, and he's very good. Henry Daniell is excellent as the blackmailer. John Beal, as Jacqueline's son, is so handsome in a Tyrone Power-esquire way, and he has a big, melodramatic monologue in court toward the end of the film. He does a great job, though of course the acting style today seems over the top. I had the pleasure of meeting him many years ago, and he was a lovely man. Though he never achieved stardom, he worked constantly through the '30s and '40s in film, constantly in television through the '50s, and through the '60s to the '90s, alternated between stage, film, and television.

This brings me to Gladys George, who wound up in supporting roles shortly after this film. George is magnificent as Jacqueline. A beautiful woman and great actress, she certainly showed in this film what she was capable of. She went on giving wonderful performances until her sad death in 1954 from a stroke, complicated by cirrhosis of the liver. Difficult personal problems definitely affected her career, but she left a fine legacy, "Madame X" being but one.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A little forgiveness never hurt
sol-kay2 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** Spectacular five handkerchief tear-jerker about a woman Jacqeline Fleuriot, Gladys George, who ends up losing everything in her having an affair behind her husband's Bernard, Warren William, back that lead to her lover Jean's, Phillip Rochin, murder! By Jean's wife the outraged and mad as hell Annatte, Ruth Hussey, who caught him in the act!

As all this was going on The Fleuriot's 14 year old son Ramound, John Beal, was bed ridden suffering for pneumonia that with the help of family doctor LaFarge, George Zucco, pulled through! With her being exposed as an adulteress Jacqeline is forced into exile by her stern husband Bernard never to see him and her young son Jean again. That's until some 20 years later when after that low life swine Mr. LeRocle, Harry Danell, finds her in some dive hotel in Buenos Aires and after paying her rent, which she didn't have, finds out that she's the former wife of the great Bernard Fleuriot the most respective lawyer in all of Paris! Back in the city of lights LeRocle concocts a blackmail scheme to shake down Bernard which by exposing his wife as a downtrodden drunk and bag lady has Jacqeline in a fit of madness gun the guy down before he can put in into motion!

****SPOILERS*** Now on trial for her life and not caring if she lives or dies Jacqueline, in not having a Penny to her name, is given a public defender who just happens to be her son Raymond! It's as if fate brought the entire Fleuriot family together under the most extraordinary of circumstances!

The movies power packed ending has to be seen to be believed with Raymond defending his mother, whom he doesn't realize that she is, as his father Bernard who's attending the trial realizes what a monster he was in forcing her into the sad situation that she now finds herself in! Killing someone, LeRocle, to protect his good name as well as the emotional stability of her son Raymond who's been told all these years by his father that his mother is dead! The last five minutes of the movie is about the most heart wrenching scene ever put on film with Raymond arguing his case before the jury not knowing that the person he's trying to save is his tearful mother who sadly never lives to see or hear the verdict!
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tearjerker Extraordinaire!
gregcouture5 November 2004
Turner Classic Movies showed this a few days ago and, curious to see how it differed from the glossy Lana Turner/Ross Hunter-produced Technicolor version of almost thirty years later, I tuned in. There were a few differences, of course, in the way the familiar plot was developed, but, oh my goodness! Gladys George just blew me away! She towered above the proceedings with a performance that is just amazing.

TCM's host, Robert Osborne, in some concluding remarks after the film's closing scene faded from the tube, advised that Tyrone Power was to have been loaned to appear as Ms. George's son in this version, in a complex deal with 20th Century Fox that involved Clark Gable and Jean Harlow (from the M-G-M side of the ledger) and Shirley Temple and Tyrone from 20th. But Harlow's sudden death caused the deal to fall through (thus permitting posterity to be graced with Judy Garland as Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz" rather than Shirley, whom M-G-M had really wanted for their extravaganza) and Tyrone didn't come to M-G-M until the following year for his relatively small role in "Marie Antoinette."

The result, as far as the 1937 version of this oft-filmed weepie is concerned, was that M-G-M gave it a little less than "A" production values, but the performance of Ms. George in the title role makes that of small consequence, indeed. She's utterly believable, especially as she slides into slatternly alcoholism during the latter half of the picture. Osborne also revealed that, as the years wore on, Gladys became a bit too fond of the bottle in real life, accounting for her relegation to supporting roles. But there's no way she was under the influence when her inebriated scenes were filmed during this production's abbreviated shooting schedule. She's a professional here, at the peak of her powers, and they're close to tremendous, especially in the final, over-wrought courtroom scenes. Lana wasn't half-bad in the remake, but she benefited from the passage of nearly three decades since Ms. George had made the role her own. What a star!
38 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Though yet another version of the oft-told tale of Madame X, on the whole it is one of the better versions.
cricket-1410 May 1999
If you haven't seen any of the Madame X s, this one is probably the one you should see first. (The one from 1929 is probably the worst.)

It is the story of a woman who gives up her child for the sake of his reputation, and disappears from his life. Only to meet again in the end of the film.

Lana Turner did a version in 1966. And then in the 1980s a TV movie was made!
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
This could have been a melodramatic howler--but it works!
preppy-37 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Jacqueline Fleuriot (Gladys George) is a rich but unsatisfied woman with a son. She cheats on her husband (Warren William). He finds out and throws her out making it clear that she will never see him or her son again...because what she did would make her son hate her. 20 years pass and she quickly falls into prostitution, alcoholism and then murder. She ends up in jail...but her son (John Beal) is now a lawyer and defends her NOT knowing it's his mother!

I saw the glossy Lana Turner 1966 remake. That was OK and Turner was great but it never moved me emotionally. THIS one did. It's very quick (72 minutes) and never stops moving. The story is just ridiculous but this is so well-made you're willing to suspend your disbelief. George is just incredible. You see her go from a glamorous woman to a broken-down alcoholic and she's believable every step of the way. The trial sequence at the end pulls out all stops but damned if I wasn't crying. You can't take your eyes off George in that whole sequence--she tears into the part and makes it her own. Some people think this is so ridiculous that it's impossible to take seriously...but it worked for me and shows what a wonderful actress George was. I give it a 9.
19 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"If you could save my life, I wouldn't thank you for it. I've had enough of it."
utgard1428 August 2014
A woman (Gladys George) is forced to leave her baby to avoid scandal when her husband (Warren William) throws her out for being unfaithful. Her son grows up thinking she is dead. Twenty years later she kills a blackmailer who threatens to expose her secret. The son (John Beal) is now an attorney and is assigned to represent the woman, with no idea that she's his mother.

Gladys George is amazing in one of her best roles. Good supporting cast includes Reginald Owen, Henry Daniell, and George Zucco. Ruth Hussey has a single but important scene. It's always nice to see her. Only weakness in the cast is John Beal. He's out of his depth and it shows. Best of all the film versions of Madame X. It's one of those "power of a mother's love" tearjerkers that were so popular in the 1930s.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Rich Performances
ethorp3 December 2005
Just a few days ago on TCM, I saw this version of Madam X. Gladys George's portrayal of Jacqueline Fleuriot was incredible! Her moving performance brought me to tears and this is not an easy thing to do. I felt her performance was natural and sensitive. Even in her darkest moments she emoted an incredible strength in the shadows of her fallen past. Warren Williams' flowing performance moves from frigid anger to final moments of self reproach. The pain in his eyes dominated the screen. What a marvelous performance!

Both these actors were supported by a cast of some of the best actors of their time.

I have read the play and wish to give this movie a standing ovation!
28 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Madam X 1937 version
monakayk4 December 2005
I just watched this version( 1937) of MADAME X today for the first time. I had seen and enjoyed the Lana Turner (1966) version so much that I wanted to see, what I thought till just a few minutes ago after my search online, the original version of this film. This 1937 version however, is the second remake of the film.

At first...this version was very choppy and confusing to me. The storyline was sort of inconsistent at first...and Madame X after she was exiled by her husband (in this version) didn't really seem to upset about her situation. She had quickly found a job being a governess for two children and seemed quite happy. The lost of her own child (who was told she was dead) did not seem to upset her at this point in the story. Thus making this part of the film weird to me.

However, I do have to admit that after Madame X had to flee this job and take to the 'hard road', so to speak, and became a drunkard living in dumps...the storyline became more real and interesting.

Gladys George did a fine job with her role as Madame X. She was outstanding especially toward the end of the movie. Her heartfelt out cries in the courtroom were exceptional.

I did enjoy this version very much, but still think the Lana Turner (1966) version is the best with a cast that did very well in the film.

MonaK
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
EXHAUSTING BUT GOOD
SLRAMSDEN29 October 2004
I loved the decency of this movie. The issues were sensitive for the time period. But, the story did show that there is a price to pay for every mistake. Although the mother/wife was briefly involved in an adulterous relationship it was not glorified or flaunted. It was a mistake that she spent the rest of the movie hiding and paying for.

There were some unexpected plot turns. At different points in the movie, I was able to sympathize with each member of this tragic family. Every character was believable. I found a reason to like or dislike each one of them. I loved how this movie made each villain a victim. It was very easy to follow each character through their lives. Although the mother/wife had many faults, the love for her son makes you love her and feel for her.
26 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
John Beal was hilarious in his very first trial when he opens his mouth and I couldn't help but think of "insert foot in mouth now"
Ed-Shullivan17 January 2021
I realize that this was supposed to be a dramatic piece especially when the young lawyer Raymond Fleuriot (John Beal) unbeknownst to himself is representing his own estranged mother Jacqueline Fleuriot (Gladys George) during his very first murder trial. In his big dramatic defense opening monologue the young lawyer Raymond Fleuriot heeds the advice given to him earlier on what he would do to defend his client by his own father, the very successful lawyer in his own right Bernard Fleuriot (Warren William) . Raymond's own lawyer father Bernard advised his son that to turn the jury into a sympathetic jury, Raymond should attempt to deflect all blame onto a third unknown party to explain his clients criminal actions.

So the young and inexperienced lawyer Raymond who does not know he is actually defending his own estranged mother Jacqueline Fleuriot who was exiled by her lawyer husband Raymond Fleuriot from the family home and from her parental rights for an indiscretion of infidelity. Jacqueline left her young son Raymond and the family estate to run amok for the next twenty (20) years into a series of drunken binges and empty affairs always staying one step ahead of the law and her husband Bernard who had hired detectives to try and find her and forgive her for her infidelity decades ago.

The big dramatic scene begins with the young and very green defense lawyer Raymond, heeding his own fathers advice and he begins by totally disparaging his own father when he blames his clients husband for throwing his client out on the streets penniless and homeless and without any rights to ever see her own son again, not realizing he is talking so offensively about his own loving father who he has always placed on a pedestal. This is supposed to be a big dramatic scene but it reminded me so much of one of the many comedy scenes that the 1960-70's comedy TV show The Carol Burnett show would do and when of her many talented cast would always hilariously put their foot in their proverbial mouths.

It is a decent dramatic story for a 1937 film release, but being a baby boomer myself, I couldn't help but think of the ending of this dramatic film without putting a comedic spin on the young lawyer Raymond Fleuriot's opening defense monologue.

I give the film a decent 6 out of 10 IMDB rating for a 1937 film. made some 84 years earlier long before the 1960's TV comedy series The Carol Burnett Show had ever aired.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great Performance
drjgardner1 August 2013
To understand "Madame X" you need to realize it was based on a 1908 French play by Alexandre Bisson (1848-1912) that reflected 19th Century morality. It was filmed in 1916, 1929 (Ruth Chatterton directed by Lionel Barrymore), 1937 (this version), 1954, 1966 (Lana Turner), and 1981. The 1937 version reflects a slightly different morality, not only more recent, but also examined from an American POV rather than the European. Watching it in the 21st century, one has to take all these influences into account.

Gladys George (1904-54) plays Madame X and gives an excellent performance, her career best, and probably among the top 50 performances ever given on film. It's uncanny how she ages 20 years not only in appearance, but in manner, voice, etc. To modern audiences it may look a little over the top, but for the 1930s and set in the early 1900s, it isn't.

George was nominated for an Oscar for "Valiant is the Word for Carrie" (1936) but is probably better known as Jimmy Cagney's moll from "The Roaring Twenties" (1939) or Humphrey Bogart's dead partner's wife from "The Maltese Falcon" (1941).

Warren William (1894-1948) plays George's husband, a wealthy lawyer too proud to forgive Madame X her trespass, sending her away and setting in motion the sad story. William is best known for his role as d"Artagnan in "The Man in the Iron Mask" (1939) and as the first Perry Mason in a series of mid 30s films. His work here is quite good.

John Beal (1909-97) plays George's son, who thinks his mother is dead. Beal made nearly 100 films between 1933 and 1993, usually as a second male lead in B films. He's best known for his role as Judge Vail in TV's "Dark Shadow" (1970-71). He is effective in this role, meant for Tyrone Power, and his final scene with George is a real tear jerker.

Reginald Owen (1887-1972) as a friend of the family and Henry Daniell as a sleaze-bag blackmailer both do their usual good jobs in supporting roles.

Sam Wood directs. He hit his stride in the 30s with this film and "A Night at the Opera" (1935), "A Day at the Races" (1937), and "Goodbye Mr. Chips" (1939). He's also known for "Kings Row" (1942), "Pride of the Yankees" (1942) and "For Whom the Bell Tolls" (1943).

In addition to George's bravura performance, the film has some good looking transition effects and shows the passage of time in a creative way, at least by 1930s standards. The sex and violence are merely hinted at, yet nonetheless effective.

Bottom line - a memorable tear jerker with a truly great performance.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
She was a wonderful woman ,whoever she was !
ulicknormanowen6 March 2023
The numerous versions of "Madame X " were based on French Alexandre Bisson's play ,which is totally forgotten in his native land ;besides ,to my knowledge, they never made an adaptation of this tear-jerker over here .

I'd seen the 1966 color version before ,which should have been directed by the great Douglas Sirk who eventually gave up .This version featured the heroine' s mother-in -law ,who became her enemy at first sight.

Not only the in-law is ruled out ,but the movie begins with the scene of the murder , followed by the father who took cruelty to knew limits ,even though his wife he probably neglected cheated on him.

In the color version,Lana Turner did not surpass Gladys George ,by a long shot ; George runs the whole gammit,from a frivolous chic young woman to a human wreck ;all she does backfires on her : should she find a governess job, the cops are not far away .

The piece of resistance is of course the trial ,guaranteed to make the audience tear and sob through an entire box of kleenex ; John Beal as the lawyer/son is so convincing he would be able to move the most adamant juror ,;his over-the-top performance matches George's and easily outdoes Keir Dullea' s in Lowell Rich 1966 version.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Madame X on a budget...but oh, what melodramatic courtroom proceedings!
Doylenf2 December 2005
First of all, let me say that GLADYS GEORGE does a remarkably fine job as "Madame X". But whomever decided to do the final courtroom scenes with an over-the-top argument by her lawyer son and hysterics from the woman on the stand, well...this maudlin scene reduces whatever credibility Miss George gives to her role. The final courtroom scenes are just too over-baked even by 1930 standards of the tear-jerker.

The cast is competent enough but the production has the look of an A-film given a B-budget, helped somewhat by the presence of actors like Warren Williams, Reginald Denny and Henry Daniell in the cast.

GLADYS GEORGE does the slattern extremely well, looking very much like a woman under the influence not only because of the realistic make-up but because of her very posture and mannerisms. Toward the end, during the final meeting with her son in jail, she looks like the broken woman she is supposed to be.

All of this was rehashed in the 1960s with LANA TURNER in the title role. Turner was fine and almost matched George in the final scenes of degradation. But in this version, Sam Wood should have tempered the melodrama in the climactic courtroom scene. Instead, there is no restraint whatsoever. He lets JOHN BEAL (as George's son) go on too long on a sentimental monologue that defies credibility. This scene alone is so overplayed that it makes the film strictly a product of the 1930s.

The mother/son angle of the '60's version (between Turner and Kier Dullea) was done with much more restraint and believability and had the touching effect needed to make the tear-jerker work.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cheers
GManfred1 August 2013
Not many cheers in this picture but lots of drinking, and drinking, etc. This must be Gladys George's best performance, even better than in "Valiant Is The Word For Carrie" (1936), for which she won an Oscar nom but is rarely on TV. The picture depicts the precipitous fall from grace of a Parisian socialite, who is turned out of her home by her unforgiving husband after an adulterous affair.

So good is she in her role as a fallen woman that the movie is almost unwatchable at times, and the lower she descends the more sympathetic she becomes. Her portrayal of a floozy is perhaps the best characterization you will ever see, especially when she is drunk. There was not one scene in which she was off the mark in this picture - she was 'spot on', as they say.

The film has a 'B' picture feel, with Warren William and John Beal in crucial roles, although I think it was probably an 'A' in its time. I was very surprised and was not expecting George's extraordinary performance. I thought she was better here than Stanwyck was in another soaper, "Stella Dallas" (1937), and she gives you a better rooting interest.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Amazingly compelling performance by Gladys George
mach22927 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Gladys George is a revelation. I was not particularly familiar with her work until TCM's day devoted to her movies. but I am now a huge fan and regret that her roles as a leading lady are so few. She gives a riveting performance as the very tragic Madame X, a glamorous but conflicted adulteress who believably morphs over the course of the movie to an alcoholic ruin. The plot works reasonably well and the supporting characters are more than one-note performers. While the mores and and acting styles are somewhat dated, her performance is so timeless it could take this movie into the 21st century. Shocking to me that Gladys was overlooked by the Academy for an Oscar nomination for this role.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
X for Extra Wonderful ****
edwagreen27 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This film was made over in 1966 with Lana Turner in the leading role and Constance Bennett as her scheming mother-in-law. The latter part was dropped for the original with Gladys George turning in a riveting performance in the Turner role, as the woman who fell into utter despair when her husband refused to forgive her for her infidelity.

George, who could always be gritty, the tough-minded dame in all her roles, shows no exception here by her wonderful performance. Degraded and forced into living a life of hell, she meets up with the son who thought she was dead, when 20 years later as a new attorney, he defends her for killing a man, Henry Danielle, who threatened to expose her identity. As the son-lawyer, John Beal is excellent in pleading the case, never knowing that the woman he is defending is his mother.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
All you need to say is WOW!
andrewmeier-5079824 May 2021
Gladys George should have been considered for an Oscar for her portrayal of Jacqueline Floriot, she was astounding! Warren William was excellent as the husband who wouldn't give her a second chance. Followed by great preformences by John Beal, Reginald Owen,Henry Daniel, and George Zucco. With all that talent in one movie and Gladys George's above and beyond acting portrayal, this movie easily ranks as one of the best I have ever seen!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
1937 v 1966
SilkyWilky24 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The only criticism of this film I have is that it feels a little over edited down, though that may well be to do with the length of film needed for the 1930s? It is punchy, fast moving and gripping. The drama is extreme but believable, masterfully expressed by Gladys George. I can't know, but I suspect the director was equally masterful.

I've just watched this and then the Lana Turner version. Both films are different enough in style and content to enjoy in their own right. Lana was wonderful, though overall I thought that film was a touch more bubble gum, and the crescendo end scenes were both less dramatic and less believable. The Gladys George film has more grit, especially in the darker period. The courtroom ending is the meat of the drama. At this point, in this 1937 film, the defence roars emotion and the dialogue between mother and son is perfection. At the same point, the Lana film doesn't quite hit those heights of raw drama, and goes just a little cheesy and too overstated.

A great story, the brilliant Gladys George, masterful directing, and a great opportunity to shed a tear.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Gladys George Gets a Shot
wes-connors3 September 2014
In Paris, neglected blonde Gladys George (as Jacqueline Fleuriot) decides to end her affair with a handsome young man. She has decided to patch up her marriage to wealthy lawyer Warren William (as Bernard Fleuriot) and attend to their son. Alas, the timing for Ms. George's turnabout is bad. Another woman discovers the couple and causes an explosive scene. Barely making it home ahead of the police, George learns her own husband has discovered her dalliance. He throws George out on the streets. She drowns her sorrows in alcohol and is passed from man to man. Now mostly drunk, George lets her identity slip while living with deliciously sleazy Henry Daniell (as Lerocle). To protect her adult lawyer son John Beal (as Raymond Fleuriot) from scandal, George gets herself in trouble with the law...

MGM had already released an "all-talking" version of the warhorse "Madame X" in 1929, which resulted in "Academy Award" nominations for its star (Ruth Chatterton) and director (Lionel Barrymore). They didn't get any "Oscar" consideration, but star Gladys George and director Sam Wood do at least as well as their predecessors. The leading role is one with which several of MGM's big female stars could have acted up a storm. While not in the studio's upper tier, George is definitely up for the task. She probably should have been nominated for a "Best Actress" award. In the story's climatic moments, George and Mr. Beal hit melodramatic heights of mythological proportions, but Mr. Wood and his crew move it along beautifully and George keeps you interested in her degradation and fate.

******** Madame X (10/1/37) Sam Wood ~ Gladys George, John Beal, Warren William, Henry Daniell
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed