| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
 Posted - 10/27/2006 : 08:58:17
|
That Step Up sounds terribly familiar. Wait... Save the Last Dance, partially in negative. The opposite bit is good girl goes to bad school vs bad boy goes to good school. Other than that... it does seem a whole lot similar.
Barnyard sounds horrid and Open Season sounds dumb.
|
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 21:02:17
|
New week, new viewings. And what a double bill today! Started out with a helping of Saw III washed down with A Good Year.
Saw III
You know it's such a shame those Saw folks aren't as smart as Jigsaw John. No really, the guy has such a cutting mind -- cutting mind! stop, stop, you're killing me! Okay, here's someone whose brain could go pop at any minute and yet he's got the smarts from his deathbed to discover everything about the life and angst of a young brain surgeon whose marriage is on the rocks, and arrange for his devoted assistant and former victim Amanda to kidnap the doc and bring her to the private hell that is Saw-world in order to save his life. And just to make sure she has every medical advantage to perform the inevitable operation, John's ingeniously devised an explosive collar which will detonate the very moment his heart stops. No pressure, then.
But wait! Surely we can't remain in the improvised O.R. for an entire film. Of course not! There are flashbacks to remind us of horros past; there's even a sequence casting Tobin as a romantic lead - [yeah, right! I half expected some shots of him cuddling kittens and puppies]. But above all - there are still 'games' to play. These include following the trials and tribulations of other victims scattered about the place [some recapping the first two films] following those macabre clues we've come to expect, each with consequences not only for the victim but for each victim's victims. Ad nauseum until the final unkindest cut of all, leaving us with so many plot loopholes unfilled and an image which sets up the sequel - in case you haven't 'saw' enough -- saw enough! stop stop. PLEASE! Perhaps by Saw IV the franchise will be able to afford a decent scriptwriter. In III's defense, some of the lighting was excellent.
A Good Year
Love it or hate this film, you just cannot deny that Ridley Scott is a masterful director. He can take an ordinary sequence and invest it with so much dimension both in terms of technical achievement and sheer visual storytelling that it transcends the mundane. His camera is always in the perfect position, his rhythms from scene to scene not only vary the pace but help construct the narrative toward a conclusion you know is inevitable but makes you feel satisfied nonetheless.
The story - loosely based as it is on Peter Mayle's popular love affair with Provence - involves ice-cold stock market whiz-kid Russell Crowe inheriting by default his dead uncle's estate and vineyard, the place he spent many a happy vacation learning the finer points of chess, sportsmanship, and the joie de vivre of the bon viveur. Albert Finney plays the uncle with great charm, and Crowe demonstrates yet again his not inconsiderable skill creating a ruthless yet likeable bastard who learns to find his loveable inner mensch. This thin tale is accomplished with the help of an attractive and/or engaging supporting cast, a script which occasionally dangles a witty line or two, and the slick production values that reek of a comfy budget.
In the end, though, the parts are greater than their sum.
Tomorrow - Thank You For Smoking.
*****************************
Thank You For Smoking
First of all I want to say I truly enjoyed this satire on oh-so-many aspects of western society. But ... yes, there's a but, even though the film shows no butts, neither cigarette nor human, though both are often referenced.
Hubbing on the character of Nick Naylor, a corporate spin-meister for Big Tobacco who constantly justifies his dubious morality with the twinkling argument-ender that he's doing it "to pay the mortgage" - an extremely entertaining and confident performance by the Steve Canyon-esque square-jawed Aaron Eckhart - director Jason Reitman uses surgical rather than boxing gloves to examine the putrid underside of the way multi-nationals, the media, and government manipulate public opinion.
Even considering he grew up surrounded by the film industry as son of Ivan, this is a particularly assured handling of the material. He never allows you to lose track of what is at times a narrative that wanders from the straight and narrow -- and all the more interesting for it. And his shooting is innovative, sometimes even surprising. Not only does he marshall the solid cast but allows them to reach for their best. I've never seen Sam Elliott so honest - he plays the former Marlboro man dying of cancer, about to be offered a bribe-dressed-in-gift's clothing delivered to him by Nick to dissuade him from testifying against the tobacco industry before a Congressional committee spear-headed by William H Macy as a crusading Senator from Vermont. Macy, never less than totally believable, adds to the considerable comic atmosphere by making visable every unspoken thought of a man who's learned to play the political system but remains constantly suspicious of meanings behind meanings.
When blue-eyed boy Nick bests a line-up of the anti-smoking lobby on national tv, he's favoured by an audience with The Captain, head of the whole dang shooting match - another magnificent cameo characterization by the reliable Robert Duvall. Nick gets virtual carte blanche to connive with hotsy Hollywood agent Rob Lowe in a product placement gambit which will single-handedly re-introduce the "glamour" of smoking into Hollywood films. [Probably more than any other Hollywood actor, it's Lowe who's inherited the mantle of Cary Grant with his unthreatening attractiveness and impeccable coming timing.]
Complicating this already complicated narrative are strands involving Nick's unwise dalliance with a reporter who's doing a profile on him and his tactics, and the seminal domestic focus on the relationship between Nick and the son he sees in his divorce access time. All this is punctuated by a series of biting encounters between Nick and fellow lobbyists representing the Alcohol and Firearms industries; the trio refer to themselves as The MoD Squad - Merchants of Death.
So, with all that's going for it, why do I mention that 'but'? Because somewhere between Nick's reaching out to become a better parent and his implacable belief that what he's doing is defensible, the satire becomes soggy. It merely prods when it needs to shove. And though the pacing's good and there are many moments of barbed humour, there's not enough real wit. It wet-lips the ciggie when it should be taking a long, deep drag. For example, when Nick brings the money to bribe Marlboro Man into shutting up, his argument revolves around the key fact that if he takes the money he cannot also denounce the giver. Well, why the hell not? And, as Nick drives his son home the lesson he imparts is that it's right to take the money, right to suppress your principles.
In the end, that's what's truly muddled about the film: the one thing it cannot seem to engage with is the very system that supports the morality being ridiculed. To satirize such hypocritical morality is easy. To confront the capitalist system that has spawned it is far more intricate, and an exploration I suspect that would never have been green-lighted. And then who'd pay the mortgage?!
More soon.
****************
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 11/02/2006 13:31:21 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 07:03:33
|
I was wondering about A Good Year. I've read a few of Mayle's books and saw the mini-series adaptation of his Year in Provance, which was very nicely done, if quite different from the book. Sounds like a movie that would be great to catch when it appears on TV, but not one I'd go out of my way to see in the theatres.
(And I'm not much of a Crowe fan, anyway.)
|
|
|
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 08:22:33
|
| I truly enjoyed Thank You for not Smoking - definitely has some holes in the script - but a true pleasure to watch - look forward to your review. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 11:02:07
|
I take it you guys are talking about Thank You For Smoking.  |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 11:27:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se7n
I take it you guys are talking about Thank You For Smoking.
You're welcome. Don't mind if I do! |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 11:33:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se7n
I take it you guys are talking about Thank You For Smoking.
Oops!  Wish fulfillment
|
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 15:05:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se7n
I take it you guys are talking about Thank You For Smoking.
Yes - that was a good movie too. |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 20:13:50
|
This time you wont stop me from seeing saw.  |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 21:06:58
|
The New Batch Starts Here!
Today I will mostly be reviewing:
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Little Children
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest There's lots to like in this romp, but the film will forever be remembered for the extraordinary cgi recreation of Davy Jones's crew and ship, and most especially the legendary Sea-Devil himself. The tentacled beard and octopussy head are an exemplar of cinematic sfx - wholly believable in context, remarkably detailed, both mesmerizing and repulsive, and yes, even beautiful. Nothing else in the film really approaches that level: some of the acting is first-rate; the magical, almost muted tone of the photographic processing; snippets of haunting music; perfectly balanced sound; and some truly rousing directorial rhythms all conspire to keep your attention, even when the script is less than it might be and the plot wears thinner and thinner. But hey - this ain't no aahhrt film, so buckle yer swashes, matey, and enjoy!
And for something completely different we're offered Little Children, which definitely comes high on this year's pick, despite a major flaw, about which more later. Former actor and indie director Todd Field broke through with In the Bedroom, a claustrophobic piece dealing with what lies beneath the surface of relationships. Little Children's themes overlap enough to show you what drew Field to the material. The film is about frustration, the consequences of fulfilment, and release - extremely interesting ideas for a mainstream movie. Particularly since the narrative extends itself beyond the expected extra-marital affair into real and perceived threats to the status quo, to the desired ideals of family life and relationships.
Though Field's work is deft and ably supported by both cast and crew, what doesn't really work is the story's translation from book to screen. Someone in this 4UM was discussing the difficulty/impossibility of successfully telling literary tales in cinematic form; Little Children reminds us of the pitfalls in attempting it. The book follows selected lives of a small community to create in the microcosm a convincing picture of wider society. Among the town's residents are two couples, each under pressure of repression; an ex-cop with explosive rage issues; an older woman hungry for intellectual stimulation and missing the emotional fulfilment of a loving family with grand-children; and a paedophile on release after serving time for exposing himself to children who lives with his overly doting mother trying to protect him from a growing vigilante campaign. A novel has the leisure to pick apart these complex and often intertwining threads, to follow each person less with a sense of stalking than of embracing, a drive to understand.
Cinema cannot afford such luxuries of wandering away from a central focus, so it must crown certain characters as worthier of screen time than others. It's inevitable. And that means the story is forced to take on another shape, and the sense of the whole so integral to the book doesn't work onscreen, can never really work onscreen. Instead it becomes a series of stories that sometimes rub up against each other either like a friendly cat nosing your leg, or with a jarring shove from a street nutcase. Compare that with Alan Ball's original screenplay for American Beauty -- it's similar territory, but conceived as a cinematic story.
Field tries to mitigate the disparity by emphasizing the script's literary roots, introducing a narrative voice over to set things up. And extremely witty and clear it is, too. What he also does to highlight the discomfort oozing from these characters' lives is cast deliberately mis-matched leads who become attracted to each other - in this case Kate Winslett and her husband Gregg Edelman, and Winslett and her lover Patrick Wilson. Edelman's almost as creepy as the paedophile, and Wilson never truly sparks either with Winslett or his wife Jennifer Connolly. I think this is deliberate. Any real screen chemistry would have us rooting too much for easy resolutions, would be manipulating audience emotion, and above all lift the unremarkableness of this town's outer life into the realms of romance which each of the characters craves. We're left at the end not with any empathy that things didn't work out for any of the these people, certainly not in the way they wanted, but with a sense of the inevitability of the mundane.
Coming up next:
66
Borat
An Inconvenient Truth
The Prestige
******************
Sixty Six
I wanted to like this film, I really did; and I won't say it doesn't have some very fine moments, but it keeps missing its mark, not least comedically. If you get a chance, do see it because it has much to offer, not least a performance of exceptional truth and nuance from Eddie Marson as Manny Reuben, a Jewish obsessive compulsive in need of a charisma transplant.
The premise is engaging indeed [and no less insular than the majority of comparable American films]: It's 1966. Manny's 13-year-old son Bernie, not exactly Mr Popular either at school or within his own family, has a Bar Mitzvah looming. For anyone who doesn't know, that's the rites-of-passage religious ceremony that denotes manhood. His big brother Alvie had a wonderful Bar Mitzvah, and Bernie wants his to surpass it, to get himself noticed. He devotes every spare moment not only to being coached through the spiritual process by a blind rabbi, but -- much more importantly -- to researching every detail of the celebratory party. He turns the garden shed into a kind of Bar Mitzvah Incident Room, reminiscent of those sites the police use to piece together a murder investigation. He's got photos, files, menus, seating plans, even suppliers of ice sculptures.
Bernie's biggest problem among a bevy of others is the coincidence that the very day designated for his attainment of manhood has been selected for the final of the Football World Cup [think the World Series and the Rose Bowl rolled into one]. Even though no one believes England can make it that far, as the date approaches people start dropping out of attending Bernie's event, preferring to watch the match.
But this isn't a film about football, nor about Hebrew rituals; it's a film about a child's realization that his father is neither a failed god nor a nebbish loser, but a human being who loves him and deserves love in return. And that's where the film's problems start, particularly in the way the script structures the story toward that end.
Great sports films are never about the sport. Even small British ones like Gregory's Girl or Bend it Like Beckham work because however much screentime is given to kicking balls, or training horses, or batting practice -- the sport provides some comment on the characters. Here, the World Cup related scenes are intercut with Bernie's story, but under scrutiny they don't really impact on him. It's a plot device. As is the uninspired voice over narration from Bernie. What's that adage about show don't tell?!
Director Paul Weiland comes from the world of advertising. But unlike UK predecessors Alan Parker and Ridley Scott, he shares none of their natural talent for screen narrative. It's a workmanlike job, despite being based on his own childhood, and would sit more comfortably on television. The film has some delightful moments, but they're all too few and far between, and neither a backing track of 60s goodies, nor even the understated, unfussy performances by a smashing cast including Helena Bonham-Carter [better every time I see her] and Stephen Rea can help this tale score the final goal. The film begins with a title card saying: This is a True-ish story. Funny, I thought - it doesn't look True-ish.
Next on my double bill was Borat - currently being discussed on Benj's interesting parallel thread. Sacha Baron Cohen, whether in character as street-smart but culturally ignorant Ali G, gay fashion diva Bruno, or crass Borat follows in a solid show biz tradition of engaging the public on tape or film, duping them into believing whatever character, and providing them enough verbal rope to hang themselves. On UK tv, where Baron Cohen began, the path had been well smoothed by comic genius Chris Morris. Anyone who saw his Cake hoax on his show BrassEye will have a good idea of why Borat has caused such controversy.
The premise is simple: wide-eyed naif Borat travels across 'the US and A' to gather cultural information on behalf of Khasakstan TV to benefit the country. His encounters, pushed to the limits of bad taste, serve often hilariously to reveal the hypocrisies that form people's judgments on each other. Anyone who believes that either the film or Baron Cohen [a highly intelligent and practicing Jew] is anti-Semitic, or anti-feminist, anti-black, anti-gay ... in fact anti-anything except anti-hypocrisy ... just isn't looking hard enough at what the film is actually saying.
BTW I'm not convinced that most of Borat's encounters weren't in on the joke, and not merely the actors actually credited: Ken Davitian plays Azamat, Borat's repulsive producer, and Lounelle a prostitute who weaves his/her spell on Borat. [Luenell him/herself has never to my knowledge publicly confirmed whether s/he's a diesel dyke, a trans-gender, or a man -- his/her biggest role before Borat was as Jasper the bartender in Never Die Alone.]
There are technical clues that many of the scenes were set-ups, including of course the one with Pamela Anderson. First of all there's the way the scenes are cut: there'd have had to have been different camera and lighting set-ups for the action to cut together. There's a telling shot when Borat and Azamat turn up a bed and breakfast run by a Jewish couple. The camera is already inside the house when the woman invites them in. So even if they weren't professional actors, they certainly knew they were involved in a scene. The way the dialogue is cut in this and most other scenes indicates the lines were rehearsed, and I'm pretty well convinced those people at least were in sympathy with Baron Cohen's aims. The Jewish couple, the driving instructor, even some - though not all - of the people in the revival meeting. The scene in the NY subway was probably improvised, but even there some of the people looked like plants. Actually, it doesn't really matter because the point of the satire is made.
The film undoubtedly goes on too long; it can't really sustain itself carried by its flimsy plot. And, like Benj, I shared a cinema with an audience who chuckled occasionally but never guffawd in the way US audiences have been. But what's not in doubt is that Baron Cohen is a serious social comedian who's passionate to expose the ways we regard each other, the ways we justify the unjustifiable. IMHO Chris Morris does it more sharply, but Baron Cohen is definitely worth watching.
It's Gore tomorrow, baby!
************************
An Inconvenient Truth
In one of life's little synchronicities on my way home from seeing Gore's film the radio was reporting the 12th UN Climate Change Conference currently being held in Nairobi and highlighting the effects on developing nations. Apart from that small coverage, no headlines this week have referred to the conference. While the UK news is dominated by the US mid-terms, Iraq, and various political and celebrity scandal, climate change - arguably the most important topic for everyone on the planet - gets pin-space.
Is Gore's film important? You betcha. Is it a good film, in the sense that it's well made? Hmmm, I'll get back to you on that. Does it matter? Yes, because if people don't get engaged and/or enraged [and whatever you think about Michael Moore's stuff it does both], then the film won't gather momentum to be a "must see" out in the boonies where it's competing at the multi-plex with Saw III and Borat.
The content of the film should be seen by every single thinking being on earth. Whatever else I think about it as a film should in no way negate that. It is, quite simply, a matter of life and death for every one of us. So it almost seems churlish to highlight the flaws in the film itself, but don't forget I'm watching all these offerings in order to make my BAFTA choices with integrity. Content counts, sure, but apart from Best Picture, it doesn't actually feature in the many award categories I need to assess.
Let's examine the ingredients:
- Man with a Mission: Al Gore, a perfectly nice, highly intelligent, well-intentioned, well-informed man, perhaps a tad short on fiery charisma, but with a wry sense of humour and who's not above making himself the target
- A helluva lot of research fed into those gizmos that convert hard facts into pretty bar charts and line graphs, and time-lines of data and doom.
- Lotsa archive footage, some of which is exquisite, some even funny, and most of which is relevant. Note the caveat.
- A wrap-around container for all this stuff, namely one of Gore's "slide shows" at which we the audience join the audience watching the lecture.
- Finally, some elegant end title graphics that mix credits with points of action, reminding us of how we can take responsibility for our own lives.
So what's wrong with that? Well, for a kick-off Gore and his advisors have realised that, unlike lecture audiences, movie-goers are unlikely to sit still for what's essentially a snazzy power-point presentation, however important the content. So once the decision was taken to reach that wider audience by releasing the thing in cinemas [taking advantage of the renewed funding for/interest in documentaries], something more filmic needed to be added.
What they chose was the humanising of Gore. So, interspersed with the powerful points and incontrovertable evidence, we get shots of the man as a boy on his daddy's farm, a montage of the trauma he went through when his little boy recovered from a near-fatal accident, shots of him studying at university, and many, many, many shots of Gore travelling around the world to gather the material for this project. Now this brings up two things: 1. There's a real danger that an element of Gore-promotion vies with the essence of the film and 2. Nowhere is it mentioned how many air-miles and car exhaust fumes Gore and his colleagues have contributed to global warming in the making of the film. Not even with a sense of self-deprecation or irony.
In terms of the film's assemblage, we get a mixture of camera styles - inevitable when incorporating archive footage, but in this case not very cleverly handled. In structural terms, we get over-loaded with an enormous amount of amazing and terrifying data, often illustrated with powerful, sometimes even amusing footage - and very little or no emphasis on any dialogue with perpetrators, or what we the audience can do, both of which might have been incorporated into the body of the film. In other words, we get a film of a lecture, we get a "Gore tells you" approach over and over again. And that's why - sadly, ultimately - it doesn't work. Well, it doesn't work the way it should.
But if you haven't already seen it, yes, go find it, go watch it.
Later today I will see The Prestige and report back.
***********************************
The Prestige
I'm a sucker for magic acts, always have been ever since my late dad foxed us kids with his self-taught efforts pulling coins from behind our ears and making handkerchiefs vanish. Once upon a time I even got into researching the bullet catch for a tv script and got to meet some wonderful people inside The Magic Circle. So I was very interested in this film.
Since there's already a fascinating spoiler thread about this film discussing the nuances of its plot, I'll concentrate here on the film's execution. What's fundamentally wrong here is that you just don't care about the people, and intrigued as one might be about how did they do this or that, the characters have got to engage you on human terms. In The Prestige you can't blame the actors that they don't; they're all acting their little socks off and none is less than good. Bale in particular is excellent, giving subtle clues throughout to his deceptive role; and Caine's honesty helps us over the bumpy bits of the plot.
Nolan's direction is perfectly professional, and certainly more successful than his screenplay which promises way more than it delivers. I think this is because he became more concerned with the mechanics of the plot than in telling the story. I did like the production design which resists over-glamourizing the Victorian era.
But a big no-no for me was the handling of Nikola Tesla, played with dignity by David Bowie. Did you know that 2006 was declared by UNESCO and the governments of Serbia and Croatia as The Year of Tesla? He was indeed a formidable intellect, a brilliant scientist and inventor, as well as leading a truly poignant, emotionally empty life; actually Wikipedia sums it up nicely. Because Nolan is constantly chasing his plot of two rival magicians trying obsessively to best each other to the point of sacrificing their normal lives - Tesla's almost literal deus ex machina serves to diminish the story by Nolan's simplistic reduction of this product of a great man's mind. True, decades after achieving plaudits for early experiments into such territory as wireless communication and particle beam acceleration Tesla did delve into thoughts about extra-terrestrial communication and teleportation. But Nolan's fanciful interpretations squeeze these so radically out of shape to fit his scenario that his entire tale becomes laughable.
So, if you don't care about the characters or which one "wins", and you can't believe the supposed explanations, you're left with A Pledge, A Turn, but no Prestige at all.
More films to come.
****************** |
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 11/08/2006 16:11:31 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 07:37:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7Babe
The New Batch Starts Here!
Today I will mostly be reviewing:
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Little Children
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest There's lots to like in this romp, but the film will forever be remembered for the extraordinary cgi recreation of Davy Jones's crew and ship, and most especially the legendary Sea-Devil himself. The tentacled beard and octopussy head are an exemplar of cinematic sfx - wholly believable in context, remarkably detailed, both mesmerizing and repulsive, and yes, even beautiful. Nothing else in the film really approaches that level: some of the acting is first-rate; the magical, almost muted tone of the photographic processing; snippets of haunting music; perfectly balanced sound; and some truly rousing directorial rhythms all conspire to keep your attention, even when the script is less than it might be and the plot wears thinner and thinner. But hey - this ain't no aahhrt film, so buckle yer swashes, matey, and enjoy!
Here's a link to my review of this film. I think I agree with you on this one.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 12:21:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by 7Babe
Borat -
The scene in the NY subway was probably improvised, but even there some of the people looked like plants.
Sounds like a nomination for best original costume.  ...
|
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 11:48:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Nowhere is it mentioned how many air-miles and car exhaust fumes Gore and his colleagues have contributed to global warming in the making of the film. Not even with a sense of self-deprecation or irony.
My pending review posted November 3 comments on this very conundrum: Warming doom-sayer still flies. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 10:18:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Enlightened
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Nowhere is it mentioned how many air-miles and car exhaust fumes Gore and his colleagues have contributed to global warming in the making of the film. Not even with a sense of self-deprecation or irony.
My pending review posted November 3 comments on this very conundrum: Warming doom-sayer still flies.
Nice one, Conan!  Lemme know when it's approved; I'll sure vote for it.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 10:19:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Here's a link to my review of this film. I think I agree with you on this one.
Enjoyed your review, CL! Adds a nice personal perspective.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Let the [BAFTA] viewings begin!
