3/10
Frankly, it's rubbish.
Sorry, wanted to get that out of the way early on in case you only read some of it and got the idea I didn't find it lazy, trite and predictable.
A little while ago I gave a reasonably positive review to excellent Spanish language Zombie horror quickie [REC]. In that film, a documentary crew get caught up in the moment as things get quickly out of hand in a high rise apartment block - it lasts 80 minutes, is unflinching in its plot and also more than often scary.
I mention this here because if you want to see a zombie movie in which a documentary crew get caught up in the tide rising dead then see [REC], don't bother watching the American remake (what's the point?) and certainly don't watch Diary Of The Dead.
Where [REC] is taught, efficient and scary, Diary is lazy, bloated and toothless.
We are immediately off on a bad one with the VO narration of what sounds like a stoned twenty-something lady - it resembles nothing so much as Harrison Ford's legendary "if I do it this bad they won't use it... or will they?" voice over in the original cut of Blade Runner. She's telling us how, unlike the Spanish film, she will be using all manner of interesting cuts and music cues to "scare" her supposedly terrified and ignorant worldwide audience.
You see, it's all very Zeitgeist - honest! The kidz is on da Yootoobz, innit? Sigh...
Since his two early Zombie movies, Night Of The Living Dead and Dawn Of The Dead (the latter of which I consider the definitive Zombie movie) George A Romero has lost his way. Sorry if you're a huge fan but Day Of The Dead is too nihilistic for my tastes, Land Of The Dead is too Gung Ho and Diary.. well, it's just silly.
It's meant to be, I think, a satire on the desire of the YouTube generation(TM) to make themselves heard on all subjects, no matter if they know what they are on about or not.
What he has made is a movie with no teeth. Ironic really. Even "Land" had some amusingly satirical bits; I recall particularly Dennis Hopper's George W. Bush allegory screaming "You Have No Right!" at the horde of invading undead, as if somehow trying to appeal to their sense of inferiority.
In "Diary" Romero simply chooses to make every single character as hateful as humanly possible - Jay, the director, is a personality-free jerk with one character beat (I MUST make this film) his girlfriend, who doubles as our narrator, is a frosty aloof Polaroid of a proper character. Everyone else is an archetype to the point of parody - you have the angry New Yorker, The nerd, The Christian Girl, The pretty and big boobed Texan girl, her shallow as a residue boyfriend and, in a spectacular misjudgement, a weird Englishman - their lecturer, who is obviously a drunk and refers to guns as "too easy to use". He is a character from broad farce, shoehorned in for no apparent reason - plus he's great with a bow and arrow because of his history at Eton.
Odd.
What gore there is, is reasonably well done, but if you're that sort of horror movie watcher who enjoys the odd memorable death (I'm only human) you're in for slim pickings here - though one standout moment involves a character's spectacular method of dispatching himself and a zombie at the same time using a farm implement. That's almost the only thing that remains lucid in your mind after the hour forty or so of this film.
By the time the young survivors have reached the mansion where their friend lives, all interest had vanished as far as I was concerned, and the cheap joke at the expense of the monster movie they'd originally been making registered barely as much as my need to clean the Cat's bowls.
You'll notice I've spent rather a lot of time talking about other films in this review - it's because I truly feel that any (yes, any) of the other films I have mentioned in this post are vastly superior to this latest effort from Romero - the acting is lame, the plot is dull, the set pieces are, barring the strangely postmodern humour of the deaf Amish farmer sequence, unmemorable.
Avoid this unless, like me, you are a Romero completist.
A major disappointment - exactly the opposite of [REC]
See that instead. It really is rather good.
A
P.S. The deaf Amish Farmer is the only thing saving this from a mind numbing 2/10.
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Movie Review: Pom Poko
8/10
Odd. Very odd.
Studio Ghibli have made several absolute classic pieces of animation featuring humans as its leads (Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, My Neighbour Totoro) but here's something a little more strange - a story about a colony of Tanuki (Raccoon Dogs) whose home is being destroyed to make way for the "Tama Hills Project", a new development of housing outside Tokyo.
In one of those mad folk stories the Japanese like exploiting so much; Tanukis (translated confusingly as Raccoons), foxes and "some cats" are able to transform at will into almost anything (ever wondered how that fox you just saw seemed to vanish into thin air?), and this makes for some excellent sequences such as an early battle in which the Tanukis switch from being normal four legged creatures into two legged ones akin to Winnie The Pooh and when defeated become kind of squishy, abstract children's drawings. For a while it's extremely disorienting but soon becomes second nature as each character is ingeniously designed to be recognisable in most of their forms, even when changing to a human being out of desperation.
If Studio Ghibli do one thing well, it's their animation. However strange or alien the stories become, the visual feast is compelling and moreish. In each sequence invention and skill combine with a sense of humour and non-mawkish cuteness to be lovely to watch. The upside of using traditional animation is that the transformations are all seamless and natural progressions, rather than having the chemical sheen of CGI or the ickiness of live action technical methods.
However - I wouldn't say Pom Poko is an absolute must for your kids or young folk to see unless they can accept the conclusion. It's not a particularly uplifting film, since the odds the Tanukis have to face are overwhelming and things look bleak for them - but it is plenty of fun, and if you can overcome the very distracting presence of oversized nutsacks on all of the males, and prominent breasts on the females there's a lot of entertainment to be had.
It's not a tragedy; just don't expect everything to turn out OK. If you are thinking of showing it to your kids do have a watch of it yourself first just to make sure they'll cope with some of the issues and events.
Of course, the obvious political overtones are useful for children to see - cute animals get harmed by human expansion. A reasonably strong and well delivered message is contained herein - especially since the film is unflinching in its consequences (in one sequence the Tanukis protesting pranks kill three humans) and the views of its characters, which range from the "kill all humans" approach of Gonta, to the more peaceful ghost haunting ideas of Shoukichi - which present obvious parallels to political and philosophical viewpoints. Even the elders, usually presented in fiction as wise and wonderful, are not equal to the task set for them - instead all pretending to be asleep when a mission is to be handed out, or being distracted by thoughts of food (mainly Tempura) from the task at hand.
It is a far more intelligent film, and gives the younger audience a lot more credit, than most made for children nonsense being made in the West. It is also fairly philosophical in its approach, rather than simply being a nice woodland creatures romp through the pretty drawn countryside.
In terms of its peers at Studio Ghibli I am still of the opinion that the best film for kids they've made is My Neighbour Totoro, a lovely little film indeed. My favourite of the more mature work they've done is probably still Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke - all fine films, but Pom Poko stands up fine despite being made by a different part of the business.
I think it's worth you seeing if Japanese animation is your thing - it's neither twee nor condescending.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Odd. Very odd.
Studio Ghibli have made several absolute classic pieces of animation featuring humans as its leads (Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, My Neighbour Totoro) but here's something a little more strange - a story about a colony of Tanuki (Raccoon Dogs) whose home is being destroyed to make way for the "Tama Hills Project", a new development of housing outside Tokyo.
In one of those mad folk stories the Japanese like exploiting so much; Tanukis (translated confusingly as Raccoons), foxes and "some cats" are able to transform at will into almost anything (ever wondered how that fox you just saw seemed to vanish into thin air?), and this makes for some excellent sequences such as an early battle in which the Tanukis switch from being normal four legged creatures into two legged ones akin to Winnie The Pooh and when defeated become kind of squishy, abstract children's drawings. For a while it's extremely disorienting but soon becomes second nature as each character is ingeniously designed to be recognisable in most of their forms, even when changing to a human being out of desperation.
If Studio Ghibli do one thing well, it's their animation. However strange or alien the stories become, the visual feast is compelling and moreish. In each sequence invention and skill combine with a sense of humour and non-mawkish cuteness to be lovely to watch. The upside of using traditional animation is that the transformations are all seamless and natural progressions, rather than having the chemical sheen of CGI or the ickiness of live action technical methods.
However - I wouldn't say Pom Poko is an absolute must for your kids or young folk to see unless they can accept the conclusion. It's not a particularly uplifting film, since the odds the Tanukis have to face are overwhelming and things look bleak for them - but it is plenty of fun, and if you can overcome the very distracting presence of oversized nutsacks on all of the males, and prominent breasts on the females there's a lot of entertainment to be had.
It's not a tragedy; just don't expect everything to turn out OK. If you are thinking of showing it to your kids do have a watch of it yourself first just to make sure they'll cope with some of the issues and events.
Of course, the obvious political overtones are useful for children to see - cute animals get harmed by human expansion. A reasonably strong and well delivered message is contained herein - especially since the film is unflinching in its consequences (in one sequence the Tanukis protesting pranks kill three humans) and the views of its characters, which range from the "kill all humans" approach of Gonta, to the more peaceful ghost haunting ideas of Shoukichi - which present obvious parallels to political and philosophical viewpoints. Even the elders, usually presented in fiction as wise and wonderful, are not equal to the task set for them - instead all pretending to be asleep when a mission is to be handed out, or being distracted by thoughts of food (mainly Tempura) from the task at hand.
It is a far more intelligent film, and gives the younger audience a lot more credit, than most made for children nonsense being made in the West. It is also fairly philosophical in its approach, rather than simply being a nice woodland creatures romp through the pretty drawn countryside.
In terms of its peers at Studio Ghibli I am still of the opinion that the best film for kids they've made is My Neighbour Totoro, a lovely little film indeed. My favourite of the more mature work they've done is probably still Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke - all fine films, but Pom Poko stands up fine despite being made by a different part of the business.
I think it's worth you seeing if Japanese animation is your thing - it's neither twee nor condescending.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Movie Review: How To Make A Monster
1/10
Since I can't face describing this atrocious failure of a movie - have the fruits of my bored twittering throughout.
Creature Features is apparently a set of films attempting to an attempt to recapture B-Movie values for the modern (90s) age. It fails utterly.
The best B Movies are good movies with low budgets, like for example Blair Witch or Evil Dead.
This is just a bad movie with terrible acting, millions of plotholes, lousy production and no fun bits. B-Movies are often bad, but why anyone would intentionally deliver something so one dimensional, cliché ridden and lame as this is beyond me.
Avoid it if you can!
21:23 2nghts movie's Creature Features' "How To Make A Monster" -will be bad,but knowingly so. Like idea of homages 2 BMovies but ty hrdly eva wrk. # 21:24 Movie - alreeady is bad - computer game designers trying to make scary game... I bet I know where this is going # 21:25 ridiculous over clichéd geek charaxcter called "bug" spotty greasy with glasses. Sad. # 21:26 Tyler Mane playing a character called "Hardcore". He was a wrestler. Tyler Mane that is # 21:26 Best line so far: "It's a dump. I love dumps" # 21:27 This five minutes in and I've already tweeted four times. "They're cookies, not hemlock - you paranoid sociopath!" # 21:28 ???? Computer company owner lady has weird young boy voice... # 21:30 I think my eyes have started bleeding - this film is SOOOO bad! # 21:31 "Scary is, as scary does!" - Hardcore # 21:32 OK - think I'm getting the picture, it's meant to be a comedy... # 21:32 but not in a particularly funny way. # 21:35 "I won't be an intern forever..." # 21:39 "Pussy - you fight like a lesbian biker b___ch" - Hardcore. I'm thinking this may be a lost David Mamet screenplay # 21:46 seriously considering turning this piece of rubbish off - it's that bad. And not even funny. # 21:50 Oh my dear god. Weird Dominatrix they brought in for Mocap is topless and bouncing... Lightning strikes... inexplicably since they are s ... # 21:51 OH! And lightning strike! Let me guess... # 21:52 whoa! first f word... # 21:56 dear god. the game they've designed is hilariously bad # 21:59 Ah yes, the intern has a world changing dotcom startup idea that's about charity. # 22:01 ARGH! Meaningful chat - "you either become a monster, or a victim" ouch # 22:03 Ah yes - "Hello?" and then going to investigate a strange noise - how original... # 22:07 this is horrible... just horrible. I am starting to feel ill # 22:09 "Failure's the worst prison there is... noone gives a s__t about you - not even the interns" # 22:11 Every actor in this film was just outperformed by a tray of brownies. # 22:14 ah yes... and the phones are out naturally # 22:16 oh dear - the mocap sutit is alive. what a genius twist. It seems to be able to vanish at will, too # 22:20 At least there's some gore now.AND HOW DOES A MOCAP SUIT GROW VINE LIKE WIRES THAT GRAB BODY PARTS AND ATTACH THEM TO ITSELF???# 22:21 A mocap suit... is this the worst monster ever? # 22:25 It's a really bad thing when your main reaction to monster movie is to yawn # 22:35 aaaand Bug sacrifices himself.... almost certainly with no reason. # 22:38 The only way to win is if a woman can beat the computer game- where's Scribsy when you need her? # 22:49 So - you're making a movie about a computer game that comes alive - is it important to know anything about hw computers wrk? You'd have thought # 22:53 Oh dear: This film's moral is - to be successful you must become a monster. In a really hackneyed way. At least its over now. # 22:54 Can you beat a souped up MoCap suit to the "worst monster ever crown"? Send me a tweet folks! Signing off for a while #
See the full post by clicking here...
Since I can't face describing this atrocious failure of a movie - have the fruits of my bored twittering throughout.
Creature Features is apparently a set of films attempting to an attempt to recapture B-Movie values for the modern (90s) age. It fails utterly.
The best B Movies are good movies with low budgets, like for example Blair Witch or Evil Dead.
This is just a bad movie with terrible acting, millions of plotholes, lousy production and no fun bits. B-Movies are often bad, but why anyone would intentionally deliver something so one dimensional, cliché ridden and lame as this is beyond me.
Avoid it if you can!
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, March 13, 2009
Quick Movie Review: The X Files (Fight The Future)
7/10
The X Files! What a show that was 5 series of mostly genius, capped off with a movie event that tied up some loose ends and kicked off the next set of storylines.
Of course, your enjoyment of the movie will be directly related to your enjoyment of the series - if you hate the show this is never going to change your mind.
Basically it's more of the same; the big conspiracy was built up over years and almost immediately jumped the shark after the start of season 6 so this is the best bit as far as the "big" storyline goes - the unsatisfying final seasons that would have done better for a clean break with Mulder and Scully era (rather than hanging on to Scully fo rdear life when she clearly doesn't want to be there) are still a long way off at this point.
But enough about its place in the show.
It's a really rather decent ride - I'll never forget the early section where Mulder finds a bomb in a vending machine and the response of his boss to the find is great cinema. The story itself is a bit of enjoyable hokum, revealing the rather odd plot of the "Elders" such as the Cigarette Smoking Man and The Englishman in its strange entirety, and getting a glimpse of the aliens - never a good move in my book.
About halfway through it gets a little too silly but frankly if you like the series it gets a 7/10. If you don't like the show I'd guess at 5/10, but it's not like you'd watch the film if you'd resisted the charms of aliens and the Lone Gunmen (here for about a second).
A
See the full post by clicking here...
The X Files! What a show that was 5 series of mostly genius, capped off with a movie event that tied up some loose ends and kicked off the next set of storylines.
Of course, your enjoyment of the movie will be directly related to your enjoyment of the series - if you hate the show this is never going to change your mind.
Basically it's more of the same; the big conspiracy was built up over years and almost immediately jumped the shark after the start of season 6 so this is the best bit as far as the "big" storyline goes - the unsatisfying final seasons that would have done better for a clean break with Mulder and Scully era (rather than hanging on to Scully fo rdear life when she clearly doesn't want to be there) are still a long way off at this point.
But enough about its place in the show.
It's a really rather decent ride - I'll never forget the early section where Mulder finds a bomb in a vending machine and the response of his boss to the find is great cinema. The story itself is a bit of enjoyable hokum, revealing the rather odd plot of the "Elders" such as the Cigarette Smoking Man and The Englishman in its strange entirety, and getting a glimpse of the aliens - never a good move in my book.
About halfway through it gets a little too silly but frankly if you like the series it gets a 7/10. If you don't like the show I'd guess at 5/10, but it's not like you'd watch the film if you'd resisted the charms of aliens and the Lone Gunmen (here for about a second).
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, March 9, 2009
Quick Movie Review: The Killing
6/10
A reasonable heist movie from director Stanley Kubrick early in his career that concerns an ex-con's plans for one last big score at a race course, and the consequences of it.
The Kubrick style shines through on a couple of occasions (with interesting first person perspective shots, most effectively at the very end) and his dry wit and sardonic sense of humour pervades the film, not least in the dopey George's marriage to his wife who I am certain is played by a relative of Alison Janney, so alike is the performance and attitude to that towering amazon of The West Wing.
That being said, there is little here that raises the film above average thriller stakes - the multi-timelines are well done, but the way in which they are explained is through voiceover not in the person of any of the characters, but in a style reminiscent of nothing more than the old Dragnet one. All strident seriousess.
Sterling Hayden is best value fort money as the tired and worldly wise ex-con and the nefarious plan is interesting and depicted with tension and flair, but I just didn't get that into the rest of the picture.
I think any fan of Kubrick should see all his films, but I don't think you'll be coming back to The Killing over and over again, though I did find it markedly superior to Killer's Kiss, the other early black and white Kubrick film I have seen recently.
Good but not great.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
A reasonable heist movie from director Stanley Kubrick early in his career that concerns an ex-con's plans for one last big score at a race course, and the consequences of it.
The Kubrick style shines through on a couple of occasions (with interesting first person perspective shots, most effectively at the very end) and his dry wit and sardonic sense of humour pervades the film, not least in the dopey George's marriage to his wife who I am certain is played by a relative of Alison Janney, so alike is the performance and attitude to that towering amazon of The West Wing.
That being said, there is little here that raises the film above average thriller stakes - the multi-timelines are well done, but the way in which they are explained is through voiceover not in the person of any of the characters, but in a style reminiscent of nothing more than the old Dragnet one. All strident seriousess.
Sterling Hayden is best value fort money as the tired and worldly wise ex-con and the nefarious plan is interesting and depicted with tension and flair, but I just didn't get that into the rest of the picture.
I think any fan of Kubrick should see all his films, but I don't think you'll be coming back to The Killing over and over again, though I did find it markedly superior to Killer's Kiss, the other early black and white Kubrick film I have seen recently.
Good but not great.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Movie Review: Watchmen
6/10
Ack... the sheer difficulty of translating Watchmen to the screen deserves some sympathy. A classic graphic novel that told about seven interweaving stories and with tonnes of background information, it was a project that sat for decades in development hell.
Don't let the review score put you off seeing it if you were going - the tale is still exciting and well told, though there is no way for me to see the movie as if through the eyes of someone not familiar with the book.
The tale is of a parallel America, buoyed in its sense of self-importance by the presence of Dr Manhattan - a genuine superhero who has godlike powers. At the same time, several vigilantes have taken up the habit of wearing masks to take on the gangs and criminals they can't take down by legal means. At its heart it's a study of what would really happen if the tales of Batman, Superman et al were literally true.
Particularly interesting is the exploration, through Dr Manhattan, of how someone superhuman could possibly identify, sympathise or even live with ordinary humanity at all. The answer is clearly "not very well".
To bring it to the screen,Zack Snyder has cut much of the historical flashbacks and detail focussing on the main plot, concerning the murder of a masked vigilante called The Comedian (who is excellent in this film) - why this happened and what its consequences are.
I do want to make it clear though, that the less than perfect score is not because of any poorness of the adaptation, in fact it's a reasonably faithful rendition of the original tale, with several cuts for brevity's sake (ha!) - the problems with this film are actually all film-making ones.
First, and most jarring, is the issue of the soundtrack. I am a very musical person, and like many cinema goers am very badly affected by bad music choices. The music cues in Watchmen are laughably trite choices, marked by a credulous sense of cleverness that the triteness really makes laughable.
Examples in the form of questions:
1. What piece of classical music is playing under the Vietnam sequence?
2. What is the most overused piece of music in movies and is used here during a hallelujah moment?
3. If you want to show the passage of time and use an appropriate piece of music to underpin it what folk singer's song would you use?
These stupidly obvious choices raised laughs - and I don't think they work as satirical comedy choices even if that was the intention as they just appeared to be ones that the makers considered clever....
Answers at the end.
Other choices are just weird - despite the America of this parallel universe being staunchly anti-communist one scene is quite oddly underscored by "99 Luftballons" a song about communist revolution, but this scene is just of a Silk Spectre walking into a restaurant, not a political scene at all! And no-one in this America would play a communist song openly, so it's not a case of that's what is playing in the diner... odd.
Second major complaint is with Malin Akkerman. She is atrocious as Laurie, the Silk Spectre. Seemingly a student of the Richard Gere school of "sighing as acting", and her longer speeches are horrific object lessons in endurance film-watching.
The Watchmen tale that they have created through their creative choices revolves for much of its length around her (not a problem since the story of her relationships is crucial to the plot) and the poor performance means that the centre of the film is poisoned, causing major problems with emotional investment, tension and pay off.
===MINOR SPOILER - SKIP IF CONCERNED===
Third big problem is that they have changed the books ending somewhat - not a bad thing given the controversial nature of the books ending (which veers a little into silliness) but the issue is that their replacement ending makes even LESS sense. I can't really talk about it, but unlike the books ending, in which the intended outcome is achieved by use of outside threats, the one used in the film is achieved through something with a national affiliation, pooh-poohing the idea it could have a uniting consequence - quite the opposite.
=============================
Also, it is very violent. I don't mind so much given the circumstances (and it is deservedly an 18 rated movie) plus its desire to show what would really happen if a very strong vigilante attacked a load of weaker people with extreme prejudice. I do have a problem with the laughable sex scene (even if it had better music) because it is overlong, poorly acted and unintentionally hilarious.
I want to talk about the best thing about the film now to cheer myself up.
In Rorschach, Alan Moore invented one of the best characters in the genre, a hyper-moral, ultra conservative, super violent sociopath who is, nevertheless, the unquestionable anti-hero of the piece. While his origin (and that of his "face") is lost in the movie adaptation, we still get a great sense of the person this is. And he is a force of nature! The performance is superb, even down to the voice over where you can almost hear his bile rising as he describes the city he hates and yet feels a drive to stalk.
Every bit of the film that is good involves him - it just feels a bit flat when he's not involved. If I'd been in charge I would have taken his story as the main focus and ran with it. Guess that's why I'm not in movies.
Other than that the film's real strengths are the novel's strengths; the moral questions and totally amoral approach to the American dream that really make the story something more than the typical "masked hero saves city" stories that typify the genre.
I do think it's worth seeing, but some of its excesses (wire work? Sudden Slow motion? Dumb exposition dialogue) may stem from its director being Zack "300" Snyder instead of the many directors (Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass and others) that have been attached to the project over the years of development. Well done to them on getting it done, but it isn't perfect by any measure.
'til next time!
A
1. Ride Of The Valkyries
2. Hallelujah (again)
3. The Times They Are A'Changing
See the full post by clicking here...
Ack... the sheer difficulty of translating Watchmen to the screen deserves some sympathy. A classic graphic novel that told about seven interweaving stories and with tonnes of background information, it was a project that sat for decades in development hell.
Don't let the review score put you off seeing it if you were going - the tale is still exciting and well told, though there is no way for me to see the movie as if through the eyes of someone not familiar with the book.
The tale is of a parallel America, buoyed in its sense of self-importance by the presence of Dr Manhattan - a genuine superhero who has godlike powers. At the same time, several vigilantes have taken up the habit of wearing masks to take on the gangs and criminals they can't take down by legal means. At its heart it's a study of what would really happen if the tales of Batman, Superman et al were literally true.
Particularly interesting is the exploration, through Dr Manhattan, of how someone superhuman could possibly identify, sympathise or even live with ordinary humanity at all. The answer is clearly "not very well".
To bring it to the screen,Zack Snyder has cut much of the historical flashbacks and detail focussing on the main plot, concerning the murder of a masked vigilante called The Comedian (who is excellent in this film) - why this happened and what its consequences are.
I do want to make it clear though, that the less than perfect score is not because of any poorness of the adaptation, in fact it's a reasonably faithful rendition of the original tale, with several cuts for brevity's sake (ha!) - the problems with this film are actually all film-making ones.
First, and most jarring, is the issue of the soundtrack. I am a very musical person, and like many cinema goers am very badly affected by bad music choices. The music cues in Watchmen are laughably trite choices, marked by a credulous sense of cleverness that the triteness really makes laughable.
Examples in the form of questions:
1. What piece of classical music is playing under the Vietnam sequence?
2. What is the most overused piece of music in movies and is used here during a hallelujah moment?
3. If you want to show the passage of time and use an appropriate piece of music to underpin it what folk singer's song would you use?
These stupidly obvious choices raised laughs - and I don't think they work as satirical comedy choices even if that was the intention as they just appeared to be ones that the makers considered clever....
Answers at the end.
Other choices are just weird - despite the America of this parallel universe being staunchly anti-communist one scene is quite oddly underscored by "99 Luftballons" a song about communist revolution, but this scene is just of a Silk Spectre walking into a restaurant, not a political scene at all! And no-one in this America would play a communist song openly, so it's not a case of that's what is playing in the diner... odd.
Second major complaint is with Malin Akkerman. She is atrocious as Laurie, the Silk Spectre. Seemingly a student of the Richard Gere school of "sighing as acting", and her longer speeches are horrific object lessons in endurance film-watching.
The Watchmen tale that they have created through their creative choices revolves for much of its length around her (not a problem since the story of her relationships is crucial to the plot) and the poor performance means that the centre of the film is poisoned, causing major problems with emotional investment, tension and pay off.
===MINOR SPOILER - SKIP IF CONCERNED===
Third big problem is that they have changed the books ending somewhat - not a bad thing given the controversial nature of the books ending (which veers a little into silliness) but the issue is that their replacement ending makes even LESS sense. I can't really talk about it, but unlike the books ending, in which the intended outcome is achieved by use of outside threats, the one used in the film is achieved through something with a national affiliation, pooh-poohing the idea it could have a uniting consequence - quite the opposite.
=============================
Also, it is very violent. I don't mind so much given the circumstances (and it is deservedly an 18 rated movie) plus its desire to show what would really happen if a very strong vigilante attacked a load of weaker people with extreme prejudice. I do have a problem with the laughable sex scene (even if it had better music) because it is overlong, poorly acted and unintentionally hilarious.
I want to talk about the best thing about the film now to cheer myself up.
In Rorschach, Alan Moore invented one of the best characters in the genre, a hyper-moral, ultra conservative, super violent sociopath who is, nevertheless, the unquestionable anti-hero of the piece. While his origin (and that of his "face") is lost in the movie adaptation, we still get a great sense of the person this is. And he is a force of nature! The performance is superb, even down to the voice over where you can almost hear his bile rising as he describes the city he hates and yet feels a drive to stalk.
Every bit of the film that is good involves him - it just feels a bit flat when he's not involved. If I'd been in charge I would have taken his story as the main focus and ran with it. Guess that's why I'm not in movies.
Other than that the film's real strengths are the novel's strengths; the moral questions and totally amoral approach to the American dream that really make the story something more than the typical "masked hero saves city" stories that typify the genre.
I do think it's worth seeing, but some of its excesses (wire work? Sudden Slow motion? Dumb exposition dialogue) may stem from its director being Zack "300" Snyder instead of the many directors (Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass and others) that have been attached to the project over the years of development. Well done to them on getting it done, but it isn't perfect by any measure.
'til next time!
A
1. Ride Of The Valkyries
2. Hallelujah (again)
3. The Times They Are A'Changing
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, March 6, 2009
Lets Talk Cats (not movies)
You may be wondering where I've been all week and why the movies have dried up and here's your answer; cats. We've also been concentrating more on Deadwood and The Wire than films, but I'm hoping to see Watchmen this weekend...
OK, I'm not famous for my tolerant nature - many things get me angry, but get this little tale - it's especially galling.
Imagine you're a lovely black cat, whose owners couldn't face paying to get you spayed.
When your owners have a baby, one of them (presumably Mum) develops an allergy and the lovely people kick you and your daughter (who's about 6 months old) into the back garden.
Thing is - remember your owners couldn't be arsed to get you spayed? Well guess what happens to an unspayed cat who is left outside for weeks? Yup - you get pregnant. Let's not judge - you're not a person, and its pretty much hardwired into you to get pregnant if you can.
Your owners do anything about it?
How about no?
How about they leave you to give birth in an old rotten Rabbit hutch? Yeah, that'll work.
And then why don't they call the local cat trust up and give them an ultimatum - If they don't come pick you up, they'll leave you in the cold to die. Nice owners you had there.
Wankers.
Things look grim for cats who are unwanted in the U.K. - twat owners like these ones refuse to get the poor things spayed or neutered and this leads to a whole lot of unwanted kittens and cats and there just anren't enough willing homes to take them in - certainly not a mum, young daughter and three newborn kittens at once. There isa great fallacy around spaying apparently and thats that a cat is healthier if they've already had a litter before spaying.
Let me make this clear, everyone in the cat arena has told me the same thing:
THERE IS NO BENEFIT LETTING YOUR CAT HAVE A LITTER BEFORE SPAYING. IN FACT YOU DO MORE HARM BRINGING UNWANTED, UNHOMED KITTENS INTO THE WORLD.
THE BELIEF IN ANY SUCH BENEFIT IS, LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, TOTAL BOLLOCKS.
For families like this one, there's a very stretched to the limit system of fostering in place - families or couples (or individuals) prepared to take in a mum and kittens in this situation and give their time and love to socialise and develop these guys. This is so they will hopefully grow into viable pets having the best possible chance of rehoming. Time and love are all you need - the trust provide food, litter and moral supportr and boy do I need moral support sometimes!
Make no mistake - there are two outcomes available to many unwanted cats - rehoming or death. It is impossible for any trust to look after all the cats that need looking after - many are feral or traumatised in the first place and don't adapt well to being looked after.
To get to the point, Mrs Algo and I have taken in the unwanted family described above.
The mum is about two years old and already has has one litter about 6 months agao (and yet wasn't neutered afterwards by her dumb f__ing owners) - the older daughter, who we've renamed since the given name was retarded, is the only one from the earlier litter still present and these two are fairly inseparable.
(Quick aside: I won't be giving the older twos' names on this blog to protect us from the owners beating me up - for calling them wankers. They are still wankers, though.)
Mumsy arrived tired but open to contact, and we've been happy with how she's settling. the older daughter is not so well socialised (partly due to the young age of her mother) and is having trouble overcoming her wariness - don't blame her, given her prior human contact.
However, today we've had the breakthrough we wanted with Odie (as in O.D. - older daughter) - she's been out of the pen (which was provided for us like everything else) and fussed a bit. With mum, treats got her out, but things were more difficult with Odie; she sniffs and lick treats but won't eat them not sure why but maybe she doesn't like fish flavoured ones - we'll get her in the end. Odie spent the last two hours of this evening hiding under our cheapass sofa but at least she's got out and about a little.
I guess I should say, if you think there may be room in your heart to help out a local trust and look after some cats please, please, please give it real thought (i.e. don't think you'll be ok then backpedal) and if you reckon you can help call them up and see what you can do.
These people do a wonderful job with very little support and staggering odds stacked against them. Any help you could give would be wonderful.
As for what happens later? After 6 to 8 weeks these cats will be rehomed - we may keep two of the kittens as our own (let's face it, we probably will) but the others need rehoming - you won't be forced to keep all 5-8 of them forever. The key thing to do is talk to the trust and see what they advise.
Oh - did I mention I knew nothing about cats until I got attached to the cat that nearly was a few weeks ago? Needless to say I am learning on the fly.
Since I won't post pictures of the old'uns for security purposes, tomorrow or sometime soon I'll probably introduce you to the kittens we've called (for now) Bootsy, Smokey and The Bandit.
Yes. The Bandit. Really.
We won't be keeping that name. But you have to call them something for reference! The Bandit is the runt, so gets called Tiny, sometimes.
Only Bootsy's name is probably permanent (for the real Bootsy go here).
A (going soft in my old age)
See the full post by clicking here...
OK, I'm not famous for my tolerant nature - many things get me angry, but get this little tale - it's especially galling.
Imagine you're a lovely black cat, whose owners couldn't face paying to get you spayed.
When your owners have a baby, one of them (presumably Mum) develops an allergy and the lovely people kick you and your daughter (who's about 6 months old) into the back garden.
Thing is - remember your owners couldn't be arsed to get you spayed? Well guess what happens to an unspayed cat who is left outside for weeks? Yup - you get pregnant. Let's not judge - you're not a person, and its pretty much hardwired into you to get pregnant if you can.
Your owners do anything about it?
How about no?
How about they leave you to give birth in an old rotten Rabbit hutch? Yeah, that'll work.
And then why don't they call the local cat trust up and give them an ultimatum - If they don't come pick you up, they'll leave you in the cold to die. Nice owners you had there.
Wankers.
Things look grim for cats who are unwanted in the U.K. - twat owners like these ones refuse to get the poor things spayed or neutered and this leads to a whole lot of unwanted kittens and cats and there just anren't enough willing homes to take them in - certainly not a mum, young daughter and three newborn kittens at once. There isa great fallacy around spaying apparently and thats that a cat is healthier if they've already had a litter before spaying.
Let me make this clear, everyone in the cat arena has told me the same thing:
THERE IS NO BENEFIT LETTING YOUR CAT HAVE A LITTER BEFORE SPAYING. IN FACT YOU DO MORE HARM BRINGING UNWANTED, UNHOMED KITTENS INTO THE WORLD.
THE BELIEF IN ANY SUCH BENEFIT IS, LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, TOTAL BOLLOCKS.
For families like this one, there's a very stretched to the limit system of fostering in place - families or couples (or individuals) prepared to take in a mum and kittens in this situation and give their time and love to socialise and develop these guys. This is so they will hopefully grow into viable pets having the best possible chance of rehoming. Time and love are all you need - the trust provide food, litter and moral supportr and boy do I need moral support sometimes!
Make no mistake - there are two outcomes available to many unwanted cats - rehoming or death. It is impossible for any trust to look after all the cats that need looking after - many are feral or traumatised in the first place and don't adapt well to being looked after.
To get to the point, Mrs Algo and I have taken in the unwanted family described above.
The mum is about two years old and already has has one litter about 6 months agao (and yet wasn't neutered afterwards by her dumb f__ing owners) - the older daughter, who we've renamed since the given name was retarded, is the only one from the earlier litter still present and these two are fairly inseparable.
(Quick aside: I won't be giving the older twos' names on this blog to protect us from the owners beating me up - for calling them wankers. They are still wankers, though.)
Mumsy arrived tired but open to contact, and we've been happy with how she's settling. the older daughter is not so well socialised (partly due to the young age of her mother) and is having trouble overcoming her wariness - don't blame her, given her prior human contact.
However, today we've had the breakthrough we wanted with Odie (as in O.D. - older daughter) - she's been out of the pen (which was provided for us like everything else) and fussed a bit. With mum, treats got her out, but things were more difficult with Odie; she sniffs and lick treats but won't eat them not sure why but maybe she doesn't like fish flavoured ones - we'll get her in the end. Odie spent the last two hours of this evening hiding under our cheapass sofa but at least she's got out and about a little.
I guess I should say, if you think there may be room in your heart to help out a local trust and look after some cats please, please, please give it real thought (i.e. don't think you'll be ok then backpedal) and if you reckon you can help call them up and see what you can do.
These people do a wonderful job with very little support and staggering odds stacked against them. Any help you could give would be wonderful.
As for what happens later? After 6 to 8 weeks these cats will be rehomed - we may keep two of the kittens as our own (let's face it, we probably will) but the others need rehoming - you won't be forced to keep all 5-8 of them forever. The key thing to do is talk to the trust and see what they advise.
Oh - did I mention I knew nothing about cats until I got attached to the cat that nearly was a few weeks ago? Needless to say I am learning on the fly.
Since I won't post pictures of the old'uns for security purposes, tomorrow or sometime soon I'll probably introduce you to the kittens we've called (for now) Bootsy, Smokey and The Bandit.
Yes. The Bandit. Really.
We won't be keeping that name. But you have to call them something for reference! The Bandit is the runt, so gets called Tiny, sometimes.
Only Bootsy's name is probably permanent (for the real Bootsy go here).
A (going soft in my old age)
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, March 2, 2009
Quick Movie Review: Starter For Ten
4/10
Far be it from me to presume to throw a spanner in the works of the James McAvoy star maker machine, but why is it this film is just not very good? Another thing - this proves is that the British film industry must try harder than simply relocated the same plots from other films to Bristol if it wants to make any sustained progress in the long term viability stakes.
Well, my prevailing theory at the moment is that Starter For Ten represents the lowest amount of effort put into making a film on the subject matter. The romances follow the same tired old clichéd beats - initial romance is flaky and shallow, the real girl he should be with is obvious to us but passed over by the hero because, well, the film demands it. He even has the same old conversation with his mate who says - "we're never going to make anything of ourselves but you can, and it's insulting to us if you waste that chance" which I'm certain I remember from elsewhere but it is late and the film eludes me. Even his big mistake at the Challenge itself isn't really that tremendously exciting since the only consequences to him appear to be that he gets into the Smiths and looks depressed for a few minutes (any Uni student's been through that).
There are a couple of funny beats - the botched headbutt, for example, and the stoned confrontation with Alice's naked parents, but the sheer obviousness of the story never goes away and for me the film never overcame this issue.
Many people really like Starter For Ten. I don't. By all means make up your own minds. BBC films will be grateful for the cash.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Far be it from me to presume to throw a spanner in the works of the James McAvoy star maker machine, but why is it this film is just not very good? Another thing - this proves is that the British film industry must try harder than simply relocated the same plots from other films to Bristol if it wants to make any sustained progress in the long term viability stakes.
Well, my prevailing theory at the moment is that Starter For Ten represents the lowest amount of effort put into making a film on the subject matter. The romances follow the same tired old clichéd beats - initial romance is flaky and shallow, the real girl he should be with is obvious to us but passed over by the hero because, well, the film demands it. He even has the same old conversation with his mate who says - "we're never going to make anything of ourselves but you can, and it's insulting to us if you waste that chance" which I'm certain I remember from elsewhere but it is late and the film eludes me. Even his big mistake at the Challenge itself isn't really that tremendously exciting since the only consequences to him appear to be that he gets into the Smiths and looks depressed for a few minutes (any Uni student's been through that).
There are a couple of funny beats - the botched headbutt, for example, and the stoned confrontation with Alice's naked parents, but the sheer obviousness of the story never goes away and for me the film never overcame this issue.
Many people really like Starter For Ten. I don't. By all means make up your own minds. BBC films will be grateful for the cash.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Jumanji
5/10
Having finally seen Jumanji, a good 14 years after it would have been cool, I'm not sure I am that gutted I never saw it before.
The effects have not worn particularly well, neither has the plot, which exists purely as a way of introducing countless effects sequences and while supposedly dealing with the danger of missed opportunities and not being afraid of growing up is in fact all about monkeys driving police cars.
Nothing wrong with that - significant comedy mileage to be had from monkeys driving police cars.
Meh. It just didn't grab me, plus the kids deserve all they get for playing a 2 dimensional roll and move game like Jumanji. Where's the auction mechanic? The multiple paths to victory? (I am joking)
Maybe I was in the wrong mood, and sure it was a bit of fluffy fun for an afternoon with your virus checker but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to others, so it gets an almost definitive 5/10.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Having finally seen Jumanji, a good 14 years after it would have been cool, I'm not sure I am that gutted I never saw it before.
The effects have not worn particularly well, neither has the plot, which exists purely as a way of introducing countless effects sequences and while supposedly dealing with the danger of missed opportunities and not being afraid of growing up is in fact all about monkeys driving police cars.
Nothing wrong with that - significant comedy mileage to be had from monkeys driving police cars.
Meh. It just didn't grab me, plus the kids deserve all they get for playing a 2 dimensional roll and move game like Jumanji. Where's the auction mechanic? The multiple paths to victory? (I am joking)
Maybe I was in the wrong mood, and sure it was a bit of fluffy fun for an afternoon with your virus checker but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to others, so it gets an almost definitive 5/10.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: Ran
8/10
OK, I'll be up front. I know the play King Lear quite well, so a large part of the surprise and tension of a plot that essentially is identical with a couple of recastings is lost on me.
For those who come to Kurosawa's Ran with no knowledge of the play or plot I'll give the fivepence summary;
Hidetora, an old and venerated leader of men realises he is getting old and cedes control of his kingdom to his oldest son, with castles and lands given to his other two. While he will do this, he will keep his title of "great leader", all his privileges and a retinue of 30.
Now, any student of feudal politics will see the flaw in his logic here. I'm not one, and I did.
Naturally this is a recipe for strife between the brothers as they will vie for power and since two other factions border the land, it may destroy the whole kingdom that Hidetora created in 50 years of bloodshed.
Only one of his sons, Saburo, has the courage to point this out to the old man, and in a rage at his insolence, the Great Leader has Saburo banished, along with one of his own Vassals, Tango (feel free to snicker - did) who makes the same argument.
Saburo is taken in by one of the bordering families and married to their daughter and essentially stands by for the majority of the picture as the family tears itself apart, only returning to retrieve the old man who, rejected and by now quite mad with guilt and horror, wanders the plains of his old kingdom with only his jester for company.
So, obviously folks, for those of you in the know, it's King Lear.
The main switches are for Lear's daughters to morph into Hidetora's three sons and for the introduction of what is essentially a Lady MacBeth character, who works behind the scenes to control matters toward her own end. Minor changes include the Kent/Tango character having less to do and the Gloucester character being reimagined as a victim of Hidetora's past crimes - a blind ghost of his past, if you will.
Right - this debt to Shakespeare is not a problem, many movies are influenced by the great man's work and this one has no pretentions of originality in that regard.
What it does fantastically is tell the story in a striking and emotional way, and in fact the change in setting to feudal Japan works wonders in explaining some of the less rational character choices in Shakespeare since the rigid moral codes here account for much of the false code of European honour propounded by the bard.
Kurosawa was always a wonderful director, both of sweeping vistas and intimate settings - here he doesn't exceed his earlier work such as Seven Samurai in skill and craft. The black and white vistas and images of that film are replaced by modern technicolour, but the colour palette is used to full effect as the three houses differentiate by colour and the vivid blood red stains during the battle scenes attest.
Even more effective is the colour changes surrounding Hidetora himself, who as the film goes on he goes from his starting position on a sunny green hilltop to the grey desert, all the while becoming more ghoulish in appearance to the point of death himself.
The introduction of Lady Kaede, as the manipulative power behind the throne, is another masterstroke - she provides another side to the story, and while the obvious reading of her character is of a crazed villainess, a moments contemplation shows a very different picture.
The battle scenes themselves are epic, confused and deadly, with none being depicted as glorious or victorious in any sense (since we are shown both victor and loser in every case) - the blood itself, of which there is lots, is of the Hammer Horror bright red variety, which is a disappointment though I am unclear as to whether this was an enforcement of rules by the production or not.
It is precisely this way of depicting the seriousness of war that marks Kurosawa as a true genius - many lesser men would introduce some editorialising at these points, or tip their hands as to which side you should be rooting for, but none of the battles end in this way. The defining scene in the whole movie is the shot of Hidetora, betrayed and defeated, unable even to take his own life after breaking his sword, simply wanders out of his tower and through the remnants of the battlefield - and the attacking soldiers part ranks to let him go!
It's an outstanding film, and one that justifies its hefty length with great character work, acting, shooting and effects - I would definitely recommend it not only to anyone who enjoyed Seven Samurai, but also to fans of Shakespeare, who will see how the great man's works translate across the world to another culture entirely.
It's not perfect and it is definitely Seven Samurai's inferior but do see it if you can.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
OK, I'll be up front. I know the play King Lear quite well, so a large part of the surprise and tension of a plot that essentially is identical with a couple of recastings is lost on me.
For those who come to Kurosawa's Ran with no knowledge of the play or plot I'll give the fivepence summary;
Hidetora, an old and venerated leader of men realises he is getting old and cedes control of his kingdom to his oldest son, with castles and lands given to his other two. While he will do this, he will keep his title of "great leader", all his privileges and a retinue of 30.
Now, any student of feudal politics will see the flaw in his logic here. I'm not one, and I did.
Naturally this is a recipe for strife between the brothers as they will vie for power and since two other factions border the land, it may destroy the whole kingdom that Hidetora created in 50 years of bloodshed.
Only one of his sons, Saburo, has the courage to point this out to the old man, and in a rage at his insolence, the Great Leader has Saburo banished, along with one of his own Vassals, Tango (feel free to snicker - did) who makes the same argument.
Saburo is taken in by one of the bordering families and married to their daughter and essentially stands by for the majority of the picture as the family tears itself apart, only returning to retrieve the old man who, rejected and by now quite mad with guilt and horror, wanders the plains of his old kingdom with only his jester for company.
So, obviously folks, for those of you in the know, it's King Lear.
The main switches are for Lear's daughters to morph into Hidetora's three sons and for the introduction of what is essentially a Lady MacBeth character, who works behind the scenes to control matters toward her own end. Minor changes include the Kent/Tango character having less to do and the Gloucester character being reimagined as a victim of Hidetora's past crimes - a blind ghost of his past, if you will.
Right - this debt to Shakespeare is not a problem, many movies are influenced by the great man's work and this one has no pretentions of originality in that regard.
What it does fantastically is tell the story in a striking and emotional way, and in fact the change in setting to feudal Japan works wonders in explaining some of the less rational character choices in Shakespeare since the rigid moral codes here account for much of the false code of European honour propounded by the bard.
Kurosawa was always a wonderful director, both of sweeping vistas and intimate settings - here he doesn't exceed his earlier work such as Seven Samurai in skill and craft. The black and white vistas and images of that film are replaced by modern technicolour, but the colour palette is used to full effect as the three houses differentiate by colour and the vivid blood red stains during the battle scenes attest.
Even more effective is the colour changes surrounding Hidetora himself, who as the film goes on he goes from his starting position on a sunny green hilltop to the grey desert, all the while becoming more ghoulish in appearance to the point of death himself.
The introduction of Lady Kaede, as the manipulative power behind the throne, is another masterstroke - she provides another side to the story, and while the obvious reading of her character is of a crazed villainess, a moments contemplation shows a very different picture.
The battle scenes themselves are epic, confused and deadly, with none being depicted as glorious or victorious in any sense (since we are shown both victor and loser in every case) - the blood itself, of which there is lots, is of the Hammer Horror bright red variety, which is a disappointment though I am unclear as to whether this was an enforcement of rules by the production or not.
It is precisely this way of depicting the seriousness of war that marks Kurosawa as a true genius - many lesser men would introduce some editorialising at these points, or tip their hands as to which side you should be rooting for, but none of the battles end in this way. The defining scene in the whole movie is the shot of Hidetora, betrayed and defeated, unable even to take his own life after breaking his sword, simply wanders out of his tower and through the remnants of the battlefield - and the attacking soldiers part ranks to let him go!
It's an outstanding film, and one that justifies its hefty length with great character work, acting, shooting and effects - I would definitely recommend it not only to anyone who enjoyed Seven Samurai, but also to fans of Shakespeare, who will see how the great man's works translate across the world to another culture entirely.
It's not perfect and it is definitely Seven Samurai's inferior but do see it if you can.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Quick Movie Review: Get Over It
5/10
Why on Earth did I watch this?
Short answer; I was doing some minor level, boring filing type job and had the film on in the background. It didn't really gain much of my attention throughout.
It's basically a teen movie (which makes me, at 27, feel a bit creepy) about a boy whose gifrlfriend dumps him and he decides to join up with the schools terrible Midsummer Night's Dream musical to try and win her back.
I was going to turn it off, but it then brought on Martin Short (who I claimed made his last decent movie in the shape of Three Amigos!) and things picked up - he says such lines as "Shakespeare was a great poet, but Burt Bacharach he ain't", and has frequent manic episodes which really made many of his scenes a watchable experience.
Other than Short, the main characters parents, who in their leniency are definitely the worst parents ever, add some more much needed comic relief but nothing much else really jumps out.
A fairly enjoyable hour and a half, but nothing more than that.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Why on Earth did I watch this?
Short answer; I was doing some minor level, boring filing type job and had the film on in the background. It didn't really gain much of my attention throughout.
It's basically a teen movie (which makes me, at 27, feel a bit creepy) about a boy whose gifrlfriend dumps him and he decides to join up with the schools terrible Midsummer Night's Dream musical to try and win her back.
I was going to turn it off, but it then brought on Martin Short (who I claimed made his last decent movie in the shape of Three Amigos!) and things picked up - he says such lines as "Shakespeare was a great poet, but Burt Bacharach he ain't", and has frequent manic episodes which really made many of his scenes a watchable experience.
Other than Short, the main characters parents, who in their leniency are definitely the worst parents ever, add some more much needed comic relief but nothing much else really jumps out.
A fairly enjoyable hour and a half, but nothing more than that.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
