THE HANGOVER PART II

May 29, 2011

 Greetings again from the darkness. Two years ago, director Todd Phillips presented a highly creative, hilarious, raunchy, unique film comedy called The Hangover. And now, he does it again. No, not the creative part.  I mean he presents that SAME film again. I am unsure whether this is a sequel or remake. The only substantial change is the setting … Bangkok instead of Vegas.

Now I fully understand WHY most sequels follow the formula created by the successful original film. Filmmakers want to keep their built-in audience satisfied. The theory is: If it worked once, it will work again. Especially when the first film grosses a half-billion dollars! So the chances are very good that if you liked the first one, you will also enjoy this one. But for me, I get excited for creative filmmakers … not re-treads.

 The key characters are all back and played by the same guys: Bradley Cooper (Phil), Ed Helms (Stu), Zach Galifianakis (Alan), Justin Bartha (Doug), and Ken Jeong (Mr. Chow). All of these guys have worked constantly since the first film, but it makes perfect sense to return to the scene that put them on the Hollywood map.

This time around, Stu (Ed Helms) draws the long straw and has the storyline based on his pending marriage to Jamie Chung (Sucker Punch). Stu’s “wolfpack” buddies agree to a one-beer bonfire beach bachelor party, but of course, something goes very wrong. The next morning finds our boys staggering to regain consciousness in a sleazy Bangkok hotel with no recollection of the previous night’s events. The only clues are a monkey, a severed finger, a facial tat and international criminal Mr. Chow (Jeong).

 No need for me to go into any details or spoil any moments. You know the drill if you have seen the first. What follows is nearly two hours of debauchery and moments of varying levels of discomfort, gross-out and comedic skits.

Supporting work is provided by Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Tambor, and Mason Lee (Ang Lee‘s son). There is also a cameo by Nick Cassavetes as a tattoo artist. This role was originally meant for Mel Gibson, and later Liam Neeson. Cast and crew protests kept Gibson out and Neeson’s scenes were cut when re-shoots were necessary.  And rest easy, Mike Tyson makes another hilarious appearance – it may be the most creative moment of this remake … err, sequel.

I feel tricked by Mr. Phillips. The first Hangover had me excited that a new comedic genius had entered Hollywood and would quickly blow away the Judd Apatow recycle jobs and copycats. Instead, we get Todd Phillips copying Todd Phillips.

This is certainly an above-average comedy and there are plenty of laughs from the characters we kind of feel like we know – though, wish we didn’t. Just know going in that you are witnessing a clear attempt at cashing in, not a desire to wow.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: like many, you thought the first one was one of the best ever film comedies OR you just want to see how closely Ed Helms resembles Mike Tyson

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you saw the first one and wish you hadn’t OR you never saw the first one and think maybe they have “cleaned” this one up (they haven’t)

Leave a Comment » | Comedy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

SKATELAND

May 29, 2011

 Greetings again from the darkness. I am a sucker for coming-of-age stories based in the 60’s, 70’s or 80’s. So all it took was seeing the trailer once for me to catch up with first time director Anthony Burns’ film set in 1983 in a small east Texas town. No matter that I spent almost no time in a skating rink growing up. The basic time and place was enough to lure me in.

Pet Peeve Alert: I have stated this many times, but I can never understand why directors feel the need to cast twenty-somethings as high schoolers. Immediately I am on the defensive. That’s not to say that Shiloh Fernandez, Ashley Greene and Haley Ramm aren’t fine actors, because they certainly are. They just aren’t believable as 17 or 18 year olds. Same with Heath Freeman (the film’s co-writer). As Brent, he is cast as the older guy who still parties with the high schoolers when on break from his time as a dirt bike racer. Mr. Freeman is talented, but looks to be pushing 40 years old! Remember Matthew McConaughey in Richard Linklater‘s excellent Dazed and Confused? At least he didn’t look 15 years older than the other kids. There are elements of that film, as well as Almost Famous and American Graffiti, present here. Unfortunately, Skateland never comes close to the detail or emotional strength of any of those three films.

For the first hour, I kept holding out hope that the film would find itself and really present something new and special. It has the look of important commentary; however, it just leaves us holding an empty bag.

Certainly all the pieces are here … wannabe writer, inspirational sister, broken family, rich and poor friends, cool and uncool students, hangers-on, local thugs, etc. Even Skateland itself has a real look and feel. For whatever reason, these pieces never jell … they just lay there expecting us to assemble a meaningful, completed puzzle.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you attended high school in a small town in the early 1980’s OR skating rinks hold a special place in your heart

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you have the chance to watch American Graffiti instead

Leave a Comment » | Comedy, Drama | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES

May 21, 2011

 Greetings again from the darkness. I will make no apology for being a fan of the “Pirates” series. This is the fourth film and the best since the first. Though I liked them enough, I felt the second and third depended too much on special effects and the need to overwhelm, whereas this one concentrates more on the colorful characters. This latest entry is also directed by Rob Marshall (Chicago) rather than Gore Verbinski, who directed the first three.

 Of course, what really matters is that Johnny Depp is back as Captain Jack Sparrow. And in fine form, I might add. He comes across more clever, witty and less buffoonish  than in the previous two. His character is much better as a worthy adversary than a clown prince. In this one, he alternates between matching wits and swords with no less than three characters. First, Geoffrey Rush is back as Barbossa. Only this time, he seems to have gone legit with the King’s navy. Next we have Sparrow’s long-lost love from Seville played by Penelope Cruz. They also match wits and swords (and facial hair). Lastly, we have the legendary pirate Blackbeard, played with full force by Ian McShane. Were it not a Disney movie, McShane could have made his Blackbeard one of the most frightening characters ever seen on screen. Even with the limitations, he performs exceedingly well.

 The “plot” of the film involves the search for Ponce de Leon’s ship and the much desired Fountain of Youth. The race is on between Sparrow, Blackbeard, the Spainiards and Barbossa who is acting on behalf of King George (a wonderful Richard Griffiths). As always, it’s not always easy to tell which characters are partners and which are adversaries. That’s half the fun! An interesting twist is that in order to have the desired results from the infamous fountain, one must drink from a specific chalice and include a single mermaid tear. Of course, everlasting youth shouldn’t be too easy to achieve. The mermaid sequences are fascinating, though we really only get to know one of them – Syrena played with soulful eyes by Astrid Berges-Frisbey.

Thankfully, two long time characters are absent from this film – Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley. Both were dead-weight that caused major drag in the two most recent Pirates films. Cruz and McShane are infinitely more interesting and entertaining and play off of Captain Jack much better.  I did enjoy seeing Keith Richards reprise his role as Sparrow’s father.  Their scene together produces the best line in the film.

 Speaking of Depp’s Jack Sparrow, I would make the argument that this character has entered the rarefied air of film comedy icon. I would put him at or near the level of the all-time best recurring comic characters: Inspector Clouseau (Peter Sellers, NOT Steve Martin), Austin Powers (Mike Myers) and the Little Tramp (Charlie Chaplin). Of course, there are loads of others that have made a name for themselves but are a step below: Ernest (Jim Varney), Fletch (Chevy Chase), Wayne and Garth (Wayne’s World), Riggs and Murtaugh (Lethal Weapon), etc. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

As I have stated many times, comedy is such a personal taste that it’s always difficult to review. What sets the Pirate’s films apart (especially one and four) are the characters combined with action and witty banter. No, it’s not for everyone, but if you like this style, it’s difficult to beat.  YO-HO, YO-HO …

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you have been hoping this franchise would go back to featuring Depp’s Sparrow OR you somehow missed the first three but are in the mood for a rollicking good time

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you didn’t like the first one OR seeing Keith Richards causes nightmares

Leave a Comment » | Action, Comedy | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

FORKS OVER KNIVES

May 18, 2011

 Greetings again from the darkness. Don’t show up for this documentary expecting Morgan Spurlock or Michael Moore. This one offers little entertainment value. But then, that’s not the objective of the filmmaker, writer Lee Fulkerson. Mr. Fulkerson provides the polar opposite of Spurlock’s award-winning Super Size Me, where Spurlock ate McDonalds fast food at every meal for a month, Mr. Fulkerson rejects our typical animal-based and processed food diet for plant-based whole foods.

This test is conducted under the watch of Dr. Matthew Ledderman, who along with his wife, run all pertinent blood and medical tests, and then proceed to teach Mr. Fulkerson how to shop, cook and eat in an entirely new way. The goals are weight loss, increased energy and a reduction of prescription drugs.

This film plays more like a PBS special or a film for medical class, as it pounds the viewer with data and information and studies and examples. A few doctors are interviewed and only minimal input is obtained from the “other” side.

 The film gives the impression that Mr. Fulkerson set out to prove his point, much like Dr. Esselstyn and Dr Campbell give every indication that their goal is to prove their own points. The famous China-Oxford-Cornell study has received some heat over the years, but regardless, it seems very clear that WITH PROPER GUIDANCE, a plant-based whole food diet affords many benefits to the human body when compared to the animal-based and processed food that have become so prevalent in the U.S.

 No attention is given to cigarettes or exercise as this film is totally focused on nutrition and it’s effects. There is also some information provided in regards to the governmental subsidies of corn crops, and meat and dairy farmers. This leads our filmmaker and many others to presume that the government is not necessarily interested in what’s best for us or school kids’ lunches. In fact, it appears both sides have a bit of self-interest at stake.

I would encourage everyone to see the film and educate yourself so that you can make the decisions that are best for you. Consult with multiple doctors and nutritionists. No one can argue with the goal of reduced disease and minimal drug intake … the big question is what’s the best way to achieve this.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you are looking for information and data as it pertains to plant-based whole foods

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: there is absolutely no way you are giving up your cheeseburgers and T-Bones!

Leave a Comment » | Documentary | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

EVERYTHING MUST GO

May 18, 2011

 Greetings again from the darkness. Seeing this film back-to-back with Mel Gibson‘s The Beaver was a mistake. Following up manic depression with severe alcoholism and mild depression is just a bit too much weight in such a short time. But I guess that’s the point of this one. Will Ferrell stars as Nick.  He loses his job, punctures his boss’ tire, and finds out his wife not only left him, but also locked him out of the house with all his belongings in the front yard. That’s in the first 8 minutes of the film.

Ferrell proceeds to get drunk … while sitting in his La-Z-Boy in the front yard. He clearly has hit bottom and shows no signs of recovering. At least not until he partners with a lonely, young, bike riding boy named Kenny (Christopher Jordan Wallace, son of Notorious B.I.G.). This partnership consists of Kenny doing most of the work for the yard sale while Ferrell sleeps and drinks.

 Rebecca Hall plays a pregnant woman who is moving in across the street. “What kind of man makes his wife move across country alone?“. That’s the question Ferrell asks Hall … and along with the viewer, these two characters understand the answer would be a man just like Ferrell.

What I like about the film is that there are numerous signs of real human emotion throughout, yet none of the main characters overplay their part. If you are unaccustomed to seeing Mr. Ferrell in anything but slapstick comedies, I encourage you to see Stranger Than Fiction. He really does have dramatic acting skills on top of his amazing comedic talent.

The film comes from first time director Dan Rush and short story writer-extraordinaire Raymond Carver. The script does capture much of the emotion that goes with feeling rejected and searching for numbness in a bottle … or in this case, a Pabst beer can. Supporting work from Stephen Root, Laura Dern and Michael Pena are solid, but the best scenes are between Ferrell, Wallace and Hall. Don’t show up expecting to laugh much. This is a serio-drama that makes you think … there but for the grace of God …

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you want to see Will Ferrell bring humanity to a gut-wrenching situation OR you are just looking for some ideas on how to live in your front yard

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you are expecting Step Brothers or Anchorman

Leave a Comment » | Drama | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

THE BEAVER

May 18, 2011

 Greetings again from the darkness. Clearly, depression is no laughing matter for anyone who suffers from it, or their friends, family or co-workers. But a puppet? Speaking as someone who is not qualified to speak on the topic, I do see how the puppet thing might be good therapy for someone who is depressed and has lost their “voice”. But a movie about it?

The good news … IF I were going to make a movie about a depressed dude who talks through a puppet, I would cast Mel Gibson. If the premise is ever going to be believable or watchable, Mel is the man to make it happen. Director Jodie Foster fully understood this and was willing to take the financial risk of having PR-nightmare Gibson attached.

 The frustrating part is that he almost pulls it off, despite the fact that he is TALKING THROUGH A PUPPET most of the movie. We get to see a puppet co-star in a heavy-handed drama, not a comedy like what would come to your mind when you think of a puppet movie. This puppet shares family meals, board meetings, and love-making. Yep, really.

Mr. Gibson proves again what a terrific actor he can be, though at times, I had difficulty not thinking of his real life personal escapades as the on screen drama was playing out. The opening shot of a beleaguered Gibson adrift in a pool makes it impossible to separate fact from fiction. Plus I found Gibson’s choice of mimicking Ray Winstone‘s voice for the puppet to be quite distracting.

 I actually found the sub-plot with the oldest son, played by Anton Yelchin (Star Trek) to be far more interesting. His rogue business and pursuit of cheerleader/valedictorian Jennifer Lawrence (Winter’s Bone) was very intriguing. Ms. Foster not only directs, but also plays the wife/mother who provides far more patience and trust than her husband probably deserved. 

Seeing this movie back-to-back with Everything Must Go just about sent me into depression overload. All the puppet movie really showed me was that Gibson can still act and that Foster is still a fine actress and director, despite the material … and a puppet.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you are fascinated by the train-wreck known as Mel Gibson OR you have a “thing” for puppets

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you think the movie MUST be better than it looks in the trailer OR you can’t wait to see a puppet teach some manners to Mel.

Leave a Comment » | Drama | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

THOR

May 18, 2011

 Greetings again from the darkness. Upfront admission: I am not a Thor comic book expert. Many people are and I fully appreciate their take on this film will be much different from mine. I can only judge this movie on the basic background knowledge I have and the final product on the screen.

Let’s start with the good stuff. Chris Hemsworth makes a terrific Thor. If I had his looks and build, I would certainly consider myself a Nordic God. Heck, I might even carry around a giant hammer just for fun! Thor, son of Odin, is all set to be named King of Asgard until his quick temper and love of battle cause a break in the peace accord with the Frost Giants. His dad, Odin, played by Sir Anthony Hopkins is none too pleased with his hot-headed son. Not only does he renege on the promise to name him King, but he strips his power and casts him down to Earth … specifically New Mexico. For some reason, all alien portals lead to New Mexico. You can tell it’s a been a bad day for Thor because he lands in the middle of nowhere and is promptly run over by a science lab van driven by Natalie Portman.

 Other good stuff: Idris Elba as Heimdall, the gatekeeper, is excellent; there is a cameo by Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye – a teaser for The Avengers movie next year; Jaimie Alexander shows some chops as Sif; Clark Gregg is back as Agent Coulson; some of the special effects are pretty cool … the Frost Giants are very detailed and The Destroyer looks like Iron Man on metallic steroids; and lastly, Kat Dennings has a couple of sharp lines as Portman’s assistant. Ms. Dennings was superb in Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist.

 OK, the not so good stuff: I am beginning to despise 3-D (it adds nothing, while diminishing the brightness of colors); Jotunheim (land of the Frost Giants) is plain, gray and boring; Natalie Portman, fresh off an Oscar is just terrible as an astro-physicist with a teenager-style crush on Thor; Tom Hiddleston as Loki is one of the weakest villains I have ever seen in a super-hero/comic book movie; Rene Russo must not have read the script prior to accepting her role – she has about 3 lines and is totally wasted.

Despite the weaknesses, I found the movie to be entertaining enough thanks to the scenes with Thor and Odin. The ambitious son being shown tough love by his father is a missing element in much of society today. Guess it takes a Nordic God to show us how. The scenes with Portman are painful to watch, but I believe there is enough to keep the comic book fans, and just about anyone else, entertained.

Directed by Kenneth Branagh, who is best known for his Shakespeare and stage work, the movie does have a little different look and feel from the average superhero movie. Still, I wouldn’t put it in the class of Batman, Spider-man, or Iron Man. We do get the expected Stan Lee cameo and the end-of-the-credits appearance of Samuel L Jackson. Up next, Captain America but for now, it’s Hammer time!

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you are a fan of Thor comic books OR you just want to see what a shirtless Nordic God would look like OR you want to see a challenge to Elisabeth Shue in The Saint as the most miscast scientist (Ms. Portman)

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you prefer the dialogue and story to make sense OR you prefer to remember Natalie Portman as the fine actress she was in Black Swan.

Leave a Comment » | Action, Fantasy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

CHINATOWN (1974) revisited

May 13, 2011

 Greetings again from the darkness. The latest of the monthly 1970’s film screenings hosted by Dallas Film Society and The Dallas Morning News was the classic Chinatown.   It was shocking to see 35-40% of the hands go up when host Chris Vognar asked how many had never seen the film.  I felt a combination of guilt, pride and envy since my viewings number approximately 15 or 16, not counting “pit stops” while channel surfing.  This is truly a classic film that should be seen by all lovers of movies.

This is a chance to see the work of three film greats at their absolute peak: Jack Nicholson, Roman Polanski (director) and Robert Towne (writer).  I have previously discussed Nicholson’s work in the 70’s (Five Easy Pieces, The Last Detail,Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest).  He is so confident and assured and expert in his manner and delivery.  It is so much fun to watch the perfect actor in the perfect role.  Regardless of what you may think of Roman Polanski the man, he is unquestionably an excellent director (Rosemary’s Baby, The Pianist, The Ghost Writer).  His visual flair is on full display with cars, wardrobe, colors, and camera angles.  It is obvious he adores the source material.  Robert Towne has some terrific screenplays on his resume (The Last Detail, Shampoo), but none better than this one.  Along with Network (Paddy Chayefsky), this is one of my two favorite screenplays of all-time.  It is outstanding!

 Some people refer to this as “the Nose movie”, thanks to the scene where Polanski, in a cameo as a tough guy, teaches Nicholson a lesson about sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong. What I love about the story and the movie is that we are along with Gittes (Nicholson) for the whole thing.  There are no shortcuts … no narrators … no flashbacks … we get to solve the mysteries right along with him.  Too many movies make it easy for the viewer.  I prefer to work a little.  And trust me, this one makes you work.  Is it a whodunit?  Is it a kidnapping?  Is it a political power play for control of water?  Is it just outright corruption?  The answer is YES to all of these!

 If you have seen it before, watch it again and pay attention to the absolutely perfect mood score from Jerry Goldsmith.  Check out the wardrobe – the number of suits worn by Nicholson is crazy.  The same holds true for Faye Dunaway’s dresses.  Pay attention to the multiple “eye” references right up to the final two … Dunaway in the car and John Huston shielding his “granddaughter” from the grisly scene.  You may have missed the supporting work from John Hillerman, Diane Ladd, Rance Howard (Ron’s dad), Burt Young (Paulie in Rocky) and James Hong.  James Hong?  If you are a “Seinfeld” fan, you’ll recognize him from the Chinese Restaurant scene where he pages “Cartwright”.  Especially pay attention to the powerful performance of John Huston as Noah Cross.  And no matter how many times you have watched it, the “nose” scene will still make you cringe.

If you have never seen the film, I urge you to set aside some time to watch this classic.  Don’t allow yourself to be distracted.  Take it all in and then … “Forget it Jake.  It’s Chinatown.”

Leave a Comment » | Classics, Drama | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER SOLD

May 1, 2011

 Greetings again from the darkness. This is billed as “a documentary about branding, advertising and product placement that is financed and made possible by branding, advertising and product placement“. My issue with the movie is that it’s not really ABOUT anything! It’s really more of a “How To Raise Money For Your Movie By Selling Advertising”.  It does have some funny scenes and provide a glimpse into how open to suggestion the marketing leaders of companies have become.

Morgan Spurlock hit the big time in 2004 with his Oscar-nominated Super Size Me, in which he filmed himself eating only McDonalds food for a full month. The difference in that movie and this one is that previously, he did much research and explained to the viewer the significance of cause and effect of junk food. In this most recent film, he promises insight into the abundance of product placement in the entertainment world, but really we get only a mish-mash of images and scenes.

 The segments can be divided into these categories: conference room presentations, celebrity talking heads, industry experts, and Mr. Spurlock’s own ruminations. Each of these segments are entertaining … heck some are laugh outloud funny … but in the end, we are left holding an empty bag. We have no more understanding of product placement than when we started. What we do have is a better feel for how desperate companies are to find new ways to advertise their products.

Some of the products featured in the film are: Hyatt, Jet Blue, Mini Cooper, Merrill shoes, Sheetz (gas and convenience) and of course, Pom Wonderful – the 100% pomegranate juice whose President and Owner ends up spending $1 million for above the title sponsorship. Some of the talking heads include Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, Paul Brennan and Donald Trump. We get brief chats with film directors Peter Berg, Brett Ratner and Quentin Tarantino. Throw in a couple of lawyers, musicians and some industry experts and you get the impression that Spurlock did just enough to qualify this as a documentary.

 I have spent some time thinking about this and I will stick to my conclusion. What the movie doesn’t do is provide any insight or detail into what drives product placement in entertainment. However, the movie does a decent job showing us how presentations are made to advertising managers at companies, and it leans heavily on Mr. Spurlock’s often-hilarious viewpoint of situations (Mane & Tail shampoo). When you get right down to it, isn’t this just a glimpse at one segment of capitalism? When you have a product to sell, you are constantly looking for the most effective way to advertise that product to potential customers. Sorry, that’s not insight, that’s just Marketing 101.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you would like a peek at how advertising presentations are conducted OR you just want to enjoy Mr. Spurlock’s oddball observations

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you are looking for real insight into the product placement techniques that have invaded movies and TV shows

Leave a Comment » | Documentary | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

IN A BETTER WORLD (Haevnen, Denmark)

April 26, 2011

 Greetings again from the darkness. As is customary, the Oscar winner for Best Foreign Language film finally makes it to Dallas in April, AFTER the awards show is long forgotten (well, except for the half-assed hosting job by James Franco). Denmark’s entry, directed by Susanne Bier (Things We Lost in the Fire), is overflowing with every human emotion one can imagine. However, the battle between two specific emotions is most prevalent: misplaced revenge and forgiveness.

At it’s core, this is a story of two fathers and two sons. The presentation is quite odd in that it tries desperately to tie in all spectrum of human emotion and economic standing. Anton (Mikael Persbrandt from the excellent 2008 Everlasting Moments) travels back and forth between an African refugee camp where he serves as a doctor, and his upscale Denmark home where he is separated from his wife and trying to set a good example for his son Elias (Markus Rygaard).

 The other father is Claus (Ulrich Thomsen) whose relationship with his son Christian (William Johnk Nielsen) is flat out terrible. Christian’s mother recently lost her battle with cancer and it has caused a rift between these two … and lit one heck of a fire of anger in young Christian.

Soon enough Christian stumbles upon Elias being bullied at school. His flaming temper sets the bully straight with a violent act, creating a bond between Elias and Christian. Sadly Christian continues to spin off axis and he drags Elias along.

 As a doctor in the camp, Anton constantly strives to repair the truly despicable acts of the local town bully. This is used to contrast with what’s going on with his own son at home. There are many parts of the film that are difficult to watch, especially as Christian just loses his grip on reality.

While I certainly see the excellence in the film, I believe the filmmakers tried too hard to stage the contrast. The story of the boys was plenty powerful enough to carry a film. Also, the doctor in the camp could have made a chilling movie on it’s own. Instead we gets bits of each and that’s fine … just not what it might have been.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you just haven’t seen enough struggling marriages or lousy father-son relationships OR you would like to witness what may be the longest list of human emotions ever seen in one film

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you believe horrible acts of human nature should be confined to the local and national news and that movies are purely for entertainment purposes.

Leave a Comment » | Drama, World Cinema/Foreign | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Ferguson

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »