The Next Three Days and The Shawshank Redemption are two dark films that deal with prison and prison escape. They follow men and women in and out of prison and tread the lines between innocence and guilt. John Brennan in The Next Three Days is desperately trying to free his wife from prison. Andrew "Andy" Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption is desperately trying not to lose his mind and spirit in prison. The wife in The Next Three Days goes thorough a similar ordeal in prison as Andy and his prison friend Red, although her movie doesn’t go anywhere near as in-depth in prison and her sentence ends up being much shorter. Both films deal with normal people in deeply rough times as they go through spirit-crushing experiences.
Isolation is a large theme in the films. The characters don’t have that many people who they can depend on. The movies’ heroes are ones who we root for because they are sympathetic and have to survive the worst of this world’s challenges by themselves. The Shawshank Redemption is longer so there is more time for dense character development. It also delves farther into what prison-life is like. I believe that is something that The Next Three Days could’ve benefited from. We would’ve rooted more for Lara, John’s wife, if we had known more about what she went through exactly. Both Andy and John endure intense bodily harm, but ironically Andy is the one who doesn’t respond with much violence even though he is inside prison walls and John isn’t. Andy uses his wit to find ways to solve his problems all by himself. John, without using anyone to consult solves his own problem. He gets money by killing instead of being overly creative. You’d think he would figure another way because he is a college professor, but desperate people can do desperate things.
Both movies are compelling at times, but I constantly found myself more compelled with The Shawshank Redemption because of the clever storytelling and unusual characters. Both are definitely comparable because of the settings and the desperate situations. There are also prison escapes in both. Hope, victimization and time running out are the three most memorable themes I believe that the films have in common. The prison system and its faults, just like many things, are rough facts of life that art will continue to imitate. It’s a good thing it will because it always keeps films grounded in the tough truths of humanity.
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
12.11.2010
12.10.2010
The Next Three Days
Review Contains Spoilers!
The final new film we saw in the Film Criticism and Review class was “The Next Three Days.” Russell Crowe plays John Brennan, a man who becomes desperate to break his wife Lara out of prison. Lara, played by Elizabeth Banks, stresses to John that she is innocent of murdering her boss after a fight with him at work. He believes her all the way and takes on a hefty plan of action to break her out. He evens consults a man, played by Liam Neeson, who successfully broke out of prison more than once and wrote a book about it. The film takes place in present-day Pittsburgh. It’s directed by acclaimed director and screenwriter Paul Haggis, who was the director of 2005’s Best Picture winner Crash. The Next Three days is a tense drama that is based on 2007 French film Pour Elle by Fred Cavayé.
John goes through some hard, life-changing situations on his quest to set his wife free. He tries to get passports and ends up getting beat down for it. Lucky enough, a man who was in a bar earlier, when he was just beginning to track down some people who could help him, later finds him and gets him what he needs. I thought this was a little convenient. I mean, who knows, but a solution came to his doorstep only a little ways into his endeavor and it just seemed a little too fast for me. He also finds solutions to his other problems fairly quickly, including his money problem. The man that had broken out of prison before had told John that he would need a truckload of money in order to build a new life somewhere far away. He steals a ton of money after a shootout with a gang in a methamphetamine lab that he barely keeps from blowing up, even though the place erupts in flames. John falsifies medical evidence with medical info that he gets from a truck he breaks into by using a hot tennis ball trick, which has actually been disproven by the television show Mythbusters. His wife is transferred to a hospital because of this. He then amazingly subdues a guard outside where his wife is and escapes with her. The suspense throughout the film is good, but I just think that more time should’ve been spent on him trying to figure his plan out. I would’ve loved for details to have been perfected for believability’s sake and for John to have been more of a nervous wreck so that Russell Crowe’s acting could’ve shined.
The acting in the film is good, but I feel that several phenomenal actors were wasted in large part due to the script. Things move too quickly and the characters don’t feel too well developed. The wife has a fit near the beginning, but other than that she doesn’t get to express herself very much. Russell Crowe does a fitting job, but like I mentioned earlier, he doesn’t come off as anyone that really pulls you into the story the way he could’ve. Another actor with an extremely small part is James Ransone who plays Harv, one of the thugs that beats up John early on. Mr. Ransone has been handed amazing roles in Ken Park, The Wire and Generation Kill, but he is totally wasted as a dirtbag who has just about one line.
All in all I wasn’t terribly impressed. Paul Haggis should know better too, being the skilled filmmaker that he is. I haven’t seen the original French movie, but I bet you anything it’s better. That tends to be the case and I’m not sure why. I suppose most remakes are just made out of laziness instead of real intent to make a film better. My final ruling is a 1.5 out of 5.
The final new film we saw in the Film Criticism and Review class was “The Next Three Days.” Russell Crowe plays John Brennan, a man who becomes desperate to break his wife Lara out of prison. Lara, played by Elizabeth Banks, stresses to John that she is innocent of murdering her boss after a fight with him at work. He believes her all the way and takes on a hefty plan of action to break her out. He evens consults a man, played by Liam Neeson, who successfully broke out of prison more than once and wrote a book about it. The film takes place in present-day Pittsburgh. It’s directed by acclaimed director and screenwriter Paul Haggis, who was the director of 2005’s Best Picture winner Crash. The Next Three days is a tense drama that is based on 2007 French film Pour Elle by Fred Cavayé.
John goes through some hard, life-changing situations on his quest to set his wife free. He tries to get passports and ends up getting beat down for it. Lucky enough, a man who was in a bar earlier, when he was just beginning to track down some people who could help him, later finds him and gets him what he needs. I thought this was a little convenient. I mean, who knows, but a solution came to his doorstep only a little ways into his endeavor and it just seemed a little too fast for me. He also finds solutions to his other problems fairly quickly, including his money problem. The man that had broken out of prison before had told John that he would need a truckload of money in order to build a new life somewhere far away. He steals a ton of money after a shootout with a gang in a methamphetamine lab that he barely keeps from blowing up, even though the place erupts in flames. John falsifies medical evidence with medical info that he gets from a truck he breaks into by using a hot tennis ball trick, which has actually been disproven by the television show Mythbusters. His wife is transferred to a hospital because of this. He then amazingly subdues a guard outside where his wife is and escapes with her. The suspense throughout the film is good, but I just think that more time should’ve been spent on him trying to figure his plan out. I would’ve loved for details to have been perfected for believability’s sake and for John to have been more of a nervous wreck so that Russell Crowe’s acting could’ve shined.
The acting in the film is good, but I feel that several phenomenal actors were wasted in large part due to the script. Things move too quickly and the characters don’t feel too well developed. The wife has a fit near the beginning, but other than that she doesn’t get to express herself very much. Russell Crowe does a fitting job, but like I mentioned earlier, he doesn’t come off as anyone that really pulls you into the story the way he could’ve. Another actor with an extremely small part is James Ransone who plays Harv, one of the thugs that beats up John early on. Mr. Ransone has been handed amazing roles in Ken Park, The Wire and Generation Kill, but he is totally wasted as a dirtbag who has just about one line.
All in all I wasn’t terribly impressed. Paul Haggis should know better too, being the skilled filmmaker that he is. I haven’t seen the original French movie, but I bet you anything it’s better. That tends to be the case and I’m not sure why. I suppose most remakes are just made out of laziness instead of real intent to make a film better. My final ruling is a 1.5 out of 5.
12.07.2010
Due Date
Due Date Review
The film we saw in the most recent Film Criticism and Review class was “Due Date.” Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis lead this on-the-road comedy from the director of The Hangover. The film takes place all over, starting in Atlanta and going to Los Angeles. The main character Peter wants to witness the birth of his child but he is kicked off a plane and put on their no fly list thanks to a nitwit stranger. He ends up taking a ride with that stranger all the way home because he loses his wallet he is desperate. Due Date is a severely bi-polar crude comedy that often drifts into drama because of the heartfelt characters.
The movie begins with the two characters not getting along so well, but making the best of their situation. Peter and his traveling buddy Ethan come to know each other along the way. Peter belittles Ethan when Ethan tells him that he wants to be an actor. He sympathizes with Ethan however when he sees that Ethan is broken-hearted over his father’s recent death. Ethan carries around his father’s ashes which later factors into the film’s hijinks. The film is all over the map in its brands of comedy. Things go from mildly realistic, to sappy, to extremely crude, to highly violent, to absurd and then finally to ‘laughing at the barn door’ at the end. They eventually become true friends in the film, even though the relationship is still highly strained. Peter gets saved by Ethan, then betrayed by him and then the relationship bonds one last time when Ethan gets a wounded Peter to the hospital to see his child being born.
Like I mentioned above, the direction in which the film takes its comedy makes strange turns. The best example of this is when Peter gets detained for drug-possession at the Mexican border and Ethan manages to hijack the trailer that Peter is being held in. He fights off the Mexican police in his car and they end up on the run in a Border Police truck. This takes the film in direction that makes the whole thing far less believable and it didn’t even warrant one laugh as I recall in the theater. This might very well be the part where the film ‘jumped the shark’. I found the drug trip that the two protagonists when through in the previous scene to be a lot funnier and more appropriate to the story. Peter imagining Ethan as a bear driving their vehicle was probably the funniest point in Due Date for me. I feel like that is where it reached its peak and it sort of drifted downwards from there.
The acting is quite good on the parts of both Zach Galifianakis and Robert Downey Jr. Downey Jr. has established himself as a serious actor over the past two decades with impressive performances in films such as Good Night, and Good Luck; Iron Man; Zodiac; and Tropic Thunder. Galifianakis, however, is known for just being a comedian who doesn’t take himself too seriously so we just expect laughs from him. He does deliver, however the script isn’t exactly up to par. Aside from comedic skills, his actual acting is surprisingly good. He is a very competent actor and this helps him be the perfect foil for Robert Downey Jr. Jamie Foxx has a cameo as well and does a competent job. Foxx doesn’t really add anything however.
All in all I moderately enjoyed this film. The actors carry the film, so thank heavens we have two wonderful actors whom are very versatile. I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. I laughed at several points and it had truly awesome cinematography.
The film we saw in the most recent Film Criticism and Review class was “Due Date.” Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis lead this on-the-road comedy from the director of The Hangover. The film takes place all over, starting in Atlanta and going to Los Angeles. The main character Peter wants to witness the birth of his child but he is kicked off a plane and put on their no fly list thanks to a nitwit stranger. He ends up taking a ride with that stranger all the way home because he loses his wallet he is desperate. Due Date is a severely bi-polar crude comedy that often drifts into drama because of the heartfelt characters.
The movie begins with the two characters not getting along so well, but making the best of their situation. Peter and his traveling buddy Ethan come to know each other along the way. Peter belittles Ethan when Ethan tells him that he wants to be an actor. He sympathizes with Ethan however when he sees that Ethan is broken-hearted over his father’s recent death. Ethan carries around his father’s ashes which later factors into the film’s hijinks. The film is all over the map in its brands of comedy. Things go from mildly realistic, to sappy, to extremely crude, to highly violent, to absurd and then finally to ‘laughing at the barn door’ at the end. They eventually become true friends in the film, even though the relationship is still highly strained. Peter gets saved by Ethan, then betrayed by him and then the relationship bonds one last time when Ethan gets a wounded Peter to the hospital to see his child being born.
Like I mentioned above, the direction in which the film takes its comedy makes strange turns. The best example of this is when Peter gets detained for drug-possession at the Mexican border and Ethan manages to hijack the trailer that Peter is being held in. He fights off the Mexican police in his car and they end up on the run in a Border Police truck. This takes the film in direction that makes the whole thing far less believable and it didn’t even warrant one laugh as I recall in the theater. This might very well be the part where the film ‘jumped the shark’. I found the drug trip that the two protagonists when through in the previous scene to be a lot funnier and more appropriate to the story. Peter imagining Ethan as a bear driving their vehicle was probably the funniest point in Due Date for me. I feel like that is where it reached its peak and it sort of drifted downwards from there.
The acting is quite good on the parts of both Zach Galifianakis and Robert Downey Jr. Downey Jr. has established himself as a serious actor over the past two decades with impressive performances in films such as Good Night, and Good Luck; Iron Man; Zodiac; and Tropic Thunder. Galifianakis, however, is known for just being a comedian who doesn’t take himself too seriously so we just expect laughs from him. He does deliver, however the script isn’t exactly up to par. Aside from comedic skills, his actual acting is surprisingly good. He is a very competent actor and this helps him be the perfect foil for Robert Downey Jr. Jamie Foxx has a cameo as well and does a competent job. Foxx doesn’t really add anything however.
All in all I moderately enjoyed this film. The actors carry the film, so thank heavens we have two wonderful actors whom are very versatile. I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. I laughed at several points and it had truly awesome cinematography.
11.16.2010
Megamind Review
This past Thursday we viewed the animated “Megamind” at a theater for Film Criticism and Review. Will Ferrell voices Megamind, the villain to Brad Pitt’s hero Metro Man. Tina Fey voices Roxanne Ritchi, Metro Man’s love interest who later becomes Megamind’s love interest. Jonah Hill voices Hal Stewart, Roxanne’s cameraman who later becomes the film’s antagonist Tighten who Megamind creates to replace Metro Man whom he believes is dead. Finally David Cross voices Megamind’s sidekick Minion. The comedy film takes place in the fictional Metro City where the superheroes battle it out. The evil Megamind battles the good Metro Man until Metro Man fakes his death, which leads to a series of events where Megamind ends up being the hero and getting the girl.
Megamind is an interesting story that would be great animated or not animated, but since it is animated it is allowed to be extremely wild and visually pleasing. The animation is truly awesome to look at and everything is so colorful and stylized. The city has an epic scale that I haven’t seen matched by any animated movie ever too. The heroes walk, fly, fight, and zip across it numerous times and I have to admit that a certain part on top of an Empire State Building-type place made me queasy. I can’t imagine having seen it in 3D!
The characters themselves also came off as likable, hilarious and their motivations were all understandable. No character was fully good or bad. They were all surprisingly layered. The voice-acting certainly helped along the way. Will Ferrell definitely didn’t phone-it-in like he could have and that goes for every other major player too. It helps that their voices are all pretty distinct but never distracting. I was half expecting David Cross to make a reference to how he "Blue himself" in Arrested Development because that show is what I think of when I hear his voice. The notice of the characters being voiced by celebrities went away after a while and thankfully the movie didn't have any self-conscious pop culture references. Many animated films seem to fall back on doing that nowadays so that's just another plus for this particular film in my book.
As far as criticisms go, I don’t really have many. It wasn’t as deep as say Toy Story 3, but it definitely had me caring about its characters anyway. Animated movies usually aren’t for me but this one was good as just a regular old comedy. I also haven’t seen an animated film ever treat heroes and villains so interestingly ambiguously. My final ruling is a 4 out of 5.
Megamind is an interesting story that would be great animated or not animated, but since it is animated it is allowed to be extremely wild and visually pleasing. The animation is truly awesome to look at and everything is so colorful and stylized. The city has an epic scale that I haven’t seen matched by any animated movie ever too. The heroes walk, fly, fight, and zip across it numerous times and I have to admit that a certain part on top of an Empire State Building-type place made me queasy. I can’t imagine having seen it in 3D!
The characters themselves also came off as likable, hilarious and their motivations were all understandable. No character was fully good or bad. They were all surprisingly layered. The voice-acting certainly helped along the way. Will Ferrell definitely didn’t phone-it-in like he could have and that goes for every other major player too. It helps that their voices are all pretty distinct but never distracting. I was half expecting David Cross to make a reference to how he "Blue himself" in Arrested Development because that show is what I think of when I hear his voice. The notice of the characters being voiced by celebrities went away after a while and thankfully the movie didn't have any self-conscious pop culture references. Many animated films seem to fall back on doing that nowadays so that's just another plus for this particular film in my book.
As far as criticisms go, I don’t really have many. It wasn’t as deep as say Toy Story 3, but it definitely had me caring about its characters anyway. Animated movies usually aren’t for me but this one was good as just a regular old comedy. I also haven’t seen an animated film ever treat heroes and villains so interestingly ambiguously. My final ruling is a 4 out of 5.
11.13.2010
Catfish Review
A young man, who is a photographer, named Nev Schulman lives with his brother Ariel and friend Henry Joost in New York. An an eight-year-old child prodigy artist named Abby, living in a rural part of Michigan, sends Nev a painting of one of his photos. Abby and Nev become Facebook friends in a network that is connected to lots of Abby's family members, including her mother Angela and her father as well as Abby's attractive older half-sister Megan. Megan claims to be a songwriter that takes a liking to Nev over the internet leading to a mysterious relationship.
The movie is shot as a documentary and is seriously supposed to be one, although I’m not sure if I believe it was. I didn’t know what the movie was, going into it, but I could still tell at a certain point that things weren’t as they seemed in the plot. Very early on I started to become suspicious that Megan wasn’t who she seemed. A very sexual relationship comes to Nev out of nowhere and I also felt like “Why am I watching this slightly boring story if it’s not deeper than it seems? There must be a point to this!” Eventually when she turns out to be a middle-aged woman who is married with disabled children, I was at first shocked but then another suspicion began to come over me. “Wait a minute,” I thought, “this isn’t a real documentary.” To this day I’m still not if I believed it was real or not. The first thing that I wasn’t convinced by was the family. They just seemed a bit too odd to me. It wasn’t just the way they appeared; it was also the way some of them acted, like the husband. He didn’t seem to be involved in the family at all and he was completely indifferent to the friendship that the young filmmakers began to have with the real Megan, who is really named Angela. Also, why would these people have begun chronicling this relationship so intimately in the first place? If it wasn’t real then the actors were all very good and everything done by the filmmakers was pretty convincing.
Having said that, I did enjoy the film more than I thought I would. It’s impossible to tell where it’s going when things start to unravel. It could easily have turned into a horror film where Megan is a schizophrenic serial killer. It could have also continued to be a romance. Keeping events the way they were, it could have also taken a bit of a mean-spirited comic approach. Part of me wishes it had been a horror film because I love disturbing works of art. What it did turn out to be though was a deeply humanizing and frightening tale of what people will and can do when they are miserable, lonely and a part of the internet age.
My final ruling is a 3.5 out of 5. Probably my favorite film we have seen behind The Social Network. This film actually could have also been called The Social Network. Both films do the topic justice.
The movie is shot as a documentary and is seriously supposed to be one, although I’m not sure if I believe it was. I didn’t know what the movie was, going into it, but I could still tell at a certain point that things weren’t as they seemed in the plot. Very early on I started to become suspicious that Megan wasn’t who she seemed. A very sexual relationship comes to Nev out of nowhere and I also felt like “Why am I watching this slightly boring story if it’s not deeper than it seems? There must be a point to this!” Eventually when she turns out to be a middle-aged woman who is married with disabled children, I was at first shocked but then another suspicion began to come over me. “Wait a minute,” I thought, “this isn’t a real documentary.” To this day I’m still not if I believed it was real or not. The first thing that I wasn’t convinced by was the family. They just seemed a bit too odd to me. It wasn’t just the way they appeared; it was also the way some of them acted, like the husband. He didn’t seem to be involved in the family at all and he was completely indifferent to the friendship that the young filmmakers began to have with the real Megan, who is really named Angela. Also, why would these people have begun chronicling this relationship so intimately in the first place? If it wasn’t real then the actors were all very good and everything done by the filmmakers was pretty convincing.
Having said that, I did enjoy the film more than I thought I would. It’s impossible to tell where it’s going when things start to unravel. It could easily have turned into a horror film where Megan is a schizophrenic serial killer. It could have also continued to be a romance. Keeping events the way they were, it could have also taken a bit of a mean-spirited comic approach. Part of me wishes it had been a horror film because I love disturbing works of art. What it did turn out to be though was a deeply humanizing and frightening tale of what people will and can do when they are miserable, lonely and a part of the internet age.
My final ruling is a 3.5 out of 5. Probably my favorite film we have seen behind The Social Network. This film actually could have also been called The Social Network. Both films do the topic justice.
11.04.2010
Red Review
We just saw Red in the theatre for the Film Criticism and Review class. Bruce Willis leads the star-powered ensemble cast as former black-ops CIA agent Frank Moses. John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren, Mary-Louise Parker and Karl Urban play the other various people involved in the deadly plot. The film takes place in many, many different places because Frank is on the run from agents trying to kill him, with the help of his old black ops team. We are introduced to him as a retired agent who chats with Sarah, a woman who is a customer service agent working for Frank's pension office, over the phone. Assassins shoot the heck out of Frank’s house, which causes him to run for his life. He tracks down Sarah, who he might have put in harm’s way, and makes her his not-so-willing companion as he tries to figure out what’s going on.
Honestly, after seeing Red, I think I’ve lost a little bit more faith in what sells. I’m speaking in terms of movies of course and what people consider a good time at the movies. I heard quite a bit of laughing at this one and pretty sure people weren’t laughing at how bad it was. I admit that I began falling asleep at one point so I might not have caught every little nuance, but who am I kidding, there was no nuance or subtlety to this one. I imagine that whoever wrote this movie might be very connected to someone important in the biz or was forced to squeeze out something loud and violent in a short amount of time because Bruce Willis will do anything and people will go and see anything with his name on it. I thought Malkovich, Freeman and Helen Mirren had a little more discretion though. Oh well, at a certain point in an actor’s career the parts available become pretty slim, I guess. Oh screw that, this was a piece of s@#$ and there’s no excuse for taking part in it. When you are as famous as Malkovich, can’t you just do plays or god forbid write your own material? It seems like you could even collaborate with any number of talented, famous and open people. That’s one other thing, is anyone open-minded anymore? Where is the originality in modern day Hollywood? The element of passion seems to glide right over most big-budget stuff too. Red is definitely a prime example of this. It should’ve been called ‘Every Multi-Billionaire Geezer in Hollywood That Can Act Phoning It In and Blowing S@#% Up’.
On a lighter note, the directing seemed pretty competent. The action, fast-pacing, and postcards telling us what setting we were in now kept things a little more interesting. Again, not anything I haven’t really seen before, but still lively. The fight sequences provided good tension and kept my eyes from closing momentarily.
However, the big thing that helped keep me awake had nothing to do with the movie. There was an autistic guy sitting behind me that wouldn’t be quiet. He kept mumbling gibberish in intervals of about five seconds throughout the entire goddamn movie. The douche-face sitting next to him, whom I assume was there with him, kept telling him to shut up. Wonderful, right? No because the autistic guy didn’t shut up and his companion just came off as abusive after the first hour. I couldn’t switch seats either because the only seats available were right behind an elderly couple that gave me several dirty looks when I did sit near them.
Anyway, I give this ‘movie’ a 1 out of 5. I really have nothing else to add. I hope the next one isn’t as boring and I pray to God that the theatre has plenty of empty seats.
Honestly, after seeing Red, I think I’ve lost a little bit more faith in what sells. I’m speaking in terms of movies of course and what people consider a good time at the movies. I heard quite a bit of laughing at this one and pretty sure people weren’t laughing at how bad it was. I admit that I began falling asleep at one point so I might not have caught every little nuance, but who am I kidding, there was no nuance or subtlety to this one. I imagine that whoever wrote this movie might be very connected to someone important in the biz or was forced to squeeze out something loud and violent in a short amount of time because Bruce Willis will do anything and people will go and see anything with his name on it. I thought Malkovich, Freeman and Helen Mirren had a little more discretion though. Oh well, at a certain point in an actor’s career the parts available become pretty slim, I guess. Oh screw that, this was a piece of s@#$ and there’s no excuse for taking part in it. When you are as famous as Malkovich, can’t you just do plays or god forbid write your own material? It seems like you could even collaborate with any number of talented, famous and open people. That’s one other thing, is anyone open-minded anymore? Where is the originality in modern day Hollywood? The element of passion seems to glide right over most big-budget stuff too. Red is definitely a prime example of this. It should’ve been called ‘Every Multi-Billionaire Geezer in Hollywood That Can Act Phoning It In and Blowing S@#% Up’.
On a lighter note, the directing seemed pretty competent. The action, fast-pacing, and postcards telling us what setting we were in now kept things a little more interesting. Again, not anything I haven’t really seen before, but still lively. The fight sequences provided good tension and kept my eyes from closing momentarily.
However, the big thing that helped keep me awake had nothing to do with the movie. There was an autistic guy sitting behind me that wouldn’t be quiet. He kept mumbling gibberish in intervals of about five seconds throughout the entire goddamn movie. The douche-face sitting next to him, whom I assume was there with him, kept telling him to shut up. Wonderful, right? No because the autistic guy didn’t shut up and his companion just came off as abusive after the first hour. I couldn’t switch seats either because the only seats available were right behind an elderly couple that gave me several dirty looks when I did sit near them.
Anyway, I give this ‘movie’ a 1 out of 5. I really have nothing else to add. I hope the next one isn’t as boring and I pray to God that the theatre has plenty of empty seats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)