Reviews

18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Countdown (III) (2019)
5/10
Decent, but disappointing for a particular reason
25 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was fairly decent, and these days, I judge some films solely on their ability to keep me engaged throughout.

What really soured me on this film was the formulaic ending. I am really SO tired of watching films, especially in the horror or thriller genre, where the ending has whatever evil / evil persons defeated, life goes back to normal, and then in the last minute you see that the entire thing is going to happen all over again.

If you're reading this and you make movies, please, I beg of you, don't go for this standard ending. Just a great big predictable ugh.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Lion King (2019)
3/10
I really wanted to like it ... honest!
24 October 2019
I really wanted to like this movie, and I kept trying, but it just kept fighting me.

Overall, it didn't touch me as I thought it would. Something was just missing.

But what really bothered me was that what I thought was supposed to be a touching, special movie, kept flipping into a silly comedy with fart jokes. There's nothing wrong with combining drama and comedy - as life is comprised of both, but this film didn't segue naturally into the comedy at all. There was this constant shifting of genre that just threw me every time and ultimately destroyed the film for me.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Jakob Dylan show
5 September 2019
If you're really interested in Jakob Dylan, which I sure as hell am not, then you'll love this movie which shows more of him than anything else.

This could have been an amazing project. For me, it was just an ego trip for JD using famous bands as a backdrop.
22 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My Teacher, My Obsession (2018 TV Movie)
1/10
GHASTLY!!! (only minor spoilers in this review)
10 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This was such an awful movie.

A new hot English lit teachers comes to a school. His wife has left him and he is looking for a new start with his teenage daughter, Riley. Right away, we learn that two girls in his class are "hot for teacher" and that Kyla is flat-out stalker nuts.

Kyla is surprised when the new guy her divorced mom met in the supermarket turns out to be her teacher. She pulls all kinds of stupid stunts to ruin their date, but then we fast forward to the next morning. What? He's spent the night? On his FIRST date? With the mother of a student? I didn't believe this for a moment and it seemed like a mere plot device for the teacher to drive to school with his obsessed student. (This student is also pretending to be BFFs with his daughter to get close to him.)

That was insane. Also:

It was tough to believe that a teacher, especially one with a teenage daughter, would SO easily allow a student to seduce him. Even before he actually "gave in," he was SO weak in his protestations and it was insane. LAME LAME LAME.

All of this said, I wasn't bored, but I was really annoyed by the horrible plot and some of the dialogue.

The ending REALLY made me angry, but no real spoilers here. I'll just say that the film ignored the many things that would have likely happened in real life to make the ending improbable. Not impossible. But just so awful and totally unsatisfying. To say the least.

The actors were fine, but I am shocked this script ever saw the light of day. If you want to see something really stupid and be shocked that this was produced, this film is for you!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Santa Clarita Diet (2017–2019)
9/10
Unexpectedly Hilarious
16 March 2017
My first thought when watching this show was that it was a combination of DEXTER, THE WALKING DEAD, and DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES. The first episodes were good, but I couldn't really imagine how it would sustain. Then the plot twists came, and it just got better and better.

Some of the bit are so gross they are hilarious. I'm laughing even though I can barely look. But it's comedy we need these days.

Great cast for a funny show that doesn't take itself too seriously, but simply provides clever get-away-from-it-all content.

I really hope the show continues. Great job.
227 out of 239 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Suburban Madness (2004 TV Movie)
5/10
Delivered what I expected
2 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not quite sure why I rented this: probably because I was in a hurry to get my films and I was mildly (operative word: mildly) interested to learn more about this case. I expected the movie to be mediocre and basically a dramatization (with some embellishment, probably) of the actual story. The film tried to do a little better, but were it not a story "ripped from the headlines," I would have expected way, way more.

CLARA (Elizabeth Pena) was an orthodontist in a practice with her husband, David. After she finds out that he is having an affair with a recently divorced woman he hired at the practice, she forgives him and fires the woman. The two have what I would call a very "shaky reconciliation." She really wants her family back, but still does not trust him. When he tells her that he is going to meet with his former lover (LISA) at a local steakhouse, she doesn't believe him.

She has her detective, BOBBI (Sela Ward) (I told you she didn't trust him!) follow him, but instead, he goes to the hotel (where he married CLARA and where he sleeps with LISA.) Clara, very anxiously waiting at home for a call from BOBBI calls when she hears nothing. Bobbi tells her to be patient, but Clara hears the country band playing in the background -- the same country band that was playing when she and David had been there. Knowing immediately that David has taken his lover to the hotel, she races over there with her stepdaughter.

CLARA and her stepdaughter (David's daughter) approach the two getting off the elevator. CLARA attacks Lisa, ripping the front of her top open, while the daughter repeatedly hits her father. When the fight is broken off, David almost nonchalantly walks off with his mistress. That is CLARA'S breaking point and when she sees David outside, standing by the door of Lisa's van, she runs him down, then again and again and again.

So, while I felt empathy for her situation, I did NOT condone it nor think she should not have been sentenced to prison. It is just all very sad.

That said, the movie as a re-telling of events is okay. If it were a stand-alone movie, I would have called for much, much more to make it palatable. I would've wanted more character depth from David and a better understanding of why their marriage was failing. There were a few scenes where David felt left out when Clara appeared to be more interested in their small twin boys sleeping in the bed than David, but that's about it.

It's an okay film to pass the time. As my title says, it delivers what I expected. If you're looking for more than that, I'd keep on walking.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Game 6 (2005)
5/10
I was totally prepared to love this movie, but
18 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I don't like the idea of calling every movie I don't like a "bad movie." I rate films on how they appeal to me, on the chemistry that I have with the movie. For me, this movie was like hearing about a person who had everything in common with you, but when you meet them, NOTHING. Zippo. No chemistry at all.

This film takes place in NYC and centers around the 1986 World Series between the Mets and BoSox, a writer, Nick (MICHAEL KEATON), plagued by a bad review and living in fear of another one by the notoriously harsh (and oddball) reviewer, Steven Schwimmer (ROBERT DOWNEY, JR.). Rather than attend opening night of his play, Nick goes to a bar to watch the series on TV. As other people have provided far more detailed summaries, I won't repeat those efforts.

I lived in New York in 1986, was a die-hard Mets fan, and seeing parts of the series again was maybe the best part of the film for me. In 1986, I was in a local bar, two minutes from the stadium, watching the real game 6 of the series.

So, I'm a writer, I love New York, I saw every play of that series as it actually happened -- but the film did absolutely nothing for me. Little bits and pieces were of passing interest, but they faded. I didn't relate to Michael Keaton's character, or really understand him, at all. Therefore, I didn't care what happened to him.

Maybe I let Ebert & Roeper's "TWO THUMBS WAY UP" sway me into thinking I'd at least like this film, but alas, I don't always come close to agreeing with them. I should learn my lesson! Some will love this film and I suspect others will have a similar reaction to mine. My recommendation is to see this film and decide for yourself. If I were the umpire, I'd call this movie out on strikes. But that's just me.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dreadfully useless and boring film . . . .
27 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The theme of this film, working through the past and making amends with what happened way back when, and forgiving those who hurt us, is something that most of us can relate to in some way. However, that said, in order for this theme to really work, there needs to be a main character (ANY CHARACTER!!) who evokes empathy, something that was null and void for me in this film.

Nick, who has just returned to San Francisco, takes an apartment, gets a job as a bartender, has a semi-thing with his single-mom landlady, fools around with some other woman, paints, and has flashbacks about his father, his mother, and a friend named Marco. Dull as they are, Nick's vague and uninteresting feelings reveal themselves through his paintings, his memories, and his behavior.

Expect to see this DVD in your nearest and dearest discount bin. It is painfully slow, offers characters who give nothing and who one probably won't ever think about again. The best part of the film is when it's over. Roll credits, roll! Be done with you, bad, bad film! Deciding I must have missed something, I watched the BEHIND THE SCENES hoping for some enlightenment. After watching about 10-15 minutes of the cast and crew being totally silly and off-the-wall (in a way that seemed funny ONLY to them), I gave up. Enlightenment was not to be had. I hung up and called the Dalai Lama! I really wish I could get the time back that I spent watching this film. I really do. I feel that my time was wasted. Oh, well, nothing I can do about it now . . . .after all, as my friend the Dalai Lama reminded me, that's WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mother (2003)
8/10
Multi-layered, thought-provoking; upsetting, yet excellent
25 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
May and her husband go to visit their children and grandchildren. The visit is awkward because the grandchildren and "kids" don't really seem to know each other as one might expect. The warmth that should be there is missing. After dinner, May's husband says he doesn't feel well, blames it on his daughter's cooking, and irritably says he wants to go home. He dies that night.

May, now a widow, is lost. She clearly did not have a passionate marriage or a very interesting one, but she had a purpose. She had someone who needed her, and even though her own needs had gone unmet for years, she had something to do with her days.

She is depressed and unmotivated. She goes to stay with her daughter, Paula, who shortly after her mother's arrival, lets her mother know that she has never felt that her mother has given much of herself at all. She lets loose with anger over her mother's lack of nurturing. May seems disarmed and surprised, yet she also doesn't seem to have the energy or the desire to really make it right. "I'm your mother and I love you." What does really say? (I've heard this from my own mother way too many times and have yet to figure out what it means.) Paula is a bit (well, more than a bit) neurotic. Both women are needy, though they show it very differently.

Paula has been involved with a friend of her son's, Darren, who is a handyman working on the house owned by her son. While Paula is working during the day, May begins to have conversations and lunches with Darren. Darren is a married man who has stayed with his wife because of their autistic son, Nicky, but supposedly doesn't live in the home with his wife.

May becomes attracted to Darren because he is virile and she enjoys the connection they seem to have. Darren becomes attracted to May because she offers a kind of peace and understanding that he does not get from the other women in his life. (He also becomes too interested in money that May says she can give him to "get away from it all," though he is clearly not interested in her desire to join him on such a journey. They end up sleeping together in the spare room during the day, and May enjoys fulfillment as a woman that she has not known in years, nor had ever expected to know again. As her daughter Paula had often told her that she would leave the married Darren, this becomes part of May's rationalization that what she is doing is okay.

At a writing group that Paula leads, May is introduced, rather forced to get together with a widower to whom she is not attracted. There is one scene where she has sex with the older man, who clearly can barely perform, and it truly painful and unsettling as we see the total disgust on May's face as she endures the one-time ghastly liaison.

Eventually, Paula discovers through some very graphic sketches done by her mother, that indeed her mother and Darren have been having sex.

This film will undoubtedly be seen by many in myriad ways. Sympathies will be divided. At one point, during Paula's writing group, May reveals through a short essay that she used to feel as though she hated her kids by the end of the day, and would leave for pubs after they were asleep, making sure to get back home before her husband.

Clearly, a good mother does not think of leaving children alone while she goes off to the local pub. May, however, also had revealed earlier in the film that her husband didn't like her having any friends, so she didn't have any. She did what he wanted her to do. She was miserable but she put up with it because, as she said, "it was easier." So, while May was not the best mother, for those inclined to have any sympathy for her, one might see May's actions as the act of a woman just wanting to be sexual and to be a live for "a few minutes" in her lifetime. A woman who just wanted someone to listen to her, to know her as a human being, to have a friend and a lover.

Paula, though neurotic and unhappy, perhaps has become that way because of the distant parents who raised her. Certainly, it is not difficult to understand why Paula feels completely betrayed by her mother.

It is a well-done film, with more complexities than I have mentioned, and certainly one that will leave the viewer with many, perhaps conflicting, reactions. It is a film worth discussing and debating, and above all, worth seeing.

One thing the film leaves us with is the horror and fear of a lonely life. No matter who is deemed "right" or who is deemed 'wrong" by each viewer, that theme of old age and loneliness, evoking a sense of dread in most of us, is inescapable.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Sisters (2005)
2/10
I have a headache THIS BIG!!!!!
20 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As so many of the other comments have beautifully synopsized this film, I won't spend much time repeating the plot. Yes, this film is about three sisters and a brother in a college town, coming to grips with themselves and each other after their father's death.

What bothered me throughout the entire film was the writing. I was too keenly aware of the writer himself, as opposed to watching a really good film and saying to myself afterward, "That was beautifully written." Rather, with this film, I could picture the writer saying, "Wow, that was a really good line!" "Here's some big words I can string together!" "Yes! Great line!" Full disclosure: as a writer myself, I fully understand the joy in this, but the characters should take center stage, NOT the writer. I could not get the image of this writer patting himself on the back until it was beet red.

I liked Eric McCormack and Erica Christensen, though I would have liked to have learned more about Erica's character, Irene. Chris O'Donnell is never very interesting to me. Too vanilla. Okay, those are actors. Back to the film.

The character of Marcia (Maria Bello) was completely unsympathetic to me. She was far more interested in forming complex, multi-syllabic words, showing off her pedigree, and spewing "clever" insults rather than dealing with her demons. Her hatred for her brother's wife, Nancy, was over-the-top and she asked for everything she got in return. Stephen Culp, as her Desperate husband, seemed to just languish. I never really did feel the spark or notice much develop between Marcia and Victor (Tony Goldwyn), so I was completed unimpressed during the scene where they had to part ways, because Victor, as much as he loved her (hello??) could not leave his daughters to be raised by his wife. Noble, but trust me fella, you got out while the getting was good. The drama queen wiped away her mascara and found something else to torture herself with!

Supposedly, this wild passion and love ignited between Marcia and Victor almost immediately. Excuse me, I think I blinked during the film. I must have missed it. My apologies.

Mary Stuart Masterson as Olga was far more believable as a character. Unfortunately, the viewer was treated to such an overdose of Marcia that the other characters were overshadowed. I would have liked to understood Olga more.

Eric McCormack (Gary Sokol), managed to take his angst-filled, bitterly sarcastic character and make him believable. I hated the character through most of the film, but in a way one is supposed to hate a character -- because the actor is doing his job -- not hating a character because he's a tangle of stereotypes, throwing it all out there (or out the window) and hoping something will stick!

Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!

I imagine this is one of those films that one will either love or hate. I cannot say that it was a terrible film just because I didn't like it; I can only explain my reasons for wanting to muzzle Marcia. I can say that I tend to prefer plays in the theater. Taking them out of their natural habitat often ruffles the beast.

Despite the abuse perpetrated on her by her father, Marcia just didn't make me care about her in any way at all. Any moment, I expected her to say, "Okay, enough about me. Let's talk about me." My recommendation is to see this film and decide for yourself. I watched it expecting to really like it. I WANTED to like it. Just didn't happen.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the WORST films I have ever seen!
12 June 2006
This film, about two opposing divorce counsels, played by Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore, had no merits to speak about. In the blink of an eye, they meet in court and in the blink of the eye again, are married. How? Why? I wasn't even sure how they got from Point A to Point B but it didn't matter, nor did the fact that there was no chemistry between the two at all.

Quite frankly, although this film is not highly rated, I'm surprised to see it rated as high as a five. Of course, I thought INTOLERABLE CRUELTY was also one of the worst films I've ever seen, and people seemed to like that. I would label this film "Intolerable Cruelty 2."

There were, for me, parallels between the two films. They both centered around couples who had no depth of character, evoked no empathy, and I couldn't have cared less what happened to them. Only Frances Fisher, as Ms. Moore's mother, managed to redeem a tiny piece of this ghastly film.

When I had initially heard that Julianne Moore received bad marks for her "comedic" talents, I thought surely, the critics must be being a bit unfair to this very fine actress. But she wasn't very good. Seeing her in this role reminded me of a time when I attended an office Xmas party and saw someone I respected down and out drunk. It was embarrassing and I wished I had never seen it and never let it tarnish my image of that person. However, in defense of Ms. Moore, who I still think is a fine actor, I can't imagine the finest comedic actress in the world saving this film.

As they say, if it's not on the page, it ain't on the stage. In my opinion, when this film was finished, it was put in the wrong can. It should have gone in the trash can. Horrible, boring, clichéd script that didn't know what it was supposed to be. The plot was not believable. That's fine, if you're consistent. I believe that Mr. Ed could talk and did talk to Wilbur. But I had no idea what this was supposed to be.

Other than that, it was a wonderful film. :0)
6 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Oscar (1966)
7/10
Not meant to be, but hysterically funny
6 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I used to watch this film every time it appeared on TV. The long list of heavy hitters in the cast doesn't make this a quality film, but sometimes a film can be so bad that it's GREAT! Frankie Fane is desperate to make it. He treats women terribly; he will use and abuse anyone to get what he wants. The dialogue is hideously bad, and I laughed out loud at this film far more than I do at comedies which are billed as "hilarious." This movie IS hilarious! It's a cult classic and a definite "must see." It is chock full of Hollywood clichés and it's a real head-scratcher that the makers of this film actually took it seriously.

My favorite part of this film is at the very end. Frankie is at the Academy Awards. The winner is announced. He hears the name "Frank" and stands up. Yes, it was all worth it! This is his shining moment of glory and the world is his! He is still basking in the glow when the name "Frank" is followed by the name "Sinatra." To my recollection, it takes Frankie Fane a moment to realize that "Old Blue Eyes" is the recipient and not himself. He slinks back into his car, almost shrivels before your eyes. It's absurdly ridiculous, and again, memorable and funny even if that wasn't the original intent.

See it if you can! The ending doesn't ruin. It's a true piece of work: interpret that as you will.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A film many can relate to . .
2 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I thought this was one of the more REAL films that I've seen. As there are a plethora of plot summaries already on this site, I will just repeat the basics: this is the story of an airline pilot (ANDY GARCIA) and his wife (MEG RYAN) whose drinking becomes more and more out of control, threatening their marriage and family.

Just as a side note, I found it rather jarring that Andy Garcia, with an accent, was named "Michael Green." The name just did not jive with the character and for some reason I actually let that bother me.

The feelings that this film evoked in me were feelings that I think will touch many viewers in a myriad of ways. It certainly shows the devastation and destruction of alcoholism, and the reality that alcoholism does not have to come from someone picking up the bottle because they have a horrific life. It can come from all kinds of place that the alcoholic him/herself does not understand, and may never understand. I thought the film did an excellent job in portraying this realistically, and it's hard to imagine that anyone watching would not be reminded of someone they know, whether it be themselves or someone close to them.

I also really related to the loyalty and abiding love. I truly felt for Michael as he found that he did not know what his wife Alice needed, and that he was condemned for being the kind of man most women would love to have by their side. I felt pulled between my anger toward Alice for seeming so unfair to him, yet my feeling that I did not understand her and that her feelings were very legitimate.

The film, to me, did not take sides and it did not paint a wildly unrealistic picture as some films do. While I'm a big fan of LEAVING LAS VEGAS, which showed the absolute worst of alcoholism in Nicholas Cage's character, this film was powerful by illustrating alcoholism differently. After all, there is no one way to portray it. The monster has many faces.

This wasn't the best film I've ever seen, but I really liked it and I think it made a powerful statement. I couldn't help but thinking as I watched that I hoped seeing this film would reach many people. Meg Ryan was excellent as the multi-faceted "Alice Green" and the young actresses who played her daughters were very compelling, reminding everyone how deeply affected children are by this tragedy. It is a film I will remember for a long time.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Trauma (I) (2004)
3/10
Dark, dingy, dreary, and confusing
1 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
There are many fine films out there where the sanity of the main character was brought into question (SECRET WINDOW, Johnny Depp, for one), leaving the audience to wonder what was real and what wasn't. All that I wondered as I watched this film is when it would end.

While Colin Firth gave a fine performance, the story was muddled and confusing. I didn't care who was dead, who was alive, or who killed whom. I watched until the end, hoping I would receive some kind of payoff, as the film would just HAVE to redeem itself by penetrating through the miasma of confusion enough to give the viewer something, but I found nothing. This was a huge disappointment in every way.
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good material but too much; too confusing
29 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie contained some excellent characterizations, esp. by Glenn Close, Dermot Mulroney, Patricia Clarkson, Mary Kay Place and others. But with those actors, and all of their "children" in the story, it made my brain hurt to try and keep track of everybody and what connection one person had to the other. I had really wished that the movie had fewer characters, thus allowing the best stories to be expanded upon rather than trying to do it all. I prefer movies that truly absorb me, where I root for a character or at very least, want to see what happens to them. There was just so much going on here that I cared for a second here and a second there. The appreciation of films is very subjective. I have really liked many films that have had many characters because they were so well done that everything came together. When this film ended, I still wasn't clear on much. Maybe that's just my tired brain. The film had some thought-provoking stories and wasn't close to what I'd classify as a bad film. It just wasn't something I could appreciate as much as I'm sure others have.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sunshine (1999)
7/10
Excellent, but so long . . . .
25 May 2006
My favorite film is "Gone With The Wind" so I have nothing against long films. This was an exceptional account of three generations of a family, but I found it interminable at times. Despite the fine performances, the incredible film making, and the deep emotions it stirred in me, I will embarrassing admit that there were times during the movie that I renamed "The Thing That Wouldn't Die," though I believe there is a film already of that name. :-) This is all subjective. This is an excellent film, but I would recommend that one really be in the mood for a long, historical family saga. I chose the wrong film for the wrong time, but that in no way distracts from this true work of art.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Loved the movie, but a "hilarious comedy?"
10 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The "New York Observer" called this "Laugh-Out-Loud Hilarious!" The copy on the DVD says its a "deliriously funny comedy." Yes, it does have some humorous moments in it, and it's light in nature despite the sad things going on like the revelation that Diane Keaton's character, the matriarch of the family, is going to die. I almost didn't watch this because I wasn't in the mood for a "hilarious comedy." To my surprise, and pleasantly so, it was a well-constructed drama (with comedic elements) but a far cry from laughing out loud. As a matter of fact, I didn't laugh once during the entire film, but I loved it. I thought the characters were well drawn and I cared about them.

This is all very subjective. I laugh at things others do not find funny and have hated films that many loved ("Intolerable Cruelty" and "Anchorman"). And I have enjoyed films that other people enjoyed ("Meet The Parents," "Bringing Down the House").

This is a thought-provoking movie, but not so deep that it makes your head hurt. I would definitely recommend it, but in my subjective opinion, it's far from a side splitter.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Exonerated (2005 TV Movie)
1/10
I know I'm in the minority, but I was bored senseless
4 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I know I would have had far more appreciation for this in play form. I didn't know it had been a play until I started watching it and it became immediately obvious to me. Some of my favorite actors were in this film; their work was excellent, and the stories important. That said, I found it painfully boring to watch. Maybe I wasn't in the mood to watch a showcase for actors delivering mostly monologues against a black background. It was so slow and it hurt my brain to try and remember each story as it switched from one to the other. I had the same pain when reading Winesberg, Ohio. I'm not here to say it was a bad film; not true. I rented it because of the cast, because I wanted to be absorbed in something. This was the first film I ever rented that I could not finish watching. Many of you will love it; for me, just excruciating to watch. I would have preferred a documentary just telling me the story and not letting me have to painfully wait for each detail so that the actors could "feel the moment."
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed