Review:
In “The Lion King” (1994) Zazu assures Mufasa that every family has an odd duck like Mufasa’s brother Scar. Zazu says “There’s one in every family sire. Two in mine actually. And they always manage to ruin special occasions.” Oh, how Zazu is right. My family has an odd duck. So does yours. And so did Jackie Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. And like Zazu, she had two.
Edith “Big Edie” Bouvier Beale and her daughter Edith “Little Edie” Bouvier Beale were the black sheep of the Bouvier family. Reclusive, hoarding, and unrelentingly odd, the two women became the subject of the lauded documentary “Grey Gardens” (1975). But many people felt the documentary did not explain these two women enough. They were from a well-to-do family. They were related to the first lady. They once had everything. How did they end up living in such squalor? And how did they become so damn strange?
“Grey Gardens” (2009) is an attempt to explain this odd mother-daughter relationship. Directed by Michael Sucsy, the film has two parallel plotlines. One story chronicles the development of the original documentary; how Albert Maysles (Arye Gross) and David Maysles (Justin Louis) came to the Beale’s dilapidated estate and asked if they could film how they lived. Little Edie (Drew Barrymore) agrees to let the young men film she and her mother, inspired by the inept belief this will launch her movie career.
The other story line chronicles the class descent of Little and Big Edie. Both women in their heyday were natural hostesses - a little peculiar, but generally good fun. In the 1940s they lived an extravagant lifestyle of parties and luxury at Grey Gardens, supported wholly by Big Edie’s lawyer husband Phelan Beale (Ken Howard). When Beale divorces Edie for her expensive and promiscuous lifestyle it is the beginning of the end for the mother and daughter. Big Edie, in a strange attempt to maintain her class status stays on at Grey Gardens, even though the small allowance she receives from Beale can hardly maintain the household.
Little Edie meanwhile moves to New York City where she attempts to jumpstart a career in show business. She engages in an affair with a married man and when her father finds out, Edie finds herself exiled to Grey Gardens with her mother. It should also be noted Edie has alopecia. Soon after she moves back to Grey Gardens her hair begins to fall out. Perhaps afraid to return to society with a bald head or afflicted with laziness or the loss of her status and dreams, Little Edie decides to stay on with her mother indefinitely at Grey Gardens.
And in time, it seems the two of them were all but forgotten by the rest of their family. Extreme isolation and utter disregard for housekeeping finally transformed Big and Little Edie into paragons of eccentrics.
Drew Barrymore is the undoubted star of the film. Her depiction of Little Edie embodies the real life Edie so well, at times it’s hard to recognize its really just Drew Barrymore. Jessica Lange also does a stellar job as usual, portraying Big Edie in middle and old age.
“Grey Gardens” has the intention of dispelling the mystery of the Beales and how they came to be as they are depicted in the documentary. In that regard, I think the film fails – as it must – because there’s no rational explanation for why these women ended up this way. How does anyone let their house get to a point where they willingly cohabitate with raccoons? I don’t know, but it happens. We will never know exactly why Little Edie stayed on with her mother for so long and how they lived that way. The Beale’s are bound to remain a mystery, as all eccentrics must.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a little less than “Sling Blade” (1986).
Rationalization:
I like that some people are beyond explanation. They seem to exist to point out that you are in no way as extreme as you thought. Sometimes that’s reassuring, other times its discouraging. I haven’t seen the documentary “Grey Gardens” but now I intend to. I imagine the documentary is more potent than this film because it’s the evidence that these were real people who actually lived in such a way. As it stands though, this is a somewhat illuminating film with great performances. Bravo Drew Barrymore. You’ve finally shaken off “E.T.”
Monday, March 29, 2010
My Left Foot (1989)
Review:
The film that launched the career of Daniel Day Lewis, one of today’s greatest living actors, is a small movie with a very big performance at its core. “My Left Foot” is the biopic of Christy Brown, famed Irish painter and writer who was born with severe cerebral palsy. The only part of his body that Christy Brown had any control over was his left foot and with that left foot he painted haunting portraits and typed his life story. It is an impressive life story, made all the more impressive by how improbable it is.
Christy Brown was born in the slums of Dublin to a large, poor family. Instead of being sent away to a home or becoming a horrible burden to his family, Christy was integrated into his family’s life. In “My Left Foot” these scenes are depicted with much warmth and good humor. As a child Christy was carried up and down stairs by his parents, neighborhood children wheeled him around in a makeshift cart, and in his teenage years he even became an effective goalie for street soccer games.
In one excellent scene, the young Christy picks up a piece of chalk with his left foot and scribbles out the word ‘mother’ on the floor. His whole family is shocked to learn that Christy is an intelligent being, capable of learning and expression. Brenda Fricker plays Christy’s mother with the heartiness and warmth of a mother who loves unconditionally. Perhaps she is the only one who doesn’t seem surprised by Christy’s talents. She knew all along that Christy was more than just a crippled child.
In his later years, a compassionate doctor, Eileen Cole (Fiona Shaw), gives Christy speech therapy and physical therapy. Eileen is instrumental in arranging for Christy’s first art exhibit and his subsequent fame. She also instills in Christy a great love, one that she can’t quite return.
The most significant aspect of “My Left Foot” is Daniel Day Lewis’s performance as Christy. He is completely convincing as a man with cerebral palsy. The performance is in fact so consuming that little else in the film resonates with the same power. There are other great performances in this movie and wonderful little details, but they all seem to fade into the background. It is my theory that if you removed Day Lewis’s performance you’d see that this is a well balanced, even flowing, good film on the whole.
Day Lewis’s performance is so good it’s almost too good. It is the centerpiece of the film but it distracts from everything good that’s in its orbit.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” (2003).
Rationalization:
Just because the success of these films is predicated on the merits of one performance within the film. And also because if you look beyond those performances you can see a perfectly good movie that doesn’t get as much credit as that one performance in it. With “My Left Foot” I loved the performances of Brenda Fricker, Fiona Shaw, and Ray McAnally (as Christy’s father). These performances are part and parcel of Day Lewis’s great success. Sometimes one role in a movie can be like a black hole for everything else in the movie and its just not fair.
The film that launched the career of Daniel Day Lewis, one of today’s greatest living actors, is a small movie with a very big performance at its core. “My Left Foot” is the biopic of Christy Brown, famed Irish painter and writer who was born with severe cerebral palsy. The only part of his body that Christy Brown had any control over was his left foot and with that left foot he painted haunting portraits and typed his life story. It is an impressive life story, made all the more impressive by how improbable it is.
Christy Brown was born in the slums of Dublin to a large, poor family. Instead of being sent away to a home or becoming a horrible burden to his family, Christy was integrated into his family’s life. In “My Left Foot” these scenes are depicted with much warmth and good humor. As a child Christy was carried up and down stairs by his parents, neighborhood children wheeled him around in a makeshift cart, and in his teenage years he even became an effective goalie for street soccer games.
In one excellent scene, the young Christy picks up a piece of chalk with his left foot and scribbles out the word ‘mother’ on the floor. His whole family is shocked to learn that Christy is an intelligent being, capable of learning and expression. Brenda Fricker plays Christy’s mother with the heartiness and warmth of a mother who loves unconditionally. Perhaps she is the only one who doesn’t seem surprised by Christy’s talents. She knew all along that Christy was more than just a crippled child.
In his later years, a compassionate doctor, Eileen Cole (Fiona Shaw), gives Christy speech therapy and physical therapy. Eileen is instrumental in arranging for Christy’s first art exhibit and his subsequent fame. She also instills in Christy a great love, one that she can’t quite return.
The most significant aspect of “My Left Foot” is Daniel Day Lewis’s performance as Christy. He is completely convincing as a man with cerebral palsy. The performance is in fact so consuming that little else in the film resonates with the same power. There are other great performances in this movie and wonderful little details, but they all seem to fade into the background. It is my theory that if you removed Day Lewis’s performance you’d see that this is a well balanced, even flowing, good film on the whole.
Day Lewis’s performance is so good it’s almost too good. It is the centerpiece of the film but it distracts from everything good that’s in its orbit.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” (2003).
Rationalization:
Just because the success of these films is predicated on the merits of one performance within the film. And also because if you look beyond those performances you can see a perfectly good movie that doesn’t get as much credit as that one performance in it. With “My Left Foot” I loved the performances of Brenda Fricker, Fiona Shaw, and Ray McAnally (as Christy’s father). These performances are part and parcel of Day Lewis’s great success. Sometimes one role in a movie can be like a black hole for everything else in the movie and its just not fair.
Anti-Christ (2009)
Review:
First, let me note that I’ve been watching a lot of movies with genital mutilation in them lately. I don’t know exactly what this says about me and my film selections, but suffice it to note they’ve mostly been good movies. There’s been “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover,” “Cries and Whispers,” “Teeth,” and now “Anti-Christ” and I must say, at least in the realm of graphic genital mutilation, “Anti-Christ” takes the cake.
Lars Von Trier has always been a filmmaker with extreme propensities. “Dogville” (2004) for instance was an excruciating experiment in minimalism, boredom, violence, and Americana. I personally found invigorating. Not many directors would dare what Von Trier dares. “Anti-Christ” follows suit.
Divided into a prologue, four chapters and an epilogue “Anti-Christ” tells the story of a couple demented by grief. Willem Dafoe plays a man referred to as he and Charlotte Gainsbourg plays she. In the prologue he and she are enraptured in explicit love making while their young child climbs out of its crib and falls to its death from a window. The couple is tormented by the death of their child. She is hospitalized with a debilitating depression. He, in turn, tries to ease his grief by focusing on the rehabilitation of his wife. He employs a cruel psychological treatment with she, a sadistic type of exposure therapy whereby he uncovers the source of his wife’s pain and fear and then exposes her to it.
Through some probing he finds his wife fears their cabin, called Eden, located in some remote wilderness. The two of them set out to their cabin to try and expel the pain. But the woods are a foreboding playground, filled with ominous animals and satanic omens. She is given up to mad frenzies in Eden and he continues with his vicious treatments. He and She mutually drive each other mad here and this leads to a chapter wrought with terrible sexual violence.
The violence is extreme and has made “Anti-Christ” a truly controversial film. Some critics have gone so far as to call it S&M pornography. Not so. You must measure a film’s violence with its intention and while the violence is horrific it serves an end.
I think my viewing experience of “Anti-Christ” was much enhanced by reading Roger Ebert’s theory about the meaning of the film. Ebert first points out that the literal definition of Anti-Christ means “one opposed to Christ.” In Ebert’s interpretation, the title “Anti-Christ” suggests not so much that there is an Anti-Christ in the film but that the film takes place in a world opposed to the world of Christ – meaning that Eden, instead of being a place of absolute good is a place of absolute evil. So, he and she are the Adam and Eve of an inherently evil world.
I think that’s a good interpretation. I think it also has some intriguing implications for the epilogue. I won’t give away what happens, but perhaps in the epilogue, an era of goodness begins. Just like Adam and Eve herald an evil world into existence, perhaps he and she herald in a good world by their terrible action. Just some thoughts.
“Anti-Christ” is an utterly baffling film without giving it some good thought. I’m a fan of any movie that forces you to think and so I must declare “Anti-Christ” to be a great film. So many films only require you to sit through them. “Anti-Christ” you must first endure and then puzzle over. It is not a movie for the faint of heart. But if you can see beyond the immediate violence and look to the beautiful, terrifying images you will see a movie like no movie you’ve seen before.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Blade Runner” (1982)
Rationalization:
Potent images make up the core of “Anti-Christ.” They will stay with you longer than the immediate shock of gut wrenching violence. Lars Von Trier knows how to construct an aesthetically ripe composition that evokes terror in its weirdness. I loved the animals in “Anti-Christ.” I loved the hands in the tree. I loved the woods. This is a horror movie like “The Shining” in that its not just the terrible things that happen that strike you, it is the entirety of the film. “Anti-Christ” is a fully realized composition; one for the philosophers and theologians to love and hate.
First, let me note that I’ve been watching a lot of movies with genital mutilation in them lately. I don’t know exactly what this says about me and my film selections, but suffice it to note they’ve mostly been good movies. There’s been “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover,” “Cries and Whispers,” “Teeth,” and now “Anti-Christ” and I must say, at least in the realm of graphic genital mutilation, “Anti-Christ” takes the cake.
Lars Von Trier has always been a filmmaker with extreme propensities. “Dogville” (2004) for instance was an excruciating experiment in minimalism, boredom, violence, and Americana. I personally found invigorating. Not many directors would dare what Von Trier dares. “Anti-Christ” follows suit.
Divided into a prologue, four chapters and an epilogue “Anti-Christ” tells the story of a couple demented by grief. Willem Dafoe plays a man referred to as he and Charlotte Gainsbourg plays she. In the prologue he and she are enraptured in explicit love making while their young child climbs out of its crib and falls to its death from a window. The couple is tormented by the death of their child. She is hospitalized with a debilitating depression. He, in turn, tries to ease his grief by focusing on the rehabilitation of his wife. He employs a cruel psychological treatment with she, a sadistic type of exposure therapy whereby he uncovers the source of his wife’s pain and fear and then exposes her to it.
Through some probing he finds his wife fears their cabin, called Eden, located in some remote wilderness. The two of them set out to their cabin to try and expel the pain. But the woods are a foreboding playground, filled with ominous animals and satanic omens. She is given up to mad frenzies in Eden and he continues with his vicious treatments. He and She mutually drive each other mad here and this leads to a chapter wrought with terrible sexual violence.
The violence is extreme and has made “Anti-Christ” a truly controversial film. Some critics have gone so far as to call it S&M pornography. Not so. You must measure a film’s violence with its intention and while the violence is horrific it serves an end.
I think my viewing experience of “Anti-Christ” was much enhanced by reading Roger Ebert’s theory about the meaning of the film. Ebert first points out that the literal definition of Anti-Christ means “one opposed to Christ.” In Ebert’s interpretation, the title “Anti-Christ” suggests not so much that there is an Anti-Christ in the film but that the film takes place in a world opposed to the world of Christ – meaning that Eden, instead of being a place of absolute good is a place of absolute evil. So, he and she are the Adam and Eve of an inherently evil world.
I think that’s a good interpretation. I think it also has some intriguing implications for the epilogue. I won’t give away what happens, but perhaps in the epilogue, an era of goodness begins. Just like Adam and Eve herald an evil world into existence, perhaps he and she herald in a good world by their terrible action. Just some thoughts.
“Anti-Christ” is an utterly baffling film without giving it some good thought. I’m a fan of any movie that forces you to think and so I must declare “Anti-Christ” to be a great film. So many films only require you to sit through them. “Anti-Christ” you must first endure and then puzzle over. It is not a movie for the faint of heart. But if you can see beyond the immediate violence and look to the beautiful, terrifying images you will see a movie like no movie you’ve seen before.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Blade Runner” (1982)
Rationalization:
Potent images make up the core of “Anti-Christ.” They will stay with you longer than the immediate shock of gut wrenching violence. Lars Von Trier knows how to construct an aesthetically ripe composition that evokes terror in its weirdness. I loved the animals in “Anti-Christ.” I loved the hands in the tree. I loved the woods. This is a horror movie like “The Shining” in that its not just the terrible things that happen that strike you, it is the entirety of the film. “Anti-Christ” is a fully realized composition; one for the philosophers and theologians to love and hate.
Teeth (2007)
Review:
A part of me finds it hard to believe this story hasn’t already been made into a movie. Then again, I have a severely limited knowledge of the cult films and borderline pornography that might offer such a precursor to “Teeth” (2007). In any case, to undertake a story like “Teeth” and make it successful you must be audacious and willing to shock. Thankfully, director and writer Mitchell Lichtenstein is up to the challenge and thankfully too, he makes the wise decision to play for laughs.
“Teeth” tells the story of high school student Dawn O’Keefe (Jess Weixler) who has a deep dark secret in a deep dark place. Dawn is a good student very concerned with her chaste image. She speaks at purity rallies promoting abstinence to her peers and in her personal life she shies away from anything that might arouse her sexual appetites. She keeps boys at a distance and doesn’t want to see a movie that has heavy making out in it.
Looming over the tree line of Dawn’s town are two giant smokestacks belonging to a nuclear power plant. It is never mentioned outright but it is implied that the nearby nuclear power plant is having an adverse effect on the locals. Dawn’s mother has developed cancer and Dawn…
Well, Dawn has grown teeth on her vagina. Viscious teeth. Emasculating teeth. Thus, when a male friend tries to sexually assault Dawn he learns about Vagina Dentata the hard way.
Ah yes, the age-old myth Vagina Dentata at last making its way into popular American cinema. I’m happy for it. Finally we’ve come into an age where the vagina can be referenced outright and subsequently turned into the terrifying monster in a movie. But what I really liked about “Teeth” is twofold.
1) The material is presented straight-faced but you can sense the tongue in cheek. Subsequently you laugh at a lot of the horrific emasculations.
2) It exhibits a lot of the implications of the classic monster films. For instance, the society that creates the monster is perhaps worse than the monster itself (this is an idea employed in “Frankenstein” (1931) and “King Kong” (1933) and “E.T.” (1982).
And while “Teeth” is certainly no “Frankenstein,” “King Kong,” or “E.T.” it is good homage to B movies fun. Be warned though, if you think that modesty will compel the filmmakers to not show what you can’t imagine they’d show, they do show it. Get ready.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is approximately two “Air Force One”s better than “Bubba Ho Tep” (2002)
Rationalization:
“Bubba Ho Tep” was weird and OK but ultimately too much. “Teeth” relies on time-tested horror devices, an ancient premise, and moves along confidently and at times hilariously. Will it be remembered with as much reverence as “The Shining” (1980) or “The Descent” (2005)? No. But “Teeth” will go down as one of those camp oddities that future kids will find and watch and thereafter reminisce about how in the olden days movies were so tame and silly.
A part of me finds it hard to believe this story hasn’t already been made into a movie. Then again, I have a severely limited knowledge of the cult films and borderline pornography that might offer such a precursor to “Teeth” (2007). In any case, to undertake a story like “Teeth” and make it successful you must be audacious and willing to shock. Thankfully, director and writer Mitchell Lichtenstein is up to the challenge and thankfully too, he makes the wise decision to play for laughs.
“Teeth” tells the story of high school student Dawn O’Keefe (Jess Weixler) who has a deep dark secret in a deep dark place. Dawn is a good student very concerned with her chaste image. She speaks at purity rallies promoting abstinence to her peers and in her personal life she shies away from anything that might arouse her sexual appetites. She keeps boys at a distance and doesn’t want to see a movie that has heavy making out in it.
Looming over the tree line of Dawn’s town are two giant smokestacks belonging to a nuclear power plant. It is never mentioned outright but it is implied that the nearby nuclear power plant is having an adverse effect on the locals. Dawn’s mother has developed cancer and Dawn…
Well, Dawn has grown teeth on her vagina. Viscious teeth. Emasculating teeth. Thus, when a male friend tries to sexually assault Dawn he learns about Vagina Dentata the hard way.
Ah yes, the age-old myth Vagina Dentata at last making its way into popular American cinema. I’m happy for it. Finally we’ve come into an age where the vagina can be referenced outright and subsequently turned into the terrifying monster in a movie. But what I really liked about “Teeth” is twofold.
1) The material is presented straight-faced but you can sense the tongue in cheek. Subsequently you laugh at a lot of the horrific emasculations.
2) It exhibits a lot of the implications of the classic monster films. For instance, the society that creates the monster is perhaps worse than the monster itself (this is an idea employed in “Frankenstein” (1931) and “King Kong” (1933) and “E.T.” (1982).
And while “Teeth” is certainly no “Frankenstein,” “King Kong,” or “E.T.” it is good homage to B movies fun. Be warned though, if you think that modesty will compel the filmmakers to not show what you can’t imagine they’d show, they do show it. Get ready.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is approximately two “Air Force One”s better than “Bubba Ho Tep” (2002)
Rationalization:
“Bubba Ho Tep” was weird and OK but ultimately too much. “Teeth” relies on time-tested horror devices, an ancient premise, and moves along confidently and at times hilariously. Will it be remembered with as much reverence as “The Shining” (1980) or “The Descent” (2005)? No. But “Teeth” will go down as one of those camp oddities that future kids will find and watch and thereafter reminisce about how in the olden days movies were so tame and silly.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Toy Story (1995)
Review:
Still captivating after all these years, "Toy Story" continues to capture my imagination and impress my eyes. Even in the wake of such Pixar masterpieces as "Wall-E" and "Up," it must be said that "Toy Story" holds its own. The concept that your toys are alive is a thought that has passed through every child's mind, and thus through every adult's mind as well. Its an idea that resonates with our passion to uncover secret worlds, to believe there is more out there than meets the eye. There's something enchanting about the idea - and terrifying. "Toy Story" focuses mainly on the enchanting aspect, but like other good Pixar films, it also chooses to explore the darker side of the fantasy.
But what ingratiates "Toy Story" into our minds foremost is the distinct set of characters the film introduces us to. These are not simply computer generated images, they are fully formed personalities that we can like and understand. There's Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), the toy cowboy with a pull string that makes him talk. He has been Andy's favorite toy for who knows how long. He is the undisputed leader of all the toys. Andy's other toys include a wise cracking Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), a cowardly Dinosaur (Wallace Shawn) and an oddly suggestive Little Bo Peep (Annie Potte).
All is harmonious in the world of Andy's toys. That is, until Andy gets the new hot toy, the action figure Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen). Suddenly Woody's place as Andy's favorite toy is severely threatened. Buzz Lightyear is a toy deluded into believing he really is the Buzz Lightyear. But in spite of his delusions, he is everything that Woody is not. He has buttons that let him speak, he's made from sleek, shimmering plastic, and he has the confidence to believe he can fly. Lo and behold, a power struggle begins between Woody and Buzz. This struggle inevitably leads them outside the safe parameters of Andy's room and the two of them become lost toys searching for home.
The odyssey Buzz and Woody go on is fabulous. Its weird and fun. Even Odysseus probably couldn't have spun such a yarn. Woody and Buzz find themselves in a vending machine populated by hilarious three eyed aliens, then they are taken in by the cruel toy torturer Sid and so on.
It is in Sid's house that a darker exploration of living toys comes into the film. We find Sid has created an army of terrifying toy mutations that both Woody and Buzz fear. The mutations are quite eerie and very imaginative creations. Toys can be creepy just as easily as they can be jovial. The Twilight Zone and countless other mannequin stories know this, and thankfully so does Pixar.
It is in Sid's house that Buzz has his existential crisis. Realizing that he is, in fact, a toy Buzz has that all too-human-moment when you realize you are less than you thought.
"Toy Story" is the first film to ever be entirely computer animated. Even by today's standards, it looks good. The characters move smoothly and realistically, carrying real weight in their step just as their faces carry real emotion in their expressions. This film is a miraculous achievement and will likely go down in history with other landmarks in animation like "Snow White" (1937), "Fantasia" (1940) and "Beauty and the Beast" (1992).
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Jurassic Park" (1993).
Rationalization:
The film is wonderful, magical, and inspiring, a real labor of love, but what is perhaps most important about "Toy Story" is the collective importance of the films it gave rise to. Pixar has consistently produced some of the most mind bogglingly great films of the past two decades. Pixar is synonymous with Disney's current credibility. Without Pixar, Disney's output of films over the past decade would be a sad display indeed (admittedly, I have not seen "The Princess and the Frog" (2009)). I am glad "Toy Story" is still in my life though, not quite eclipsed by the later Pixar films. We must remember: "Toy Story" set the high standard of quality for Pixar films, so we must be forever grateful to it.
Still captivating after all these years, "Toy Story" continues to capture my imagination and impress my eyes. Even in the wake of such Pixar masterpieces as "Wall-E" and "Up," it must be said that "Toy Story" holds its own. The concept that your toys are alive is a thought that has passed through every child's mind, and thus through every adult's mind as well. Its an idea that resonates with our passion to uncover secret worlds, to believe there is more out there than meets the eye. There's something enchanting about the idea - and terrifying. "Toy Story" focuses mainly on the enchanting aspect, but like other good Pixar films, it also chooses to explore the darker side of the fantasy.
But what ingratiates "Toy Story" into our minds foremost is the distinct set of characters the film introduces us to. These are not simply computer generated images, they are fully formed personalities that we can like and understand. There's Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), the toy cowboy with a pull string that makes him talk. He has been Andy's favorite toy for who knows how long. He is the undisputed leader of all the toys. Andy's other toys include a wise cracking Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), a cowardly Dinosaur (Wallace Shawn) and an oddly suggestive Little Bo Peep (Annie Potte).
All is harmonious in the world of Andy's toys. That is, until Andy gets the new hot toy, the action figure Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen). Suddenly Woody's place as Andy's favorite toy is severely threatened. Buzz Lightyear is a toy deluded into believing he really is the Buzz Lightyear. But in spite of his delusions, he is everything that Woody is not. He has buttons that let him speak, he's made from sleek, shimmering plastic, and he has the confidence to believe he can fly. Lo and behold, a power struggle begins between Woody and Buzz. This struggle inevitably leads them outside the safe parameters of Andy's room and the two of them become lost toys searching for home.
The odyssey Buzz and Woody go on is fabulous. Its weird and fun. Even Odysseus probably couldn't have spun such a yarn. Woody and Buzz find themselves in a vending machine populated by hilarious three eyed aliens, then they are taken in by the cruel toy torturer Sid and so on.
It is in Sid's house that a darker exploration of living toys comes into the film. We find Sid has created an army of terrifying toy mutations that both Woody and Buzz fear. The mutations are quite eerie and very imaginative creations. Toys can be creepy just as easily as they can be jovial. The Twilight Zone and countless other mannequin stories know this, and thankfully so does Pixar.
It is in Sid's house that Buzz has his existential crisis. Realizing that he is, in fact, a toy Buzz has that all too-human-moment when you realize you are less than you thought.
"Toy Story" is the first film to ever be entirely computer animated. Even by today's standards, it looks good. The characters move smoothly and realistically, carrying real weight in their step just as their faces carry real emotion in their expressions. This film is a miraculous achievement and will likely go down in history with other landmarks in animation like "Snow White" (1937), "Fantasia" (1940) and "Beauty and the Beast" (1992).
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a "Jurassic Park" (1993).
Rationalization:
The film is wonderful, magical, and inspiring, a real labor of love, but what is perhaps most important about "Toy Story" is the collective importance of the films it gave rise to. Pixar has consistently produced some of the most mind bogglingly great films of the past two decades. Pixar is synonymous with Disney's current credibility. Without Pixar, Disney's output of films over the past decade would be a sad display indeed (admittedly, I have not seen "The Princess and the Frog" (2009)). I am glad "Toy Story" is still in my life though, not quite eclipsed by the later Pixar films. We must remember: "Toy Story" set the high standard of quality for Pixar films, so we must be forever grateful to it.
Gorp (1980)
Review:
What a terrible movie. Whoever made this film thinking, “Wow-gee-whiz, this material is comedic” should be brought behind a seedy abandoned warehouse, lectured on the tenants of what is and is not funny, and then promptly shot. After that, if there is a God and he be a righteous God, that person will be condemned to a ring of hell in which he will be tormented by the characters of this movie in the ways that they torment each other in the film.
I admit that I have a soft spot for summer camp movies. Many of the good ones (“Meatballs” (1979) “Wet Hot American Summer” (2001)) present summer camp with a weird, nostalgic zaniness that sometimes borders on anarchy. “Gorp” is also based on that formula, but stretches it to its unfortunate extreme. It is pure anarchy – and I do not mean that in a laudatory way.
There’s not really a story. A group of guys show up at a cabin in the woods. They are to be the waiters at a nearby Jewish summer camp. We meet Kavelli (Michael Lembeck) and Bergman (Philip Casnoff), the most inane and frustrating duo since the guys who starred in “Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla” (1952 and possibly the worst film ever made).
So, we follow Kavelli and Bergman and some of the other waiters around as they hit on the pretty counselors in training and pull pranks on one another. And let me here insert what makes me so upset about this movie. When I say they “hit on the pretty counselors in training” I mean they sneak into their cabins at night with nylon stockings over their heads, peak under the girl’s covers, get undressed…the fodder of rapists-to-be. And let me here note that when I write that they “pull pranks on one another” I mean that they pull a slew of tiring, monotonous, mean-spirited, scatological, meaningless, unfunny pranks on one another. No, actually, “pranks” is too kind of a word. What these boys do to each is sociopathic.
And don’t get me started on the scene where Kavelli and Bergman drug and try to rape the camp nurse. It’s somewhat hard to offend my sensibilities, but a scene like that being passed off as humor comes close. At least in the date rape scene in “Observe and Report” (2009) you could tell the filmmakers were aware that date rape is fundamentally wrong. Here, this movie wants us to conspire with Kavelli and Bergman by condoning and laughing at the action.
“Gorp” is a movie populated with irredeemable grotesques. It tries so very hard to capture the energy and irreverence of films like “Animal House” (1978) and “Meatballs” (1979) and fails greatly. It grasps only the madness of those films, not the method. The only edifying reason you should see this film is to say, “Oh, so that’s what Dennis Quaid/Fran Drescher looked like when they were younger.”
Oh yea, did I mention Dennis Quaid and Fran Drescher are in “Gorp?”
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a two.
Rationalization:
This film is not rated a one because of one scene and one scene only. A rabbi is giving an enthusiastic speech about the Ten Commandments. We then see that he’s giving this speech to a crowd of approximately three young campers. This scene made me think of what a good movie this might have been if given some more thought and development. It could have easily juxtaposed and intermingled the spiritual side of this camp with the blasphemous lives of the staff. That might have developed into something more than the atavistic romp through amorality that is “Gorp.”
What a terrible movie. Whoever made this film thinking, “Wow-gee-whiz, this material is comedic” should be brought behind a seedy abandoned warehouse, lectured on the tenants of what is and is not funny, and then promptly shot. After that, if there is a God and he be a righteous God, that person will be condemned to a ring of hell in which he will be tormented by the characters of this movie in the ways that they torment each other in the film.
I admit that I have a soft spot for summer camp movies. Many of the good ones (“Meatballs” (1979) “Wet Hot American Summer” (2001)) present summer camp with a weird, nostalgic zaniness that sometimes borders on anarchy. “Gorp” is also based on that formula, but stretches it to its unfortunate extreme. It is pure anarchy – and I do not mean that in a laudatory way.
There’s not really a story. A group of guys show up at a cabin in the woods. They are to be the waiters at a nearby Jewish summer camp. We meet Kavelli (Michael Lembeck) and Bergman (Philip Casnoff), the most inane and frustrating duo since the guys who starred in “Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla” (1952 and possibly the worst film ever made).
So, we follow Kavelli and Bergman and some of the other waiters around as they hit on the pretty counselors in training and pull pranks on one another. And let me here insert what makes me so upset about this movie. When I say they “hit on the pretty counselors in training” I mean they sneak into their cabins at night with nylon stockings over their heads, peak under the girl’s covers, get undressed…the fodder of rapists-to-be. And let me here note that when I write that they “pull pranks on one another” I mean that they pull a slew of tiring, monotonous, mean-spirited, scatological, meaningless, unfunny pranks on one another. No, actually, “pranks” is too kind of a word. What these boys do to each is sociopathic.
And don’t get me started on the scene where Kavelli and Bergman drug and try to rape the camp nurse. It’s somewhat hard to offend my sensibilities, but a scene like that being passed off as humor comes close. At least in the date rape scene in “Observe and Report” (2009) you could tell the filmmakers were aware that date rape is fundamentally wrong. Here, this movie wants us to conspire with Kavelli and Bergman by condoning and laughing at the action.
“Gorp” is a movie populated with irredeemable grotesques. It tries so very hard to capture the energy and irreverence of films like “Animal House” (1978) and “Meatballs” (1979) and fails greatly. It grasps only the madness of those films, not the method. The only edifying reason you should see this film is to say, “Oh, so that’s what Dennis Quaid/Fran Drescher looked like when they were younger.”
Oh yea, did I mention Dennis Quaid and Fran Drescher are in “Gorp?”
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a two.
Rationalization:
This film is not rated a one because of one scene and one scene only. A rabbi is giving an enthusiastic speech about the Ten Commandments. We then see that he’s giving this speech to a crowd of approximately three young campers. This scene made me think of what a good movie this might have been if given some more thought and development. It could have easily juxtaposed and intermingled the spiritual side of this camp with the blasphemous lives of the staff. That might have developed into something more than the atavistic romp through amorality that is “Gorp.”
Taking Woodstock (2009)
Review:
Ang Lee’s “Taking Woodstock” is a harmless and competent coming of age story. Its based on the true tale of a young man who convinced his rural community to host what would become the most renowned rock concert in history. Ang Lee’s take on Woodstock is nostalgic, sympathetic and fun but it misses out on the soul of
Eliot Tiber (Henry Goodman) is the son of a poor couple who own a run down motel in upstate New York. Eliot has always been a loyal son, willing to help out the family business in whatever ways he can, in spite of his mother’s incessant penny pinching. When Eliot’s parents can’t pay the mortgage on their motel, Eliot scrambles for a solution to their financial woes. That solution, of course, is Woodstock.
Eliot contacts the festival planner, Billy (Emile Hirsch) and they set about convincing local farmer Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy) to rent his farmland out for the festival. Eventually under the right financial impetus Max agrees to let them use his land, giving Woodstock a definite home. What follows is predictable but still fun to watch – a massive population of hippies descend upon a quiet rural community that had previously been inhabited by conservative Middle American types who were not too keen on the liberal ideals of the hippie movement.
The one outstanding performance of “Taking Woodstock” is Liev Schreiber as Vilma, a transvestite who is hired as security for the Tiber’s motel during the concert. Schreiber provides excellent comic timing while remaining straight faced and in his drag the entire film. If there was a moral axis upon which “Taking Woodstock” rotates, it is likely him. He becomes a much-needed friend and mentor to Eliot.
Ultimately, “Taking Woodstock” is not Ang Lee’s masterpiece. That would likely go to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) or “Brokeback Mountain” (2005). This film is lighter fare. We get some good laughs at the inadvertent drug mishaps and a police officer who, though looking forward to clubbing some hippies, finds himself taken in by the spirit of Woodstock. There are some beautifully made scenes too, like when Eliot, his father and Vilma peaceful regard a placid lake filled with naked people bathing. And then over the trees, they hear the sound of music – Woodstock has begun.
But I think “Taking Woodstock” outstays its welcome. It’s just a little too long. I got the gist at about the 90-minute mark and it went on for another half hour. Also, the music of Woodstock is largely absent. We sadly do not see or hear Hendrix or Joplin’s performances. In the film, the concert itself is depicted as a monolithic entity, a massive all knowing unity that defied every standard America had long held itself too. I suppose that’s a good way to depict Woodstock - in all its glory and haze - but really I missed the music.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Thomas Crown Affair” (1968).
Review:
It looks good and even feels good, but after a time this film feels like a run on sentence, beating you over the head with the changes its protagonist Eliot is obviously going through during the course of Woodstock. That’s not to say it’s not a good coming of age story. It is, and I liked it fundamentally. The last shot is also marvelous and so very, very appropriate. “Taking Woodstock” takes place mostly on the periphery of the concert itself. The last shot and a few other scenes made me wish for a movie that took place deep within the concert itself. What an angelic monster it must have been.
Ang Lee’s “Taking Woodstock” is a harmless and competent coming of age story. Its based on the true tale of a young man who convinced his rural community to host what would become the most renowned rock concert in history. Ang Lee’s take on Woodstock is nostalgic, sympathetic and fun but it misses out on the soul of
Eliot Tiber (Henry Goodman) is the son of a poor couple who own a run down motel in upstate New York. Eliot has always been a loyal son, willing to help out the family business in whatever ways he can, in spite of his mother’s incessant penny pinching. When Eliot’s parents can’t pay the mortgage on their motel, Eliot scrambles for a solution to their financial woes. That solution, of course, is Woodstock.
Eliot contacts the festival planner, Billy (Emile Hirsch) and they set about convincing local farmer Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy) to rent his farmland out for the festival. Eventually under the right financial impetus Max agrees to let them use his land, giving Woodstock a definite home. What follows is predictable but still fun to watch – a massive population of hippies descend upon a quiet rural community that had previously been inhabited by conservative Middle American types who were not too keen on the liberal ideals of the hippie movement.
The one outstanding performance of “Taking Woodstock” is Liev Schreiber as Vilma, a transvestite who is hired as security for the Tiber’s motel during the concert. Schreiber provides excellent comic timing while remaining straight faced and in his drag the entire film. If there was a moral axis upon which “Taking Woodstock” rotates, it is likely him. He becomes a much-needed friend and mentor to Eliot.
Ultimately, “Taking Woodstock” is not Ang Lee’s masterpiece. That would likely go to “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) or “Brokeback Mountain” (2005). This film is lighter fare. We get some good laughs at the inadvertent drug mishaps and a police officer who, though looking forward to clubbing some hippies, finds himself taken in by the spirit of Woodstock. There are some beautifully made scenes too, like when Eliot, his father and Vilma peaceful regard a placid lake filled with naked people bathing. And then over the trees, they hear the sound of music – Woodstock has begun.
But I think “Taking Woodstock” outstays its welcome. It’s just a little too long. I got the gist at about the 90-minute mark and it went on for another half hour. Also, the music of Woodstock is largely absent. We sadly do not see or hear Hendrix or Joplin’s performances. In the film, the concert itself is depicted as a monolithic entity, a massive all knowing unity that defied every standard America had long held itself too. I suppose that’s a good way to depict Woodstock - in all its glory and haze - but really I missed the music.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Thomas Crown Affair” (1968).
Review:
It looks good and even feels good, but after a time this film feels like a run on sentence, beating you over the head with the changes its protagonist Eliot is obviously going through during the course of Woodstock. That’s not to say it’s not a good coming of age story. It is, and I liked it fundamentally. The last shot is also marvelous and so very, very appropriate. “Taking Woodstock” takes place mostly on the periphery of the concert itself. The last shot and a few other scenes made me wish for a movie that took place deep within the concert itself. What an angelic monster it must have been.
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie (2004)
Review:
I admire and respect the show “Spongebob Squarepants” because it harkens back to a time when cartoons were pure energy and silliness. The actions of those old cartoons needed no explanations because they defied any plausible elucidation – bugs bunny could pull that mallet out of nowhere simply because he can pull mallets out of nowhere. To understand and enjoy “Spongebob Squarepants,” you must approach it with the same logic. Spongebob is a sea sponge that looks like a kitchen sponge because that’s how it is. He lives in a pineapple under the sea because that’s where he lives. His pet snail meows because that’s the noise it makes.
If you can wrap your head around all that, accept its weirdness and laugh at its absurdity you are ready to enjoy Spongebob and you’ll likely enjoy “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.”
Set in the fictional aquatic settlement of “Bikini Bottom,” the film begins with Spongebob believing he will soon be promoted to manager of a local fast food chain, the Krusty Krab. When his neighbor Squidward receives the promotion instead of him, Spongebob is devastated. His boss Mr. Krabs tells him that he didn’t get the promotion because he’s just a kid. This leads Spongebob to go on a hilarious ice cream bender with his best friend, a starfish named Patrick.
Meanwhile, Plankton, the evil owner of a competing fast food restaurant, steals the crown of King Neptune, king of the sea, as part of a much larger evil scheme. When King Neptune realizes his crown has been stolen, he is furious. Lo and behold, Spongebob and Patrick set off on a mission to find the crown to prove that they’re more than just kids.
This is silly stuff but its good fun and I found myself laughing a lot, sometimes in spite of myself. There are also a plethora of famous names providing voices in this film including Scarlett Johansson, Alec Baldwin, and Jeffrey Tambor. David Hasselhoff has one of the biggest laughs in a cameo appearance that could serve as a shining example of why Spongebob is so weird but also why it works.
I do think the film suffers a little in comparison with its source material. The television show “Spongebob Squarepants” is comprised of 11 minute episodes, a time duration that suits aquatic pandemonium well. At 87 minutes running time “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie” sometimes struggles to keep up its frantic weirdness and defaults into recycled material. Ah, but if you’re going to have a Spongebob movie, this one’s pretty good.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a “The Great Muppet Caper” (1981)
Rationalization:
This is fun stuff but it is by no means the height of its franchise. I’m not sure material like “Spongebob Squarepants” can be transformed into feature length. It relies so heavily on its energy and whimsy, both of which are hard things to keep up in a full-length movie. But to be fair, many kids movies lack energy and whimsy and have no originality. “The
Spongebob Squarepants Movie” has a relative abundance of all those things and so should be cherished.
I admire and respect the show “Spongebob Squarepants” because it harkens back to a time when cartoons were pure energy and silliness. The actions of those old cartoons needed no explanations because they defied any plausible elucidation – bugs bunny could pull that mallet out of nowhere simply because he can pull mallets out of nowhere. To understand and enjoy “Spongebob Squarepants,” you must approach it with the same logic. Spongebob is a sea sponge that looks like a kitchen sponge because that’s how it is. He lives in a pineapple under the sea because that’s where he lives. His pet snail meows because that’s the noise it makes.
If you can wrap your head around all that, accept its weirdness and laugh at its absurdity you are ready to enjoy Spongebob and you’ll likely enjoy “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.”
Set in the fictional aquatic settlement of “Bikini Bottom,” the film begins with Spongebob believing he will soon be promoted to manager of a local fast food chain, the Krusty Krab. When his neighbor Squidward receives the promotion instead of him, Spongebob is devastated. His boss Mr. Krabs tells him that he didn’t get the promotion because he’s just a kid. This leads Spongebob to go on a hilarious ice cream bender with his best friend, a starfish named Patrick.
Meanwhile, Plankton, the evil owner of a competing fast food restaurant, steals the crown of King Neptune, king of the sea, as part of a much larger evil scheme. When King Neptune realizes his crown has been stolen, he is furious. Lo and behold, Spongebob and Patrick set off on a mission to find the crown to prove that they’re more than just kids.
This is silly stuff but its good fun and I found myself laughing a lot, sometimes in spite of myself. There are also a plethora of famous names providing voices in this film including Scarlett Johansson, Alec Baldwin, and Jeffrey Tambor. David Hasselhoff has one of the biggest laughs in a cameo appearance that could serve as a shining example of why Spongebob is so weird but also why it works.
I do think the film suffers a little in comparison with its source material. The television show “Spongebob Squarepants” is comprised of 11 minute episodes, a time duration that suits aquatic pandemonium well. At 87 minutes running time “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie” sometimes struggles to keep up its frantic weirdness and defaults into recycled material. Ah, but if you’re going to have a Spongebob movie, this one’s pretty good.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca” this film is a “The Great Muppet Caper” (1981)
Rationalization:
This is fun stuff but it is by no means the height of its franchise. I’m not sure material like “Spongebob Squarepants” can be transformed into feature length. It relies so heavily on its energy and whimsy, both of which are hard things to keep up in a full-length movie. But to be fair, many kids movies lack energy and whimsy and have no originality. “The
Spongebob Squarepants Movie” has a relative abundance of all those things and so should be cherished.
Breaking Away (1979)
Review:
This is a great movie. And its great because it seems to have been made with joy and so evokes joy when watched. I left this movie feeling really good. Peter Yates’ “Breaking Away” is equal parts silly and heartfelt. It strikes such a fine balance between these two parts that there’s no wonder this film is so lauded. The AFI has voted it #8 on its list of most inspiring films of all time and again at #8 on its list of best sports movies.
Dennis Christopher plays Dave, a kid who’s passion has recently turned to Italian biking. He dreams of one day racing against the Italian bikers he reveres. Dave bikes around town, exclaiming Italian phrases and singing Italian arias. This new passion completely baffles his father (Paul Dooley) who is a hard-working, nothing-but-American sort of type. He cannot wrap his mind around how his son could be so taken with the Italians.
Dave belongs to a group of friends that include a former high school quarterback named Mike (Dennis Quaid), a short and defensive kid named Moocher (Jackie Earle Haley) and a tall, goofball name Cyril (Daniel Stern). The four of them comprise a group of high school graduates who have stayed in their hometown with no prospects for the future. But while their path is uncertain, the four friends are united by a resentment for the local college kids in the town.
The college kids call the locals “cutters,” referring to the community’s old trade of stone cutting. This relegation has a negative affect on the mindsets of these four boys. They know, just like the college kids know, that this town is a dead end for them. So they try to escape their fate and themselves by putting up facades. The most obvious is Dave’s Italian persona, which he uses to pick up a college girl in one of the film’s many subplots. But the others wear tough guy or funny man facades to hide their feelings of deep inadequacy. But look at me. I'm making this sound like a sad movie. It is anything but that. This is a joyous film, filled with fun, energy, and inspiration. Its also very inspirational.
The flow of the film is oriented around the four protagonists general loafing and the bike races that have become so central to Dave’s life. When he finds out the Italian bikers he idolizes are coming to town, he does everything in his power to ride alongside them. Not many movies have bike racing as their focus, perhaps because bike racing doesn't necessarily involve a lot of drama. But "Breaking Away" makes it riveting. The climactic race is one of the better sporting events I've ever seen depicted in a film.
For every three hundred coming of age stories there may be one that is truly great and honest. This is one of those films. "Breaking Away" is a masterpiece that is completely comfortable and conscious of its merits.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "Ben Hur" (1959)
Rationalization:
Well, both movies are about racing...and finding yourself...But really I make the comparison because these are two films where you want to lift up your clenched fist and yell "Yeah!" at some parts. This is a movie that can make you believe in people's goodness and disregard their shortcomings. I wish more movies made me feel so warm.
This is a great movie. And its great because it seems to have been made with joy and so evokes joy when watched. I left this movie feeling really good. Peter Yates’ “Breaking Away” is equal parts silly and heartfelt. It strikes such a fine balance between these two parts that there’s no wonder this film is so lauded. The AFI has voted it #8 on its list of most inspiring films of all time and again at #8 on its list of best sports movies.
Dennis Christopher plays Dave, a kid who’s passion has recently turned to Italian biking. He dreams of one day racing against the Italian bikers he reveres. Dave bikes around town, exclaiming Italian phrases and singing Italian arias. This new passion completely baffles his father (Paul Dooley) who is a hard-working, nothing-but-American sort of type. He cannot wrap his mind around how his son could be so taken with the Italians.
Dave belongs to a group of friends that include a former high school quarterback named Mike (Dennis Quaid), a short and defensive kid named Moocher (Jackie Earle Haley) and a tall, goofball name Cyril (Daniel Stern). The four of them comprise a group of high school graduates who have stayed in their hometown with no prospects for the future. But while their path is uncertain, the four friends are united by a resentment for the local college kids in the town.
The college kids call the locals “cutters,” referring to the community’s old trade of stone cutting. This relegation has a negative affect on the mindsets of these four boys. They know, just like the college kids know, that this town is a dead end for them. So they try to escape their fate and themselves by putting up facades. The most obvious is Dave’s Italian persona, which he uses to pick up a college girl in one of the film’s many subplots. But the others wear tough guy or funny man facades to hide their feelings of deep inadequacy. But look at me. I'm making this sound like a sad movie. It is anything but that. This is a joyous film, filled with fun, energy, and inspiration. Its also very inspirational.
The flow of the film is oriented around the four protagonists general loafing and the bike races that have become so central to Dave’s life. When he finds out the Italian bikers he idolizes are coming to town, he does everything in his power to ride alongside them. Not many movies have bike racing as their focus, perhaps because bike racing doesn't necessarily involve a lot of drama. But "Breaking Away" makes it riveting. The climactic race is one of the better sporting events I've ever seen depicted in a film.
For every three hundred coming of age stories there may be one that is truly great and honest. This is one of those films. "Breaking Away" is a masterpiece that is completely comfortable and conscious of its merits.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "Ben Hur" (1959)
Rationalization:
Well, both movies are about racing...and finding yourself...But really I make the comparison because these are two films where you want to lift up your clenched fist and yell "Yeah!" at some parts. This is a movie that can make you believe in people's goodness and disregard their shortcomings. I wish more movies made me feel so warm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)