Draft Day

Full disclosure: I am a lifelong Cleveland Browns fan. This means two things. One, I know nothing but despair, and two, I probably know more about the subject that Draft Day deals with than your average reviewer although I’ve read a few reviews of this and it is bringing us Browns fans out of the woodwork, so maybe not.
There are some eerie parallels between this film and real life. In the movie and in reality the Browns are going into an important draft with an untested General Manager, a new coach, and a relatively new owner. In each case there is an intriguing quarterback on the roster who played well last season but got hurt and then the team’s fortunes sank. And the Browns have an early draft pick but not the number one.
Early in the morning on the day of the draft, Browns GM, Sonny Weaver Jr., played by Kevin Costner, gets an offer from Seattle to trade for the number one pick and the rights to draft Bo Callahan, played by Josh Pence, a quarterback out of Wisconsin, who all the draft analysts agree is a sure thing. His owner Anthony Molina, played by Frank Langella, is pressuring Sonny to make a big splash on the offensive side of the ball. So reluctantly Sonny trades away three years of first round draft picks to get the number one, even though he believes in the team’s current QB, Brian Drew, played by Tom Welling. His new coach, played by Denis Leary, just arrived from Dallas, where he won a Super Bowl (not everything parallels reality here) wants running back Ray Jennings, played by Arian Foster, who does a pretty good job and may have a future in film when he retires from the NFL. Sonny, himself, really likes Ohio State linebacker Vontae Mack, played by Chadwick Boseman.
To top things off, Sonny has some personal problems that are coming home to roost. His father, legendary Browns coach Sonny Weaver Sr. died the week before and his mother, played by Ellen Burstyn wants to spread his ashes on the practice field named after him on that day. There is obvious tension with his mother. Plus Sonny’s casual affair with his capologist, Ali, played by Jennifer Garner, has resulted in her pregnancy.
The script for Draft Day is very well researched. The writers, Scott Rothman and Rajiv Joseph are knowledgeable about how the draft and indeed, the NFL works. They took some liberties for dramatic reasons but for the most part they got it right. Likewise they seem to be well informed about the tragic history of the Browns. The move was mentioned and also the years of losing after the return in 1999. I was very impressed with their research.
Ivan Reitman directs and gets good performances out of everybody. Costner isn’t stretching here but he’s fun to watch. Jennifer Garner comes across as a smart sexy former tomboy who loves what she does and loves football. Even the cameos with sportscasters, league commissioners and athletes don’t provide embarrassing moments.
They use split screens during the many phone calls in the film and Reitman does this thing where occasionally someone will spill over onto the other side of the screen, sometimes they even cut across the other half and then back into their own setting. I had read about this beforehand and thought that it was going to be a distracting gimmick. But it actually works. Draft Day’s plot is almost solely advanced in these phone calls and for the most part phone calls aren’t very cinematic. This technique provides an injection of energy into what could have been a static visual.
In the end Draft Day is as much a financial thriller as it is a sports movie. It takes place, after all, in the off season when no games are being played. There is no built in drama of an athletic contest. There are only the phone calls and the wheeling and dealing. The only clock is the compressed timeline of one workday, the biggest day in the offseason.
The maneuver Sonny pulls at the end is probably fantasy but maybe not that far out of the realm of possibility. It is a cheer inducing moment, however, at least for me. I’m not sure how a Steeler fan would feel about it and I don’t really care either. I just hope that Ray Farmer, the real GM of the Browns can do just as well as Kevin Costner next month.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Not every Marvel film has been a gem, or even a hit. And this is a good thing. They know they can take a chance and if it turns into a stinker, they’ll survive. So they take chances. And the chances they take are usually in the direction of geeky coolness, which is good for us geeks. The biggest risk in my estimation will be later this summer when they release Guardians of the Galaxy in all its cosmic splendor. Will the regular non-geeky people, who Marvel needs for a film to be a hit, extend their suspension of disbelief from costumed vigilantes to deep space weirdness? It seems like a big jump, even though the previews have been intriguing.
With Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Marvel is channeling political action films like the Bourne films or even things like Three Days of the Condor. They bring in Robert Redford, as slick bad guy, Alexander Pierce, to cement the connection. S.H.I.E.L.D. has always been a troubling organization in the Marvel universe. In fact if it were real, I’m sure it would be the object of numerous protests and condemnations. Good Lord, the N.S.A. is bad enough. There is a lot about this set up that could be used to comment on our real world. But as I’ve said before, Marvel mines reality only to find material. They aren’t really interested in making profound comments, political or otherwise. The issues revolving around the existence of an all-powerful secret police organization are mentioned but not explored. The good guys are running it, or at least will win the struggle for its leadership, so there’s no need to worry about all that power being abused.
After the events in the The Avengers, Steve Rogers, played by Chris Evans, is still adjusting to life in the 21st century. And he’s finally starting to make more of an effort to bring himself up to date with his new reality, keeping a list of cultural touchstones to check out. He got tired of not getting all the jokes, I suppose.
He’s also been working for S.H.I.E.L.D. because he can’t think of anything else to do with his time. For most missions he’s been partnered with Natasha Romanoff, the Black Widow, played by Scarlet Johansson. She’s been trying to help him adjust by encouraging him to date.
Rogers makes friends with Sam Wilson, played by Anthony Mackie, who he meets while going on his morning run. Sam is a paratrooper and has some unorthodox ideas about how Steve can learn about post WWII history. When he was in the service, he was involved in a test program for a winged jet pack. The code name for the program was Falcon.
Ominous things begin to happen in the upper echelons of S.H.I.E.L.D. They are about to launch three new heavily armed helicarriers that will be linked to a high-tech satellite. Director Nick Fury, played by Samuel L. Jackson, becomes suspicious about the program and goes to Secretary Pierce to delay it while he investigates.
Pierce agrees but then Nick Fury is attacked by an almost mythical assassin called the Winter Soldier, a figure who has a connection with Cap. Fury is seemingly killed (you guys know nobody ever really dies in the Marvel universe, right?) and Cap has to go on the run from S.H.I.E.L.D. and uncover what turns out to be a massive conspiracy, all without knowing who to trust.
This film has a darker tone than the first one and it is an important transitional point in the history of the Marvel universe, at least on film. For this reason, I am a little ambivalent about it. I can point to no major faults, other than the fights scenes were over-edited and in some cases hard to follow and the climax of the film is a little too comic booky, which jars with the rest of it. I walked out of the theater feeling not exhilarated but actually a little down. The film is somewhat depressing. My reaction may just be because of the disconnect between what was on the screen and what I was expecting.
But the performances are excellent. Chris Evans continues to play Cap as a straight arrow trying to cope in a compromised age. Samuel L. Jackson is always the coolest person in the room and Cobie Smulders as agent Maria Hill is suitably badass. Redford isn’t really stretching here but he’s fine. I’m not sure I like what they’re doing with Black Widow. They are humanizing her a bit and showing her cool professional façade cracking at the edges. Johansson portrays it well but I think I liked it better when she was more of an enigma. I didn’t like her hair in this either.
But no matter what my feelings about it are, I respect Marvel for making a film with a little bit darker tone than what the movie going public is used to. In a way it’s appropriate that this came out at this time of year. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is not really a summer movie.


When you make The Black Swan and The Wrestler, giving your studio tons of artistic credentials if not buckets of cash, said studios are going to give you some leeway on the projects you’ve been obsessing over since high school. This is true, even if, like Darren Aronofsky, you’ve already made one difficult film that didn’t quite work and flopped at the box office, namely The Fountain. “Maybe he’ll get it out of his system and go back to more conventional topics,” they figure, or perhaps he’ll nail it and create a classic for all time. Whatever they were thinking when they greenlit Noah they had to have been counting on the inevitable free publicity when the controversy erupts over an odd take on a beloved biblical story.
From a narrative standpoint, there isn’t much to hang your hat on in the Noah story. It only lasts a couple of pages and like most of the bible it is written in an expository style that modern readers find dry and unexciting. There is almost no characterization or description or any of the other things we expect in a story. People go to it for religious inspiration not entertainment. So Aronofsky has a lot to flesh out here. He’s added characters like Ila, played by Emma Watson, an orphan whom Noah, played by Russell Crowe, adopts. There are sub-plots and a villain, Tubal-Cain, played by Ray Winstone. With all that Aronofsky pads this thing out to over two hours, which is the proper length for a biblical epic, I think we can all agree.
But to me, and as it turns out to Aronofsky, the most interesting thing about the story of the Flood is how can a righteous man pull up that ramp, stranding people as the waters are rising? Even if God is telling you that they are wicked beyond redemption it has to be a hard thing to do. This expands into a larger question about the nature of faith. In this film Noah does and intends to do some pretty extreme and awful things because God is intent on rebooting His creation. He’s God, so He knows when a person or a race of people is beyond redemption. He knows when genocide is appropriate.
Compassion is a virtue that God wants in man. But in this case He is seemingly asking Noah to cast it aside and aid Him in destroying mankind while saving the part of creation that has not fallen, the animal kingdom. How does a righteous man feel about being asked to do all these terrible things? There has to be some doubt and that’s where the real central conflict of this film comes in.
The acting and technical elements are all excellent here. The part of Noah is not really a stretch for Russell Crowe, but he takes the character from strong but good hearted family man to fanatic, to madman, to broken failure, to finally humble penitent, convincingly. Everybody else is good too, especially Emma Watson, and Ray Winstone, but they are really in support of Crowe’s performance.
It is a pretty film. They use the volcanic plains of Iceland to stand in for post-Eden desolation. The special effects are well integrated into the picture, even if they aren’t particularly jaw-dropping. The costumes get away from the traditional robes and sandals of other biblical epics. I’d like to know where Ila and Naameh, Noah’s wife, played by Jennifer Connelly, get their hair done and how they keep their clothes clean when there isn’t any running water, but those are minor things and besides miracles were a lot more common in those days.
The real problem is that there is a lack of rigor to Aronofsky’s theology. I’m not sure what he’s trying to say. And certain things don’t make any sense. Dense forests spring up overnight from a single seed; there are fallen angels encased in rock that you can talk to and who will help you build your ark: barren women are made fertile with a touch. All these manifestations of the divine occur out in the open and unremarked upon. And yet the will of God is still unknowable?
There is also a New-Agey odor to the whole thing. Noah and his family are vegetarians and somehow eating animal flesh leads to sin. The protection of nature and the animal kingdom is a very important motivation for Noah, one for which he is willing to watch all or most of humanity die. These are basically the same motivations and goals as Ra’s al Ghul’s in the Batman comics. Ra’s is a villain, by the way. Aronofsky is trying to push some buttons. In the movie God is always referred to as the Creator and Eve’s role in the fall is never mentioned. That seems like a jab at the fundamentalists.
In the end I would not put Noah in the ambitious but flawed masterpiece category. It is told in a fairly linear and conventional fashion. I sense very little willingness to push the envelope of filmmaking aesthetics here. It is merely a take on a biblical story, worth watching but hardly great.

The Wind Rises

This is the second to last film I need to see to properly judge the Animated Feature Oscar.  Alas, the last one, Ernest & Celestine won’t be opening wide until later this month and of course the Oscars are tonight.  Most of the Oscar predictors say that Frozen is a lock but I don’t know how you can pick against Miyazaki, especially if there’s no Pixar entry nominated.

Hayao Miyazaki has said that this will be his last film.  Of course people have said this before and have been drawn back so we’ll let the future decide that one.  If it is his last, however, it’s a good one to go out on.  For one thing this is an unusual film for him, in that it is a pretty conventional story.  There are, of course, touches of fantasy here and there and some cultural assumptions that are strange to us westerners.  Miyazaki fans are used to the latter.

The Wind Rises is essentially a biopic about Jiro Horikoshi, voiced by Joseph Gordon Levitt, the aeronautical engineer who designed the Mitsubishi A5M fighter, and eventually the A5M Zero, which we know as the Zero, for the Japanese Navy before the war.  As portrayed here, Jiro is an endearingly nerdy and kind-hearted man who is obsessed not with making an efficient war machine but with creating a work of art.

And this is how Miyazaki gets past the troublesome subject of the film.  Japan, of course, was our enemy in the war and was a brutal and ruthless one at that.  The Zero fighter was a symbol of imperialism and brutality throughout east Asia.  And of course they were used in Pearl Harbor.  Yet it was also a brilliant advance in aeronautical engineering and an undeniably beautiful plane.  The theme of the film is that designing airplanes is an art and doing it at a transcendent level excuses the uses the planes are put to by others.  This is dubious at best and I wasn’t exactly sold but Miyazaki makes his case well.

Throughout the film Jiro’s dreams are pitted against reality and the dreams win every time.  When he arrives in Tokyo to study, there is an awful earthquake but that doesn’t stop him from getting his degree.  He meets the perfect woman for him and marries, but she is sickly and is soon dying.  This doesn’t stop him, however, from obsessing over his fighter.  He works at home while holding her hand. 

The Wind Rises is a beautiful film.  Visually it is stunning with wonderful stylized art and great animation.  The dialog and the script are touching.  The film has a slow pace, taking time to linger over brilliant summer days and beautiful Japanese gardens and cities.  And of course Jiro’s personal story is very sad and affecting, mostly because his is such a sympathetic character. 

The real Jiro probably acted at least in part in an aesthetic cocoon, simply not thinking about how his beautiful planes would be used.  But he was also probably a loyal citizen of Japan and acted out of patriotism, just as our weapons designers did, especially on things like the Manhattan Project.  No doubt he viewed his actions as necessary to the security of his country.  In short it was a lot more complicated than this movie makes it out to be.

It is possible to enjoy a work of art that you don’t really agree with.  I feel that the theme of this movie is unconvincing and yet I like the film.  And I suspect it will win the Oscar.

Oscar Picks 2013

When they announced the nominations, I was very pleased.  I had already seen every nominated film in the categories I traditionally choose except for one:  Animated Feature.  There are two films in this category that have not been in wide release yet.  One of them–Ernest and Celestine–will not make it here to Durham until after the ceremony.  Other methods of seeing them, which I won’t elaborate on, haven’t panned out.  Now I try to be a good geek and I love animated films but if the Academy is going to nominate European productions that don’t get wide releases in the year in which they are nominated, I don’t know what I can do short of moving to New York or Los Angeles, which I’m not in a position to do.

OK, I’ve whined enough.  Let’s get to my picks.  Keep in mind that these are not predictions.  These are the films that I would vote for if I were a member of the Academy.  If you want help with your office pool, as always go to goldderby.com.  Looking over the nominations, I have to say that it has been a very good year for movies.  There are lots of great performances and films to pick from.  In some cases the choices will be hard.


Supporting Actress

The only nominee who doesn’t belong here is Sally Hawkins.  Her performance in Blue Jasmine isn’t bad, but it isn’t in the top five either.

Lupita Nyong’o is, as I understand it, the favorite.  Frankly I don’t see why.  In a film filled with terrific performances, hers doesn’t really stand out.  She may very well ride the 12 Years a Slave coattails to victory, however.

June Squibb is the big surprise in Nebraska.  She takes pot shots at everybody in the movie and generally turns in a terrific performance.  Since she doesn’t really have any kind of emotional arc it’s not really a complete performance, but I wouldn’t complain if she won.

I think that Julia Roberts’ character in August Osage County is actually the lead since she’s the one with character arc, but that’s not how the Academy sees it.  In any case she turns in a terrific performance as grown daughter facing tough decisions and realizations.  If she wins she will deserve it.

I’d give it to Jennifer Lawrence.  In American Hustle gives us a portrayal of a character who is way out there and she makes it believable.  It’s an amazing performance.


Supporting Actor

Michael Fassbender turns in a flashy performance as a sociopathic slave owner in 12 Years a Slave.  But he’s really not given much of an opportunity to get inside his character’s head.

Bradley Cooper’s approach to his FBI agent character in American Hustle is a little too similar to his character in Silver Linings Playbook, at least in terms of mannerisms and the delivery of his lines.

Jonah Hill delivers a knock-out performance as a sleaze ball stock broker and Leonardo DiCaprio’s enabler in The Wolf of Wall Street.  He could win and I wouldn’t mind.

Barkhad Abdi is an amateur actor who, in Captain Phillips, turns in a riveting performance as desperate man turning to a dangerous and illegal profession in order to make a living.  He makes you sympathize with the pirates.

But let’s face it, the statue has had Jared Leto’s named engraved on it for some time now and he deserves to win.  His performance as a drag queen in Dallas Buyers Club is outrageous and touching at the same time.


Lead Actress

Judi Dench really isn’t stretching in Philomena.  She belongs in this group but I’d be surprised and upset if she won.

In August Osage County, Meryl Streep breathes fire as the difficult matriarch of her family.  But she is playing a character that is unable to change and therefore has no arc.  It isn’t a lead role anyway.

Sandra Bullock’s performance as an astronaut struggling to survive in Gravity is riveting and fun, but Gravity isn’t really an actor’s movie.  She’s not given the space to develop her character.

Amy Adams gives a tremendous performance as a smart woman doing what she has to do to get by in American Hustle.

Cate Blanchett turns in a performance for the ages in Blue Jasmine.  She delivers Woody Allen’s often stilted and formal dialog naturally.  You sympathize with and understand her often difficult character.  She’s the favorite by a long distance and should win.


Lead Actor

This is probably the toughest of the acting categories.  Any of these guys could win and I’d be happy.

How cool is Bruce Dern?  In Nebraska he gives a workshop in minimalist acting.  He’s great at making you think you know what he’s thinking but when he opens his mouth it’s something else entirely. 

Leonardo DiCaprio’s role in The Wolf of Wall Street isn’t really a stretch for him but he is enjoyable to watch.

Christian Bale turns in his usual immersive performance as street level con man forced to work with the FBI in American Hustle.  It’s another performance that is totally unlike anything else he’s ever done.  The man is amazing.

Matthew McConaughey lost a lot of weight to play a working class AIDS patient in the early days of the epidemic in Dallas Buyers Club.  His performance is wonderful too.  And he’s the favorite.  Great acting is one thing but dieting is hard.

I’d give it to Chiwetel Ejiofor who uses the formal 19th century dialog in 12 Years a Slave and shows us the devastating emotions of a person going through what has to be one of the worst things a person can suffer.

If Tom Hanks had been nominated for Captain Phillips he would have gotten my vote.



As much as I admired American Hustle, there are several structural problems with the script that I lay at David O. Russell’s door.  He’s really good with actors though.

Nebraska is a great film but not too ambitious.  In a few years Alexander Payne will make an innovative important film that will get him another nomination and a better chance of winning.

The Wolf of Wall Street is another one of Martin Scorcese’s looks at the dark underbelly of American culture.  It’s an admirable film in many ways and I wouldn’t mind if Marty won but I don’t think it’s very far out of his comfort zone.

Gravity is a technical triumph and an innovative film.  Alfonso Cuaron is the favorite to win and I wouldn’t mind if he did.

But I would vote for Steve McQueen and 12 Years a Slave.  This is a well-acted and more importantly a courageous film on an important subject. 



I felt that Her failed to fully explore the implications of its premise.

Philomena is a perfectly fine drama but really not special enough to win.

Nebraska is an enjoyable effort but a little too lightweight.

American Hustle is a good film but has a flawed structure.

I wouldn’t mind if Dallas Buyers Club won.  It’s important and has good performances.

The Wolf of Wall Street could also win without much griping from me.

It would be cool if a space adventure like Gravity won.

12 Years a Slave is the favorite and I wouldn’t argue if it won.

But the film I enjoyed most this past year was Captain Phillips.  Not only does it deal with a serious issue, the horrible conditions in Somalia that force people into piracy to survive, but it is also a taught action movie with great performances.


So that’s it.  If I happen to see those last two animated features, I’ll make my pick in a separate post.

The ceremony will be held on March 2.  Make some popcorn, don’t take it too seriously and enjoy.


The Monuments Men

What is the value of art? It doesn’t save lives, at least not directly. It doesn’t feed anyone, nor does it cure illness. Making things pretty or simply allowing people to agreeably pass their hours watching an entertaining play or movie or listening to music doesn’t seem like an essential contribution to the serious business of survival. And yet we’ve been doing it for millennia, so there must be something in our natures that drives us to create. Art is not how we live but it may be why we live.
The question that The Monuments Men seeks to answer is: Is preserving the art that we’ve created worth lives.
This movie is based on a real story. Near the end of World War II when our troops were invading German soil, FDR approved the creation of a group of experts in various artistic disciplines who would advise the allied commanders which cultural treasures were in danger of destruction. These were the people who told them not to bomb certain cathedrals or other landmarks, even if doing so would have saved the lives of allied soldiers.
Their mission soon expanded to trying to save as much of the art that the Nazis had plundered at the beginning of the war as they could. The Nazis not only threatened lives and governments, they also attacked western culture, trying to either warp it to their own ends or to eradicate it when it contradicted their dogma. They sought to control the way we create and thus the way we think and what we believe.
Heading the effort in the movie is Frank Stokes, played by director and co-writer with Grant Heslov, George Clooney. He assembles a team of artists and academics that must go through basic training and then venture behind enemy lines to perform their mission.
Monuments Men was originally supposed to be released sometime late last year right in the middle of Oscar season. Then the opening was pushed back to February. In the movie business this is what is referred to as “not a promising sign.” Here you have a movie with George Clooney, Cate Blanchett, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Jean Dujardin, John Goodman, Hugh Bonneville, and Bob Balaban, set during World War II and dealing with a serious topic. It has Oscar bait written all over it. And they chose to take themselves out of competition. Obviously it didn’t come out the way they wanted it.
As usual the problem is in the script. The plot doesn’t really build and the climax just sort of happens. Also if you look at that cast, there are some pretty high powered comic actors there and their comedic talents are somewhat wasted. Oh there are some funny moments but you have a set up here that’s perfect for a fish out of water comedy. Academics and artist, some of them in their forties going through basic training and then traipsing around behind enemy lines, begging resourses from officers in the regular army who are trying to win a war. Obviously some of these men die so there is a serious component to this but the balance of tones was all wrong. George Clooney’s character makes several speeches about the importance of their mission and they are all very moving, but there are too many of them. Also the characterization is lazy. It doesn’t go much beyond giving a character one thing that defines him: Matt Damon’s bad french, Hugh Bonneville’s drinking, etc. It’s not very effective and consequently when some of them die it really isn’t very emotional.
The filmmakers pose the question: is this art worth dying for? Since they themselves are artists, their answer is hardly surprising. One could wish, however, that they’d put it a little more eloquently.


So what is love, anyway?  I have heard that there is an endorphin-like chemical that’s released into the bloodstream whenever you touch someone.  In many cases it produces a pleasurable sensation that you associate with that person.  So it’s possible that love is an addiction to this chemical.  And yet there has to be more to it, right?  There has to be an intellectual aspect; interests must coincide and psychologies must be compatible.  It all adds up to a complicated amalgam that we will never be able to fully understand, which is probably a good thing.

Her would seem to be a thought experiment along these lines.  The writer and director Spike Jonze could be asking, “What if we took away the physical part?  Would love then be possible?”  I don’t think his answers are very surprising or intriguing.

Theodore, played by Joaquin Phoenix, makes his living writing letters for other people.  He uses his emotional instincts and facility with the language to put into words what other people are feeling.  And he’s really good at it.

A year earlier, he and his wife, Catherine, played by Rooney Mara, split.  There are divorce papers waiting to be signed but he’s reluctant to do it, and at the beginning of the film Theodore is moping around.  Amy, played by Amy Adams, is an old college friend, who tries to cheer him up.

He hears about a sophisticated new operating system and decides to buy it.  It turns out that the new OS is an artificial intelligence.  He asks for a female voice and gets Samantha, voiced by Scarlett Johansson.  She proves to be very helpful and understanding, being able to tell when Theodore is troubled or depressed.  So they develop a relationship, which turns into love.

First of all Spike Jonze has developed an intriguing extrapolation of our own world.  There are lots of scenes where Theodore is walking along the street and everybody is talking either on a cell phone or to their own operating systems, so there is no reason to feel self-conscious about doing the same.  Most people accept that Theodore is having an affair with his operating system.  Jonze has thoroughly thought out his premise.

The disappointing thing is that ironically the story is too conventional.  It is basically the story of a love affair, no different than if Samantha had been a real woman.  I won’t spoil it but the usual things that happen in love affairs, happen here.

At several points in the film, I was reminded of Woody Allen.  It is populated by sophisticated urbanites who are able to precisely articulate their feelings.  It is talky and the plot meanders too much, never really gaining any momentum.  The performances are fine and the film looks nice, but it is way too analytical to actually touch anyone emotionally.

Ultimately, Jonze’s experiment fails because he assumes the result.  With all that philosophy being spouted none of it really addresses the central point of the premise: Can you feel love for someone who doesn’t have a body?  What they do go on about is very mundane stuff about how relationships work or don’t, which, I suppose is interesting but kind of a waste in a high concept film like Her.

April 2014
« Mar    

Recent Comments

Chas Beaman on Draft Day
Tom on Captain America: The Winter…
Laura Kang on August: Osage County
theotherebert on Pacific Rim
Mark Anderson on Pacific Rim

Blog Stats

  • 26,381 hits


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 44 other followers