The Death of Cinema pt. 94

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (519 of them)

Given yr poopooing of masterpiece-hunters, how the fuck do you measure aesthetic advances then, quitit? Most avant-garde films I've seen recently are, as usual, fucking empty.

you kind of answer yourself there. what aesthetic advances do you see in art-house cinema? i sort of think it's hard to separate technological from aesthetic questions, personally, though that can lead to hyping sheer novelty.

the avant-garde i'm thinking of is bunuel, franju, marker, that kind of tradition. not empty at all. but not really thriving now either.

I'm trying to make a list of the best films of the decade thus far, and I'm hard-pressed to find more than 6 or 7 I consider 'excellent,' let alone great. I think the even SOMEWHAT trad narrative feature... well, almost everything's been done. Even more than ever.

i don't understand this impulse, to treat cinema like this. why can't it be as ephemeral as music or theatre or literature?

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

because ephemeral = worthless.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

no it isn't.

to shakespeare's audiences, his plays were ephemeral. they changed through the run and were then forgotten, except by the performers.

why is that a bad model for other media?

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

Film has always had a difficulty straddling the importance it desires academically, and the cold hard fact that it is run as a business AND HAS TO RUN AS A BUSINESS cos it costs a lot of money to make.

Why cinema isn't dead. Because it no longer costs quite as much money to make. This is still in its infancy though of being exploited because the word cinema also means exhibition IN THE CINEMA. But as the study of cinema likes to think of its subject preserved in aspic (Celluloid, or if a bit modern DVD), they miss out on the importance of the ephemeral. Same as it ever was.

Same Sight & Sound has a terrific suggestion on how the multiplex could be used to the casual viewers advantage as exhibition costs go massively down. Get fifty friends, or (fifty facebook people - social networking possibly being the cornerstone of this idea) who want to see a film, any film avilible for digital projection, go see the film in a cinema. Hopefully a clever inner city cinema (with a good bar) will toy with this suggestion, as it strikes me that there is plenty of money in them thar hills (particularly money over the bar which is pretty much pure profit in a good cinema).

Pete, Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

the avant-garde i'm thinking of is bunuel, franju, marker, that kind of tradition. not empty at all. but not really thriving now either.

I think I've said it before and I'll say it again: Inland Empire saved my cinephilia for the time being. I'm not even positive it was a great movie, but it did that much.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't think of Bunuel as being avant-garde

Tom D., Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

(x-post) That's ed, I'm still trying to work myself away from the sort of cinephilia that ebbs and flows with the whole "summer movies/Oscar season" calendar.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

re the Shakespearean model, because cinema is an inherently repeatable experience now. And we have indoor plumbing.

IE did something similar on a smaller scale for me, even moreso (maybe) The Joy of Life.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

'chien andalou' and 'l'age d'or' are sorta avant-garde, tom.

i can take or leave his other stuff.

xpost

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

The E in the R is HBO as the new studio system, 8 pages on the Sopranos in the NYRB, hi-def tvs larger than many minor multiplex screens etc etc etc.

Apatow is just fine, but he's never going to be involved in anything as good as 'Freaks & Geeks' unless he goes back to telly...

Stevie T, Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

'chien andalou' and 'l'age d'or' are sorta avant-garde, tom.

But those are more about the art world than cinema! To use your phrases.

Tom D., Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

the golden age of TV is over.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 13:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

otm

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

R.I.P. Maude

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

tom -- no way, not when they came out. they played in cinemas, not art galleries.

The E in the R is HBO as the new studio system, 8 pages on the Sopranos in the NYRB, hi-def tvs larger than many minor multiplex screens etc etc etc.

Apatow is just fine, but he's never going to be involved in anything as good as 'Freaks & Geeks' unless he goes back to telly...

-- Stevie T, Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:50 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

for the true believers multiplex screens and tv screens just don't compare with the big screen. they also have a thing for the communal experience, etc.

it isn't just about quality of transferable "content."

but the ending of 'the sopranos' and 'the wire' within 12 months of each other is a bit of a marker too.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oh, Enrique, btw, you still haven't explained to me why Repulsion isn't shit.

Just got offed, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

try explaining to us why it IS, goofus.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't believe "the big screen communal experience" is coming back as anything other than charming nostalgia outdoor summer screenings etc.

Stevie T, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

except more people are going to the cinema than ever before. so what exactly do you base that on

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

no, i agree. but that's one reason why people think the thing is dying.

xpost

s1ocki that's not true. or, not within the west. people went to the cinema habitually once or twice a week up to the '40s.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

more people are going to the cinema and acting like they're in their living room than ever before.

re the Dargis article in the TIFF thread, the problem of cinephilia gaining sustenance from the likes of Inland Empire is that it's marginalized. Culturally discerning [sic?] 25-year-olds who would've seen and discussed every Godard film in the mid '60s now reserve their passion for Knocked Up.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

ya but that's because they all worked there. xp

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

re the Dargis article in the TIFF thread, the problem of cinephilia gaining sustenance from the likes of Inland Empire is that it's marginalized. Culturally discerning [sic?] 25-year-olds who would've seen and discussed every Godard film in the mid '60s now reserve their passion for Knocked Up.

-- Dr Morbius, Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:14 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

what is the evidence for this exactly

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

try explaining to us why it IS, goofus.

I did, on that London movies thread.

Just got offed, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

Get fifty friends, or (fifty facebook people - social networking possibly being the cornerstone of this idea) who want to see a film, any film avilible for digital projection, go see the film in a cinema. Hopefully a clever inner city cinema (with a good bar) will toy with this suggestion, as it strikes me that there is plenty of money in them thar hills (particularly money over the bar which is pretty much pure profit in a good cinema).

had a similar idea a while back but more based around small indie cinemas AND a range of viewable material not constrained to films (think TV, live sport/events).

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

Why not just invited your mates round to your house and bring yr own booze?!

Stevie T, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

but morbs those godard fans were also the first-gen auteurists, going to hawks and hitchcock retrospectives. i don't see that as any more mature or whatever than digging on 'knocked up' (a far more mature, if less formally interesting, film than anything lunatic maoist godard has done).

xpost

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

Why not just invited your mates round to your house and bring yr own booze?!

houses and screens/systems in houses are not as big. not so much '50 friends' anyway but '50 people who want to see this', as it is now. essentially what has already been happening for years with some bars showing a film in the back room.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

i saw Vanilla Sky in some bar in Brighton with about 20 people. it was a cool experience.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

watching vanilla sky could never be a cool experience.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

predictable ;)

and there's those guys in NYC who showed films on a projector on a building roof in Summertime. nice.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

ya, rooftop films? i saw their mtl show.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

i have done lots of public screenings in bars/show venues/etc. mostly of my own stuff tho, i guess that's diff.

s1ocki, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

democratisation of viewing films as well as making films

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

(Funnily enough, I spoke to Lynch about all this stuff when he was in town earlier this year, and though he very much still thought of cinema as the big screen in the dark room, he thought that more and more this was likely to be in the form of home/private projection or large screen entertainment systems...)

Stevie T, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Lynch would never make a film for outdoor big screen heh

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

'knocked up' (a far more mature, if less formally interesting, film than anything lunatic maoist godard has done)

If mature equals boring, sure.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

what is the evidence for this exactly

ILX

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah the key is that you'll know 15 of the 50 ppl so if the other 35 are twats you'll still have as good a time as just going to the cinema w/friends, BUT if they're not you know you've got at least 1 thing in common and you've got a readmade conduit for meeting and chatting - it's a good idea and someone not wasting their time on ILX might make a bit of fake dotcom money out of it. (xpost)

Groke, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

ILX is not cinephilia, tho, or do the stats at ILF mean nothing?

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

ILX has 'ruined' Comedy for me because ILX can be as funny as/funnier than anything else out there. As long as I don't start reading THIS IS MY VLOG on a cinema-sized screen, film will prevail.

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh, I wasn't saying the Apatow monks of ILX were cinephiles. They might've been in a different cultural moment.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

where's Southy with the 'it HAS to be grainy, you cannot watch it on cellphone' rockismo

blueski, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ooooooohhhhhh, bitch! (xp)

Tom D., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

where's Southy with the 'it HAS to be grainy, you cannot watch it on cellphone' rockismo

-- blueski, Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:34 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

haha indeed.

fwiw i will chip in with: CRT televisions >>>> pwn the shit out of >>>> digital bullshit.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

well cinema may be dead, but so is the novel, poetry, the fine arts, classical music.....or maybe it's just dispersing itself into smaller and smaller audiences, all part of the inevitable march of modernity surely?

what sight and sound and the like seem to be yearning for is a whitman-esque "return to the common people" aesthetic that will find some way of bridging the increasing distance we all feel between each other and our values and experiences. a super film that will unite us all!

whitman aside, this is not a new desire, and it's always been utopian.

ryan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

and like all utopian desires it projects itself into the past as much as the future.

ryan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

i don't get morbs on this score. the "original cinephiles", the parisians in the 50s, were crazy for uncomplicated, populist filmmaking.

xpost

no sight and sound don't think the golden age can return. it's not a new lament, but it's not that old either. your line of thinking tends to say nothing ever changes, but of course it does.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

What was "uncomplicated, populist filmmaking" in the heyday of French cinephilia was also filled with solid formalism that is basically not even in the equation w.r.t Apatow.

Eric H., Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeees, i.e. Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?is a superior example of uncomplicated, p*pulist (GODDAMN YOU) filmmaking, and that Napoleon Dynamite is a horrid one.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 13 September 2007 14:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://grantland.com/features/2014-hollywood-blockbusters-franchises-box-office/
this is a good article but seriously is it completely impossible that audiences will burn out on dc/marvel/etc, leading to successively lower box office tallies and leaving executives desperate to throw money at other stuff?

slam dunk, Friday, 19 December 2014 23:01 (one year ago) Permalink

What the movie industry is about, in 2014, is creating a sense of anticipation in its target audience that is so heightened, so nurtured, and so constant that moviegoers are effectively distracted from how infrequently their expectations are actually satisfied. Movies are no longer about the thing; they’re about the next thing, the tease, the Easter egg, the post-credit sequence, the promise of a future at which the moment we’re in can only hint.

this is a very salient point imo

Οὖτις, Friday, 19 December 2014 23:13 (one year ago) Permalink

eg. The ILX Star Wars thread will only die once the film is actually released and everyone realises that they don't even wanna go and pay money to see this piece of shit garbage film for kids.

everything, Friday, 19 December 2014 23:35 (one year ago) Permalink

wishful thinking but yea that is not happening

johnny crunch, Saturday, 20 December 2014 00:33 (one year ago) Permalink

Day after it comes out there's going to be a spike of activity in the "Depression and what it's really like" thread. Guaranteed.

everything, Saturday, 20 December 2014 00:58 (one year ago) Permalink

Not to nitpick, but that is an article on the death of Hollywood, not Cinema ;) Cinema will do just fine, prob even better if you remove all the American prestige crap. Like, when it gets to that list of films started by one billionaire or something, and that list includes American Hustle and Zero Dark Thirty, well, I'm not going to miss those things.

The thing is also, Marvel is really, amazingly good at what they do. I don't really like what they do, but you kinda have to give them credit, they did sorta reinvent the wheel, and keeps a level of basic competence, which is almost unique in the business. When I watch a Marvel Movie there is almost always up to several seconds of the film which was funny and awesome and vine-worthy. And that is probably enough to keep the businessmodel going, especially when all the competitors are so fucking useless.

Frederik B, Saturday, 20 December 2014 01:02 (one year ago) Permalink

i think that grantland article has some good points but it also misses a lot of nuance and it's more than a little ahistorical

david poland posted a smart response to it: http://moviecitynews.com/2014/12/the-sky-continues-not-to-fall/

I dunno. (amateurist), Saturday, 20 December 2014 01:16 (one year ago) Permalink

good article, thanks for posting that

slam dunk, Saturday, 20 December 2014 02:37 (one year ago) Permalink

yeah, i mean things aren't exactly great, but i think folks can mistake cycles for permanent changes, and they can also overstate shifts that have taken place but aren't as dramatic as harris seems to think.

I dunno. (amateurist), Saturday, 20 December 2014 03:05 (one year ago) Permalink

Like, when it gets to that list of films started by one billionaire or something, and that list includes American Hustle and Zero Dark Thirty, well, I'm not going to miss those things.

Mark H, like any writer who covers the Oscars, has far more mainstream taste than he's willing to admit.

Eric H., Saturday, 20 December 2014 03:28 (one year ago) Permalink

yeah, there's kind of reflexive promotion of one type of film over one another. he seems to be implying, "well, even if you didn't /love/ this or that adult drama, you must admit it's better than /this here franchise film/." which is probably a good encapsulation of a lot of critics' tastes, but there's a complacency to it that's not particularly refreshing.

I dunno. (amateurist), Saturday, 20 December 2014 03:38 (one year ago) Permalink

Brody takes up Frederik's argument to get Harris off the ledge

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/no-genius-system

things lose meaning over time (Dr Morbius), Monday, 22 December 2014 18:13 (one year ago) Permalink

surprised to agree w/ a lot of what brody writes there, although i can't share his enthusiasm for a lot of the "adult" pictures he names.

I dunno. (amateurist), Tuesday, 23 December 2014 04:55 (one year ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Kodak has finalized a deal with the major Hollywood studios that will allow film to remain alive in certain instances, at least for the near future. This marks the completion of the deal that Kodak said was near-final last summer, when negotiations began....

According to Wednesday's announcement from Kodak, the deal means that the company will continue to manufacturer camera negative, intermediate stock or postproduction, and archival and print film. It also said Kodak would pursue "new opportunities to leverage film production technologies in growth applications, such as touchscreens for smartphones and tablet computers."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/kodak-inks-deals-studios-extend-770300

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 February 2015 23:39 (one year ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Really terrific FC piece on the major H'wood studios, how they finagle their annual film slate's "profits," and how they've muffed digital streaming / Blu-ray etc:

http://www.filmcomment.com/article/a-specter-is-haunting-hollywood

the increasing costive borborygmi (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 March 2015 16:18 (one year ago) Permalink

two months pass...

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/jurassic-world-box-office-franchise-movies-hollywood/

If Jurassic World follows recent box office patterns — and with a warm reaction from first-weekend audiences, there’s no reason to think it won’t — a swift ascent to a billion-dollar worldwide gross is a foregone conclusion, and a substantially bigger number than that is well within reach. Furious 7 has now grossed $1.5 billion; Avengers: Age of Ultron is right behind it with $1.35 billion. It is not a stretch to suggest that in a matter of a few weeks, Jurassic World will join them. By Labor Day if not sooner, we could be looking at a movie universe in which three of the six highest-grossing films in history have opened since April.

Some box office analysts will say these movies represent a statistical blip, and they could be right, but here’s the thing: Events dismissed as blips change the course of history all the time. Three gigantic films have defined 2015 for some; for others, they’ve been the exceptions within an ongoing narrative about the slow death of theatrical business for movies. We won’t know whether this was an odd year or the shape of things to come until about 2018, but in practical terms, it won’t much matter, because by then, the mere idea that this kind of money can be made and then built upon will have substantially reshaped the way Hollywood studios plan their slates and define themselves. In fact, it’s happening already, and Universal, fifth in market share last year and vying for first in 2015, knows it. Twenty years ago, “blockbuster,” at its most hyperbolic, meant a franchise big enough to give you a park. Now it means a franchise big enough to give you a world.

So the Jurassic conversation, I’m guessing, will be less “What’s the next movie?” than “How do we turn this into a semi-permanent enterprise?”

Norse Jung (Eric H.), Tuesday, 16 June 2015 19:42 (one year ago) Permalink

nine months pass...
four months pass...

not sure what the right post for this is, but anyway, is there any country, apart from the US, and india, where directors feel like their cinema is appreciated, or more importantly, just SEEN by their national audience?

in the new S&S (which has some good pieces on changing cinema fates), Athina Rachel Tsangari says the greek audience dont see her films. the other week i saw romanian directors at a BFI talk say the same thing about their films. im sure even british directors like clio bernard would say the same thing.

obv this doesnt apply to more mainstream directors/titles (eg in india, independent movies dont have mainstream success like bollywood titles, ditto the US, where alex ross perry isnt exactly competing with star wars, and in the UK andrea arnold isnt really likely to bother richard curtis or the inbetweeners), so i wonder why this is still a point of contention. no one anywhere is watching these films in huge numbers. and perhaps it has always been thus. BUT if no one in their own country is seeing them, where ARE they being seen? is it only festivals?

StillAdvance, Monday, 25 July 2016 14:53 (two months ago) Permalink

Well, that's complicated. But yeah, there's definitely an ecosystem based around film festivals. In a lot of European countries, film financing is done in collaboration with the government, and much of that money isn't being spend on what the audience wants. In Denmark, for instance, it's even split in two, a consultant/prestige bag of money, and a market bag of money, which should go to perceived popular films.

At times, it seems a bit like prestige tv series. No Romanian New Wave film will get a financial return on it's investment (I guess). Especially not in Romania, where the moviehouse infrastructure is still really bad, and many people simply won't get the chance to watch these films. But the continued artistic succes of these films paint a picture of Romania as an artistically vibrant place, so to some extent they will keep on being financed.

And then there's all the co-funding being done all over the place. France is financing much of Francophone African cinema, and did so even when there were close to no cinemas in the countries where the films were being made. The Jeonju film festival in South Korea is doing some financing of directors who has participated in the festival before, for instance Argentinian director Mattias Pineiro. Many directors from the Icelandic film boom were educated in Denmark, and there's a whole lot of Danish money involved - so why Danish film continues to be so crap is a mystery to me...

Frederik B, Monday, 25 July 2016 16:09 (two months ago) Permalink

tl;dr: Arthouse economics are weird.

Frederik B, Monday, 25 July 2016 16:10 (two months ago) Permalink

"film financing is done in collaboration with the government, and much of that money isn't being spend on what the audience wants"

i wouldnt mind if more british film money was spent on 'what the audience DOESNT want', rather than half the stuff you see shown on bbc 1/2 late night/early mornings (or things like the awakening, which has to be one of the most inspid horrors of recent memory). dont want to turn into one of those 'in my day...' bores, but when you see a lot of the stuff that got funded in the 80s, it does boggle the mind.

StillAdvance, Monday, 25 July 2016 20:30 (two months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Bordwell asks if "movies" are any deader than they were in '66.

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2016/09/18/its-all-over-until-the-next-time/

The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Monday, 19 September 2016 16:43 (one week ago) Permalink

When critics treat what’s buzzy as valuable, they agree with marketers, and cooperate with them. How many critics who loved The Dark Knight had been prompted by the campaign that played up “Why So Serious?” and other memes that publicists thought would stick? Kristin has documented how The Lord of the Rings marketers set the agenda for journalists by means of junkets and Electronic Press Kits (above), while wooing fans with carefully judged opportunities to participate online (a “pop-cultural conversation,” for sure). The typical big film is positioned by the marketing campaign, and even unanticipated responses, especially if the film is strategically ambiguous, can feed ticket sales.

The People don’t start the cultural conversation; they react to what they’re given. The conversation is started by the studios, and they try to channel it. They generate the “controversies” about making the protagonists of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens a woman and an African American man. The critics pick up the story. (Remember: column inches.) Viewers dutifully enter their opinions on blogs, tweets, and comments columns–which the critics then re-spin. As Brody points out of Quality TV, it’s all about expanding discourse, indefinitely. Criticism begets “comments” which beget chitchat. This less a conversation than a perpetually chattering flashmob.

this is v interesting, it puts words to something i've been arguing with my son about for a while, why i feel a weariness about the big movies he gets excited for that's deeper than whether i think those films are mildly entertaining for a couple of hours

you can't drowned a duck (Noodle Vague), Monday, 19 September 2016 16:55 (one week ago) Permalink

it's not the films, it's the relentless blather around them

you can't drowned a duck (Noodle Vague), Monday, 19 September 2016 16:56 (one week ago) Permalink

Gravity Well, You Needn't (James Redd and the Blecchs), Monday, 19 September 2016 17:05 (one week ago) Permalink

xp otm

It's enjoyable to walk into a movie knowing nothing other than the basic premise and, at most, the opinion given in a brief review or trailer you saw at another showing. Going to the theater to cement your opinion on how this summer action film's director treated the source material, to be debated at length, is painful. Especially if it's a relatively lightweight action film.

dr. mercurio arboria (mh 😏), Monday, 19 September 2016 18:05 (one week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.