Marmaduke Grove's Reviews

Moloch (1999)

Good: Concept, Bad: there's no real reason to see the movie.

30 December 2002

Sokurov is alone in the universe of known-to-me filmmakers in that he comes up with wonderful ideas for movies but is terrible at making the movies themselves (for a demonstration of both, see especially Russian Ark). So much so, in fact, that letting someone tell you the central concept of a Sokurov movie is pretty much the same experience as watching the movie, except, of course, for the duration. On the one hand, that's good, because very few people can come up with a truly poignant movie concept. On the other, it's bad, well, because the movie itself is.

So what is the central concept of this movie that's so wonderful you say? It is this: that Hitler, Goebbels and the rest of the Nazi high command were just people, and not particularly extraordinary or intelligent people, either.

Some of you will go "no f***ing kidding!" but really, that's something that is forgotten too easily and is a frightening fact. The atrocities of the Great War and Holocaust are somewhat explainable if one considers Hitler to be an insane genius, a man of pure evil. To see him as a dumb short guy who likes to get his belly poked by fat blond women, well, that's much scarier, because then how do you explain that this man caused the deaths of tens of millions of people? The thought is a harrowing one, but it is immediately understandable in the movie, and so there's no real reason for about 100 of the 108 minutes of its length.

Moloch is the cinematic equivalent of a post-it memo to yourself that you wrote some time ago and see just in time to act upon its instructions. If you remembered the contents, you're annoyed at having wasted the time to write (watch) something so obvious. If you didn't, you're very thankful for the note, and yet annoyed at yourself for needing the note in the first place.

So should you see this movie? Not if you've read my review or had someone tell you the gist of it. If not, it is necessary, if boring viewing.

15 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

9/10

Good: All the stuff from 'Fellowship', plus Gollum Bad: All the stuff from 'Fellowship', plus Ents

19 December 2002

Surprising absolutely nobody on this planet, this film is in fact very similar to the Fellowship film. On the plus side, it's got all it's strengths (CGI, New Zealand, mostly wonderful acting, New Zealand, length, costumes, music, etc. etc.) On the minus side, it's got most of its weaknesses (mainly the kinda hokey medievalese dialogue, the weird pronunciation of the r's and Elijah Wood). So assuming you've seen the first one (and if you haven't, and haven't read it, you'll have absolutely no idea what the hell is going on) here are the major points of difference:

-The Sir Ians don't appear much in this one. Also Boromir doesn't, for obvious reasons. So, the three best actors are barely in the movie. Thankfully, Bernard Hill, who does Theoden, makes up for it with a great performance. And the drawing of poison scene with Theoden is one of the most imaginative in the film, which is saying a lot

-Gimli and Legolas aren't so gratingly annoying. Well, at least Legolas isn't. Gimli is comic-relief for some reason (although some of it is funny, like when he tells Aragorn "toss me!")

-Smeagol-Gollum. Oh, man, how wonderful is this? The Gollum is so fantastic, it kicks the proverbial ass of all previously created CGI characters (even the ones in the Final Fantasy movie). I don't know if Andy Serkis (who is billed in the role of Gollum) had a lot to do with his 'acting' but if he did, congratulations to him on a great performance, and if he didn't, well, it's kinda creepy that CG can make better actors than most people actors now.

-Rohan. Might as well be called 'The-Land-Where-All-Men-Look-Like-Chad-Kroeger-From-Nickelback.' Otherwise, however, it is superbly done in a true to Norse mythology style. The gloominess of the place is at times palpable.

-Meriadoc, Peregrin, Samwise actually get to do something in this movie. Which is great, 'cause it was a little bit annoying to me to see those three as bumbling idiots over and over again.

-Faramir. He's not a syrupy-sweet good guy in this one, unlike the book. Which I think is an excellent change, even though some say this is some sort of Tolkien blasphemy. Other changes from the book are also good (well, when they're changes. Straight omissions are a little harder to swallow, simply because one is interested 'how would they have done that?' even if it really wouldn't have mattered)

-Battle of Helm's deep. Overlong. Kinda boring for me. Yet no one can say this isn't a movie-making feat worth celebrating.

-Disjointedness. Good on one hand, as Elijah Wood isn't there so much. Bad on the other hands, since it can be confusing as to what is going on where

-Ents. There is a school of thought that says you can't help but screw up visualising ents. Although I disagree, this movie seems to give credence to that notion. How could people that did so well in other ways mess up so embarrassingly here? These ents are comic to me, when they're supposed to be majestic. I don't remember how it was described in the book, and maybe they stayed true to that description, but it just doesn't make sense to me for ents to be smaller than trees, two-footed and quick runners. I was disappointed that the Buckland and Old Forest scenes were omitted in the first one, but now I see why - they just don't do forests that well. It's kind of a shame, really.

Well, there you have it. I can't give it a ten, cause of the general hokeyness, and cause of the ents. A nine it is, then.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sexy Beast (2000)

Good: Short and Sweet Bad: Coulda been Shorter, Sweeter.

26 October 2002

At first, I wasn't sure I liked this movie.

There was all this talk of Ben Kingsley breaking with his usual nice guy theme and playing an Oscar-nominatedly angry, abrasive, caustic, vitriolic, raging, (oh wait not raging, but you know what I mean: mad) individual who was unsettling and scary.

That leads one to thinking this movie is something sombre in emotion, with American-Beauty-like intensity paired with Soap Opera-like constant scream-argument-fest. Well, that's what I expected anyway.

Nah!

This movie is actually a very funny and British, it's like an intellectual version of Snatch, which, obviously, is awesome. Starting from the "Walking on the Beaches, looking at the peaches" refrain of the cheeky (heehee, I made a bad pun) "Peaches" song in the opening credits and ending with what is probably the greatest last line in movie history, this movie never slows down. And how could it? It's only 88 minutes long!

And Ben Kingsley IS great, once you realise he's playing a completely crazy lunatic, who's also not the sharpest bloke in the world. (whoo, I said bloke, aren't British people wonderful?). And Ray Winstone is also superb playing, ironically, a guy named Gal, in what, compared to Kingsley, at least, is an understated and lazy performance.

Okay, there's this whole robbery-scene which is neither funny nor poignant, but I suppose had to be there to make sure this was a crime-movie?

And then there's this (admittedly hilarious) running joke of two adults with British accents leading some of the most pristinely first-gradish arguments in the world by repeating the same thing over and over again (to illustrate, here are two snippets of dialogue:

1) -Yes -No! -Yes! -No! -Yes! -No! -Fat C**t! (okay, maybe that word isnt learned in first grade, but you know)

2) (Ben Kingsley) -No F***ing way No f***ing way No f***ing way No f***ing Way!)

Which although being extraordinarily funny when witnessed in the movie, does extend the movie to about twice its length if nothing was repeated. - Oh yeah, that reminds me, if bad words offend you, this movie sure will (I guess I just proved that, didn't I?) - but the variety! I mean, even 'ponce' is in there.

So, in summary, if nothing was repeated endlessly, this movie would be 50 minutes long - but not as funny. Ben Kingsley - bad in Gandhi (not to mention that it showcases how well Hollywood directors of the time thought of Indian actors - or for that matter even black actors), good here. Ray Winstone - good here. The Stranglers - make funny songs. Swearing - lots of it.

And possibly the greatest end line in movie-making.

Too bad I can't match it with a good review-ending line. But such is life.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

1/10

Good: Cars, I suppose. Bad: Use of cars.

22 August 2002

There's some movies the appeal of which I never understand. This, my friends, is one of them. Why? I can explain it in one sentence, and then I'll shut up - I promise:

"This is a movie about fast cars, with tons of fast cars, where there is not a single car chase in the entire movie"

There. 1/10

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Green Mile (1999)

"The Green Mile is so long" - You ain't kidding!

22 August 2002

The Green Mile, as you already must know if you're here, is a story about Black Jesus (hey! I thought that was Everlast! =D), aka John Coffey (JC - get the hint? Well, the rest of the movie is even less subtle) played by Michael Clarke Duncan and everyman-type White Pontius Pilate (Paul Edgecomb here - surprising it's not Paul Pedgecomb) Tom Hanks - whose distinguishing feature, unfortunately for all of us is a often-showcased urinary infection (couldn't they make it like a sore shoulder or something?). As for the story, you pretty much already guessed it - you've heard of the Bible, right?

Okay, you know that already, we established. You probably also know that Tom Hanks is a great actor. David Morse also is in a creepy way. Michael Clarke Duncan isn't, unfortunately. But Hey, I guess if the script calls for a giant, your choices are pretty limited?

But all in all, the cast is good, and the interplay between them is also very good. That is not the problem.

Well, then, you may ask, what is? Is there even one? Sorry to disappoint everyone, but, yes, there is - or are - two, in fact.

One: I didn't think it was at all possible but this movie manages to me more over-dramatic self-important and pompous than Frank Darabont's previous effort - that way-overrated #2 movie in the world for-some-bizarre-inexplicable-reason Shawshank Redemption.

Two: The Length. 3 hours plus. To me, that's just unnecessary. I mean yes, if a movie is good you don't really care how long it is, but when it's borderline like this movie is, that just goes to annoy you, the viewer.

A side note - this movie scores the third greatest last line in movie history with the (I hope intentionally) bittersweetly too-true "Sometimes the green mile can be so long." Good point, Tom, but actually, it always is - no matter how you watch it it still takes 188 minutes every time.

Overall, I'll give it a 5 out of the 10

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Bourne Identity (2002)

Good: Car chase Bad: Movie

3 July 2002

If you're here you already know that the Bourne Identity is a spy thriller starring Matt Damon in the title role and Potente (god, that's a cool last name, unless you're Dutch or Belgian or something and your given name is Wim) as the love interest and France as the background.

What you need to know is this: this movie has maybe the best car chase scene ever. Now I haven't seen that many of them, but for example, it (and I mean the chase, here)'s so much better than recent 'movies about fast-cars' like "Gone in 60 Seconds" (which does have a cool-ish car chase scene but is largely spoiled by the stupid construction-ramp thing and the fact that he's being chased partially by helicopter) and "Fast and the Furious" (which should be burned for the fact that, despite being a fast-car movie it doesn't have a single car chase scene! Like, how stupid is that!). Oh yes, the chase here is excellent. Over the partly-cobbled streets of old-city Paris (where you feel like you're in a car chase even if you're just trying to drive slowly and peacefully - which reminds me - I'd actually watch a movie of 2 straight hours of a driver trying to manoeuvre in Paris traffic). Damon and Potente are in a little red Morris Mini and the Paris police are on (I think) Citroen Saxo's and cheap motorbikes, which just shows you, the greatness of the cars have absolutely nothing to do with the greatness of the car chases. The cinematography/stuntwork/cgi or whatever it is here is awe-inspiring to watch as in perfect co-ordination all the cars in traffic seem to be just about to hit and be hit by the little Mini, but not quite, as it accelerates, swerves, dodges and handbrake-turns. Truly the stuff of movie legend.

As I said, the Mini seems to have a character all its own. Too bad that isn't true for any of its human co-stars. The story here is stupid, the suspense completely lacking (gee, I wonder if Matt Damon is a spy or just some guy who is astonishingly adept at spying behaviour and is chased by the spy agency for no real reason?) and the attention to detail - something that made Spy Game, for example so enjoyable - is completely lacking. For example, in one of the 'climactic' scenes at the end, the time of day switches from total darkness to noon-hour sunshine in a matter of seconds. And 'Bourne' in Cyrillic is apparently L'tsshfum!!? Really, how expensive is it to hire a guy who can read cyrillic? Hell, I would have done it for two bucks.

What else can I tell you? Spy Game is a much superior movie in the same vein. But see this one nevertheless 'cause of the car chase.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kingpin (1996)

1/10

Quite Possibly the Worst Movie Ever Made

3 July 2002

Seriously, I skimmed the comments for this movie, and I only found one guy who said that this was the stupidest movie ever. What's with that? You people are messed up.

This is extremely absurd, considering, including me, I know at least five people who are of that opinion, and dozens more who just hate this movie. I - and I'm not kidding you here - almost got laughed out of a conversation for admitting to having paid to see it in a theatre. And no, I don't live in Snobland, but thanks for asking.

Why is this movie so bad? It's not funny. Simple as that. Is a guy getting his arm torn off in a bowling-ball-shiner machine funny? No. Mind you, getting an ear bitten off isn't particularly funny either but both Mike Tyson and the Big Lebowski made it work. This movie doesn't make anything work at all, I've rarely seen so many minutes without a laugh - hell, even dramas usually have more funny scenes. Now that I've mentioned Big Lebowski - there's an excellent, excellent, hilarious... err... excellent movie - and it involves bowling too. But this? This aggression on movie-making will not stand.

Sincerely takin' er easy for all us sinners,

Marmaduke Grove

5 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Minority Report (2002)

There is one interesting thing about this movie

26 June 2002

Okay, maybe there's more than one thing, but one thing to consider for sure: how stupid are company executives if they will pay for product placements in these kinds of movies? I don't know if they're gullible enough to be fooled by some slick talking or they don't get to know in what context their products will be 'placed' but, man is it ever a bad marketing decision!

I mean product placement in Bond or Spiderman or Fast and the Furious is one thing, but would you pay for your product to be featured in American Beauty (I'm guessing Mercedes did?) or Fight Club (My bet is on Starbucks for this one)? I'm not saying Minority Report is anything like those two movies. It's vastly inferior to the first and vastly superior to the second. All I'm saying is this product placement isn't positive or even neutral, all it does is underscore how annoying and pervasive these companies and their ads are/will be. And since by definition all large corporations are/(regarded as) evil it doesn't mean these companies are somehow worse. It means their representatives in charge of promotion are a bunch of dumb asses...

Strange isn't it?

What? Oh! Minority Report. Good movie, in that it could just as well be taking place is 2014 as 2054. Whilst the concept takes a gigantic amount of suspension of disbelief, the effects are great, the black and blue colours nice and it does have some thrilling/exciting/gruesome/but more exciting than gruesome moments (although, admittedly, some of them are achieved through what we call 'fx' but to use an old-fashioned word could be described as 'loudness'. Still, it's only for some of them, not all).

And, of course the ending is Spielberg/Darabontian - it's not even all that happy, it's just sappy and stupid - which means this is a pretty good movie which can be made much better by doing your homework on the movie's length and walking out about 10 minutes early and pretending that was the end.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fight Club (1999)

1/10

Good that it tries something different. Bad that it fails.

28 May 2002

Yes, this movie is quite different. However, aside from the possibility that no one's done it before because they weren't smart/inspired/good enough to, there's also the other one. This is a movie that fails so remarkably, you almost have to be a genius to come up with such a failure.

In the one excellent scene in this movie, Edward Norton, flying on a plane from one of his constant business trips cracks a joke to his neighbour, Brad Pitt (aka Tyler Durden, here). "very clever." Pitt replies "how is that going for you?"

That is both funny and poignant. The rest of the movie, however, is neither. In fact, it's just the same as poor Ed Norton - too clever for its own good.

Worse yet is the reaction this movie seems to cause. Many of the others commented (and other people who've seen this movie) think that Tyler Durden is somehow the voice of good, a positive role model, if you will. And some people are completely nuts about this movie, they quote it day and night and I don't know, it's just weird.

And then there's the ending. I can't give it away, but the best thing that I can say about it is that it is gimmicky. It's also pretty implausible, doesn't fit with the rest of the story and involves blowing up skyscrapers (something we now know is not a very good idea).

If you're going to make a clever movie with a clever surprise ending, fine. It's possible to make a good one - The Usual Suspects for example. But having a clever movie that isn't clever enough to make sure the movie still makes any sense when the ending is revealed? A clever movie whose message is how empty cleverness is? A clever message movie? Where the message is delivered by someone who's obviously, shall we say, not very emotionally/mentally stable, to say the least?

I guess you could say it's irony, but then with the same success you can say that "Domestic Disturbance" is a movie that makes one think 'cause it makes you think what the heck you're doing watching/paying for such an awful movie.

Having said all that, this is a movie that could have been partially rescued by having a lead actress who is stunningly beautiful. Unfortunately, Helena Bonham Carter isn't.

Okay, maybe it's not the most overrated movie on IMDb - after all "The Shawshank Redemption" is ranked #2 and "Kingpin" is not even on the bottom 100 at all. But it's pretty close.

1/10. And that high only cause it took so much effort.

18 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fight Club (1999)

1/10

Good that it tries something different. Bad that it fails.

28 May 2002

Yes, this movie is quite different. However, aside from the possibility that no one's done it before because they weren't smart/inspired/good enough to, there's also the other one. This is a movie that fails so remarkably, you almost have to be a genius to come up with such a failure.

In the one excellent scene in this movie, Edward Norton, flying on a plane from one of his constant business trips cracks a joke to his neighbour, Brad Pitt (aka Tyler Durden, here). "very clever." Pitt replies "how is that going for you?"

That is both funny and poignant. The rest of the movie, however, is neither. In fact, it's just the same as poor Ed Norton - too clever for its own good.

Worse yet is the reaction this movie seems to cause. Many of the others commented (and other people who've seen this movie) think that Tyler Durden is somehow the voice of good, a positive role model, if you will. And some people are completely nuts about this movie, they quote it day and night and I don't know, it's just weird.

And then there's the ending. I can't give it away, but the best thing that I can say about it is that it is gimmicky. It's also pretty implausible, doesn't fit with the rest of the story and involves blowing up skyscrapers (something we now know is not a very good idea).

If you're going to make a clever movie with a clever surprise ending, fine. It's possible to make a good one - The Usual Suspects for example. But having a clever movie that isn't clever enough to make sure the movie still makes any sense when the ending is revealed? A clever movie whose message is how empty cleverness is? A clever message movie? Where the message is delivered by someone who's obviously, shall we say, not very emotionally/mentally stable, to say the least?

I guess you could say it's irony, but then with the same success you can say that "Domestic Disturbance" is a movie that makes one think 'cause it makes you think what the heck you're doing watching/paying for such an awful movie.

Having said all that, this is a movie that could have been partially rescued by having a lead actress who is stunningly beautiful. Unfortunately, Helena Bonham Carter isn't.

Okay, maybe it's not the most overrated movie on IMDb - after all "The Shwshank Redemption" is ranked #2 and "Kingpin" is not even on the bottom 100 at all. But it's pretty close.

1/10. And that high only cause it took so much effort.

25 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

3/10

I thought there were supposed to be no fairytales?

26 May 2002

Warning: Spoilers

!!Spoilers to this movie, as well as to Sixth Sense and Citizen Kane just for spite!!

Shawshank Redemption is one of those movies that oozes with "give me an Oscar pleeeeeease" all over it. You know the type - like "Dances with Wolves." Oversentimental and overlong. It's surprising that this movie has such a high imdb ranking considering it's such a very black and white (prisoners=good, prison-keepers=evil) movie rehashing what's been hashed and hashed many times.

The story concerns an apparently-wrongly-convicted banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) who is sentenced to life at Shawshank Prison in that creepiest of states, Maine, for murdering his wife and her lover. His main 'friend' at Shawshank is wily old-time-prisoner named Red (Morgan Freeman). Nobody can deny that Morgan Freeman is one of the greatest actors ever, and I'm not going to. Tim Robbins also gives a performance that one wouldn't guess he had in him by watching, say, "Nothing to Lose" (which nevertheless is a better movie). And the supporting cast is all excellent in roles that are incredibly one-dimensional. Okay, that's it for the good. Here comes the bad, and the ugly.

Early on in the film, Red, who doubles as the narrator, tells us that although he'd like to tell us Andy wasn't gang-raped by some of the fellow inmates (the only bad inmates in there, by the way, and then they get sent away, so that leaves only good ones) but he can't, cause "that'd be a fairytale. And there are no fairytales here at Shawshank." How wrong he is! The whole movie is a fairytale (albeit without any of the excitement and fast-pace of one).

We get characters who are so completely good as to be Saints for our two main prisoners (and most of the other ones) and the Prison guards and warden who all seem to be variations on the evil stepmother from Cinderella and the evil stepmother from Snow White (heck, they're so evil, their intramural baseball team's name is the Marauders. Gee, I wonder if you people get the hidden message?).

The story itself is about two-and-a-half hours of sadism (very slow-paced sadism, mind you), an hour of philosophical jabbering that, frankly, is far inferior to a philosophy class at the college if you're into that sort of thing (Hope is Good? Oh my God! What a revelation! Tell me more! Honestly, I've heard songs which have more depth than this movie!) And half an hour of the ending.

It's hard to talk about the faults of the movie without giving away the ending, because, the ending itself is one of the main ones. All good movies have an ending that makes you think (or at least are somewhat open to interpretation, and/or sequels). But not this one. Although I counted at least five or six points where the movie could have ended with leaving some room for thought, it follows through to the bitter predictable end. It's as if it's saying "you know what, you viewers are all idiots, we better not let you think about anything at all." Even if that was true, it's quite insulting. What's more is the ending is incredibly predictable. How could it not be, if it's told to you in the title of the movie? I mean, imagine if the Sixth Sense was called "The Dead Psychologist" or Citizen Kane was called "The Sled" (sorry, imdb censorship guys, I know this makes your job harder, but I just can't think of a way to explain it otherwise).

And I haven't even mentioned the worst part. This movie is incredibly long and boring. It's not a movie that is "slow" or "moves at its own pace" - those are alright by me. No, this movie, something is always happening, but not a single thing of interest. And like that for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours. Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration. But still.

Another thing is this movie's already-mentioned assumed self-importance. It's irritating at the least. It's a long, boring, unoriginal version of what Cinderella would be if somebody traded in all the women characters for swearing, rape and police brutality. I mean, frankly, Charles Perrot beat you to it by four centuries, that's close to an all time record for unoriginality!

29 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Vedreba (1967)

9/10

Bad quality Recording can't hide quality film

11 May 2002

I have seen Mol'ba (this movie's russian title) only on a tape that was of incredibly poor quality and I think was missing the ending (although I guess I can't really be too sure) but I've seen enough to know this is one of the greatest films to have ever been made.

The movie is based on what I think are fragments from epic poems of a medieval Georgian (that's Georgia the country, do I really need to say that?) poet. In fact, all the lines of dialogue in this film are word-for word from the poems themselves. You may already be developing an idea that this movie is like a filmed play, which normally doesn't make movies which are any good. But no, this movie is nothing like a play, and in fact, could not have been made into one.

Why? Because throughout the movie, none of the actors on screen open their mouths. This is not to say that they don't talk to each other or there are no lines of dialogue. No, simply the dialogue is voiced by the actors themselves, but while the sound of their voice is played, the camera zooms in to the face of whomever is supposed to be speaking. I find it hard to explain, but it creates a sense of people communicating in thoughts as they talk in different with their mouths closed while still giving the full range of facial expressions.

I admit, at first that sounds like a gimmick. And maybe, if 100 movies were made in this way 99 of them would turn out to be just that - gimmick movies. But for some reason, Mol'ba transcends that. It must be a testament to the actors that real emotion can be sensed and felt along without the use of speech and that the voices appear so inseparably attached to the faces.

The main story itself is also a powerful one, and for that noone is to thank but the medieval poet. It centres around two settlements who are steeped in an agelong enmity against each other. The 'main character' is a fearsome fighter for one side, who, after a long fight against his adversary from the other, refuses to cut off the dying man's hands as a sign of respect for the opponent. The main character then is no longer welcome in either settlement - his own people despise him for what they see as weakness and lack of understanding of the suffering the other side has caused them. The others hate him for the numerous fighters of theirs that he has killed and families he left orphaned. Yet, because the story is centuries old, it can be both very powerful and not at all hard to understand, in the way Shakespeare sometimes is, if you don't mind all the metaphors and such.

Another thing that works in Mol'ba's favour is that it's black&white. I can't imagine such a movie being in colour. Although I'd really like to see a better recording, and I don't think there's any available to buy in North America.

Oh well, the movie is still a masterpiece.

43 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Marmaduke Grove

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed