Hmmm.... This was a complex film about a very complex person. The theme was the same as The Cider House Rules in that it is about the life of Charles Kane (The Art of Watching Films, p. 405).
The film is in black and white which really adds to the aura, and of course, to the era. If this film would have been in color, it would have taken away the uneasy feeling it portrayed in the first few scenes, and also gave you a false sense of the time it was in.
In the beginning, it shows several fences with Xanadu finally showing up in the background. The lighting and music gave it an eerie or Transylvania feel.
It was really cool to read about deep focus in The Art of Watching Films and then have it happen so much in this film, and you knew what was going on. One scene in particular was when Kane's mom was signing control of her son, Kane, over to Mr. Thatcher and you could see Kane outside, through the window, playing (p. 145).
Dissolve was also used a lot in this film. Out of all the films I've seen, I don't remember scenes like this, or maybe I just never noticed, but having read about dissolve and then seeing it happen so much in this film was cool. Dissolve was used in this film when a flashback was going to occur (The Art of Watching Films, p. 197).
There were all kinds of lighting used in this film. Low-key lighting was used in some scenes almost creating silhouettes of the characters. Shadowing was also used as well as high-key lighting.
The music was very evident in this film. It got louder in some scenes to place more emphasis on the moment, like when the light went out in the window.
In The Art of Watching Films, it says that Kane was possibly a static character. I disagree with this. Kane changed as the film progressed. In the end, he abused his wealth and power and ended up lonely and alone (p. 69).
The snow globe in the beginning of the film symbolized how Kane remembered his home life, where he was once happy with his sled in the snow. When he died, that was what he remembered.
This film was always showing up in films to watch so I finally thought I would watch it. Of course, I thought it was a western, so I was immediately disappointed to see that it wasn't. I got bored watching it. My husband and I had fun trying to pick out what was happening in the scenes as far as lighting, sound, camera angle, and focus. I almost took it out and was going to watch Philadelphia, but I suffered through it. This film really didn't reflect a society as a whole, it showed what an eccentric is like, or what we perceive an eccentric to be like. I will give little thought to this film.
Charles Kane was an overgrown child that didn't play well with others, and you got tired of watching him try to push his weight around. Definitely a thumbs down!
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The Cider House Rules
The theme of this film was mostly about the life of Homer Wells and of making choices along the way. Each element of the film showed a part of Homer's life, and the choices he made at that time (The Art of Watching Films, p. 405).
The level of ambitions in the film depicted the orphanage as a place where kids wouldn't really care if they were adopted, and didn't show the orphanage like it was expected to be, a cold, dark, mean, and uncaring place (The Art of Watching Films, p. 407). It was almost an idyllic setting. The film succeeded in making you believe that maybe some orphanages were run like this and that the children were treated like family. It was a heartfelt film without being overly emotional. I enjoyed it. The film showed abortions, drug use, and incest without dwelling on the issues. It concentrated more on showing us Homer's reactions to the issues, and how he handled them.
The film's approach was humanistic, it gave you a better understanding of human nature. Homer was optimistic even though he was an unwanted orphan, and Dr. Larch was realistic, seeing the bigger picture. The cinematography of the outside scenes was very colorful and serene and the music was alwaays kind of upbeat, even in the scenes of Homer throwing fetuses in the incinerator, or confronting Mr. Rose about how he is treating his daughter. The film didn't really make a statement about abortion or incest, it just showed us that those things happen in life, and let us see how Dr. Larch felt about abortion and how Homer felt about abortion as well as incest. Even though Dr. Larch and Homer disagreed about abortion, they were still close. They agreed to disagree (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 411-412).
The theme of the show was constant, it showed the events in Homer's life. I thought Tobey Maguire did an okay job as Homer, but he didn't show much emotion. I would have liked to see more facial reactions from him. Even when he was sad or mad, you couldn't really see it in his face. Michael Caine, on the other hand, did an excellent job of portraying Dr. Larch. You could see sympathy and sadness in his facial expressions, which helped you relate to the scene.
This film was rated PG-13, which I think is correct, because some parents may not want their children to see this film. I was never much of a believer in stopping my children from watching any films, especially if it depicted life. We watched The Corpse Bride the other night and my husband's daughter, who is eleven, watched and enjoyed the entire film. When it was over, she asked us what a corpse was. When we told her, she said "Wow! I watched the whole movie and didn't know what that meant!" I don't know what that film was rated, but obviously it was not meant for an eleven year old. My husband does limit what his daughter watches, but he bases it on what he knows about the film, not what it is rated.
Every person has a genre that they like, and no matter what the rating, they are probably going to watch it. The movie ratings are guides that some people strictly adhere to, most pay some attention to, and others give very little thought to. Obviously, I am one that gives very little thought to the ratings.
This film didn't portray what society thinks of orphanages. It gave you a false sense of what it is like growing up in an orphanage. I saw this film as entertainment only.
The level of ambitions in the film depicted the orphanage as a place where kids wouldn't really care if they were adopted, and didn't show the orphanage like it was expected to be, a cold, dark, mean, and uncaring place (The Art of Watching Films, p. 407). It was almost an idyllic setting. The film succeeded in making you believe that maybe some orphanages were run like this and that the children were treated like family. It was a heartfelt film without being overly emotional. I enjoyed it. The film showed abortions, drug use, and incest without dwelling on the issues. It concentrated more on showing us Homer's reactions to the issues, and how he handled them.
The film's approach was humanistic, it gave you a better understanding of human nature. Homer was optimistic even though he was an unwanted orphan, and Dr. Larch was realistic, seeing the bigger picture. The cinematography of the outside scenes was very colorful and serene and the music was alwaays kind of upbeat, even in the scenes of Homer throwing fetuses in the incinerator, or confronting Mr. Rose about how he is treating his daughter. The film didn't really make a statement about abortion or incest, it just showed us that those things happen in life, and let us see how Dr. Larch felt about abortion and how Homer felt about abortion as well as incest. Even though Dr. Larch and Homer disagreed about abortion, they were still close. They agreed to disagree (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 411-412).
The theme of the show was constant, it showed the events in Homer's life. I thought Tobey Maguire did an okay job as Homer, but he didn't show much emotion. I would have liked to see more facial reactions from him. Even when he was sad or mad, you couldn't really see it in his face. Michael Caine, on the other hand, did an excellent job of portraying Dr. Larch. You could see sympathy and sadness in his facial expressions, which helped you relate to the scene.
This film was rated PG-13, which I think is correct, because some parents may not want their children to see this film. I was never much of a believer in stopping my children from watching any films, especially if it depicted life. We watched The Corpse Bride the other night and my husband's daughter, who is eleven, watched and enjoyed the entire film. When it was over, she asked us what a corpse was. When we told her, she said "Wow! I watched the whole movie and didn't know what that meant!" I don't know what that film was rated, but obviously it was not meant for an eleven year old. My husband does limit what his daughter watches, but he bases it on what he knows about the film, not what it is rated.
Every person has a genre that they like, and no matter what the rating, they are probably going to watch it. The movie ratings are guides that some people strictly adhere to, most pay some attention to, and others give very little thought to. Obviously, I am one that gives very little thought to the ratings.
This film didn't portray what society thinks of orphanages. It gave you a false sense of what it is like growing up in an orphanage. I saw this film as entertainment only.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Memento
This was a very complex film and hard to watch. The film showed the ending of the film at the beginning. The flashbacks always let you know the sequence of events leading up to the current event, but it got tiring and boring, and in the end, left some unanswered questions like:
1) Did Teddy and Natalie know each other?
2) Was Lenny Sammy or just like Sammy?
3) Did Lenny kill his wife?
4) Was Teddy a good guy?
The transitions between scenes was short and quick and used a flip-flop frame approach (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 190-197). Inside/out editing was used which made it hard to watch because you constantly had to reorient yourself to figure out what was going on (The Art of Watching Films, p. 198).
Some scenes were shot in black and white I guess to show his past life mostly, but it made you pay more attention to the dialogue than to the background. I guess the black and white scenes were about his memories and the colored scenes were about his real life. The director used an expressionistic use of color to show us this (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 236-237). The colored scenes were very colorful, especially the violent scenes, showing the mess his life is. A lot of cool colors of blue and being were used in the film such as his shirt, the motel doors, the walls in his motel room (The Art of Watching Films, p. 231).
The film was told in a subjective point-of-view. It tried to get you to feel what the character was feeling (The Art of Watching Films, p. 264). It did do this, but you really didn't feel any sympathy for him, especially when you realized he was a killer.
Eerie background music was played to help try and keep your interest in the suspense, which helped, but it made it hard for me to understand what Lenny was saying, so I had to have the subtitles on.
There was a lot of information in the chapters we had to read for this week, and it was hard to put into words. I thought I was going to have pages to write about, but when it came time to put it on paper, I couldn't come up with much.
1) Did Teddy and Natalie know each other?
2) Was Lenny Sammy or just like Sammy?
3) Did Lenny kill his wife?
4) Was Teddy a good guy?
The transitions between scenes was short and quick and used a flip-flop frame approach (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 190-197). Inside/out editing was used which made it hard to watch because you constantly had to reorient yourself to figure out what was going on (The Art of Watching Films, p. 198).
Some scenes were shot in black and white I guess to show his past life mostly, but it made you pay more attention to the dialogue than to the background. I guess the black and white scenes were about his memories and the colored scenes were about his real life. The director used an expressionistic use of color to show us this (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 236-237). The colored scenes were very colorful, especially the violent scenes, showing the mess his life is. A lot of cool colors of blue and being were used in the film such as his shirt, the motel doors, the walls in his motel room (The Art of Watching Films, p. 231).
The film was told in a subjective point-of-view. It tried to get you to feel what the character was feeling (The Art of Watching Films, p. 264). It did do this, but you really didn't feel any sympathy for him, especially when you realized he was a killer.
Eerie background music was played to help try and keep your interest in the suspense, which helped, but it made it hard for me to understand what Lenny was saying, so I had to have the subtitles on.
There was a lot of information in the chapters we had to read for this week, and it was hard to put into words. I thought I was going to have pages to write about, but when it came time to put it on paper, I couldn't come up with much.
Walk The Line
This film was shot similar to Memento in that it showed the end of the film in the beginning, but it was easy to follow and understand, and it didn't leave you with questions at the end of the film. The transitions between scenes used the dissolve method and used a form cut flow from one scene to another (The Art of Watching Films, p. 197). It was a story of redemption or of a second chance for Cash, and the director did a good job of showing Cash as a dark or complex person.
Outside/in editing was used in this film which made it easy to watch and understand. I prefer this to the inside/out editing method (The Art of Watching Films, p. 198).
This was a very colorful film. The characters always seemed so sharp compared to the background which sometimes made the background almost seem fake.
Music background in the beginning of the film was like blues or bluegrass, it made you think of the Cash family like hillbillies or backwoods people. It also had a lot of cricket noise in the background. There wasn't a lot of music playing when they were talking.
Reaction shots were used throughout the film to show how frustrated and unhappy Cash was throughout most of the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 327).
Joaquin's acting is an impersonator actor, he tried to become John, whereas Reese is a interpreter and commentor actor, she filtered the role to fit with her qualities (The Art of Watching Films, p. 332). Both stars were a part of the star system, they had mass appeal (The Art of Watching Films, p. 333). Reese always seems to play perky roles and Joaquin plays more serious roles. According to the director, Joaquin is a messy sensual actor who finds his way and who you have to be careful with because he is willing to do anything over and over again the same way, even if he could get hurt, and Reese acts from the heart and comes to the scene with a plan and is a conscientious actor (Walk The Line, special features). June was kind of the foil in this film in that she was a definite contrast to John and she helped define his character (The Art of Watching Films, p. 345). The diner scene, for instance, June brought out John's real thoughts. June made him feel comfortable enough to be himself, and it was the beginning of their lifelong friendship. John didn't function well when he didn't have June.
The director, James Mangold, wanted the characters in the film to be musicians, since that was what the film was about, and wanted each character to do his or her own singing. He also let us guess what characters they were playing and then let us know who they were. The concert scenes still kept the storyline going because the director didn't want the effect of the film diminished during the songs, he wanted it to be a part of the film (The Art of Watching Films, special features).
Outside/in editing was used in this film which made it easy to watch and understand. I prefer this to the inside/out editing method (The Art of Watching Films, p. 198).
This was a very colorful film. The characters always seemed so sharp compared to the background which sometimes made the background almost seem fake.
Music background in the beginning of the film was like blues or bluegrass, it made you think of the Cash family like hillbillies or backwoods people. It also had a lot of cricket noise in the background. There wasn't a lot of music playing when they were talking.
Reaction shots were used throughout the film to show how frustrated and unhappy Cash was throughout most of the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 327).
Joaquin's acting is an impersonator actor, he tried to become John, whereas Reese is a interpreter and commentor actor, she filtered the role to fit with her qualities (The Art of Watching Films, p. 332). Both stars were a part of the star system, they had mass appeal (The Art of Watching Films, p. 333). Reese always seems to play perky roles and Joaquin plays more serious roles. According to the director, Joaquin is a messy sensual actor who finds his way and who you have to be careful with because he is willing to do anything over and over again the same way, even if he could get hurt, and Reese acts from the heart and comes to the scene with a plan and is a conscientious actor (Walk The Line, special features). June was kind of the foil in this film in that she was a definite contrast to John and she helped define his character (The Art of Watching Films, p. 345). The diner scene, for instance, June brought out John's real thoughts. June made him feel comfortable enough to be himself, and it was the beginning of their lifelong friendship. John didn't function well when he didn't have June.
The director, James Mangold, wanted the characters in the film to be musicians, since that was what the film was about, and wanted each character to do his or her own singing. He also let us guess what characters they were playing and then let us know who they were. The concert scenes still kept the storyline going because the director didn't want the effect of the film diminished during the songs, he wanted it to be a part of the film (The Art of Watching Films, special features).
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Good Night, and Good Luck
This was a very realistic film, you could imagine that it was like this back in the 1950s. The choice of black and white was great for this film because it gave you a sense of the 1950s era as well as letting you pay attention to the characters without being distracted. I think color would have had a negative impact on this film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 91).
Wide-screen format was used in making the film, but it appeared wider on my television screen than Slumdog Millionaire did. Most of the shots in Good Night, and Good Luck revolved around an office setting whereas Slumdog Millionaire revolved around an entire city. Panning was also used a lot less in this film compared to Slumdog Millionaire.
I couldn't tell if this was filmed using smooth-grain or rough-grain film stock, but I am going to say rough-grain film stock was used even though there were a lot of close-up shots. In The Art of Watching Films, it says that rough-grain film stock has become associated with a documentary here and now quality (p. 93), and this film seemed like sort of a documentary theme to me.
The script was well written. It gave you an idea of what kind of power the government had over you back then, I guess the correct terminology would be censorship, and the script gave you a sense of the fear Murrow, as well as his colleagues, felt in trying to butt heads with the power of McCarthy.
The four factors on the setting and its effects were done well in this film:
Hard front lighting was used and it made you see the film as you would see it if you were really there (The Art of Watching Films, p. 117). The film seemed mostly shot as an objective point of view, you felt like you were watching through a window. Even the close-up scenes felt like you were just watching, like when you would get a close-up of Murrow, he wasn't looking at you, you knew he was looking at Mr. Friendly (The Art of Watching Films, p. 127).
The camera technique used fixed-frame movement with some panning and tilting. Most of the panning was done during McCarthy's answer to Murrow's previous telecasts and all the shots seems to be at eye level (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 138-139).
This was a good film, and the director did a good job of letting you know what it was like back in the 1950s. Freedom of speech has come a long way since then.
Wide-screen format was used in making the film, but it appeared wider on my television screen than Slumdog Millionaire did. Most of the shots in Good Night, and Good Luck revolved around an office setting whereas Slumdog Millionaire revolved around an entire city. Panning was also used a lot less in this film compared to Slumdog Millionaire.
I couldn't tell if this was filmed using smooth-grain or rough-grain film stock, but I am going to say rough-grain film stock was used even though there were a lot of close-up shots. In The Art of Watching Films, it says that rough-grain film stock has become associated with a documentary here and now quality (p. 93), and this film seemed like sort of a documentary theme to me.
The script was well written. It gave you an idea of what kind of power the government had over you back then, I guess the correct terminology would be censorship, and the script gave you a sense of the fear Murrow, as well as his colleagues, felt in trying to butt heads with the power of McCarthy.
The four factors on the setting and its effects were done well in this film:
- Temporal factors - The story takes place in the 1950s and its characters reflected that as well as the office setting.
- Geographical factors - Having the bulk of the scenes shot in a newsroom setting let you see how hectic news deadlines can get and let you feel the tension.
- Social structure and economic factors - Murrow wanted to let the public know what McCarthy was doing even though he didn't have the power McCarthy had, and it wasn't the norm for reporting.
- Customs, moral attitudes and codes of behavior - It was customary for newsrooms to entertain the public and to not make waves with the government in the 1950s, and the moral attitudes of the people involved in telling the injustices McCarthy was doing changed as they tiptoed through the processes (The Art of Watching Films, p. 101).
Hard front lighting was used and it made you see the film as you would see it if you were really there (The Art of Watching Films, p. 117). The film seemed mostly shot as an objective point of view, you felt like you were watching through a window. Even the close-up scenes felt like you were just watching, like when you would get a close-up of Murrow, he wasn't looking at you, you knew he was looking at Mr. Friendly (The Art of Watching Films, p. 127).
The camera technique used fixed-frame movement with some panning and tilting. Most of the panning was done during McCarthy's answer to Murrow's previous telecasts and all the shots seems to be at eye level (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 138-139).
This was a good film, and the director did a good job of letting you know what it was like back in the 1950s. Freedom of speech has come a long way since then.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Slumdog Millionaire
This film was a complex story told through constant flashbacks. Even though much of the film deals with tragic events in Jamal's life, it is baasically a love story. Jamal's life revolves around Latika. My husband says it is a serious version of the Joe Dirt film.
The film is in color, which helps you see the poverty. All the roofs were rusty, galvanized steel and showed how rundown and neglected the homes were. The school scene is in blue and white and lets you see how packed the kids were in a classroom and how all the kids wore blue and matched the bottom of the walls while the teacher wore white and matched the top half of the walls (The Art of Watching Films, p. 92). A lot of blue color is shown thoughout the film.
The film was shot for a wide screen which suits the story because it let's you see a lot of the background. This was important, since there were a lot of people in the scenes, and it showed how overcrowded Mumbai is. Panning was also used to show the expanse of poverty. Scenes were shot in both smooth-grain film stock and rough-grain film stock. One that comes to mind for rough-grain is the scene at the dump ground when Jamal and Salim were living in a tent (The Art of Watching Films, p. 93).
The setting for Verisimilitude was the setting. The film created a sense of real time and a real place and a feeling of being there (The Art of Watching Films, p. 102). You wanted the down and out to triumph, especially the ones that were being use by Maman, who seemed like a good guy, but was a villain. You could relate to the scenes of poverty and cruelty.
Lighting was generally made to look natural, but a lot of shadowing was used. In the scene where Jamal gets his picture autographed, the lighting changes from natural while the actor is signing the photo to a yellowish color to show Salim as being jealous that Jamal got his photo autographed. Most close-up scenes were shot using side lighting (The Art of Watching Films, p. 116).
The objective point of view was used in the scenes at Jarved's house. The subjective point of view was used in the scenes where Jamal is being interrogated and when the boys are being chased off the runway (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 127-128).
Zoom lens were used in a lot of the scenes for the game show as well as Jamal's interrogation (The Art of Watching Films, p. 140). High angle shots and low angle shots were used in the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 152).
At the end of the film it shows you the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the film. This was cool because you had already forgotten about the question by the end of the film, and the answer made you remember it.
The film is in color, which helps you see the poverty. All the roofs were rusty, galvanized steel and showed how rundown and neglected the homes were. The school scene is in blue and white and lets you see how packed the kids were in a classroom and how all the kids wore blue and matched the bottom of the walls while the teacher wore white and matched the top half of the walls (The Art of Watching Films, p. 92). A lot of blue color is shown thoughout the film.
The film was shot for a wide screen which suits the story because it let's you see a lot of the background. This was important, since there were a lot of people in the scenes, and it showed how overcrowded Mumbai is. Panning was also used to show the expanse of poverty. Scenes were shot in both smooth-grain film stock and rough-grain film stock. One that comes to mind for rough-grain is the scene at the dump ground when Jamal and Salim were living in a tent (The Art of Watching Films, p. 93).
The setting for Verisimilitude was the setting. The film created a sense of real time and a real place and a feeling of being there (The Art of Watching Films, p. 102). You wanted the down and out to triumph, especially the ones that were being use by Maman, who seemed like a good guy, but was a villain. You could relate to the scenes of poverty and cruelty.
Lighting was generally made to look natural, but a lot of shadowing was used. In the scene where Jamal gets his picture autographed, the lighting changes from natural while the actor is signing the photo to a yellowish color to show Salim as being jealous that Jamal got his photo autographed. Most close-up scenes were shot using side lighting (The Art of Watching Films, p. 116).
The objective point of view was used in the scenes at Jarved's house. The subjective point of view was used in the scenes where Jamal is being interrogated and when the boys are being chased off the runway (The Art of Watching Films, pp. 127-128).
Zoom lens were used in a lot of the scenes for the game show as well as Jamal's interrogation (The Art of Watching Films, p. 140). High angle shots and low angle shots were used in the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 152).
At the end of the film it shows you the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the film. This was cool because you had already forgotten about the question by the end of the film, and the answer made you remember it.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Contender
This film was interesting even though it was somewhat predictable (the President still wanting Hanson's confirmation). It did have a surprise within of Hathaway planning the rescue of the girl in the car that went off the bridge. This was very unexpected.
The Contender also has its theme in the title just like Good Will Hunting, but unlike Good Will Hunting where the title is about one person, The Contender could be about two people, Hanson and Hathaway, although I think it is mainly about Hanson.
There was definitely an external conflict between Runyon and the President and Hanson (The Art of Watching Films, p. 58-59). Runyon appears to have it out for Hanson because she was once a republican who turned democrat and Runyon wants to embarrass Hanson for her morality while also embarrassing the President for wanting her to be Vice-President. Runyon wants Hathaway to be confirmed as Vice-President and resorts to low-life tactics to try and force Hanson out and Hathaway in.
Gary Oldman played Runyon well. His appearance gave you the impression he was a little sneak. I'm sure the scenes showing Runyon eating meat as well as the President always ordering food have some sort of metaphorical meaning, but I can't quite figure it out. My best guess is that Runyon ate his food aggressively to try and show he was adamant about proving Hanson unfit for the job and the President was always trying to see if he could order something that the kitchen didn't have, which in the end just proved to be muenster.
All of the characters in the film were static characters, none of them changed during the course of the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 69). Hanson strongly held on to her beliefs and felt she owed no explanation of her past, including exculpatory evidence. This did make her appear as kind of cold and aloof.
The director, Lurie, likes to direct political-based films and I think he did a good job of showing us a behind the scenes look at what goes on in the political circle. This was a good movie pick for me.
The Contender also has its theme in the title just like Good Will Hunting, but unlike Good Will Hunting where the title is about one person, The Contender could be about two people, Hanson and Hathaway, although I think it is mainly about Hanson.
There was definitely an external conflict between Runyon and the President and Hanson (The Art of Watching Films, p. 58-59). Runyon appears to have it out for Hanson because she was once a republican who turned democrat and Runyon wants to embarrass Hanson for her morality while also embarrassing the President for wanting her to be Vice-President. Runyon wants Hathaway to be confirmed as Vice-President and resorts to low-life tactics to try and force Hanson out and Hathaway in.
Gary Oldman played Runyon well. His appearance gave you the impression he was a little sneak. I'm sure the scenes showing Runyon eating meat as well as the President always ordering food have some sort of metaphorical meaning, but I can't quite figure it out. My best guess is that Runyon ate his food aggressively to try and show he was adamant about proving Hanson unfit for the job and the President was always trying to see if he could order something that the kitchen didn't have, which in the end just proved to be muenster.
All of the characters in the film were static characters, none of them changed during the course of the film (The Art of Watching Films, p. 69). Hanson strongly held on to her beliefs and felt she owed no explanation of her past, including exculpatory evidence. This did make her appear as kind of cold and aloof.
The director, Lurie, likes to direct political-based films and I think he did a good job of showing us a behind the scenes look at what goes on in the political circle. This was a good movie pick for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)