I hate to get really personal here, but I can’t think of a better way of making my point for this movie. I had to pee throughout this entire movie, but I didn’t go. The phrase “If I had gone right now...I would have missed this” went through my head multiple times. Like 25 times maybe more. If I had gone right then I would have missed that amazing tracking shot walk in. If I had gone right now I would have missed that amazing fire stuff, and perfect zoom in shot. If I had gone right now… You get the point. Creed is a great scene to scene film with each building on the last. Creed’s so creatively directed during all of it’s scenes that it elevates the cliches that brought down a film like Southpaw. I liked that film, but Creed slaps it around in more ways than one. Adonis (played so tenderly by Michael B. Jordan) is so compelling. He’s not your typical boxing hero mainly because his arc is different. Most heroes in this type of movie treat boxing like a job, but it’s made readily apparent that Adonis is doing this because he is passionate about fighting, and wants to get out of the shadow of his father. There’s an early scene that sets this up excellently literally showing him both fighting, and defending his father. It’s an excellently built character. Adonis with this passion for the fight conscripts Rocky Balboa (played by Sylvester Stallone again) to train him. Stallone is amazing in this film. Hands down. Not only is it a fine performance on his part, but there’s a weight to an actor returning to a role that he created, and that he was meant to be. Stallone has been caught up in a lot of bad projects (seriously this film makes you beg the question of why he’s in or ever went to The Expendables?), but with this role he’s back in the limelight of great actors. I haven’t seen this man like this since I saw the first Rocky, and it’s good to see him back. Tessa Thompson of Dear White People also holds her own as just a pronounced of a love interest as Adrian years ago. But here’s the real thing. Creed is so incredibly and deceptively simple in it’s storytelling that it sneaks up on you. The way an earlier video clip is used sets up all the exposition needed, and most of said exposition comes from performance. Each characters exposition sets up simple, but excellent, stakes, and there is more riding on the final fight then just who wins. There are true stakes for everyone. Rocky is fighting. Adonis is fighting. The opponent that is brutally fighting Adonis is fighting. All are fighting for something by the end, and the stakes are so high. The film has so many great scenes that make the story work, and I never sensed a lull in it. Every time it seems to be slowing down director Ryan Coogler shoots another incredible directed scene in. Stallone delivers an extremely powerful moment. It’s a beautiful film if anything, and the level it is working at is unparallelled. Coogler’s direction by the way. The boxing sequences by the way. These are the best boxing sequences you will ever see. The intensity here is incredibly palpable. The way Coogler uses tracking shots, and hard cuts to make the boxing seem fluid and brutal has such an exciting, and fluid quality that I almost get why someone would enjoy watching boxing. To reiterate Creed is the best boxing movie since Rocky. It’s has endearing characters, and thrilling boxing and a great performance from one of the old greats. I give Creed a 9.5 out of 10. REVIEW BY STEPHEN TRONICEK
0 Comments
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2: Directed by Francis Lawrence, Starring: Jennifer Lawrence11/23/2015 I really didn’t want this franchise to flub the landing. I’m sixteen, which means that in the time that I have matured into a semi-intelligent, overly emotional, teenager The Hunger Games has been “THE TEEN FRANCHISE.” I remember seeing the first one in theatres. It was opening night, and the theatre was packed. I had to sit in the front row. I was 12-13 maybe, and back then I was absolutely astounded by the intensity of what was on screen… and now in hindsight the series didn’t really amount to anything. That doesn’t mean Mockingjay Part 2 is really all that bad. It’s well produced, well directed, there’s one great suspense scene, but the rest of it really does feel cashed in. I don’t blame the filmmakers though. I blame it on the story. The first hour and a half is an exciting, but empty run through a booby trapped capitol with Katniss, and a group of generic people running. Katniss is out to kill President Snow (A pretty good Donald Sutherland). Then the film takes a turn that is unexpected, but brings up the film’s main flaw. The Orwellian themes that crop up in this final act were always going to become a crutch for the film, and that really becomes a problem in sticking the landing. Jennifer Lawrence does fine work (as she always does), but the fact is the film is just too thin to really be effective. And that’s the main problem with everything that the film encounters. The film is just too thin. The action is exciting, and well produced but at this point why should we care? Katniss hasn’t really built up that much, and neither has Peeta...or Gale. They’ve been part of endearing stories, but those stories have been exciting because they were intense, not because they have characters that fully work. The first two films were such self contained, and tightly constructed films that this actually works, but Mockingjay 1 and 2 were just not there. The opening action scenes are actually really impressive with the booby traps playing out in scary, and intense ways. There’s one sequence in the sewers of the Capitol that is the closest thing to genuinely excellent filmmaking that the series have ever seen. It takes its time, and pays off spectacularly. However, that’s the only part that really does. The rest is certainly interesting, and blisteringly intense at times, but “spectacular” is not the word to be used for this finale. More like “admirable in its effort,” and mainly “good” because they had enough passionate filmmakers, and good actors (Julianne Moore is in this movie, so the acting can’t be all bad) to will it up to standards. I give Mockingjay Part 2 a 6.5 out of 10. REVIEW BY STEPHEN TRONICEK IT'S OSCAR SEASON...SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF 10/10's. Spotlight is perfect. I’ll come out and say that immediately. Many of the films that I rate 10/10 aren’t. It’s more about how I’m swept up by a film usually, but Spotlight is actually perfect. Every performance is intense, and the story that they are telling is so fascinating, and disturbing that it will leave not one person who see’s it unscathed. The emotional power of this film is huge, but it seems lean and mean and brutally honest. And it’s that honesty that really brings the film around. Spotlight is a film about The Boston Globe’s “Spotlight” team that uncovered the child molestation scandal that had been happening in Boston, and is still happening now. The fact is there’s no way that this movie could help but be difficult. But none of that ever feels like it’s trying to be, and that’s the real trick. Its difficulty feels honest, and so does everything else. No single character is a caricature because they as characters seem so simple...until you realize the reason why no one is using “stupid” drama and forced complexities in the script is because all the characters respect each other. Nobody thinks less of anyone on this team, and it creates a spectacular base to build a procedural drama on because it allows the individualism of each character to come out and make the whole production miles more interesting. It helps that the team isn’t glorified here. These are real people with huge flaws, and problems bubbling under the surface just like the city they live in. A city that has left thousands of victims only a few of which are portrayed. But that’s enough. Only a few descriptions of what happened to these men is enough. If that was the only thing the film had it may have been too little, but the cast here is so scarily packed with great actors that it would be hard to screw it up. It would be easy though for these performances to seem “turned in” because of just how procedural the film is. They. Are. NOT. THOUGH. Mark Ruffalo is subtle, and acts with more than just his face while becoming quickly the most sympathetic of the team. Michael Keaton is less so, but the complexity of his character, and the flaws make up for that. I was struck by certain unprecedented naturalistic feel to Keaton, and well everyone’s performance. If a film like Steve Jobs is awesome because it the writing snappy even though it seems slightly fake because of how smart everyone actually is; Spotlight is one that dazzles by seeming as real as possible. Every reaction by each actor seems to be calculated down to the eyes, and it’s so real it has to be seen to be believed. The cinematography, and direction seem to be the same. Todd McCarthy is a great director, and Spotlight is so good that it might just have us forget The Cobbler. The direction is excellent with each scene holding its own secrets. I implore you to see Spotlight, and there are many reasons for you to do so. It’s educational, it’s informative, it’s excellent. Spotlight is one of the more thrilling things I’ve seen all year, and you should see this movie. I give Spotlight a 10 out of 10. REVIEW BY STEPHEN TRONICEK What a vastly beautiful, rich, and peaceful film this is. What an incredibly acted, impeccably written, greatly structured movie this is. What a perfect little 105 minute package this is. There’s not much else to be said about it other than to elaborate. Brooklyn is so effortlessly good that you have to see it to believe it. But believe it I did. Brooklyn is about an Irish girl named Ellis (played by Saoirse Ronan) who leaves for America in the 1950’s and finds love, but is rushed back to Ireland after a tragedy. She then has to choose whether to stay in her country or go back to America where her other life is. If that sounds melodramatic that’s because it is, but the film’s screenplay written by Nick Hornby is too smart for that to matter. The film’s excellent structure allows the film to very subtly spoon these emotions to you instead of making you take it all at face value. Sure, that makes the film feel unable to muster an overwhelming emotional moment, but it also allows it to spread that emotion out over the film slowly spooning it to you. This keeps the entire enterprise interesting, and this combined with the somewhat nostalgic sense of family, and the history of Brooklyn (seriously the nostalgic power of the history of the place is showcased in one scene, and the scene is heartbreaking) give the film a peaceful, but happy/melancholic feel that is absolutely mystifying. And the actors are wonderful too. They’re selling melodramatic material, but they’re all so good in their roles that the material seems transcended to the point that it’s not anymore. They’re so graceful. Saoirse Ronan is as Ellis. She has a sensitivity to her performance that you can see in her eyes. It’s a spectacular performance, but she’s not the only one holding the film together. There’s an excellent cast surrounding her, and they each get their moments. These are heavyweights like Domhnall Gleeson (so good in Ex Machina), and Jim Broadbent. These guys have proved their talent, and it’s on full display. Relative newcomer Emory Cohen absolutely lights up the screen as Tony, Ellis’s love interest. I have rarely seen such a charming, and humanity affirming character and cast. The film just keeps going from beautiful people to beautiful cinematography, to beautiful moment. It just never stops, and then in the most excellent way it ends releasing all the emotion it has pent up. Brooklyn is a must see. I give Brooklyn a 10 out of 10. REVIEW BY STEPHEN TRONICEK The review was part of my very small coverage of the St. Louis International Film Festival. Anomalisa is so resoundingly powerful, but also intentionally slight that I can’t really decide if it’s perfect. The fact is the slightness of many of its aspects is meaningful, and creates a beautiful narrative throughline. But is that a bad thing? The whole thing seems intimate enough to be honest and frank with its audience, but thin enough for almost every human being to be able to find truth in it. Combine that with some excellent puppetry, and filmmaking techniques, and you get certainly one of the most interesting films of the year. Anomalisa focusses on a one night stand between an author that is starting to lose his mind, and a woman who he realizes is different. It features puppets having sex like humans. It’s a weird adventure written by Eternal Sunshine scribe Charlie Kaufman. If that doesn’t sound good to you stop reading. But if that does (and you’re one of the lucky ones) let me fill you in on this GREAT movie. It focusses on Michael Stone (voiced by David Thewlis) an author who is starting to fall apart...oh and he’s a puppet. Anomalisa is stop motion animated. Now Michael is losing his mind. He’s surrounded by people who are the same as him (the “sameness” is implemented really cleverly and when I realized how I just about fell out of my seat), and just wants to get out of the dull, dreary, life that he is in. Then he meets Lisa, and “things” occur. That might be giving too much away I fear, but I really don’t care. I’d like to discuss the movie in it’s full to really get at what makes it such a great film, and that is the dialogue and meaning. Kaufman has always been one to hide meaning in weird experiences, and Anomalisa does this perfectly. Anomalisa is about how life will give you good days, and bad days. It’s about how even with people that you like, there are good and bad days. Days when you feel like not going on or giving up...and about facing that head on, and just saying screw it. This is a film I feel would be best observed by a young teenager (I’m 16...not a young teenager) because it contains this mentality. It’s an excellent teacher of the fact that there are no absolutes, and that’s ok. It’s important to know that. I’ve rattled on about meaning, but I forgot dialogue I suppose. Well, Kaufman’s ear for dialogue here is excellent. There’s a realism to these puppets, and the things that they say. These feel like real full blooded beating aching people because of the way that they talk, and go about their way. On that note the animation here is excellent, and while I realize why they used them (more hidden meaning stuff) it’s a film that feels like it could be done with just normal actors. It’s that well written and impressive. It’s too bad that the film’s approach to structure is similar to its underlying meaning. Since nothing in the writing is absolute then that means nothing about the film seems absolute. It’s wonderfully powerful, but is at an arm's length because nothing is for sure. That is certainly more realistic, and even beneficial because it allows for the film to become very much of a mass entertainment. For all its oddities any person could get something from this movie, and I challenge a person not to. Sure it sacrifices the rich narratives of Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind, Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind ( Because that’s an excuse to show off all the artsy films I’ve seen), but does so in order to reach a larger audience. That isn’t too much of a bad thing though. Anomalisa is still a near perfect experience about what it means to live, and what it means to have good and bad days. It’s the best thing I saw at SLIFF and I hope you check it out when it get’s a wide release. I give Anomalisa a 9.8 out of 10. REVIEW BY STEPHEN TRONICEK The review was part of my very small coverage of the St. Louis International Film Festival. Legend has very distinct first and second halves, and they act a lot like the twins represented. The first act is like Ronnie, the paranoid schizophrenic. It’s absolutely insane, and unhinged. Then after the midpoint, the film starts to mirror the arch of Reggie, the more sane brother who starts off ok, but soon gets more and more dour until it doesn’t mirror what it was before. It’s different. Now that’s a weird structure for a movie, but none of it is bad. The first half is certainly much more fun. It has a crazy energy to running through all of it, and it really works. I think that this is because it’s really deletable, insane, and really really shallow. There almost doesn’t seem enough room for two Tom Hardy’s and a super complex story, that’s why the second half stumbles, but the insane energy of this first half paired with its general shallowness allows the acting, and the technical aspects here to provide all the flavor a film like this would really need. I say technical aspects because, while there are some great actors in this movie, and they are all doing great work, I’m surprised how nasty Legend dares to get. It’s a gangster movie, but it’s violence is on a comedic level much like Quentin Tarantino’s at first, and the result is actually pretty jarring. So shocking, you can’t stop laughing at it is the best way to place it. But you’re still laughing at it, and it’s just entertaining. It helps that Director Brian Helgeland knows how to shoot a good action scene, and he manages to make the twin effect really work during them. He also perfectly uses early stage Shyamalan type one takes that really allow you to take in the world, especially an early scene in a club during Reggie’s first date with his later wife. It’s exciting stuff that managed to have me smiling throughout the entire first act. Then the second half comes up, and the heft of the story enters the film. This causes the film to kind of buckle under the weight of itself really. The performances still hold up in this half, but they seem to be having less fun. The darker elements of the film start to crop up too, and as Ronnie gets worse things start to fall apart for Reggie, and because of his more level headed intensity it’s really scary when he slowly starts to break apart. Hardy really holds up to the darker aspects though, and carries the film through the more weighted down elements of the film. There are a few too many characters, but all of them actually get moments to shine. Taron Egerton from Kingsman comes in as Ronnie’s lover who first starts out as a kind of a shallow character, but soon becomes a punchline for many of the darker moments of the film. Also important is Reggie’s wife Frances, who narrates the film. You may be asking yourself why I didn’t mention her earlier, and that’s because, while she commands quite a bit of the plot, she’s somewhat neglected. Around Hardy there’s not too much going on, but the characters there are interesting and funny for the most part. Legend is a film I would wholeheartedly recommend. See it for the cinematography, see it for Tom Hardy’s magnificent performances, and for that matter, see it for the best twining effect I’ve seen on screen. This is brash, brutal, and British Goodfellas, and I quite liked it. I give Legend an 8 out of 10. Review by Stephen Tronicek ST. LOUIS INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL YEAH!!!... now that that’s done let’s talk about Carol. There’s a moment early in Carol that really seems out of place, but ultimately maps out what works about the movie. A character mentions something about how people in movies say something, but mean something else. I thought the scene felt out of place at first, and I was actually a little bit weirded out by such an abrupt scene change, but then I realized it’s importance. I realized why it was put there. Because it helps you find the depth of the film. That’s a paramount fact because while Carol is exciting on its surface it’s a little slight. Sure, it looks great in 16mm, the production design is to die for, and the actresses are subtle but absolutely engaging. Especially Cate Blanchett. She absolutely lights up the screen with a smolderingly seductive performance, but the film doesn’t really pull you in like it should. I think that this lack of depth comes from the fact that Carol is written in the exact way that the earlier quote describes. It’s all about what characters say, and what characters mean. This made the movie like a game for me, and made it more interesting allowing me to sink into everything else that the film had to offer. Especially the things that I mentioned earlier. Again the film is shot in 16mm. I realized this quickly, and the dated look of the film really builds the atmosphere of the film. The fact that the film accentuates the colorful nature of the clothing at the time creates a lush environment. Carol is a film that could have been drab if the production design hadn’t been so exciting, but the production design only compliments the wonderfully romantic sense that the film has. This romantic sense is built from the performances in the film. Cate Blanchett gets a lot of chances to use subtle very seductive acting, and the naïveté that Rooney Mara shows in these scenes actually creates an exciting part of the atmosphere. There’s an endearing rush that comes with Cate Blanchett walking in, with a cigarette, and in just her eyes you see longing for Mara’s character. Much like the dialogue these actors are wonderfully transmitting what the characters are feeling. You have to look for that depth, but when you can get into it the film’s rewards are marvelous. The way Mara’s eyes are the way into her character, the way Kyle Chandler seems to be less a bad guy, but more just a guy trying to keep his family together no matter the cost, and leaves everything just more broken. These are all impressive performances, and what you see is actors doing very emotional work that you can see in every minute they are on-screen. The film is at times too disconnected from the audience because of the screenplay, and the meaning of the each of the characters, and Mara and the others can’t always catch up with Blanchett, but everything is here is exceptional. Highly recommended. I give Carol an 8.5 out of 10. REVIEW BY STEPHEN TRONICEK SPOILERS, AND THIS ONE HAS MORE STRONG LANGUAGE THEN USUAL. SORRY. UH IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW SOMETHINGS THEN JUST GO LOOK AT THE RATING, AND THEN GO SEE STEVE JOBS OR CRIMSON PEAK BECAUSE THEY WERE AWSOME, AND SPECTRE IS... You know, I always found it odd that Star Trek fans say to ignore the even numbered movies. I mean, how could the quality of a series vary so much over just some films. Well now I understand that paradox. Daniel Craig started with Casino Royale, which is the best Bond movie ever made, and then followed it up with the shitty Quantum of Solace, which in turn was followed by the incredible Skyfall, which has now been followed by the bad Spectre. It seems like we should ignore the odd numbered Daniel Craig Bond’s. So, that’s where I stand. Spectre follows up the intense, and blistering Skyfall as a limp dick of a James Bond movie that can’t even muster the libido to excite the audience with its action scenes because they in their own right kind of suck… ok sorry this is what happens when expectations get dashed. The problem here, I think, is that James Bond doesn’t seem to have changed in any way (Casino Royale was a fluke apparently). The fact is the Pierce Brosnan Bond films, as well as the Roger Moore films were never that good in the first place. I mean, Goldeneye is campy and sloppy, and relies on the game’s reputation, and I dare you to watch A View to a Kill. The Bond franchise used to be so much about innovation, but now it seems to have fallen back on the established formula while adding the added perk of “CONTINUITY STORYTELLING.” Yeah not good enough. The film is built on this, and the fact that it’s surprisingly stupid (even for some James Bond standards) doesn’t help. If it had been handled correctly then it actually might have been interesting, but the fact is, there is no tie really between Le Chiffre and Silva, and don’t try to tell me that there is. It sure doesn’t help that the action isn’t all that good this time. Sure, Sam Mendes tries to wring as much excitement out of the actors as he can, but the scenes are structured weirdly. A car chase that should be fun and exciting is neutered by the fact that the actors are showing no desperation at all. Sure, it could be intended to be funny, but it’s not. There’s also something to say for the fact that Bond’s composure might be intentional in this scene, but I wish it worked better because it just feels slight. The film can’t even make that one helicopter flip awesome, and from the one shot I saw in the theatre that was awesome. Mendes is still an excellent director here as he tries to make up for the writing’s lifelessness by taking a very film junkie and well crafted hand to the fim differing from the more popcorn style of Skyfall. I commend him for this, as it saved some of the action scenes, especially one that has to do with the mountains and airplane skiing. Even he can’t save the lifeless third act though. The acting all around the board is serviceable, but wasted. Craig is best as the more versatile and brutal Bond, but that’s not what he is here. He’s trying to play Sean Connery, and Roger Moore something he can’t do. Lea Seydoux, so good in Blue is the Warmest Color, tries to play the Vesper Lynd role that Eva Green did so well, but the romance doesn’t work because it’s only given like, two scenes to develop. Casino Royale slowly built the romance up over a good 40 minutes, but Spectre just rushes through. Christoph Waltz is also just really one note, and his entire dialogue stream just kind of sucks. Dave Bautista hardly says a freaking word, and doesn’t bring any charisma to the role. I REALLY don’t want to talk about this film anymore. It’s got great direction, and some interesting ideas, but it just sucks. I was looking forward to seeing this, and now I’m praying for the next to come quickly. I give Spectre a 4.5 out of 10. REVIEW BY STEPHEN TRONICEK Room is a movie that you have to recover from. It’s a powerful, and terrifying experience that sacrifices its perfection to get to its audience in an almost profoundly devoted way. It works by using things that might be negatives toward it and shouldn’t benefit it. But they do. Room is a movie I will never forget. Room is a film about a mother, Joy (Brie Larson) and her son Jack (Jacob Tremblay). They have been locked in a garden shed for years, Joy for seven, and Jack for five (take what you can from that). An escape plan is formulated, and now they must deal with the real world. It was a smart decision I think to put most of the film in Jack’s perspective. The room in the film is such a subtle type of environment that it requires the over the top sensitivity that only a small child could bring to it. Most of the actors seem to be over-acting, and it caught me off guard at first, but it soon occurred to me that this may have been intentional. The perspective of the small child creates comfortable ways that the adults act around him, and as soon as they start to deviate from this, the film becomes surprisingly intense. The best example of this would be his mother early in the film, who at first seems like a broken, but submissive person who is still kind to Jack — until she just snaps. I won’t go too much into this, but Larson’s performance goes from subdued to absolutely crazy in about a five minute window. Now that’s something that’s difficult to pull off, and much like the rest of the cast, Larson does it spectacularly. But more on that later. I want to discuss the fact that this performance actually mirrors how the film’s scene to scene tone goes. One minute it could be subdued, and the next it just goes batshit crazy. Now that’s actually the biggest problem I could find with the film. The individual tone from scene to scene is really quite scattershot, with performances being incredible but skewing from subtle to exaggerated. But in my eyes this actually didn’t hurt the movie too much. It becomes apparent that this tone shifting may have been intentional as well to invoke the uncomfortable nature of the film. I can’t imagine the escape scene would be as riveting as it truly is without the added baggage that the scene prior to it is intense, but also surprisingly subtle. This is a tough line to walk, but each shift tends to compliment the next. Now I can speak about the actors. Again it’s a little distracting to have such prominent shifts in performance between scenes, but the actors are excellent in all their roles. The film uses too much narration from the young Tremblay, but when that shuts up and lets him act the results are startling. Larson, as I’ve mentioned before, is ecstatically good, and she probably plays against the fluctuating tone the best. This really is a great cast though with Joan Allen, and, briefly WIlliam H. Macy, pulling in great work. I should take off points from Room for being so fluctuant, going from heavy handed to slight in a blink of an eye, but the fact is it works. This is a powerful piece of work that moved me. Can you ask for anything else? I give Room a 9 out of 10. REVIEW BY STEPHEN TRONICEK Burnt feels like the fallout of a much better film, and would probably work better as the third act of a MUCH more interesting movie. The actors try most certainly, but it’s a shallow, and uncooked meal for the most part. It’s got its moments of charm, but there’s no tension, and too many moments where the charm of some of the actors is the only thing holding it up. Burnt just kind of sucks. And that’s unfortunate. One of my favorite films of last year was Locke, written by Steven Knight who also wrote this, and I’m surprised a man who built one fleshed out character by putting him in a car can’t do right by a few less complicated, and stereotypical characters. But he can’t, and all of the characters just feel like smart alecks who can spit out good dialogue, but not much else. Heck, even in a movie where they’re supposed to be cooks they can’t even do that right. The food on the plates is as thin as the characters. The one good looking thing in the film is when a Burger King burger is being made, and that’s not that good. Bradley Cooper’s Adam Jones is a jerk, but a lovable enough one to keep the at least the surface of the film interesting. He can’t save the film though because by the end of the film his character doesn’t really amount to anything then a Gordon Ramsey clone. If you want to watch the best parts of this movie, just good watch an episode of Kitchen Nightmares, or Hell’s Kitchen. You’d be saving a good amount of money in doing this. The supporting characters don’t actually work to well either. Sienna Miller has a nice chemistry with the Cooper, but she’s just a mother with a daughter, who’s struggling; that’s all she is. It’s impossible for me to figure out how to analyze this movie because there’s nothing to grab onto here. There’s no substance. It’s the uplifting 3rd act of a better movie, and I wanted to see the other one. I give Burnt a 5 out of 10. REVEIW BY STEPHEN TRONICEK |
Archive
December 2017
CategoriesAuthorHello welcome to FilmAnalyst. My name is Stephen Tronicek, and I really like movies. This is a way to get my opinions out to people. Thank you for visiting. |