2017 Oscar Preview

Alas for the days when I could do an Oscar preview week.  Unfortunately, this year I haven’t been paying much attention.  This is probably due to the fact that I haven’t seen a single Best Picture nominee, so I’m really in no place to comment on the merits of the nominated films.  All I can really do for a “preview” is recap the guild awards and make guesses.

Visual Effects

“The Jungle Book” won the Visual Effects Society Award.  While this hasn’t always been the best predictor of the Visual Effects Oscar, I guess it’s the best I can do, since the only nominee I’ve seen was “Rogue One,” and, while its effects were great, they were also pretty standard-issue “Star Wars” effects, which are not very exciting at this point.

Screenwriting

I can’t read the tea leaves using the Guild awards here.  “Arrival” and “Moonlight” won the Writer’s Guild Awards, but for some reason the WGA thinks that “Moonlight” is an original screenplay and the Academy thinks it’s an adapted screenplay.  It’s safe to say that one of them will win for Adapted Screenplay.  As for Original Screenplay, I’ll just go with this year’s “probably will win a bunch of awards” movie – “La La Land.”

Supporting Actor/Actress

You usually can’t go wrong with using the SAG Awards as a barometer for picking the Oscars.  Actors are the largest voting block after all, so their opinion carries the most weight.  This usually holds true more-so for supporting roles than lead roles I think. Although I could be wrong – I say that just because I can think of a few SAG/Oscar differences for lead roles off the top of my head but not for supporting roles.  You (probably) can expect Mahershala Ali (“Moonlight”) and Viola Davis (finally, for “Fences”) to add Oscar-Winner to their resumes.

Lead Actor/Actress

Emma Stone has been consistently cleaning up for her role in “La La Land.”  The safe money is on her.  How does she lose?  Only if there is a significant hype-related backlash against “La La Land” (perhaps prompted by Aziz Ansari style criticism of the movie).

La-La Land Interrogation (SNL)

If Stone loses, the Best Actress race is wide open.

As for Lead Actor, the SAG Awards honored Denzel Washington for his performance in “Fences.”  This might be a matter of Casey Affleck (“Manchseter by the Sea”) and Ryan Gosling (“La La Land”) cancelling each other out.  A third Oscar for Washington would certainly be earned, however.

Best Director

Damien Chazelle will probably win if “La La Land” cleans up as expected.  If not, then I have no idea how to call this one.  No one is an established auteur this year like Spielberg or Scorsese, so there’s no default “if X doesn’t win, Y will win.”

Best Picture

“La La Land” will probably win.  First, it’s been winning a lot.  Second, it’s made a solid amount of money at the box office ($135M and counting).  Third, it’s a movie about experiences that Academy voters can relate to pretty easily (living in Los Angeles, making it in showbiz).

How does “La La Land” lose?  Well, “Hidden Figures” won the SAG award for best ensemble so it has a chance.  Also “Moonlight” and “Manchester by the Sea” got slightly better reviews than “La La Land” so that’s worth taking into account.

What to Watch Out for

How do you know there are cracks in the “La La Land” wall?  Check out Original Song.  If Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “How Far I’ll Go” from “Moana,” beats out either “La La Land” song, we might be in store for a surprising night.

(c) 2017 D.G. McCabe

 

Live Action Remakes of Animated Classics – A Discussion

Recently there has been a push by Disney and others to remake classic animated films as live action films.  With the upcoming live action versions of Ghost in the Shell and Beauty and the Beast, now is the perfect time to discuss if this is a good or completely unnecessary thing.  I would posit that it can be good, but is often unnecessary.  Let’s examine a few examples in alphabetical order:

Animal Farm (Animated 1954; Live Action 1999)

The British, animated version of Animal Farm still haunts my nightmares.  The live action, made for TV version does not.   That isn’t to say that the animated version didn’t deserve a live action update, it kind of does, but the version that they came up with just doesn’t work for me.

Verdict: Not a bad idea.

Beauty and the Beast (Animated 1991; Live Action 2017)

Disney’s Beauty and the Beast is a front-runner for greatest animated film of all time.  It is responsible for the Disney Renaissance of the 1990’s, features great music, and stunning examples of the lost art of hand-drawn animation.

That isn’t to say a live action version is a bad idea.  This spring’s release is highly anticipated, solidly cast, and looks good on the trailers.  I’ll reserve judgment until I’ve actually seen it.

Verdict: Still an open question.

Charlotte’s Web (Animated 1973; Live Action 2006)

Charlotte’s Web is an undisputed classic of children’s literature.  With source material this good, movies were inevitable.  The first attempt was a 1973 Hanna/Barbera production notable for the fact that it is one of the few Hanna/Barbera projects based on a preexisting property.

The animated version remains a classic due to Debbie Reynolds’ voice-over work as Charlotte and a few catchy songs (some better than others).  It’s not a perfect film, but it certainly captures the joy and sadness of E.B. White’s iconic novel.

Meanwhile, the 2006 version has way too many celebrity voices and is kind of creepy.  It’s not a horrible film, just a waste of time given that the original, animated version still exists.

Verdict: Unnecessary.

Cinderella (Animated, 1950; Live Action 2015)

The original Cinderella is a classic of the Disney catalogue, so much so that its reputation at this point is beyond criticism.  Even so, the story of Cinderella isn’t so unique that it can’t do without an update or two.  Arguably, remaking Beauty and the Beast has a higher degree of difficulty because it came out more recently and has a more unique take on a classic tale.

The live action version is pretty good.  It’s not quite as good as the animated version but a solid film that stands on its own merits.

Verdict: There was no reason not to do this, and no reason to do this.

Ghost in the Shell (Animated 1995; Live Action 2017)

I’m tempted to reserve judgment on this one, but I’m not going to do that.  First of all, remaking Ghost in the Shell with an American actress in the lead role is obnoxious.  That should be enough to consider this a problem, but there’s actually another good reason why one shouldn’t remake this particular property.

While Ghost in the Shell is a landmark of anime, the original film suffers from some of the problems of anime – it’s somewhat opaque and has a lot of nudity and violence for the sake of there being nudity and violence.  However, whatever value a live action remake could have has been supplanted by an excellent television series. The Stand Alone Complex television series does a much better job with the characters already without as many anime-related problems.

Verdict: Pointless Hollywood cash-grab.

Lord of the Rings (Animated 1978, 1980; Live Action 2001, 2002, 2003)

Let’s see.  Mediocre animated adaptation versus one of the best films every made.  Hmmmm.

Verdict: An absolutely necessary and brilliant idea.

There’s a few other examples, like 101 Dalmatians, but I’ll stop there.

(c) 2017 D.G. McCabe

Fox “Animation Domination” Cartoons and Adult Swim – A Discussion

I’ve recently reconnected with Adult Swim on Cartoon Network.  The nightly block of programming has become dominated by cartoons that used to air or still air as part of Fox’s Sunday night, formerly “Animation Domination” block.

There are still plenty of avant garde offerings from the folks at Williams Street, probably no more or less than any other time in Adult Swim’s history.  After all, Adult Swim runs a full three hours longer than it used to run in the early days.  Further, Anime used to be a daily staple on Adult Swim, but it has now been relegated to the rebranded “Adult Swim/Toonami” block on Saturday nights.

There are three categories of animated show that runs on Fox.  The Simpsons deserves its own category, article, and blog.  It is my favorite television show of all time and I’m not going to do it the disservice of writing about it in a generalized discussion such as this one.

Second are the Fuzzy Door shows (Seth MacFarlane’s production company) – Family Guy, American Dad, The Cleveland Show.  Third are the others, both hits (King of the Hill, Bob’s Burgers) and misses (Allen Gregory, Napoleon Dynamite).  Let’s focus on the ones that have found a home on Adult Swim, in order of airing.

King of the Hill

King of the Hill is in some ways the forgotten show of network television animation.  It was on forever (259 episodes over 13 seasons), always got solid ratings, but never really attracted the type of following that the Simpsons or Family Guy enjoy. It still holds up, however, and it is at its best when it portrays the mundane, often frustrating aspects of American life.

Family Guy

While Family Guy is the most popular and successful of the Fuzzy Door shows.  At it’s best, it’s hilarious, but it remains extremely flawed.  Its reliance on “cut-away” gags has been criticized for years, most notably in an episode of South Park.   Even after all of these years, only Stewie and Brian have been really been developed as characters. Peter and Lois remain knockoffs of Homer and Marge Simpson.  The rest of the characters are essentially one joke told over and over again.  That’s not to say it isn’t funny – it is – it just doesn’t have much depth.

American Dad

In contrast, American Dad is by far the best of the three Fuzzy Door shows (it’s also the one that MacFarlane himself has given the least creative direction on – take that for what it’s worth).  When it first premiered it seemed like nothing more than “conservative Family Guy,” but the longer it aired, the more it became surrealist, unpredictable, and fun.  The key is that, unlike Family Guy, all of the main characters in the Smith household are capable of carrying their own storyline.  That and Roger, Roger is hilarious.

The Cleveland Show

The Cleveland Show was the least successful of the three Fuzzy Door shows.  I’m not a fan.  First, I find it incomprehensible that a good number of its African American characters are not voiced by African American voice actors, including the title character.  Beyond that (and really, isn’t that reason enough to dislike the show?), it lives in an awkward space that’s “not quite as warm as a classic network sitcom” and “not quite as outrageous as Family Guy.”

Bob’s Burgers

Bob’s Burgers is a bit of lightning in a bottle.  After almost a dozen failed attempts to introduce a show that 1) wasn’t the Simpsons and 2) wasn’t produced by Fuzzy Door, Fox was ready to pull the plug on Animation Domination (which they actually did in 2014 by re-introducing live shows into the block).  One wouldn’t think a low key, King of the Hill type show about a family run burger joint on the Jersey or Delaware shore would sell.  It did though, and it might be the second best animated show to air on Fox, owing to its strong characters and fun storylines.

So there you have it – my thoughts on the Fox/Adult Swim shows.  One of these days I’ll get around to writing a Simpsons retrospective, but that’s for another day.

(c) 2017 D.G. McCabe

 

 

 

Video Game Movies are Unnecessary

It escapes me to name one movie based on a video game that hasn’t been critically panned.  Most have failed miserably at the box office to boot.  I haven’t seen the Assassin’s Creed movie yet, but judging by its current, very very “rotten” rating on Rotten Tomatoes and its disappointing box office haul, I don’t foresee it breaking the cycle.

So what gives?  Hollywood has seemingly tried everything to make video game adaptations work.  Acclaimed directors like Duncan Jones and Mike Newell and acclaimed actors like Angelina Jolie and Michael Fassbender have given it the old college try.  There have even been some good innovations, like the animation style in 2001’s Final Fantasy movie.  But nothing, except the occasional cult classic like Mortal Kombat (1995) or Resident Evil (2002) seems to stick.

I propose that there are two reasons for this problem.  First, many great video games don’t have inherent stories.  Second, video games with inherent stories typically aren’t original or coherent enough to carry themselves when separated from the interactive experience.

1. Category One – Video Games without an Inherent Story

The video game to movie adaptation concept got off to a bad start.  Let’s face it, making a live action version of Super Mario Brothers is about as bad of an idea as remaking Ghost in the Shell (1995) as live action film with a blonde, American actress starring as the Major (coming soon in 2017!).  The Mario games are fun because of their easy to understand design, not because there’s anything particularly interesting about the backstory.  Especially not when the backstory is expanded to include some convoluted nonsense about dinosaurs and parallel universes.

Fighting games were next on the list.  Street Fighter (1994) might be one of the worst films ever made, starring a coked up Jean-Claude van Damme. At least the late Raul Julia did a good job as the villain, despite slowly dying of cancer during the entire course of principal photography.

Mortal Kombat (1995) came next. The worst thing one can say about it is that it’s a below average martial arts movie – which puts it in the running for best video game adaptation of all time.

There were a couple more attempts to shoehorn storyless video games into film format, like Doom (2005) and the Angry Birds Movie (2016).  The Angry Birds Movie made a few dollars at the Box Office, but so far I’ve seen it on quite a few year-end “worst of 2016” lists.

Doom is essentially the “Man with a Movie Camera (1929)” of video games.  It has no backstory, and that’s the point.  You’re told you’re something called a “space marine,” you’re dropped into a maze, and you shoot bad guys.  For this emphasis on game design and the introduction of multiplayer, it’s a legendary game.  I have no idea what they were thinking when they greenlit a movie version.  Oh wait, yes I do – Hollywood is lazy and thinks they can always make money on an existing property.

2. Category Two – Video Games with a Story

Then there are video games with rich backstories and cutscenes.  You’d think these would translate better to the screen than the tale of jumping on turtles and mushrooms, but you’d be wrong.  Let me use a few examples to explain why.

The Wing Commander series was one of the most popular PC game series of the 1990’s – World War II style fighter pilot war, but in space!  The games were able to attract legitimate Hollywood talent  (Mark Hamill, Malcolm McDowell, John Rhys-Davies, Tom Wilson,  John Spencer) to video games, a feat previously unheard of.  So naturally, when they made a movie version in 1999, it stunk on ice.

Here’s the problem with Wing Commander – the story is only fun because you are in it.  When stripped of its interactive elements, it’s nothing but cheesy science fiction clichés.  A similar thing would happen if they ever made a Grand Theft Auto movie – the GTA series is fun because you’re in a clichéd gangster movie, but if you’re not in it, it would just be a clichéd gangster movie.

Assassin’s Creed has a similar issue.  Even though its worldbuilding is far more original and less derivative than GTA or Wing Commander, that doesn’t automatically make it good.  I find the “animus,” ancient Greek gods, and budget Dan Brown nonsense to be an unnecessary distraction from jumping off rooftops and stabbing bad guys, so much so that I’ve written about it before.

This is the same basic problem with adaptations of World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, and about a half-dozen horror games.  These are great games because of the game design, not because they have compelling or original stories.  Removing the gameplay aspects from the story does nothing in these instances except reveal flaws in the story.

Even if there were a strong story to adapt aside from the gameplay aspects (think “The Last of Us”), the way the stories are adapted are often lacking.   Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) is a modern classic partially because it would work as a self-contained entity if the theme park ride did not exist.  Video game adaptations, however, never seem to forget that they are adapting a video game, and try to retain too many elements from the games, like boss fights.

Conclusion

All that being said, I think a good video game adaptation is possible.  First, a game must have a story worth adapting.  Second, that story needs to be good enough that it can stand on its own without interactive elements.  Finally, a strong adaptation would not include reminders of “hey everyone, we’re adapting a video game here.”  I guess all of that is easier said than done.

(c) 2016 D.G. McCabe

 

2016 Year in Review

“When she [Philosophy] saw that the Muses of poetry were present by my couch giving words to my lamenting, she was stirred a while; her eyes flashed fiercely, and said she, “Who has suffered these seducing mummers to approach this sick man? Never do they support those in sorrow by any healing remedies, but rather do ever foster the sorrow by poisonous sweets. These are they who stifle the fruit-bearing harvest of reason with the barren briars of the passions: they free not the minds of men from disease, but accustom them thereto.””

– Boethius

What of 2016?  As the Roman philosopher Boethius wrote of his consolation by Lady Philosophy, we have a choice.  We can indulge in our lamentations, or we can, through our reason, find a way forward.  Perhaps we can let Lady Philosophy take it from here to guide us in this way.

I thought of many muses to guide me through this past year, when a woman came to me in classical robes.  She was at once as tall as a giant, yet comforting and approachable.  Then she began to speak.

“I see you, reading the various years in review of 2016 to draw inspiration for this annual post,” she began, “I see nothing but hot takes and articles dripping with lament or sarcasm.   Let me assure you, this 2016 had its positive aspects.”

2016 Was a Good Year to Be…

1) Animators

Lady Philosophy continued, “Behold my friend, for the medium of animation, that artform long taken for granted, had a very strong 2016.  Six of the twenty top grossing movies of the year were animated.  With each passing decade, animation continues to bring inspiration and joy without the limitations of live action film. 2016 was in many ways a landmark year in this regard.”

2) HBO

“I should also point out to you that a great year need not mean a consistently great one wire to wire.  If something is felled low by the failure of an ill-conceived vanity project about classic rock in the spring, it can rise again through the premiere for two excellent shows in the fall.  Westworld has broken HBO’s losing streak when it comes to new dramas, and Insecure has continued its success in popular comedies”

3) Broadway

“If it is further inspiration you seek, behold the resurgence of the Great White Way as a force in American popular culture.  Hamilton was the most popular musical in decades, and live broadcasts of musicals on network television are exceptionally popular.  Indeed, one of this year’s top Oscar contenders, “La-La Land,” is a Hollywood musical of the old style.”

2016 Was a Bad Year to Be

1) A Franchise from the 1980’s or 1990’s

Lady Philosophy continued.  “While there were failures in 2016, I would counsel to learn from them rather than merely list them in a vain and sarcastic manner.  Box Office disappointments from the Ninja Turtles, Ghostbusters, Independence Day, and Zoolander sequels should not be seen as affecting those fine memories of past success, but rather stand as stark reminders that not everything deserves a reboot or a sequel.”

2) “A List” Hollywood Marriages

“I also prescribe an end to your consideration of the troubled Depp/Heard and Pitt/Jolie marriages.  As troubling as the allegations associated with these divorces are, it is important to remember that you don’t know these people.  You will never meet them.  Their relationships have no impact on your life whatsoever.”

3) Internet and Social Media

“At last, I see that you are troubled by what you read on the internet and on social media platforms.  It might feel as though you cannot escape the constant stream of opinion and information.  You might feel that this has damaged your interactions with your fellows beyond repair, or trapped you in a vicious cycle of anger and mistrust.  Let me assure you that the old ways are still alive.  You can read a book and discuss it with a friend.  You can watch a movie with your significant other and discuss it over snacks afterwards.  You might feel the need to broadcast your feelings to the masses, but I would counsel you to remember that your friends and family are much more receptive to your ideas than the faceless void of the internet will ever be.”

Best Movies

Lady Philosophy cautioned me against creating a list of best movies this year.  She said to me, “Indeed you have not seen enough movies to truly make an honest “best of” list.  But keep in mind that such lists are flawed.  They lack the distance truly needed to examine and appreciate film as an artform.  As much as you enjoyed “Captain America: Civil War,” can you say it is the best blockbuster of the year when you haven’t seen the new Star Wars movie yet?  As for artistic films, look at past years.  Does anyone really believe, with the proper distance, that “Crash,” “The English Patient,” or “The Greatest Show on Earth”  were worthy of Best Picture Oscars?  I would advise against indulging in such listicles.”

Dispatches from the Great Ale House in the Sky

This year, Lady Philosophy especially wanted to talk about the Great Ale House in the Sky.  She said, “I will prescribe the strongest medicine of all to help you acknowledge the many fine artists that left you this past year.  It is medicine that you, yourself, have often shared.

“Remember, it is the story that matters, not how long it lasts or how it ends.  Artists and inventors have the greatest stories of all, for their influence stays with us the longest and carries us all forward.  If it is useful for you to imagine these great artists together, I will partially indulge in this fantasy, but I will do so in a way that will help you, rather than a way that extends your sorrow.

“Perhaps this Ale House is in the form of a great music festival, where Prince, David Bowie, Leonard Cohen, George Michael and others come together.  You could find great joy in that fantasy.  But you need not – for the music is still there.

“Or maybe, you imagine that Carrie Fisher, Alan Rickman, Florence Henderson, Abe Vigoda, Gene Wilder, Kenny Baker and others are still in talks for various roles.  These people may have never met in life, but it is fun to think about them doing so in your Great Ale House in the Sky.  I would advise an alternative – put on their films and television shows.  You can even do so with the fights of Muhammad Ali – which are readily available on the internet.”

And with that, Lady Philosophy left me in a better place.  The place that honors rather than mourns.  The place that learns from the mistakes of others.  The place that sees and emphasizes the positive.  There is great strength and great joy here.

(c) 2016 D.G. McCabe

 

 

Westworld – Season One in Review

Let’s get one thing out of the way – Westworld is a difficult show to write-up.  It doesn’t lend itself well to “power rankings” or “most bizarre moment” lists like other shows.  I’ll admit I gave up on the robot apocalypse concept for a bit but it turns out that, holy shit, I was right all along.

I actually had an entire draft post about how the robot apocalypse angle wasn’t going to work.  I thought that, seven or eight episodes in, that the show was mostly about power and consciousness rather than the foretelling of a massive robot rebellion.

To a large extent, that’s still accurate.  The “loops” that the robots find themselves in can stand in for the feedback loop that one finds online.  Repeating similar patterns over and over eliminates meaning from those patterns.  A meme shows up, we share it and talk about it, then it fades away.  A controversy arises, we talk about it, it fades away.  A tragedy happens, we talk about it, it fades away.  With every successive repetition of the pattern, the impact and meaning deteriorates until memes last a day, controversies an hour, and tragedies are ignored altogether.

This is why present William is so cynical about Westworld.  He experiences the loops so frequently that, of all the humans on the show, he has become most like more the sentient robots.  He’s desperate to find any meaning in his life because the patterns have repeated so frequently that he’s lost any type of grounding in reality.  When the loop finally ends, and the robots finally shoot back, William is ecstatic.

Anyway, now that we have the robot rebellion underway, what happens next?  I mean, the robots can’t just murder the entire board of directors of a massive corporation and go back to business as usual, right?  I suppose that Delos could just sweep the thing under the rug but that’s a ton of sweeping – they’d have to fake a plane crash or something.  Even with that solution, what value does the “Westworld” part of the park have when you have angry, sentient robots ready to murder whomever gets in their way?  After all, by giving her part of the “Wyatt” code, Arnold essentially gave Dolores the capacity to go full-terminator.

Anyway, promising first season – let’s see where this thing goes.

(c) 2016 D.G. McCabe

 

 

 

Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life (With Spoilers)

Netflix has spawned a cottage industry of reunion and revival events.  The latest is the return of Gilmore Girls, probably the best received of the late 90’s/early 2000’s WB/CW lineup (although Dawson’s Creek got much more high school water-cooler buzz at the time).

A Year in the Life contains its share of reunion show gimmicks (celebrity cameos, one-off character returns, re-hashing old plotlines), but succeeds as a satisfying continuation of the story of Emily, Lorelei, and Rory Gilmore.  By combining strong characters with lovable quirks, the revival successfully…blah blah blah.

It’s good.  There.  Now let’s talk about a far more interesting topic.  Rory Gilmore is a train wreck.  I’ve noticed that pointing this out on the internet has become a cliché, up there with “Kirk vs. Picard” debates.  But man, is she interesting.

I mean, A Year in the Life has satisfying conclusions and arcs for Lorelei, Emily, Luke, and even Michel.  Satisfaction though, is well tread and boring territory. What separates A Year in the Life from the dull, box checking reunion events of yesteryear is that all of this satisfaction is overshadowed by the atmospheric event known as Hurricane Rory.

Let’s take a look at her career.  She thinks she can make it as a professional writer but has no patience for the grind of that profession.  Everyone warns her that the British woman she’s working with is high maintenance, yet she ignores her and treats her with contempt.  Sure that crazy website lady has been bugging her for months, but Rory comes into that meeting with no ideas.  She won’t write the “lines” story because she thinks it’s beneath her.  Her best idea is a personal memoir, because the market isn’t already bursting at the seams with those.

She’s also surrounded by enablers.  The townspeople have always been in awe of her, and her modest success has given them continued justifications for it.  Getting published in Slate is not very impressive, they ran a story by a crackhead once, but the New Yorker and Atlantic have a lot of cache, so maybe that’s understandable.  She has Lorelei and Emily wrapped around her little finger, providing her a safety net of unearned emotional support and money.  Paris sticks by her because no one else can stand her. Lane sticks by her because Rory is the one person that won’t call her out on living like a teenager well into her thirties.

The unearned adoration combined with the veil of bookishness gives Rory the ability to treat people like crap without consequences.  Praise is such a default reaction to her that she doesn’t seem to understand that compassion is a two-way street.  As a result, she’s cold and dismissive towards Jesse, Logan, the 30-something gang, and pretty much anyone who’s not Lane, Paris, or her family (although she’s plenty dismissive to them too).

Rory, however, isn’t a bad person.  She’s been playing a certain game successfully, after all.  School came relatively easy to her, it appeared she was working hard but when you’re a natural at something you have less incentive to really challenge yourself.  She majors in journalism and tries her hand a professional writing because she’s always been good at research and writing essays. She gets some articles published in well-regarded magazines.  The next step is getting a regular gig or a book deal, so she writes a book.  At no point has she had to re-evaluate what she’s doing or how she treats people.

She’s pregnant now, which is one of the few things that could happen to her that could make her re-evaluate her life.  It represents a new beginning and the failure of her master life plan.  If we get another season, it’ll be interesting to see if she changes or continues on the same path of destruction she’s been on all of these years.

(c) 2016 D.G. McCabe

 

LazySundayMovies

Review-commendations

WritingSuzanne

Film. Television. Books. Beauty. Words.

My Filmviews

- What are yours?

The Entertainment Blur

Movies, Music, Television, and so much more.