Just smidgen of what I’ve been watching since my last visit to these here parts (it’s been a long time):
The 400 Blows
Genre: Classic/Foreign/Drama
Dir: Francois Truffaut
Length: 99 minutes
Summary: A misunderstood young adolescent turns to petty crime. (There is so much more to this, but you have to see it for yourself).
My 2¢: I really loved this film. Story is king here, and there is never a wasted moment. The story unfolds seamlessly. I was surprised at how timeless this film was and how the characters could very well be telling the story of a pre-teen struggling against all odds in today’s society.
Nashville
Genre: Classic/Drama
Dir: Robert Altman
Length: 160 min
Summary: Intersecting story lines revolving around the music industry and a political event.
My 2¢: While I clearly appreciated the complexity of how the many story lines unfolded, I never made a personal connection with any of the characters. I think I spent most of the movie paying too much attention to how the film was structured, filmed and edited to really appreciate the story itself. I do believe it’s definitely a film that every filmmaker should see.
A Woman Under the Influence
Genre: Independent
Dir: John Cassavetes
Length: 146 min
Summary: A mentally unstable mother and wife struggles with daily life.
My 2¢: I loved, loved, loved this film. It was so simple yet so very complex. It was as if I had a seat tucked in the corner of that home watching it unfold. Gena Rowlands is simply superb as she takes the viewer on a rollercoaster ride through her struggles with mental instability. John Cassavetes allows the camera to disappear as we watch in horror, joy, pain, fear, confusion and just about every emotion you can think of. This film and the story of how it came to be were definitely an education in independent filmmaking.
Farmingville:POV
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Carlos Sandoval, Catherine Tambini
Length: 78 min
Summary: A close look at the immigration issue and how it affects one small town in NY.
My 2¢: I live not too far from Farmingville and I’ve seen first hand some of the issues raised by this extremely, well-documented documentary. What I really loved about this film is how the filmmakers are able to present BOTH sides of the argument. Most documentaries fail to do this - even though they may think they are. After watching this film, I was able to step out of my own personal views and give equal attention to both sides on the immigration fight. This is a must-see for those wanting to go into documentary filmmaking.
The Philadelphia Story
Genre: Classic/Comedy
Dir: George Cukor
Length: 112 min
Summary: A spoiled rich girl on her second marriage, a witty tabloid reporter and a well-meaning, meddling ex-husband provide laughter and joy in this classic romantic comedy.
My 2¢: I’m a sucker for Cary Grant (Arsenic and Old Lace one of my all time favorites). This threesome (Grant, Stewart, Hepburn) is awesome! it was incredible to watch stars of this caliber spar against one another (this is how I saw it). It’s a classic for a reason.
The Searchers
Genre: Classic/Western
Dir: John Ford
Length: 119 min
Summary: John Wayne - nuff said.
My 2¢: Okay, where do I start?! Let me state, for the record, the story I liked. I was completely engaged and was invested in the character outcomes. However, there was one scene that simply had my jaw floored. The rewind button was working way overtime for this particular scene. In all the reviews I had seen for this film prior to watching it, I was never warned about this particular scene. I do not wish to give it away for any of those who have never seen the movie - but I will say this: glossing over it or not seeing an issue with it is extremely troubling. Again, this does not take away from the story or the way it was filmed. It is definitely worth watching, if for no other reason but to start some dialogue on that particular scene.
Sophie’s Choice
Genre: Drama
Dir: Alan J. Pakula
Length: 150 min
Summary: A survivor of a Nazi concentration camp struggles with an extremely painful secret.
My 2¢: This film had been recommended to me a while back (sorry it’s taken me this long to write a review). What can I say about Meryl Streep that has not already been said? I might go so far as to describe this as melodrama, but not in the negative way it has come to be known. This film unfolds like listening to a beautiful piece of music. I was drawn to the set direction of the film as well, particularly costume and set design - there was a lot of attention paid to detail. I’ve only seen this film once, and as I’ve promised to give it a much bigger review, I’ll have to go back for a second viewing.
On the Waterfront
Genre: Classic/Drama
Dir: Elia Kazan
Length: 108 min
Summary: An ex-prizefighter finds himself going up against a mob boss when he questions his own role in the death of a longshoreman.
My 2¢: It took me way too long to finally sit down and watch this film. Marlon Brando’s performance drew me completely into the film. There’s always talk about an actor’s range, but it is truly defined in this film, as you watch Brando’s honest portrayal of an ex-prizefighter struggling to find his own place and, in particular, voice in a world that devalues and uses him. The set locations were particularly interesting as they, too, became characters within the story.
Twilight
Genre: Fantasy/Romance
Dir: Catherine Hardwicke
Length: 122 min
Summary: If I have to summarize, that mean’s you’ve been under a rock somewhere.
My 2¢: I decided to read this series by Stephanie Myers after my children both became fans. I don’t have enough space here to go into all my thoughts on the complete series and what effect that may have (and are already having) on a new generation of young girls and women (this series has a surprisingly large adult female following). It was extremely inspirational to see a film come out and do extremely well that was written and directed by women. The budget could have been better and it showed in some of the lackluster special effects. With that said, I will be going to see New Moon any day now.
Bolt
Genre: Animation
Dir: Byron Howard, Chris Williams
Length: 96 min
Summary:
My 2¢: Okay, so like I wanted to see this movie forever, and the hubby and kids did NOT. I won, but they did not go quietly. I was so disappointed, and can’t quite put my finger on what did not work for me.
Step Brothers
Genre: Comedy
Dir: Adam McKay
Length: 98 min
Summary: Two grown men become stepbrothers and the hijinks ensue.
My 2¢: I hate to admit how hard I laughed at the bunk bed fiasco... tears. The rest of the movie, so, so, but all it takes is one good-laugh-out-loud moment and you got me. stupid movie, but, hey isn’t that what it’s supposed to be?
SuperBad
Genre: Comedy
Dir: greg Mottola
Length: 114 min
Summary: Young boys on the brink of manhood, but first, they must get some... okay, maybe not a fair summary.
My 2¢: There were some really funny moments and some yucky moments. I was able to sit on my couch and escape, I mean, reaaaaallllyyyyy escape, and hey, isn’t that what movies are about. I kid. Superbad is not super great but for me it was light entertainment, and yet another reason why I’ll never have penis envy.
My Darling Clementine
Genre: Classic/Western
Dir: John Ford
Length: 97 min
Summary: The showdown at the OK Corral.
My 2¢: I really thought Henry Fonda was amazing. I must admit, I had never seen him in a western and I was expecting to be thrown off by his performance. However, I was completely mesmerized, and the whole time I kept thinking about another actor who got his start in Westerns: Clint Eastwood. This is by far my favorite version of Wyatt Earp and the showdown at the OK Corral.
(Up Next: The Hurt Locker, Notorious, Girlfight, And Justice For All, Moving Midway, I’ve Loved you So Long, Good Night and Good Luck, Bullit, The Wackness, and many more.)
Friday, November 27, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Armchair Film School Reviews #2
I’ve been busy going back to film school via my DVD collection and Netflix subscription. Whenever I start work on a script, I turn to movies to put me in the right frame of mind. I try to immerse myself in old, new, good and even some I can barely get through.
I tend to start with ones I’ve seen already. Here are a few:
Citizen Kane
Genre: Classic
Dir: Orson Welles
Length: 119 min
Summary: A news reporter tracks down the meaning behind the last words uttered by an eccentric publishing tycoon.
My 2¢: I introduced this to my teenage daughter, who fell asleep with only 15 minutes left to the movie. In her defense, it was very late at night and she had just finished working her Saturday night job as a hostess at a popular, and very crowded, neighborhood restaurant. Needless to say, she did like what she managed to see through her sleepy and droopy eyelids. The attention to detail and the camera work makes this a continuous lesson in filmmaking.
The Bicycle Thief
Genre: Classic
Dir: Vittorio De Sica
Length: 93 min
Summary: A man, along with his son, searches for his stolen bicycle, which he desperately needs in order to work and provide for his family.
My 2¢: Wow, I have never watched anything so freaking cynical and downright depressing in my life. I have always been known as a pessimist, but this left me desperately needing a trip to Disneyland and then to Smurfland. I had tried to watch this a few years earlier and could never get through it. Now, this is not to say that this movie is bad. By no means. It’s a classic, and it doesn’t surprise me in the least bit why. It stays with you. It gets deep down inside and toys with every emotion you have locked away, and at the end, it leaves you drained and asking more questions about life and humanity than you did before you sat down to watch it. My only advice: do NOT watch this when you’re having “one of those days“. The hubby and I finished watching this and just looked at each other and said, ”man, life sucks“. This is as real as they come.
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
Genre: Comedy
Dir: Dennis Dugan
Length: 115 min
Summary: After a firefighter’s pension is threatened, he convinces his firefighter buddy to marry him.
My 2¢: I’m a sucker for an Adam Sandler movie. While his movies can sometimes be hit or miss, those that hit go a long way towards becoming instant cult classics. I have seen this movie a number of times, but it was during a recent viewing that I stopped watching it as mere escapism, and really began analyzing the structure. The writers and director of this really worked on character development, making sure that the character arcs for each character was there. What I find pretty amazing about Sandler’s movies are how, while the writers have an abundance of characters to work with, they give each character their due attention from start to finish. This is not an easy task, but they make it seem like a walk in the park (by the way, why are walks in the parks easy? Have you walked through Central Park?). Anyway, if you haven’t watched an Adam Sandler movie in a while, check one out (preferably a good one) and pay close attention to character development. Also, I think years from now, Sandler will get his much-deserved respect of being a great comic actor. I know some of you might be rolling your eyes, but you wait and see. His comedic timing, his knack for making otherwise dull characters lovable and downright funny have been taken to the next level by Seth Rogen and the actors from Superbad. By the way, this movie was nominated for a Razzie. So, what the hell do I know?
Singin’ in the Rain
Genre: Classic/Musical
Dir: Stanley Donen, Gene Kelly
Length: 103 min
Summary: Silent Film stars transition into the sound era.
My 2¢: I grew up watching musicals. There was no cable, and Saturdays and Sundays were made for Kung-Fu and Musicals. In other words, magic. The singing and dancing bring instant smiles and warm feelings. While most people know the name Gene Kelly, it was Donald O’Conner I was extremely drawn to in this film. He was so AMAZING that I found myself rewinding his big dance number where he back flips off the wall. Besides his dancing, his comedic timing was genius. Of course, having come from a vaudeville and circus background made him an actor who knew how to fully draw the audience’s attention. A very young Debbie Reynolds holds her own - and then some - against these two powerhouse actors.
Species
Genre: Sci-Fi
Dir: Roger Donaldson
Length: 108 min
Summary: A special team is called in to hunt down a government experiment gone awry (in a nutshell, but there is so much more to this).
My 2¢: I remember watching this years ago, and really liking it. The one genre I don’t watch is horror. I’m a punk. So when this recently had a run on cable, I caught myself watching it a few times, despite my fear of the things that go bump in the night. What I particularly liked about this film is the character development of the alien; she had a strong arc, something you don’t see too much in horror/alien/monster films. One of my all-time favorite pieces of literature is Frankenstein, so my monster expectations are pretty darn high. [Sidebar, for those of you who have never READ Frankenstein, and have only seen the movies, please, please, please do yourself the biggest favor and read one of the greatest human nature stories ever written.] Okay, back to the film at hand. The group assigned to bring her in dead or dead is an eclectic group. While I think, on paper, their parts are interesting, I think that some of it really didn’t translate to the screen very well. For example, Forest Whitikar’s character seemed to take me out of the film. While I, oddly enough, felt it plausible for there to be an alien created from messages sent from outer space, Whitikar’s psychic abilities felt a little forced and a bit fantasy and not sci-fi. Though, with that said, I think it’s a film worth watching and worth learning from. I also plan on watching this again and doing an in-depth analysis.
Okay, this is all for now. I still have more on the way.
I tend to start with ones I’ve seen already. Here are a few:
Citizen Kane
Genre: Classic
Dir: Orson Welles
Length: 119 min
Summary: A news reporter tracks down the meaning behind the last words uttered by an eccentric publishing tycoon.
My 2¢: I introduced this to my teenage daughter, who fell asleep with only 15 minutes left to the movie. In her defense, it was very late at night and she had just finished working her Saturday night job as a hostess at a popular, and very crowded, neighborhood restaurant. Needless to say, she did like what she managed to see through her sleepy and droopy eyelids. The attention to detail and the camera work makes this a continuous lesson in filmmaking.
The Bicycle Thief
Genre: Classic
Dir: Vittorio De Sica
Length: 93 min
Summary: A man, along with his son, searches for his stolen bicycle, which he desperately needs in order to work and provide for his family.
My 2¢: Wow, I have never watched anything so freaking cynical and downright depressing in my life. I have always been known as a pessimist, but this left me desperately needing a trip to Disneyland and then to Smurfland. I had tried to watch this a few years earlier and could never get through it. Now, this is not to say that this movie is bad. By no means. It’s a classic, and it doesn’t surprise me in the least bit why. It stays with you. It gets deep down inside and toys with every emotion you have locked away, and at the end, it leaves you drained and asking more questions about life and humanity than you did before you sat down to watch it. My only advice: do NOT watch this when you’re having “one of those days“. The hubby and I finished watching this and just looked at each other and said, ”man, life sucks“. This is as real as they come.
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
Genre: Comedy
Dir: Dennis Dugan
Length: 115 min
Summary: After a firefighter’s pension is threatened, he convinces his firefighter buddy to marry him.
My 2¢: I’m a sucker for an Adam Sandler movie. While his movies can sometimes be hit or miss, those that hit go a long way towards becoming instant cult classics. I have seen this movie a number of times, but it was during a recent viewing that I stopped watching it as mere escapism, and really began analyzing the structure. The writers and director of this really worked on character development, making sure that the character arcs for each character was there. What I find pretty amazing about Sandler’s movies are how, while the writers have an abundance of characters to work with, they give each character their due attention from start to finish. This is not an easy task, but they make it seem like a walk in the park (by the way, why are walks in the parks easy? Have you walked through Central Park?). Anyway, if you haven’t watched an Adam Sandler movie in a while, check one out (preferably a good one) and pay close attention to character development. Also, I think years from now, Sandler will get his much-deserved respect of being a great comic actor. I know some of you might be rolling your eyes, but you wait and see. His comedic timing, his knack for making otherwise dull characters lovable and downright funny have been taken to the next level by Seth Rogen and the actors from Superbad. By the way, this movie was nominated for a Razzie. So, what the hell do I know?
Singin’ in the Rain
Genre: Classic/Musical
Dir: Stanley Donen, Gene Kelly
Length: 103 min
Summary: Silent Film stars transition into the sound era.
My 2¢: I grew up watching musicals. There was no cable, and Saturdays and Sundays were made for Kung-Fu and Musicals. In other words, magic. The singing and dancing bring instant smiles and warm feelings. While most people know the name Gene Kelly, it was Donald O’Conner I was extremely drawn to in this film. He was so AMAZING that I found myself rewinding his big dance number where he back flips off the wall. Besides his dancing, his comedic timing was genius. Of course, having come from a vaudeville and circus background made him an actor who knew how to fully draw the audience’s attention. A very young Debbie Reynolds holds her own - and then some - against these two powerhouse actors.
Species
Genre: Sci-Fi
Dir: Roger Donaldson
Length: 108 min
Summary: A special team is called in to hunt down a government experiment gone awry (in a nutshell, but there is so much more to this).
My 2¢: I remember watching this years ago, and really liking it. The one genre I don’t watch is horror. I’m a punk. So when this recently had a run on cable, I caught myself watching it a few times, despite my fear of the things that go bump in the night. What I particularly liked about this film is the character development of the alien; she had a strong arc, something you don’t see too much in horror/alien/monster films. One of my all-time favorite pieces of literature is Frankenstein, so my monster expectations are pretty darn high. [Sidebar, for those of you who have never READ Frankenstein, and have only seen the movies, please, please, please do yourself the biggest favor and read one of the greatest human nature stories ever written.] Okay, back to the film at hand. The group assigned to bring her in dead or dead is an eclectic group. While I think, on paper, their parts are interesting, I think that some of it really didn’t translate to the screen very well. For example, Forest Whitikar’s character seemed to take me out of the film. While I, oddly enough, felt it plausible for there to be an alien created from messages sent from outer space, Whitikar’s psychic abilities felt a little forced and a bit fantasy and not sci-fi. Though, with that said, I think it’s a film worth watching and worth learning from. I also plan on watching this again and doing an in-depth analysis.
Okay, this is all for now. I still have more on the way.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Hi There
I’ve been away for a few months - writing, writing and more writing. To the two people who drop by every so often, I’ll be posting another Armchair Film School movie review post in a couple of days. I’m currently going over the films I’ve watched in the past few months.
Later--
Later--
Monday, October 13, 2008
Armchair Film School
So, I’ve been catching up on my movie viewing. I’ve watched a number of documentaries, a few classics, and a summer blockbuster.
The Business of Being Born
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Abby Epstein
Length: 84 minutes
Summary: A close look at the maternity-care system and its alternative, home birthing.
My 2¢: Truly engaging and informative. I was concerned that it would be biased and one-sided. However, an unexpected turn of events while filming forced the filmmakers to challenge their own theory/thesis.
Devil’s Playground
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Lucy Walker
Length: 77 minutes
Summary: A look at what might be considered a rite-of-passage period for teens in a certain Amish Community.
My 2¢: While attending a dinner party for the Stony Brook Film Festival, I had the pleasure of meeting Dana Dalaney, who had starred in that evening’s feature film. Though our interaction was brief, she did recommend I watch Devil’s Playground. It is quite informative and shows another side of Amish life that few might know. I’m aware that not every Amish community is the same. Still, this film definitely had me glued to my seat. I cared about each of the teens highlighted in the film, as their stories were truly compelling.
I Remember Me
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Kim A. Snyder
Length: 74 minutes
Summary: Filmmaker Kim Snyder shares her own nightmare as she struggles with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
My 2¢: I really love the way this documentary was shot. It could be a bit disjointing at first, but it did make me an active participant in the subject matter - possibly giving me a feel for what the filmmaker and others who face this not-yet-widely-recognized disease encounter on a daily basis. At times, it felt a bit long, but on a whole, it was informative and left me with a number of questions and wanting to seek further answers and research of my own.
The Education of Shelby Knox
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Marion Lipschutz, Rose Rosenblatt
Length: 76 minutes
Summary: Filmmakers follow a 16-yearold teenager for three years as she struggles to get her small town to reverse its abstinence-only school-based curriculum.
My 2¢: Let’s just say I’m keeping an eye out for Shelby Knox in the not-so-distant political arena. I couldn’t call this film informative, as I don’t think it set out to change a person’s mind. The film knows its audience, and because of that, less time is spent on persuasive arguments and more time is spent on developing a personal narrative. I enjoyed it.
Waging A Living
Genre: Documentary
Dir:Roger Weisburg
Length: 85 minutes
Summary: A close look at four diverse families as they struggle to make ends meet living below the poverty line.
My 2¢: I watched this film with my 12 and 15 year-old children. It was truly informative, and put a lot of things in perspective for my kids. It would be great to see this added to high school economic classes as additional resources. The filmmakers spent three years with their subjects and did a pretty good job in editing a cohesive story out of the struggles and triumphs each family faced. This film does not attempt to examine all faces of poverty, but is more a slice of one particular group.
Death At A Funeral
Genre: Comedy
Dir: Frank Oz
Cast: Matthew Macfadyen, Peter Dinklage, Daisy Donovan, Keeley Hawes, and Peter Egan
Length: 91 minutes
Summary: During the funeral for their father, two sons try to hide the fact that their highly-respected father carried on a romantic relationship with another man.
My 2¢: I’m a sucker for British humor. Ever since my best friend’s mother introduced me to Nuns on the Run, I’ve been hooked on this slapstick, over-the-top form of comedy. I know, it’s not for everyone, but when I want to truly escape, I pop one of these in, and the day seems so much cheerier. This film was no exception. While I could predict clearly where it was going, it was the execution of each scene that still had me laughing out loud. There is a particularly gross scene I could do without, but all-in-all, I enjoyed the film.
Charlie Wilson’s War
Genre: Political Drama
Dir: Mike Nichols
Cast: Tom Hanks, Phillp Seymour Hoffman, Emily Blunt, Julia Roberts
Length: 97 minutes
Summary: Based on true events. A Texas congressman aids the Afghans against the Soviets.
My 2¢: First, I’m a huge Aaron Sorkin fan. Second, I love political dramas. This felt more like a mixture of both drama and comedy. It’s pretty heavy subject matter, and as with all things Sorkin, you have to keep up with the fast-paced dialogue and non-watered down political history lessons converted into a script. Tom Hanks does an excellent job; however, I felt that his transformation was not as smooth. I’m not sure if that’s because the character never really changes as much as he simply reveals another side of himself. For this reason, I don’t think I ever fully felt connected to the character, but more amazed and drawn to the events of the story. It did set me on the path of wanting to learn more about this period in history and what led up to these events. And did I say I’m a huge Aaron Sorkin fan?
Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins
Genre: Comedy
Dir: Malcolm D. Lee
Cast: Martin Lawrence, James Earl Jones, Joy Bryant, Cedric the Entertainer, Mike Epps, Mo’Nique
Length: 114 minutes
Summary: A successful reality star reluctantly returns home to Georgia.
My 2¢: The reviews for this were not good, but as I really enjoyed Lee’s The Best Man, I was willing to give it a chance. There was a lot of potential, but it felt as if the all-star comedic cast strayed from the script too often. I could only imagine having so many comedic voices on one set and trying to get them to follow a script. The story was good, and there were many strong emotional moments - and it’s always a treat to see James Earl Jones.
Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Stanley Nelson
Length: 86 minutes
Summary: Nelson examines the people and church led by Jim Jones, who was responsible for the mass suicide/murder of 900+.
My 2¢: This was an interesting documentary into the subject. Before I started, I was sure I was going to watch 86 minutes of religious zealots so far gone that they could easily be led to drink the Kool-Aid. However, what followed was an amazing look at every day, ordinary people believing in a better future easily falling victim to their own visions and beliefs. This is definitely a must-see film.
Aristide and the Endless Revolution
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Nicolas Rossier
Length: 84 minutes
Summary: A close examination of Aristide’s fall from power.
My 2¢: As I have always been curious about Haiti’s history, this was an engaging look at more recent events. The film left me with more questions than answers. It was a good beginner’s reference.
Germany, Year Zero
Genre: Drama; Foreign
Dir: Roberto Rossellini
Cast: Edmund Moeschke, Ernst Pittschau, Ingetraud Hinze, Franz-Otto Kruger
Length: 71minutes
Summary: a 12-year-old boy is forced to grow up fast in war-torn Berlin.
My 2¢: I must be honest, I wasn’t expecting much; however, this little film was really good - better than good. It is such a simple story - more of a morality tale. As this film was originally released in 1948, the viewing quality was far from perfect. I also felt that the dialogue was a bit too wordy, but I understood that the length and the need to get a message across called for more words.
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Alex Gibney
Length: 110 minutes
Summary: Examines the rise and fall of Enron.
My 2¢: The movie scared the shit out of me. Informative; engaging; sheer amazement at the balls and nerve of today’s corporate world. We know that those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it, but we never talk about how much time has to pass before we can call it history. Let’s just say, today’s events should not be too much of a surprise.
Why We Fight
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Eugene Jarecki
Length: 98 minutes
Summary: A close look at the “military industrial complex”.
My 2¢: So far, I’ve watched it twice. There will be many subsequent viewings - many.
Lawrence of Arabia
Genre: Drama; Classic
Dir: David Lean
Cast: Peter O’Toole, Anthony Quinn, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quayle, Arthur Kennedy
Length: WAY TOOOO LONG (227 minutes)
Summary: The epic tale of T.E. Lawrence’s fight to unite the Arab nations.
My 2¢: I would need an entire blog entry, and it would add up to more than cents - we’re talking bills at this point. I had seen this as a child, but never really remembered it. I know I’m in the minority, but I did NOT like this film at all. Cinematically striking, beautifully shot (at least the first 1,000 minutes, then it was like watching beautiful paint dry). However, I’m a story - character - girl. I thought Lawrence was an egotistical, borderline psycho. Talk about ideas of grandiosity. A lot of the characters could have used a bit more development, and the ending - anticlimactic. This is a favorite amongst many of today’s leading directors; I can respect them for that. I, however, cannot join the bandwagon - I will not drink the Kool-Aid.
Iron Man
Genre: Action/Adventure; Comic Book
Dir: Jon Favreau
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, Leslie Bob, Shaun Toub
Length: 126 minutes
Summary: Weapons maker Tony Stark becomes Iron Man.
My 2¢: Robert Downey Jr. looks DAMN GOOD. Sorry, I just needed to say that. I really, really liked this movie, and look forward to seeing more of Jon Favreau’s work. He impressed me with his economy of story. If you watch the deleted scenes, you’ll see some really strong story choices. The director and editor teamwork is quite evident in the final project. While there are a few story holes (the scientist held prisoner with Stark seems a bit forced - uneven), the overall entertainment value delivers big time. I will be sitting down for another viewing pretty soon. And did I mention Downey looked DAMN GOOD?
By the way, I’m almost finished re-reading Miracle at St. Anna and will be blogging part 2 of the movie review.
The Business of Being Born
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Abby Epstein
Length: 84 minutes
Summary: A close look at the maternity-care system and its alternative, home birthing.
My 2¢: Truly engaging and informative. I was concerned that it would be biased and one-sided. However, an unexpected turn of events while filming forced the filmmakers to challenge their own theory/thesis.
Devil’s Playground
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Lucy Walker
Length: 77 minutes
Summary: A look at what might be considered a rite-of-passage period for teens in a certain Amish Community.
My 2¢: While attending a dinner party for the Stony Brook Film Festival, I had the pleasure of meeting Dana Dalaney, who had starred in that evening’s feature film. Though our interaction was brief, she did recommend I watch Devil’s Playground. It is quite informative and shows another side of Amish life that few might know. I’m aware that not every Amish community is the same. Still, this film definitely had me glued to my seat. I cared about each of the teens highlighted in the film, as their stories were truly compelling.
I Remember Me
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Kim A. Snyder
Length: 74 minutes
Summary: Filmmaker Kim Snyder shares her own nightmare as she struggles with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
My 2¢: I really love the way this documentary was shot. It could be a bit disjointing at first, but it did make me an active participant in the subject matter - possibly giving me a feel for what the filmmaker and others who face this not-yet-widely-recognized disease encounter on a daily basis. At times, it felt a bit long, but on a whole, it was informative and left me with a number of questions and wanting to seek further answers and research of my own.
The Education of Shelby Knox
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Marion Lipschutz, Rose Rosenblatt
Length: 76 minutes
Summary: Filmmakers follow a 16-yearold teenager for three years as she struggles to get her small town to reverse its abstinence-only school-based curriculum.
My 2¢: Let’s just say I’m keeping an eye out for Shelby Knox in the not-so-distant political arena. I couldn’t call this film informative, as I don’t think it set out to change a person’s mind. The film knows its audience, and because of that, less time is spent on persuasive arguments and more time is spent on developing a personal narrative. I enjoyed it.
Waging A Living
Genre: Documentary
Dir:Roger Weisburg
Length: 85 minutes
Summary: A close look at four diverse families as they struggle to make ends meet living below the poverty line.
My 2¢: I watched this film with my 12 and 15 year-old children. It was truly informative, and put a lot of things in perspective for my kids. It would be great to see this added to high school economic classes as additional resources. The filmmakers spent three years with their subjects and did a pretty good job in editing a cohesive story out of the struggles and triumphs each family faced. This film does not attempt to examine all faces of poverty, but is more a slice of one particular group.
Death At A Funeral
Genre: Comedy
Dir: Frank Oz
Cast: Matthew Macfadyen, Peter Dinklage, Daisy Donovan, Keeley Hawes, and Peter Egan
Length: 91 minutes
Summary: During the funeral for their father, two sons try to hide the fact that their highly-respected father carried on a romantic relationship with another man.
My 2¢: I’m a sucker for British humor. Ever since my best friend’s mother introduced me to Nuns on the Run, I’ve been hooked on this slapstick, over-the-top form of comedy. I know, it’s not for everyone, but when I want to truly escape, I pop one of these in, and the day seems so much cheerier. This film was no exception. While I could predict clearly where it was going, it was the execution of each scene that still had me laughing out loud. There is a particularly gross scene I could do without, but all-in-all, I enjoyed the film.
Charlie Wilson’s War
Genre: Political Drama
Dir: Mike Nichols
Cast: Tom Hanks, Phillp Seymour Hoffman, Emily Blunt, Julia Roberts
Length: 97 minutes
Summary: Based on true events. A Texas congressman aids the Afghans against the Soviets.
My 2¢: First, I’m a huge Aaron Sorkin fan. Second, I love political dramas. This felt more like a mixture of both drama and comedy. It’s pretty heavy subject matter, and as with all things Sorkin, you have to keep up with the fast-paced dialogue and non-watered down political history lessons converted into a script. Tom Hanks does an excellent job; however, I felt that his transformation was not as smooth. I’m not sure if that’s because the character never really changes as much as he simply reveals another side of himself. For this reason, I don’t think I ever fully felt connected to the character, but more amazed and drawn to the events of the story. It did set me on the path of wanting to learn more about this period in history and what led up to these events. And did I say I’m a huge Aaron Sorkin fan?
Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins
Genre: Comedy
Dir: Malcolm D. Lee
Cast: Martin Lawrence, James Earl Jones, Joy Bryant, Cedric the Entertainer, Mike Epps, Mo’Nique
Length: 114 minutes
Summary: A successful reality star reluctantly returns home to Georgia.
My 2¢: The reviews for this were not good, but as I really enjoyed Lee’s The Best Man, I was willing to give it a chance. There was a lot of potential, but it felt as if the all-star comedic cast strayed from the script too often. I could only imagine having so many comedic voices on one set and trying to get them to follow a script. The story was good, and there were many strong emotional moments - and it’s always a treat to see James Earl Jones.
Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Stanley Nelson
Length: 86 minutes
Summary: Nelson examines the people and church led by Jim Jones, who was responsible for the mass suicide/murder of 900+.
My 2¢: This was an interesting documentary into the subject. Before I started, I was sure I was going to watch 86 minutes of religious zealots so far gone that they could easily be led to drink the Kool-Aid. However, what followed was an amazing look at every day, ordinary people believing in a better future easily falling victim to their own visions and beliefs. This is definitely a must-see film.
Aristide and the Endless Revolution
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Nicolas Rossier
Length: 84 minutes
Summary: A close examination of Aristide’s fall from power.
My 2¢: As I have always been curious about Haiti’s history, this was an engaging look at more recent events. The film left me with more questions than answers. It was a good beginner’s reference.
Germany, Year Zero
Genre: Drama; Foreign
Dir: Roberto Rossellini
Cast: Edmund Moeschke, Ernst Pittschau, Ingetraud Hinze, Franz-Otto Kruger
Length: 71minutes
Summary: a 12-year-old boy is forced to grow up fast in war-torn Berlin.
My 2¢: I must be honest, I wasn’t expecting much; however, this little film was really good - better than good. It is such a simple story - more of a morality tale. As this film was originally released in 1948, the viewing quality was far from perfect. I also felt that the dialogue was a bit too wordy, but I understood that the length and the need to get a message across called for more words.
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Alex Gibney
Length: 110 minutes
Summary: Examines the rise and fall of Enron.
My 2¢: The movie scared the shit out of me. Informative; engaging; sheer amazement at the balls and nerve of today’s corporate world. We know that those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it, but we never talk about how much time has to pass before we can call it history. Let’s just say, today’s events should not be too much of a surprise.
Why We Fight
Genre: Documentary
Dir: Eugene Jarecki
Length: 98 minutes
Summary: A close look at the “military industrial complex”.
My 2¢: So far, I’ve watched it twice. There will be many subsequent viewings - many.
Lawrence of Arabia
Genre: Drama; Classic
Dir: David Lean
Cast: Peter O’Toole, Anthony Quinn, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quayle, Arthur Kennedy
Length: WAY TOOOO LONG (227 minutes)
Summary: The epic tale of T.E. Lawrence’s fight to unite the Arab nations.
My 2¢: I would need an entire blog entry, and it would add up to more than cents - we’re talking bills at this point. I had seen this as a child, but never really remembered it. I know I’m in the minority, but I did NOT like this film at all. Cinematically striking, beautifully shot (at least the first 1,000 minutes, then it was like watching beautiful paint dry). However, I’m a story - character - girl. I thought Lawrence was an egotistical, borderline psycho. Talk about ideas of grandiosity. A lot of the characters could have used a bit more development, and the ending - anticlimactic. This is a favorite amongst many of today’s leading directors; I can respect them for that. I, however, cannot join the bandwagon - I will not drink the Kool-Aid.
Iron Man
Genre: Action/Adventure; Comic Book
Dir: Jon Favreau
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, Leslie Bob, Shaun Toub
Length: 126 minutes
Summary: Weapons maker Tony Stark becomes Iron Man.
My 2¢: Robert Downey Jr. looks DAMN GOOD. Sorry, I just needed to say that. I really, really liked this movie, and look forward to seeing more of Jon Favreau’s work. He impressed me with his economy of story. If you watch the deleted scenes, you’ll see some really strong story choices. The director and editor teamwork is quite evident in the final project. While there are a few story holes (the scientist held prisoner with Stark seems a bit forced - uneven), the overall entertainment value delivers big time. I will be sitting down for another viewing pretty soon. And did I mention Downey looked DAMN GOOD?
By the way, I’m almost finished re-reading Miracle at St. Anna and will be blogging part 2 of the movie review.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
St. Anna Review Part 1
So, last night I finally made it to the movies. My favorite little theatre was not playing Miracle at St. Anna, so I had to settle for the huge multiplex a few towns away.
First off, wtf? $21 to see a freaking movie? No wonder the box office is a roller-coaster ride. It does not take a genius to figure out that people are going to carefully pick and choose the films they want to see, and of course, the summer is a huge box office success with teenagers being out of school and young adults home from college, allowing them to take in discounted matinee showings.
Did I also mention that a freaking bottle of water cost $4? Four freaking dollars.
Now, you might ask, which rock did I crawl out from under, and when was the last time I set foot in a theater? It’s been a few months. However, I used to try and make a movie at least once a week, and because of this, I had become friendly with the manager of my quaint local movie house. I was only paying half price - if that. In fact, what my husband and I spent to see the movie last night, we’d pay the same amount for our family of four and a small popcorn at our local movie place. The manager is smart, because in actuality, I was spending more at the local place than I would ever plan to at the big complex.
It’s all in the come back.
BUT NO! Not in our time of instant gratification - we want to see our return in our pockets immediately. Where have the real business thinkers gone? Long term is the key - short term equals easy come, easy go. Wake up people!
Anyway, I digressed badly, but I just had to get that off my chest. My two cents - bring down the price of movie tickets and the other crap, and you’ll get the business. We all like a bargain - especially those that really don’t exist. If you’re going to screw the little guy, then at least screw him correctly.
Okay, okay, so back to the movie at hand.
I wanted sooooooo much to LOVE this film. I mean, I wanted to come home and go on and on and on about it... wait a minute, I did, but t not in the way I’d hoped.
I must first state this is extremely personal, and my review is extremely biased. Why? Because I wanted to adapt this film sooooo bad. I had even discussed it with one of my teachers at NYU, and I LOVE the book. I saw bits and pieces of the film in my head, and I felt the characters were waiting to come to life.
When I learned that Spike Lee was directing, yes, I was bitter, but not delusional. He’s Spike freaking Lee and I’m some chick who writes a blog that no one reads. I pretty much knew he had this one. I was also happy to learn that McBride was adapting the novel. Knowing the extensive research he’d done, I felt he knew the subject better than anyone, and that the essence of the story would not be distorted.
But, I’m a screenwriter who has tried her hand at writing a novel and the two, my friend, are quite different. One is NOT easier than the other, but they each have their own distinct set of obstacles to overcome. It’s no secret that producers and development folks are a little wary of having novelists adapt their own work. Can the author take all of these characters and story-lines that they’ve spent countless hours with and chisel them down to a compact story? Can they kill entire characters and create new ones? Can they let go of themes that were important to them, but do not translate well to the screen? Can they take their novel and make it anything but a novel?
Some can. I can’t say that McBride can or cannot, as I do not know the circumstances that went into making the film. All I can do is study and dissect the end product.
Who am I to dissect anything? I’m a student, and it’s one of the many ways to learn. Sure, I can examine films that everyone considers classics, or even the ones that I love. It would be quite obvious to understand what works and why. It’s the ones that disappoint or completely miss any kind of mark that make for good learning tools.
Let me also take the time to state that I don’t know shit. These are my own observations, and a ton of people will disagree. I welcome those disagreements, for that, too, is a great learning tool.
Okay, so let me start with what I loved about the film.
I admire this in all directors who have the ability to put a stamp on their work. It shows an air of confidence, the much needed arrogance to survive in this industry. Spike has mastered a style - his style, and makes no freaking apologies for it. You go boy... I mean, man.
I also loved the colors used to shoot the film. The drabness kept me, the audience member, in a state of uneasiness - transporting me to that world by simply assaulting one of my important senses. I do hope that this does not go unnoticed by the many critics during awards time. For example, one of the most beautifully-shot films was Kundun, and the Academy recognized this, despite its poor reviews and its inability to win over an audience. Filmmaking is collaborative, and while one leg may not do well, another might shine.
And let’s cut the crap. Spike Lee is controversial - this is PC for “he ain’t holding back shit”. His little tit-for-tat with Clint Eastwood clearly illustrates, if he feels it and thinks it, he’ll say it. I’d be curious to find out if he actually does hold back. If he does, man oh man, I’d love to see what he really thinks.
_______________________________________________________
After I came home last night, I immediately started rereading the novel, thinking maybe I’d missed something or misread the book. I’m still in the process of reading, as well as slowly rolling around in my head exactly what did not work for me. As of now, one of the biggest problems I have with the film is character development, and not feeling emotionally attached to any of the characters. While I felt strongly about the subject matter and the situation these men were placed in, I found myself grasping to hold on to any one of the character’s personal story. I wanted to love or hate the characters for who they were as a person, rather than for the situation they found themselves in.
Maybe this was the point Spike Lee was trying to make, and, if so, he definitely nailed it. Maybe it’s not right to judge an individual person. Maybe the f’d-up situations people find themselves in dictate their actions. Maybe it’s not important to know who the person is, but what the person has done in the face of adversity.
I don’t know, maybe me needing to connect with a character on a personal level is highly overrated. But what I do know is that my husband and I sat in a movie theater with four other strangers, two of which got up and left only ten minutes into the film. Why aren’t audiences responding? Why hasn’t word of mouth traveled? Is there a disconnect, and is it the job of a filmmaker to connect with an audience?
Hopefully, I’ll have part 2 up here in a few days, after I let my own personal disappointment and expectations fade further into the backdrop and do some serious analysis of the film and its original content.
Also, if anyone reading this (the two people who drop by) has a copy of the script, or knows where I can get my hand on it, please let me know.
I also welcome anyone who has seen the film to share their thoughts on the above points.
One thing I can say without a doubt, the film stayed with me, and I would recommend others to view it for themselves. In all fairness, it was entertaining and didn’t feel like a 2 hour and 40 minutes film.
But, more to come.
First off, wtf? $21 to see a freaking movie? No wonder the box office is a roller-coaster ride. It does not take a genius to figure out that people are going to carefully pick and choose the films they want to see, and of course, the summer is a huge box office success with teenagers being out of school and young adults home from college, allowing them to take in discounted matinee showings.
Did I also mention that a freaking bottle of water cost $4? Four freaking dollars.
Now, you might ask, which rock did I crawl out from under, and when was the last time I set foot in a theater? It’s been a few months. However, I used to try and make a movie at least once a week, and because of this, I had become friendly with the manager of my quaint local movie house. I was only paying half price - if that. In fact, what my husband and I spent to see the movie last night, we’d pay the same amount for our family of four and a small popcorn at our local movie place. The manager is smart, because in actuality, I was spending more at the local place than I would ever plan to at the big complex.
It’s all in the come back.
BUT NO! Not in our time of instant gratification - we want to see our return in our pockets immediately. Where have the real business thinkers gone? Long term is the key - short term equals easy come, easy go. Wake up people!
Anyway, I digressed badly, but I just had to get that off my chest. My two cents - bring down the price of movie tickets and the other crap, and you’ll get the business. We all like a bargain - especially those that really don’t exist. If you’re going to screw the little guy, then at least screw him correctly.
Okay, okay, so back to the movie at hand.
I wanted sooooooo much to LOVE this film. I mean, I wanted to come home and go on and on and on about it... wait a minute, I did, but t not in the way I’d hoped.
I must first state this is extremely personal, and my review is extremely biased. Why? Because I wanted to adapt this film sooooo bad. I had even discussed it with one of my teachers at NYU, and I LOVE the book. I saw bits and pieces of the film in my head, and I felt the characters were waiting to come to life.
When I learned that Spike Lee was directing, yes, I was bitter, but not delusional. He’s Spike freaking Lee and I’m some chick who writes a blog that no one reads. I pretty much knew he had this one. I was also happy to learn that McBride was adapting the novel. Knowing the extensive research he’d done, I felt he knew the subject better than anyone, and that the essence of the story would not be distorted.
But, I’m a screenwriter who has tried her hand at writing a novel and the two, my friend, are quite different. One is NOT easier than the other, but they each have their own distinct set of obstacles to overcome. It’s no secret that producers and development folks are a little wary of having novelists adapt their own work. Can the author take all of these characters and story-lines that they’ve spent countless hours with and chisel them down to a compact story? Can they kill entire characters and create new ones? Can they let go of themes that were important to them, but do not translate well to the screen? Can they take their novel and make it anything but a novel?
Some can. I can’t say that McBride can or cannot, as I do not know the circumstances that went into making the film. All I can do is study and dissect the end product.
Who am I to dissect anything? I’m a student, and it’s one of the many ways to learn. Sure, I can examine films that everyone considers classics, or even the ones that I love. It would be quite obvious to understand what works and why. It’s the ones that disappoint or completely miss any kind of mark that make for good learning tools.
Let me also take the time to state that I don’t know shit. These are my own observations, and a ton of people will disagree. I welcome those disagreements, for that, too, is a great learning tool.
Okay, so let me start with what I loved about the film.
- It’s a Spike Lee Joint.
I admire this in all directors who have the ability to put a stamp on their work. It shows an air of confidence, the much needed arrogance to survive in this industry. Spike has mastered a style - his style, and makes no freaking apologies for it. You go boy... I mean, man.
- The original screenwriter remained on the job.
- The original source material.
- The cinematography and set design.
I also loved the colors used to shoot the film. The drabness kept me, the audience member, in a state of uneasiness - transporting me to that world by simply assaulting one of my important senses. I do hope that this does not go unnoticed by the many critics during awards time. For example, one of the most beautifully-shot films was Kundun, and the Academy recognized this, despite its poor reviews and its inability to win over an audience. Filmmaking is collaborative, and while one leg may not do well, another might shine.
- The rawness.
- It was made.
And let’s cut the crap. Spike Lee is controversial - this is PC for “he ain’t holding back shit”. His little tit-for-tat with Clint Eastwood clearly illustrates, if he feels it and thinks it, he’ll say it. I’d be curious to find out if he actually does hold back. If he does, man oh man, I’d love to see what he really thinks.
_______________________________________________________
After I came home last night, I immediately started rereading the novel, thinking maybe I’d missed something or misread the book. I’m still in the process of reading, as well as slowly rolling around in my head exactly what did not work for me. As of now, one of the biggest problems I have with the film is character development, and not feeling emotionally attached to any of the characters. While I felt strongly about the subject matter and the situation these men were placed in, I found myself grasping to hold on to any one of the character’s personal story. I wanted to love or hate the characters for who they were as a person, rather than for the situation they found themselves in.
Maybe this was the point Spike Lee was trying to make, and, if so, he definitely nailed it. Maybe it’s not right to judge an individual person. Maybe the f’d-up situations people find themselves in dictate their actions. Maybe it’s not important to know who the person is, but what the person has done in the face of adversity.
I don’t know, maybe me needing to connect with a character on a personal level is highly overrated. But what I do know is that my husband and I sat in a movie theater with four other strangers, two of which got up and left only ten minutes into the film. Why aren’t audiences responding? Why hasn’t word of mouth traveled? Is there a disconnect, and is it the job of a filmmaker to connect with an audience?
Hopefully, I’ll have part 2 up here in a few days, after I let my own personal disappointment and expectations fade further into the backdrop and do some serious analysis of the film and its original content.
Also, if anyone reading this (the two people who drop by) has a copy of the script, or knows where I can get my hand on it, please let me know.
I also welcome anyone who has seen the film to share their thoughts on the above points.
One thing I can say without a doubt, the film stayed with me, and I would recommend others to view it for themselves. In all fairness, it was entertaining and didn’t feel like a 2 hour and 40 minutes film.
But, more to come.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Intoxication
I’m going back to school.
No, no, no. I won’t be attending a university or college. I won’t even be taking an online course or attending some (way) two (long) hour seminar.
I have decided to spend the next few weeks educating myself.
I do this every so often, mainly whenever I become fascinated by a particular subject - obsessed is more like it.
Right now, it’s the CIA, and my book gathering is sure to place me on some sort of watch list (The Patriot Act is next on my educational list).
As I’m reading these books, of course, the movie version is flashing full speed in my head. While I’ve written screenplays in a variety of different genres, my passion throbs in writing the political drama/thriller. What’s interesting - I’ve noticed lately that I don’t talk about politics as much as I used to. While I have joked with friends that I’ve sworn off politics, I find the one thing that is constantly on my mind is politics. I’m more likely to observe others and listen intently to their passion and anger over the latest political debate. It’s as if I’m gathering - stockpiling - as much information and situations as I can.
Situations? I’m sure fellow screenwriters understand instantly what I mean - or maybe I’m just loco and they wont. I write films for an audience and it’s always interesting to observe people as they engage in every-day-life. So what, if I feel a certain way about politics, but how do others feel about it? What are the hot button subjects? What are the resolutions - if any? What’s at stake for each person as they fervently argue their own political rhetoric?
I’ve always been the kind of person who loves to dig deeper, getting as close to the source as possible. So I keep asking the why and what-if questions and reading and researching as much as I can until I am completely intoxicated with the subject.
Well, I’m off to get pissed drunk off of Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA... blah, blah, blah,**hic**
No, no, no. I won’t be attending a university or college. I won’t even be taking an online course or attending some (way) two (long) hour seminar.
I have decided to spend the next few weeks educating myself.
I do this every so often, mainly whenever I become fascinated by a particular subject - obsessed is more like it.
Right now, it’s the CIA, and my book gathering is sure to place me on some sort of watch list (The Patriot Act is next on my educational list).
As I’m reading these books, of course, the movie version is flashing full speed in my head. While I’ve written screenplays in a variety of different genres, my passion throbs in writing the political drama/thriller. What’s interesting - I’ve noticed lately that I don’t talk about politics as much as I used to. While I have joked with friends that I’ve sworn off politics, I find the one thing that is constantly on my mind is politics. I’m more likely to observe others and listen intently to their passion and anger over the latest political debate. It’s as if I’m gathering - stockpiling - as much information and situations as I can.
Situations? I’m sure fellow screenwriters understand instantly what I mean - or maybe I’m just loco and they wont. I write films for an audience and it’s always interesting to observe people as they engage in every-day-life. So what, if I feel a certain way about politics, but how do others feel about it? What are the hot button subjects? What are the resolutions - if any? What’s at stake for each person as they fervently argue their own political rhetoric?
I’ve always been the kind of person who loves to dig deeper, getting as close to the source as possible. So I keep asking the why and what-if questions and reading and researching as much as I can until I am completely intoxicated with the subject.
Well, I’m off to get pissed drunk off of Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA... blah, blah, blah,**hic**
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Another Festival
My short film Artistic Closure has been selected to screen at the Big Apple Film Festival.
I’ve got to start cracking on the next one, but it’s not quite ready to come out of the oven (my head). I tend to work on all my projects in the head first, before sitting down with pen and paper. I’ve had this idea for months now, but it’s still baking. I like my ideas well done.
I’ve got to start cracking on the next one, but it’s not quite ready to come out of the oven (my head). I tend to work on all my projects in the head first, before sitting down with pen and paper. I’ve had this idea for months now, but it’s still baking. I like my ideas well done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
