Sunday, October 31, 2010

'70s, then '80s

Beginning in December, I'm gonna start compiling my top 100 films of both the '70s and the '80s. I'm going to release the '70s list first because it's my favorite decade for film and therefore, it'll be an easier list for me to gather and write about. I will release the '70s list (the same way I've released the '00s and the '90s) in the beginning of January. Then the '80s list will follow at some point between February and April. While I compile those lists, I'll still try to cover new films the best that I can, but once I start the list, I tend to get distracted by it.

In the near future, I'm going to write short reviews for "Never Let Me Go" and "Despicable Me" and later in the week, I will write longer reviews for "Due Date" and "127 Hours." That's assuming that 127 Hours will get a wide release next weekend, it might not.

Other than that, because I'm currently in the middle of making a film of my own, updates will happen quite irregularly in the month of November. If I'm not shooting the film, I'm editing it, or I'm taking a break from it. So, it's hard to find time to update this blog regularly. However, I will try my best.

Happy Halloween everyone.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Devil's Advocate: The King's Speech & The Oscars

I suppose calling myself a "devil's advocate" when discussing The King's Speech's Oscar chances can sound a little dicey at best. After all, the movie isn't even out yet and who am I to judge? I know I have neglected covering this upcoming film that stars Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, but only due to it not really being on my radar in these past months. That's not to say I'm uninterested in this film because I've read all the positive reports on the film and think it could possibly be very good.

My problem with "The King's Speech" is that I feel that the main reason why it's getting the type of Oscar Buzz that it's getting is because it seems like the typical Oscar-friendly film. You have the Oscar-friendly cast starring Colin Firth who is clearly long overdue for the Best Actor Oscar. Barring any upsets, I do believe he's the frontrunner for the Best Actor Oscar. But, to automatically start giving The King's Speech the trophy is just as dumb as giving the trophy to The Social Network or Inception.

We already know why TSN and Inception could have a tough time winning the Oscar. The Social Network is a very well-written, impeccably-crafted film but it has a young cast and its subject matter may go right over the heads of the Academy voters.

Inception is a hugely ambitious, very original action epic that pretty much took ownership of the entire summer blockbuster season. But the Academy don't usually go for Sci-Fi/Action type films and people have complained about its coldness and complex, frustrating ending. Also, the last time the Academy awarded a blockbuster film was 2003's Lord of the Rings Return of the King and that film had the benefit of the previous films in the trilogy being nominated for best picture as well. LOTR sweeping the 2003 Oscars appeared to be the Academy's way of making up for virtually ignoring the other two films. They had to award the third one, but they don't have to award Inception with anything.

So, by the book, looking at The King's Speech which is a historical drama with great performances from a wonderful cast... the fact that it's getting rave reviews could very well mean that it's a lock for a Best Picture win. But, when you think about it, the Oscars lately have been anything but by the book. They have passed over Oscar-friendly films in the recent past and have awarded some of the world's most visionary directors (along with their films): Eastwood, Scorsese, Coen Brothers, Danny Boyle, and Kathryn Bigelow. Tom Hooper, the director of King's Speech is a virtual unknown who could be going up against filmmakers such as Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, Danny Boyle, The Coen Brothers, and maybe even Darren Aronofsky. The last time we've had a split for best picture and best director was in 2006 when Crash won Best Picture but Ang Lee won best director for Brokeback Mountain. Has the Academy's tastes changed or has there simply not been a Oscar-friendly enough film that they can all get behind?

Well, you can argue the latter. Avatar had the monster box office success and simple love story that the Academy could get behind but ultimately I feel that the Academy didn't go for it because Avatar's story is ultimately one that's been done many times before. You also had Up in the Air and Precious... but none of those movies are historical epics. Inglourious Basterds was really the only "historical epic" but it was also one that was largely the product of Quentin Tarantino's vision and definitely wasn't by the book or historically accurate (nor was it trying to be).

Films in the past that seem to be more in line with The King's Speech are ones such as Atonement, Frost/Nixon, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich, The Queen... but really, none of those films had strong buzz going into the Oscar season. In fact, Frost/Nixon, Atonement, and Munich were seen as afterthoughts by the time the Oscars came around.

This is why I bring all this up. Films such as Inception, The Social Network, 127 Hours, and True Grit seem more in line with the Academy's taste in recent years. I repeat, in recent years. They are films that are getting strong buzz and you can bet that at least two of them will remain strong enough to still be considered when the Oscars are given out. But the King's Speech is old school Oscar-friendly type stuff and, by all accounts, it appears that it's a wonderful, crowd-pleasing movie. But will the Oscars be into that? Do they want to go back to that but haven't had the chance? Or has their tastes officially evolved?

Those are questions we all must ask ourselves as we get closer to Oscar season. Why is The King's Speech the Oscar frontrunner? Is that due to how the Academy used to vote or how the Academy votes now? If The King's Speech winds up being as good as it promises to be and it's getting strong heat from 127 Hours, The Social Network, and Inception... how the Academy votes can be huge. Back in 2007, it was unheard of to think a film like No Country for Old Men could possibly win Best Picture. Two years later, a small film like The Hurt Locker beat out the juggernaut that was Avatar. Lately, the Academy has voted against the grain more often than not. Is this going to be an ongoing trend or will The King's Speech bring the Academy back to its roots?

Monday, October 4, 2010

So let's talk Oscar....

"No, let's not..."

I fall for the trap every year and this year is no different. It's not that I particularly enjoy the Oscar ceremony itself. I hate the glitz and the glammer, the self-aggrandizing aspect, the "let's hug ourselves because we're rich and 'important'" type feeling. I could do without the red carpet bullshit and Joan Rivers and... all of that.

There are some things that I do enjoy about the Oscars and now it seems they're taking one of them away. First of all, I think it's a joke that they stopped airing the Honorary Oscar. I always felt that was the second most important Oscar of the night. When the Academy honors someone legendary that hadn't gotten the respect they received during their amazing career. People like Robert Altman, Alfred Hitchcock, Federico Fellini... true legends of cinema being honored at the Oscars... that's great tv. But they took that away now! This year they are apparently giving the honorary oscar to French auteur Jean-Luc Godard... but in a ceremony that's being held in November. What an insult. Jean-Luc Godard has done more for cinema in the last 50 years then most other filmmakers and to not give him a proper honor is insulting. Of course, he's never the type of person who was about awards, especially the Academy Awards. But, the first films that Godard made, in a way, were homages to the classic-era of Hollywood just done in his own way. So it's a shame that he won't get the proper recognition that he deserves even if someone else would be accepting the award for him.

Most of my friends couldn't care less about the Oscars and I don't blame them. And the thing is, I don't really care about the Oscars themselves either. But, in a weird way, I love the politics of it. I love predicting the Oscars. You see, the Academy has their own way of doing things. They don't listen to us. They don't care what our favorite film of the year is. So, as an Oscar predictor, you have to detach yourself and try to get into the mind of the Academy. It used to be the Academy would fall for "Oscar" movies. Films that played directly toward their sensibilities. There's at least one of those films nominated every year, but the strange thing is that lately the Academy hasn't been going for those types of films, not anymore. The Academy has chosen darker, smaller, more indie films over the recent years. The funny thing is that people still disagree with their choices.

But you know, you guys gotta lighten up. Instead of getting behind one film, you have to get behind 3 or 4. Of course, that is if 3 or 4 of those films actually wind up being nominated for best picture. In a field of ten best picture nominees, though, anything can happen. At first I wasn't too warm to the idea of ten BP nominees, but now I think it makes Oscar season a lot more interesting. More movies have a chance to get nominated and things are different now. Last year, it wound up that there were really only five movies that mattered from the ten nominees: Avatar, Hurt Locker, Precious, Up in the Air, and Inglourious Basterds. Those were the films that were getting the most attention and the most nominations overall. So you knew that it'd be one of those films that'd wind up winning.

One thing to note about the propsect of a Best Picture winning film is where the film would get nominated elsewhere. Is it an acting/writing heavy pic? A movie more focused on the technical aspects (directing, cinematography, editing)? Or does it have a bit of everything? The last question is where you usually have your winner. Let me show you...

The Hurt Locker wound up winning for best director, best original screenplay, best sound editing/mixing, and best editing... those are all pretty solid categories. Then you factor in that it was nominated for best cinematography and best actor and it's hard to deny a film like that.

Avatar had all the technical categories, but it lacked in the acting and writing categories. Inglourious Basterds had the technical and writing categories, but only had one nomination for acting and it was in the supporting category.

The reason why Precious was such a threat was because while it was weak on some of the tech categories, it was strong on the writing and acting categories. The acting branch is the largest branch in the academy so if you have a film filled with amazing performances and at least two acting nominees, then you have a pretty high chance. Although, Up in the Air had three actors nominated and it won diddly squat. Overall, it's all a matter of what film does the Academy like the most? Inglourious Basterds, unfortunately, wound up playing second and third fiddle in most of the categories even though Tarantino probably deserved best original screenplay. If the Academy loves the film enough, it will win.

One thing to consider though is that it doesn't really matter who wins best picture. Even if your favorite film won, you have to remember the upcoming backlash that will occur no matter what the film is. It's rare for a film to win without any controversy. Schindler's List was one of the few films where you had to go "ok, i'm just gonna keep my mouth shut." Every other film that wins, wins controversially unless it's hugely important and too large to ignore.

People need to stop hating the films that win best picture though, especially the ones that have won in the last few years. The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country for Old Men, and the Departed are all great films. They made my list of top 100 films of the 2000s. Compare that to Crash, Million Dollar Baby, LOTR:ROTK, Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, and Gladiator. I think only one of those films made my list. Now, that's just my own personal taste, but you know, the films that won in the last few years weren't my favorite of the year. 2009 - my favorite was Basterds, 2008 - my favorite was the Wrestler, 2007 - There Will Be Blood, and 2006 - Children of Men.

Two of those four films weren't even nominated for best picture. With TWBB, I rightly figured that it would be too dark for the Academy to pick so I tried to keep my heart out of the race. With Basterds, I knew that the film would be too niche-y for the Academy so I pulled my support out of Basterds and put it towards The Hurt Locker. I loved the Hurt Locker, I still think it's a fantastic film. And you know what? None of the last four BP winners are typical Oscar fare. Sure, you can argue for Slumdog Millionaire but, really, a kid from Mumbai, India goes on a gameshow to win the heart of a girl that's been forced into sex slavery... yeah, that's typical Oscar stuff there. Get your head out of your ass. It does have a happy, cheesy ending, but the first half of the film is fantastic and overall it's a great film. Not my favorite film of the year, it barely makes my top 5, but I had no problems with it winning.

And that's the attitude you have to take if you're following the Oscars. It's easy to just throw your hands up and say "fuck it" after your favorite film loses the race. But come on, the Oscar race is so fun to watch unfold...

first you have Sundance and SXSW festivals where all the smaller, "little engine that could" type films are released. Depending on how well-received they are, they get picked up, enter a few more festivals, get limited releases and then slowly ride the wave to critical acclaim for the rest of the year. The film that's done that so far this year is The Kids Are All Right. Last year, it was Precious. Few years ago, it was Little Miss Sunshine. It remains to be seen if The Kids Are All Right will hang onto its critical acclaim. You also have to watch out for Winter's Bone which won the jury prize at Sundance and is a much more serious film. But both movies have their legit reasons for staying in the Oscar race.

Then you have Cannes... Cannes is like the mother of all film festivals. All the best filmmakers go there and show their films. Some screen them in competition, some don't. Usually, a film that wins the highest prize at Cannes doesn't win the BP Oscar. But, lots of films have managed to get huge buzz from Cannes such as No Country For Old Men in 2007. This year, Mike Leigh's Another Year and Alejandro Innaritu's Biutiful are the films to look out for come Oscar time. Another Year is packed with great performances and the Academy has nominated some of Leigh's films before. Secrets & Lies was nominated for Best Picture in 1996. Innaritu has also had a film nominated for best picture, Babel, back in 2006. Although the buzz about Biutiful is largely directed at Javier Bardem's performance.

Then, of course, it's the summer movie season that lasts from May to August. You usually have your summer tentpoles that are just made to gross $300 million and make the studios money. But lately, there's been some films that have managed to get a large amount of critical acclaim... such as, The Dark Knight, Star Trek, District 9 (had a lower budget than most summer films, but still), and pretty much every Pixar film. This year, it's all about Inception. Inception should have no problems getting a best picture nominee this upcoming Oscar season. It has that rare mix of critical acclaim, high box office numbers, and favorable audience reaction. Whether or not it will be loved by the Academy... that remains to be seen. The Academy has awarded blockbuster-type films before. Gladiator back in 2000 came out that previous summer and Lord of the Rings... while not a summer blockbuster... was definitely a blockbuster and the third film of that trilogy basically swept the Academy. Also, there's Titanic. In order for a blockbuster to win best picture, it has to resonate with the Academy in ways other blockbuster films don't. Whether it's a film with groundbreaking special effects and high critical acclaim or it's a film with a highly ambitious screenplay packed with tons of great performances.

Once we cool down from the summer, there's the Toronto International Film Festival, Venice Film Festival, Telluride, and the New York Film Festival. Generally, this is where you'll see some future best picture nominees and winners come from. Whether it's the Hurt Locker (which came out at TIFF in 2008), Slumdog Millionaire (Telluride), Up in the Air & Juno & Sideways (Toronto), or Lost in Translation (Telluride/Venice). Already, 127 Hours, Black Swan, Somewhere, Social Network, and the King's Speech have had their premieres at these festivals and they're all pretty much guaranteed to garner heat once the awards season picks up.

After those festivals is just the Fall/Winter season of the year. Generally, most of the non-family pictures that are released in November and December are films that are geared toward an Oscar campaign. This year, in December, you have films like The Fighter and True Grit that are guaranteed to get some Oscar heat before the year ends.

Once all of that's over, you have the critics' awards, the golden globes, the baftas, the guilds... and it all leads up to the Oscars. Once the critics start giving out their awards for best film of the year, that's when we know for sure which films are gonna get Oscar attention and which films won't. But there is a considerable divide between what the critics think and what the Academy thinks. So even if the New York critics are all in love with the Social Network and the Los Angeles critics are all about Black Swan or Inception, the Academy could be all about the King's Speech.

You just never know. You never know. But that's why it's fun to predict these things, or at least, to see how everything plays out. Obviously, I care more about the films themselves than the awards they get. Obviously, my opinion on these films are what matters to me. But it's cool to see how these films measure up to each other and how they are seen by critics and the Academy. It's also a difficult challenge to try to keep yourself from getting too attached to one film, but every year, it happens. Every year, there's that one film that got to you emotionally and you feel it deserves every award that it gets. And when it loses at the Oscars, you hate the Academy forever... until the next year.

It's really no different from following a sport. You just have to learn to separate the movies from the people voting for the movies. And hey, maybe one time, the Academy will actually get it right and award the right film the best picture Oscar.


True Grit full trailer

The Coens aren't messing around this year. Check out the full trailer of their upcoming Western "True Grit"

Saturday, October 2, 2010

The directors and their projects

I've decided to officially keep tabs on some of my favorite directors or directors that are becoming my favorite. I will update this from time to time.

director - title - release date

Paul Thomas Anderson - The Master, 2011/2012?

Wes Anderson - Moonrise Kingdom, 2011/2012?

Sofia Coppola - Somewhere, December 2010

Robert Rodriguez - Machete (just released), next project: Spy Kids 4, 2011

Quentin Tarantino - unknown, ??

Jason Reitman - Young Adult, late 2011?

Alexander Payne - The Descendants, spring 2010?

Aronofsky - black swan, 12/2010

david o russell - fighter, 12/2010

david fincher - The Social Network (just released), next project: Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, 12/2011

clint eastwood - hereafter, 10/2010

todd phillips - due date, 11/2010

coen bros - true grit - 12/2010

alejandro inarritu - biutiful - 12/2010

steven soderbergh - haywire & contagion - 2011

steven spielberg - war horse - 2011

martin scorsese - hugo cabret - 12/2011

duplass bros - jeff who lives at home - 2011

kevin smith - red state - 2011

edgar wright - ant-man? - 2011

judd apatow - unknown

Woody Allen - you will meet a tall dark stranger (just released), Midnight in Paris, 2011

christopher nolan - batman 3 - 7/2012

Terrence Malick - tree of life - 2011

richard linklater - ???

Sarah Polley - take this waltz - 2011

Pedro Almodovar - la piel que habito - 2011

alfonso cuaron - gravity 2012

noah baumbach - ???

Friday, October 1, 2010

Top 10 films of the year so far

Now that The Social Network has been released and I've seen it, it's time for a brief re-evaluation of the year so far. There's a few films already released that I've yet to see (Never Let Me Go, The American), and November and December have a ton of films that could influence this top 10 list. But what do we have now?

1. Inception
2. Toy Story 3
3. The Social Network
4. Winter's Bone
5. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
6. Shutter Island
7. Greenberg
8. The Town
9. Cyrus
10. The Other Guys

Honorable mentions: The Kids Are All Right, Kick-Ass

I know people are high on The Kids Are All Right and I think it's a good movie, but in all honesty, there were enough things wrong with it that kept me from liking it as much I wanted to. The Other Guys and The Town are very solid genre films and obviously they'll be bumped off the list eventually... or I at least assume. Also, Cyrus and Greenberg are great, light comedy/character dramas that kind of round out my top 10.

Looking forward to these last three months in film.

The Social Network review

I feel like before I can even start talking about this film, I have to clear up some things that's been buzzed about the film both positively and negatively. It's simply time to set the record straight.

YES, the film is a dramatization. Clearly, that's what this has been all along. That's what Aaron Sorkin does best. He's a storyteller, he's not trying to tell the actual truth, he's just trying to tell his truth. It's a perspective of the film that rings true to him.

NO, the film doesn't treat facebook in a hasty way. God, what is HuffingtonPost's problem? First, people were criticizing the fact that this is a film about facebook. Now, people are criticizing it because it's not about facebook. So Sorkin and Fincher do not comment on what Facebook has become? Well what exactly has facebook become? I've had facebook for over five years. I've seen it in its early stages and I've seen what it is now. What facebook has become since those courtroom hearings is simply irrelevant. The Social Network is only really representing a couple of years of the story.

The film is allowed to treat Mark Zuckerberg however it wants to treat Mark Zuckerberg. People criticize the film for the fact that it portrays Mark as completely emotionless and is completely driven to make facebook but nobody knows why. But I think it's fairly obvious, in at least the film's version of Zuckerberg's story, that Mark Zuckerberg is driven to create facebook so he can win over the girl who broke his heart. Is it the right way to go about it? NO, of course not and it's probably not the real reason. But it doesn't matter. In Sorkin's world, it all makes perfect sense. With Sorkin's version of Mark Zuckerberg, he's trying to win back a girl in the only way he knows how: through an endless array of computer codes. And through all the lawsuits, the parties, the millions of people who sign up for facebook... he never really gets out of facebook what everyone else gets out of it. Mark Zuckerberg is left friendless despite all the millions of people who have made friends through facebook.

Now is the real Mark Zuckerberg at all like the character in the movie?----NO, NO, NO. Just shut up already. First of all, Mark Zuckerberg himself has described the movie as "fun" and realizes exactly what it is. Who cares what the real Mark Zuckerberg is? Aaron Sorkin didn't even want Mark Zuckerberg's input, he had a clear idea of who he thought Mark was and he stuck with it. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure, Aaron Sorkin doesn't have the fondest feelings for the internet or social networking in general. But, The Social Network isn't an attack on facebook, it's simply about the formations and the deterioration of relationships---specifically, the ones Mark Zuckerberg has in his own life. It brilliantly portrays the irony of the mere existence of facebook: those who use it are "connecting with their friends," but who can honestly say that they're truly connected with every friend that they have on facebook. Ultimately, your friends are the ones you have in real life. No matter how many people you add on facebook, they're not really your friends. Aaron Sorkin understands this irony, especially within the character of Mark Zuckerberg, and he portrays it just right: as a tragedy.

And this is where some people are kind of missing the point with The Social Network. People can see Mark Zuckerberg in many different ways in the movie, but personally, I agree with Aaron Sorkin in that Mark Zuckerberg really isn't that awful of a person. He's not portrayed as a complete asshole or even much of an asshole at all. He's a bit of a jerk, that's true, but he's really just a guy who doesn't know much about forming and sustaining relationships that created something that's all about forming and sustaining relationships. What happened was that this creation became bigger than anything he could even imagine, bigger than his best friend could imagine, or the rowing twins. The one person who did realize how big it could become was Sean Parker and as soon as Sean Parker came into the picture, he more-or-less was the puppet master from then on. See, Aaron Sorkin really puts all the blame, albeit indirectly, on Sean Parker. See, Eduardo Saverin had it all right when he expressed his distrust with Sean Parker and Zuckerberg probably should've been more careful with Parker. But the startling reality is that Sean Parker is 100% correct on what facebook could become and, tragically, that was the only road facebook could go down in.

Did Mark Zuckerberg steal the website from the Winklevoss twins? Did he sabotage his best friend? Did he ruin most of the relationships that he initially had? That's all up in the air, honestly. That's what the hearings were all about and everyone voiced their own opinion on it. Ultimately, however, no matter how many bad things Mark Zuckerberg may have done (or not do), he's not a bad guy. The film doesn't think so, Aaron Sorkin doesn't think so, and I don't think so. He's not perfect, nobody is. And you know, sure, the film doesn't go into all the positive things Mark Zuckerberg has done. People who dwell on that though don't realize that the film doesn't need to do that. Even through all the bad things Mark did, he's still not a bad guy. That's part of what makes The Social Network such a strong film. It's why critics universally praise it. Yes, it's a dramatization, yes it doesn't portray things completely accurately, but all-in-all, it's fair to everyone involved. It's telling a story, or at least a couple versions of a story. It's not a biopic of Mark Zuckerberg nor is it solely about the creation of facebook. The film accomplishes everything that it sets out to accomplish and that's all that's needed.

Even though The Social Network pretty much gets everything right and does everything it's supposed to do, that doesn't mean it's a perfect film or the best film of the year. It's a great film, one of the best films of the year, but overall, its scope is kind of small and as well as Aaron Sorkin attempted to dramatize things, it's not especially mind-blowing nor does it have a huge emotional punch or impact. Also, even though Jesse Eisenberg's performance is completely solid and it's probably his best acting work yet, there really isn't much to the emotional core of this character. Even though his portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg feels right and he reads Aaron Sorkin's dialogue perfectly, in all honesty, there realy isn't that much to him.

Really, it's the characters of Eduardo Saverin and Sean Parker that really stick with me after having seen the film. I know people may laugh at me when I say this but Justin Timberlake's performance is picture perfect. Andrew Garfield also proves that he's a great young talent. Solid performances overall, but those two actors really shone through. And I can't state enough just how effective and brilliantly-written Sean Parker is. There is something subtly and inherently unsettling about the character of Sean Parker and I really dug the portrayal of him. Timberlake does a spot-on job and Sorkin does a great job with writing that character.

David Fincher adds a great visual flare to this film, but this is really Aaron Sorkin's film through and through. Sorkin's writing is the true star of this film and he turned what could have been a rather boring film into something quite fascinating. Honestly, this film is just conversation after conversation but the way Sorkin writes his dialogue and the way Fincher captures the dialogue, is absolutely wonderful.

One other thing I have to say about this film is that I got a kick out of how Sean Parker was explaining to Mark about how putting ads on facebook would no longer make facebook cool. Mark agrees with him. They agree that they have to make facebook look cool. I found that amusing because that's kind of how I felt about facebook when I first got it. It felt exclusive. Only my college friends could have it and it was ours. Once high school students were allowed on and then everyone... it ruined the magic of facebook. Now facebook is as cool as the Disney channel. I guess that shows you that when you create something that makes you no money, you have to rationalize why you made it in the first place. The initial rationalization is that it is "cool." But now that it's made Mark Zuckerberg billions of dollars, it no longer matters that it's cool. Sure, let's let old people play farmville on it for 20 hours per day. Let's embarrass college kids by letting their parents have facebook. Shit, there's an entire website devoted to that embarrassment. But, you can't understate just how much facebook has revolutionized the way people use the internet. What Mark Zuckerberg created is brilliant, what it has become is not so brilliant... but hey, things can't stay cool forever.

The Social Network isn't a film that represents my generation. I don't think anybody can really define this generation. People say that they should've waited longer before they made this film, but I don't think so. I think now was the perfect time. The time when facebook is at its most popular and is used by nearly everybody. This isn't a film about our generation, it's not about the future, it's about right now. It's the movie of my generation, but it's definitely the first Hollywood film that has at least attempted to understand our generation. That's a start.

p.s., I loved Trent Reznor's music on this film

Rating: 9/10