CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Film Critic Catch-All
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Film Critic Catch-All - Page 65

post #3201 of 9340

That FCH piece on Black Mirror is pretty confounding. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
 

Despite the nosedive of quality at the AV Club, i am glad for their Run The Series and A History of Violence pieces though.

 

The Run the Series articles are either hit or miss for me. Because of the breadth of writers, you get really thoughtful articles that engage with the film series on their own level, and then you get these ones where the writer just wants to be sarcastic about the number of sequels a franchise produces.

 

I'm not so down on the AVCLUB as others here are, Ignatiy Vishnevetsky and Vadim Rizov are some of the best film critics around (the less said about D'Angelo the better). I guess there TV coverage took a dive? It always felt like basic plot summary stuff to me.

 

Really, I think the main problem with the website is the cesspool of snark that is the comments section. I feel like the "upvoting" function has empowered people to try and position themselves as the clever internet-persona they've always dreamed of being, and it's drowned out any intelligent discussion. 

post #3202 of 9340
Agentsands posted a link to a piece in the Black Mirror thread that is critical of the show while admiring its craft, and you didn't have to wade through horseshit Hulk shtick to read it. Though much better written-- naturally-- the complaint boils down to the same thing: "This show makes me feel bad about the time I spend looking at my smartphone and I don't like it."

Yeah, getting reductive about it, the show is bleak and that's either your cup of tea or it ain't. Seems strange to fault the show for doing exactly what it sets out to do, though.
post #3203 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
 

Despite the nosedive of quality at the AV Club, i am glad for their Run The Series and A History of Violence pieces though.

 


AHOV is great.  Run The Series can be, but it also feels like a weak tea substitute for Franchise Me, and last week they did the 3 Ninjas series, which...why?

 

ETA:  I mean, to shamelessly pander to 90s nostalgia, but there have to be 400 better options for that even so

post #3204 of 9340
I think the criticism from both that piece and the Hulk one is that the bleakness is often really really shallow considering the fascinating ideas that some of the concepts they play with. But most people (including me) take to it because it often confirms our more misanthropically cynical views of our relation to technology and social media.

Joke-levels of bleak. But done with such slickly entertaining craft that it feels WHUPPHAAAWWWW!!!

I include myself in this. Just watched Nosedive. Fun! I love those "just one of those days it all goes to shit" narratives! Howard was so good in it!
post #3205 of 9340
Here's the annoying thing I find about "ugh, Black Mirror is so obvious, it tells you smart phones are bad" criticism (let's not even get into the fact that comparing Black Mirror to the Chronicles of Narnia is so, so dumb, because you have to literally be a child to miss that it's about Jesus): Brooker has said that his concerns are not with the technology, but our reactions to the technology. He's said that people are going to be shit or subject to their own foibles no matter what technology they use. The Oona Chaplin character in "White Christmas" would probably always have a maid or someone she treats like crap. The Toby Kebbel character in "Entire History" was probably always doomed to sabotage his relationship due to his inability to let stuff go. Jon Hamm would probably be really into talking to Neil Strauss. (This is one of the reasons why I think 15 Million Merits doesn't entirely work, ama.) You could certainly argue that something like "Be Right Back" has a narrative dependent entirely on the technology, but even then, I think Brooker, there, is playing with our concept of how we grieve in the digital age, and our ideas of a ghost story. So to say it's all about how "technology is bad" (something, again, that Brooker has said he thinks is wrong) is missing the point, big time. 
 
I ultimately think a lot of it comes from people who tend to favor optimistic stories (Hulk, Joss Whedon, various people I've seen sharing the Slate/Vulture thinkpiece on Twitter), and as such, the bleakness of a "White Bear" (which is all about how people don't change!) or a "15 Million Merits" don't appeal to them. I find it particularly odd that Hulk would have that reaction (at least, based on what y'all are saying, I can't read him) to "Entire History," since at its core, that is an awkward domestic drama about people being awful to each other - just like one of the greatest plays of the 20th century, "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf." 
 
It just seems like it's Black Mirror's time for backlash, and pointing out the "obviousness" of it is the easiest way to gin up a think-piece. Forgetting, of course, that while the Twilight Zone and Tales from the Crypt and any number of anthology shows I can name had value and were often amazing - but subtle, they were not. 
 
And that's not even getting into the fact that Joltin' Joss, the man who gave us the black widow monologue in Avengers 2 and the analogy that magic equals drugs, thinks Black Mirror is too obvious...
 
sorry i just really like black mirror

Edited by Boone Daniels - 10/28/16 at 6:33am
post #3206 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 


AHOV is great.  Run The Series can be, but it also feels like a weak tea substitute for Franchise Me, and last week they did the 3 Ninjas series, which...why?

 

ETA:  I mean, to shamelessly pander to 90s nostalgia, but there have to be 400 better options for that even so

Just want to say I agree about AHOV. I also like Mike D'Angelo's Scenic Routes column. He might be the snootiest of the snooty sometimes, but I really like his writing even when I disagree with him. His work has turned me on to a lot of work that I loved, as well as a fair amount of stuff that I hated. But isn't that what you want from someone who writes about film?

Still, those are both freelance articles which will end soon.

post #3207 of 9340
For me, it's not necessarily that BLACK MIRROR takes a look at humanity's darker side that bothers me. I can enjoy a dark tale as much as the next person. It's more that the show often comes off as though it doesn't seem to like life or people much, period.

It's the difference between Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut. Bradbury wrote some depressing, dark, and tragic stories, but you never doubted that behind everything he wrote, he had a zeal for life and a deep affection for human beings. It shows in the way Bradbury relishes his characters and scenarios, in the sheer delight he takes in his work. Vonnegut, on the other hand, is cynical and bleak to such a degree that you often wonder if he ever liked being alive.
post #3208 of 9340

I think Vonnegut - who I love as much as Bradbury - was more frustrated with the world than anything. He saw great beauty in it. He saw grace. But he also saw how few and far between those moments were, and how they were so frequently surrounded by awfulness. "Goddamnit, you've got to be kind" and all that. 

post #3209 of 9340
Maybe it doesn't like life or people much, period. There's a place for that, and it's a place easy enough to avoid if that isn't your thing. What I take issue with are criticisms that judge it against some criteria it's not trying to meet rather than if it's a good example of what it actually is.
post #3210 of 9340

Black Mirror has this aura of "smart" wafting around it, mostly because it's British and didn't have a skeleton or an ominous voice over book ending their show. Not that it is a stupid show or anything, but I think the people who talked it up set expectations too high. It's pretty good, just not perfect.

 

To keep the spirit of the thread alive, let me link to an outside article for discussion.

 

https://theringer.com/eight-takes-on-black-mirror-ba6d61d7f836#.w6b2p92ye

post #3211 of 9340
Vonnegut was a talented, intelligent writer, but I take no pleasure in his miserablism. I don't hold his bleakness against him. The man saw some shit, to put it mildly. But his novels don't even have the robustness to qualify as full-bodied tragedy. They're just numbingly, bitterly (if cleverly) bleak.

Same with BLACK MIRROR. It's not that I find what it's doing to be objectionable, per see. It's just that, more often than not, I don't think what it's doing is enough.
post #3212 of 9340

I don't think of his stuff as being particularly bleak, but then, I have a strange sense of what's bleak. 

post #3213 of 9340

I like Kurt Vonnegut.

Ha, you're right . . . this IS a terrific post.

post #3214 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

For me, it's not necessarily that BLACK MIRROR takes a look at humanity's darker side that bothers me. I can enjoy a dark tale as much as the next person. It's more that the show often comes off as though it doesn't seem to like life or people much, period.

It's the difference between Ray Bradbury and Kurt Vonnegut. Bradbury wrote some depressing, dark, and tragic stories, but you never doubted that behind everything he wrote, he had a zeal for life and a deep affection for human beings. It shows in the way Bradbury relishes his characters and scenarios, in the sheer delight he takes in his work. Vonnegut, on the other hand, is cynical and bleak to such a degree that you often wonder if he ever liked being alive.

 

Having read only a little bit of both authors, I would completely reverse that assessment. Bradbury seemed to be more fatalistic about the negatives of humanity winning in the end, whereas Vonnegut kept asking "but why the fuck can't we just do better???"

 

 

post #3215 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
Here's the annoying thing I find about "ugh, Black Mirror is so obvious, it tells you smart phones are bad" criticism (let's not even get into the fact that comparing Black Mirror to the Chronicles of Narnia is so, so dumb, because you have to literally be a child to miss that it's about Jesus): Brooker has said that his concerns are not with the technology, but our reactions to the technology. He's said that people are going to be shit or subject to their own foibles no matter what technology they use. The Oona Chaplin character in "White Christmas" would probably always have a maid or someone she treats like crap. The Toby Kebbel character in "Entire History" was probably always doomed to sabotage his relationship due to his inability to let stuff go. Jon Hamm would probably be really into talking to Neil Strauss. (This is one of the reasons why I think 15 Million Merits doesn't entirely work, ama.) You could certainly argue that something like "Be RIght Back" has a narrative dependent entirely on the technology, but even then, I think Brooker, there, is playing with our concept of how we grieve in the digital age, and our ideas of a ghost story. So to say it's all about how "technology is bad" (something, again, that Brooker has said he thinks is wrong) is missing the point, big time.

 

But on the flipside, death of the author, right?   What Brooker says about it after the fact kind of pales in the face of that many people taking a completely different message from it, doesn't it?

 

I'm not asking with any particular answer in mind.  I've only seen the the first 2 episodes, of the first British series, and they were certainly dark but clever and well produced enough that I appreciated that more than resented it.  I reserve the right to backlash against it once I get around to watching enough to get more wise to its stratagems.

post #3216 of 9340

Approaching Black Mirror the way FCH does is like watching Jaws and commenting, "yeah, but what about all the times swimming DOESN'T go wrong?" Perhaps if Black Mirror were more overtly marketed as what it is, which is a horror anthology, some types would be more willing to engage it on its own terms.

post #3217 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

But on the flipside, death of the author, right?   What Brooker says about it after the fact kind of pales in the face of that many people taking a completely different message from it, doesn't it?

 

I'm not asking with any particular answer in mind.  I've only seen the the first 2 episodes, of the first British series, and they were certainly dark but clever and well produced enough that I appreciated that more than resented it.  I reserve the right to backlash against it once I get around to watching enough to get more wise to its stratagems.

 

Yeah, death of the author and all that - but I don't entirely subscribe to that as a mode of criticism, and I think it's important, at least in (small) part to consider an author's interpretation of their work. Can that be wrong? Well, yeah. Ridley Scott is wrong about Blade Runner, for example. But I think it's definitely something to take into account.
 

That said, I think the first two episodes of Black Mirror (while I am a big fan of "National Anthem") are among the weaker in the series, with 15 Million Merits being a particular low-point. The third episode of season 1 and the first two of season 2 are probably the strongest run the show's had yet (I haven't finished S3). 

post #3218 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Having read only a little bit of both authors, I would completely reverse that assessment. Bradbury seemed to be more fatalistic about the negatives of humanity winning in the end, whereas Vonnegut kept asking "but why the fuck can't we just do better???"
What did you read by Bradbury that gave you that impression?
post #3219 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


What did you read by Bradbury that gave you that impression?

"There Will Come Soft Rains" is pretty bleak.

post #3220 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

"There Will Come Soft Rains" is pretty bleak.
Sure, but it's one short story collected in one book by an author who was incredibly prolific.
post #3221 of 9340
Bradburys "The Pedestrian"

Maybe an obvious choice, but still.
post #3222 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


Sure, but it's one short story collected in one book by an author who was incredibly prolific.

I literally don't have time to go through every single Bradbury story ever written, but I guarantee you I could find more than that one. Schwartz's reading is a plausible one. 

post #3223 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

I literally don't have time to go through every single Bradbury story ever written, but I guarantee you I could find more than that one. Schwartz's reading is a plausible one. 
As I've said, the guy wrote some depressing, bleak stories. This isn't a "Could Bradbury be dark?" question. It's a "Looking at their entire body of work, what is the impression you get?" The guy wrote as much joyful and exuberant stuff as he wrote dark and sad stuff. I'm just curious what Schwartz read to come away with that impression. (THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES, perhaps? I certainly wept after I finished that.)

Re: Bradbury, this was the important observation that I made: "but you never doubted that behind everything he wrote, he had a zeal for life and a deep affection for human beings. It shows in the way Bradbury relishes his characters and scenarios, in the sheer delight he takes in his work." This isn't about Bradbury believing that humanity "wins in the end," whatever that means. It's just about him being a compassionate, empathetic, and humane artist. His bleaker writing is better for it; when he indulges his pessimism, he produces deeply-felt literature.

Vonnegut's writing has always struck me as emotionally stunted.
post #3224 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

Vonnegut's writing has always struck me as emotionally stunted.

 

I maintain that's an incredibly surface interpretation of his work.

post #3225 of 9340
FWIW, here's Bradbury on Vonnegut:
Quote:
"If I’d found out that Norman Mailer liked me, I’d have killed myself. I think he was too hung up. I’m glad Kurt Vonnegut didn’t like me either. He had problems, terrible problems. He couldn’t see the world the way I see it. I suppose I’m too much Pollyanna, he was too much Cassandra. Actually I prefer to see myself as the Janus, the two-faced god who is half Pollyanna and half Cassandra, warning of the future and perhaps living too much in the past—a combination of both. But I don’t think I’m too overoptimistic."
post #3226 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

I maintain that's an incredibly surface interpretation of his work.
It's not an interpretation as much as it is a description of my experience reading Vonnegut.
post #3227 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


It's not an interpretation as much as it is a description of my experience reading Vonnegut.

 

If that was your experience, that's cool. I guess I just disagree, and think calling him "emotionally stunted" is unfair, particularly in his later works and in stuff like Timequake. I think he and Bradbury are both Janus-like figures, though Bradbury admittedly favors an optimism, whereas KV is more pessimistic. But there's an undercurrent of hope to both of their works.

post #3228 of 9340
I call it like I see it.

I haven't read everything by Vonnegut. My familiarity with Bradbury is much more comprehensive, simply because I enjoy him and went on to read more and more.

As far as Vonnegut goes, I've only read his "canonical" stuff.
post #3229 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

What did you read by Bradbury that gave you that impression?
"There Will Come Soft Rains" is pretty bleak.
I dunno, for us misanthropes it's actually kinda refreshing. Especially when read in the dulcet gravel tones of Leonard Nimoy!
Edited by commodorejohn - 10/28/16 at 8:09am
post #3230 of 9340
"A Touch of Petulance" -- bleak Bradbury story with a nasty punchline of an ending. One of my favorites.
post #3231 of 9340
It's not his bleakest, but reading this discussion reminded me of the Ray Bradbury short story "The Murderer". Man, what I wouldn't give to see Charlie Brooker take a break from original stories to adapt that one as a Black Mirror special.
post #3232 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple_72 View Post

It's not his bleakest, but reading this discussion reminded me of the Ray Bradbury short story "The Murderer". Man, what I wouldn't give to see Charlie Brooker take a break from original stories to adapt that one as a Black Mirror special.
It would fit right in, wouldn't it? Wouldn't take much to update it to our time or our near-future.

The trick would be casting the title character with someone with enough personality to carry it off. You'd need a charismatic, old-school TWILIGHT ZONE-style character actor. Not many of those around in today's "method acting" world.

Maybe they could get Xander Berkeley.
post #3233 of 9340
That story is more pertinent than ever. And OVER SIXTY YEARS OLD.

Bradbury was amazing.
post #3234 of 9340

I wish I had the source to cite, but one of my favorite Bradbury quotes was from some interview in which the interviewer asked some dull question about him being a science fiction writer, and hence trying to "predict the future." Bradbury said, "My God! I'm not trying to predict the future! I'm trying to prevent it!"

post #3235 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


What did you read by Bradbury that gave you that impression?

 

Fahrenheit and The Illustrated Man, are the only things since I was a kid.  I admit I may be allowing his conservative shift in later years (he went the Dennis Miller route post 9-11, right?) color my overall impression of his work.  When I heard he had come all the way around to actually endorsing censorship, that struck me as about the most cynical development possible.

 

Suck on that, Death Of The Author.

post #3236 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

I admit I may be allowing his conservative shift in later years (he went the Dennis Miller route post 9-11, right?) color my overall impression of his work.  When I heard he had come all the way around to actually endorsing censorship, that struck me as about the most cynical development possible.
I wasn't aware of any of this. I know he had a spat with Michael Moore, but Bradbury's quotes on the matter didn't seem especially political. Could someone please point me to sources? (If true, it's sad that such a clearly progressive voice faltered with age, but that trajectory is pretty common.)

I still find Bradbury's writing as profoundly humane as ever. His later writing was not as brilliant as his classic stuff, but even right to the end, it was still clever and thoughtful. Bradbury's DANDELION WINE is one of the greatest of the great American novels, and along with such essential works as FAHRENHEIT 451 and THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES, it confirms Bradbury's place as one of the great writers.
post #3237 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

Vonnegut was a talented, intelligent writer, but I take no pleasure in his miserablism. I don't hold his bleakness against him. The man saw some shit, to put it mildly. But his novels don't even have the robustness to qualify as full-bodied tragedy. They're just numbingly, bitterly (if cleverly) bleak.

 

Well put.

 

Frankly, his writing makes him seem like an all-around miserable person.  Never been able to finish a slog through any of his novels (tried on multiple occasions).  Somewhere around the one-third/one-half mark I just throw up my hands and say "I fucking get it.  Everything is hopeless and shitty."  I can see why teens love his work, though.  It taps into their own ennui and suddenly they realize they are profoundly brilliant and superior for understanding that everyone else is just a delusional spinning-wheel hamster who doesn't see how pointless life is.  

post #3238 of 9340

I wasn't knocking his work, even.  Just saying that Vonnegut's hard-won nuggets of optimism, however rare, resonate more strongly for me than my experience with Bradbury - which again, includes a lot of short stories, a format in which its easier to maintain total pessimism, which kind of wraps things back around to Black Mirror's anthology structure.  FCH is a big, gooey optimist, but the sci-fi anthology is a format tailor-made for the bleakest of tales.

post #3239 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


I wasn't aware of any of this. I know he had a spat with Michael Moore, but Bradbury's quotes on the matter didn't seem especially political. Could someone please point me to sources?

This gets into a little of it:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/301992/ray-bradbury-great-conservative-john-fund

post #3240 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malmordo View Post
 

This gets into a little of it:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/301992/ray-bradbury-great-conservative-john-fund

 

 

That sounds like Bradbury objected to Moore's use of/mis appropriation of the title of one of his best known books. The South Park guys had the same complaint. 

post #3241 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post


That sounds like Bradbury objected to Moore's use of/mis appropriation of the title of one of his best known books.
Yeah. It hardly seems as though Bradbury went full fringe conservative or anything. He voted for some conservative presidential candidates and objected to Michael Moore referencing his book and called Moore some bad names.

If you're gonna let that kind of stuff prohibit you from enjoying his literature, I don't know what to say.
post #3242 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

If you're gonna let that kind of stuff prohibit you from enjoying his literature, I don't know what to say.

 

Maybe something like, "judge the art independently from the artist," or "your distaste for him as a person when he was old and enfeebled shouldn't prevent you from reading literature many consider profound and great," or "open your mind, Quaid."  

post #3243 of 9340

This also has some relevant quotes/sources, including his support for GWB and dis-taste for Clinton. Also, that National Review article makes it pretty clear he was a Republican for much of his adult life: 

http://hollowverse.com/ray-bradbury/
 

Vonnegut, on the other hand, spent a large portion of his later years speaking out against the abuses of the Bush administration, rather than just saying "fuck it" and wallowing in despair. 

post #3244 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

I wasn't knocking his work, even.  Just saying that Vonnegut's hard-won nuggets of optimism, however rare, resonate more strongly for me than my experience with Bradbury - which again, includes a lot of short stories, a format in which its easier to maintain total pessimism, which kind of wraps things back around to Black Mirror's anthology structure.  FCH is a big, gooey optimist, but the sci-fi anthology is a format tailor-made for the bleakest of tales.
Except Bradbury's short stories are very varied. He shifts from depressing to thoughtful to whimsical to scary to joyful and back again. So it's not as though his short story collections just stick in one gear. The lows and highs balance each other.

If BLACK MIRROR was more varied in its POV on humanity and its use of technology than it is, I don't think you'd be seeing as many complaints.
post #3245 of 9340

Also, here are a bunch of quotes that make it clear Bradbury was pretty pro-Tea Party: 

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/ray-bradburys-5-best-political-rants-077120

post #3246 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

This also has some relevant quotes/sources, including his support for GWB and dis-taste for Clinton. Also, that National Review article makes it pretty clear he was a Republican for much of his adult life: 

http://hollowverse.com/ray-bradbury/

 
Vonnegut, on the other hand, spent a large portion of his later years speaking out against the abuses of the Bush administration, rather than just saying "fuck it" and wallowing in despair. 
Despite thinking he was an awful president, I don't think support for GWB or being a registered Republican some unforgivable sin.

Ultimately, I'm more concerned about the experience of the art than trying to evaluate how well the artists stack up against some political scoreboard.
post #3247 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


Despite thinking he was an awful president, I don't think support for GWB or being a registered Republican some unforgivable sin.

Ultimately, I'm more concerned about the experience of the art than trying to evaluate how well the artists stack up against some political scoreboard.

 

I think history has shown that being pro-Reagan and pro-GWB was generally a bad move, but I see your point. 

 

p.s. you're still wrong about blurk mirror. 

post #3248 of 9340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

Also, here are a bunch of quotes that make it clear Bradbury was pretty pro-Tea Party: 

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/ray-bradburys-5-best-political-rants-077120
That's a leap. Those vague quotes taken over a smattering of different years don't get into specific policies and political stances. It sounds as though I would sharply disagree with him on many things in the political realm, but I see nothing there that's worthy of getting out pitchforks.

Whatever his political views and however he voted, it's only of relevance to me insofar as it is significantly present in his art.
post #3249 of 9340
Can I just say how nice it is to talk about Bradbury and Vonnegut with you all? I know it's kind of a detour for this thread, but it's a nice break from some of the other stuff that typically dominates forum conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post

Well put.

Frankly, his writing makes him seem like an all-around miserable person.  Never been able to finish a slog through any of his novels (tried on multiple occasions).  Somewhere around the one-third/one-half mark I just throw up my hands and say "I fucking get it.  Everything is hopeless and shitty."  I can see why teens love his work, though.  It taps into their own ennui and suddenly they realize they are profoundly brilliant and superior for understanding that everyone else is just a delusional spinning-wheel hamster who doesn't see how pointless life is.  
This is a little harsher than I would be (I give Vonnegut some leeway just because his frustration and despair stems from some very real experiences of tragedy), but, yeah, that's essentially my experience with Vonnegut (and most of BLACK MIRROR).
post #3250 of 9340

If you haven't read it (and this isn't me being a hipster snob, it's one of his lesser known works), I really do recommend checking out Mother Night by KV. That's one I keep going back to, and it's paralells are eerie when compared to things happening in America today. "We must be careful what we pretend to be" and all that.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Film Critic Catch-All