Showing posts with label Patrick Stewart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patrick Stewart. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Logan (2017)



Logan (2017)

Director: James Mangold

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Dafne Keen, Richard E. Grant, Stephen Merchant

In the spirit of James Mangold’s new X-men movie: Logan (2017), let’s start this review straight to the point shall we? Logan is a swift kick to the nuts to all these comic book movies that we’ve been seeing as of late. You know the ones. The computer generated fuck-a- thons that we’ve gotten so accustomed to. The truth is that we’ve had enough of those haven’t we? Movies in which computer effects have taken over human emotion, they’ve taken away that feeling. You walk out a lot of those movies with numbness in your head. Logan is the complete opposite of that and it’s so goddamn refreshing!


Logan is the story of Wolverine in his last days, when he finds no pleasure in being alive. His “dad” is Professor Xavier, an aging empath who can’t control his powers. In comes a woman named Gabriela who wants’ the famous ‘Wolverine’ to help her find a place called ‘Eden’, a supposed heaven for mutants somewhere in North Dakota. Can Old Man Logan still do this? Will he agree to helping Gabriela and Little Laura reach ‘Eden’?


I honestly thought people were exaggerating about how good Logan was, because recent films that people have raved about have disappointed the hell out of me.  John Wick Chapter 2 (2017) I’m looking at you kid. So I went to see Logan with some trepidation, yet the first ten minutes of this film quickly put me in my place! It wasn’t long before I was saying things like “What. The. Fuck.” Should I put things in perspective? The films first words are “Aw fuck!”. On this film, Logan is a limo driver trying to forget his past with the X-men, he’s trying to live the life of a regular Joe. Basically, he just wants to be left alone to die in peace. Mutants are going extinct and Professor Xavier is a senile old man who doesn’t know where he stands. Holy bajeezus! What the hell is going on here? I wasn’t ready to see Wolverine and Prof. Xavier in such dire straits! It is this level of gravitas that makes this film stand apart, it’s not afraid to mess with the status quo, in fact, it throws the whole X-men universe out the window! Fuck that shit! Awwww I love it!


The great thing about this film is that it is a cliché breaker; it takes everything you expect from a Wolverine movie and turns it upside down. This is why it works so well, on this movie nothing is sacred and anything can happen. So you feel unsafe, you don’t feel like you can predict the film every step of the way, like you’d be able to predict a film like Kong Skull Island (2017) for example. I mention Kong Skull Island because I actually did a double feature of Logan/Kong and went from the ultimate anti-cliché movie (Logan) to a cliché by the numbers movie (Kong). So trust me, Logan is like a bucket of cold water being thrown down your back. It’s the ice bucket challenge, but for X-men fans!  


Why does this movie work so well? Various factors play an important factor in this. First, moviegoers in general are tired of computer generated special effects, specially the kind that take over an entire film. You know how it is. Suddenly, nothing that is happening on screen is real; it was all created on a computer. This can go on for minutes and minutes on end. I mean, suddenly it’s been ten minutes and not a single actor, not a single set, not a single real location has been seen on screen and then you have to wonder, am I watching a live action film or an animated one? Wolverine keeps its visual effects to a minimum. This is not to say that it doesn’t have them, but it keeps them to a minimum, to enhance a moment. And even then, they don’t take over. They are simply used to enhance an illusion. Beautiful. It’s the way effects should be used. Second. This is a strong screenplay. Why? Well, because its not about saving the universe from another whole that’s opening up in the middle of New York City (again), rather, it’s a very personal story about Logan and Proffessor Xavier dealing with getting old and coming to the last stage, coming to terms with the end of their lives.


The third and final point is that the cast Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart and newcomer Dafne Keen out do themselves performance wise! They all bring their ‘A’ game here. I’ve heard some people talk about giving Patrick Stewart a nomination or something. That might be stretching it a little? It probably has to do with how different this take on Professor Xavier is. It’s great to see Logan playing the father figure to X-23, the scenes with both of them together, road tripping? Sweet.  One little thing though, I did feel that Logan turns suddenly into Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome (1984). Was director James Mangold paying tribute to that film? The reason I mention this is because the similarities are staggering. So that’s it ladies and gents. What we got here is a fantastic film that shakes the very foundations of the X-men universe. Wolverine fans should be pleased. Question is, who’s gonna be playing Wolverine next? Whoever he is, he’s got big shoes to fill.


Rating: 5 out of 5

  

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)


Title:  X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Director: Bryan Singer

Cast: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dingklage, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Famke Janssen, James Mardsen, Kelsey Grammer

So this is to be the end all be all of all X-Men movies, reuniting characters seen in all previous X-Men films, from the first trilogy, to X-Men: First Class. The story this time is based on the famous Chris Claremont/John Byrne storyline that ran through The Uncanny X-Men #141 and 142. Many comic book fans consider this storyline one of the greatest Marvel Comics ever made. I mean, it’s easy to understand why. A lot of important characters die, the whole idea that mutants are being wiped out like flies is a scary one, drawing parallels with fascism. It’s a story that touches upon many important themes. Racism, bigotry, xenophobia, you get the drill. So anyhow, here comes the film based on the famous tale; did it do it justice?

One of the greatest Marvel Comics ever made; The Uncanny X-Men #141!
                             
For those who haven’t read the story, Days of Future Past starts out in a dark distant future where giant dna-copying robots known as Sentinels go around hunting mutants and eradicating them from the earth, like cockroaches. The idea being that mutants aren’t so special anymore because these Sentinels can copy their dna, and as a result their powers. But wait! The X-Men have figured out a way to send Wolverine back in time to stop the anti-mutant hysteria that started way back in 1973, when the Sentinels where first created. Can Wolverine convince a younger Prof. Xavier to help him stop the events which lead up to the creation of the Sentinels?


Bryan Singer returns to the franchise he helped build with X-Men (2000) and X2 (2003). In a way, Singer has returned to fix the huge mess left by Brett Ratner with X-Men: The Last Stand (2006); a film that changed X-Men cannon by killing off important characters as if they didn’t matter. I can almost hear Ratner saying “Kill Prof. Xavier? Sure! Let the next guy deal with it, meanwhile I’ll have a movie that everyone will talk about because important characters die!” That next guy ended up being Bryan Singer, picking up the pieces, trying to make things make sense again, trying to make order out of chaos. So it’s no surprise that Days of Future Past has a couple of surprises in store for X fans! In many ways, it’s great to have Singer back in the helm. I mean, so far, he’s the director that has handled these films the best, so it’s kind of comforting to know the material will be treated with some dignity and respect.


In Days of Future Past there are so many characters appearing on screen at the same time, that unless you’re a diehard X-men fan, you probably won’t know who the hell is who at times. Who’s that guy with fire coming out of his chest? Or that mutant opening portals? I don’t know, but it sure is cool! That’s one of the things I’ve always enjoyed about the X-Men comics, the multitude of characters, each with their own amusing ability. Having this whole mess of mutants running around using their powers and kicking the hell out of each other is fun times in my book. On this particular X-Men flick we get to meet many mutants we hadn’t seen before, like Quicksilver, whom you might have gotten a glimpse of during the final moments of Thor: The Dark World (2013). And by the way, speaking of Quicksilver, he was the one character everyone was all worried about. “He looks funny, he doesn’t look right” Whatever! He’s the guy who steals the movie! Quicksilver only appears for a short period of time, but damn, Quicksilver’s moment to shine is so cool that I don’t think the film every reached that level of awesomeness again. The film reached its peak somewhere around the middle of the film and it was all thanks to Quicksilver.


For all you comic book purists out there, well, you know they tweaked things around a bit. I guess the most notable change to the story is that Kitty Pride is not the one who goes back in time, it’s Wolverine. Every book to film translation suffers from changes for the sake of being more cinematic or exciting, so its understandable why they chose to make Wolverine the main character instead of Kitty Pride (like in the comics) or Bishop (like in the cartoons); considering Wolverine is the most popular X-Man ever, it kind of makes sense. In a sea of characters, some are bound to get lost in the shuffle and the one that got the least amount of attention in my book was Storm who is in the film for about 5 minutes total…or maybe less. Other characters only cameo and others you’ll see in some outstanding action sequence, and never see them again. But this is the nature of the beast. X-Men has always been a comic propelled by the idea that this is a group of super heroes and with so many characters in its roster, it stands to reason that the spotlight will shine on a different one with each story. In a future movie, who knows, maybe it won’t revolve around Wolverine so much. I mean, there are so many other characters to focus on. Still, with such a huge cast, I have to give Bryan Singer some props for not letting this turn into a total cluster fuck of a film.


At the end of the day, this film is a spectacle, a huge comic book movie with top notch special effects work, tons of action and many mutants to keep you entertained. Is it the best X-Men film ever made? I don't know, I guess time will tell on that one, but I will say that it's a very satasfying film. My only complaint would be that I wish they’d showed us more of the dark future world where the film starts out in. That part of the story is supposed to be very post apocalyptic, but alas we only get a glimpse of it. Aside, from that, I’m a happy geek boy with this movie. Of course the story brought to mind many time travel films, but the first I drew comparisons to was The Terminator (1984), because of the whole idea of going back in time to stop something from happening. By now everybody expects an extra ending at the end of all of these superhero movies. Disney has been doing this “extra ending” thing for a while now with great success. It’s a great thing in my book because it keeps the spirit of comic books alive. Comics have always been about the “to be continued” at the end of the comic, the cliffhanger to make you come back for next issue, or in this case, the next film. So yeah, now 20th Century Fox is copying this technique in their Marvel movies, and it makes all the sense in the world to me. Trust me, stay after the credits! Then go on the internet and find out who the hell Apocalypse is. Looking forward to X-Men: Apocalypse come 2016!

Rating: 4 out of 5


Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Dune (1984)


Title: Dune (1984)

Director: David Lynch

Cast: Kyle MacLachlan, Sean Young, Max Von Sydow, Dean Stockwell, Sting, Patrick Stewart, Jurgen Prochnow, Jack Nance, Virginia Madsen, Richard Jordan, Jose Ferrer, Brad Dourif

David Lynch’s Dune is a film that is hated by many but loved by another many, it’s a film that divides people, a love it or hate it type of thing, though if you ask me, there’s very little to hate about Lynch’s Dune. I’ve loved this movie ever since I was a kid, I didn’t fully “get it” back then, but there was something I liked about it anyways, my young mind recognized it as a special film. Dune is a film that I have revisited many times over in my life; it’s become one of those films that I will always love. Many years after I first discovered it, I read the book and appreciated the film on a whole other level. Considering the complexity of the book, I applaud Lynch for taking this gargantuan story and transferring it to the big screen because it was never going to be an easy job, the story that Frank Herbert weaved is epic, always has been, yet Lynch took it upon himself to film the thing, he even wrote the script himself! Many directors tried and failed for whatever the reason (Jodorowski and Ridley Scott being two of the filmmakers that didn’t end up directing) yet Lynch stuck to his guns and took the project head on. He even rejected an offer to direct Return of the Jedi (1983) in order to make Dune! Can you imagine what Return of the Jedi might have been like had Lynch directed it? Yeah, I know, the idea of Lynch playing with the Star Wars universe boggles the mind, yet I’m happy he ended up directing Dune instead because in many ways, Lynch was the perfect director for this project, especially when it comes to the more mystical aspects of the story, the telepathic abilities, Lynch had the perfect sensibilities for the more “weird” aspects of the Dune saga.


Herbert’s classic science fiction tale of politics, witches, religion and rebellion is one of those science fiction novels that any self respecting science fiction fan should tackle at some point in their lives. It really is one of the best designed fictional worlds; Herbert really constructed a fascinating, complex universe you can easily lose yourself in, a world filled with mysticism and inner dialog, of prophecies, false gods and abusive governments. The story of Dune is an all encompassing tale that covers many important aspects of our society, as you can expect, like all good science fiction, our way of life is mirrored in the story. For example, one of the main themes of the book revolves around religious fanatism, because after all, the story of Dune is one about a messiah coming to free his people, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg in this fantastic tale of liberation. You see, Dune is one of those books that is so complex that Herbert created a unique lexicon just for these books. So if you ever decide to read it, just remember your going to be introduced to a whole glossary of words unique to the Dune books, in fact, just in case you get lost, the book actually includes a glossary of Dune words! Words like “Kwisatz Haderach”, “Benne Gesserit Witches” and last but not least, the “Spice Melange”, but same as reading Anthony Burgesses’s A Clockwork Orange which also created its own lexicon, all the new words will end up making perfect sense to you by the time you finish reading the book.  So I highly recommend checking this novel out to all sci-fi fans out there. As with any book to film adaptation, the question remains, was the film a good adaptation of the book?


I’d say that yes, it in deed was a good adaptation of the book. In its essence, the film tells the story of the liberation of the Fremen and the rise of Paul Moadib as ruler of the known universe. And this is coming from me, a huge fan of Frank Herbert’s Dune books! I’ve read almost all of them (still need to read the last one Chapterhouse: Dune) so I can say that yeah, Lynch’s adaptation was faithful for the most part. The only area in which he ended up changing things just a bit was in the last five minutes of film, but the rest of the film is pretty much the book. Of course, quite a few things were left out of the book in order to deliver a two hour movie. Speaking of which, the only real problem for me with the film is that if you’ve read the books, you’ll feel as if you’re seeing the story in fast forward. Truth be told, this book has enough story going for it to make two movies, but what Lynch did with the script and what the producers did when they edited the film themselves was compress the whole story into one movie; a pretty daunting task if you ask me. At the end of the day, the film kept the spirit of the book; even Frank Herbert himself complimented Lynch on the film. Herbert mentioned that he was mostly happy with the film, except for the ending which is where Lynch turned things around towards the more theatrical. You see, in the book, Paul Atreides is a man playing to be a god, without in fact being one; he recognizes the power that being a god to the masses represents, so he uses that to the peoples advantage. But the way the film ends, it makes him look like he is actually a god with powers like making it rain on planet Arrakis. This is why Herbert himself said that while he liked the film, he says that Lynch got the ending wrong. “I have my quibbles about the film, of course. Paul was a man playing a god, not a god who could make it rain” So this is really the only real difference between the books and the film. Though the ending of the film has an impact, and makes Paul Atreides a more powerful character, the problem with it is that Lynch’s ending changes the whole character around going against the actual message that Herbert was trying to put across with his book, that religion is a powerful farce used to control the masses.


In retrospective, considering how much of the story Lynch actually shot, they should have taken the opportunity to film two movies back to back. Lynch filmed enough of the story to make a four hour long movie! That’s right my friends, Lynch’s original cut of Dune was four hours long! So they might as well have split the thing in two and released it as two movies, kind of like what Tarantino did with his Kill Bill movies. But no, instead the producers decided to take the film away from Lynch and edit it down to two hours and seventeen minutes, which is one of the reasons why Lynch disowns this movie. It’s the one he considers a ‘failure’ in his career. In my opinion the resulting film is not a bad one and very far from being a failure. Lynch had shot too much good stuff for it to be bad; the result was going to be good no matter what. But obviously, had Lynch had final cut of the film, it would have been better. This is the main reason why Lynch has always denied participation in any of the dvd releases of the film. I’m wondering if maybe one day we’ll get a director’s cut of the film; which simply put, would be awesome! But considering how Lynch refuses to even talk about this film, well, I’m guessing we’ll never see that happen. As of my typing this review, there are three versions of the film, each varying in length. There’s the theatrical cut, the extended cut you get to see on television and then there’s the special edition version. The most complete one is the special edition version because it includes many scenes that were deleted from the original theatrical cut, which is a nifty extra for any Dune fan. But out of all the versions, I still prefer the original theatrical version best, it’s the one I have always known and loved. But true Dune fans will get a kick out of seeing all those scenes that were left out of the original theatrical cut.  


Lynch considers it painful to even talk about Dune! I can understand why, here’s a movie that took three years of Lynch’s life to make! This was a huge, huge production. Funny how gargantuan productions like this one often times end up in failure! To have so much of your life invested in a film that would ultimately end up not being truly yours can be a huge let down for any director, but such is the nature of big budget productions; it’s the producers or the studio who have the final say, they put up all the millions so that should not suprise anyone. Speaking of which this here movie cost something around the vicinity of 40 million dollars, yet strangely enough, it looks more expensive than some of today’s 200 million dollar movies. The art direction is truly impressive on this film! Dune was made in a time when sets were completely built, not half way digitized like most of today’s films. The film required a crew of 1700 people! 80 sets were built in 16 sound stages! I mean this movie was huge in every way you look at it; and what about that cast? So many amazing actors! And here’s this big budget movie being made by a director used to working on small budgets. The film proved to be too big for Lynch who obviously works better with smaller, more personal material. Still, if you ask me, I think the film we ended up getting is a great slice of science fiction.


Speaking of the different adaptations of Dune, there was a mini-series from director John Harrison which was actually extremely faithful to the books. From a fans point of view, John Harrisons take on Dune was an extremely complete adaptation, he even went further than Lynch’s films and adapted both Dune Messiah (the second book in the series) and Children of Dune (the third book in the series) by making a second mini-series entitled Children of Dune (2003), which by the way was also pretty good. These television mini-series, though faithful, lack the lavish production values of Lynch’s film, which is one of the things I love the most about Lynch’s Dune: how big budget it is! Speaking of the cinematic future of the Dune series, director Peter Berg (Hancock, The Kingdom) attempted a remake a while back and was actively involved in it for more than two years, but stepped down in order to direct Battleship (2012). I know that doesn’t make much sense but that’s what happened! My take on it is that Berg was probably trying to make a commercial film that would make tons of money so that he could then go on and make Dune, unfortunately, Battleship was a huge ass loud flop! So those plans went down the drain. As I type this Pierre Morel, the director behind Taken (2008) and District B-13 (2004) was the last director attached to the project, but so far nothing has come of it, here’s hoping it happens, I’d love to see the Dune universe resurrected for a new generation.


Rating: 5 out of 5

    FOR A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALL THE TIMES DUNE WENT IN AND OUT OF PRODUCTION, AND ALL OF THE DIRECTORS AND PRODUCERS THAT FAILED TO MAKE THIS FILM ADAPTATION BEFORE LYNCH GOT A HOLD OF IT, VISIT RADIOATOR HEAVEN WHERE MY BUDDY J.D. LAFRANCE GIVES A DETAILED REPORT ON THE WHOLE STORY IN AN ARTICLE ENTITLED: DUNE: IT'S NAME IS A KILLING WORD.

Keep your eyes peeled for David Lynch's cameo as one of the Spice Miners! 

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Excalibur (1981)


Title: Excalibur (1981)

Director: John Boorman

Cast: Nicol Williamson, Nigel Terry, Nicholas Clay, Helen Mirren, Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart

Review:

I’ve always found the legend of King Aurthur and the Knights of the Round Table interesting because it  is a layered story that branches out into many themes. It covers many aspects of the human condition and augments how selfish we can be, how imperfect we truly are and how uncontrollable human emotions can be. This is exemplified in the story by the raging passions that permeate throughout every generation portrayed in the film. From father to son, to grandson, wild passions overtake logic and reason, leading most of the time to tragedy. It is a story that urges us to control our passions and listen to reason, because often times uncontrolled passions can destroy entire lives. This is demonstrated through the character of Lancelot, one of King Arthur’s most trusted knights. Lancelot falls in love with King Aurthur’s wife, Lady Guenevere. In this story, Lancelot cares not for the catastrophic results of his secret love affair, he only cares for satisfying his passions and lust. Every time someone falls in love in Excalibur, the results are catastrophic. In many ways, love, lust and passion are demonized in this story, which of course demonstrates how this story is meant to propagate Christian ideals and mentalities, which of course rubs me the wrong way. I’ve always hated how the bible demonizes sexuality; at the end of the day sexuality is one of humanities strongest and most natural traits. But what the hell, I still love this story, I always root for Merlin the Magician who always comes off as the wisest of the bunch. He tells one of the passionate lovers “You are not listening. Well, your heart is not. Love is deaf as well as blind” Funny how it is Merlin, a follower of the old ways, a magician, who ends up being the wisest character in the film.


This battle between the old religions and Christianity is at the crux of Excalibur. This is a story of the battle between pagan religions, which are centered around magic and old gods, and the new ways of Christianity which are centered around the teachings of the bible. It’s true, this story can be seen as Christian propaganda in some ways, yet, I find it fascinating how it has always demonstrated that Christianity wasn’t always there, it had to shoehorn its way into society. Once upon a time things weren’t about Jesus and going to heaven, a whole other slew of beliefs comforted people. Fascinating how humanity has always needed that psychological support in life, something to make us think we are not all alone in this universe. It’s the idea that something is watching over them that humanity has always found themselves lulled into. At one point in the story, when Arthur’s kingdom is in shambles and going through a particularly rough time, the solution is to go and find “the holy grail” the cup that Christ drank from during the last supper. Supposedly, this cup will bring peace and happiness to the kingdom. But of course, we all know what this cup really exemplifies: the idea that society needs religion and its established morals to function properly.  The idea being that without Christianities values and ideals, we are lost. I of course don’t agree with this side of the story because as the story demonstrates, no matter how much you have Christ in your lives, human passions are always stronger, the human side dominates. Mistakes are made, but these are mistakes we can learn from. And call me old fashion, but I like to believe we are better then that, I like to believe humanity is essentially good at heart, with the exception of a few rotten apples. But, I also recognize that no matter how idealistically we look at humanity, there’s always the ideal of what we want to be, and then there’s what we are. A continually learning, evolving race of beings.


This is also a story that deals with politics and power, and the importance of learning to hone that power properly, not abuse it.  The sword, Excalibur, represents power that when used wisely is meant to “unite all men”. I thought it was so interesting how in this film, John Boorman’s Excalibur, King Arthur actually breaks the sword in half because of his uncontrollable rage, his abuse of power. Merlin tells him “You have broken what could not be broken. Now hope is broken” showing once again what happens to people when they see their leaders abuse power; a feeling of hopelessness takes over the land. This is also exemplified in the story with King Uther, who was also obsessed with owning the sword of power. At one point Uther tells Merlin “The sword, you promised the sword! I need the sword to be king!”  and Merlin tells him “And you shall have it, but to heal, not to hack” letting us know that the true nature of power is to bring peace to its people, not to obliterate them or abuse them which is what often times happens with those in power, they end up using it against those they are supposed to protect and serve.


The story of Arthur and his knights has been told many times, each version focusing on whatever part of the story they want to focus on, some focus more on the magical side of things while others focus more on the romance between Guenevere and Lancelot, for example Jerry Zucker’s First Knight (1995) is like that. It stars Richard Gere as Lancelot and Sean Connery as King Arthur and it was more of a romantic story of how the passion between Lancelot and Guenevere destroys a kingdom. One of my personal favorite versions of this story has always been Merlin (1998). On this television mini-series Sam Neil plays Merlin the Magician and Miranda Richardson plays The Lady of the Lake and an extremely memorable Queen Mab. In this mini-series directed by Steve Barron, the story is told from the perspective of Merlin himself; we actually get to know the magicians origins. This time around, it’s his story and since it’s a mini-series, the filmmakers really elaborated on the tale and even expanded it. Merlin is an extremely fun film with great visual effects and amazing performances from an equally great cast, highly recommend you check that mini-series out.  John Boorman’s Excalibur is one of the best versions of the story as well, it’s an epic and lush production, hell, it even gets a bit surreal with its dream sequences and visions. But knowing Boorman, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, this is the director who gave us Zardoz (1974), one of the trippiest movies ever made. On this version of the story Boorman chose to diminish the focus on the magical aspects. If there is magic, it is a subtle thing and handled through the use of practical effects, which is a breath of fresh air in this CGI dominated world. A lot of the magical aspects were handled through the use of imaginative lighting and old school effects, it was a smoke and mirrors type of production.  


I have to give props to John Boorman for the look of the film, an aspect of it that got many accolades from critics when it was first released. Excalibur also gave Liam Neeson his first shot at acting in a full length feature film. Patrick Stewart also plays one of Arthur’s knights. And speaking of the knights, they all wear these shiny armors that give them a god like feel which by the way, is one of the other themes that the film also touches upon, man thinking themselves gods end up needing Christ because they couldn’t handle the power of godhood. As you can see, this is a story and a film that touches upon many relevant themes dealing with the human condition, but above all it augments the ugly side of human nature, our worst qualities, it does this to hopefully stimulate us into being better human beings.

Rating:  5 out of 5  




LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails