Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

[Dirty Schwein]

Mortal Instruments

Watched this with the missus and bloody hell it makes Twilight seem like a masterpiece. This is the first time I fell asleep watching a film in the cinema. Even my girlfriend hated it with a passion, and she loves Harry Potter and other fantasy films. It was all over the place, the acting was poor, the lead character needed a slap and the story thought it is too clever for its own good. Only good points are Lena Headey (how the hell they persuaded her to be in this is baffling) and the transformation of a dog into a demon which looked like the Licker from the Resident Evil Games 1.5/10

Elysium

Really enjoyed this. Probably the best blockbuster this year so far. Was very underwhelmed by the likes of Man Of Steel and Pacific Rim but this definitely lived up to expectations. The acting was good (bar Jodie Foster, who I normally like), the story was decent and the action and graphics were superb. The first half of the film was better than the second half though, it seemed to lose a little bit of pace as the film wore on 8/10

Kairo

Watched this with huge expectation as people have branded it as one of the scariest films to come out of J-Horror but sadly this was not the case. It was eerie but definitely not scary in the slightest. Tries to tackle issues of class separation and social communication failures in Japan but the story seemed very disjointed and the ending did not fit the rest of the film. It over-ran by a good 30 minutes as well. Hoped for big things here and was left disappointed 4/10

 

[R.N7]

Yeah, you disliked it from what I can recall. I've still yet to see Ashes of Time redux, it's been gathering dust for years...

Watch it, watch it!

 

[Scrumpet]

We're the Millers - Exceeded my low expectations. A fair few laughs. 6.5/10

 

[Wibble]

Yeah, you disliked it from what I can recall. I've still yet to see Ashes of Time redux, it's been gathering dust for years...

I checked it out and remembered nothing about it at all. I'll try again if I can find a copy with hard subs.

 

[Giggsy PO]

Unsere Mütter, Unsere Väter 9/10 (2013)

The story of 5 German friends during the WW2. There are a lot movies (good or bad) about this topic. However this one is unique in the sense that it shows the German point of view made by the Germans. The transformation of the characters from the beginning to end of war is perfect. The movie, all three parts are not black and white, they show how confusing and burdensome that time was. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Nialler]

We're the Millers - Exceeded my low expectations. A fair few laughs. 6.5/10

Watched it the other night, nothing to write home about but agree with your assertion, a few really good one-liners and put downs which reminded me of the humour in Bad Santa but not as good/funny as Bad Santa. Would give it 5.5/10

 

[Nobby style]

No One Knows About Persian Cats - Bahman Ghobadi (2009)

Iranian docudrama that follows 2 musicians in Tehran searching the underground indie music scene of Tehran for some backing musicians to take to the West. The movie is made basically to highlight this underground music indie scene in Tehran where real groups are featured who must take massive risks to make their music, and I believe the filmmaker also took risks filming them. Fantastic music featured with its Persian flavored Indie rock, which I believe could rival most indie scenes of American and European cities. Who would've thunk it? Great, sad storyline as well.

Once again, a real risk taking Iranian low budget film made with natural actors that is infinitely more interesting than 95% of the cinematic pap coming out of the West. Don't know where the title of Persian Cats came from, except one scene where the two protagonists are interviewing another band of musicians and a cat is meowing heavily during the whole scene, which funnily enough, was driving my cat at home insane.

9 cocks up

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

http://filmfixx.com/today-in-film-history-rope/

On the 28th of August 1948 Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope was released in theatres. It was his first film to be made in colour and his first collaboration with James Stewart. It was later dismissed by Hitchcock as a failed experiment and Stewart said it was his least favourite of his collaborations with the great British director. They shouldn’t have been so harsh. Innovative, engaging and well-acted, Rope deserves to be more highly lauded as being up there with the finest of Hitchcock’s work and the two should be proud that it still holds up over 60 years later. If, you know, they weren’t both dead…


Rope was an adaptation of a play by Patrick Hamilton, itself based on the real-life murderers Leopold and Loeb, two young men motivated by the desire to commit the perfect crime. The plot sees Philip and Brandon, two Manhattan elite friends who murder a third acquaintance of theirs, stuff him in a chest and invite people over to a dinner party, complete with food served on top of the box with the body inside, and see if they can get away with it. Brandon is the smug manipulator who wants to show off how clever he is, Philip is a nervous wreck who gradually falls apart. James Stewart plays Rupert Candall, their former prep-school housemaster. Rupert’s ideas were the inspiration for the two men to commit murder in the first place, but he is also the one who may unravel everything for them.

The film is remembered today mostly for the camera techniques used. It uses very long takes, pushing both the camera technology and set design of the time to its limit in order for the entire film to appear as one continuous shot, in real time. Through elaborate use of lighting and fibreglass, they even have a sun that sets and clouds moving in the background, despite the entire thing being filmed on a sound stage. Although there are a few sneaky cuts here and there, the effect still pays off. Hitchcock always enjoyed the idea of the audience as voyeurs and by having us follow the actors around the confined set (like the stage of a play, with barely a few rooms), taking in private conversations; it almost feels like the viewers are in on the act. Not all people notice cuts but their minds have been trained by films and television to expect them, therefore a long take captures our notice, making us expect something important to happen at any moment. A thriller steeped in dramatic irony is the perfect avenue for Hitchcock’s experiment, holding the audience’s attention right to the very end.

Stewart’s dislike of the film was not down to its actual content but more because of his performance in it, he felt that he was miscast. Although he usually played goody-two-shoes characters, he gives a strong performance here as the dry, sarcastic dinner guest. When he starts giving his views on murder, other characters aren’t sure if he’s kidding and he really presents that tone that makes you unsure if someone is joking or not. When he starts to suspect something is amiss, he has the alluring presence that makes you want him to figure it out. The two leads Philip and Brandon (played by Farley Granger and John Dall respectively) give strong performances also, with clearly defined characteristics. The subtle implications of a relationship between the two really come out (so to speak) in their performances and add another layer of depth to the film, no doubt helped by the actors’ real life sexuality (Dall was gay and Granger bisexual).

I would describe Rope as fun. It’s like a murder mystery tour only with better acting and you don’t have to be drunk to enjoy it. Film buffs will admire the craft involved in its creation, but anyone can be drawn in by the simple but effective thriller storytelling. Ignore what Hitchcock himself said, what would he know, Rope is no failed experiment and is definitely worthy of your time.

Why can't I get paid for this, instead of my actual, shitty job?

 

[Scrumpet]

Quit your job and pretend the dole office is the internet money collection point.

 

[Minkaro]

We're the Millers - Exceeded my low expectations. A fair few laughs. 6.5/10

Pretty much it, really. I'd point out Nick Offerman as being a highlight. Nice to see that they didn't use up all the best jokes in the trailers (and a lot of the trailer jokes actually had more to them in the film).

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

Quit your job and pretend the dole office is the internet money collection point.

I'll take that over "...don't quit your day job!!"

 

[mehro]

So anyone seen kar wai's new one yet?

I'm trying to think of the last new film I saw.

Probably, the Act of Killing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375605/

Saw it at a series at the Museum of Modern Art here a few months back. Really good documentary. Backed by Herzog and Errol Morris. There was a decent Q&A with the director after the screening although I don't remember the specific questions now.

In case anyone is interested in the movie I mentioned above - Act of Killing - you can read more here. http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_onfilm/0010.html

 

[Decotron]

Pain or Gain- absolute nonsense but very enjoyable. Perfect movie for a hangover. 7/10.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

In case anyone is interested in the movie I mentioned above - Act of Killing - you can read more here. http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_onfilm/0010.html

I've had it down to watch for a while now. Funnily enough I watched about half of it tonight.

Fairly heavy going as expected.

 

[R.N7]

Cabin Boy - Had some bafflingly bizarre moments that made lol.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Aaaah finally seen The Conjuring!

Given my love for the horror genre, and more specifically for haunted house movies, I'd been waiting for this one for quite some time now. Though I'm not a fan of all of James Wan's stuff, his previous film, Insidious, had been great fun to watch at the pictures with some great scares, despite the second part of the film being a bit of a letdown.

The Conjuring came along with a lot of talk and building up, I remember watching the first teaser trailer for it back in January. That's a good thing, in a way, cos it builds up your anticipation and how much you're looking forward to it, but also a bad thing because your expectations can sometimes be too high and then you're just left disappointed. What was it for this one then?

The film begins with Ed and Lorraine Warren, a couple of demonologists, giving a lecture in a University about one of the cases they worked on that included an evil looking doll. It's a nice way to begin the film with a classic of the genre (scary looking puppet) that was also, I guess, a little wink at the audience for those who had seen Dead Silence (not an amazing film by the way). More importantly, it showed the Warren's in action, their pragmatic and no chenanigans approach, and set a few important principles about possession and the existence of demons and inhuman presences. The film is very coherent in that regard, which is nice.

We then get to meet the Perron family who have just arrived in their new house in Harrisville, Rhode Island, a house they know nothing about as they bought from a bank auction. Of course, this isn't a romcom and you know what happens next: paranormal activities occur more and more often, affecting the parents and 5 children of the Perron family. Scared shitless, they decide to contact the Warrens who are possibly the only people that can help them.

Branded 'the most terrifying film of all time', The Conjuring is a really good film. It's not just an enjoyable genre film (it is that as well), it's an all rounded success. James Wan first came to the front stage with Saw and could be associated with the torture porn sous-genre, but it seems obvious after Dead Silence, Insidious and now The Conjuring that he's much happier making ghost films; in any case, he's very good at it, and more importantly, getting better. Where his previous effort came up a bit short in the final act, this one is consistently good and scary. He's excellent at building up tension, and creating an atmosphere of anguish and terror. That was already the case in Insidious, where the first part of the film was incredibly enjoyable and a real throwback to the best examples of the genre, and it's also the case here. You have to admit it: James Wan doesn't reinvent anything, he just takes a formula that has existed for, what, probably 40 years, and makes it work perfectly.

And to be honest, you don't need to reinvent anything because it works. It works because the sentiment of fear is truly there, thanks to some beautiful cinematography, some really good shooting (he uses some camera movements that are quite original for the genre, but that work really well), great music and stellar performances. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are the standouts as the Warren couple, they make them very believable with understated performances that give you a sense of history about the couple and what they've been through (aided by a few flashbacks). They do a great job at bringing the Warren couple to life on screen, and you really hope there's going to be a sequel because it's a duo that works. You also have to say the rest of the cast, both the Perron parents and their 5 daughters, are very good in the roles of the oppressed family and manage right from the start to give off an air of unity about them, you can sense they're a family, which just makes their plight further on in the film easier to relate to (and therefore you feel sorry for them). If we're being picky, we could probably regret the rather hammy performance (at first) of the detective there to help them, in the obligatory role of the sceptic, in a sort of Seth Rogen parody, but he grows into the role as the film goes on and is ultimately fine, I feel. And in any case, he's just a secondary role so it's no big deal.

So, scariest film of all time? Probably not, but then again, anytime a horror film that is actually well done and scary, it's immediately called 'most terrifying film of all time', so there's no surprise there. But that doesn't really matter. It is genuinely scary but more importantly it's a really enjoyable film, notwithstanding genre discussions, that hits all the right buttons and manages to keep you gripped all through its duration. For me, it's an instant classic of haunted house movies, one that will age well and become a fan favorite. So, all in all, mission accomplished James Wan!

 

[Annihilate Now!]

That's a bold statement RIP...

I too mostly enjoyed The Conjuring for what it was... provided some cheap scares and some fairly creepy moments, even if it was incredibly formulaic and not all that original.


Lone Ranger - This film is nowhere near as bad as everyone saying it is - not even close... in fact, it's probably the most fun I've had at the cinema all summer. It's not amazing or anything true, but it's a summer blockbuster that actually remembers it is a summer blockbuster, and that's something to appreciate. It's got a fair few of problems - namely the length and some slightly jarring tonal shifts, but all in all I had a good time with it. The comedy generally works, the action is well done (particularly the two big book-end set peices, which are fantastic) and the plot, whilst probably a bit convoluted, works in within the setting and with the themes the film is going for.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

Glad you enjoyed it RIP, I knew you would. It's very consistent and keeps to the classic conventions of horror filmmaking. You will be happy to hear that they have already talked about making The Conjuring 2, and it might be based around The Enfield Poltergeist. I saw a reconstruction of this haunting on Strange But True...? on television years ago and remember being scared for weeks afterwards. Don't search it up on YouTube though as it looks really hammy watching it now that I'm older. It could make a great film though... looking forward to Wan's new one... Insidious 2? Then he gets his big budget break with Fast and Furious 7!

On another note, I don't know if you have seen The ABC's of Death. It's a collection of 26 short horror films (most pretty bad) corresponding to each letter of the alphabet and directed by famous and semi-famous horror directors. They are now making a sequel and there is a space for a 26th director for the letter M. They are asking people to make and enter a 3 minute short horror film and the winner will get a spot on the actual film. I'm gonna go for it and will get back to you with the final idea. Would be good to get some feedback from a fellow horror fan!

 

[pauldyson1uk]

Liking the review of the The Conjuring, really looking forward to seeing it.
Like the sound of The ABC's of Death , going to give that a watch also.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

If you like horror films/that sort of thing, The Conjuring will definitely be right up your street. The Conjuring is probably the best straight horror I've seen for sometime - though I'm not a regular watcher of the genre.

I do really want to watch the ABC's of Death though - mainly due to the involvement of Nacho Vigalondo (Timecrimes) and Ben Wheatley.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Anyone see The Conjuring yet?

 

[Dirty Schwein]

Like the sound of The ABC's of Death , going to give that a watch also.

I do really want to watch the ABC's of Death though - mainly due to the involvement of Nacho Vigalondo (Timecrimes) and Ben Wheatley.

I wouldn't advise it. There are one or two good ones but most of them are terrible. It's like the directors were taking the piss and trying to out-weird each other. If you must see it, watch it in spells of maybe 4 or 5 films at a time, won't seem as disjointed that way but watching it from beginning to end wouldn't be a good idea. Some films such as F is for Fart are so fecking bad it makes you want to put a dagger through your eyes. I saw the entries (they did a competition for T but I wasn't aware of it at the time) for the competition last year and most of those were so much better than the garbage on show here. Such a missed opportunity. Watch V/H/S 2, it's much better than this pile of crap. I didn't even bother to review it here after watching it but I would give it a 3.5/10

 

[Rooney in Paris]

That's a bold statement RIP...

Anyone see The Conjuring yet?

Dicks!

On another note, I don't know if you have seen The ABC's of Death. It's a collection of 26 short horror films (most pretty bad) corresponding to each letter of the alphabet and directed by famous and semi-famous horror directors. They are now making a sequel and there is a space for a 26th director for the letter M. They are asking people to make and enter a 3 minute short horror film and the winner will get a spot on the actual film. I'm gonna go for it and will get back to you with the final idea. Would be good to get some feedback from a fellow horror fan!

I'd be delighted to give you some feedback!

Yeah Insidious 2 is his next one, it's out in October over here, really looking forward to it, with the same cast once again. Big year for him!

 

[Dirty Schwein]

I'd be delighted to give you some feedback!

Yeah Insidious 2 is his next one, it's out in October over here, really looking forward to it, with the same cast once again. Big year for him!

Thanks
October?! feck me that's some wait. It's out here in two weeks!

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Thanks
October?! feck me that's some wait. It's out here in two weeks!

Yeah in France, for 'smaller' films (ie not blockbuster that usually come out more or less at the same time everywhere in the world), we usually have to wait a while. To be fair, it's not as bad as it used to be, and I live in Paris where I get the films on the week of their release. Back when I lived with my parents in a small town down South, we often had films maybe 5 or 6 months after their release in the US or UK!

 

[Dirty Schwein]

Yeah in France, for 'smaller' films (ie not blockbuster that usually come out more or less at the same time everywhere in the world), we usually have to wait a while. To be fair, it's not as bad as it used to be, and I live in Paris where I get the films on the week of their release. Back when I lived with my parents in a small town down South, we often had films maybe 5 or 6 months after their release in the US or UK!

that's strange considering France being touted as one of the leading countries in film production. Gonna watch You're Next this weekend. Haven't got high hopes but I'll let you know how that fares out.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

that's strange considering France being touted as one of the leading countries in film production. Gonna watch You're Next this weekend. Haven't got high hopes but I'll let you know how that fares out.

Saw the trailer last night before Conjuring! It looks good, and the reviews so far have been pretty decent, so I'm actually looking forward to it. We'll see!

Yeah, France has a bit of a paradoxal approach to cinema: it produces loads of films, has an emanation of the Ministry of Culture dedicated to supporting French films (a bit like the British Film Council, but with a lot more money!), has one of the highest ratios of cinema screens to inhabitants in the world and is the country in Europe with the most filmgoers, but on the other hand, they're very protective of their cinema industry, and in certain ways try to stop everything being about Hollywood films in theaters by adopting protectionist measures vis-à-vis cultural questions. They're the ones that fight in the European commission so that films and more largely culture should be considered as derogations to trade rules, and not just basic goods. It's an interesting approach that has its pros and cons.

One of the cons being you often wait a while for an English speaking film to arrive in France

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Star Trek : Into Darkness

Noticed some hate for this around recently but I don't really see why. It was no better or worse than it had any right to be apart from the completely retarded ending. I quite liked the last one (mostly from a visual perspective) and it's very similar to that although it doesn't quite top it if truth be told. Plenty of action, decent villain in Cumberbatch and Simon Pegg doing that stupid Scottish accent. Don't really know where they are going to go with the series though. They've pretty much made two identical films.

 

[pauldyson1uk]

I wouldn't advise it. There are one or two good ones but most of them are terrible. It's like the directors were taking the piss and trying to out-weird each other. If you must see it, watch it in spells of maybe 4 or 5 films at a time, won't seem as disjointed that way but watching it from beginning to end wouldn't be a good idea. Some films such as F is for Fart are so fecking bad it makes you want to put a dagger through your eyes. I saw the entries (they did a competition for T but I wasn't aware of it at the time) for the competition last year and most of those were so much better than the garbage on show here. Such a missed opportunity. Watch V/H/S 2, it's much better than this pile of crap. I didn't even bother to review it here after watching it but I would give it a 3.5/10

Cheers for that , I will watch it in parts, I have seen VHS 2 and it was a decent film.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

Saw the trailer last night before Conjuring! It looks good, and the reviews so far have been pretty decent, so I'm actually looking forward to it. We'll see!

The trailer is brilliant, but I read the synopsis and was a little underwhelmed. I just hope it doesn't end up like The Purge, which was a great idea executed badly. Keeping my expectations low so I can be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Archie Leach]

Good to see a Melbourne boy making big waves on the Caf!

 

[R.N7]

Star Trek : Into Darkness

Noticed some hate for this around recently but I don't really see why. It was no better or worse than it had any right to be apart from the completely retarded ending. I quite liked the last one (mostly from a visual perspective) and it's very similar to that although it doesn't quite top it if truth be told. Plenty of action, decent villain in Cumberbatch and Simon Pegg doing that stupid Scottish accent. Don't really know where they are going to go with the series though. They've pretty much made two identical films.

Boring action, poor script, awful acting apart from Cumberbatch.

 

[kps88]

Kick Ass 2 was one huge turd. And I quite liked the first one.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Boring action, poor script, awful acting apart from Cumberbatch.

Hmmm. Poor script I'll give you. Is there such a thing as bad acting in a Star Trek movie considering half the cast is basically doing an impersonation? Yeah, maybe there is.

 

[Brwned]

Not necessarily at the end of a film, but some kind of event anywhere in the film is always welcome surely, I mean, the film has got the give me the feeling it's going somewhere.

I want to live a film, not be told one and have to use my imagination. If I want that I'll read a good book instead.

If you know what I mean?

Sort of. No matter how well shot or acted a film is, it has to have an interesting subject matter to grab your attention. I wasn't very fond of the Tree of Life because it didn't really have that, it just had some nice shots/scenes. I've not seen Beasts of the Southern Wild so maybe it's similar. Where do you draw the line though? What kind of event needs to take place to give the movie substance and keep it interesting? I just don't really know what you mean when you say it has to be going somewhere.

I watched Amour yesterday and thought it was enthralling and deeply affecting despite it essentially being a story about an elderly couple spending their final months together in their apartment in Paris. You never see the world outside of it, you only ever see the six other characters very briefly, the most action you get is an old lady falling off her bed and the most suspenseful moment is an old man chasing a pigeon around his apartment and yet the film has the effect of leaving you completely absorbed. The opening scene already tells you where the film is going but that doesn't remove any of the tension or emotion from the scenes following it. There's no need for any real imagination, you just sit back and immerse yourself in the mood and setting created.

 

[Vato]

Sort of. No matter how well shot or acted a film is, it has to have an interesting subject matter to grab your attention. I wasn't very fond of the Tree of Life because it didn't really have that, it just had some nice shots/scenes. I've not seen Beasts of the Southern Wild so maybe it's similar. Where do you draw the line though? What kind of event needs to take place to give the movie substance and keep it interesting? I just don't really know what you mean when you say it has to be going somewhere.

I watched Amour yesterday and thought it was enthralling and deeply affecting despite it essentially being a story about an elderly couple spending their final months together in their apartment in Paris. You never see the world outside of it, you only ever see the six other characters very briefly, the most action you get is an old lady falling off her bed and the most suspenseful moment is an old man chasing a pigeon around his apartment and yet the film has the effect of leaving you completely absorbed. The opening scene already tells you where the film is going but that doesn't remove any of the tension or emotion from the scenes following it. There's no need for any real imagination, you just sit back and immerse yourself in the mood and setting created.

Let's say for example 'Killing me Softly' with Brad Pitt. This is one of those films where you think a lot is going to happen by how the story starts, but then it stalls and the remaining time is just longwinded and seems to stay o. The same spot with only one subject, killing the main protagonist. So yeah, appropriate title but that's about it. I mean, this wasn't even the worst example because the film wasn't even that bad. There are films out there that tell a story in 2+ hours that could have been told in 25-30 mins. BOTSW is a great example of this, the film is full of scenes that add nothing at all to the plot. They seem to be added just to fill gaps so the film wouldn't be labelled as a short film.

I get what you're saying though with films like Amour, they can be great because you know what to expect, this type of films aren't going to fill you with false hope that there's going to be twists or other events. This is my main gripe with some of them. The frustration of thinking something more will happen but doesn't, this is often the fault of having uninteresting or poorly developed characters, they give you the impression they are just passing by and there's some more waiting to happen

Intouchables was another one, but this one was great because you sort of knew where the story was going at the very start. A well acted gripping story with funny moments that made you feel emotionally connected to the characters, just a great film. And not much happens there either, but you feel they made the best out of it. This is where BOTSW failed IMO, it could have been so much more if the characters were developed better or added ones at some point that were actually relevant to the plot instead of some extras with a line or two of text.

Brwned, watch it and post you honest review, I'm curious to see if you agree with me on some points or not.
I mean, it's not a really bad film or anything, but all the hype surrounding it had me expecting way more than it really was, just the same with Tree of Life.

Sorry if this post is a mess but hate posting from my phone..

 

[Redlambs]

Kick Ass 2 was one huge turd. And I quite liked the first one.

Agreed. Why can't they include more funny parts in it? Apart from the main bad guy, Jim Carey (although even he wasn't that great) and Turk from scrubs, what a shit and unlikeable cast.

I actually see where Jim Carey was coming from with it too, the blood content was just stupid and completely unnecessary, it just made no sense to go that way.

 

[RORY65]

Agreed. Why can't they include more funny parts in it? Apart from the main bad guy, Jim Carey (although even he wasn't that great) and Turk from scrubs, what a shit and unlikeable cast.

I actually see where Jim Carey was coming from with it too, the blood content was just stupid and completely unnecessary, it just made no sense to go that way.

The first was rude and edgy but humorous and well-judged, this one wasn't at all funny and was generally just quite unpleasant.

 

[Redlambs]

The first was rude and edgy but humorous and well-judged, this one wasn't at all funny and was generally just quite unpleasant.

Yep. It was cheap humour and over the top blood.

Very poor concept and execution. I think part of the problem is they waited too long to do the sequel, and everyone grew up. I mean, Kick-ass with abs? That whole part, and hit-girl's reaction, was just fecking stupid and an attempt to add a little teen drama where there should have been none.

 

[Ivor Ballokov]

Save the Tiger - A reflection on the American dream, the decietful promises of youth and survival all told through an incredible performance by Jack Lemmon, good stuff.