This was a kitchy French romance that turned out to be not that bad in the end. The story was an interesting one, but I couldn't help but think this is what the French government wants us to watch. An Aristocrat's wife has a deleance wiht an aspiring young writer. Yet she gives him the slip when he tries to get serious. Leaving the ruling class to their wealth and privilege and the writer to a career as a writer with a middle class family that he seems a little too content with. I was taken aback at how the aristocrats use and discard people who serve their sexual needs but refuse to allow their emotions and their bank accounts get drawn into sordid affairs. It's hypocrisy that allows the elite of France to do as they please while taxing the populace. I've been reading Michel Houellebecq, so I'm sure his criticism of Liberal French society have influenced my views.
In my view the film simply promotes the status quo in France. It is fine to have sexual affairs without reprimand. That's just how they do it in France. Which is acceptable if you are French, but as would have it the French in this film want everyone to bend to their needs. And when their needs are met they can discard you like the trash. The lead actress in this film fits the description of what I've said. She makes promises to the young writer, then when it comes time to decide she can't leave her life of wealth and privilege to runaway with the young writer. She chooses her family, but more importantly her wealthy husband. It wasn't so obvious what she would do. That I liked about the film. It kept me guessing as to how it turn out. Yet all along I had the impression that she was not leaving here diplomat husband. I thought right as she doesn't leave.
I thought the last scene was despicable. Here is the writer, balding, looking like Mr. Rogers from Sesame street, greeted by his mistress and her husband who haven't changed a bit. I thought to myself that it is further hypocrisy. They should have at least aged a bit. Perhaps they should have split up. But again, as is so often the case in French culture, the elite win. They have perfect lives that are completely bourgeois. I've seen it in Madame Bovery. And it happens in Les Mis. The status quo is preserved and nothing changes.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Thoughts on Ten Thousand Saints
I saw this film as part of the Indie Film Night at the Art House theater near where I live in upstate New York. I really liked it. The characters had depth and nuance and the story was interesting. Although it was geared towards more of an adolescent audience it still ruminated with me. I really identified with the teen characters and the struggles they had to deal with in the film.
I really like the teenage girl. She was very heartfelt and stole the show from her male teen counterpart and even from the star Ethan Hawke. The problems she had to deal with were hard. She was pregnant, addicted to drugs, and without a father. She also had an overbearing mother who wanted to control her in every way. I really think she showed the troubles that many young teen girls go through during that tough period between childhood and adulthood. Her male counterparts also revealed how difficult teen years can be. Fed up with school, willing to do anything for a release from the troubled times they endure, they couldn't find peace. And their lives end up as disjointed as their parents lives.
I liked this film because it shows teen issues frankly. The characters in this story are everyday people. A hippie mom, a derilect dad, some teens into punk, they are real. You can think of someone you know or even yourself to find a common identity with these characters. So much in film you find characters who aren't real. I was particularly taken with the characters and will be discussing it in my next screenwriting group.
In fact this story starts out as the story of the teen boy. He finds his father in the greenhouse after he has just been found out as a cheating husband. Then the arc of the story follows the young teen guy and his friend who huff some air conditioner liquid, at least I think that's what it was, and his best friend freezes to death. At this point we are still on the teen boy.
It is only with the revelation of Eliza's pregnancy that the story switches over her and she become the driving character in the film. She moves the story forward. Finally, she has the baby and the teen boy is willing to support her.
For whatever reason I was reminded of John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath at the end of the film. It is one of my favorite books. I was watching the film and the end of the novel came to me. It is where the old man is given the woman's breast to suck on for nourishment. It seems that the end of Saints is similar. Humans will find themselves in difficult situations. To survive they must compromise and above all help each other. It is the only way we can survive and move forward without depression or worse.
I really like the teenage girl. She was very heartfelt and stole the show from her male teen counterpart and even from the star Ethan Hawke. The problems she had to deal with were hard. She was pregnant, addicted to drugs, and without a father. She also had an overbearing mother who wanted to control her in every way. I really think she showed the troubles that many young teen girls go through during that tough period between childhood and adulthood. Her male counterparts also revealed how difficult teen years can be. Fed up with school, willing to do anything for a release from the troubled times they endure, they couldn't find peace. And their lives end up as disjointed as their parents lives.
I liked this film because it shows teen issues frankly. The characters in this story are everyday people. A hippie mom, a derilect dad, some teens into punk, they are real. You can think of someone you know or even yourself to find a common identity with these characters. So much in film you find characters who aren't real. I was particularly taken with the characters and will be discussing it in my next screenwriting group.
In fact this story starts out as the story of the teen boy. He finds his father in the greenhouse after he has just been found out as a cheating husband. Then the arc of the story follows the young teen guy and his friend who huff some air conditioner liquid, at least I think that's what it was, and his best friend freezes to death. At this point we are still on the teen boy.
It is only with the revelation of Eliza's pregnancy that the story switches over her and she become the driving character in the film. She moves the story forward. Finally, she has the baby and the teen boy is willing to support her.
For whatever reason I was reminded of John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath at the end of the film. It is one of my favorite books. I was watching the film and the end of the novel came to me. It is where the old man is given the woman's breast to suck on for nourishment. It seems that the end of Saints is similar. Humans will find themselves in difficult situations. To survive they must compromise and above all help each other. It is the only way we can survive and move forward without depression or worse.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Thoughts on The Last Metro by Truffaut
This film was interesting. I liked the acting. Denueve and Depardieu make it watchable. The ending is just. No one gets violently murdered like I was expecting. I was expecting the husband to get found out. Yet, there was no big scene where he is found by the Gestapo and turned over to a concentration camp. I thought he might, but, since I haven't watched many Truffaut films, I didn't expect that everyone gets away from a violent death at the end of the film. Even the Nazi critic who threatens to take away the theater from Deneuve gets off without a violent death. Paris is liberated and the theater exists freely.
The film follows a structure. The first act sets up the conflict between the hiding theater director and the Nazis who are threatening to discover him. It transitions nicely with a subplot of a lesbian affair that adds some sex appeal to the film. The show goes on and the Nazi critic gives it a bad review which causes quite a stir. Depardiue responds in the beginning of the third act by beating up the Nazi critic. I thought at that point that Depardiue would be taken into custody. But the film does not end there. The climax occurs when the Gestapo comes for the husband. In a mad dash Denueve and Depardiue save the husband and stave off Nazi oppression.
In the end the husband survives and returns to the theater. And Depardieu and Deneuve end up having a brief tryst which I was expecting from the start. When I saw both of them onscreen I thought that something would happen between them. And finally it does.
This film was good but not great. Certainly nothing like the 400 Blows. But why should i compare it to a film from another decade. And reasonably from another era. The costumes and set designs were great. I really felt I was in 40's Paris. The women's hairstyles were tres chic and totally 40's. Of course they had their hair done in bobbs.
The film portrays Nazi aggression as too passive. The Nazis were evil. Yet the French were not innocent in their collaboration with the Nazis. Truffaut, in the biography I'm reading about him, says that there was no unified front against the Nazis in Paris or France. It, like the film in some ways, goes against the myth that all of France were active in the resistance and fought like hell to save the Jews and others from the camps. This film only gently touches that issue. When I watched the film and was thinking about the Nazi occupation of Paris I remembered Casablanca. The classic film about resistance fighters united against Nazis. Perhaps that film has mythical status. All of the French united against the Nazis and going to the limit to free a Jewish scientist, it shows that there are cracks in the myth of French unity against the Nazis. Even Jacques Chirac publicly admitted to some French being complicit in the Nazi occupation.
I should do more research in this area. I don't know all of the specifics. I wonder how many French people aided the Nazis and to what extent. I have read a book about the Nazi plundering of French art museums, galleries and private collections and it seems that there is some dispute about who was bold enough to confront the Nazis. I should hope that I would stand in such a situation.
The film follows a structure. The first act sets up the conflict between the hiding theater director and the Nazis who are threatening to discover him. It transitions nicely with a subplot of a lesbian affair that adds some sex appeal to the film. The show goes on and the Nazi critic gives it a bad review which causes quite a stir. Depardiue responds in the beginning of the third act by beating up the Nazi critic. I thought at that point that Depardiue would be taken into custody. But the film does not end there. The climax occurs when the Gestapo comes for the husband. In a mad dash Denueve and Depardiue save the husband and stave off Nazi oppression.
In the end the husband survives and returns to the theater. And Depardieu and Deneuve end up having a brief tryst which I was expecting from the start. When I saw both of them onscreen I thought that something would happen between them. And finally it does.
This film was good but not great. Certainly nothing like the 400 Blows. But why should i compare it to a film from another decade. And reasonably from another era. The costumes and set designs were great. I really felt I was in 40's Paris. The women's hairstyles were tres chic and totally 40's. Of course they had their hair done in bobbs.
The film portrays Nazi aggression as too passive. The Nazis were evil. Yet the French were not innocent in their collaboration with the Nazis. Truffaut, in the biography I'm reading about him, says that there was no unified front against the Nazis in Paris or France. It, like the film in some ways, goes against the myth that all of France were active in the resistance and fought like hell to save the Jews and others from the camps. This film only gently touches that issue. When I watched the film and was thinking about the Nazi occupation of Paris I remembered Casablanca. The classic film about resistance fighters united against Nazis. Perhaps that film has mythical status. All of the French united against the Nazis and going to the limit to free a Jewish scientist, it shows that there are cracks in the myth of French unity against the Nazis. Even Jacques Chirac publicly admitted to some French being complicit in the Nazi occupation.
I should do more research in this area. I don't know all of the specifics. I wonder how many French people aided the Nazis and to what extent. I have read a book about the Nazi plundering of French art museums, galleries and private collections and it seems that there is some dispute about who was bold enough to confront the Nazis. I should hope that I would stand in such a situation.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Thoughts on Ivan's Childhood
The beginning and end of this film were great. The in between was slow and drab. There is little action that occurs in between the end and beginning. And by the end of the film I just kept thinking to myself that it was approved by the Communist party of Russia. It falls in line with the usual declarations of the Soviet Union about the glorious war won against the Nazis. The ending jumps a little too quickly to the bunker where the Nazi leadership committed suicide. I thought that the plot should have made more of what happened to the soldiers.
Yet the films jumping from reality to dream to memory were very good. And the young boy Soviet spy dying in the end was unnerving. Still I think the film veers more into propaganda with some art sequences thrown in for entertainment. I can't imagine what Tarkovsky had to deal with in getting the film produced and screened in the Soviet Union. Censorship must have been heavy.
It is Tarkovsky's first film. I have also watched Andrei Rublov which is set in Medieval Russia. I didn't find that film all that great. I liked this film better. And I'm interested to see what Tarkovsky's other films are like that don't have the heavy hand of Soviet censorship weighing on it.
Russia is a great county. Yet merely ignoring the nuances of it's past don't yield art, it yields propaganda. And I disagree with Orwell's statement that all art is propaganda. Art is something more than propaganda. Ivan's Childhood is part art and part propaganda. I'm interested to see more Tarkovsky films and how they are produced under the auspices of the Russian censors.
Yet the films jumping from reality to dream to memory were very good. And the young boy Soviet spy dying in the end was unnerving. Still I think the film veers more into propaganda with some art sequences thrown in for entertainment. I can't imagine what Tarkovsky had to deal with in getting the film produced and screened in the Soviet Union. Censorship must have been heavy.
It is Tarkovsky's first film. I have also watched Andrei Rublov which is set in Medieval Russia. I didn't find that film all that great. I liked this film better. And I'm interested to see what Tarkovsky's other films are like that don't have the heavy hand of Soviet censorship weighing on it.
Russia is a great county. Yet merely ignoring the nuances of it's past don't yield art, it yields propaganda. And I disagree with Orwell's statement that all art is propaganda. Art is something more than propaganda. Ivan's Childhood is part art and part propaganda. I'm interested to see more Tarkovsky films and how they are produced under the auspices of the Russian censors.
Comparison of Cinematography; Chapman's Raging Bull and Storaro's Apocalypse Now
This was a difficult decision. Which is better the cinematography from Raging Bull or the camera work from Apocalypse Now. They are both great. The fighting scenes from Raging Bull are unrivaled. I've seen Rocky, all of them, and the recent Southpaw, and neither of them lives up to the shots from Raging Bull. The fight scenes are incredible. The blood goes everywhere, the punches hit hard and you feel every impact. It's too bad Chapman had to go up against Storaro and what he did in Apocalypse Now. I made a presentation about Storaro's cinematography in Now, Reds, and Emperor. All of which are excellent. In fact I was kind of an acolyte of Storaro. I thought he was the best. But Chapman is not to be outdone. I wonder what the vote count was like leading up to the awarding of the Cinematography Oscar that year. It must have close. At least I think it should have been.
I don't which is better Brando's head in the shadows or De Niro's vicious hooks to his opponents heads. The camera in Apocalypse is steadier. It stays in place and capture every movement in the silohette of Brando and Sheen. The camera in Bull is fluid; it moves around the ring, back and forth, punch after punch. I was thoroughly taken with the last shot in the ring. A boxing ring rope with blood slowly dripping onto the ground as the results of the fight of read out loud. You know La Motta lost, and you see the blood spilled in the ring. But he never went down.
I think Storaro's style was more classical. And Chapman's had a lot of contemporary influences. In documentaries I have watched about filmmaking Chapman talks about how he was influenced by the New Wave and directors like Godard with their handheld camera, on the go shooting style, and the use of real settings. So I guess I think Chapman should have won the Oscar instead of Storaro that year. Yet they were both great. I don't think anyone has rivaled either one. Both use human faces, human bodies as their subjects. They show humanity in a light that reveals emotion and adds to the plot.
Still even though I may side with Chapman, Storaro uses light and shadow in Apocalypse better than any other film I've seen. I return again and again to the shots of Brando's shaved head, dripping water over it, and moving from dark to light.
Maybe they should have given the award to both of them and declared it a tie.
I don't which is better Brando's head in the shadows or De Niro's vicious hooks to his opponents heads. The camera in Apocalypse is steadier. It stays in place and capture every movement in the silohette of Brando and Sheen. The camera in Bull is fluid; it moves around the ring, back and forth, punch after punch. I was thoroughly taken with the last shot in the ring. A boxing ring rope with blood slowly dripping onto the ground as the results of the fight of read out loud. You know La Motta lost, and you see the blood spilled in the ring. But he never went down.
I think Storaro's style was more classical. And Chapman's had a lot of contemporary influences. In documentaries I have watched about filmmaking Chapman talks about how he was influenced by the New Wave and directors like Godard with their handheld camera, on the go shooting style, and the use of real settings. So I guess I think Chapman should have won the Oscar instead of Storaro that year. Yet they were both great. I don't think anyone has rivaled either one. Both use human faces, human bodies as their subjects. They show humanity in a light that reveals emotion and adds to the plot.
Still even though I may side with Chapman, Storaro uses light and shadow in Apocalypse better than any other film I've seen. I return again and again to the shots of Brando's shaved head, dripping water over it, and moving from dark to light.
Maybe they should have given the award to both of them and declared it a tie.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Bedroom Scene from Breathless
When I told my fellow classmate from my screenwriting degree that sometimes I just watch scenes he said I should watch whole films instead. He's probably right. But I still watch scenes from films I like. Sometimes I just don't have the time or energy to watch a whole film for two or more hours. So, I decided to blog about one of my favorites scenes from a film I've watched numerous times. The film is Breathless by Godard and the scene is the bedroom scene. I usually pick it up from right when Jean Seberg walks into her apartment and catches Jean Paul Belmondo sleeping in her bed and avoiding the police.
I don't know why I like the scene so much. I guess it's because it's romantic, yet comical, yet dramatic. Bel Mondo is hiding from the police after killing a motorcycle cop. He is out of money and trying to track down some guy who owes him. The film is one of the longest film takes in cinema history. Shooting the film was done on a shoestring. The only ones in the room were Belmondo, Seberg, Godard, and his cinematographer Raoul Coutard. There were no lights or anything like that and the script girl had to stand outside until the shoot was done
The whole scene lasts about twenty four mintues a very long time for an art film like Breathless. Yet I find it watchable. Over and over again it still has resonance. The dialogue is fresh and poignant. Each scene within the scene is different and concerns a different aspect of the relationship between Poiccard and Patricia. Poiccard is insistent that they sleep together. Patricia resists. It goes on back and forth until they finally sleep together. I love the scene where Belmondo says that "this is franco-American reproachment." Makes me smile everytime.
The scene is also slow, much slow then the rest of the film. There are a few cuts, but it develops slowly as if they had all the time in the world. Too bad Seberg betrays Belmondo in the final scene. During the bedroom scene it seems that all is well with the world. Lovers in love, with no apprehensions about the future.
I get stuck in this scene. I lose track of time and space. It's like I'm in the bedroom with them. That's the best part of Cinema, losing yourself in it.
I don't know why I like the scene so much. I guess it's because it's romantic, yet comical, yet dramatic. Bel Mondo is hiding from the police after killing a motorcycle cop. He is out of money and trying to track down some guy who owes him. The film is one of the longest film takes in cinema history. Shooting the film was done on a shoestring. The only ones in the room were Belmondo, Seberg, Godard, and his cinematographer Raoul Coutard. There were no lights or anything like that and the script girl had to stand outside until the shoot was done
The whole scene lasts about twenty four mintues a very long time for an art film like Breathless. Yet I find it watchable. Over and over again it still has resonance. The dialogue is fresh and poignant. Each scene within the scene is different and concerns a different aspect of the relationship between Poiccard and Patricia. Poiccard is insistent that they sleep together. Patricia resists. It goes on back and forth until they finally sleep together. I love the scene where Belmondo says that "this is franco-American reproachment." Makes me smile everytime.
The scene is also slow, much slow then the rest of the film. There are a few cuts, but it develops slowly as if they had all the time in the world. Too bad Seberg betrays Belmondo in the final scene. During the bedroom scene it seems that all is well with the world. Lovers in love, with no apprehensions about the future.
I get stuck in this scene. I lose track of time and space. It's like I'm in the bedroom with them. That's the best part of Cinema, losing yourself in it.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Thoughts about Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
I think Tom Cruise must crazy. The scene with him hanging out of the airplane is very dangerous. It definately gets the blood rising. I saw the Mission Impossible where he hangs outside of skyscraper in Shanghai and I was thoroughly breathless during that scene. I heard somewhere that he didn't use cables or a safety net for the shot. Pure insanity!
Admittedly I haven't seen every installment of the Mission Impossible series. Yet I found myself comparing it to the long list of Bond films that I have seen, some of them multiple times. I wondered is this lighter than the current Bond incarnation? How is it like Bond? Different? After I got over that I began to think about where the film would go. How would Tomcat find a way to complete the Mission Impossible? There were several missions that had to be completed and each was tense. Yet, I found there to be a lot of "techieness" to the film. When they are planning to dive into the centrifuge subsumed into water I got a little bored. The scene at the Opera house was compelling. The centrifuge scene does pick up. Especially when Tomcat loses the special cards and he is forced to use one that is not guaranteed to work. While that's happening he is gasping for air. It is only when he is saved by the double agent that we are released from tension.
The motorcycle sequence is very action packed. But, I noticed as screenwriter, that there was little dialogue. Then I thought that the end of the film would be some kind of collabortive effort to save the British Prime Minister, secure the data, and catch the leading bad guy. I had a good general idea, but it lacked much of the detail that occurred. I didn't see the big face reveal with Cruise behind the mask and I didn't predict that the syndicate was a program founded by British intelligence. Those were plot developments which made the film worth staying for.
The film is a solid action film. The political wrangling and intrigue make watchable franchise edition. I read that they are already talking about the sixth edition. They could market it as MI6. Maybe the Bond franchise would sue?
Admittedly I haven't seen every installment of the Mission Impossible series. Yet I found myself comparing it to the long list of Bond films that I have seen, some of them multiple times. I wondered is this lighter than the current Bond incarnation? How is it like Bond? Different? After I got over that I began to think about where the film would go. How would Tomcat find a way to complete the Mission Impossible? There were several missions that had to be completed and each was tense. Yet, I found there to be a lot of "techieness" to the film. When they are planning to dive into the centrifuge subsumed into water I got a little bored. The scene at the Opera house was compelling. The centrifuge scene does pick up. Especially when Tomcat loses the special cards and he is forced to use one that is not guaranteed to work. While that's happening he is gasping for air. It is only when he is saved by the double agent that we are released from tension.
The motorcycle sequence is very action packed. But, I noticed as screenwriter, that there was little dialogue. Then I thought that the end of the film would be some kind of collabortive effort to save the British Prime Minister, secure the data, and catch the leading bad guy. I had a good general idea, but it lacked much of the detail that occurred. I didn't see the big face reveal with Cruise behind the mask and I didn't predict that the syndicate was a program founded by British intelligence. Those were plot developments which made the film worth staying for.
The film is a solid action film. The political wrangling and intrigue make watchable franchise edition. I read that they are already talking about the sixth edition. They could market it as MI6. Maybe the Bond franchise would sue?
Thoughts about Southpaw
I was watching Southpaw and I thought to myself that an alternate title to the film could be the downfall and ressurection of Billy Hope. The stasis moment comes after he has defended his title, living in a large house, with nice cars, a pool, etc. and he is giving a speech to raise money for orphans. Everything is perfect. Until Billy can't ignore an insult and is drawn into a fight which ends his wife's life, brings his boxing career to end, and eviscerates him completely. After he loses his title he is shown weeping in a shower with nothing but his boxing socks on. He looks pitiful. He later crashes his car and loses his daughter and mansion.
Here I thought Billy Hope is at his low. He has fallen from Olympus. Then I thought, how is the screenwriter going to get him back to the top of Olympus? What will Billy go through to regain his title and his daughter? I started to think of the redemptive hero. I drew a parallel to the story of Jesus coming back from the dead. Billy dies, then, with the help of Forest Whitaker, he comes back to life to take the title and get some kind of satisfaction for his wife's murder.
The final fight gives a "hollywood ending." There is both a knockout blow and a tension filled reading of judges scorecards. Finally Billy wins. His daughter cheers. All of the plot points are resolved.
I couldn't help thinking back to when my uncle Joe Pat used to order the "fights" on pay per view. I remember watching "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler vs. Sugar Ray Leonard. I had a VHS tape of it. I watched it at least once. I must have been eight or nine years old. I guess my uncle would follow boxing in the New York Post or Daily News. He used to read the city tabloids in his t-shirt and boxer shorts. His chair faced the TV. My great uncle would sit opposite him and my aunt would have a chair that looked askance at the TV.
Another aspect I noticed about the film is that all the dominos fell in a row. In screenwriting screenwriters talk about dominos falling in a row. In Southpaw all the dominos fall in a row, one after the other. It also follows the three act structure. The first act ends with Billy Crashing his car and ending up in police custody. The second act ends when he gets Whitaker to be his trainer for the big fight. The end of the movie show Billy with his daughter having won back the title.
As with all movies there are some glaring points of contension about the believability of the film. How could a white guy win a major title in boxing these days? etc. etc.
Southpaw is a solid story. Well written and not too predictable. Even though I knew Billy would win. I just didn't know how far he would fall.
Here I thought Billy Hope is at his low. He has fallen from Olympus. Then I thought, how is the screenwriter going to get him back to the top of Olympus? What will Billy go through to regain his title and his daughter? I started to think of the redemptive hero. I drew a parallel to the story of Jesus coming back from the dead. Billy dies, then, with the help of Forest Whitaker, he comes back to life to take the title and get some kind of satisfaction for his wife's murder.
The final fight gives a "hollywood ending." There is both a knockout blow and a tension filled reading of judges scorecards. Finally Billy wins. His daughter cheers. All of the plot points are resolved.
I couldn't help thinking back to when my uncle Joe Pat used to order the "fights" on pay per view. I remember watching "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler vs. Sugar Ray Leonard. I had a VHS tape of it. I watched it at least once. I must have been eight or nine years old. I guess my uncle would follow boxing in the New York Post or Daily News. He used to read the city tabloids in his t-shirt and boxer shorts. His chair faced the TV. My great uncle would sit opposite him and my aunt would have a chair that looked askance at the TV.
Another aspect I noticed about the film is that all the dominos fell in a row. In screenwriting screenwriters talk about dominos falling in a row. In Southpaw all the dominos fall in a row, one after the other. It also follows the three act structure. The first act ends with Billy Crashing his car and ending up in police custody. The second act ends when he gets Whitaker to be his trainer for the big fight. The end of the movie show Billy with his daughter having won back the title.
As with all movies there are some glaring points of contension about the believability of the film. How could a white guy win a major title in boxing these days? etc. etc.
Southpaw is a solid story. Well written and not too predictable. Even though I knew Billy would win. I just didn't know how far he would fall.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)