LISTEN TO THIS EPISODE HERE…or on iTUNES!
Covering everything from Star Wars logic and upcoming films to the CMA awards and the NCAA championship game, this milestone episode is dressed to impress…so be impressed!
Also! Check out SEINFELD QUIZZO Wednesday 4/10/13 at Raven Lounge (1718 Sansom Street, Philly) 7PM
The problem with “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” — and it’s a problem many fans have likely foreseen — is that it follows in the Middle-earth-shattering footsteps of a giant. Peter Jackson’s masterfully assembled “Lord of the Rings” films, based on J. R. R. Tolkien’s classic fantasy book series, arguably made for the greatest trilogy to have ever graced the silver screen: staggeringly epic, meticulous in its world-building, showered in Academy Awards and instantly amassing a legion of hardcore enthusiasts, it was a crowning achievement that, for some, was the true “Star Wars” of the noughties. By sheer comparison, this first entry in a three-part adaptation of Tolkien’s more kiddy-friendly “The Hobbit,” while boasting its own thrills and charms, comes up a little short — it’s a hobbit pitted against a giant it couldn’t possibly outmatch.
It’s a comparison that might have been uncalled for if it weren’t for the direct connections Jackson makes between this new prequel trilogy and the earlier films: a wholly unnecessary prologue finds Ian Holm’s Bilbo Baggins and Elijah Wood’s Frodo having a chat in the former’s humble home, while Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving and Christopher Lee briefly return in a visit to the opulent Elven outpost Rivendell. Even some of the musical cues are the same: the re-introduction of the Shire is soundtracked by Howard Shore’s whimsical piece “Concerning Hobbits,” and the appearance of the one true “precious” ring is greeted with that ominous string melody from “The Prophecy.” (Continue Reading…)
For more from Stephen Watson, visit Just Another Movie Blog!
Filed under Movies, Review, Special Guest Blogger, Trailers
It is as remarkable a culture clash as I can recall. In a small, wooden lifeboat straddling the waves of the vast Pacific Ocean sits an Indian teenage boy named Pi and a fully-grown Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. Victims of a shipwreck, they sit at opposite ends of the 27-foot boat, watching the horizon in search of land, food and rescue. Together as man and beast, they drift across the deep blue sea for 227 days, embarking on a death-defying voyage so magnificent and so moving its telling is said to have made many believe in God. While “Life of Pi” did nothing to alter my faith (or lack thereof), it did much to confirm my beliefs in the power of cinema and the miraculous possibilities of storytelling.
The director is Ang Lee, the Oscar-winning Taiwanese filmmaker who gave us the ground-breaking “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” in 2000 and the heart-wrenching “Brokeback Mountain” in 2005. It is based on the worldwide bestseller by Yann Martel, published to much acclaim in 2001 and arguably something of a modern classic. With its countless metaphysical elements and physical near-impossibilities, Martel’s spiritually rich novel was, like “Watchmen” and “Cloud Atlas,” popularly deemed “unfilmable.” But when one sees the story unfolding on-screen with such fluidity and grandness under the firm grasp of Lee, one struggles to recall why a faithful and elegant transition from page to screen was considered so unassailable and unthinkable. (Continue Reading…)
For more from Stephen Watson, visit Just Another Movie Blog!
Filed under Movies, Review, Special Guest Blogger, Trailers
#HCC
Filed under Music, Television, Trailers
In a city full of crooked cops, she’s coming to clean up the streets. Feel the heat, this Fall. “Hot Chick Cop” the new drama from Center City Comedy and SuperDPS presents the adventures of Homicide Detective, Juggz Titzgy.
Featuring Sonia Zambrana, H. Foley, Kevin Ryan, David Temple, Chris Cotton, Ryan Shaner, Reggie Conquest, Brian Finnell, and LUMP
Filmed and Edited by Alex Gross
http://www.superdps.com
http://www.centercitycomedy.com
#HCC
Filed under Television, Trailers
Endnote: The rules for films eligible for inclusion on this list are exactly the same as stated in the Best of 2011 list.
(For more from Stephen Watson, visit his site: Just Another Movie Blog)
Filed under Movies, Review, Special Guest Blogger, Top 10 List, Trailers
from FarDarrigTrailers. This trailer for the 2012 film Chronicle surfaced on the Internets this week, and I am stoked. This film looks incredible. The description of “three boys gain super powers and eventually discover the dark side,” seems kind of played out, but the effects, the cinematography, everything looks pretty fucking spot-on. I’ll be shocked if this movie turns out to be terrible. For you classic anime fans, some of the scenes toward the end of the trailer make me wonder why an Akira movie was never put into production…oh well, I’ll settle for this.
Originality can be a rarity within the sparkly streets of Tinseltown, its cinematic offerings tending to consist of remakes, reboots, copycats and sequels which consistently dominate the worldwide box office. Just this week, Hollywood is presenting the US with Will Gluck’s “Friends with Benefits,” a rom-com about two long-time pals who decide to have casual sex with each other, no strings attached. Sound familiar? Well, just six months ago came Ivan Reitman’s “No Strings Attached,” the storyline of which is exactly the same as “Friends with Benefits,” the only difference being that that one starred Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, and this new one stars Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake. Their similarities can be seen in the video below.
To mark this baffling coincidence (or is it?!?!), I’ve compiled a list of the top ten times this happened before in Hollywood, i.e. two movies that were released close together and carry striking resemblances to each other. Happenstance or a result of studio eavesdropping? Rip-off or pure coincidence? Let’s compare these movie clones.
(Note: The films are presented in chronological order, and the worldwide box office takings provided include figures from the US.)
(1993-1994) “Tombstone” and “Wyatt Earp”
What’s the Resemblance?
Aside from the fact that they are both very much gunslinging westerns, “Wyatt Earp” and “Tombstone” are on this list because they share the same well-known, real-life protagonist: Wyatt Earp, historical lawman of the wild West.
Which Came First?
“Tombstone” rode into town on Christmas Day, 1993, with “Wyatt Earp” hot on its trail, released 24 June, 1994.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“Tombstone” lassoed in $56 million domestically, while “Wyatt Earp” was less successful, earning only $25 million domestically on its $63 million budget.
What Sets Them Apart?
“Wyatt Earp” is a serious biopic of the eponymous lawman (played by Kevin Costner), taking us from his adolescence to his later years, showing us the good times and the bad times of the historical figure’s life in the West. “Tombstone,” on the other hand, (with Kurt Russell in the lead role) is slightly less stern and focuses only on the events leading up to the infamous shootout at the O.K. Corral.
What’s the Better Movie?
Audiences seemed to take much more of a shine to “Tombstone,” what with its action-packed plot and spaghetti western stylisation, as opposed to the realism of the biographical “Wyatt Earp;” I’m sure the latter’s three hour runtime did little to resolve this.
(1995) “Gordy” and “Babe”
What’s the Resemblance?
Live-action family films of the “animals can talk” fare, “Babe” and “Gordy” both star a lively piglet who can converse with the other animals of his homely farm, though us humans of course only hear nonsensical oinking.
Which Came First?
“Gordy” trotted about on 12 May, while “Babe” played in the mud on 4 August.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“Gordy” was a bit of a flop, making only $4 million domestically, while “Babe” squealed all the way to the bank with over $66 million in the US alone and $240 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
While “Babe” stuck to its humble setting of a farm in the country, “Gordy” saw its curly-tailed protagonist travelling across America to find his family, resulting in all sorts of silly, stupid and insufferable shenanigans.
What’s the Better Movie?
“Babe” by a long shot; it was met with critical acclaim, proved much more popular with audiences than “Gordy,” was nominated for Best Picture by the Academy Awards and is something of a Disney classic. Meanwhile, the obnoxious “Gordy” thankfully faded into long-forgotten obscurity.
(1997) “Dante’s Peak” and “Volcano”
What’s the Resemblance?
“Dante’s Peak” and “Volcano” are both mindless ’90s disaster movies revolving around volcanoes that have violently erupted without much warning, putting their protagonists in quite a bit of peril.
Which Came First?
“Dante’s Peak” erupted first, released on 7 February, and “Volcano” spilled its lava on 25 April.
Which Made the Most Cash?
Both movies made very middling amounts of cash given their sizable budgets, with “Dante’s Peak” earning over $67 million domestically and $178 million worldwide, and “Volcano” grossing $49 million domestically and $122 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
“Dante’s Peak” takes place in a fictional town by the countryside, as compared to “Volcano,” which showcases a (surprise, surprise) volcano that unexpectedly rises up from the streets of Los Angeles.
What’s the Better Movie?
Neither are particularly good, but I’d say “Volcano” is superior, if only for the stupefying corniness of it all (a volcano in Los Angeles? Really?). “Dante’s Peak,” on the other hand, isn’t very exciting and doesn’t contain Tommy Lee Jones outrunning a collapsing skyscraper.
(1998) “Deep Impact” and “Armageddon”
What’s the Resemblance?
A gigantic asteroid is hurtling through the vastness of space in the direction of our lovely planet, and is set to destroy every living thing on Earth; it’s up to us to stop it before the population of the globe is reduced to zero.
Which Came First?
“Deep Impact” crashed into cinemas on 8 May, while “Armageddon” made its impact on 1 July.
Which Made the Most Cash?
Both surprisingly managed to make a boatload at the box office, with “Armageddon” receiving over $200 million domestically and $550 million worldwide, and “Deep Impact” raking in $140 million domestically and $350 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
One stars Bruce Willis and the other stars Morgan Freeman. One is more of an actioner and the other is more of a drama. While “Armageddon” goes down the Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer big-explosion route, “Deep Impact” takes a more dramatic approach, looking at how us human beings would react given the news that a big space rock’s about to kill us all.
What’s the Better Movie?
As thrilling as the last 90 minutes of “Armageddon” are, I’d have to say “Deep Impact” is the better film. The former suffers from director Michael Bay’s complete and utter incompetence with scenes that aren’t action-oriented, while the latter is a much more solid and noble watch, albeit lacking in adrenaline-fuelled thrills.
(1998) “Antz” and “A Bug’s Life”
What’s the Resemblance?
In a highly populated ant colony, one misfit ant attempts to free his fellow insects from an unflinching higher power, discovering throughout the course of the film that he is much braver than he ever thought before.
Which Came First?
“Antz” crawled onto the big screen on 2 October, and “A Bug’s Life” followed on 25 November.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“Antz” did fairly well, receiving $90 million domestically and $171 million worldwide, while “A Bug’s Life” was just a little bit gigantic, earning $162 million in the US and $363 million globally.
What Sets Them Apart?
“Antz” is notably grittier than “A Bug’s Life,” it even including a scene where a newly decapitated head talks to our neurotic main character. “A Bug’s Life,” on the other hand, is a more family-friendly animation, most of the insect characters animated to appear cute and cuddly.
What’s the Better Movie?
One is Pixar and the other is DreamWorks, two movie studios seemingly always in battle with each other. Pixar’s “A Bug’s Life” is a bit of a childhood favourite of mine, so I of course personally prefer it to Dreamworks’ “Antz,” though I know many prefer the boldness of the latter (I do love the casting of Woody Allen).
(2000) “Mission to Mars” and “Red Planet”
What’s the Resemblance?
A couple of sci-fi tales which see a group of astronauts venturing out of our atmosphere in a big rocket and landing on the fourth planet from our sun, Mars, where things unfortunately take a turn for the worst.
Which Came First?
First to land was “Mission to Mars” on 10 March, while “Red Planet” blasted off on 10 November.
Which Made the Most Cash?
While “Mission to Mars” earned a fair amount at the box office with $60 million in the US and $110 million worldwide, “Red Planet” couldn’t even make back half of its production budget of $80 million, taking in only $33 million from international audiences.
What Sets Them Apart?
Where the differences lie are in the intentions of the space-travelling characters. In “Mission to Mars,” they’re a rescue team sent to the red planet to find out what happened to the previous team who ventured there, and in “Red Planet,” they’ve come to Mars to find resources to bring back to a dying Earth.
What’s the Better Movie?
That’s a bit like asking someone to tell you which serving of excrement tastes less shitty. Neither are what you’d call the next “2001: A Space Odyssey,” both as bland as a pod person, though I’d say “Mission to Mars” stinks slightly less, what with Brian De Palma in the director’s chair.
(2003-2004) “Finding Nemo” and “Shark Tale”
What’s the Resemblance?
Two movies set in the watery depths of the seven seas, “Finding Nemo” and “Shark Tale” saw Pixar and DreamWorks in fierce competition yet again, both making computer-animated family flicks starring a plethora of fishy characters.
Which Came First?
“Finding Nemo” was a 2003 release, floating to the surface on 30 May, while “Shark Tale” surfaced on 1 October, 2004.
Which Made the Most Cash?
Both movies were kings of the box office ocean, with “Shark Tale” making a splash with $160 million domestically and $367 million worldwide, and “Finding Nemo” swimming in a pile of dough, making $339 million domestically and $867 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
The biggest difference would be the storylines, one of which is more emotional, the other having entertainment solely in mind. “Finding Nemo” tells the story of a clown fish who swims all the way across the ocean to find his missing son, while “Shark Tale” is about a bluestreak cleaner wrasse who receives local fame when he pretends to be a professional killer of sharks.
Which is the Better Movie?
There is no competition here; “Finding Nemo” received mass acclaim from both critics and audiences alike, left filmgoers everywhere teary eyed in the cinema and is still heralded as one of Pixar’s very best. And “Shark Tale,” while maybe not too bad, was much less ambitious, feeling more like a quick paycheck for the cluster of A-list actors providing their vocal talents.
(2005) “Red Eye” and “Flightplan”
What’s the Resemblance?
Both “Red Eye” and “Flightplan” are very tense thrillers with female heroes and male villains, involve terrorism and kidnapping, and take place primarily within the aisles of flying aeroplanes.
Which Came First?
Landing first was “Red Eye” on 19 August, while “Flightplan” landed on 23 September.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“Red Eye” was a modest success, receiving $57 million domestically and $95 million worldwide, while “Flightplan” was quite the hit, taking in $89 million domestically and $223 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
“Red Eye” has a woman being seated beside a charming man on a plane who turns out to be a rather nasty individual, ordering her to phone the hotel she works for and change the room in which the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security resides so that he may be assassinated. “Flightplan” has a woman boarding a plane with her daughter, falling asleep and waking up to find her daughter gone, with no record of her ever having boarded the plane.
What’s the Better Movie?
In my opinion, these are both great slices of entertainment, but my personal preference lies with “Red Eye,” mainly due to Cillian Murphy’s incredibly intimidating performance as the menacing villain. “Flightplan,” while definitely a fun and mysterious ride, is a little too far-fetched for its own good.
(2005-2006) “Capote” and “Infamous”
What’s the Resemblance?
“Capote” and “Infamous” together tell the exact same story. What is this story? It is of Truman Capote, the famed author of “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” both fact-based films revolving around the man as he researches his new book, “In Cold Blood,” and becomes obsessively involved with the the imprisoned murderer who is the subject of his upcoming novel.
Which Came First?
Initially hitting the silver screen in 2005 was “Capote,” given a limited release in the US on 30 September, then a wider release on 3 February, 2006. “Infamous” followed with a limited release on 13 October, 2006.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“Capote” made the most money by a long shot, it earning $28 million domestically and $49 million worldwide. “Infamous,” due to its limited release, made only $1.5 million domestically and $2.6 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
The only notable difference between the two is in terms of tone. “Capote” has a very cold and almost unsettling ambience about itself, while “Infamous” is much warmer; indeed, you can see this even in the two posters above.
What’s the Better Movie?
It’s unfortunate that “Infamous” was so overshadowed by the success of “Capote,” as it is a very good movie in its own right, but I do believe that “Capote” is superior; how could you not just love Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar-winning performance as the effeminately-voiced eccentric? You could hardly even recognise the man.
(2006) “The Illusionist” and “The Prestige”
What’s the resemblance?
Both “The Illusionist” and “The Prestige” are set at the turn of the 20th Century, with stage performers in the leading roles. What do they perform? Magic and illusions, shows of trickery and deception, which it turns out they use off-stage as well.
Which Came First?
“The Illusionist” waved its wand first on 18 August with a limited released then a wider release on 1 September, followed by the wizardry of “The Prestige” on 20 October.
Which Made the Most Cash?
“The Illusionist” pulled $39 million out of its hat domestically and $87 million worldwide, while “The Prestige” conjured up $53 million domestically and $109 million worldwide.
What Sets Them Apart?
“The Illusionist” is a love story, while “The Prestige” is a mystery thriller. “The Illusionist” sees its magician protagonist falling for a woman who is out of his reach, while “The Prestige” tells the story of two co-performers who end up in an intense, violent rivalry. Also, “The Prestige” contains actual magic, while “The Illusionist” does not.
What’s the Better Movie?
“The Prestige” is a slightly more intriguing movie than “The Illusionist,” which is nonetheless wonderfully directed and beautifully acted. Under the direction of Christopher “The Dark Knight” Nolan, “The Prestige” is dark and absorbing, crammed full of twists, turns and sleights of hand that the audience never sees coming; it also contains David Bowie, which is always a plus.
Honourable Mentions: (1996) “Independence Day” and “Mars Attacks”; (1998) “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Thin Red Line”; (2005-2006) “Æon Flux” and “Ultraviolet”; (2009) “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” and “Observe and Report”
(for more content from Stephen Watson, visit I Love Movies, But I Hate Yours)
Filed under Fun Stuff, Movies, Review, Special Guest Blogger, Trailers
The Muppets
It took a while for everyone to truly appreciate the Muppets for what they were. The ball’s in your court, Segel.
50/50
This may be the most depressing thing Seth Rogen’s done since The Green Hornet. But this might actually be good.
Shark Night 3D
From the people who brought you Hostel and Texas Chainsaw Massacre comes another formulaic shitfest that only people who hate money will see.
Happy Feet Two (in 3D)
It’s hard to be too critical of stupid kids movies because they’re not trying to get my money. And they basically only serve so that Spanish families can drop their kids off in a G while they sneak off to a hard R.
YellowBrickRoad
I was actually hoping this would be a Wizard of Oz with a horror spin…and that’s because I’m an idiot. I may watch this one though, in a week, when it’s on Netflix.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
I would say this movie has all the ingredients for a multi-million dollar suckfest, but where’s Megan Fox?
The Adventures of Tintin
Though the real-looking computer animation is still far from not-creepy, I’m excited about this one. All the right pieces are in place. So, let’s just hope there’s not a user error.
Kicking off 2011’s summer of big-budget blockbusters is superhero flick “Thor,” probably one of the most challenging stories for Marvel Studios to adapt onto the silver screen from the pages of a comic book. This is not necessarily because of the arguably second-rate awareness of the eponymous character himself, but because creating “Thor” requires one to create a fantasy world, another dimension which must convince and adequately intrigue general movie-goers. Unlike the company’s recent cinematic triumphs such as “Iron Man” and “The Incredible Hulk,” “Thor” takes place partially in a realm separate from our own, one with its own rich history and logic, and to build this calls for an ambience of epicness, which director Kenneth Branagh has thankfully relished in.
This world of which I speak is Asgard, which is located in a magical dimension that is certainly not our own. Its design is of polished gold, its grand kingdom furnished specifically for a noble king. This king is Odin (Anthony Hopkins, “The Wolfman”), a white-bearded god with a metallic eye patch covering his right peeper. He has a wife, Frigga (Rene Russo, “Yours, Mine and Ours”), and two sons, Thor (Chris Hemsworth, “Star Trek”) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston, “Archipelago”).
Thor is the eldest of the two brothers, and is thus heir to the powerful thrown. As pointed out by his father, he is arrogant, vain, greedy and cruel. He wears a red cape and wields a powerful hammer called Mjolnir, a mighty mallet that can cause more damage than when a packet of Mentos is dropped into a bottle of Diet Coke. Seriously, that combination can take an eye out.
After a breach in Asgard’s security almost leads to the theft of a sacred artefact, Thor decides to take matters into his own massive hands, and (despite his father’s insistence that it would do no good) attempts revenge on the evil Frost Giants (just go with it). Following his defiance, Thor is banished from Asgard for the trouble he has caused and the war he has resparked, stripped of his armour and his beloved power-giving hammer.
He winds up on Earth, in the New Mexico desert to be exact, and meets mortal scientists Jane Foster (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”), Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård, “Mamma Mia!”) and Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings, “Defendor”). Assuming the rambling Norse god is a deluded drunk, they zap him with a tazer and take him to the hospital, where he inflicts some unprovoked violence on the unsuspecting staff. From here on, the trio are stuck with a man they believe to be a schizophrenic nutcase, but become more and more convinced by his claims that he is indeed Thor, god of thunder and son of Odin, as he tries to get back into Asgard and hold his enormous tool in his hand once again. I can hear you sniggering.
Meanwhile, in Thor’s homely kingdom, Loki sees his chance to become ruler of Asgard, what with dad’s favourite son being cast down to Earth. He is determined that his overshadowing brother never returns from his exile, while the god of mischief plots to take over the reigning role of his elderly father. Maybe he got bored of taking over Jim Carrey’s body and dancing to jazz music with Cameron Diaz. SSSMOKIN’!
“Thor” is high camp, with Norse gods marching about in glistening armour and horned helmets that look neck-crushingly heavy, yelling at each other in perfectly stated Shakespearean English. The scenes in the grandiose kingdom of Asgard may have run the risk of being pretty darn laughable, but there’s an unexpected sternness to them that counteracts any possible corniness. If anything, the scenes on Earth are cheesier than that of the alien realm. Also, it’s difficult to not get caught up in what is ultimately a very fascinating world unlike our own, all rendered in beautiful CGI.
In true blockbuster fashion, the film is a special-effect spectacle that’s bursting at the seems with computerised trickery, all showcased in post-converted 3D (which I should add is barely noticeable after a while). This is not only utilised to create the fantasy world of Asgard, but also the menacing robotic Destroyer, guardian of a sacred Asgardian artifact, his head opening up to blast out a raging fireball that roasts any nearby enemies. There’s also the cold-as-ice Frost Giants, a whole species of monsters who live in a land made of ice (Jotunheim, not Iceland). Their skin is chilled blue, and their eyes are as red as the cheeks of a schoolboy who’s just had his trousers yanked down to his ankles in the playground. These creatures will chill you to the bone. Literally.
Our godly hero is played stunningly by hunky Hemsworth, bringing a knowing sense of cheek and swagger to the hammer-thumping role. The Australian actor, standing at 6’3″ tall, is a mammoth of a man, bound in muscles and oozing with genuine on-screen charisma, making for an enthralling and amusing protagonist for us to root for. When he dons his helmet, swings his hammer and yells at the top of his lungs, you know this man means serious business.
There’s also Hopkins and Hiddleston as a father and son who struggle to connect with each other, the father always having favoured his older boy. Hopkins is not as hammy as usual, his character’s status as a god fulfilled by the sheer gravitas of Mr. Hannibal Lecter’s performance. Hiddleston manages to get across a sense of jealousy over the attention Thor receives, which raises his ambitions to show ‘em all what he’s made of and rule the whole of Asgard all by himself, while yearning to impress his father.
Given that this is English director Kenneth Branagh’s first real venture outside of Shakespeare adaptations and period dramas, “Thor” is ruddy impressive. He gives a full sense of a truly epic scope, perfectly balancing moments of fantastical absurdity with moments of lighthearted fish-out-of-water humour (like when Thor charges into a pet store and demands to be given a horse). The film is also tantalising when the action kick-starts and the hammers fly, the more adrenaline-pumped sequences suitably thrilling. I wasn’t sure if Branagh could handle it all, but by Odin’s beard, he does. He should calm down on all the Dutch tilts, though; they damn near gave me a headache.
In the run-up to next year’s massively anticipated “The Avengers,” “Thor” gives more promise to the mouth-watering prospect of the on-screen team-up of Captain America, Iron Man, The Hulk and Thor. However, the film doesn’t feel like one big advertisement (ahem, “Iron Man 2″) for the big event, instead simply taking on the role of a magnificent, technically-impressive comic-book fantasy that excites, enchants and thoroughly entertains. You’re up next, Captain America. Don’t disappoint us.
Nine Outta Ten
Filed under Movies, Review, Special Guest Blogger, Trailers
Talking Nerdy Podcast! Latest Articles
