Friday, February 29, 2008


This week’s movie:


There are two kinds of people in the world….

People are always saying this – about all sorts of things. But if you think about it, it’s the most absurd generality – that is, it’s true about almost everything. Examples may include: “There are two kinds of people in the world ………”

  • …those that put people into two categories, and those that don’t.”
  • …those that like to carve dinosaurs out of baked potatoes, and those that don’t”
  • …those with ears shaped like bake potatoes that are then cut in half then baked some more – maybe with a little pat of butter, and those with ears shape like potatoes that haven’t been baked at all.”
  • …those who like to keep a baked potato on a string around their neck, and those that prefer to keep their baked potato …… ……….elsewhere.”

…and I haven’t even begun to explore the myriad possibilities of other types of baked vegetables. However, the saying only really has any meaning when it is used to make a distinction between group groups of people that are approximately equal in number – like I’m about to do.

There are two groups of people in the world – those that “get” this week’s film, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, and those that don’t.

This does not imply anything bad about the people who don’t, although I’m pretty sure before I’m done I’ll end up saying insulting about those idiots – but I won't because it’s not really true. This is a really polarizing film. That is, the people who get it believe this movie is a brilliant and artistic celebration of everything we remember about the 1960’s, set to the music of The Beatles, joyous and uplifting ………..while those that don’t get it believe this film is just a pretentious bit of rubbish which blasphemes the music of The Beatles. There seems to be very little middle ground. Just to illustrate the point, the film scores 50% on the tomatometer. Click on the link to go to the tomatometer site and look at the reviews. All the reviews seem to cluster at one extreme or the other.

Now, obviously, I’m on the positive end. That is, I get it – otherwise I wouldn’t be recommending it here. The question is, which side are you on? What type of person are you? Will you love or hate this movie? I’ll try to give you enough information to decide whether you should risk watching it. You might say, why think about it at all? Why not just watch the movie and decide for myself? Because if you hate it – you will hate it so much that you’ll realize that you are capable of more hate than you ever thought possible and it will be a frightening revelation, the likes which no human should face, especially without a baked potato.

…..besides, you may never trust my judgment again.

So I am listing various reasons why you may either hate or love this film. Some of these are exactly the points that critics use to justify their assessments.

  1. Do you like musicals? Some people hate them – I mean – hate them a lot! Hate them - like an Old Navy commercial. I, on the other hand, like musicals (not Old Navy commercials). ACROSS THE UNIVERSE is a musical.
  2. “It’s just a string of music videos….” This is somewhat true. However, I think it’s appropriate that the story is told through music video-like sequences considering that it was The Beatles that pretty much invented the music video. At some point in their career, they stopped making public appearances. But they were still making records that had to be promoted and so they had to make some sort of appearance. So, they would be scheduled to “appear” on some TV show or another - but instead of performing live on the show, they would send along a film that they made of themselves doing crazy things while their new song played in the background ………in other words - a music video. The concept has since, er….., caught on. So, in the context of this movie, music videos are more of an homage or a nostalgic device than a gimmick.
  3. It doesn’t have a conventional straightforward narrative. ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, although it does tell a story (the main characters’ journey through the 60’s), was intended instead to be an artistic showpiece for Beatles-era social and political comment. It’s not even intended to be a particularly accurate one - like an impressionist’s rendition of a decade, imparting ideas but blurring many of the details. The narrative, though not the main focus of the film, is not particularly hard to follow. It’s also not that important.
  4. “It’s contrived. It seems fake, unrealistic!” (See #2 & #3 above) The film is intended to provide an impression of a decade as seen though the (sometimes psychedelic) lens of Beatles songs. All of the characters have names from the songs. There’s the main character, Jude; his best friend, Max, who looks honest enough but, who knows, he could have killed someone with a silver hammer; Max’s sister, and Jude’s love interest, Lucy; they rent a room from Sadie (and yes, she is indeed sexy) who is a Janis Joplin-like singer; a black Hendrix-esque guitarist named Jo-Jo; Prudence who likes girls but is afraid to admit it (although it’s painfully obvious to everyone around her) until she meets lovely Rita (who might be a meter maid - the film doesn’t get into that); and a host of others. There are lots of song references and many of these are tied into cultural references of that era. Like art, this is the paint used to make the picture. The film’s palette is made up of songs and images rather than plot elements.
  5. “Why should I watch a bunch of actors sing Beatles songs? I’d rather just see The Beatles sing their own songs!” ………….yes. Good luck with that.
  6. “The Beatles are turning in their graves ……..the dead ones, that is.” Actually, the remaining members (plus Yoko) viewed a screening of the film before its release and gave their approval.
  7. “It’s no better than that awful movie, “Sgt. Peper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band - you know, the Peter Frampton / BeeGees thingy from the 70’s.” Dude ……are you kidding me? Go back and watch that again ……..if you dare ……….and make that statement again ………if you dare!
  8. “No plot.” People really harp on that “no plot” thing. It does have a plot: Jude, a British lad from Liverpool, comes to the states to search for his dad. He meets and befriends Max, and then his sister, Lucy, and falls in love. They go to the city and rent a room from Sadie, and meet Prudence (who comes in through the bathroom window) and Jo-Jo, the guitar player. Jo-Jo and Sadie hook up and form a band, Max gets drafted and goes to Nam, they ride on the Magic Bus and drink electric Kool-aid. The whole thing culminates with a rooftop public concert (just like The Beatles). Not a lot of plot, I agree - not as much plot as, for example, Family Plot, or The Plot Against Harry, or Plot 9 From Outer Space - but the plot is not as important here as being entertained.
  9. DNA: An NOH attaches to one side of an amino acid about two-thirds the way down the 11th chromosome. As a consequence, the images and sound from ACROSS THE UNIVERSE are directed to the right hemisphere of the brain where it stimulates the artistic centers, releasing copious amounts of dopamine, causing you to smile and tap your toes and say - everything is right with the world, and - what a great movie this is! However - if the NOH strand attaches to the opposite side (about a 50-50 chance) of the amino acid about two-thirds down the length of the 11th chromosome, the information stream is directed instead to the left hemisphere of the brain where the logic centers look at it and say - what the %^$# is this &*%!? - this is a load of rubbish! - where’s my baked potato?
  10. What side of the DNA is your NOH on? I don’t know if there’s a way to predict it. I’m not sure what the outward signs would be - but I’m prepared to conduct a scientific survey. Answering the following questions will give me a means to probe into your psyche at the NOH level: 1. Home fries or hash browns? 2. Do you take butter or sour cream with your baked potato? 3. Do you prefer baked Russets or Yukon golds? 4. Do you ever get the urge to pop a Mr. Potato-head into the microwave? 5. Eat the skin - or not? …………….if you answered “fruit bat” to any of these questions, you ………..well, you may not have understood the questions……

Julie Taymor directs. Before directing movies, she was an art director and choreographer, having spent a lot of time on Broadway. Her films have a unique visual quality from Frida to the film adaptation of Shakespeare’s Titus (a FranksFilms recommendation).

ACROSS THE UNIVERSE has a number of cameo appearances such as Joe Cocker, Bono, Eddie Izzard, Selma Hyjak (as the Bang-Bang-Shoot-Shoot nurse - all five of them in fact), and others.

Enjoy ACROSS THE UNIVERSE with a baked potato

………..or popcorn is good too.

view trailer

Monday, February 25, 2008

FranksFilms and the Oscars

No - I didn’t attend the Oscars this year - but I did watch them on TV. I’ve always been mildly interested in them, but this year is different. This is the first year in living memory that I’ve actually seen most of the nominated films - and ………can actually voice an opinion about them. So while I sit here and watch the broadcast with the laptop on my ……..well, lap - I can tell you when they made the right decision, and when they get it completely wrong - as usual.

First: The fashions. Whenever I watch the red carpet thingy before the show, I always think the same thought. The men all look the same (a tux is a tux - it’s black! That’s it!), but it seems that the women all strive, with every fiber of their being, to set themselves apart from everyone else, usually by wearing the most garish, outlandish, outfit imaginable. It’s unlikely that any gown worn tonight will ever - can ever - be worn again, without evoking degrees of ridicule. Then again, maybe that’s the point.

Predictions: Forget it! If I’m right, I let you know. If I’m wrong, I’ll just rant about what idiots the academy is.

The Awards:

Costume Designer: ? Does anyone ever pay attention to this one? Elizabeth, the Golden Age??? Are they crazy? This film can’t possibly win for costume desi… - Oh wait - yeah, OK.

Animated Feature: Ratatouille. Was there really any other choice? …..besides that ……..and that one?

Make-up: This, I assume is the stuff they put on your face - and not what they do after a fight. La vie en rose. OK, I did see it and yes, she did wear a lot of makeup. They made a beautiful actress look plain and old. Yay!

Visual Effects: It better be something cool - it better be something cool - something cool oh please oh please oh please oh - The Golden Compass? Oh crap! I didn’t see it. If you did, tell me - was it better than Pirates of the Carribean?

Art direction: What do these people do? Sweeney Todd. OK, I get it. They make everything look right.

Best Supporting Actor: There’s only one possible winner - and ……………………….YESSSSS! Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men - a bad ass - with a stupid haircut. The world does make sense.

Best Supporting Actress: Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton - long overdue - and she was great - but I really didn’t see that coming. My money was of Cate Blanchett. The voting must have been very close.

Adapted Screenplay (based on existing material): Fingers crossed …………YES. The Coen Brothers No Country for Old Men. I am so smart.

Sound Editing & Mixing: I normally would care a whit about this, but I’ve recently been exposed to the sound editing process for film - it’s hard. The Bourne Ultimatum - Sure! Why not?

Best Actress: If Julie Christie doesn’t win, I’m never watching this show again. OK, maybe Marion Cotillard was good too in La Vie en Rose, but the Academy obviously didn’t see Julie Christie in Away From Her.

Foriegn Language Film: Who cares? I didn’t see any of the nominated films. The problem is that these movie don’t show here, and I won’t get a chance to see them until they come out on DVD and I can’t rent them. The Couterfeitters - As good a choice as any.

Best Song: This category always ticks me off because they all suck ………..except this year’s winner, “Falling Slowly” from Once, one of the single most uplifting moments in film this past year.

Cinematography: There Will be Blood which did a great job at capturing the desolate landscape of early America. My money would have been for Atonement, for the landing beach scene, but what do I know? I just saw all the nominated films ………well, half of them anyway.

Musical Score: Atonement. No, is wasn’t a musical - but it did have music. And what memorable music it was. You may remember such numbers as “Watching From the Window”, “Walking Through the Woods”, “Typing in My Diary”, and of course “Running Next to the Jeep”. I’m whistling that one right now.

Best Documentary: Taxi To The Dark Side - about torture. I knew that would win, torture is just so trendy these days.

Original Sceenplay: I kinda hope Diablo Cody wins for Juno. Her story is as great and dramatic and storybookish as her screenplay. ……..and yes - the ex-stripper wins. Now go out and see this movie!

Best Actor: There’s only one possible winner here - Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood was the most powerful crazy and psychotic portrayal of a obsessive crazy-person this year. If you haven’t seen this film, rent it when it’s released on DVD.

Best Director: Joel & Ethan Coen for No Country for Old Men, probably their best film since Fargo. These guys make the greatest movies of all time. If you’re a fan, you know what I mean. Check out their catalog of films here and hold a Coen Brothers festival in your own home.

Best Movie: I have my fingers crossed ………. YES - No Country For Old Men. It honestly was the best movie - and that’s saying a lot considering that all of the nominated movies were outstanding.

That’s it! At this point I could go into a long drawn out rant about all the great films that weren’t nominated, but it’s late and I’m going to bed. Now you can do what I usually do after the Oscars, fill out your “movies to rent” list, or add to your NetFlix queue. You really can’t go wrong with any of the winners (or even the nominees). Of course, that list should already be somewhat lengthy from my own recommendations from the FranksFilms site.

Good Night.

Monday, February 18, 2008


This week’s movie:

I have a copy of Steven Jay Schneider’s book, “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die”.

Every once in a while I flip through it when I’m looking for a movie recommendation. I cross off the films I’ve already seen - one, to not repeat films that I already saw, and - two, to see how much longer I’ve got to live (assuming that the title implies that when I complete the list, I can safely - and finally - die). I’ve resisted renting PANDORA’S BOX for some time because I have somewhat an aversion to old silent movies. It was the very early days of film making and I feel they hadn’t quite got it right yet - they hadn’t quite figured out what to do with this new medium. The plots were flimsy, the acting was melodramatic - it’s as if they’d figured that the audience were so wowed by moving pictures that all you needed to do was put a picture up on the screen, and what happened up there didn’t much matter. Also, it’s rare to find a copy of a movie that’s still in watchable condition, having not aged gracefully over the past 80 or so years. But, as I’ve found in the past, there are exceptions to this rule.

PANDORA’S BOX, released in 1929, is that exception.

The Criterion Collection, which re-releases both early and modern classic films, does a pretty good job of restoring older movies. The DVD version currently available is bright and smooth and has several available audio soundtracks (you can chose among at least two symphonic scores, a jazz score, a kind of honky-tonk thing, piano accompaniment (likely close to what was actually presented in theaters that originally showed this film). The film now has a sort of modern look. If you follow the IMDB link above, you notice that the page has a German title. It’s a German film. “OMG Frank, not another foreign movie!” Yes it was made in Germany, but does that matter if it’s a silent film?

Now, I could say that first of all, this movie is an important view for anyone seriously interested in the history of film. I could also say that the movie is one of the first good examples of early German neo-realism – I wouldn’t say that – but I could – if I knew what that meant. I could even say that you should see it because it’s on Steven Jay Schneider’s “1001 Movies…”book. But, when you get right down to it, the reason that you absolutely must see this film, and you will absolutely love this film can be expressed in one single word – Louise Brooks. OK, so I guess that’s two words.

In Neil Gaiman’s novel “American Gods”, one character declares Louise Brooks to be “…the greatest American actress of all time”. I could argue against this – but not convincingly. She is, without a doubt, one of the most influential actresses of all time. The look she popularized in PANDORA’S BOX defined the term “flapper girl”. Her signature short bob haircut has come in and out of fashion every decade or so that she always, even in an 80 year old film, looks modern – not like an “old movie actress”. PANDORA’S BOX looks like it might have been made 10 years ago, not 80 …………..except for that silent film thing.

Louise Brooks is probably the greatest cultural influence that you may never have heard of. Liza Minnelli’s character in the film Cabaret is modeled after Louise Brooks, as is Melanie Griffith’s character in the film Something Wild, named Lulu – after Brooks’ character in PANDORA’S BOX. She was the inspiration for the comic strip Dixie Dugan, as well as Guido Crepax’s erotic comic Valentina. Other influences include Cyd Sharisse, Madonna, Dr. Who (the character, Romana, is based on Brooks), rock bands, and a number of present day fashion models.

Louise Brooks certainly has an appeal that can’t be denied. There is a smoldering sensuality about her that’s very subtle, and yet ultimately powerful. There really is no modern day equivalent of her. In PANDORA’S BOX, she plays Lulu, an innocent and free-spirited girl who lives under the auspices of men who fall for her. They can’t help themselves – she ……I don’t know …..does something with her eyes, I think – and they become insane with desire. She lets them, of course. She’s not a manipulator; there is no malice in her. When they tell her they love her, and she returns it – she means it. I’m not sure what it is about her – I think it’s maybe something she does with her eyes, but she exudes innocence. She may be a prostitute, but she’s an innocent one.

The story follows her downward spiral after an unfortunate incident in which a boyfriend, totally destroyed by jealousy for her, kills himself. There is a entourage of men who try to protect her – but they just want her too – kind of like There’s Something About Mary. I suppose this film could be called “There’s Something About Lulu – I Don’t Know ……Maybe It’s Something She Does With Her Eyes ……Or Something”.

So I’m giving silent films another chance, as should you. I do like some of them, and maybe I’ll discover more. But for your benefit, here is a list of my top 10 favorite silent movies in no particular order.

  1. PANDORA’S BOX - of course I’m going to list this one - I mean, it’s got Louise Brooks in it - I mean ……. I don’t know ……I mean I think she does something with her eyes …….or something…….
  2. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari - One of the very first psychological thrillers creates an eerie ambiance that was well ahead of its time.
  3. Modern Times - Charlie Chaplin’s last “Little Tramp” movie is not really silent, but the main characters act as if it were. Genius level funny.
  4. Play Time - Jacques Tati’s masterpiece is visual and physical comedy on a grand scale. Not really a silent movie but, like “Modern Times”, it’s in the spirit of a silent movie.
  5. L’Iceberg - Again, not technically a silent movie, but it might as well be. Very funny film with a lot of visual-based comedy. I think comedy is the only genre that can get away with that these days.
  6. Silent Movie - The Mel Brooks comedy. It IS a silent movie - sort of by definition.
  7. 2001: A Space Odyssey - Other than HAL, the computer, I don’t remember any dialog - do you?
  8. The Number 23 - The Jim Carey Psycho-thriller. I know it’s technically not a silent movie ………but I watched it once with the sound off and ………………better.
  9. The Wizard of Oz – I did the Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon thing with the sound off. I didn’t work for me – but I did like the Pink Floyd music … there was that …….
  10. Evita – Not a silent movie …….but it ought to be!

PANDORA’S BOX scores 91% on the tomatometer.

Open it and enjoy.

view video

Friday, February 01, 2008


This week’s movie:


Ode to the monster movie:

I just saw an outstanding monster movie the other day called Cloverfield. It wasn’t like Frankenstein or Godzilla or any of the others I can remember from my childhood, and it will very likely change the nature of monster movies to come - a new benchmark - and when it comes out on video in a few months, I’ll have more to say about it then. But in the meantime, it reminded me of another great monster film I’d seen recently - this week’s movie, THE HOST.

I was really young when I saw my first “monster attacks the city” movie. It was Godzilla and I was about 8 years old. It was simultaneously thrilling and terrifying. And even though the logic side of my brain told me that it was just make-believe, I would still, for years since, always keep check on the horizon when I was outdoors – because you never know when a prehistoric creature in a rubber suit, created by atomic radiation, might decide to rampage through my town and my parents would probably have to buy a new car and thus wouldn’t be able to afford a new bicycle for yours truly – then I’d be stuck running beside my friends, trying like hell to keep up, thus getting so tired that I’d fall asleep early and thus wouldn’t be able to stay up late enough to watch the monster movies, shown on TV late at night. …………….could happen.

I can’t say for sure why some of us are drawn to such movies. Maybe we have that sort of morbid curiosity that is fascinated by large scale destruction. Maybe we identify with the creature – “I want to knock down big buildings!” Maybe it’s the same compulsion that made you want to knock down your little brother’s tower of building blocks as you walk by – just because.

Years ago I watched a movie on TV (It may have been a “made for TV” movie) called Monstroid. During the opening credits they flashed the claim “Based on actual events.” You might think, “So what? Lots of films are based on true stories.” True enough – but this one was about a giant dinosaur that rises from the sea and terrorizes a coastal fishing village. Funny that I never read about that in the paper ………oh wait – maybe I did read about that once in the Weekly World News between the article about how Satan is a space alien and the latest exploits of the Bat Boy. Lately though, I’ve been disappointed with monster movies. For me, Godzilla was the biggest and baddest of them all. The second-rate copies that came after just didn’t cut it – like Mothra, and Gamera, and King Kong (please ignore, for the moment, that fact that King Kong was actually made some 20 years or so before Godzilla – I’m trying to make a point here.), but I watched them and loved them just the same. The problem is that I’ve grown up and they hadn’t. I hadn’t, until now found a film that was as thrilling and scary ……….and fun as the early classics to a young boy ……….as I said, until now. THE HOST is such a film. It has the right combination of scary monster, thrilling action, political satire, stress releasing comedy, mayhem, and uplifting heroics as they did when I was a boy. Finally, the monster movie has grown up.

This film has often been described as “Godzilla vs. Little Miss Sunshine”. This is true to an extent. It’s not as much about the monster as it is about the Park family. Three generations of the Park family live together in a trailer on the banks of the Han River in Seoul, South Korea (yes – it’s Korean – but the subtitles are easy to read and if you don’t want to read those, my copy of the DVD had an English-dubbed soundtrack – but gobs are lost in the translation – I recommend you brave through the subtitles ………….unless you’re Korean that is). They are a profoundly dysfunctional family but manage to pull together and support one another when the chips are down. In that way, it is similar to Little Miss Sunshine. The monster isn’t humongous, like Godzilla. It can’t knock down buildings and terrorize entire populations at the same time – but it is rather creepy nevertheless, and it can certainly terrorize a few dozen people at the same time at any rate.

THE HOST is funny without being a comedy. It’s scary without being gross and turning your stomach. It’s dramatic without being soppy. It’s a political satire without preaching, and it’s action packed without seeming unrealistic (except that there’s this monster). I’m hoping that this will spur a renewal of interest in making monster movies. I think it may already have started (reference again to the new film “Cloverfield”). I know that if I ever get the chance to make a film, I have lots of monster ideas – but I know that will never happen. So … are my monster movie ideas that will probably never see the light of day.

  1. VORAX: Destroyer of Worlds! – Vorax, the most fearsome creature in the Andromeda Galaxy, travels throughout the galaxy destroying and devouring planets. When he is sucked through a wormhole and reappears in our own solar system, he sets his sights on the Earth. Our doom seems certain, causing panic worldwide – until it is discovered that, due to a miscalculation in scale, Vorax is actually half an inch tall.
  2. TERROR FROM THE DEEP – In the future, the ocean is pristine. A century of human efforts have paid off and the ocean is once again clean. A monstrous sea creature, fed up with humans cleaning up his domain, rises up and attacks New York. He lumbers down street after street cleaning up the litter and the trash and the garbage, leaving sparkly clean streets in its wake – and bellowing “How do you like it? How do you like it?!!!!” Street cleaners and garbage collectors are suddenly out of work, tipping the already teetering unemployment scales into instability. The economy crashes sending the country into a deep depression. Mayhem, destruction, oh the terror, oh the terror…………from the deep.
  3. SLUMMO: The Rude Clown!!! – A giant clown-like creature attacks the city making rude gestures and dropping its pants-like garment. Citizens are disgusted and evacuate the city in droves, but SLUMMO has his giant squirting flower-like object waiting for them.
  4. PLANETRON: The Careful – Planetron, a giant prehistoric sea serpent, rises up to attack Tokyo – but he doesn’t do it all at once. The 300 ft. tall creature first does a walk-through, taking copious notes and occasionally taking out a huge tape measure to check building heights and widths etc. He’ll use this data to plan his attack at a later time so that he’ll know which buildings he is able to knock down for maximum terrifying effect.
  5. The Return of PLANETRON – PLANETRON attacks Tokyo with maximum terrifying effect.
  6. KLAXON: The Annoying – Klaxon, a giant space alien, is not very powerful, so it can’t really cause any actual damage itself, and it can’t really harm anyone ……directly – BUT – it’s really really loud and annoying. So much so that eventually the city sustains damage and mayhem as the military knocks down buildings in an effort to chase Klaxon away. Thousands are killed in the stampede to “get the hell out of Dodge”, much of it due to lack of communication as most people have their ears stuffed with cotton, or stones, or small animals – basically anything they can manage to shove in there just to shut Klaxon the hell up.
  7. THE BEING OF UNKNOWN HORRORS - An earthquake opens a fissure releasing a giant creature. The populace is horrified but it doesn’t know why.
  8. THE NO-NONSENSE BEAST – A humongous monster attacks an unsuspecting city. It stomps cars, knocks down buildings, gobbles up people by the boatload. It withstands every weapon the army and scientists throw at it. That’s it! The no-nonsense beast. What’s the hook, you ask? An all-orangutan cast.
  9. THE MONSTER WHO WAS AFRAID OF OTHER MONSTERS – A large horrible creature, named TELEPHONOPHOBIA, rises from the deep. It attacks only small towns and suburbs. Why? It heard that loads of monsters were attacking the big cities like New York, Tokyo, London – and he owes most of them money. Thus he eschews the obvious target cities and turns up in places like Schenectady, Newport News, and Peoria – the “big monster in a little pond” philosophy.
  10. THE MONSTER WHO DIDN’T SHOW UP – A 500 ft prehistoric sea serpent completely fails to rise from the sea, doesn’t bother to knock down buildings, totally neglects to terrorize innocent citizens, and generally blows off the chance to rampage through Manhattan – much to the chagrin of city officials who ordered the city to be evacuated and the military to be on hand for just such an occasion – and are now looking pretty foolish – and have sent their aides to look for “a Godzilla costume and a camcorder – and step on it if you don’t mind”. Oh the horror …….the horror.

THE HOST scores a 94% on the tomatometer.

Play host to THE HOST this week and


view trailer