Father Geek here along with Robert Bernocchi in romantic Rome. We've got a new and interesting Euro-AICN Column for you this week... buuuuut before we get to the regular report I have a couple of things that I received here at Geek Headquarters in Austin...
“The Journey,” a 100 minute feature motion picture by Glendale based independent filmmakers Edwin Avaness, Emy Hovanesyan and Anghela Zograbyan, has been selected by the Milan International Film Festival in Milan, Italy. The screening will take place from October 23 to November 3, 2002 and the film is nominated for the Audience Award.
“The Journey,” starring Sona Tatoyan, is the story of Eve, a young woman who, as a child, had immigrated to New York from Armenia. The year is 1991 - the Soviet Union has crumbled and Armenia is going through the process of becoming an independent democratic nation. This stirs Eve's soul as she longs for her birthplace. The magazine she works for sends her to Armenia to cover the events unfolding there.
Thus begins a journey that leads Eve into her past, forcing her to face memories of her childhood. In the process, she rediscovers her homeland and its people and comes to terms with the loss of a childhood friend who had been killed. Eve also finds love.
“The Journey” was shot in both Armenia and Los Angeles with a Sony 24P High Definition camera. Milan International Film Festival is among the most recognized film festivals worldwide. For more information about the film and the festival visit www.EvesJourney.com and www.MiffMilanoFestival.com.
Then I received this from Germany...
iakone from Germany speaking.
Just wanted you to know that german director Tom Tykwer (run lola run, pricess & warrior, heaven) just finished filming his new short movie "True". it´s starring Natalie Portman and Melchior Beslon (princess & warrior) and is part of an movie called "Paris, je t`aime" which features international directors like Jean-luc Godart, Woody Allen, agnès verda, sally potter & Johnny Depp. each director contributed a short-movie for the film. Some infos on this are on tykwers production firm website www.x-filme.de.
cheers, iakone
Father Geek back with this little bit from Estonia about a film fest in Finland...
I'm sending you the site of the Finnish festival for you to check it out and find some hidden gems in the program which I am trying to squeeze into my schedule and report back to the readers on later.
The 15th Helsinki Film Festival
It's mainly in Finnish, but the essential info about the films is available in English. Movies like: Avalon; Donny Darko; 24 Hour Party People; Battle Royale; Dark Water; Agitator; Behind The Sun; and Before Night Falls, to name just a very few.
All the best and keep up the marvellous work that you do.
Timo (movie lover and proud of it)
Now here's Robert, Grozilla, and the rest of this week's great Euro-crew...
Hi folks. This week our staff has provided us a lot of interesting tidbits. James Bartlett and James Chappell passed me a lot of reviews, while Grozilla has a lot of stuff from the Deauville Film Festival. Let’s start with our new correspondent from Norway, Koola, who has great information about Steven Soderbergh next projects, Solaris and the Ocean’s 11 sequel. She promised cool reportages about Norvegian cinema to follow in the next week. Thanks Koola…
I have a small report about Soderbergh's work on a rumored sequel to OCEANS 11. This is from an interview with Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen.
Soon Steven Soderbergh's FULL FRONTAL will hit Norwegian cinemas, and in that regard, the newspaper Dagsavisen quotes Soderbergh on a few things he mentioned about a rumored OCEANS 11-sequel.
- I know we can make an even better film than OCEANS ELEVEN. I've played with some ideas in my head, but nothing has been materialised. I know we will shoot it in Europe and that all the actors are on for a new film. I'm making a sequel that's cheaper than the first film. The actors payment was severely reduced for the first film, this time they get nothing. And no one complains, he laughs.
- ButI'm not all about money. I know FULL FRONTAL is no moneymachine. It will beseen by few people, even with Julia in it.
And on the upcoming SOLARIS, Soderbergh says this:
- I have made an unusual film, very untypical Hollywood. It's the most ambitious and difficult film I've made, for many reasons. It'll be a combination of 2001 and LAST TANGO IN PARIS, Soderbergh smiles.
Koola
Gary Duggan has news about Chasing the Dragon, the Joel Schumacher movie, currently filming in Ireland…
Just walked through a film shoot here in Dublin five minutes ago. They were shooting by the millenium bridge. Was late for work but saw them do a take, two big tough looking guys walk up to a newspaper vendor and buy a newspaper. The female AD called cut and I got a glimpse of the long haired wrinkly director smiling. JOEL SCHUMACKER. They must be doing reshoots or pick ups on "Chasing the Dragon." Thought they'd wrapped this months ago. But I heard they had to change some of the script for legal reasons because someone involved in the real life murder of Veronica Guerin was equited.
Gary Duggan
Our great Grozilla sent me the second part of Deauville reportage and an exclusive interview with Secretary director Steven Shainberg…
Hi folks. Now you’ve read many reviews of Secretary , here’s some words from a very nice chat I had with its director Steven Shainberg when he came promote it in Deauville festival. For now Secretary has still no french distributor… What a shame…
What’s the origin of Secretary?
About ten years ago a ten stories book called Bad behaviour was out, written by Mary Gateskill. I read the book and just loved it this story in particular. Something was goin’on between these two characters. The way she wrote the story made me feel that there was a whole mysterious round that may be could be filmed. So I made a short film from it six seven years ago, it sat around a long time, people getting interested in making it a feature, but as I would go in and say what the feature would be every producer would say : « so she gets over her problem, obviously she won’t seeing this guy anymore » and I’d say « No : she doesn’t have a problem, she’s doing nothing wrong, it grows on this unusual love affair ». That was unacceptable So I put it on shelves, worked on other things, then thinking on again. After having seen Jane Campion’s Sweetie and Mike Leigh’s Life is sweet. Both gave me some new ideas about how expended the film. That became the beginning on script.
Secretary is obviously a love story with a twist, but many can see it as a praise to S&M
For these two people, S & M fonctions as some means of communication, psychological intimacy. For other people it won’t fonctions like that at all. Look at Haneke’s The piano teacher. To me that woman is crazy, those are actions of madness. S&M could be a lot of different things, it depends on the person. It can be repellent. There will be people lookin at my movies and say this can’t be love. They’re wrong. This can be. The movie is about two particular people with very particular hangups. Very isolated, so low and behold it works for them, that’s a kind of miracle. When something works for somebody else it’s very hard to say why. And the more you try to you look like a fool. If I try to explain why S&M works between them I’ ll be stupid : you can see that on screen. That’s why it’s a movie so difficult to get made. The producers read the script and say « this is scary and creepy ». I was like : no non, this is touching ». You must see in between the lines. You’re picking something people have assumptions about. Very strong ones, But you have to try to shift it.
In some ways this is a fairy tale, some meeting between some Blue riding hood and some sadistic prince charming. Would you say it’s a moral tale told in an immoral way?
I wouldn’t say that even if first part of your question is true : it’s absolutely fairy tale, and consciously made as such. To me fairy tales are a simple story in finding love. Our assumptions and ideas about this kind of love may be made it look creepy, sick, immoral but the film isn’t such and neither do I. I can make the movies because I don’t see it such. Somebody who felt that way would have made a very different film. It’s very interesting to compare with Haneke’s film : that’s the movie I didn’t wanna make because in it : to my opinion, the woman s has to be punished for her sexuality, I don’t think that’s right. When I think of the two masturbation scenes in the office, I feel that’s so right to show that these could be as kinky as touching. That those two feelings can coexist. The problem obviously with porpnography is thatt you don’t feel anything : not actors, no story, no plot : you don’t care about but that’s still part of life that shouldn’t be banisehed from normal cinema. That’s why, particulary as an americain filmmaker, I'm very interested in Catherine Breillat’s works.
This fairly tale feeling owes much to the design of your film…
I started by the assumption that what’s goin’ on in this office between them is beautiful and wonderful so it can’t be dark and scary. I wanted you to feel as she goes to work to the most exciting fun place on earth. And outside opposite..We try to light all exits the office in a very ugly way. In office all is most of the time lit by natural light, coming through the windows, so to feel warmer as colder outside. This office has to be. somewhat fetichistic and sexy. ! This place was to be the place James Spader’s character is projecting from his mind, he designed it for his erotic intentions. Even if sexy means nothing, this can be a lot of things : an igloo with furs can be sexy The ultimate judge of all for defining sexy was me : I assumed the intercom they use all along the film as a kind of sex toy, a dildo. When I say it has to be sexy, what does it mean to an accessoirist ? That was some aesthetic decisions. Somebody else can make the film with his decision of sexy.
Every background character deal with some neurosis. Was it a way of making the main character more sane?
When you say that I remember Paul Schrader saying that Travis bickle is crazy but people around are crazier. He suddendly become friendly because when lookin at the others and : christ I would ‘nt spend an evening with them. There’s somtheing of that, but I also think that this girl’s family is a lot like mine ; they’re not so unusually odd. This is really the way life in american subrub is. I’m from NYC when I drive in suburbs I feel like bein’ in Disneyland : blondes perfectly mancured, curtains always perfectly sewned, but you know something insane goin’ in this family house. So when I look at this people Idont feel them so weird, Yeah she is saner, because she has more perspective on them, than they got on themselves.
S&M is about power. Work is too. In which way Secretary is to you some satire of work?
It’s not so a satire of work as it’s lookin at the way in which the erotic quliaty of power at work can have an innocence. I think that when we say that, as americans, we always think it shouldn’t be. We try insanely to somehow separate that particular aspect of human life out of all days : in 9 to 5 you don’t feel , he or she can’t look at you like that, he or she can’t provoke it. That’s very strange. If for no other reason it can’t be fun pleasurable and exciting and enregize , I just don’t understand why. For example: Clinton had blow jobs. Thank god the president is getting one. Who say that of he isn’t he would go on war? Why don’t we just say the truth about it? On top of it beyond the absurdity there’s hypocrisy. There’s people who beaten the drum to get rid of him do the same thing.
Would you say Secretary would have been, more provoking, more daring if this was the story between a female boss and his male secretary?
That’s a very interesting possibility.Men have sure power in work, but women too. I’m not sure how to do it, i got to find a story for. But am i interested in it. Sure, who wouldn’t be?
Can this film be misunderstood by feminists?
It can be misunterstood by anyone, believe me! But having screened the film in many festivals I don’t think many will. Some will do but a not a large pourcentage. People are turned off by idea of sado maso could be liberating which is fine because it’s a paraphrasing idea of the film; Not every mind can be opened to this notion. To me more the negative answers will be more allergic reaction than a conceptual reaction but I could be wrong….
Now, As promised here’s Part 2 of the films at the 28Th American film festival of Deauville…
Sonny
At some duplex press conference ( Cage couldn’t be there, supposedly on Matchstick man set), the newly director said he has many projects on this side of the camera and swore they will be made on a independent way. Well, his very good first effort has all that made an independent film for nowadays but could have been made for a studio in 70’s. It has the shape, the feeling, the anger of first Scorsese’s or even more Paul Schrader’s films. Sonny is a quite enthralling tale of self loathing telling how a young adult has to deal with the loss of some unusual childhood. Before joinin’ the army, Sonny was raised to be a gigolo by his mother, some New Orleans war. Now he’s back home, wanting some new life, but has to pay some heavy tribute to his previous. Strangely this is set in the eighties, but that’s only the music (excellent soundtrack) who can tell this isn’t set in the previous decade. Of course there’s some weak stuff, as this shadow of an absent father or the unbereable use of New Orleans accent by Brenda Blethyn (will she forget one day that just because she got rewarded for her part of a crying mother in Secrets & Lies doesn’t mean she has to scorch ears with some phony voice ?), some loss of rhythm near the end and this special appearance from Cage, but all is forgiveable in front of some audacious moments ( you won’t forget the “policeman stick show” or “the kids appearance”) and overall very good performance from James Franco and , surprise ! from Mena Suvari who till I saw her here was one of the most overestimated actresses. Not sure this will please the Cage’s audience because that’s so far from his choice of acting. Sonny reveals more a director with strong opinions, mature ideas. But what else could be expected from a member of the Coppola family directing ?
City by the Sea
Coincidence, the morning I was amazed by James Franco in Sonny, definitely thinking of him as a great actor (he’s my best souvenir of Spiderman), the same afternoon I had to apologize to pals I brought sein’ this lousy thriller. Franco overacts here precisely as could Cage in action flick like Air con or The Rock… But the worst here is the feeling that Michael Caton Jones, once very promising director, is again and again obsessed by some topics. Thriller feeling is an alibi for him to make the same stupid film he did with This boy’s life a few years ago. City by the sea is just cliché. And bad ones. Just ask the crowd who was bursting in laughs when Bob DeNiro delivers some speech as some hurt father…
Safety of objects
Too bad I saw Thirteen conversations about one thing a few days ago. Rose Troche’s film explores quite the same stuff and the same bluesy mood. Neighbours families tied by an heavy mal de vivre. The script and the modus operandi are a tiny bit weaker than the Jill Sprecher’s film. Anyway this contains some very touching moments, and some very strong performances : Jessica Clarkson as divorced mother having to deal with the raise of her daughters and her sentimental life and Glenn Close as another mother caring of his comatose-like son. If it wasn’t for’em this would have just been some Magnolias 2. Hopefully this isn’t, having some very strong identity of its own...
Four Feathers
Heath Ledger, Kate Hudson, some great story, some amazing director, one of the best DP on earth… I was waiting for this screening since the beginning of the festival. This had to be some masterpiece in adventure, had to be our revenge for all tentative of great epics that has failed in the twenty last years (Just name one good exotic adventure film since Raiders of lost ark ? Bet you can’t). Two hours later, I just stand in a coffee, wondering where this has failed. The answer is easy : there’s nobody in director’s chair here. Absolutely no point of view, no personal direction. That’s not a Shekar Kapur film, but a Weinstein brother’s film. Of course, there’s some good moments here, the cast is very good (Hail to Wes Bentley!), Robert Richardson’s work is as usual brillant. The first half of the film is even enjoyable, then trouble begins with the Djimoun Hounsou character. Don’t blame this guy : he does what he can with this part who seems to be written in the 3O’s, some “bon sauvage” part. Spike Lee will be mad if he ever see this. Worst the last part of the film, obviously driven by the Weinsteins to get some English patient for this year. MORONS, this wasn’t meant to be some lousy melo but an adventure film ! So what’s left for the basis idea : a very average film…
Secretary
You all know by now what this is about. Some twisted love story hangin’ with S&M. But don’t forget this is a smart dark comedy. This ain’t disturbing as could be May, another tale of repressed love, better to my opinion than this well written and acted film. The best is probably that this isn’t some apologetic debate on S&M, but just the quest of two people for love. From this point of view I found very daring the end, where those so-told freaks will found ever after happiness. This ain’t the discovery of the year, Steven Shainberg isn’t the new Tim Burton, but for sure Secretary is very enjoyable by his revert vision of PC.
L.I.E
Michael Cuesta’s film gave the opportunity to check how journalists are brainwashed. There was those who didn’t even want to see a frame of this film because the paedophile character but already wish this goes burning in hell and those who absolutely want to see it to find some scandal they could write about with pen filled with shame and anger. I wish the best luck to the French distributor when they’ll release L.I.E early 2003. They’ll need it to avoid all the apriorisms who will appear in the press. And I hope they will just because this isn’t about some kinky sex affair between adults and teenager but some very moving tale about lost childhood and demission of fathers. Some unexpected cross between Gummo and Kids, L.I.E deserved to be seen.
Avenging Angelo
Sorry Sly. I just couldn’t bear more than twenty minutes of your latest try in mafia comedy… For respect for the late Anthony Quinn and Madeline Stowe, the only attitude was to leave. Just admit you’re not made for this… Oh, and I guess your current deal with Luc Besson will gave you some new success, but beware, this doesn’t mean some second soufflé. Besson is kind of devil in disguise… US has Michael Bay, We got Besson….
The Kid Stays in the Picture
Wanna have some really good experience ? Wait for the DVD of this biographical documentary about the Bob Evans carreer and watch it with a copy of Peter Biskind’s Easy riders raging bulls. Then at some time of this hagiographic, but very well made, film (for instance, when Evans speaks about The godfather experience or Roman Polasnki) just press pause and read the concerned parts in the book. Then you’ ll be able to get some right portrait of Hollywood. To be honest, I must admit, The kids stays in the picture isn’t full of bullshiting, Evans having his time of irony towards the mecca of movies. But I felt too much love from the people behind this documentary for a guy who’s got his own dark side.
Grozilla
To conclude this column, a bunch of reviews by our usual pals, James Bartlett and James Chappell…
Reviews by James Bartlett
Swimfan
d. John Polson
Erika Christensen, Jesse Bradford, Shiri Appleby
Ben Cronin (Jesse Bradford) is on the fast track to the American Dream; he has a long-term girlfriend called Amy (Shiri Appleby), a bunch of funky mates and, best of all, the chance to go to top US College Stamford because he is dripping wet most of the time.
That's not his politics of course - Ben swims like a devil and could even be in for a place in the Olympics! Wow! It's almost erased the memories of his chequered past when he fell in with a bad crowd, got into drugs and stole to support his habit (remember that last bit).
So when a new girl arrives in town, you know that Ben is in trouble; Madison (Erika Christensen) is blonde, busty and confident - everything that Amy isn't (dark, sweet and girly) and it's not long before Ben and Madison get hot and steamy in, of course, the swimming pool, but when both insist it was a one-off, it seems Madison has a different idea of what that means.
She begins a systematic plan to ruin Ben's life; first it's raunchy emails and page messages (what, no mobile phones?), then she starts to give the eye to Ben's best friend (and swimming rival) and when Ben gets disqualified for taking drugs and his best mate turns up face-down in the water, people begin to wonder if he's back to his "bad old ways".
Ben must get the evidence he needs to prove that Madison is behind all these recent disasters and, via lucky help from Madison's apparent weird cousin, he finds she has a thing for sports jocks; her last boyfriend was a baseball whiz - note the "was" - he's now attached to a life-support machine.
A "Fatal Attraction" for teens and the new millennium, this isn't even fit to clean the shoes of its classier predecessor. It's lame and weak stuff throughout, but offers enough thrills and shocks to entertain of a popcorn Saturday night.
But swimming? Surely it was chosen only so the pool could feature in the last scene, (where there is a direct homage to Fatal Attraction) - could we have a less interesting sport? And why is it always girls freaking out after a one-night stand? It perpetuates one of the nastier sexual stereotypes.
...James Bartlett
Kissing Jessica Stein
d. Charles Herman-Wurmfeld
Jennifer Westfeldt, Heather Juergensen, Scott Cohen
Made for just a million bucks, KISSING JESSICA STEIN has made nearly ten times that in the USA alone. Its success is a triumph for low budget filmmaking that comes from the leftfield in its subject matter, yet still has the strength and charm to appeal to a wider audience.
With "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" close to the $100million mark in the USA (it was made for $5million), perhaps this really could be the year when Hollywood blockbusters get their comeuppance. I wish.
Kissing Jessica Stein is the story, funnily enough, of Jessica Stein (Jennifer Westfeldt,) a gal in her late 20's who has a good job, great friends, a small-but-funky apartment and a hobby she loves - painting. But what she'd really like is a funny and smart guy to go with it. In New York, is that really so much to ask?
Apparently it is, so when she hears a "Seeking Friendship/Romance" ad that has one of her favourite literary quotes in it she is intrigued - and then surprised - to find the advert-placer is a woman; Helen Cooper (Heather Juergensen) likes to switch between men and women occasionally, but right now, men are really not doing it for her and she has had enough of them.
This unlikely couple meet up and, falteringly, end up having a few drinks together. Jessica is very Woody Allen-like, nervous and neurotic about getting close to someone, let alone a woman - it was not what she expected at all.
But, over time, the two get to know each other and a relationship begins, though it is a very fraught one as Jessica is afraid to tell anyone about her new luck in love - especially her quintessentially Jewish mother.
Even so, people have noticed her smile; especially Jessica's boss Josh (Scott Cohen,) who used to go out with her at High School. Recently he has begun to think of Jessica more often, now that the spark he loved from all those years ago is back again.
Things come to a head at Jessica's brothers' wedding: Helen demands to go with Jessica as the couple they are - no more hiding - or they are finished. But the wedding is also the day that Josh has decided to open his heart to Jessica.
Written by Westfeldt and Juergensen themselves (who are great; Westfeldt especially,) Kissing Jessica Stein is a snappy, funny and un-fussy approach to a subject not often covered (or covered well and successfully) in mainstream cinema; bi-sexuality/changes in sexual preferences.
Sure, it's set in New York (a swingin' place anyway,) so it could be accused of avoiding some deeper resonance, but then if you want to go to Hicksville to cover this it would have to be "Boys Don't Cry."
I did have some second thoughts at times; the implications that Jessica's lesbianism was "just a phase," plus and I did wonder how Jessica's family would have reacted if she had then brought a man to dinner and not Helen (who they treated as a novelty). I also blanched at them being best girly-girlfriends at the end.
Still, New York looked great, it didn't go over the top too much (though Jessica's neuroticism was a bit wearing,) it was well-written, felt natural and believable and its message wasn't about sexual partner choices as an issue, it was the positive and simple "be yourself and do what makes you happy." ...James Bartlett
A Review by James Chappell...
Pluto Nash
In some countries what I am about to say will constitute a crime. For now I formally declare to have somewhat moderately enjoyed Pluto Nash. Not since the irredeemably awful Battlefield Earth has a single movie received such a critical pasting - and it’s easy to see why. After and eternity in production hell, Pluto Nash missed it’s scheduled release date by a good 18 months. The excuses were lame (apparently technology was at the time behind the desired visual effects standard – oh please), no press screenings were held and during its absence Murphy release at least another 3 or 4 star vehicles. A stinker of 1941 standards was predicted – and universally declared when Nash was finally released. Like a DOA patient it had no purpose but to rot in video hell.
Now Pluto Nash is a bad movie, and a very bad one at that. But that’s not to say it doesn’t redeem itself in more ways than one. The plot is simple. Ex-smuggler Nash retires after a stint in jail and decides to use his moon club to reap an honest reward. Then in muscle the mob wanting to buy him out – to which he flatly refuses, survives assassination and goes on the run. Can Nash bring his would be assailants to justice? Will the pretty girl in tow eventually fall for Nash? Will Randy Quaid robot bodyguard ever be anything less than the most annoying sidekick ever? You know the answers; so don’t even bother to ask.
So, lets deal with the good. One cannot deny that Pluto Nash does possess a feverish kind of goofball energy. It zips from A to Z in no time at all. Every one seems high on that energy and as a result appears to be having a blast. Secondly the special effects and production design are amazing. The moon has never looked more appealing, coming across as a cross between mega city one on something from Blade Runner. With majestic buildings, huge neon billboards and a whole array of futuristic vehicles – it came across as a future I’d half like to live in myself. The atmosphere is great – even more so when the funky soundtrack does its bit. This would be perfect were the above matched by intelligence and wit. But that’s where Pluto Nash comes apart.
I don’t know exactly what went wrong, but someone, somewhere along the line appears to have forgotten that comedies are actually supposed to be funny! Murphy can’t be blamed – it’s just his own bad luck to be saddled with a dog of a script. Perhaps in future he should let someone else choose projects for him. No, the blame here can be squarely place on screenwriter Neil Cuthbert. The man who brought us the wonderfully witty Mystery Men really should know better. His abilities here have failed him – leaving us with a mangy, moth eaten affair bereft of original ideas where really there should be plenty. I mean c’mon guys – a futuristic mafia, zany gadgets and robots. The possibilities are endless - something Futurama has proved to no end. In the entire movie I must have laughed thrice – once in a facelift clinic, once in a skit on Weird Science and once in a spot on skit of old blue eyes himself – Frank Sinatra. I'm sorry but I want more! In starving a comedy of it’s very lifeblood the movie is dragged into a quagmire of missed opportunity.
Then there’s the tone – it’s as if the cast know the laughs have escaped them – and try to compensate by shouting at one another. A frantic pace is fine and dandy with a high quota of laughs, but this just made me want to scream. The entire problem is worsened by Randy Quaid’s punch him in the face robot, Bruno. I mean what exactly is Quaid trying to pull? In possibly the most bizarre performance of his career Quaid has quite possibly brought his career to an end. It’s something that escapes description by words, and has to be seen to grasp how truly awful it is. In one scene Bruno runs out of power – and I actually felt threatened when someone went to recharge him! I wanted to shout “No, please god no… don’t do it – for the love of god NOOOOO!” At least Murphy and co. manage to escape unnoticed, being so unremarkable in their roles that the very failure to notice makes any kind of judgement impossible.
In the end Pluto Nash, whilst bad, does not deserve the critical ravaging it received. All it deserves is a slap on the wrist. At least the laugh drought is partially quenched by sheer visual energy, something that could not be said about the likes of Battlefield Earth. Its likeness lies in 1941, the 1979 Spielberg turkey that suffered and compensated in exactly the same way. As for Eddie Murphy, he really should tread more carefully. Another move like this and his star power will diminish faster than the Thanksgiving turkey! Check out my other reviews on http://www.naturalbornviewers.com./
