Puttering in the Study

  • Home
  • Archives
  • Profile
  • Subscribe

Categories

  • Audio (20)
  • Books (475)
  • Comedy (2)
  • Current Affairs (2)
  • Family (281)
  • Fiction (177)
  • Film (4)
  • Food (1)
  • Food and Drink (4)
  • History - General (196)
  • History - Naval (91)
  • Home (61)
  • Hub (71)
  • Models (68)
  • Movies/TV (136)
  • Music (36)
  • Religion (5)
  • Science (14)
  • Science Fiction (2)
  • Space Exploration (3)
  • Sports (4)
  • Travel (1)
  • Web/Tech (1)
  • Weblogs (2)
  • Woodworking (3)
  • World War II (159)
See More
Subscribe in a reader
Michael Smith's Profile
Michael Smith's Facebook profile
Create Your Badge

Family

  • Scan0010
Subscribe to this blog's feed

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

The Death of Stalin - Armando Iannucci

Death-StalinParker had told me a couple of stories about this movie (doesn't your 17-year-old provide recommendations on movies about postwar Soviet apparatchicks?), so last weekend we decided to sit down and watch it. OMG it was hilarious. That may sound like an odd thing to say, but all you need to know that the director's best-known work in the United States is Veep. So when he takes on the power struggle of Soviet party leaders after Stalin's unexpected death, it's going to be from an unexpected perspective.

Good story, good script, magnificent actors – what's not to like? It was particularly fun to watch Steve Buscemi (who plays Nikita Khruschev because of course) just get handed the keys to the movie. Typically it seems like he gets a line every so often and then just watches the other actors react and carry the movie. Here, perhaps because we know he's the one to watch, we are always looking to see what he does, and he never disappoints. I mean, Vyacheslav Molotov is played by Michael Palin, and you don't even notice. 

I highly recommend.

May 06, 2020 in Movies/TV | Permalink | Comments (0)

Emperor - Peter Webber (2013)

V1I decided to watch this while working on my WWS 562 paper on the end of the Pacific War, and was really glad I did. Regardless of how bad Rotten Tomatoes says it is, I found nothing to nitpick or really even to dislike. 

Tommy Lee Jones is solid as MacArthur, but Matthew Fox carries the movie as an American general detailed by MacArthur to report to him on whether Emperor Hirohito should be tried as a war criminal or not. The movie offers an interesting look at the beginning of the Allied occupation of Japan, and the clashes (or lack of clashes) with the Japanese culture.  The prewar romantic subplot between the American and the Japanese college student didn't detract from the story at all (I'm in the minority here), and my favorite part was when the American researching Japanese culture was taken in by her aunt and uncle (a Japanese general) and had a chance for a frank discussion about the competing cultures on the eve of war.  It was at least as good as the few minutes between Yamamoto and Layton at the beginning of Midway.

190px-Macarthur_hirohitoThe climax was well-done and I really appreciated how well the entire cast did dramatizing the meeting between MacArthur and Hirohito at the end of the movie.

February 20, 2020 in History - General, Movies/TV, World War II | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Dracula" by the creators of "Sherlock"

85061628The first time I read Dracula I was enthralled with the way the epistolary form and the subject told a story than grew gradually more horrific even though the words Stoker was using were prosaic at best, and banal whenever he tried to be dramatic. The creeping sense of dread was simply magnificent and made the subject so much more frightening than any vampire reference I'd ever seen or read (admittedly one of each at that time).

Although other authors have mixed language and horror even more successfully (see Lovecraft, King and oh my god that one Isaac Bashevis Singer short story) I remain fascinated with the question of how did dull-as-dishwater theater manager Bram Stoker, for crying out loud, pull this off? His other books don't have a fraction of the weight Dracula had. No one is lining up to remake Lair of the White Worm, and they should be for The Jewel of the Seven Stars, which is not totally bad. (I am not impartial here - I had a crush on Stephanie Zimbalist when she starred in the 1978 version so I have a weak spot for the story, however told).

Stoker's story in Dracula has been told and retold on screen likely hundreds of times to the point that a literal retelling would interest no one but me.  Each version seems to come with its own message, usually the one thing that wasn't present in Stoker's Count - undying love. As much as I love Coppola's 1992 train wreck - and oh I do - it's a love story that Stoker would have found completely inappropriate. And as obvious as the sexual undertones in the story are to anyone but Stoker, Coppola's version goes a bit overboard with them, and to my mind they serve as prurient little speed bumps in the story. Less would have been more.

But Dracula has become almost like Shakespeare in that it can be staged in dramatically different ways to tell a different story, without having to worry about having to replicate the original text. Coppola's version did that with a fair degree of fidelity to the original, and others have as well.  The 2006 version seen on Masterpiece Theater was period as well, but introduced a diseased twist. 

Which brings us to Netflix' three-episode Dracula that just came out.  This version is by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, who are the creators of Sherlock, the modernized version of another Victorian classic. What Gatiss and Moffat have done copies Sherlock rather closely in that they take the character and the stories in the original book and craft three quite original stories set within the framework of the book. As in Sherlock, the original themes and sayings are tweaked ever so slightly. "The blood is the life" becomes "the blood is the lives" for example, which takes the framework of vampiric existence in a slightly different direction that enhances the storytelling aspect.

But the snarky, comic dialogue that played so well in Sherlock fares poorly here.  Two young men with mental health issues coping with bitter humor makes sense.  A centuries-old monster exemplifying evil and a nun joking back and forth about how dangerous a situation she is in is not.  There are places - especially in the third episode, when the characters are on a more equal level where the humor is terrific, but 21st centry snark is just not a good fit for late 19th century polite society when an undead monster is involved.

Most reviewers seem to have thought the first episode was okay, the second a little baffling, and the third batshit crazy.  I was pretty much the opposite. I found the first disappointing, the second pretty interesting, and the third almost completely terrific. The story moves to the present time, and while I never like an effortlessly smooth and debonair Count (I hate the perfect hair), I found the recasting of the familiar scenes with the three suitors and Lucy to be original, creative, and engaging.  The scene at the cemetery and Lucy's story were brilliantly told, and at times frightening as hell.  And while the end of the episode was as bizarre as the end of Sherlock (WTF was that?) it was still a pretty good reimagining.  I always give points for a vampire story that takes care to build its back story - it's one reason I liked the early Anne Rice novels and loved Moonlight. 

No, it's not Sherlock.  The story is just too limited and too dark for the kind of characters and storytelling that made Sherlock so much fun. And while Claes Bang does okay, I'd have appreciated him looking a little more haggard and unkempt while he wisecracks.  But if the capacity of Dracula to tell a story that interests and frightens and fascinates you is what you're after - it's really not bad.

January 31, 2020 in Movies/TV | Permalink | Comments (0)

Midway

Il_1588xN.2022788536_es3zParker and I went to see Midway today, and really enjoyed it.  It was technically stunning - the Enterprise and its dive bombers were flawlessly executed, and for that matter I never saw any hardware (except the sinking Lexington) that wasn't technically correct as far as I knew.  That doesn't mean the camouflage on the ships and aircraft was always correct - the movie starts on December 7, and neither Enterprise, the dive bombers or the ships at Pearl Harbor are in the correct camo for that period - but it's close enough. (There's also one overhead shot of the B-25s over Tokyo where they - inexplicably - have 1943 markings - but it's still far and away the most period-accurate WW II naval combat movie I've ever seen).

Beginning with the Pearl Harbor scenes, though, it becomes clear that this is a dramatization of the action, not a strict retelling.  At Pearl Harbor the events of the attack are sequenced differently, and the ships are arranged a little differently around the harbor, but the action sequence is good, and unlike Pearl Harbor it's consistent.  It's essentially CGI or sets that match the historical ships in CGI, so I have no real complaints. You don't have the Missouri and a bunch of mothballed 1970's destroyers getting blown up.

Along these lines, the action scenes are dramatized as well. I don't think Roi or Namur had scenic mountains, carrier task forces didn't steam at 300 yard intervals, and the Lexington wasn't a Yorktown class ship.  I understand how for dramatic reasons Halsey's Enterprise does make it to the Coral Sea to join Yorktown, but too late to do anything but watch Lexington sink. And it is borderline adorable to have Yorktown and Enterprise watching Lexington sinking at the previously noted 300 yard spacing that looks just like three cows standing together in a meadow.  But - again - they used the same Yorktown class carrier for the sinking Lexington.  Bizarre.

Woody Harrelson does very, very well as Admiral Nimitz, and Etsushi Toyokawa does likewise as Yamamoto. In fact, the whole cast is good, and while I've heard others have issues with the script, neither the script itself nor the dialogue bothered me. Patrick Wilson is also really good as Nimitz' intelligence officer Edwin Layton.

The best thing about the movie to me was the constant parade of historically correct easter eggs that were used to propel the story along. It sounds like terrible writing to have Layton telling Nimitz the exact date, time and bearing of the Japanese attack, and Nimitz then complimenting him later for being "5 minutes, 5 miles and 5 degrees off" - but it's almost word for word what Rochefort and Nimitz actually said.  And Bruno Gaido saving the day at the Marshalls and getting the plane he was in cut in half by a Japanese bomber that nearly misses, and then he comes back later in the movie to play an important role is just over the top screenwriting - but that's exactly what happened. Gene Lindsay getting banged up landing his TBD, Wade McCluskey getting switched to dive bombers - all this stuff is in there. The way the "AF is short on water" story is told is original and funny.  Again, much of the story is dramatized - Halsey put himself in the hospital, but it plays better to have Nimitz have to order him off under protest.  Hirohito being hustled off to his bunker during the Doolittle Raid was a terrific touch.

The accuracy extends to the technical details of the attacks on Kaga and Akagi.  McCluskey mistakenly leads his squadron and almost all of Best's down on a single target, and misses - and so do others before the bombs start hitting home.  Then the most critical attack of the battle is portrayed pretty accurately. Best, accompanied by only his two wingmen, went after the Akagi, but were forced to attack from abeam, meaning they had hit to the ship from the side.  They're shown flying through massive AA fire when Best told us at a seminar in 1992 that there wasn't a gun on him during his run (see comments re: dramatization above) but the actual effects of the attack are shown accurately. His two wingmen both barely miss the ship (one jams the ship's rudder, which would later make salvage even less likely), but Best drops his amidships - and actually at the worst possible point where his bomb not only could damage the ship with its explosion and the secondary explosions - he also fatally damaged the water main system and because he hit around the elevator, the damage extended to both the hangars.  One bomb - one ship.

Oh, and then he came back four hours later and scored a hit on Hiryu as well.  Perhaps not in as dramatic fashion as the movie displays, where he lands his SBD on the Hiryu, engages Admiral Yamaguchi in hand to hand combat, and then takes off again, dropping his bomb through the hinomaru in the forward flight deck on his way off, but still.  (I am only exaggerating slightly).

It's a great war movie, and it's a great and largely accurate retelling of the first six months of the Pacific war - one where the Enterprise is depicted flawlessly (okay, other than not having Ms 1 camo on Dec. 7/8).  And they gave us Midway pins at the movie theater. What more could you ask for?  Oh yeah, a historically accurate Lexington. But other than that, not much.

November 09, 2019 in History - Naval, Movies/TV, World War II | Permalink | Comments (0)

Midway (1976) - how accurate is it?

0025192112041_p0_v1_s550x406Parker and I watched Midway the other night, and the question arose how accurate it is?  (For completists, here are my reviews of the DVD in 2006 and the Blu-Ray version in 2016).
 
What's accurate
 
Generally, it's fairly accurate, and tracks what was known of the battle by the mid-1970's, most notably Walter Lord's Incredible Victory (my personal favorite nonfiction book), which was informed by Mitsuo Fuchida's memoir, published in the 1950's, which becomes important later. Specifically, it accurately relates:
  • the effect of the Doolittle Raid on Japanese planning
  • the codebreakers' activities uncovering Japanese intentions
  • Nimitz' efforts to defend Midway, including accepting Halsey's nomination of Spruance, and insisting on sending the damaged Yorktown
  • the decisionmaking process by Nagumo during the battle
  • the decisionmaking process - in general - on the U.S. carriers
  • the carriers' squadrons' attacks on the Japanese carriers (the attacks by Midway squadrons are not shown)
What's not accurate
 
First, the Charlton Heston character, "AirOps" on Nimitz' staff is fictional, but at various stages in the movie plays a role that is identifiable with a historical character.  
 
At the beginning of the movie he approximates the intermediary role of Cdr Edwin Layton, Nimitz' intelligence chief, who - against Washington's (the Redmon brothers) express directions to the contrary, obtained and relayed Rochefort's cryptanalysis results and recommendations directly to Nimitz.  Captain Redmon in Washington, who had no cryptanalysis experience, wanted to interpret the intelligence himself and have only his analysis and recommendations sent to CinCPac - and not the decrypts and analysis from the various codebreaking stations, of which Hypo in Hawaii was only one.
 
There was no senior officer from Nimitz' staff assigned to Fletcher on the Yorktown at Midway - although there had been an intelligence offer assigned at Coral Sea, whose work for Fletcher was the genesis for the leak of the fact that the Navy was reading the Japanese code.  As Alvin Kernan, an Enterprise aircraft ordnanceman noted in both his books, that was open knowledge on the ships at Midway, and recent scholarship has traced the leak back to Fletcher's staff's handling of the information he received from CinCPac on the ride back to Pearl Harbor after Coral Sea.
 
Heston's character also approximates the role of the squadron leader from the Yorktown who led its surviving SBDs to the Enterprise for the afternoon attack on the Hiryu. However in reality the aircraft never landed on Yorktown as it was under attack, and instead were simply redirected to Enterprise, where, less two aircraft that ran out of fuel or were shot down by AA fire while circling, they made up half of the strike that sank the Hiryu.
 
Finally, as the film doesn't show the Yorktown being abandoned, or ever mention its abandonment or sinking, the "Matt Garth" character's death at the end more or less approximates it, at a substantial savings in special effects costs.
 
Second, while Rochefort did wear a smoking jacket and carpet slippers, they were not indications of eccentricity, as Hal Holbrook played him in the movie.  He was working long hours on concrete floors in a room that was decidedly chilly in order to keep the computing equipment operating efficiently.  He was a very serious officer, and not at all eccentric.  He passed away one month after the movie came out, incidentally.  
 
He was most certainly scapegoated by the DC naval intelligence community after the battle for being right.  King turned down Nimitz' recommendation that he receive a medal for his intelligence work, and he was transferred to command a floating drydock in San Francisco.  (I am not making that up). He never went to sea again.
 
Interesting note: Henry Fonda worked as an aide for Nimitz briefly at CinCPac headquarters on Guam in 1944-45. It was not, Fonda recalled, a close relationship, and he assumed Nimitz was irritated at getting a Hollywood star placed on his staff, however briefly.  But it makes his portrayal fascinating to me, because I wonder how much of it is mimcry of a historical figure he actually knew.
 
Second interesting note: both Yamamoto and Nimitz were missing fingers. Yamamoto lost two during the battle of Tsushima, and Nimitz while showing the operation of engines during a tour of an engine room in the 1920's.
 
Post-movie comments
 
The movie's reflection of the battle as a miraculous win - as did all books to that time - was characterized by later authors as "Incredible Victory disease" - a phrase Walter Lord would have loved, I'm sure, because more recent scholarship showed that wasn't the case.  I'm not being sarcastic - I met Lord at a Nimitz Symposium in 1992, and he was fascinated by the scholarship that was coming out even then - he would have been so pleased to have his title tweaked.
 
In 2005 Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway provided the results of analysis of the Japanese side, including computer calculations of the activity on the Japanese carrier hanger decks as they rearmed aircraft using a limited number of bomb and torpedo trucks and aircraft and bomb elevators, which resulted in the conclusion that when Fuchida wrote in the 1950's that the Akagi and other carriers' flight decks were full and they were just about to launch what would have been a fatal strike on the US task forces when they were hit by the dive bombers - he was lying.  He was attempting to portray fate as having intervened at the decisive moment in the battle, when the truth was that the Kido Butai was nowhere near ready to launch an airstrike when the dive bombers arrived.  The timing of their arrival meant absolutely nothing to the outcome of the battle.
 
This underscored the flaw in the Japanese plan that was apparent even in the painfully rigged war games that took place on the Yamato several weeks before, when the officer playing the American forces put his carriers almost exactly where Spruance and Fletcher later would, and sank two of the four Japanese carriers with his initial strike - which with the exception of Dick Best's single bomb which sank the Akagi - was exactly what happened on the morning of June 4. Given the flammability of Japanese carriers while operating aircraft, if they were spotted by US carriers before the US carriers could be destroyed, they would likely be sunk.  There was really no Incredible Victory to the battle - Nimitz had more aircraft, an island target that distracted Nagumo and divided his striking power, and a fairly precise knowledge of how the battle would unfold.  All he had to do was launch before the Japanese carriers did, and it's hard to envision a situation where he would not be able to.
 
The only thing that really made the battle close was the poor performance of the air staff on task Force 16, most notably the bad leadership of the Hornet's air group.  Led by CHAG Stan Ring, Hornet's dive bombers succeeded in missing the Japanese carriers during both strikes in June 4 (he even missed getting in a plane for the afternoon strike), and the near complete failure of the Enterprise's dive bombers to locate the carriers.  The only reason they even had the chance to do so (the famous scene of McCluskey seeing the Arashio is accurate) was because Spruance overruled Halsey's chief of staff Miles Browning who wanted them to keep circling to form up with the torpedo planes.  After a delay of nearly an hour, Spruance sent them along over Browning's objections.  The more experienced Yorktown launched an hour later than Enterprise and Hornet, but placed all three of its squadrons directly on top of the Japanese carriers at the same time.  Even though its squadrons were in some cases flying with each other for the first time, they communicated well before the launch and launched in reverse order, which gave them far more fuel.  Enterprise lost half its two squadrons to fuel exhaustion - Yorktown lost two aircraft of its one squadron.
 
Interesting note - Miles Browning's grandson is Chevy Chase.
 
The real story of the "flight to nowhere" of the Hornet's squadrons didn't really become clear till after 1976 in part because there were never any squadron or other reports written by Ring or Mitscher, so what actually happened was not pieced together until recently.  The movie focuses on what is known - that Torpedo 8 flew straight to the Japanese carriers, but not until recently have historians finally settled on the theory that Ring deliberately flew north of the reported position, hoping to catch the "other two" Japanese carriers.  We forget that at the time he left, only two had been sighted, and Nimitz had told them there were four - and possibly five.  But he didn't - and wouldn't - tell Waldron or anyone else why he was flying the heading he was. As his navigation was known to be erratic, Waldron finally told him - on an open channel overheard by many - to go to hell and turned left to fly straight to the reported position of the carriers.  He likely had no idea that Ring and possibly Mitscher were probably sending him north of the reported position to catch the two carriers they (incorrectly) assumed would be behind the reported location.
 
Shattered Sword found one other interesting fact that undermined what had been a great dramatic point in the movie, and that was the role of the cruiser Tone's Scout #4.  For 60 years historians have blamed Scout #4's delay in launching for the failure of the Japanese to launch their strike at the American carriers before the dive bombers hit.  But, as noted above, it would have made no difference when they knew, because as long as they were landing the returning strike planes and cycling their CAP to respond to the continuing strikes from Midway they could not have launched.
 
But paradoxically, the late launch actually gave them earlier notice, and was an enormous stroke of luck.  In order to get back on schedule, the Tone's pilot only flew partway out on his search leg, then turned to fly across his assigned sector before returning.  It was while flying across his sector that he spotted the Yorktown.   Had he flown his full search arc, then across, then back, he either would not have spotted the US task force at all, or would have seen it substantially later.  Again, Fuchida assigned the fact that the plane assigned to the crucial arc was late to fate, and Lord and other historians followed his lead - but without checking where on his flight he spotted the US carrier.  
 
It's really interesting how inaccurate I harped on the movie being in 2006, but by 2016 I appreciated how it got the big points right.  If it got the Star Trek remastered treatment on special effects, the dramatic portion would work pretty well.

June 15, 2018 in History - Naval, Movies/TV, World War II | Permalink | Comments (0)

Twin Peaks - The Final Dossier

Twin-peaks-the-final-dossierThe Secret History of Twin Peaks was such a pleasure that I part read on the Kindle and part listened to it last fall, and decided I had to have the paper version as well recently, since it's a triumph in the field of scrapbook-y book design.  I ordered The Final Dossier at the same time, but it's nothing like it - it's just short reports on all the characters' lives after the TV series ended 25 years ago.  Well, that's interesting, but it's pretty thin gruel after Secret History and Season 3.

Still, it's good book design, and reasonably priced, which Agent Cooper would approve of. 

December 25, 2017 in Books, Fiction, Movies/TV | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Secret History of Twin Peaks - Mark Frost

51wN9m5wI2L._SL300_This is a new book by TP co-creator Mark Frost that provides the "back story" for Twin Peaks starting with the Lewis & Clark expedition.  The supernatural aspects of the town are delved into in some detail - clearly as a setup for the forthcoming TV miniseries, as well back stories on the various characters - some of which we knew from the original series, and some of which we didn't.  (A significant glitch here where Norma Jennings' mother is said to be deceased when she was on the series, and the story of how Big Ed and Nadine got together doesn't quite fit with the story he told on the show.  But I'll forgive it).

Very interesting book.  I really liked the back story and think it fits with the show - even though it has the weird coming from a little different place from where I thought it did.  But if you like Twin Peaks, you'll love it.

March 10, 2017 in Books, Movies/TV | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Dam Busters (1955)

10262_largeI've read the book about Operation Chastise, and one of my earliest models - definitely pre-1974 - was a 1/72 scale Lancaster that I remember Daddy helping me paint the Dam Buster bomb.  Anbd not too long ago the boys and I watched a documentary about the mission which included making a replica dam and launching a similar "skipping" weapon.  

I'd heard about the iconic 1955 movie, but never seen it, so I picked up a Bluray on Amazon after a YouTube video had clips of the attack scenes alongside corresponding clips from Star Wars, claiming that Lucas ripped off the WW II classic's attack scenes.  Here's the problem - the Bluray ended up being Region2, so couldn't play in the movie room.  But Grayson was able to upload it to his Plex system and he, Parker and I watched this over the weekend.

It was okay, as 1950's black and white British cinema goes.  Lots of shots of three Lancasters flying in formation, over the top acting, and atrocious special effects (AA fire is represented by "tracers" which are pretty obviously deliberate scratches on the film).  But the attack scenes didn't call Star Wars to mind at all.  Yes, they're aerial attacks, but beyond that there's no obvious connection.

The movie understandably downplays how horribly complicated the "spinning bomb" weapons system was.  In fact there's no mention of the "spinning" effect at all - just the difficulty of getting the weapon to skip correctly.  The spinning, I knew from the book, was the key to the weapon's effectiveness because it would cause a bomb that hit the dam to stay in contact with it as it sank, thus directing the force of the impact against the dam rather than allowing the water to cushion the dam from the blast's effects.  

But the movie does show dramatically just how low the bombers had to fly for the system to work.  Watching the bombers used in the movie skimming the water at just 60' during broad daylight made it clear just how dangerous the final run was in the dark, under fire.  

Overall, glad we saw it, but it's an unavoidable oversimplification - not unlike Apollo 13 - of just how difficult a problem the operation actually was to accomplish.

February 13, 2017 in History - Naval, Movies/TV, World War II | Permalink | Comments (0)

Johnny English Reborn

JEFair's fair - Grayson watched Dracula Untold, so I watched this - a Rowan Atkinson vehicle where he does a toned-down Mr. Bean is a solid, solid James Bond parody.

The thing that struck me was how well-done the movie was.  It wasn't full-out camp, just well-crafted comedy, especially if you're a Bond aficionado.  I thought over and over of how much Daddy would have enjoyed this - the humor in Bond movies was one of his favorite things.  Also enjoyed Rosamund Pike as the somewhat improbable love interest, and an imperious Gillian Anderson as English's boss.  

February 23, 2015 in Movies/TV | Permalink | Comments (0)

Dracula Untold

Dracula-untold-movie-2014Grayson and I watched this last night and I really liked it.  Clearly a setup for a superhero series of movies using the Universal "monsters" (Dracula, Mummy, Wolfman, etc.) and so it wasn't remotely a horror movie - basically just Iron Man with vampire powers instead of a flying suit (the net effect is the same), with this being the "origin" movie.

I liked it just fine - thought Luke Evans was great as lead, and I'm looking forward to the next one in the series, which is going to be a conflict with Vlad and the older vampire that created him - an outstanding Charles Dancy with makeup that matches and might even top Underworld's Bill Nighy for best vampire ever.  To me, an ancient living corpse shouldn't look remotely like a living human, and Dancy's cave-dweller definitely doesn't.  Wish the accent wasn't so refined, but you can't have everything.

I have a very good feeling about the next movie.  This is not your father's Dracula.

February 23, 2015 in Movies/TV | Permalink | Comments (0)

Next »