Cool News
VENICE FILM FESTIVAL! Mastidon Reviews Brian De Palma’s REDACTED And Clooney’s MICHAEL CLAYTON!
Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.
Oh, man. You lucky bastard. It’s really surprising to see people buzzing about a De Palma film based on a few festival screenings. It’s a good surprise, but it’s still sort of shocking. I’m so used to people writing him off that I’m intrigued now. If non-De Palma fans are getting crazy about this one, it might be something really exciting.
I’ve seen MICHAEL CLAYTON, and I’m hoping to get my muzzle removed soon on this and a few other films. I’ll just say that Warner Bros has a very, very strong line-up of movies this fall, and I look forward to writing about some of them. Soon.
For now, here’s Mastidon:
Ahoy Quint!
Figured I would write you directly since you published my last review. Yesterday in Venice I attended the world premiere of Redacted and the second airing of Michael Clayton.
I thought you guys would like some more insight on how the festival runs. Venice has 2 screens open to the general public, the main venue, which is where all the premiers are held, and a second temporary bigger one for screenings that start just after the main premiers. For example, Michael Clayton premiered at 6:45 PM and was shown in the other cinema at 8:30.PM. The second venue is very strange. Its setup inside a circus tent with 1800 seats and a state of the art sound system. Where the viewers in the main venue are 50-50 Italians and foreigners, the tent is 90% Italian giving the atmosphere the feel of a regular movie screaming.
Attached to this email are several photos. Feel free to use and publish any or all of them.
Now onto the reviews....
Redacted - 5 stars
Disturbing. This is the only word I could think of when it finished. By far, the most upsetting film I have seen since Schindler's list. Written and directed by Brian De Palma. This is not Bonfire or Scarface, but an entirely different De Palma.
A quote from Brian himself from his directors notes that are published in the official catalog for the event. "To Redact is to edit or to prepare for publishing. Frequently a redacted document or image has simply personal (or possibly actionable) information deleted or blacked out; as a consequence redacted is often used to describe documents or images from which sensitive information has been admitted. The true story of our Iraq war has been redacted from the mainstream corporate media." - Brian De Palma. Brian's goal is to show the viewer the side of Iraq the media refuses to. I can only imagine how many people he will piss off with this film. It won't be long until someone calls him un-American or a friend of the terrorists.
***SPOILERS****
The movie opens with a statement that the events pictured in this film are fictional. However, they are all based on true accounts of other events in Iraq. Black lines appear through various words until only the letters REDACTED are left.
The film stars are all relatively unknown which is key considering its premise - a story told from video journals of a soldier, a French documentary film maker, and an Al-Jazeera like network. The story focusing on the events before, during, and after the rape of a 15 year old Iraq girl by American soldiers. We are first introduced to the soldiers through a home movie being made by one of them, a Latino named Angel Salazar. It seems Angel was denied entrance to film school so he believes he can get in by making his own documentary of Iraq. Through Angel we meet his entire squad. All seem like relatively normal Army guys. Mostly bored and horny. Everywhere pictures of naked women hanging on the walls. And constant talk of getting laid.
The film then switches over to a checkpoint where American's search cars going between zones. At this point the film is now in French with English subtitles. We are lead through the entire process from the point of view of a passenger in the Iraqi's car. Several key statistics are given such as half of the population of Iraq is illiterate so how could they possibly read or understand the signs. Then the key statistic that over 2,000 Iraqis have been killed at US checkpoints but of the 2,000 only 60 have been proven to be insurgents. A bit further on, the film then switches back to the Americans where a car appears to be running a checkpoint. They order he car to stop but it won't. The Americans open fire and the car stops. Out comes a man trying to take his sister to the hospital as she is giving birth. The sister has been shot. The Al-Jazeera network takes over at which point we learn the woman and baby both died. From the Iraqi point of view, the Americans waved him through the checkpoint and did not tell him to stop. Clearly a lost in translation situation. As a final in your face, the movie switches back to Angel's video where he is interviewing the soldier about the events. The soldier openly says he has no remorse or care about the dead woman.
The movie continues through the lives of these men and their actions. There is a full out rape of a young woman on camera. And if you were grossed out by the bathroom scene in Scarface, this one blows that way with a revenge decapitation. The sound effects used still make me flinch when thinking about them.
The movie ends with real pictures from dead civilians in Iraq including a pregnant woman who was clearly killed at a checkpoint.
The entire film is only 90 minutes long. Any longer would simply have been to painful to watch.
***END Spoilers*****
I must caution you not to see this movie on a full stomach as it is EXTREMELY violent. However, if the violence was removed or somehow cut back, the movie would lose its message.
This film received an even longer standing ovation than Sleuth. I know some of you have doubts that it lasted 5 minutes, well Redacted blew that one away. After this one, my hands hurt from clapping for so long. It went on for several minutes after the credits had ended.
If you think its a good idea we should be in Iraq, or that we have a clue and know what we are doing, then you need to see this movie. If you are opposed to the war, you still need to see this movie to see just how bad it really is. In my opinion, this movie deserves every best picture nod from every organization out there. Will it get it? Probably not as it is way too controversial. My vote is that it should be mandatory viewing for anybody over the age of 16.
Intermission
After watching Redacted, I followed Brian outside and got this photo. Clearly he looks as moved at his own movie as the rest of us were. I then headed to he bar as after that I needed a drink to calm down.
From the bar I headed back to the main cinema to watch the spectacle of the arrival from George Clooney for Michael Clayton. Its unreal how he draws a crowd. For every other premier, the space behind the wall was easily maneuverable but with Clooney, it was just a zoo. See attached photo.
After that, I headed down to the beach to watch the sunset and clear my head for Michael Clayton. I was really looking forward to something lighter after Redacted.
Michael Clayton - 2 stars
As I said in the beginning of the post, I saw Michael Clayton in the circus tent with 1800 of my closest Italian friends. The concept, brilliant. George Clooney as a lawyer who fixes problems for other lawyers. The execution, extremely disappointing. I don't need to waste your time reading a long review of Michael Clayton because it simply isn't worth my time to write it. In short, a very pale imitation of a John Grishom novel.
**SPOILERS****
The story is about Michael's involvement trying to fix the situation with the firm's largest client, an evil genetic corporation. Michael is called in after the lead attorney working the case has a sudden attack of morality, strips off all of his clothes, and then decides to tell the truth about his client. Pathetic, I know.
***END Spoilers***
Sydney Pollock who is an actor I have the greatest respect for was completely under used. I'm glad I caught him on Entourage the other night. I wish him well through his current illness. George Clooney's character reminded me of Danny Ocean as a lawyer but far less entertaining. I can sum it up this way, I looked at my watch 3 times to see when this film would end. In all, not a terrible movie, just not a very good one either. Save your money and wait for the video even if your girlfriend begs you to see George. Rent "Good Night, and Good Luck" instead.
Tonight
I will catch another movie about Iraq, In the Valley of Elah which is Paul Haggis first movie since writing and directing Crash. If it is half as good as Crash, I will be pleased. My final event of tonight is the midnight premier of Blade Runner - The Final Cut. Should be great just to see it on a big screen!
Until tomorrow. Chow from Venice!
-Mastidon
-
+ Expand All
-
That includes the Blade Runner review. Thanks, Mastidon!
-
I was so close to believing him about Redacted that De Palma, a filmmaker I usually abhor, had made something good for the first time in like 15 years. But if he is a Crash fan then politically correct bullshit might just be his M.O. And in that case he will like In the Valley of Elah, because it just about is HALF as good as Crash.
-
crash was a horrible piece of shit!!!
it did not deserve best pic and the acting was shit. im tired of people who liked crash. de palma doing untouchables 2 give me a break. these 2 films u reviewed sound good. -
"If you think its a good idea we should be in Iraq, or that we have a clue and know what we are doing, then you need to see this movie."
What? A recount of a single horrific event in the Iraq war is supposed to make us believe the whole war is immoral? (And yes, that's basically what DePalma himself said) What the hell kind of retarded logic is that? I'm not going to judge the rest of the troops or the war as a whole based on the disgusting and reprehensible actions of a few. You're flat out ignorant if you think that all the soldiers do over there is rape and kill innocent Iraqis. Let's be honest, if that's what you believe, you're probably not capable of holding intelligent conversations in the first place, let alone capable of debating the war rationally.
Let's put it this way: What if someone made a film about the worst act you ever committed (obviously, the incident would vary in intensity depending on the person)? Are we supposed to judge you based entirely on that movie?
Or, if you will, if a few students at a high school rape and murder someone, is the whole school supposed to be shut down?
You're naive to think that this movie would influence anyone who actually takes the time to read and learn about the war. If you hated the war to begin with, you're going to embrace this movie as further evidence of your beliefs. If, however, you support the war, then this movie will hardly budge your opinion of it as a whole. You'll decry the acts of those few contemptible soldiers and continue on. The only people who would really change their stance on the war based on a movie probably don't pay much attention to world events in the first place... and therefore, the rest of us (regardless of our stance on the war) don't take their opinions seriously to begin with. -
to shoot down De Palma's credibility. In fact by going on a pro war rant it actually helps the movie. Plus filmmakers dont make a single movie thinking its going to change everyones stance, they do it to add to the current unending need for dissent. Who know, a movie, on top of all the facts as to what a horrible corrupt failure the war actually is, could be enough to open a few eyes. or inspire someone to vote differently or any of a million different actions. Thats what art does. Diminishing this is not only naive, but makes you look like a Republican shill.
-
he never said anything about being pro war in his post (although it's easy to assume he is). he's just pointing out a rather ridiculous statement made in the review of the movie. you said, "Plus filmmakers dont make a single movie thinking its going to change everyones stance, they do it to add to the current unending need for dissent." de palma has already said that pictures changed peoples' minds about vietnam and that he hopes that this movie does the same for iraq, soooo yeah. regarding the films: the buzz on redacted has been amazing (from more than just this guy), so i'm psyched for that & michael clayton sounds like a disappointment coming from the guy who made good night & good luck. oh well, lets hope MC doesn't bomb so we have to sit through ocean's 14.
-
First of all, love the nick. Secondly no he doesnt come out and say he's pro-war but lets call a spade a spade here. Second of all I think De Palma meant he wants to change SOME minds, as many minds as possible that are close enough to changing their stance on the war that a movie might be the thing that does it. After all he is right about film and Vietnam. its not the only thing that changed hearts and minds, but it certainly helped. Take a look at Brokeback Mountain. Im sure there is more than a few people who werent fond of homosexuality that, presented with a very human portrayal on the subject matter, looked maybe a little deeper into their souls (and used a little common sense) next time they thought about whether homosexuality is a choice. All I'm saying is dont diminish the role of art on the landscape of human thought patterns. Some people still believe in "soul mates" after all....thanks romantic comedy.
-
It's 2007 ya know :P
-
"A recount of a single horrific event in the Iraq war is supposed to make us believe the whole war is immoral?" - a war is immoral by definition.
-
What definition of war are you referring to? There is alot of thoughtful arguments describing "necessary" or "moral" wars. Many point to WW2, fought against a genocidal Nazi regime, as a "necessary" war. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't have been fought because it's a "war"? How about the American Civil War, which enforced the prohibition of slavery in America? Immoral because it's war? I'm not calling foul; I'm just curious as to the depth of your opinion. I hope it's challenging instead of polemic.
-
What definition of war are you referring to? There is alot of thoughtful arguments describing "necessary" or "moral" wars. Many point to WW2, fought against a genocidal Nazi regime, as a "necessary" war. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't have been fought because it's a "war"? How about the American Civil War, which enforced the prohibition of slavery in America? Immoral because it's war? I'm not calling foul; I'm just curious as to the depth of your opinion. I hope it's challenging instead of polemic.
-
Sorry about the double post-coffee's too strong this morning.
-
Look, everyone knows that De Palma is extremely anti-war, and I'm sure he does hope that his film will have an impact in stopping the Iraq war. I just don't understand how everyone always goes immediately to "he hates the troops" or that he's saying that all U.S. troops in Iraq are rapists and murderers. To me, I think he's trying to tell the viewer, "Look what happens when we send our young kids over to a place like this." It sounds from most reviews I've read that by the time the rape/murder actually takes place in the film, De Palma has you really sympathizing for the soldiers involved. Maybe he's just trying to say that if the war hadn't happened in the first place, this incident (and whatever others like it there might be) would have never happened. Maybe I'm just crazy, though, and Brian De Palma really does hate the troops and believe that every single one of them is a murderer...
-
First I'd like to know where they got those 2,000 dead at one checkpoint statistic, that seems impossibly high. Second DePalma has made his intent perfectly clear, "show the real war that the media doesn't want you to see." In other words to DePalma, our troops raping and murdering innocent people is the real war and is happening all the time the media just covers it up. It's the title of the film for crying out loud.
This movie won't change any minds because the only people who will see it are people who are already anti-war. The only thing that will come from this movie is a bunch of Hollywood back padding and another unsuccessful movie to add to DePalam's long list of recent flops. Aanyone remember "Mission to Mars"? -
After seeing the completed 'Black Dahlia' I almost did. Sure, why couldn't Josh Hartnett be a police detective?
-
I love how instead of making an argument against De Palma's film, which not many could do since it hasn't been released yet, people just decide to say "Yeah, well look what a horrible filmmaker De Palma is." That really helps your side of the argument, so keep it up...
-
DePalma is one of my favorite directors, aside from a few outliers below (The Bonfire of the Vanities) DePalma made great films for a solid 30 years. Blow Out would be the best of his films listed below. So what the hell happened to him? I don't give a shit if his next film is political or not, I just wish he finally makes another movie even close to the same caliber of movies he made during his prime.
Carlito's Way (1993)
Raising Cain (1992)
The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
Casualties of War (1989)
The Untouchables (1987)
Wise Guys (1986)
Body Double (1984)
Scarface (1983)
Blow Out (1981)
Dressed to Kill (1980)
Home Movies (1980)
The Fury (1978)
Carrie (1976)
Obsession (1976)
Phantom of the Paradise (1974)
Sisters (1973) -
I guess De Palma didn't get the message that the anti war left ought not to spit on soldiers any longer. Sad, but at least honest.
-
Half as good as Crash? What is that, some variation of Xeno's Paradox where it can be logically proven that no matter how bad a movie is, it will always be possible to find one 50% worse?
-
Hopefully an antidote to all the bad work DePalma's done the past few years. Not unheard of a filmmaker to flounder around for a while, then connect with a particular story that brings out the best in him. Believe this was happening to Eastwood before he did UNFORGIVEN, which wiped away all memories of movies like THE ROOKIE.
-
I saw In the Valley of Elah and the answer to your question is YES.
-
Of course this movie is getting "good buzz" it's an anti-war movie and in today's Hollywood climate you could make the worst movie ever made and still get heaps of praise just for making an anti-war film.
The Dixie Chicks are a perfect example. Prior to becoming a rally point for the anti-war movement, no one outside of the country music scene gave two shits about the Dixie Chicks. But as soon as they became anti-war they became the greatest thing to ever happen to country music and started receiving all kinds of awards and praise despite rapidly dimensioning sales and the complete lose of their core audience. -
Because today we'd all be posting on the "Ist es nicht Vunderbar Nachrichten" website. Well, except for you Jewish and/or non-Aryan folks...because we'd be all dead. Sorry.
-
I didn't read the spoilers though. I am a fan of De Palma so I'd rather see it without knowing. It's interesting that he would go after the Iraq war since the heroes in his films who try to expose corruption usually don't fare too well. Can't wait to see it.
-
That post was brilliant. Brilliant in showing the absolute ridiculousness and negligent stupidity of a side of the political debate who is incapable of telling the difference between the the war in Iraq and Nazi Germany. That post was made ironically.....right? And sharki I'm sure the already obscenely rich Dixie Chicks (musical talent or lack thereof notwithstanding) are really smarting over the loss of fans of country "music", who are about one step above caveman on the evolutionary ladder.
-
Can we please get over the whole "Crash" stole the Oscar thing. I thought it was a hundred times better than "Brokeback", and better than anything else that came out that year...I can see how some people could not like it as much, or even hate it, but "Crash" won, and its time to move on. I can't believe people still talk about it like its fucking Marisa Tomei.
-
The Dixie Chicks were HUGE, transcending demographics (such as "country music listeners"), LONG before the talked smack about W. Look it up on Billboard.
People who think this movie is great, before they see it, have a slight edge in rational discourse over their counterparts: those who despise it before they've seen it. It may be polemical nonsense, shot like Romper Room and edited together like Frankenstein, but at least it's intent is to challenge, rather than to reinforce. It may suck, but it's confrontational posture to authority endows it with a fresher scent than the unknown potential of a devotional project. Speaking truth to the corrupt or inept elements of civilization, the only valuable ethic of any artform, can only happen if artists first try to speak it. To spend time praising the status quo is not nearly as important. -
Apparently you didn't see In The Valley of Elah in Venice last night, because it got a 10 minute standing ovation.
-
Which is not to say that ANY movie which attempts to challenge authority is automatically better than EVERY movie which reinforces authority. It's just to say that the IMPULSE behind challenging authority is more important than the IMPULSE to buttress it. Some narratives work to strengthen POSITIVE elements in power structures, and those, I contend, are challenges to the authority to always remember their better nature and to be always vigilant about forgetting that nature if favor of baser impulses (greed, violence, manipulation, etc.). A film, such as DePalma's, which attempts to challenge the system's(s') baser instincts AND/OR exault its/their positive qualities, is fundamentally HIGHER than a film which uses uncritical pride toward the almighty superorganism to which its makers belong (nationalism, religious fundamentalism, etc) to inspire the unreflective viewer toward similar irrational loyalty.
Although, to repeat, such an IMPULSE does not guarantee artistic success, anymore than loving lasagna makes you a decent cook. -
Great REDACTED review! Can't wait...De Palma is one the greatest, yet most polarizing figures in film...You can hear a discussion about REDCATED and all of De Palma's works, in a special 2 hour tribute on internet radio. There are lots of great guests who have worked with De Palma throughout the years.
Go to:
http://blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=34402
to listen in! -
It doesn't matter what Tengumen's personal stance is. You say we should call a spade a spade right? Fair enough he may be. But that's irrelevant to the fact that he made a solid argument. People forget that like any fictional film made about a particular event, you cannot simply make a judgement on the event due to what you saw. Sure it may be horiffic and true to a few particular instances, but like the poster said, you cannot judge the whole based on the actions of a few. You take away from the argument by drawing attention to the poster's personal stance. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is his argument and any rational person should see the truth in the argument. I love Platoon and while a film like that and this may be excellent for drawing attention to the need to be more conscious of certain issues and problems, such as miscommunication, it is not and cannot be a substitute for a real understanding of a situation. Whatever the truth or what we think the truth is in Iraq, we cannot act like this film "tells it like it is". All we can hope for is it to show but a glimpse into a very complex and difficult situation. Don't be so quick to make judgements based off of the two hours you spent sitting on your ass one day.
-
"Rapidly dimensioning sales". How do people dream this stuff up?
-
Sep 03, 2007 9:56:43 AM CDT
Why is it that anytime I hear someone spouting "TRUTH"
by jackrabbitslim
i feel just as nauseated as the bible thumper prattling on about his oh-so-precious God. TRUTH (lets all chant a thousand hosannahs to its glorious name) has a strange quality of being just malleable enough to be anything you want it to be.
-
If "truth" cannot stand up to rational criticisms, it fails. "Truth" is the result of individuals in conversation dedicated to honest research, faithful debate, and a genuine willingness to follow the argument to it's conclusion, regardless of its position to the earlier "truth".
-
If individuals discussing "truth" are not devoted to correct data and a transparent process of discourse (where-in latent bias can be pointed out/uncovered and fear of the unknown can be assuaged) than the discussion is not concerned with "truth" at all, merely the fortification of one's own position, which often serves as an important component of one's identity. That is to say that those who "identify" themselves with a position (anti-war, pro-Bush, anti-Semitic, etc) rather than with an honest process with which to develop a position (ie. reasoned conversation) do net enter into discussions in pursuit of truth at all; they merely wish to defend themSELVES, which they equate with a fixed position, from assault. Fear of losing one's own identity is terrifying. Thus, fear of adhering to an incorrect position is terrifying to many.
-
Which is why the "correctness" of one's position is often a notion left un-entertained. It's too scary to the stupid, left, right, or center.
Nutshell: no artist should assume her/his conclusion(s) are "true", he/she most only attempt to ensure that the PROCESS is honest, rather than polemic, and founded upon research and reason (vs. bias). It must inspire the conversation to continue, not conclude, and be open to revision. "Truth" should never nauseate. If it does, it's rotten and should be tossed out.
-
...Let me get this straight. You are disgusted by Depalma not supporting the troops, and, as you say, spitting on them. Well, I find it a little strange to support child rapists and murderers, and really don't care if they get a little saliva on them. Before you start wailing that not all troops commit these crimes, this film is not about all troops. Its about THESE troops. If you don't like his selective focus, there are countless other media sources you can turn to for an alternative view. Sure, most of them may not be as well crafted as Depalma, but thats only because the alternative view seems to attract half brainers.
-
“The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people[ ]“these horrible things things that are happening, this horrible war that I am financing as an American citizen.” Brian De Palma
This movie is much more than a focused look at "THESE troops". It goes far beyond this horrible crime that was commited by these soldiers who are now in jail. This movie will be an effort to take these incidents and present it as a daily occurance that happens thousands of times by all those that serve. That is the version of "reality" that he wants to present. -
No-one on here supports child rapists and murders, that is a dumb thing to say. These soldiers broke the law and were punished.Period. So please, don't play niave and think this movie is just about those troops. Like I said above it is a blatant effort to paint the entire military as a pack of barbarian hordes that rape and pillage and again, that is his admited goal. That is the "reality" he wishes to present and to change peoples minds. He is a piece of shit hack, but at least his is an honest piece of shit hack.
-
War, as covered by the mainstream media (however genuine their suspected "liberal" bias), is not shown to be a thing which allows, perhaps even cultivates, the darker demons of human nature. As a result, many, perhaps most, Americans fail to appreciate the real, unavoidable horror of war. You cannot wage a war unless you can tolerate the vilest aspects of human nature climbing up over the walls and creating atrocity. It may not be the general character of war's daily behavior, but this devilish reality is certainly an assured by-product of even the most "civil" war. The pitch of the inhumanity war breeds should be explored, so that the cost/benefit ratio of waging war can be more honestly and effectively explored. Some wars should probably still be waged (The US Civil War, WW2, a theoretical invasion of Sudan) but some should certainly not (ineptly waged wars founded on misleading premises). Stories that show the horrible reality of war, however incidental to the war's general character, are fundamentally educational efforts.
-
They want truth as long as it's their version of truth. Heaven help you if you have a differing opinion.
I used to think they were misguided socialists, but I was wrong. Every since George junior got into office (who I think as a terrible president, though not the great unholy evil they want him to be) they've kind of lost their minds and morphed into fascists.
Prime example, those idiot kids who stormed the YTC Immigration rally a while back. Didn’t like the message, so they thought they had the right to shut them up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XwEW0mhi4I&mode=related&search=
Yeah, real progressive there; really living by that ‘live and let live’ motto. Sig Hiel Hitler.
-
You should learn what about Sherman's march to the sea during the Civil War. Rape, pillaging, razing of entire towns, and killing children. These horrible actions of Sherman's men helped the North win the war. But, the atrocities of the Civil War were so great that the war should never have been fought and black people should have just had to put up with slavery. I mean, at least there was some order to the South with the slave system. The North just ruined all that. No no. Bad war, verwey verwey bad war!
-
I read an article that it is a "fictionalized account" that De Palma scripted it through blogs and such in other words he cherry picked what he wanted to use to convey his point.
It is his response to the media white washing of the war...
hmmmm... sounds like he is being as manipulative as those he accuses.
Nawwww...sorry, besides trying to save a sagging career, I lost faith in De Palma long ago...
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts