Please...I think if you could please review the fine points of the movie instead of letting us know what you watched.
The Movies I Liked
- Thread starter vinay
- Start date
Please...I think if you could please review the fine points of the movie instead of letting us know what you watched.
finished watching all these, these are excellent collections. Thanks for sharing them.
Wind River is brilliant. Amazing soundtrack by Nick cave and direction/screenplay by Taylor Sheridan. He also wrote the screenplay for Hell or High Water and Sicario.
Oh sorry, I assumed it was Wind River http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5362988/
Not much of a movie goer but another installment of Star Wars is a much-anticipated event and so watching The Last Jedi was almost cathartic
Enjoyed it thoroughly. It's certainly the best episode amongst the new ones, if not the best of all.
Enjoyed it thoroughly. It's certainly the best episode amongst the new ones, if not the best of all.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)
With a name like that, it is bound to escape most people's attention. Only when you reluctantly look at the IMDB page, you realize that this is the second film from the director of "Bone Tomahawk". The film has a very slow build and had a 'B movie' feel to it all along. It increases in stench, darkness, and violence only after it crosses the hour mark. These days, it is hard to surprise on the gore/violence front, but this film manages to present something different with low budget effects. Surprisingly, Vince Vaughn manages to pull off his role rather well (so is Don Johnson). I am not sure why Jennifer Carpenter was needed though, it could have been anybody.
With a name like that, it is bound to escape most people's attention. Only when you reluctantly look at the IMDB page, you realize that this is the second film from the director of "Bone Tomahawk". The film has a very slow build and had a 'B movie' feel to it all along. It increases in stench, darkness, and violence only after it crosses the hour mark. These days, it is hard to surprise on the gore/violence front, but this film manages to present something different with low budget effects. Surprisingly, Vince Vaughn manages to pull off his role rather well (so is Don Johnson). I am not sure why Jennifer Carpenter was needed though, it could have been anybody.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
Under the Shadow (2016)
Horror is an over-saturated genre. Since everything has already been done to death (especially jump scares of late), it is really hard to find something interesting. I was a little hesitant to watch this because the last Persian "horror" film I watched "A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night" was more of an 'artsy' film with glacial speed.
That said, "Under the Shadow" differentiates itself in the setting. It is a Persian film set in 1980's Iran during the time of the Iran-Iraq war. There are frequent war sirens and fear of the Govt (like hiding the VCR) which makes things interesting. It reminds me a lot of "Babadook", but it is effective in its own way. Jump scares are present, but it seems to flow naturally rather than setting you up with crescendoing suspense music and false scares. This is a well-made horror film that gets the pacing and the running time right.
Horror is an over-saturated genre. Since everything has already been done to death (especially jump scares of late), it is really hard to find something interesting. I was a little hesitant to watch this because the last Persian "horror" film I watched "A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night" was more of an 'artsy' film with glacial speed.
That said, "Under the Shadow" differentiates itself in the setting. It is a Persian film set in 1980's Iran during the time of the Iran-Iraq war. There are frequent war sirens and fear of the Govt (like hiding the VCR) which makes things interesting. It reminds me a lot of "Babadook", but it is effective in its own way. Jump scares are present, but it seems to flow naturally rather than setting you up with crescendoing suspense music and false scares. This is a well-made horror film that gets the pacing and the running time right.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Ever since I heard about this, I was curious how Denis Villeneuve would handle this sequel to the famous 'Blade Runner'. I would say that this feels like a worthy sequel to Blade Runner. Though it is a bit too long and slow, at no point it felt dragging. The visuals are just fantastic. In the hands of a director who respects the original, the open questions from the original are left vague in the sequel as well.
While I liked the original Blade Runner, I did not feel that it was iconic (should have watched in the 1980s for that?). I feel the same way about this sequel. It is visually stunning, does not suffer the sequel curse and well done in general, I don't know if it has enough pull to make me return to it and watch again. So, I don't think both would find a place in my personal Top 250.
Anyways, there are three short films that bridge the gap between the 1982 film and this one. 2022 Blackout, a 15-minute animation is the only one which adds some details. 2036: Nexus Dawn (6:30 mins) and 2048: Nowhere to run (5:30 mins) are just for completion sake. Though one need not have seen the first Blade runner either, I think liking the first one is essential to appreciate the sequel.
Ever since I heard about this, I was curious how Denis Villeneuve would handle this sequel to the famous 'Blade Runner'. I would say that this feels like a worthy sequel to Blade Runner. Though it is a bit too long and slow, at no point it felt dragging. The visuals are just fantastic. In the hands of a director who respects the original, the open questions from the original are left vague in the sequel as well.
While I liked the original Blade Runner, I did not feel that it was iconic (should have watched in the 1980s for that?). I feel the same way about this sequel. It is visually stunning, does not suffer the sequel curse and well done in general, I don't know if it has enough pull to make me return to it and watch again. So, I don't think both would find a place in my personal Top 250.
Anyways, there are three short films that bridge the gap between the 1982 film and this one. 2022 Blackout, a 15-minute animation is the only one which adds some details. 2036: Nexus Dawn (6:30 mins) and 2048: Nowhere to run (5:30 mins) are just for completion sake. Though one need not have seen the first Blade runner either, I think liking the first one is essential to appreciate the sequel.
Last edited:
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
Yorgos Lanthimos returns with yet another weird film. You can also say it is the third version of 'Dogtooth'. It shares the same sensibilities - unemotional delivery of dialogues, people talking about trivial things (here, it is armpit hair), general weirdness and creating the feeling like every character belongs in a parallel reality and not this one - with 'Dogtooth' and 'Lobster'. This script could have become a usual thriller or horror film in the hands of any other 'normal' director. But, Yorgos Lanthimos knows what he wants - as evident from the opening scene and the additional evidence in the form of eerie, but irritating music (BGM gets so irritating at times). It starts out slow but gets weirder and weirder. I felt that 'Lobster' was not as weird as 'Dogtooth', but this one upped the weirdness quotient to my satisfaction. The film does not offer any explanations of why the things happen the way they do, which adds to the general weirdness.
What a contrast it is to watch Colin Farrell in this movie one day and 'Saving Mr. Banks' the next day! Nicole Kidman does well here, as she is the only one allowed to display a little bit of emotion.
I would not suggest this lightly to everybody. If you can sit through the uneasy feeling of watching something that does not conform to any movie "norms", by all means, give it a shot. If you liked 'Dogtooth', do give it a try (the chance of "liking" is 50:50). I still think 'Dogtooth' is "better" though!
Yorgos Lanthimos returns with yet another weird film. You can also say it is the third version of 'Dogtooth'. It shares the same sensibilities - unemotional delivery of dialogues, people talking about trivial things (here, it is armpit hair), general weirdness and creating the feeling like every character belongs in a parallel reality and not this one - with 'Dogtooth' and 'Lobster'. This script could have become a usual thriller or horror film in the hands of any other 'normal' director. But, Yorgos Lanthimos knows what he wants - as evident from the opening scene and the additional evidence in the form of eerie, but irritating music (BGM gets so irritating at times). It starts out slow but gets weirder and weirder. I felt that 'Lobster' was not as weird as 'Dogtooth', but this one upped the weirdness quotient to my satisfaction. The film does not offer any explanations of why the things happen the way they do, which adds to the general weirdness.
What a contrast it is to watch Colin Farrell in this movie one day and 'Saving Mr. Banks' the next day! Nicole Kidman does well here, as she is the only one allowed to display a little bit of emotion.
I would not suggest this lightly to everybody. If you can sit through the uneasy feeling of watching something that does not conform to any movie "norms", by all means, give it a shot. If you liked 'Dogtooth', do give it a try (the chance of "liking" is 50:50). I still think 'Dogtooth' is "better" though!
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
A few more worth mentioning, but with caveats:
Baby Driver (2017)
This was really interesting until the last 30-40 minutes. There's nothing new in terms of basic plot, but there were many interesting elements. I liked how they handed tinnitus (I had it for a while until I lost some high-frequency hearing) and how music was ever present. There are several well-established actors like Spacey and Foxx, so performances were not an issue. But, it felt like the director planned the movie until the final heist, but did not know how to finish it properly. It transformed into a usual mess after that point.
Creepy (2016)
While western horror is mostly formulaic (cue the eerie music, JUMP SCARE), the Japanese create horror films which bring about creepiness through plot and atmosphere. Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Kairo / Pulse is one of the standouts (though it gets everything wrong about the way Internet actually works). His thriller, The Cure, is even better. Creepy is a thriller that has some elements of Cure. It starts out fine and builds up the tension the right way for the most part. The first hour which I watched on the first day was really interesting (investigation into an unsolved case). But, unfortunately, when I continued the film the next day, it let me down a bit towards the end, thus reducing my personal rating.
Goodnight Mommy (2014)
This is a pretty good psychological thriller. It is different because it starts off very leisurely as if all you would get would be two brothers playing for the entirety of the film (and it strolls along for the most part). The mother is heavily bandaged due to a facial reconstruction surgery after an accident. But, they suspect that she is not the mommy they remember from before the accident and set out to investigate. There's a twist in the end and some of you might guess it very early on. Even then, this is a pretty decent thriller - for showing the methods by which little kids can "investigate" and dish out torture.
Baby Driver (2017)
This was really interesting until the last 30-40 minutes. There's nothing new in terms of basic plot, but there were many interesting elements. I liked how they handed tinnitus (I had it for a while until I lost some high-frequency hearing) and how music was ever present. There are several well-established actors like Spacey and Foxx, so performances were not an issue. But, it felt like the director planned the movie until the final heist, but did not know how to finish it properly. It transformed into a usual mess after that point.
Creepy (2016)
While western horror is mostly formulaic (cue the eerie music, JUMP SCARE), the Japanese create horror films which bring about creepiness through plot and atmosphere. Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Kairo / Pulse is one of the standouts (though it gets everything wrong about the way Internet actually works
). His thriller, The Cure, is even better. Creepy is a thriller that has some elements of Cure. It starts out fine and builds up the tension the right way for the most part. The first hour which I watched on the first day was really interesting (investigation into an unsolved case). But, unfortunately, when I continued the film the next day, it let me down a bit towards the end, thus reducing my personal rating.Goodnight Mommy (2014)
This is a pretty good psychological thriller. It is different because it starts off very leisurely as if all you would get would be two brothers playing for the entirety of the film (and it strolls along for the most part). The mother is heavily bandaged due to a facial reconstruction surgery after an accident. But, they suspect that she is not the mommy they remember from before the accident and set out to investigate. There's a twist in the end and some of you might guess it very early on. Even then, this is a pretty decent thriller - for showing the methods by which little kids can "investigate" and dish out torture.
sam9s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 5,245
- Points
- 113
The Sunset Limited .......This movie is unique as hell, and almost impossible to get anyone interested, except for the people who like debate and believe in god, and love to dissect the prospect of life and death. What if I tell you if we give life to two most opposite sides of life, that is hope and despair, life and death, will to survive and suicide, Good and bad, optimism and pessimism, angle and devil ....... lets give then life , words, soul, and a body and put them together in a room and let them debate about what is essential to live, and what is essential to push someone to take his life. Who would win, overpower the other, will to survive or the notion that peace is only in death????
Some very huge deep and thought-provoking arguments and this movie it a steller in showcasing that.
The premise is same, two people Mr Black who is an uneducated convict and found salvage in God saves a man Mr White, who is an intellectual professor from taking his life and then begins the argument.
This isn’t your everyday typical argument between two men with differing beliefs. The two are genuinely so far apart, that neither understands the other. The lack of understanding breeds something of an intellectual and spiritual fascination which makes the conversation not only so long, but so interesting. It’s belief versus non-belief, but also optimism vs. pessimism, selfishness vs. altruism. Black and White, being the names of the characters, seems almost ironic in this context
Its a pure one and a half hour debate of the two sides of life and death and boy I could not believe it will be ever so interesting. I am a true Libran so debate and discussion is in my blood, so this movie anyhow turned out to be something special. But if just two people sitting in one room debating isnt quite the image that makes you interested then this movie definitely is not for you.
None the less, serious movie loves, dont miss this, a unique movie ...... 7/10 for this one.
Some very huge deep and thought-provoking arguments and this movie it a steller in showcasing that.
The premise is same, two people Mr Black who is an uneducated convict and found salvage in God saves a man Mr White, who is an intellectual professor from taking his life and then begins the argument.
This isn’t your everyday typical argument between two men with differing beliefs. The two are genuinely so far apart, that neither understands the other. The lack of understanding breeds something of an intellectual and spiritual fascination which makes the conversation not only so long, but so interesting. It’s belief versus non-belief, but also optimism vs. pessimism, selfishness vs. altruism. Black and White, being the names of the characters, seems almost ironic in this context
Its a pure one and a half hour debate of the two sides of life and death and boy I could not believe it will be ever so interesting. I am a true Libran so debate and discussion is in my blood, so this movie anyhow turned out to be something special. But if just two people sitting in one room debating isnt quite the image that makes you interested then this movie definitely is not for you.
None the less, serious movie loves, dont miss this, a unique movie ...... 7/10 for this one.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
I actually posted this a month back (along with short notes on 5-6 other movies). But, when I finally edited and posted the draft, somehow only the first para was posted. Just to get this off my mind, I will post this.
Dunkirk (2017)
Dunkirk is very different from the usual war movies (as @sam9s mentioned in his post a few months back).
Firstly, it is not about a victory, but about an evacuation of soldiers running away from German attack. This was later turned into a morale booster by the oratory skills of Churchill and the media (See this). The Germans in the film are never shown (except out of focus in one scene) and I don't remember if they are even mentioned other than as the 'enemy'. The camera work is excellent especially with the aerial shots and the dogfights.
There is no one hero. We don't know anything about any of the characters, except what we see. What I liked most was how it captured the chaos of war and how relentless the German attacks were. The soldiers literally had nowhere to run. During the bombing of the beach at the beginning, we see soldiers being afraid and some of them dying out of focus - all pointing to the irrelevancy of individuals in the middle of a war. None of their saviors had a backstory either. All this is nice, but as a film, this is where I had an issue. A movie is always the combination of what happens on the screen and how we identify with. If you cannot put yourself in any one's shoes, you watch it like an outsider rather than participating in it. This may be the intended effect, but it also reduces the natural emotional engagement we feel with most films. There are a lot of time (and event) overlaps when the story changes from one point of view to another (land, sea, air), but some of it feels a bit repetitive towards the end. But, this was just a minor issue.
Maybe I will appreciate Dunkirk a lot more if I revisit after a few weeks, months or years, but as of now, I respect Nolan's choices and like some aspects very much, but I still felt something was missing at the end.
Dunkirk (2017)
Dunkirk is very different from the usual war movies (as @sam9s mentioned in his post a few months back).
Firstly, it is not about a victory, but about an evacuation of soldiers running away from German attack. This was later turned into a morale booster by the oratory skills of Churchill and the media (See this). The Germans in the film are never shown (except out of focus in one scene) and I don't remember if they are even mentioned other than as the 'enemy'. The camera work is excellent especially with the aerial shots and the dogfights.
There is no one hero. We don't know anything about any of the characters, except what we see. What I liked most was how it captured the chaos of war and how relentless the German attacks were. The soldiers literally had nowhere to run. During the bombing of the beach at the beginning, we see soldiers being afraid and some of them dying out of focus - all pointing to the irrelevancy of individuals in the middle of a war. None of their saviors had a backstory either. All this is nice, but as a film, this is where I had an issue. A movie is always the combination of what happens on the screen and how we identify with. If you cannot put yourself in any one's shoes, you watch it like an outsider rather than participating in it. This may be the intended effect, but it also reduces the natural emotional engagement we feel with most films. There are a lot of time (and event) overlaps when the story changes from one point of view to another (land, sea, air), but some of it feels a bit repetitive towards the end. But, this was just a minor issue.
Maybe I will appreciate Dunkirk a lot more if I revisit after a few weeks, months or years, but as of now, I respect Nolan's choices and like some aspects very much, but I still felt something was missing at the end.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
Room (2015)
This is among a handful of really, really good movies I have watched of late (This is the best for me in January). Many movies I have watched recently left me feeling "good", "ok", "nice", but this is one of the rare ones which left me satisfied.
When the movie begins, we see a mother and her kid living happily in a small room. I loved how they created a small universe for the kid out of a 10 x 10 room. The camera work and direction is fantastic for not making us feel claustrophobic during the scenes set in the room. Soon, we learn why they are stuck in such a small room and the movie takes a turn from there (for the better, IMO). The second half of the movie appealed to me even more because it felt realistic and emotional in the way it handled small things.
Brie Larson excelled in her role as "Ma" (and won many awards). But, it was the performance of Jacob Tremblay as the 5-year-old Jack which stole the show for me.
This is among a handful of really, really good movies I have watched of late (This is the best for me in January). Many movies I have watched recently left me feeling "good", "ok", "nice", but this is one of the rare ones which left me satisfied.
When the movie begins, we see a mother and her kid living happily in a small room. I loved how they created a small universe for the kid out of a 10 x 10 room. The camera work and direction is fantastic for not making us feel claustrophobic during the scenes set in the room. Soon, we learn why they are stuck in such a small room and the movie takes a turn from there (for the better, IMO). The second half of the movie appealed to me even more because it felt realistic and emotional in the way it handled small things.
Brie Larson excelled in her role as "Ma" (and won many awards). But, it was the performance of Jacob Tremblay as the 5-year-old Jack which stole the show for me.
- I wondered why Ma/Joy did not try to escape earlier. She describes an attempted escape to Jack early on in the film. But, is it impossible for her to figure out the key combination for 7 years? Maybe she tried and failed many times going by how submissive she becomes in Old Nick's presence. We don't know for sure.
- The little things they have done really well - Police officer piecing together the location based on Jack's answers, Jake learning to walk the stairs, Jake's haircut, how the room feels "small" when they visit at the end.
- I am normally not very emotional, but Jack's escape sequence was tense.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
The Sunset Limited (2011)
First off, thanks, @sam9s.
Things I liked:
The Road (2009)
Only after watching "Sunset Limited", I found out Cormac McCarthy wrote "The Road" and "No Country for Old Men" as well. This movie has been mentioned a few times before in this thread (long back). Since I do not watch new movies immediately (takes at least 3-5 years, with the exception of some popcorn flicks) and I wasn't in the mood for yet another post-apocalyptic movie, it slipped my mind.
The atmosphere here is fantastic (it indeed is a "grey world") as is the make-up. A much more dreary, human only version of "The Walking Dead" would be a superficially apt description about the setting. Viggo Mortensen is good as expected. I thought it approached the behaviour of people in a post-apocalyptic, cannibalistic society rather well. There are also a few moments of joy in between all the dreariness. As good as it was, I did not like it as much I did "Room". It was well done (enough to write about here) though.
First off, thanks, @sam9s.
Things I liked:
- The acting of Samuel L. Jackson who carries most of the film on his shoulders (as Tommy Lee Jones' character is not very chatty for the most part)
- The dialogues were interesting enough for the run time of 90 minutes. That is how "Before" series worked well too. However, the topics are much more focused here.
- How the camera moves around to compensate for the lack of 'action'.
- I probably would have identified with the nihilist view of the professor a few years ago. But, I have moved on.
- I was thinking of the professor as "the person who has watched one too many Ingmar Bergman movies". I remembered how "The Seventh Seal" felt like someone giving a celluloid form to my own questions (of course, long before I was born). I remembered the impact his faith trilogy had on me then. This movie didn't have a similar impact.
- I have been on both sides of the conversation at different times in life and I have given some thought to this topic at length. The conversation was interesting, but not absorbing. I was waiting for something to blow me away, but that sort of didn't happen.
The Road (2009)
Only after watching "Sunset Limited", I found out Cormac McCarthy wrote "The Road" and "No Country for Old Men" as well. This movie has been mentioned a few times before in this thread (long back). Since I do not watch new movies immediately (takes at least 3-5 years, with the exception of some popcorn flicks) and I wasn't in the mood for yet another post-apocalyptic movie, it slipped my mind.
The atmosphere here is fantastic (it indeed is a "grey world") as is the make-up. A much more dreary, human only version of "The Walking Dead" would be a superficially apt description about the setting. Viggo Mortensen is good as expected. I thought it approached the behaviour of people in a post-apocalyptic, cannibalistic society rather well. There are also a few moments of joy in between all the dreariness. As good as it was, I did not like it as much I did "Room". It was well done (enough to write about here) though.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
Head-On (2004)
I am not a great fan of romantic films in general (unless they are different). Initially, I thought this was going to go in a familiar direction, but this one turned out to be very good, particularly the ending. Sibel Kekilli's (Shae from GoT) performance stands out.
I am not a great fan of romantic films in general (unless they are different). Initially, I thought this was going to go in a familiar direction, but this one turned out to be very good, particularly the ending. Sibel Kekilli's (Shae from GoT) performance stands out.
esanthosh
Well-Known Member
Loving Vincent (2017)
One cannot help, but admire the effort behind this film. This film was hand painted by over 100 artists using Vincent van Gogh's paintings as the starting point. Actors were cast based on resemblance to the original painting. The acting was done in front of a green screen. Then, each frame was oil painted painstakingly over a five year period. This BBC piece explains the process and this Behind the scenes video goes into the detail of how some of the scenes were drawn.
It may have taken them five years to finish, but it takes five minutes for me to write this post. I feared this might be some artistic appreciation for Van Gogh that is too high brow for me to get into. However, the movie turned out to be a detective story about how Vincent Van Gogh died. As Armand pieces together conflicting pieces of information about Van Gogh's life, you start to remember 1940s noir films and even a whiff of Rashomon. While the 'present' (one year after Van Gogh died) is shown in color and is based on some of Van Gogh's paintings, the flashbacks are in black and white and have a different (and IMO, better suited) style of drawing. If you have watched "A Scanner, Darkly", then you know how this works - it 'feels' like live action, but it is also 'animation'. The initial flashbacks, which were shorter, also contained some memorable moments. As the film progressed, I thought I would gain a deeper insight into Van Gogh, but it was not to be. The film is content to stay the detective route throughout. In the end, I had a great appreciation for how they made the movie, but cannot say I loved the movie itself completely. It is still worth a watch.
PS: I remembered the Van Gogh dream sequence from Akira Kurosawa's "Dreams" (where Martin Scorsese plays Van Gogh) because of this.
One cannot help, but admire the effort behind this film. This film was hand painted by over 100 artists using Vincent van Gogh's paintings as the starting point. Actors were cast based on resemblance to the original painting. The acting was done in front of a green screen. Then, each frame was oil painted painstakingly over a five year period. This BBC piece explains the process and this Behind the scenes video goes into the detail of how some of the scenes were drawn.
It may have taken them five years to finish, but it takes five minutes for me to write this post. I feared this might be some artistic appreciation for Van Gogh that is too high brow for me to get into. However, the movie turned out to be a detective story about how Vincent Van Gogh died. As Armand pieces together conflicting pieces of information about Van Gogh's life, you start to remember 1940s noir films and even a whiff of Rashomon. While the 'present' (one year after Van Gogh died) is shown in color and is based on some of Van Gogh's paintings, the flashbacks are in black and white and have a different (and IMO, better suited) style of drawing. If you have watched "A Scanner, Darkly", then you know how this works - it 'feels' like live action, but it is also 'animation'. The initial flashbacks, which were shorter, also contained some memorable moments. As the film progressed, I thought I would gain a deeper insight into Van Gogh, but it was not to be. The film is content to stay the detective route throughout. In the end, I had a great appreciation for how they made the movie, but cannot say I loved the movie itself completely. It is still worth a watch.
PS: I remembered the Van Gogh dream sequence from Akira Kurosawa's "Dreams" (where Martin Scorsese plays Van Gogh) because of this.
1. The movements in the colored sequences are a bit jarring. The flow is a bit unusual.
2. Many characters have an Irish (?) accent. Why didn't they just make it in French because the story does happen in France?
3. The flashbacks of Van Gogh's work (like how he painted irrespective of weather and like he was going to a job) - the second half should have more of those moments to connect you to Van Gogh, the painter. The second half lacked emotion and was becoming a very ordinary investigative drama.
2. Many characters have an Irish (?) accent. Why didn't they just make it in French because the story does happen in France?
3. The flashbacks of Van Gogh's work (like how he painted irrespective of weather and like he was going to a job) - the second half should have more of those moments to connect you to Van Gogh, the painter. The second half lacked emotion and was becoming a very ordinary investigative drama.
Buy from India's official online dealer!
Similar threads
