59. Platoon (1986)

Plot Intro

A platoon of American soldiers, led by Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger) and consisting of Chris (Charlie Sheen), Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe) and other interchangeable camouflaged men, engage in battle with Vietnamese soldiers and their own traumatised minds.

Paul says...

Here’s our second and final film dedicated to the Vietnam War, and it’s a marked improvement on The Deer Hunter. The 1978 Best Picture winner was a 3 hour slog through semi-improvised banter and a horribly racist depiction of the Vietnamese. Platoon, meanwhile, has several factors working in its favour. Namely, it’s far more bearable running time, and the fact that its written and directed by Vietnam veteran Oliver Stone. 

Stone wrote the film after his return from Vietnam in the early '70s. It was designed as a reaction against a pro-military, gung-ho war film called The Green Berets that the interminably patriotic John Wayne made. Stone was suffering from his own personal demons throughout the making of the film- and apparently had a PTSD-driven breakdown on set. He wanted to make a worm’s eye view of the war, and bloody hell he delivers that. The violence has been amped up- we see limbs blown off, stabbings, napalm burnings, and bombings. Stone put his entire cast through a gruelling boot camp regime, and filmed so naturalistically that the looks of exhaustion on the actors’ faces was genuine. Some even commented on how they started to feel more secure only if they had a gun in their hand. 

This is a depiction of Vietnam that is rendered far more accessible for modern audiences, something that The Deer Hunter struggled with. While '80s audiences may not have needed Vietnam explained to them, we do need this because Afghanistan and Iraq are far more fresh in our knowledge of world events. Platoon makes more of an effort to display the grit, the violence, the trauma and aggression of this terrible war.

But what Platoon has in tone and atmosphere, it lacks in plot and characterisation. Whatever story exists is pretty loose. There’s some tension around Tom Berenger’s murder of a Vietnamese citizen and Willem Dafoe’s intention to expose him. But it’s a simple plot executed without any real surprise or originality, and it feels like it’s been perfunctorily thrown in because Stone needed more dialogue scenes. The rest of the film is a lengthy string of battle scenes and redundant discussions about cannabis and vaginas. I didn’t identify.

Also, pretty much every character is the same aggressive, macho, traumatised animal as each other. Some have a stronger moral compass than others, but thats about it in terms of distinguishing them. We recently watched City of God, which had a similar level of violence and insight into gang warfare on the streets of Rio. But what made City of God so supremely powerful was it’s complex intertwining of stories and its clearly drawn characters. I understand that Stone is going for realism to display his personal experiences of the war, but City of God proves that putting in some fictionalisation and high drama won’t detract from a topical film’s integrity.

So Platoon works well as a gruelling documentary persuading me that life as a soldier is not a viable career option, but not so much as a piece of story-telling. The result is that it’s interesting, but not particularly involving.

Highlight

The first battle scene in which Charlie Sheen sees the Vietnamese soldiers slowly approaching in the dark but is so frozen with fear that he doesn’t wake up his sleeping companions. It’s very tense, and kicks off the film tremendously.

Lowlight

Charlie Sheen’s narration is totally unnecessary and full of the usual '80s platitudes. My favourite was “We weren’t just fighting the Vietnamese. We were fighting ourselves.” I might frame that and put it in my bathroom.

Mark

5/10

Doug says...

I don’t like war films. 

This is something that has become clear to me over the course of the project. To be clearer, I don’t like films that focus on war and solely talk about war, rather than use war as a backdrop against which to explore bigger, more interesting subjects. Take for instance Bridge over the River Kwai which can be argued as a war film, but actually is about one man’s obsessive nature and how this eventually brings about his downfall. 

Bridge kept coming to mind for me when watching this film actually. There were some scenes that could have been set in the same location, including a large dried up river bed, and yet Bridge was exceptional, telling a dark and absorbing story through its clever way of varying scenes from intense and fast-moving, to thoughtful and character-building. As Paul points out City of God did this too - never letting scenes drag on, and switching between scenes of peace and scenes of outright war by telling characters’ backstories or diverting briefly on tangents that broke up the scenes of fighting. 

Unfortunately Platoon makes no attempt at this. We are instead treated to interminably long battle scenes which are nearly pitch black and feature lots of loud crashing. There is no drive here to create memorable characters beyond the one ‘baddie’, and there’s an attempt to have a ‘battle for the new person’s soul’ storyline that falls flat before it’s even really got going. And most of all, it’s boring. I spent most of the film thinking about what to have for dinner and then watching cute videos of pigs on my phone. 

I wanted to be proved wrong - I wanted an out-and-out war film to entrance and engross me. But the fact is that war, without any context or storytelling, is just dull. There’s a crack team of actors here, including John C. McGinley, and all I could think about is their other work and how much more fun and interesting that is - and in McGinley’s case, how great he was as Doctor Cox in Scrubs. 

With this all said, I did get drawn in by fifteen minutes of it (roughly 1/8 of the running time). In a scene where the Americans invade a village and their astonishing brutality is explored by direct contrast against the Vietnamese villagers, we are actually as viewers drawn in to make a judgement. In this case it’s ‘god the Americans are just awful’. But at least for a short time, we are actively engaged, and see the two battling sides in clear daylight. 

This, I think, is my overall problem with war films of this ilk. By having long battle scenes and no real plot, it starts to feel gratuitous. It feels almost as if the writer and director just enjoy watching battle scenes and decided to loosely loop together a bunch of ‘Best Hits’. If films really explore the storylines of their characters, and use war as more of a backdrop, they instantly become more successful - take our very first film Wings, which actually drove real emotion by balancing the narrative with some scenes not set in the heart of the battleground. Here it is relentless, and by not varying anything, it becomes dull and I stopped watching. I’m now dreading watching The Hurt Locker as our next big war-focused film.  

Highlight

The scene where they invade the Vietnamese village seems like the film will go a different, better, way. Sadly it does not. 

Lowlight

If you’re going to do a war film, for god’s sake invest in some decent plot and characterisation. 

Mark

2/10 

58. Out of Africa (1985)

Plot Intro

Danish woman, Karen Dinesen (Meryl Streep), moves to Kenya with her new husband, Bror von Blixen (Klaus Maria Brandauer), where they intend to establish a dairy farm. However, Bror is more interested in sleeping with the servant girls and big game hunting, so is away a lot, and Karen must run the farm on her own, and conduct an affair with handsome game hunter, Denys Finch Hatton (Robert Redford).

Doug says...

This was the perfect film for a Sunday evening. I think I actually dozed off about three times and still grasped entirely what was happening. It’s a soft drama, aiming to be an African-based version of the BBC hit series Lark Rise to Candleford in which literally almost nothing happened and there were lots of soft-focus shots of sunsets.

Unfortunately, a film approaching three hours demands a little more plot, and we’re not really given that here. It doesn’t help matters that only a couple of years ago we had the extraordinary Gandhi which managed to capture a real sense of a very-far away land. Here Africa is one of the main subjects - it is the catalyst for everything happening and everyone coming together - and yet it never feels more real than a painted backdrop. They’ve clearly hired actual African villagers to be in the film, and yet never use them above fleeting glimpses as if to ground the action before swivelling back to the rather beige romance between Karen and Denys.

The fact is that Karen and Denys’ affair in real life was actually just a fragment of a far more interesting background. There was a hedonistic and elitist group of largely British aristocrats in Africa at the time, including Beryl Markham, the first woman aviator to fly solo, non-stop across the Atlantic from east to west. Markham actually moved in with Karen, set her sights on Denys and began an affair with him - Denys actually ended up having affairs with both women simultaneously, under the same roof. A tad more scandalous than the tame matter we’re offered here.

It’s not great stuff, and there’s real missed chances - both with the plot (Markham doesn’t even appear, but is ‘represented’ briefly by a character called Felicity), and with the setting - Africa doesn’t feel integral in any way, beyond a pretty backdrop. What I found most interesting is Meryl.

Meryl Streep has long been regarded as one of our greatest film actresses. But the appearances I’m seeing from the ‘80s, and the stuff I’ve seen from the ‘90s doesn’t lift her much above her peers. While she has some flashes of great acting here, it’s all a bit too held back to affect us. In films like Kramer vs Kramer she was heavily out-shadowed, and looking ahead she has the great campy classics like Death Becomes Her - but nothing that makes her shine.

In fact a quick Wikipedia shows that while she made her name with these soapy melodramas in the ‘80s, she lost top billing fairly quickly in the ‘90s and it was actually her role in a certain fashion-based film that sent her soaring back into the echelons of highest Hollywood. That’s right - her career was flagging pre-Devil Wears Prada. I, for one, had always assumed she’d just always been up there, but what actually transpires is we are currently in the golden age of Streep’s acting. She’s never actually been better than Prada, The Hours, August:Osage County, Doubt - and my own favourite Florence Foster Jenkins. It’s actually quite cheering to see that an actress who really got going in the ‘80s actually hits her real stride in the early noughties.

The film? Eh, it verges on instantly forgettable. It seems odd that it beat the seminal The Color Purple, but at least it didn’t win any acting trophies. It’s not hateful, it’s just not…anything. 

Highlight 

Those few moments when Meryl delivers a line a certain way or shoots someone a look and suddenly you see a glimpse at the great actress that’s a few decades away in the making. 

Lowlight

Why would you shoot everything actually in Africa and then somehow make it all seem two-dimensional and dull? How?! 

Mark 

5/10

Paul says...

As Doug says, this is ideal Sunday evening entertainment. It would be completely at home at 9pm on ITV, and have the word “heart” somewhere in the title. But instead, this is the 1985 Best Picture winner, so expectations are, understandably, a little higher.

The biggest and, for me, only strength of Out of Africa, is its beauty. Director Sidney Pollack does for Kenya what Richard Attenborough did for India and David Lean did for the Arabian desert in previous films we have blogged about. He establishes a setting that is a character in itself- visually stunning and perfect for Instagram, but also terrifying due to its natural power over mankind. Scenes in which Meryl Streep finds herself face-to-face with lions, and Karen and Denys’ lengthy flight over the Kenyan countryside, remind us of this remarkable superiority that the natural world has over humans.

But whilst the film is Beautiful (and yes, the capital B is intentional) in that it ticks all the boxes to be considered for a place in the Louvre or to have gap year students waxing lyrical about their own experiences in this part of the world, Out of Africa is pretty lacklustre. Which is a massive shame because Karen Blixen led a pretty interesting life. The film shows her gradual loss of the farm and money troubles; her affair with Denys; her contraction of syphilis from her husband’s own affairs; she painstakingly brings resources to her husband’s regiment during the First World War; she sets up a school and contributes more advanced medical care to the Kenyan people. But the script and direction tackles all of this with such an objective, mannered and understated eye that nothing lifts above murmur. A film such as this needs to shout louder and have more to say.

Karen herself could have been presented as much stronger and feistier to put the audience behind her and Denys especially gets nothing to do except look handsome and be American. The real Denys Finch Hatton was an English aristocrat, so it seems very calculated that Redford should retain his American accent and act more like Indiana Jones, but with no sense of humour, because it would make the film appeal to the less esoteric members of the audience who may favour Mills and Boon romances over historical drama. This tale of an aristocratic woman falling in love with a the grizzled local hero is not what happened, nor is it told with a shred of fun or emotion. If you want that sort of story, I would recommend seeing Katharine Hepburn in The African Queen, Kathleen Turner in Romancing the Stone, or Rachel Weisz in The Mummy, all far more exciting and more deserving of notoriety than this.

Out of Africa’s mediocrity is further shown through the fact that it covers about 20 years of history, but at no point is this scale of time felt. I only found out by reading up on the real Karen Blixen, and this was at a point where I thought the film had covered less than half that time. None of the characters aged, nor did their fashion or hair styles change with the times. Gone With the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia and Gandhi are similarly ambitious and episodic epics, but their sense of scale leaves you physically and mentally exhausted by the end, much like the characters you’re watching. By the end of Out of Africa, I felt nothing. I don’t think the film even climaxed at any point.

To reiterate Doug, Out of Africa is not terrible mostly because it’s lovely to look at. But like Instagram models, this is not enough. There’s a deadness behind the eyes that makes it fit well within a decade that is quickly turning out to be trite. 

Highlight

Karen and Denys’ plane flight is actually quite a lovely sequence. It’s captures the beauty of the African landscape and it’s a shame the rest of the film couldn’t match this sense of awe.

Lowlight

A lengthy dialogue scene between Karen and Denys on a beach in which they discuss the future of their relationship is a prime example of why the film fails. Much of it is just words, words, words, and left me with a distinct feeling of “so what?”

Mark

2/10

57. Amadeus (1984)

Plot Intro

Vienna, the late 1700s. Court composer, Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham) is at the height of his career under the Austrian Emperor, Joseph II (Jeffrey Jones). When he hears of an impending visit from musical child prodigy, the infantile and foul-mouthed Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce), Salieri is thrilled, but then horrified to realise that Mozart’s ability far supersedes his own. With his position as the Emperor’s favourite threatened, Salieri concocts a plan to impede Mozart’s growing popularity, to ensure his operas never gain notoriety, and, eventually, to kill him.

Paul says...

Hamlet was adapted by Disney into The Lion King. Seven Samurai became A Bug’s Life. And here, we have Amadeus, which provided the prototype for Toy Story. It’s a tale about the old being threatened by the new, with the irony that the new is far more enticing, and more interesting, than the old. Does one maintain the old for the sake of posterity, or give in to an unconventional, potentially dangerous modernity?

These are the questions that Peter Shaffer’s adaptation of his own play purports, and it’s an enjoyable addition to the '80s Best Picture winners. It has the grandeur, budget, bolshiness and love for melodrama that is so synonymous with this era, which is refreshing after last week’s rather dreary entry. It also benefits from two great performances from the main male leads, which is necessary as their characters are the cement holding the whole thing together. F. Murray Abraham especially, who nabbed the Best Actor Oscar from Tom Hulce for this, narrates and drives the film with gravitas. I loved his background looks of discomfort whilst listening to Mozart play his own tunes, and make them better, and his unhinged mental state as an old man in a lunatic asylum. His proclamation of himself as the Patron Saint of Mediocrities whilst wheelchair-bound and surrounded by deranged and chained-up patients made me question whether we’re supposed to wonder if his killing of Mozart was real, or a figment of his imagination. A well-deserved win for an actor who you may have seen in other films without even realising it - look him up.

Tom Hulce (who also voices Quasimodo in Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame) injects genuine energy into Mozart, revelling in his puerile humour (Mozart really did have a love of toilet humour and swearing), his playfulness, and his arrogance as well. I certainly fell on his side in his opening few scenes in which he wows snobbish and unlikeable court officials with his ability.

The downside to Amadeus is how static it is sometimes. This is a lively, ridiculous tale, and almost entirely made up. Mozart drove himself to an early grave through over-work, over-spending and over-indulging. He lived a chaotic and cluttered lifestyle, leaving behind various gambling debts, an apartment impossibly full of furniture, and a legacy that had barely taken off. Salieri being the orchestrator behind his death is so daft that the film needs a lot more humour and flamboyance than it lends. 

This is what the recent stage adaptation at the National Theatre offered. Fragments of scenery, ballet-like movements of the Chorus, and lucid, flowing direction created a dream-like, deliberately over-blown presentation of life at the Viennese Court. It was a prime example of how writing, acting, movement, lighting, music and scenery can all work together to create a sumptuous whole, and it was so good we saw it twice. The film needs more of this. The Emperor especially was a massive disappointment. He’s depicted in the play as an under-educated, egotistical philistine, who simply says “well, there it is” whenever someone says something he doesn’t understand (which is frequently). Many of his comic lines were missed here, and although Jeffrey Jones had a Golden Globe nomination for his role, I didn’t think he was putting in much effort.

Various sequences needed more life. A satirical performance of Don Giovanni; a battle over whether an opera includes a ballet; Salieri and an ailing Mozart composing furiously together. All of these had the opportunity to explode on the screen and provide more insight into characters - but they all felt flat and lifeless and, as a result, far too long to me.

Amadeus is great Sunday afternoon entertainment. It’s not too taxing, it’s visually quite stunning, and it’s got enough drama and great music to keep you entertained. What it’s missing is the sort of directorial innovation that the works of Guillermo Del Toro and Joe Wright’s Anna Karenina had, as well as a stronger sense of fun.

Highlight

Amadeus’ first appearance, in which Salieri moves about the room trying to guess who the infamous Mozart is. It’s a sequence made all the more enjoyable by the realisation that Mozart is the one pursuing a woman and making lewd remarks to her.

Lowlight

The satirical Don Giovanni, involving dwarfs, various horses, and acrobats, sounds great but doesn’t really do much for the story. It’s 5 minutes that could have been cut altogether.

Mark

5/10

Doug says...

The problem with Amadeus is that, as Paul said, we’ve seen the far superior stage production of this, which being able to fully embrace its theatricality, packs more of a punch. Here, they try to keep it realistic and natural which ends up feeling a little bit clunky at times. 

The story is fab, it’s a classic tale of jealousy and ultimate betrayal and Salieri makes for a brilliant anti-hero, his fascination and disgust with Mozart in equal measures drive him to try and destroy him, while still unable to stay away from his music, visiting every show of his productions. In this film we see older Salieri recounting his tale to a priest - and this is an example of my issue with it. In the stage production, the actor playing Salieri flips between young and old in the space of a scene, addressing his monologues directly to the audience, shocking and appealing to us - the watchers - and making us consider his actions more deeply. 

Here, there are moments of good staging - Mozart, dying, directs Salieri to write a line of notes for his ‘Requiem’. Salieri writes it down and then we hear the music as it is, highlighting Mozart’s genius at grasping complex musical styles and making it sound effortless. But these moments are few and far between. 

I think I’m being slightly unfair, but it’s hard to applaud something even if it’s fine, when you’ve seen how it can be done a hundred times more effectively on stage. This is a passable film but the same material has been made electrifying on stage simply by the director refusing naturalism and taking an artistic angle. As Paul says, this isn’t impossible on film - Anna Karenina did this incredibly well, and created something fresh and fitting to the source material. Here they don’t rise to the challenge, but rather force the play into a natural setting, and hope by the liberal use of Mozart music on the soundtrack that we will appreciate his genius. 

Acting-wise it’s decent. Again, neither the leads stand up to the National Theatre’s version, but Lucian Msamati’s Salieri was an extraordinary performance, and likely as not will never be surpassed, so that’s not saying F. Murray Abraham does a bad job - his performance doesn’t strike me as particularly awards-worthy but the Academy thought otherwise, and his ‘old Salieri’ is absorbing at least. 

In essence, it’s a decent film that’s not going to stick in too many minds, but it’s a perfect example of when one medium is probably better - and here the National Theatre’s stage production blew this out of the water and didn’t even look back. 

Highlight

I’ll always enjoy the moment when Mozart sits down, plays a little ditty Salieri wrote for him, and then improves upon it ten-fold. It’s a moment that would stick in any craw, let alone a self-absorbed, pompous court musician’s. 

Lowlight

It doesn’t embrace its innate theatricality, forcing a play bursting with life and vigour into overlong static scenes that insist upon realism. Considering the Salieri-Mozart rivalry has been pretty much proven to be fiction, this seems unnecessary…

Mark

4/10 

56. Terms of Endearment (1983)

Plot Intro

The movie follows the lives of a mother and daughter- over-powering Aurora Greenway (Shirley MacLaine) and free-spirited Emma Horton (Debra Winger). While Emma marries Flap (yes that is his real name) (Jeff Daniels), moves away to Iowa and has 3 children, Aurora conducts a relationship with her predatory and vivacious ex-astronaut neighbour, Garrett Breedlove (again, that IS his real name) (Jack Nicholson). 

Doug says...

Terms of Endearment is what I thought Ordinary People was going to be. It’s a full, overblown family drama, complete with an obligatory ‘character-gets-cancer’ storyline and over-the-top approaching-melodrama acting. I’d love to say it goes over and above the triteness of such frippery filled pieces, but unfortunately it lands slap bang in the middle of the cliched genre. 

I think where I fell away from this film was when I saw the description of it as ‘offbeat’. Offbeat usually means ‘unusual’ or ‘quirky’ but here I take that label quite literally. It misses the beats that it sets out to achieve. Moments that would be incredibly funny somehow just miss the comic timing beat. Moments that would verge on the emotional and heart-wrending also miss their timing, resulting in what feels often overwrought and not really steeped in real emotion. 

It’s another big outing for Shirley MacLaine (who we last saw in The Apartment) and while I liked her performance more here, it still didn’t quite ring true for me. She’s overbearing and terrifying, yet utterly devoted to her daughter, while also sniping at her without cease. It’s a Dickensian stereotype but (a little like Mary Tyler Moore in Ordinary People) we don’t get to see much beyond the surface. 

The director apparently went out of his way to cause tension on set as he preferred working that way (creatives eh?!) and the improvised nature of many of the scenes is very obvious. Jack Nicholson and MacLaine bounce off each other well and in many ways their relationship (overblown as it is) is the main highlight of the film. The other storyline, focusing on the daughter is dull, partially thanks to Debra Wing’s not-great performance. Apparently she was coming down off of cocaine while doing this, but you might have thought her performance would be a bit more sparky for that. Ah well. 

It’s not a bad film by any means, but with the standard of the ‘80s already highly promising, it’s a tad disappointing to find this incredibly middle of the road film being crowned supreme. Perhaps it was a dud year for film-making. 

Highlight 

Jack Nicholson has a lot of fun as a drunken, roaring old astronaut, including a scene on the beach where he drives his sports car standing with his feet on the wheel, MacLaine grimly operating the pedals next to him and shouting ‘I am not enjoying this’ at him. It’s one of the few comic moments that really landed. 

Lowlight

It got too slushy without enough real heart, and the last half hour dragged on. 

Mark 

5/10

Paul says...

How does one create an ‘80s movie? Well, according to Delia’s Movie Cook Book, you need an emotional tale about a family in some sort of crisis or crises; a whimsical piano-driven soundtrack that doesn’t over-stimulate; some platitudinous speeches or conversations about love, life, death etc; a gratuitously bittersweet ending; a nauseating amount of florals in the costumes and set design; at least one socio-political issue to discuss didactically. 

And that’s basically Terms of Endearment. Even it’s mother-daughter-centric storyline pretty much turns it into a heavily-truncated season of The Gilmore Girls, with some Knot’s Landing thrown in for good measure. The fundamental problem is that so much happens in it that the story has no focus whatsoever. About 30 years pass between the beginning and the end and in that time births, marriages, extra-marital affairs; deaths; long-term illnesses; short-term illnesses (the baby has croup, oh God no!); moves to new locations; all of this is thrown at you so thick and fast that I had no time to digest or engage with any of it. All interspersed with irregular fade-outs to black and lovely, gentle, twee music that ensures anyone over the age of 70 can watch a film that mentions abortion once. It’s a similar problem that the second half of Gone With the Wind has. 

The entire film is also extremely inconsequential. These various events happen and we move on to the next one with little or no reflection or later reference. Like a badly-written soap opera, Terms of Endearment seemed to be getting made up as it goes along (and it may well have been). Yes, I know, this is very reflective of life and it’s randomness, but I don’t watch a film to see reality. I want escapism.

I didn’t rate Debra Winger much either, despite the acclaim she gets for this. I get that her character, as the youthful daughter, is meant to be more impulsive and rebellious than her prudish mother, but Winger swings dramatically between big expressions of these aspects of her character, and the more subtle, gentle acting styles that MacLaine seems to be prefer. There’s not much consistency and therefore the character feels vague. She also apparently had a feud with MacLaine (Wikipedia is a little vague on this one), so it feels judicious that MacLaine should walk away with the Best Actress Oscar that they were both nominated for.

Ah yes, Shirley MacLaine. The one saving grace. I loved her in 1960’s winner, The Apartment, in which she could evoke everyday mannerisms and line deliveries whilst also oozing effortless charisma. Here, she is similarly strong, and deserves all the more praise for giving life into a lifeless script. In one scene in which she climbs the stairs to Garrett’s porch, she shows through body language alone that she is reluctantly admitting to her attraction to this obnoxious pig, is giving into it, and also amused at her own hesitation. The character is by far the best drawn out- a closeted bundle of insecurities and loneliness, heavily disguised by a hard-nosed, steely-eyed exterior. The rest of the cast pale in comparison- even Jack Nicholson felt like he was on auto-pilot to me. Go Shirley!

True, the film was a large hit. True, MacLaine’s character and storyline are far more engaging. But the fact that the film jumps all over the place in time and content leaves me cold and unengaged towards it. Ordinary People had a similar tone, but it was far superior due to its focus on the aftermath of a family death, and because it had bigger things to say about grief, mental health and how a certain class of people deal with these things. Watch that, instead. Not this bromidic rubbish.

Highlight

Altogether now: GIVE MY DAUGHTER THE SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTT!!!!

Lowlight

Debra Winger’s overrated performance. Again, Go Shirley!

Mark

3/10