list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Yeast on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Yeast/365088/default.aspx Title: Yeast
Year: 2008
Director: Mary Bronstein
Plot: Hopelessly oblivious, frustratingly tyrannical, and emotionally stunted, a woman suffering from a wide variety of personality flaws does her best to talk through two deeply destructive friendships. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 8
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 13
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:44:26 GMTYeast2008Mary BronsteinHopelessly oblivious, frustratingly tyrannical, and emotionally stunted, a woman suffering from a wide variety of personality flaws does her best to talk through two deeply destructive friendships. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide8Taggedy Taggged (6-10)21324http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s365088.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Yeast/365088/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/joem18b/archive/2009/7/29/43317.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: joem18b Blog
Post Date: 7/29/2009 6:44:26 PM
Body: With reference to my previous posting THE WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN: CITIZEN KANE, let me recognize this recent review of Yeast by a Spout member:"this movie was by far the worst "indie" film i have ever seen in my entire life... and i don't think that that any movie i see in the future will be nearly as bad at this one."
]]>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:44:26 GMTjoem18bjoem18b Blog7/29/2009 6:44:26 PMWith reference to my previous posting THE WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN: CITIZEN KANE, let me recognize this recent review of Yeast by a Spout member:"this movie was by far the worst "indie" film i have ever seen in my entire life... and i don't think that that any movie i see in the future will be nearly as bad at this one." http://www.spout.com/blogs/jeycephil/archive/2009/7/29/43304.aspx Post By: jeycephil
Post To: jeycephil Blog
Post Date: 7/29/2009 2:19:08 AM
Body: this movie was by far the worst "indie" film i have ever seen in my entire life... and i don't think that that any movie i see in the future will be nearly as bad at this one.
]]>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:19:08 GMTjeycephiljeycephil Blog7/29/2009 2:19:08 AMthis movie was by far the worst "indie" film i have ever seen in my entire life... and i don't think that that any movie i see in the future will be nearly as bad at this one. http://www.spout.com/blogs/daleyboy/archive/2009/3/17/41101.aspx Post By: daleyboy
Post To: daleyboy Blog
Post Date: 3/17/2009 8:14:24 PM
Body: about 1/4th through this movie and hated every character in it. It's basically a documentary of crazy bitches arguing whilst a camera awkwardly films them in "camcorder" style. If you want to watch a movie about immature dysfuntional women than go for it.
]]>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:14:24 GMTdaleyboydaleyboy Blog3/17/2009 8:14:24 PMabout 1/4th through this movie and hated every character in it. It's basically a documentary of crazy bitches arguing whilst a camera awkwardly films them in "camcorder" style. If you want to watch a movie about immature dysfuntional women than go for it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/26/38855.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/26/2008 10:01:17 AM
Body: I’ll start with a short disclaimer: I fully recognize the potential arrogance in claiming to know the four most misunderstood films of the year. To say that I have some supreme viewing power that allows me to see these films for what they truly are reeks of a high and mighty attitude that I’d rather stay away from. However, as many critics are preparing their final tallies of what they loved and hated in 2008, I simply feel the need to put into print a positive perspective on four films that seem to be frequently criticized or overlooked. That being said, there is a certain irony in the fact that all four of these films deal with a kind of misunderstanding. Whether it be a mix-up between characters or a challenging thematic element that dares the viewer to reevaluate the way they approach the subject matter, I feel each of these films does something particularly audacious with the concept of false impression. One other quick side note: It is impossible for me to get to the core of these films without spoilers, so if you haven’t seen them and would like to view them blind, please return to the article after watching Joel and Ethan Coen’s Burn After Reading, Mary Bronstein’s Yeast, Johan Renck’s Downloading Nancy and Pascal Laugier’s Martyrs. Burn After Reading It’s not hard to see how one could dismiss the Coen Brothers’ follow-up feature to their Oscar winning Best Picture, No Country For Old Men, as slight. Leaving behind a good deal of the bold, cinematic gestures in the interest of making a moody, screwball, comedic thriller seemed like a step backwards. But let’s consider for a second the actual thematic make-up of the Coen Brothers’ career, with particular focus on No Country For Old Men. That film is, without a doubt, incredibly derivative, packed with constant nods to cinema history spanning everything from Hitchcock to John Ford. This is nothing new for the Coens: from day one, with Blood Simple, they’ve been pulling names out of classic 30s movies and making mockeries out of literary references with a kind of self-conscious, self-reflexive wit used to cleverly undercut classic stables of dialog that could otherwise potentially come across as overdone. They even point the harshest of mirrors on themselves with the arrogant character of Barton Fink, a self-obsessed, self-important playwright, who pontificates on “the common man.” But this time the joke is on us. No Country, with all its ingenious directorial decisions and memorable sequences, holds very little thematic weight. The film is great genre fare, but in its snarky treatment of Javier Bardem’s unintelligible lessons it still mocks any viewer who dares look for a message to take seriously – not unlike Barton Fink. When stacked up against films like 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, the beloved cinematic stylings of No Country seem to pale in comparison. And this is where we get to Burn After Reading: for two guys who have been horribly self-aware their entire careers, it doesn’t seem like such a stretch to mock the audiences that put their work on such a high pedestal. It’s no small piece of irony that Reading is set around the story of an arrogant ex-fed whose laughable memoir, spawned out of his self-proclaimed sense of individuality, gets assigned a false importance when put into the hands of an image-conscious aerobics instructor with a taste for the norm. As if that wasn’t metaphorical enough, the film builds itself like any other Coen production, one plot device at a time, and resolves with the same sense of hopelessness we get at the end of No Country –– except this time it’s capped by J.K. Simmons stating, “What have we learned? … I don’t fucking know.” As Josh Rothkopf pointed out to me, even the title dares you to throw it away and not pay it so much mind. Have fun with it while it’s there. Everything past that is just silly. In their own light-hearted way, Joel and Ethan Coen are having the last laugh at us for taking them so seriously, but with a gentle smirk that lets the audience play along to a much greater extent than any of this year’s other challenges. Yeast I think it’s safe to say that Yeast was the most divisive movie of SXSW 2008. Bronstein’s abrasive, low-budget, pitch-black comedic view of deteriorating female friendships left some wholly satisfied and others wholly uncomfortable. Perhaps the jerky, handheld aesthetic that we’ve come to recognize as the “realism” of mumblecore was part of what threw viewers off from grappling with the true originality of Bronstein’s work: The characters in Yeast exist in a world in which one externally expresses their internal emotions. They hold nothing back from each other and, as a result, we feel the queasiness of being inside their heads. I’ve heard some critics say that Yeast is a film that wants you to hate it. I think that’s too simple. Yeast wants to plunge you into the darkest places of the human soul, it wants you to revel om your own pent up internal aggression by forcing it in your face for eighty minutes. It’s possible Bronstein wants us to hate the way the movie makes us feel, but she also wants us to recognize that we only feel that way because of our discomfort with that part of ourselves. As one friend pointed out to me, “It really plays on the new age of friendship with Myspace and Facebook.” Indeed, this is an age where you stay friends with someone much longer than you are supposed to because you believe that disrupting the natural ebb and flow of staying in touch with people that you grow apart from says something positive about your character. No one wants to believe that their close friends can change in incompatible ways to them, and Bronstein’s film shocks us with this harsh reality. Downloading Nancy Garnering a very similar reaction to Yeast at SXSW 2008, was Sundance 2008’s Downloading Nancy, Johan Renck’s haunting true story of a grown-up child abuse victim who seeks comfort to her trauma, via an internet friend, through S&M and suicide. Audiences fled the theater mid-picture as Nancy and her new companion engaged in depressingly violent sexual activity, padded with an icky sensitivity that makes each viewer feel like they should go home and shower after just being present at the screening. I’ve found that when you break all the elements of Downloading Nancy down one by one for someone who hates film, it’s impossible for them not to admit that all the ingredients are pitch perfect. Maria Bello’s performance is a tour de force, backed by stand out supporting acting from Jason Patric as the sympathetic fetishist who helps Nancy end her life, and Rufus Sewall as her neglectful and confused husband. Shot by infamous cinematographer Christopher Doyle and beautifully scored by Krister Linder, the film captures an eerie tone that stays with you weeks after the first viewing. But the subject matter is what makes viewers shy away. “Why would I want to see something that makes sex look awful?” one acquisitions exec exclaimed to me after the press and industry screening. Well, quite simply, because to Nancy, sex is awful. Much like Paul Greengrass’ United 93, Renck’s film pays incredible respect to the real life story that is its source material. It’s not sensationalistic or sugar coated. It’s not constructed as a desperate plea to make you understand where its tormented protagonist is coming from. It forces you inside the last days of her troubled life, blemishes and all, and makes you feel what she feels. It is gross and unsettling and that’s exactly what makes it so tasteful and honest. Martyrs 2008’s true statement on sensationalism really came with the Cannes premiere of what is perhaps the most daring film I’ve seen in the last ten years, Pascal Laugier’s Martyrs. With the brute force of the new wave of French horror (High Tension, Inside), Martyrs manages to rapidly catalog through all forms of terror within the first forty-five minutes. There are supernatural beings and human torturers, conspiracies and quests for vengeance, and certainly enough blood and creative ways to destroy the human body to go around. But the real shocking twist comes at around the sixty-minute mark when the film drastically changes tone, from fast-paced, pop sensationalism to long, realistic shots of the bare-knuckle beating of a fourteen-year-old girl. When I first saw the film, I was struck by the visceral impact of the shift, equating it very much with the feeling of watching films like Downloading Nancy, as if Laugier had pulled the rug out from under me and I was now face to face with the real horror of violence in the world. And that certainly still rings true as the first level of why Martyrs is so brilliant and daring an experiment. But I think it goes deeper than that. It took me three viewings to process what seemed like awkward choices, including a searing score over the beatings, and fades in and out to signify the passing of time. These took me out of the supposed realism for a minute.  And then I realized what I was actually watching was a blow by blow (no pun intended) cinematic equivalent of what a naysayer would claim to be torture porn: Long takes, painstakingly detailing the violence which are absolutely devoid of tension despite their cliché filmic techniques. With one fell swoop, Laugier pulls back the curtain and reveals the nature of what makes something cinematic, proving once and for all that timing is everything and that films like Hostel, Saw and even the first half of Martyrs itself rely on cutting, clever camera work and negative space to build the strong visceral reaction that they incite, and something simply pornographic has the distinct, and undesirable, feeling of realism. Given the discomfort drawn by audience after audience with these other films, Laugier’s point clearly does not come a moment too soon. Just try to remember, it’s only a movie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:01:17 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/26/2008 10:01:17 AMI’ll start with a short disclaimer: I fully recognize the potential arrogance in claiming to know the four most misunderstood films of the year. To say that I have some supreme viewing power that allows me to see these films for what they truly are reeks of a high and mighty attitude that I’d rather stay away from. However, as many critics are preparing their final tallies of what they loved and hated in 2008, I simply feel the need to put into print a positive perspective on four films that seem to be frequently criticized or overlooked. That being said, there is a certain irony in the fact that all four of these films deal with a kind of misunderstanding. Whether it be a mix-up between characters or a challenging thematic element that dares the viewer to reevaluate the way they approach the subject matter, I feel each of these films does something particularly audacious with the concept of false impression. One other quick side note: It is impossible for me to get to the core of these films without spoilers, so if you haven’t seen them and would like to view them blind, please return to the article after watching Joel and Ethan Coen’s Burn After Reading, Mary Bronstein’s Yeast, Johan Renck’s Downloading Nancy and Pascal Laugier’s Martyrs. Burn After Reading It’s not hard to see how one could dismiss the Coen Brothers’ follow-up feature to their Oscar winning Best Picture, No Country For Old Men, as slight. Leaving behind a good deal of the bold, cinematic gestures in the interest of making a moody, screwball, comedic thriller seemed like a step backwards. But let’s consider for a second the actual thematic make-up of the Coen Brothers’ career, with particular focus on No Country For Old Men. That film is, without a doubt, incredibly derivative, packed with constant nods to cinema history spanning everything from Hitchcock to John Ford. This is nothing new for the Coens: from day one, with Blood Simple, they’ve been pulling names out of classic 30s movies and making mockeries out of literary references with a kind of self-conscious, self-reflexive wit used to cleverly undercut classic stables of dialog that could otherwise potentially come across as overdone. They even point the harshest of mirrors on themselves with the arrogant character of Barton Fink, a self-obsessed, self-important playwright, who pontificates on “the common man.” But this time the joke is on us. No Country, with all its ingenious directorial decisions and memorable sequences, holds very little thematic weight. The film is great genre fare, but in its snarky treatment of Javier Bardem’s unintelligible lessons it still mocks any viewer who dares look for a message to take seriously – not unlike Barton Fink. When stacked up against films like 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, the beloved cinematic stylings of No Country seem to pale in comparison. And this is where we get to Burn After Reading: for two guys who have been horribly self-aware their entire careers, it doesn’t seem like such a stretch to mock the audiences that put their work on such a high pedestal. It’s no small piece of irony that Reading is set around the story of an arrogant ex-fed whose laughable memoir, spawned out of his self-proclaimed sense of individuality, gets assigned a false importance when put into the hands of an image-conscious aerobics instructor with a taste for the norm. As if that wasn’t metaphorical enough, the film builds itself like any other Coen production, one plot device at a time, and resolves with the same sense of hopelessness we get at the end of No Country –– except this time it’s capped by J.K. Simmons stating, “What have we learned? … I don’t fucking know.” As Josh Rothkopf pointed out to me, even the title dares you to throw it away and not pay it so much mind. Have fun with it while it’s there. Everything past that is just silly. In their own light-hearted way, Joel and Ethan Coen are having the last laugh at us for taking them so seriously, but with a gentle smirk that lets the audience play along to a much greater extent than any of this year’s other challenges. Yeast I think it’s safe to say that Yeast was the most divisive movie of SXSW 2008. Bronstein’s abrasive, low-budget, pitch-black comedic view of deteriorating female friendships left some wholly satisfied and others wholly uncomfortable. Perhaps the jerky, handheld aesthetic that we’ve come to recognize as the “realism” of mumblecore was part of what threw viewers off from grappling with the true originality of Bronstein’s work: The characters in Yeast exist in a world in which one externally expresses their internal emotions. They hold nothing back from each other and, as a result, we feel the queasiness of being inside their heads. I’ve heard some critics say that Yeast is a film that wants you to hate it. I think that’s too simple. Yeast wants to plunge you into the darkest places of the human soul, it wants you to revel om your own pent up internal aggression by forcing it in your face for eighty minutes. It’s possible Bronstein wants us to hate the way the movie makes us feel, but she also wants us to recognize that we only feel that way because of our discomfort with that part of ourselves. As one friend pointed out to me, “It really plays on the new age of friendship with Myspace and Facebook.” Indeed, this is an age where you stay friends with someone much longer than you are supposed to because you believe that disrupting the natural ebb and flow of staying in touch with people that you grow apart from says something positive about your character. No one wants to believe that their close friends can change in incompatible ways to them, and Bronstein’s film shocks us with this harsh reality. Downloading Nancy Garnering a very similar reaction to Yeast at SXSW 2008, was Sundance 2008’s Downloading Nancy, Johan Renck’s haunting true story of a grown-up child abuse victim who seeks comfort to her trauma, via an internet friend, through S&M and suicide. Audiences fled the theater mid-picture as Nancy and her new companion engaged in depressingly violent sexual activity, padded with an icky sensitivity that makes each viewer feel like they should go home and shower after just being present at the screening. I’ve found that when you break all the elements of Downloading Nancy down one by one for someone who hates film, it’s impossible for them not to admit that all the ingredients are pitch perfect. Maria Bello’s performance is a tour de force, backed by stand out supporting acting from Jason Patric as the sympathetic fetishist who helps Nancy end her life, and Rufus Sewall as her neglectful and confused husband. Shot by infamous cinematographer Christopher Doyle and beautifully scored by Krister Linder, the film captures an eerie tone that stays with you weeks after the first viewing. But the subject matter is what makes viewers shy away. “Why would I want to see something that makes sex look awful?” one acquisitions exec exclaimed to me after the press and industry screening. Well, quite simply, because to Nancy, sex is awful. Much like Paul Greengrass’ United 93, Renck’s film pays incredible respect to the real life story that is its source material. It’s not sensationalistic or sugar coated. It’s not constructed as a desperate plea to make you understand where its tormented protagonist is coming from. It forces you inside the last days of her troubled life, blemishes and all, and makes you feel what she feels. It is gross and unsettling and that’s exactly what makes it so tasteful and honest. Martyrs 2008’s true statement on sensationalism really came with the Cannes premiere of what is perhaps the most daring film I’ve seen in the last ten years, Pascal Laugier’s Martyrs. With the brute force of the new wave of French horror (High Tension, Inside), Martyrs manages to rapidly catalog through all forms of terror within the first forty-five minutes. There are supernatural beings and human torturers, conspiracies and quests for vengeance, and certainly enough blood and creative ways to destroy the human body to go around. But the real shocking twist comes at around the sixty-minute mark when the film drastically changes tone, from fast-paced, pop sensationalism to long, realistic shots of the bare-knuckle beating of a fourteen-year-old girl. When I first saw the film, I was struck by the visceral impact of the shift, equating it very much with the feeling of watching films like Downloading Nancy, as if Laugier had pulled the rug out from under me and I was now face to face with the real horror of violence in the world. And that certainly still rings true as the first level of why Martyrs is so brilliant and daring an experiment. But I think it goes deeper than that. It took me three viewings to process what seemed like awkward choices, including a searing score over the beatings, and fades in and out to signify the passing of time. These took me out of the supposed realism for a minute.  And then I realized what I was actually watching was a blow by blow (no pun intended) cinematic equivalent of what a naysayer would claim to be torture porn: Long takes, painstakingly detailing the violence which are absolutely devoid of tension despite their cliché filmic techniques. With one fell swoop, Laugier pulls back the curtain and reveals the nature of what makes something cinematic, proving once and for all that timing is everything and that films like Hostel, Saw and even the first half of Martyrs itself rely on cutting, clever camera work and negative space to build the strong visceral reaction that they incite, and something simply pornographic has the distinct, and undesirable, feeling of realism. Given the discomfort drawn by audience after audience with these other films, Laugier’s point clearly does not come a moment too soon. Just try to remember, it’s only a movie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/12/16/38464.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 12/16/2008 4:01:21 PM
Body: I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:01:21 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog12/16/2008 4:01:21 PM I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/16/38463.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/16/2008 4:01:08 PM
Body: I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/16/2008 4:01:08 PM I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/10/8/36029.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 10/8/2008 12:01:37 PM
Body: Last night in Manhattan, Cinetic Rights Management and the video sharing site DailyMotion hosted a special rooftop screening of Mary Bronstein’s indie comedy of female relationship horrors, Yeast. At the event, we learned that Yeast will debut on DailyMotion on Friday night, where it will be available for free streaming for one weekend only. You’ll be able to find the film at the Cinema DailyMotion page. For more info, check out our review from SXSW, and our interview with Bronstein, and co-stars Greta Gerwig and Amy Judd. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:01:37 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog10/8/2008 12:01:37 PM Last night in Manhattan, Cinetic Rights Management and the video sharing site DailyMotion hosted a special rooftop screening of Mary Bronstein’s indie comedy of female relationship horrors, Yeast. At the event, we learned that Yeast will debut on DailyMotion on Friday night, where it will be available for free streaming for one weekend only. You’ll be able to find the film at the Cinema DailyMotion page. For more info, check out our review from SXSW, and our interview with Bronstein, and co-stars Greta Gerwig and Amy Judd. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/8/36027.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/8/2008 12:01:23 PM
Body: Last night in Manhattan, Cinetic Rights Management and the video sharing site DailyMotion hosted a special rooftop screening of Mary Bronstein’s indie comedy of female relationship horrors, Yeast. At the event, we learned that Yeast will debut on DailyMotion on Friday night, where it will be available for free streaming for one weekend only. You’ll be able to find the film at the Cinema DailyMotion page. For more info, check out our review from SXSW, and our interview with Bronstein, and co-stars Greta Gerwig and Amy Judd. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:01:23 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/8/2008 12:01:23 PM Last night in Manhattan, Cinetic Rights Management and the video sharing site DailyMotion hosted a special rooftop screening of Mary Bronstein’s indie comedy of female relationship horrors, Yeast. At the event, we learned that Yeast will debut on DailyMotion on Friday night, where it will be available for free streaming for one weekend only. You’ll be able to find the film at the Cinema DailyMotion page. For more info, check out our review from SXSW, and our interview with Bronstein, and co-stars Greta Gerwig and Amy Judd. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/6/15/31257.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 6/15/2008 9:01:19 PM
Body: FINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:01:19 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog6/15/2008 9:01:19 PMFINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/15/31256.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/15/2008 9:01:11 PM
Body: FINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:01:11 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/15/2008 9:01:11 PMFINALLY, LILLIAN AND DAN Trailer Finally, Lillian and Dan comes to CineVegas almost a full year after its first and only significant public screening, as part of the M-word heavy Summer 2007 Independents Week series at Harvard Film Archives. It’s a find, a definite cousin of the work being made in the Bronstein household––as with Frownland, the mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtelties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker. Lillian, a twenty-something whose lovely face is weighted down with permanent post-crying jag bags, lives with her grandmother and answers phone for some kind of businessman. When her apparently married boss asks her out via lengthy dissertation on the possibilities of urban social life (”There are restaurants, and bars, that people go to…”), she trembles and stares, trying to hide her humiliation behind a cup of tea. When he continues the courtship by leaving flowers and a novelty balloon at her desk, she quits. Meanwhile, the scruffy, borderline mean-looking Dan fills his days chain smoking, wandering, driving around in his old Volvo. These two lonely, prickly fuck-ups end up in line next to each other at Whole Foods, and each takes notice of the other. Peripheral glances, head jerks, a panoply of figits: they look like they’re dancing. They don’t speak. Soon, Dan is putting on a suit every day and returning to the Whole Foods, coming up with excuses to comb aisles and haunt the cafe, in hopes that his checkout line dance partner will return. Lillian needs something to do, so she throws a “lil’ block party,” which she advertises by stapling flyers to telephone poles and to the community board at Whole Foods. Dan, arriving with rotisserie chicken in hand, is the only person who shows up. Seeing him, recognizing him, Lillian reflexively puts her fingers to her mouth to block her glowing, uncontrollable grin. Then the courtship gets weird. Lillian shares some production tropes with thematic cousins like Kissing on the Mouth and Yeast––namely shaky handheld low gauge lensing and improvised performances––but director Mike Gibisser so perfectly and versatilely weds form to content that his use of such stylistic touchpoints seems less like the result of a low budget and micro crew than deliberate, and often brave, aesthetic choices. Shot on Super 16, Lillian has a grainy, soft-contrast look at times reminiscent of Harmony Korine’s MiniDV-blow up julien donkey-boy. The director fixes the camera when he needs to, but also takes brilliant advantage of the handheld bounce sparingly and purposefully. The image is shaky when the people are shaky; when they’re stuck, it’s static. To see such simple logic put to practice in a first feature maybe shouldn’t feel exciting, but it is. Most impressively, Gibisser uses light as a vehicle for emotional exposition. External shots of Lillian and Dan isolated in urban spaces seem slightly underexposed, tinted grey-blue to match these kids’ mundane blues. There are two night scenes which seem to be shot using only available street lamps; in the first, a first sweet and then abortive makeout, Lillian’s amber-limned silhouette cuts through blackness as she moves towards Dan and away from him. In the second scene, there is no such glittered lining. It’s the darkest scene of the film emotionally, and it’s definitely the darkest––nearly completely black––visually. Gibisser is also doing some really interesting things with sound, and the ambient blip-bloop score heard in the above trailer is the least of it. In the Q & A after Saturday’s screening, he explained that whenever a character wasn’t speaking, they shot without recording sound and re-created the soundtrack later. That had to make for a lot of post work, because for long stretches, Lillian is dialogue free. It ends up playing almost as a silent film, and when someone is speaking, the clear focus of the scene is not on what they’re actually saying, but on what they other person is thinking, feeling, interpreting from the words and the tone. Everything actually said is said on faces, with figits and dance steps, through the flailing of limbs. There’s a scene in this film where one character attempts to bring another back from a gut hollowing sadness by silently dancing and encouraging the other to join them. It’s such a beautifully done depiction of an intimate ritual that it had me in tears. So where can you see it? Dunno. Distribution is certainly nowhere near on the horizon, and wouldn’t be until/unless it started winning festival awards and/or the notice of major critics. And based on his comments after the film, it seems like Gibisser hasn’t put much effort into submitting Lillian to festivals. If you’re an interested programmer, you can email him through his website or the film’s MySpace. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brutal/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrutal
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 36

]]>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:05:36 GMT272736Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/SXSW/MemberTagFilms.aspxSXSW
Number of films tagged: 213

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:26:40 GMT21314274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sxsw-film-festival/MemberTagFilms.aspxsxsw-film-festival
Number of films tagged: 182

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 230

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:07:10 GMT1825230Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/true-to-life/MemberTagFilms.aspxtrue-to-life
Number of films tagged: 3

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:09:26 GMT344Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/toxic/MemberTagFilms.aspxtoxic
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:03:28 GMT1433Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/south-by-south-west/MemberTagFilms.aspxsouth-by-south-west
Number of films tagged: 102

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 127

]]>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:08:39 GMT1022127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/south-by-southwest-2008/MemberTagFilms.aspxsouth-by-southwest-2008
Number of films tagged: 103

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 129

]]>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:40:32 GMT1032129Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suffocating/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuffocating
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:09:26 GMT111Tag