(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrailers.apple.com%2Ftrailers%2Ffox_searchlight%2Fthedescendants%2Fimages%2Fposter-xlarge.jpg&hash=628d86e4d5f9efae69f9ecd833d60dee1949c377)
Director: Alexander Payne
Writers: Alexander Payne (screenplay), Nat Faxon (screenplay)
Stars: George Clooney, Judy Greer and Matthew Lillard
Storyline: A land baron tries to re-connect with his two daughters after his wife suffers a boating accident.
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/thedescendants/
White people doing white people stuff. :bravo: Just like Sideways and About Schmidt.
Count me in. Alexander Payne is always good, sometimes great.
I bet Noah Baumbach watches Alexander Payne movies and gets so mad to see someone doing what he does, but 10x better.
I'm normally all about A.Payne but I'm not sure I would have had any interest in this if I didn't know it was him. But it is, so I'm definitely seeing it.
I often watch his "14e arrondissement" from Paris, Je T'Aime (along with the Assayas and Van Sant ones ... actually the Assayas one with Maggie Gyllenhaal way more).
This trailer isn't great but trailers are bad at capturing Payne's rhythms, and also his sincerity, because kind of by definition trailers are bad at sincerity. So it's tough for his strengths to shine in his trailers. But I also don't know why he went with George Clooney. It seems too easy. I'm curious to see how he's used.
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on May 25, 2011, 03:48:10 PM
I often watch his "14e arrondissement" from Paris, Je T'Aime
The best part of that movie and one of the best (if not the best) thing Payne has ever done.
Quote from: squints on May 25, 2011, 03:49:09 PM
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on May 25, 2011, 03:48:10 PM
I often watch his "14e arrondissement" from Paris, Je T'Aime
The best part of that movie and one of the best (if not the best) thing Payne has ever done.
Margo Martindale as Carol was great casting. She has so many endearing moments ... asking the lady where to eat in French, to practice, but the French lady speaking back in English, and the little face of disappointment Carol makes for a tiny moment ... trying to pop her ears in the elevator ... and the final moment with her on the bench in the park with the pond in front of her. She eats a sandwich and looks around the park, seeing kids play, elderly couples together on benches, people spread out on the lawn, she's seeing all this and says "It was like remembering something I'd never known before or had always been waiting for, but I didn't know what." Payne pushes in for a close up: "Maybe it was something I'd forgotten or something I've been missing all my life. All I can say is that I felt, at the same time, joy and sadness. But not too much sadness because I felt alive. Yes, alive." Payne pans out over the pond, a few city buildings in the background, and Carol ends, "That was the moment I fell in love with Paris. And I felt Paris fall in love with me." So good.
Whenever I see Martindale I think of her as Carol, for example Carol, the Denver mail carrier, is the mother's lawyer in Win Win.
HAVE YOU SEEN JUSTIFIED SEASON 2?!
I haven't seen season one for that matter. But you definitely make me want to.
pete's been trying to do for Justified what samsong did for Certified Copy, but it's just not working!
I've heard a lot of good things about Justified.
you fuckholes
Margot Martindale does one of the best villains ever in Justified season 2
and no Stefen
Ping Pong would always be my Certified Copy
which I'd been pushing since 2003
HA Margo Martindale plays the villain? I'm officially dying to see this. I bet it just aired. I'm going to have to wait.
Tagline for that poster should be:
"He's going to bang them."
those are his daughters u creep!
but I know what ur saying, he shouldn't be lookin at 'em like that
damn this looks kinda Schimdty.. probably a bad trailer. i could see that final shot with his head in the bushes being hilarious in context.
I read quickly and saw that the writer is Nat Faxon but I read Fat Nixon and thought it was a film about George Clooney singing jazz. :doh:
What's a land baron? A guy who owns a shit load of land I guess? I prefer other barons like Robber Barons, Railroad Barons and Red Barons.
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on May 25, 2011, 09:28:55 PM
HA Margo Martindale plays the villain? I'm officially dying to see this. I bet it just aired. I'm going to have to wait.
She's really good in it.
As for this movie, I think everything Payne does is worth seeing. I'm also curious as to why he went with Clooney.
edit: awesome sandal run
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on May 25, 2011, 04:25:10 PM
Margo Martindale as Carol was great casting. She has so many endearing moments ... asking the lady where to eat in French, to practice, but the French lady speaking back in English, and the little face of disappointment Carol makes for a tiny moment ... trying to pop her ears in the elevator ... and the final moment with her on the bench in the park with the pond in front of her. She eats a sandwich and looks around the park, seeing kids play, elderly couples together on benches, people spread out on the lawn, she's seeing all this and says "It was like remembering something I'd never known before or had always been waiting for, but I didn't know what." Payne pushes in for a close up: "Maybe it was something I'd forgotten or something I've been missing all my life. All I can say is that I felt, at the same time, joy and sadness. But not too much sadness because I felt alive. Yes, alive." Payne pans out over the pond, a few city buildings in the background, and Carol ends, "That was the moment I fell in love with Paris. And I felt Paris fall in love with me." So good.
This sequence/line/moment always breaks my sentimental and nostalgic heart. The 14th was where I studied for a Summer, and that line was exactly how I felt by the end of that trip.
Quote from: ddiggler on May 26, 2011, 02:17:15 PM
I'm also curious as to why he went with Clooney.
he originally considered Cloons for Thomas Haden's role in Sideways but ultimately realized he was wrong for it. bit of a charity role perhaps.
Clooney is the man. Why all the hate?
Clooney is very good. He was up for Sideways, but Alexander Payne ultimately thought he was too famous for the less than famous role. Now I think George Clooney has become our Marcello Mastrioanini. He's an actor who has used his good looks to transition from playing characters of just good looks to playing characters of faulty and dissembled morals because of years of better looking days. Clooney uses his natural likability to add different textures to that persona. So far, it's been a very good ride for him.
Mastrioanini never had Clooney's Kentucky boy halfgrin that's all about having ice cream after the drama's over. He's smarmy, and I can always see him acting.
Closer to Cary Grant, then?
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on May 27, 2011, 11:46:50 AM
Mastrioanini never had Clooney's Kentucky boy halfgrin that's all about having ice cream after the drama's over. He's smarmy, and I can always see him acting.
He never a grin? The comedies he did in the late 60s and beyond play him mocking his good looks. While all comps are a little fraudulent, it's there more than you think.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 27, 2011, 03:27:00 PM
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on May 27, 2011, 11:46:50 AM
Mastrioanini never had Clooney's Kentucky boy halfgrin that's all about having ice cream after the drama's over. He's smarmy, and I can always see him acting.
He never a grin? The comedies he did in the late 60s and beyond play him mocking his good looks. While all comps are a little fraudulent, it's there more than you think.
There's definitely something to the comparison. I know this sounds weird but I didn't mean what I said. Or rather what I said doesn't illustrate the point I meant to make. It's more that Mastrioanini never had Clooney's roles, and while Mastrioanini worked well in his time and in those movies, and Clooney would have worked well in those movies and that time, I find it difficult to see him in the everyman roles that Payne favors. When Mastrioanini played an everyman he did it well, but in a romanticized way, as a movie version of the everyday man. Because Clooney carries this same type of attractive actor baggage is why I think he's a curious pick.
Nicholson worked because he'd been Robert Dupea, Buddusky, R.P. McMurphy, etc. Payne brought him back to his roots. Clooney's roots are shit, a whole bunch of tv shit, and some good movies after his career took off due to Batman & Robin. Payne's movies are set in the real world, and I have a hard time accepting Clooney as real world material.
I think your star perception of Clooney is clouding your judgement a little. He isn't embellishing his good looks in this film or a film like Up in the Air. He's actually playing to his age more and trying to get you to think less about what a film like Ocean's Eleven wants you to think about. Instead of deny his gray hair, it's there. Instead of kill all his wrinkle potential, he looks older in his new movies. For me, right now, Clooney looks like a lot of good looking older men. Of course what separates him is his famous charm the way Humphrey Bogart had his Bogie edge, but both actors were willing to age quickly and play to different kind of roles. You're just hard press to lose enough sight of Clooney's star quality. For Mastrionianini, he was fighting the same "too attractive and famous" branding during his day. The way both him and Clooney were earmarked for their looks and charm, I still believe they're more comparable than you are willing to grant.
George Clooney = Cary Grant. Other arguments will not be entertained.
Quote from: polkablues on May 27, 2011, 08:03:07 PM
George Clooney = Cary Grant. Other arguments will not be entertained.
Cary Grant was trying his absurd best to hang on to every inch of his Hollywood leading man qualities. He was good at what he did, but he was entertaining young man roles well past his prime. If producers were willing to just let him do one film, he would have been the first James Bond in Dr. No. I don't think Clooney has that kind of belief he can do any attractive role the way Grant was conditioned to believe he could in those days.
Yes, my perception of Clooney as a matinee star clouds my judgment. That's what I'm saying. I wonder how Payne will use him. I've never been very impressed by him has an actor, and acting isn't just how old you look and what your grey hairs are up to. You already like Clooney so you're curious in a positive way.
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on May 27, 2011, 09:29:26 PM
I've never been very impressed by him has an actor, and acting isn't just how old you look and what your grey hairs are up to.
Yea, that's what I said.... The two measures are just elements of challenging his perception. Like Mastrioniani, his better acting flair has been in his comedic exploitation of his perception. It began with Out of Sight and continued with movies like Welcome to Collinwood and others. Also, I thought he was fine in Solaris. He consumed a purposely empty role with a grieving and concerning disposition that seemed never ending. Since he filled up the role and I never looked past his character for more (I had other problems with the film), it was good for me. Also, his work in Michael Clayton is mastery of restrained realism. The film is still an underrated great film for me.
Anybody seeen this yet? Going to see it tonight so i'll be back to discuss. Some folks on the interwebs are underwhelmed by the picture it seems but I'm not convinced.
Quote from: DocSportello on January 22, 2012, 05:58:08 PM
Anybody seeen this yet? Going to see it tonight so i'll be back to discuss. Some folks on the interwebs are underwhelmed by the picture it seems but I'm not convinced.
It was a nice film. It rang emotionally true. Some of the themes regarding class and property are a little troubling, in the sense that I'm not sure the movie means what Alexander Payne thinks it means, but I admire the film anyway. Everyone acquits themselves nicely.
All Alexander Payne films are merely "okay." The Descendants included.
cept for maybe Election.
Ha. Loving the mild backlash.
I wanna believe this guy is as good as everyone else wants to believe he is, but his films are just not that great.
Saw election again recently and it is just OK albeit with major flaws.
Schmidt sucks.
Sideways is almost ok-to-goodish-good. Almost.
Haven't seen his first one but it can't be that great.
Why is he so overrated? Without even seeing this yet (and I will) I am already thinking there is something not quite right about the premise of these rich idiots in Hawaii having first world problems. I also want to support the guy cos he started his career really late and he's an inspiration for losers like me who probably won't make their first film until their mid thirties.
Quote from: Pubrick on January 24, 2012, 05:45:48 AM
I also want to support the guy cos he started his career really late and he's an inspiration for losers like me who probably won't make their first film until their mid thirties.
haha. youve mentioned this before. i think (and fear) the same way. dont you have an advantage being a down under since not a whole lot of greatness has surfaced from there? gete crackin, man...youre sposed to be
the THEE next Aussie PKubrick!
Quote from: Pubrick on January 24, 2012, 05:45:48 AM
these rich idiots in Hawaii having first world problems.
exactly. these characters are spoiled, bland, sometimes downright nasty, and yet alexander payne asks us to sympathize with their petty problems. don't get me wrong. i have liked a few of payne's films, but i think the descendants is easily bottom of the barrel. it's essentially a sitcom sprinkled with forced dramatic moments reminiscent of something you'd see on lifetime channel. how many shots did we need of the warm sun hitting the beach with a strumming guitar soundtrack? what does alexander payne find so fascinating about these people? so many moments are clumsy and poorly conceived. the acclaim george clooney is getting for this performance is absurd. he has very little to work with under payne's poor writing. payne may have some genuine insight and cleverness left in him, but when he writes lines like "you just got served!" i am skeptical. i will await his next film, but frankly, just being an alexander payne film isn't enough for me anymore.
Quote from: Pubrick on January 24, 2012, 05:45:48 AM
I also want to support the guy cos he started his career really late and he's an inspiration for losers like me who probably won't make their first film until their mid thirties.
It's amazing what people constitute as loserdom in filmmaking these days. Do people really subscribe to this notion that if you don't make your Citizen Kane two years out of the womb you've already failed? If you make a film in your mid-30s (and I'm sure you will) then you're doing great. PTA's crazy career is the exception not the rule.
The Descendants = Kramer vs. Kramer + Hawai'i - narrative texture
I don't understand the hate for this film from some of you guys. I found the characters pretty rich and enjoyed the relationships (especially clooney with the surfer dude).
Election was great when it came out, doesn't hold up as well but still enjoy it.
I think Schmidt is my least favorite, with some beautiful moments.
Sideways was fun with flaws.
His segment in Paris, je t'aime was the best of the shorts.
I do agree he is overrated, almost all of his films are nominated and shouldn't be, but i've never wanted my money back after leaving the theatre.
Quote from: Pubrick on January 24, 2012, 05:45:48 AM
Haven't seen his first one but it can't be that great.
How'd i miss this?
You gotta see this one P, it's probably his best and might even make you look at his other works in a slightly different light.
I always draw lines from Payne to Ashby and i think
Ruth is why. Most of their "comedies" arent comedies, but are funny because drama is funny. Most (
some?) of their movies are also such true, unapologetic character portraits that it's refreshing to see such flawed, unheroic antagonsts being acknowledged by filmmakers so honestly. I feel About Schmidt is pretty Ashb-ian too but i had to really grow up before i could connect with it. When i was young, i thought it was dumb and slow but now i find it heartbreaking yet realistically optimistic.
Maybe i got some more growin up to do tho as i found
The Descendants very dumb and slow.
...albeit with some very great female characters and performances. Much like
Citizen Ruth.
anyway,
See that movie, P, at least
Quote from: chere mill on January 24, 2012, 02:54:31 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on January 24, 2012, 05:45:48 AM
these rich idiots in Hawaii having first world problems.
exactly. these characters are spoiled, bland, sometimes downright nasty, and yet alexander payne asks us to sympathize with their petty problems.
The crazy thing is: we do.
Or at least I did. And your mother/wife dying isn't a "petty problem". Neither is confronting her lover she had an affair with. I saw it awhile back, and although I probably wouldn't place it in my favorite 10 of the year, I still found myself enjoying it quite a bit.
Quote from: I am Schmi on April 07, 2012, 08:13:46 PM
Quote from: chere mill on January 24, 2012, 02:54:31 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on January 24, 2012, 05:45:48 AM
these rich idiots in Hawaii having first world problems.
exactly. these characters are spoiled, bland, sometimes downright nasty, and yet alexander payne asks us to sympathize with their petty problems.
The crazy thing is: we do.
Or at least I did.
haha yes, it's best to speak only for yourself. not for the entire audience that will go see the movie.
Quote
Neither is confronting her lover she had an affair with.
it's funny because i found that to be one of the more poorly executed segments of the film.
SPOILERS.there's a sequence toward the end of the film where judy greer, who plays the only character i had any sympathy for, is asking for forgiveness at the bed of george clooney's wife, and when she starts sobbing clooney immediately tries to shut her up and tells her to get out of the room. to me that perfectly sums up my feelings about the film. the situations may have the potential to be genuinely moving but payne can't wait to make a wisecrack and embarrass someone, even as sympathetic as judy greer's character. it struck me as unbelievably smug.
I haven't seen the movie, I'm not really an Alexander Payne fan, but I feel like "first world problem" stories need to be defended. They have a pretty rich and very long history. It's usually a practical thing; sometimes it's easier to deal with inner experience and metaphysical issues when your character's main concerns are not eating, paying the bills, finding a place to sleep, etc.
That said, it doesn't quite look like this movie aims that high. (Or does it?)
The disconcerting thing about The Descendants isn't that it's a first-world problems movie, it's that it seems to actively acknowledge the deeper problems that exist outside the characters' periphery and then ignore them in favor of asking us to care about what a bunch of fat-asses in loud shirts decide to do with their billion-dollar inheritance. This would be fine if that was the point the film was making, if it were commenting on their self-absorption in any sort of critical way, but it doesn't seem to be.
The scene where Judy Greer's character walks in on GC at the hospital was perfectly in tone with the rest of the film and in fact one of the greatest attributes to Paynes writing and directing: his characters are unflinchingly real to the point of absurdity. (Spoiler) Just when you think he is going to get too sentimental he finds away to absorb awkward realistic humor to the situations and characters. We enter that scene with Greer's character hysterical and confused but knowing that she had to come to visit out of respect. It meanders and twists to a point where we almost lose any sense of importance, but just when she's about to leave there's that last look she gives that reminds us that Payne is in full control of what he is doing. It was one of the stand out scenes for me in the movie that shows Payne's decisiveness and concern for the absurd reality that happens in real life.
Quote from: md on April 09, 2012, 02:00:30 PM
The scene where Judy Greer's character walks in on GC at the hospital was perfectly in tone with the rest of the film
oh, most definitely. the film does not lack consistency. the scene is just as cheap and condescending as the film around it.
i also don't think "awkward realistic humor" entirely justifies the film's approach. some of the scenes may very well be realistic, but there are many other factors to consider. payne can make a fine film when he has the right ingredients (compelling characters, witty dialogue, a sensitive approach to the material, etc.) but the descendants is a kind of pseudo-humanism. it's warmth is only on the surface. every emotion is predetermined so that you know what you should be feeling well before the moment comes. the complex issues in life, such as adultery, are treated with such simple-mindedness (people who commit adultery are shameful creeps and should be treated as such) that the movie loses any relevance. an example of this is the scene where clooney and his daughters (don't even get me started on how obnoxious they are) visits his wife's lover out of spite.
clooney gets to play the straight-laced potential widower at the center of the story while most everyone around him is either deeply eccentric, villainous, or cartoonish (e.g. his daughter's painfully unfunny stoner boyfriend). payne has his reasons for doing this. clooney becomes the object of your sympathy by default and the audience can enjoy feeling superior to everyone else. this approach makes the film so cheap and easy. if a film's characters are cardboard cutouts, the intelligent humor is virtually absent, and the emotions are poorly contrived, then you're stuck with just another movie about very wealthy white people who have the privilege and luxury to tear each other down. the situations may have the potential to be serious, but payne's approach is not.
Quote from: chere mill on April 09, 2012, 07:49:37 PM
Quote from: md on April 09, 2012, 02:00:30 PM
The scene where Judy Greer's character walks in on GC at the hospital was perfectly in tone with the rest of the film
oh, most definitely. the film does not lack consistency. the scene is just as cheap and condescending as the film around it.
i also don't think "awkward realistic humor" entirely justifies the film's approach. some of the scenes may very well be realistic, but there are many other factors to consider. payne can make a fine film when he has the right ingredients (compelling characters, witty dialogue, a sensitive approach to the material, etc.) but the descendants is a kind of pseudo-humanism. it's warmth is only on the surface. every emotion is predetermined so that you know what you should be feeling well before the moment comes. the complex issues in life, such as adultery, are treated with such simple-mindedness (people who commit adultery are shameful creeps and should be treated as such) that the movie loses any relevance. an example of this is the scene where clooney and his daughters (don't even get me started on how obnoxious they are) visits his wife's lover out of spite.
clooney gets to play the straight-laced potential widower at the center of the story while most everyone around him is either deeply eccentric, villainous, or cartoonish (e.g. his daughter's painfully unfunny stoner boyfriend). payne has his reasons for doing this. clooney becomes the object of your sympathy by default and the audience can enjoy feeling superior to everyone else. this approach makes the film so cheap and easy. if a film's characters are cardboard cutouts, the intelligent humor is virtually absent, and the emotions are poorly contrived, then you're stuck with just another movie about very wealthy white people who have the privilege and luxury to tear each other down. the situations may have the potential to be serious, but payne's approach is not.
I felt the film was not funny enough or dramatic enough.
Where exactly does the film tells US that people who commit adultery should be treated in any particular way? One of the funniest pieces of the film is precisely about how Clooney overreacts about that. Yet of course this was already done way better in About Schmidt. The scene where they visit the lover is more about the juvenile impulse we all have of finding out who was the person our loved one betrayed us with. They may "put him in his place" but it doesn't solve anything for the main character. It is futile and the film makes a point in showing us that.
The stoner boyfriend is a caricature only at the beginning. He reveals himself as a much more perceptive and normal human being after a few scenes. What I liked was how they never turned him into an admirable wise young man. He ws just a kid who liked dumb jokes but had an inner life that had much more dignity than what was initially promised.
As I said, the film has it's flaws, but it¡s not cheap or condescending at all.
Quote from: Alexandro on April 10, 2012, 12:18:09 AM
The stoner boyfriend is a caricature only at the beginning. He reveals himself as a much more perceptive and normal human being after a few scenes.
didn't that feel so calculated though? again, you can see it coming a mile away. it's the stoner slacker boyfriend as the film's comic relief until...oh, wait! he is actually an intelligent and insightful young man. who knew?! if payne had sprinkled moments of insight about that character through other portions of the film, i might have easily accepted that scene. but it felt like a last ditch effort on the part of payne. it's too little, too late. "see? he isn't such dumbass after all!" yay for humanism!
Quote from: Alexandro on April 10, 2012, 12:18:09 AM
Where exactly does the film tells US that people who commit adultery should be treated in any particular way?
of course it is never stated directly in the film, but the way in which payne handles the situation of his lead character matt king (the hero of the film, or perhaps the "king") confronting his wife's lover (whom we don't even know) with such eagerness is problematic at best. it doesn't end in an "about schmidt" way where we can clearly see that matt king has gone way over the top, and thus has his own faults. instead, the scene plays out to where king verbally attacks and intimidates his wife's lover without much rebuttal and thus "puts him in his place." it's as if payne is enjoying it. he wants to dig it.
if the idea is that matt king is just as flawed as the other characters, i don't quite buy it. payne doesn't allow him enough self-reflection so that we can fully understand him. another tool (which i also found cheap) is the use of voiceover where king blatantly states that he has made mistakes. we are told early and directly in the film so that payne doesn't have to indulge in portraying many of his flaws for it's remainder, thus jeopardizing his role as the object of our sympathy. king and his wife obviously had problems, but what exactly were they? did he do something that would risk harming their relationship? we know that
she cheated and had an affair with another man (payne doesn't forget to leave out the confrontation scene for us to enjoy) but what were matt's faults? do we really know much about him? one thing is striking. matt king is one of the most charming and likeable characters payne has ever created but unfortunately, he is also the most banal.
Quote from: Alexandro on April 10, 2012, 12:18:09 AM
I felt the film was not funny enough or dramatic enough.
agreed.
I just never perceived that Matt King was being portrayed in a too sympathetic light. To me it was painfully obvious that he was kind of dumb, or at least the situation he's in is clearly something he's not prepared to cope with in any intelligent way. I liked the way his character goes from shock to pain to anger and dismissal to the inevitable sincere confession of love for his wife.
I also don't mind that much if a film is "humanist" or not (there seems to be an idea around, humanism: good, cynicism: bad). I like when a film works. This one felt like it could be better.
I guess i'm confused with your definition of calculated.
As far as the stoner character, his persona was crude and slapstick but I think it is absolutely necessary for the type of film Payne wrote and was handled masterfully. I initially perceived him to be the boyfriend, but Payne's intentions are much more humane and fair. Never do we see him smoking pot or even making out with King's daughter. His role is to provide comic relief throughout Clooney's crisis, and like Alexandro mentioned, reveals himself to be more 3 dimensional as the film progresses. Payne only touches lightly on his situation and story, providing the audience an understanding of his role in both King's life without prodding or pandering. The line about his retarded brother and Clooney's reaction is perfect in my opinion and reinforces the style of Payne is known for.
Bali Dvd
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ow.ly%2Fphotos%2Foriginal%2FzjBx.jpg&hash=cdedb6a4d259fcd0e6c025d1d3477e46362d9db6)
John L. Sullivan Alexander Payne: I want this picture to be a commentary on modern conditions. Stark realism, the problems that confront the average man!
Lebrand Bali Distributors: But with a little sex in it
That is truly insane. Do they do that with other movies? This requires a blog.
French DVD for Role Models... Seann William Scott is pretty much only known for American Pie in France so, yeah.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg43.imageshack.us%2Fimg43%2F3065%2Fmission95cdvd.jpg&hash=e79dc078271932e71839d4301318bd2ae1bf0d3b)
Translates to something like "Mission: 34DD -- The big brothers"
(feel free to split this into another thread, I'm sure there are others)
Quote from: Reelist on April 16, 2012, 12:15:05 PM
Bali Dvd
Haha they were so close to getting Schmidt right.
The Descendants was much better and more moving than anything I've seen in the past 6 months. One of clooneys best performances in a couple of years. Thats a strange Bali DVD.