Search

Tag Cloud
Comedy Action Action Thriller Heroic Mission Thriller Superhero Film Science Fiction Fantasy Paramount Pictures Relativity Media Columbia Pictures Romantic Comedy Comedy Drama Sci-Fi Action Warner Bros. Pictures Universal Pictures Race Against Time Horror Stan Lee Bruce Willis Johnny Depp Marvel Studios Fantasy Adventure Hans Zimmer Kevin Feige Psychological Thriller Samuel L. Jackson Walt Disney Pictures Avengers Drama Jack Kirby Louis D'Esposito Marvel Cinematic Universe Murder Investigations Obsessive Quests Robots and Androids Terrorism Touchstone Pictures Alan Fine Alex Kurtzman Alien Film Anthony Hopkins Black Comedy Christmas Daring Rescues Di Bonaventura Pictures DreamWorks Ewan McGregor Future Dystopias Hired Killers Jerry Bruckheimer Lorenzo di Bonaventura Morgan Freeman Out For Revenge Period Film Robert Downey, Jr. Roberto Orci Ryan Kavanaugh Stellan Skarsgård Steven Spielberg UK Film Council Unlikely Heroes 20th Century Fox Action Comedy Adventure Comedy Assumed Identities Buddy Film Chad Oman Chris Evans Chris Hemsworth Christopher Lee Dariusz Wolski Detective Film Eddie Marsan Emily Blunt Family-Oriented Comedy Fantasy Comedy Fantasy Lands Geoffrey Rush Haunted By The Past Jerry Bruckheimer Films Jon Favreau Keira Knightley Mark Vahradian Marvel Entertainment Natalie Portman Neal H. Moritz Pirates Psychological Sci-Fi Sci-Fi Horror Toby Jones . Adventure Alan Silvestri Amateur Sleuths Andrew Lazar Anthony Daniels Brad Pitt Brian Cox Bruce Berman Children's/Family Clark Gregg Crime Crime Comedy Crisis of Conscience Curses And Spells Danny Elfman David Maisel DC Entertainment Evil Aliens Experiments Gone Awry Faltering Friendships Film i Väst Frank Oz Ghosts Golden Globe for Best Director Gwyneth Paltrow Henry Jackman Hostage Situations Hugo Weaving Idris Elba James Newton Howard James Vanderbilt Jane Goldman Jason Bateman Jay Wolpert Joel Silver John Carroll Lynch John Williams Larry Lieber Liza Chasin Love Triangles Mad Chance Marv Films Marvel Enterprises Matthew Vaughn Members of the Press Michael Bay Mike Stenson Mystery Mythical Creatures New Line Cinema Nicolas Cage Noomi Rapace On The Run Opposites Attract Original Film Oscar For Best Visual Effects Pirates of the Caribbean Plagues and Epidemics Post Apocalypse Redemption Righting the Wronged Ryan Reynolds Sea Adventure Serial Killers Space Adventure Space Wars Stuart Beattie Swashbuckler Ted Elliott Teen Movie Temuera Morrison Terry Rossio Tim Bevan Urban Drama Vigilantes Village Roadshow Pictures Working Title Films Zombies . . Alan Arkin Allison Janney Andrew Macdonald Andrew Z. Davis Anni Faurbye Fernandez Assassination Plots Avi Arad BBC Films Billy Bob Thornton Breakups and Divorces Brendan Gleeson Brian Tyler Bruce Geller Bruce Hendricks Captain America Children's Fantasy Chris Ellis Christopher Markus Cliff Curtis Cobie Smulders Colm Feore Comedy Of Manners Coming-of-Age Cons and Scams Conspiracies Crime Drama Crime Thriller Cruise/Wagner Productions Dangerous Attraction Dave Franco David Willis Dentsu Don Murphy Don Payne Dune Entertainment Dysfunctional Families Emily Mortimer Emma Stone Enrique Chediak Ensemble Film Eric Fellner Ezra Swerdlow Fairview Entertainment Fathers and Sons George Lucas Gianni Nunnari Glamorized Spy Film Glenn Morshower Gore Verbinski Harrison Ford High School Life Howard Shore Ian McDiarmid Iron Man J.J. Abrams Jack Davenport Jacob Groth James Caviezel Jason Flemyng Joe Simon John Debney John Murphy John Ottman John Powell Jon Mone Jonathan Pryce Jonathan Shestack Joseph Gordon-Levitt Jude Law Kat Dennings Kenny Baker Kevin Bacon Kevin Spacey Kidnapping Laura Linney Leslie Bibb Liam Neeson Liev Schreiber Lionsgate Lone Korslund Lucasfilm Mackenzie Crook Mark Millar Mark Ruffalo Mark Strong Matt O'Leary Matthew Libatique Matthew Perry Metamorphosis MGM Michael Barrett Michael Clarke Duncan Michael Kelly Michael Nyqvist Michelle Monaghan Mikael Wallen Mila Kunis Millennium Trilogy Missing Persons Mission Impossible Naomie Harris Nick Frost Nordisk Film Ole Søndberg Olivia Wilde Orlando Bloom Oscar For Best Art Direction Oscar For Best Cinematography Parenthood Paula Wagner Peter Nadermann Peter Stormare Plan B Entertainment Police Detective Film Priceless Artifacts and Prized Objects Protecting the Innocent Rainn Wilson Rene Russo Richard Jenkins Rick McCallum Road Movie Robert Richardson Robin Williams Romance Rose Byrne Scarlett Johansson Sci-Fi Comedy Scott Stuber Sibling Relationships Silver Pictures Simon Pegg Small Town Life Space Travel Spy Film Star Wars Stephen Marks Stephen McFeely Steve Carell Steve Yedlin Stieg Larsson Summit Entertainment Supernatural Thriller Susan Downey Sveriges Television Tarquin Pack Tech Noir Terence Stamp Thor Tim Robbins Time Travel Todd Louiso Tom Cruise Tom Hiddleston Tragi-comedy Victoria Alonso Ving Rhames Wes Bentley Wintergreen Productions Woody Harrelson Xander Berkeley Yellow Bird Films ZDF Enterprises Zoe Saldana
My Tweets

 

MOVIE

REVIEWS

Wednesday
Apr162014

"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" Review

It is absolutely no secret at all that I wasn't a fan of the first Spiderman reboot movie. I think that the very fact that it was made out of a necessity for Sony to keep the Spiderman rights returning back to marvel, says straight away the film is going to be half assed, and guess what? It was. That is not to say that I had negative preconceptions about this sequel, after all, now that Sony have safely kept marvel getting their, supremely creative, hands on this property we can hope for a much better film that is created for the love of the characters and the story rather than exclusively for business interests. Well maybe amazing Spiderman 2 was made more for entertainment and less to keep marvel away from a top tier character, but that doesn't mean that this is a good film in any sense of the word.
My main problem with this rebooted franchise is that, apart from using the names of characters and loosely creating a universe based on some sort of approximation of what it is in the comics, these films are just not true to the source material. I get that I must allow for artistic license and that the film makers like to reinterpret stuff in their own vision, I really do get that. But I feel that if the same approach was taken with, for example, the Harry Potter films, Harry would be a blond haired kid from Chicago with a bad attitude and a crescent moon scar on his elbow, that went to Pigboils college of paganism and magic, in space. Maybe that example is slightly exaggerated, but my point still stands. As a comic book fan I want to see the characters that I have read about for many years come to life on screen just like any Harry Potter, hunger games, Twilight or middle earth fan likes to see. This is something that the original trilogy was able to achieve, doing fan service while still reinterpreting the material. Exploring relationships between Peter Parker and anchor characters like J.Jonah Jameson and Norman Osborne, is almost like the bread and butter of the Spiderman story, but these are the Characters that are sadly missing from this franchise, and, if you will allow me to use the Harry Potter metaphor again, to demonstrate how important these characters are to the myphos of Spiderman, it would be like the Harry Potter movies missing Snape, a secondary character, yes, but so, so vital to the story.
Fan boy whining aside, AS2 had many other issues, one of the most prominent is the painfully long 142-minute runtime that is saturated with a pointless on again, off again romantic subplot between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy. I know that Spiderman can do angst with the best of them but this whole subplot could have easily fit into a 90-minute film with some serious and much needed trimming down. The run time ultimately leads to some pacing issues, I felt myself falling asleep several times when I watched this, and that had never ever happened to me before when watching a new marvel movie for the first time, I love marvel! I should not be falling asleep! That is not a good sign!
Now onto the character motivations, I found myself constantly asking myself during this film "why?" I could not fathom, for the most part, the reasons or motivations of anybody doing anything, especially the villains, there are better motivations for characters in Spider-Man 3 and that is saying something!
The sound and music of the film is something else that I took issue with, I don't usually comment on the sound of a film, even if it is really good, because I believe it is at its best when it is unnoticeable. Sound and music should covertly enhance the film, not intrude and interrupt as it does in AS2, the music doesn't work at all, maybe that is just a personal preference, but I don't think AS2 will be winning any awards for sound in the near future.
And now we come to one of my biggest pet peeves, inconsistent physics! How can webbing be strong as steel in one instance but be cut with a knife in another? How can a superhero be able to catch a police car but not be able to punch through a windscreen? Lazy writing that's how.
This isn't the worst film in the world, unfortunately, I have seen worse, but what it is, is a lazily put together story with an a-list superhero. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are great and have brilliant chemistry, the visual effects are great and I don't think that I have ever seen Spidey look so good web slinging. Unfortunately, all of these redeeming features do not lift this film anywhere near the greatness of anything produced in house by marvel studios and that makes me really sad because Spidey is my favourite character to read, as I'm sure, he is for many people but he has quickly turned into my least favourite character to watch and somehow Sony have managed to make this sequel just that little bit worse than the previous film.

Pre order now


Wednesday
Mar262014

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" Review

coming soon...

 

Pre-order now

Friday
Feb142014

"The LEGO Movie" Review

In recent years Lego has become no stranger to mainstream success, evolving way beyond its original popular toy status and branching out into all sorts of media, so naturally a full motion picture was going to be inevitable.

One might be tempted to categorize this movie in the same sort of genre as the efforts made by Hasbro in recent years- that would be a mistake on your part, because the quality of this film is way above anything I would have expected.

Going into this movie I really did struggle to figure out what it might be about, as Lego has got its fingers in so many different pies, it makes toys for dc and marvel as well as star wars, Harry PotterLord of the Rings and so many other amazing franchises. I assumed it might be a dc Lego movie, as the studio distributing the film is warner bros. I was wrong though, this film is about Lego, in every sense of the word, this is truly a Lego movie. 
For me, the great thing about Lego is that it is only limited by imagination and the Lego movie really plays to that, this film is kind of all over the place, it seems to have an attention span of a four year old that has just had a whole tub of coffee ice-cream, but that is not really a bad thing, as soon as one idea is done, and explored, its time to move onto the next one because that is what Lego is all about! Because of this we get to see all sorts of characters from Gandalf to Dumbledore, from Green Lantern to Superman and of course the spaceman! The scenes of the story are constantly shifting as well we get to explore Lego cityscapes, the western frontier, utopias and dystopias, all of this eclectic story telling just makes the concept of the film better because Lego is just too versatile to be limited to one genre setting.

The look of the film is great, adopting a YouTube Lego animated video type look, makes the whole thing just look brilliant, I really think avoiding the use of CGI for the most part was a great production decision. Adopting stop motion makes the film stand out as something a bit different as you very rarely see stop motion animation these days (or any traditional animation really!) But it also has the effect of taking you back to your childhood days where you would imagine what the little figures were saying and doing, this movie makes you feel like you are playing with Lego!

The cast of this film is absolutely amazing with voices from the likes of Chris Pratt and Elizabeth Banks in lead and many amusing cameos such as Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum as Green Lantern and Superman respectively. The real gems are in the supporting cast with Morgan Freeman and Liam Neeson using their iconic voices to great effect and of course you have got to mention Will Arnett as Batman because HE'S BATMAN!

I went into this film thinking that it might be a bit of fun and good for a giggle or two, what I did not count on is coming out of the film thinking everything about this is awesome! (You'll get the reference if you've watch it) some might call this a 101-minute advert for a toy company, but I call it a reminder, a reminder of everything there is to love about Lego.

I can safely say that anybody that did not enjoy this film has obviously never played with Lego or have forgotten what is like to live in the magical world of your imagination. If that is the case I suggest you revisit your childhood and watch this film again because everything in the Lego movie IS AWESOME! Recommended.

Watch Instantly now

 

Thursday
Nov072013

"Gravity" Review

 

Movies can quite often get people talking, the generic chat often referring to short descriptions on how the audience found the film, whether the film is “good”, “bad” or just “alright”. Less often though, the film is described using words that have more syllables than the solitary one, such as “fantastic” or “abysmal”. Then there are the films like this one, a film that can’t really be described in one simple word, vast though the English language is, I can’t quite keep a description of this film to a single word, to do so would not only be an injustice, but also fail to describe the feel and look of the film accurately. Gun to head, if I were to have to shorten down how I feel about Gravity into some sort of headline, it would have to be “technically outstanding”. Because for me, that is the thing that really stood out with Gravity, wondering how the director, Alfonso Cuarón, managed to achieve the things that he achieved on screen.

To say that this is a good-looking film would be an absolute under statement. From the opening shot of a magnificent spacewalk, it is like the director is saying, “look what I can do!” and what he can do is truly astounding. The astonishment inevitably continues and becomes even more impressive for the first fifteen or twenty minutes of the feature when you realize that there have been no visible cuts in the action. The camera seems to effortlessly drift in and out of all of the goings on like it, itself is not at all limited by trivial things such as gravity. Suffice to say that this is a film that is best viewed at the cinema, preferably in 3D, or on the biggest TV you can manage so you can really revel in the torrent of eye candy that is pouring out of the screen at you.

Gravity is not just for people that admire good camera work, direction and special effects though, the sheer realism of the world that the film makers have created, really contributes towards the narrative of the film, it makes the audience feel the uneasiness of our main protagonist, Dr. Ryan Stone, played by Sandra Bullock, I myself was found suffering from a little vertigo while she was feeling queasy from her first space walk. At the same time I was also allowed to feel the wonder that was felt by the space loving veteran astronaut, Matt Kawalsky, played by George Clooney. Somehow the director managed to convey the feelings of the surrounding by every character and as a result the whole film makes you very empathetic, or to put it into Internet terms- you feel ALL the emotions!

As you can probably tell from the trailer or synopsis for this film the main narrative, is the story of some astronauts that are fighting for survival, but what sets Gravity apart is that those fights are fought in both the emotional and physical states. When anybody is put into that sort of high stress situation where the survival of a person is not very likely, the mind inevitably comes to a fork in the road; either choose to fight for your life, something that might seem completely futile, or, decide to give up and welcome the cold embrace of death. That is a battle that is constantly present in Gravity, the question of “what’s the point?” is ever present, after all as the script very kindly informs us at the beginning of the film- “life in space is impossible” this feature of the narrative takes the film well above the confines of your run of the mill survival thriller and makes for a compelling and relatable story.

If you can not tell by my ongoing praise with in this review, I think that Gravity is a very good film indeed, I don’t usually try to make Oscar predictions but if this doesn’t win the Oscar in 2014 for best special effects I will be very surprised and I think that it should at least be nominated for best director also.

Because of the ground-breaking nature of Gravity I can’t help but make comparisons to 2001: A Space Odyssey as that was also a technically astounding film set in space, the difference being, Gravity appeals to film buffs and mainstream audiences alike, also the fact that it isn’t a complete mind f**k also helps. Unlike 2001, this film isn’t out to confuse it’s audience and the final shot of the film really drives home the films title and makes for a satisfying conclusion to one of the best films I have seen this year. Recommended.

 

Watch Instantly Now    

 

Wednesday
Oct302013

"Thor: The Dark World" Review

Thor is a franchise that I have grown very fond of over the past few years; it has consistently proven to me how entertaining it can be despite the extremely old Norse source material. Whether it be the silver age comics that I reluctantly started to read, and found them second only to Spiderman for entertainment value, or the first film that pleasantly surprised me with its seamless transition to the big screen oozing with its Shakespearean prowess. Once again, with the second (or third, if you count the Avengers) iteration of the Thor story, committed to the big screen, my preconceptions have been squashed by the powerful mjolnir.mjolnir

I thought, with the exit of the Shakespearean seasoned Kenneth Branagh as director this sequel would suffer, as some of its, for lack of a better word, class, would have dissipated along with the grandiose feel of the production. How wrong could I have been? The Dark World improves on its predecessor in almost every way. Quite a feat if you look back at my review of the original Thor film, you will see that I gave it a pretty good score.

Some people would say that the first outing of Thor was a little bit stuffy and slow paced, I would disagree, as I said, I think that the dramatic Shakespearian atmosphere that Kenneth Branagh brought to the film added a bit of class. But if you’re not happy with the franchise going in that direction then what other way is there to go? Well the Game of Thrones way of course! That’s why getting seasoned GoT director, Alan Taylor onboard was a masterstroke by the producers of TtDW. The biggest difference I can see is the character of Thor has been allowed to develop into maturity, he is no longer an arrogant bulk of muscle swinging a hammer, but a responsible conscientious ruler-in-waiting, swinging a hammer. The character is handled well by Chris Hemsworth but the director guides him expertly. This of course goes across the board with all the cast, but a special mention has to go out to Stellan Skarsgård for “revealing” his talents. I just felt a lot more invested in the whole cast to the point that, if they died in a game of thrones sort of way, I would actually care quite a lot (like in game of thrones).

 Of course there is plenty of action and thrills to be experienced with in this film, a kind of film making that director, Taylor, seem plenty comfortable with but the real meat of this film lies in the relationship between Thor and his estranged brother Loki.Loki, God of mischief Tom Hiddleston is arguably the star of this film giving the villainous Loki a real human side yet still managing to keep you guessing what his motives are. He literally steals every scene he is in, but this is what we have come to expect from Tom after the stellar performances he has given in the past two marvel cinematic universe films.

 If one criticism could be made, it is that the story once again falls back on a McGuffin, this time it’s called the “Aether” but it could just as well be called the Tesseract, oogamafliv or Dave, it really doesn’t matter, but that is the nature of the McGuffin isn’t it? This is a very small criticism though as, I said in the previous paragraph the true story is in the character development and relationships between characters (and Stellan Skarsgård hidden, or rather, unhidden gifts).

 Thor: The Dark World is an improvement on an already great franchise, it expands the size of the MCU dramatically and it also furthers the story of all of our favorite characters from the Thor movies in significant ways. It has done justice to all of the fans like me out there and has got me crossing my fingers that there will be a third installment at some point in the future.

       

Watch Instantly Now

Wednesday
Aug142013

"Kick-Ass 2" Review

coming soon...

Watch Instantly Now

Friday
Aug022013

"RED 2" Review

coming soon....

Watch Instantly Now

Friday
Jul192013

"The Worlds End" Review

coming soon...

Watch Instantly Now

Friday
Sep282012

"Looper" Review

 

I love a good time travel movie, out of all of sci-fi it is probably my favourite sub genre. The only thing you have got to admit though is that is has been done to death, almost to the point of the recent trends of found footage films. Refreshing then to see that Looper has taken a unique although, flawed approach to this genre.

Not flawed in the sense that this is a bad movie but in the sense that the temporal mechanics are all over the shop. I hope you will forgive my indulgence in time travel theory for a second, but I love this stuff! To my mind there are two types of causality in time travel, there is the temporal causality loop (The Terminator, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure) and the alternative timeline time travel (Star Trek, Back to the Future Part 2). I personally prefer the temporal causality loop and I think if this was used in Looper it would have been fantastic, and it was, kind of. The problem is that aspects of the alternative timeline method was used as well, this results in a very sketchy time travel mechanic, sort of timey wimey wibbly wobbly state of affairs. In my opinion the temporal causality loop would have been the way to go, after all the clue is in the title of the film.

Questionable story mechanics aside the main gimmick of this film was Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing a young Bruce Willis and I’m sure this is what drew most people to see this film. Gordon-Levitt flawlessly impersonated Willis in every mannerism and he really does need to be recognised for character acting of the highest standard. I do have a problem, however with the make-up. In an effort to make Gordon-Levitt look like Bruce Willis, something that no other film in the history of films has ever bothered to do, they make Gordon-Levitt look like a person that has a fetish for blue contact lenses and forehead implants and frankly it is distracting. Gordon-Levitts’ acting is good enough without the make-up, and to cover up his face does him a great injustice. With so much emphasise on the makeup and the quest to make the two lead actors look like each other, you would think that a lot of effort would be made in a sequence where young Bruce Willis “slowly” morphs into old Bruce Willis, nope none what so ever, one shot we have Joseph Gordon-Levitt and in the very next shot with have Willis in a wig. In an age where we can make Richard Nixon come back to life or young Arnold Schwarzenegger  appear butt naked in a film he had no part in, you would think that we could make the transition from young to old, a bit more smooth.

Despite things like time travel paradox and bad makeup this still manages to be a great film. What Looper lacks for the pedantic nitpicking side of  my brain it makes up for with beautiful cinematography and production design. Looper certainly portrays one of the most believable futures that I have ever seen on film, with everything looking so high tech and modern but at the same time lived in, and worn down, such as hover bikes that just won’t start. The cinematography portrays vast vistas of cityscapes and contrasting farmland, lending another dimension of realism (just because it is the future doesn’t mean that the countryside suddenly disappears).

As previously mentioned the acting in Looper is outstanding especially from Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Emily Blunt plays her part as a hardened mother who lives on a solitary farm quite well. Special mention has to go to Pierce Gagnon, who plays one of the most terrifying characters I have seen in a good few years, he is only a boy but he has such an intimidating look and way about him that you have absolutely no problem believing him as a villain.

Looper may have flaws, but its virtues far out shadow what is wrong with the film, this film looks great, it has a stellar cast that are at the top of there game and most importantly the film feels original and for me that is one of the most important things in cinema today.

      

Watch Instantly Now

Wednesday
Aug012012

"Ted" Review

Ted probably isn’t the place to come for good honest family entertainment or pretentious Woody Allen-esque introspection. Instead, Seth MacFarlane delivers everything you would expect from him, but what American television won’t allow him to do in a roller-coaster of lewd humour, pop-culture references and killer lines that are so close to being totally offensive you wonder how the hell he gets away with his brand of humour. 

The opening, narrated by Patrick Stewart, kicks off the movie, making sure that your eyebrows are set to raised, your jaw is ready to drop and your belly is prepared for a good amount of laughter. The story starts with a friendless and shy, eight year-old Johnny, who, wishes his toy bear Ted (voiced by MacFarlane) into existence one stormy night, creating a loyal buddy for himself in the process.

MacFarlane then spins us quickly through 25 years, in a terrific, E. T.-referencing montage, before dumping us back on the couch, where Mark Wahlberg’s thirty-something Johnny (now just ‘John’) and his cynical bear friend are found smoking bongs and indulging their love of Flash Gordon. Both of them have grown up, but neither of them have, really, if you know what I mean; a fact that frustrates John’s high-achieving girlfriend (Mila Kunis), who urges her man to dream beyond his next beer.

This film, it should be stressed, is not Family Guy: The Movie. There’s plenty of DNA in common with MacFarlane’s brilliant animation, few could miss the similarities between Ted and Peter Griffin, not even Ted, or the fact that half the cast of Family Guy appears within the film. But those who have missed the wonder that is Family Guy are still well catered for by some sharp writing and a winning comic performance by Wahlberg. He delivers the kind of loose charm and comic timing that Adam Sandler used to have, and, in one tongue-twisting race through trailer-trash first names, flaunts all the verbal dexterity of Busta Rymes.

I could go this whole review without mentioning it as it is such common place in film these days, but, major kudos should go to the film’s FX boffins. Utilising Avatar-grade technology, they’ve created a wholly believable central character who gives you no doubts that he came from a shelf in a toy shop. If Monsters, Inc. made fur fly in an animation, Ted brings incredible detail and emotion to a live-action environment, and I believe the comparison to Pixar is whole heartedly deserved.

Of course there are flaws, although Seth MacFarlane is a well seasoned voice actor and has plenty of experience with in the “business” it would have been quite a feat if his first feature came out perfect. The odd American pop culture reference joke whizzes straight over the head of a British audience and the climax sacrifices laughs for a compulsory chase sequence and predictability full to the brim with sentimentality. But the sheer quality of this production makes, those potentially huge problems into tiny little niggles that are not really noticeable.

As a fan of Macfarlane’s, Ted is all that I hoped it to be, yes it does follow a story arc that we have all seen before, but it is that very fact that gives it the ability to surprise, yes it is a little off balance but it is also extremely fun to watch. If you are a fan of Macfarlane, you will love this, if you are not, you may just be one once you have seen Ted. Recommended.

Watch Instantly Now