andrewpoe Reviews

Peppermint Soda (1977)

Incredibly impressive directorial debut

[9/10 · 19 May 2024]

Wes Anderson should be sending Diane Kurys residuals. There are so many shots and compositions that this movie contained in many of Anderson's later works - various times, the far back shot where what's in frame appears symmetrical, the use of color matching with the background and character clothing, younger actors and actresses appearing precocious for their age, the final scene was pure Wes Anderson, I could go on. (As it so happens, Anderson selected this movie as part of a film festival prior to the release of The French Dispatch)

With that out of the way, there was a lot to like about the movie for me. The pacing of the movie was brisk but it didn't feel like it was rushing. There were great character moments and how the characters react to situations was what kept me engaged. I especially loved the scene where one of the characters describe seeing a protest reduced to a riot due to police involvement.

The only drawback is overall there weren't any lessons learned for characters or anything changed for the two main characters. It's unknown what becomes of the character that's in danger of going to boarding school or to the character that has a knack for acting. The movie ends as it starts on a beach - there's an obvious Truffaut homage with the ending shot (instead of staring straight ahead, the character is staring back towards her sister).

Unsung Hero (2024)

Wanted to like this, but came away not liking it

[2/10 · 29 April 2024]

Emotionally manipulative movie with the male lead being the worst offender. While the premise leads to some genuine emotions, some of the acting wasn't there and wasn't good. The movie at times felt too long and seemingly uninteresting. The kids were rather generic and faceless as actors. I went through 90% of the movie thinking the kid in glasses was a girl (until the kid was introduced as being a brother, I would have presumed that it was otherwise). A lot of the direction wasn't there either; the director seemed to rip off better directors for a few of the scenes (namely, Robert Zemeckis). Daisy Betts as the mother was the best actress in the movie; Terry O'Quinn did great although I wondered why his character seemed unable to send his son any money if he supposedly loved him.

This isn't to say there weren't some good parts to the movie. The opening shot was great and the train scene was really good. The cinematography throughout the movie was the highlight, even if the acting wasn't. I can't fault a movie for being well shot.

The movie left me wondering why anyone would listen to Christian music because that industry seemed more cutthroat and evil than the secular music Christians love to attack. It seems Christian music has just as many jerks as the rest of the music industry.

I also wonder how difficult things would have been if the family weren't white or weren't relatively pretty. A family of people of color (or even LGBTQ) would have a harder time in the US versus a family that talked "English in a funny accent" that moved to the South.

Stray Dogs (2013)

If you like staring at things, you're in luck

[4/10 · 16 April 2024]

I'm conflicted about this movie. Some of it is incredibly well shot and setup perfectly. Other times, it's as much of a statement as it is test of an audience's patience, will, and perseverance.

The story told is one told through what we see on the screen. There's also the story untold or not shown. The story we see is about homelessness - the man and his two kids are expected to survive in a world without a safety net. The woman they meet helps them and provides a stable life. One of the shots that stuck with me is the guy singing a song to the point he's in tears. There's also the infamous "cabbage scene" and the two final scenes near the end where both the man and woman stare at something off-screen.

The story untold is how the man got the job holding a sign in the first place. How bad does the job market have to be where that is the only job for him. Does he lack discernible skills or abilities to be able to work a higher salary? Or does have the skills/abilities but he goes in for interviews and the companies pretty up the reason for not hiring? "We're sorry Mr. _____ but you are not what we are looking for at this time. Thank you for your interest." Then after he leaves the room, "Thank God that's over. That guy smells like &#@! And hasn't showered in months." The apartment complex that hired him doesn't care. "I don't give a &#@! If you are a &#@! Doctor and a &#@! Heart transplant came in! I want you to hold this sign until the end of your shift! Then I might pay you if you actually drum up business!"

When making this film, I wonder how much Tsai Ming-liang knew he would have varied reactions - some people think this is a masterpiece of cinema and some people think this is taking the piss out of arthouse cinema. At times, while watching it, I wondered if both reactions could be true at the same time. I almost wonder if the director was laughing to himself when he went about this. "I'm going to have scenes of people pissing, &#@!ing, eating, have a guy cry in anguish over a head of cabbage, and have two people stare at a wall for closing to 20 minutes."

In some ways, the closest comparison I can make is to Bela Tarr, another director with long movies and long shots. Both Ming-liang and Tarr talk about the desperation and loneliness of the modern world, but in different ways.

This is something else as a movie.

Norte, the End of History (2013)

I like slow cinema, but this isn't very good

[1/10 · 16 April 2024]

This movie just really isn't that good. I haven't nothing against slow cinema - in fact, some of my favorite movies recently have been part of that approach to movie-making (Perfect Days, The Turin Horse, Neighbouring Sounds, The Zone of Interest). I almost feel like there was no one around the director Lav Diaz who told him 'no' on any of the choices made for this movie.

The movie took four hours when it only needed two hours or two and half to tell its story. The first hour and 45 minutes worked and told the story succinctly. In order to have a movie go for four hours and still be compelling, either the story needs to carry it, the actors need to carry it, or how the movie was put together would need to carry it.

Sid Lucero (Fabian) is about the only decent actor in the whole movie. The character he plays is bad from the start - he starts as an annoying intellectual to eventually becoming an annoying psychopath. Yet he carried the sections of the movie he was in.

Joaquio (Archie Alemenia) is decent at times through the movie albeit with a character that's rather wooden. The other people involved simply can't act or aren't very good. I wasn't really upset that Magda (Mae Paner) got killed; she seemed to exist to stand in the way of Joaquio's family although they seem to make poor choices or expect a malnourished pig to be acceptable.

I was practically yelling at the screen when Joaquio's wife Eliza (Angeli Bayani) was trying to ask for an appeal for her husband's conviction 30 days later - what the hell was her character doing in that time?

Hours two through three were unmemorable and virtually an exercise in the director enjoying the smell of his own farts. The last 30 minutes or so actually picked up and Fabian is an absolute psycho by that point. The movie never explains what happened to Joaquio - Fabian's lawyer friends seemingly got him released (although it's never shown but only assumed). Joaquio floating on the bed could have been a great conclusion to the movie to be honest. The car accident and the introduction of Fabian's sister seemed rather out of nowhere rather than carefully crafted.

Just because a director can make a four hour movie doesn't mean the director should. By the end of it, I felt that the director needed to fire his editor, which is himself. Hopefully, Lav Diaz can work with better actors in another movie and make a movie that can tell its story sufficiently and succinctly.

Horse Money (2014)

Film critics are never wrong, right?

[1/10 · 16 April 2024]

"Baravelli, you have the brain of a four year old boy and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." -Groucho Marx, Horse Feathers (1932)

For some inexplicable reason, critics think this is a great movie. Sight & Sound magazine, according to Wikipedia, thought this was the third best movie in 2014.

I've seen the movie and I'm not sure what movie they thought they were watching.

There is no plot to the movie or even an explanation of where this is taking place. Is it in Venturas' mind? Is it a dream? Is he in a physical place (like a mental institution) and everything is occurring in a room? Pedro Costa makes zero effort to help the audience find a way into his story or even something that helps the audience understand.

As far as I can tell, Venturas is....somewhere. The movie has various people standing in front of him and details about them are explained (it's not established if they are dead or alive or what state Venturas is in at the start of the movie). Voices talk to him in some ASMR-esque way about a friend (relative?) who is dead that the person's wife spends quite a bit of time recalling about his death. Venturas says he's alive.

I almost feel like Pedro Costa was figuring out ways to exploit Venturas for his movie. Stand him in a room! Have him mumble words! Have other people stand near him and whisper their lines! Have him walk through areas and that appears 'symbolic'!

Towards the end of the movie Venturas stands in an elevator for at least 20 minutes with a guy in a soldier's uniform (who again there is no explanation other than Venturas says "he's a revolutionary soldier"). People talking offscreen while the camera is on the soldier (is he an avatar for them?).

Then Venturas just leaves the place after force feeding the presumably dead husband of a friend (relative?) soup.

Mystery Science Theater 3000, when talking about a different movie, said "You know, it's economical not to have a storyline, because then you can just film people saying things." They would likely say the same thing about Horse Money.

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Not as good as Part One or among the director's best movies

[4/10 · 4 March 2024]

Having seen Part One and enjoying it due to what it did with the story, I was expecting Part Two to be a bit different and more quicker paced. That wasn't the case. The movie was dull and I was glancing at the time about an hour into it. Zendaya's character motivation changed at least twice in the movie and I couldn't understand why all of a sudden she wasn't keen on Timothee Chalamat's character wanting to embrace his destiny. There were aspects that were simply unexplained in the story. All of a sudden Paul Atriedes sees the past/present/future because he tells the audience he can due to the Water of Life. The enemies from the first film are simply reduced and the heroes in the movie actually turn into the villains. Visually the movie is stunning but the plot and characters are flimsy. Dune Part One did a better job because the movie went out of its way to explain things better through either visuals or spoken words and the characters made sense.

Honestly, if you're going to watch a film from this director, check out Incendies.

Poor Things (2023)

Probably one of the strangest mainstream movies released but at times boring

[7/10 · 24 January 2024]

Going into the movie, I wasn't sure what I would get. I'm not familiar with the director's other works (The Favourite, The Lobster) so this would be interesting.

First off, Emma Stone is absolutely great. Her character transformation throughout the movie is a wonder to watch.

The drawback is the rest of the movie drags a bit. Starting out, the movie's focus seems to be on the assistant hired. Then there are scenes where you think the movie is about Willem DeFoe's character. It lead me to believe this would become a character focused movie with Terry Gilliam like strangeness. Instead, it's...well I won't spoil it but there's one scene with Emma Stone's character and the female assistant about "lady bits" that sums it up.

Ultimately, the movie is about Bella. But as the story progresses and her character remains interesting, the rest of the characters aren't nearly as interesting.

The ending is a rather interesting (yet hilarious) scene.

In a Better World (2010)

A beautiful film about ugly things in the world

[8/10 · 17 July 2011]

The only knowledge I had of this film is that it won Best Foreign Language Film during the 2010 Oscars....and the fact that the Danish tend to make films without any compromises. You either like the movie or find the subject matter to be a deterrent.

Having said that, this film is absolutely amazing. The way the characters interact and intersect with each other is wonderful -- and everything is beautifully shot. Anton is a complex character and Christian (played by William Johnk Nielsen) is overcome by guilt and grief in everything he does. The ending was a bit too 'happy go lucky' but that was needed after such a downer through most of the movie.

I was somewhat worried that the filmmakers would take an unusual way out by having the Big Man find out where Anton's family lived and have someone kill them, but thankfully that didn't happen.

I would dare say this movie is better than The King's Speech. If you get a chance to see this, you won't be disappointed.

The Tourist (I) (2010)

Decent, but movie can't decide if it's a comedy or a spy thriller

[6/10 · 5 July 2011]

Much has been written about the apparent lack of 'chemistry' between Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp in this movie. I was perfectly fine with that -- I wasn't expecting the movie to be "Summertime as a spy movie" and I was fine with Jolie's character Elise keeping Johnny Depp's Frank Tupelo at arm's length and finding him to be amusing. There were points during the movie that you see that -- in how Tupelo is shocked that Elise would leave him and let he would find her again.

What bugs me about the movie is the shift in tone it takes -- the movie can't decide if it's a light-hearted comedy or a Bond/Bourne spy thriller. Almost abruptly and about half way through the movie, Elise reveals that she's a spy and is going to turn Pierce in. The last 30 minutes is fine although a bit annoying by the final reveal. I somewhat wished that you still didn't know who Pierce was by the end -- that would make up for it and would make you wonder who Pierce really was (part of me wished it was Paul Bettany's character or Timothy Dalton's). I also wished that the movie didn't spend most of its time trying to be a romance and stuck with an "innocent man caught in a spy network" story that too was attempted.

So if you see this movie, it's not bad. Venice is beautifully shot and makes up for the sometimes awful story. Some of the jokes and sight gags are truly funny. But the movie isn't that great either.

Kick-Ass (2010)

Great movie -- one of the best of this year

[9/10 · 13 May 2010]

As seems to be the standard now, I usually watch movies trying to avoid all marketing, reviews and press on them. I try to not view movies with the point of giving out 10's of 10 like candy (although some of my ratings indicate otherwise).

Yet with this movie I think it will be one of the best films this year....and I can actually see an Oscar nomination for Nicholas Cage with this. Really.

This movie although titled Kick-Ass is not about the title character at all. It's more about Cage's character (Big Daddy) and his daughter Mindy (Hit-Girl). The story in the movie does a great job at capturing little nuances -- when you first see Cage's character he is shooting a gun at his daughter. It actually feels a little 'thrown away' and you almost think that they aren't important to the movie. Then they reveal their alter-egos and fight alongside Kick-Ass who is going through a typical teenager story -- he meets a girl, he falls in love, and they have a relationship.

It's odd how this movie starts out like Superbad or Knocked Up and makes you think it's going to a crude humorous look at adolescence and a send-up of superhero/comic movies. But then it turns into something bigger. It turns into a great homage of Tarantino (the fight at the end with Hit-Girl), Michael Mann (Red Mist & Kick-Ass driving through the city is start out of Collateral, down to the lighting) and John Woo (the raid on D'Amico's lair and the scene in the warehouse).

But above all, you care about the characters, however minor and you care about the story. Nicholas Cage's character is the best I've ever seen him do and he needs to do more movies like this. Although the movie ends with the promise of a sequel, I actually hope there's not one. This movie's too perfect for that.

If you get a chance, see this or get it on DVD when it comes out.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Not as good as Iron Man, probably one of the worst superhero movies in a long time

[3/10 · 9 May 2010]

I had no expectations going into Iron Man 2....I enjoyed and loved the first Iron Man movie and liked the story, characters, flow, and feel of the movie. I liked how it took a character like Tony Stark and put him in post-Cold War America and yet stayed true to the comics. At the same time, it deviated from the comics and had its own stamp that was fresh.

Yet with this movie, it's like none of what made the first one great even carried over. All that seemed to carry over was that Tony Stark is a millionaire -- putting millionaire douche-bag Larry Ellison in a cameo cemented that. Stark's a combination of Steve Jobs meets Batman, complete with his own Mac Fest.

But that wasn't fully realized at all in this movie. It became an excuse to show explosions, have cool scenes, and show Iron Man suits. The story -- which is what made the first one great -- was largely absent. Ivan Vanko's character was the only one that was fully fleshed out, partially due to Mickey Rourke's great performance. You liked Justin Hammer and could actually sympathize with him even though he is a smarmy jackass. The other new character Natasha/Natalie/Black Widow really was a non-issue in the movie and seemed to be a void in this to make an impression.

Yet Tony Stark was totally unlikable in this. The 'underdog' character from the first film wasn't there -- sure, what's on his chest is killing him. Alcohol is killing him (yes, they vaguely referenced the "Demon in a Bottle" storyline from the comics but that was it). But there is nothing to Stark this time that makes you root for him like there was in the first movie. Really, you hope he gets what all millionaires like him get and that is to lose everything. His character never really comes to that realization (the party scene doesn't count). The only character that seemed to have changed at all in this movie is Pepper Potts.

This movie lacked the sophistication and overall story of the first movie. Even though Terrence Howard wasn't that great as James Rhodes in the first movie, he actually made a smart choice in avoiding this movie. Don Cheadle did very well with the material (or lack thereof) he had to work with. The movie doesn't even explain how he's able to just jump into an Iron Man suit and use it. I was hoping that part of the movie would be about explaining that or even growth for James Rhodes as well. Instead, Rhodes inexplicably being able to use the suit and deliver it to the U.S. military sends the movie to the climax.

I would say see it if you're a fan of comic book movies, but don't expect it to be like Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight or even Superman Returns. It's not. It's almost like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen bad. So go in, turn your mind off, and don't worry about the plot, characters, or anything else that make movies enjoyable.

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

You have LOTR in my Alice in Wonderland

[4/10 · 14 March 2010]

Starting out, I really had no expectations going into this movie. I'm a Tim Burton fan and find everything he does to be extremely watchable -- I even loved the Planet of the Apes remake and Charlie & The Chocolate Factory.

This, however, is not one of his best movies. It has nothing to do with the out-of-place dance from Johnny Depp, although that does hurt the film.

It's the fact that Burton is using now-staple of fantasy movie actors, like Christopher Lee and Alan Rickman. They performed admirably except they don't have much to work with.

You expect to feel a connection to the characters or the story -- but you really don't. It feels like you are watching recycled epic scenes from other movies like Lord of the Rings, Narnia & Harry Potter. Alice in Wonderland is not about any of that. It's not about 'heroes' banding together to save Wonderland. It's about a messed-up girl who doesn't quite understand this world or Wonderland -- what you see is what she sees. Yet, she didn't seem surprised by any of it and neither were you. The ending was telegraphed in advance and didn't really lead to any surprises. I really wanted to see a plot twist in the movie -- such as the White Queen is really Alice, but grown up.

But instead, she slays the creature and that's it. A touching moment with the Mad Hatter and she's back in the real world.

If you want a movie with childhood literature reimagined, get Finding Neverland or Where The Wild Things Are. Those are lot better movies and more deeply moving than this. I think if Tim Burton did Alice in Wonderland more like those movies, it would be a lot better. There is a brief scene at the end that connects the characters in Alice's world to Wonderland, but too little too late.

An Education (2009)

Great movie for Carey Mulligan, but little else to go by

[7/10 · 6 February 2010]

Having basically no expectations for this movie other than it being nominated for Best Picture, I went into this movie not really familiar with it nor having read any of the other reviews online for it.

Almost everyone have talked about Carey Mulligan's performance in the movie and it indeed is amazing. It is very much like watching a young Audrey Hepburn....heck, even the brief montage in Paris is reminiscent of Ms. Hepburn in Love in the Afternoon or Funny Face. However, for me, the real star is Alfred Molina and his performance. He gives the film more gravity although we don't really know more about his background as a character.

Which is the thing -- we as an audience don't really know much about any of the characters' backgrounds other than how easily swayed they are by David (Peter Sarsgaard). They are hints throughout the movie even toward the beginning that there is something more sinister going on with David. The way David's 'friends' acted upon meeting Jenny (Carey Mulligan) and the evasive way David would answer any questions about himself. It even seemed like Jenny's teacher knew something about David or the schoolmaster (the throughly unlikable Emma Thompson, who is ill-used in this) knew something more as well.

Instead, the grand reveal was that David was not who he said he was, but something more boring. I had half-expected for David to be involved in organized crime or for him to have previously been married to one of the teachers at Jenny's school....even for him to have murdered a girl from the school.

I would say that this movie is one of the weaker Best Picture nominations I've seen (although not as bad as Crash or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) and it probably should have been shown on BBC America rather than gone to the theaters. It might be unfair to judge the movie that way though. I would say see it if you can.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008)

Awful movie - had me hoping it would be better

[1/10 · 31 March 2009]

I had high hopes for this movie -- the starting intro with Chris Bell's "Speed Of Sound" made me think this would be indie rock's High Fidelity in New York music scene. Nick and Norah would talk about which album was better -- The Replacements' Let It Be or Minutemen's Double Nickels on the Dime? Which is the better Belle & Sebastian album? It would keep music junkies into the movie and make the characters more likable.

Instead, it became a very gross and stupid comedy that was vaguely about music. The bands weren't real and neither were the characters. I couldn't even tell why I should like the characters at all in the movie. Norah's dim-witted friend vomiting in a train station bathroom then getting her piece of gum out of the toilet was purely for shock value and was like most of the movie. Pointless and rather disappointing.

Honestly, if the movie consisted of mixtapes being traded back and forth and Nick and Norah not aware of each other would have been a more compelling movie.

Children of Men (2006)

Don't Believe the Hype

[8/10 · 3 September 2007]

I went into the movie expecting it to be as good as the critics (and a lot of people) had said. Alfrenso Cuaron is a great director, if you have seen Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkahban and Yu Mama Tu Tambien (which I really want to see). I knew he could make anything interesting and captivating.

This movie isn't it.

It does have its moments of brilliance: the opening scene is amazing. You feel you are seeing a documentary rather than a movie and you are seeing it right as it happens. The scene in the countryside where Julian (Julianne Moore) is shot and killed captures the intensity and is very realistic as well. I especially dug the scene where Thom (Clive Owen) is being driven to his cousin's mansion in time to King Crimson's "In The Court of Crimson King." It becomes almost Kubrick like and like something Stanley Kubrick would do.

Yet, I found myself not really caring about the characters or the story at all. Thom has to help a pregnant girl escape. Why? We don't really know. The pregnant girl is very hostile to Thom and inexplicably warms up to him and becomes his friend by the end of the movie. The "Human Project" is not seen nor explained further beyond what other people say about it. Julian's vigilante group changes their stance very quickly and seems to double-cross Thom more than once (although if I were kidnapped, I doubt very seriously I would trust my one-time kidnappers) without explanation. They want to use the baby for 'political reasons'? Why? Why is almost the entire movie not explained or understood like this? Not only that, but the protagonist in Thom is VERY one-dimensional. We get that he is cynical about life and thinks his life is sh*t and I went into the movie expecting him to progress as a character. Instead, I felt he just wandered with the girl and escaped but that was it.

I hope sincerely that the creators of the movie did set out to craft a story instead of the uninteresting mess I saw. I really wanted to like this movie; what kept me going was to see how well Cuaron would depict the scenes and the hand-held/documentary style of the film. I sorta wish the ending was a big reveal and the "Human Project" knew of the girl's existence all along. Instead, we got the awful ending we got. I guess Thom's life was sh*t after all.

And so was this movie.

The Good German (2006)

A Gimmick, Not A Movie (Possible Spoilers)

[1/10 · 28 May 2007]

I rented this movie, partially because of a sibling telling me about the book it was based on. I haven't read the book, so my expectations were not based on anything. I started watching the movie and it seemed interesting: George Clooney sarcastically dealing with a good-natured goof Patrick Tully (Tobey Maguire) for a driver. I thought, "OK, these two will investigate/partner up to find out the mystery behind the story and it will be funny but also suspenseful and good." Instead, it turned into crap really quickly. Tully is an unseemly character? But why? What is his motivation for doing that? What is anyone's motivation is this movie? Why is George Clooney's character without a gun (I know they were trying to make him like a film noir lead, but I would think he would learn to have a gun at some point). The movie is just a gimmick to show a B&W movie but with foul language and nudity and violence. I left half-way through it because it wasn't getting any better. I came back to see the husband of Cate Blanchett (Lena)'s character get found by Lena, get killed and thinking that this was where the movie would end. Instead, it messed around for about five minutes only to rip off Casablanca at the end.

If you get a chance, check out the book because it was actually better than this (or at least from the premise I was told and some of what I heard, it sounded more compelling). Someone should tell Steven Soderbergh and his screenwriter to re-read the book or better yet, actually like the source materials he's basing the movie on. Only a few people could do movies on books that stray from it and still be good (M.A.S.H., Catch-22, The Shining for examples). This wasn't.

Date Movie (2006)

awful dumb

[1/10 · 25 December 2006]

I need to say in the beginning that I tried to watch the entire movie because of Alyson Hannigan. I really like her and think she's very pretty!! The problem is that's not a reason to watch this junk!! The jokes are "rip-offs" of other comedies and not really that funny. The toilet humor is too much and there is actually too many of those type jokes to make it work. I wasn't able to make in through the entire movie though I tried twice. Luckily, I'm viewing it on cable--Cinemax- and didn't actually go to the theater to pay to see it. If you want to see Alyson Hannigan; watch American Pie or some old Buffy's. She funnier in American Pie. I wish I thought it was a good movie and would give it a zero if that was a choice.

The Andy Milonakis Show (2005–2007)

This Show Is Actually Rather Sad

[27 June 2005]

Imagine someone with horribly depressing circumstances. You talk to the person and he/she seems to be 'there' but he/she is preoccupied with something only they understand. It could be a dog, or a cat, or daily minutiae, like household items or a few blocks of the neighborhood. They've lost their job, their house, and they live in an apartment in a different town and don't know anyone. Or they've been there all their life but they were always considered 'odd' by their parents, friends, and the community. Over time, what they consider 'funny' no one finds funny and is down right obnoxious and crude.

That is probably Andy Milonakis in a nutshell. His 'humor' is like Neil Hamburger's -- it is not the 'jokes' he tells, but in a wider scope, it's funny, because his life is a joke and he doesn't know why. He also doesn't seem to have anything else besides what goes on in his apartment. Yet, Andy Milonakis seems to have a real (and terrible) problem....his pain is your comedy. The icing on the cake is Andy rapping to random people in the financial district and a guest appearance by Lil Jon eating Fruity Pebbles in the first ep.

This show being on MTV brings that similar experience. Hopefully, Andy Milonakis will survive it.