Delayed Reaction: The Look of Silence

The Pitch: Like The Act of Killing, but less disturbing.

I don't have a single "type" of movie that appeals to me, but "Indonesian documentary about genocide" sounds like the opposite of what my type would be. Ok. That's not true. I loved The Raid (Indonesian) and all sorts of documentaries. I've seen my fair share of Holocaust movies too. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that The Look of Silence is a hard sell.

It's a companion piece with The Act of Killing. While The Act of Killing focused on the killers, The Look of Silence is about the victims. Either way, it is unbelievable stuff. Back in 1965, after a coup, the government of Indonesia systematically killed anyone opposing them (mainly communists). It's estimated that one million people were slaughtered. The men who committed these murders have been in power of the government ever since and never had to repent for these savage killings. Many look back on it with pride and levity. The Look of Silence follows the younger brother of one of the men killed as he confronts the men responsible for the killings. Initially, he pretends to be there to test their eyesight for glasses, but he slowly reveals himself over time. Those scenes are interspersed with footage of two men walking through how they murdered these prisoners 50 years ago. They even mention by name the man's brother. We are never given the name of this man, by the way. He wished to remain anonymous for his safety. Many names in the closing credits are also listed as 'anonymous' too. If you are looking for a sign that a documentary is about some serious shit, crew members wishing to remain anonymous is a great indicator.

This film is chilling and at times darkly comedic. Take for example the mention by some of the murderers that the way to prevent going mad from all the killings is to drink the victims' blood. It's an absurd solution to -you know- feeling guilt like a well-adjusted person should, but these men are completely serious about it. They truly believe that if you drink a man's blood, you won't go mad from guilt*. I wanted to laugh at the stupidity of the idea but I was too busy being disturbed by it. The film is also a great study in how no one takes the blame for what they've done. For all the men the anonymous man interviews, there's always a man higher up telling him to do these awful things or an insistence that he didn't know what was going on. It's not really their fault, they argue. They were just doing what they were told. That much can be easily applied to situations in any country, culture, or time period.

*I'd argue that there's some causation vs. correlation going on here. If you are insane enough to drink a man's blood, you are likely not going to feel guilty about slaughtering dozens of people.
 
I'm going to stop there, simply because digging into this deeper is going to really bum me out. I definitely recommend seeing this, although, have a Reese Witherspoon comedy prepared to follow it just in case you need the jolt of light-heartedness.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Free Fire

Formula: Shoot 'Em Up * The Nice Guys

Movies don't have to be hard. At least, they don't have to look hard. Way too often, people look to whatever movie is doing the toughest things (complex effects, dramatic performances, intricate shots, convoluted plot) as the best. There's some truth to that. If you want to look at movie quality as an objective thing - and lord knows I have that tendency - those are some of the things that hold a lot of weight for good reason. However, movies can be simple too and still be great.

Free Fire is a very simple movie. It's the closest thing film has to a bottle episode. Here's the movie: In the late 1970s, a gun deal goes wrong and everyone gets stuck in a shootout. That's it. The movie spends a little bit of time introducing the players. Justine (Brie Larson) is the intermediary between some IRA members and some gun sellers. The IRA members, Chris (Cillian Murphy) and Frank (Michael Smiley) are very suspicious of everyone. The gun sellers are represented by hired gun, Ord (Armie Hammer), former black panther, Martin (Babou Ceesay), and insufferable South African, Vernon (Sharlto Copely) who rubs everyone the wrong way. Both sides have a couple grunts and it turns out that those grunts have personal issues with each other that escalate until shots are fired. Everyone takes sides and takes cover. Then it's a matter of seeing who gets out alive with either the money, the guns, or both. I'm a big fan of this structure because it's simple, character-driven story telling: setup characters, put them in a place, and see what happens.

There is a risk to doing this. When you take away the importance of plotting, everything else has to be on point. If you don't like the characters, gunfights, or the humor, then I can't do anything to convince you to like the movie. Luckily for me, the tone worked perfectly. Sharlto Coplely is lovably hateable. Everyone else has an "I'm getting too old for this shit" vibe or simply seem bothered by the inconvenience of the gunfight. I don't know if any character actually says, "Are we really doing this?" but they are all thinking it. I loved tracking who is shifting allegiances and the sub-feuds going on. I loved keeping track of the geography of the room and who was still in play. Between The Nice Guys and now this*, I've accepted that I'm a fan of the late 70's as a setting. All of it worked for me and in a tight 90 minute package.

*Not to mention 20th Century Women, The Get Down on Netflix, and Inherent Vice not that long ago.

That's not to say it's perfect. More than once it felt like they should've been able to get out of the gunfight rather than escalate matters. Just about everyone gets shot in the leg eventually, so everyone spends 90% of their time crawling around on their stomachs. It got a little hard to remember where everyone was in relation to everyone else at times. While I found Copely's character endearing, others may find him only annoying. The characters could definitely be better drawn (although it isn't needed). None of this bothered me enough to spoil my enjoyment. I could see others having a harder time with it.

Judging by the paltry opening weekend box office numbers (a sub-$1000 per theater average on over 1000 screens) not everyone was as drawn to this movie as I was. It's for a niche audience, but if you are the type of person who gets any thrill at all out of Smokin' Aces, Shoot 'em Up, or Guy Richie's earlier movies, then you'll find a lot to enjoy here.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend 

Delayed Reaction: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

The Pitch: It's all in the title, right?

This is one of those films that keeps popping back up. It was ignored when it first came out, but assorted critics love to bring it up now as a hidden gem. With Casey Affleck all over this most recent award season, it's been even more prominent, since it got Affleck his first Oscar nomination.

As soon as I started it, I regretted not seeing this film on Bluray or HD. Even on a DVD, the cinematography looks great. It has the feeling of a lived in western and uses the landscape well. It probably didn't need to be as long, but if it meant a couple more shots of characters standing in a prairie field, I'm fine with it. Speaking of the length, this really is long for how slow it is. I was prepared for the length and pacing, so it didn't bother me as much as it has for those unprepared for it.

I love a cast like this that gets better over time. If I would've seen this when I came out, I would've been like "Oh, it's Brad Pitt and Ben's brother and that woman from that new Showtime show and a bunch of white guys with facial hair." Now, I'm like, Oh, it's Brad Pitt, and the Affleck brother who actually gets nominated for his acting, and the wonderful Mary Louise Parker from Weeds, and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Sam Rockwell (who is great in everything), and Paul Schneider from Parks & Rec before they wiped him of the earth, and noted Western character actor Garret Dillahunt, and Sam Shepard (who I should've recognized even in 2007 as 'that guy from that other movie') and a bunch of other white guys with facial hair.". The difference ten years can make.

A few years ago, I saw writer/director Andrew Dominik's movie Killing Them Softly and didn't care for it. I was prepared to write-off TAoJJbtCRF (my shorthand for this long-ass title) as another director whose appeal is lost on me. As it turns out, I liked TAoJJbtCRF enough that now I want to go back and rewatch Killing Them Softly to see if I missed something.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Girls: A Character Ranking

Girls ended Sunday after a six year run as one of the most divisive and think-piece heavy series of its time. It's an imperfect and often misunderstood series. I loved a lot of things about it, but mostly, I liked how well-drawn the character were. They weren't meant as a representative swath of millennials. They were a very specific and deeply flawed collection of people. Given that, I figure the best way for me to look back on this series is my own ranking of the main characters from who I liked the most to the least.

(I picked ten main and recurring characters based on a fuzzy calculus that I didn't put enough thought into to explain now)

Hannah
I'm sorry, but if Hannah isn't your pick, I don't know why you stuck with this show. Every other character could disappear for several episodes at a time. Only Hannah was always there. She is perhaps the most frustrating character in a series known frustrating characters. From the very first episode, with her "voice of my generation" proclamation, she annoyed people. I enjoyed how unlikable she could be. Lena Dunham built Hannah with warts and all but never turned on the character. Hannah also gets bonus points because Dunham created the series and I give out bonus points however the hell I want.

Adam
He is a raw nerve of a character who managed to be the romantic male lead for several seasons. That shouldn't work. You'll notice that I gave a lot of credit to characters who won me over throughout the series run as opposed to always being likable and Adam is chief among those. I thought he was a douche bag early on and by the end of the first season, they completely upended my perception of him. From then on, it was like watching Pinocchio figure out how to be a real boy. The man has demons but he tries to figure them out. It didn't work all the time, but it was always interesting to see him try. And yes, he gets bonus points because Adam Driver is in a lot of movies that I really like (The Force Awakens, Inside Llewyn Davis).

Elijah
Another character I didn't care for early on. In those last two seasons, when Andrew Rannells was a lot more available, he became the heart of his own show within the show. More than a little of this high ranking is because he was so delightful in "The Bounce", trying out for White Men Can't Jump: The Musical.

Shoshanna
Zosia Mamet was the least utilized part of the central quartet. The final season even made an afterthought or her falling out with the group (which made thematic sense). When Mamet was used though, she was great. Remember when she did crack? Oh, Shosh.

Marnie
Where Hannah fully admitted to her flaws and tried to wear them like badges of honor, Marnie refused to admit that she was a mess and that made her very, very unlikable a lot of the times. But then, you get something like "The Panic in Central Park" or her in the series finale and you realize that she's the friend you've had for too long to ever get rid of. She has to lose some points though for all the damn singing.

Ray
Ray is the character I could most see myself wanting to spend a day with. His pessimistic vibe jibes with me, even though a whole day of it would get old. The show never knew what to do with Alex Karpovsky for more than an episode or two. He'd probably be higher on my list if he had spent more time with Shosh and less with Marnie.

Jessa
Her specific branch of chaos didn't work for me. She had some great, complex stuff to do pretty often. Just as often though, it seemed like the show was trying to make a point about how destructive she could be. Of the main four, she spend the most time without it being clear that the show had any idea what to do with her. But when she was good, she was damn good.

Loreen Horvath
Of Hannah's parents, Loreen is the one who had no choice in her late-life upending. It's pretty tragic following her after her marriage falls apart. While she gets a few moments that show that she will make it through this, the show is too interested in wallowing with her late. And, early on, she doesn't have as much to do.

Tad Horvath
I respect the direction they took his character, but his side of the split with Loreen was treated much more comically and had less meat to it.

Desi
He was in too many episodes to not include him. He's a mess though, and the less said about him, the better. Ebon Moss-Bachrach sure could get a laugh from being pathetic though.

TV Show Reaction: Big Little Lies

It's time for me to take another stab at talking about TV. I've made attempts to make TV discussion a part of the blog before. I kept up with everything I watched in my DVR Purges for a long time but that wore me out. I did the Weekly 10 for a while too. That didn't mesh well with the other Reactions. Once or twice a year, I will start taking detailed notes about everything I watch, with plans to turn it into something to post, but that turns watching things into homework, which is the last thing I want to do. One-off discussions seem like the best way to go. I'm not going to set any time-tables (like "once a week" or "after all finales"). Just, when I have time and the desire to talk about a show that struck me.

This time, I want to take a look at Big Little Lies. I'm going to assume that if you are reading this, you have seen the show, so I'm not going to talk around spoilers or given unneeded exposition.

Big Little Lies is a series that used a terrific cast and great performances all around to make up for some of the less appealing elements. The good far outweighed the bad. For me, Reese Witherspoon is what brought me to this (teaming with her Wild director, btw). Nicole Kidman, Shailene Woodley, Laura Dern, etc. are all actresses by themselves who wouldn't be enough to pull me in. Witherspoon on TV got my attention. She's never refused TV work*, but she isn't pulled into it very often. Big Little Lies is far more than a Reese Witherspoon vehicle though.

*She was on The Muppets as recently as 2015 in a guest spot. Still trying to figure that one out.

I have no idea how the Emmys are going to play out. Witherspoon, Kidman, and Woodley could all be vying for a lead actress trophy with Laura Dern making a strong argument for supporting actress. Lead actress splits in a very interesting way. Woodley is the functional lead. She the POV and entry point character, especially early on. On paper, you'd think it was her story. Witherspoon and Kidman have the flashier roles, but in much different ways. Witherspoon as Madeline is a force of personality. She takes what sounds more like a supporting role (the queen bee of Monterey and best friend/support-system for Kidman and Woodley's characters) and makes her into every bit as complex and troubled a character. She's also a lot of fun. The dinner with Nathan, Bonnie, and Ed is awkward and hilarious. Then there's Kidman as Celeste. That's a story that easily could've turned to melodrama and it didn't. She was a victim without losing her agency as a character. All three of their stories could've been the center of a mini-series or movie by itself.

And the leads have a lot to play off. The young cast was terrific. Darby Camp and Iain Armitage (Chloe and Ziggy) gave damn good performances. Children that young can often be distractions or annoyances, yet I was always happy to see them show up in a scene. Laura Dern is efficient with her scenes. Zoe Kravitz is a little under-served, to the point that her being the one who kills Perry is a little too unexpected. Speaking of Perry, the men in the cast are pretty great too. Remember when Adam Scott used to show up in things as the asshole (Step Brothers, anyone)? Well, that's not the case anymore. Ed isn't far from Ben Wayatt. He's just a super rich version who had no desire to work in the public sector. Alexander Skarsgard is a monster as Perry, but adds just enough shades to still be human. It's easy to see what about Nathan (James Tupper) makes him hard for Madeline to get over and what makes her hate him. Oh, and it doesn't seem like Bad Teacher and Paranormal Activity were all that long ago. I didn't realize Kathryn Newton was the same girl from both of those.

The murder flash forwards and townspeople as Greek chorus became a distraction quickly. That's baked into the source material, but after the first episode, it got in the way. Most shows include interview commentary and flash forwards to mask a lack of a compelling narrative in the present. Big Little Lies is the rare show that includes those things to its detriment. It hedges its bets, thinking that constant reminders of a murder will keep things lively. It turns out, the characters, writing, and direction are plenty engaging on their own. It's nice being able to call a show not confident enough rather than overconfident. In fact, the constant foreshadowing of this death almost ruined that moment for me. Perry's death ended up feeling required more than fitting and how it happened became a math problem (in the way that a big punchline in a Modern Family episode feels reverse-engineered when it happens). Bonnie is a nice-left field choice to have pushed him. I'm not sure I even needed that answer though.

Maybe I should clarify. Going into the finale, I wanted to know if Madeline and Ed get past their marital problems. I wanted to know if Celeste could rescue herself from her abusive relationship. I wanted to know if Jane could come to terms with her past. I wanted to know if this blood feud between Madeline and Renata could be resolved. If it took Perry's death to get there, great. It felt like they were teasing the death angle so much like "hang in there. It'll all be worth it in the end", when I was already enjoying what was happening.

So, if my big complaint about a series is that it was better than it gave itself credit for, that's a good thing. It ended in a good place. Even though someone is watching them now, I don't need to find out more. I'm hoping more networks can pull in big stars for brief stints like this without needing Ryan Murphy to have his name attached to it. I could go on longer and flesh out some points better, but I've already taken far too long to come out with this. That was an enjoyable show.

Delayed Reaction: Fast Times at Ridgemont High

The Pitch: Before they were at Animal House...

It's hard to remember that I hadn't seen Fast Times before. It's such a famous movie that I've seen half the scenes and already know all the best jokes. That didn't end up being a problem though once I finally did get around to it, because the whole movie is episodic; a collection of smaller stories. If you map it out, it's a wonder that it plays together so well. At first glance, it's easy to lump Fast Times in with the rest of the teen sex comedies of the 80's. But, Cameron Crowe's script and Amy Heckerling's direction prevent that. There's an honesty to it that a Porky's lacks. The cast is as good as you will find for a high school comedy. I get why Sean Penn had to work so hard to get away from his Spicoli past. I didn't even recognize Jennifer Jason Leigh because she's so young. Judge Reinhold walks the line between an everyman and a creep. I'm bothered by the fact that Robert Romanus looks so familiar, but from checking IMDB, I can't place him in anything else I've seen, aside from a couple guest appearances. I definitely recognize him from something though. Am I really so familiar with this film going in that I already recognize the cast? And, Phoebe Cates. I have to say, that scene (you know which one) is a little different than I thought. Despite being so famous, it's pretty insignificant to the plot and comes and goes quickly. I think every other show and movie that has parodied it have been twice as long as the real thing. It doesn't take much digging to realize that much of the teen comedies of the 80s were complete crap (like any decade), but Fast Times deservedly stands out and holds up incredibly well.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Mr. Right

The Pitch: But, has Anna Kendrick ever been a sociopath?

This movie is Knight & Day by way of God Bless America. The latter movie I adore despite all its rough edges. The former is a movie that's better in concept than execution, which is probably why its been done so many times (also see Killers or Mr. & Mrs. Smith for other variations).

I enjoyed this stupid little movie. I don't buy Anna Kendrick and Sam Rockwell as a couple, but I love them as a duo. Their energies match. They have a student/teacher dynamic. She has great enthusiasm and he plays the "old pro" well. They should work together again. The RZA is pretty wonderful as well. It's a fun throwaway part that keeps finding ways to show up throughout the movie.

The direction is entirely invasive. Some of that is by design. This is an over the top movie. Rockwell regularly dodges bullets as parts of dance routines. There's no way to play that straight. The stunt work is distractingly unconvincing. And what was that knife throwing scene about? The movie is clearly choppy for comedic effect, and that will only bother you if you aren't otherwise liking the movie. I would've watched 90 minutes of Anna Kendrick getting drunk in her closet or having repeated meet-cutes with Rockwell, so it didn't matter if nothing else in the story was plausible.

Anna Kendrick goes from appalled by what Rockwell does to being completely fine with it far too quickly. So quickly that even Rockwell can't believe it. Similar to the protagonists in God Bless America, it's better the less I think about the morality of it. This isn't a movie that I would put at the top of any list. It's a dumb, good movie with two leads who are always good.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Lobster

The Pitch: It'll be like a Spike Jonze movie but not made by Spike Jonze.

I don't know what to do with The Lobster. I liked it. I'm just not sure what to do with it. Yorgos Lanthimos has a wicked screenplay that plays by its own rules. It's a fantastic deconstruction of the social constructs surrounding being in relationships and what we do to find and maintain them. It's all very clever. At a point, the movie does feel burdened by the style. Early on, while I was so busy figuring out the rules of the world, I didn't notice it. Once David (Collin Farrell) left the facility, I got more distracted. Everyone is so bound by the way they needed to deliver the lines that it didn't feel like it was getting as much out of a cast with Farrell, Rachel Weisz, and John C. Reilly as it could've. Actually, Reilly was a perfect fit in the world. Farrell and Weisz only occasionally. I have trouble with absurdism sometimes. The way it's used here is to have characters do and say ridiculous things and treat it like it's normal. This can easily dip into being self-aware.

Maybe, the better way to explain is with my One Big Leap principle. I think The Lobster makes two big leaps. The world that these characters live in is one leap. The way the characters act is another, because I don't see the humanity in them consistently. You could argue that both are part of the same conceit you have to give the movie. That's a bit much though. It's like the movie is in a world created by Charlie Kaufman filled with Wes Anderson characters. It was missing some grounding. A lot of this is just taste. I'm not on quite the right frequency for it.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Fate of the Furious

Formula: Furious 7 - Paul Walker

There isn't much to say about The Fate of the Furious (or, F8, as I'll refer to it for the rest of this post). It's hard to call something critic-proof, but F8 applies as well as anything. Hell, it's even America-proof. This franchise is a global sensation. And who can blame the world for loving it? It's a globe-hopping adventure with a multi-cultural cast of cartoon characters, who can be dubbed over without taking away any of their essence. Each film raises the stakes with gleeful one-upmanship. You can talk about all the superhero movies you want, but I'd argue that the most unstoppable franchise in the world right now is this one. And F8 maintains that.

I've seen all the movies at this point; the last several in theaters. That said, I'm not going to pretend that I remember what happened in any of them. F8 continues with the reverse-engineering of previous installments, and finds a way to add a main villain who is actually "the one behind it all" (named Sypher, played by Charlize Theron), for real this time. The real selling point of F8 is that she's able to recruit Dom (Vin Diesel) to turn on the rest of the protagonists. That makes it Dom vs. the family. There's some noise about nuclear codes and military bases that I didn't pay attention to. No one is meant to. Just know that it's Vin Deisel, Charlize Theron, and that giant Norwegian ginger from Game of Thrones vs. everyone else.

F8 is an action scene delivery service. It begins with a throwback car race that reminds you that when the series began, it was about the underground racing scene and seeing how many of the most attractive people it could fit in one frame. Some plot business happens, then a brief car chase and an over-the-top prison break. After that, some more plot to get to a crazy sequence in New York City involving remote controlled cars - a lot of them. Some more story happens, and finally, they fight a submarine on a giant ice sheet. All of these sequences look expensive as hell and are massive. None of it is remotely plausible, and no one really cares. The creativity of this production crew is impressive. Now are these well-staged action sequences? Not really. I think the high point for that is still F6, taking down a plane and all. The secret to great action set-pieces is controlled chaos. Anyone can make things blow up. The greats blow things up, know why they are blowing up, have a sense of geography for everything that's happening before and after, and conveys this on screen to the audience. Mad Max: Fury Road is a great example of that. F8 brings the chaos. There's a couple shots that are almost break-taking in the scope and complexity of the undertaking. Not a lot of it makes much sense though. No matter how impracticable the cars or the size of the city, the main characters are always able to show up at the right time in the right place. Sequences often involve a dozen moving parts and only a couple are actually explained. When the protagonists are being chased by a mobile army at the end, they appear to be perpetually pursued by about a dozen vehicles, no matter how many they take out, and with no indication as to where (or when) these reinforcements are coming from. These are the kind of nitpicky things that didn't stop me from enjoying the movie while I watched it. However, they are why this movie won't be remembered as a classic of the genre or even the best of the franchise.

The size of the cast by now in the series is unwieldy. I've always been impressed by how well the franchise handles turnover though. Diesel is perhaps the only essential cast member now, and even that is debatable. So, the loss of Paul Walker (and by extension, Jordana Brewster) doesn't cast a pall over the film. Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), Tej (Ludacris), and Roman (Tyrese Gibson) are all well enough established by now that they only need a few lines to make their presences known. I don't blame Diesel for reportedly butting heads with Dwayne Johnson on the set of this movie, because Hobbs is inching ever close to lead status. He is the Hulk in this movie, and it's really entertaining to see how superhuman they make him. He doesn't just hit people. He's a wrecking ball. Nathalie Emmanuel isn't developed much beyond where she was in the last movie. She feels like a part of the team, and that's enough for now. Scott Eastwood is introduced as a potential replacement for Kurt Russell's Mr. Nobody*. Jason Statham gets to be a good guy and have some silly fun. Charlize Theron hams it up. I don't think anyone would argue that she is giving her A-game nor was that required of her. She could either come back for F9 or never be seen again. I'd be fine either way.

*He's also a savvy Paul Walker stand in if it turned out that audiences needed a traditional handsome white guy in the group. Based on F8 though, he's not essential.

The Fast and the Furious franchise isn't going away. Any loses domestically are more than being made up for internationally, where it just broke the worldwide opening weekend box office record, despite making only 40% of what The Force Awakens did in the US. F8 proved that qualitatively, the rotating chair of directors can make a difference on the end product. F. Gary Gray did fine, but he's no Justin Lin at making this type of film. It's not a great movie, but it is an entertaining movie. I had fun, even though I'll remember approximately 3% of the plot by the time the next film in the series is released. 

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend 

Delayed Reaction: Beautiful Creatures

The Pitch: It's like Twilight, but in the deep south, and with witches instead of vampires, which it totally different.

What's going on with this cast? It's got young Han Solo, Aldren Ehrenreich. His best friend is Thomas Mann, who I loved in Me & Earl & The Dying Girl. There's Emmy Rossum who I really expected to have more of a film career by now, because she's awesome. This movie even allows me to check off another movie from my filmography stalking of Zoey Deutch. And I haven't even gotten to Viola Davis and Emma Thompson. Jeremy Irons too. And character actress Margo Martindale. Really, Alice Englert is the only person who I didn't already have a fondness for going in. This is a much better cast than the movie deserves.

And the cast carries it. I don't care much about the story. In fact, I checked out pretty quickly when it came to all the talk of witches casters and curses. Ehrenreich and Englert are charming together. Davis and Irons give a lot of gravity to pretty rote exposition. Emma Thompson is having a lot of fun as the villain. Rossum knows that her character is the scene-stealer and commands the screen like it. If this cast was assembled for something better than a watered down Twilight with a heavy southern twang, I would have loved this.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend