K – K – Kaminey

18 Aug

Vishal Bhardwaj can do it all. Produce movies, write, direct and compose music for them, and even sing a line or two if he feels the need for it. And the resulting product of his short but amazing career as a director seem equally blind to the word “impossible” – he adapts Othello to fit seamlessly into the ethos of the U.P. badlands, turns Macbeth into poetic mafia lore and is that rare person who not only makes movies for children but does so without condescension.

So it was no shock when I sat down to Kaminey, his latest effort, expecting a caper film and discovered an updated masala flick about dysfunctional families set in Mumbai’s underworld instead.

There are high speed chases through hotel hallways and the rain-slicked streets of Mumbai, life is repeatedly shown to be cheap, gunfire goes off like crackers at Diwali, and as Chalu Charlie the Bad Twin (Shahid Kapur) disgustedly lisps early on in the film, “Fab fale mental hain (the fuckers are all mad).” If you like a bit of violent action served up with generous dollops of humor, you won’t be disappointed with what Kaminey has to offer.

But that’s not the sum of it. Seconds into the movie, Charlie slips into his favorite dream about a posh life on the racetrack complete with a woman in a fancy hat, the mandatory Eurotrash suit, and a booking window all his own – and you realize there’s more to Charlie than his thuggish exterior. Not the secret sentimental nobility that Hindi movies often ascribe to their heroes, no matter how fallen he may be, but the raw ambition of a lonely man to survive the best he can rather than just as much as he can.The first time we see him, he’s running for his life.

In direct contrast is his identical twin brother, the Nice Twin Guddu the Good. Guddu does noble work for an NGO, has a girlfriend appropriately called Sweety (Priyanka Chopra), and he doesn’t dream as much as plan – in ambitiously plotted graph form. Life for Guddu is not something to be attacked and devoured as best he can swallow it. It’s something to be approached with caution and care. It’s no coincidence that the first time we see him, he’s dressed up in a giant red condom.

Charlie and Guddu think they have it hard, scrabbling for money, all alone in the world, estranged from each other and existing in lonely mental pockets of a teeming metropolis thanks to a family tragedy that neither twin can bear to remember. But Kaminey consistently makes the point that in this city, everything is possible, nobody is truly disconnected however much they wish otherwise and everybody is supremely fucked up in their own little ways.

Take, for example, Sweety. She is, as a Mumbaikar friend of mine used to say, a total “Don”. It’s standard movie practice everywhere for the womenfolk in crime families to often appear as though they’re from another universe entirely – soft-spoken, sweet, often timid, intimidated by the males. It never made any sense to me because a family’s personality isn’t gender specific. It thrilled me, therefore, to meet Sweety – a girl who might not be directly involved in the family business but knows the score well enough and when the chips are down, is clearly cut from the same cloth as her brother. A disillusioned Guddu isn’t being complimentary when he brusquely informs her she’s more her brother’s sister than any relation of his. But she’s exactly what he needs in his scurrying little existence as her subsequent ruckus at the police station where he’s in trouble bears out.

Everybody else in the movie is equally caught up in their family squabbles – the Bengali mafia brothers are stifling their youngest brother into gross stupidity; the beachrat don might strike fear into his henchmen’s hearts but he has to maintain appearances in front of his Angolan in-laws; Sweety’s brother is not just struggling with her inter-racial (heh) love affair, he’s also got his “boys” of varying sizes – including one greedy little tyke who’s all too easy to bribe – to worry about; and our khaki brothers in uniform are juggling loyalties and bottomlines like hosts at a wedding. It’s all so very Indian. And so very entertaining in spite of it all running pretty much parallel to the main plotline (which I won’t spoil for you because it’s hysterical).

That said, there are times when the movie is jarringly hamhanded in its banter. There is definitely a thing called trying too hard and Kaminey is all too familiar with the concept, especially when its dealing with the various crimelords, each of them so enamored with themselves that they constantly threaten to slip towards cartoonish villainy. But then, trying too hard is a much more forgivable sin than trying too little – and any movie with the wit and imagination to interject a (hilarious) haggling session in the middle of a complicated Mexican standoff is automatically to be forgiven much.

Whether you like Kaminey or not – and by no means is this movie going to be an universal favorite – depends on what you’d like from your movie-watching experience. Let me put it this way: if Maqbool was an elegant stiletto and Omkara a vicious Rampuri, then Kaminey is an axe. Wielded by an expert to be sure, but still chops like one.

I’m a stiletto person myself, but I do enjoy a little axe action on occasion. This was one of them.


Posted by on August 18, 2009 in Entertainment, Movies, Review, Video


32 responses to “K – K – Kaminey

  1. pitu

    August 18, 2009 at 11:03 am

    Loved the stilleto-rampuri-axe metaphor. I am a guillotine person myself. Such an awesome movie 😀 Now I am more excited abt Ishqiya.

  2. Gradwolf

    August 18, 2009 at 11:51 am

    Oh how can you miss The Great Gambler song in the middle of the squabble. That was so damn awesome. I did feel it was trying to be something else with all the flashbacks but the climax caught me off guard. I was sold.

  3. maxdavinci

    August 18, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    The climax in the chawl all up in flames, reminded me of bhaiyaji in tashan on a cycle rickshaw.

    sorry can’t help, we are like this wonly!

  4. Filmi Girl

    August 18, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Glad you enjoyed it! I don’t know if you saw my review, but I found the axe blade of Kaminey far too dull… 🙂

    I think the problem for me was that it didn’t feel like updated masala but more like a Hollywood heist film set in Mumbai. Great performances and dialogues, though. Shahid and Priyanka certainly proved they are just more than pretty faces.

    What did you think about the lack of any female characters other than Ms. Piggy Chops? I can’t see that anybody else has brought it up…

  5. Hades

    August 19, 2009 at 2:50 am

    Jug jug jiyo, Vishal.

    IMO, he did falter just a teensy-weensy bit in getting everything to add up in the end but overall, brilliant.

    And I really liked Kapoor. Pulled off his roles brilliantly. Baap par gaya haiN.

  6. Nida

    August 19, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    Oooh, I wasn’t planning on going to see this but now may have to reconsider! I’ve been in need of a good Shahid film, hated “Kismet Konnection” and loved “Jab We Met”. This sounds nothing like either, but I think I prefer Shahid in serious roles.

  7. Mamma Mia! Me a Mamma?!?

    August 19, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    Well, finally!! I was wondering when your review was going to come up!

    As usual, you’ve nailed it!

  8. Amrita

    August 19, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    Pitu – ahahahaha, why does that not surprise me your highness?

    Adithya – i loved it! the detailing in this film was really something else.

    Max – Nahiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin! Yeh tumne kya keh diya?!

    FG – I noticed it but it really didnt matter to me much because you kinda expect it in a movie like this. At least Priyanka got to do more than play girlfriend. Actually, its somewhat of a hallmark of VB’s mafia movies – there’s never more than one or two significant women characters in the testosterone laden atmosphere but those women are kickass. I was kind of relieved that the usual Maa-Behen weepy women were only in the background instead of getting dragged out to play token characters.

    Hades – well he’s got a long way to go before he gets anywhere near Papa Kapur but this is a solid start, huh? The kid’s come a long way.

    Nida – he’s definitely in form here. In fact, I was just telling someone that it surprised me how good he was in it.

    Mamma – I hope you spent that time going to watch this! 🙂 I recommend!

  9. M-M-Makdee

    August 19, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    I know I’m a bad girl. How the heck then did I miss Makdee? I was completely clueless about VB movies outside the Shakespearean-tragedy oeuvre (in fact, Omkara is the only one I’ve seen) until those two words that terminate your para one took me by total surprise. (And there’s a little boy named Mughal-e-Azam in the movie, to boot, if FilmiGeek of the Anarkali-avatar fame is to be believed… I mean, Whoa!)

    Oh BTW, what’s with Shahid Kapoor and speech impairment? I watched Chup Chupke, over the weekend, where he plays a (pretend) goonga (what a howlarious movie, but for the sop of a final few scenes)… The guy surely has a thing (or two, or three) against the spoken word (remember JWM?)!

    • Amrita

      August 20, 2009 at 2:35 pm

      You have to see Maqbool! Actually, I’d recommend all his movies – there’s also The Blue Umbrella which I thought was lovely, but Makdee and Maqbool are my two fave VB movies!

      • M-M-Me

        August 21, 2009 at 5:32 pm

        Done deal — shall get right down to the business of checking out Maqbool and Makdee then, followed by TBU and all the rest (there, I’ve got the rest of my movie-watching life all booked up!).

        About that “axe action” — though perhaps too premature coming from someone who’s only one movie in to the guy’s “Shtyle” (but sometimes, one time is all it
        takes, no?) — ain’t it pure joy to be privy to VB’s peculiarly heavy-handed wielding of the “vicious Rampuri,” as if it were the very Axe Of Love, in ways his poor protagonists hardly suspect?

  10. dipali

    August 22, 2009 at 10:04 am

    Haven’t managed to see Makdee yet. VB is definitely a phenomenon. Kaminey definitely wielded the axe effect!

    • M-M-Me

      August 22, 2009 at 12:56 pm

      LOL @ “axe effect”! Makes Me wonder if Amrita’s plea #3 (under H for Hygiene, in her post on “fixing” Indian males) did in fact presage her closing quip on this one.

      P.S: Amrita, careful what you wish for, woomun! You ask for some “scent” and look what you’re sent — a severing instrument! 😀

  11. MovieL

    August 22, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    One of the most enjoyable desi flicks in a long time.

  12. Rahul

    August 24, 2009 at 10:29 am

    1.Two elder Bengali brothers and two black gangsters and two inspectors were not needed,that’s why one thinks of them only in pairs.
    2.Shahid Kapoor just managed to act not bad.In my opinion we consider this good acting because our expectations have been lowered.
    For eg.,the scene where he was made fun of by the girl in school, was a money scene and though he didn’t do badly, he didn’t milk it for what it was worth.
    In the scene with Mikhail,Bhope and Shahid,Shahid is virtually non existent you dont remember him doing anything,he just faded into the scenery.
    The fact that Vishal had to think up the speech impediment for the good guy and the bad guy is not actually a master stroke but a favor to Vishal’s BFF Pankaj by giving his kid a vehicle, but that cannot make up for the fact that Shahid is neither an actor nor a star.
    Look at what Anil Kapoor has done with such double roles in the past eg Yudh.
    3.The songs have been wasted.Normally you don’t mind a songless movie of this kind but music of this quality deserved better picturization.
    4.The flashback with the dad was a complete no no. That made it look more like a Manmohan Desai movie than QT or GR and was not consistent with the films general line of not condescending.
    5.Priyanka Chopra was good but her ghatiness should have been way out there kind of like Mahi Gill’s punjabiness in Dev D. That would have made for much more interesting viewing.But this is just a matter of opinion.
    6.VB has this habit of going for pretty boy non actors.He did that in Onkara and he has done it again.Ishquiya seems better though since both leads are genuine actors.
    Finally, I think VB has grand concepts about his movies but he slips in execution.In this aspect he is still inferior to Anurag Kashyap.

  13. Amrita

    August 24, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    M-M-Me – that’s all the movies he’s directed actually 🙂 He’s only been making them for a very short while.

    Dipali & ML – it was a fun day at the movies wasn’t it?

    Rahul – I think you’re being too hard on Shahid. I can’t say I’ve been a fan of his work, which frankly annoyed me except in JWM (and that had to do with the movie itself more than anything he brought to the role) and I have no idea what made VB think he could pull this role off – but I think he brought the goods. It might be a matter of taste too: what I appreciated about both Shahid and Priyanka in this film was the lack of scenery chewing. It’s true Shahid is still very much finding himself and a little age and experience wouldn’t hurt him but he put in a very decent effort.
    You’re probably the first person I’ve ever heard complain about Saif in Omkara. Unless you mean Ajay Devgan whose own mother couldn’t call him pretty, the poor thing. 😀 And besides, Arshad Warsi? Apart from Waisa Bhi Hota Hai, he’s annoyed me in everything except the Munnabhai series which didn’t involve much “acting” from the looks of it.
    The MD touch was actually very much appreciated by me. I didnt want to be all spoilerish but that was what made me really think of this movie as an updated masala rather than a Hollywood flick in Mumbaiyya clothes.
    Now, I love me some AK, but its apples and oranges here – AK’s sensibility is definitely more on the artistic / conceptual side whereas VB makes really excellent commercial cinema. The fact that people think he makes “art movies” is, like you said about Shahid’s performance, more an indictment on the kind of crap we’ve been forced to watch as commercial cinema over the part couple of decades.

    • Rahul

      August 24, 2009 at 2:43 pm

      I did mean Saif too.I would take Arshad Warsi(Tere Mere Sapne,Seher etc) anyday over Saif. Btw I also am more often than not, annoyed by Johny Depp. and I think that he is a hack…so there you go. I am an insignificant minority.
      Also, I am sorry about the spoiler.My post should have carried an alert.

      • Amrita

        August 24, 2009 at 2:56 pm

        Meh, never mind the spoiler – enough people have probably seen it. I’ll give you Seher, I liked him in that, but if you look at him in his usual tapori roles, he’s incredibly one-note. The smartalec from Munnabhai was pretty much the same guy in Sunday and Golmaal Returns and whatnot. I don’t know what he’s gonna be like in Ishqiya but I’m interested to see him as a foil to Naseer.
        Also – Johnny Depp is a hack? That sound you hear is of pitchforks coming at the ready 😀

  14. Rahul

    August 24, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    I haven’t seen any of his movies except Munna part 1 ,WBHH,TMS and Seher.Anyway, he has shown that he has a second note (In Seher and WBHH)and can appear to be a different person. OTOH, Saif, in spite of all that accent and mannerism in Omkara, is still Saif. Entirely subjective it is,I agree.

    • pitu

      August 24, 2009 at 4:39 pm

      Saif was still Saif? You really are in the minority hehe 🙂

  15. Vikram

    August 29, 2009 at 12:13 am

    Well, I would like to say something about the near hysterical reaction this movie seems to have received from the ‘critics’ and the media. I think the fact that a movie, so obviously inspired from Western films is hailed as a ‘classic’ and ‘masterpiece’, reveals more about the mind of the English speaking Indian than anything else. This panting, sycophantic need for forced culture really gets to me. More importantly, it suppresses genuinely innovative stories from India from coming out.

    There are so many stories to be told in our continent. Why are we like this ? Why cant our consumerism be more indigenous.

    • Amrita

      August 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm

      Wow, you’re possibly the only person I’ve ever heard make that argument for any of VB’s films. I think you’re confusing two things here: blind adoption vs intelligent adaptation.

      I don’t know if you’ve seen the movie but it’s definitely an intelligent adaptation – the style might be Tarantino-esque or Ritchie-esque (although I’d like to point out it’s also Manmohan Desai-esque) but the story, the characters, their predicament, their solutions, every single thing is about as “indigenous” as you can get. Which is true of VB’s oeuvre as a whole – maybe his source material in Maqbool or Omkara is Shakespeare, but the movies themselves are as Indian as they come.

      • Vikram

        September 26, 2009 at 11:48 pm

        I think this article in the EPW articulates my unease with this movie and its reception among the urban elite very well,

        And intelligent or not, wanting an ‘Indian Tarantino’ etc does suppress our own indigenous talent.

  16. Amrita

    September 27, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    Thanks for link Vikram but I think both you and Raghavendra have got it absolutely wrong. Here’s why:

    Both of you base your criticism of Kaminey on the fact that VB is the Indian Tarantino. Here’s the rub: he’s no such thing. He made one movie which was Tarantino-esque (I personally think it was Ritchie-esque as I explained at length at Baradwaj Rangan’s blog if you care to look it up). That “esque” is important. It might be true that a certain section of the Indian press went ahead and called him India’s Tarantino – in which case that section of the press is cinema illiterate and incredibly stupid because there’s no way you can sit through Maqbool, Omkara, Makdee, The Blue Umbrella and Kaminey and then come up with the idea that the last movie is the one that defines VB’s oevre. It’s a statement on the pathetic state of Indian, esp Hindi, cinema today that people can’t grasp the idea of a director who tries to experiment with his work.

    For example, there isn’t a study of Hindi cinema done today that doesn’t mention how wonderful Bimal Roy’s movies are, how rooted in Indian ethos, and how sad it is that we don’t make movies like his today. And there’s a polite amnesia about the fact that his greatest cinematic influences were the Italian neo-realist school and Akira Kurasawa. This doesn’t mean his movies no longer have worth or meaning or are less Indian or less influential to generations of Indian audiences and filmmakers. On the contrary he was at the forefront of a cinema movement in India and the amount of success he was able to achieve argues he was a fricking genius. Any fool can and does buy a DVD and copy a movie off it. It takes real talent and brains to absorb ideas and meaning from another culture and locate it in the familiar.

    As for the greater thrust of Raghavendra’s article: I’m sorry but when a “film critic and scholar” starts talking about “the intelligentsia” and their agenda, I automatically switch off. He might have a point, I don’t know. I might consider it seriously if you were to write something. 🙂

    • Pitu

      September 27, 2009 at 8:35 pm

      Shaking my head at this discussion. Tewtally agree with you, Amrita. Go Vishal!!

      • Gradwolf

        September 27, 2009 at 10:51 pm

        Ditto as Pitu!

        Now we have the perfect vicious circle. We can’t take movies that depict an iota of reality. And we cannot take the silly emotions of Yash Chopra, neither can we take the heroism of Rajinikant. Brilliant. We must just stick to Bal Hanuman.

    • Aria 51

      October 7, 2009 at 11:20 pm

      Amrita, that was a spectacularly sincere two-fold defense of VB (a. Pointing out the importance of the “esque” so eloquently and b. acknowledging the fact that we’re looking at one rare director — in this-day-and-age Bollywood — who dares to do things differently). I may not know half as much as I wished I knew about cinematic experiments, but (unlike Raghavendra and his ilk) I’m totally with you in extending (if only in spirit) full support to all things experimental — especially in the artistic realm.

      I’ve always considered the critic and the academic to be the two people who are way more adept than any movie-going Joe Schmoe at evaluating a work of (cinematic) art on its own merit (does it do what it set out to do and if not why not) and then articulating their analysis for public (and/or scholarly) consumption. And that’s why it strikes me as egregious that an academic worth his salt should look at a movie like Kaminey (which I haven’t watched yet but that’s beside the point) and suddenly get all disturbed by the fact that the general movie-going public is NOT AT ALL disturbed by its “message,” (whatever THAT is) — in other words, start sending out “Our Social Structure Is Crumbling Thanks To VB” siren calls.

      What the heck? Flattering as it is, isn’t it much too tall an order to posit that an artist singularly serves as The Moral Pillar That Holds Up Indian Society? Something seems seriously wrong (not to mention horribly pretentious) about that kind of thinking (and I’m speaking specifically about points made in Raghavendra’s paper — from that link above — on “Social Dystopia”).

      An artist may be many things (profane and otherwise), but Historian, Social Reformer or Moral-Science Teacher, (s)he is NOT. And why is that so hard to live with, for certain folks?

      Interestingly, here’s the other side of the Academic Turns Into Bombastic Bubblehead story: Critic Crucifies Artist At The Altar Of Social Responsibility.

      I’m referring to (one of New Yorker’s finest critics) David Denby’s (in)famous chastizing (back in 1998; and there may be other links that elaborate on it) of Benigni’s “Life Is Beautiful,” simply because he (Denby) had a conscience attack in favor of holocaust survivors, and felt the movie did not do justice at all to humankind’s grandest infamy to go down history. (It’s a movie for Christ’s sake, not a documentary.)

      What astounded me though was Yale film scholar Hilene Flanzbaum’s fantastic defense of the movie and her putting some solid perspective into the “special precepts [accorded the subject of The Holocaust] creating an impossible artistic realm where little, if anything, could be left to the imagination.”

      The popular demand that “artists become historians and the event be portrayed in as close to verisimilitude as possible,” furthering “the myth of progress towards authenticity, is the most serious misprision of all — one that you don’t need to be a professional critic to detect,” she writes.

      I loved the part where she strikes down Denby’s argument: “Denby has made his way down a familiar corridor here, one so well traveled that we may be tempted to walk down it with our eyes closed — but if we look closely at his argument, it doesn’t add up. For how could Life is Beautiful give ammunition to deniers?” I can send you the paper (it’s not linkable) if you like. She’s one “film critic and scholar” you’re sure to love!

      • Aria 51

        October 8, 2009 at 1:21 pm

        p.s: Hey, not to keep harping on Denby’s Benigni-bashing from way back when, but I think that review link I shared above (under “chastising”) does not paint the full picture of Denby’s displeasure (in fact, that review reeks of ambivalence: it’s super-short; starts out on a pseudo-funny note and proceeds to end on a seemingly positive one).

        I guess the real “conscience attack” came only later, when (as Flanzbaum notes below), he became progressively appalled at the movie’s success and re-reviewed it, this time dousing it with all the bile he’d originally held back (and, for the life of me, I can’t seem to find that rant right now, so this excerpt will have to suffice):

        Flanzbaum writes:
        Perhaps no critic was more outraged by the success of Life is Beautiful than David Denby, who reviewed the movie twice in the New Yorker. To call it bad once was not enough. The first time Denby reviewed the film, he devoted a scant half column to it, satisfied to dismiss it as a mistake.

        Incensed by the movie’s growing popularity, he voiced further determination to show the world that they were wrong. In his second review, Denby writes, “I keep hearing from people who think the movie is ‘wonderful.’ The picture appears to fill, for its many admirers, some sort of need.” He makes it his duty to set the film’s admirers straight. This time, he attacks Benigni as an inept historian. “Surely Benigni knows,” writes Denby, “that any child entering Auschwitz would be immediately put to death, and that at every camp people were beaten and humiliated at random. He shows us nothing like that. The most frightening German we see is a brutal apelike guard… Benigni wants the authority of the Holocaust without the actuality.”

        Denby attributes the movie’s success to the audience’s “being sick to death” of the subject. “The audience’s mood is understandable,” Denby rationalizes, “but artists should be made of sterner stuff.” He ends his piece by claiming that the fact that the audience can leave the movie “feeling relieved and happy [is representative of the fact that] Life is Beautiful is a benign form of Holocaust denial.”

        Now juxtapose that last line with what Raghavendra says, about “Kaminey”:

        “Celebration of social decay started with the film Satya, and Kaminey takes this to a new high altogether. Bringing out the idea of “social Darwinism”, where the fittest are defined by their degree of immorality, it depicts agents of the law as being completely detached from their role in its enforcement.

        What is even more striking is that the viewers are no longer disturbed by this; rather, they seem to take satisfaction in the fantasy of a crumbling social structure.”

        See what I’m saying? What IS wrong with scholars and critics, sometimes? It’s as if they suddenly throw away all the sensibilities they’ve accumulated over the years, for a once-in-a-lifetime joyride on the “political correctness” bandwagon. That’s not a good thing. That’s a VERY BAD thing, people. Wake Up!

        • Amrita

          October 8, 2009 at 3:26 pm

          Yes please, could you send me that article? I’d really like to read it! David Denby is probably one of my least favorite critics so I don’t really pay him that much attention but this sounds interesting. Plus, I’m team Wonkette in his battle against snark so I’m really not fertile ground for Denby-ism I suppose.

  17. sachita

    October 7, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Good review, Amrita(have said so many times before:)) I just caught up with the movie. Even though I thought the movie was good, I wondered why I didnt go bonkers like others, your review had the answer.”if Maqbool was an elegant stiletto and Omkara a vicious Rampuri, then Kaminey is an axe. ” Maqbool and blue umbrella remain my fav.
    Ps:regarding the rant above, some times everything is viewed with just one prism. Influences are going to be there, from world or regional films. Kaminey isnt good just coz it is tarontinoesque coz it was good as a film too. You handled it with a lot of patience.

  18. M-cubed

    January 29, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    Hey, I watched Kaminey recently (yes, at last!), so came back to re-read this, nod in agreement and all that. Movie had some nice little twists that kept me totally entertained!

    Amole Gupte was ‘A’wesome, Priyanka (like Pitu pointed out recently about Saif in Omkara, though no comparison bet. the two really but you know what I mean) surely won’t win any acting awards for this, and Shahid… well, no surprises whatsoever — the guy IS play-doh in a darned good director’s hands! I hope he vows to work exclusively with the Ali’s and VBs of the world.

    And oh boy, was that was one “loaded” guitar, lol… I’m so glad to have only read all of two reviews and none of them too spoilerific. (I *really* thought one of the leads was a musician when I saw all those ‘guitar-hero on train tracks’ promos, so was doubly hysterical when I actually watched the movie!)

%d bloggers like this: