Conviction (Tony Goldwyn)
The quintessence of a TV movie in feature film clothing. The account of a young woman determined to prove her convicted brother innocent of murder is a potentially fascinating subject, but Goldwyn’s direction is so stilted, so dull that it kills any possibility of an interesting picture. There’s no sense of urgency in his style, so the movie really is all a bunch of arbitrary one- and two-shots, closes ups, medium shots, with a stable camera adding nothing to the lethargic proceedings. The script is equally banal, both in terms of characterization – they’re all one-note, Minnie Driver the spunky lean-on girl friend with no other identity; Loren Dean, the inexplicably preppy-ish, somewhat upscale husband who, naturally, can’t take it any longer – and narrative – the wrapping up of a major issue -- missing evidence -- is so perfunctory as to be risible. And the film hedges its working class issues – Hilary Swank may be Massachusetts blue collar but she’s not Gone Baby Gone or Fighter trash. Poor but likable, and certainly not vulgar that’s our heroine. I love Swank, but she seems to be just going through the motions here. A shame, because the film stands for The Good – including the abolition of capital punishment – so you want it to be forceful and filled with righteous anger, but it just plods along without passion or zeal. It’s all just completely by the numbers. Melissa Leo and Jennifer Lewis, two of the screen's most egregious over-actors, reach new depths here, so Tony Goldwyn apparently isn't simply a hack, he's also an enabler.
4/10
=============================
Remember Me (Allen Coulter)
There are contrivances and implausibilities (and a confrontation in between Robert Pattinson and Pierce Brosnan’s in the latter's office is embarrassing), but the film also has a great deal of conviction about the sacredness of love, both romantic and familial, and it has a sense of gravity that is rather rare these days and so is to be cherished. Replete with empathy and kindness, the film also gets down perfectly the insecurity of young love (and Marcelo Zarvos’s music is a great aider and abettor in this). The movie is obsessed with death and departures, and director Coulter imbues the movie with a sad sense of emptiness, but never in a heavy-handed, obvious manner -- it's in gestures, behavior and settings, and small character and environmental points are also nicely conveyed. RPatt broods beautifully and compassionately and Jerins is wonderful (how could anyone tease her?). If one needs a nudge as to looking favorably upon this film, just compare its depth to the shoddy shallowness of the Nicholas Sparks pictures. Remember Me has a terrific New York City ambience, and a cool comprehension of the various personalities of different neighborhoods. Plus, 9/11 really hits hard and personal here -- the impact of that does comes back in a way it hasn't for me in other pictures.
And you have to love a movie in which a guy's asshole-ness is simply conveyed by the fact that he’s a Yankee fan.
7/10
===============================
Alamar (Pedro Gonzalez-Rubio)
A true WTF? Essentially home movies of a sweet-faced little kid visiting his divorced dad -- a fisherman in Mexico -- and his grandfather. Nothing happens, there is no arc, no themes worked through, no conflicts, no issues raised other than the very most elemental things such as leaving a parent is hard, a pet going away is sad. Pretty to look at, and there's an appealing bird in some scenes, but nothing these people do is even remotely interesting – fishing, snorkeling, cooking. It takes a lot of gall to palm this thing
off as a movie.
2/10
The Official Review Thread of 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (Edgar Wright)
I pretty much come down right in the middle of the two camps on this film. There is much that is original and ingenious here, but there are also many things that are not nearly as clever as Edgar Wright probably thinks they are (most especially, the on screen, pop art transcriptions of fight sounds, a device that wore out its welcome pretty quickly on the Batman TV series, and that was 45 years ago.
I like the way that, despite all the big budget pyrotechnics, it does very ably tap into the emotional vicissitudes of young love, and sympathetically traces the emotional highs and lows of romantic feelings when those are still a new experience. At first I thought that Scott's treatment of Knives was awful and made him a jerk, and my heart went out to her, but as the film progressed it struck me how real that was -- at that age, another person can be your end all and be all until another person shows up. This is a movie that gets the period where adolescence morphs into young adulthood just right. The characters surrounding Cera are terrific, and nicely etched. I especially liked Anna Kendrick's caring but smug younger sister, Kieran Culkin's sweetly smart-ass gay roommate, the members of the band, and, especially, Ellen Wong's besotted younger girlfriend.
On the debit side, Wright seem less in control than in his other pictures, and the film is quite repetitive. Although the idea of having to fight a new love's ex-lovers is a terrific concept, one appreciates it less and less when those fights are prolonged and -- other than the antagonists -- pretty much interchangeable. And the onslaught of visual stimuli eventually becomes not impressive but just exhausting. And too often coy. The dialogue is frequently witty and surprising, but it is even more often arch. And none of the stuff with Jason Schwartzman (an actor I like) works -- it all feels like filler, a turn in the narrative that was uncalled for. On the plus side, Beck's music is really good.
5/10
I pretty much come down right in the middle of the two camps on this film. There is much that is original and ingenious here, but there are also many things that are not nearly as clever as Edgar Wright probably thinks they are (most especially, the on screen, pop art transcriptions of fight sounds, a device that wore out its welcome pretty quickly on the Batman TV series, and that was 45 years ago.
I like the way that, despite all the big budget pyrotechnics, it does very ably tap into the emotional vicissitudes of young love, and sympathetically traces the emotional highs and lows of romantic feelings when those are still a new experience. At first I thought that Scott's treatment of Knives was awful and made him a jerk, and my heart went out to her, but as the film progressed it struck me how real that was -- at that age, another person can be your end all and be all until another person shows up. This is a movie that gets the period where adolescence morphs into young adulthood just right. The characters surrounding Cera are terrific, and nicely etched. I especially liked Anna Kendrick's caring but smug younger sister, Kieran Culkin's sweetly smart-ass gay roommate, the members of the band, and, especially, Ellen Wong's besotted younger girlfriend.
On the debit side, Wright seem less in control than in his other pictures, and the film is quite repetitive. Although the idea of having to fight a new love's ex-lovers is a terrific concept, one appreciates it less and less when those fights are prolonged and -- other than the antagonists -- pretty much interchangeable. And the onslaught of visual stimuli eventually becomes not impressive but just exhausting. And too often coy. The dialogue is frequently witty and surprising, but it is even more often arch. And none of the stuff with Jason Schwartzman (an actor I like) works -- it all feels like filler, a turn in the narrative that was uncalled for. On the plus side, Beck's music is really good.
5/10
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
NEVER LET ME GO
Cast: Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley, Isobel Meikle-Small, Charlie Rowe, Ella Purnell, Charlotte Rampling, Sally Hawkins, Nathalie Richard.
Dir: Mark Romanek.
The film is basically The Island without any bullshit action scenes and it's a hell of a lot better for it, as far as I'm concerned. Three children who are basically clones raised for their organs in a dystopian alternate reality. Instead of focusing on the question of medical ethics and the sci-fi-ness of the story, it instead of focuses on character in the form of a love triangle between these three kids as they grow into young adulthood. Although far from perfect, it is beautifully acted especially by Carey Mulligan and the film does manage to take its themes and make them resonate.
Oscar Prospects: This deserved at least a nom for Carey Mulligan in Actress, Cinematography, Original Score and Adapted Screenplay.
Grade: B+
Cast: Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley, Isobel Meikle-Small, Charlie Rowe, Ella Purnell, Charlotte Rampling, Sally Hawkins, Nathalie Richard.
Dir: Mark Romanek.
The film is basically The Island without any bullshit action scenes and it's a hell of a lot better for it, as far as I'm concerned. Three children who are basically clones raised for their organs in a dystopian alternate reality. Instead of focusing on the question of medical ethics and the sci-fi-ness of the story, it instead of focuses on character in the form of a love triangle between these three kids as they grow into young adulthood. Although far from perfect, it is beautifully acted especially by Carey Mulligan and the film does manage to take its themes and make them resonate.
Oscar Prospects: This deserved at least a nom for Carey Mulligan in Actress, Cinematography, Original Score and Adapted Screenplay.
Grade: B+
How Do You Know (James L. Brooks)
Not since Alain Resnais' [intentionally] insane anti-rom com has a film featured characters with such insane inner monologues. The characters in How Do You Know make ridiculously little sense. Their motivations are all over the place with every scene feeling slightly whirligig. It would feel reinvigorating had James L. Brooks a better grasp on how to pull such a thing off. He's no Desplechin who thrives on tangents, or Resnais for more obvious reasons. It's a terribly structured film insecurely directed.
The center of this story is irresistible: George (Paul Rudd) keeps running into Lisa (Reese Witherspoon) only when his life is completely in tailspinning ruins. Yet the sense that Jams L. Brooks has no idea what story he's telling is inescapable, but at times the film has a randomness that is amusing. There are throwaway gags in How Do You Know that are pretty adorable. But it's a film off the rails. I think the central problem is that whenever Brooks trails his camera on each actor it becomes a different film. Brooks' notion of who Lisa is seems relegated largely to her incessant confusion of who she is spouted again and again. She looks like a Shih Tzu (or one of those dogs that barely understands why it's alive) in every shot, with large confused eyes. Unlike Witherspoon, Owen Wilson is more successful at grabbing whatever nonsense is on the page and tugging it back towards his knucklehead comfort zone. We have here a character, the former, who exists largely as spastic inner-monologue and one, the latter, who is ill-defined.
Paul Rudd has it the worst with both of these handicaps, and yet the film only really takes off when his acrobatic insecurity is allowed to take flight. I suppose the closest that Paul Rudd has come to truly taking off has been in I Love You, Man. He has yet to perform as functionary heterosexual romantic lead, thriving more in bromantic-comedies or manically on the fringe of insane comedies like Wet Hot American Summer. Every few years, he gets a chance at romantic lead stardom and you can't blame him for How Do You Know, because how could he? This would seem to be Brooks' forte. Even if As Good As It Gets wasn't a very good movie, it found populist success in giving audiences something they wanted to see. Who wants to see this? There is a warmed-over fuzziness that we have come to associate with James L. Brooks, and yet he also wants to explore his absurd characters' ricocheting mood swings. To put it bluntly, he's not the guy. Maybe if he knew going into it what movie he was trying to make, we'd be talking about one of the fall's hits. Much has been publicized of the film's needless budgetary inflation and reshoots, and I know I would love to see what ended up on the floor if only for morbid curiosity's sake. I'm not sure it'd be any marked improvement. How do you end up with a title this generic with any confidence in your project?
I've heard that Bill Murray was the preferred fourth lead for this film, and not Jack Nicholson. I have no doubt it would improve the film. As with the other three leads, the film becomes something entirely different when he is on camera. Jack's movie is the lamest of all. It's phoned in, there is no sense of character history, it's all tics and mannerisms, barely committal like you've never seen Lazy Fat Jack before. And in a way, Jack Nicholson is How Do You Know. He barely knows what he's doing here either.
(Also, who the fuck works Kramer vs. Kramer into a plot point these days? James L. Brooks = Old.)
Not since Alain Resnais' [intentionally] insane anti-rom com has a film featured characters with such insane inner monologues. The characters in How Do You Know make ridiculously little sense. Their motivations are all over the place with every scene feeling slightly whirligig. It would feel reinvigorating had James L. Brooks a better grasp on how to pull such a thing off. He's no Desplechin who thrives on tangents, or Resnais for more obvious reasons. It's a terribly structured film insecurely directed.
The center of this story is irresistible: George (Paul Rudd) keeps running into Lisa (Reese Witherspoon) only when his life is completely in tailspinning ruins. Yet the sense that Jams L. Brooks has no idea what story he's telling is inescapable, but at times the film has a randomness that is amusing. There are throwaway gags in How Do You Know that are pretty adorable. But it's a film off the rails. I think the central problem is that whenever Brooks trails his camera on each actor it becomes a different film. Brooks' notion of who Lisa is seems relegated largely to her incessant confusion of who she is spouted again and again. She looks like a Shih Tzu (or one of those dogs that barely understands why it's alive) in every shot, with large confused eyes. Unlike Witherspoon, Owen Wilson is more successful at grabbing whatever nonsense is on the page and tugging it back towards his knucklehead comfort zone. We have here a character, the former, who exists largely as spastic inner-monologue and one, the latter, who is ill-defined.
Paul Rudd has it the worst with both of these handicaps, and yet the film only really takes off when his acrobatic insecurity is allowed to take flight. I suppose the closest that Paul Rudd has come to truly taking off has been in I Love You, Man. He has yet to perform as functionary heterosexual romantic lead, thriving more in bromantic-comedies or manically on the fringe of insane comedies like Wet Hot American Summer. Every few years, he gets a chance at romantic lead stardom and you can't blame him for How Do You Know, because how could he? This would seem to be Brooks' forte. Even if As Good As It Gets wasn't a very good movie, it found populist success in giving audiences something they wanted to see. Who wants to see this? There is a warmed-over fuzziness that we have come to associate with James L. Brooks, and yet he also wants to explore his absurd characters' ricocheting mood swings. To put it bluntly, he's not the guy. Maybe if he knew going into it what movie he was trying to make, we'd be talking about one of the fall's hits. Much has been publicized of the film's needless budgetary inflation and reshoots, and I know I would love to see what ended up on the floor if only for morbid curiosity's sake. I'm not sure it'd be any marked improvement. How do you end up with a title this generic with any confidence in your project?
I've heard that Bill Murray was the preferred fourth lead for this film, and not Jack Nicholson. I have no doubt it would improve the film. As with the other three leads, the film becomes something entirely different when he is on camera. Jack's movie is the lamest of all. It's phoned in, there is no sense of character history, it's all tics and mannerisms, barely committal like you've never seen Lazy Fat Jack before. And in a way, Jack Nicholson is How Do You Know. He barely knows what he's doing here either.
(Also, who the fuck works Kramer vs. Kramer into a plot point these days? James L. Brooks = Old.)
"How's the despair?"
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Animal Kingdom (David Michôd)
I just got this one in under the wire before the Oscars. A singularly unpleasant (although, to its credit, not smart-alecky) but very well-crafted movie. It's a crime genre film, but it's also a coming of age story and a domestic family drama (and this is one hell of a dysfunctional family). Credibility is not the strong suit here, but there's a langorius tension that runs throughout and is unnerving. I'm not sure why Jacki Warner received a nomination; she's perfectly fine, but has no big moment, and the contrast between her demure exterior and steely inner resolve is a bit too pronounced. The truly memorable performance in the picture belongs to Ben Mendelsohn, one of the scariest villains ever. Dispassionate and poker-faced, he is so coldly calculated as to make Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men seem like Elmer Fudd. ANd although this is ultimately a film about redemption, it offers no catharsis.
6/10
Edited By Damien on 1298833123
I just got this one in under the wire before the Oscars. A singularly unpleasant (although, to its credit, not smart-alecky) but very well-crafted movie. It's a crime genre film, but it's also a coming of age story and a domestic family drama (and this is one hell of a dysfunctional family). Credibility is not the strong suit here, but there's a langorius tension that runs throughout and is unnerving. I'm not sure why Jacki Warner received a nomination; she's perfectly fine, but has no big moment, and the contrast between her demure exterior and steely inner resolve is a bit too pronounced. The truly memorable performance in the picture belongs to Ben Mendelsohn, one of the scariest villains ever. Dispassionate and poker-faced, he is so coldly calculated as to make Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men seem like Elmer Fudd. ANd although this is ultimately a film about redemption, it offers no catharsis.
6/10
Edited By Damien on 1298833123
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Oh, I don't hate the film, Josh. I was just very disappointed in it because I thought it started off so promisingly and then didn't build upon that foundation. (I literally had not read any reviews or comments on the film, so I had absolutely no idea what the film was about, all I knew was that some people whose taste I respect were quite fond of it.) And I assume that the dead cat was just a model.
But the woman security guard and the music can't be deemed outside influences because their presence in the household was determined by the parents. And the cat was a co-inhabitor of the same internal space.
But the woman security guard and the music can't be deemed outside influences because their presence in the household was determined by the parents. And the cat was a co-inhabitor of the same internal space.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
(Damien @ Feb. 26 2011,10:07)
There were a lot of points in the above paragraph that I wanted to respond to but for brevity's sake, I'll just say:
...yes, I was referring to hereditary vs. argument, and I do believe that there were outside influences in the house: the woman, the cat, the music. What I like about Dogtooth is that there is clearly a strong sense of history that we pick up on as the film goes along, wrt specifically the Frank Sinatra music. These lies have been compounded for some time, especially the myth of their enigmatic brother. The dark joke just got darker and more compelling in the various ways in which it was sold.
...following up on the above part (and vaguely Lanthimos' approximation of art), I guess our biggest disagreement is the notion that the film doesn't have anything to say beyond the first ten minutes. I find the minutiae of this film so fascinating that this may reinforce my assertion of the film's greatness, but the film absolutely had me convinced that these kids were incapable of challenging anything. Her dancing is a completely organic and fascinating manifestation coming from (unlike the other two children) nothing other than something powerfully contemporary going on miles away from her. This, to me, was one of the spectacles of the year. I found it completely satisfying.
...not familiar with the Stooges short so I'll have to take your word for its superiority over Dogtooth.
...are you sure you don't just hate it because of what happens to the cat?
I think that because Lanthimos clearly has an intelligent sensibility, you're reading something into the film that's not there simply because one might expect there to be more there.
There were a lot of points in the above paragraph that I wanted to respond to but for brevity's sake, I'll just say:
...yes, I was referring to hereditary vs. argument, and I do believe that there were outside influences in the house: the woman, the cat, the music. What I like about Dogtooth is that there is clearly a strong sense of history that we pick up on as the film goes along, wrt specifically the Frank Sinatra music. These lies have been compounded for some time, especially the myth of their enigmatic brother. The dark joke just got darker and more compelling in the various ways in which it was sold.
...following up on the above part (and vaguely Lanthimos' approximation of art), I guess our biggest disagreement is the notion that the film doesn't have anything to say beyond the first ten minutes. I find the minutiae of this film so fascinating that this may reinforce my assertion of the film's greatness, but the film absolutely had me convinced that these kids were incapable of challenging anything. Her dancing is a completely organic and fascinating manifestation coming from (unlike the other two children) nothing other than something powerfully contemporary going on miles away from her. This, to me, was one of the spectacles of the year. I found it completely satisfying.
...not familiar with the Stooges short so I'll have to take your word for its superiority over Dogtooth.
...are you sure you don't just hate it because of what happens to the cat?
"How's the despair?"
Sabin wrote:(Damien @ Feb. 25 2011,7:46)Dogtooth (Giorgos Lanthimos)
With absurdist comedies, the easy part is getting the dry tone down right. Dogtooth does that exemplarily well, from the first couple scenes. It’s what to do once that tenor has been established which tends to hamper filmmakers, and such is very much the case here. The movie is not oppressively tedious like, say, Roy Andersson’s ghastly Songs from the Second Floor, but it remains resolutely one-note. And while individual sequences can be clever and amusing, all that the movie has to say, it says in the first 10 minutes. And, truth to tell, it has nothing much to say – overly restrictive parents stifle their children’s growth; being extreme in protecting others will backfire. Well, duh. The narrative goes nowhere. Like many smug films, it has very little to be smug about.
4/10
I don't agree that it is about parents restricting growth. Rather the film is an argument about whether or not society is inbred or conditioned. Dogtooth goes back and forth throughout the film. And it absolutely leads us to believe that society is conditioned, and then the younger daughter starts to break it down, dancing in a fashion that she clearly could not have been taught but one might see a child doing as imitative of MTV. The film is a sick joke, but I don't believe it's as simple as several on this board are making it out to be both in terms of how the arguments go back and forth and by how extreme it is taken.
I'm not sure what you mean by "inbred or conditioned." I think you're getting at the old "heredity vs. environment" issue (one which was wonderfully handled in the 1935 Three Stooges short, Hoi Polloi). But I don't know where you're getting that from, as -- other than a couple of scenes at the father's place of business -- there is no outside environment/external influence in the film. In thie world of the film, behavior has to be seen as "conditioned" because all the kids have to go on is the way of life their parents have chosen for them. The daughter's dance could be seen as the ineffectual way in which such a conditioned character tries to assert her individuality. Not much of a payoff for the audience.
I think that because Lanthimos clearly has an intelligent sensibility, you're reading something into the film that's not there simply because one might expect there to be more there.
Edited By Damien on 1298736885
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Hmm... Yes, going from those directly to Dogtooth might be risky...Big Magilla wrote:LOL. Not sure when that will be. I'm watching a lot of stuff from the early 30s right now. Next up: Sarah and Son when I have the time. I have The Patent Leather Kid and A Ship Comes In on order.ITALIANO wrote:I must admit that I look forward to reading Big Magilla's views on Dogtooth.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
BLACK SWAN
Cast: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder.
Dir: Darren Aronofsky.
The best way I can describe this film is "pretentious camp" but I personally don't mean it in a negative way at all. Quite the contrary. This absolutely thrilling and intriguing blending of highbrow (classical ballet) and lowbrow (psychosexual horror) and the beautiful and grotesque to depict a young ballerina's descent into madness. I can see how some people would hate this. The film blends many recognizable elements from filmmakers like Powell/Pressburger, Polanski and Dario Argento and throws them all onscreen in a way that will probably turn some people off. But as for me, I was on board with this from the first scene onwards. But then again, I'm a bit of an Aronofksy fan boy (I even liked The Fountain). This is best I've seen from Natalie Portman since The Professional.
Oscar Prospects: I'll be cheering for Portman Sunday night.
Grade: A
TRUE GRIT
Cast: Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper.
Dirs: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen.
This is probably the least Coen Brothers-y Coen Brothers movie. And that's not really necessarily a bad thing. You can definitely see their fingerprints all over this fine second version of the Charles Portis novel (and following John Wayne's footsteps no less). Their trademark snarkiness is at a minimum in their pretty much straightforward adaptation creating really a very classic, old-fashioned Western. Not their best but a very worthy effort. The cast is excellent.
Oscar Prospects: I'm on the camp that Hailee Steinfeld is definitely a LEAD. It's her freakin' story!
Grade: B+
Cast: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder.
Dir: Darren Aronofsky.
The best way I can describe this film is "pretentious camp" but I personally don't mean it in a negative way at all. Quite the contrary. This absolutely thrilling and intriguing blending of highbrow (classical ballet) and lowbrow (psychosexual horror) and the beautiful and grotesque to depict a young ballerina's descent into madness. I can see how some people would hate this. The film blends many recognizable elements from filmmakers like Powell/Pressburger, Polanski and Dario Argento and throws them all onscreen in a way that will probably turn some people off. But as for me, I was on board with this from the first scene onwards. But then again, I'm a bit of an Aronofksy fan boy (I even liked The Fountain). This is best I've seen from Natalie Portman since The Professional.
Oscar Prospects: I'll be cheering for Portman Sunday night.
Grade: A
TRUE GRIT
Cast: Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper.
Dirs: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen.
This is probably the least Coen Brothers-y Coen Brothers movie. And that's not really necessarily a bad thing. You can definitely see their fingerprints all over this fine second version of the Charles Portis novel (and following John Wayne's footsteps no less). Their trademark snarkiness is at a minimum in their pretty much straightforward adaptation creating really a very classic, old-fashioned Western. Not their best but a very worthy effort. The cast is excellent.
Oscar Prospects: I'm on the camp that Hailee Steinfeld is definitely a LEAD. It's her freakin' story!
Grade: B+
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore