SXSW Movie Review: V/H/S And The Ongoing Problems Of Found Footage

Hulk takes a look at found footage anthology V/H/S and what it represents for the found footage device at large.

SXSW Movie Review: V/H/S And The Ongoing Problems Of Found Footage

FOUND FOOTAGE.

THE BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ANALYZED MANY TIMES ON THIS SITE. SOMETIMES PEOPLE CALL IT A "GENRE," BUT THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE. REALLY, IT'S A DEVICE. MAYBE EVEN JUST A TACTIC. BUT HULK TRULY DOES UNDERSTAND THE ADVANTAGES. IT OFTEN GIVES A SENSE OF IMMEDIACY TO THE ACTION ON SCREEN. IT USES A CERTAIN TEXTURAL / CAMERA LANGUAGE TO GIVE THE VIEWER A FEELING OF "REALITY." IF HULK WAS FEELING REALLY GENEROUS WE COULD EVEN CALL IT FIRST PERSON FILM NARRATIVE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME FOUND FOOTAGE BRINGS A HOST OF PROBLEMS. THE MOMENT ONE ABANDONS "THE EYE OF GOD" IN FAVOR OF A THE "ACTUAL PERSON IN THE ROOM FILMING" DEVICE, WE SUDDENLY ENCOUNTER A WHOLE SERIES OF ROADBLOCKS IN LOGISTICS. IT'S NOT JUST THE VALID QUESTION OF "WHY WOULD THEY FILM / STILL BE FILMING THAT?"  BUT THE PROBLEM OF WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT QUESTION IS ADDRESSED. SO MANY FOUND FOOTAGE FILMS RESPOND TO THAT BASIC CONCERN WITH A HOST OF TANGIBLE ANSWERS (THE KINDS OF DEVICES AND EXPLANATIONS WE'VE SEEN A THOUSAND TIMES OVER, SUPPORTED BY THE NONSENSE PROCLAMATION THAT "KIDS FILM EVERYTHING THESE DAYS"), THE ULTIMATE RESULT IS ODDLY ENOUGH A BACKWARDS APPROACH TO STORYTELLING. MEANING IT IS INHERENTLY PUTTING THE NEED TO BE RECORDED ABOVE ALL THE ACTUAL INTERESTS AND ECONOMY OF STORYTELLING.

AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT MOST FILMMAKERS KNOW THIS. THEY KNOW IT IS A TERRIBLE WAY TO TELL STORIES AND CONVEY RELEVANT INFORMATION. AND THUS, THEY MAKE ONE OF TWO DECISIONS: 1) USE A HANDFUL OF THE SAME OLD TRICKS TO BUILD VALIDITY... OR 2) THEY JUST SAY "FUCK IT" AND FILM IT LIKE IT'S AN ACTUAL MOVIE WHENEVER CONVENIENT (MEANING IT BASICALLY JUST TURNS INTO DOCU-STYLE SHAKY CAM, NOT THE ABJECT SINGULARITY OF ONE PERSON FILMING SOMETHING FOR A REASON). FOR INSTANCE, CHRONICLE FREQUENTLY SIDE-STEPPED ITS LIMITATIONS TO CREATE FAR MORE TRADITIONAL COMPOSITIONS AND CINEMATIC EFFECTS, OFTEN TO MORE STORY-ADVANTAGEOUS RESULTS.

BUT THE IMPORTANT THING TO REALIZE IS THAT NO MATTER WHAT, BOTH SOLUTIONS ARE ACTUALLY CHEATING.

HULK REALIZE MOST PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH THIS FACT THOUGH. HECK, MOST DON'T EVEN NOTICE. BUT TO HULK IT STRIKES DOWN INTO THIS CORE PROBLEM WITH THE POPULARIZATION OF FOUND FOOTAGE MOVIES. SOMETHING SO SADLY AND PROFOUNDLY WRONG TO HULK: FOUND FOOTAGE REQUIRES THAT THE PRODUCTION ABANDON THE VERY NATURE OF INTERPRETATIVE "GOD'S EYE" FILMMAKING IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING THAT'S ULTIMATELY MUCH, MUCH MORE LIMITED.

IF YOU READ HULK'S MULHOLLAND DRIVE PIECE, HULK IS SOMEONE WHO CONSTANTLY QUESTIONING THE MEANING OF NOT ONLY WHAT WE SEEING, BUT HOW WE SEEING IT: THE COMPOSITION, INTENTION AND AFFECTATION. THIS IS NOT JUST RESERVED FOR DEEP-TEXT FILMS, HOWEVER, AS THERE IS ALWAYS A MEANING OR SOMETHING TO BE GLEANED AESTHETIC-WISE FROM EVEN THE STUPIDEST MOVIE. WE CALL IT TONE-MANAGEMENT AND IT'S PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING A FILM CAN DO IN ESTABLISHING ITS VOICE. THE ARTICULATION OF WHAT IS SEEN ON SCREEN AND WHY IS HOW WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE INTENTION OF FILM AND CONSTRUCT MEANING. MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S HOW WE GET INVOLVED AND EMPATHIZE WITH THE CHARACTERS WE ARE SEEING.

AND TONE-MANAGEMENT BARELY EXISTS IN PURE FOUND FOOTAGE. THE ONLY VISCERAL EXPERIENCE TO OFFER IS A KIND OF THEME PARK THRILL. IT WORKS THE AUDIENCE LIKE A ROLLER COASTER, NOT A STORY WITH EDITING AND BEATS AND EMPHASIS. IT ALMOST INHERENTLY BUILDS A LACK OF EMPATHY WITH A CHARACTER ON SCREEN. AND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN TRULY GET AROUND THE PROBLEM IS BY CHEATING AND HAVING AS MANY "GOD'S EYE" AESTHETIC CHOICES AS POSSIBLE.

THE RESULT IS PURE CONFUSION. AND EVEN WORSE, BECAUSE SO MUCH FOUND FOOTAGE CONSTANTLY TRIES TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS (EVEN IN THE SAME MOMENT) IT INHERENTLY ENDS UP SENDING HULK INTO A DIZZY OF "WHAT THE FUCK HULK SUPPOSED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT HULK SEEING RIGHT NOW? WHY IS THIS PARTICULAR FOUND FOOTAGE SHOT LIT AND FRAMED IMPECCABLY? WHY IS THIS OTHER ONE NOT? WHY IS HULK BEING FORCED TO WATCH THIS SNIPPET PLAY OUT IN NON-ENGAGING REAL-TIME?" THE QUESTIONS STRIKE FEAR INTO THE HEART OF ANYONE WHO BOTHERS ASKING THEM. SO HOW CAN FOUND FOOTAGE TRULY "WIN?"

BECAUSE TO HULK IT FEELS LIKE THE ULTIMATE LOSE-LOSE.

IF MOVIES ARE THE MASTERY OF GETTING US TO FORGET THAT WE'RE WATCHING A MOVIE, HULK'S PROBLEM WITH FOUND FOOTAGE IS THAT HULK IS ALWAYS 100% AWARE THAT HULK WATCHING A MOVIE. THE DEVICE CAN SOMETIMES MAKE FOR GOOD SCARES, OR THE THEME PARK VISCERAL EXPERIENCE, BUT IT'S RARELY INVOLVING. IN SOME WAYS IT FEELS LIKE A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW MOVIES ACTUALLY COMPEL US... BUT THEN AGAIN, THE DEVICE IS SOMEWHAT POPULAR NOW AND PEOPLE SEEM TO LIKE IT ANYWAY. AFTER ALL, EVEN THOUGH WE JOKE ABOUT IT, NO ONE SEEMS TO REALLY CARE EXCEPT FOR HULK THAT A DOCUMENTARY HAS BEEN BEING FILMED IN SCRANTON FOR 10 YEARS WITH NO DISCERNIBLE RESULTS (ANOTHER REASON THE OFFICE UK IS AMAZING, ULTIMATELY THEY BROKE THAT MOLD AND HAD SOMETHING GENUINE TO SAY ABOUT WHY IT WAS BEING FILMED.)

PEOPLE LAUGH AT THAT OFFICE COMMENT OF HULK'S BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE A DUMB OVER-FOCUS ON LOGIC, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IT'S A COMPLETELY VALID AESTHETIC CONCERN (ONE THAT WAS SKEWERED BEAUTIFULLY BY COMMUNITY'S "INTRO TO DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKING" EPISODE). REALLY THERE ARE A MILLION UBER-CINEMATIC SHOTS IN THE OFFICE U.S. HOW THE FUCK IS HULK SUPPOSED TO TAKE ANY OF THIS FILMING CONCEIT AS LEGITIMATE? ESPECIALLY THE FLOATING HEAD INTERVIEWS? THE ENTIRE AESTHETIC IS, ESSENTIALLY, A LIE. WHICH MEANS ITS SUCCESS IS EITHER A STROKE OF GENIUS OR UTTERLY GUT-WRENCHING... IT'S PROBABLY BOTH. BUT NO MATTER WHAT, HULK JUST CAN'T HELP BUT THINK WE'RE HEADING TO SOME SORT OF CRISIS WITH THE FOUND FOOTAGE DEVICE; SOME SORT OF POINT WHERE WE'RE EXPLORING THE FRINGE OF THE CONCEPT AND YET COMPLETELY INVERTING IT BACK IN ON ITSELF.

... AND WITH V/H/S, IT FEELS LIKE IT'S HIT THE PEAK OF FOUND FOOTAGE.

THE FILM IS TECHNICALLY FIVE SEPARATE FOUND FOOTAGE SHORTS WITH A BIT OF A WRAP-AROUND DEVICE (ALSO FOUND FOOTAGE). IT DOESN'T COME TOGETHER PARTICULARLY WELL, MIND YOU, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY NEED TO. THE FILM HAPPENS AND ONE MORE OR LESS ROLLS ALONG WITH IT. ADMITTEDLY, V/H/S UNFURLS SOME OF THE MORE INVENTIVE USES OF THE DEVICE WE'VE SEEN YET. TWO OF THE SHORTS ARE QUITE GOOD EVEN, ONE INVOLVES A PAIR OF SPY GLASSES AND THE OTHER A PRETTY GNARLY USE OF SKYPE. IT WAS THE LATTER ENTRY FROM JOE SWANBERG THAT MOST SURPRISED HULK. IT IS SHARP, INVENTIVE  AND EVEN HAS SOME RATHER POINTED THEMATIC THINGS TO SAY (HOORAY!). HULK HONESTLY THINKS IT'S THE BEST THING SWANBERG HAS EVER DONE. BUT THE REASON THESE TWO ARE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL HAS LESS TO DO WITH THE FACT THEY ARE INGENIOUS USES OF FOUND FOOTAGE AND MORE TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE THE MOST GOING ON IN TERMS OF STORY.

BUT IN TRUTH, ALL OF THE ENTRIES LARGELY FEEL LIKE TECHNICAL EXERCISES. AND WORSE, THEY ARE EXERCISES THAT MANIFEST THEIR RELATIVE GOODNESS ALL IN THE SAME WAY. THIS HARSHNESS IS NOT MEANT TO BELITTLE ANY OF THE FILMMAKERS INVOLVED. NOT AT ALL. HULK THINKS THEY HAVE ALL DONE GOOD WORK. AND HECK, EVERY SHORT IN THE FILM PROVIDES SOME KIND OF ANCHOR OR HOOK GOOD ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY ITS INCLUSION. THE PROBLEM COMES DOWN TO THAT AGE OLD QUESTION "SHOULD THIS MOVIE EVEN BE HAPPENING?"

TO WIT: AFTER FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT SHORTS BLURRILY-SHAKE ACROSS YOUR EYEBALLS THE SEAMS OF THE FOUND FOOTAGE TACTIC START TO SHOW BIG TIME. AND THE LACK OF OVERSIGHT IN THE PROJECT (FROM WHAT WAS SAID THEY WERE LARGELY JUST TOLD, "DO YOUR THING") RESULTS IN A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF CONTENT AND STYLISTIC OVERLAP. HOW MANY TIMES CAN THE CAMERA FALL TO THE GROUND IN THE PERFECT WAY TO SHOW HORRIFIC THINGS HAPPENING TO OUR CAMERA PERSON? WE ALL KNOW THIS AS A BORDER-LINE OBLIGATORY SHOT IN THE LAST MOMENTS OF ANY FOUND FOOTAGE MOVIE, BUT IT CLEARLY BECOMES SOMETHING THAT'S EFFECT IS MINIMIZED ACROSS THIS MANY ENTRIES IN RAPID SUCCESSION. HOW MANY TIMES CAN THE CAMERA PERSON START RUNNING WITHOUT THE AUDIENCE TOSSING THEIR COOKIES? HOW MANY TIMES CAN THE PERSON FALL? HOW MANY TIMES CAN THEY CHEAT IN GOING FOR THIS HYPER-REAL VÉRITÉ AESTHETIC BUT THEN JUST THROW IN THE COMMON BASS SOUNDS AND DRONES NECESSARY FOR EVOKING A VISCERAL REACTION IN HORROR MOVIE? (THE SOUND WOULDN'T EXIST IN-CAMERA). HOW MANY TIMES CAN WE GO THROUGH THE SAME BEATS OF A HORROR MOVIE? HULK MEAN, WOULD THE SPY GLASSES ONE HAVE THE SAME EFFECT IF IT CAME LATER IN THE ANTHOLOGY? AGAIN, ALL THE SHORTS ARE DIFFERENT ENOUGH TO MERIT INCLUSION, BUT NOT DIFFERENT ENOUGH FROM EACH OTHER TO FEEL WHOLLY DISTINCT.

BUT BEYOND THE PUSH-PULL OF THE CINEMATIC OVERLAP, THERE IS A LARGER QUESTION AT THE HEART OF V/H/S: WHAT DOES EACH FILMMAKER SEEK TO ACHIEVE?

SINCE EACH FILM IS A SHORT, MOST OF THE FILMMAKERS SEEMED TO SEE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESCHEW THE COMMON TRAPPINGS OF NARRATIVE FILMMAKING IN SEARCH OF TRUE VÉRITÉ AUTHENTICITY. THEY WANT YOU TO COME INTO THE OBSTACLES AND WORLDS ORGANICALLY. THEY WANT THE SENSE OF DISCOVERY. THEY WANT THEIR WORLDS AND CHARACTERS TO FEEL LOOSE AND UNMITIGATED. MEANING ALMOST ALL OF THE FILMMAKERS SEEMED TO BE TARGETING "THE FIRST SOLUTION" OF FOUND FOOTAGE.

BUT COLLECTIVELY THEIR MAIN TACTIC TO ACHIEVING THIS SEEMS TO BE A BUNCH OF KIDS JUST FUCKING AROUND WITH THEIR CAMERAS FOR A WHILE IN AS UNPROFESSIONAL A MANNER AS POSSIBLE... NOW... WHILE THAT WORKS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF EACH SHORT, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE ARE FIVE OF THEM PLUS THE WRAP-AROUND. THE RESULT IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE JUST SORT OF FUCKING AROUND BUILDING UP EACH FILM'S "VÉRITÉ" WORLD. AND IT REALLY RAISES THE QUESTION: HOW MUCH CAN ONE WATCH OF PEOPLE JUST FUCKING AROUND IN THE COURSE OF A FEW HOURS? HONESTLY, HULK HAS TO POINT TO SWANBERG'S ENTRY AGAIN BECAUSE EVEN IF IT USES THE INVENTIVE SKYPE STUFF IT IS ALSO THE MOST CONCENTRATED, ECONOMICAL, FUNNY AND NARRATIVE-DRIVEN OF THE BUNCH. WHICH MEANS IT'S NO ACCIDENT THAT IT'S ALSO THE BEST ONE.

OH, NOT TO TAKE TOO MUCH OF A LEFT TURN HERE (THEMATIC SPOILER?), BUT IT IS ALSO THE ONLY ONE IN WHICH WOMEN AREN'T COMPLETELY EVIL.

HONESTLY, IT'S KIND OF WEIRD THAT ALMOST EVERY SINGLE SHORT INVOLVES DECEITFUL WOMEN. WE'RE TALKING DUPING. EMASCULATION. PREDATION. REVENGE. EVEN OUTRIGHT CASTRATION. YEAH, IT'S SAFE TO SAY THIS IS A RUNNING THEME HERE. ON ONE LEVEL, OF COURSE HULK UNDERSTAND WHY. GUYS SEE HORROR MOVIES. THE WAY TO FREAK SOMEONE OUT IS TO PREY ON THEIR DEEP-SEATED FEARS. AND THAT STUFF HAS BEEN A FEAR OF YOUNG MEN FOR QUITE SOME TIME. HECK, THERE'S EVEN SOME PRECURSOR TO THE IDEA THAT IT'S ACTUALLY A FEMINIST CONCEPT, AS THEY'RE ALL GETTING WHAT THEY'RE DUE FOR BEING RELATIVE DOUCHEBAGS. BUT RARELY DOES V/H/S COME ACROSS THAT WAY. MANY OF THE ENTRIES (SAVE SWANBERG'S) CAME ACROSS AS GENUINELY FEARFUL. THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE COMMENTS, BUT PRODUCTS. THIS ISN'T TO POINT FINGERS AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR. SOME OF THESE FILMMAKERS HAVE PRODUCED SUBSTANTIAL LADY-RESPECTIN' WORK BEFORE. SOME OF THEM HAVE PRODUCED FAR WORSE. IT JUST JUST THIS FILM FEELS SO DAMN BRAZEN ABOUT ALL OF IT. AND THE FACT THAT THESE SHORTS WERE MADE INDEPENDENTLY OF ONE ANOTHER AND FIVE OF THE SIX HAVE SIGNIFICANT OVERLAP OF FEMALE SEXUAL PREDATORISM IS... WELL, IT MAKES HULK CURIOUS ABOUT THE STATE OF AMERICAN HORROR TO BE HONEST.

HULK REALIZE THAT SORT OF A WEIRD COMMENT TO MAKE ABOUT THE GENRE. TITILLATION AND BOOB APPEARANCES ARE SOMETHING OF A STAPLE. PART OF THAT IS JUST THE KITCHEN SINK APPROACH TO BASE RATED-R-ISM. AND OTHER TIMES IT IS JUST SOMETHING GENUINELY MIXED UP IN THE HEAT OF SEX & VIOLENCE. BUT IT'S ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE PROBLEM HAS HAD A LONG STREAK IN HORROR FILMMAKING. LOOKING AT ALL THE FILMMAKERS OF V/H/S UP ON STAGE DURING THE Q&A, IT'S HARD NOT TO GET A SENSE OF THE GENRE BEING A BIT OF A BOYS' CLUB. AND NOT IN THE SAME WAY THAT OTHER GENRES ARE. HECK, HULK REALIZE THE BOYS' CLUB STATEMENT COULD BE MADE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL MOVIES. IT'S JUST THAT ACTION FILMS ARE USUALLY DUDES BEATIN' UP DUDES, WHERE IN HORROR SEXUALITY IS OFTEN THE PRIME SUBJECT (DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AUDIENCE FOR HORROR ITSELF BEING REASONABLY SPLIT ACROSS THE BOARD. DATE NIGHTS AND SUCH). ULTIMATELY, THERE IS STILL SOMETHING INESCAPABLY PREDATORY AND EXCLUSIVE ABOUT A LOT OF HORROR FILMS. WHICH IS WHY THE TROPE IS NOT ONLY IDENTIFIED, BUT UTTERLY NUKED BY THE UPCOMING AND INCREDIBLE CABIN IN THE WOODS.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT HULK IS USING THIS "BOYS' CLUB" COMMENT LESS AS AN ACCUSATION AND MORE OF A SOMEWHAT VALID QUESTION TO ASK. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE END CREDITS OF V/H/S IN WHICH THERE IS A CASUAL DECISION TO REPEAT SOMETHING FROM THE FILM IN A RATHER STUPID WAY. THERE'S A MOMENT EARLY IN THE FILM WHEN A WOMAN IS ATTACKED AND THEY LIFT UP HER SHIRT TO REVEAL HER BOOBS TO THE CAMERA. EVEN IF OBVIOUSLY EXPLOITATIVE IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT IT WORKS BECAUSE IT REVEALS "OH HEY, THESE GUYS ARE TOTAL ASSHOLES." BUT LATER DURING THE END CREDITS, THIS SAME GRIZZLY MOMENT IS EDITED TO A SKIPPING DISCO BEAT SHOWING THE REVEAL OVER AND OVER AGAIN...

... YOU CAN SEE HULK'S POINT OF CONCERN.

ONE OF THE ONGOING PROBLEMS HULK ADDRESSES IN THE CRITICAL COMMUNITY IS THE IDEA OF WHAT WE SEE IN MOVIES BEING A "COMMENTARY ON" VS. BEING "A PRODUCT OF." IT'S COME UP RECENTLY IN FILMS LIKE BELLFLOWER AND PROJECT X WHERE WE'VE PONDERED THE LINE BETWEEN THE FILMMAKERS SAYING "LOOK AT THESE IDIOTS!" AND "THESE GUYS ARE JUST REFLECTING SOMETHING REAL!" AND ARGUMENTS ABOUT IT ARE TOUGH BECAUSE THEY OFTEN COME DOWN TO MATTERS OF TONE AND ARTICULATION, NOT TO MENTION TRUST IN THE FILMMAKER'S INTELLIGENCE.

SO IS V/H/S COMMENTING ON GUYS' DOUCHEBAGGERY AND HOW THESE KINDS OF CHARACTERS PROBABLY FIND FEMALE SEXUALITY SCARY? OR ARE THESE SHORTS MERELY A PRODUCT OF THOSE SAME KINDS OF VALUES, HUMOR AND THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW SEXUALITY WORKS? ARE THEY MERELY REFLECTING THEIR OWN FEARS? HULK DOESN'T KNOW. IT'S PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN THE INTENT OF SOMETHING WITH THIS MANY AUTHORS, SO HULK MUST DO THE SILLY THING AND DIRECT A MATTER OF COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY.

BECAUSE WHAT WE SAY ALWAYS MATTERS.

WHETHER IT BE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCENE'S AESTHETIC, WHY SOMEONE WOULD BE FILMING, WHAT THE "GOD'S EYE" INTENDS, OR EVEN THE RELATIVE PORTRAYAL OF GENDER, IT ALWAYS MATTERS. ARTICULATION IS EVERYTHING. AND MAYBE THAT'S THE ULTIMATE PROBLEM WITH FOUND FOOTAGE: IT CAN NEVER QUITE SAY ENOUGH IN RESPONSE.

BUT BEYOND ALL THIS CENTRAL CONCERN, HULK HAS TO GET USED TO THE IDEA OF WHAT A "REVIEW" ACTUALLY MEANS. THIS IS INTENDED TO BE SOME SORT OF ARTICLE OF GUIDANCE, RIGHT? AND HULK IMAGINE MANY OF YOU WILL LIKE THIS MOVIE. SO IF YOU FEEL LIKE VIBRANT, DIFFERENT-FEELING HORROR ANTHOLOGY BY A GROUP OF CAPABLE FILMMAKERS, THEN YOU MAY INDEED DIG V/H/S... BUT HULK DIDN'T. IT DELVES INTO THE USE OF A DEVICE THAT MAY ULTIMATELY FAIL TO COMPUTE CINEMATICALLY, DESPITE ITS POPULARITY. AND IGNORING THE DEVICE'S INFLUENCE, IT STILL FEELS LIKE AN EXPERIMENT THAT FAILS TO BE MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS.

IF ANYTHING, THE REPETITION ONLY RESULTS IN SUBTRACTION BY ADDITION.

Film Crit Hulk's photo About the Author: FILM CRIT HULK WAS CREATED IN A CHAOTIC LAB EXPERIMENT INVOLVING GAMMA RADIATION, TELEPODS, AND THE GHOST OF PAULINE KAEL. NOW HULK HAVE DEEP AND ABIDING LOVE CINEMA.
t