Ebert Fest 2013: Patrick Wang’s In the Family


Roger Ebert ended his review of Patrick Wang’s In the Family with these words:

What a courageous first feature this is, a film that sidesteps shopworn stereotypes and tells a quiet, firm, deeply humanist story about doing the right thing. It is a film that avoids any message or statement and simply shows us, with infinite sympathy, how the life of a completely original character can help us lead our own.

When I participated in a panel discussion a couple of days later on the “art of the video essay”, Patrick Wang was on the panel, and Steven Boone, a friend of mine, was sitting next to me, and he said, “Here comes a grandiose statement. In the Family could solve all of America’s problems.” His comment got a huge laugh, as I believe it was meant to do, but on another level he was dead serious. And having seen the film, I know now what he means. Read again Roger Ebert’s words. And think about how the world could be made a better place if we all internalized the message of the film on a cultural or social level. And having listened to Patrick Wang speak, both on the panel and in the QA following the screening of his extraordinary first feature, I can see how deliberate and careful he had been in choosing the elements of his story. This is a guy who knows exactly what he is doing. He said in the QA at one point, “Well, I’m not 25 … so I think my age does make a difference.” He was responding to yet another, “But how … how on earth did you even DO this … and this is a first feature? Really?”

Believe the hype. In the Family really is that good.

To go totally corny, In the Family makes you want to be a good person. It’s not easy to be good, and there will always be obstacles in your way. But if you can meet someone, even an adversary, on a human level, if you attempt to break through the facade of needs/wants/resentments that sometimes color human interactions … great transformations in understanding can (and do) take place. Relationships can change in such moments, even old old relationships, like ones with family members, where it seems like the dynamic is set in stone. In the Family is a reminder that nothing is set in stone. We are all just making our way through this life, and we disagree, sometimes horribly, but nothing is a done deal, as long as we keep attempting to listen.

In the Family comes out on DVD and Blu-Ray (and my co-panelist and former editor at Fandor and new friend Kevin Lee has a video essay on the film that Patrick Wang loved so much he is including on the special features!) on June 25, and I beg you all to check it out.

Sometimes breathlessly positive commentary can be a turn-off. At least that is true for me. You know, “The Dark Knight is the best movie released in my lifetime” kind of commentary, which basically makes me think, “Well. That person just needs to see more movies.” But sometimes … sometimes … that commentary is so unanimous (as it has been with In the Family), and so insistently positive that my curiosity is piqued. Especially with a small independent film such as this, which was rejected by countless festivals, which had a nearly invisible distribution (it came and went, if you blinked you missed it) – then in this case it is the critic’s job, or mission even, to get the word out. In the Family must NOT disappear without a trace. People MUST see this extraordinary film. I am very grateful to the critics who have written on it – Ebert, Marilyn Ferdinand, and others – because that film was on my radar for months, even though I was unable to see it until last week. A related story: In December, 1944, a new play by Tennessee Williams called The Glass Menagerie opened in freezing Chicago. It was a bitter winter, and people were not going out to the theatre. The production starred Laurette Taylor, and the performance is now legendary and known as one of the greatest performances by an actress in the 20th century, but at first the production foundered. There were thoughts that it might even close in Chicago before even moving to New York. Williams had only had one play produced at that time, Battle of Angels, and it had closed during its tryout in Boston, amidst cries of obscenity and outrage. Glass Menagerie limped along, playing to half-empty houses, but two local Chicago theatre critics, Claudia Cassidy and Ashton Stevens, began championing the production. They wrote piece after piece, singing its praises, harassing Chicagoans with the refrain: “You must see this play, you must see this play”, until finally the tide began to turn. Not only did locals start to flock to see the play, but the reviews got the attention of New Yorkers and Los Angeles movie people, who began making stopovers in Chicago on their train/plane trips to either coast, in order to see this wondrous production. Those two brave loud-mouth critics had a huge part in keeping that struggling production open during the perilous first couple of weeks when so many shows close. And, of course, the play moved to Broadway in March of 1945, and the rest is history.

I felt that way, a little bit, reading the various pieces on In the Family. There was almost a pleading quality to the prose of the critics. They felt so deeply about In the Family, it actually pained them to think of it disappearing, to think of it not finding an audience. In this instance, the critics were key in keeping the conversation about that film alive, as it started to make its appearance at various festivals, or pop up for a week here, a week there, at small arthouse theatres across the country.

Kevin Lee, Patrick Wang, Trevor St. John, Michael Barker (photo by me at Ebert Fest)

Patrick Wang, Trevor St. John (photo by me at Ebert Fest)

In the QA following, run by Michael Barker, co-President and co-Founder of Sony Pictures Classic, and the aforementioned Kevin Lee, with Patrick Wang and Trevor St. John (who is in the film, and who arrived 20 minutes before the QA began due to the storm re-routing planes, trains and automobiles), we learned a little bit about Patrick Wang. Many of the questions were along the lines of, “Where did you come from??” It is startling, too, that he does not have a Tennessee accent like he has in the film. You would totally believe that he was that guy in In the Family. Patrick Wang went to M.I.T. and got degrees in economics and physics. While at M.I.T., he became interested in theatre, and formed a theatre company. He spent years directing theatre, and acting in plays. This experience shows in the film, which is one of the best Acting Movies I’ve seen in a long long time. Takes are very long, often scenes play out in one take, so it’s similar to watching a play, where you are seeing things unfold in real time, with no editing or cuts.

Patrick Wang wrote the script, acted in the lead role, and directed. It is a trifecta of awesomeness, putting him in rare company. Not for one second does it feel like a vanity project. It is a thoughtful and thought-provoking work, and it is about many things. It leaves great room for the audience to project their own experience onto the storyline.

The plot is not a simple one. The film is quite long, and yet it doesn’t feel long. It feels as long as it needs to be to effectively tell its story.


Wang plays Joey, a contractor, who lives with his partner Cody (Trevor St. John), and Cody’s young son Chip (the amazing Sebastian Banes). Cody’s wife died in childbirth. Joey had come into their lives as a contractor, and became a friend. In the wake of Cody’s wife’s death, a relationship develops between the two men, a friendship of sorts, but with a current running underneath it. (All of this is revealed in flashbacks.) Cody has never been in a relationship with a man before, and it is unclear whether or not Joey has either, but the two men fall in love. They live together for five years, raising Chip, who has developed into one of the most normal little boys I’ve seen onscreen in a long time. He is going through “a dragon phase”, as Joey says at one point, so every single thing in his life right now is about dragons. In the opening scene, we see the family getting ready to go to work and school, and Wang films it often with the three characters in the frame at the same time. Camera placement is key for Wang. By seeing these three individuals drink coffee, eat breakfast, talk about their day, do their activities, things we all do in our own households, we immediately know who they are, like them, are invested in them, whatever else you want to call it. It’s so real that I was amazed to learn that everything was said word-for-word from the script (even the child actor). You can’t believe that these were words on a page, once upon a time.


Then, Cody is killed in a car accident. In the scenes that follow, as Joey and Chip struggle to move on without Cody, you get the sense that all is not right. That something big is coming. And it does indeed come. Cody’s sister, Eileen (Kelly McAndrew) tells Joey that she has uncovered a will that Cody made out when his wife died, leaving control of his estate to her. “You don’t have to worry about Chip anymore,” she says, a terrible line, especially when said so gently and compassionately. Worry about him? He’s raising him. He’s his father. So events begin to wrench forward, awfully, inevitably, with the feeling of a Greek tragedy, and yet Patrick Wang never lets the film go off the rails tonally. It is not an “issue” film, as Ebert pointed out. It’s not a gay rights film, although there are certainly scenes that touch on the unfairness of the situation (when Cody is in the hospital, Joe is not allowed in the room because “he isn’t family”). It’s a human film. It’s about humans in the wake of a giant tragedy, the death of Cody. It is never questioned that Eileen is acting out of love for her brother: This is what he wanted, he said it in his will. On Thanksgiving, Joey drops Chip off at Eileen’s house, and then never sees him again. He is denied access to his son. He is cut off.

Joey calls lawyers, but no one will take his case. He and Cody never married. Of course they didn’t, they are two men living in a country where we are still battling out that issue. One lawyer tells him bluntly, “You do not have a child custody case.” The film never once takes a maudlin sentimental tone. Just as Joey is denied Chip, so are we. We have spent some time with this little boy. We have learned about his dragons. We have seen him blabbing to his fathers about his day at school. We miss his presence terribly. As established, Joey is a building contractor, and we have seen him at work, managing the renovation of a giant manor, bringing in glass-cutters and wallpaperers, and having tense meetings with the home’s owner, played by Susan Kellermann. Through this connection, he meets an elderly retired lawyer (played by the magnificent Irish actor Brian Murray). The lawyer owns a bunch of old books that are deteriorating, and Joey reveals that he knows a little something about bookbinding (we will figure out from where he got this knowledge later in the film). He offers to work on the books. The lawyer has heard a little bit about what Joey is going through, and offers to help. Even writing down those words does a disservice to how that scene plays out. It is a masterpiece, masterfully written by Wang, masterfully directed, with the camera flowing back and forth to the two faces, and masterfully acted by both actors.

In the Family Brian Murray

Then follows a deposition scene, which, if the world were just, would enter into the canon of All-Time Greatest Scenes Ever Filmed.


Present are Joey, his lawyer, Cody’s sister and husband and their lawyer, and the court stenographer. After the film, at the QA, Michael Barker asked Wang, “How long is that deposition scene?” Wang answered, “35 minutes.” Much of it plays out in long unbroken takes. The tension is unbearable, and yet quiet and human. Nothing is pumped up artificially. People go through such things every day in this country (and others), and the stakes could not be higher. Human lives and human happiness are on the table. Both sides want something. Both, one must assume, are going after what they want with the best intentions. Cases like this go to trial because people stop listening to one another, people refuse to compromise, people are unwilling to give something up.

You see again why Steven Boone made the comment he did at the panel.

It is an unbelievably confident first feature, and while there are many issues that are present (gay rights, racism), they are never underlined or even spoken. I don’t think the word “gay” is ever used. The fact that Joey is a Chinese-American with a Tennessee accent is not commented upon, although you can see, in certain scenes, that he is treated with a baffled kindness, because people don’t know where to place him. In a very funny flashback, where Joey joins Cody’s family for Thanksgiving for the first time, Cody’s tippling mother (the awesome Park Overall), treats Patrick with kind-hearted and yet oblivious condescension. She obviously thinks he is just off the boat from China. She starts to explain the traditions of Thanksgiving, and Cody murmurs, “He knows what Thanksgiving is, Mom.” None of this is played as though Joey is living in a KKK hotbed. Nobody’s a villain. The touch is always light, almost invisible, and yet present.

In the Family Patrick Wang

Joey is born and raised American, he grew up in foster care, he learned carpentry skills from his foster father, and has a Tennessee accent. Without putting too fine a point on it, there has not been such a portrayal of an Asian character in American film, ever, and you can imagine the sorts of roles Wang would be up for, if he went a more traditional route, and a sort of macho take-care-of-it guy in work boots speaking with a drawl is not one of them. And yet such men exist. Of course they do.

Wang deals with some of these underlying themes in an interesting way, as a director. He often shoots himself from behind. Often the back of his head fills the screen, and we see others looking at him. In fact, that is the image for the poster.


Kevin Lee had some very interesting observations about this device, which he shared in the QA following, and is part of what he was addressing in the video-essay he did for the film. By denying us access to his face, Wang, in many ways, places us directly into the lead character Joey’s experience. We are seeing what he is seeing – literally. We are in his head, looking out.


InTheFamilydoctor small

To make the point even more deliberately: Think of the portrayal of Asian characters in American film, and think of how they are utilized, cast, and thought about. In other words: they aren’t, for the most part. There have, of course, been major inroads in this area in recent years, especially in the realm of television, but we still have a long way to go. By putting the back of his own head in the screen in so many scenes, Patrick Wang becomes us and vice versa. It’s radical and revolutionary.

And so in the final moment of In the Family, the very last second of the film (which I would not dream of revealing) … the audience, 1,500 of us, literally gasped. You could HEAR a gigantic collective gasp erupt in the theatre at that last shot. And then … a roaring weeping ovation that went on forever. Patrick Wang came out onto the stage, and 1,500 people rose to their feet and clapped and cheered and cried and roared “Bravo” for 10 minutes. It is one of the most emotional and important moments I have ever had in a movie theatre.

The American dream tells us that anyone who lives here has a shot at making it, whatever that might mean, if you work hard enough, if you stick to your guns, if you don’t give up. No one is stuck. Nothing is “set in stone” here. Yes, it is hard to make your dreams come true. But there are vast examples of those who persevere, despite humble beginnings (hello), who take the American dream at its word and climb that mountain, triumphantly. The American dream tells us that if you want something, you actually have a shot at achieving it (remember: we don’t have the “right to happiness”, we have the right to the “pursuit of happiness”). Patrick Wang’s film, which is about so much, grief, family, fear, belonging (and being outside the charmed circle of belonging), love, child-rearing, understanding, intimacy, misunderstanding, is also about the American dream. But, in that key scene I mentioned earlier with the elderly lawyer who gives Joey some guidance at how to begin navigating the shoals of legalese in these tough situations, it is made clear that the “American dream” (never named in the film) is not just about “going after what you want”. It is also about thinking, and deeply, about what you are willing to give up, to compromise on, in the pursuit of that dream.

It is the shining underbelly of the American dream, or perhaps the invisible halo shimmering around it, something never discussed, never named in our culture, barely perceived. But it is there. It exists in our checks and balances, in the vast messy compromises we have made politically, in our mis-steps, in our correctives. Patrick Wang doesn’t ask anything of us specifically. But his film is a reminder that we share this planet together. Go after what you want, for sure. But also acknowledge that other people exist on the planet too, and acknowledge that you may have to be prepared to give something up. And what would that be? Can’t we all just get along? asked Rodney King. Maybe, maybe not. But it is in those moments of stress and division, personally, socially, politically, when it is crucial to ask yourself not “what am I willing to DO to get what I want”, but “what am I willing to give UP”?

That is a whole different kind of conversation.

I repeat: I think Steven Boone is onto something.

This entry was posted in Movies and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Ebert Fest 2013: Patrick Wang’s In the Family

  1. brendan says:

    I honestly don’t know how you make me cry about things I’ve never seen.

    I WILL SEE THIS MOVIE AND TELL EVERYONE TO SEE IT. It is clearly the best movie I will see all year. I just haven’t seen it yet.

  2. Melissa Sutherland says:

    God, I wish I could write the way you do. You take us right there, there…….

    I remember lying in bed around 3 am or so in my NYC apartment years ago reading Pauline Kael’s New Yorker review of LAST TANGO and just saying (practically out loud) I HAVE TO GO SEE THIS MOVIE NOW. NOW.

    Well, that is what I felt reading your piece. Only more so, cause I think it’s probably a better movie. Thank you again and again and again.

    • sheila says:

      Melissa – what a great compliment. Thank you!!!

      And I can’t wait until more people get a chance to see this film. Keep your eyes peeled for the DVD – I am pretty sure June 25 is the date they said. It’s soon.

  3. Chris says:

    I was greatly intrigued by Roger’s review when I read it on his website about a year ago. Even Mick LaSalle’s mixed review in the San Francisco Chronicle piqued my curiosity. He wrote, “It’s as if writer-director Patrick Wang had never seen a movie before. He does things no one ever does because no one should do them, and then stumbles on to a few things that no one ever does, but they should.”

    Work obligations meant I couldn’t get to Champaign until Thursday at 7pm (driving up from Kentucky), just in time to MISS “In The Family.” I was at the panel discussion where Steven made his ‘grandiose’ statement, and, coupled with your essay, I’m aching for the DVD release. I may have to call the distributor and demand that they release Wang’s film tomorrow!

    • sheila says:

      Chris – sorry I didn’t get a chance to meet you. :) I read Mick LaSalle’s review, too, and that section you quotes made me think Well. WHEN can I see this film??

      I can’t wait to own it. Haven’t felt that way about a film in a long long time.

      And once you’ve seen it, please come back and share your thoughts, if you think of it. Would love to hear.

  4. Craig says:

    The beauty of Boone’s (self-aware) hyperbole is it always contains an element of truth. I’m ashamed I missed this at the Fest. Seeing it, whenever it shows up where I may do so, is priority no. 1.

    • sheila says:

      Yeah, and then Boone explained so eloquently why he felt that way. I agree with him entirely – the message of the film is difficult and healing. And also, as Kevin Lee helped me see with his comments – HOW it was filmed, and its generous dealing with time and space is ALSO part of that message.

      Can’t wait to hear your thoughts about it.

      Oh! And put The Big Year on my Netflix queue – can’t wait to see it.

      Tonight? Off to see Walt Odets’ dad’s play on Broadway. :)

  5. Sheila – This is exactly what I thought you would feel. This film is so universal, but there is something about it that made me think that you would be especially moved by it. It just seemed to have a “Sheila” quality to it, and if you ask me to explain that, I don’t know if I could. I remember thinking of those back-to-the-camera scenes that Wang was deliberately signally reticence. He used the term “withholding” and said many people have commented on it. I don’t know if I think we were being put in Joey’s POV with those shots, but I do think we were encouraged to imagine what he might have been thinking, to empathize rather than be rushed to judgment with his character making a declarative statement that would tell us just what we need to know. Empathy, I think, comes from feeling more than from language. You can’t tell people to empathize, but you can show them people and experiences they can relate to and encourage them to think and feel instead of just think or run their mouths. I often tell Shane, who is a huge talker, how can you understand if all you do is talk and think ahead to the next thing you’re going to say? Wang slows us down, forces us out of our mindset of valuing busyness over experience. This film really is one of the few miracles to come out of cinema.

    • sheila says:

      It is a miracle. At some random point during the film, can’t remember when, I had these floating almost disoriented thoughts like, “Is this happening? Does this movie exist? I can’t believe it exists.”

      Thanks so much for your original review, which is one of the more forceful I’ve read – the first sentence! There were so many more, and I am grateful to the critics who got the word out.

      You’re right: denying us access to Wang’s face so often gives us time and space. Creates that space for empathy.

  6. Fiddlin Bill says:

    I intend to see this film based on your great review. Here’s a thought tho–the entire plot as you describe it involves empathy, in the sense that one ought to be able to get, appreciate, empathize with Joey’s situation, which is the situation of thousands of gay families and couples, before one sees such an inspired depiction as this film. And yet obviously we have a huge group of Americans (does this need scare quotes?) who are willing to leave fellow humans in such situations twisting slowly in the wind for the sake of cheap politics and/or ridiculous mumbo-jumbo about the metaphysical “nature” of marriage. It’s really pretty incredible. Literally.

    • sheila says:

      I’m so glad this review would make you want to see the film.

      Yes, it is incredible, the situation you mention – but that really isn’t what the film is about – not explicitly. The two guys never even mention getting married, there is zero political talk at all. We are too immersed in the everyday rhythm of their lives (which, I suppose, is a political statement in and of itself, and a beautiful one). I might not have responded to it if it had taken a harder line about it. It’s much much bigger than a political statement. It’s a human statement. It’s not an “issue” or a “message” film – normally I really dislike “issue/message” films. As one of the directors said at a QA when a woman stood up and said she was upset that one of his characters didn’t go into recovery for his alcoholism which meant she couldn’t show the film to her teenage kids – the director said, and he was polite about it, but I loved him for saying it – “If you want a message, try Western Union.”

      And yet In the Family has all of the things you mention in it. But it’s much much bigger than a commentary on today’s political/social climate. And that is its greatness.

      Also that it’s set in the South, in a very compassionate way – the South gets shafted time and time again in films. It’s enraging. This one is revelatory. It’s all-inclusive. Nobody is left out.

      • sheila says:

        and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it.

        • sheila says:

          In other words: message films are often earnest and I have a problem with earnestness. I realize it’s a limitation in myself, but there you have it. Earnest people make me itch. Maybe it’s my Irish background. I need a little humor, a little commonsense, SOMETHING.

          In the Family isn’t earnest. It’s tremendously powerful – very very funny (some of the lines get huge laughs) – and it gives you the time and space to look at other human beings, BE with them (his camera is not bossy, it is not telling you where to look – I think this is a film that will be great with multiple viewings) – Cassavetes’ style was much more frenetic – Wang’s camera stays still for the most part – but the film made me FEEL like some of Cassavetes’ films feel.

          Like I’m happy to be part of the human race. Like people are so interesting, aren’t they? And everyone’s just doing their best. And sometimes it works out great, and sometimes you don’t get what you want, and it sucks, but this is life.

          It is a great great piece of work.

        • Fiddlin Bill says:

          Yes, I understood that about the film–that it wasn’t directly political, but was simply telling a story. I guess my point is–the implications are so obvious to anyone with any empathy that it’s breathtaking that so many influential, powerful people must consciously choose to ignore the implications. Either that, or they have no empathy at all, no conscience left. Of course much great film and literature and music is exactly this way–the implications don’t need to be telegraphed.

          George Jones, a master of this, died yesterday. Listen to his “Grand Tour.” Same deal.

          • sheila says:

            I know – George Jones!! I was listening to him all day yesterday. You’re right – talk about a person who expanded our capacity for empathy. I would say that is the most important thing artists can do – and it is those who perhaps don’t set out to do it explicitly – who succeed the most. Interestingly, the other film at Ebert Fest that really addressed this was Vincent, about van Gogh. He said over and over in his letters that what he wanted to do with his paintings was to show himself as a person who “felt deeply” – and in so doing, he could help others to “feel deeply”.

            You’re right on with your comments.

            Can’t wait to hear your thoughts on In the Family – it comes out on DVD June 25. Come back here to discuss! :)

  7. Carol says:

    Thank you for this beautiful review. I was moved by the human dignity modeled for us by this film. Patrick Wang gave us a blueprint for acting with humanity. During EbertFest so many people were drawn to him, to thank him for making this beautiful film. One exchange was so poignant. A woman approached him to say how much she loved the film and began weeping. She said “I’m sorry. I’m crying.” Patrick responded “Then I will hug you” and he did. No wonder people are drawn to him and to his lovely movie.

  8. Donna Adkins says:

    You wrote an amazing review and I cannot wait to see this film for several reasons. One being that my husband is from Martin TN and we still have family there. I know how incredibly racist and bigoted people in these small southern towns can be. My family is from another town just an hour away in Arkansas. Other reasons are I have gay family members who were pretty much shunned by other family; I have been shunned for having a daughter who chose to marry a black man; and finally because I advocate for these issues at family gatherings if they start up about gays and interracial relationships. relationships are the definition of a dysfunctional family that’s for sure. Again great review and looking forward to watching the film when it comes out in June.

    • Donna Adkins says:

      I meant my family is the definition of dysfunctional.

      • sheila says:

        Donna – I am so sorry to hear of the struggles you have within your family!

        I must reiterate a point, though, that I made in the review: This is not about how racist and bigoted people are in the South. It’s the opposite point that Wang is making. It’s a painful family situation, erupting in the wake of a beloved one’s death. This could easily have taken place in the Northeast as well. The Northeast prides itself on its tolerance, but let me tell you, it’s not so tolerant about people from the South. Wang’s film makes SURE that people in the Northeast (or other liberal enclaves) don’t sit back and be complacent or familiar with the material. Because the Southern accents can be confrontational to the bigots in the North. So Wang’s film is inclusive, and yet also pretty firm in its humanist standpoint. Don’t write ANYONE off.

        If it were a film about sticking it to the racists/bigots in the South, I would have been totally turned off. Maybe because I live “up here” and I am sick of the hypocrisy.

        Seriously: the film is way bigger than a regional critique.

        I am so glad to hear you are looking forward to the film – I myself can’t wait to see it again! I’m counting the days until June 25!

  9. Boone says:

    The question of what you’re willing to give up is also just a beautiful way of distilling and emphasizing what’s left–the non-negotiable essentials. What can’t be bargained away? We tend not to take stock of this as much as we should. You got right to the heart (and brain) of the movie, Sheila.

    That luminous and instructive scene where the lawyer schools Joey in the art of negotiation convinced me that I would love to see [get ready for some more crazy daydreaming–>] Patrick Wang’s remake of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. The scene is that wondrous, in image and thought. It is about communication and all the great virtues that can bind and heal us, if we let them. It’s benevolence and wisdom as (quietly) soaring spectacle. That’s right, I want Patrick Wang to write a movie for Spielberg, and watch it save the planet. Or, alternatively, just open IN THE FAMILY on 4,000 multiplex screens, in lieu of IRON MAN XII.

    • sheila says:

      Boone! Hi!

      Yes: very very important as well: what is non-negotiable?

      All of those things co-existing – and how difficult that is – but what a space it creates for everyone to be great (in the true sense of the word) – is what the movie is about.

      And God, yes to your day-dreams. I would love to watch Patrick Wang save the planet. I am excited to see what happens next in this guy’s life. Seriously. It’s gonna be amazing.

  10. Sylvia says:

    Because of your essay, I’m now looking forward to watching a wonderful movie.
    (Your power of persuasion is almost scary!! I’m glad you are using it for good … !)

  11. sheila says:

    // I’m glad you are using it for good … //


    I am so excited to turn people on to this movie. I am happy to join my voice to the chorus of critics who made sure I saw this movie. Would love to hear from everyone once they’ve seen it. It’s unlike any other film.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *