Romero was released on August 25th, 1989. It is directed by John Duigan and written by John Sacret Young (The West Wing). It tells the story of Bishop (now saint) Oscar Romero (played by Raúl Juliá), who was killed for speaking out against the violent repression in San Salvador in 1980.
The focus of the film is on Romero's transformation from a conservative priest, liked by the establishment in San Salvador, into a radical opponent of the military junta that ran the country. When he is first made Archbishop he declares, "We in the Church, must keep to the centre, watchfully in the traditional way but seeking justice." The assassination of his friend and fellow priest Father Rutilio Grande (Richard Jordan), along with three innocent civilians traveling with him, moves the Archbishop to begin taking a more radical position. There's a great scene where he turns away from the dead bodies in horror, and then turns around and takes courage, announcing that the only mass that coming Sunday will be celebrated in the Cathedral and it be a funeral mass for the three victims.
Nevertheless, he continues to oppose both the right-wing government and the Marxist revolutionaries trying to overthrow it. He's greatly disturbed by some of the priests in his diocese who have taken up arms and joined the resistance. In a heated moment he confronts one of them, telling him that he has abandoned his call. When this priest replies that he is defending his people, Bishop Romero exclaims, "You're not defending, you're attacking!" Yet he himself often feels powerless as he often has to stand by while his people are killed.
Ultimately he stands firm in his message of peaceful liberation and suffering in union with Christ. Despite what many of the Jewish people, including his disciples, expected, Christ did not come to bring earthly liberation, but spiritual liberation from sin and death. He didn't preach rebellion against the Romans but love for one's enemies. Romero echoes this in his speech, broadcast to the nation, after Father Rutilio Grande is killed, "What Father Grande preached was a liberation rooted in faith. And because it is so often misunderstood for it Father Rutilio Grande died. Who knows? Perhaps the murderers are listening to these words. So, we want to tell you murderers, brethren that we love you and that we ask, for repentance in your hearts."
Like Christ, he continually gives brave witness to the faith. In one scene he goes to retrieve the Eucharist from a church that the military has seized for use as a barracks. When confronted by a brutal sergeant, who fires his weapon at the tabernacle to scare him off, he initially leaves, but then he returns, fully vested, and leads the people into the church for Mass. Earlier on, he meets with the communist guerrillas to plead for the lives of government officials who have been taken hostage, unfortunately, his pleas fall on death ears and they are killed. Also like Christ, he is ultimately killed for his message of liberation, shot down while saying mass.
Geoff Burton's stark cinematography and naturalistic lighting suits the film well and it's edited with real panache by Frans Vanderburg. Gabriel Yared's sparingly used score is a bit of a mess, sometimes feeling cheery in very dark, dramatic scenes and at others being over-the-top and bombastic. The acting is solid all around with Raúl Juliá giving, perhaps, the performance of his career as Romero. The supporting characters are a little thin but the actors do the best they have with the material they are given. Richard Jordan is especially good as the charismatic Father Rutilio, whose death is so instrumental in setting off the events of the film.
In the end, Romero is a sobering look at an embattled church in a poor, undeveloped country. Today, San Salvador is run by the Marxist revolutionaries who opposed the government that Oscar Romero spoke out so strongly against. This is after more then twenty years of increasing violent oppression from that government (the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front or FMLN). Despite efforts at reform, violence in San Salvador continues as a result of increasing crime, with death squads reportedly formed to put a stop to it. With this in mind the words of Saint Oscar Romero, which close the film, see especially fitting,"If they kill me, I shall rise in the Salvadoran people ... A Bishop will die but the Church of God which is the people will never perish."
Score: 8/10
Saturday, March 23, 2019
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Lent Reviews Year 6 Week 1: The Secret of the Kells (2009) (Saturday Evening Cartoons)
So in peace our task we ply,
Pangur Ban, my cat, and I;
In our arts we find our bliss,
I have mine and he has his.
Practice every day has made
Pangur perfect in his trade;
I get wisdom day and night
Turning darkness into light.
From "Pangur
Bán" translated by Robin Flower
The Secret of the Kells was released on March 3rd, 2009. It is directed by Tomm Moore and Nora Twomey and written by Moore and Fabrice Ziolkowski. It tells the story of a young boy named Brendan (Evan McGuire) who lives with the monks at the Abbey of Kells in Ireland. The arrival of brother Aidan (Mick Lally), the keeper of the Book of Iona, leads Brendan to develop a keen interest in assisting Aidan with the completion of the book (soon to be renamed the Book of Kells) much to the consternation of his Uncle, Abbot Cellach (Brendan Gleeson), who is obsessed with completing a defensive wall around Kells to fend off the attacks from the invading Northmen.The animation in The Secret of the Kells is a beauty to behold. Done in a retro style similar to that of Genndy Tartakovsky (Samurai Jack), it is evocative of Celtic and medieval artwork and is almost entirely hand drawn. It immediately brought the work of contemporary Christian artist Daniel Mitsui to mind, though the similarity is probably incidental (both are inspired by Medieval insular artwork). The score, by Bruno Coulai, beautifully complements the film. Drawing from Celtic music and medieval chant, Coulai's score is alternately delightfully enchanting and sorrowfully haunting.
While not an explicitly religious film The Secret of the Kells is filled with religious imagery and themes, from both the Christian and pagan traditions of Ireland. The Book of Kells itself is based on an actual book made in Ireland around 800 AD which was an elaborate decorated edition of the Four Gospels. It is the pinnacle of insular illumination and is considered to be Ireland's finest national treasure. Although Kell's Abbey was plundered and pillaged by the Vikings many times during the 10th century, the book somehow survived. It is this story that the film draws inspiration from.
As far as the Christian milieu of the film goes most of the film's characters are, presumably, Catholic monks (their particular religion is never made explicit) who live in fear of the pagan invaders ("Crom worshipers" as Abbot Cellach calls them, referring to the Irish pagan god Crom Cruach). St. Columbkille (Columba) is mentioned in connection with the book and there is one Christian image from the Book that is shown near the end of the film: The Chi Rho, one of the earliest forms of christogram formed by superimposing the first two letters, chi and rho (Χ and Ρ), of the Greek word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ (Christos).
On the pagan side, we see Brendan enlist the help of a faerie named Aisling to retrieve gall nuts for use in making ink for the the Book. Crom Cruach, who the brothers dismiss as a pagan superstition, is shown to inhabit a dark cave in the woods surrounding Kells. Brendan must defeat Crom, someone who even Aisling fears, in order to retrieve the eye of Colm Cille (the fictitious "third eye" of St. Columba). Brother Aidan's cat Pangur Bán is named after a 9th century Irish poem, ostensibly written by one of the monks who worked on the Book of Kells.
In this portrayal of Ireland's Christian and Pagan roots, the film stumbles a bit. The central conflict in the film is between Cellach, who wants to concentrate on fending off the viking invasion, and Aidan, who wants to finish his great work. In the end both seem powerless once the invaders arrive. When the vikings finally arrive at Kells, Cellach's wall is insufficient to protect the village, and it is overrun, looted and burned. In one scene, after Brendan and Aidan run away from Kells, they are surrounded by vikings, one of whom picks up and looks through the book. It appears, briefly, that there may be a moment of grace, but the viking simply tears up the pages in anger. It is only the arrival of Aisling that saves the two monks.
In other words, in the mystical world of the film, the forces of Christianity seems to have no power over the pagan/faerie world. The only real exception is Brendan's defeat of Crom Cruach, who eats his own tail, symbolizing, perhaps, the self-destructive nature of evil. In general though, while the supernatural elements of paganism are explicitly shown throughout the film, Christian miracles, and even Christian truth, are barely hinted at. Yet I couldn't help but find myself drawn to, and even uplifted by, the films worldview.
The historical Book of Kells, in a sense, helped to "turn darkness into light" (as the last line of Pangur Bán says) by preserving the beauty and truth of the gospels through the dark ages. Because of this, somewhat paradoxically, the film feels oddly prescient in 2019 in a way I do not believe was intended by the filmmakers. In this postmodern era where it feels so often that the West's Christian identity is dying out, it is easy to identify with an ancient world divided between those obsessed with defending Christianity from physical attacks (the Vikings in the film, radical Islam and rampant secularism now) and those content to run and hide, neither holding out much hope for a renewed, vibrant Christianity to reassert itself over and against the barbarism of the outside world. The one source of light, beyond all real reason, comes not from a wall or even a more assertive discipleship, but from a piece of art (the Book of Kells), the transmission of transcendent cultural heritage.
This is not to say that efforts at renewing a truly Christian culture in the world are in vain, but the Church has lived through dark times before, turbulent eras where the world order collapsed into chaos (think of the Dark Ages), and it has always emerged triumphant because men and women of goodwill passed on the traditions and teachings of the Church to their children. In that spirit, The Secret of the Kells seems to me a fine film to watch with your own family, though perhaps it would be advisable to follow it up with a brief theological discussion afterward.
Score: 9/10
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Saturday Evening Cartoons: The Secret World of Arrietty (Fat Tuesday Special #3)
The Secret World of Arrietty was released on July 17th, 2010. It is directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi (his first feature film as a director) and written by Hayao Miyazaki and Keiko Niwa from the book The Borrowers by Mary Norton. In it a young boy named Shō (Tom Holland in the UK dub) goes to his maternal great aunt's (Phyllida Law) house to spend the summer. While their he meets a borrower, a four-inch-tall young girl named Arrietty (Saoirse Ronan), who secretly lives in the house with her family. Unbeknownst to Shō, this discovery threatens the families existence.
In many ways this film is an exploration of mortality. Arietty's family believes that the borrowers may be an endangered species. Offended and scared by Shō comments on this, Arietty is surprised to learn that he himself may close to death because of a heart condition that he has had since birth. In the end, both Shō and the borrowers must simply make the best out of the time they have. This is a remainder that all life (on earth) is fleeting, but is no less valuable as a result.
It's nice seeing a family film with a family that that's intact. Arietty has a good, strong relationship with her father Pod (Mark Strong), a strong patriarchal figure who she clearly respects and looks up to. Her mother Homily (Olivia Colman) is a more fussy, excitable figure, but one who, nevertheless, has a clear love and devotion for her family. They are both upset when they are forced to leave their home because of Ariettys interaction with the humans, but they place no blame on her and continue to treat her with love and kindness. It's also a film with no real antagonist, except maybe for the maid Haru (Geraldine McEwan) who innocently wants to remove the borrowers when she discovers their borrowing (which is nonetheless the most frustrating part of the film), and tells a simple, down to earth story without forcing in drama or peril.
Like most Ghibli films Arietty is filled with peaceful, meditative moments: Shō laying in the grass with his cat Niya; Spiller (Luke Allen-Gale), a young borrower boy who lives in the woods, sharing a meal with Arrietty's family; Arrietty hanging up clothing for her mother. The film has some wonderful sound design, accentuating normally quiet sounds like the creaking of floorboards or the rustling of leaves to help us see things from the borrowers perspective. The animation is also gorgeous and really gives us a sense of scale. The borrowers world is a fully realized one and it invites the audience to a greater appreciation of the simple things in life.
While I don't think it's quite up there with the studios best work, I still think it's one of the better animated films of the past decade.
Score: 9/10
In many ways this film is an exploration of mortality. Arietty's family believes that the borrowers may be an endangered species. Offended and scared by Shō comments on this, Arietty is surprised to learn that he himself may close to death because of a heart condition that he has had since birth. In the end, both Shō and the borrowers must simply make the best out of the time they have. This is a remainder that all life (on earth) is fleeting, but is no less valuable as a result.
It's nice seeing a family film with a family that that's intact. Arietty has a good, strong relationship with her father Pod (Mark Strong), a strong patriarchal figure who she clearly respects and looks up to. Her mother Homily (Olivia Colman) is a more fussy, excitable figure, but one who, nevertheless, has a clear love and devotion for her family. They are both upset when they are forced to leave their home because of Ariettys interaction with the humans, but they place no blame on her and continue to treat her with love and kindness. It's also a film with no real antagonist, except maybe for the maid Haru (Geraldine McEwan) who innocently wants to remove the borrowers when she discovers their borrowing (which is nonetheless the most frustrating part of the film), and tells a simple, down to earth story without forcing in drama or peril.
Like most Ghibli films Arietty is filled with peaceful, meditative moments: Shō laying in the grass with his cat Niya; Spiller (Luke Allen-Gale), a young borrower boy who lives in the woods, sharing a meal with Arrietty's family; Arrietty hanging up clothing for her mother. The film has some wonderful sound design, accentuating normally quiet sounds like the creaking of floorboards or the rustling of leaves to help us see things from the borrowers perspective. The animation is also gorgeous and really gives us a sense of scale. The borrowers world is a fully realized one and it invites the audience to a greater appreciation of the simple things in life.
While I don't think it's quite up there with the studios best work, I still think it's one of the better animated films of the past decade.
Score: 9/10
Saturday Evening Cartoons: Superman/Batman: Public Enemies (Fat Tuesday Special #2)
Superman/Batman: Public Enemies was released on September 29th, 2009. Directed by Sam Liu and written by Stan Berkowitz it is an adaption of a story arc from Jeph Loeb & Ed McGuinness's run on Superman/Batman comic.
In the first few moments of the film it is established that Lex Luthor has become the President of the United States because a financial crisis (this movie was released the wake of the 2008 housing market crash and following recession) has eroded public trust in the major parties. Most superheroes are seemingly on board with this in the interest of democracy and the hope that Luthor's desire for power and prestige will lead him to make decisions in the public interest. Superman and Batman however, are convinced that Luthor has some ulterior agenda that is not in the interest of the country.
The main plot involves a kryptonite meteor that is headed toward earth, which Luthor plans to eradicate using nuclear missiles. He sets up a meeting with Superman, ostensibly to form an alliance, where the Man of Steel is attacked by Metallo. Batman shows up to aid his friend and both barely escape with their lives. Luthor then has Metallo killed (off-screen) and frames the two heroes for his murder using footage taken from their fight. He puts out a one-billion dollar bounty on Superman. As a result of this Superman and Batman are attacked by a myriad of supervillians most of whom are defeated rather easily by the heroes. The rest dispersed by an energy blast from Captain Atom who, along with Katana, Black Lightning, Power Girl, Starfire, and Major Force arrive on the scene to arrest Superman and Batman. Once again they escape.
Clark and Bruce begin investigating Metallo's death and looking into Luthor's plan to stop the meteor, as they suspect foul play. Power Girl, torn between her loyalty to her team and to her friends eventually side with the world's finest. Batman figures out that Luthor ordered Major Force to kill Metallo and convinces Captain Atom and his team to stop hunting him and Superman. They then go to Luthor's base in the mountains to retrieve data on the meteor. There they are attacked by Hawkman and Captain Marvel.
Meanwhile, Amanda Waller discovers that Lex has been juicing with Kryptonite, causing him to lose his grip on reality. His missiles, she finds out, were never intended to stop the meteor, which he wants to hit earth so he can rule over whatever remains of society. This raises all kinds of questions. How is Luthor able to maintain his mask of sanity in public? Why, after all this time, does he recklessly reveal this to Waller? How has no one discovered his madness before this? Why, after the initial attempt to stop the missiles fails, does he furiously attempt to come up with a new plan?
Batman and Superman eventually break into the base but Luthor escapes them. Waller gives them the data on the meteor which they take to the Japanese Toyman, who has designed a spacecraft to destroy it. Luthor shows up and destroys the controls, causing Batman to pilot the ship manually. Superman, believing that his friend has sacrificed himself, destroys Luthor's battle suit in a fit of rage and Captain Atom shows up to arrest the traitorous president. Of course, it turns out that the spacecraft was built to withstand the impact and Bruce survives.
As the story is incredibly rushed the emotional of Power Girl's torn loyalty, Major Force's betrayal, and Batman's sacrifice is basically nonexistent. Superman/Batman: Public Enemies is a film that essentially functions as an excuse to show the titular characters duking it out with various other DC heroes and villains from Metallo to Power Girl to Banshee to Captain Marvel. As such you would think the plot would be fairly straight forward but it's not, it's confusing, convoluted and ultimately makes no sense. This wouldn't really be a problem if so much screen time wasn't devoted to the plot machinations.
Public Enemies is not without it merits. The action scenes are pretty well done, though many of them are rushed and lack satisfying conclusions. Batman and Superman have a lot of chemistry and it's always fun watching them play off of each other. The cast is great, especially Kevin Conroy and Tim Daly (reprising their roles from the Batman and Superman animated series respectively). The animation is pretty decent although, as a matter of personal preference, I'm not a huge fan of Ed McGuinness blocky art-style and this streamlined version of it it even less appealing.
In the end Superman/Batman: Public Enemies can't decide if it wants to be as a simple excuse for superhero action or a functioning narrative story. As a result it doesn't end up succeeding at either.
Score: 6/10
In the first few moments of the film it is established that Lex Luthor has become the President of the United States because a financial crisis (this movie was released the wake of the 2008 housing market crash and following recession) has eroded public trust in the major parties. Most superheroes are seemingly on board with this in the interest of democracy and the hope that Luthor's desire for power and prestige will lead him to make decisions in the public interest. Superman and Batman however, are convinced that Luthor has some ulterior agenda that is not in the interest of the country.
The main plot involves a kryptonite meteor that is headed toward earth, which Luthor plans to eradicate using nuclear missiles. He sets up a meeting with Superman, ostensibly to form an alliance, where the Man of Steel is attacked by Metallo. Batman shows up to aid his friend and both barely escape with their lives. Luthor then has Metallo killed (off-screen) and frames the two heroes for his murder using footage taken from their fight. He puts out a one-billion dollar bounty on Superman. As a result of this Superman and Batman are attacked by a myriad of supervillians most of whom are defeated rather easily by the heroes. The rest dispersed by an energy blast from Captain Atom who, along with Katana, Black Lightning, Power Girl, Starfire, and Major Force arrive on the scene to arrest Superman and Batman. Once again they escape.
Clark and Bruce begin investigating Metallo's death and looking into Luthor's plan to stop the meteor, as they suspect foul play. Power Girl, torn between her loyalty to her team and to her friends eventually side with the world's finest. Batman figures out that Luthor ordered Major Force to kill Metallo and convinces Captain Atom and his team to stop hunting him and Superman. They then go to Luthor's base in the mountains to retrieve data on the meteor. There they are attacked by Hawkman and Captain Marvel.
Meanwhile, Amanda Waller discovers that Lex has been juicing with Kryptonite, causing him to lose his grip on reality. His missiles, she finds out, were never intended to stop the meteor, which he wants to hit earth so he can rule over whatever remains of society. This raises all kinds of questions. How is Luthor able to maintain his mask of sanity in public? Why, after all this time, does he recklessly reveal this to Waller? How has no one discovered his madness before this? Why, after the initial attempt to stop the missiles fails, does he furiously attempt to come up with a new plan?
Batman and Superman eventually break into the base but Luthor escapes them. Waller gives them the data on the meteor which they take to the Japanese Toyman, who has designed a spacecraft to destroy it. Luthor shows up and destroys the controls, causing Batman to pilot the ship manually. Superman, believing that his friend has sacrificed himself, destroys Luthor's battle suit in a fit of rage and Captain Atom shows up to arrest the traitorous president. Of course, it turns out that the spacecraft was built to withstand the impact and Bruce survives.
As the story is incredibly rushed the emotional of Power Girl's torn loyalty, Major Force's betrayal, and Batman's sacrifice is basically nonexistent. Superman/Batman: Public Enemies is a film that essentially functions as an excuse to show the titular characters duking it out with various other DC heroes and villains from Metallo to Power Girl to Banshee to Captain Marvel. As such you would think the plot would be fairly straight forward but it's not, it's confusing, convoluted and ultimately makes no sense. This wouldn't really be a problem if so much screen time wasn't devoted to the plot machinations.
Public Enemies is not without it merits. The action scenes are pretty well done, though many of them are rushed and lack satisfying conclusions. Batman and Superman have a lot of chemistry and it's always fun watching them play off of each other. The cast is great, especially Kevin Conroy and Tim Daly (reprising their roles from the Batman and Superman animated series respectively). The animation is pretty decent although, as a matter of personal preference, I'm not a huge fan of Ed McGuinness blocky art-style and this streamlined version of it it even less appealing.
In the end Superman/Batman: Public Enemies can't decide if it wants to be as a simple excuse for superhero action or a functioning narrative story. As a result it doesn't end up succeeding at either.
Score: 6/10
Saturday Evening Cartoons: Reign of the Supermen (Fat Tuesday Special #1)
When I reviewed The Death of Superman last year I was pretty enthusiastic. Finally, we had a decent adaptation of this story. I was excited (but also trepidatious) to see what they would do with the second part of the story, Reign of the Supermen. It's a very long, complicated story, one which is, I think, impossible to do justice in a 90 minute film. With that said, it should not be surprising that this film is a serious step-down from its predecessor.
I should point out, however, that The Death of Superman was far from a perfect setup for this. For one thing, though it does an admirable job of giving the film emotional stakes, all things considered it was a mistake to adapt this story when this version of Superman has barely been established on screen (The Death of Superman was the first solo Superman film in the new DC animated universe). This is a story that explores the emotional toll of Superman's passing and it worked a lot better in the comics when there were 10 years of post-crisis Superman stories to build on.
Beyond that though, the focus just wasn't always in the right place. The film, like the comic, should have ended with Superman's death (or perhaps his funeral) instead, they writers decided to end it by teasing his return (both literally and figuratively) in this film. This undermines a lot of the emotional weight that his death brought to that film. It also means that Reign of the Supermen starts off on the wrong foot. Instead of feeling triumphant, Superman's return in this film comes across as perfunctory.
A big part of the problem, as I hinted earlier, is that there simply isn't enough screen time to do this story justice. In retrospect, it should have been a three part story. This way you could end the first film immediately after Superman dies in his battle with Doomsday. Then you would use the second film to explore the emotional impact of his death and also to establish the four new supermen. Finally, in the third film you could have the conflict between Superboy, Steel, Eradicator and Cyborg Superman come to a head before the real Superman returns to set things right. As it is, everything is rushed and under-cooked.
With all that said, the film isn't terrible. There is a lot of good action, the four Supermen have well established personalities, even if their motivations are barely explored, and the plot is surprisingly coherent given how condensed the story is. Rainn Wilson's take on Lex Luthor even grew on me a little.
In the end, Reign of the Supermen is a largely disappointing conclusion to this story. In retrospect, I'm not sure it really could have turned out better without delaying the story until later on and expanding it to three films. It's not a bad film exactly, but it's largely forgettable. I'd recommend mostly because it serves as a functional conclusion to the superior first part.
Score: 7/10
I should point out, however, that The Death of Superman was far from a perfect setup for this. For one thing, though it does an admirable job of giving the film emotional stakes, all things considered it was a mistake to adapt this story when this version of Superman has barely been established on screen (The Death of Superman was the first solo Superman film in the new DC animated universe). This is a story that explores the emotional toll of Superman's passing and it worked a lot better in the comics when there were 10 years of post-crisis Superman stories to build on.
Beyond that though, the focus just wasn't always in the right place. The film, like the comic, should have ended with Superman's death (or perhaps his funeral) instead, they writers decided to end it by teasing his return (both literally and figuratively) in this film. This undermines a lot of the emotional weight that his death brought to that film. It also means that Reign of the Supermen starts off on the wrong foot. Instead of feeling triumphant, Superman's return in this film comes across as perfunctory.
A big part of the problem, as I hinted earlier, is that there simply isn't enough screen time to do this story justice. In retrospect, it should have been a three part story. This way you could end the first film immediately after Superman dies in his battle with Doomsday. Then you would use the second film to explore the emotional impact of his death and also to establish the four new supermen. Finally, in the third film you could have the conflict between Superboy, Steel, Eradicator and Cyborg Superman come to a head before the real Superman returns to set things right. As it is, everything is rushed and under-cooked.
With all that said, the film isn't terrible. There is a lot of good action, the four Supermen have well established personalities, even if their motivations are barely explored, and the plot is surprisingly coherent given how condensed the story is. Rainn Wilson's take on Lex Luthor even grew on me a little.
In the end, Reign of the Supermen is a largely disappointing conclusion to this story. In retrospect, I'm not sure it really could have turned out better without delaying the story until later on and expanding it to three films. It's not a bad film exactly, but it's largely forgettable. I'd recommend mostly because it serves as a functional conclusion to the superior first part.
Score: 7/10
Blog Update 3/5/2019
I've had the flu for the past week and have not been posting as often as I would have liked to but I did watch a bunch of movies while I was sick and will (hopefully) be posting a bunch of reviews later today. Also, as this is Fat Tuesday (Pączki Day for us Polish Americans) I would like to announce that, once again, I will be doing Lent Reviews, so look forward to reviews of religiously themed movies each week of Lent. As usual, I will be trying to abstain, to some extent, from more "secular" forms of entertainment so Western Wednesdays and Saturday Evening Cartoons are on hold until after Easter. I haven't done any Musical Monday reviews in a long while as they are, generally, the least popular of my regular featured reviews. I may try to pick up the slack after Lent, but we shall see...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)