I finally saw Inception. I wish I made it a point to see these movies sooner...
Inception
July 16, 2010(USA)
Leonardo DiCaprio (Cobb)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Arthur)
Ellen Page (Ariadne)
4.5/5 stars
Cobb is a master of extracting information held in the subconscious of our dreams. He shows that the age old tale, that all dreams are our subconscious thoughts coming out is very true. He, along with a few colleagues, use this skill most often to retrieve thoughts. It's considered to be a type of theft. Cobb is offered a job that focuses on planting a thought within a dream rather than finding one. The powerful man offering this, explains that if it is done correctly, he will ensure that Cobb can return home to his kids safely, something Cobb has been waiting for.
More about the movie:
Cobb and the rest of his team, live in a world that we assume is in the future given the level of technology, even though the set, vehicles and character's wardrobes make it seem like it's 2010. It is evident that Cobb cannot return home for some reason, although that doesn't become clear until he meets Ariadne. Cobb, Arthur and another colleague are entering the dream of a man named Saito. They offer their services as dream security. They teach people how to train their subconscious so that it does not give away important information to a dream thief. The first mistake they make is the fault of Cobb's subconscious entering the dream in the form of his late wife, Mal. The resolve that situation and then show up in Saito's secret apartment. The "architect" on their team, which is the person that designs the dream, failed to design Saito's apartment the way it should be. Saito realizes that he is dreaming and as we learn later the dreamer should never know they are dreaming. The only way to wake up from a dream is death in the dream. Cobb, Arthur, the architect, and Saito are all in the same dream. Cobb shots Arthur in the head so that he will wake up and they can leave the dream. Saito, while unimpressed by the failure of getting the information, he is still impressed enough to give them an important job.
He wants them to use inception to plant an idea, into the mind of the heir to a competing energy company. Saito explains that they cannot use the same architect that failed the first time. Realizing the extreme level of difficulty, Cobb and Arthur decide to add a few people to their team. They turn to Cobb's father for help. He introduces Cobb to a very bright young woman, Araidne. He is impressed with her ability to design mazes in very specific ways. He shows her how dreams work and how they can be manipulated. They enter his dream together. She manipulates the dream too much and his subconscious, in the form of random people and Mal, kill her since manipulating his dream made her seem like a threat. She realizes that Mal may be a problem during this big job. While Cobb is hooked up to the machine that forces dreams, Ariadne enters the dream, but it's a dream that's meant to be a secret. It is here we learn that the reason Cobb can't go home to his kids, is because he is wanted for the murder of his wife. The guilt of losing her is what keeps her coming back at all the wrong times.
The rest of the movie is difficult to explain. But they create dreams within dreams to enter Fischer's dream. He is the man whose dream they must manipulate. The real issue here, is not that they will get caught, but that being so far into that level of dreaming is dangerous. Dying that far down wouldn't wake you up, but force you to stay in dream Limbo, and place that is hard to escape from.
No one but Cobb knows until it is too late, how dangerous it all is. And it gets worse when they find that Fischer had his subconscious trained to protect itself from what they are doing.
The ending is hard to give away since they don't fully disclose the ending to us. I suppose optimists will have one view and pessimists will have another. Or maybe you might find yourself saying, "I want to believe that _____ happened, but since I didn't see it happen, I can't know for sure." It is definitely something that you believe happens but then when you think about it, it could all be another dream.
It's a wonderful movie, but it might be a bit too thought provoking.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Tourist
Angelina Jolie (Elise Clifton-Ward)
Johnny Depp (Frank Tupelo)
Secret (Alexander Pearce)
IMDB.com says it: Revolves around Frank, an American tourist visiting Italy to mend a broken heart. Elise is an extraordinary woman who deliberately crosses his path.
However, Frank never mentions a broken heart, merely that there was someone in his life. He also never mentions the reason for his trip.
It's a movie about Elise; a European woman who is evading European thugs because of the billions of Euros her "lover" Alexander Pearce stole from them and the hundreds of millions he owes on that money in taxes. She is instructed to throw both groups off of his trail, by keeping close company with someone that can pass for him. Frank is an American tourist who is just happy to be in her company.
Most of the critics say it was an action movie waiting for action or a Rom-Com at best. Roger Ebert's review was the earliest written one I found so it's no wonder that most of the reviews I read that were written after his, were paraphrased version of his review. I thought I would offer my own; not influenced by someone first.
Since there was limited action, I wouldn't dare call it action. And there wasn't so much "comedy" as there was "wit" and there was more lust than romance, so I wouldn't call it a romantic comedy. It was more of a heist movie. A movie about thieves that aren't really bad people, that we root for in hopes that their caper goes off without a hitch. Although in this movie, the actually stealing of the money is done before hand. It's basically the running from the law after the fact. I think if you take the movie as it is, no classifications, no genre, no expectations of the writer or director to top what they've already done; you'll enjoy it much more. I think the latter is most important. Too often, people go to a movie because it's directed by a top director and end up disliking the movie and by association, the director. Most of the reviews mentioned the writer/director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. He directed a few shorts but basically one other major film: The Lives of Others in 2006. The film was slow, quiet, dark, damp and chilling since you hope to trust the main character. It was a good film. He made one film that impressed the critics and for that he was expected to impress them again. It seems like a poor choice to make.
Either way, no matter the movie, it's a good idea to watch a movie without great expectations.
I think the movie does contain some cliches, it's true. An average Joe swiftly moving on the ledge of a building or quickly scaling roof tops. A man not being suspicious of a woman he doesn't know, who is clearly out of his league. Those are things that have been done time and time again, but something that is rarely done, are action scenes that are feasible. The Tourist offers situations that could happen, which I for one appreciate. The scene where Jolie's boat tows Depp's boat is done very well. It's an exciting scene without seeming far fetched.
It's said that Depp didn't relate well to his character, but I want to look at his acting from another point of view. Spoiler alert! In the end, we find out that Frank and Pearce are one in the same. Pearce had extensive and expensive surgery to completely change his facial features, and took on a whole new persona. End of spoilers. Depp is playing a character that is leading a double life. I feel that Depp played the part well. He played the part of a man who must suddenly behave like someone else. The reason Frank's character seemed so forced is because it's Pearce forcing himself to be Frank. We're supposed to think there is something odd with him. And at the end we see that his odd attitude is due to the fact that he is Pearce. Depp truly seemed like the unaware tourist with something to hide.
Jolie was said to be poorly channeling Audrey Hepburn. I think she was channeling the persona of a very sophisticated, confident, intelligent, seductive and intimidating woman. The Audrey Hepburn comment is another one that was made by Ebert and then echoed by lesser critics with no original thought. Jolie's fashion was on every one's mind, but I wonder, what it had to do with the movie. If we focus on her role, she played the part well. Granted, I would have liked to see her with more emotion. The only emotion came when she thought or spoke about Alexander, everywhere else she was slightly flat. But still she was playing the part of a woman who knows she is being watched and for the sake of her safety, she can not and should not appear phased about anything.
For the sake of not sounding as though this movie was made without flaws, I will say it could have used more physical attraction between Frank and Elise and a bit more thrill over all. I enjoy simple details that you remember after you've experienced the twists and turns of the movie. Had I been a writer of this film, I would have written a scene where Frank and Elise kiss, and Frank (being Pearce) does something simple that startles Elise in a familiar way. In movies, men always gently and seductively stroke the side of a woman's face with their whole hand; they keep their fingertips on the back of the neck while their thumb is near the woman's earlobe. They gently move their hand down their neck in a sensual way. It would have been interesting to see this little detail utilized; with Frank making this classic movie while kissing but purposely grazing her earlobe with his thumb, something he did when he was Pearce. All the while, we are unaware that Frank and Pearce are the same man. But we are intrigued as to why she seems startled by something so simple. Then at the end, when Frank kisses Elise and we realize he is Pearce, we can see him graze her earlobe again, and then we can assume that it's something she remembered from Pearce.
Earlier, I did say that this movie had the right amount of thrill, and it does. It has a realistic amount of thrill, but for the sake of the movie-going world a good old-fashioned explosion might have been appreciated... Although sophisticated characters and spontaneous fires of fury don't seem to go hand-in-hand. But the masses still may have preferred more destruction in Venice.
My final very short review:
A deceiving woman and an even more deceiving tourist drive the watery roads of Venice, outrunning police and European gangsters. A well made movie, with very appealing actors who envelop the persona of their characters. The events in the movie, while some may be cliche, nothing is done to an unbelievable level. The plot is easy enough to follow, but complex enough to ensure that there are no awkward lags of time. Even more appealing: the plot twist, which ties in beautifully to the whole movie and its seemingly unimportant details. A wonderful break from the everyday thriller that most often contains death and explosions non-stop.
I definitely recommend this movie.
Johnny Depp (Frank Tupelo)
Secret (Alexander Pearce)
IMDB.com says it: Revolves around Frank, an American tourist visiting Italy to mend a broken heart. Elise is an extraordinary woman who deliberately crosses his path.
However, Frank never mentions a broken heart, merely that there was someone in his life. He also never mentions the reason for his trip.
It's a movie about Elise; a European woman who is evading European thugs because of the billions of Euros her "lover" Alexander Pearce stole from them and the hundreds of millions he owes on that money in taxes. She is instructed to throw both groups off of his trail, by keeping close company with someone that can pass for him. Frank is an American tourist who is just happy to be in her company.
Most of the critics say it was an action movie waiting for action or a Rom-Com at best. Roger Ebert's review was the earliest written one I found so it's no wonder that most of the reviews I read that were written after his, were paraphrased version of his review. I thought I would offer my own; not influenced by someone first.
Since there was limited action, I wouldn't dare call it action. And there wasn't so much "comedy" as there was "wit" and there was more lust than romance, so I wouldn't call it a romantic comedy. It was more of a heist movie. A movie about thieves that aren't really bad people, that we root for in hopes that their caper goes off without a hitch. Although in this movie, the actually stealing of the money is done before hand. It's basically the running from the law after the fact. I think if you take the movie as it is, no classifications, no genre, no expectations of the writer or director to top what they've already done; you'll enjoy it much more. I think the latter is most important. Too often, people go to a movie because it's directed by a top director and end up disliking the movie and by association, the director. Most of the reviews mentioned the writer/director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. He directed a few shorts but basically one other major film: The Lives of Others in 2006. The film was slow, quiet, dark, damp and chilling since you hope to trust the main character. It was a good film. He made one film that impressed the critics and for that he was expected to impress them again. It seems like a poor choice to make.
Either way, no matter the movie, it's a good idea to watch a movie without great expectations.
I think the movie does contain some cliches, it's true. An average Joe swiftly moving on the ledge of a building or quickly scaling roof tops. A man not being suspicious of a woman he doesn't know, who is clearly out of his league. Those are things that have been done time and time again, but something that is rarely done, are action scenes that are feasible. The Tourist offers situations that could happen, which I for one appreciate. The scene where Jolie's boat tows Depp's boat is done very well. It's an exciting scene without seeming far fetched.
It's said that Depp didn't relate well to his character, but I want to look at his acting from another point of view. Spoiler alert! In the end, we find out that Frank and Pearce are one in the same. Pearce had extensive and expensive surgery to completely change his facial features, and took on a whole new persona. End of spoilers. Depp is playing a character that is leading a double life. I feel that Depp played the part well. He played the part of a man who must suddenly behave like someone else. The reason Frank's character seemed so forced is because it's Pearce forcing himself to be Frank. We're supposed to think there is something odd with him. And at the end we see that his odd attitude is due to the fact that he is Pearce. Depp truly seemed like the unaware tourist with something to hide.
Jolie was said to be poorly channeling Audrey Hepburn. I think she was channeling the persona of a very sophisticated, confident, intelligent, seductive and intimidating woman. The Audrey Hepburn comment is another one that was made by Ebert and then echoed by lesser critics with no original thought. Jolie's fashion was on every one's mind, but I wonder, what it had to do with the movie. If we focus on her role, she played the part well. Granted, I would have liked to see her with more emotion. The only emotion came when she thought or spoke about Alexander, everywhere else she was slightly flat. But still she was playing the part of a woman who knows she is being watched and for the sake of her safety, she can not and should not appear phased about anything.
For the sake of not sounding as though this movie was made without flaws, I will say it could have used more physical attraction between Frank and Elise and a bit more thrill over all. I enjoy simple details that you remember after you've experienced the twists and turns of the movie. Had I been a writer of this film, I would have written a scene where Frank and Elise kiss, and Frank (being Pearce) does something simple that startles Elise in a familiar way. In movies, men always gently and seductively stroke the side of a woman's face with their whole hand; they keep their fingertips on the back of the neck while their thumb is near the woman's earlobe. They gently move their hand down their neck in a sensual way. It would have been interesting to see this little detail utilized; with Frank making this classic movie while kissing but purposely grazing her earlobe with his thumb, something he did when he was Pearce. All the while, we are unaware that Frank and Pearce are the same man. But we are intrigued as to why she seems startled by something so simple. Then at the end, when Frank kisses Elise and we realize he is Pearce, we can see him graze her earlobe again, and then we can assume that it's something she remembered from Pearce.
Earlier, I did say that this movie had the right amount of thrill, and it does. It has a realistic amount of thrill, but for the sake of the movie-going world a good old-fashioned explosion might have been appreciated... Although sophisticated characters and spontaneous fires of fury don't seem to go hand-in-hand. But the masses still may have preferred more destruction in Venice.
My final very short review:
A deceiving woman and an even more deceiving tourist drive the watery roads of Venice, outrunning police and European gangsters. A well made movie, with very appealing actors who envelop the persona of their characters. The events in the movie, while some may be cliche, nothing is done to an unbelievable level. The plot is easy enough to follow, but complex enough to ensure that there are no awkward lags of time. Even more appealing: the plot twist, which ties in beautifully to the whole movie and its seemingly unimportant details. A wonderful break from the everyday thriller that most often contains death and explosions non-stop.
I definitely recommend this movie.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
A Nice Place to go if You Want to Feel Like a Thief
I love going to the mall and looking around at all the nice things. I used to love going to Payless shoe store, that is until they upped the seriousness of loss prevention and decided to stalk the shoppers.
My husband, our daughter and I went to a Payless in our mall. There were a total of three women working there and we were immediately ambushed by a woman who looked like the manager. She explained which sections were which and asked if we needed any help. Then she said she would, "let us look around" as if we needed permission to simply look around with no intention to buy. Then she said, "If you need anything, just ask."
We were in the woman's section of the little store for about 20 seconds (literally, count off 20 seconds) when one of the workers came and asked how we were doing; "Fine, thanks." Then literally 30 seconds had passed and another worker asked if we were finding everything okay. "Yup we're fine." After she walked away I immediately asked my husband if he liked the heals I was trying on. "So babe, do you like these? Are they cute with this shirt? I think they are but I think they would ONLY go with this shirt." My husband was about to answer my question when another of the three workers came by to ask if we were finding everything okay, and then complimented me on the shoes and said, "Those are cute, and they're on sale I think..." Yeah, I could tell they were on sale without your help. There is a gigantic red label on the box that says SALE 29.99. They kept coming by to see how we were doing literally every 20-30 seconds. I noticed that they were doing this to another woman who was shopping there and realized, they must think we're going to steal the shoes. After all, the isles are high so they couldn't see us stealing. They don't have security tags on the shoes, and it would be easy to put on the shoes, and just run out of the store...
I don't think our little family looked like the stealing type though... We were wearing our "Sunday Best". I was wearing nice new Nike shoes, carrying a Coach purse, and wearing a "classy" blouse. My husband was wearing a nice brown wool and cotton sweater and a nice leather coat. Our daughter was wearing a brand new outfit and a suede coat. I didn't think we looked like a family of thieves, but who knows. Maybe they thought we stole all that nice stuff...
Either way, it was obvious that they were stalking us to make sure we weren't stealing. We only lasted in there for about 5 minutes. We were so annoyed, irate and appalled that we had to leave. I have never been in such a bad mood while looking at shoes!
My husband, our daughter and I went to a Payless in our mall. There were a total of three women working there and we were immediately ambushed by a woman who looked like the manager. She explained which sections were which and asked if we needed any help. Then she said she would, "let us look around" as if we needed permission to simply look around with no intention to buy. Then she said, "If you need anything, just ask."
We were in the woman's section of the little store for about 20 seconds (literally, count off 20 seconds) when one of the workers came and asked how we were doing; "Fine, thanks." Then literally 30 seconds had passed and another worker asked if we were finding everything okay. "Yup we're fine." After she walked away I immediately asked my husband if he liked the heals I was trying on. "So babe, do you like these? Are they cute with this shirt? I think they are but I think they would ONLY go with this shirt." My husband was about to answer my question when another of the three workers came by to ask if we were finding everything okay, and then complimented me on the shoes and said, "Those are cute, and they're on sale I think..." Yeah, I could tell they were on sale without your help. There is a gigantic red label on the box that says SALE 29.99. They kept coming by to see how we were doing literally every 20-30 seconds. I noticed that they were doing this to another woman who was shopping there and realized, they must think we're going to steal the shoes. After all, the isles are high so they couldn't see us stealing. They don't have security tags on the shoes, and it would be easy to put on the shoes, and just run out of the store...
I don't think our little family looked like the stealing type though... We were wearing our "Sunday Best". I was wearing nice new Nike shoes, carrying a Coach purse, and wearing a "classy" blouse. My husband was wearing a nice brown wool and cotton sweater and a nice leather coat. Our daughter was wearing a brand new outfit and a suede coat. I didn't think we looked like a family of thieves, but who knows. Maybe they thought we stole all that nice stuff...
Either way, it was obvious that they were stalking us to make sure we weren't stealing. We only lasted in there for about 5 minutes. We were so annoyed, irate and appalled that we had to leave. I have never been in such a bad mood while looking at shoes!
Friday, January 7, 2011
Gilmore Girls Season 7
I love the television show, Gilmore Girls but I was not happy with the way season 7 went. First of all, they focused a lot on Lane and Zach and the baby they are expecting. They were a main focus in most of season 7's episodes; they were usually just interesting filler for the show. The part that was upsetting was not the fact that they were given so much attention, but that when it came time for Lane to have the twins, they didn't have an episode or even 10 minutes dedicated to it. We get to see Zach taking a phone call at Luke's diner and we are given the impression that Lane is in labor. In the next episode, Rory goes to the diner and tells Zach that she is surprised at how big the twins are getting. They focus on Lane and Zach for most of the season and then don't even make it worth the while. But we can see Mia's wedding. Mia is the woman that owned the Independence Inn, where Lorelai first worked. She is the woman who took Lorelai and Rory in. We haven't seen her in a very long time, yet the writers feel the need to dedicate an entire episode to her wedding, but not Lane's delivery?!
Even more upsetting is how rushed the season was. We're really supposed to believe that Lorelai and Christopher got together again, and they got married, and they got divorced and she had time to reconcile with Luke and they had time to fall in love again? It's just ridiculous. I think it was a big mistake for Lorelai and Christopher to get married, I think the could have gotten engaged, but I think the marriage was just a dumb idea. The only way the marriage between them would have seemed like a good idea, was if the show were going to be picked up for an 8th season. With an 8th season they would have had more time to do things like that. I think it would have been way more romantic and less of a time stretch if they had Lorelai and Christopher become engaged. Lorelai and Luke are still awkward around eachother so she decides not to tell Luke that she and Christopher are engaged. Christopher realizes how important it is to Lorelai to have their wedding in Stars Hallow so, they spend a lot of time there planning the wedding. From the diner, Luke can see them in the town square with an unknown person, and they are measuring the gazebo, and some other areas in the square. Luke asks Mrs. Patty what is happening, and she says with a snarky tone, "They are planning an outdoor wedding. Christopher said my studio was too tiny, but they'll keep it in mind if it rains. Like I'm some kind of understudy for their wedding (and then her dialogue would trail off and she'd be talking about how in all of her years in theater, she was never an understudy). Meanwhile, the camera is focusing on Luke and Mrs. Patty's dialogue is fading and Luke is shocked that Lorelai is engaged. Christopher has plans to move to S.H. with Lorelai and needs to finish some business at work, and leaves to do so the next day. That day Lorelai is going to Hartford to a dress shop, to look at a wedding gown. Luke is also on his way out of S.H. they are stopped at the same light. Luke goes through the intersection first and Lorelai is following behind him, but her Jeep runs out of gas, Christopher never filled up the tank. Luke notices that she ran out of gas and turned around to go back for her. While in his truck he congradulates her. And she looks surprised. "Ya know, on the engagement to Christopher." She smiles a smile that is half "thanks" and half " regret saying yes to his proposal". Nervously she begins talking about the wedding plans to break the awkward silence. He immediately stops the truck and pulls over to the side of the road, and says in a very 'Luke' way, "Damn it! I love you! You know I love you, I never stopped loving you and I know you love me! I don't want to congradulate you on your engagement to him. I want to be engaged to you!" She doesn't say anything but she looks at him lovingly and gets out of the truck and says sorry. Then she tells Christopher that she can't marry him and that she still has feelings for Luke. She loves Christopher and wants him to be happy and it wouldn't be fair to marry him when she doesn't love him fully. He understands and moves to Hartford to stay close to Rory, and the rest of his family, but he tells Lorelai that he'll always love her. A coupld days later she is waiting for Luke in his apartment and when he comes in, she says that she doesn't want to jump to engagement, but she wants to know that it's there and she needs to know that once they're engaged, they won't wait forever to get married. Luke tells her it won't be long.
Meanwhile, Lane and Zach are going through the pregnancy. When Zach gets the call that Lane is in labor, Luke drives him, on the way, they pass Lorelai and Rory and yell out the window that Lane is in Labor, they run home and jump in the Jeep and follow them to the hospital. The next episode would be about the labor and Luke and Lorelai being together. They are named Godparents of the twins.
Even more upsetting is how rushed the season was. We're really supposed to believe that Lorelai and Christopher got together again, and they got married, and they got divorced and she had time to reconcile with Luke and they had time to fall in love again? It's just ridiculous. I think it was a big mistake for Lorelai and Christopher to get married, I think the could have gotten engaged, but I think the marriage was just a dumb idea. The only way the marriage between them would have seemed like a good idea, was if the show were going to be picked up for an 8th season. With an 8th season they would have had more time to do things like that. I think it would have been way more romantic and less of a time stretch if they had Lorelai and Christopher become engaged. Lorelai and Luke are still awkward around eachother so she decides not to tell Luke that she and Christopher are engaged. Christopher realizes how important it is to Lorelai to have their wedding in Stars Hallow so, they spend a lot of time there planning the wedding. From the diner, Luke can see them in the town square with an unknown person, and they are measuring the gazebo, and some other areas in the square. Luke asks Mrs. Patty what is happening, and she says with a snarky tone, "They are planning an outdoor wedding. Christopher said my studio was too tiny, but they'll keep it in mind if it rains. Like I'm some kind of understudy for their wedding (and then her dialogue would trail off and she'd be talking about how in all of her years in theater, she was never an understudy). Meanwhile, the camera is focusing on Luke and Mrs. Patty's dialogue is fading and Luke is shocked that Lorelai is engaged. Christopher has plans to move to S.H. with Lorelai and needs to finish some business at work, and leaves to do so the next day. That day Lorelai is going to Hartford to a dress shop, to look at a wedding gown. Luke is also on his way out of S.H. they are stopped at the same light. Luke goes through the intersection first and Lorelai is following behind him, but her Jeep runs out of gas, Christopher never filled up the tank. Luke notices that she ran out of gas and turned around to go back for her. While in his truck he congradulates her. And she looks surprised. "Ya know, on the engagement to Christopher." She smiles a smile that is half "thanks" and half " regret saying yes to his proposal". Nervously she begins talking about the wedding plans to break the awkward silence. He immediately stops the truck and pulls over to the side of the road, and says in a very 'Luke' way, "Damn it! I love you! You know I love you, I never stopped loving you and I know you love me! I don't want to congradulate you on your engagement to him. I want to be engaged to you!" She doesn't say anything but she looks at him lovingly and gets out of the truck and says sorry. Then she tells Christopher that she can't marry him and that she still has feelings for Luke. She loves Christopher and wants him to be happy and it wouldn't be fair to marry him when she doesn't love him fully. He understands and moves to Hartford to stay close to Rory, and the rest of his family, but he tells Lorelai that he'll always love her. A coupld days later she is waiting for Luke in his apartment and when he comes in, she says that she doesn't want to jump to engagement, but she wants to know that it's there and she needs to know that once they're engaged, they won't wait forever to get married. Luke tells her it won't be long.
Meanwhile, Lane and Zach are going through the pregnancy. When Zach gets the call that Lane is in labor, Luke drives him, on the way, they pass Lorelai and Rory and yell out the window that Lane is in Labor, they run home and jump in the Jeep and follow them to the hospital. The next episode would be about the labor and Luke and Lorelai being together. They are named Godparents of the twins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
