The Critics Choice Association awarded “Summer of Soul” the top prize at the sixth annual Critics Choice Documentary Awards, which honors the best achievements in nonfiction released in theaters, on TV, or on major digital platforms. Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson’s look at the 1969 Harlem Cultural Festival took home the most awards of any film, with five in total.
This year’s nominees were led by “Ascension” and “Summer of Soul,” two films by first-time documentarians. Each had six nominations. But “Ascension,” Jessica Kingdon’s look at the pursuit of the Chinese dream, failed to score any prizes November 14.
“Summer of Soul,” which won the top documentary prize and an Audience Award following its Sundance premiere earlier this year, won five of the six awards it was nominated for at the critics awards: Best Documentary Feature, Best First Documentary Feature, Best Editing, Best Archival Documentary, and Best Director, a prize Thompson...
This year’s nominees were led by “Ascension” and “Summer of Soul,” two films by first-time documentarians. Each had six nominations. But “Ascension,” Jessica Kingdon’s look at the pursuit of the Chinese dream, failed to score any prizes November 14.
“Summer of Soul,” which won the top documentary prize and an Audience Award following its Sundance premiere earlier this year, won five of the six awards it was nominated for at the critics awards: Best Documentary Feature, Best First Documentary Feature, Best Editing, Best Archival Documentary, and Best Director, a prize Thompson...
- 11/15/2021
- by Chris Lindahl
- Indiewire
The Critics Choice Association has announced nominees for the sixth annual Critics Choice Documentary Awards.
The awards cover documentaries released in theaters, on TV and on major digital platforms. The awards gala takes place Nov. 14 in Brooklyn, N.Y.
“Ascension” and “Summer of Soul, both from first-time documentarians, led the nominations with six each. “Becoming Cousteau” and “The Rescue” both received five nods each.
“This has been and continues to be a fantastic year for documentary storytelling. And the number of first-time feature documentarians in the mix of nominees, alongside proven veterans, shows that nonfiction cinema continues to have a very bright future,” said Christopher Campbell, President of the Critics Choice Association Documentary Branch. “Our world, from its most amazing wonders to its greatest challenges, is being reflected back on the screen so immediately and creatively by today’s filmmakers, and it’s a tremendous honor for us to recognize all of their achievements.
The awards cover documentaries released in theaters, on TV and on major digital platforms. The awards gala takes place Nov. 14 in Brooklyn, N.Y.
“Ascension” and “Summer of Soul, both from first-time documentarians, led the nominations with six each. “Becoming Cousteau” and “The Rescue” both received five nods each.
“This has been and continues to be a fantastic year for documentary storytelling. And the number of first-time feature documentarians in the mix of nominees, alongside proven veterans, shows that nonfiction cinema continues to have a very bright future,” said Christopher Campbell, President of the Critics Choice Association Documentary Branch. “Our world, from its most amazing wonders to its greatest challenges, is being reflected back on the screen so immediately and creatively by today’s filmmakers, and it’s a tremendous honor for us to recognize all of their achievements.
- 10/18/2021
- by Pat Saperstein
- Variety Film + TV
Notably leading the pack of nominees revealed Monday for the sixth annual Critics Choice Documentary Awards are a pair of films from directors making their debut as documentarians. Ascension’s Jessica Kingdon and Summer of Soul’s Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson pulled off the impressive feat, with both films receiving six nods apiece. On their tails however are a pair of docus from Nat Geo with five nods each: The Rescue. whose directors Jimmy Chin and Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi took the Oscar for their previous effort Free Solo; and Becoming Cousteau, whose director Liz Garbus is also a docu veteran with two Oscar nominations and two Emmys to her credit.
All will compete in the Best Documentary Feature and Best Director categories, with Thompson and Kingdon also facing off for Best First Documentary Feature along with such indie film giants as Todd Haynes and Edgar Wright.
All will compete in the Best Documentary Feature and Best Director categories, with Thompson and Kingdon also facing off for Best First Documentary Feature along with such indie film giants as Todd Haynes and Edgar Wright.
- 10/18/2021
- by Pete Hammond
- Deadline Film + TV
The Critics Choice Association (Cca) has announced the nominees for the sixth annual Critics Choice Documentary Awards (Ccda). This year’s winners will be revealed at a gala on Sunday, November 14, 2021, in Brooklyn, NY. The awards honor the best achievements in nonfiction released in theaters, on TV, or on major digital platforms.
Both films by first-time documentarians, “Ascension” and “Summer of Soul” lead this year’s nominations with six each. “Ascension,” a look at the Chinese dream across social classes, is also up for Documentary Feature, Director (Jessica Kingdon), First Feature, Cinematography, Editing, and Score. Meanwhile, “Summer of Soul” is up for Documentary Feature, Best Director (Ahmir “Questlove’ Thompson), First Documentary, Editing, Archival Documentary, and Music Documentary.
“Becoming Cousteau” and “The Rescue” also picked up five nominations each.
Last year, “Dick Johnson Is Dead” took home the Cca’s top award for Best Documentary as well as the Best Director award for Kirsten Johnson.
Both films by first-time documentarians, “Ascension” and “Summer of Soul” lead this year’s nominations with six each. “Ascension,” a look at the Chinese dream across social classes, is also up for Documentary Feature, Director (Jessica Kingdon), First Feature, Cinematography, Editing, and Score. Meanwhile, “Summer of Soul” is up for Documentary Feature, Best Director (Ahmir “Questlove’ Thompson), First Documentary, Editing, Archival Documentary, and Music Documentary.
“Becoming Cousteau” and “The Rescue” also picked up five nominations each.
Last year, “Dick Johnson Is Dead” took home the Cca’s top award for Best Documentary as well as the Best Director award for Kirsten Johnson.
- 10/18/2021
- by Ryan Lattanzio
- Indiewire
Anyone with a pet knows how intensely painful it is to see them suffer and not know how to help. For many, a trip to the veterinarian ultimately ends in a sad goodbye. The new documentary, The Dog Doc, looks at a vet trying a new way to save our furry friends. It’s a modest yet compelling doc, showing us how medical science is a field with room for many ideas, some of which are unduly dismissed as radical. This doesn’t reinvent the wheel, not in the slightest, but non fiction fans, as well as animal lovers, will find something interesting here. Especially if you have a pet, this is well worth seeing. The film is a look at Doctor Marty Goldstein, a pioneer in the field of integrative veterinary medicine. Equally considered to be a bold miracle worker and a nut job, Dr. Goldstein takes a different path in helping pets.
- 3/13/2020
- by Joey Magidson
- Hollywoodnews.com
Doc NYC will open its 10th edition next month with Once Were Brothers: Robbie Robertson and The Band, the feature from Daniel Roher that served as the opening-night film of this year’s Toronto Film Festival. It kicks off a lineup that includes 136 feature-length documentaries and 28 world premieres among more than 300 films and events overall, repping the biggest slate yet for the event already considered the nation’s largest documentary festival.
The New York-set fest also said Thursday that it will close with Ebs Burnough’s The Capote Tapes, a fresh portrait of Truman Capote, with André Leon Talley part of a post-screening Q&a with the director. Doc NYC’s centerpiece presentation is another Tiff pic, Bikram: Yogi, Guru, Predator, from director Eva Orner.
The slate includes world bows for pics including Joe Berliner’s The Longest Wave, Keith Fulton and Lou Pepe’s He Dreams of Giants about...
The New York-set fest also said Thursday that it will close with Ebs Burnough’s The Capote Tapes, a fresh portrait of Truman Capote, with André Leon Talley part of a post-screening Q&a with the director. Doc NYC’s centerpiece presentation is another Tiff pic, Bikram: Yogi, Guru, Predator, from director Eva Orner.
The slate includes world bows for pics including Joe Berliner’s The Longest Wave, Keith Fulton and Lou Pepe’s He Dreams of Giants about...
- 10/10/2019
- by Patrick Hipes
- Deadline Film + TV
This review was written for the festival screening of "My Kid Could Paint That".
PARK CITY -- A 4-year-old girl who does world-class abstract paintings and becomes an international celebrity seems like a ripe subject for a penetrating documentary about the nature of art. However, "My Kid Could Paint That" is not that film. Instead, director Amir Bar-Lev stumbled on a juicier story about whether the young artist might not be the sole creator of her work. Picked up for distribution at Sundance by Sony Pictures Classics, the film and the controversy should generate interest at the boxoffice, but it's more a story about media manipulation and parental responsibility than art.
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
PARK CITY -- A 4-year-old girl who does world-class abstract paintings and becomes an international celebrity seems like a ripe subject for a penetrating documentary about the nature of art. However, "My Kid Could Paint That" is not that film. Instead, director Amir Bar-Lev stumbled on a juicier story about whether the young artist might not be the sole creator of her work. Picked up for distribution at Sundance by Sony Pictures Classics, the film and the controversy should generate interest at the boxoffice, but it's more a story about media manipulation and parental responsibility than art.
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
- 1/25/2007
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
PARK CITY -- A 4-year-old girl who does world-class abstract paintings and becomes an international celebrity seems like a ripe subject for a penetrating documentary about the nature of art. However, "My Kid Could Paint That" is not that film. Instead, director Amir Bar-Lev stumbled on a juicier story about whether the young artist might not be the sole creator of her work. Picked up for distribution at Sundance by Sony Pictures Classics, the film and the controversy should generate interest at the boxoffice, but it's more a story about media manipulation and parental responsibility than art.
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
- 1/25/2007
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
PARK CITY -- A 4-year-old girl who does world-class abstract paintings and becomes an international celebrity seems like a ripe subject for a penetrating documentary about the nature of art. However, "My Kid Could Paint That" is not that film. Instead, director Amir Bar-Lev stumbled on a juicier story about whether the young artist might not be the sole creator of her work. Picked up for distribution at Sundance by Sony Pictures Classics, the film and the controversy should generate interest at the boxoffice, but it's more a story about media manipulation and parental responsibility than art.
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
After a local reporter broke the story and the New York Times picked it up, Bar-Lev went to the Binghampton, N.Y., home of Marla Olmstead in fall 2004 hoping to make a film about the phenomenon. He promised the girl's parents, Laura and Mark Olmstead, that his documentary would capture a deeper truth for Marla to have when she was older. They agreed and invited him into their home for the next year, where he befriended Marla and became a fixture in the household.
Marla was shy but seemed like a normal kid. She had started painting at 2 when her father put a brush in her hands and set her on the dining room table in a diaper. She produced a series of colorful paintings that were compared to the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. Not surprisingly, she had nothing to say about the meaning of her art, or anything else for that matter. She clearly was not going to sustain a film on her own.
Then, in February 2005, "60 Minutes" aired a report suggesting that Marla may have had help with the paintings. Sales of her work ($300,000 to date) came to a halt, and the Olmsteads received hate mail and accusations. They turned to Ben-Lev hoping for vindication. They also filmed their own video of Marla creating one of her works.
Laura, a dental assistant, and Mark, a night manager in a Frito-Lay plant, seem like concerned, attentive parents. They say they didn't pursue this whole thing, that it came to them. Mark is an amateur realist painter, and the suggestion -- which they adamantly and tearfully deny -- is that he helped Marla with her paintings.
Sniffing a good tabloid story, the media piled on, with the New York Post referring to the girl as Willem de Frauding. Calmer voices prevail in the film, and New York Times art critic Michael Kimmelman says people will choose to accept a story because it conforms to how they see it. And because many people regard abstract art as a put-on or a racket, they are more than happy to see the Marla affair as a hoax.
Left with the responsibility of clearing the family's name, Ben-Lev is put in an awkward position for a supposedly objective documentary filmmaker. He is forced to interject himself into the film and admit that he, too, has doubts about the veracity of the paintings.
Skillfully shot and edited, this might not be the film Ben-Lev set out to make. There is little discussion of the quality of the work, other than the fact that people buy it. Marla's original gallery owner, Anthony Brunelli, testifies to her brilliance, but he obviously has a vested interest. So the film is less concerned with the question of whether my kid could paint that than whether my kid could sell that.
MY KID COULD PAINT THAT
Sony Pictures Classics
Credits:
Director: Amir Bar-Lev
Producer: Amir Bar-Lev
Executive producer: John Battsek
Directors of photography: Matt Boyd, Nelson Hume, Bill Turnley
Music: Rondo Brothers
Editors: John Walter, Michael Levine
Running time -- 81 minutes
No MPAA rating...
- 1/25/2007
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles, Tweets, or blog posts. This content is published for the entertainment of our users only. The news articles, Tweets, and blog posts do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the source responsible for the item in question to report any concerns you may have regarding content or accuracy.