Brenda Parker

Lost in america roger ebert. Lost in america this american life. Lost in america gathering field lyrics. Lost in america podcast youtube. Lost in america alice cooper live. Here on the page Lost in Watch Lost in America Online Full Watch lost in america Online Twitter Free Lost in. Lost in america movie clip. Lost in america gathering field.
YouTube. Albert Brooks’ million-dollar smile and boisterous, overbearing persona had to melt. He started out fully formed, the post-modern comic analyst prepared to peel back the veneer of comedy being the province of well-fed men in tuxedos cracking each other up. The history of comedy had reached one of its many sea changes. The advent of sound in film and the golden age of radio that grew after the advent of commercial programming saw Jack Benny, The Marx Brothers, the Three Stooges, Abbott & Costello, and Laurel & Hardy become superstars. Slowly, America got used to a more frank, bordering on ribald, form of humor, and so the likes of Jerry Lewis, Milton Berle, Jackie Gleason, Burns & Allen, Nichols & May, Buddy Hackett, and, of course, Lenny Bruce rose to prominence. However, the death of Bruce in 1966, just as his act had abandoned jokes for confrontational rants about the state of media, meant that comedy couldn’t go back to the way it was. And by the late ’60s and early ’70s, most of the aforementioned comics became kitsch acts trotted out for Dean Martin roasts and variety TV specials. So, it was time for something new, something that could comment on the waning days of public domain lounge acts or dust-coated punchlines, and Brooks was the man for the job. Brooks made short films on Saturday Night Live that didn’t exactly gel with the stoned smart alecks in the writers room and in front of the camera. Brooks was smarter than John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, and Chevy Chase, and he was more of a born star than someone like Al Franken or Garrett Morris, and he arrived with ironclad shtick that constantly evolved with current comedy and critiqued itself at every turn. His movies and records were about teaching comedy to the layman, with Brooks acting as the privileged insider who’d learned all its secrets. He’d use his spot making short films on SNL (forerunners of the short form work of The Lonely Island) to hawk his records on primetime while presenting a man who appeared to be above it. When his first feature film debuted, 1979’s Real Life, it opened with a segment that could have been taken in isolation as one of the last great Brooks short films. He introduces himself to the residents of Phoenix, Arizona in their city council building by singing a song with what he could afford of The Mere Griffin Orchestra that includes a few seconds of crowd work and lyrics tailored to the place. It’s a hilariously slick introduction to Brooks, who, by the end of the film, has gone mad and has tried to burn his film to the ground literally to give it an ending akin to Gone with the Wind. Next came 1981’s Modern Romance, in which Brooks is front and center as the most controlling nebbish in the world, riddled with jealousy and his inferiority complex. He’s the villain of his own story but he can’t see it. He thinks he’s got the world and women figured out, much like his early persona had conquered the secrets of comedy, but his surfeit of knowledge just lays him up in a fog of awful curiosity. Every minute he’s not with his girlfriend (then ex-girlfriend, then girlfriend again, then fiancé, then ex-wife) he’s just imagining all the men she’s with instead of him. For his next trick, he’d decimate every piece of the LA Yuppie persona and the supposed enlightenment of the well-to-do. 1985’s Lost in America was his biggest box office success to date and the announcement that the new Brooks persona ? the man falling apart at the seams ? would be replacing the showbiz wheeler dealer permanently. It opens with a radio interview with Rex Reed (a frequent target of Brooks’ gentle ire) that ends with him saying that if he’s watching a comedy, he doesn’t need to see it in a packed house. “If it’s really funny, I’ll laugh. ” Brooks, who was all about manipulation of expectations and roasting himself, opens with a dare. Brooks plays David Howard, a junior executive at an advertising firm expecting a big promotion so he and his wife Linda (Julie Hagerty) can get buy a new house and really start their lives. When he’s denied the new job, he snaps and quits in as flamboyant a fashion as possible. “I’ve seen the future and it’s a bald man from New York! ” He convinces Linda to abandon their future plans in favor of purchasing an RV and seeing the real America. “We need to touch Indians! ” Is his constant, deeply shallow refrain. He doesn’t seem to understand that the America he thinks he’s about to go explore never existed and he bought it hook, line, and sinker from commercial agencies like the one for which he used to work and movies like Easy Rider ??another of Brooks the writers’ favorite hobby horses. Easy Rider was a frequent target of Brooks because settled men in condos idolized the drugged up free spirits on the bikes. The cop who pulls David and Linda over in Arizona loves the film, not realizing he represents everything the movie stands against. Men everywhere saw themselves in Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper, even as they lived creatively stymied with existences utterly dependent on capitalism and law and order. They’d never throw everything away. Sure enough, it’s not even 24 hours into their journey before David realizes his dreams and reality won’t ever mix. Linda gambles away their money and despite David’s attempts to get it back from a pit boss (played splendidly by an unflappable Garry Marshall), they’re broke, trapped in an RV, and have no job prospects. They never wanted the experience to turn out the way they planned; they wanted the exact comfort, just without the responsibility and the phone bill. Like Dennis Hopper in Easy Rider, Brooks films the few wonders of America they find, like the Hoover Dam, as just the backdrop for the petty bickering of two frustrated boomers. They’re equally helpless, and though they agree they hated their old life, they cannot hack it as pioneers. They’re like indoor cats let out for the first time, suddenly scratching to get back in. The empty promise of the American dream is the implicit subject of most of his films, but in Lost in America, they’re the most exquisitely drawn. Failure and pettiness haunt David and Linda, and Brooks finds compelling ways to frame them. (He was never the most exacting visual stylist, though he had his moments, as in the King Vidor-influenced opening of 1991’s Defending Your Life. By 1996’s Mother, the camera was just there to capture the dialogue and performances, though those never lost their sharpness). The argument at the Hoover Dam has them walking a thin sidewalk while Brooks and his long shadow bear down Hagerty as she tries to hitchhike away from him. It’s lovely to consider, but it’s also the whole movie in one composition. All around them is natural beauty and the open road, but they’re stuck to each other and their awful neediness. The way he handles the blocking in the scene where Haggerty gambles away their nest egg is done in one long, hyperactive take, the camera following a robe-cold Brooks as he rockets between the roulette wheel and Marshall. In scenes like this, the film most resembles Preston Sturges, Brooks most obvious predecessor (his boorish insecurities and her meek messiness recall the pairing of Betty Hutton & Eddie Bracken in Sturges’ best movies). Naturally the film wouldn’t work unless David and Linda are killed as in Easy Rider, which would have been too bleak for a comedy, so he has them come crawling back to the society they fled while Sinatra triumphantly swings on the soundtrack, cynically mythologizing Brooks as he sells right back out. He’s becoming part of something bigger and more important than his and his wife’s own happiness. They never wanted the real America and now they’ll never have to see it again. Where’s It Streaming? HBO Go Trailer:.
Lost in america. Lost in america 2019 full movies. Lost in america trailer documentary. America's military prowess has never been greater, but our thinking about foreign affairs has rarely been so pedestrian. In the days since the U. S. military followed through on direct orders from President Trump to kill Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, we've heard from a wide range of pundits and analysts. On one side, the right reverts to self-congratulatory chest-thumping about inflicting punishment on a "bad guy" who "deserved" his fate. On the other, the left declares Trump's actions "illegal, " denying the legitimacy of his rationale for striking Soleimani. Each side has a point. Soleimani has been sowing chaos in the region, and he had taken a series of provocative actions against American troops and allies since the summer that more than justified a strong response. At the same time, the Trump administration's stated casus belli (attempting to preempt future attacks about which we purportedly possessed firm intelligence) sounds suspiciously like the ginned up justifications the Bush 43 administration used to make the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein in 2003. All of this is horribly familiar and insufficient. International affairs involve so much more than demonstrations of moral purity and the punctilious following of legal procedures. Yet you would never know this from the level of discussion and debate in Washington and the mainstream media, where far more fundamental and important issues ? like whether it was wise to take out Soleimani, whether it advanced America's vital national interests, and how the act fits into our broader strategy in the world ? hardly ever come up. Instead, the focus repeatedly returns to questions of moral righteousness and legality. But wait, some are bound to object, haven't plenty of analysts been debating whether the attack on Soleimani was a bad idea, including whether it could provoke a painful Iranian counter-strike on the U. and its allies? People have indeed been arguing about such questions. But these are questions of tactics, not strategy. They presume that the broader aim of our policy ? pushing back against Iranian influence in Iraq while we also continue to pursue additional goals within the country, among them stamping out the last remnants of ISIS ? is settled, obvious. They presume that our strategy in the region ? including partnering with Saudi Arabia in its proxy war with Iran in Yemen ? is sound. That it's reasonable. That it benefits the United States to keep attempting to militarily micromanage the Middle East 18 years after the September 11 attacks and nearly 30 years since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. That's when today's unspoken, unquestionable assumptions about American strategy and interests in the Middle East ? assumptions that desperately need to be subjected to scrutiny ? were first formed and then hardened into a supposedly self-evident dogma. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush decided to turn it into a decisive moment of the post-Cold War world. One nation had invaded another, and Bush set out to lead a broad-based coalition of countries, working through the United Nations, to show that such behavior would not stand. The world would come together, behind American leadership, to turn back and punish this extra-territorial aggression. This would be a "New World Order, " a model of how international relations might be conducted in a world with just one superpower at the helm seeking to uphold liberal norms. As Bush defined its goals, the Gulf War was a smashing success. The international coalition held together and Hussein's invasion was reversed. But because Hussein was left in power, the U. ended up in the unenviable role of serving as the primary enforcer of U. N. disarmament resolutions and No Fly Zones that were imposed to protect minority groups in the country's north and south. It turned out that the New World Order boiled down to the American military periodically launching punitive air strikes against a dictator 6, 000 miles from American shores in the hopes that he might learn to play nice with the "international community. " This continued throughout the administration of President Bill Clinton, while several members of the Bush 41 administration, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, came to the conclusion that they'd made a mistake in allowing Hussein to stay in power (even though any effort to overthrow him after his expulsion from Kuwait would have shattered the coalition Bush had assembled to fight and support the war's narrow aims). On the one hand, Hussein's sovereignty was severely curtailed. On the other, he now considered the U. his mortal enemy. Was it really in America's interests to allow him to stay in power, waiting for the world to grow tired of policing him? Eventually he'd reacquire the right to use his airspace as he wished and restart his weapons programs. And then the U. would be confronted with a potent adversary out for revenge. In the context of the late 1990s, with the U. seemingly on top of the world, this anxiety sounded more than a little paranoid. But after 9/11, with the U. feeling wronged and newly vulnerable, it seemed indisputable to many. Certainly for Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others now working in the Bush 43 administration, it was clear that the U. needed to solve its Hussein problem once and for all. This would be good for America, of course, but also for its allies in the War on Terror, and for the U. N., which would finally be assured that its post-Gulf War resolutions were being enforced, and for the Middle East, which would learn a valuable lesson about the potency and righteousness of American power, and about the potential for democratic reform in the region. All good things would go together. There would be no need for trade-offs. The U. would overthrow Hussein, our troops would be greeted as liberators, Al Qaeda would quake in its boots, and the next thing you know everyone from Tel Aviv to Kabul would be singing a happy American tune about the glories of freedom and democracy. Bush 41's vision of a New World Order had been transformed into a worldwide crusade to spread liberal democracy with heavy weaponry. The amazing thing about this Panglossian vision of the world is that it not only survived the disaster of the Iraq invasion, occupation, insurgency, and civil war, but actually spread and took deeper root throughout the American foreign policy community as George W. Bush completed his second term and Barack Obama entered the White House. In 2003 these analysts hoped and assumed the dual process of ensuring American safety and transforming the Middle East in our image would be a quick and easy operation. Now they recognized that its endpoint may well be indeterminate. But that didn't mean it was any less choiceworthy. The members of America's foreign policy establishment now believed that upholding and enforcing order around the world required the U. to militarily micromanage the Greater Middle East. Obama, decisively influenced by the tragic Christian realism of Reinhold Niebuhr, was skeptical of this vision, and worked during his administration to resist it. In his early efforts to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt settlement expansion in the West Bank, his conciliatory Cairo speech about relations between the West and the Muslim world, his decision to withdraw troops from Iraq, and his pursuit of the Iran deal, the opening to Cuba, and the pivot to Asia ? in all of these ways, Obama attempted to adopt a different, less messianic geopolitical strategy for the United States. And at each step leading members of the foreign policy community worked to thwart his efforts. At other times ? as in his decision to repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya and his willingness to aid the Saudis in their efforts to crush an Iran-backed insurgency in Yemen ? he proved too weak to withstand the institutional and ideological inertia in favor of intervention. How does Trump differ from his predecessors? He appears to be motivated in large part by the desire to reverse every policy Obama enacted ? which has had the effect of turning back the clock to the latter years of the Bush administration, though with some important differences. His tactics are more unpredictable than those of previous presidents, careening wildly from dovish restraint to provocative threats and acts of violence. And he neither talks about democracy nor acts in a way that displays any concern for the good of the people living in the parts of the world in which we continually meddle. Yet Trump's actions nonetheless demonstrate that he believes it's in the interest of the United States to continue our military micromanagement of the Middle East, now with special emphasis on Iran. That is the key assumption that no one wants to acknowledge or examine, from the president on down through his advisers and the leading foreign policy "experts" of both parties. Until someone in our public life questions this supremely questionable assumption, suggests an alternative strategy for our actions in the world, and builds popular support for it and against the stultifying status quo in Washington, American foreign policy will continue to drift from one pointless Middle Eastern war to the next, with no end in sight. Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.
Lost in america foundation. Lost in america full movie for free. Lost in america documentary.

Lost in america soundtrack 2017.

In this hysterical satire of Reagan-era values, written and directed by Albert Brooks, a successful Los Angeles advertising executive (Brooks) and his wife (Julie Hagerty) decide to quit their jobs, buy a Winnebago, and follow their Easy Rider fantasies of freedom and the open road. When a stop in Las Vegas nearly derails their plans, they’re forced to come to terms with their own limitations and those of the American dream. Brooks’s barbed wit and confident direction drive Lost in America, an iconic example of his restless comedies about insecure characters searching for satisfaction in the modern world that established his unique comic voice and transformed the art of observational humor. Special Features New, restored 2K digital transfer, supervised by director Albert Brooks, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray New conversation with Brooks and filmmaker Robert Weide New interviews with actor Julie Hagerty, executive producer Herb Nanas, and filmmaker and screenwriter James L. Brooks Trailer PLUS: An essay by critic Scott Tobias New cover by F. Ron Miller based on an original theatrical poster Cast & Credits Albert Brooks David Howard Julie Hagerty Linda Howard Michael Greene Paul Dunn Garry K. Marshall Casino manager Maggie Roswell Patty Tom Tarpey Brad Tooley Ernie Brown Pharmacist Joey Coleman Skippy Art Frankel Employment agent Donald Gibb Ex-convict Raynold Gideon Ray Charles Boswell Highway patrolman Michael Cornelison Hotel clerk Radu Gavor Bellman Herb Nanas Mercedes driver Director Written by Monica Johnson Producer Marty Katz Executive producer Director of photography Eric Saarinen Editor David Finfer Production design Richard Sawyer Sound Bill Nelson Music by Arthur B. Rubinstein Casting Barbara Claman Set decorator Richard Goddard Costumes Julie Glick Makeup Rick Sharp Hair Ramsey Still photographer Bruce Birmelin A scene from Lost in America Lost in America with Albert Brooks One of the wittiest chroniclers of modern American life, Albert Brooks talks with filmmaker Robert Weide about how he arrived at the concept for Lost in America. Also: a few words from James L. Brooks. Lost in America: The $100, 000 Box Albert Brooks brings the gift for comic deconstruction he honed in his stand-up career to this uproarious satire of baby boomer values.
Lost in america first. Lost in american. Lost in america. Lost in america streaming. Lost in america bill deasy. Lost in america lyrics. Lost in america poster. Lost in america album. Lost in america mr big. Lost in america halloween. Lost in america novel.

Lost in america release info. Lost in america alice cooper video. Lost int. american.

Lost in america the gathering field. Lost in america imdb. Putlocker Available in HD Streaming Online Free Lost in Full Movie Watch Online Lost in America Online Hindi HBO 2018 Mojo Watch Online... Lost in america rotten tomatoes. Lost in america alice cooper lyrics. Lost in america by candelario. Lost in america job interview. O n March 29, 2003, at a wedding reception in the Harvard Faculty Club, Lawrence W. Reed gave a toast in honor of the friend whom he was serving as best man?one Joseph P. Overton. Overton had worked at Dow Chemical; he had since become an executive at a free-market, small?government think tank in central Michigan. Among his duties at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy was raising money, and in doing so, he had made a brochure that would become his legacy. Overton was trying to describe the role of think tanks in a society, and he posited an idea that would come to be called the Overton window. In a given society, at a given moment, there is a range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream. (A 70% top tax rate and a 20% top tax rate are both within this window in America today; abolishing taxes is not. ) Generally, the theory went, politicians will only propose ideas that fall within the window. It falls to think tanks (and others) to propose unpopular things outside of the window in the hope of shifting the window and making the previously unthinkable achievable. Overton was an ardent libertarian who pushed ideas like school choice?and, according to Reed’s wedding toast, he had on occasion resorted to more extreme methods of moving the window of the possible, “including the time, ” Reed recounted that day, “we flew in a Cessna 172 in broad daylight at treetop level 150 miles into war-torn Mozambique to assist armed rebels fighting the Marxist regime there. ” Overton died just weeks after his wedding. Were Overton still alive, he would be pushing 60?and might be aghast to learn that his “window, ” having become famous after his death, is now invoked to describe America’s great, unlikely backlash against the system he defended so ardently: capitalism. Art by Delcan & Company for TIME, photographed by Jamie Chung A democratic socialist? Bernie Sanders ?is among the top contenders to be the next Democratic nominee for U. S. President. His rival and fellow Senator, Elizabeth Warren, is also among the top tier of candidates, declaring herself a capitalist who wishes to transform American capitalism as we know it, with a wealth tax, a Green New Deal and the elimination of private health insurance. A more centrist candidate, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., illustrated the shifting winds when he recently declared that “neo-liberalism is the political?economic consensus that has governed the last 40 years of policy in the U. and U. K. Its failure helped to produce the Trump moment. Now we have to replace it with something better. ” In 2016, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) had 5, 000 members; since then, its dues-paying membership has multiplied more than tenfold. This new energy on the left terrifies chief executives and billionaires, and yet many of them have been voicing similar alarms about a crisis of capitalism. Ray Dalio, the billionaire co-chairman of the investment firm Bridgewater Associates, warned in April that America faced a “national emergency” in capitalism’s failure to benefit more people, and he pronounced the American Dream lost. The anti-capitalist impulse has some purchase on the right too. Before he pushed a tax cut that lined the capitalists’ pockets, Donald Trump ran, most improbably, as a Republican skeptical of the financial elite’s loyalty to Americans. On Fox News, Tucker Carlson has entertained a surprising skepticism of capitalist doctrines and said positive things about Warren. America loves a capitalist reckoning the way the NFL loves Colin Kaepernick. But it is having one anyway. And if this year that reckoning seemed to reach new intensity, it was because the economic precariousness, stalled mobility and gaping social divides that have for years fueled the backlash now had an improbable sidekick: plutocracy itself and the win-win ideology that has governed the past few decades. This year, America’s ultra-elites seemed to bend over backward to lend support to the idea that maybe the system they superintend needs gut renovating. As a political movement bubbled up to challenge their wealth and power, the elite’s own misbehavior trickled down. And where the two met, ideas that once seemed unutterable started, to many, to sound like the future. History is the story of conditions that long seem reasonable until they begin to seem ridiculous. So it is with America’s present manic hyper-capitalism. Until recently, it seemed normal that a technological revolution that began with promises of leveled playing fields had culminated in an age of platform monopolies. Normal that businesspeople should try to make as much money as possible by paying as little as possible in taxes and wages, then donate a fraction of the spoils to PR-friendly social causes. Normal that economic security for most Americans was becoming a relic of the past. Normal that people in the street-level marijuana business go to prison while people in the business of selling ads to Russian intelligence go on magazine covers. Normal that bankers could shatter the world economy with their speculating, and that they would be among the few to be made whole after the crisis. For years, there have been voices trying to denormalize this state. There were protests in Seattle in 1999, there was Occupy in 2011, there was the DSA, there was the World Social Forum to rival the World Economic Forum, there was, eternally, Bernie Sanders saying the exact stuff he is still saying today, there were civic groups trying to organize workers and poor communities, there were outcasts in Silicon Valley warning that Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t really about human connection. But America was in the grips of the ideological consensus that Buttigieg described. Hyper-capitalism was the intellectual stadium in which the country played. There was a left side of the field, more wary of capitalism’s extremes, and a right side of the field, prone to capitalist boosting. But the stadium, as Overton understood, demarcated the boundaries of the debate for most people: Capitalism, more or less as we practice it, is our system, and it is the best system, so how do we tweak it to make it better? Illustration by Shout for TIME Then, in 2016, something happened. Sanders ran for President. He built a formidable national movement, powered by small donations, and won 22 states?mind you, as a democratic socialist in the United States of America. Sometimes the thing that could never happen happens, and it makes people doubt their sense of reality. And in that election cycle, if Sanders discredited capitalism as a conscious project, his cause received unexpected, unintentional help from the man who would become President. Trump ran as a flamboyant capitalist, wary of certain aspects of capitalism, but promising that his capitalist mind and his capitalist fortune would make him a uniquely gifted, uniquely incorruptible President. When that turned out not to be the case, Trump not only damaged himself but the idea of the selfless billionaire savior too. The Overton window was moving. Then came the 2018 midterms and a new wave of Democratic -candidates?most prominently, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York?questioning capitalism?as?capitalism in a way that seemed unfamiliar and fresh. As the 2020 campaign approached, Warren jumped into the race, a beneficiary of the opening Sanders had helped carve for capitalist?critical aspirants to America’s highest office. With her now famous litany of “plans, ” Warren detailed an agenda that would put American business in a headlock. That she and Sanders, both veritable enemies of Big Business, are among the top candidates shows how much the politics of capitalism has changed. Who should be TIME’s Person of the Year for 2019? Cast your vote in the reader poll. But, politics can be abstract; it can be complicated; people are busy living. Politics often benefits from scandal, from prominent misbehavior, from a dramatization of the discourse. And this was what was so remarkable about 2019: because of the coming election in these populist times, it was already a year potentially full of trouble for the plutocrats?or plutes, as I like to call them (to save space and, thus, paper and, therefore, trees). But, almost as if to assist the cause, the plutes seemed this year to put on an extended exhibit of performance art whose plain, if unstated, thesis is that plutocracy is maybe a bad idea. Exhibit A: Early in the year, Amazon, run by one of the world’s richest people, Jeff Bezos, announced it was pulling out of its planned Hydra-like “second headquarters” in New York City. It seemed to come as a surprise to Bezos that in a city where a significant number of people struggle to keep up with rising costs and stagnant pay, many weren’t excited by the idea of the state and city giving his company a few billion dollars in tax breaks that wouldn’t be available to a regular Joe starting a business. In the debate that erupted, the conventional wisdom that it is always better to attract jobs, even by offering companies major incentives, came to be questioned. Exhibit B: The college-bribery scandal. Wealth and privilege are already great guarantors of securing a spot in a university. What the scandal unearthed by federal prosecutors illustrated is that many very rich people are not satisfied with the general advantage of hyper-privilege, nor even with the specific advantage of donations to universities that give you an edge but not a guarantee. The ascendant critics of capitalism in American politics have called the system “rigged” for years. But here was a

Lost in america nest egg. Lost in america pepper. Lost in america movie. Lost in américain. Lost in america documentary 2017.

Lost in america dvd.

1. https://seesaawiki.jp/furibin/d/%A1%C2Without%20Me...
2. www.bizcommunity.com/Profile/FreeLostinAmericaDVD9Full
3. Lost in America
4. amp.amebaownd.com/posts/8000104
5. https://seesaawiki.jp/rekuega/d/%A2%BAOnline%20Now...
6. www.openlearning.com/u/didomadisf/blog/FWatchFreeLostInAmerica
7. https://gumroad.com/l/solarmovie-full-movie-lost-i...
8. https://kumu.io/coybarwcumsfi/lost-in-america
9. https://ameblo.jp/nukuroishi/entry-12586031531.htm...
10. https://seesaawiki.jp/hishitetsu/d/Allucee%20gostr...