smijatov

This is one of those films where you will end up confused. Why, you ask. Well, for one you will not be certain of what is going on, or rather why things are going on. And secondly, you will not be certain whether you are supposed to feel uncomfortable throughout the film, or it is just a possible result of your own interpretation. It bodes that age-old question: what did the author want to say? Or in this case, the director. I am not sure. Truly, not. Of course, there are traces of feminism here, socio-cultural critique, reclaiming Africanism rather than the post-colonial structures in place in Africa. That is all great. The story, however, is too rigid yet too vague. It doesn't make sense, does it? That's my point. Acting is excellent, especially the young Maggie Mulubwa, who says more with her eyes than many actors can in any monologue or dialogue. Cinematography is beautiful, especially in relation to the ribbons that are allocated to the witches. Otherwise, the film's story is quite disturbing and disjointed. I felt uncomfortable throughout but was not quite sure if that was the feeling intended or just a mixture of discomfort and confusion as to what is going on. Definitely worth a watch, but it is not something that would be easily understood or easily appreciated for its vagueness. Considering it is Rungano Nyoni's debut feature, I am sure she will easily build further on the fundaments she has established through I Am Not a Witch.

Going into an 'Oscar baity' film during the Oscars winter season is always an experiment: is this going to be one that will allow you to fully immerse yourself into the fibre of the story or will you be severely frustrated by all the teary closeups followed by the string score? Lion, for better of for worse, does both. The first half of the film is absolutely splendid. Raw, poignant, emotional. It has it all. A fabulous lead actor in the young Sunny Pawar and a heart-wrenching story to go with him. Things go a bit wonky once the film shifts time and place to Australia. While Dev Patel is splendid here, after Sunny's performance, it is difficult for him to live up to what has been presented. Rooney Mara is excellent, albeit rather tangential (potentially, actually unnecessary as a character). And that is where the problems lie. That strained relationship they have is just not meshing well. It does not progress the story anywhere. There are glimmers of hope in that Australian section, though. The dinner scene when Patel's character has a fit and Nicole Kidman, playing his adoptive mother, has one of the most expressive 30 second performances seen in a long time. Her "big scene" is also quite good but was too much of a tear-jerker moment for my taste. From the technical side - the cinematography is excellent (again, especially in the first part of the film), and the original score is mesmerising and gives a wholly new dimension to the film. The bottom line is that this film is all well-intentioned, and that is the problem probably with it. It veers on the edge of being fully committed to the story and characters, but then kind of drifts away to be "a film". Basically, it is overly obvious and cliche at times. And I bet that the real-life story was not a cliche at all. The film just does not fully realise itself as an excellent one. A good film, definitely. A very good film, surely. But not an excellent one.

As a Harry Potter fan since the pre-film Harry Potter times, I was clearly extremely excited about the expansion of the magical world that I had come accustomed to explore in the film theatre. The awe-inspiring creativity and ability to project a completely new world onto the screen was what kept on bringing me and millions others back year after year to watch the next installment of the Harry Potter saga. However, this is a new saga, and, unfortunately, as the reviewer from Entertainment Weekly aptly described, this one seems "numbingly inconsequential." Do not get me wrong, this is not a bad film. But it is not a *good* film either. It is just fine. And that is disappointing. I found it hard to get into the story for the first hour or so. It just did not grab my attention, despite of all the action going on. Later on, I did find myself engrossed in the film, but that was not quite enough. The darkness that the HP films went to by the end is well maintained here. The visuals are beautiful. The CGI is amazing and even a notch better than the last couple of Harry Potter films. There is nothing wrong per se. It is just lacking an emotional connection. And that may be because it is compared to Harry Potter and if we are holding the film to that standard, it never will live up to it. It just cannot. The most redeeming factor for me was the feeling that it was very appropriate to have such a bleak view of the U.S. in the wake of Donald Trump's election. While this was overall not quite as exciting nor engaging as I had hoped it would be, it did set a stage with enough unknowns about this new wizarding world of the U.S. that it will probably easily give itself to the other 4 sequels. Maybe they will develop this emotional connection that this first installment failed to achieve.

There is very little in this film that would warrant the word "fabulous" in its title, aside from the fact that it is the name of the 90's British sitcom. It is an utter mess from start to finish and I am frankly quite surprised that the critics gave this average reviews. Granted, the basic plotline is not too bad: Edie and Patsy are old and slowly losing their fabulous lifestyle they used to enjoy. There is quite a few important issues here: ageing, careers, sexism, materialism, etc. However, that is where the ingenuity ends. The execution of the film is utterly ridiculous. While the show used to be very sarcastic and basically make fun of people like Edie and Patsy, now that aspect of the story is lost. Their characters are shallow. There was no *real* character development from when the show ended in the 90's up until this moment - something that was supposed to happen. Otherwise, the acting is a bit too slapsticky from everyone, as well as the entire production just seemed somehow as fake as the CGI background behind Kate Moss. And where does this ridiculous premise of Kate Moss come from any way?! Anyhow, aside from a chuckle here and there, and some fabulous outfits, there was little to take home from this. Which is a pity, as this could really have been fabulous...

All through watching Mockingjay I thought somehow it feeling familiar... and I realised it reminded me a bit of the Harry Potter series and the point where Harry Potter got darker and more grown up. While the Potter franchise successfully transitioned from it's 12-year old demographic, The Hunger Games, did not quite manage so well. Not all is bad. There is some interesting criticism here of media and propaganda, but those are all smack -in-the-face type of observations. The film makes no secret of it. The darkness comes from the topic itself: the film is set in the aftermath of a violent crackdown by the Capitol onto the rebelling districts. It is dystopic, but what is missing is the emotion behind it. Jennifer Lawrence is more Jennifer Lawrence than Katniss, and when she is Katniss...well, Katniss is annoying. The consistent need to push her into doing what she has to do is quite frustrating. Mind you, it is (probably?) a limitation imposed in the Hunger Games books, but that still does not make her any less annoying and infuriating when she'd rather choose Peeta over the future of the whole world. Technically, the Hunger Games have polished up quite nicely. The CGI does not look as dated as it did in the first film, which is good. This film is very grim and dark - the colourful costumes of the Capitol have been replaced by the darkness of the underground shelter and the military uniform. Overall, though, the film sustains the continuation of a mediocre, yet entertaining, franchise. That being said, this one is the least entertaining film so far. The whole "Part 1" charade is a charade at its best. Not much really happens here, beyond some character "development" for Katniss (also known as everyone pushing her to get her act together). The first film is still the most engaging and entertaining one - let us hope they will end the series on a better note than Mockingjay Part 1, because otherwise, it will be a snooze.

An excellent woman-centric film, which is quite a breath of fresh air in the male dominated field, especially when it comes to "coming of (sexual) age" films. It is a strange concoction, yet a very effective one. Marielle Heller, the first-time director, does an excellent job with intermixing beautiful cartoon artwork which enriches the film quite well. While sometimes the artwork does not quite transcend itself to give the film deeper meaning (e.g. 2010's "Rabbit Hole"), this is a rather successful merger of art and film. In terms of production, the film is very good. Excellent editing and cinematography are aided by well thought out production design and excellent costumes. The lenses used give that "70s hue" that compliments the overall storyline and makes the film somewhat more believable. The plot is quite engaging itself, if for no other reason but for it's female focus. We are used to those awful slapstick men-centric comedies with their fart jokes. This, in comparison, looks like a mature take on a mature topic - sexual development and growing up of a teenage girl. Surely, the actions of Minnie (excellently portrayed by Bel Powley) seem often reprehensible and irrational, but they are also part of what makes the film credible. Teenagers are weird. They have weird logic (or none, at times). They think about sex. They think about sex A LOT. And sometimes, like in Minnie's case, they are not afraid to explore it. Powley is extremely convincing in an array of situations in the film and, as one character in the film points out - those eyes! She manages to get through that teenage innocence and vulnerability, but also the strength of her wannabe-Lolita independent woman that she wants to be. And that's part of the genius of the script too: why settle for either one when you can be both? From the rest of the cast, Alexander Skarsgard has the most screen time and he is actually quite good in the role of the enamoured boyfriend of Minnie's mother. The mother, played by Kristen Wiig, seems like the weakest link in the chain. While Wiig does decently, the mother's character seems to be the weakest in terms of being a full person. We see drinking problems and drug abuse, we see the inability to deal with emotions, as we see the need for (male) attention. But that all seems rather limited, especially within the context of a film that has developed its heroine so well, as well as the troubled male focus of her attention. Without giving away too much - I'd highly recommend this film to anyone, especially teenagers. It makes thinking about sex seem normal and acceptable, which is important. It is sad that that's an important thing we need to remind ourselves of in 2016, but beggars cannot be choosers. An excellent film with an excellent cast, dealing with an excellently engaging topic, done in an excellent mixture of live action and animation - 8/10!

The Sessions is a great indie film that maturely explores topics of sexuality, with a focus on disability. Based on a true story, as often films like this are, it is truly mind boggling once one realises how ability and disability shape our lives in a lot of ways, and that is exactly what The Sessions brings out. The screenplay is well written, but it is based on the actual work by Mark O'Brien (portrayed by the excellent John Hawkes). I was one of the rare people who was not surprised in the least with Hawkes' Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for "Winter's Bone" since I believed his performance was superior to that of Jennifer Lawrence. Yet again, he has proven me right. Exquisite, nuanced performance that comes to life out of his eyes. Simply amazing. Helen Hunt, who received a Oscar nomination for portraying the sex therapist O'Brien sees, is also a revelation. A very mature, down-to-earth, "real" performance. She doesn't overact or overly dramatise any single moment. Even her breakdown scene is rather demure and feels incredibly real. The performances were definitely the highlight of the film, and they truly made the story come to life in the best possible way. Some people might not like the story itself, but that is another issue. I have to give credit where credit is due, though: very few American films deal head-on with sex and sexuality, yet alone for non-mainstream sexuality, such as heterosexual, able-ist and marriage-bound. Sex and sexuality have been European cinema's turf for the longest time, and it is very nice to see filmmakers trying to grapple with it, and actually managing quite successfully. I'd highly recommend this film to anyone. Inspiring and thought provoking, with excellent performances a must see!

There are two things that come out of watching "Young Adult." That Charlize Theron is still one of the best actresses around, and that Diablo Cody is an inspiring screenplay writer. Mavis, portrayed by Theron, is a successful writer living in the 'Minni Apple,' 'living the dream' of the small-town people of Mercury, Minnesota. As we soon find out, Mavis' success is coming to an end and with that end of an epoch of her life, old news come from her small hometown, colliding the two worlds at the worst time. A stagnant (if not slowly failing) career, a non-existent romantic life and a poor social and health life, all come together in this rather amusing drama. It is not quite a comedy Mavis' delusions, while entertaining, are no joking matter. Diablo Cody, writer of Juno and this film, has made sure that the characters are all rather complex and stimulating. In one scene, Mavis and her newfound friend from high school, the crippled Matt (Patton Oswalt) mock the apparent happy-go-lucky one-sidedness of Mavis' cousin, who is also crippled but is extensively optimistic to make up for his physical disability. This can be seen as Cody's poking at poorly written characters, as everyone else seems to be rather well-developed, especially Theron's character. Talking of Theron, she gives an inspired performance with a lot of subtle, character traits that create a great sense of who Mavis really is, without over acting or being overly theatrical even in scenes that are rather theatrical themselves. The film's overall vibe is more something that one would expect from a Noah Baumbach film, like "Margot at the Wedding" or "The Squid and the Whale," not a Jason Reitman film. None of the characters are very likeable. Mavis' is borderline crazy, Matt is a depressed man not doing much with his life but criticising himself and others, Buddy (Mavis' high school fling, played by Patrick Wilson) is disengaged and somehow selfish, and his wife (Elizabeth Reaser) seems manipulative in her overt niceness and unspoken criticisms. It is far from the overt dislike one has of Baumbach's characters, but still it was a resounding theme that was hard to ignore. Overall, the film is entertaining and gets one thinking, with excellent performances by Theron and Oswalt, and a very well written screenplay that is very much character-driven and rewarding in that sense. There is very little here that does not work, but "Young Adult" is still not necessarily a film that you will want to watch again. If anything, you will cringe at the thought of a re-watch, since it will remind you of your own high school days and lead you to think about your own life and your choices, for better or worse.

While I am no fan of "The Hunger Games" books nor did I really hear about them until the film came out and I took a whole year to actually get to watch the film, I must admit it is quite good. As a matter of fact, I am quite shocked at how good it is. In my head it was somewhat of a "Twilight" phenomenon, so I discarded it immediately. However, it was misguided. "The Hunger Games" has an interesting premise, and a rather well thought out idea. The screenplay is well written and it achieves to keep one fully immersed into the film, and provides necessary thrills throughout the entirety of the film. I was so absorbed and intensely connecting with the characters, I got acid reflux from all the tension. Oh, no, I am not joking. Anyhow, the technicalities of the film need no discussion, really. A film with such a huge budget will make sure to clean up nicely and "The Hunger Games" is no different. The performances were, surprisingly, quite convincing and were not forced. Jennifer Lawrence is pitch-perfect as the leading lady, and all the supporting cast does a good job. I was especially stricken by the emotional connection with, and performance by the young Amandla Stenberg. It is sad we will not be seeing her in the second instalment of the series, but what can one do. Overall, it was a real pleasure to watch this film. Not only did it deliver unexpected thrills (at least unexpected to me), but it also managed to take the audience into that dystopian world of the future. How dystopic it really is is another question to be asked, especially in light of reality television and its ever-brutal entrance into the real lives of people. Quite often with dubious ethical, moral and taste breaches that leave one baffled.

This is a tough call. While the premise is interesting, and the story quite entertaining, something's just missing with "Chronicle." It plays around with the whole superhero/villain theme, which is rather refreshing. It seems that in most sci-fi stories that involve sudden gains of power, the protagonist is always somehow good. "Chronicle" plays rather well with this notion, which is a new spin to the story it's the Magneto of regular superhero films. Otherwise, the biggest setback of the film is it's rather poor character development. While we are made to feel sorry for the main protagonist, Andrew, the ways that we are made to feel that way are rather clichéd: no friends, bullied at school, abusive father, etc. His rage and his inner turmoil somehow is multiplied to the verge of bursting, without it quite making a lot of sense. The three main actors were pretty decent, especially Alex Russell who was the most engaging and believable of characters. The hand-held camera, and the very choice to do a camera perspective for the entire film, is a rather divisive choice as I have come to see in reviews, but I did not mind it all that much. The escalation of the story by the end somehow happened out of nowhere and escalated quite dramatically. A bit too much for my taste, with a rather anticlimactic ending. It was a nicely conceived idea and some great visuals can be seen in the film, but this falls into the mediocre bracket easily. 5/10

Stoker definitely fulfilled my expectations, though I had not really watched any of the previous work by Park. I did expect some visual mastery, that is exactly what I got. The film is visually mesmerising, providing us with innumerable beautiful shots. Really, each shot can be a still photograph on its own right. It is simply stunning the amount of work this must have demanded, so the director did a superb job. The casting was great, too since everyone's performance was excellent, especially young Mia Wasikowska. The story is interesting, too, and while not necessarily the strong point of the film, it is sufficiently good not to be a let down. Overall, it is a good debute for Park who should have gotten more recognition for this. 8/10

Luhrmann has been one of my favourite directors solely relying on his mastery with "Moulin Rouge". I enjoyed "Romeo+Juliet" also, but nowhere near as much as MR, and then Australia was kind of a let down. His visual style, however, has always been consistently amazing and his films are a true feast for the eyes. "The Great Gatsby" continues this trend, and possibly pushes it further. With Luhrmann's trademark great and innovative cinematography, editing, costume design and art direction, Gatsby is technically top-notch. The impressive line up for the soundtrack also adds layers and layers to the film, in a choice similar to "Moulin Rouge's" soundtrack back in 2001. While some have complained about the over-stimulus visually and the over-the-top costumes and parties depiction in the film, I felt as if it was quite appropriate. It truly showed the lavishness and shallowness of those events, costumes and places, while at the same time allowing for the audience to see the emptiness of Gatsby's life. My only concern was the length of the film, but it is manageable. Almost as long as "Australia" was, it still managed to feel reasonably lengthy, instead of being a drag. Overall, "Gatsby" is a well-executed film with lavish sets, amazing costumes, beautiful soundtrack and all other technical aspects. Acting is rather good, too, with DiCaprio having a standout performance, while Mulligan and Maguire are rather sidelined in their conventional acting and do not quite push the envelope far enough. Nonetheless, it is a good film and I'd recommend watching it!

Thank god that the National Board of Review seems to have common sense still with giving "Looper" the Best Original Screenplay award. This film is AMAZING. It is a "Inception 2.0" of sorts, but even more action-packed. Is that the possible downfall of it in the awards circuit? Maybe. I'll admit, I've been rather limited in my 2012 film watching (so far), but this has been my second favourite film of the year (right after "Argo"). The screenplay, as noted, is extremely well done with an intelligent idea and exceedingly good dialogue. Bruce Willis is great in action films, and he does the same here. Ms Blunt is a great actress and she keeps her head high with this performance. The best, however, is the work of the makeup department and Mr Gordon-Levitt. Wow. That was a great and totally out-of-character performance for his usual self. Finally, I can see him as a serious actor. So, what more does one need than a great screenplay and great cast? Technical aspects? Those are covered too. It's just a good film. No. It's a great film. There is no way about it. One of the best of the year.

I give Apatow kudos for trying something decent with this. It has elements of a serious comedy, "Lost in Translation" style, but also silliness to try and equal it out. Often it works, but just as often it fails. The film has had great potential, and it is rather decent end-product overall, with good performances by the cast, especially Leslie Mann. There seems to be some disjointments in the story, but it is rather entertaining, though a tad too long. Not bad at all, but not a great film either. It's within the 'good' category, for sure. 6/10

I do not know what it is, but "Lincoln" just did not quite do it for me. I felt bored throughout, except of the actual voting (possibly because I am not American and know very little of this history, so I was not sure whether it passed or not), and kept on dozing off every once in a while. However, Lincoln is not all bad. The cast is superb, and Daniel Day-Lewis, yet again, performs his magic to quite an amazing result. Sally Field is also excellent, as are the supporting actors, led by Spader and Strathairn. Honestly, nothing bad can be said of the cast. The art design and costumes were very well done, as was the cinematography. Technically overall the film looks good. But the issue is with the script. It was just not so engaging. I am a **** for drama, and a **** for history (I got a degree in it!) but this was just not very entertainingly done. And mind you, I was thoroughly entertained and enjoyed "The Hours," arguably one of the most depressing films in the past decade. "Lincoln" just does not do it for me. This may be my least favourite Spielberg film, which doesn't mean it's bad. It's a good film, just a bit boring.

Hmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Whether we should be making those comparisons or not is irrelevant, they happen either way. And how could they not? There is so much overlap with characters and places, but also costumes, musical score, cinematography, art direction, you just name it. And while the film holds "universal acclaim" with the general audience of metacritic, I'd highly disagree with this. Yes, the acting is rather solid. Technically the film is good too. However, it gives us nothing new. It does not provide any new, deeper connection with these characters, especially not Gandalf, who is surprisingly weakly portrayed by McKellen after his excellent turn in the Lord of the Rings. Honestly, the story of The Hobbit is not as interesting as the one of the Lord of the Rings, for one. That would do the trick on its own, let alone having high expectations and a million comparisons with one of the best trilogies of all time. Overall, The Hobbit is not a bad film at all. But it is just yet another big-budget blockbuster with great technical aspects, but not quite as much substance as its predecessor had. Maybe the second one will be better? 6/10

Well, there is no way around it: this is yet another really bad horror flick. And, to an extent, as any horror, it has some interesting concepts that can induce fear. Or if not fear, at least thoughts of it. But that's about it. The cinematography is poor, as is the directing, and the acting is even worse. Screenplay has been written rather clumsily and it just does not work. Why give it even a 3/10 then, you say? Well, I am not sure myself. I guess it's my personal weakness for exorcism films. Or it's just trying to be generous, for some inexplicable reason. Maybe the devil has possessed me, and is making me do it. That would be more scary than this film... Go figure.

First thing's first: I am not a Twilight fan. Therefore, giving the film a 5/10 is quite good, mind you. I had not seen the one film before, because I thought "New Moon" was horrible, horrible, horrible, but a friend took me out so figured might as well. To tell the truth, this is not a bad film. Nor is it a good film. It's there in between, in mediocrity. Let's start with visuals - the effects can be pretty nice, but I just couldn't get over the horrible editing with them, especially when they run "supersonic" or whatever it is. Made the film look amateurish and cheap. Other effects were quite good. Acting - not bad. Stewart, whom I usually dislike strongly, was actually bearable. The rest of the cast was ok, too. Storyline was a bit problematic. Ultimately, nothing really happens in the film. I... yeah, that's really it. There's all this builtup but it doesn't quite work out. It just doesn't quite match up with...well, anything. So, comparatively, it was rather decent, but the story was still bad. Bottom line, I guess. Better than the other Twilight films I've seen (only first two) but still not a good film. 5/10

Having seen "No Man's Land," I had high expectations of this film by Danis Tanovic, too, and they were fulfilled! While the film is not as good as the Oscar winner from 2002, it has great pace and dramatic built-up. It is set in a small Herzegovinian town just before the war escalates in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the change towards the war is splendidly built to a point of culmination at the very end. The acting is pretty good, especially by the excellent Mira Furlan, and the classic Miki Manojlovic. The screenplay is well-paced and very insightful, with good dialogue and interesting plot. Honestly, there is very little to nothing 'wrong' with the film. It is a strong film, and it is to no surprise that it was the Bosnian selection for the Academy Awards in 2010. I'd definitely recommend it, if for nothing else, for providing a beautiful view into the dramatic psychological and socio-political changes that were going on in the former Yugoslavia with lightning speed.

Out of over 580 films I have seen and reviewed (not all on here, yet!), there have only been 31 films that I have given a 10. "Argo" is the 32nd. I watched it at the Toronto International Film Festival and went into it without actually having a clue what it was about, which was great because I had no expectations. Soon enough, I ended up being completely immersed in the world of the American escapees from the Embassy. Ben Affleck has managed a feat that only a few actors have - giving an excellent performance as an actor and excellently directing a film at the same time. The entire cast, actually, is fantastic. There is not a single moment that does not have credible acting, and one must give kudos to John Goodman and Alan Arkin for kind of 'stealing the show'. But in a film with such superb acting, it is a rather hard thing to achieve, so that goes even more to their credit. The cinematography is very subtle and very appropriate, with perfectly chosen lenses that transport the viewer into the actual space that the film portrays. Production-wise, overall, the film is very effective. Great costumes, makeup, solid score, everything works well. The screenplay is very well written and manages a fine balance between suspense, drama and humour, which is a very difficult to achieve. "Argo" is one of the rare films that actually manages to make you sympathise and feel with the characters very fast, and basically transports you there with them. It feels as if we are in that same Canadian Embassy in Tehran, in that market, and on the airport. After leaving the theatre, I found myself looking suspiciously at people on the street, thinking who'd figure out that I'm not one of them. And then I realised - I am one of them. I'm not in the film myself. I've been completely engrossed in the film, and that is noteworthy. This is Ben Affleck's triumph on so many levels, and he is setting an extremely high bar for his follow-up projects. Let us hope they are half as good as "Argo," since that would still provide for some very good films. 10/10!

Well, finally a good horror! Good horrors come so infrequently, I always wonder if they're actually good, or they seem disproportionately better because the rest are crap. Well, that is no question with "Cabin" -- simply put, it is a very good horror film. It has a great screenplay and it actually works with tons of horror film stereotypes which make it even better. It is actually quite funny at times and it practically satirises the whole genre somewhat. There are quite a few thrills and scares, but ultimately, I did not get frightened too often. That was my biggest criticism of the film, also. On the other hand, it kept me constantly engaged because of the unexpected twists and turns that it would take. So, by no means as scary as "Drag me to hell" can be, but it for sure is as engaging, interesting and funny. Very good stuff!

What a mess of a film. After "Precious" this just does not seem quite right coming from Daniels. Visually, the film is not bad. The cinematography is great, with a definite 60s glare to it, which works to truly transform your vision and make it seem as if it were shot in the 60s itself. The original score is pretty decent too, with some good tunes, especially "That man is dangerous." The storyline, however, is rather weak and the dialogue at times makes no sense. A lot is also left unexplained -- like McConaughey's love life and events surround that. It is rather gory and out there, which might repeal some viewers, but overall it is definitely an interesting film visually. What stood out to me (in a positive light) were the performances. Efron, though contained, was decent in his performance, as was McConaughey. John Cusack was excellent as the vicious murderer Hillary. His manic look and twitches really brought Hillary to life, as a credible character. The absolute best thing about the film, however, was Nicole Kidman. She shines as the sultry, sexy, yet a bit dim-witted Charlotte Bless, who has a thing for prison convicts (i.e. Cusack in the film). She steals every scene she is in, and that is quite an achievement considering the cast. With her platinum wig, short/tight outfits, and fake tan, she embodies her character perfectly. Another exceptional performance comes from Macy Gray, who unfortunately doesn't get too much screen time, but she does amazingly well with the little she's been given. It is the Viola Davis in 'Doubt' moment for 'The Paperboy'. Overall, a rather underwhelming film that, despite excellent performances, leaves you wondering what the point of the whole film was. Daniel's does seem to be at the top of his game directorially in many ways, but he has definitely missed the mark here.

Let's be clear right from the start: Drop Dead Gorgeous is not a masterpiece. However, it is not as bad as the critics painted it to be, either. It is actually one of the more funny comedies that are actually intelligently written and superbly acted. As someone who's lived in the Midwest (Minnesota, actually) for four years for my undergraduate, I can testify that the depiction of Minnesota and Minnesotans is rather accurate. Whether most Minnesotans would agree or be ashamed to be associated with it, is another thing. But yes, this film is extremely entertaining and it provides for tons of laughs all throughout the film. Ellen Barkin and Allison Janney give such great comedic performances, I was screaming out loud laughing. Dust is decent, but Kirstie Alley is just superb. Overall, the acting is very good, with a well-written, funny and engaging screenplay. The ending however, is a bit of a let-down, to be honest, but most of the time the film is good and keeps the audience's attention. Obviously, is it is rather campy, over the top type of comedy, but where most comedies like that fail, DDG thrives and manages to outshine more "serious", critically-acclaimed comedies. Highly recommended, especially if you are from Minnesota! Love it!

The only reason why this gets as high **** as "1" is because it actually made me laugh at how bad it was. One of those unfortunate end-results of not being able to take this horrible film any longer. Truly, utterly awful. I should have known what to expect (Scary Movie/Epic Movie/Disaster Movie type of glory), but I had hoped that it'd be a bit better. However, this was possibly worse because it perpetuates all these horrible stereotypes about gay people. While I hate when people discuss that and over-analyse things, this was just abhorrent. It's basically all about sex. True, most teenagers think about sex a lot, but NOT THAT MUCH. Come on... And its obvious sense of "humour" was just despicable. Gross, gross, gross. And I cannot believe there is a sequel. I will watch it, just so I can watch something worse than this (if that's imaginable).

I have never read the book or was any sort of a fan before I watched the film, I it certainly did not inspire me to want to read the books. In any case, "The Golden Compass" puts up a good fight trying to be a good fantasy epic, but it does not quite achieve that level or recognition. Some aspects of the film are very good, namely most of the technical aspects. Excellent production and costume design, along with a decent score and great visual effects provide for some of the films highlights. Unfortunately, the cinematography was totally off. It had this strange, airy quality to it, that made me feel as if I were watching a documentary or something. I cannot quite articulate it, but it definitely blocked me from being able to ever fully immerse myself into the story. It did not help how annoying the portrayal of the main character was by Dakota Blue Richards. Such an annoying kid. I've been told that she's supposed to be like that in the books too, but I just do not understand why. Who would want to read/watch such a miserable character. On the other hand, Nicole Kidman gave an amazingly appropriate, cold performance as Mrs.Coulter, which was another highlights of the film. But other than that, the film never quite tickled my interest to engage it fully, or be sad about the fact that the sequels have been cancelled.

I had high expectations of "Fur" and of Nicole Kidman, and at least one of them didn't disappoint. This seems to be Kidman's 'star vehicle film' where she showcases how great she is in biopics. And, she does show it. She is great in this. However, that is not enough to save the poorly-conceived film. If the director and producers didn't decide to screw around with the screenplay and make it an "imaginary portrait" of the great photographer, this might have looked much differently. Be it as it may, the film feels rather directionless and pointless. It never arrives to a larger point. It just feels like it's a random snipped of Arbus' life, without much giving us an explanation to understand Airbus' story. Sadly misguided film that could have been much better, but it at least gave us a standardly good performance by Kidman.

If I've ever watched a film with a horrible script, it's "The Last Legion." What the heck was this thing about? I don't think the screenplay writers, nor director or actors quite knew. Laughable plot, horrid dialogues and monologues (!) and overall just a bad film. The story is so contrived and ridiculous I cannot believe anyone was willing to pay to make this, and then also to distribute it, on top of that. Just bad bad bad. For some reason all these films surrounding King Arthur, Merlin and the fall of Rome tend to backfire horribly. Maybe it's a sign to back off from the over-saturated topic and come up with some fresh ideas. Fresh ideas that this film sorely needed, but didn't get. Gross.

Atrocious. Just atrocious. Doesn't the fact that the directors got nominated for 5 Razzies over their careers (including one for Worst Screenplay for "Epic Movie") indicate how bad this is? Gosh... I don't even know why I watched this. I might have hoped there will be something funny, I guess. Some of their work was interesting at first - "Scary Movie" to be more precise. And after that, they've been trying to milk the same cow for over a decade now, and it's not working. It hasn't worked since "Scary Movie 3", really, and it probably will never work again. The sad thing is, that people still give them money to produce the crap they do. The world we live in....

When one thinks he's seen all the stupid films in the world, along comes "Meet the Spartans." There is, truthfully, very little one can and should say about this beyond the fact that it is atrocious. So utterly unoriginal and boring, with stupid slapstick humour, horrible screenplay and straightout insultingly bad acting, this offers NOTHING positive. If you are an 13 year pubescent boy, you might find something interesting, but even then, that's still a question. Utterly horrible. 0/10

This is one of my favourite novel-to-film 'epics'. Minghella manages, just like he did with the "English Patient" to create an engaging, interesting and inspiring feature. Truth be told, it is a bit long, and that could have potentially be changed, but Minghella stayed true to the novel, which is rather important in adaptations, so I didn't mind that too much. Beautiful cinematography and very good editing, along with great costume design and production design make this a technically greatly done film. The musical score is one of my favourite soundtracks of all time, with excellent Oscar nominated songs by Alison Krauss. The cast has gotten a lot of critical acclaim for this, but seems a lot of the audience had a problem with Zellweger and Kidman. I must say I thought they were both excellent, though vastly different roles - which is also what emphasised their uniqueness. Zellweger is just stunning and truthfully portrays the tomboy that Ruby is, and does it with flare and charm. Kidman was not miscast, unlike many state, simply because that is what the character in the novel was like in both age and behaviour. A coy, weak woman in her early 30s sheltered by her overly-protective father, and having the face real-world problems after a lifetime on unpreparedness. Law is also very good, as are the supporting actresses and actors, making this one of the best casts of the year. Overall, "Cold Mountain" has very few things wrong with it - actually, I cannot think of any straightout. Of course, it could have been shorter, and it could have clicked a bit better with me on some points, but overall it is a good, strong epic, technically superb and with a strong, A-calibre cast to boast. Very good! 8/10

Going into this without many expectations (except of Charlize Theron), I was kind of validated at the end. The storyline is decent for what the original story is and it is not as predictable as I thought it'd be. The ending, however, is rather silly, especially the romance part of it. For one, there is ZERO chemistry between the lead actors, which makes the whole romance bit rather weak. To give the film due credit, it never really rests on the romance until the very end, and that's where it heavily fails. Also, the way the witch-queen is defeated is EXTREMELY disappointing. Theron was rather good as the evil witch-queen, but her character was slightly over-reactive and over-the top at the very beginning. She is still, however, by far the best thing in the film. The music and production design are also very good, but that's where the good stuff ends. Hemsworth and Stewart were mediocre at best, and it was quite nice to see Stewart actually smiling a few times. Didn't think she had it in her, but she managed. That being said, she was sorely miscast for the film. She just is not that beautiful, and the whole time I kept on asking myself "Really, would Charlize be jealous/threatened by Kristen" and the answer was always a defying NO. So, that made no sense to me with the casting. Overall, though, the film was entertaining. I didn't really lose interest in it at any point, but there was nothing new or refreshing that the film brought, except another good performance by Theron. She was definitely the best thing about the film, and after a few months, probably the only thing I will retain from it.

The very opening scene of the trailer made it clear that this was influenced (through production and screenplay) by Guillermo del Torro. This film is rather beautiful visually with some great production design and good cinematography, but it reminds of "Pan's Labyrinth" to such an extent that this is a problem. They both have magic and children as their basis, with the difference that the Labyrinth is a much better film. The character of Sally is just so inconsistent and annoying at times - the way she behaves is almost implausible to believe. That's where the film goes into typical "horror" genre, with characters doing stupid choices for no real reason, but to put them in vulnerable positions. Also, the fact that one can see the little creatures kind of completely kills the fear the director managed to instill in the film's first 20-30 minutes. Yes, they're gross, but they look like little rats. They lose all their scariness, at least for me that was the effect. As I said, the production design is rather beautiful and that is pretty much the highlight of the film. So nice musical score, too, but that's all there is. The characters are annoying, Guy Pierce's acting as atrocious and Katie Holmes looks perpetually confused and directionless, despite the fact that she was allegedly the first one to figure out what happens. Definitely an underwhelming film, but it is not necessarily bad. Just not good either. It's mediocre, at its best.

"Requiem" is, by all accounts, a surprising film. Being about an exorcism experience, it is unusually subdued and controlled, which is quite refreshing. The film manages to be fully engaging and interesting, despite the fact that it's rather slow, and that very little happens in it in actuality. The cinematography and production design are the most amazing aspects of the film for me. These technical tools provided the credibility for the film to be so effective and believable. It felt as if it had been actually filmed in the 1970s, not in 2006, which is always commendable. The performances were overall great, with a stellar lead by Sandra Hüller, as the tormented girl. More than anything, this is a psychological drama and it hits full force. No fancy visual effects, no gimmicks. Just plain emotion and storytelling manage to do what most films in the 'exorcism' genre fail to do. This is not a horror film for those who want to be easily scared. It is truly scary because it ultimately shows how subjective and perceptive the whole notion of possessions is. One day you may not believe in it, while the other day you just might think you are possessed yourself. Very good film! One of the best German films I've seen. 8/10

"The Help" has all the right ingredients: a moving story, excellent acting, serious drama, but also charming humour. Indeed, it manages to succeed on many fronts. While it surely does not bring anything new or revolutionary to the film world, it is a definite feel-good film, despite its thematic. This, however, is one of its main problems too. It manages to diminish the civil rights movement to the easy-breasy work of good-willed white people, while taking away all agency from the African Americans. Yes, it is their story that is told, but it is only told due to the willingness and enlightenment of the white saviour woman, played by Stone. Yes, I agree with what many people have already pointed out, which is the emotional reality and believability that the actresses got to portray. This is hard to take away from the performers, despite of the problems of the film. The excellent performances by Davis, Spencer, and Chastain were spellbinding. It was very nice to see so many good African American actresses do truly beautiful work and be recognised for it. Technically, the film is very good, but the issues are in the actual story, but that is also the problem of the book. As I said before, the film does not offer anything new, anything daring, challenging, nothing we haven't seen before. While potentially being the most charming film of the year (if one ignores the racial implications), it is definitely not the best one. Nonetheless, it is certainly a good film, with amazing performances that are worth watching, and a story that will warm one's heart or make one very critical of America's view on race and its racialised past (and present)!

This was such a bad comedy! The cast is actually quite impressive, but they do not do much with their shallow characters - and how could they?? Horrible screenplay, and just a bad film overall... Nicole Kidman is decent in the film, and the overall cast is good. Bette Midler is pretty good and pretty much the most entertaining character in this "comedy." As Kidman said at a press statement once "It's a comedy. We hope." Unfortunately, that hope did not materialise into reality, since there is almost nothing funny about The Stepford Wives. It is not even bad enough to be funny - that's how bad it is! The 2 is truly only out of my respect for the misguided actors and for rather good production design - the costumes and art direction were both very well done. Overall, though, a film that had a lot of potential has been **** dry of all its originality, charm and, most importantly, its humour. 2/10

For all its merits, I just did not really connect with this film. Yes, it was rather wittily written, with interesting situations and dialogue. It had very good acting, especially from McGregor who, in my opinion, overshadowed Plummer who did not strike me as anything out of the ordinary. Same thing happened with Alan Arkin in "Little Miss Sunshine" - I would have never expected him to get the Oscar. Anyway, the film as it is, is rather interesting and somewhat entertaining. What is lacking, though, is the connecting with the characters. While many have written about how real the characters felt, I had a rational understanding for that, but just could not connect to them at all. Usually I like films like this, but this just did not resonate with me all that much.

Like many other films, The Last Exorcism has joined the storm of "documentary" style films. At first, to be honest, it seems rather annoying - the whole thing, not just the fact that is a documentary-style film. The acting looks forced, which is true throughout most of the film, since the actors are trying to look as if they are not acting. The notable exception is Ashley Bell, who plays the role of the possessed girl, which she does excellently! Nothing but words of praise for her. And, apparently, she did all the acrobatics with her body herself, no CGI -- she's a ballet dancer, hence extremely flexible (just an interesting fact!). Overall, the story is rather interesting, and when you think you've got it figured out, it shifts and completely changes your perspective. As I said before, at first it seems predictable and boring, but the film builds very nicely and is actually a rather interesting, intelligent horror. It does leave the audience with a ton of questions, which might be intentional, but one cannot be really sure. It has lots of thrills, though, they are not properly dispersed throughout the whole film, but are built one onto another throughout the film. While that may not provide entertainment non-stop, it becomes rather effective. Overall, pretty good, scary horror, without too much gore, but lots of thrills. Worth the while!

While it surely is entertaining, the film is not very good. It provides for action, and plenty of it. It is mostly good enough action, but nothing one hasn't seen before. The story is somewhat intriguing, but ultimately rather flat and obviously cannot survive on its own without the action sequences. The effects were not quite as good as I hoped, and the acting was rather bad. I have to point out that Dwayne Johnson was atrocious in his attempt to act. The kids were much better, though they were no stars either. I don't know, it was entertaining but it was a typical Disney film that did not provide for anything that would make you even scratch your head and think, let along challenge anything. The villains are hyper-villains, the good guys are good, and The Rock is a good cabbie, who happens to be able to kick ass... ah, when unrealistic things are annoying me in a film about aliens, you know something's wrong. But, I guess it's ultimately worth for the action... or is it?

Keeping in mind that this film is mainly catering to a younger audience, I gave the film a 3. In reality, it deserves a zero. And that statement isn't even true - it's geared at the actually older audiences who actually watched The Smurfs as kids, since that's a very very old cartoon and today's generations probably don't even know them. Anyway, the film is just awful. There is nothing positive about it. It uses pathetic acting (mainly Gargamel and Sofia Vergara who is playing Gloria from "Modern Family" basically - or is she just playing Sofia Vergara?), horrible screenplay - the dialogue is pathetic - and it is just not very funny. There is something to be said about a film in which a character makes fun of "how annoying" the theme song is. The sad thing is - the song is very annoying (at least in the rendition in the film), as is the whole picture. As I said, I'd give it a zero, but realising that kids films are usually stupid as it is, I gave it a 3. Avoid it if you can, for your own good.

The theme of the film is very beautiful - lifelong, committed and loving friendship. While the theme is good, the execution of the film is not quite the best. The setting is the parallel stories of two female friends in China - one pair in the 1830s and 40s, and the other pair in modern day Hong Kong. While it's nice that the story was laid out that way (I'm assuming that's how it was written in the book), it just did not translate very well in the film. The 19th century story was very moving and much more interesting than the modern day one. The modern day one just seemed to twist and change for the sake of it, and for the sake of making the 19th century one more interesting and beautiful. I was expecting more from the production design also, which may be the fault of the so-far popular Chinese films with impressive production design, costumes and effects. Snow Flower, however, is not quite up to par with those films, but still holds its ground, I guess. One of the two leads was excellent, Bingbing Li, who performed beautifully throughout the film. The story and idea behind the film are the highlights of it, but as I said, only one half was necessary. Something like Julie/Julia, but not even quite as good as that (not to say that Julie/Julia was that good). Nonetheless, worth the time to watch.

It surely has an interesting concept behind it. Has an interesting cast. Has a decent production and technical value to it. However, the actual screenplay of "In Time" is rather weak and disappointing. With a number of unthought-through ideas/occurrences/actions to just bad writing with dialogue scenes, it does not quite get it right. The director/writer Andrew Niccol is no newcomer to films, having written "The Truman Show" and having directed a number of (not so good) films, which makes it even more surprising that he had so many weak points in the film. Inconsistencies and just stupid ideas were all over the film, and made me (and my friends watching the film) really annoyed. Also, tons of film clichÃs are used and abused all over the film, which makes it even less bearable. The best thing about the film was Amanda Seyfried, who was mesmerising with her hairstyle and look (yet, nothing special acting-wise) and Justin Timberlake's shirtless scenes (which were too few and too short to make up for mediocre acting). The only reason why it'd be worth the time to watch the film is because of the idea, which is quite interesting, but, as I pointed out, not really thought through and properly developed.

As the critic Michael O'Sullivan from the Washington Post noted in his review of the film, Scream 4 does not care whether one laughs with it or at it. And I definitely laughed at it. It was one of the most ridiculous attempts at a horror film that I have seen. With no scares, and barely a few thrills (but 49 different plot twists to make up for it, unfortunately), Scream 4 just fails at being a horror and turns into a parody of itself and of the franchise it represents. Not remembering most of the previous Scream films, since I watched them a long time ago, I soon enough realised that there should not have been another Scream film in the first place. The desperation of the producers to get some more money out of the died franchise is obvious, when they are trying to "re-invent" the franchise through recycling old material but making it seem "original" and "different." I ended up laughing at most of the film (I guess, at least it was entertaining in that regard), but also found myself palm-slapping myself a number of times because of how poor the screenplay was. It is basically a comedy and has nothing what a horror ought to have. It is a failed attempt to rejuvenate the franchise, which in my eyes, has utterly failed. Hopefully this will be the last of the Scream films.

Maybe if I were a nature-fan, or a bird-fan, or more preferably, a penguin-fan, I would have enjoyed this film. The way things are, I just did not find it all that amazing. Ok. I was just ok. All white all the time. And the little penguins. They're cute. And all. And it's Morgan Freeman. We get it. Ah. Maybe it's Freeman, we've had too much of him narrating lately. Either way, it just did not do anything for me. It was alright, but I felt bored by the film since, well, I do not care about the poor penguins. There have been way better documentaries than this - thank god!

I had very high expectations from Luhrmann, being that "Australia" came as his next project after "Moulin Rouge," which is my favourite film of all times. However, "Australia" is far from deserving that honour. The critics got right the fact that the film is epic. Yes, it clearly is. Almost 3 hours of glorification of Australia - how could it not be? But grandeur alone does not make for a great film. Don't get me wrong - I did enjoy the film, and thought it was good. However, it had a bunch of things wrong with it. First of, it is not one story, it is a dozen of stories mixed into one overly-long film. Seriously, this could have been his next trilogy or something, since Luhrmann squeezed so much material into the film, that it's bursting out of its seems. Technically, though, "Australia" is amazing. With breathtaking cinematography, the usually spectacular art & production design, as well as costumes, and a good soundtrack, technically the film is superb. Acting is pretty good, too. Kidman is very good in comedic moments, but her lips indeed are too distracting from her acting. Jackman is his usual action-her self, so good, but nothing spectacular. The outstanding performances came from David Wenham as the arch-nemesis and the boy Brandon Walters, who stole the show. The screenplay is the weakest link of the film, along with its editing. Overall, "Australia" is a good film, but the story is too long, too stretched out, improbable and just not credible. At the end of the film you are visually amazed and in awe, but you are annoyed with the story. A nice try from Luhrmann, but he should have definitely cut at least 20-30 minutes from the film and worked more on the screenplay. Still, entertaining to watch for the visuals!

"Priest" is exactly what you'd expect it to be - a blood-infested, action-packed, testosterone-charged action fest. That does not necessarily mean it's bad, it's just typical. It follows a rather linear story, with bad dialogue (very machoist, many a times) and some bad visual effects. For a change, however, it does show vampires as not the over-sexualised, highly intelligent beings, but as brute alien like monsters, which was somewhat refreshing. The film is also surprisingly short with only 1 hour and 20 minutes - definitely could have been longer. Well, if it had been better, it could have been longer. The way it is now, though, 1:20 is perfectly fine. I don't even know what to say. Yes, it's entertaining, but it won't leave you with wanting any more than what you've been given. The ending does provide for a perfect (intentionally so) setup for a sequel, that due to horrible reviews and box office will never be made. The films biggest flaw is its poor screenplay, but that might be a fault of the original comic book too, which I have never read before. In general, the film was overly predictable and not very exciting, though reasonably entertaining. Going into it you won't find anything that you haven't seen in films like this before, but you won't be completely disappointed either. If you are looking for what I've described in the first sentence, you'll definitely get that. If you are looking for some genre changer, you will be severely disappointed.

As most horrors, or wanna be horrors, usually go, "Case 39" is typical. It ****. The story is plain not scary. It could be potentially a really bad thriller, if it weren't trying (very badly and mildly) to be a horror. There are no scares, and there are very few thrills what-so-ever. While the idea seemed interesting at first with the girl's situation, it fast evolves into the typical "demon child" routine, which is overdone and just plain boring/stupid. Renee Zellweger is darn awful in this, since all she seems to be able to pull off when it comes to acting (at least nowadays) seems to be a "lemon-face" (aka. her pouting her lips as if she is **** on a lemon - aka, lemon-face). It is extremely distracting and annoying. Jodelle Ferland, who plays the little girl Lilith, is at first irritating, but then turns out to be rather decent in her role as the Satanistic-child. The rest of the cast is rather unmemorable, as is usual in films like this. Technically, the film was decent, nothing really to point out that was particularly bad or good. Overall, though, the film was disappointing with a worsening plot, bad acting by Zellweger, and boring dialogue and story. Needless to say, it is a rather typical horror flick.

The film is indeed entertaining, and very suspenseful at times. Cruise shines at what he does best - action. The issue here is that there is very little of that action that he's best at. All we are left with is the drama. Which is not necessarily bad, but it does not quite work as well as it was anticipated. While the film is interesting enough to keep you entertained and watching, overall, it does not really succeed in feeling like a "real WW2 film," whatever that might be like. It almost feels as if it was a "what if" scenario where we see all these things that could have been, but never really happened. That is the critical flaw of the film, indeed: the fact that it feels fake, when it actually is based on reality. Nonetheless, there are some good thrills, very good production and a good (but mismanaged) cast. A good film, but noting special.

As far as acting is concerned, "Another Year" is full of stellar performances. Lesley Manville is superb as the family friend who is unhappy with her life, but is unable to face the reality of it. Broadbent and Sheen are also excellent in their performances, but so is the supporting staff. Leigh's sweetheart from before, Imelda Staunton, is poignant and a memorable character, though she only appears in the first five minutes of the film. Leigh has done a good character study of unhappy, depressed people and how they might look, behave, what they might talk about, etc. What Leigh failed at doing is managing to make the film more dynamic and appealing to a broader audience. Yes, he has excellent characters and excellent performances, but those cannot make a great film on their own. Making a film look real does not mean that it has to be boring or mundane. There are certainly times when the film feels contrived and too "artsy" in favour of the entertainment value. Then again, Leigh never really went for entertainment value over his craft, so that is to no surprise. Definitely not a film for everyone, but it is an interesting story with super acting, which definitely makes it worth the watch!

It has lots of things that could have been great. With an interesting story and remarkable Viagra-Parkinson's backdrop, "Love and Other Drugs" could have been a great film. However, the romantic comedy aspect of it came in the way. I just cannot emphasise how much the predictable "romantic comedy" aspect of the film, ends up ultimately hurting the film. With a cliched story, predictable dialogues, and horrible horrible soundtrack (every time Gyllenhaal and Hathaway have a "romantic" moment, the same annoying song starts - ****. someone kill the composer/director). It is, as many have pointed out, refreshingly sexual and liberated in many ways, which is positive for Hollywood films, and its Parkinson's aspect is done tastefully. That much I can give it. However, overall, the film does not quite live up to its potential, being ultimately sunk by the heavy baggage that a romantic comedy has to carry with it. 4/10

Waiting for 'Superman' may thematically be one of the most important documentaries in recent U.S. history. The educational system is in dire need of help, and this film provides clear alternatives and points out who is to blame for the lack of willingness to cooperate and rejuvenate the system. Technically, the film is not that great. It is very long, and it lacks cohesion. It is all over the place and while it focuses on a number of families, it is still too large in scope. The D.C. focus is nice, but is not substantiate by any reasoning behind it. Was it because it was a success story? Or was it because it was D.C.? Or some other reason? Nonetheless, it has some good moments, and the ending sequences of the acceptance lottery are heartbreaking to say the least. Thematically excellent, technically not quite there. Good film, overall. 6/10