Warm Bodies

      I’m not going to gush over this film too much or try to over hype it.  That being said, I went into this film with low expectations and ended up thoroughly enjoying myself considering the genre this falls into.  ‘Warm Bodies’ is a zombie love story told from the point of view of the zombie.  The trailers play this up as a straight comedy, but it is also a film with a surprising amount of heart and was not filmed tongue-in-cheek.  It had the surprising depth and poignancy that reminded me of last year’s ‘Seeking a Friend at the End of the World’, but is more targeted at the teen age audience.

This is the story of ‘R’ (he can’t remember his name, started with an ‘R’ he thinks) played by Nicholas Hoult.  After the zombie apocalypse, R wanders the streets in search of meaning and connection even though he can’t think or feel those urges.  He has a sort of friendship with another zombie named ‘M’ (played by my comedic favorite, Rob Corddry), but they merely sit around and occasionally grunt.  He doesn’t know what is missing from his life because he can barely think, but he knows that his life of lurching around in packs and hunting humans  trying to eat their brains is an unfulfilling existence. The premise is eye-rolling comedic, but as I said surprisingly poignant in its’ execution.  

When R and his band stumble across a pack of armed humans foraging for supplies they attack.  During the violent battle, R kills a young man named Perry (played by James Franco’s better looking brother David) and as he eats his brains experiences some of his memories and feelings.  R immediately sees Perry’s girlfriend (now ex-girlfriend I suppose),the beautiful Julie (Teresa Palmer), who is still fighting, through a new perspective and becomes transfixed.  He saves her from the other zombies and takes her back to his converted airplane habitat where he can hide her.  Of course, Julie is terrified and can’t comprehend a zombie behaving like this.  She tries to communicate, but R is only able to communicate through grunts.  We understand what R is feeling through his narration, but Julie is left trying to understand why a zombie is protecting her.  R is equally confused because for the first time that he can remember (or the fact that he can remember) he feels something... a connection.

I’ve been watching Nicholas Hoult ever since his great and quirky performance in ‘About a Boy’.  He has grown up and I’m glad to see he’s made the transition from childhood actor.  Like I said, I’m not going to make this film anything more than it is.  Still, he shows his acting ability by being able to make a zombie sympathetic.  The film’s success rests on the audience empathizing with the zombie and rooting for him as he slowly wakes from his trance.  It is a silly premise and has cornball humor, but it also has truly touching moments that you wouldn’t think could exist in this type of film.  

Julie’s father (John Malkovich), who is the leader of the human resistance, comes out searching for his daughter.  His hatred for zombies is unparalleled and Julie finds herself in the strange position of trying to protect R from her father.  When Julie is safely rescued, R realizes that he cannot live without her (odd since technically he is already dead).  He realizes that his anguish and longing means that he is not truly dead.  He sets off to the human stronghold to reunite with Julie.  In a sense, Julie and R are star crossed lovers and you hope that the zombie and human can find a way to be together (as weird as that sounds).

This is a fun film in the midst of all the heavy Oscar season films and coming out right before the Jan -April slow period.  If you are just looking for an entertaining movie on a weekend night then go for it, otherwise it can wait until it comes out on DVD.  I wish the trailers didn’t portray it only as a comedy as it is a lot more and I think that will do it a disservice at the box office. A movie I dismissed before I went to see it, but I am glad that it was made.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi651536153/

I give this film ** 1/2 stars

Zero Dark Thirty

       ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ is the highly controversial film about the tracking and killing of Osama Bin Laden.   After viewing this film, i felt many of the partisan fears (or hopes for that matter) were unfounded.  I intensely dislike films with a political agenda (especially ones that claim to be ‘based on a true story’).  This applies to both Right and Left ideologies.  When films become propaganda, it detracts from the artistic value of what we are experiencing.  Unfortunately, we all see the world through our own subjective prisms.  That being said, I approached this film with much skepticism.  While there are definitely some political jabs thrown, they are mild and don’t detract from the overall storyline.  I was also skeptical as I thought director Kathryn Bigelow’s last film; ‘The Hurt Locker’ was overhyped and did not deserve the Oscar that year.  With all that baggage on my shoulders as I walked into the theater, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the film.

Kathryn Bigelow does a more than admirable job in laying out a complex story of our post-Sept 11 world and the hunt for Bin Laden.  The film opens with a black screen and a sobering audio montage of actual 911 calls from people trapped inside the Twin Towers.  This sets up the film’s resolve and reignites any dormant anger in the audience that may have cooled with time.  The story centers around CIA officer Maya (Jessica Chastain), who is brought onto the team to help find Bin Laden.  Her first experience on the team is being part of an equally sobering scene of torturing a terror suspect for information.  The scenes are difficult to watch, but Maya puts aside her sensibilities as she convinces herself the ends justify the means.  This is where I think Bigelow was particularly effective as she was not one-sided in her portrayals.  She did not vilify anyone as we understood from each character why they do what they do.  Particularly effective was how being a torturer affected the interrogator himself.  It’s easy to condemn or even support ‘coercive interrogation’, but Bigelow doesn’t let anyone off easy no matter which perspective they choose.

The film spans Maya’s single-minded hunt for Osama Bin Laden over the course of 10 years.  It paints a picture of connection among all the attacks since Sept 11, from the London subway bombings to the Marriott bombing in Mumbai.  It had a flow of a ‘Law and Order’ episode, with the often ignored Maya at the center trying to piece it all together.  I found the scope of the search to be interesting as well.  Most of us probably have visions of vast complexes with endless cubicles of technicians scouring the globe tracking down every minute clue.  However, one of the early scenes was Maya sitting around a conference table with about a dozen of her fellow agents and the bureau Chief saying in frustration that they shouldn’t think there is anyone else coming to help because everyone at the table was the entire team the US has looking for Bin Laden.  And they were failing.

No matter how cold the trail grew, Maya kept at the job with a persistence that caused her superiors to question her objectivity.  It is fascinating how eventually finding Bin Laden had as much to do with luck as it did with persistence.  A small trace on a phone of a courier’s mother who was remotely connected to Bin Laden was what it took.  Even with concrete information, it still takes Maya’s total conviction and confidence to persuade her gun shy superiors.  Maya travels to Afghanistan to coordinate the mission of the now famous ‘Seal Team Six’.  If Maya had her way, she would have preferred a bomb strike, but the government wanted absolute proof they killed Bin Laden and that means they needed a body.  

The last portion of the film is a POV view of the raid of the Bin Laden compound.  This part was the most intriguing as it is always amazing how professional and methodical true military operations are.  It is very different than the Rambo style fighting we see in most films.  The tension is excruciating in it’s calmness, even though we all know the outcome.  In some ways, I found it a more thrilling than the typical steroid pumped blow-them-up action scenes that you see in most ‘war’ films.  The camera doesn’t try to sanitize the violence, nor does it try to exaggerate it for the sake of effect.  The tension rises as we have no idea what lies around each corner or where Bin Laden actually is.  

No matter what your political views, I feel this film can be appreciated by all.  It is a patriotic film, but also challenges us to question what type of nation we have become.  Belief systems are important, but do they sometimes blind us to reality?  If we seek to vilify our CIA operatives who aggressively gather information, do you discount the countless lives they have saved as a result of this information?  If we accept coercive interrogation and bribery of terrorists, do we give up a piece of our souls as a nation?  Do we throw away all that we try to stand for?  Is there a middle ground?  The film doesn’t provide answers, it just shows that none of the answers are clear cut or easy.  That’s my type of political argument.

My apologies to Kathryn Bigelow for my previous misconceptions about her abilities.  This film, in my mind, shows that she is an Oscar level Director and this film would be a worthy of an Oscar.  She has an artistic vision that she is able to convey at a superior level.

I give this film *** 1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2281482009/

Amour

  

      ‘Amour’ is the French word for love.  This is probably one of the most powerful and unflinching portraits of love that I’ve seen on film.  This movie has garnered a lot of Oscar buzz with both a Best Picture and Best Actress nomination.  Just a warning for those who are wary of foreign films; it is sub-titled.  I know that ruins films for some people, but I highly encourage you to leave your comfort zone and take a chance on this film.  This is a deeply intimate and almost voyeuristic look into an aspect of love that is rarely examined in film or literature.  This is the story of a couple in their 80’s and the husband trying to cope with the fact that his wife is slowly dying and their is nothing he can do about it other than be there for her.

The entire film takes place in their Parisian apartment and has the same slow pace of visiting elderly relatives.  Most people know the discomfort of visiting people who are nearing the end of their lives and while we visit out of duty and love, there is a sense of relief when we leave.  Their quiet suffering is something we feel deeply and we can only endure it for so long.  This film examines what happens after everyone leaves and the elderly couple is forced to deal with what remains of their life in a day by day downward spiral.  If this sounds heavy and sorrowful, it is.  At the same time, there is a power, if not beauty, to see the love between two people that still exists after a lifetime of being together.  

The two leads  are French screen legends Emmanuelle Riva (best known for 1959’s ‘Hiroshima, Mon Amour’) and Jean-Louis Trintignant (best known for 1966’s ‘A Man and a Woman’).  Each has radically changed from so long ago of course, but I dare say this is some of the best acting of their careers.  They play Georges and Anne, two highly accomplished music teachers, who are quietly living their lives of retirement.  One day at breakfast Anne has a moment where she blanks out for several minutes.  Georges is confused and frightened.  When she recovers, she has no memory of what transpired.  After a visit to the hospital, they find out that Anne has had a stroke.  She begins to lose her mobility and Georges is thrust into the role of caretaker.  After Anne has a second stroke, she begins to deteriorate rapidly.  This is where we see the true depth of George’s love as he desperately tries to cope seeing his life companion disappear in front of him.

Anne has made Georges promise not to put her in a hospital (or hospice at this point).  The doctors agree as there is really nothing they can do other than make her comfortable as she slowly deteriorates.  This is where the film becomes riveting and voyeuristic as we watch these two people’s most private moments as they realize Anne’s life will soon be over.  They both know the end will not be pleasant and dignified as Anne must be continually cared for to the point where a nurse must help her with her most basic bodily functions.  Their daughter (played by another French great, Isabelle Huppert) stops by occasionally and, in her pain, insists there must be something more they can do.  She refuses to accept that her mother’s life is coming to an end.  Georges is not emotionally strong enough to withstand his daughter’s denial.  He feels helpless already, but that feeling is augmented by his daughter’s persistence.  Georges eventually closes his daughter out of their lives and returns to the daily routine of caring for his wife.

If I may be contradictory, there is an amazing dignity that Anne has as she loses her dignity.  All ego is stripped away as she becomes completely dependent on Georges for her care, even though she has no desire to continue living.  Georges displays both dignity and failing in his helplessness, but of his love for Anne there is never a doubt.  The camera focuses on moments we have no right to see and does not flinch no matter what we are witnessing.  Some moments we’d rather not see, but we are riveted nonetheless.  This is love at its’ core.  Past passion and beyond self-concern;  just two people who cannot comprehend what life will be like without the other.  They say that when an elderly spouse dies, the other rarely lives much longer.  Seeing Anne and George’s connection, you have no doubt that Georges will not last much past when Anne is gone.  She is his reason for living, despite the pain and hardship she is causing him.

I went to this movie reluctantly because the storyline seemed so depressing.  And it is, but there is something so emotionally powerful and moving about this love story that one doesn’t leave the theater feeling smothered.  Emotionally drained to be sure, but it would take a very hard hearted cynic not to be moved by how this film portrays love and connection.  It’s not going to win the Oscar (although I completely think it would be merited), but I really believe Emanuelle Riva has a legitimate shot at the Best Actress Oscar.  If the Oscars were based strictly on acting and performance and not politics, then there is no performance that would come even close.  One of the best performances in my recent memory. It’s nice to see these two cinematic legends showing they still have what it takes.

I give this film **** stars.

Django Unchained

         Quentin Tarantino’s latest effort ‘Django Unchained’ is all that one expects from him.  Tarantino is obsessed with the schlocky genres of his youth and not only creates great works of art out of these forgotten formats, but relishes trying to cross the line of decency doing it.  His work is nostalgic, ultra-violent, action packed, cool, and surprising... incredibly funny.  If you are a Tarantino fan, then ‘Django Unchained’ doesn’t disappoint even if I don’t feel it’s his best effort.  This time Tarantino visits the Spaghetti Western genre in what can only be called a ‘Southern’ as most of the action takes place in the pre-Civil War South instead of out West. 

Christoph Waltz is cast as bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz.  He is hot on the trail of three fugitive brothers he has never seen, so he frees a slave who once belonged to the brothers so he can have someone identify them.  Django (Jamie Foxx) is that slave, but once free, Django has an agenda of his own; to free his still enslaved wife, Broomhilda (played by the stunning Kerry Washington).  Despite himself, Schultz is moved by Django’s plight and promises to help Django find his wife if Django agrees to help him track down bounties over the winter.  Django agrees and proves to be a natural at bounty hunting and, despite society still not accepting him, finds his niche.

Once Django and Schultz track Broomhilda’s whereabouts to a Southern plantation owned by a malicious man named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) the fun starts.  Schultz hatches a plan to rescue Broomhilda, where they must go in under the guise as slave traders and negotiate her release.  Of course, it can’t be that simple and there are the trade mark twists and turns that mark every Tarantino film.  The situations are painfully tense, gruesomely gory, and incredibly funny all at the same time.  Who else can do that as good as Tarantino?

Much of the film is an exercise in revenge anger and white guilt.  Tarantino relishes too much in using words and setting up situations that would leave him reviled by the general public if he were anyone but Tarantino.  Many of the situations are exaggerated with no basis in historical truth, but hey, as Tarantino says, he is God when he is writing,  he can create anything he wants.  Just like ‘Inglorious Basterds’ didn’t follow WWII facts closely (or at all), ‘Django Unchained’ follows it’s own path.  It’s still a great ride.

There are so many things that are fun in Tarantino movies.  Most of the soundtrack could have been taken right out of a 70’s Western as well as the retro fonts used in the credits.  The rest of the music would seem to be wildly inappropriate, but Tarantino makes it work.  Who would have thought you could play rap music while riding horses in the mountains and have it fit perfectly?  It’s also enjoyable to try and recognize actors from the 70’s and 80’s that Tarantino is obsessed with sprinkling throughout his films.  Everything from Tom Wopat as the Marshall to Don Johnson as Big Daddy.  I think I even spotted Bruce Dern in there.  Michael Parks is a supporting actor that Tarantino uses frequently in his films and I don’t know how this guy isn’t more famous.  Probably one of the best unrecognized actors out there.  He plays two roles in the film ‘Kill Bill’ and you would never know he was the same actor.  One of the most gifted artists out there.

If you like Quentin Tarantino and/or Spaghetti Westerns, go see this film.  You will have a lot of fun.  It’s a tribute to the past genre while stepping over boundaries in a modern way as only Quentin can do.  Like I said, it’s not his best work, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good film.  Despite how I described this film, it’s also not a bad romance story.  Christoph Waltz proves himself again and Jamie Foxx might want to try to find more Western roles as he makes a great cowboy.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi947037209/

I give this film ***1/2 stars

This is 40

  Judd Apatow is one of my preferred comic writer/directors.  He is able to combine gross out humor with stories that have heart and substance.  His style reminds me of Director John Hughes’ style from the 80’’s.  Instead of finding comedy with teenage angst he finds it in mid-life crisises and ennui.  I consider ‘The 40 year old Virgin’ and ‘Knocked Up’ to be two of the best comedies produced in the last decade, both by Apatow.  He is able to examine the mundane and make us laugh and appreciate what’s right in front of us.  He also helped launch the careers of people like Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill.  ‘This is 40’ is definitely an Apatow film, but he is more focused on the heart than the comedy (not to say there aren’t several Apatow moments in the film, it just has a more somber tone than his other films (Funny people may be the exception).

‘This is 40’ is a “sort of sequel” to ‘Knocked-up’.  Pete and Deb, the bickering married couple from that film, take center stage in this one.  There is really no other connection or reference to ‘Knocked up’ other than that.  It takes place 5 years later as both of them are turning 40 (Deb still insists she is 38) and coming to grips with the difficulties of marriage and family life.  This is an examination of the reality of marriage that is rarely told in the story books. How does love survive when the passion fades, and the bills mount, and the kids enter adolescence?  Can you truly feel passionate about someone who has no problems asking you to examine their rectum or is able to carry on a conversation with you while you are sitting on the toilet?  We laugh at these scenes while at the same time realizing how hard it is to keep the flame going when they know about that side of each other.  We all strive for closeness, but is it possible to be too close and still keep the flame of love alive?  

It’s not all seriousness, and Apatow is a master at finding the hilarity in supporting characters.  Jason Segal plays Deb’s personal trainer Jason.  He’s that guy all men hate as you know he just does his job to try and hit on women, and probably yours.  For some reason, women always seem completely unaware of their intentions. Jason Smigel plays Pete’s equally miserably married confidante Barry.  They bond over cycling and coffee shops, continually discussing how rough their marriages are.  And then there is Deb’s lead sales girl in her boutique store, played by Megan Fox.  Who knew that Megan Fox had comic timing?  I have never been a fan of hers, but she was actually very funny in this.  I have new respect.

I give Apatow credit as it is difficult to find comedy in such an over worked premise as a bored married couple.  A lot of the film works because of the quality of the actors, but you can’t deny Apatow’s talent at seeing the humor in tedium.  Everyday things that we would find annoying and frustrating in everyday life, we laugh at endlessly here.  Who would have thought a family’s failing business and the prospect of losing their house could be funny?  Somehow Apatow finds the humor.

This is a quality movie, but definitely not one of Apatow’s best.  Witty and insightful, but somehow still missing the mark that would make it a classic movie like ’40 year old Virgin’.  This would be a good date movie for married couples.  It reminds us that, while passion is important, it is only part of what love is about and how important family is in surviving life’s struggles.  No matter how frustrated you may be with your life.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1234741017/

I give this film ** 1/2 stars

Jack Reacher

Jack Reacher, based on Lee Child’s novels (use that word loosely), is an incredibly mediocre action film despite its’ impressive cast and director.  I’m not sure why Cruise feels he needs a new franchise at this stage in his life, but this is an obvious attempt to start one.  To be honest, I didn’t know they still made action films like this.  It’s an exercise in loner machismo fantasy, which I’m all for in principle, but falls incredibly short of the mark.  Remember Stallone’s ‘Cobra’ or Schwarzenegger’s ‘Commando’ back in the 80’s?  Well, it’s like those, but lacking the in depth character development (I tried to infuse that sentence with sarcasm in case you missed it).  

Jack Reacher plays an ex-military investigator who drops off the grid after becoming disgruntled.  He wanders from adventure to adventure showing up only when needed as no one is able to find him.  Owning only the clothes on his back, but surprisingly clean cut, he shows up during a crisis and is able to do what he wants without consequence because ‘he has nothing to lose’.  He is self-proclaimed brilliant with an eidetic memory and is instantly able to change the course of an investigation by bursting into any police captain’s office.  

In this case, Reacher is attracted to a case where a gunman caught after a random shooting spree turns out to be a former military sniper Reacher tried to put away in Iraq yet failed.  Reacher swore someday that he would make the sniper pay, but his curiosity is piqued when the gunman’s sole request after getting caught is ‘Get me Jack Reacher’.  He has faith that Jack Reacher will find the truth despite his personal animosity for him.  

Richard Jenkins and David Oyelowo play the by the book District attorney and lead detective respectively.  Of course, Reacher’s rogue ways drive them crazy, but they can’t deny his greatness (slipping in sarcasm again). Helen, the sniper’s Public Defender and for plot twist also the D.A.’s daughter (isn’t that a conflict of interest) is played lustfully by Rosemund Pike.  She is an actress who is much too good to playing a mere eye candy role, but I feel that most of the actors in this film were above this material.  Most of the film, she spends more time trying to resist her feelings of lust towards Reacher than trying to defend her client.  In fact, almost every woman in the movie is instantly mesmerized by Reacher’s sheer manliness.  I never knew an unemployed middle-aged drifter could be so attractive to such a wide variety of women.  

I will say that the unravelling of the crime itself was interesting.  There were some major jumps at logic and going down certain investigative paths that seemed improbable, but it was still a clever paradigm shifting discovery.  Again, for a loner with only the clothes on his back, it stained credulity at how seriously people took him and how much access he was given to highly sensitive information.  He entered every situation by bursting unchallenged through office doors and got out of every difficult situation by beating someone up.  

The villain is played by the great German director, Werner Herzog, playing a Russian mobster who does evil stuff just to show how evil he is. Misshappen and  crippled, because ugly people are always the bad guys. I wasn’t even exactly sure what the goal of his evil plan was, but it had to be evil because he liked doing evil.  Again, a great artist who lowered himself to be in this film

This is a pure macho fantasy that will appeal to any military obsessed, camouflage wearing over weight nerd living in his parents basement or to any loner with survivalist fantasies.    The action was strictly by the numbers and not even that well done.  Say what you want about Cruise, but he is better than this.  I predict this will not become the franchise that was hoped for (thankfully).  See this movie if you want to see a lot of guns fire and some mildly intriguing plot twists.  ‘Movie hint’:  you can always tell a film will be bad by the trailer when you see all these quotes saying how ‘Tremendous’, ‘Must not miss’, or ‘Spectacular’ the movie is.  If the quotes go by incredibly fast and you can’t read who the quote belongs to because the font is too small to read, then you know they aren’t credible sources and the film will probably be a dud.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1921754905/

I give this film * 1/2 stars

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Peter Jackson’s ‘The Hobbit’ is a movie I don’t really feel qualified reviewing.  The J.R. Tolkein books were something I never really connected with as a child.  I admired and respected the creativity, the scope, and the grandeur of the world Tolkein created, but it never resonated with me like with its’ legions of fans.  To me, it was always just that tedious reading assignment from my high school British Literature class.  If you enjoyed the ‘Lord of The Rings’ trilogy, then this is a welcome and respectable prequel addition.  If you didn’t enjoy it, at least you know what to expect.

In the book series, “The Hobbit’ was almost a children’s tale, whereas ‘The Lord of The Rings’ expanded upon the world created in ‘The Hobbit’ and made the themes much darker and  mature.  The movie version of ‘The Hobbit’ continues ‘The Lord of the Rings’ dark atmosphere and admirably continues the franchise.  It’s been said that Tolkein created ‘The Lord of the Rings’ as a metaphor for World War II.  Whether you believe that or not, it definitely is a more violent and war based story than ‘The Hobbit’.  This film is more of an epic quest than an epic battle.

The story follows a young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) who is reluctantly recruited by the wizard Gandalf I(an McCellen) to aid a troupe of dwarves on a quest to reclaim their mountain home from the dragon Smaug.  Along the way we are given insight to the world laid out before us in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and introduced to characters and things that will be major players in that future story.  In some ways, I almost wish Peter Jackson would have followed suite with the books and made this a more kid friendly story, but who am I to argue with success?  Peter Jackson is doing just fine without my advice.  

Even though we visit familiar characters and locales, Jackson does a great job at making it all seem fresh.  There is the same excitement and sense of adventure as from the ‘LOTR’ trilogy without any of it seeming recycled.  Even though Frodo makes a brief appearance, he was not missed as Bilbo more than filled the role of reluctant hero.  The troupe of dwarves, led by the King-in-waiting, Thorin  (Richard Armitage), provided both comic relief and at the same time infinite respect for their courage and determination.  They are fierce warriors in a land of giants.  

The dwarves story of exile from their fortress mountain kingdom by the dragon Smaug provides the basis of the story.  I wish they would have delved more deeply into the history of the dwarves as, the little bit we did see, I found it very compelling.  Especially their estrangement from the etherial elves who abandoned them in their time of need.  The strained relationship was hinted at in ‘LOTR’, but only elaborated upon a little in this story.  And of course, we are introduced to Gollum (Andy Serkis), keeper and guardian of the ‘precious’ ring.  Once again, the special effects used to create Gollum are impressive and Andy Serkis’s performance deserves Academy notice, even though he will always be overlooked because visually his character is digital.  They once overlooked super hero movies for the Academy Award and Heath Ledger changed that.  Maybe there will be hope for digital characters in the future.

Overall, if you are a fan of the series, you won’t be disappointed.  The film is respectable in its’ epic scope and story telling.  If you are not a fan like me, you will admire the achievement and complexity of story telling, but occasionally you will look at your watch to see when this thing ends.  

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/

I give this film *** stars