Advertisements

Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

All my aimless thoughts, ideas, and ramblings, all packed into one site!

Tag Archives: Gemma Arterton

The Girl With All the Gifts (2017)

2017 proves that we may just need an apocalypse.

In the future, a strange fungus has changed nearly everyone into a thoughtless, flesh-eating monster. When a scientist (Glenn Close) and a teacher (Gemma Arterton) find a girl named Melanie (Sennia Nanua) who seems to be immune to the fungus, they all begin a journey to save humanity. Problem is, the outside world is quite dangerous and always ready to chow down on human-flesh.

With all of the zombies shows and movies out there, you’d think that we wouldn’t really need something like the Girl With All the Gifts. After all, it’s a lot like the Last of Us and already doesn’t feel like it’s going to go beyond just being about a bunch of unlikable people trying to survive in a post-apacolyptic world, where everyone and everything are flesh-eating zombies. It sounds conventional, formulaic, and downright cliche, but the way it all plays out, surprisingly, proves otherwise.

Who says teachers can’t change the world?

In fact, it almost comes close to greatness. Very close, indeed.

But still, it’s a movie that deserves to be seen above all of the other zombie offerings because it doesn’t ever seem to forget to be, first and foremost, scary. What the Walking Dead, Z Nation, and all those other zombie bits of pop-culture seem to miss out on is that they aren’t really scary; they focus more on characters and hope that their lives hanging in the balance will be enough. They don’t really work on mood, or actually having you fearful of what’s going to come out at us, as well as the characters, next.

Director Colm McCarthy’s style works on that and puts us right into a dark, twisted, scary, and absolutely depressing world, highly reminiscent of the same post-apocalypse pictured in 28 Days Later. There’s zombies roaming everywhere, they’re fast, they’re angry, they’re hungry, and oh yeah, they’re scary. McCarthy always puts us in the dark of where the plot may go next, so that even if we don’t entirely care for these characters, we’re still interested in seeing where we are taken, what other mysteries of this disease are going to be unlocked, and whether anybody’s going to make it out of this thing alive.

Aw. Such a sweet little girl.

That said, the characters themselves, as limited as they may be, are interesting enough to where they do warrant enough attention to them. Gemma Arterton’s Helen is sweet and sympathetic, but you never know whether to fully trust her to do the right thing or not; same goes for Paddy Considine’s Eddie, who we actually start to hate, but soon understand and sympathize with because, well, he’s been through a whole lot; Glenn Close plays the Dr. Caldwell who cares a lot about her research, but also doesn’t fall into the convention of being the scientist who loses her head when the going gets dangerous; and Sennia Nanua, as Melanie, is perfect here. She’s both cute and sweet, but also incredibly dangerous, too and it’s hard to ever fully get close to this character, which is on-purpose. She is, after all, still a girl, but she does have a undying passion and love for the taste of human-flesh and it’s always easy to forget, especially when she’s going on and on about fairy-tales and bed-time stories.

It’s perfect casting and hopefully, a sure sign that Nanua will be going on to bigger and better things.

That said, as solid as the movie is for the first hour or so, it does kind of blow off the rails by the last-act, which is easy to see coming, but still feels a tad disappointing. It seems like with most zombie-flicks of this nature, it’s hard to stay so subtle and repressed that you can’t help yourselves but to let a little loose with all of the blood, the gore, the violence, the twists, and the turns by the end, but so be it. Maybe times will change. Maybe not.

Oh well.

Consensus: With plenty of shocks, scares, blood, guts, gore, and great performances, the Girl With All the Gifts helps freshen-up the zombie sub-genre a bit, but also falls short of being a brand new classic. Darn.

7.5 / 10

Oh, uh, damn. Never mind. Monster, I tell ya!

Photos Courtesy of: Saban Films

Advertisements

Their Finest (2017)

Now I definitely don’t need to see Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk.

It’s Britain, 1940, and needless to say, the war is hitting them pretty hard. Men are being shipped-out randomly, bombs are dropping everywhere, resources are drying up, families are being torn apart, and it just doesn’t seem like the good old days any longer. It seems like everyone is sad, depressed and absolutely unsure of what to do with their lives, which is why the British Ministry of Information decides to step on in and change all that up the only reliable way they know how: Making movies. And one such movie they commission is a supposed true story of heroism and bravery that occurred in Dunkirk, France. Of course, the movie-version of these said events get all wrapped-up and twisted around, to the point of where the original story isn’t even found anywhere, but the message of the tale is simple: Greater and better times are ahead and can still be found now. And crafting that film is writer Catrin (Gemma Arterton) who finds herself constantly battling it out with fellow writers, like Tom (Sam Claflin), actors, like Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy), and fellow women in the office, like Phyl (Rachael Stirling) who give her crap for her gender and how she handles herself. But all she’s trying to do is make the best, most inspirational movie she can make, no matter what.

How could you not fall for the chum?

Their Finest is one of the most charming movies I have seen in quite some time and it doesn’t even seem like it’s trying. Okay, that’s a bit of a lie; it’s so smug, likable and sweet, that it’s almost begging for our adoration before the opening-credits roll onto the screen. But for the most part, it’s the time, the place, and the nostalgic message that makes it feel like Their Finest doesn’t have to even try – it’s homework of charming and pleasing the pants off of the audience is already done for itself.

That said, it’s still a wildly lovely movie that even without the time, the place, the nostalgic message, it would still work. Sure, those things certainly help, but mostly, Their Finest works because it’s a movie that has a heart as big the bombs that are constantly being dropped out throughout. Director Lone Scherfig and writer Gaby Chiappe come together in an interesting way that doesn’t shy away from the dark, brutal, and grueling reality that the war presented for everyone involved, but it also doesn’t shy away from the fact that there was some happiness and light to be found through it all.

It’s like an overlong episode of Boardwalk Empire, except the polar opposite – everyone around the main characters are sad, but the main characters themselves, somehow, through some way, are happy.

It all works, though, and never appears too cloying, or overly cutesy; it all feels earned and just earnest enough that it knows it’s harsh reality, without ever trying too revel in it, either. The movie is, plain and simple, just sweet and lovely – like a Pastri that you know you shouldn’t have, but also can’t keep yourself away from, either. That may not be the best way to describe Their Finest, but trust me, just know this: It’ll be hard not to smile the whole way through. Even when the movie’s sad (which it can be on countless occasions), it’s still kind of cheerful.

And it mostly all comes down to the characters and what they represent. In what has to be her best role to-date, Gemma Arterton finally gets a chance to prove that she can be awfully sweet and charming, when given the right material to work with. As Catrin Cole, we see a character that’s still figuring herself out, trying to make some sort of a mark in the world and above all else, trying to remain happy, hopeful and optimistic towards a brighter, better future. It’s a role that could have been easily grating and annoying in anyone’s hands, but it’s one that Arterton works so well with, that you immediately fall in love with her and her infectious spirit.

Gemma, have you ever seen Atonement? Get out of the subway!

And it’s also easy to see why everyone in the film does, too.

Sam Claflin, once again, proves that he’s quite possibly the most charming and handsome British guy working today, aside from Henry Cavill, as Tom, and shows quite a nice little chemistry between he and Arterton. The relationship may go into obvious places, but because they’re so good and cute together, it doesn’t matter – we want them together, no matter what. Bill Nighy is also the stand-out as the one actor in this whole production who can’t seem to know or realize that he’s a little too old to be quite the superstar he once was. The character could have easily been a cartoonish buffoon, but there’s a lot of heart and warmth in Nighy’s portrayal, that it works. Same goes for everyone else who shows up here, adding a little bit more personality and light to the whole proceedings.

But if anything about Their Finest really works for me, it’s the message that, no matter what happens to you, the outside world around you, or anybody, anywhere else in the world, the movies will always be there for you. Sure, it’s a sentiment that’s not as relevant as it may have been in the early-1940’s, when practically everyone and their grandmother needed a little cheering up, but it’s still the same kind of sentiment that resonates for any film-lover. Movies have always been made, and will always continue to be made, to take people away from their real lives, and place them somewhere lovely and magical, and provide the perfect distraction. Sure, there are movies that are made not to do such a thing (aka, documentaries), but the ones that really take you out of the real world and give you hope and ambition, well, then those are the ones that deserve to be seen, no matter what’s going on around you.

It’s what movies were put on this Earth to do in the first place and it’s why they will always hold a special place in each and every living person’s life.

Consensus: Sweet, endearing and ridiculously nostalgic, Their Finest wears its heart and humor on its sleeve, with even better performances to show for it.

8.5 / 10

Making movies have never been so, ehrm, British.

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire

The Disappearance of Alice Creed (2010)

Is there such a thing as “a job going exactly according to plan”?

Two kidnappers, Vic (Eddie Marsan) and Danny (Martin Compston) have a secret, super duper shady plan of holding the daughter of a rich businessman hostage. Why? Well it’s a known-fact that she’s got a lot of money attached to her name and that her daddy would be more than willing to throw down any hefty sum of money to get her back into his arms and make sure that everything’s okay and fine. And for the longest time, the plan goes together perfectly. The daughter, Alice Creed (Gemma Arterton), is found, kidnapped and put away silently in this bed and tied-up. She’s given food to eat, a pot to piss and/or do other stuff in, and a bed to sleep in, even though she doesn’t have much else choice to do much else. And hell, her father seems to not have contacted the cops and willing to meet-up to exchange the money. So yeah, it seems like everything’s going perfectly according to plan, until, well, it doesn’t and all of a sudden, everybody starts to turn on one another and question the other’s motives.

When your hostage is this pretty, it's hard to not get your emotions wrapped-up in a bunch.

When your hostage is this pretty, it’s hard to not get your emotions wrapped-up in a bunch.

The first thirty or so minutes of Alice Creed is actually quite interesting. We see a lot of planning going into setting the room and stage-up for where the abductee will be taken, but we don’t hear these guys utter a single word. We know that they’re setting up for a kidnapping, due to the title, but because everything so perfectly and meticulously planned-out, it’s actually quite chilling, while also intriguing because, well, this is how one would want to create a hostage situation. Granted, I hope to never be involved with one, but if I were to all of a sudden be in a huge pinch for money, I’d probably use this movie’s first half-hour as a guideline on what to do.

And even when Alice Creed, the character, does end-up getting kidnapped, it’s still interesting. We have no clue why this character is getting kidnapped in the first placed, how it all happened, and what kind of relationship these characters have with one another, if any at all. We don’t ever see the actual kidnapping itself, so yeah, the mystery’s always up in the air, but what do these characters mean to one another? Are they all pals doing these secret things to one another? Or are they all just strangers, set-up to ensure that no problems ensue with said kidnapping?

Well, eventually, we begin to get the answers to these puzzling questions and sadly, that’s about the same time when Alice Creed, the movie, gets to be a bit of a bore.

After a certain moment, it becomes clear that writer/director J Blakeson is perfect at setting the stage up for what could be a very interesting, if sometimes exciting thriller, but doesn’t really know where to go after all the said setting up. There’s plenty of twists here, which is fine, but after about the ninth or tenth, it becomes to be a bit of overkill. Which wouldn’t be such a problem if the actual twists and turns were the least bit believable or interesting, but most of them feel placed-in as a desperate way of spicing things up, or just ripped from other movies that are, in some cases, many times better than this one.

The only interesting aspect of the movie that stays as such probably throughout, is the actual cast themselves. Considering that there’s literally nobody else in this movie, other than three ones we get in the first half-hour, it goes without saying that they should probably all be solid actors, doing exceptional work, in a movie that’s in desperate need of it. And with Alice Creed‘s case, that’s definitely the case, even if the script itself doesn’t offer them much room to breath or stretch their limbs out.

But to be honest, it’s hard to talk about all of these characters without spoiling just exactly who, or what they mean to the overall story.

See what I mean?

See what I mean?

Gemma Arterton’s Alice Creed is a bit of a whiny, stuck-up rich girl who clearly isn’t used to being put into a situation like this, but then again, how could she be? Eddie Marsan’s Vic is a tough-as-nails, quiet, and brooding baddie who doesn’t have anytime for jokes or games, and just wants to get this all over and done with, as well as he should. And Martin Compston’s Danny is, well, the softer and sweeter of the two baddies, even though it becomes awfully clear why he is and ultimately, ends up showing something of a softer side throughout the rest of the movie.

Each one here is fine and do exactly what they should in a movie that doesn’t seem to be all that well-equipped to help them out, but it’s a bit disappointing, because this movie could have been a very interesting, character-driven thriller. However, because it’s all about where the plot is moving, what can happen to keep things fun, and what sort of twists and turns can come out of nowhere, it never gets the chance to be anything. Maybe, just maybe, the movie’s a bit too big for its own good and doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “downplaying”, but really, that’s expecting a tad bit too much. After all, Alice Creed is just another low-key thriller; it may not be wanting to be a smart, intriguing character-piece about what people do in situations like kidnappings, but it certainly could have been and it’s a bit disappointing that it didn’t take itself any further.

Especially since, well, the groundwork was already laid-out quite well.

Consensus: Given the solid cast on-hand, the Disappearance of Alice Creed feels more disappointing than it should, given that after the first half-hour, it loses all direction and sense of what keeps a plot interesting, and that’s believability.

5.5 / 10

Kidnappers take lunch breaks?

Kidnappers take lunch breaks?

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire, B Movies

The Voices (2015)

Cats are evil, we all know that. But dogs? Never!

Jerry Hickfang (Ryan Reynolds) is an upbeat, happy-going dude who lives his life with his dog, Bosco, and his cat, Mr. Whiskers. He works at a bathtub factory, is generally liked by his co-workers, although some of them feel he’s may be a tad on the off-kilter side, and normally has a chipper-look at the world around him, as morbid and dark as it may be out there sometimes. Oh, and he talks to a psychiatrist (Jacki Weaver) so that he can stop talking to Bosco and Mr. Whiskers. Forgot to mention that little piece of info? Well, sorry. Because, believe it or not, Mr. Whiskers and Bosco actually talk to Jerry; Bosco is obviously very loyal to Jerry and wants him to do the right thing always, whereas Mr. Whiskers is constantly pissing and crapping everywhere, that is, when he isn’t telling Jerry to kill people, just because he can. Normally, Jerry doesn’t listen to Mr. Whiskers, but now that he’s stopped taking his pills and has recently fallen for a co-worker of his (Gemma Arterton), things may now change and Jerry may finally give in to Mr. Whiskers all along.

It’s hard to take a premise like this at all seriously, which is why, for the first hour or so, the Voices is an odd, but wacky hybrid of a movie; one that clearly doesn’t need a few big names attached to it to help it get attention from the curious ones out there, but it also doesn’t hurt much, either. And with that said, I think now is a better time than ever to jump right into one of the main reasons as to why the Voices works as well as it does: Ryan freakin’ Reynolds, people.

The look of someone who has done one too many studio movies and it's time to gut them all away. So to speak.

The look of someone who has done one too many studio movies and knows that it’s time to gut them all away. So to speak.

I’ll admit it, I gave up on Ryan Reynolds a bit back in the day. When 2013 came around and Reynolds himself not only had two box-office bombs, but had them in the same weekend, there was a feeling in the pit of my stomach that no matter how charming this man can be, no matter how much promise of something deeper, far more interesting may appear in brief spots, Ryan Reynolds movie-career would be doomed. Sure, he would still have Blake Lively, his good looks, and possibly even his rockin’ bod that many women, even til this day, still fantasize over, but Ryan Reynolds, no offense to anyone else out there, isn’t getting any younger and because of that, it seemed like Ryan Reynolds, the movie star, was over and done before he could ever fully get off the ground and running.

However, as 2015 shines upon us, it seems like Reynolds’ career is singing a different tune – rather than trying to be anything like the next big movie star that this world has ever seen, Reynolds is, instead, challenging himself as an actor and less of a hot-guy-with-a-sense-of-humor. Nowadays, Reynolds wants to show the world that he’s got plenty of talent to put to use and because of that, we’re treated to one of his best performances in the longest time, as Jerry Hickfang. It’s not a role that many would expect for Reynolds to take – on paper, Hickfang is a weird guy, but seemingly harmless, all because he’s dorky in his own way.

But as time progresses in this movie and we realize that there is something very dark and disturbing brewing inside of Jerry, we see Reynolds’ true charm come out in full spades. This can definitely be attributed to the script for allowing a character like Jerry to have at least some semblance of humanity, even amidst all of the nonsensical blood-shed and murder, but it can also be attributed to Reynolds for not letting us lose sight that this is a seriously messed-up individual who needs to be put somewhere safe and relaxing, where he can be cooped-up for the rest of his life without ever putting other people’s lives into harm’s way.

It is dramatic, you can say, but the tone is so strange here, that it actually works; not to mention that Reynolds is game for wherever this movie seems to take him and Jerry next. There’s more to this Jerry character than just a goofy simpleton who loves everything about life, even if he is a little crazy. And yet, it’s still hard to get past the fact that every chance Jerry gets to be endearing with his silly ways, Reynolds milks it for all that he’s got. The guy may be able to charm the socks off of Queen Elizabeth in her prime, but here, as Jerry, he’s charming in a different kind of way; one that’s a lot more sad and makes you want to give him a hug and let him know it will be alright in the end.

You know, even if it isn’t.

Who doesn't want to wake up to this for breakfast every morning?

Who doesn’t want to wake up to this for breakfast every morning?

As great as Reynolds is, though, the movie still has its fair share of problems and some of that can be seen with the final-half which, like I’ve mentioned a bit before, isn’t like the first-half all that much. Sure, there’s plenty of killing, blood and gore, but the dark comedic-tone isn’t fully there like before; which isn’t to say that there always has to be, regardless of what’s actually going on in the movie. When a movie decides to turn the other cheek and get serious with itself, it isn’t a problem, so long so as the movie doesn’t fully lose its identity in the process.

Here, with the Voices, I felt like that actually happened – the laughs come very few and far between, certain characters start acting like they wouldn’t have earlier, and we’re left to focus on more action, rather than any actual humor. The movie didn’t need to be hilarious about the whole way through to make me pleased, however, what it did need to do was stay true to itself. You know, sort of like Jerry – a messed-up individual, for sure, but one who isn’t pretending to be something he’s not.

He is, what he is. For better, and definitely for worse.

Consensus: Though it peers off into far more serious territory, with less than stellar results, the Voices still has enough joy basking in its inappropriate, but fun plot, that is made all the better by one of Ryan Reynolds’ best performances in a long while. Let’s hope this is a sign of beautiful things to come.

7 / 10 = Rental!!

Listen to the cat. Always. Listen. To. The. Cat.

Listen to the cat. Always. Listen. To. The. Cat.

Photo’s Credit to: IMDB, AceShowbiz

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Why fix what was clearly not broken?

Born of a god but raised as a man, Perseus (Sam Worthington) is thrown into the real-world where Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and his evil ways have seem to take over the rest of the world. To end this all of this pain and suffering throughout the land, Perseus and fellow warriors go on a dangerous mission, where they run into many obstacles along the way. However, seeing that Perseus is indeed Zeus’ (Liam Neeson) son, many of the obstacles can be powered through, except for one. And yes, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

Yes, yes, yes! We all know that this movie sucked when it first came out, with post-production 3D and all, but just think about this movie in a different way, if only for a second: Maybe it’s somewhat okay? Alright, maybe that was asking too much but please, do bear with me here as I show you why exactly this flick may not be as bad as people say it is, and say if it is bad, why it is bad in a so-bad-it’s-good-way.

Have I lose anybody yet? Okay, if I have, it’s my fault and my fault alone. But I’m not done here just yet.

The thing about this movie that pissed so many off is the fact that it doesn’t really adhere all that much to the 1981 original. Sure, the story-line and plot-happenings are somewhat the same, but overall, it’s a bit of a different take, with a different way of telling it and a whole new tone that goes in well with what I said before. Then again, the tone here isn’t really too serious that it’s painful to watch, it’s almost so serious, that you can’t help but laugh every five seconds when somebody new decides to throw exposition-upon-exposition down our throats. Even the male-posturing that was always so present within these Greek myths, all gets over-played and used in ways that makes you wonder if the movie was trying to be funny, serious, or nothing at all. More or less, the movie rolls with the last option, but I’m fine with that, as long as it can keep me entertained.

"May we please get your autograph, guy from Avatar?"

“May we please get your autograph, guy from Avatar?”

And entertained is what this movie kept me throughout the whole hour-and-a-half. Basically, the whole movie is built upon three battle-sequences that are supposed to take up the whole run-time and keep us going for more – which seems really stupid considering that this is a movie about titans, having them clash, and eventually fight that lovable sea monster we all know of and love. But somehow, it actually works because the movie injects some fun nature into them. This is most surprising to me, mainly because I know the type of crap that director Louis Leterrier goes for when it comes to his movies, and injecting a quick, shaky-cam is one of them, but it somehow kept this movie moving at a quick-enough pace that I didn’t mind all of the stupidity. And do trust me, there is plenty of stupidity to be had here.

Even though it seems as if three writers were apart of this movie, it doesn’t seem like any of them were able to capture any sort of emotion, feeling or idea to this flick that would make it the least bit more interesting. Instead, everybody yells, screams, commands others to do something, goes “argghh”, and talks about the Gods up above and how dick-ish they are for releasing all of this agony on the people they are supposed to love, care for and watch over. Then again, the movie never really makes up it’s mind of what type of stance it wants to take concerning the Gods. At times, it seems like the movie is saying that to not pray to the Gods and worship them is a sign of being disrespectful and arrogant, but at other times, it tries to say that the Gods are wrong for all of the command they issue out onto these citizens, and even go so far as to show Zeus as being non-other than a high-class, serial rapist. I mean, think about that for a second: Perseus is Zeus son because Zeus decided to bed his mommy in the middle of the night, only to have her realize that the baby wasn’t her actual hubby’s babies, and instead, have it be Zeus’, the God of all things God-like.

Kind of creepy, eh?

You bet your damn ass it is!

However though, the movie isn’t too concerned with all that nonsensical logic and understanding – it’s about big, loud, and angry things being huge and monstrous, so that we all just go “oooh” and “aahhh” the whole way through. It works, but that doesn’t really matter to me since the movie has fun with it’s B-feel, and never let me forget about it. Maybe I was in a good mood; maybe I was feeling generous; and yeah, maybe I was being a nice guy (for a change), but I honestly cannot say that this movie is near-torture to watch and sit-through. Hell, if I caught it on television anytime soon (which with HBO, I most likely will), I’ll probably not mind plopping my rear down on the couch, grabbing a couple of snackaroo’s, getting myself a soda, find the remote and give it a nice, little watch. The worse it could do is probably ruin my day, and that’s all up to me, isn’t it?

I can tell that I’m losing all sorts of credibility here, but that’s what a movie-critic’s life and career is all about. Gotta start somewhere, right?

Since he's Zeus, of course he has to look like Liberace!

Since he’s Zeus, of course he has to look like Liberace!

As you could probably suspect, if the story, the script, and the themes of this movie blow, then, most likely, the characters do as well. However, they aren’t so damn bad, to the point of where watching them will also follow-through with the action of finding hot candle-wax and throwing it in your eyes, in hopes to release the memory of what you have just witnessed on-screen. Sam Worthington leads the pack as Perseus and has that feel and look of the type of Demigod you can believe in to not only just do the right thing, but to kick some fine-ass while doing so. That aspect of Perseus, Worthington does well with, but everything else is just Dullsville right from then and there. Then again, knowing Sam Worthington and what the cat’s been up to in recent-memory, you can’t expect too much from this dude. All you have to know is that he’s going to do some bad-ass things, use the same face for every scene, and somehow, change his accent with the reading of every line. There’s Sam Worthington for ya right there, in a nutshell!

The rest of the cast is only here for show, and all are probably just as interesting, if not less than Worthington and his Perseus. Liam Neeson seems like he’s sleep-walking through his role as Zeus, the type of role that seemed like it would fit Neeson like a glove by now; Ralph Fiennes tries too hard to seem vicious and evil as Hades, even though he just sounds like an old nut-ball; and Mads Mikkelsen doesn’t deserve to be here, and doesn’t seem like he wants to be either. He’s just there for that pay-check, in hopes that he’ll end up breaking the barriers down into the States someday. I think that wish has been fulfilled.

Consensus: Though it is remorselessly stupid and over-the-top, Clash of the Titans can actually be considered as entertaining and enjoyable if you take it as the B-movie it obviously sets its sights on being, and just leaving it at that.

5 / 10 = Rental!!

Okay, stop saying "aaaah".

Okay, quit saying “aaaah”.

Photo’s Credit to: IMDBColliderJobloComingSoon.net

Runner Runner (2013)

He’s Bruce Wayne, and he’s bringing sexy back. So why the gambling again?

Sometimes when you have an addiction, it’s just too hard to let it settle down and end. Sometimes, hell, you just got to go all in and see if luck can come out on your side, and that’s exactly what Princeton graduate student Richie Furst (Justin Timberlake) does. However, in his case, lucks doesn’t come out on his side, but more or less comes over to his side, bites his ass, takes all of his money, and leaves him squandering with pennies, nickels, and dimes in his hand. This all happens to Richie when he decides to pull-out an all-nighter on an online gambling site so that he can pay his college-tuition, and out of there like swimwear. But once Richie does get screwed over by this site and realizes that it may be something of a “cheat” implemented by another user, Richie decides to take his problem to the source, owner of said site, billionaire playboy Ivan Block (Ben Affleck).

You have to face it, even as dumb and as idiotic as these gambling movies may be, they still know how to have a little bit of fun as if you are right there, betting all of your money and luck, running the high risk of losing that all, and either actually doing so, or pulling off the impossible and winning. Yes, these movies are insanely corny and predictable-to-a-T, but you can’t help but join in the fun when you see a bunch of really good-looking, really rich, and really powerful people just soaking up the sun, swimming in pools of Benjamins, and even better, going back to bed and shagging as many dames as they ordered.

He just can't bring himself to leave the $20,000 yacht. Nobody can.

He just can’t bring himself to leave the $20,000 yacht. Nobody can.

Seriously, it’s just the life all of us wish we had, except, we don’t. Instead, we just sit in front of our computers, talk shit about the movies that portray these beings, and act as if we’re better off in our sad, little pathetic lives of normalcy. Cause guess what: We aren’t!! Deep down inside, we all want to be doing exactly what these hunks and hookers are doing in these gambling movies, and it makes it easy for us to be against them, rather than with them and just enjoying all of the fun, the glitz, and the glamour while it still lasts and the bill hasn’t come in yet.

That said, this movie is so stupid, that if you were to talk some shit against it, I would not only back you up in a fight, but agree with you on everything you state, and say that it is fact. Yes, the movie is poorly-written and feature situation-after-situation that would never, ever possibly happen in real life, let alone, should happen in a movie no less, yet, still does happen and makes you question whether or not these writers really thought that “sheer stupidity”, actually meant “creative and cool”. Everybody is given laughable dialogue to work with and you just don’t know who’s game for this type of material, or are just trying their hardest to collect that paycheck in hopes that they’ll be able to go home, get on their type-writers, and start cranking out actual interesting, thoughtful pieces of work.

Most likely, Ben’s chipping away right now. Oh wait, I forgot, he’s a LITTLE occupied at the moment, so I guess this just leaves Mr. JT to do all of the smart thinking in his downtime.

Speaking of said former-boy band leader, Justin Timberlake, Lord bless him, does all that he possibly can to make this material work for him and the others around him, but he just can’t. It’s evident that he can’t play tough in a way that would work in an action movie, and he can’t really spout-out math numbers and try to sound smart while doing it, as if it was the first thing coming out of his pretentious mind. He tries, and he tries, and he tries, but he just does not work in this role and I don’t know if it’s a bad case of shitty casting, shitty acting, shitty material, or a shitty combination of all three. More than likely, it is, and I feel bad even hating on JT right now since I can’t get “Take Back the Night” out of my freakin’ head! Seriously though: Why does a song have to be so damn catchy!?!?!?

Goes from JENNifer, to GEMMa. Yeah, that's all I got.

Goes from JENNifer, to GEMMa. Yeah, that’s all I got.

And even though the dude is getting more than enough crap for the iconic role he took no less than 3 months ago, Ben Affleck still shows all of them naysayers why he’s so good at what he does, that he doesn’t need to worry about how many tweets hashtag about him not being right for Battie, he just needs to have a good time and allow us to do so in return. With that said, he definitely does do so as Ivan Block and made the film so much damn fun to watch whenever he was around. Everything he says whether it’s insinuating sex, murder, more money, or a business deal in-the-works, the guy’s just so much fun to watch as he makes you laugh at just about everything he says. The lines he’s given are dumb, yes, very much so, however, he rolls with them like the champ that he truly is and never lets you forget that this is HIS character, and HIS way of performing him. See what I’m doing there? Like I’ve said before, peeps, give it time and allow him to shine. Once you give him that time of day, then you can continue to be angry. But until then, pipe up and enjoy him while you still can.

But I feel like, as usual, this review is getting further and further away from my damn point, which is: It’s fun. It is as obvious, as predictable, and as dopey as you can get, yet, the movie has some fun with itself and with all of its money, and in the beginning of October, what else can you ask for? Not much else, so enjoy, dammit!

Consensus: Wooden script and acting from people who deserve a lot, lot better than Runner Runner, however, they make the best of it with what they can and for that, it’s worth a watch, and not needed to be taken seriously.

5 / 10 = Rental!!

"Late-90's, man. That was OUR time. Now what the fuck is this?"

“Late-90’s, man. That was OUR time. Now what the fuck is this?”

Photo’s Credit to: IMDBColliderJobloComingSoon.net

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)

Wait till the Gingerbread Man comes around. There gon’ be some hell to pay.

Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton play the titular characters, who fifteen years after their gingerbread house incident, have turned into ruthless witch hunters. However, they run into a problem when an evil and powerful witch (played by Famke Janssen), finds her way into the town, taking all of the children, and bring back old memories that the two thought they had stored-away for years. Always count on Jean Grey to throw everybody a curve ball.

The fact that the trailers blew, was barely screened for any critics, and was actually supposed to come-out last year, I knew that there was going to be nothing all that amazing or great for me to watch, but then again, it’s January so what is? However, after seeing the train-wreck that was Movie 43, not too long before this, I thought to myself, “Nothing could be as bad as that. Nothing.” Thankfully, this movie didn’t prove me wrong but at the same time, still didn’t do much for me, either. Once again, just another lame-o day at the movies, people. Thankfully, the month of January is just about over. Woo-wee!

This was one of those films that I saw very recently that left me feeling very, very strange. I remember watching the movie, having an okay time, not hating myself for watching it, and not really caring what was going on with the movie. However, as soon as the credits rolled, I was out of there as quick as a banshee, got right into my car, drove home, jammed-out to some Nas (total white boy stuff), got home, sat-down, got ready to write this review, and yet: I couldn’t think of a single, damn thing I liked about it but also, couldn’t think of a single, damn thing I didn’t like about either. That may all sound very odd and strange to you all, but this movie did nothing to my mind, to my mood, or to my movie-viewing. It was literally there for me to kill time, have a watch at the movies, eat some popcorn (extra butter, too), drink some soda (Sprite to be exact), and enjoy myself, all while doing so. Maybe it’s weird because I feel more like a movie-audience member than I actually did a movie-critic, but the fact of the matter remains: nothing really happened to me while watching this movie.

Dude, just go back to disarming bombs.

Dude, just go back to disarming bombs or something.

Despite this strange problem that occurred to me after the movie, I still do recall having a nice-amount of fun with this movie, and not just in the, I’m-trying-to-get-over-a-really-really-bad-movie-I-just-saw-way, either. I actually enjoyed myself with this movie and I think that it’s because of the R-rating that allowed for itself to go the limits that it oh so rightfully needed. Because of the R-rating, we get more action, more gore, more nudity, more language, and more limbs and parts of the body, just flying-around. There’s a real, unadulterated sense-of-joy to this movie that is definitely contagious as you may find yourself paying more and more attention to the action and all of the other crazy shenanigans  more than what really matters like plot, direction, characters, and script. The reason why it’s important you don’t pay attention to those elements, is because they sort of suck here in this movie.

Saying that everything in this movie, other than the action, just “sucks”, doesn’t seem right but it also seems suitable. The action may be able to keep you distracted for a little bit of time, but when it all goes away and you have to actually get involved with these characters, their tensions, their traits, and the story that they have to them: then the film starts to lose credibility, or any that it had going for itself in the first-place. The dialogue isn’t even that shitty, it’s just bland and dull, and makes me feel like if I was flashed $5,000 in front-of my face, I could have written it too. I probably wouldn’t have as been as witty to include the several F-bombs here and there, but still, it’s the type of script that features little to nothing new or refreshing you haven’t seen or heard done before. It’s just there to serve the action, the story, and the actors. And oh dear: the poor actors.

By saying, “the poor actors”, I don’t actually mean “poor” in the sense that they don’t have a dime to spend because I’m pretty sure that they are well-off wherever they may be residing now, but more or less that they are “poor”, because as much fun and delight as they may be having; it never fully comes onto us in-return. Gemma Arterton and Jeremy Renner are fine as Hansel and Gretel and definitely seem like they have a nice bro-sis chemistry that shines throughout the whole movie, but also feel like they deserve a whole lot more to their names. Maybe more to Renner, than to Arterton, but none the less, both deserve better scripts and better characters to work with and no matter how much charm they may bring to these characters, Hansel and Gretel still never feel like they have the type of personalities that win you over from the start. Other than some subplot about how their parents really died, we don’t get to know too much about them, what makes them tick, and who they really are, enough for us to feel like we know them and can totally root them on. They’re just the type of superheros that are there to kill witches, walk around from town-to-town, and say the F-word, whenever they feel is necessary. Well, them and the two-bit script.

If that was my sister, I'm sorry, but I would be tempted.

If that was my sister, I’m sorry, but I would be tempted.

Two, other actors that are here as villains that seem to be having fun are Peter Stormare and Famke Janssen, who are both character-actors that know what to do, how to do it, and make it look good. They both seem like they are having just as much fun as Arterton and Renner are, on the opposite-sides of the spectrum, but still never really pop-off the screen. Instead, they are just there to serve the plot, to show how bad and evil certain characters can be, and most of all, just chew scenery like nobody’s business. If that’s all they were called on for to do, then hey; good for them. But when it comes to giving me villains/characters I’m going to remember next month, or hell, in the next 10 minutes; nope, can’t say I’ll recall much. I guess that last statement could sort of be used to described this whole, damn movie. Oh well. It’s January.

Consensus: For an-hour-and-a-half movie, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters never seems to slow-down, nor does it ever really seem to bore the piss out of a person, but it doesn’t offer anything new, flashy, or memorable to the action-genre and will probably leave your brain, as quickly as the extra large soda of Coke (or in my case, Sprite) leaves your body.

5 / 10 = Rental!!

I'd still tap. Hey, come on! It's Famke Janssen!

Yup, still tempted.

RocknRolla (2008)

American gangsters are so boring.

This is a flick about a Russian mobster (Karel Roden) who orchestrates a crooked land deal, millions of dollars are up for grabs, and all of London’s criminal underworld wants in on the action. Everyone from a dangerous crime lord (Tom Wilkinson) to a sexy accountant (Thandie Newton), a corrupt politician (Jimi Mistry) and down-on-their-luck petty thieves (Gerard Butler, Tom Hardy, and Idris Elba) conspire, collude and collide with one another in an effort to get rich quick.

After giving us two turkeys in-a-row like the ultra sappy, soap-fest that was known as Swept Away and the oddly slow and philosophical brain-take that was Revolver, Guy Ritchie was finally back to his old-ways in showing us gangsters that did bad things, said very funny things, and also, found themselves in some crazy situations that somehow connect to other gangsters that only live a couple of blocks down the street from them. Say what you will about it being conventional and nothing new for Ritchie to explore, but just be happy that he wasn’t doing another movie with his honey-at-the-moment, Madonna and making us watch as Jason Statham screamed his arse off for over an hour and some odd minutes. Yeah, be happy you damn people.

"What do you mean my next movie is some rom-com with that chick from Grey's Anatomy?!?!?"

“What do you mean my next movie is some rom-com with that chick from Grey’s Anatomy?!?!?”

Going back to his old roots may piss some people off because it’s nothing and nothing original we haven’t already seen from the dude, but Ritchie isn’t worried about that and instead, allows us to have a great time as much as he must have been making this movie. There’s a lot of goofy-stuff here with comedy coming-out in places you would have never expected and even some violent spots that just so happen to make us laugh but no matter what, Ritchie always adds in his style of wit that makes this flick seem all the more jokey, no matter how much it may try and be serious. You really can’t take a Ritchie flick seriously and even when this movie actually does try to do so, you don’t really buy into it and just realize that it’s better if you don’t pay attention to any of those aspects at all and pay attention to the finer things in life, as well as this movie.

The finer things in this movie is definitely the plot and just where the hell it goes, where it stops, where it changes, and so-on-and-so-forth. This is typical Ritchie: setting-up a plot for us, giving us all of the characters we need to know, let us know what they do, what the stakes are, and just let it all roll-out as if it was just one, huge Domino game. You start to see how a certain group of characters are effected by another group of characters and it almost never stops, especially with all of the damn twists and turns that Ritchie seems to take, yet, they never get old. Ritchie always knows when to say “enough” and rather than just continue to pile-up on the plot twists and have things get spiced-up a bit more, as well as more convoluted  he lets everything settle-in and have it become familiar to us, and then throw in another twist or turn, here and there just for good measure. Seriously, as much fun as it may be for us to actually watch this flick, it seems like it wasn’t even more fun for Guy to make it and that’s something that we all felt like we missed for the longest time. Glad to have you back, Guy. Now stay the hell away from that talent-sucker we all know as Madonna!

I think the biggest misstep for Ritchie here, as a writer and director, is that he never really pays all that much attention to every character the way they should have been payed attention to. For instance, in all of his other flicks, each and every single character was given a great-amount of screen-time that just so happened to fly-in whenever another character would show-up and become apart of their story-line, as well. However, here, in this flick, certain characters get the most attention, for the longest time, and then they stay there, only to ruin other story-lines of other characters. It isn’t that bad right from the start, mainly because all of the stories are fun and interesting to-watch, but once the film starts to focus on a bunch of other characters that haven’t been seen in awhile, you start to realize you don’t care all that much about them and it continues this way, until every story-line, in typical, Ritchie-fashion, finds themselves convulsing into a weird, but exciting finale.

It’s a trip that’s fun to take and ride-on, but it’s a bit messy and when it’s all said and done, you’re not really sure how it worked or even if it did. Heck, it’s almost like Ritchie was able to distract us all with his non-stop camera and writing tricks that he always has up his sleeve, and almost makes us forget that underneath the surface, is a very sloppily-made flick that forgets about certain-aspects that work, but remembers clearly the ones that don’t. I don’t know, maybe I was the only nut who was thinking that while watching this but either way, it definitely seemed a bit-off to me but also showed me that Ritchie is always the man to be trusted in terms of making a fun, entertaining flick, no matter how derivative it may be.

However, the familiarity of the style and story didn’t bother me all that much, especially when you take into account the quality-cast that he’s working with here. Gerard Butler is pretty solid as One Two, a tough-as-nails crook that always has a flair for wit, but also allows himself to be on the butt-end of a joke in terms of how he’s viewed-at as a tough-guy, that can also be a tad sensitive. If only Butler continued to take good roles like this nowadays, then we wouldn’t have shite-boxes like Playing for Keeps or Chasing Mavericks. That’s only a small list, though. Playing his two partners-in-crime are Idris Elba and a very skinny Tom Hardy, and as good as they both are, they aren’t really given a whole bunch to do that really makes them stand-out among the rest like Butler, even if Hardy’s character is a bit on the flip-side of the bed, if you know what I mean.

Does she not know who she's walking away from!??!?

Does she not know who she’s walking away from!??!?

Out of the whole-cast, the one who really steals this whole movie from underneath his wing is Tom Wilkinson as the old school gangster that does things his own, vicious way. Wilkinson seems to be having a ball as the mean and cruel gangster that doesn’t seem to put-up with anybody’s shite, no matter how heated or reasonable it is. Wilkinson never really gets to play evil-like characters such as these, so to see him have an absolute ball with it, was an absolute ball just to watch it. Playing his partner-in-crime is a fun and terribly-quirky mobster played by Mark Strong, who is really good at playing these types of roles, and is even better with his cheeky narration that supplies most of the film’s humor throughout.

I think the one performance I was really bummed-out by was Thandie Newton as Stella, the accountant that sort of starts all this shite between these countless blokes. She starts off strong, smart, and sexy, and seems like a huge-departure for Ritchie to have in one of his flicks since all of his characters are mainly just a bunch of fellows that do shit the old school, gangster way, but after awhile, turns into the type of character you’d expect her to be and it’s a bit of a bummer because she really had a lot of promise going for her. It was sort of like she was just there to move the plot along and as much as Ritchie may have gotten his wish fulfilled on that aspect, it still feels like a bit of a shame, considering he was really brewing on something here.

Consensus: Though it treads familiar-territory for Ritchie, RocknRolla is still a crap-load of fun that’s filled with witty characters, surprising twists and turns that you rarely ever see coming, and an ensemble cast that always seems game to work.

6.5 / 10 = Rental!!

"Hold on! I swear we're the only ones who have nothing to do in this movie!"

“Hold on! I swear we’re the only ones who have nothing to do in this movie!”

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Hey, I don’t blame Bond. I’d be pretty pissed if Eva Green was taken away from me.

Returning once again, James Bond (Daniel Craig) battles wealthy businessman Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a member of the Quantum organisation, posing as an environmentalist who intends to stage a coup d’état in Bolivia to seize control of the nation’s water supply. Bond seeks revenge for the death of his lover, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), and is assisted by Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko), who is seeking revenge for the murder of her family.

After falling in love with Casino Royale right from the first-shot on, I realized that the only way to keep this “new” Bond series going-strong, would be to up the ante a bit and give us some more action, more intensity, and most of all, more of Bond just being cool. That last one isn’t really hard to do, but the first two can sometimes be pulled-off well and other times, cannot. Sadly, I think director Marc Forster took this idea of “more, more, more”, and decided to just go to town with it and that’s where I think the film/”new” series takes it’s sudden-dip.

See, what makes Bond so cool is that the guy is able to do all of this crazy, violent crap that definitely makes you go “Ouch!”, but is also able to pull off some sly and witty stuff like faking people out, getting in between buildings without being seen, and just being the ultra-sneaky spy we all know and love him to be. However, all of that violent crap starts to take over the film and as fun as it may be to watch, you can’t have a Bond flick with over 15 minutes of non-stop action, already happening in the first 30 minutes of the actual-movie. That makes it seem more like an action-thriller that is more about being thrilling, rather than being a Bond flick and as weird as that may sound, yes, they are both two different types of films in their own right and I think it comes off more as Bourne movie.

A lot of people complained that the last one felt a bit too much like a Bourne movie with all of the non-stop shaky-cam work, crazy stunt-work used, and high-flying, action set-pieces, and sort of getting rid of the old-school, classy-way that Bond usually does his line of business. However, as much as I agree with that statement, I can definitely say that some of that is true because it is a very gritty, actiony thrill-ride that delivers more action than it deserves class, but at least it had the classic, Bond class. This film, somehow, doesn’t even seem to really have that. It goes on and on and on with Bond killing almost every single person that walks into his way, without him ever getting a chance to ask question them or interrogate them in any way possible, and to top that off, the story makes no sense despite picking right up 5 minutes after the first-one ended.

In a case like this, I think it’s easy to blame the writers, the producers, and the companies who were behind this movie, but I think the one to really blame is Foster of all people. For people who don’t know who the hell Marc Forster is, well, let’s just say that he’s a guy that’s most known for directing character-based dramas like Stranger than Fiction, Monster’s Ball, and the Kite Runner, among others. To be honest, the only type of action that happens in any of those movies is when Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thornton decide to get down and dirty, late one night, so why the hell would they decide to give this guy a Bond movie that’s all about guns, cars, violence, girls, and Bond? Seriously, it’s not like the guy does a terrible job or anything, it’s just that it’s pretty obvious that the guy brings nothing new to the table in terms of action or story-development, and instead, has this movie come off like a failed-attempt at trying to create a Bond spin-off for a far, far away future. It’s no surprise that this guy’s screwing up World War Z now, because he sure as hell came close to screwing this one up, big-time.

But as much as I may get on Forster’s case, and this movie’s case, I can’t lie anymore because I really did have a fun time with this flick and all of it’s action. Some of the set-pieces are a bit unbelievable and ridiculous, but you know what? So were some of the ones in Casino Royale and that’s what sort of made me love that movie even more, so I can’t really get on this film for all of that crap either. At the end of the day, it’s still a James Bond movie that definitely features plenty of thrills worthy of seeing and worthy of being in a Bond movie, and even though they sure as hell aren’t as memorable as Bond playing poker, they sure as hell keep your attention on the screen for as long as it can.

And come to think of it, as much as this film may not be worthy of his skills, Daniel Craig still kicks plenty of ass as Bond and shows us exactly why he was chosen for this role in the first-place. Craig, no matter what all the haters may say, just has this dirty and tough look to him that makes you scared for the baddies that go up against him in brawls, but also has this charming and swift look that makes you feel like he is the coolest guy in the room, and definitely the type of guy you would go up to and try to conversate with, but no words would come out because he is simply that cool and intimidating. Maybe I put too much thought into this guy’s look and role, but I don’t care, because Craig is awesome.

Olga Kurylenko plays his “Bond girl” and is alright for the most part, even though she really has nothing to work with here other than a forced, sympathetic-route her character takes. I just want to know why the hell Craig doesn’t bone her, instead, goes off to bone Gemma Arterton as some red-headed, secret-spy that shows up for 5 minutes, gets laid, and is practically gone from the rest of the movie after that. I mean you put them side-by-side, Olga definitely takes the cake and it’s a shock to me that Bond would make a silly-mistake like this. Once again, gotta blame it on Forster. That guy should know Bond, and Bond’s taste in women. Damn you!

Matthieu Amalric plays Greene, the typical Bond-villain that we need in these movies to make it work and although he does what he can, the character is too thinly-written. It’s a good thing that Greene isn’t your typical Bond-villain, where all he does is twirl his mustache and hat and make huge, unbelievable promises of destroying the world around him, however, I felt like we sort of needed that in order to hate this guy even more and actually feel scared for Bond. Yeah, Greene does do some bad things, but never to the point of where I felt like Bond needed him to kill him right-away, or else all hope was lost. Also, the guy was a bit of a softy and I even think M could have kicked his ass, just as much as Bond could have.

Consensus: Quantum of Solace is definitely fun, entertaining, and a relatively mediocre addition to the Bond series, but still feels like it should have been so much more, instead of just settling for typical, action-thriller conventions, two-dimensional characters, and choices that seem to come from a place that isn’t all about Bond, and more about making a lot of money and making it quick. Hey Hollywood, news flash for ‘ya: It’s a James Bond movie, therefore, it’s already going to make a shit-load of moolah at the box-office. Now shut up, and let James get back to work!

7/10=Rental!!

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

Probably the Citizen Kane of video game movies.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as Prince Dastan, who pairs with spunky Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton) to keep the Sands of Time — a mystical dagger that gives its holder control over the flow of time — from falling into the wrong hands and putting the world in peril.

There haven’t been many good video game adaptations: Resident Evil is probably the best, even though that kind of sucks too. So when we finally get a good one, it brings out a lot of hope for a genre that was basically dead before it even started.

Right from the beginning you can tell this is based off a video-game mostly cause it plays out like one. The action in this game is very exciting, with plenty, and I do mean plenty, of CGI. Mostly cause I was a fan of the video game, I was interested in seeing this, and if they actually stayed true to the source material, and surprisingly they did. The idea of the sword, being able to push you back in time, was a lot like the video game by the way it looked, and the daring stunts, as well as fun action, made me feel, like I’m playing the game all over again.

This film although may be fun, still has plenty of faults. There is not a single memorable moment to be honest. I mean its a fun film, with great action, but nothing in my mind really stands out from watching this film. I was glad that they decided to use a big-budget, unlike other video game adaptations that look cheap and stupid, but the effects still don’t seem realistic that much, and a little too corny. When the story slows down, to focus on Dastan and Tamina, I couldn’t help but to catch some z’s. These parts of the film just left me out of the film, and I wasn’t brought back in until all the action started back up, then I was interested once again.

Jake Gyllenhaal shines in his role as Prince Dastan. He’s likable, and charming, and instead of playing against type, he actually brings in that boyish charm he has with his action role, and it works well. Gemma Arterton is also good, and actually does have some acting to back up her wonderful, and gorgeous looks. Ben Kingsley is cheesing it up, but is barely on the screen as much so its hard just to critique him, when he’s on for like 15 minutes the whole film. Alfred Molina, is perfect in his role as the dude who hates taxes (Iraq symbolism???), and steals almost every scene he’s in and brings a lot of comic relief to this film.

Consensus: It may not be the most memorable, and sure as hell not the best thought out film, but Prince of Persia is still a faithful video game adaptation, that features charming performances, and enough action to satisfy.

5/10=Rental!!!