Posted on 12/23/06 12:44 AM
I expected more. Much more, I'd say. And after two hours I was somewhat disappointed at what I'd seen. I can't understand why there was so much fuss and hype about an average movie, which does look like a Discovery documentary with all those gory elements essential for savage life. I admit the movie looks great in terms of visual representation of the Mayan world, but is it enough?
Mel Gibson is an interesting director whose films are always an object of close attention of his critics and fans. I still remember my emotions after seeing "Braveheart" and think it's one of the best movies I've ever seen (which is proved by the presence of the movie in my DVD collection) though it sure has little in common with the real Scottish history. "The Passion of the Christ" was a benchmark for me while I chose critics for "My critics" list at the Rottentomatoes blog: their dislike was an initial ground for choosing (and vice versa). I didn't like the movie 'cause it didn't look true: it resembled some Baroque pictures where posture was more important than the content. After seeing "The Passion" I said to myself I'd never see Mel Gibson's movie again. I should've kept my promise as I see it.
The thing is I expected so much that my disappointment is too great to give the movie high evaluation. Of course visual impression is great (no wonder 'cause it was shot in Mexico), and though there were some inconsistencies in architecture and rituals it doesn't matter much. The whole movie is centered around a young hunter Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) whose tribe lives deep in the forest. The first part depicts the tribe's life in the forest with all its essential moments (hunting, eating, story-telling, joking and baby-making). Soon the idyllic scenery is broken by the violent intrusion of the Mayan warriors whose aim is to capture men and women. As it often happens in such movies there's a very bad guy (Snake Ink - Rodolfo Palacios) and just a bad guy (Zero Wolf - Raoul Trujillo). Jaguar Paw becomes an object of insults and tortures on Snake Ink's part, and in some moments his life is greatly endangered.
After the village is burned to ashes and most of the villagers are captured or killed, the audience has to follow the long trail to the Mayan stone city. There's some impressive moments here, but neither of them moved me enough to be mentioned here. After all Jaguar Paw manages to escape home, and the last forty-five minutes is a forest chase. Jaguar Paw has a strong motive to get back home as soon as possible 'cause his pregnant wife sits in the stone hole at the moment and unless he manages to get back home soon enough she's sure to die. I won't put other spoilers here, but you may be sure there's much to see here but no so much to be impressed with.
And this lack of impression is a problem of the whole movie. There's so much to like here (good directing, good visual representation, good story after all), yet it feels like a big pie made without filling. It has a potential, and I'm sure most liked it because of visual impressions, but on the whole I can't regard it as a good movie. My opinion: it deserves some credit rather than recommendation.
Posted on 12/17/06 08:29 AM
I?m not an American, but strangely enough I identify myself with the movie and its characters. For most of my compatriots this tragedy (though very controversial, in fact) seemed a kind of retribution for everything that the US has done to the rest of the world (Note: I have to explain that these are the traces of years of Soviet propaganda, and such notions mostly reign among older people). As for me, I think it?s just a consequence of the senseless and brutal Western policy towards the Muslim world, which is exploited by American and European corporations for the sake of the Western way of living. We live in the same world, and yet one half of the human population regards another half as an enemy. I?m afraid such notions and ideas will prevail in the future, and another 50 years will by plagued with hostility and battle for power and natural resources (as it has already started in Iraq).
It was rather brave for Paul Greengrass to shoot such a movie. It's a fiction, but it looks so true to life that it's hard to believe it wasn't so in fact. Some evidence helped Greengrass recreate the story, and perhaps that's why it looks rather convincing (though as a person working for the airline company, I can't believe some of the aircraft's manoeuvres). And yet I didn?t expect much from the director who shot "Bourne Supremacy": I thought it'd be a kind of propaganda movie with some inspiring moments of courage and patriotism, etc., which is a common flaw in patriotic and heroic movies. Glad I was wrong.
The plotline depicts the whole story from the first officer's preparations till the very terrain collision. It's not a documentary, though some of the characters are played by their real prototypes. It's fiction from start till end, and yet it looks true and convincing. Convincing to the bottom of one's heart, and that's why I bought the agenda: in some moments tears filled my eyes though I'm not a good person in terms of sympathy. You know when you listen to dialogues between people who are likely to die and aware of it well enough, it's hard to keep a straight face and dry eyes. And it's a credit to Greengrass: unlike Oliver Stone?s insipid one, his movie is sure to remain in the history of September 11, 2006. It may not be too good, but does it matter when you see such a tragedy on the screen and know it happened for real (though the aircraft may well have been shot by fighter planes)?
It?s no use analyzing some directorial or acting aspects (most of the actors are unknown to me, and they didn't have much room to show anything). It's a jewel which shouldn't be valued for art of its creating, but for the shine it gives. I can?t find anything bad here (others may), and it?s very unusual for me not to put any criticism into the review.
The movie?s great and heart-rending. It?s a masterpiece in itself. Thank you, Mr. Greengrass.
Posted on 12/15/06 12:22 AM
I chose "Capote" randomly: I just came up to the DVD stand and took the one which looked best (if you saw the cover you understand what I mean). Of course I knew it was the movie which gave Hoffman his Oscar award, and I have to confess it influenced my choice in a way. And now, after 100 minutes of ironic and patient contemplation I come to the conclusion the time spent isn't worthy of pleasure obtained in return.
For everyone who knows at least something about the American fiction Truman Capote's name sounds familiar. Can't say I like him very much (to me his style sounded rather boring), but his short stories seemed true and lyrical to a certain extent, which is a point to them. In this movie the creation story of his novel "In Cold Blood" is depicted. Based on Gerald Clarke's book and Dan Futterman's screenplay, the movie retains a scent of something artificial and contrived, though the director (Bennett Miller) did his best to achieve his goal. I hope it was his goal to show complicated interaction between Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and the two murderers - Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Dick Hickock (Mark Pellegrino). Alas, he didn't manage to do it, though I appreciate his effort.
The story starts from the horrible scene when a young girl discovers a body of her friend shot to death. Later more three bodies were discovered - the whole Clutter family (it's a real murder which happened in 1959). Truman Capote comes across a newspaper article about it and travels from New York to Kansas with his friend Harper Lee (you may have read her book "To Kill a Mocking Bird" or have seen the movie) to write an article about the murder. Rather occasionally he meets one of the murderers (Perry), and here the story of their relations starts: an idea comes to Truman's mind that he could write a book about it ("honest", as he says at a New York party), and he does his best to keep the two convicts alive - he manages to do it for four years till both of them are executed.
The movie doesn't even try to make execution an issue: those two were guilty, and if the law says so they have to die (though I'm against death sentences). There's no issue here at all. It's just a depiction of how two people (Truman and Perry) want to use each other - one wants to write a book, and the other is eager to save his life (frankly speaking, I don't understand how he could count on mercy after four murders). Truman talks to Perry again and again, and they share their little secrets and sad remembrances about childhood. Soon Capote starts feeling a kind of dependence on Perry, and so does Perry. The whole story lasts for four years (as I mentioned) and ends at the moment, when Capote observes his Perry's execution. Quite a horrible spectacle though, but I understand why he did it: he wanted to get rid of this obsession which started to overcome him (by the way it did after all).
This movie isn't about why those two killed those four. And it's not a court movie (so if you expect an enthralling court drama, you're in the wrong room). It's about the way books are written and the way people are used. The director doesn't judge Hoffman's character at all: he's shown as he is - vain, pompous and avid for glory. But in search of glory Capote comes across something which is as close to him as different from him. In one scene he says, "We grew up in the same house, but I left through the front door, and he left through the back'. It's a kind of reminder to everyone that we're not so different, and sometimes one can find oneself in a predicament, when all of your childish fears and disappointments catch up with you.
The movie isn't good. It's stale and boring (starting from the middle), and you're unlikely to think much of it. But it tried not to be. It really did, and I understand it. Alas...
Posted on 10/13/06 02:17 AM
What can you expect from the movie based on Disney attraction and shot under Disney's approval? Nothing special. These movies don't even try to be serious 'cause seriousness kills them at once, and to enjoy the movie one has to forget about a handful of dramas and horrors one has seen before. What Verbinski gives the spectator is a feeling that a buffonade can live its own life, and though unbelievable the movie manages to sell its agenda.
For those who haven't seen the first part it does make sense to see it before going to the cinema for the second one. Otherwise you wouldn't understand the intricacies of the plot which starts right off the point where the first part ends (though it isn't quite exact). It's too straightforward in a way, and one has to know the end to understand the beginning. For those who have seen "The Curse of the Black Pearl" it's much easier.
The story starts from the wedding ceremony interrupted by Cutler Becket (Tom Hollander), the representative of the trade company, who arrests Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann (guess you haven't forgotten the actors, er?) for helping Jack Sparrow out. Of course the screenwriters were not going to keep them in jail for long, and soon Becket's purport is revealed: he wants to get the magic compass which indicated the direction to something hidden and attractive. The point of the story is that the current owner of the compass is (guess who?) Jack Sparrow, who is now under threat of spending another hundred years under Davy Jones' command (Bill Nighy, though you'll guess it only by his voice). I wouldn't like to reveal much and put spoilers here, and I guess it's enough to say that the destination is the dead man's chest. Everybody wants to be the first to get it, and it's the center of the whole movie.
After the first half an hour all the main characters are known, and the moody and exhilarated spectator (yeah, at the same time) has to watch the awkward jerks of the script. I understand they wanted to make it funny, but what about some sense? The movie even tries to mock itself through those two live-from-dead pirates who even dare comment on the current events. The whole movie turns into a buffonade, and some scenes (especially the one on the island when they run after another with the chest) are overstretched. Some like it long, perhaps.
Unfortunately for us and fortunately for filmmakers it's not the last part. They're going to keep it as far as they can. Hope it won't be like "X-Men" :).
Posted on 9/28/06 01:44 AM
Before starting to write a review I was in two minds either to give it 7 or 6 pts. I guess it isn?t surprizing the movie doesn?t get its reward: it?s just lackluster and sentimental to a certain way with an unimpressive emphasis on common humane virtues that people share all over the world. Oliver Stone could have made in a different way (?JFK? is a good piece of evidence to it), and it?s not a secret that the dreadful terrorist attack, which took place on September 11, 2001, was conducted without CIA or FBI?s least interception, so there was room for investigation and bitter unanswered questions. But Oliver Stone has performed his work like a good artisan: it's neither good nor bad. Usually this refers to documentary fiction, and to a certain extent it's just a good rendering of the book. No questions, no answers - nothing extra and worrying. Politically correct, in other words, and that's why the movie stinks (though I quite well understand the word doesn't fit everybody's taste, I prefer to leave the sense in this form).
I can?t help but mention the cast: it's good and impressive, but if you expect wonderful dramatic skills here, you phone the wrong number: how can you expect much from the movie, where two main characters (William Jimeno ? Michael Pena, John McLoughlin ? Nicholas Cage) are buried under debris after the first half an hour, and their faithful and loving wives (Allison Jimeno ? Maggie Gyllenhaal, Donna McLoughlin ? Maria Bello) and children have nothing to do but grieve and despair. It isn't irony on my part: I understand it was impossible to show much when your body is pressed by the block, only your arms are free, and face should be distorted by pain. The movie isn't about acting: it's about people who got into this situation by chance, but didn't give up till the moment they were saved. It?s about people who preferred to do at least something, despite some idiotic orders, and save those few who survived (but how few there were!) - though Daves Karnes, a former Marine, is a true-to-life character, his role is somewhat artificial here, and could be skipped without much damage to the movie plot.
It doesn?t make sense to retell the plot even in general: it?s clear from the very beginning till the very end, and if you at least sometimes read newspapers and books, you know that the two cops survived (and I'm really happy they did, though I won't ever meet them). The movie is rather straightforward in presenting its characters, and that?s why it doesn?t call for much involvement. There?s some good emotional, heart-rending moments when tears fill the eyes, but mostly it's just blah-blah-blah, and nothing else. It's stale and tasteless. It's just a documentary, nevertheless it is worth seeing once or twice, no more.
Posted on 9/13/06 02:14 AM
You wouldn't believe but it's even worse than "Aeon Flux", so now I have to shift this notable movie from the top positon of the worst movies I've ever seen and put "The Lady" on its appropriate pedestal.
It's rather difficult to understand what the director and screenwriter (both - M.Night Shyamalan) wanted to show. If it was a nice fairy tale it didn't look like that, and if it was just a parable to show us that there's some hidden virture in the underworld (whatever it is, the Blue Country is located under the water surface - the more exact location is omitted), it proved to be a lame effort.
What is really surprising here is the cast: it's really good and doesn't look like a set of cheap actors picked up from Off-off-Broadway. The main character Cleveland Heep is played by Paul Giamatti (I like this actor since the times of "Sideways" - even in "Cinderella Man" he showed his best) who rescues Story, young lady from the water (Bryce Dallas Howard), from the imminent death in the paws and claws of her archenemy. Let alone the rest: the cast is rather representative, and it isn't their fault that the movie itself was so bad.
To review the movie you didn't like so much is difficult. It's especially difficult when the movie doesn't have a steady plot, and its better part is devoted to Cleveland's efforts to find out the continuation of the old Chinese fairy-tale about water creatures. Due to this he manages to understand who he rescued and what to do after all. Sometimes his efforts are funny, sometimes awkward, but mostly they're rather boring and don't have much appeal. I have to confess that I like tenser action, where the eye and heart follow the characters' trails from the very beginning to the closing titles. But I'm always ready to see something clever (one may call it "elite" or "cult" movie), which makes me think a bit. Last Wednesday I understood foolishness has no limits. Of course some high-brow spectators will try to convince the restless and mindless part of the audience that the movie has so much appeal and sense that it's difficult for an average person to perceive the deeper sense of the notable director's ingenuity, and I won't believe them: my eyes may deceive me, but my taste doesn't.
I guess the director should have decided once and for all from the beginning what it is: if it's a fairy-tale, make it like one. The same with comedy (there's many gags here, and I sometimes wondered how much "gag" is enough) and with drama, and with fantasy (not so far from fairy-tale). This specimen of cinematic art is dumb and stale, though the cast is good, and the director shot some real good movies (I liked his criticized "The Village", and this was the primary reason of my pick). Bad, very bad, Mr.Shyalaman.
P.S. By the way, I'm again back from my writer's block.
Posted on 6/07/06 11:05 PM
Dan Brown's novel was doomed to be screened. It's a long-time tradition in Hollywood to try to screen anything which sells in the book world in hope of getting the same payback in the world of cinema. I've got nothing against it 'cause due to the trend many really good movies were shot and will be shot (at least I hope so). I didn't read the novel 'cause I usually don't like such adventurous stuff, and judging by the plot I didn't miss much. The story is rather interesting in itself, but only as a theory without much appeal and tension.
You know it's quite difficult to review the movie at the distance of a month. After this lapse I feel that nothing much is left in my heart, and I'm sure in the course of time vague remembrances of the movie will be relegated to oblivion and history. It's so unlite "Proof" and "Match Point" which I'm ready to see at least once in two months (though I admit the latter one is just a good movie work without much behind itself, but Scarlett Johannson you know...). Here I can't imagine what can make me see it again. It was so boring and stale it's no wonder critics were enrage at seeing it. I don't care much about critical fiction but here I have to partially agree: the movie wasn't so bad as some say but at the same time it was over-hyped. Yes, it's market and audience, but, Ron Howard, couldn't you have made at least more interesting?
It isn't the first movie by this director that I see, and every time I gather a feeling he's just a good artisan without original stuff in himself. When he's got a good screenplay he just renders into a movie without adding extra tricks. Good work, but where's the zest? Why put good actors into such circumstances where they can't show they're good? Why make the plot development slow and tedious with some dynamic lapses for good measure? Why make it so bad after all? I gave it 6 pts 'cause I liked the story (I'm familiar with history, and I didn't see much new - Brown's theory is a compelling combination of old legends and historical facts). Of course there's so many false facts that it's difficult to tell the truth from the lie, but it isn't a documentary, so a certain proportion of fiction in historical adn adventure movies is tolerated and encouraged (it's common knowledge fiction and lie is much more interesting than stale reality).
All right, now about the movie. I'm sure you know the plot quite well so only some strokes and touches: Dr. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a famous expert on symbols, is a involuntary suspect in a mysterious crime. Very soon he's got involved in the investigation of the Holy Grail mystery, in which he's helped by agent Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou). The sulky police captain Bezu Fache is after them for some reason, but every time he's about to catch them they dexterously escape. Very soon they're joined by Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen - wonderful performance by the way), who's an expert on the Holy Grail history, and who adds most of the movie's dynamic momentum. It's no use revealing the end but I'm sure you won't find it very interesting.
I do wonder why Tom Hanks acted so badly. So badly that it's even difficult to understand. Of course here the story was emphasized, but to see his immobile face was quite a plague to me, and against Ian McKellen he looked miserable. Audrey Tautou didn't show much, but her role didn't ask for much. Ian McKellen has already been praised.
To finish the review I'll ask a spoiler question. Do you think it would have been much better to finish the movie at the moment when Sir Leigh Teabing was carried in a police car? I guess another half an hour was a surplus.
Posted on 6/05/06 03:12 AM
I never read comic books: perhaps, that's my biggest problem while seeing movies based on such material. I understand it's necessary either to spend hours and days devouring such stuff in childhood and adolescence or to have a good inclination to leaps of imagination. Fortunately, I can take such stuff with a bit of the latter variant, though it looks somewhat funny and ridiculous to me. But I always believed the original material and the content itself don't matter at all when there's good acting and directing (remember last year's "Matchpoint", virtually stuffed with superb actors).
Just like the movie mentioned in my previous review this one took a long road to screen. There were some problems with actors and directors, but after all this one was screened. The question is if it was necessary. I didn't see the first two parts, but I'm not sure I lost something interesting or intriguing. Such movies are made in a manner for an initial and innocent viewer like me to understand at least the basic plotlines and identify the main characters: Logan (Hugh Jackman), Storm / Ororo (Halle Berry), Magneto (Ian McKellen), Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), and some others (mostly unfamiliar to me). Each of them is a mutant, of course, endowed by some whim of nature or something else with an X-chromosome. This chromosome gives them name and a unique power (for instance, Magneto is able to move metal things, and Storm is good in working up weather phenomena). All the mutants are divided into two distinct groups: good and bad ones. The good ones are headed by Professor Xavier, and the bad ones are led by Magneto. The difference between them lies in their methods of treating common people, but mostly they're just the same and can easily move from one group to another.
The story starts with an interesting discovery. The mutants find out that there's a cure for their mutation able to get them back to humanity without much pain. This news divides them into two parties: some are eager to become common humans, others want to remain mutants. It would be just a matter of choice for them but for Magneto, who decides to step in and kill the source of cure - a little boy with a unique gift of curing power. He gathers an army of powerful mutants and leads them to the hospital where the boy is placed, and this is the place where the last stand between good mutants and bad ones occurs.
There's another plotline: the deceased Jean (Famke Jannsen) somehow gets back to life in a form of Phoenix. She plays some role in the plot development, but it's rather insignificant though the screenwriters were trying to attach more importance to her (especially closer towards the end).
It's no use analyzing artistic and directorial flaws. The movie is good as a pure entertainment movie though you shouldn't expect much of it. There's some spectacular scenes (note the bridge battle), but mostly it's just a lame effort to seem more than it is: long dialogues, stale jokes and shallow characters. Perhaps, there were too many characters to show them all in one movie, and I think the intention to split the X-Men saga into individualistic flicks can pay back. In other words, nothing special at all. Hope the continuation will be better.
Posted on 5/29/06 05:16 AM
I saw the movie a week ago, but, unfortunately, couldn't find sufficient time to write a decent review. Now the week has passed, and my first impression from the movie has merged with the second which is still rather favourable in fact. Usually I skip such movie intentionally and rather willingly 'cause the whole hustle and bustle they are made of has no connection to common sense and good taste, and though I can't call myself a sensible person I can't deny my good taste, which prevents me from seeing such movie in any place: cinema or TV set.
But this one is an exception from the rule: I saw the first release and liked it very much (those days I was a teenager and couldn't forget that wonderful soundtrack), skipped intentionally the second one and caught only a glimpse of it once (I turned off TV as soon as I found out the exposition - it was too unbelievable and forced). What attracted me in the third one was just a good trailer and Hoffman's character who looked rather appealing in spite of his evil nature. And I don't think it was a bad choice of entertainment movie - I had a good time seeing it.
I think for true movie fans it's no secret the third release was being made under unfavourable circumstances. Actually it was produced by fits and starts, and I was really surprised to see that the result of the whole rumble proved to be rather likable and pleasant to see. Yes, there are some flaws and forced plot jerks and inconsistences. Yes, Ethan Hunt's personality differs from Tom Cruise's one very much, but does it matter at all what way of life the actor lives outside the production set? Yes, it's conventional and proceeds to its imminent happy ending in a confident pace. But, damn, it's a good-measured pace, and it's Abrams' achievement the movie at least looks like a good one without much effort of taste. Nothing stands out, and even the outwardly unbelievable story can be viewed with a benevolent wide open eye. Though Abrams wasn't very original in the way of developing the plot, and some scenes had a true resemblance to other well-known blockbusters (remember that bridge scene and compare it to Cameron's "True Lies"; and the well-known stale scene when the cell phone won't work because of low signal etc.; I would remember more if I had written the review a week ago), he managed to convey a humane image of the top secret agent Ethan Hunt who, besides his missions all over the world, has a loving woman who is worthy of every effort and thought Ethan can ever make.
The movie starts with the scene which is then going to be repeated closer to the end. It's rather short and intense, and in this way the director wanted to show to the viewer Ethan's depth of emotion. All right, that was edible. What follows next is a short pre-story. We find out about Ethan's marriage plans, then we follow one of his numerous missions when he first encounters the notorious arms trafficker Owen Davian, and then the rest of the movie is devoted to their fierce struggle (as you understand the baddie lost after all). It's all action with a good portion of human drama, which helps the movie differ from a significant number of unimpressive boom-movies.
Of course "Mission Impossible III" didn't become an emotional drama and it still remained an action flick, but at least it looked more realistic. I liked this turn of plot and the way it was made, and you may like it too. And may not either. See it for yourself!
Posted on 5/10/06 01:39 AM
I give 8 pts though the movie isn't far from being an average love and passion melodrama. The crucial difference between what you usually see on the screen and this latest Woodly Allen's release is a quality of acting and directing. Everyone fits into the role he's intended for and works as hard as he can to follow the director's instructions. Everyone looks natural and artistic, the story has its moments, and yet the movie is average 'cause it presents nothing new - it's just another review of well-known maxims taken from the Bible and hands-on experience (as you understand in this movie hands tend to lie on rather pleasant areas).
I didn't see anything special in the cast before seeing the movie. Of course Scarlett Johannson (acts as Nola Rice) is now on the rise of her career (I admire this actress very much for her natural performances), and any new movie featuring her draws much attention. As for others they are mostly substantially good TV stars (except for Jonathan Rhys Meyers (Chris Wilton) and Brian Cox (Alec Hewett)), and their names are not likely to tell the audience much. Yet I liked the movie on account of acting, and I think it's the best movie's asset in this case 'cause the story itself has been replicated for years and even centuries.
I felt the charm of the movie from the very beginning. Imagine a young man - Chris Wilton - a good Irish tennis player in the past, now in search of a new job in London. His track record is good enough to get him an instructor's position in the London tennis club. In the very first lines Chris Wilton relates somewhat vaguely about the role of luck in our life, and soon we discover the meaning of that message: he gets acquainted with Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode), and due to a series of events he marries his sister Chloe. This gives him an access to the top of the world. If you think Chris is just a lucky young man who manages to twist the young rich girl round his little finger, you're quite wrong at that 'cause he proves to be real clever, and his father-in-law (Brian Cox) approves Chloe's choice readily and willingly.
Beautiful prospects lie in the future for Chris, but there's one problem: though Chloe is a nice wife (by the way obsessed by her desire to get pregnant as soon as possible), he's sexually and mutually attracted to Tom's one-time girl-friend Nola Rice, a lousy actress whose only asset is immense sex-appeal (you're sure to feel it pouring from the screen at you). That's enough for seduction but not enough for promotion and soon she winds up as a saleswoman and Chris' mistress.
Unfortunately I can't spoil - if I proceed any farther most of the movie's charm and thrill will be lost for you. As you understand here the catch lies in the love triangle of Chloe, Chris and Nola. It's for you to find out who and with what consequences carries the day, but I'm sure you won't find it very interesting and exciting. Woody Allen directed a good average movie with a good cast able of superb acting, which deserves praise and appreciation. The only flaw is the plot - the rest is excellent. In other words it's a perfect movie for those who can tell good acting from bad one and appreciate it.