megsmoviereview

[megsmoviereview]

“Bohemian Rhapsody”

It seems that in every Oscar season, there is almost always one category in which the race is particularly close and exciting. The Golden Globes often narrow the winners down to two, and Drama usually trumps Comedy/Musical. This year, there was a lot of buzz around Oscar-winner Christian Bale’s (“The Dark Knight”) portrayal of former Vice President Dick Cheney in the comic biopic “Vice.” Bale is a fantastic actor and gives a positively chilling performance as Cheney. The only potential block between him and a second Academy Award is a relative newcomer to the big screen, Rami Malek, for his portrayal of rock legend Freddie Mercury in Director Bryan Singer’s (“The Usual Suspects”) film “Bohemian Rhapsody.” It should be said that is article is due over a full month before the Oscars are to air, so I currently have no idea who will take home the award.

Malek received acclaim for his performance as Elliot in the USA series “Mr. Robot,” a role which earned him a Golden Globe for Best Lead Actor in a Television Series last year. This year, he took home the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Dramatic Motion Picture for his performance in “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Malek gives a career-making performance as Mercury. From the look, to the stage presence, to the accent, he absolutely nails it. But is it good enough to beat Bale?

To complete the look, the actor donned prosthetic teeth in the film. Though the mouthpiece is sizeable, it was the scaled down version. Apparently, the first draft of the insert was made the size of Mercury’s actual teeth, and would not even fit in Malek’s mouth. In the movie, Mercury says he was born with four extra molars, which is why his mouth is bigger and why his vocal chords have a wider range. I’m not sure if that was a joke, or not.

This film has been in the works for a while. Originally, the film plan had Sascha Baron Cohen (“Borat”) in lead role and was to be directed by Stephen Frears (“The Queen”). That film would have been a much more realistic, potentially grittier version of this one. This version is a great deal like a two-hour music video with a few interludes of plot. The members of Queen (who own the rights to the story), however, did not want to make a film that dwelled on drug use, promiscuity and homosexual activity. So, this “Bohemian Rhapsody” is a pretty darn light telling of the story that mainly makes references to those aspects of the bands’ history, but shows very little of it. It makes the film a noticeably white-washed version of what really happened.

The best parts of the movie are the scenes that show the band’s recording sessions, and how the different members got the ideas for some of Queen’s biggest hits. The film ends with an almost-real-time depiction of the band’s legendary performance at the Live Aid concert in Wembley Stadium. It speaks to how truly amazing and timeless the music of Queen is that, even though the scene is merely an actor lip-syncing some of Queen’s greatest songs, and one could simply just look up the actual footage on YouTube for free, I found myself not only lost in the moment but also rooting for them to play one more.

So, “Bohemian Rhapsody” was a little cutesy. It is still a fascinating story. Both Malek and the music are completely astounding, which make the film an absolute blast to watch. I’ll even admit that I am rooting for Malek to get an Oscar over Bale this year. I recommend “Bohemian Rhapsody” with 8 of my 10 stars.

[megsmoviereview]

“Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald”

Let me begin with a confession: I have not read the Harry Potter books. I was looking forward to experiencing them for the first time, reading them to my son when he’s old enough. When the movies first came out, I was enjoying them so much that I didn’t take the time to appreciate the books. For those movies, whenever some plot point was unclear to me, I just assumed that it was something that had to be read to be understood. With the newest Wizarding World film installment of “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald,” that is not the case. There is no book that it is based on. So, if something in the movie doesn’t make sense to me, there’s a good chance the rest of the audience is confused too.

Since this film series is based on a character, rather than a story, it is easy to see how the plotline could get a touch sloppy. The first film, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” has the sole purpose of introducing the character of Newt Scamander, played by the astounding Eddie Redmayne (“The Theory of Everything”). That movie is basically a magical creature nature documentary, led by Scamander, and requires very little plot beyond that to be enjoyable. The new movie, however, is not only tasked with introducing the plot, it also introduces the nemesis: Grindelwald.

Grindelwald, played by Johnny Depp (“Edward Scissorhands”), is a dark wizard who has escaped the clutches of the wizard world’s governing body to spearhead a movement to make wizards the dominant force in the world over humankind. In truth, Grindelwald’s real nemesis is probably Albus Dumbledore, played by Jude Law (“Cold Mountain”). Both veteran actors, and regular Oscar snubs, Depp and Law make nice additions to the cast, but can’t hold a candle to Redmayne’s awkward, quirky portrayal of Scamander.

So, Grindelwald sets out to do generally wicked wizardry that will, hopefully, result in world domination. Dumbledore, who is unable to take on the fight himself, sends the unlikely hero of Scamander with the flimsy reason that there is a rare creature called an Obscurial involved. Scamander brings along with him Jacob (played by Dan Fogler), the same No-Mag/Muggle man that he bonded with in the first movie. And the whole thing culminates in arena beneath the family crypt of Scamander’s ex-girlfriend, who is engaged to his brother, Theseus. First off, you can tell that it’s not J.K. Rowling’s best work. Secondly, why is there an arena underneath a crypt? And thirdly, what kind of jerks do the Scamander parents have to be to name one son Theseus, and the other Newt?

The true star of “The Crimes of Grindelwald” are the astounding visual effects. The audience is given plenty to “Oooh” and “Aaah” over, and don’t need to worry too much about the fact that they are never actually told what Gindelwald’s crimes are in the first place. The movie is just so much fun to watch for the magical beasts, sensational effects, and even great costumes. I’m not much of a clothes-horse, but I spent a lot of time looking at the fabulous dresses, hats and shoes worn by the women in the cast, especially by femme fatale Leta Lestrange, played by the stunning Zoe Kravitz (“Divergent”). I’m predicting a definite nomination for Costume Design for this film!

It did seem like the writers had to work really hard to fit in some of the creatures that made the film series work in the first place. The movie still features some favorites from the previous film, like the Niffler and Bowtruckle, that are adorable but contribute very little to the story. The new beasts also seem to have an Asian influence, featuring a Vietnamese Naga, Japanese Water Demon, and a Chinese Zouwu. I thought it was an excellent way to liven up Rowling’s usual bunch of Greek-mythology-based creatures.

“Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” is plenty of holiday fun for the whole family and serves its purpose of getting us through to the next movie, but I doubt it will be looked back on as one of the better films of the 5-part Fantastic Beasts set. And certainly, don’t measure it by standards set by the Harry Potter movies. I give this film 7 out of 10 stars

[megsmoviereview]

“The Wife”

In actress Glenn Close’s (“101 Dalmatians”) career, she has amassed a truly impressive body of work. She is currently tied with actress Deborah Kerr for most Academy Award nominations for an actress with no wins. Hopefully, with all the Oscar buzz surrounding her latest film, “The Wife,” she will finally get the acknowledgement from the Academy that she so richly deserves.

The latest film from Swedish Director Bjorn Runge, “The Wife” tells the story of a college professor, turned accomplished novelist (played by Jonathan Pryce [“Brazil”]) and his ever-supportive wife (Close). Close’s character seems to be having an increasingly-difficult time remaining such a pillar of support when her husband learns that he is being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. Is she sick of constantly being in his shadow, or is it possible that she played more of a role in her husband’s success than she is letting on?

The plot of the film takes place mainly in Stockholm (where the Nobel Prize awards are hosted), and centers around the couple and their son, David, played by Max Irons (“The Host”). Irons is the son of veteran actor Jeremy Irons, who won his Oscar for “Reversal of Fortune” in 1990 with Close as his co-star. The cast is nicely rounded-out by Christian Slater (“Heathers”), who plays a pushy biographer, hoping to stir up trouble by uncovering secrets from the family’s past. There is also a nice, yet disappointingly short, cameo from Elizabeth McGovern (“Downton Abbey”).

Based on the novel of the same name by Meg Wolitzer, the screenplay for “The Wife” is written by Emmy-winner Jane Anderson (“Olive Kittridge”). As much as I enjoyed the movie, I would be less than candid if I didn’t admit that I found the script to be lacking at times, mainly whenever Close and Pryce were not in the scene. The film is peppered with flashbacks to the couples’ college days, before they were married. Whenever the actors who play Close and Pryce’s younger-halves are onscreen, it becomes palpable that the script cannot hold itself up on writing alone. I cannot remember ever seeing a more forced and awkward performance than that given by these actors.

Close gives a tour de force performance, full of looks that could cut glass and her unparalleled, silent seething. She has created so many memorable, intimidating characters throughout her career though, that it’s hard to keep them separate from this role. It’s sort of like the way you can’t believe Shelley Duvall is surprised when Jack Nicholson goes crazy in “The Shining.” I mean, hasn’t she seen any of his other movies? Likewise, (even though “The Wife” is definitely not that kind of movie) when it is revealed that her character’s husband has been flagrantly unfaithful to her, it’s hard not to start expecting Close to boil his pet bunny. Bad things happen to men who cheat on Glenn Close.

Unfortunately, scripts that boast a strong enough female character to garner a Best Lead Actress Oscar are all-too-often Medea-esque tales of tragedy and woe that no audience wants to sit through. The main actress gets to show of her chops, but the audience is left starving for a smile. Let’s face it, you’ve never thought, “I’d love to make a bowl of popcorn, kick my feet up and re-watch ‘Monster,’ ‘Boys Don’t Cry,’ or ‘Monster’s Ball.’” That was what I anticipated from “The Wife”: that it would be a slow, soap opera-type story of a long-suffering woman and her toils behind the scenes to make her husband look good. I was thrilled to find that there was much more meat to this movie than that. Yes, you should go see it to watch Close, but the film can stand on its own as a solid piece.

While I enjoyed the movie a lot more than I expected to, I will not say it is Close at her all-time best. To borrow a quote from another classic Close film (“Dangerous Liaisons”), “One does not applaud the tenor for clearing his throat.” It is absolutely good enough to see her win a long-overdue Oscar however, so I am excited to see what happens this February. I give “The Wife” seven out of ten stars.

[megsmoviereview]

“Christopher Robin”

What is it about nostalgia that we find so comforting? Is it the longing for a simpler time? Or is it just the revisiting of familiar places and characters, and hearing songs that you remember all the words to, that makes us feel at peace? Whatever the answer, Winnie the Pooh has been touted “the best loved children’s book character of all time.” So, it’s a pretty safe bet that if you launch a new movie that allows audiences to return to Pooh Corner, people will come out to see it… and bring their kids.

In “Christopher Robin,” we find a grown-up version of the title character, played by Ewan McGregor (“Trainspotting”), who has long-since forgotten about his teddy bear and their adventures. He has a family of his own, and is working for a luggage company. Tasked with cutting the company’s budget to prevent mass layoffs, Robin is forced to cancel his holiday with his family. This scenario is all-too common for his wife [played by the stiff, but likeable Hayley Atwell (“Captain America: The First Avenger”)] and daughter, who find themselves wondering if they will ever get to spend any quality time with him again.

Meanwhile, in The Hundred Acre Wood, Robin’s old pal Pooh is having problems of his own. He seems to have misplaced all of his friends, and (being a bear of very little brain) has no idea where to look for them. Who could Pooh possibly turn to for help but Christopher Robin? So, ensues a well-crafted combination of a children’s story about a search for lost buddies, and a plot that every adult can relate to about the importance of balancing work and family.

Director Marc Forster is no stranger to dramatic retellings of childhood favorites. Luckily, as is not the case with his 2004 flick “Finding Neverland,” “Christopher Robin” stays light, jolly, and above all, fictitious. If you know anything about the actual life of Christopher Robin Milne, the son of “Winnie the Pooh” writer A.A. Milne, you can already guess that this movie is not based on his life. Instead, the character of Christopher Robin is fictional, just like the bear himself. If you want to see a movie based on Milne’s actual childhood, check out 2017’s “Goodbye, Christopher Robin,” but be warned, it is a much less fun film than “Christopher Robin.”

The quality of this film rests almost entirely on the shoulders of McGregor’s acting. In his role, McGregor has to, not only take himself seriously as he debates the need for a red balloon with a stuffed bear, but must also to give a realistic performance opposite co-stars that he cannot see or interact with, since they are animated and added after the filming has completed. I suppose, after taking a character like Jar Jar Binks seriously, Pooh-bear should be a snap for McGregor. His performance is endearing sympathetic, comedic and charming all at once.

Besides McGregor’s performance, all the rest of the burden of movie quality lies upon the writers. Since we all grew up with these characters, know them well, and hold them so dearly, the main job of the screenwriters is to not to mess them up - no small challenge. Again, I must say, mission: accomplished. Tigger was Tigger, Piglet was Piglet, and Pooh was Pooh. Eeyore [aptly voice by Brad Garrett (“Everybody Loves Raymond”)] may have been the best, though.

“Christopher Robin” is a light-hearted romp through one’s childhood days, holding the hands of a gaggle of funny and adorable characters. I recommend it to families, or any adult who still remembers their favorite stuffed animal with fondness. I give the film 8 out of 10 stars.

[megsmoviereview]

“Isle of Dogs”

Wes Anderson (“The Royal Tenenbaums”) pretty much embodies what it means to be a successful indie filmmaker. As a writer and director, he is good at his craft, has a distinctive style, and a substantial following. His latest work, “Isle of Dogs” is no departure from what we have come to expect from him. It is unique, full of gifted actors, and has a quiet simplicity to it that is unmistakably Anderson. With “Isle of Dogs” however, it feels like he sacrifices substance for style.

For me, Anderson’s films can be a little hit or miss. I dig the authenticity he puts into all his works, as if he is recalling a cherished story from his own childhood. Sometimes his movies can feel a tad slow to me though, which is absolutely true with “Isle of Dogs.” While his movies are undeniably witty, the sense of humor in them often triggers more of a head-tilt and a “Hmm,”, than a full belly-laugh. He also seems to have a tendency to randomly kill off characters and end his movies abruptly, with an attitude of ‘That’s how life is.’ While that may be true, it doesn’t usually make for very good filmmaking, in my opinion.

“Isle of Dogs” is the story of a young boy named Atari, who attempts to rescue his dog from Trash Island, where all the dogs have been banished by the government to prevent the spread of a mysterious dog flu. To aid him in his search, Atari is joined by a pack of dogs that are also stranded on the island. The group (a sort of animated dog version of “Seven Samurai”- even though there are only technically six of them) journeys across the island and encounters many challenges along the way, not the least of which is the rebellious nature of one of the dogs, Chief. Chief was a stray before the dog-exile, disapproves of having people as masters, and reminds Atari often, “I bite.”

Yes, I am willing to acknowledge that I am the target audience of this movie. I am a dog-lover and movie buff and this film has all the trappings of a Disney cartoon about dogs, wrapped up in an arthouse style with an homage to all things Japanese. What’s not to like? To boot, it has some of today’s favorite actors voicing the dogs, including: Bryan Cranston, Ed Norton, Scarlett Johansson, Jeff Goldblum, Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Harvey Keitel, and Bob Balaban. As is true with the majority of Anderson’s previous films, Hollywood’s A-listers come out in droves for the chance to work with him.

This film is not, however, a Disney movie. Where Disney would have filled-in the subtlety of the plot with charming original songs, Anderson adds Japanese cultural glimpses, like Taiko drumming, Sumo wrestling and cherry blossoms over a Shinto shrine. “Isle of Dogs” also has a PG-13 rating and is peppered with some strong subject matter and a few cringe-worth scenes, such as when the group finds the remains of a dog that starved to death when he was unable to escape from a pet carrier, a bird’s eye view of a kidney replacement surgery, and a surprisingly graphic sushi-making scene.

I suppose the film achieves all of its goals. It tells its story well, features fantastic animation that is sure to be noticed by the Academy, and has the kind of originality that can only be found in a Wes Anderson movie. I found myself, watching the credits roll by, asking myself, “What was this movie about? What should I have learned from it?” With a conflict that is both revealed and resolved in the blink of an eye, it leaves the audience wondering what all the fuss was about. With the exception of being visually-stunning, I found “Isle of Dogs” to have little more merit than a buddy-dog-film. And at that point, you might as well just watch an episode of “PAW Patrol” at home for free. I give “Isle of Dogs” 6 out of my 10 stars.

[megsmoviereview]

“The Shape of Water” & “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”

I know that, normally, I write a review for one movie at a time. I realized, as I was trying to decide which film to write about for this issue of Sophie, that I have the same criticisms and compliments regarding both “The Shape of Water” and “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.” Since both of these 2017 Best Picture nominees were excellent movies, I thought I would write about both of them.

To start, they are both by writer/directors who are truly master of their crafts. Guillermo del Toro (who won an Oscar this year for “The Shape of Water”) has a authentic and brilliant vision for all of his films and has been on my watch-list ever since his phantasmagoric (Thank you, Lit. degree) movie “Pan’s Labyrinth.” Martin McDonagh’s film “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” also garnered two Academy Awards in March for the acting performances of Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell. I have been following McDonagh’s career ever since I read his award-winning 2003 play “The Pillowman.” While he has written a few films, like his 2008 dark comedy “In Bruges,” he has clearly found his voice as a writer.

Despite del Toro and McDonagh’s undeniable writing and directing skills, a great deal of both of these films’ success is based on the insanely-talented and much-nominated/decorated casts. The supporting cast for “The Shape of Water” includes Oscar-winner Octavia Spencer (“The Help”), and Oscar-nominees Michael Shannon (“Revolutionary Road”), Michael Stuhlberg (“A Serious Man”), Richard Jenkins (“The Visitor”), and Sally Hawkins (“Blue Jasmine”). Other than the actors who won Academy Awards for their performances in “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” the remaining cast includes Woody Harrelson (“The People vs. Larry Flynt”), Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”), Lucas Hedges (“Manchester by the Sea”), and John Hawkes (“Winter’s Bone”).

Both movies feature a strong female lead, although both characters show their strength in very different ways. In “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,”  McDormand plays Mildred, a woman grappling with her daughter’s unsolved rape and murder. In interviews, McDormand has said that she actually based her character’s stance and physical movements on movie heroes from classic Westerns, such as those played by John Wayne. Her character is angry, to say the least, and has no problem expressing it. She is vengeful for the crime against her daughter and seeks to either solve the crime, or to inflict her fury on the entirety of the small town in which she lives. Hawkins’ character in “The Shape of Water”, Elisa, is extremely passive until she finds something worth fighting for. She is a mute, who works as a cleaning woman for a science laboratory in the 1950’s. She befriends a creature that is being experimented on in the lab and decides to set him free when she sees that the scientists intend to kill him.

While they are both great movies, and I highly recommend both of them, neither are my favorite example of the filmmakers’ work. Still, the politics of the Academy Awards often mean that acknowledgement is given to the proper artist, but not necessarily for the correct piece. So, in addition to “The Shape of Water” and “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” I also recommend that you look up other examples of del Toro and McDonagh’s works. While I have found lots that these films have in common, they are truly singular pieces and vastly different from one another. In a world filled with remake after remake, it’s relieving to find a movie with a little originality. In fact, “The Shape of Water” is so unique, I might go so far as to call it flat-out weird. The best description I can come up with for it is: a dark version of “E.T.” meets “Splash.” These two movies are prime examples of the best that 2017 had to offer. I give them both an 8.5 out of 10.

[megsmoviereview]

“Darkest Hour”

I am a movie nerd (hence I have my own film review column) and have been for as long as I can remember. Instead of following the teen heartthrobs of my generation, hoping that one day their acting chops would catch up with their good looks, I became obsessed with talented actors and rooted for their professional successes. One of my earliest film obsessions was an actor named Gary Oldman. I believe I first saw him in Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 film “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”. Yes, I was eleven and technically too young to see the movie. Since then, I followed his acting career, always wanting to catch whatever film his latest performance would be in.

Oldman is a character actor, who has proven over the years that he can play absolutely anything, from Brit punk rocker Sid Vicious (“Sid & Nancy”), to Lit-geek swoon-bait Arthur Dimsdale (“The Scarlet Letter”), to whatever bizarre character that filmmaker Luc Besson has written for him (“The Professional” and “The Fifth Element”). While these roles show off Oldman’s range nicely, they tend to not be great roles for gaining the attention of The Academy. So, despite his stellar career, Oldman’s first Oscar-nomination came in 2011 for one of his more understated performances in “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.” Part of me was really rooting for him to win that year; the other half was hoping he didn’t get an Oscar for a role that felt like it showed off the least amount of talent in his entire film repertoire.

Fast forward six years and here we are with Oldman’s second nomination for “Darkest Hour,” in which he plays the political powerhouse that is Winston Churchill. While Churchill is one of the great political figures of all time, and the story of his role in the battle of Dunkirk is the stuff of legends, this film is basically a vehicle for getting Oldman an Academy Award. All other performances in the movie pale by comparison. Kristin Scott Thomas “(The English Patient”) is utterly wasted as Churchill’s wife, Clemmie. And Lily James (“Cinderella”) plays Churchill’s typist, Elizabeth. Both play their respective parts just fine, but this film is clearly a singular performance.

While Oldman clearly did his homework mastering Churchill’s voice, walk, mannerisms, and cigar-smoking (Oldman, reportedly, smoked $30,000 worth of cigars and subsequently gave himself nicotine poisoning during filming), the two look almost nothing alike. The only thing that shines brighter than Oldman’s performance in “Darkest Hour” is the prosthetic makeup and hair by designer Kazuhiro Tsuji, who apparently came out of retirement from the film industry to transform Oldman into Churchill. From the close-up shots, to the scenes in which Oldman’s skin is lit or shaded, you can see every pore and mole on his face. It is truly uncanny.

“Darkest Hour” tells the story of the circumstances surrounding Churchill’s appointment as Britain’s Prime Minister. At the time, the country was likely to be invaded by the Nazi regime and had lost faith in their current Prime Minister to protect them. This scenario created the opportunity for the approval of a less-than-popular candidate. According to the film, Churchill was not the favorite of his colleagues because he was known to be boisterous and always said what he meant, no matter how harsh. Even King George admits to be a little scared of him. Despite these conflicts, Churchill rises to the occasion and fulfills his role in destiny.

“Darkest Hour” is a great story, an excellent piece of filmmaking, and noticeably well-directed by Joe Wright (“Atonement”). While it can be a touch dry at parts (or maybe that’s just for those of us who have a new baby at home), I recommend it for anyone who wants to get a glance into a fascinating time in history and see a fabulous performance by a gifted actor. I give “Darkest Hour” 7 out of 10 stars.

[megsmoviereview]

Blade Runner 2049

How many times have I said it? Do we seriously have to redo, remake and reboot every decent movie made in the 20th Century? It seems so unnecessary when the originals are so good on their own, and especially when the new versions run the risk of messing up what was better to begin with.

I am a fan of the 1982 film “Blade Runner,” from director Ridley Scott and based on the novel by Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? So, I was nervous about the new installation: “Blade Runner 2049.” Yes, the trailer looked awesome. I liked the new director, Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival”). And I was really excited to see Harrison Ford (“Raiders of the Lost Ark”) reprise his role as blade runner Rick Deckard. But can Ford and Ryan Gosling (“La La Land”) create enough charm, charisma and sex appeal to support an entire film? Yes. Yes, they can.

Not that the movie, itself, doesn’t have some things going for it. Villeneuve clearly went to painstaking trouble to capture the dark, gritty tone of the original movie, which is no small feat. The rain on the trench coats, the bright neon colors contrasted across the dark background, the huge holograms all over the city- they were all accounted for. Having said that, the movie seems so proud that it caught the overall vibe of the original, that it spends over two and a half hours, doing nothing but celebrating its catch.

The premise of “Blade Runner 2049” isn’t bad. It just spends way more time being cool, than it does telling the story. This makes for a film that is pretty slow at times and a plotline that is a little muddled, which wouldn’t have been the case if the filmmakers weren’t so busy overusing the creepy fog-horn sound design and bringing back useless characters for pointless walk-ons. SPOILER: It’s not really a spoiler, you knew they couldn’t resist bringing Sean Young in for a cameo and, seriously, what else was she doing with her career?

There are also plenty of wasted actors in the film who weren’t in the original. Robin Wright (“The Princess Bride”) and Jared Leto (“Dallas Buyers Club”) seem to both have been type-casted in this movie as characters that they have played elsewhere recently. Wright plays Gosling’s tough, cold, cutthroat boss (much like her character on “House of Cards”), and Leto plays the strange, twisted, cruel designer of the latest line of replicants, a character which belonged on the cutting room floor (much like his performance in “Suicide Squad”).

In fact, the coolest part of the movie is this bizarre, but really well-done sex scene between Gosling’s character, his holographic girlfriend Joi, and a prostitute. Sorry, not to sound kinky, but the special effects were seriously undeniably impressive! In fact, I really liked the way the filmmakers did the character of Joi, played by Ana de Armas (“War Dogs”). She is clearly a computer program, but thinks on her own and has her own feelings and desires (or is programmed to believe she does). And when she shuts down (or when K gets a call), she makes a sound cue from “Peter and the Wolf,” that makes the audience members conscious of their relationship with their cellphone, which I thought was pretty clever.

I don’t mean for this to be a completely negative review; I really did enjoy “Blade Runner 2049.” If I’m honest with myself though, it’s mainly just because I liked watching Gosling and Ford. So, yes, it’s worth a watch, but you are better off just watching the 1982 film. I give this movie 7 out of 10 stars.

[megsmoviereview]

An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power

This year, self-proclaimed “recovering politician” turned environmental activist, Al Gore, created a sequel to his landmark, Oscar-winning 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” aptly titled “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” While I deeply regret the need for a second film that warns the world of the consequences of not curbing the amount of pollution we put into the environment, I thought the movie was incredibly well-made.

“An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” makes its argument very clearly, without being too dense or hard to follow. It shows the factors, leading to climate change and the effects they have on countries around the world. I thought it did a truly impressive job of painting an accurate picture of a dismal situation, while mixing in a touch of humor and ending with a hopeful message.

A great deal of the film centers around the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, and Gore’s work to encourage all the other international members to get with the environment-protection program. Focusing mainly on India, one of the world’s fastest growing polluters, Gore assists these countries in taking steps to back off fossil fuel usage and embrace other alternatives, such as solar and wind energy. The conference marked a major win for both Gore and the environment. Knowing America’s reversal on the Paris Climate Accord this year, I was impressed that Gore was still able to end the film on a positive note, looking to the future.

I was also surprised to see how effortlessly Gore was able present the steps that we could take to make a difference and the timetable to affect change. This is particularly impressive when one considers that this film was released eleven years after his first documentary, in which he showed that we had approximately eight years to turn things around. I certainly hope Gore wasn’t just out to sell tickets, and knew no one would go see a movie called: “How We Irreparably Destroyed the Planet.”

I found “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” to be every bit as interesting, informative, and grippingly put together as its prequel. I highly recommend it to anyone who cares about that environment and wants to know more about the state of the planet. I give it eight out of my ten stars.

[megsmoviereview]

Dunkirk

It is hard to describe writer/director Christopher Nolan’s (“Inception”) latest film, “Dunkirk,” without using the words ‘masterpiece’ or ‘work of art.’ I have consistently found Nolan to be an exceptional filmmaker with a unique vision. I am always eager to catch whatever his latest film is. This one, however, is truly the high point of his already-remarkable career.

“Dunkirk” is the inspiring true story of the events that took place during the siege of Dunkirk during World War II. 400,000 British and French soldiers were stranded on the beach, cut off from the rest of their battalions, unable to get refills on their ammunition or reinforcements. Rescue ships were trying desperately to reach them, but against heavy bombing, and only estimating being able to recover tens of thousands. So, the English government has called on any civilians with access to a boat to step in and rescue as many as they can.

This miraculous story speaks for itself. Noland’s script shows multiple perspectives, ranging from that of a fighter pilot, to a foot soldier, to a local boatman. “Dunkirk” has received some criticism for lacking in character development, but I found the director’s decision to focus on the event itself to be quite appropriate. Honestly, the film doesn’t more than that. The audience doesn’t learn much of the characters’ backstories, they are only shown their actions during this particular series of events. In fact, I detest filmmakers’ feeling the need to add some cheesy, fictitious romance to an already fascinating story, a la “Pearl Harbor,” in order to get audiences to care about the characters.

Despite having very little background, the characters are played by a fabulous foray of actors, including recent Oscar-winner Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies”), Tom Hardy (“The Revenant”), Cillian Murphy (“28 Days Later”), and Kenneth Branagh (“Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”). This group of stellar and experienced actors are joined by newcomer Fionn Whitehead, Barry Keoghan, and British pop heartthrob, Harry Styles. While their roles are relatively small, the performances are all dynamic.

I know that we are barely into Oscar-season, but I think “Dunkirk” is a shoe-in for the Best Picture Academy Award this year, and a likely candidate for the Best Director award as well. I found it to be an absolutely exceptional film and give it nine out of my ten stars.

[megsmoviereview]

“Wonder Woman”

I’ll admit it, when I first saw the trailers for “Wonder Woman” and caught a glimpse of Gal Gadot as Diana Prince (Wonder Woman’s alter ego) in “Batman vs. Superman,” I was uninterested in general. The stigma surrounding the financial dangers of making a movie about a female superhero is that men don’t go to see movies about women, and women don’t go to see action movies. I, personally, enjoy a good action movie; I just didn’t feel like spending the ticket price to go spend two hours acknowledging that, yes, Gadot has lovely, long legs.

Maybe I was jumping to a conclusion, but when they re-made “Superman,” they found a lifelong stage/screen actor and buffed him up to an ideal manly physique to play the lead. When they decided to make “Wonder Woman,” they found Gadot, a model and two-time Miss Israel and figured “Eh, we can teach her to act well enough; who’s gonna pay attention to her acting anyway?” That, plus the comments people were making about this perfect-looking woman not being busty enough to fill Wonder Woman’s breast plates, and my feminist feathers were pretty-well ruffled in advance.

Then, the reviews started coming in. People were really enjoying this movie. It was being called the blockbuster hit of the summer, and was blowing the other Superman and Batman films out of the water. It was also giving women an empowered female lead to get behind. Not since, “Tomb Raider” has a woman been able to carry an action movie of this kind (and “Tomb Raider” didn’t do that well, honestly). So, I caved and went to see it.

I don’t know that we’ll see Gadot playing Lady Macbeth with The Royal Shakespeare Company any time soon, but I have to say she played her part very well. She was not only statuesque, but sympathetic, charismatic and showed remarkable comic timing. No small feat, especially when you consider that I was pretty much watching for her to fail. She was amply backed up by her co-star Chris Pine, who is as loveable and endearing as ever in the role of her love interest, Steve Trevor. Also, I thought it was a nice touch for feminism that Pine gets way more naked in the film than Gadot does.

The rest of the supporting cast is a wide array of underused, but talented actors, including Robin Wright (“The Princess Bride”), Connie Nielsen (“Gladiator”), Danny Huston (“X-Men Origins: Wolverine”), David Thewlis (“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”), and Ewan Bremner (“Trainspotting”). All played their parts well, though I didn’t find any of their roles to be particularly memorable.

At the end of the day, “Wonder Woman” may have been slightly more sparkle than substance, but it was an incredibly enjoyable movie with a decent plot, good writing and quality performances. And let’s face it, it had to be better than “Batman vs. Superman.” This is definitely one we’ll be seeing a sequel for; and I’m happy to see a woman dominating a pretty competitive genre. I give “Wonder Woman” seven and a half out of ten stars.

[megsmoviereview]

“Colossal”

You can always count on the Indie film industry to come up with something original. “Colossal,” a quirky, way-outside-the-box film was a breath of fresh air after a slew of uninspired remakes of 1980’s films. It tells the story of a girl, her addiction, and a giant monster that wreaks havoc on Seoul, Korea.

“Colossal” stars Academy Award-winner Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”), who plays Gloria, a blogger who can’t seem to get her life together. She drinks to excess, stays out all night, and is constantly letting down her boyfriend Tim, played by Dan Stevens (“Beauty & the Beast”). When Tim finally throws her out of his apartment for coming home after another all-night binge, she returns to her hometown and reconnects with an old school friend named Oscar, played by Jason Sudeikis (“Horrible Bosses”).

In the meantime, an enormous beast appears in South Korea and goes marching through the city, stomping up the streets and knocking down buildings. Gloria is traumatized, watching this chaos take place on the news, but even more horrified when she realizes that she and creature seem to share a bizarre connection. Admit it, it’s a different plot from any film that Kevin Bacon ever starred in.

Hathaway has a true talent for making every character she plays sympathetic, even if that character is chronically causing problems for herself and others. In “Colossal,” her character isn’t capable of filling up an air mattress, let alone of taking care of herself, but the audience finds itself rooting for her to succeed. When she finds that she has a unique power to save an entire city of people, we root for her even more.

As is to be expected, Hathaway and Sudeikis have tremendous comedic ability onscreen, which makes the film a lot of fun to watch. The only way I found the movie to be lacking was in meaning. For a movie about alcoholism and accepting responsibility for one’s actions, I kept expecting a little more of a clear lesson to be taught. I wanted Gloria to grow as a person and learn about herself. I suppose an argument could be made that she starts out on a potential road to self-improvement, it just seemed like an opportunity was missed to compare the Korean monster to what Gloria becomes when she drinks. I guess that wasn’t the statement that Writer/Director Nacho Vigalondo was trying to make.

“Colossal” was interesting, humorous and unlike anything I’d seen before. It had a strange, offbeat sense of humor that I found very appealing. I had heard, however, some truly impressive reviews of the movie and was very excited to catch it, despite its limited theatrical release. While I enjoyed “Colossal,” I did not find it to be one of the best films of the year, as I had heard it was. I still recommend it though, and give the film 7 out of 10 stars.

[megsmoviereview]

“Snatched”

Amy Schumer is, at the very least, one of the strongest and most accomplished stand-up comediennes of our time. Her breakout performance in her 2015 film “Trainwreck” certainly showed that she could handle herself on the big screen. In her latest endeavor, “Snatched,” she shares the screen with acting legend Goldie Hawn (“The First Wives Club”).

Schumer plays Emily, a selfish young woman who is obsessed with making herself look good on Facebook and Instagram, instead of actually being successful in real life. When she loses her job and her boyfriend within moments of each other, she only has one place to go… home. Hawn plays her mother, Linda, who has her own set of problems. While she is very supportive of her children (perhaps overly so), she has closed herself off from new experiences because of fear.

When Emily buys non-refundable tickets to Ecuador for her and her ex, she convinces her mother to go with her. Shortly after their arrival, all of Linda’s worst case scenario fears begin coming true. A man that Emily meets in the resort bar talks them into taking a day-trip into the wilderness, where they are kidnapped, taken to Brazil and held for ransom. They are able to escape, then must flee their captors in a mad race through the Amazon.

“Snatched” is peppered with great, yet fairly pointless, cameos from fantastic actors like Wanda Sykes (“Monster-in-Law”), Joan Cusack (“Working Girl”), and Christopher Meloni (“Law & Order SUV’). While these actors are underused in their roles, they were still hysterical and a lot of fun to watch. One of my favorite performances, though, came from newcomer Ike Barinholtz (“Sisters’) who plays Linda’s agoraphobic live-in son Jeffrey. When the kidnappers call to ransom Linda and Emily, they reach Jeffrey, who is forced to push himself to his emotional limits in his efforts to rescue them.

Schumer is known for her crude sense of humor in her comedy routine. Since the film premiered on Mother’s Day weekend, it had plenty of women wondering, “Is this movie suitable to take my mom to?” My answer to that is: it depends on the mom. It definitely has the level of raunchiness that the world has come to expect from Schumer, and is rated R because of this. Personally, I found that Hawn and Schumer’s chemistry and the overall sweet message of the film outweighed the particularly dirty scenes.

In fact, the film studio that produced “Snatched” originally did not want Hawn for the role, fearing that her sweet and bubbly image would clash with the movie’s edge. Schumer threatened to walk from the project altogether if they didn’t cast Hawn in the role.  I loved seeing Hawn in this film, especially considering that she hasn’t starred in a movie since “The Banger Sisters” in 2002.

I really enjoyed ‘Snatched” and felt that both the comedic and emotional performances by Schumer and Hawn were spot-on. They are hilarious together and I laughed out loud throughout the movie. And so did my mom. I give “Snatched” 7 out of 10 stars.

[megsmoviereview]

“Moonlight”

I, like everyone on Oscar night (especially Warren Beatty), was pretty shocked when “Moonlight” won Best Picture. While I was underwhelmed by “La La Land,” considered the heavy contender to win in that category, I wasn’t exactly blown away by “Moonlight” either.

“Moonlight” is the story of an African American boy named Chiron, growing up in the projects of Miami. He is ostracized in school for being smaller than the other kids and his mother has developed a crack habit, which is wrecking his home-life. During all of this emotional turmoil, he is also grappling with his own sexuality. Needless to say, the movie is far from a fun-filled ride and a lot of it is fairly tough to watch.

I am a huge fan of indie films receiving critical acclaim, and love when a movie makes a statement. While “Moonlight” is about a minority within a minority, I was a bit confused as to what the point of the movie was. The film is divided into three parts: one where he is a child called ‘Little’, the second in which he is a teenager called Chiron, and lastly when he is a grown man called ‘Black.’ In each walk of life, he encounters different challenges, and in none of these periods is he happy.

In addition to the Best Picture win, “Moonlight” also got the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Mahershala Ali’s (“Luke Cage”) performance as the drug-dealer, Juan. I was a bit baffled by this win as well. While I’ll admit that every time Ali came on-screen it was like coming up for air from all the negativity that is surrounding Chiron, I didn’t feel like there was that much ‘meat’ to the character. He was just playing a decent person who cares about a child’s well-being. I’m sorry, but it didn’t feel like a stand-out performance to me. I also thought it was a risky choice to make the only well-intentioned people in the whole movie the drug-dealer and his girlfriend.

My favorite performance in the movie was given by Naomie Harris (“28 Days Later”), who plays Chiron’s mother. Her character was the only one that I really felt showed range and had real power behind it. She managed to be sympathetic playing a woman that, in one scene, nearly attacks her son, trying to score money to buy drugs. Harris was also nominated for an Academy Award for her performance in “Moonlight.” Let’s face it though, no one was taking the Oscar away from Viola Davis this year.

Written and directed by relative-unknown Barry Jenkins, “Moonlight” is not an altogether bad movie, and probably marks the start of a great career for him. No aspect of it resonated with me as a particularly good piece of film-making. Since Chiron’s character is acknowledged to be very quiet and shy, the dialogue leaves something to be desired, most of the scenes are kept pretty basic and understandably unimpressive. The story also doesn’t really have a traditional plot arc, nor does it reach a conventional resolution.

All in all, “Moonlight” just didn’t blow me away on any level. Perhaps I had mentally set the bar too high after it got all the Oscar-buzz, setting the movie up to let me down. I didn’t dislike it though; I just found it disappointing as the film that is acknowledged as: the best of the year, especially when I saw so many more movies in 2016 that I liked much better (“Hell or High Water,” “Hello My Name is Doris,” “Arrival”). I give “Moonlight” six out of my ten stars.

[megsmoviereview]

“La La Land”

In a world where people were worried about their futures… where people felt divided by the politics in their country… and where the Oscar-movie line-up was a depressing collection of dramas about racism, loss, and poverty, there came a film that was so bubbly, it was almost totally devoid of plot: “La La Land.” As I write this I am assuming that, by the time this is printed and read, “La La Land” has gotten the Academy Award for Best Picture, as everyone is expecting it to get now.

Part of it is my fault. As has happened to me many times, a film has been over-hyped with Oscar buzz and Golden Globe wins. When I see it, I find myself tragically-disappointed because the movie is just alright. That is the case for me with “La La Land.” It is cute; Emma Stone (“The Help”) and Ryan Gosling (“The Big Short”) are endearing, and the music is really terrific! Was it the best movie I saw this year though? Sadly, no.

“La La Land” is a movie about artistic integrity. If you find a way to turn your talent into a professional success by tweaking it ever-so-slightly, are you selling out and compromising your dreams? Of course not. “La La Land,” however, spends 2 hours and eight minutes debating this issue via its two lead characters, Sebastian and Mia. Mia wants to be an actress, but years of living in Los Angeles, working as a barista and going to audition after audition has left her questioning her talent. Sebastian is jazz pianist who is sick of using his music to create restaurant ambiance; he wants to open his own jazz club. They meet and fall into a constant duet.

Despite the complete lack of character development, both Stone and Gosling are perfectly charming in the role. So, charming in fact, that I am betting that by the time you are reading this, Stone has won an Oscar for her performance. I have been impressed with Gosling’s ability to rise above terrible writing eversince I first saw him in “The Notebook.” While Gosling and Stone are both great actors, I don’t feel like “La La Land” marks either of their best performances. You can tell that a lot of their on-screen conversation was improvised by the actors, which is pretty much the only non-musical writing in the film. Supposedly, several of Stone’s off-the-cuff witty one-liners were kept, but given to Gosling as dialogue for his character.

Their singing in the film is fine, but the dancing is truly superb. Huge kudos to choreographer Mandy Moore (no relation to the teen singer, turned actress). I enjoyed everything except for the obnoxious floating-dance moment, that I thought was campy when they did it in Woody Allen’s 1997 film “Everyone says I love You.” The music, written by John Hurwitz, is also pretty darn impressive for the most part. Hurwitz and the film’s writer/director Damien Chazelle came on the Oscar-scene in a big way last year with the film “Whiplash.”

So, is “La La Land” so immensely successful because it is the kind of happy drivel that our country needs right now? Maybe in part, but it is also a lot of fun. And I may have gotten a tad misty when Mia sang “Fools Who Dream” during her final audition. So, I am giving “La, La Land” 7 out of my 10 stars. It’s totally worth seeing; just not life-changing.

[megsmoviereview]

“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”

I don’t know about you, but I am plenty-happy to be back in the wizarding world of J.K. Rowling, with her latest film venture, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.” This film, directed by David Yates (“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”), holds many distinctions from the regular Harry Potter canon, and is actually more of a prequel, or spinoff, of the previous series.

Firstly, it is set in the 1920’s United States, rather than modern-day England. It is also not based on a Rowling novel, but is instead a screenplay that she wrote specifically to be produced on film. All of the Harry Potter movies have faced an insurmountable standard to be judged against: the books. This is not the case with “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” since it is based on a fictitious book that is referenced in the actual Harry Potter novels.

The film tells the story of Newt Scamander, whose book “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” was required reading for Harry Potter and his classmates at Hogwarts Academy. Scamander is a collector of rare, magic, and misunderstood creatures. He has come to the U.S. with a suitcase full of these beasts, who are not only fantastic, but also escape artists. Wacky hi-jinx ensue.

In addition to premiering the embodiment of Scamander, this movie also give audiences their first peek at Grindelwald, one of the most dangerous wizards in Rowling’s works. All that the readers of the Harry Potter series really know about Grindelwald is that he is very powerful, evil, and has an epic wizard battle with Dumbledore around the time during which “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” is set. Can you say sequel? Anyone want to take bets on who will play him? Benedict Cumberbatch? Colin Firth?

The movie’s special effects are absolutely the best part of it. The amazing and adorable creatures that Scamander chases around New York City, especially the Bowtruckle, the Niffler, and Dougal the Demiguise, are what truly make the film one not-to-be-missed. While not the cutest, the most impressively-animated creature in the film is the Obscurus, who takes on a dark foggy form most of the time, but at others, seems clearly human.

If I’m being honest, the actual plot is a little vague and leaves something to be desired. Scamander has come to America to return a single creature to his native home, but it is never explained why he is doing it now, why no Americans have ever seen this type of creature before, or why Scamander needs to make the trip at all (since the homebound beast in question can fly). Lastly, we don’t know why Scamander opted to make the journey with all the other creatures that he has captured in tow (You know, the ones that escape and that he must find.)

“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” is so darn likeable though, that I didn’t give a moment’s thought to the film’s plot-holes. This was largely due to the fantastic cast of actors in the movie. Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”), fresh off his Oscar win for “The Theory of Everything,” is perfect as the awkward Scamander. Dan Fogler (“Balls of Fury”) is hilarious and endearing as Kowalski, the Muggle (or No-Maj, depending on where you’re from) who gets mixed up in Scamander’s magic muddle. Alison Sudol (“Transparent”) also gives a memorable performance as Queenie, while clearly imitating Marilyn Monroe’s character in “Some Like it Hot.” While understated, when compared to the other characters, Katherine Waterston (“Jobs”) also does a fine job of playing Tina. And let’s face it, we’re all just glad that Colin Farrell (“Alexander”) is working, portraying the corrupt MACUSA Senior Administrator, Percival Graves.

I thought the movie was an excellent start to the next saga of Rowling’s characters. If I’m being objective, I would have to admit that I am among the many that were thirsting for a way to stretch out the Harry Potter chronicles a little longer. Still, I think that “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” succeeds masterfully in doing so. I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

[megsmoviereview]

“Snowden”

The latest film from notoriously-politically-outspoken Director Oliver Stone is the biopic of government whistleblower Edward Snowden, aptly titled “Snowden.” Oliver Stone is responsible for some of the great films of our time about American patriotism, including “Platoon,” “Born on the Fourth of July,” and “JFK.” As a filmmaker, he seems to love nothing more than pushing the boundaries of what it means to be a patriot, and encouraging citizens to question the motives of those that make the decisions for their country.

In the past decade, Stone has turned his interests more towards documentaries, like “Mi Amigo Hugo” and “Castro in Winter.” The movies he has directed recently, such as “World Trade Center,” “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps”, and “W.” have been far less well-received by the critics than his earlier films, and were box-office disappointments. So, with his newest work, is Stone showing that he still has it?

Both the acting, as well as the writing by Stone and Kieran Fitzgerald (based on the books Time of the Octopus by Anatoly Kucherena, and The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World's Most Wanted Man by Luke Harding), in the film is fine. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“Inception”) portrays Snowden, the National Security Agency sub-contractor, turned American fugitive. Snowden is a bright programmer, working with the NSA, who finds himself questioning the morals of the U.S. government when he finds out that they are using his programs to spy on American citizens. I adore Gordon-Levitt, but it just didn’t feel like there was much he could do with the character. I guess I will have to wait for another year to see him get that Oscar nod he has coming.

While mainly your basic biography, “Snowden” is also a love story. It tells the story of Snowden and his longtime girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, played by Shailene Woodley (“Divergent”). Mills is content to move with Snowden to different countries for his work, and tolerates their different political viewpoints. His constant job-stress, however, as well as his inability to communicate with her about the classified work he is doing, proves challenging for their relationship.

“Snowden” features a gaggle of incredibly-gifted supported actors, including Zachary Quinto (“Star Trek:”), Rhys Ifans (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”), Melissa Leo (“The Fighter”), and Tom Wilkinson (“Michael Clayton”), who each give, at most, one emotional outburst to show off their full acting range throughout the entirety of the movie. The film also includes a somewhat random performance from Nicholas Cage (“Raising Arizona”) as Snowden’s professor at the Central Intelligence Agency training academy.

I hate nothing more than watching a movie about a person’s life and finishing it with more unanswered questions than I started the film with. That was not the case with “Snowden.” It told the story very effectively. Even the technical aspects of the story were told with enough clarity that I was able to follow them. There was very little glitz, or pizzazz, I’ll admit. Honestly though, with “Snowden” running two hours and fourteen minutes, anytime Stone did try to try to sensationalize it with special effects, or musical montages, I found myself wanting him to get back to the plot.

I couldn’t help feeling very ‘blah’ about “Snowden”. The story of the, now, 3-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee is an interesting one and I’m glad it is being told to moviegoers around the world. Every aspect of the filmmaking, though, seemed utterly unremarkable to me.  It did, however, get the job done. I am sympathetic toward Edward Snowden and want for him to be allowed to return to his home country, which is what Stone was wanting me to feel. So, I guess I recommend it to anyone who wants a better understanding of Snowden’s crime, and wants to learn his story… but you can probably wait to see it when it comes on cable. Do people still have that? I am giving “Snowden” 7 out of my 10 stars.