Review: Doctor Strange

2016 has been a mixed bag on the whole for the superhero genre.

Despite the noticeable potential, both DC blockbusters 'Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice' and 'Suicide Squad' did not seem to live up to the hype with the majority.
As for Marvel, it's been pretty good. It started back in February where Deadpool became more of a success then anyone could ever have imagined. It is now high up in many peoples films of the year lists. Then we had 'Captain America: Civil War', which was another very good installment from not just the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but the Captain America franchise. Then in the summer we had 'X-Men: Apocalypse'. It had mixed reviews, with the majority being satisfied with it.

Now we go into new territory for Marvel Studios with Doctor Strange. The last time they went for source material that sounded pretty odd on paper was Guardians Of The Galaxy, and director James Gunn and his team gave us one of the best reviewed and most loved films within the genre.

The stellar cast and marketing certainly had many people thinking this had potential to be up there with the best. It certainly is one of the most entertaining and is a welcomed addition to the MCU.

The one element that people were most nervous about is that would the mythology work on screen to fit into other Marvel movies. Yes there is a lot of mythology, and I certainly got swept away with it. I understood it by the end of it, it got me excited when certain things were happening and it made me think how the other Marvel superheroes would cope with the mystical power of Doctor Strange.

With the film going into magic effectively, it will be hard for some people to take it seriously. I can confidently say that the cast and crew certainly knew when to take it seriously and inject some fun into it. That will be a big reason for this to be a big success in the box office and with the critics.

The cast is probably the most high-calibre Marvel have ever conjured up, and they did a good job. Benedict Cumberbatch was the perfect choice for Dr. Stephen Strange. You believed his origin story and transformation. He IS Dr. Strange.
Tilda Swinton was terrific was The Ancient One. I am big fan of her work and she definitely brought it in this one. Sadly, there were moments where I was confused as to why her character was not there. But that is the fault in the departments.
Chiwitel Ejiofor and Rachel McAdams were serviceable as the main supporting roles. Benedict Wong also had great comedic relief when needed. The big question in any Marvel movie recently, is if the villain will be a memorable one. While Mads Mikkelsen's character was certainly not the worst, it still was not a strong one.

The strongest parts of the film for me were the action and the visual effects. The action is certainly some of the best in the MCU and in all of Marvel's films. They make great use of the abilities are characters had, and it had moments that even Christopher Nolan would have liked to have used in Inception. I loved those moments as I consider that film to be perfect.
The imagery that the visual effects used was mind-blowing and really messed with your mind at times. The fantastic opening scene and use of visual effects will certainly give you a taste of what is to come.

The only stopping me from giving a very good rating is the writing and story development. While it is perfectly fine and serviceable, it is nothing exceptional. The writing was nothing to shout about, and the story development felt the standard Marvel structure that I have seen with many of their features.

That being said, there is lots to enjoy and I had a lot of fun with this. The action and visual effects is some of the best from this studio. A lot of the acting was great and helped the source material make sense to the mainstream audience. Another thing that worked like all Marvel films do, is the comedy. There are some good laugh-out-loud moments that are all well executed, and never felt forced or out of place.

Another usual thing with Marvel films is the credits scenes. In this particular one, there is both a mid and post credits scene. The mid-credits scene is a cool idea, but I felt the execution of it pretty much felt like an spoon-feeding moment to tell everyone what is coming up next. The post-credits scene was better executed and was a nice tease to see which path the next Doctor Strange installment might go down.

Rating: 7/10

Review: The Accountant

Ben Affleck has had quite an up and down career. From the promising beginning that begun with Dazed And Confused, Affleck showed everyone his talent. Also, teaming up with fellow actor Matt Damon and/or director Kevin Smith gave us films such as Mallrats, Good Will Hunting, Dogma and Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back.

After the disappointment of Pearl Harbor, Affleck seemed to lost interest in serious acting and just get easy pay cheques with various rom-coms and superhero film Daredevil.
However, 2007 saw him debut as director with Gone Baby Gone. From then on, his rise back up the Hollywood hierarchy has seen get many positive reviews and an Oscar for Best Picture with Argo in 2013. He has many projects in the pipeline right now, and this latest project see him as the lead character.

Directed by Gavin O'Connor who has some great films such as Miracle and Warrior, I was certainly interested in seeing what this was about. However without seeing any trailers, I was not sure what to expect from it.

What I got was something that I did not think I would like this much. The story has a lot of plot strands that you need to figure out if they all fit together. It was like watching a human puzzle take place.
I liked the way it gave you information of the story very selectively and slowly. This does not mean that it is slow paced per say. It just felt to me that it gave time to flesh out all of the characters. We ended up having a solid backstory for pretty much all the main characters which was great to see.

The action scenes was the biggest surprise for me. I did not expect it to be so hard-hitting, fast-paced, well choreographed and shot. What I think makes this action much better then in your generic action film, is that it helps develop the characters more rather then doing those scenes to sell the film and make it meaningless.

Ben Affleck gives us another captivating lead. You could feel him becoming this stone-cold character and not him just going through the motions to get a pay cheque. Any action scene he was involved in was impressive to watch. I felt nervous for anyone about to go into a fight with him. He also executed the characters mental disability really well.
Jon Bernthal was developed and performed well. His intro scene is a big highlight and very memorable. I hope to see him in more roles in the future.
J.K. Simmons was a solid support. He almost reminded me of Morgan Freeman's character in Se7en. I liked his chemistry with Cynthia Addai-Robinson who was also good in her role. It was nice to see John Lithgow in this, and I felt he did well with what he had.
Anna Kendrick's character was good in parts, but fine overall. Sadly, I felt the marketing for this film suggested she would play a more important role in my eyes. She was not used as much as you might expect.

Another surprise was the amount of comedic moments. I managed to laugh a fair amount through this, and nearly all of them from Affleck's character.
Other positives to mention is the score, and the violence. While it is not constant, I felt score was solid on the whole and elevated multiple scenes really well. As for the violence, they don't hold back on it. That was great to see, and thankfully none of it was gratuitous.

Amazingly, I don't really have any negatives to mention.

I think it is easy to see that I really enjoyed it. I wasn't sure what to expect from it. But I ended up being impressed with the execution of the story and action.

I love it that it never went conventional, especially in its story-telling. Unlike most action films, you did not to pay attention in this one if you want to understand everything that is going on.
Don't worry if you feel frustrated that you don't what is going on all the time. I'm still trying to piece everything together. A lot of it is explained later on, or even right at the very end. It also contains a pretty cool minor twist that almost came full circle.

Affleck gave us a very strong and memorable main character that I can see be as memorable as the other famous action characters.

The comparisons that I would give to this film will sound very strange on paper. While it has the action of a Bourne and John Wick, it also has the smartness of Good Will Hunting, Rain Man or even Se7en at times.

Gavin O'Connor and his team did a great job. Not sure whether I want a sequel or not. Part of me wants this to remain as a stand alone. Another part of me wants to see a sequel. If successful at the box office, then I can see a possible trilogy/franchise in the works.

Rating: 8/10

Review: Inferno

There has been more controversy rather than praise when it comes to this particular franchise.

Based on the popular Dan Brown novels, his stories go into deep fiction and sometimes mess with religion that displeases certain demographics.

One big problem that a lot of people have with these films is the poor writing structure. It mainly due to Brown's writing in the book as the author seems to have forgotten the function of the internal monologue. With director Ron Howard being faithful to the writing, we hear the characters talk so much exposition, they were making spoon-feeding go out of fashion.
Despite all those noticeable problems, I ended up liking The Da Vinci Code and just about giving Angels & Demons a passable rating.

The films beginning was a bit messy with a big plot hole already being noticed. However, we were moving along and starting to build-up to what Tom Hank's characters latest challenge is. The action and Hans Zimmer's score was thrilling me, but I was not totally invested in the story.
Thankfully, the third act managed to save the film in my opinion. There is a nice twist, and that therefore enhanced the build-up to the final action set-piece which ended up being rather tense and thrilling.

Like with all the other films, Tom Hanks is just going through the motions with his performance. It's not terrible, but Hanks is just not getting out of first gear. I think these are just an easy cheque-in-the-post job for the great man.
Felicity Jones managed to do something that Audrey Tautou and Ayelet Zurer couldn't do, and that is be a memorable companion to Hank's character. She felt valuable, proactive and certainly became a valuable cast member. The rest of the roles were all minor ones. Despite Irrfan Khan being underused, he does have a surprising amount of comedic moments that made me chuckle. Omar Sy had some nice moments and I would like to see in more features, and Ben Foster was great on screen despite not being in many scenes. I really hope Foster gets more roles as he never fails to impress me. If you don't know about him, check him out in 3:10 To Yuma, The Program and Hell Or High Water.

The big positives were certainly the score by the always great Hans Zimmer, the striking and sometimes disturbing imagery which contains great shots Italian architecture and landscape. Also the pacing was pretty solid and is likely to be the main reason why I like this trilogy more than the majority.
Most of the negatives come in the first two acts. There are various plot holes, it is trying to cram in too much info instead of giving us an exciting thriller. It is a shame the first two acts were not that good. While I was gripped with the finale, everything before it had me on the brink of not caring.

There is one negative I will mention. But it only came to me after seeing the film. When reading other reviews, it came to my knowledge the ending in the film is completely different to the one in the book. The novel's finale sounded much more interesting then the films predictable one. However, this is just a minor problem as I still enjoyed the film's version.

I think this will be another time when I am in the minority. While I know the common problems that people associate with this franchise, I still found fun with this. The action and pacing is what makes these films for me and this one certainly is no different.
I think this is just about better than Angels & Demons, but still not as strong as The Da Vinci Code. Unless you have liked this series of films, then I would probably wait till this out on-demand or on DVD. It's passable, but not enough to feel that it is worth paying money to see it on the big screen.

Rating: 7/10

Nostalgic Review: Angels & Demons

With 'The Da Vinci Code's' success at the box office, a sequel was only a matter of time.
In fact, it was already in pre-production before Da Vinci came out on DVD.

I am not a book reader, so I was really unsure whether it would carry on from the previous events, or be a totally new adventure.

It ended up being the latter, and the story managed to be a bit over the top, even by Dan Brown's standards. That does not mean that I ended up not liking it.

When re-visiting this, I definitely did not enjoy it as much. But I still found it to be thrilling enough to just about give it a pass rating.
From pretty much the start, the over exposition is there at its most obvious. As well as being a sucker for a religious based story, the pacing and tension kept me engrossed. Then for the rest film, my attention never really moved up or down. It just stayed at a satisfactory level right up to end credits.

There were a few improvements from the first one. They continue to not hold back on the violence, and this time, and there were some gross-out moments that I completely forgot about the first time.
With the film having more science involved, I was certainly excited to see where they would go with this. While there were moments of interesting dialogue scenes of religion crossing over with science. It was not as much as I expected.

The performances were not strongest part, nor the weakest. Tom Hanks for me went through the motions and gave us a perfectly fine performance that kept the film moving along.
Ayelet Zurer was a complete waste of time. It may sound harsh, but she just seemed to be filler. She was totally forgettable and performed it as if it could have been done by anyone. Even her character felt like fodder. So in the end, the existence of her character was just there for Hank's character to give some exposition and explain to us what is going on.
Ewan McGregor was certainly giving it his all. But his questionable Irish accent did not help to elevate his performance. But I will give him credit for his effort. The rest of the minor roles was nothing spectacular, despite some names such as Stellan Skarsgard, Pierfrancesco Favino and Arman Mueller-Stahl being involved.

The negatives are hard to talk about in much detail. Every part of the film could have been bettered, but none of it was terrible. I think the main problem was the writing. If they could get rid of the over-use of exposition, we could have some more interesting dialogue about religion and science mixing together, which became essential part of the story. Better casting would definitely have made the film move along more and become a much more memorable thrill ride.

So in the end, this film seems to have landed in a void that I don't have to often put films in. It was thrilling enough for me to give it a pass rating. But it is not strong enough for me to recommend it that much. I think the best place to watch it as at home when its on TV. Yes, the story is ridiculous and convenience of it all was possibly too Hollywood. But there are still good solid moments of exciting action set-pieces, really nice imagery of the location, a romping score, one moment that made me laugh out loud and I was never bored.
However, It's too long, the casting is poor and the potential never gets fulfilled. Not a good as The Da Vinci Code, but a satisfying sequel to the series.

Rating: 7/10

Nostalgic Review: The Da Vinci Code

I'm sure everyone remembers the buzz surrounding the release of this film back in 2006. Both the general hype, and the controversial and unnecessary boycotting.

In the end, the reviews were mixed. Some seemed to enjoy Ron Howard's thriller, and some saw it as a badly written mess.

I remember being in the former. But the more hate I heard from it over time, I felt as if a re-visit was in order.

I managed to end up still enjoying it. It opens up with some interesting ideas on symbolism that sets us up for what could be in store. Then as more clues get unlocked and a new character is introduced, I remained fascinated and gripped by what the big revelation actually is. However the longer the revelations continue, the more divisive it may get and therefore may lost some of the audience.
But for me, the build-up to the final act peaked my interest and the crescendo was pretty satisfying.

That being said, I can see the faults a lot of people have been frustrated and even angered by.
The writing is certainly a disappointment, and yet I am not angered by it. A combination of spoon-feeding the information, and the author of the novel seeming to forget the use of the internal monologue does make the writing pretty poor. It is a shame that director Howard was almost too faithful to the writing.
Yes there is over excess of exposition that will annoy certain film fans. But I was fine with this as there is a lot of ground to cover in this particular film, and it would aid a lot of people unaware of the history of Christianity.

One improvement that I would have happily pushed, was to have more of an adventure tone to it, like in National Treasure for example. But obviously not as much as that, as there still needs to be some seriousness considering that the source material is about.

What did not help either was the delivery of these lines, and that conveniently moves us to the performances.
I can still say that there is not one bad Tom Hanks film that I have seen. His performance is not one of his more memorable ones. But it is still satisfactory enough.
Audrey Tautou did not seem to fit the role and felt mis-cast in the end. While her character is important, the performance did not match that. I was disappointed in the end, as I know she has been great in other films such as Amelie, Dirty Pretty Things and Priceless.
Stealing the show for me was Sir Ian McKellan. There was just enough eccentric in there and it pretty much fitted the tone perfectly. It was a shame no-one else could follow.
Paul Bettany did probably as well as he could have done with such an off character. It was certainly a great choice of casting as Bettany is one of the best actors around to be a supporting role. Sadly for Jean Reno, I felt he was very weak and could have been so much more memorable. He did not seem threatening at all for a character that should have been. There are not many performances from Reno that are worth praising that I have seen. Leon and possibly Mission: Impossible being the only ones.
The only other performance worth mentioning was Alfred Molina. He was massively under-used in this one. It felt like a waste of a good talent.

I am glad I re-visited this, as it further cemented my original enjoyment from the first viewing. While the beliefs of the film will not please everyone, the ideas certainly cause discussions. I have always been intrigued by religion and how much of it is true, if not all of it. That is probably why I found this a gripping watch. I also liked the tension. It was mounted really well and managed to pay off in the various climatic moments.

Rating: 7/10

Review: The Girl On The Train

The buzz for this has been growing for quite some time now. Especially when we only seem to get a handful of mystery thrillers. It is a genre that we rarely see. But when they are good, they are awards worthy.

While expecting something similar to Gone Girl with a Hitchcockian feel to it. I partly got that. But instead of Hitchcock, I got more Requiem For A Dream.
While those two films are extremely good, The Girl On The Train is a badly structured version of these two films.

The opening scene sets you in nicely. But after that, we got a whole lot of time jumps all over its timeline that reminded me much of Oliver Stone's 'Alexander', which I had problems with. For most of the film, I was busy concentrating to see if we had gone a few months or if we were back to the present day. Thankfully, I was still understanding what was happening the final act was at least its strongest and least confusing part of the film.

I really like Emily Blunt. I saw her as a pretty solid period actor. Then suddenly, her bad-ass role in Edge Of Tomorrow made me see her differently in such a positive way that has made me excited for anything she does. Even the sequel to Mary Poppins in 2018. Sadly for this one, she felt mis-cast for me. While she was most definitely giving it her all. I just felt her face did not match with the character and the general feel of the film. Plus, her character was really hard to root for.
I had pretty much the same feeling with most of the rest of the cast. Luke Evans felt wasted and the role should have been given to someone else less well known. I think he maybe should have switched places with Justin Theroux's character. Edgar Ramirez was o.k. But his character did not have moments to really shine.
The only performances worth putting into the positive light were Haley Bennett and Rebecca Ferguson. Bennett was probably the only true performance and she definitely fitted in nicely to the story and tone. As for Ferguson, I had only known it was her when looking through the cast list after seeing the film. She was pretty unrecognisable, and the blond hair made even harder. After her impressive performance in Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, I am always excited to what she will do next. In this one, she was good enough for me to be interested by her character.

The main positives from this was certainly the cinematography and the Danny Elfman score. I liked the colour palette it was going for. It was very David Fincher. That grimy set of colours definitely put in the mystery thriller genre straight away.

Sadly, there is not much good stuff left to talk about. The structure is the films real let-down. There is a solid mystery thriller in here. But its jumping from one moment to the next in random pockets gives you time to work out where you are rather than on the story which also never gains pace or as much tension as you would hope.

While director Tate Taylor has directed some good films such as The Help and Get On Up, this one is a real disappointment.
You will most of your time feeling drunk wondering where you are, then trying to enjoy this movie. I can definitely see at a point why it does make you feel drunk. But I don't think it should done to the extent of being frustrated with the film. There is enough good parts for this to not be a total disaster, and at least it has a satisfying final act. But it is a real shame that this manage to derail (don't usually do puns, but I couldn't resist) itself.

Rating: 6/10

Review: Free State Of Jones

Most period war dramas have a pretty good success rate with critics and the general public. This particular one is set in the American Civil War. There have been a few pretty good ones in the past such as Glory, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Cold Mountain and many others.

With Gary Ross, director of Seabiscuit and the first Hunger Games at the helm, and Matthew McConaughey playing the lead, this definitely had high hopes for this being an Oscar contender.

But with being released just before many would see as the start of the Oscar film releases, there were doubts the people making it knew it was going to be a failure.
So I was certainly going into the film with mixed emotions.

In the end, I managed to like it more then I expected. From the action-packed opening, we instantly see the brutality of not only the violence not holding back, but the American Civil War itself.
Then the rest of the film tells this fascinating and impressive that is to hard to believe happened at that pivotal part of American history.

Matthew McConaughey is obviously the big draw that will hopefully put bums on seats, and he gives a great performance in the leading role. He is still doing his 'McConaughssence' and it is always a pleasure to see. His performance alone gives this film a high rating from me. I cannot wait for his next feature 'Gold', which I am hoping to see in a few months time.
In fact, the entire cast deserves to be applauded for their performances. Mahershala Ali was certainly the most notable supporting role. Gugu Mbatha-Raw continues to impress me as her transition from British TV to Hollywood is become more than just a reality. It was nice to see Keri Russell make an appearance. She plays a perfectly fine role and I hope to see her continue with more projects.

From a technical standpoint, the murky imagery and visuals for me was pretty satisfying and the landscapes looked great and I was happy to see the locations really fit the tone and feel to it.

Not many negatives from me. But from a general side, I can see a few demographics being bored by this as it is a little on the long side at 2hrs 19mins. I still managed to be intrigued with it all the way. But I can definitely see where people will begin lagging and dozing off.

However, one part that I was really questioning myself with was a sub-plot that gets dipped into now and again before playing a bigger role towards the end. Whilst it was interesting and probably important, it felt out of place. I think that it was due to the moments chosen to dip in and out of it. However when I thought about it, I could not think of a better place to put them. So maybe, it might have been easier to put on a small bit of text at the end explaining that particular situation.

While I very much enjoyed it and highly recommend it. I think it may have lacked the emotional punch that could have won more people over. I think it may have been that Ross and his team were maybe trying to cover too much history instead of concentrating on the characters and intensity a bit more.
But t is nice to see a small story occur during one of the biggest wars of all-time. The battle scenes ware pretty good, including an impressive looking opening battle scene that gives the war quite a scope. You will likely see comparisons of Robin Hood, 12 Years A Slave and Django Unchained in here. While most of those comparisons are superior to Free State Of Jones, I feel that this still need to seen.

Rating: 8/10

Review: I, Daniel Blake

When it comes to Ken Loach, you know exactly what you're going to get.

It usually centres on the British or Irish working class and the protagonist sticking it to the system. The morals and themes are primarily leftwing, you usually get some top performances and the general feel of it always seems as if we are watching real life.

With 'I, Daniel Blake' , the trailer certainly shows that you should not expect anything different. Winning the Palme d'Or at Cannes certainly puts the pressure on to prove to the general audience, that this is worthy of winning the award.

Now that I have seen it, it is certainly more of the same from Loach, in a good way. From the very funny opening scene, you instantly feel sympathy for the main character and that settles you in nicely for what is to come.
For the rest of the film, it moves along nicely, the performances get better and better and then it comes to an emotional ending.

The leading performances by Dave Johns and Hayley Squires are nothing short of fantastic. Loach always bring out the best of his cast and Johns and Squires are nothing different. They felt raw, genuine and as if Loach has just pulled them off the streets and told them to be themselves. I can see them possibly getting BAFTA nominations.
The rest of the cast are in-keeping with the rest of the film and never felt out of place.

The only negative for me is that it is kind of one-sided. I have experienced the good side as well as the bad side of the company being shown in the film. But this one shows nothing positive. Thankfully, it is only a very minor negative as I rarely bring in personal experience to certain films. I still consider it as one of the best films of the year.

While I can see some demographics seeing this as preachy and generally be put off by the social messages. I felt it to be very relatable, especially for me as I have experienced elements of what our main character has had to face. It may be one of the more important films this year as the message portrays a certain side of British society really well on the whole.
It is another strong feature by Loach and his team with really strong performances and a great authenticity of the look of the film. It is uplifting, emotional, hard-hitting and also very funny. Out of the films that I have seen that were in competition for the Palme d'Or,  they would have got my vote as well. Also, films that win this award can sometimes be a Best Picture nominee at the Oscars. However, I cannot see that happening. The BAFTA's is probably its best bet of some major award success.

Rating: 8/10

Review: Swiss Army Man

Yes, this is the film that is becoming known as the 'farting corpse movie'.

It all started at the start of the year at the Sundance Film Festival when we heard reports of walk-outs by some and the rest loving it.
There was a similar aftermath from Cannes, but with boos.

Despite all of this, it was still getting a lot of love from some highly acclaimed critics.

Initially, I was not going to see this as I felt the atmosphere at the screening would be uncomfortable. But I wanted to give some well deserved box office sales and braved into the my local picturehouse.

I am certainly glad I went to see it as this is certainly a unique film that feels like a miracle that this came into existence.

How do I even begin to explain this movie? Is there a lot of farting from a corpse, yes. But it is so, so much more than that.
From the first act, you pretty much get swept up in the tone of it and you are on board. After that, it is consistent laughter from wonderfully drawn out characters and themes and messages that are probably one of the strongest and most profound I've seen this year.
Then the build-up to the final act had me intrigued which path it would go down. It almost went down the one I was predicting. However, I was still highly satisfied with it and it certainly creates a discussion afterwards.
However, it does pose a question of a certain David Fincher film that once you have seen this film, you will understand. That is partially fulfilled and the path I felt this movie was going to go down.

Both Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe are terrific as the leads. Their chemistry is wonderful and Radcliffe probably gives us his greatest EVER performance. Yes, ever. This is probably the first performance that I have seen from him that made me not feel that I am watching Harry Potter in something that does not involve wizards.

The symbolism is the films strongest aspect. It really makes you want to seize the day and do stuff that you have always felt people see as you being weird. This films makes you embrace your inner strange, because that's what makes you, you.
The success of this can relate to the writing. It is wonderful and it really makes this film the success that it is becoming. While the premise may put people off, the script makes it a possible favourite with certain demographics.
The execution of the dialogue made amount of laughs a high and one of the highest I have experienced this year.

It is clearly not going to be everyone's cup of tea. Mainstream audiences will see as complete nonsense. But if you know what you are getting yourselves in for and embrace the general weirdness of it all. Then you can find a lot of great messages that this film is trying to send out.
This is one of the those films that I would recommend you see the trailer beforehand. It is just so you can get a taste of the tone and vibe before seeing it.

It is quite hard to compare this movie to anything else. If pushed, I would say it is a mix of Cast Away and Weekend At Bernie's.
But it is extremely strange, weird and a highly original piece of work. But it manages to still give profound themes and messages that any successful blockbuster or your typical Oscar film would have. Props to the directing duo that is known as 'Daniels'.

It is a shame that some people booed or walked out of its screening at Cannes. In an age where originality rarely gets the green light, a wide distribution or gets big box office, we should champion material like this.

If you want see something completely different and something you have not seen before, then look out for this and where it is being shown. I think it will miss out on my top 10 of the year. But it will certainly warrant an honorable mention.

Rating: 8/10