The Student Room Group

Film Reviews Thread

Scroll to see replies

Hey all,

this is just a thread to let the society leader know that i would like to join. I have requested to join about two weeks ago and did not hear back. Was also unsuccessful in attempting to send a private message.

Would you accept me into the society please?

Paul
Reply 781
Wow, this thread has died...no-one seen anything worth reviewing then? Although looking at the release calendar, there is a good explanation for that...
Jayk
Wow, this thread has died...no-one seen anything worth reviewing then? Although looking at the release calendar, there is a good explanation for that...


Give me a week and a half and I might have a couple of films up after my exams. :smile:
How does this work? I just post reviews of movies?
Name of the Film: Knowing (starring Nicolas Cage)

What you liked about the film:
Well there was not much to like. There were some good scenes that kept you intrested. Acting was pretty average. The first part of the plot sounds good. If theres nothing esle worth watching then give this a shot.

*Spoilers* (Note Nicolas Cage is called Cage in the review below)
This is the plot " Movie starts and its 1958 students are asked to draw pictures to put into a time capsule which will be burried underground and opened fifty years later. A girl writes down a series of seemingly random numbers ( I think she was possessed when she did this). Fast foward fifty years and Nic Cage is teaching a class on determantion and freewill or randomness .The lecture is painfull to say the least they brush over basic facts in a lecture which is there to set up the story. Cage is seen as a person who does not believe in life after death and advocates randomness, a man of science. Painfull bits where his child asks if his dead mother is in heaven and Cage is reluctant to confirm. Fifty years later Cage finds the girls time capsule (As his son opens it) and we see a montage where he works out the numbers have predicted events where people have died. He as a hard science man loses the plot. He sees the last number predicts the end of the world. And he tries to stop it which he can't. Throughout the film cages son is stalked by some men. I would also like to add that Cage had not spoken to his father because he is a religious man. Ok fast foward and these men turn out to be "people from another planet" or "angels" and Cages sacrafice is to give up his son so him and another girl (After the earth is destroyed) can start over like Adam and Eve. The movie ends with Cage in a room with his religious father. mother and sister. They are holding hands and his farther says this is not the end and Cage agrees and says "I know". This seen as Cage gaining faith. Cages name is John Koestler in the movie.

What you disliked about the film:
Before I rented it I said to myself it would have to do something really bad for me to hate it. And five minitues into the movie it did just that. Nicolas Cage as an MIT lecturer just did not work. They just put too many themes into the movie. Another case of "could have been good" to a stock C+ Nicolas Cage movie.


Rating out of 10:

Jack Sparrow: 5/10
Internet movie database: 6.6
Rotten tomatoes (top critics): 50%

Reply 785
W00t! Thread restart! Perfect time to be a whore...

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince Reviewed!
Reply 786
Rightio, the list has had a mahussive update and now has the reviews posted since I vanished last year. :p:

Thankies for the reviews peeps. ^_^
Reply 787
Name of the Film: District 9

What you liked about the film:

The movie described a documentary of an international organization that dealt with alien affairs which sort of gave it a legitimizing appeal to keep the audience interested. The main character, 'Vikas' was a simple, ordinary guy (with an accent that I've never before heard in my life) rather than a hot, Mr.goodlooking with an inflated ego that you normally expect to see as an action-movie star. The choice of making him the hero worked perfectly to deviate the attention of the viewers from the hero's looks to the circumstances surrounding him. Throughout the movie, the audience is less attached with the main character and more attached with the story. I especially liked the fact that this movie was different from other alien movies that I've seen, most of them contain stories of alien abductions and supernatural phenomenons that remain inexplicable even after the movie ends. Instead, this movie had the feel of reality and real events happening to real people ( well, you could consider the prawns as people too since they certainly seemed to have emotions ). It was definitely an interesting movie to watch. I was thankful this one didn't end in an alien abduction in the end and I liked the way it ended with a touch of mystery as to what the aliens planned to do once they left Earth and what happened to 'Vikas': keeps the audience wondering about the possibilities and also makes them remember what they saw in the movie. The plot played on the public's increasing mistrust in governments and their clandestine affairs which in my opinion was a good addition in order to remind the audience about the doomed fate of the main character.

What you disliked about the film:

A little too much fighting and gore for my liking ( I think I'm just being sensitive here) but honestly, there is a lot of fighting and I just didn't get over the fact that 'Vikas' was turning into an alien and the probability that he might have a way of becoming a human again was pretty low throughout the movie. I had sort of predicted somewhere around the time when 'Vikas' and 'Christopher' invade the MNU headquarters that he will not be able to turn into a human again and I guess I was right.

Anyways, the aliens did look like prawns and I kept wondering whether the creator was eating prawns, when he was given the project of making the alien characters. In fact, I thought the whole production management might as well have been eating prawns with him for having approved the look for the aliens.

Therefore, nothing new there: another movie failing to be a little imaginative in creating a look for extra-terrestrial life. I mean, the inspiration ( if I may call it) was so obvious that at points I went like, are you serious? Do you really want me to believe that aliens look like shrimps? Have you been living under the water too long ? cuz it looks like the prawns might have messed up with your head a little. The white men with the giant head, black eyes and three fingers on each hand seemed more creative than the prawns. Guess we'll have to wait for the day when the movies will feature alien creations that makes one wanna consider them as a possibility for how aliens might look like if they existed. Now, the aliens could as well look like shrimps but they're unsuccessful in capturing the imagination of the audience.

Rating out of 10: hmm...I'd give it a 7.5-8.5.
Sabrine
Name of the Film: District 9

What you liked about the film:

The movie described a documentary of an international organization that dealt with alien affairs which sort of gave it a legitimizing appeal to keep the audience interested. The main character, 'Vikas' was a simple, ordinary guy (with an accent that I've never before heard in my life) rather than a hot, Mr.goodlooking with an inflated ego that you normally expect to see as an action-movie star. The choice of making him the hero worked perfectly to deviate the attention of the viewers from the hero's looks to the circumstances surrounding him. Throughout the movie, the audience is less attached with the main character and more attached with the story. I especially liked the fact that this movie was different from other alien movies that I've seen, most of them contain stories of alien abductions and supernatural phenomenons that remain inexplicable even after the movie ends. Instead, this movie had the feel of reality and real events happening to real people ( well, you could consider the prawns as people too since they certainly seemed to have emotions ). It was definitely an interesting movie to watch. I was thankful this one didn't end in an alien abduction in the end and I liked the way it ended with a touch of mystery as to what the aliens planned to do once they left Earth and what happened to 'Vikas': keeps the audience wondering about the possibilities and also makes them remember what they saw in the movie. The plot played on the public's increasing mistrust in governments and their clandestine affairs which in my opinion was a good addition in order to remind the audience about the doomed fate of the main character.

What you disliked about the film:

A little too much fighting and gore for my liking ( I think I'm just being sensitive here) but honestly, there is a lot of fighting and I just didn't get over the fact that 'Vikas' was turning into an alien and the probability that he might have a way of becoming a human again was pretty low throughout the movie. I had sort of predicted somewhere around the time when 'Vikas' and 'Christopher' invade the MNU headquarters that he will not be able to turn into a human again and I guess I was right.

Anyways, the aliens did look like prawns and I kept wondering whether the creator was eating prawns, when he was given the project of making the alien characters. In fact, I thought the whole production management might as well have been eating prawns with him for having approved the look for the aliens.

Therefore, nothing new there: another movie failing to be a little imaginative in creating a look for extra-terrestrial life. I mean, the inspiration ( if I may call it) was so obvious that at points I went like, are you serious? Do you really want me to believe that aliens look like shrimps? Have you been living under the water too long ? cuz it looks like the prawns might have messed up with your head a little. The white men with the giant head, black eyes and three fingers on each hand seemed more creative than the prawns. Guess we'll have to wait for the day when the movies will feature alien creations that makes one wanna consider them as a possibility for how aliens might look like if they existed. Now, the aliens could as well look like shrimps but they're unsuccessful in capturing the imagination of the audience.

Rating out of 10: hmm...I'd give it a 7.5-8.5.


Thanks. Might watch this. A little too much fighting :drool:
Reply 789
Up (3D)

also appears on my new film site, www.thefilmblogger.com

By now it is somewhat passé to mention Pixar’s track record as a film studio; the effortless consistency of their output shames virtually all others in the film industry, whether animated or live action. Since their inception with the seminal Toy Story (which, I would argue, remains their best film), Pixar has seen meteoric success with virtually every consecutive release. After the daring and audacious WALL-E, Pixar had a lot to live up to with their next effort, and while Up is a little more routine, it is still another valuable entry into the animated canon with all of the heart and soul that you would expect.

Up revolves around Carl Fredricksen (Edward Asner), an old widower who, after having a violent outburst against a construction worker who broke his prized mailbox (which he built with his late wife), is forced to move into a retirement home to live out his days. However, he’s not about to go quietly; he attaches hundreds of helium-filled balloons to his home, causing it to take flight, with sail set for Paradise Falls in South America, a trip he had been planning with his wife Ellie, but she died of old age before they could go. Things become more complicated when Carl realises that Russell, (Jordan Nagai), a young Wilderness Explorer, has stowed away on the “ship”, becoming Carl’s unlikely sidekick.

If judged solely on its first reel, then Up is the film in Pixar’s canon that can legitimately challenge Toy Story’s claim to supremacy. The film begins with the same daring promise that made WALL-E one of Pixar’s best films; it features an uncharacteristic (and dark) opening that cleverly traces the several tragedies and injustices of Carl’s life, while remaining vague enough not to upset children. In the prologue montage, Up observes the problems that many couples are faced with, such as the difficulty to conceive, and of course the universal inevitability of death and of being alone, and the fact that Pixar chose to even glance over this at all is a testament to their artistic integrity. This isn’t an easy film to market as a result, and the fact that there aren’t many Carl Fredricksen figures in toy shops is all the more power to their stature as tellers of powerful stories rather than manipulatively cute animations mechanically rendered for profit. As Pixar have proven with the Toy Story films in particular, they care about their predominantly young audience, and won’t condescend them. As beautifully realised as it is heartbreaking, Up provides one of the best prologues in any Pixar film, and exemplifies that they’re capable of dealing with humanistic themes directly through human characters, as well as through anthropomorphised animals.

While Carl does often pore over pictures of his deceased wife, and there are frequent reminders of the inevitability of death, Up is also replete with the exuberant charm and visual brilliance that one expects from Pixar, although in this stead it does also become a more familiar adventure romp. Of course, genuine charm oozes out of every frame as Carl and Russell arrive in South America and meet a host of weird and wonderful animals, but it’s clear that the chance for greater depth has been squandered for fear of not tinkering with the success of formula. This isn’t so much a complaint as it is an observation; as a clever kids film that’s going to entertain tots and their parents, it is tactful enough to allude to mature issues while also not veering too far from the comfortable norm. It’s not that one expects pomp and profundity, but given how much Pixar have gotten away with here with a U rating, it would have been nice to see them totally go for broke.

Although not nearly as ambitious as WALL-E from a visual perspective, Up is a stunningly rendered film, and those watching the 3D presentation in particular will doubtless marvel at the exhaustive attention-to-detail and resplendent character design. For all of its aesthetic flair, though, what really holds Up together is the earnest voice performance of Edward Asner, whose nuanced vocal work forms the film’s heart and soul, making this irritable old coot with a broken heart seem animate beyond his rendered bounds. If the Academy is prepared to consider voice performances, he would certainly be among the first in line to earn a nomination. While the film itself may earn a Best Picture nomination under the revised 10-film category, Up isn’t Pixar’s best. Nevertheless, it delivers the goods and boasts expectedly incredible visuals. Not to mention, Carl is among the more relatable and personable characters in the Pixar catalogue, and it’s difficult not to become entranced and captivated by his heart-wrenching story. As such, it’s easy to argue that this is Pixar’s most mature and bravest effort to date.

Rating: 8/10
Reply 790
Zombieland

also appears on my new film site, www.thefilmblogger.com

The horror genre owes the little vitality and originality it has left to comedy; hits like the Evil Dead series have paved the way for more recent efforts such as Shaun of the Dead, and it also means that through mitigating the sadism inherent to the genre with humour, filmmakers are able to pass gorier films through at the 15 certificate, as long as the violence is exaggerated to an absurd effect, as is true of the above films, and certainly of Ruben Fleischer’s breakout feature Zombieland.

A ragtag band of survivors traversing a post-apocalyptic zombie-infested wasteland is hardly a new idea, so how does Zombieland freshen things up? A superb slow-motion opening credits sequence set to “For Whom the Bell Tolls” by Metallica ought to do it, if not the unique tone introduced by narrator Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), an anxiety-ridden college student who has survived this long because he has no real personal attachments, and also due to his strict set of rules, such as always checking the back seats of cars he enters, and always “double-tapping” zombies to make sure they’re dead.

In attempting to get to Ohio and see if his parents are still alive, he meets Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), an aggressive and charismatic man who lives only to hunt zombies and sink his teeth into any remaining Twinkies on Earth, but his search for the latter has so far been fruitless. The two form an uneasy partnership, deciding not to use real names and instead refer to each other by where they are heading. Things become even more complicated and uneasy as they meet sisters Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who will do anything to survive, and seemingly cannot be trusted. They all share one common ground, though; they want to get to Pacific Playland, a theme park where there are reportedly no zombies.

Narration is so often a lazy expository device used to move the plot forward, but in Zombieland, it is used sparingly, most often for the sake of laughs, as the plot itself trundles along and doesn’t require much explanation. Columbus frequently takes us out of the action to tell us a new survival rule, or to let us in on a bit of personal insight, or even inform us of the “Kill of the Week”, and although Eisenberg’s delivery isn’t charismatic, that’s exactly why it works, because he’s the counter-balance to Harrelson’s off-the-wall performance, the voice of reason in a group of selfish and untrustworthy survivors.

If there’s something I have against Zombieland, though, it’s that for a film running in at barely 80 minutes, it really ambles along carelessly without much focus for a good portion of its middle-section. It spends a little too long focusing on the journey through the wasteland and not enough on the thrill of the chase or the relentless undead; it should never let up, but it in fact goes almost entirely the other way and is at times quite inert. The gag rate is high enough, but those expecting laugh-out-loud japes may be a tad disappointed; it’s more about subtle, witty parlance and pop culture references than gore-based sight gags and dark humour (notably as Columbus refers to himself as a “Sancho Panza character&#8221:wink:.

The film is strong for the most part, though, and hits its stride when the gang passes through Hollywood and meets a certain celebrity actor (who less considerate critics have already sadly spoiled), who enjoys an extended, hilariously self-deprecatory cameo that is the unequivocal highlight of the film. From here, things remain intense and funny right into and throughout the third reel, as the final showdown takes place at Pacific Playland, with our heroes using all manner of fairground rides to fend off the hungry horde.

The pacing is too leisurely and it’s not the laughs-per-minute gag-fest that Shaun of the Dead was, but it’s an original, visually inventive slice of filmmaking that’s bolstered by a hilarious performance from Woody Harrelson, which is complemented by Jesse Eisenberg’s more straight-laced turn. Eisenberg is slowly becoming a star in his own right after several strong performances now (in Roger Dodger, The Squid and the Whale and Adventureland), but let’s hope that he doesn’t get “Michael Cera syndrome” and become typecast as the awkward, socially inept kid, even if he does play it well. For a fun and brisk film that satisfies both as a crowd-pleasing splatter-fest and as a clever comedy, you’ll find no better this Halloween season.

Rating: 7/10
Reply 791
Halloween 2

also appears on my new film site, www.thefilmblogger.com

Some critics have been quick to dismiss Rob Zombie as a man with no talent as a filmmaker, and although Halloween 2 joins an increasingly disappointing résumé for the White Zombie rocker, he is better approached as a frustrating filmmaker rather than one without talent. House of 1000 Corpses was dreadful, Halloween was so-so, and Halloween 2 is pretty poor itself, but these films are all problematic in the same area – each film has a lacklustre script that undermines Zombie’s considerable visual flair for sordidness and grime. His films are the sort that through sheer visual composition alone make you want to shower, and I mean that as a compliment. Consequently, it’s one of the few things to praise about the sort-of-but-not-really remake Halloween 2.

Continuing a year after the first film, H2 grants masked villain Michael Myers yet another ludicrous means of escape, this time as the dumb lug driving his ambulance crashes into a cow. Led by a vision of his mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) and a white horse, Michael embarks on another murderous rampage through Haddonfield, once again on the hunt for his sister, Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton). Even for the murky standards of the latter entries into the original series, the setup is bad, but it’s the sort of bad that you can (and inevitably will) laugh at, so in the right mindset this isn’t so much an aggressively unwatchable film as much as it is a daft and unintentionally amusing one.

Meanwhile, the supporting characters are given slightly more sensible things to do, as Michael’s former psychologist Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) tours a book he wrote about the Myers murders, and deals with accusations of encouraging not only the mythopoeia surrounding Myers, but the murders themselves. On the downside, it means you’ll have to sit through a very strange Weird Al Yankovic cameo, and Loomis’ story is largely too isolated for most of the film to coalesce well with the mayhem in Haddonfield. More interesting is Sherriff Brackett (Brad Dourif), who spends most of his screen time trying to protect Laurie and his daughter Annie (Danielle Harris, returning from the previous film, as well as several entries in the previous series as a child), who survived an attack from Myers in the last film. Thanks to another reliable performance from Dourif, Brackett is the most believable and sympathetic character in the whole mess.

Rob Zombie falls foul chiefly on two counts with Halloween 2 – through indulgence and through rudiment. Although Zombie’s got a keen visual style that befits this sort of material, he too often believes that his vile dialogue – most memorably involving a discussion about necrophilia between two medics – has a sort of feral intelligence that makes it valuable, or more scarily, Shakespearian. What’s more troubling, though, is the awkward symbolism that Zombie pigeon-holes into the film. The film’s first shot is a title card defining the mythology of the white horse, and throughout the film we get numerous glimpses of the horse accompanied by Myers’ mother, which seems more like Zombie showing off his wife rather than him injecting any depth or meaning into proceedings. Furthermore, Zombie indulges several strange dream sequences, most memorably as Laurie is laid out on a dinner table at a Halloween party attended by strange pumpkin-headed monsters, in probably the film’s funniest moment. Aside from the aforementioned cow incident, anyway.

As far as rudiment goes, Zombie makes things as pedestrian an entertainment as possible; there’s a lengthy and downright deceptive dream sequence early in the film that serves little purpose and pads the film out by a good 10 minutes, and he lingers too long on pointless dialogues between Laurie and her friends as they get ready for a Halloween party. The film’s true crime, though, is how yawn-inducingly tame the whole thing is; Myers kills with ice-cool, mechanical efficiency, but it’s never exciting, largely because the film barely justifies its 18 rating. While it falls under the BBFC guidelines for sadistic violence and a focus on injury detail, Myers too often slashes out of shot, or Zombie is too close up for us to really tell what is going on, or it is expected that we’ll be satisfied with a few squishy sound effects. This is a vile film for sure, but one would hope that Zombie, of all filmmakers, would at least deliver on the visceral side of things.

Halloween 2 is occasionally daring enough to challenge the conventions of the series mythology, particularly in its ending, but I haven’t a clue where Zombie hopes to take things with the inevitable third instalment (other than the already announced 3D element). Halloween 2 has solid atmosphere and decent direction, but it’s also got pompous symbolism, a truly cheeky dream sequence, and most alarmingly, a distinct lack of satisfying gore. It’s difficult to imagine many being pleased with this uneven, flimsy, so-bad-it’s-funny sequel.

Rating: 4/10
Reply 792
Love Happens

also appears on my new film site, www.thefilmblogger.com

It’s no secret that trailers lie; they piece together the best parts of a film to make it seem so much better than it actually is, but sadly, the trailer for Love Happens, which roused more laughter than sympathy in this critic, did not lie. The film is every bit as cornball and schmaltzy as its promotional material implied if, of course, you distended it out to 109 minutes of intermittent torture.

Burke Ryan (Aaron Eckhart) is a self-help author and therapist who has become a poster-boy for helping others cope with their loss. However, he has yet to fully confront his own loss; the death of his wife in a car accident three years ago, and so finds it difficult to approach Eloise (Jennifer Aniston), a florist he meets outside a seminar and takes quite a shine to. If they are going to be together, he is going to have to confront the memory of his wife and accept, rather than ignore, that she is gone.

While the concept has promise, it’s the fault of director and co-writer Brandon Camp that this is a strictly routine melodramedy; it’s infused with the manufactured whimsy of so many crudely-assembled Hollywood rom-coms, and from the moment early on that Eckhart strolls along a hallway to the inordinately-sentimental-pop-song-of-the-week to meet his overweight manager Lane (Dan Fogler), who doubles as a comedy sidekick, it’s clear that we’re in for a bumpy ride.

If there’s anything that makes Love Happens watchable, it’s the performances, chiefly that of Aaron Eckhart, who now has a stunning string of turns under his belt, from his breakout as the horrifying misogynist in In The Company of Men, to his excellent interpretation of Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight. Few are going to remember Eckhart for this film especially, but he tries his damndest with the material, and as a motivational speaker dealing with his own demons, he’s basically an antidote to the similar Nick Naylor character he played in the brilliant Thank You for Smoking.

Burke’s character arc isn’t entirely disinteresting, but the problem is that it becomes smothered in the riptide of Hallmark-style truisms and sentimental monologues that not only make this film seem saccharine, but even cause it to appear a touch disingenuous. Notably, as his father in law (Martin Sheen) shows up, he spouts a rhetoric about himself that’s stagey beyond words, and serves little purpose beyond blindingly obvious exposition for the audience. Nobody would ever speak that way in real life, and it’s just a lazy way for the writers to avoid having to write an authentic and genuine conversation between the two. More criminally, such poor writing just squanders the talents of its rather distinguished cast.

Despite his inability to assemble a tight script, he has managed to assemble quite the roster, and particular attention should be paid to lesser-known character actor John Carroll Lynch, who plays Walter, a reluctant participant in Burke’s seminars who is struggling to deal with the accidental death of his young son. His few scenes in the film are bright sparks in this mottled picture, and reinforce his status as one of the best working character actors today (after brilliant bit-parts in Zodiac and Gran Torino). Also making a welcome appearance is Six Feet Under’s Frances Conroy, who plays Eloise’s mother, and lights up the room for her mere two minutes of screen time.

Arguably the film’s biggest foible is that it never really manages to establish palpable chemistry between its two sizzling leads, and aside from one fun scene where Burke chews Eloise out for pretending to be deaf to avoid talking to him, Camp tries to get by on corny verbiage and lingering shots of the beautiful leads looking forlorn. There are a few clever ideas throughout, such as Burke meeting with a crude marketing team (who declare that a weight loss product in his name would promote “loss you can feel good about&#8221:wink:, and the general depiction of him as a man wrestling with his own duality as grieving husband and charismatic entertainer, but these inspired moments are just not enough to mask the film’s myriad faults.

Padded isn’t even the word for Love Happens; with one scene involving Burke and Eloise hanging around a park with a bunch of her hipster friends as they gawk at memorial statues of Bruce and Brandon Lee, a lengthy caper where Burke tries to rescue his wife’s pet parrot and set it free, and even a scene where Burke goes for a swim and has a metaphorical rebirth, there are clichés to spare, and then some.

In promoting the idea of turning grief into something positive, I cannot fault the film’s ending, but I can fault it for its predictability, replete with all of the tearful confessions, hugs, and reconciliations that you would expect. The film straggles along to its telegraphed conclusion about twenty minutes too late, by which time the novelty of the good performances have somewhat worn off, revealing the cloying layers beneath. Even with hugely likeable performers at the helm, there’s little to salvage from this dead vessel of a dramedy; it has little hints of promise sprinkled throughout, but mostly delivers the corniness and calculated sentiment that Hollywood has been cranking out for decades.

Rating: 4/10
Reply 793
Goodbye Solo

also appears on my new film site, www.thefilmblogger.com

Within two minutes of the start of Ramin Bahrani’s new film Goodbye Solo, the titular character, Solo (Souléymane Sy Savané), a Senegalese cabbie living in North Carolina, asks his fed up and begrudged-to-be-alive customer, William (Red West), “You’re not gonna jump, right?”, and up until the film’s close, this becomes a question that hounds Solo and the viewer equally. An exceptional drama that finally opened in the U.K. on a limited run this week, Goodbye Solo is a subtle and meditative look at sadness, alienation, and what connects us as human beings.

The setup is simple; Bahrani throws the viewer straight into the first meeting between Solo and William inside a cab, with William offering to pay Solo $1000 for a $200 fare to Blowing Rock if he agrees in advance to do it. Suspicious that William is going to throw himself from Blowing Rock, Solo cannot tear himself away despite William being cantankerous and closed-up, and decides to try and convince him not to end his life.

On the other hand, Solo is a rather charming and likeable fellow, who is working towards becoming an airline assistant in order to adequately provide for his pregnant wife (Carmen Leyva) and her daughter, Alex (Diana Franco Galindo). Entirely converse to William, he is affable, open, and hopeful; thus he is the perfect vessel through which this mystery story unravels, for he is sympathetic and takes the journey with us to see what William is going to do at Blowing Rock.

What I admire most about Goodbye Solo is just how genuine it is; we get the inkling early on that Solo is a truly caring and optimistic young man, and so his concern towards William doesn’t feel forced or overly contrived. His outlook is also interesting as juxtaposed with William’s defeatist attitude; the film remarks cultural differences, such as how in America, families do not look after their old, and Solo compares this with how he will be cared for in Senegal when he is William’s age. By proxy, the viewer of course associates this with their starkly opposed outlooks on life, and while the film refuses to be judgemental, it causes one to consider whether William’s bitterness is a cause or a by-product of his loneliness. Solo’s life is far from perfect either, though; his wife doesn’t appreciate his efforts to make a life for them, suggesting that perhaps Solo is just a few years away from the decades of loneliness that William has endured.

Through and through, it is the emotional plausibility that makes this film so compelling; it staunchly refuses to succumb to melodrama. Little gestures like William graciously accepting a beer from Solo exhibit Bahrani’s nuanced hand for human interactions, and in not making William an entirely lost cause, he also doesn’t set himself a task too difficult, or risk contrivance. It’s other little nuances also, such as William’s ability to help Solo prepare for his airline test, which impressively does away with stereotypes and also provides small hints about these characters; despite his Southern accent and the implication that he’s a no-nonsense, impatient old man, there are these small glimpses that tell the attentive viewer so much.

Agonisingly drip-feeding the viewer morsels of information about the central mystery works best in films that are short; in that stead, the conceit doesn’t becoming too tiring or repetitive, and Goodbye Solo, at 91 minutes, perfectly understands this concept. In many ways it’s frustrating that it takes so long to find out anything about William (and by the end we still don’t know that much), but that’s a testament to the living colour of Bahrani’s characters, that they are compelling enough for us to want to know more.

Knowing full well that this scenario is likely headed for a rather uneasy climax, intrigue transfers over to Solo in the latter portion of the film, as we become immersed in his life, and wonder how he will stop this joyless man from taking his own life, while juggling a new child and a broken marriage. Few will expect the film to be tense, but enormous suspense is wrung out from the fact that Bahrani has written the film to such a point that either conclusion – William killing himself or in fact having other intentions – would be emotionally satisfying and plausible, and so the climactic ride to Blowing Rock, although quiet and minimalist, leaves the viewer to stew in the insecurity of their own making.

The key on which the film ends is going to probably frustrate as many viewers as it satisfies, and while many will class it as a “non-ending”, it is an end emphatic of so much more than a simple question of “did he, didn’t he?”. These notions of uncertainty, of the abyss, are in tone with the authentic existential themes present throughout.

Rating: 7/10
Reply 794
Avatar

We’ve all heard the rumours, and by now we’ve all taken a stance based on the wealth of footage released online. Is James Cameron’s first film in over a decade a dodgy amalgam of Ferngully and Dances with Wolves, or does it preserve Big Jim’s critical and commercial winning streak, which culminated in 1997 with his monstrous $1.8bn blockbuster juggernaut Titanic. At the behest of nervous Fox executives and eager fanboys, and despite some outrageous detractors, it is safe to say that James Cameron has lost none of what has caused him to become affectionately known as the Martin Scorsese of action films. Avatar is a masterpiece in the art of visual amazement, and while it has an overly familiar narrative, it is, without doubt, one of the most vital and thrilling cinematic experiences of the year, the decade, and perhaps even further still.

Cameron’s epic takes place in the mid-22nd century, where, given that Earth is now a ravaged wasteland (although these scenes were reportedly cut for pacing purposes), large human corporations have begun attempting to harvest the precious mineral unobtanium from the alien land Pandora, which is inhabited by an indigenous population called the Na’vi, who are a giant, blue, spiritual species that the humans consider to be savage (even crudely nicknaming them “blue monkeys&#8221:wink:. After his twin brother dies in action, paralysed former marine Jake Sully (Terminator Salvation’s bright spot, Sam Worthington) is given the opportunity to take over his sibling’s role, in entering the Avatar program, where his consciousness will be imported into a synthetic body that combines his own DNA with that of the Na’vi. His goal will be to infiltrate the Na’vi, find out their weaknesses and deliver strategic information to Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang), a stern, straight-shooter military-type who works under ruthless bureaucrat Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi), with the goal being to drive the Na’vi off of their homeland so that the mineral is theirs for the taking.

However, the film does indeed follow the Dances with Wolves path, because Jake quickly becomes enamoured with not only regaining the use of his legs, but also the Na’vi way of life, and the alluring female warrior Neytiri (Star Trek’s Zoe Saldana). Soon enough he begins to question the righteousness of his and the other human’s actions, and so, along with lead scientist Dr. Grace Augustine (Cameron’s Aliens star Sigourney Weaver), lab geek Norm (Joel David Moore) and tomboy pilot Trudy (Michelle Rodriguez, in a role that’s a sure nod to Jenette Goldstein’s Vasquez character from Aliens), they try to devise a way to repel the human forces and protect the Na’vi homeland. While to this token the plot is hardly original, and you’ll have the end in sight long before it arrives, this is a film not so much about the why and the when, but the how, and with his cutting-edge motion capture and digital rendering technology, Cameron has managed to create a film with, dare I say, near-perfect visual effects.

When the original teaser was released in mid-August, there was an outcry with regard to the quality of the visual effects in terms of what people were expecting from a supposed “game changer”, but of course, seeing this unfold on a 17” computer screen simply cannot be compared to the experience of, at the very least, watching it in a regular 3D cinema, and at best, gorging on this visual feast in a digital IMAX, an experience that, I must attest, is simply the most memorable, fascinating, and mind-meltingly gorgeous that I have ever had seeing a film. Plenty of films – such as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, and 2012 – have dazzled our eyes this year with exorbitant visual effects, but Avatar simply sets a new standard, one that is sure to win WETA Digital yet another well-earned Oscar to add to their mantle.

For years, the problem has been the dreaded Uncanny Valley effect, in which CGI characters are regarded as well-rendered, but fall short in areas such as the eyes, revealing their artifice and making them seem a tad creepy (as Robert Zemeckis suffered with most recently in A Christmas Carol) as they’re so very nearly human, but not quite. Cameron is the first filmmaker to entirely do away with this problem, and it isn’t gushing hyperbole to say that his blue-skinned creations are the most realistic and convincing computer-generated creatures that cinema has as yet seen. However, these creations would be impressively rendered, if soulless vessels were it not for the impressive performances that Cameron has captured out of a cast surely struggling to deal with such a bold and risky technological venture.

It really has been a fine year for Sam Worthington, starring not only as the best thing in McG’s hit-and-miss Terminator Salvation, but also well and truly becoming a star here, as a sympathetic, understated lead that isn’t all that showy, but demonstrates a man with the looks, charisma and requisite charm needed to become an action commodity. However, the real show-stealer in terms of marrying Weta’s impeccable technology with performance is undoubtedly Zoe Saldana as Cameron’s requisite female badass Neytiri. Simply, any notion that animated replicants cannot capture the emotion and gravitas of a real, organic performance, has been nullified here; Saldana’s facial expressions, of anger, of sadness, of happiness, are as convincingly captured as any human performance you’re likely to see, and there has already been talk of Saldana earning an Oscar nomination, a comment not too far out of turn. This isn’t to forget the well-captured performances of Weaver’s or Moore’s avatars either, for Cameron has especially outdone himself by using pictures of Weaver from the original 1979 Alien film as a frame of reference for her avatar’s countenance, which meshes unbelievably well with her present expressions. Also, particular praise must go to The Shield’s CCH Pounder, who, as Mo’at, the Na’vi spiritual mother, manages to, for my money, rouse the greatest emotional response; as she begs Sully’s avatar, “If you’re one of us, help us”, with tears streaming down her face, she proves that Avatar is no stunt; it is unequivocally the best melding of live action and CG elements that anyone has ever managed.

To that effect, the strictly human performances are also great; Weaver shines as the sympathetic, laconic scientist, while Michelle Rodriguez is thrown most of the drole one-liners. Stephen Lang, as the relentless Colonel Quaritch is already gaining esteem as the most entertaining blockbuster villain since The Dark Knight’s The Joker, and in a performance that few seem to have recognised so far, Giovanni Ribisi does a great job as the thoroughly dislikeable stuffed shirt who is driving this whole mess.

So, why not five stars? Well, Avatar isn’t quite perfect. Narratively speaking, it’s more than familiar, a claim Cameron quite rightly admits, and once Jake lands on Pandora and goes deep cover with the natives, the pacing does sag a tad as the dramatic urgency is drained somewhat. However, on the other hand, Cameron never bores; in much the same way as Terminator 2’s mid-film desert sequence allowed quiet contemplation on fatherhood and fate, Cameron’s second act is a fantastical calm before the storm, a visual trip that deals with more rudimentary tribal elements, while never reminding the viewer that they are in a cinema, and keeping them immersed in this staggeringly realised world. Those who find Cameron’s dialogue “goofy” will likely feel the same here, but to Cameron fans, they’ll probably find it charming as per usual. Much criticism has been drawn to the supposed heavy-handedness of the plot, that it is a shallow allegory of the Iraq war or an anti-industrialist critique, but you need only observe Cameron’s Titanic to see that he is a director with unpretentious aspirations to classic stories, be it the melodrama of Kate and Jack’s love story, or as is true here, the child-like feeling of exploring an imaginatively constructed new world. Scholars and average Joes alike may pick apart Avatar’s supposed allegorical implications (which are, admittedly, quite prominent), but its eco-friendly message, if it has one, isn’t ham-fisted, and Cameron is far more interested in telling a fun and engaging story than he is in hugging trees.

Try though I might to review Avatar, it is ultimately a film that can only really be summarised through one’s own experience. Go see it in a 3D screen (an IMAX preferably), and simply revel in its visual wonder if nothing else, for the film’s climactic battle-to-end-all-battles is easily one of the best that the genre has ever seen, and sits alongside the superlative set-pieces that Cameron has wowed audiences with in his Terminator films and, of course, Aliens. Cameron’s fans will surely love it, and it’s more a testament to the man’s talent than anything that something so unrestrained and visually nutty is a median entry into his oeuvre (ranking behind his two Terminators and Aliens, level pegging with The Abyss and better than Titanic and True Lies). Many children are going to be utterly infatuated with the film’s fantastical tone, amazing action and stupendous effects, gazing upon it in much the same way as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings demanded when they revitalised the science fiction and fantasy genres. Sceptics on the fence probably owe it to Cameron to at least give it a viewing, and surely curiosity will spur plenty of them to see it.

Cameron has, by and large, silenced those who figured he’d lost his groove, and, if early box office figures are any indication, also those who imagined he might fall out with Fox when the film flops. After twelve years away exploring the ocean deep, Cameron has emerged having lost none of his spark, and has crafted an amazing spectacle, an adventure that, much like The Abyss, is very much ahead of its time. While the film will surely sweep the technical aspects of the Oscars, it may well have secured a Best Picture slot also, if not for its screenplay (an area it will surely miss out on), then for its iconic stature as a “game changer”, and as a declaration from the Academy that they are hanging up the same stodgy tastes that saw The Dark Knight miss out on a gong last year.

Cameron has not so much raised the bar as he has smashed it into a thousand pieces.

Rating: 9/10
This is a scene from No Country For Old Men. I think it's one of the best film scenes ever to be made. I'd like to know what the critics here think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds-2WcqaziM&feature=related
Reply 796
Daybreakers

Rarely do a few weeks go by when we’re not reminded yet again of the tropes of the vampire film. I wonder what legendary Nosferatu director F.W. Murnau would have thought of the Twilight and Underworld films for one. Given how commoditized the vampire has become, it’s immensely satisfying when a refreshing take comes along, such as in the excellent 2008 Swedish vamp flick Let the Right One In, and while The Spierig Brothers’ Daybreakers is certainly rough around the edges, it’s probably the most satisfying vampire film since.

After a viral outbreak has turned the majority of the world’s population into vampires (and many humans have allowed themselves to be “turned” to avoid death), the vamps have decided to harvest the remaining humans in giant blood banks, sucking them dry to keep the dominant population going. However, with humans not getting the chance to repopulate, their numbers are dwindling fast, posing the risk of mutually assured extinction as the vampires begin to run out of blood supplies. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a vampire scientist tasked with discovering a blood substitute before the end of month, by which time the starving vampire race will all turn into mutated, vicious monsters called subsiders, who live on the fringes of society and are exterminated on sight by the vampire forces.

However, Dalton becomes torn between two factions, as he attempts to appease greedy CEO Charles Bromley (Sam Neil), whose stocks are dwindling during the blood crisis, while also aiding the human resistance, headed by Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan) and “Elvis” (Willem Dafoe), who believe they have discovered a real cure to the vampiric “disease”, as they call it. Ultimately the premise outdoes the execution, but what Daybreakers lacks in consistent plotting, it more than compensates for with its exuberant visuals, fun set pieces and sumptuous direction.

Daybreakers’ strongest portion is undoubtedly its opening, which is packed with clever little nuances: starving vampires are treated the same as starving humans you can find on any street corner, the entire city’s infrastructure has been adjusted (with a subway system meaning the vamps never have to risk exposure to sunlight), and the vampire’s cars are fitted with cameras which allow them to navigate while a sunscreen covers the windows. These ideas are aided by some gorgeous-looking cityscapes, and although the film’s effects generally are quite inconsistent, the vast expanses are fantastically rendered, while an ever-blue camera filter reinforces how cold and soulless the oppressive and imposing vampires are.

Through and through, this is a convincingly crafted, revisionist look at a world where vampires are no longer on the fringe, and they have virtually assimilated the human culture and way of life, while the humans are seen as little more than rodents. Unlike most films of the genre, Daybreakers has unique psychological plausibility: after all, if all of your friends had become immortal due to a virus, why wouldn’t you, a fragile mortal, want to join them?

Similarly, the characterisation throughout works: there is more to Dalton’s character than meets the eye, while his own brother, Frankie (Michael Dorman), finds a new lease on life as a vampiric human-hunter, much to his brother’s chagrin. Even the nefarious boss Bromley isn’t a black-and-white cutout like you might reasonably expect: while he says with some candour that even if a blood substitute were to be found, the higher classes would still want the better-tasting human blood, he is himself a man saved from cancer by becoming a vampire, much to the disgust of his daughter. Even the baddies get a fair treatment here, and the lines of morality are more ambiguous even if the finale closes these gaps a little.

What doesn’t work so well is some of the plotting. The first meeting between Dalton and the human resistance is particularly convenient, and in fact once Dalton begins to change sides, things to grind to a considerable halt, which is all the more surprising as it’s the time when Willem Dafoe’s hilarious character pops into frame, spouting wry one-liners and astutely declaring, “We’re the folks with the crossbows”. Nevertheless, the film still manages to posit some interesting food-for-thought, with an interesting take on the vampire cure, even if the film’s middle-section isn’t as energetic as it should be.

Fortunately, the film musters up enough tension for a fun finale which will please the bloodhounds, and features some great slow-motion action. Things slam to a brisk, refreshingly unpretentious end, closing the film out in under 100 minutes and leaving little room for a sequel, making Daybreakers all that more enjoyable as a minor, but clever entry that certainly deserves to do better business than the Twilight flicks, even if it certainly won’t.

Indeed, the structuring of the plot needs work, the visual effects are often ropey (especially when the vampires are melted, and when a vampire truck is blown to bits), and Claudia Karvan is quite wooden at times, but in its best moments, Daybreakers is a visually stunning, smart take on the genre, with particularly delightful performances from Willem Dafoe and the much-missed Sam Neil. It’s perhaps a sad comment on the vampire genre that one of the best of recent times only gets three stars, but rest assured that with a few judicious re-writes, this would have been a four-star cult classic in the making.

Rating: 6/10
Reply 797
Up in the Air

This year’s Oscar race has been inundated with so many left-field “populist” films (such as Avatar, District 9, Inglourious Basterds and perhaps even Star Trek) that there’s almost been a surfeit of conventionally “classy” Oscar films, but Thank You for Smoking and Juno director Jason Reitman delivers with a legitimate Best Picture contender, in the sublime social drama Up in the Air. With the help of a triumvirate of actors at different stages in their careers – one an established and bankable name, one a burgeoning actress that has proven herself in several quietly compelling roles, and one who is virtually an unknown – Jason Reitman proves himself a vital voice of his generation, and an Academy-grade writer and director.

Of any film vying for the coveted gong this year, none is more relevant to our present social issues than this; while other contenders The Hurt Locker and The Messenger both levied powerful statements about the war, there is of course a greater universality to Reitman’s film, which tackles the impact of the worldwide recession with a sobering level of potency, given that it is adapted from Walter Kim’s book that was written 9 years ago. Given the present unemployment levels, and the film’s truthful, yet poignant world view, it may well be able to stir up enough clout with audiences and influence those important Oscar voters.

Up in the Air revolves around Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a man who spends his life flying around America and firing people for bosses that are too chicken to do it themselves. Bingham’s chiselled looks and exuberant charm makes him just the type of person you’d want delivering this news, and he attempts to sell the firing as a new door being opened, but of course, this doesn’t mean that the employees take it well, and swearing tirades, or more severe tantrums are quite routine outings for him. Still, the use of the present economic climate is largely a backdrop to what is at heart a classically designed character piece, of which Bingham is the centre; he lives out of a suitcase and has very few connections to his family or otherwise. He enjoys the anonymity of airports, and his life seems to revolve around his desperate desire to accumulate ten million air-miles, which only six people have done before.

However, two forces enter the film which challenge his values: Alex (Vera Farmiga), a frequent flyer who shares his fetishism for concierge keys and exclusive loyalty cards, and with whom he begins a casual relationship, and Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a young graduate who proposes a new, cheaper system of downsizing that would have Bingham firing people via webcam, but who is ultimately the film’s sense of innocent, perhaps optimistic humanity. This synopsis sets up for plenty of surprises, though, and those expecting clichéd character growth and predictable romantic drama will find themselves aghast, for Up in the Air is an uncommonly mature film that sidesteps dramatic conventions, while melding populist and artistic tastes well with a witty, character-driven script.

Why the film works so well is unequivocally down to Clooney, who ends one of his best and most productive years yet with the role that may well finally land him the Best Actor Oscar. His confident, thoroughly charming performance reinforces the steadfast self-assuredness of Bingham and his view of the world (that emotional attachments simply weigh you down). In lesser hands his character would seem distant and alienating, yet the sharp rhetoric and cutting one-liners (such as, when Kendrick’s character accuses him of being racist, declaring “I stereotype; it’s faster&#8221:wink:, along with Clooney’s aesthetic appeal, makes him an unmistakably cool customer.

Clooney’s female compatriots fare well also; Farmigra’s screen time is fairly minimal, but she delivers another consistent turn as the female equivalent to Bingham, although there is more to her character than initially meets the eye. Still, she is outdone in the Best Supporting Actress possibilities by Kendrick, who has appeared virtually out of nowhere (aside from appearing in the Twilight films), and is without doubt a major find; she nails the more robotic, aspirational side to her character near the beginning, as well as her more compassionate and down-to-Earth facet later on. These characters provide sound challenge to Bingham’s views, yet Reitman balances things so brilliantly that we never get the impression that Bingham is dissatisfied with his way of life, nor that Natalie’s systematised and overly planned-out view of life is the right way to live. As a result, the film’s pleasantly ambiguous conclusion doesn’t feel overly manipulative while still being satisfying emotionally.

Through and through this is a film with a very astute sense of the now; from its light mockery of racial profiling at airports, to more serious concerns such as our increasingly technocentric world diluting what it means to be human, and, of course, the stress of losing your job, it is at once bitingly satirical and unerringly accurate in its look at a world enduring considerable toil, both spiritually and economically. Reitman’s use of non-actors for most of the people being fired (who were in fact people that had recently been laid off themselves) adds pungent gravitas to an already dramatically strong film, and right to its conclusion never escapes the sometimes deadly heartbreak of being made redundant.

The film’s ultimate message, that it is our friends and families that form our support structures and keep us going, is all-too timely, and just the message that audiences are going to want to hear in these difficult straits. It is in many ways a life-affirming film that is an eloquent reminder of the importance of togetherness (as is cemented by a brilliant and downright moving wedding scene featuring Danny McBride), and that while being laid off isn’t pretty, you will get through it with help.

Rating: 9/10
Reply 798
Edge of Darkness

Say what you will about Mel Gibson – he may be an embarrassing alcoholic at best, and at worst a (not-so) closeted anti-Semite – he is an utterly compelling talent to watch, and personal demons aside, he carries that rare fires-burning-in-the-eyes quality that he demonstrated to such brilliant effect in his trademark Mad Max films. Though those embers have been burning less brightly lately – with Mel withdrawing from the screen and turning to directing the likes of the criminally underrated Apocalypto – Gibson’s Edge of Darkness, a reimagining of the classic 1985 BBC drama, sees the Oscar winner back on top form, delivering one of his most visceral and hard-nosed performances.

Gibson plays Boston Detective Thomas Craven, a doting single father, whose daughter, Emma (Bojana Novakovic) has just returned home from University. It isn’t long before she begins vomiting and bleeding from the nose, but before she can get out some desperate information, she is blown away by a shotgun-toting assailant. Working under the reasonable assumption that Thomas was the intended target – given how many undesirables he has put away – the cops begin looking through his arrest docket, while Thomas himself believes that Emma was deliberately targeted due to her involvement with a shady company called Northmoor, who may have been covertly manufacturing nuclear materials with nefarious interests.

Edge of Darkness is the rare film that actually gets better as it goes along, for while director Martin Campbell is quick to kill off Craven’s daughter, the first half hour is for the most part business-as-usual – with Craven talking to his daughter’s boyfriend and lackadaisically sniffing around – and it isn’t until Campbell gets this out of his system that the film really gets the ball rolling.

And boy does the ball roll when Ray Winstone shows up as the ambiguous operative Jedburgh, a man sent to “take care” of Craven, but who has less obvious motives at heart, and is intrigued by the whole messy predicament. The two co-exist in a tenuous, unspoken truce, as each investigates in their own way, edging closer to a reveal that they no doubt never imagined. While Gibson is unquestionably the main attraction here, Winstone proves himself once again, vigorously chewing through the dialogue and cementing himself as the thinking man’s toughie; a brute with a brain.

As the political intrigue mounts up, so do the film’s real treats, the most prominent of which is Gibson himself who, revitalised after eight years away from the camera, manages a spirited and sympathetic interpretation of the material. A few years older now, with receding hairline and wrinkles well and truly in tow, Gibson plays a more haggard version of his “Mad Mel” persona, tapping well into the psychology of his bereaved character while also delivering enough visceral delights, deliciously exacting sweet revenge on his younger and more virile foes.

Indeed, there is more to Edge of Darkness than a simple revenge thriller format, ensured by Campbell, who also helmed the original series, and more recently directed the stunning James Bond tonic Casino Royale. Though these paranoia-laced conspiracy thrillers no doubt reached their apex in the late 1970s with the likes of The China Syndrome, the film’s efficiency as a fast-paced (once the first 30 minutes are out of the way) and crowd-pleasing thriller is difficult to argue. Also praise-worthy is the depiction of Craven’s disconnect with the world in lieu of his daughter’s demise; though the visions of his daughter seem a tad cumbersome, one flashback scene featuring Craven spreading shaving foam over his young daughter’s face and teaching her how to “shave” with a comb is one of the film’s surprisingly touching dramatic highlights.

As Craven says, “Fasten your seatbelts”. Edge of Darkness mixes plenty of whizzing bullets and a touch of vehicular manslaughter with a compelling narrative that makes the best of a returning Gibson, who manages his most significant actorly contribution in at least a decade. Meanwhile, Ray Winstone shines in a complex and delightful role that further affirms his range beyond that of the hulking hardman, while one mustn’t forget Danny Huston’s firmly sleazy portrayal of Northmoor’s head Bennett, nor Martin Campbell’s deft direction.

Edge of Darkness effectively condenses the anguish, the heartbreak, and the intrigue of the original series, while printing its own legitimate, often affecting stamp on a frequently rote genre.

Rating: 7/10
Is there an avatar review by any chance? :rolleyes:

Quick Reply

Latest