Monday, September 26, 2011

More on "Drive"


There is no mistake about it. "Drive" knows exactly what it's trying to be, something I said in my review of the film. I knew that as I was watching it. It's a sort of postmodern meta-film, if that makes any sense. Just think, Tarantino. I get the vibe with Drive in a way I get it from Tarantino's films. With QT, you know that no matter what, the film you're seeing is the exact precise vision that QT wanted it to be. More than that, if it feels cool, if it feels cinematic, if it packs all the right entertaining punches... it's because Tarantino wants it to come out that way. This is best exemplified with the end of "Inglorious Basterds" where Aldo Raine tells his comrade "I think I may have just made my masterpiece." Every single feeling and emotion you got out of that film is what Tarantino intended. He knows what drives a movie, what makes films truly entertaining, and he plays that up to the umpteenth degree with his films.

Now I'm not entirely familiar with Nicolas Winding Refn's films, I'm just starting to get into him, but you can tell that "Drive" goes for the same jugular. It's a film that is completely comfortable in its style. It wants to be about the style. Yes, it's self-consciously cool. Much like a guy walking down a street wearing a leather jacket and a pair of sunglasses. With the collar up. You know what he's trying to do. Of course, it takes a truly gifted filmmaker to be self-consciously cool and actually succeed. Refn definitely succeeds with "Drive," it's everything he wanted the film to be.

That's not to say "Drive" is only about style, but style is what dictates and keeps in the film in motion. Style is the driving pulse of the film. It's the driving pulse of Ryan Gosling's character. Refn displays The Driver in a specific sort of way. His scorpion jacket, his driving gloves, the way he acts, the way he emotes. There is a very careful method to The Driver's madness, something that the writer, director, and actor all must've collaborated on in order to make it a perfect realization. Like I said in my review, it's much like in Le Samourai.

Jean-Pierre Melville's "Le Samourai" has the similar kind of feel although in a style that is entirely of its own. Both films elicit a specific type of style through its lead character, just in different ways. Yet, the effect is apparent in both films. By being very specific with how each character walks and talks, any sudden change or action that disrupts those motions becomes very important. You are forced to watch their every move.

What truly sets "Drive" apart is that it's not just about The Driver. Every single stylistic choice in the film is important. From the music selection (a brilliant composite of '80s-inspired synth-heavy songs) to the hot pink typography to the soft, gentle moments between the romantic leads and to the sudden bursts of violence that is so graphic that it's nearly off-putting. It's all important. The reaction you get from the violence is the reaction you're supposed to have. The extreme juxtaposition between romance and violence is perfectly demonstrated in the elevator scene. If you didn't think Refn knew what he was doing, you must look at the elevator scene again. If you watched "Drive," that scene should be engrained in your memory.

The scene starts out as a very touching and beautiful moment between Driver and Irene. Up until then, the romance between the characters was strongly suggested but never acted upon. See, Refn has been playing a sick game on us all along. While he has been building up this romance between Irene and Driver from the very beginning, he's also been building up the tension and violence that involves the Driver and surrounds Irene. That violence and danger that Driver has been trying to keep Irene away from along with that budding romantic tension between them comes to this, in the elevator. Driver and Irene are about to get inside the elevator when it's discovered there's another man inside the elevator. Right away you know exactly who that man is and what's about to come with him, but what you don't expect is for there to be a pause in the violence (that has been getting more and more gruesome and suggestive at this point) for a tender moment between Driver and Irene. The Driver takes Irene aside and kisses her. Then, right afterwards, he grabs the man in the elevator, takes him down, and thus begins the crescendo of extreme violence as Driver beats the man excessively and horrifically. In such a way that, understandably, scares the shit out of Irene.

But it's abundantly clear that Refn is trying to say something with this scene. That scene is what the movie is all about. It's that juxtaposition that makes the movie different than your standard action/thriller. By presenting the romance and the violence in these extreme fashions, it presents to you a problem. The problem being that by succumbing to and committing these horrific acts of violence (violence similar to what the main villain Bernie Rose commits shortly afterwards), the Driver is stepping into the very same world that he wants to keep Irene out of. Before, he was just an accomplice whether he admitted it or not. He was just the getaway car. He won't help you commit the crime, he'll just drive you to where you need to be afterwards. He was always inside the car, he was never committing the violence himself. And part of that could be completely self-sustaining. Since you don't get any kind of exposition that clues you in onto what kinda person the Driver was before you meet him in the movie, you can only draw your own conclusions from his actions (or lackthereof). What his actions before he meets Irene may suggest is that, for at least in the past five to six years, he has mostly been keeping to himself. He's a stunt driver by day and a getaway driver by night. Nothing more, nothing less. He only really has one friend, Shannon, although he is more of a mentor than anything else.

So, it's just the Driver, alone... until he meets Irene and her son. There, he develops a deep connection. A connection that goes beyond words, just emotion. It's like the Driver and Irene share a deep hidden connection that we don't really understand, we can just feel it. And Refn takes his time with this because he needs to. He needs to make you realize that this connection is important and you need to watch as it develops and grows into something that different than what you normally see in movies like these.

See, when I called the Driver and Irene "romantic leads," I was being slightly disingenuous. Even though it's quite clear that there is a romance budding between the two, what is truly happening is that before this, the Driver never had anyone he had connected with. That made it easy for him to put his life on the line as a stunt driver, or even as a getaway driver. He has no connections with the people he's trying to help escort. Nor does he have any connections with them before or after they commit their crime. But now, by getting involved with Irene, her son, and eventually, Irene's husband... he has finally made those connections. If Refn didn't spend as much time on that relationship as he did, it would undermine the lengths Driver goes through in order to protect all of them.

In fact, once you see that Irene's involvement with her husband, Standard doesn't stop the Driver from keeping that connection, that should clue you in that this more than just two people forming a romantic connection. The fact that the Driver wants to protect Standard and his family once he senses that Standard is in trouble makes the Driver's relationship with them much deeper than previously imagined. And this is when you begin to understand the significance of the song "A Real Hero" being played when the Driver first hangs out with Irene and her son.

Why does the Driver feel a connection with Irene? And with her son, Benicio? We can't really say. We don't know what this stirs up inside the Driver's mind. For all we know, he could've been a father himself. But, what would it mean for us if we knew that kind of information? The fact that we don't know makes his actions that more intriguing and heroic. It's not just that the Driver wants to protect Irene and Benicio because he wants to be romantically involved with Irene and act as a father figure to Benicio. It's more than that. The Driver, it must be concluded, views himself as a protector of this family. Their innocence may be what draws the Driver to them. And he wants to do everything he can to maintain their innocence, to keep them away from any danger or harm, including with Standard.

But of course, once he sees that will be impossible due to Standard's criminal connections, he finds it necessary within himself to get involved. And once he does, all bets are off. He has no regard for himself. He makes it his mission to protect Standard's wife and children at all cost. While doing this, he commits very horrible acts of violence against those he concludes could be keeping Irene and Benicio in danger. And, in doing so, he will forever be associated in these acts. So by going through these lengths in order to protect Irene and Benicio, the Driver has now made it impossible for him to be involved in their lives. Because, if he chooses to remain involved with him, he would be putting them in the very type of danger he had been trying to keep them away from. Plus, it was never about being with Irene, it was about protecting her and her son's innate innocence.

All of this is more-or-less echoed by Bernie Rose (played by Albert Brooks), who agrees to keep Irene and Benicio's anonymity but cannot promise the same for the Driver. After a violent scuffle with Bernie Rose, the Driver is left bloodied and in extreme pain. The final scene stays with a close-up of the Driver's face, inside his car. His eyes remain open, he does not appear to be moving. Then the song fades back in, "A Real Hero," the Driver blinks, closes his door, and Drives on. It's an inexplicable chain of events, but the feeling and point that Refn is trying to convey is understood. This is a real human being and a real hero. Someone who was willing to put himself on the line just to keep a young woman and her son safe. That's all he is. He remains the same Driver he was in the beginning of the film. The same quiet, soft-spoken individual that he was for the majority of the film, but now his actions speak volumes. We have come to understand him more, yet we still do not know anything about him. He still is defined by what he does, not by who he is. And that's truly what makes him a real hero.

On ratings

I don't know why I obsess over this in my head, but I do. You know, I've started this blog out for a couple of reasons. One of them was to keep an official record of my opinions on movies for other people and for myself. Sometimes I'd like to talk about a movie that no one else has heard of and instead of rambling on to someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, it's better to try to understand it in written form as opposed to word of mouth. I know my opinion doesn't really matter much and I try to express that clearly to people. I hope you just consider my reviews as another opinion, not someone who is trying to over-represent himself. I know exactly who I am, and who I'm not. I like to consider myself as a likable and open-minded guy who generally tries to see the best out of movies and isn't out there to be provocative, but reasonable.

Part of that comes with ratings. The reason why I've instituted a ratings system is my belief in the theory that too many people these days have an 0-10 scale, but don't really use it from 2-9. Everything is either the worst ever or the best ever. If it's not the best, it's overrated. What we get from this isn't anything real of substantial and I feel that a lot of discussion is lost from it. I feel that many more movies fall in the 4.0 to 8.0 range than anything else and so far, I think I'm right on that. Keep in mind, I don't get to see very many movies and I would love to see more movies just to test that theory right. It's funny, sometimes I think about seeing bad movies just to see if they really are as bad as people say they are. But then I realize that I'm not that kind of guy. I just want to see movies that I want to see and rate them accordingly. As I've said before, that makes it so that I will be writing more positive reviews than negative reviews, typically. You know what? It keeps me happy and enthused. I think if I were to go see bad movies just for the sake of seeing bad movies, it'd make me a bit more cynical than I am. There are some soul crushing bad movies out there and I don't think I'd be able to handle seeing 50+ of those per year.

On the other hand, I admit I can get pretty enthusiastic on films that I think are great. This is especially true when they are movies from directors I love. I thought that this would cause a bit of a bias for me, but there really isn't. I didn't give Black Swan a perfect score because I love Darren Aronofsky, however, I do think it's a film that perfectly realizes his vision and scope. Thus, the perfect score.

It's interesting though because while I was excited to give Black Swan my first perfect score on this site and I still would give it a 10 out of 10, it's kind of a funny thing. Black Swan, to me, is a film that gets everything right. Most importantly though, it was everything that I wanted from the film. I wanted it to challenge my expectations, I wanted it to thrill and excite me, I wanted the performances to be strong, and I wanted it to look and feel amazing and raw. I felt all of those things with the movie, but I know people who didn't feel that way with it. And then the question remains... are there any flaws with it?

And that's an interesting question, here's my take on it...

Maybe. Maybe it has flaws. And this is where things get tricky. See, I don't think flaws are necessarily something a movie lives or dies by. I think There Will Be Blood has some minor flaws in it and I'd still give it a 10/10. The reason is that I love the film in every single way, even in its flaws. I admire the scope and epic scale of the film and am willing to embrace its flaws along the way. Much like Apocalypse Now. To me, Apocalypse Now is a bit bloated and overlong, but it's such a thrilling and captivating watch and the reaction I ultimately felt from it was so strong that it's a 10 out of 10 to me. There are other films like The Godfather or 2001 or City of God or Casablanca where I feel everything about those films are pitch perfect and it elicits a strong reaction from me. Those are 10 out of 10s too. I don't think every film has to have the same type of perfection in order to get a perfect score from me, but I do think I should feel that same sort of elation that I get when I know I have seen a truly great movie. I know that feeling and therefore I feel confident in giving perfect scores and you can rest knowing that I wouldn't give a perfect score to just any movie. They are movies that mean something to me and they are scores that I'll take to the grave with me. And that is something I think about before I give out that score. "Is Inception a 10/10?" Ultimately I had to say no. I think it was pretty perfect in its execution and I think it's a great film, but it didn't elicit a truly strong reaction from me, other than thinking that it was pretty effin' awesome.

The reason why I bring this up is because of "Drive." Since I saw Drive last week, I've been thinking about it a lot. Seriously, a lot. And I plan on writing a more in-depth piece about Drive within the next few days. There's a lot to talk about with the film and I've always been meaning to go into depth with certain films, the way David Bordwell and Jim Emerson do (they are amazing film analysts, even if I don't always agree with their assessments). Thing is though, Drive is a 9 out of 10 for me. I know that in my heart. But, I also know that it got to me. It stirred something up in me and I have a feeling it's going to stay with me for quite some time. There might be a film with better execution this year and it might rate higher than Drive, ultimately. But, just know that Drive will be in my head and in my heart this year, and at the same time, it's a movie that I can't let myself fully embrace (that is, giving it a 10 as opposed to giving it a 9) and it is those things that makes me want to delve into it more. Because, you know what? I don't even know if I truly understand why I feel this way and I'm hoping that by talking it out, I will understand.

So, be on the lookout.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Pair of Nines

Usually, September is the "dumping ground" month. It's for movies that studios have little-to-no-faith in, they don't want to waste their prime months on these types of movies so they dump them here. Why? Because, they figure movie audiences are too exhausted and worn out after 3-4 months of non-stop brain cell-killing blockbuster films (some of which are enjoyable, I admit), so there's not going to be much of an audience out there in September anyway. Kids are going back to school and it's a bit too far away from Oscar season. Basically, September often gets the shaft.

At the same time, September is also a big festival month. Toronto, Telluride, NYFF, Venice... major film festivals that get to see the big Oscar contending movies before anyone else. For film-lovers and followers of film news, you get to hear about films you want to see later in the year. Still, you have to wait a few weeks, maybe even months, before you even get to see those films.

Luckily, this year, September has had at least one solid-to-great film release each week, except for September 2nd which didn't really have a major release. Other than that, September 9th saw Warrior (84% on rottentomatoes) and Contagion (also 84%). September 16th had Drive (92%). September 23rd has Moneyball (93%) and next weekend, there's 50/50 which so far has a 92% rating on rottentomatoes. I really haven't seen a month like this where each week presented us with critical darling after critical darling. Especially during a month like September. The box office intake still remains about the same, but the good thing about releasing these films in September is that they get the type of attention they may not normally receive had they been released in any other month. October is more-or-less the beginning of the Oscar season. It's the first month where studios start to care more about the Oscar push than anything else. Then, November and December is usually a mix of big budget films and films geared for an Oscar push. This year, it seems, the Oscar season has decided to come a month early. But, let's not think in terms of the Oscars for the rest of this article, the only thing I will say is that I would not be surprised to see either film being a Best Picture nominee. Drive and Moneyball are both fantastic films. Drive may be a bit too dark, but it has the critical backing. Moneyball, however, has the perfect tone, perfect cast, perfect amount of critical praise, and it has box office potential if word-of-mouth is strong enough.

Let's start with Drive.

Nicolas Winding Refn has been making quite a splash this year, even since Cannes. During Cannes, there were two Danish filmmakers making a splash at the festival. One for a positive reason, the other? Not so much. Lars von Trier got in big trouble at this year's Cannes for making insensitive remarks at a press conference, where he compared himself to being a Nazi. Von Trier is a provocateur, it's not surprising that he'd make comments like that, but it seems as if he had gone too far with the press. Refn, however, was able to steal some attention away from him when his film "Drive" was screened and subsequently got everyone at Cannes excited. Really excited.

There is a great reason for this. Drive is one hell of a film. It oozes style. It's drenched in style. It's an action/thriller from outer space. When you look at commercials of Drive, it's sold as your typical action/thriller (in the vein of "Killer Elite"), but you will be pleasantly (or unpleasantly, depending on your POV) surprised when you actually go to see Drive. It's not your typical genre flick. From the opening scene, it's clear that Nicolas Winding Refn is making a statement. What is so fun to watch about this film is that it knows exactly what it wants to be and it succeeds at every single level. From the synth-soaked '80s soundtrack that would want to make the Flock of Seagulls want to come out retirement to the perfect touch of cursive hot pink opening credits. You immediately get the sense of what Drive is all about before you even get to know the main character.

The main character is just the Driver, played with an intriguing minimalist style by Ryan Gosling. Refn and Gosling have carefully constructed this character in such a fashion that reminded me of the way Alain Delon played his character in Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Samourai. Both play by a specific set of rules, both exude a specific style, they don't say much but their expressions say everything you need to know. Some complained that Refn may have placed too much emphasis on this Driver character with the extreme close-ups and the long takes which would make some believe that the director may have a bit of a crush on Ryan Gosling. I mean, he's portrayed much more romantically than Carey Mulligan's character. But you know what? Refn doesn't care. And it actually is a very effective way of getting sucked into the Driver's world. He's deliberate and direct, which matches this slow-burning style of the movie.

Drive is indeed a slow-burner. It will make you wait, but the payoffs are something else. The last half hour of the movie is so intense and it makes for such a satisfying release from all the built up tension that by the end of the film, I couldn't help but smile. It's almost too much at times, but I loved it. And you know, it treats everything just about right. It treats the romance the right way and it treats the violence the right way. The romance is beautiful, the violence is horrific. The mix of the two is so unsettling that it might make you feel uncomfortable. Normally, violence portrayed on screen does not bother me, but the way Refn combines romance and violence in this film was almost too for me to bear. I understand why he did it and I love the way the film plays out, but it does cause me to have a few reservations. Those scenes stuck with me long after the film was over. I'm not quite sure how to feel about it, but if Refn was trying to get in my head, he did a great job.

But Drive is most definitely, and ultimately, a winner and it has put Nicolas Winding Refn on the map for good. Refn had built himself a good reputation with such films as the Pusher trilogy and Bronson, but Drive will certainly catch the attention of American audiences. It may not make a huge amount of box office money, but he will certainly create a following for himself. He created a movie that is undeniably his, he has that rare auteur quality that you don't see with many filmmakers. What results is a film that has a great combination of the typical American action/thriller genre with a keen European vision. Not only that, but it's a film with loads of great performances from Gosling, Mulligan, Ron Pearlman, and Albert Brooks (yes, that Albert Brooks). The bottom line is that it's also a fun movie. It may not be fun for those looking for a Jason Statham type movie, but for those who enjoy film and enjoy watching films with incredible style, this is for you. It's definitely a film for me. Rating: 9/10


Moneyball is another 9 out of 10, but for different reasons. It's funny, too, because Drive manages to go beyond its genre by having arthouse and European tendencies. Whereas, Moneyball manages to go beyond its genre just because it's a well-made Hollywood film with great writing (an Aaron Sorkin/Steve Zaillian screenplay) and great acting. There also happens to be a really great story here.

Moneyball succeeds because it manages to show the inner workings of baseball without dumbing it down, but somehow also putting it into simple enough terms for everyone to understand. It treats its audience like adults, which is sometimes the only thing you can ask for. Brad Pitt does a really great job portraying Billy Beane. Beane is the Oakland A's general manager, and a former baseball player who can't turn his back on the game, despite knowing that the game had more-or-less turned its back on him. It's an unconditional love for a game that has caused him more heartache than happiness. But that pain and that love for the game is what inspires him to try to make his Oakland A's, a team that had just lost all of its All-Stars in the previous season (film takes place during the 2002 MLB season), into a championship contender this season. Unfortunately, having such a small payroll (one of the lowest in the league) makes it really difficult for the A's to compete. Beane has to find a way and he finds that with Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill).

Peter Brand is a recent Yale graduate with a degree in Economics. He sees what no other person in baseball sees: that you can build a team based purely on statistics. You can tell this film had been co-written by Aaron Sorkin because, just like how he portrayed the creation of facebook with The Social Network, he manages to include the inner-workings of how moneyball works without boring you. Most importantly, there is a great amount of attention paid on Billy Beane's personal struggle of his history with the game which makes you care about the way he builds the 2002 Oakland Athletics. Through persistence and the belief in Peter Brand's system, he turns that team from a laughingstock into one of the best teams in baseball.

What makes Moneyball stay with you is the way it portrays perseverance through constant struggle. It shows how a man can love a game like baseball so much that it can almost destroy him. It is also fascinating just how much statistical analysis can influence how good or bad a team does. By concentrating on producing runs (and ultimately wins), Beane and Brand manage to simplify the game with complicated statistics.

Moneyball also does a great job of portraying all of its characters. There are no good or bad people in this movie, there's people on Billy Beane's side and people that aren't. The director, Bennett Miller, also does a great job of combining real life game footage with more dramatized scenes of the game. The combination of camera angles, lights, and dramatic music makes it very fun to watch.

It's not hard to use hyperbole here: Moneyball is one of the better sports movies that I've seen. It's smart without being exclusive, it's dramatic without being sentimental, and it has actors that really sink their teeth into their roles, even Brad Pitt. This isn't your average feel-good Disney sports movie and yet you still feel good after watching it. More than that, the characters and the story will stick with you even after the film is over. You can't ask for much more than that. Rating: 9/10

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

A Review Rundown (trilogy of reviews)

Alright, I'm kinda back, but not 100%. It's about time I got around to reviewing these movies though so here we go. Let's start with the most recent. Three short reviews, three movies.


The strength of Contagion is its ability to remain calm and quiet in the middle of all the chaos. With a giant epidemic wiping out a large portion of the world, we see the story through the eyes of first responders, doctors, lab technicians at the CDC, a "truth-seeking" blogger, along with a man, immune from the disease, trying to remain calm with his daughter after the passing of his wife and son. The movie is a lean 105 minutes and as much as you would want to spend more time with each and every character, by going the "hyper-link" cinema route in such a quick way perfectly captures the reality of a disease like this. The disease spreads rapidly just by indirect contact and through this you see just how everyone becomes affected. Contagion isn't just about the spreading of a disease, though, it's about the spreading of misinformation and lies and how that affects people as well. It's a film that's very rich in context and is directed by one of the most technically efficient filmmakers out there today, Steven Soderbergh. What is so striking about Soderbergh is just how effortless he makes everything look. And yet, the final result of Contagion is most definitely effective. It's not a movie with big moments, just a series of moments that all relate to each other in a very effective and thrilling way. This is a very well-made film. Between The Informant! and this, it's nice to see Soderbergh behind a couple of very solid movies. Because of this, it's disheartening to know that he's seriously thinking about retiring soon. At least we know that he won't be phoning it in with his last few movies. Rating: 8.5/10

Our Idiot Brother

Paul Rudd leads a lightly charming, docile film about a naive, hippie stoner who is released from prison and has a tough time getting any of his sisters to let him stay with him because he finds a way to ruin their lives (in a comedic manner). What follows is a film with quite a bit of solid laughs, but is ultimately too slight and the material is not strong enough to carry over through 90 minutes. It's a shame as well because Paul Rudd gives a very spirited performance as the too-trusting brother of three narcissistic sisters who have too much going on in their own lives to be able to care for their brother. The sisters have a great amount of chemistry with each other (played by Emily Mortimer, Zooey Deschanel, and Elizabeth Banks) and it's fun to watch these actresses playing off each other. It's also fun to watch Paul Rudd play Ned, it's just a shame that the writers don't do enough with him. The movie starts to feel way too formulaic and almost sitcom-ish and by the time the sisters "learn their lesson," it's just not satisfying enough. Even though there are many good moments in this movie and there's really nothing wrong with a movie following a formula (see Horrible Bosses), it's just that they never really have fun with it and it starts to feel as if the movie is just going through the motions. And when you have as many skilled actors as you do in this movie, it's just kind of disappointing. Still, there's a lot of fun moments to the film and Paul Rudd is always likable no matter what kind of character he plays. It's definitely worth a watch, just don't come into the movie expecting too much. Rating: 6.5/10

30 Minutes or Less

Ok, I saw this about a month ago and really should've written a review then so excuse me for the brevity of the review. But, 30 Minutes or Less is a really fun, fast-paced comedy with a lot of big laughs from everyone. Directed by Ruben Fleischer, the man behind Zombieland, it's easy to see his strengths. He has a knack for visual detail, being able to use special effects for comedic effect, and he and his editor do a hell of a job with pacing and timing. In fact, I found 30 Minutes or Less to be funnier than Zombieland in a lot of ways. 30 Minutes or Less takes a pretty interesting premise (a pizza delivery boy gets forced into robbing a bank) and it goes in so many different comic directions. I like comedies like these, where you know where the movie is ultimately heading, but you have no idea how it's going to get there. And with a lean 83 minute running time, the film is over before you have anytime to process just how absurd it all was. Say what you will about Jesse Eisenberg, but the guy is pretty talented. He has great timing and he makes actors around him better (see The Social Network, Adventureland). Couple that with hilarious performances from Nick Swardson, Aziz Ansari, and Danny McBride, and you have one hell of a fun ride. This is the type of movie where you rent it with a few friends, get drunk, order a couple of pizzas, and just laugh your ass off. It's just great, I had a fun time with this movie despite how dumb it was. Rating: 7.5/10

Sunday, September 11, 2011


Sorry, I've been gone so long but I literally haven't been able to see much lately. Last movie I saw was 30 Minutes or Less. I enjoyed it, I'd give it about a 7.5/10. I might write a full review of it one of these days.

I moved to Brooklyn, NY and I honestly haven't had the time or money to see movies since I moved there. It sucks too because there have been quite a few that I wish I'd seen but couldn't for a number of reasons.

So, I'm slowly trying to get back on track and hope to be back in the flow of things by October or November. Until then, expect more sporadic posting.