Mad Max : Fury Road (2015)

Summary :
An apocalyptic story set in the furthest reaches of our planet, in a stark desert landscape where humanity is broken, and almost everyone is crazed fighting for the necessities of life. Within this world exist two rebels on the run who just might be able to restore order. There's Max, a man of action and a man of few words, who seeks peace of mind following the loss of his wife and child in the aftermath of the chaos. And Furiosa, a woman of action and a woman who believes her path to survival may be achieved if she can make it across the desert back to her childhood homeland.

Genre : Action/Adventure/SF
Country : Australia/USA

Cast :
Tom Hardy : Max Rockatansky
Nicholas Hoult : Nux
Charlize Theron : Imperator Furiosa

Director : George Miller

My opinion   

“Witness me Blood Bag!!
Witness!!!
I live, I die,
I live again!!”

There's one word that comes to my mind after watching "Mad Max Fury Road", and that's the word "madness". This is a perfect visualization of what the term madness means. I truly believe that the creators and writers of this hallucinatory trip were fed with hallucinogens. A spacious cocktail of exotic mushrooms, barbiturates and other drug-related products. Otherwise I wouldn't know how they could think up this crazy, wacky post-apocalyptic film. A film that feels as if it consists of a single action scene. You're not given a moment to catch your breath. It's undeniable that this movie adopted the concept of "Mad Max" from 1979, a legendary cult film with young Mel Gibson in a leading role. The same desolate and parched Australian landscape with a shortage of water and petrol governed by fanatical gangs.

I must confess I've already watched this film a while ago and I never saw the need to publish my review. I thought that my opinion would contribute nothing to the general opinion that you could read here and there on the internet. Everyone uses the same superlatives and glorifying terms for this extravagant action movie. In general, everybody agrees this is an insanely great, explosive, ingenious and never tedious re-boot.“It's loud. It's unrelenting. It's crazily exciting, and, at times, it's just bloody weird”. "Why repeat this again?" I thought to myself over and over again. But recent events forced me to rewrite it a bit and highlight an additional aspect that's applicable to today's events.

We return to the scorching desert in a post-nuclear world where people struggle to survive and follow crazy figures that rule over vital resources such as oil and water. Someone like Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), who thinks he's a kind of god and tyrannically keeps his followers in his grip. He rules the Citadel (an old water reservoir) and has his own private army of fanatical War Boys. This Mad Max episode shows how this lawless gang of lunatics start chasing Imperator Furiosa (Charlize "The Italian Job" Theron). She kidnapped Joe's harem (including Zoe Kravitz, daughter of). She's later assisted by Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) who serves the first half hour as a living blood supply for War Boy Nux (Nicholas Hoult).

After the terrorist attacks in Europe and hearing a debate about the motives of a suicide bomber, I came to the conclusion that the creepy War Boys exhibit similar characteristics. They follow blindly a charismatic leader and sacrifice themselves for the greater goal. A hero status is awaiting them when killed in battle. They earn a one way ticket to a paradise they call Valhalla. By sacrificing themselves they become immortal in one fell swoop. Strange, but after the IS attacks, I immediately thought of this brainwashed gang. A similar motivation and the same destructive self-sacrifice.And then there's the guitarist firmly attached with elastics who's stirring up the troops into action, while he's playing his flame-throwing guitar. An absurd image amidst total chaos. Similar to the drummer at the forefront during the battles at Waterloo. Or "Piper Bill" who walked undisturbed on the beach with his bagpipes at Normandy landings in WWII.

It's evident that every fiction film contains comparables with reality sometimes. But beyond these serious digressions that overtook me, I can only recommend to watch and enjoy this macho blockbuster, filled with action-packed chase scenes with futuristic cars. A with diesel and gun smoke smelling stunner that deserves to be titled "Furiosa: Fury Road". Charlize Theron effortlessly outperforms Nicholas Hoult. It's not Mad Max who demands the lion's share of attention. You can call him Mad "Drip feed" instead.

My rating 8/10
Links : IMDB

Mr. Holmes (2015)

Summary :
The story is set in 1947, following a long-retired Holmes living in a Sussex village with his housekeeper and rising detective son. But then he finds himself haunted by an unsolved 30-year old case. Holmes memory isn't what it used to be, so he only remembers fragments of the case: a confrontation with an angry husband, a secret bond with his beautiful but unstable wife.

Genre : Mystery
Country : UK/USA

Cast :
Ian Mckellen  : Sherlock Holmes
Laura Linney : Mrs. Munro
Milo Parker : Roger

Director : Bill Condon

My opinion  

“Take this diary.
Each day you don’t recall a name or place, make a mark on the page for that day's date.
What if I forget to make the mark?”

Once again a movie about the world famous British detective. Apparently they've made already nearly 200 films about this fictitious figure (only Dracula reaches this number). The latest Sherlock films are those with Robert Downey Jr. starring in it. But don't expect mysterious developments, gunfights or wild chases. They could have called it "Mr. McKellen", because this brilliant actor plays the very old Holmes with enormous panache and class. The film doesn't show Sherlock Holmes as a mythical figure but seeks to create a realistic portrait of the man. A surly ex-detective struck by amnesia who spends his last days on a farm in the countryside. Frustrated because he wasn't able to solve the last case he was working on.

"Mr. Holmes "is more a biographical film than an exciting thriller, starring a legendary figure who suffers from old age ailments. A man who decides to stop being a detective at the time his phenomenal memory lets him down and who tries to find a remedy against further decay. A realistic portrait of the figure Sherlock Holmes who dissociates himself from the fictional character as described in the literature. He even says that the typical attributes such as the "deerstalker" and his pipe are grotesque fabrications devised by Dr Watson.

The main part is about his passion for bees and the relationship he has with Roger (Milo Parker), the curious son of the housekeeper Mrs. Munro (Laura Linney). Slowly we see the surly, sober Sherlock changing. A man who never showed any true emotions in his life and approached everything in a logical and reasoned way. And slowly you see him turning into a sensitive and humane person. Eventually there are three different storylines that are interwoven with each other in an ingenious way. On the one hand we have the last unsolved case he's trying to immortalize with the help of Roger. On the other hand, there is a Japanese chapter about the quest for a medicinal herb. And all this is embraced by the story in the present time with the mythical Sherlock slowly fading away.

 

The film is a collage of excerpts from these three storylines. Needless to say McKellen, better known as Gandalf from "The Lord of the Rings", delivers a masterful performance. It's wonderful to see how he sets the 93-year-old Sherlock opposite to the thirty years younger detective. A legend whose memories slowly fade compared to a spry, intelligent man who observes and interprets everything in detail. Sublime and majestic. Also, one should not hesitate to heap praise on young Milo Parker. He seems very natural and the interplay with McKellen is at times really enjoyable. Sadly enough Laura Linney had little scope to shine. However, the rare moments you can admire her, were sufficient enough to show she's a brilliant actress.

 

Although the film is situated in an era which is characterized by a quieter life without hectic situations, the overall pace can seem rather enervating. The pace is similar to the rhythm of life of the elderly Sherlock: lethargic, timid and calculated. In addition, the sets of Victorian England are pleasing to the eye. As well as the beautiful scenery of the English coast. But the biggest achievement was that in the end I was firmly convinced that Sherlock wasn't a fictional character sprong from someone's imagination. Let me quote Sherlock as a conclusion : "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,however improbable, must be the truth?".

My rating 7/10
Links : IMDB

The Martian (2015)

Summary :
During a manned mission to Mars, Astronaut Mark Watney is presumed dead after a fierce storm and left behind by his crew. But Watney has survived and finds himself stranded and alone on the hostile planet. With only meager supplies, he must draw upon his ingenuity, wit and spirit to subsist and find a way to signal to Earth that he is alive. Millions of miles away, NASA and a team of international scientists work tirelessly to bring "the Martian" home, while his crewmates concurrently plot a daring, if not impossible, rescue mission. As these stories of incredible bravery unfold, the world comes together to root for Watney's safe return.

Genre : SF
Country : USA

Cast :
Matt Damon : Mark Waney
Jessica Chastain : Melissa Lewis
Jeff Daniels : Teddy Sanders
Chiwetel Ejiofor : Vincent Kapoor

Director : Ridley Scott

My opinion  

"Dear America, remember that astronaut we killed and had a really nice funeral for?
Turns out he's alive, and we left him on Mars.
Our bad,
sincerely NASA."

I hope NASA draws its conclusions after watching this film. Namely rearranging their budget. First, they can scrap these expensive looking airlocks and replace them by locks made of cellophane which is attached with use of duct tape. Now they can use that extra budget for a reserve communication system in the base station so that any abandoned crewmember can still contact the control center in Houston if the initial one fails. They would hear for the first time: "Houston, I have a problem". That was the first thing that flashed through my mind after watching this otherwise smashing great SF, created by the unsurpassed, "my all time favorite" brilliant director Ridley Scott. The (for me) blatant misstep "Exodus", is hereby forgiven.

   

Mars is hot. Not literally, of course. But the recent revelations of NASA about flowing water and solar storms that changed Mars into a cold, dry planet, made sure Mars came to be the center of attention. It's not really science fiction anymore, because there are plans already to built settlements on Mars around 2023. Contrary to what's shown in "The Martian", these settlers will depart with a "one way ticket". Best those volunteers say goodbye thoroughly because their final destination is the local crematorium on Mars. Initially this wouldn't happen with the scientists in "The Martian". Until there's a terrible storm showing up which forces them to pack their bags and catapult themselves from this red planet. But they weren't expecting debris flying around, causing Mark Watney (Matt Damon) to be impaled like a delicious souvlaki. And then he sits there alone on that damn planet, light years away from his home planet. Remi on Mars. Or the new Robinson Crusoe. But this time without an ocean.

Matt Damon apparently prefers to play the stranded space traveler, since he also did that in "Interstellar". The big difference with "Interstellar" lies in the scientific accuracy. The solutions Mark comes up with to survive and the circumstances on Mars, are theoretically possible (only the devastating storm at the beginning is fiction). This in contrast with "Interstellar" where everything is based on theories which aren't tested in reality. We know about "black holes". They are kind of interstellar hatches. But we still don't know for sure where you end up, after tumbling in such a hole, and what effect it has on time. I guess this is still a mystery. Sadly enough, "The Martian" also has some points of comparison with "Gravity", that other space-epos that turns into a survival trip avant la lettre. Just like in that movie, the setbacks follow in rapid succession. The only difference, in "Gravity" it's grossly exaggerated.

What I liked the most was the perfect balance between scientific gibberish, the tension and the perfectly dosed humorous moments. The scientific part was even for a layman like myself perfectly apprehendable. Partly thanks to the sometimes reliable explanations from the videolog which Mark kept from day one. Needless to say the film is filled with nerve-racking, exciting moments. But especially the comic moments made this an enjoyable film. A perfect task for Matt Damon with his charming, boyish smile who solves every problem with a casual quip and a dose of positivism and perspective. Even the control center of NASA, which is filled to the brim with humorless, serious science nerds, made me smile from time to time. I never thought that the combination of queery disco music, old episodes of "Happy Days" and aluminum-wrapped human excrements, could amuse me.

 

Money wasn't an issue for making this blitz film. Not only is this demonstrated by the used images, but also by the starcast. Besides Damon there's also Jeff "Dumb and Dumber" Daniels, Sean "Boromir" Bean, Chiwetel "12 Years a Slave" Ejiofor, Jessica "Interstellar" Chastain and Sebastian "Winter Soldier" Stan. Each and everyone performs brilliantly. And furthermore, the images of space, the landscape of Mars and the spacecrafts are beautifully portrayed. Sadly enough at the apotheosis, the MacGyver-level was extremely high. Let's hope that the Soviet Union isn't offended in their honor because the Chinese salvaged the situation. Fortunately we were spared from a mass of waving American flags in the end. But despite the "We love NASA" and "We will prevail" atmosphere, this was a superb movie, worth a rewatch. A top survival drama.

My rating 8/10
Links : IMDB

Uncanny (2015)

Summary :
A technology reporter gets a week of exclusive access to the world's first perfect artificial intelligence. When the reporter begins a relationship with the scientist who created it, the A.I. begins to exhibit startling and unnerving emergent behavior.

Genre : SF
Country : USA

Cast :
Mark Webber : David Kressen
David Clayton Rogers : Adam Kressen
Lucy Griffiths : Joy

Director : Matthew Leutwyler

My opinion  

"This kid the next big thing?
Some Asperger's cousin of yours ready to get all Good Will Hunting on coding and change the world?”

Was "Ex Machina" according to you the epitome of future technology and a demonstration of potential consequences of it, "Uncanny" is for sure a level higher. Not because of the shown interior design or the futuristic technologies, but because of the surprising denouement. Despite the austere imagery and decidedly lower budget, this film managed to captivate me pleasantly. Especially because of the interactions between the characters. Ditto as in "Ex Machina", the number of protagonists is limited, so the focus is on the dialogues. Eventually they didn't end up in a tangle of irrelevant side issues. And despite the limited display of high-end technologies, the intellectual level was boosted by a series of (for me anyway) incomprehensible, technological gibberish such as aerated titanium, convert a hemispheric image into a planar representation, chambered baths of synthetic hymotrips, proloanaprotiese that demolishes gluten, pesinium vibo receptors en propuseptive information. I'm not an engineer. That became clear after a while, because it went over my head at certain times.

It seems that artificial intelligence and robotics are the new, sexy hype. During the last year we were bombarded with films which had this as a central theme. Besides "Ex Machina" we were also treated to "Automata", "Chappie", "Transcendence", "The Machine" and "Her". Every movie demonstrated the dangers that lie in the further development of A.I. Should we worry about these self-developing machines getting a self-consciousness? And what about certain ethical issues? How will these highly intelligent beings operate in our society? And how will these artificial individuals react and act towards humans? This latter aspect was subtly elaborated in this rather excellent, low-budget film. A complex interplay between human individuals and an artificial,eerily human-looking robot. What takes place before your eyes, is a complicated love triangle with an android whose feelings resemble those of humans. With jealousy playing a major role.

The most striking is obviously the acting performance of David Clayton Rogers as Adam, the autonomously operating robot designed by David Kressen (Mark Webber). The way he plays Adam is sublime throughout the film. He acts in such a way that you're convinced that he's truly an artificially intelligent being. That puzzled look and the astonishment about the way David and Joy respond to him. That lost look while he's scanning all possible feedbacks in his mind, after which a stream of words follow as if he's quoting from a Wikipedia page. His designer sometimes exhibits the same characteristics. So you start to wonder if he isn't an android as well. The way he formulated his response whether or not joy is pretty for example:

Her hair is nice.
Good facial symmetry.
Delicate features.
Nice fashion sense.
Yes, I do. I think she's pretty. 

And finally there's Joy (Lucy Griffiths), an intelligent journalist who studied robotics (but as far as I understood she didn't graduate) and someone who worked on or designed a game called "Aquaria 3". Apparently this game was so successful, it wasn't necessary for her to continue her studies. This was the only thing that bothered me. Why was she chosen to be the person to write a report about such a highly technological issue? Or was there an additional plan specially created for her? Anyway, her performance were convincing enough.

 

I'm sure many will say this film is as slow as a snail and there's an absence of action and excitement. But the gradual build up, brilliant dialogues and subtle interplay of the characters is necessary so that the denouement will come as a surprise. Although I had two specific outcomes in mind, it still was an intriguing film with a disturbing result. Let me end with a slightly humorous remark: I'm sure that Adam is the ultimate dream for a woman ... a sophisticated home-garden-kitchen robot with "Tarzan" -like features ... Well, I guess the vision of the future will look appetizing for some. 

My rating 7/10
Links : IMDB

Mercy (2014)

Summary :

A single mom and her two boys help take care of their grandmother with mystical powers.

Genre : Horror
Country : USA

Cast :
Chandler Riggs : George
Dylan McDermott : Jim Swann
Shirley Knight : Mercy

Director : Peter Cornwell

My opinion 

"Mercy" is based on a short story by Stephen King (original titled "Gramma"). In the past they made a series of movies out of Stephen Kings stories, with varying success. "Christine", "Carrie", "Misery" and "Pet Sematary" are all gems and timeless classics. And of course "The Shawshank Redemption" is a masterpiece. I wasn't so thrilled about "Cujo" and "Firestarter", both in book form as the eponymous film. And I'm waiting for "Cell" impatiently  (even though John Cusack plays a leading role). After I've read that "Mercy" was based on a story by King, I had to check if it was any good. And once again it shows that a short story is never a good basis for a feature film. The reason why it resulted in a short story, is just because there isn't enough material to turn it into a long story. The result is a miserable slow film with not much to see in it. And to be honest, I didn't understand in the end what it actually was about anyway.

Judging from the opening scene, I expected a rather good film. The brutal, "in-your-face" beginning, with an ax striking devastatingly, left little to the imagination. Bloody images aren't directly shown. You'll only see a play of shadows. This was already an indication that you'll be spared from gore, gruesome images. This doesn't mean this is really necessary for such movies, because (for me) the best horror is where you also need to use your imagination a bit. This is also the strength of the literary work of Stephen King. The imagination and the underlying anxiety. Unfortunately, I needed a lot of imagination to make a horror out of it and there was hardly a sign of subcutaneous anxiety or tension. It was obvious that it's a sort of Machiavellian tale with someone selling her soul to a demonic entity to achieve certain goals. Only the demon wasn't convincingly elaborated.

For once I liked the extraordinary performances. And that for a horror story. Shirley Knight plays an excellent part as the creepy grandmother Mercy and equals effortlessly the scary Annie Wilkes in "Misery." Chandler Riggs plays the loner, who had a special bond with his grandmother, in a convincing way. Even Dylan McDermott as the handsome neighbor (or acquaintance) wasn't so bad (contrary to what he did in "Freezer"). The only letdown was the appearance of the demonic entity Hastur with his "led lamp"-like eyes. This looked so pitifully bad. Even a haunted house at the fair has more frightening things.

Despite the onset being full of suspense, the end result is still abysmal. "Mercy" won't frighten you or give you nightmares. In addition most scenes are much too dark, making it difficult to follow. And understanding the story alone is a problem anyway. I'm still wondering what Hastur was! As a short story it's probably a successful concept (and it's from King ultimately), but as a film it failed in all areas.

My rating 2/10
Links : IMDB

Hercules (2014)

Summary :

1400 BC, a tormented soul walked the earth that was neither man nor god. Hercules was the powerful son of the god king Zeus, for this he received nothing but suffering his entire life. After twelve arduous labours and the loss of his family, this dark, world-weary soul turned his back on the gods finding his only solace in bloody battle. Over the years he warmed to the company of six similar souls, their only bond being their love of fighting and presence of death. These men and women never question where they go to fight or why or whom, just how much they will be paid.

Genre : Action/Adventure
Country : USA

Cast :
Dwayne Johnson : Hercules
Ian McShane : Amphiaraus
John Hurt : Lord Cotys

Director : Brett Ratner

My opinion 

“I thought heroes fight for glory.
But mercenaries fight for gold.”

Remember my review of "The Legend of Hercules" ? Probably you noticed that I wasn't really impressed by it. First, there was no sign of the "Twelve labours" in this film. And it was a hodgepodge of topics from various films. It looked a bit like "Gladiator" mixed with "Pompeii" and "300". And also, Kellan Lutz didn't have enough charisma to become a mythical figure like Hercules. That's why I was so curious about this version with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. And although it's not exactly a masterpiece, it still could captivate me. First of all there was a small part dedicated to the labours and also because of some memorable moments.

What intrigued me the most was the fact that one questioned Hercules's status as a god in a subtle way. I doubted at some point whether he really was a descendant of Zeus or simply a mortal provided with the necessary muscles and fighting skills. It seemed as if he wasn't immortal : "Cover up, before your loyal army sees you bleed like a mortal". It was as if he used that unique status to scare off opponents ("The more they believe Hercules is truly the son of Zeus, the less likely they are to fight") or to use this infamous reputation as a lure for new clients. The opening scene with Hercules being  assisted by his companions to hunt down a band of pirates, gave the impression as if he couldn't single-handedly get the job done.

Okay, maybe it was the intention to make "the mystery Hercules", invincible son of Zeus, more mysterious. Johnson plays a heck of a Hercules. That's an indisputable certainty. His impressive torso and superhuman biceps filled with swollen veins make him a fearsome and imposing demigod. "Conan" will always be associated with Schwarzenegger. Believe me, "Hercules" will be the same for Johnson. An ideal role written especially for him. It's just pure joy to see this semi-barbarian screaming out loud while rushing towards his opponents, frantically waving with a huge mace. With crushed and split skulls as a result. The level of adrenaline is skyrocketing during the great battles.

Of course you could say that they've borrowed from other classics. It's just like "The magnificent seven". A group of professional mercenaries taking upon themselves the arduous task of training a group of non-military citizens in martial art. Obviously, this army of simpletons grows out to be the most ruthless killing machine ever. In recent years we've been spoiled with epic battles as seen in "300" and "The Lord of the Rings". Unfortunately, the battles here aren't as overwhelming as the latter. And you can also feel a bit of the atmosphere from the movie "Gladiator" in this mythical spectacle.

But unlike "The legend of Hercules" you can see some old timers at work here. Like John Hurt who plays the part of Lord Cotys, king of Thrace. He wants Hercules and his henchmen to defeat a violent warlord. And Ian McShane and Rufus Sewell play respectively Amphiaraus and Autolycus, two companions of Hercules. Each of them are veterans who bring some drama into the story. And there's also some humor to enjoy. The funny dialogues between the group members you definitely can call successful. Fortunately they didn't end up with a type of Bud Spencer parody full of silly jokes. The final result is a perfect balance between light-hearted humor and spectacular action. So if you're a fan of straightforward action with a humorous wink, you'll like this Hercules !

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB

Mississippi Grind (2015)

Summary :
Down on his luck and facing financial hardship, Gerry teams up with a younger charismatic poker player named Curtis in an attempt to change his luck. The two set off on a road trip through the South with visions of winning back what has been lost.

Genre : Drama
Country : USA

Cast :
Ryan Reynolds : Curtis
Ben Mendelsohn : Gerry
Sienna Miller : Simone

Director : Anna Boden, Ryan Fleck

My opinion 

"Don't worry, it was just sixty bucks."

Are you expecting to witness a brilliantly conceived plan that's used in a bet as in "Focus"? A breathtaking scene with Will Smith raising the stakes alarmingly and taking off with a shitload of money. Or do you think you'll see an "all or nothing" poker game like Matt Damon shows in the magnificent movie "Rounders"? Then I should inform you that you've backed the wrong horse. "Mississippi grind" looks more like a mix of "The Gambler" and "Wild Card". Just as Wahlberg in "The Gambler", Gerry (Ben Mendelsohn) is someone who should stop gambling, because clearly good fortune isn't on his side. And just like Statham seems his luck turns at the right time. But still. This slow and at times monotonous film feels differently.

   
Be assured. After watching this film you certainly won't feel the irresistible urge to put on a tuxedo and quickly head to the nearest casino. Despite the fact that the central theme is gambling-oriented, you'll realize after a while that it really is about something else. It could just as well be about two florists, who travel across America while demonstrating their floral art and finally arrive at the world championship "Bonsai-cutting". It's that trip and the interaction between the two individuals that are particularly important here. You travel as it were together with these two complicated characters.

First there's Gerry. A typical example of an inveterate gambler who's pursuing the impossible dream to win big one day with his gambling. He's aware of his desperate situation and thus he's drawn into an irreversible bankruptcy. The "big profit" is still to be achieved. Besides the immense mountain of debt he built up over the years, his personal life is also a mess. His wife left him. He hasn't seen his daughter in years. And although he's actually fooling himself all these years, he's still honest enough to admit his weakness to a strange girl: "I have a problem with money".

Next Curtis (Ryan "RIPD" Reynolds) appears at the scene. A carefree charmer who just wanders around and seemingly has a girlfriend in every state. He's a smooth talker who gets everyone on his side that way. Similarly Gerry who's intrigued by this loner. He can't get hold of Curtis during a poker game. Even the monotonous voice on the tape he listens to in the car, can't help him. The endless list of traits and tics that some players show during poker, doesn't apply to Curtis. Gerry is convinced that Curtis is a kind of a good luck charm. A rabbit's foot so to speak. And together they leave for New Orleans to participate in a legendary poker tournament.

What follows is a grubby road movie showing the formation of an intimate bond between two total strangers. The trip leads along dark gambling halls and with neon equipped bars where lots of "Woodfords" are served. A sparkling and at the same time dramatic psychological observation about addiction and self-esteem. Superbly played by Reynolds and Mendelsohn. Both have their own demons to fight and despite their contrary character, they fit perfectly together. "Mississippi Grind" shows how someone tries to reverse his good fortune and in that way tries to obtain a new and better life.

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB