14 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Possession (2002)
Mostly Good?
7 September 2003
I came out of watching Possession with a mixed impression. It was uneven and weak in places, but I found myself appreciating it on the whole, as though I knew it was a pretty good film but couldn't, for the LIFE of me, figure out why. Having had some time to reflect on it, though, I feel I'm able to put a few of my thoughts out more concretely, and maybe my impression of the film will shape itself through my writing.

Basic synopsis of the film, to start: Roland Mitchell (Eckhart), an American scholar living in England, comes across a pair of mysterious letters written over a hundred years previously by poet laureate Randolph Henry Ash (Northam). He enlists the help of Maud Bailey (Paltrow), a fellow scholar that specializes in the works of Christobel LaMotte (Ehle), the woman Mitchell suspects of being the secret lover. The film shows the parallel stories of the 20th century investigators and the 19th century lovers, and how the two relationships change as time passes.

Firstly, the "good": Northam and Ehle are fabulous. Their characterizations and commitment do more to convince the audience they have gone back in time than the camera tricks or the voice-overs. Both actors are totally compelling and make their scenes shine a little brighter than the rest of the film. The story is intriguing, and the camera work is clean and sharp, realizing each scene without overshadowing the acting with trickery.

On the "less good" side: it felt to me as though the modern story fell flat. Eckhart is a good actor, but in this film he's like a 1956 Cadillac El Dorado, coughing and sputtering out in the beginning, but eventually turning into a smooth ride. Paltrow isn't called on to do anything the audience hasn't seen her do before, which isn't to say that she's bad: she's good, but it's nothing new. And the story suffers a little in the modern scenes as well; the dialogue falls apart during the romantic scenes, and the chemistry is hit-and-miss. I wasn't wanting to skip through the modern scenes, or anything, but sometimes I looked forward to the past storyline a little more earnestly than I would have liked.

So, Possession is an uneven film, but definitely worth watching. The story pulled me in enough I looked past the flaws. Even when I groaned out loud. (7/10)
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Strange Days (1995)
Interesting but ultimately meaningless
25 November 2002
Strange Days has a lot of things going for it. It uses a extremely interesting plot device: virtual reality as brainwaves, recorded from one person and experienced by another. It uses great set and costume design to portray New Year's Eve 1999 (back then five years into the not-so-distant future). It uses good actors, most notably Ralph Fiennes and Angela Bassett. And it has quite the encompassing story arc, encompassing cultural unrest, social justice, political accountability, moral obligations, and redemption. It's full of interesting and important ideas.

And it tacks them together with incoherence, over-the-top dialogue and acting, and an ending that goes on almost fifteen minutes too long. I own this movie, and at one time I thought it was an overlooked sci-fi cult classic, destined to be remembered in the years to come. When I watched it today, I thought that it was a waste of potential, a waste of talent, and a waste of my time. I'm going to be very generous with my ranking, because it could have been so much better; the ranking reflects its wasted potential and its omnipresent style. 5/10
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Roxanne (1987)
Steve Martin's Most Enduring
25 November 2002
Roxanne is probably going to go down as the pinnacle of Steve Martin's career as both an actor and a writer. Granted, he's made better movies (L.A. Story, The Man With Two Brains), but this is the one movie that seems to have grabbed the public's attention and keeps bringing them back. And that's because it's deceptively simple, the story of the underdog falling for the girl who has it all. It's peripherally based on Cyrano de Bergerac, but most people haven't read it (or even seen a movie adaptation), so much of the intricacies will be lost. But everyone can identify with the main character, C.D. Bales, and the story of his doomed love.

The movie is a romantic comedy, but that's too simplistic. It's full of incredible situational and verbal humor. Whether he's playing a slapstick routine trying to leave Roxanne's apartment or trying to think up the (more than) twenty insults that would be better than `Big Nose,' Martin's pen rarely falters. He can do drama, as evidenced by the scene on the roof with the overweight kid. And he writes compelling poetry: when C.D. speaks from his heart under Roxanne's window it threatens to turn hokey at any moment, but never does. The power of the movie is in the screenplay, and Martin's written a doozy.

Of course, it also doesn't hurt that C.D. is such a sympathetic character. Actually, sympathetic is probably the wrong word. He's such a strong and dynamic character that every man would want to be him and every woman would want to have him…if it weren't for that stupid nose of his. Think about it: he's athletic, charming, well-read, witty, and handsome. And that's what makes it even worse for the viewer: knowing all these wonderful things are stuck inside this man and people can't see past his nose, pun not intended. Martin totally inhabits C.D. Bales: he knows him so well that it's second nature. He looks like he's having a blast with it, too, which helps the audience quite a bit.

It's not all Steve Martin, though (although it seems like it at times). The supporting cast does well with their roles and goes far beyond what I would have thought possible. Example: Daryl Hannah, an actress with a hit-and-miss record that's mostly miss, is surprisingly convincing as an astronomy student who knows about sub-nuclear particles and comet trajectories. Or Michael J. Pollard, who takes a role that's pretty much a series of one-liners and makes me remember him above all the other firefighters by the pure glee that he takes with every line.

It's certainly not perfect, nor is it Martin's best offering, but that's beside the point. The point is that it's the kind of movie people really enjoy but can't put their finger on just why. Well, the movie is smart, and that's why people find it refreshing. It's not simply a cookie-cutter romance with the typical leading man and the regular lines: it's got a heart and humanity that most romantic comedies disregard as unnecessary. 8/10
38 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nothing bad to say.
3 August 2002
(Okay: no more than 100 words are needed to describe this movie, so I won't go over that. Starting now.)

"Ocean's Eleven" looks fantastic. The actors are all having fun: in a big picture with a dozen other stars and a super-hot director, wearing incredible clothes and (in Brad Pitt's case) eating whatever you want. Good photography, extremely decent acting, snappy dialogue. It's a really stylish movie.

And that's it. There's nothing mind-boggling or thought provoking about it: it's a ride. A really nice ride. If you're up for that, I wholeheartedly recommend it. If you watch it with any other purpose, well, it's your own fault.

Oh yeah, one more thing: The Incredible Carl Reiner Steals All His Scenes. (7/10)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Awful Truth (1999–2000)
Hard to stomach?
28 February 2002
When I was about 15 years old or so, I happened to come across a show on television called "TV Nation." I was completely enthralled by every episode I saw before my local station decided not to continue carrying the show, no doubt in favor of such quality shows as "Friends" or "Touched By An Angel." I thought that "TV Nation" was the best thing to ever happen to television, and I went out and watched as much Michael Moore as I possibly could.

So when the complete first season of "The Awful Truth" came out on video, I knew I had to watch every episode, probably more than twice. I was completely confident that Moore would once again delight and inform me as he did eight years ago.

I quite enjoyed the first episode, how to run a Witch Hunt and the invitation to the funeral. I think my favorite episode so far is the Beat The Rich/Soddomobile one-two knockout. Moore has always been brilliant at staging stunts to shock and embarrass.

But the more I watched the show, the more I noticed: that's all he does. He doesn't really try to change anything, bring any new information to light, or challenge anyone's viewpoints. His documentaries seem to serve as either efforts to upset industrial and capitalist giants or slaps on the back to people of like mindset. "Oh, I'm so glad we're middle class/Liberal/gay-positive, because upper class/Republican/fundamentalist people are so dumb!"

Being a middle class gay-positive liberal, I enjoyed every single episode of "The Awful Truth"s first season. I just wish it had a little more bite and merit as opposed to being a series of mostly impotent guerilla attacks on people and ideas that deserve more focused attention.

Many of the segments are difficult to watch, such as the voice-box choir or Moore's awkward conversation with Lucianne Goldberg, and that gives the show merit. If it was a comfortable show to watch all the time, it'd be a Liberal "60 Minutes." Moore gets to focus our attention on the bad points in America, and hints at the possibilities behind our cold impersonal modernity. At this he succeeds: the shock value of correspondents such as Crackers The Crime Fighting Chicken force eyes to focus on problems that everyone knows about but ignores whenever possible. I congratulate the man on a mostly successful effort and hope that he continues his crusade proudly and does not become a caricature of himself in later years. Rating: 8/10.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mallrats (1995)
Not genius, but it's not supposed to be.
26 February 2002
To get it out of the way: Mallrats is easily in the top ten funniest movies I've ever seen. Fifteen minutes inside the mind of Kevin Smith would be a trip worth being spat onto the New Jersey Turnpike. I'd pay good money to gain a glimpse of the world as he sees it. The writing in the movie is really, really top notch, and every scene is filmed with a minimalist eye for comedy. I would say that this movie is EASILY the funniest movie the man has ever filmed. Not the greatest: quite frankly, it's a little rough around the edges. But you'll be hard-pressed to find a funnier movie on the video store shelves.

Kevin Smith's movies have been maligned in the film community for many reasons. Mallrats especially been the subject of two of the most common complaints about Smith's movies: uninspired direction and flat characters. However, these claims are often untrue, and sometimes unimportant. There may not be amazing cinematography in Mallrats, no incredible steadicam work or breathtaking pans, but let's face it folks: the movie's set in a mall. For one thing, no-one wants to see sweeping panoramic views of a food court. For another thing, the movie isn't about original camera angles, it's about incredibly interesting and bizarre situations set in the most benign and uninteresting of all places.

As for character complaints, while there are a great deal of characters in the film that could be easily characterized in one sentence, not only does the pace of the movie demand it but deep character development is unnecessary. Many of the characters in the movie are examples of the kinds of people the audience members know from real life. The geeky girl in high school is combined with the easy girl in high school: this is an equation that the audience members can figure out for themselves. The local drug dealer, some mallrat kids, the love-lorn moron, the sarcastic sidekick (sorry, Brodie), and the bad-tempered store manager are all people that most of us have run into in our lives, and we can fill in the blanks from there.

At the end of it all though, Mallrats is first and foremost about the situations. This movie may seem a little uneven at times, because the best parts of the movie are individual sequences, not the characters or the over-arcing storyline. I list such memorable moments as: the kid on the escalator. Relationship advice from Stan "The Man" Lee. A debate on the classification of the cookie stand. Jay and Silent Bob beating up the Easter Bunny. Hartford beating Vancouver 12-2. A deep discussion on the biology of Superman. The entirety of Truth or Date.

And, of course, anything Jason Lee says. His portrayal of Brodie is an outstanding portrayal of the best character Kevin Smith has ever written. He's comfortable with both sarcasm and sentiment, and he has nearly all of the best lines in the movie. All of his scenes are incredible, and he is completely at home in the asylum that is the local mall. Jason Lee is the funniest thing about this movie, and while his acting is a little rough, so's the character, and so's the movie. And who said you needed to be Richard Burton to deliver lines like "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for Sega"? Not I!

To review: it's not cinematic art, but it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be strange, it's supposed to be outrageous, and it's supposed to be funny. And it is INCREDIBLY funny. Rent it and try not to laugh. Especially at the kid on the escalator. That cracks me up every single time.

Rating: 7/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A good horror wait, I'm serious.
30 October 2001
There's not a whole lot you can say about a film like Final Destination without giving too much away. So this'll be short and sweet: Watch the movie. That's all I really need to say, but since I usually say more than I need to, there's more.

This movie crushes all other Teen Horror movies made in the past five years. It's refreshing to have a palatable sense of terror and urgency in the horror genre. Instead of some guy in a fisherman's coat or spooky mask, they're running from Death. You don't get a much more unconquerable foe than that. And they didn't go through a whole lot of cheesy special effects to show you a Grim Reaper or Spectre of Death. Just a change in the wind, a shadow in the background, a shimmer in the mood. The filmmakers chose to heighten the tension by not showing the audience much, but leaving it up to their imagination to fill in the gaps. And we all know the human imagination is the scariest thing out there. Much more scary than a bladed glove or Al Pacino.

Film-wise, it's pretty strong. The acting ranges from "as expected" to "surprisingly good," and the story gives enough plot turns to keep you in a state of confused disbelief. The cinematography is refreshingly original, and is stylish without reeking of pretense. The point of view shots disorient and clarify simultaneously, and the camera movement is quite slow compared to other contemporary horror films. The absence of quick cuts and fast-moving camera sweeps is partly why this film is a treat to watch: all the benefits of modern technology without the migrane-inducing MTV style that seems so popular nowadays. And before people start saying that old people can't understand the fast-paced world that young people live in, let me just say that I'm in my early twenties and I understand exactly the kind of fast-paced world that young people are living in. I just don't like flash without urgency, which is MTV. Final Destination is urgency without flash, and that's refreshing.

I'm recommending this film to anyone who likes good Horror movies, and to those people who like bad Horror movies. Perhaps it'll slap the latter group upside the head. (7/10)
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
O (2001)
A few flaws don't destroy the film.
20 September 2001
`When devils will the blackest sins put on,/They do suggest at first with heavenly shows,/As I do now.'

I'll get right to the point here: `Othello' is my favorite Shakespeare play. Trying not to compare `O' with `Othello' is almost impossible. I would hazard to guess, though, that the majority of the people in the audience who saw this film with me have not read the play, from their gasps of shock at the `surprise' twists. I think they enjoyed the film quite a lot, and good for them, because there is quite a lot to like about the film. Here I am mostly thinking of Mekhi Phifer (Odin), Julia Styles (Desi), and Josh Hartnett (Hugo), who turn in astonishingly good performances. I will get to those nice things in a moment, however, because there are a couple of things I want to point out that made the film difficult for me to enjoy.

Firstly, I would like to address the poster for the film. The poster is, essentially, Josh Hartnett's beautiful face in the top left quadrant, Julia Styles' beautiful face in the top right quadrant, and a tiny little Mekhi Phifer at the bottom, holding a basketball and framed in a large ‘O'. This may not be important to the overall enjoyment of the film, but to me, it left a bad taste in my mouth. Hugo and Desi are not linked romantically in the film (rather, it's Desi and Odin), but they take up about half the poster. Meanwhile, Odin (the title character) is small and greatly overshadowed. Now, I thought long and hard about why the poster designers and producers would have done this, and I came to the conclusion that it's because Phifer is black and Styles and Hartnett are white, and, naturally the studio can't put a handsome black man and a beautiful white girl together on the poster. This kind of attitude is extremely upsetting, and if anyone could clear this matter up for me, it'd be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I stand by my diagnosis.

Another minor problem that I have with the film centers around the character of Hugo. Now, Josh Hartnett did an extremely good job portraying the character, and I was very impressed with his acting skills. I repeat: I am NOT putting down Hartnett's performance. Having said that, I thought that Hugo was a little too sympathetic for my liking. Iago hates Othello simply because he chose Cassio instead of him as lieutenant, and this small slight sets him on the quest to ruin the lives of both men. Hugo, however, is a kid who's underappreciated by his basketball coach dad (Martin Sheen, an actor's actor), and overlooked by his buddy Odin at the MVP ceremony for a mere sophomore. He's jealous of anyone with more talent than him, which fits Odin to a T. This basically puts him in the `teenager who's so hard done by' category, and this makes him too sympathetic, especially to teenagers. After all, what teenager isn't underappreciated by their parents? What teenager doesn't feel like no-one's paying attention to them? Instead of being a twisted, Machiavellian villain, Hugo is the High School kid pushed too far and out for revenge. I would prefer the near-perfect evil of Iago to the misunderstood Hugo any day.

Having made these two points, I did quite enjoy the film (even though it may not have appeared so in my previous two paragraphs). The three main young actors (Phifer, Styles, and Hartnett) put out terrific performances, and there is great screen chemistry between both Phifer & Styles and Phifer & Hartnett. Martin Sheen is great to watch as a basketball coach on his way to a coronary, Rain Phoenix nails the character of Emily, and even the underused John Heard (as the Dean) adds a few subtle touches. Tim Blake Nelson's direction is quite commendable, and there are a couple of very creative cinematography tricks; I especially liked the scene where Hugo and his father talk in his office and the camera slowly pans forward in through the window.

The film addresses many themes (racism, jealousy, distrust, pride), and although it doesn't take a stand on any of them, the film moved at a good pace and kept the plot as convincingly twisted as it needed to be. All in all, it was a good movie, exciting if you haven't read the play, and an interesting interpretation of the story if you have. 7/10
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I lost an hour and a half of my life.
20 September 2001
The only reason to see this movie is if you want to see breasts. If you want to see breasts, then my friend, this is the movie for you. If you have any other hope for this movie, remove it from your mind. If you like vampire movies, I have three words for you: AVOID AVOID AVOID. I cannot say anything good about this movie, except for the fact that Alyssa Milano has a very nice body, and she shows it off quite a lot. I hope she got a lot of money for this.

The acting is terrible, there is not a single believable line of dialogue, and if the director tried to do a single original take, I think his brain would have collapsed with the strain. I really wish I could say something positive, but I can't. And since I've always been told if I can't say nice, don't say anything at all, I think I'll stop now. AVOID! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) 1/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Rantings of a confused reviewer
12 January 2001
Warning: Spoilers
(NOTE: Possible spoiler, but it all really depends on what you think of as a "spoiler".)

I just finished watching "X: The Man With X-Ray Eyes" and to tell the truth, I'm a little unsure of what to make of it. It is such a beautifully flawed film, I don't know whether to call it quirky, great, horrendous, or what. I suppose I'll just write and figure out what I wanted to say at the end.

I'll start with the low points. Of course, it's horrendously dated and tacky, but that's the problem of the modern viewer, not the film. The plot is incredulous and has a couple of huge, gapng holes (pun intended), but if you're watching a film called "X: The Man With X-Ray Eyes", you shouldn't be expecting Mamet.

The film's dialogue thins out in many spots, and in fact, some of the lines seem to come right out of a High School drama project. The film also seems padded in places, most notably the stretch in Vegas and the car chase that seems to go on forever. It's as if they needed to stretch out the film in these spots, in order to make it feature-length. Lastly, director Roger Corman relies heavily on the "special effects" in the film, which are quite interesting when first used and then because of overuse, rarely reach the same intensity again.

However, the film's high points overshadow the roughness, most of the time. The acting is superb (despite some incredibly hokey dialogue), especially from Ray Milland in the title role. However, I was personally knocked out by Don Rickles (no, really), who puts in a truly real and unforgettable performance as a sideshow carny who finds his meal ticket in X.

Let's see, what else...the story is truly wonderful in spite of its hokiness; it makes the viewer think about many issues. "Are there things man was not meant to know?" "Can science go too far?" "Can knowledge drive one mad?" Or, as my brother asked, "Why doesn't he use his powers for good, like getting sex?"

Finally, many scenes are both emotionally and viscerally shocking. The carnies' conversation with the mysterious "Mentallo" is starkly haunting, as a man who has been driven away from everything he knows is being reprimanded by ignorant fools that cannot comprehend his situation. The final scene in the Christian revival tent is both chilling and shocking, as we watch the nearly mad Xavier relating his tale of the "eye at the center of the universe" and being damned by the preacher, who tells him, "If thine eyes offend thee, cast them out!!" In the 1960s this would have been gut-wrenchingly sickening; it's effect is dulled only slightly on a modern audience.

So, what are my final thoughts? Despite its flaws, "X" is still a very good film, bordering on great. It's definitely a "must-see" for any fan of horror or sci-fi, and even people who wouldn't normally see a film like this should give it a try. It may not always be pretty; it may not always be shocking; it may not always be good. But the last frame of the film will always remain with you, and you'll want to talk about it with someone when you're done, even if it's only to say, "Was that as weird as I thought it was?"
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Touch of Evil (1958)
Spellbinding thriller
8 November 1999
There are only two ways to write a review that would truly do this film justice. Either one would have to write an exceedingly long review, or a short, concise one. I choose to do the latter.

When I first saw "Touch of Evil," I was glued to the chair. When I found out it was not Welles' definitive vision, I wondered how on earth it could have been made better. And when I saw the re-released version, I wondered why the studio altered it. The stunning black-and-white images, the intricate plot, and the powerful, engaging performances took a hold of my imagination. At times, I imagined myself on the street with the characters, because the atmosphere was so thick I felt surrounded in it.

The actors all did an outstanding job, especially Leigh and Heston (who, although not thoroughly convincing as a Mexican, soared above his usual powerful, furious presence). This is Welles' picture, however, and whenever the camera catches his obese figure, you are fully aware of the man as a director and an actor. His powerful vision drives the film, from the single-cut opening sequence to the cat-and-mouse finale.

I suggest watching the 1998 restored version over the original theatrical release, but regardless of which version, "Touch of Evil" will have you stuck in your seat, questioning your views of morality until long after the last credit has rolled up the screen.
122 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A beautiful work of art
13 September 1999
I first picked up the CD "Buena Vista Social Club" on a whim two years ago, and I was stunned. I could not believe such beautiful music existed. I told everyone I knew about it, and even though not all of them enjoyed it as I did, at least they experienced it for themselves.

Flash forward two years. I am sitting in the local art-house theatre, waiting for the new movie by Wim Wenders, also called "Buena Vista Social Club," to start. My heart is racing; as the lights go down, my anticipation grows. And I am once again stunned. Not only is the music wonderful, but the film is amazing on every level.

Every shot, every scene, every word spoken and every note played adds to the greater whole of this film. Wim Wenders, Ry Cooder, and the entire Buena Vista Social Club should be congratulated on a fine accomplishment.

The interviews with the members of the band (especially with Ibrahim Ferrer, a true delight) are magnificently filmed, and each player's story is a treasure. When the recording of Ferrer's album is filmed, one can see the determination, effort, and love for the music on the faces of every musician. That love shines through, onto the screen, and the audience is bathed in its splendor.

The film is most at home in Cuba, with its ancient cars and tumbledown streets. Wenders knows better to comment on the state of the Cuban people's well-being; simply filming the surroundings is comment enough.

The most amazing moments in the film, however, are when the musicians are free to roam around New York, near the film's end. Their insights into American (and North American) culture are humorous and quite touching. Ferrer's evening walk down the streets of New York is simply wonderful; when he stops on the street to take a picture, the audience can feel his excitement.

A wonderful film. Not only one of the best documentaries I have seen in a long time, probably the best film of the year to date. 10/10.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mrs Brown (1997)
Fantastic love story
23 August 1999
This film is a fantastic love story. You'll note that I didn't say "sex story," because there is absolutely no sex in this film. And yet most people equate "love story" with sex, or at least a beautifully shot kiss at the end, complete with a cheesy song penned by Brian Adams. This, my friends, is a love story with a difference.

It is the story of a servant's love for his queen; it is the story of a woman's love for the man who has given her life meaning; it is a story of two best friends, who ignore social circumstances and care deeply for one another. The story is nearly flawless, combining the historical situation and circumstances with intense and riveting emotion.

The acting is outstanding. Both of the central actors convey exactly what their character is feeling, even if no words are spoken. Billy Connolly lets John Brown's humanity shine through his rough exterior, and he has a naturalness that is quite inspired. And Dame Judi Dench gives a masterful performance, worthy of the Oscar (like that's never been said before). Her portrayal of a queen tortured by her feelings and her position in society is the best of the year by any actor, male or female.

Hands down the best British film of the year. 9/10.
39 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dead Ringers (1988)
Cronenberg at his chilling, thrilling best.
8 July 1999
After watching "Dead Ringers," I was re-confirmed in my belief that David Cronenberg is one of the greatest film directors of all time. He is (avoiding all hyperbole) a genius; a visionary who takes snippets from every walk of life and sticks them together in strange, sometimes difficult, always unforgettable films. "Dead Ringers" is a definite Cronenberg film, but it is often difficult to give a precise definition of such an experience. Films like "Scanners," "Crash," "The Fly," "Dead Ringers," and the new "eXistenZ" differ in story and structure, but there seems to be one common thread running through all of them: Cronenberg's vision.

Jeremy Irons gives the most fully realized performance of his stunning career as twin gynecologists joined at the mind. These are Siamese twins of the spirit, not of the body. His portrayal of the two twins is so fully realized, it is often difficult to realize the same man is playing both roles.

While watching the film, it was hard to pinpoint the single moment that I went from "trying to get into the story" to "killing anyone who turned off the VCR." This film kept me engrossed until the very end, and I definitely recommend this film to anyone who likes their films with a twist.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this