Change Your Image
Norman_French
Reviews
The Lighthouse (2019)
Psycho-Sexual Arthouse Abortion
I planned to title my review "WTF Did I Just Watch", but of course that had been used. While atmospheric and technically well done, this film is a PAINFUL watch. It's basically an ultra-dysfunctional mash-up of Moby Dick and The Shining. I managed to watch the entire nauseating mess because I was curious about the ending, which instead of providing some satisfaction or at least an explanation, is tragically pointless. Yuck!!
The entire movie feels implausible. The lighthouse itself was OK as a setting, the mechanisms made sense (FYI, the coal-fired steam-engine is strictly for the foghorn), but the cistern situation was insane. The two keepers should have died (or at least been violently ill) from the polluted water. PRO TIP: Cisterns preserve water by keeping it cool and DARK -- there is NO WAY the access hole wouldn't normally be covered with a light-tight panel -- keeping it open is SUICIDE in a place like this. And yet Robert Pattinson's character wanders over and sees dead/dying seagull(s) floating in there.
I learned nothing and would like my 109 minutes back. I give this abortion two stars, as it's useless IMHO except as film-critic-bait, but with a one-star penalty for a HORRIBLE "mental aftertaste". That's one (1) star total folks -- the film was just THAT disgusting.
Voyagers (2021)
Flawed, but good sets and visuals
I think Tye Sheridan was good in this movie. Colin Farrell was fine as well. Lily-Rose Depp was intriguing, but seemed to be trying for some gravitas by underacting. She was not entirely convincing in this, and her model-esque looks made it a bit strange. Quintessa Swindell (Cyclone in Black Adam) had some impressively sultry expressions once her character became hot-to-trot. Like many of the other kids, once she was weaned off the impulse-control drugs, it was HELLO HORMONES!!
There are a lot of "space-arc" films, and most suffer from the rather stupid idea that building and then traveling inside (for a century or more) a giant spacecraft is easier than saving (part of) the Earth, or simply building a large, super-fancy underground bunker (which would be less isolating than being in space).
This particular arc-ship sported artificial gravity, which clearly isn't centrifugal, as the gravity suddenly disappears when one goes out through an airlock. Yet the gravity remains in a room when the power is cut. Huh? Also, if we have such super-advanced tech in the future, why no anti-gravity (UFO) tech? The physics here makes no sense.
While I appreciated the Lord-of-the-Flies storyline, it seems implausible that intelligent, highly-trained science-oriented kids are going to fall for evidence-free tales of a mysterious malevolent force and instantly become a paranoid mob.
The ending is a bit pat (and rushed). Also, the audio was annoying; the sound effects and associated bursts of music were too loud relative to the dialog -- unusual for a film with a decent budget. Apparently, some exec wanted more (cheap) drama.
I give this seven stars, with a one-star penalty for various plausibility flaws, and half-star penalties for the audio and the somewhat unsatisfying ending. That's five (5) stars total.
The Time Travelers (1964)
Semi-silly retro S/F fun (with nekkid spa babes)
This low-budget film rises above schlock; it's rather charming at times -- in its own little way, it was trying to be a minor classic. This film influenced both Star Trek and The Time Tunnel. John Hoyt, who plays Varno, was in the Star Trek pilot and in two episodes of The Time Tunnel. The ending is not what you'd expect -- it's actually decent (and perhaps briefly thought-provoking).
All the casting was good, but model-turned-actress Merry Anders and Playboy Playmate Delores Wells are cast members I appreciated for, ah, "various reasons". But they did a fine job and livened things up.
I give this six (6) stars. The "mental aftertaste" is quite good.
PS Although you don't see anything naughty (as in R-rated), some of the spa babes actually WERE naked -- the director insisted (for the best "vibe"??). Hey, it worked for me.
After Earth (2013)
Formulaic structure obscured by layers of sentiment
I enjoyed elements of this film (due to the miracle of rock-bottom expectations) despite Jaden Smith's acting. I actually knew someone like Will Smith's depicted character, and so the sentimentality *initially* worked for me. But I saw how contrived this movie was, so I gave it a middling score of 5 stars and went to bed, wondering if I'd been too harsh.
The next morning I woke up with an odd sense of "buyer's remorse" -- that I had been suckered (by M. Night Shyamalan), and so I rewrote this review from scratch, thus exorcising the mental demon (IMDB is great for that).
To be fair, I thought there was real tension in many scenes, so I don't fully understand the terrible (1-star) reviews. Also, it was nice to see Sophie Okonedo and Zoë Kravitz, despite their small roles.
Starting with six stars for "unrealized potential" (or brainless entertainment), but subtracting one star for the blatantly contrived set-up and another for the manipulative style (i.e., sentiment-as-distraction), I arrive at four (4) stars.
Time Bomb Y2K (2023)
Retrospective documentary gently touches on broader issues
This documentary is nicely done, but not perfect. It could easily have been three to five minutes shorter, which would have helped with the pacing. Nevertheless, this is an interesting presentation of archival footage.
I like the way this film covers optimists, realists, and pessimistic survivalists. As someone who lived through this, I can tell you there was a LOT of hype back then. Scaremongers selling books were saying things like freeway accidents would occur as power brakes failed at the stroke of midnight. These sorts of claims were laughable of course -- no engineer is going to increase his workload by making systems more complex than needed -- especially when the system MUST be reliable. Why on earth would a power braking system need to know the time and date? It's ridiculous.
As the New Year came and went, the film shifted into covering some interesting and (mostly) uplifting thoughts about global connectivity and the uncertainty and possibilities of the new Millennium.
While not highly structured, this documentary has a straightforward (linear) time-flow, a decent cross-section of opinions, a low-key tone, and a good ending that raises questions about the future. I would have changed a few things, but not much, so I'm *tempted* to give it seven stars. HOWEVER, the film did NOT excite me, and I doubt it will be of great interest to the average viewer. So I think a "proper" rating, considering the big picture, is probably five (5) stars, which is also an accurate reflection of the entertainment value I received.
Tremors II: Aftershocks (1996)
Let the franchise-milking begin!
Bottom line, this film is better than expected, but that's a low bar. The directing is uneven; Fred Ward starts off playing a painfully goofy version of his Earl Bassett character, despite being a decent actor. But the film does find its footing, and even flirts with competence after Burt Gummer (Michael Gross) shows up.
The set pieces are terrible; a crappy warehouse is called a "refinery". The oil angle is apparently justifies someone paying $$$ for help and having a female geologist (who's confusingly also a paleontologist and ex-Playboy model) laying about. The goofy replacement for Kevin Bacon adds zero value beyond acting as an all-too-familiar plot device.
I think the central question here is whether ANY of the original film's magic is still present. I say YES, there is some fun to be had with the Graboids (and a new way of killing them).
I rate this at three stars with some bonuses: two stars for getting original cast members Ward and Gross, a half-star for still using lots of practical effects (not just CGI), and finally a half-star for Burt Gummer's deuce-and-a-half with the "mil-spec engine". That's six (6) stars total. This may sound generous for a low-budget sequel, but be aware that I rated the original at NINE (!!) stars.
Jumanji: The Next Level (2019)
Third time is NOT a charm
The previous film, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is excellent (I gave it an 8), but at this point, with the third film in the series, we've reached franchise-milking. The good news is we have the same cast. However, for an unknown reason (lack of good ideas?), regional and ethnic accents are now supposed to invoke hilarity during body-swaps. To make matters worse, two characters are elderly. The ensuing age jokes wear thin rather quickly.
This film is basically equivalent to an old, worn-out tire with some shiny new tread glued on (i.e., a "retread"). It's an OK watch if you keep your expectations a bit low. I give it five (5) stars given I still like many of the characters.
PS The ostrich running down the street at the end is a nod to the original film, where the Jungle came OUT of the (board) game, versus the (video) game sucking players IN.
Jumanji (1995)
Silly but Imaginative Classic
Although Robin William's amazing improvisational skills are muted here, he's still great fun in this ground-breaking (for the time) movie. Whether the now-dated goofy humor is endearing or boring is largely up to the viewer's taste. Jumanji was released 15 years after Airplane! (with its far more modern/clever humor), but the creators of Jumanji probably wanted to ensure a family-friendly result (note how many reviews mention seeing it with your kids).
IMHO, this is a movie that most everyone should see at least once; not only is it a classic, but it's also a precursor of the excellent Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. I think it's worth noting that only in the original film (Jumanji) is it possible to have characters lose their memories of the game when their timeline is altered. In other words, only those who NEEDED to remember do. Alternatively, one could say that the oldest participants retain free will; it's up to them how to use what they've learned. Because this (technically) changes history (the younger participants end up never playing the game), a new timeline is created.
Jumanji is easily the most charming and sentimental of the three movies. The Christmas scene at the end is quite moving. I think it rates seven (7) stars.
Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)
Emma Stone's sarc is the best part
This self-referential sequel is completely watchable, but seems like an attempt at a shallow self-parody. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's goofy -- but not always in a clever way. The original film was fresh and inspired, but this one is hit-or-miss.
There's some great sarcastic writing here and there. For my taste, Emma Stone has the best lines (and facial expressions and sarcastic accents). To be fair, the entire cast IS trying; but there's only so much they can do with the script, and the overall result flirts with tedium.
The characters are fine, but it's hard to care a lot about them in this goofy self-aware pseudo-parody. I never felt they were real people, or were ever in real danger (because of script destiny).
This is OK light entertainment; I give it five (5) stars.
Diabolical (2022)
Nice idea but very uneven
The first toon, "Laser Baby's Day Out", is by far the best. The gentle retro flavor, combined with OTT violence and gore, is brilliant. Highly recommended.
The other toons vary greatly in quality. They're ALL watchable, but expect some to not be to your taste, as there is a lot of diversity here.
One wonders what someone new to the Vought universe would make of all this (hmm ...).
I do think it's great that folks like Awkwafina (The Farewell), Christian Slater (Archer), Aisha Tyler (Archer), Nasim Pedrad (SNL), Andy Samberg (SNL), and so many others helped.
I rate this at six (6) stars overall. The Boys and Gen V are better.
Byzantium (2012)
Classy and character-driven vampire tale is a slow burn
Vampire films are usually standard formulaic (Dracula-style) affairs, odd variations (e.g., The Hunger), parodies, or low-budget schlock. Byzantium is none of the above -- it's a British arthouse drama that uses vampires quite effectively as a plot device. In other words, it's not just about vampires; there are many themes here (e.g., class, sexism, responsibility vs freedom, and questioning authority) which aren't exclusive to the undead experience.
The casting and acting is very good, but some may find the pace to be rather slow. While it didn't change my life, I liked this film. BUT -- you have to be in the "right" (i.e., thoughtful) mood.
I give this 6.5 stars, with a half-star bonus for some of Gemma Arterton's outfits. That's seven (7) stars total.
Freud's Last Session (2023)
Gad -- I hope the play was better
This film imagines a meeting (which might have actually happened) between Sigmund Freud (Anthony Hopkins) and C. S. Lewis (Matthew Goode). The disjointed conversation covers disagreements involving Christianity (and religion in general) vs atheism, good vs evil, the nature of sexuality, and other topics. This seems like a worthy basis for an art film (it's based on a play), but instead of penetrating and enlightening (or even controversial), it's superficial to the point of near-tedium.
The filmmakers must have been worried about losing the audience if they got too deep. There are many distractions to (presumably) keep the audience awake -- flashbacks (including relived trauma), dreams, romantic entanglements, character flaws, and medical crises. The problem with this approach is that the discussion, while quite animated, is simplistic and unsatisfying. I learned nothing of importance, and had nothing to think about afterwards -- this "null result" was unexpected and quite disappointing.
There are some decent moments, so I give this 4.5 stars, with a half-star bonus for Matthew Goode's performance. That's five (5) stars total.
Cabin Fever (2002)
Mildly interesting variation on the cabin-in-the-woods tropefest
Director Eli Roth's first movie, "Cabin Fever", was supposed to reinvigorate the horror genre. It didn't -- that honor arguably belongs to The Cabin in the Woods, which cleverly (and subversively) parodies many of the tropes that are found here in Cabin Fever. For example, we have the lonely gas station run by rednecks. We have the remote cabin that a bunch of dumb-ass kids (soon-to-be victims) can't leave. We have a scary "thing" terrorizing them (in this case, a super-deadly virus). We've got the standard personalities (sexy gal, virtuous gal, jock, nice guy, etc).
This movie is watchable and has some interesting moments. But it's not particularly memorable -- or believable. Who uses unfiltered water directly from a pond as tap water? NO ONE. It's ridiculous.
This movie has multiple rednecks; was the idea of copying aspects of Deliverance supposed to be revolutionary?
On the plus side, we have Cerina Vincent, who is attractive and frequently unencumbered by clothing above the waist.
I give this 4.5 stars, with a half-star penalty for lack-of-believability. That's four (4) stars total.
Mad God (2021)
Brilliantly Weird and Artfully Disgusting
This film is unique and impressive. But like many far-out art films, it poses more questions than it answers. I can easily imagine people debating whether there even IS a plot. The hellish and post-apocalyptic scenery is NOT suitable for date night.
This film is a little bit like Tim Burton tried to animate famous painter Hieronymus Bosch's vision of hell and went insane in the process. It's beyond grim or dystopian; it's macabre and nightmarish.
A tad more narrative structure would have helped; the ending is interesting but unsatisfying. Still, even if it's like a bad drug trip, this film is worthwhile just for the visuals. Any deep meaning you may find should be considered a bonus.
I give this seven (7) stars -- just for the experience.
Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever (2009)
I'll never drink punch again
This film by Ti West is FAR better than Eli Roth's original. The characters are more interesting, and there is a lot of good satire. The gore is plentiful and IMHO not meant to be taken seriously (but perhaps folks did; there's a lot of bad reviews -- hmm).
This film made me smile quite a few times, so that's worth six (6) stars in my book (I gave the original only four). Given the gore and bad behavior at a high school prom, it's possible this film is a gentle satire of a several other (rather obvious) films, but who knows really.
The original Cabin Fever, while mildly painful to watch, is a useful precursor to this film, which picks up right where the previous film ended.
If you see this film and liked it, check out Zombeavers -- it's lower budget (and quite uneven) but even more warped in some respects.
Dracula III: Legacy (2005)
Slight improvement over Dracula II: Ascension
I think they tried harder with this film (Dracula III: Legacy); the Eastern European locations helped (and the circus-gone-bad theme was decent). Also, they maintained the same cast; in fact this film starts EXACTLY where the previous film left off; it's like one long movie divided into two halves.
We now have Rutger Hauer playing the boss vampire, and though he's a fine actor, his weird (and kinda lame) portrayal of Dracula gives this film a schlocky vibe.
For me, the very first film (with Gerard Butler, Christopher Plummer, and Jonny Lee Miller) is WAY better than either -- I gave it a 7. Dracula II: Ascension was VERY disappointing by comparison -- I gave it a 4. I'm rating this film at 5 stars. It has a nice ending BTW; it's memorable and arguably the highlight of the film.
Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver (2024)
Better than Part One
Aside from the visuals, I was quite underwhelmed by Part One -- I gave it 5 stars. Part Two is an improvement in that we learn more about our merry band of "Seven Samurai", as they share their formative background stories. The upshot is that these previously one-dimensional characters are now two-dimensional. In addition, I think Part Two is less blatantly derivative. This may sound like faint praise, but I honestly appreciated the improvement, and some credit is due. However, the characters in these films are merely there to provide sufficient story context for a bunch of CGI.
The visuals are good, just like in Part One, but with more explosions. The defensive prep of the village was well done. It's nice to see people use their brains and come up with a plausible strategy (kind of rare in movies). So again, credit is due.
I enjoyed this movie; I think it rates 6.5 stars on that basis. However, I'm deducting a half-star for semi-predictability. That makes six (6) stars total.
PS The lack of powered (or automated) farming tools (aside from a stake-bed hover-platform) is puzzling. It's supposed to show some pseudo-Amish quality-of-primitive-life, but anyone who has actually done that kind of work will tell you (better) TOOLS give you quality of life. Granted, they had a mill, but carefully avoided showing the power source (hmm). Anyone who thinks subsistence farming is "fun" is delusional; mechanized agriculture is responsible and necessary for modern (middle-class) life; without it you have a neo-feudal society at best (which GRANTED is what they're depicting, but better tools would be in EVERYONE'S best interest, and are clearly feasible in a society that can make dreadnoughts, robots, and hover-boards).
Dracula II: Ascension (2003)
Predictably Poor Sequel
I liked Dracula 2000 -- I gave it a 7. This sequel is lame, tired, and uninspired. I watched it immediately after the original, because:
"I had a good time, so I foolishly craved some more. / The first film was fine; what did the second have in store? / But now I can only whine -- be careful what you wish for."
While there's one line that made me laugh, this sequel has really nothing to recommend it. It's not terrible; it's just ...meh.
Everything about the original is superior -- even the women were better looking (and yes, that matters in a vampire movie).
I give this only four (4) stars.
Dracula 2000 (2000)
Fun vampire movie (but not original - duh)
This is a good "rainy day movie" as another reviewer noted. We have a great cast here and they are used well. Some folks complain the film isn't original -- but WHAT were you expecting? It's Dracula!
The pacing and overall vibe in this film is very good. A young (and rather dashing) Gerard Butler plays a heartthrob version of Dracula. Christopher Plummer does a fine job as Van Helsing, and his assistant Johnny Lee Miller suddenly learns a great deal about vampires (the hard way). I especially liked Jennifer Esposito's portrayal of one of Dracula's mistresses; she was really fun/convincing/hot.
I've seen so many inferior vampire movies that Dracula 2000 is a breath of fresh air (by comparison). Sure, the usual tropes are here (why wouldn't they be?), but it's all so nicely done that such familiar plot devices are more than welcome here. Also, a LOT more is ultimately explained in this film than one might expect (though some may not care for the "history").
I give this seven (7) stars for engaging light entertainment.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Brilliant satire is a tour de force for Peter Sellers
This classic film is full of dark and/or deadpan humor . There may not be many LOL moments for modern (jaded) audiences, but back in the era from when it came (where "zany" humor was the norm), this movie was considered to be hilarious (at times). This Stanley Kubrick film is remains unique -- it's still quite watchable (and weird).
The casting/acting/directing is excellent. Peter Sellers plays three roles, and that's part of the fun (note how Monty Python does this to an extreme). His portrayal of Dr. Strangelove -- complete with a goofy German accent -- is delightful; arguably the highlight of the film. However, Sterling Hayden's character, General Jack D. Ripper, is magnificently insane (and still meme-worthy on the Internet). George C. Scott is wonderful as General 'Buck' Turgidson. Weird names crop up frequently; consider Burpelson AFB ("Peace is our Profession").
There is a smattering of sexual innuendo (e.g., "precious bodily fluids") which adds to the absurdity. I rate this at nine (9) stars, despite a blatant misunderstanding of what a radioactive "half-life" is -- it's NOT the time for radiation to (nearly) disappear, it's literally the time for it to drop to HALF (50%) of it's previous and/or initial intensity. The nuclear industry considers ten half-lives to be sufficient for a substance to be considered safe; this is a reduction by a factor of 1024 -- the substance is then only 0.1% as deadly as before. But in this film, a doomsday weapon with a 93-year half-life is considered safe after only 100 years (!).
FYI, such doomsday ("fifth wave") nuclear weapons ARE totally feasible (and in, ah ... certain circles ... are "assumed" to exist); the most famous example is the cobalt bomb, which has a 5.27-year half-life. This means the fallout and/or residue is FAR more radioactive than that of a regular H-bomb, but it still lasts long enough for people in bunkers to starve to death. Ain't technology great?
The Monster That Challenged the World (1957)
Competent but derivative radiation-induced-monster tale
Tim Holt (as no-nonsense Lt. Cmdr. John 'Twill' Twillinger), Audrey Dalton (as the poised and conveniently single Gail MacKenzie), and Hans Conried (as brainy Dr. Jess Rogers) add some charm to this familiar tale about radioactive monsters -- mollusks in this case. Yes, you read that correctly.
The creature effects are pretty bad (this movie from 1957 after all), but despite the tired "atomic weapons-testing caused it" premise, the acting is decent; it makes the film watchable. Now, SHOULD you watch it? That's a tough call; I don't think there's much here that's actually memorable (except for the creature-in-the-lab scene). This is not a classic like "Them!" (which came out only three years earlier -- and these giant mollusks have ant-like pincers -- hmmm).
I give this five (5) stars, which is probably par for a watery "Them!" rip-off. At least the pacing wasn't sluggish (pun intended).
You Don't Nomi (2019)
Tedious, unconvincing, and frequently irrelevant
Given how much I agree with the 1-star ratings of this supposed "documentary", my rating may surprise. I think this film isn't actually terrible, it's just lame and somewhat misguided. Now, Showgirls itself IS terrible, but that's not what I'm reviewing here (mostly).
This film has flaws. Much time is spent on the notion that Showgirls is either a "misunderstood masterpiece" or an "over-the-top FUN movie". But as the film clearly shows, Paul Verhoeven intended Showgirls to be serious drama. The studio eventually began marketing the movie as so-bad-it's-good (which I personally disagree with), but for whatever reason it found a cult following, especially among segments of the gay community.
One of the stranger assertions is that Showgirls is simultaneously bad and good, as if quantum physics is somehow involved.
The various unseen narrators have conflicting perspectives. Some bend over backwards to provide arguments that Showgirls has hidden merit. A LOT of footage of other films (many by Verhoeven) is shown to illustrate points or entertain, but it's mostly distracting and annoying. What I found most interesting about the actual Showgirls footage was how much more star power and/or stage presence Gina Gershon had than Elizabeth Berkley. A documentary about Gina would have been FAR more interesting.
You Don't Nomi touches on an off-Broadway musical adaptation of Showgirls, which was interesting (at first). The exaggerated mannerisms that seem so dumb in the movie work just fine on the stage. However, FAR too much time is spent listening to the life story of the lead performer (gad).
I give this four (4) stars, which is probably generous, given how little I learned relative to the time spent watching.
Gisaengsu: Deo geurei (2024)
Binge-Worthy Fun
This South Korean show is like a violent gangsters/police/military version of The Host (which also featured an alien turncoat). It's reasonably well-acted and paced. I like the characters, although some are under-developed. The premise is ridiculous but sufficiently interesting to hold one's attention (the high-quality CGI helps). The ending is appropriate and satisfying.
For those who haven't seen the anime (and gotten certain expectations), this show is fine -- if you don't think about it too much, and just enjoy the ride. There are some memorable scenes.
There are plenty of technical/plot/logic flaws (as some reviewers have noted). Just one of these small parasites can devour your brain in seconds and then control your body in frightening ways. This film makes John Carpenter's THE THING look entirely plausible by comparison.
I give this eight stars, with a one-star penalty for lack-of-plausibility (see the negative reviews for details). That's seven (7) stars total.
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015)
This zombie spoof is pretty good -- Scout's Honor
This target audience for this mock-thriller is probably high-schoolers (and guys in general). There's a lot of juvenile body-part humor, but it's well done, so no complaints here. This film abounds with familiar tropes, but what do you expect from a spoof?
Patrick Schwarzenegger has a small role as a popular ("in"-crowd) D-bag, but he does this very well and even has some stage presence (not sure anyone else did). No wonder he was cast in Gen V.
Tye Sheridan (Ready Player One) does a fine job as nice-guy protagonist Ben. Ben's love interest is played by Halston Sage, whose dazzling smile is quite startling. She even plays "Dazzler" in Dark Phoenix (huh).
I don't think this film is as good as Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, but both movies have a playful semi-serious style, so if you like one, you'll probably like the other.
The end-credit phone pics are a nice touch -- we get to see that the main characters kept in touch and seemed to be having fun. Other pics are rather meta/whimsical (i.e., they can't be taken literally), but they were fun as well. I like the closure provided.
I give this six (6) stars. See it before the Zombie Apocalypse!!
The Offering (2016)
Final act is a derivative trainwreck
I was in the mood for some engaging schlock, but ... "Be careful what you wish for." This film tries to be a bit different, and partially succeeds for a time. But the Exorcist-type ending is really bad; totally derivative and stupid to boot.
The way characters in this film see AMAZING supernatural activity, then just shrug it off ("Ho-Hum") is puzzling; it detracts from the film in every possible way. One has to question the directing (to put it mildly).
Some actors were better than others; the worst ones (like the ex-husband) are nearly wooden. It's unclear how the girl was cast; did she lose a bet?
The binary-code-is-the-one-language-and-therefore-demonic plot makes no sense, especially if you understand computers. Is the binary instruction or data? If instruction, for what processor? If data, what is the format (and context)?
This film was a slightly interesting failure, so I'll give it three (3) stars.