annie421 Reviews

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)

It could have been better if...

[5/10 · 29 June 2019]

I get it. People suck. We're killing the planet. But when you give a humanity's the infection, they are the cure speech... you need to really sell it in a way that doesn't make your eyes roll hard. (See Agent Smith in the Matrix)

And that reveal is kind of big part of the plot. The movie started out interesting with this senate hearing and this potential story of what do we do when people want to take control and dovetails into this weird be nicer to the planet I dunno feels cheap and heavy handed.

Things I did like? 1. Beautiful monster fights. Genuinely scary and even if you couldn't see the blood and guts you could feel how small we are in comparison to the monsters. 2. Sound and light design was gorgeous 3. Love Kyle chandler and Bradley Whithford. 4. That Godzilla main theme, equally cheesy and epic 5. Despite the plot issues I kinda want to know more about this world. And if you always want to know more about the world then I think the filmmakers did something right.

Men in Black: International (2019)

Predictable, fun, unnecessary reboot

[5/10 · 14 June 2019]

I love the OG MIB series. So when I first heard they were making this, I had the same reaction that I did when I saw the trailer for Jurassic World. "Eh... looks dumb but I'll watch it." Much like my reaction, that movie was dumb but it was watchable.

This one does a few things right 1. It keeps the irreverent nature of the original. 2. Opening the MIB world up was fun because we saw hints of the world wide operation in the original movies. 3. Tessa Tomopson and Chris hemsworth have good chemistry. That was proven in Thor 3. It's still there, the friendly kind of flirty banter. 4. I like that they brought back Emma Tompson. 5. There's a little bit of a twist that I didn't see coming. Now that I think about it, it should have been obvious but I think that was nicely done. I think the thing that sold it was Chris Hemsworth's acting here. You could tell something was off but you didn't know what. I actually thought they might make him the mole and then this movie would have been completely bonkers but I would have loved it. But seeing how damaging neurolizng someone can be.

Things that wouldn't bother most people but they kind of bothered me 1. The lazy writing. -I knew from the beginning that agent C wasn't the mole. I love Rafe Spall and he actually has been one of my favorite Brit actors since Shaun of the Dead, and he did the best he could with the material he was given. -Also, agent M and the therapy thing, it's such a trope. She's smart and dedicated and she was right! I dunno... and then when she first approached H, because of the whole comedic slow down thing, it looked like she approached him cause he was hot and not because he was the best agent- I mean this is a debatable point because I figured it out but the last bits with the lingering looks? Ehhh

2. Men in Black- it's in the freaking intro speech! I get that they only neurolize people and maybe aliens have different rules but I don't know how I felt about Chris hemsworth in clothes that weren't MIB standards. I mean it doesn't have to be a suit and tie necessarily, several of the women costumes are still black and white but with flair. Even Agent M wears these heeled boots. (I know that's probably practical because of the height difference but still, very cool) this is nit picky I know, but it's a little thing that I think holds true to the style of the first movies.

3. The wall of world saving - I know that on a cinematic point of view if you only have two, it simplifies things and we are left with iconic movie images but the MIB as an organization has saved the world more then that. I think if the production had a few more of different off screen adventures, maybe tying in the cartoon or even the original comics? Again nit picky but I think there's a missed opportunity

4. The rom com angle. - no they didn't kiss, but I don't know... it felt kind of unnecessary.

5. Wasted villains- technically the twins are still villains because they did kill a lot. (even if they were doing it for a right reason) i dunno... it felt like there could have been more done..some kind of fallout for MIB killing "innocent" aliens?



I could go on building a pros and cons list but in the end it would always even out. All in all it was a fun shallow movie that kept the irreverent spirit of the original, falling apart a little. If they do make a sequel, I do hope they bring it back to NY and see if J and K are willing to come back.

Snowpiercer (2013)

I saw it almost year ago and it still gets to me

[9/10 · 27 June 2014]

I had the privilege of seeing this movie in Korea when it was originally released. A fan of The Host, I knew this director could blend the absurd nature of the topic into an interesting topic. What I forgot is that he has this way of making optimistically bleak endings. Genuinely, this movie is transcendent in its message, are we stuck on an endless loop? Do we ride the same history and violence because we need too? what would happen when the day comes that someone decides to change the "status quo"? All this is very meaty food for thought but sometimes not the reason everyone will go see the movie. Hopefully the one released stateside hasn't been edited and you see the beauty as well as horror of humanity. Some positives? -Very well shot. You could feel the immensity of the train juxtaposed to the claustrophobia they must feel. -acting. In all its ridiculousness, i never felt like anyone was ever overdoing it. Seriously, even with Tilda Swinton's caricature of a person, she was spot on in the insanity of her part.

Some negatives? -The ending. Like I said, this guy makes bleak optimism or optimistically bleak endings. There is a difference, I don't know where this falls in but after that I needed some straight up cheeriness and the ending didn't do that and while its a minor quibble, it's my quibble.

Much Ado About Nothing (I) (2012)

Don't be fooled by the language, this isn't Shakespeare it's pure whedon

[5/10 · 3 February 2014]

I'm a fan of Joss Whedon. I think he can and has proved himself to be clever and inventive with his ability to tell a story. So like many I was looking forward to see him tackle the Bard, especially since it seems like he would be able to do Shakespeare justice with all his "Shakespeare readings". All that being said, this wasn't good. I mean it wasn't the worst adaptation of Shakespeare I've seen but it was by no means good. If anything, it boils down to how the text was abridged and some actors inability to understand what they were saying so they spouted it out like "Shakespeare" and not real words. It's like cutting out the set up to a joke and just delivering punchlines and expecting people to laugh. Then there was the delivery and nuance. I guess since they didn't really have time to study or rehearse it, you miss out on a lot of the subtleties that are laced within each line. Still, I got to give it to Joss Whedon though, he'll get a group of people who'd never read Shakespeare to sit through one. I do hope if he decides to tackle Shakespeare again, he'll give it the time it needs to breathe. kudos for making it in 12 days or whatever but don't let it show so much.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Great sequel

[10/10 · 7 June 2013]

In my years of being a movie goer, there have been very few movies that have surpassed the quality of the first. Not to say the first star trek was bad, but this had the chance to be a repeat of the first but instead it was the continuation of the story with hints of the first. Sure JJ Abrams level of paranoia was kind of ridiculous and I kinda knew what would happen but none of that mattered. He steered the movie into ways that made complete character and story sense. On top of all that, it looked amazing in IMAX 3D. Many movies that go the 3D route are headachy and a mess but this was awesome.

If there was one complaint I had, some of the "science" looked fishy. I mean I get it, it's science fiction but come on, as our society moves forward would it be so wrong to have science that isn't there to just look cool?

Other than that I loved every minute of it. Chris pine and Zachary Quito are amazing and I can't wait for the next one.

Iron Man Three (2013)

I liked it

[9/10 · 26 April 2013]

Look as with any movie based off of something, this might have its detractors. I get that. But if I were to rate it on its own, it accomplished its mission. It was loud, it was awesome and most of all it had heart.

After the events of the Avengers, Tony Stark is rattled. This is a guy who's made billions on sheer genius and guts and he had to face something, including near death, that he didn't understand. So to have that PTSD tied in with the plot line of the movie makes sense to me. Protecting Pepper Potts by creating a bazillion suits but almost losing Pepper emotionally because of the suits was an interesting dilemma to play at as well.

The reason I liked it? well other than the awesomeness of RDJ, this movie had little bits, little touches that I think are missing in a lot of superhero movies these days. 1. ingenuity- what made the first movie great and this one as well, is that Tony Stark is a genius and when he has all the glitz around him, its easy to forget that. But this movie showcased some of that great mind and great heart (despite all his snark to contradict him) to prov it. 2. Heart- If you're familiar at all with The Iron Giant... man this movie has some callbacks to the 1999 gem that I just loved. If you haven't seen it, I would definitely recommend it. 3. Happy Hogan- I liked that Jon Farverau (sp?) decided to still play happy despite not being in the director's chair. He had some great moments and the truth is even if he's only the bodyguard/driver he's one of those people that helps Tony stay human, if that makes sense. plus he's a fan of one of my favorite shows. :) 4. Ben Kingsley- the man is awesome. 5. Pepper Potts- Her character isn't just a damsel in distress but that doesn't stop her from being any less Pepper. 6. The scene in the trailer with all the suits- just as awesome as imagined.

There are a few things that I can see why people don't like it 1. Unless you've been heavily involved in the whole of the marvel universe, its kind of easy to get lost watching this. Not so much like the Harry Potter movies where you can't just pick it up and get it, but there are still some moments where it would help to know and see the previous films. I mean yeah the end credits help by giving you an overview but still, it could be a bit of a detractor 2. Like I mentioned before, if you are a superfan of the comics, you might not like how some of your beloved characters are portrayed. I mean there are certainly things I would have liked to have seen, but I get why the filmmakers went this route, and I enjoyed it.

All in all I think it was a vast improvement over Iron Man 2 and a good way to close the trilogy, if that's the plan. I mean after avengers 2 they could find someone else buttt this last one sets a pretty high bar. Watch it, enjoy it and please get that this is a superhero movie, thats what was set out to be made, nothing more nothing less. :)

Unfinished Song (2012)

If you're going to be predictable...

[8/10 · 24 April 2013]

From the very first trailer, you can see what kind of movie it is. The challenge is showing you something that makes the predictability worth it and this movie had it. it showed London suburbs, it showed old people doing funny things (which in my book never actually gets old), it showed Great performances and you know what... It even had a cute kid who wasn't annoying, :) so yeah.., it definitely is a predictable weepy, touching family story but by golly I think it was worth it and would recommend it.

Plus HUGE doctor who fan talking here but it's always nice to see Chrisptoher Eccelston. :)

Oh and Gemma Arteton. She is a gorgeous actress and has done all these really big pictures where she does always seem to play a type, so it's nice to see her play something quiet- I would recommend Lost in Austen too.

Anyway, watch it if you just need a good laugh and a good cry. :)

Welcome to the Punch (2013)

Great title, interesting premise doesn't live up to any of it

[6/10 · 18 April 2013]

I am a fan of action movies- even the pointless shoot Em up ones. But this one,,. This shouldn't have been in the category. Within the first act you're introduced to a villain, portrayed by the amazing Mark strong, and you're cop who goes off the rails but still remains the hero, played superbly by James McAvoy. The set up is awesome and then sprinkled in is an even greater one, both plot wise and even as a political statement, should a country that has refrained from giving everyday police officers weapons all of the sudden change? In order to enhance that we are again introduced to even more characters all portrayed superbly.... And then.... Well then it kinda falls flat. Revelations aren't given their moment to breathe, there's a whole piece where max Linskey (James McAvoy's) character is framed for murder and now all his friends are trying to catch him but that's never really explained. In that regard I kinda consider it a disappointment. If anything, mark strong and James mcAvoy are both action stars and know how to carry weapons so that part looks cool... Plus Johnny Harris and the guy who played Mac on the fades made this a tiny bit of a treat. Still... My advice, you can totally skip it, cause once you get past how cool it looks, you'll see how empty it really is.

The Bible (2013)

The Spirit of The Bible... indeed

[5 March 2013]

Whenever words like that splash before anything I always cringe with a tad bit of worry because it usually means "we've changed it and kept the title but still like it". Prince of Egypt way back in 1998 had the same disclaimer. While neither are 100% accurate descriptions of the Bible story that I grew up with, I genuinely believe that they kept the spirit of the Biblical story. However, I know that a generic review to get you to watch this or avoid it might not be the best thing so here goes

1. who Am I? I am an evangelical Christian, I believe that the Bible is God's word on earth and I believe that the whole thing is as relevant as today as it was back then. while it may not be a word for word account of things that happened day by day, I do believe that it holds its own as a historical document as well. If I had a choice in creating a TV docudrama of the Bible- I would make it 24 hours and give it a chance to breathe (but more on that later) I'm telling you who I am because my faith plays a part in my review and I want to, in full disclosure, let you know the bias behind my review.

2. The Pros. -The narrative structure is compelling. By having the pre credit sequence be Noah telling the creation story to his family on the boat, I thought it was a stroke of genius. -The acting. Noah was a Scottish actor which really fit, in my opinion. The actor portraying him had conviction, toughness and a hint of crazy that was all par with who the world saw Noah as.Then came the following big names like Abraham, Moses and Joshua. Both men (young and old) acted their butts off. The challenging thing about playing a Bible character is to portray the strength of faith and the weakness that we tend to feel when faced with such extraordinary characters. -There is a really subtle but awesome bit of foreshadowing with the scene between Abraham and the three visitors. If I think its going where its going, I give props to the creators for sticking true to that aspect of the passage. - The angels in Sodom and Gomorrah. While this part was very Hollywood, I honestly didn't care because I really think the phrase "spirit of the Bible" was true. - The narration- Keith David was an awesome choice. I can't explain it but something about his voice really fits with this version - They're adding bits of the Bible story that isn't often represented in film. (not that I've seen anyway). Its an interesting creative choice and I look forward to the next four weeks and what else they include.

3. THE CONS - While I applaud the film makers for some of the stuff they added, they are leaving out some really key stories. there are barely any mentions of Jacob or even Joseph. I get that not everything can fit, but I would have at least thought that they would have merited at least a montage. Plus, Moses' story is largely truncated and the Israelites 40 years in the wilderness , well that shaped the nation, more of it should have been added- if I speak from a purely Hollywood standpoint? To have more scenes with the actor portraying Moses. He was pretty awesome. But from a narrative standpoint? stuff that happened later on largely stemmed from their time in the desert.

So all in all, I think its a really well done production, because at the end of the day, if it gets people to pick up the book( or download the app) even if it is to argue with it, then it's fulfilling its great Commission.

Take the time to watch it- Unless you're a stickler for the details and can't get your head around the Samson is going to be black or that Jesus is going to be portrayed as the Roman "pretty version" or because you're favorite story isn't in it... well then that's on you. I for one enjoyed it and will continue to watch and see how God's story unfolds.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

An expected treat

[9/10 · 15 December 2012]

Having been a fan of Peter jackson's since the Frighteners, I am well aware that when you are going to see a peter Jackson film expect a certain amount of great visuals and expect great acting even if the story line tends to suffer a tiny bit. So I wasn't surprised going into the Hobbit that I would come out a fan because Peter Jackson delivered as expected. He showed some new scenery of New Zealand and he got the absolute perfect company of dwarfs and goblins and orcs and hobbits. Also there was a return to the familiar with some well placed return characters of Gandalf, old Bilbo,Frodo, Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman and Gollum.

What I loved and why I would recommend it? 1. The company of Dwarfs. Each and everyone of them are identifiable, even if you can't get the name of them right, each actor brings something that makes each dwarf memorable and lovable. Their camaraderie makes the drama believable and their humor lovable. (keep watch for some excellent choreography amongst them in song and fight scenes) 2. Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield. He has a really cool gravitas that just makes him larger than life. I mean seriously you watch him and you forget that he is in fact a dwarf and there are creatures of middle earth taller then him. Also his love and protectiveness of his fellow dwarfs. There is a scene where it looks like a few of them might be lost and when they are not the look of heartbreak to relief was spot on. 3. Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Gosh... I can see why Peter Jackson worked the filming schedule around for him. If you are a Sherlock fan definitely watch his performance here. He just has a knack for making any character he plays vulnerable and heroic and lovable. 4. The themes of the story- While the plot points of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are similar (a quest, a stop at Rivenddell, etc) The differences that make this story unique are what make it fun.

what I wasn't too crazy about... 1. The length and the slight Deus Ex Machina feel to the end scene. Not having read the Hobbit I don't know if what happens in the last scene exists in the book but having watched the Lord of the Rings and been slightly bothered then as well... I can't help it, I was slightly bothered.

All in all if you are a fan of Lord of the rings and want to revisit Middle earth, definitely watch it. Plus... if you are watching it within the first two weeks in IMAX 3D( i think thats how long its on for)the first 9 minutes of star trek is an awesome treat.

War of the Arrows (2011)

Just barely missed the mark

[8/10 · 16 May 2012]

This movie had the potential to be amazing. Historical dramas always do. A person learns a little history and the thematic messages can be so relevant to the culture you live in today. However, war of the arrows failed to do that because it forgot to talk about it. Visually its obvious it takes place in a certain time way back when in history. But thats about it. Sure, there are enough references here and there to add to the plot but it begins to tear at the seams abit. I loved this movie because it had great pacing, it had great acting and overall it used every movie cliché and trope to its advantage. But it needed a little bit more substance in story. So if you are happy with excellent visuals, great acting ( THe guy who plays the villain, oh my word he is in my top ten list of villains) and killer archery scenes then definitely watch this movie. However, if you are going to scratch your head at the thin plot... don't. While I wished there was a bit more, it was entertaining and moving enough for me to give it a 8/10.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Like an unofficial reboot

[8/10 · 21 April 2012]

I love the first M:I movie, it was intense and gritty and action filled. having never watched the show I can't mak any comparisons on how it translated from film to screen but I digress...

The second one was a classic John woo movie. As a john woo fan I overlooked a lot of stuff that bothered me because it looked cool.

when the third one came around, Tom cruise was going through his crazy phase and nothing in the trailer made the movie look like it was worth seeing.

But this one was different. 1. Brad Bird directing his first live action 2. Jeremy Renner groomed to take over the franchise 3. Simon Pegg in a larger role 4. I kind of like the fact that it had a subheading and not M;I4, even if it was the fourth movie.

More than anything by the time the third movie rolled around the IMF was too slick so having the ghost protocol initiated and forcing it to be about the four of them it made it a fun action flick but a cool character drama as well.

Brad Bird is a great director and while this may surprise many as his first project into live action, think of it as his "soft opening". When he gets the backing to do the movie he wants to make the audience will be in for an awesome treat.

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

"It's like a monet"

[3/10 · 18 April 2012]

in the classic movie called clueless there is a scene when Cher compares the girl to a Monet. Far away it looks cool but up close its just a big old mess?

This movie falls squarely into that category. In theory it works and falls under the whedonverse world of snarky cleverness in it's approach.

The reason people have got to stop praising it as this genius commentary of horror movies is because in their effort to pile on homage after homage and still maintain their quick wit they left out a few key factors that make a movie work and the audience is left with a lot of pretty crucial questions.

Don't get me wrong, it had its moments. After Fran Kranz dropped the "stoner" voice that he felt like he needed to have in the first ten minutes of the film, his natural charm helped make the character likable. Brian White showed the moral conflict for a guy working a new job that is just weird.

But everything else kind of floundered. You can say that it was too clever for its own good. Maybe if it didn't revert to the "it's awesome because the whedonverse says its so" reason for doing things, then people can see the holes that exist. And if some can poke so many holes in the movies plot, doesn't that mean it's not as good as it is made out to be?

The worse thing about it is the ending. On the one hand it is genius because after the many twists and turns the movie has already made it turned it around once more, just for kicks. At the same time, the implications of the ending are really depressing.

Real Steel (2011)

A conditional 10 out of 10

[9/10 · 13 October 2011]

If you liked the trailer, then I would definitely recommend you watch it. Often trailers give away too much or completely mislead you, this one does neither. It doesn't raise expectations of being this generation's Rocky but it also isn't a mindless flick. It has heart and great performances and it has the action that makes it a fun movie. Props go to Hugh J. for being utterly dislikable when his character needed to be. Many might think i mean he's kind of like wolverine where he presents a rough exterior but secretly you love him, no i mean there where times I wanted the power to walk into the movie and smack his character, he was that much of a jerk. But the real star was the kid who played Max, Dakota. To be able to go toe to toe with Hugh & also bring life to Atom, well that takes spunk and this kid had it in spades. There is a line in the movie where the character of Charlie says " are you kidding me with those eyes?" I think it describes the relationship that these two actors are able to foster. This movie isn't perfect, to be fair no movie is if you ask too many questions, but it delivers as promised, it's fun, inspirational and frankly pretty cool. I give it a conditional 10/10 as long as Hollywood does NOT make a sequel. There are some movies that do warrant a revisit of the characters but this isn't one of them.

Smokin' Aces (2006)

A Ryan Reynolds fan I may be... but this movie is just short of being Good

[5/10 · 18 April 2007]

I wanted to like this movie. I reallllly did. And in a lot of aspects I still do. Here's the big thing that bugs me. I waited until the DVD came out because well I'm a Ryan Reynolds fan and I knew I was gonna by the movie anyway so I waited...sigh... I mean sure the whole Ryan Reynolds only seems to sport a beard with the more serious of roles but he pulls this one off really well. I liked all the other characters and i think if there was a better script doctor (editor) on this project it would have been received a little better. The problem comes with the fact that Joe Carnahan was so fixated on making this an ensemble piece that he forgot to make a logical story. As cliché as it may sound if the story followed one character from beginning to end and rooted a little more for that one character I think people would have left feeling better. For example the end of the movie is amazing. i mean if you reedited the movie abit or just showed the ending, you could forgive Andy Garcias accent because Ryan Reynolds gives a very powerful performance underlined by a beautiful Clint Mansell ( Requien for a dream) score. If this scene where shown alone as the trailer and the movie in flashback or something like that then it would be a much better movie. But Joe Carnahan tries too hard to make a Lock stock barrel and two shotguns type picture that he gets lost with his point.

Now lets say that the movies focal point was buddy israel like the trailers suggested. the action would have been greater annnnd it would have been easier to root for him. IN this movie he's just a schmo who got greedy.

With all that being said I don't regret buying this movie ( I have coupons so i paid like 5 bucks for it) and I would recommend people to watch it if they want to see come mindless fun and some very powerful but lost in the shuffle performances.

the 3 that stand out in my mind Ryan Reynolds, Chris Pine ( of Princess Diaries 2) and an unrecognizable yet hilarious Matthew Fox (lost)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

Best movie of the Year.

[10/10 · 10 December 2005]

I LOVE this movie. I mean I love the books so I was a little hesitant when I heard the reports of the film makers having changed it so much. I was very surprised that the changes actually made me like the movie even more! I mean they stuck true to what CS Lewis originally thought up. Only adding to the story to help with the baseline. Even cooler is the fact that this stands alone as a great movie and people can stop comparing it to Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. It can stand alone in movie History as another great addition to the fantasy genre. And regarding the fear that it might be too "Christian" as a lover of the series and A Christian I was also pleasantly surprised that the film makers didn't detract from the original allegory without stressing too much on the fact that its not a Christian movie. The story is an allegory. I saw the context but that doesn't mean that it should only be seen for that. It's a wonderful story and and a wonderful movie that every one should watch. I just hope the filmmakers are smart enough to make all seven.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

I never thought I would say this...

[9/10 · 24 November 2005]

The Acting saved this movie. As an avid fan of the books and the previous movies I've always had my complaints about the movies. I was particularly concerend about this movie because there was so much material and so many subplots that all seemed relevant that I wondered how it would be done. I agree with the fact that making two movies probably would have cost too much and may have ruined the series (ala matrix) BUT there were a few key details that were integral to the next book that were left out. Without going too much into that, its evident that the acting of the 3 main stars has vastly improved and to be quiet honest this movie would have failed without them. If you watch the movie from the beginning you can see that not only have the characters developed but so have the actors. Their working with very limited material and they do a heck of a good job. I will not say too much of the directing because the previous two directors took many liberties and Mike Newell is no exception. To be quite honest I think it lived up to my expectations and not more. If we want to go into technicality I would give it an 8.7/10 but its just easier to round up.

Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (2005)

ummm...

[1/10 · 27 September 2005]

There is a new theater that opened in the mall where I can watch kind old ( Like 3 months behind old) movies for a dollar. Even better than that is that on Tuesdays its 50 cents! So i figured whats the harm? I liked the first one as mindless entertainment... AND as a bonus an actor I liked ( Douglas Sills) was going to be in it. Besdies it would be better then renting it. So what the hey? Yeah... no. I mean .... The first one had the occasional sick joke... but ultimately had a very heartwarming pay off in the tradition of all happy Madison productions. And yet.... I didn't think it was possible to cross that line. That really gross line. Sure I paid only 50 cents. But that plus the hour of my life I lost... It was way too much.

Mom at Sixteen (2005 TV Movie)

Accurate and still has lifetime flair

[26 March 2005]

The one thing I usually hate about lifetime movies is that it seems that its main goal is to see how much a person can cry after watching the movie. This one was no exception on the fact that it does make you cry but it stands different in the fact that the tearjerker factor comes from the fact of how accurate it tries to be. In fact the accuracy of the movie kind of makes it hard to watch at times. Maybe its because of the shaky documentary feel... But you could argue that adds to the realism of it so.. Nevertheless it was a movie well worth the two hours. 4.5 out of 5.

it loses a point for commercials that kind of spoil the ending and a few points for a few lose ends.