Tag Archives: netflix

‘Outside the Wire’ Review

By definition, this is the best movie of 2021.

“Outside the Wire” stars Anthony Mackie as a cyborg in the year 2036 who partners with a drone pilot (Damson Idris) to deliver vaccines across a warzone. Emily Beecham, Michael Kelly, and Pilou Asbæk also star, while Mikael Håfström directs.

Netflix was one of the few saving graces when it came to 2020, not only keeping awards season somewhat normal with players like “Mank,” “The Trial of the Chicago 7,” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” but also keeping us occupied in the early days of quarantine with “Extraction” and “Tiger King.” They recently announced they plan on releasing a new movie every week of the year in 2021, and they start off by giving us “Outside the Wire,” an R-rated sci-fi action film that isn’t without its moments, but also nothing we haven’t seen before.

You can’t go into a film like this with many expectations. The sci-fi genre has been done a thousand different ways, and “robot soldiers in the near future” is no different. Here, Anthony Mackie takes a break from being the new Captain America in the MCU to play a cyborg with a conflicted sense of duty. Mackie is basically playing the same dry and sassy guy he always does, which isn’t a knock or compliment so much as just a statement of fact. Damson Idris actually turns in a solid performance as Thomas Harp, a young drone pilot who is paired with Mackie following disobeying orders during a battle. Idris has a few moments of conflicted nature himself, and has a somewhat moving moment when he is forced to take a human life up-close for the first time, opposed to simply through a computer screen mile away from the actual conflict.

For being a Netflix film, some of the visuals and production values here look pretty cheap. The robot soldiers and drone shots are pretty cool, however most of the kills involve either cheap spurts or awful-looking CGI blood. Some of the fight choreography is impressive, and when director Håfström stages the camera far-enough away from the action that we can see what is going on some of the kills are fun. I doubt this even got the $65 million budget that “Extraction” received, because for every shot that feels like a normal studio blockbuster, there are two that come off like a straight-to-DVD Bruce Willis romp.

The film tries to offer various forms of commentary, but none of them are fleshed out of groundbreaking. The United States is involved in an endless cycle of pointless wars? Wow. Robots are the future of warfare but that isn’t without its risks? You don’t say. Many of these ideas aren’t even introduced until the final act, where the film gets randomly messy. Despite its familiar plot and lack of true ideas, the film is also very self-serious, which ends up hindering it.

“Outside the Wire” isn’t the worst movie of its genre, and since it’s free on Netflix I can recommend checking it out without any guilt on my conscience. It has moments of interest and entertainment, and actually may have been a traditional solid boots-on-the-ground war film that didn’t need to add the sci-fi element. So long as you go in without expecting anything new, deep, or groundbreaking I think there are worse ways to kill two hours, because let’s be honest, what else do we have to do right now?

Critics Rating: 5/10

‘The Midnight Sky’ Review

As far as blatant rip-offs go, I’ve seen worse than this.

“The Midnight Sky” is the latest directorial effort from George Clooney, based on the novel “Good Morning, Midnight.” The film follows a lone scientist in the Arctic (Clooney) who must journey to a radio tower to warn off a returning spaceship (containing Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, Tiffany Boone, Demián Bichir, and Kyle Chandler) after a global catastrophe on Earth.

George Clooney is a very interesting director. When he hits, he hits, with serious dramas like “The Ides of March” and “Good Night, and Good Luck.” However he has recently fallen into a bit of a rough spell, with missed opportunities like “Monuments Men” and the awful “Suburbicon.” His latest (and most ambitious) effort, “The Midnight Sky,” is his first attempt at both a blockbuster and at taking part in the Netflix machine, and while the results are mixed, I think there is enough here to be worth checking out from your couch.

As far as his direction here goes, I appreciated Clooney’s humanistic approach. He had to take a “crash course” on visual effects (more on that in a second), but as far as his handling of the actors go, I think he did a good job getting personal performances from his cast. As far as the story goes, it’s a bit more mixed, because while Clooney’s personal “Revenant” journey through the Arctic with a young girl (Caoilinn Springall) is intense and emotional, the sequences aboard the spaceship belong in a completely different movie (and that movie is “The Martian”).

Half of the special effects are solid here, but in 2020 it takes a lot to wow an audience (especially without seeing them on a big screen). Some of the greenscreen moments are a bit wonky, but Clooney does manage to take a page out of his “Gravity” playbook and create a few “wow” moments when he pans back to reveal the full scope of the universe. In a year where “Birds of Prey” is going to end up as the highest-grossing superhero movie, I could see “Midnight Sky” slipping into the awards talk for its production value, but in a normal year this wouldn’t earn any additional talk for its VFX.

The familiarity of the film certainly hinders it, and for some viewers may even ruin things. However I found myself enjoying a fair amount, whether it was with the film (an exciting snowstorm sequence shot in real-life 50 mph winds at 40-below) or at its expense (the astronauts break out into a carpool karaoke of “Sweet Caroline” like its the 7th inning at Fenway; dumb). Alexandre Desplat’s score, while on-the-nose at points, is also very good, and is one of my favorites of the year.

“The Midnight Sky” thinks it is being slick trying to be a half-dozen better films rolled into one, but given our limited amount of big-budget fair in 2020 I think this latest attempt by Netflix to break into the blockbuster game is admirable-enough to warrant checking. Sure, you could watch “The Revenant” or “Interstellar” or “Ad Astra” instead (and likely should), but for those who demand little and want something “new” (used in the loosest of terms), I think this works.

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘Mank’ Review

I feel the amount of anticipation and pressure on this film and David Fincher to deliver can’t be understated.

“Mank” is the latest film from director David Fincher, and his first since 2014’s “Gone Girl.” Written by his father Jack Fincher, the film follows writer Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) and his development of the script for “Citizen Kane” in 1940; Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, Arliss Howard, Tom Burke, and Charles Dance also star.

I’m a decent fan of David Fincher’s work, from “Se7en” to “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (one of the biggest crimes of the 21st century is us never getting a proper sequel to that), and of course the director’s crowning achievement “The Social Network” (the actual biggest crime of the century is him losing Best Director to “The King’s Speech’s” Tom Hooper). Fincher took some time away from directing films to focus on developing the series “House of Cards” and “Mindhunter” for Netflix but he is back with “Mank,” a film written by his father Jack (who passed away in 2003). Originally set to star Kevin Spacey in the late-90s, the film is a witty and meticulous view of the old Hollywood system and the demons that men with power face, and while it may not rank among Fincher’s best works, I feel it is one of 2020’s better films nevertheless.

For the longest time, Gary Oldman was one of those actors that everyone knew and loved but he never seemed to get the dramatic roles that matched his talents. He finally won an Oscar for his turn as Winston Churchill in “Darkest Hour” (whether he deserved it over Timothée Chalamet is another story), and here he is as solid as expected. Oldman’s Mankiewicz is dry and witty, except when he’s sloppy and drunk, and always seems to be the smartest man in the room. It isn’t groundbreaking work, but as he himself says, “you cannot capture a man’s entire life in two hours, all you can hope is to leave the impression of one;” and we come away knowing exactly the kind of guy Mank was.

My favorite performance comes from Amanda Seyfried, who portrays actress Marion Davies. Seyfried is sympathetic and while she has less scenes than you would imagine, her presence is felt as a young woman who feels like she has to keep her opinions quiet in a room full of rich old men. The rest of the cast is expectedly good, including Arliss Howard as studio head Louis B. Mayer and Tom Burke as Orson Welles, who perfectly nails Welles’ deep voice and charismatic mannerisms.

Outside Aaron Sorkin’s quips, this is my favorite kind of script. The old-timey rat-a-tat dialogue that is just so sharp and witty that it makes you chuckle even though the line wasn’t technically a joke (“how’s the leg?” Wells asks an injured Mank. “Oh you know, knee bone connected to the thigh bone” he replies). This could land Jack Fincher an Oscar nomination 25 years after he completed the script and more than 17 years after his death, a feat that would mirror August Wilson and his work on “Fences” a few years back.

David Fincher projects always look great, typically with a nice color pallet (“Se7en” is yellow, “Gone Girl” blue, “House of Cards” grey, etc). Here the film is shot in black-and-white, the reason it took Fincher so long to find a studio to back the project, and emphasizes shadows. It is clearly an homage to “Citizen Kane” and the films of old, and at times it is pretty to look at. It never comes off in the same stunning and almost hypnotic way as say, “Roma,” but the cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt works great in certain sequences.

Now the film has a lot on its mind, from the 1934 government race to the old studio system, and not all of it blends perfectly together. Things feel disjointed at times, with the narrative constantly jumping back and forth between Mank trying to keep his socialist views quiet in a Republican-oriented industry (which makes you chuckle when you look at Hollywood today) and his 1940 writing of the script injured in a bed. Also, despite the true authorship of the “Citizen Kane” script being both a big historical controversy and a selling point of the film, the subject is treated as an afterthought until Fincher throws it in (the film itself ends rather abruptly).

“Mank” may not be for everyone but if you love movies, Hollywood, and alcoholism (or the seething criticism of the three) then you should get you kicks here. Do I wish this was an all-timer and not “just” a good movie? Sure, the pieces certainly were there. But I found myself engaged from start to finish, and look forward to revisiting the world again.

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom’ Review

“Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” is based on the play of the same name by August Wilson, and follows “Mother of the Blues” singer Ma Rainey (Viola Davis) amid a stressful recording session one summer afternoon in 1927 Chicago. Chadwick Boseman also stars (in his final film appearance), with Glynn Turman, Colman Domingo, and Michael Potts in supporting roles; George C. Wolfe directs.

When Chadwick Boseman passed away from colon cancer this past August, it came as a shock to many. He had been looking thinner in recent public appearances, but since he was such a larger-than-life character both on- and off-screen, plus we had just watched him in Spike Lee’s “Da 5 Bloods” in June, no one assumed the worst was coming. Maybe Boseman knew “Black Bottom” would be his final performance, maybe not, but his work has almost a spiritual sense to it, and could see him earn a posthumous Academy Award nomination.

Chadwick Boseman was only really a big player in movies for seven years, when he came onto the scene as Jackie Robinson in “42.” Since then he played several prominent African-American historical figures, as well as the superhero Black Panther in the MCU. Boseman always had a presence about him, and you feel it in “Black Bottom.” Boseman’s Levee, a trumpet player with high ambitions, is wise-cracking and full of swagger (when we first meet him, he is hitting on women and bragging about his new shoes), but underneath the surface there is pain and struggle. Boseman is able to flip the switch so quickly and with such nuance that you almost don’t even notice, and he says as much with his words as he does with his eyes. I still think Anthony Hopkins gave one of the best performances I have ever seen in “The Father” and he deserves the Best Actor awards, but Boseman is sure to earn some over the next five(!) months and I will be over-the-moon happy for him and his family.

The rest of the cast is solid, with Viola Davis obviously being the other big draw here. Playing Ma Rainey, Davis does her own singing in the film and wears a heavy amount of makeup, to the point she is almost unrecognizable. Davis is at the point in her career where it is hard to be surprised by her acting, and I didn’t think she did anything too great here, but she is able to carry the scenes where Boseman is absent.

The production and costume design are both top-notch as well. You get immersed in early-20th century Chicago, from the cars and the skyline, to the loose ties and fedoras. The score is also pretty good, with the low jazz horns and drum beats.

Where the film comes up short is arguably the most important aspect: the script, adapted from August Wilson’s play by Ruben Santiago-Hudson. Santiago-Hudson has a career in theater, as well as acting in films, but this is his first screenplay. Much like “Fences” and other adaptations, the film definitely feels like a play, with only two main locations (both big square rooms) and some exaggerated Shakespearian dialogue and monologues. My issues aren’t with all that, it is that the narrative seems unsure how to lay all the plot points out. For most of the film the big issue is finally getting Rainey’s song recorded, and the hurdles they face from a stuttering singer to Boseman’s ego. However in the final 15 minutes we get a whole world of new conflicts, and it seemed like there wasn’t enough going on in the first two acts to suddenly way too much in the third.

“Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” is an actor’s showcase, including a touching swansong performance from Chadwick Boseman, and has some fantastic below-the-line work as well. I can honestly see a world where this gets nominations in every category except Screenplay, that is how notably weaker it is compared to the top-tier work everywhere else. For sure check this film out when it drops on Netflix, and I will be rooting for it to win many awards all season; I just wish the overall experience as a whole left a greater impression on me.

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘Rebecca’ Review

Someone needs to get to the suits in Hollywood and tell them that not every classic film needs to be reimagined.

“Rebecca” is based on the 1938 book of the same name, which was famously adapted by Alfred Hitchcock in 1940 (his only Best Picture winner). The plot follows a newlywed couple (Armie Hammer and Lily James) that is haunted by the memory of the husband’s deceased wife. Kristin Scott Thomas, Tom Goodman-Hill, Keeley Hawes, Sam Riley, and Ann Dowd also star, while Ben Wheatley directs.

Remaking classic films is nothing new, Hollywood has been doing it for years (such as “True Grit,” “Ben-Hur,” and “A Star Is Born,” which gets dusted off every 20 years), and it’s very rare they are actually worth revisiting (“A Star Is Born” is ironically probably one of the few films that perfectly balances paying homage to the source material while also adding its own style). While “Rebecca” is not a straight-up remake of Hitchcock’s film, it is based on the same book and thus follows the same beats, and while I have not seen the 1940 original, this 2020 version simply never justifies its own existence.

Armie Hammer has had an odd but quietly successful career thus far, coming onto the scene in 2010 with his dual performance in “The Social Network.” After being the titular role in the notorious box office bomb “Lone Ranger,” he has done small supporting roles in things like “Sorry to Bother You” and earned award talks for “Call Me by Your Name.” An American, Hammer makes attempts to carry a British accent here (the film is set in Europe and the rest of the cast is naturally British) and about halfway through the runtime decides to just drop it (seriously, there are lines of dialogue that are flat-out Californian dialect). He tries to have a sense of mystery about his character, but it never really comes off much better than what “Fifty Shades of Grey” tried to do with Christian Grey.

Lily James is always dorky and charming, and here she is fine. She is supposed to go through this gradual change as the film progresses, with one character saying she has lost her innocence, but that is never organically portrayed on-screen. She also suddenly becomes an expert in law and medical science and anything else the plot needs from her, and it’s just lazy writing.

From a production standpoint, the film looks great. Seriously, the cinematography by Laurie Rose, especially in the early scenes set in the French Riviera, are gorgeous and lit perfectly. The attention to detail by the production design crew is to be commended, and it at least keeps you mildly intrigued when the plot consistently does not.

“Rebecca” is luscious on the outside but hallow on the inside, and despite being an easily-accessible Netflix movie is not worth a watch. There is no true conflict until the final 20 minutes, and there is simply nothing here that we have not seen done before, and done better. In the film, Hammer never wants to talk about his wife Rebecca, and I don’t want to ever think about her again, either.

Critics Rating: 4/10

‘The Lovebirds’ Review

“The Lovebirds” follows a couple on-the-run (Issa Rae and Kumail Nanjiani) after they witness a murder. Michael Showalter directs Paul Sparks, Anna Camp, and Kyle Bornheimer also star.

Originally scheduled to be theatrically released by Paramount in April, this film was delayed because of the coronavirus (maybe you’ve heard it it?) closing theaters around the country. Netflix then swooped in and purchased the rights, and chose to release it digitally (not unlike Tom Hanks’ “Greyhound” which was bought by Apple TV). An interesting choice to be sure (this by-default becomes one of the cleaner-shot comedies put out by the streaming service), but despite the charm and comedic timing of its two stars, “The Lovebirds” runs out of jokes and steam too quickly, despite only running a brisk 87 minutes.

The “trying to escape the cops in a single night because of a misunderstanding” storyline has been done before, finding success in both the comedic (“Date Night”) and dramatic (“Run All Night”) genres. To succeed you have to be able to justify so many events in such a small window and have actors who can carry a thin concept, and while the other two films I mentioned have those things, “Lovebirds” only has one.

No one seems to be working harder in the industry right now than Issa Rae, starring in numerous films like “Little” and “The Photograph” and continuing to write, produce, and star in her HBO show “Insecure.” Her winning smile and sharp timing are benefits here, taking even the most basic line of dialogue and adding a glance or under-the-breath comment to it. She has some nice back-and-forth with Kumail Nanjiani, an Oscar nominee for his “The Big Sick” script (also directed by Michael Showalter), and he is his normal hit-and-miss self. When Nanjiani is on, he has great delivery and the perfect amount of over-acting; but he can also swing and miss at jokes, and that happens in several scenes here.

The script (written by Aaron Abrams and Brendan Gall) has some clever jokes, but so many of them come in the first 45 minutes. By the time Rae and Nanjiani have made their second or third pitstop, the film begins to run on fumes. Showalter seems content to just let things play out in a basic way, and while the film moves pretty quick (again, it’s less than 90 minutes), there is no true sense of momentum or energy.

“The Lovebirds” is a perfectly watchable film that did make me chuckle on several occasions (I even laughed out loud hard at one joke), but its script and premise never fully commit to the possible zaniness, nor does it have enough jokes to last its runtime. While at this point I would kill to be able to see anything in a theater again, “The Lovebirds” is a quintessential Netflix film; quick, simple, and easily forgettable. I didn’t hate myself for watching it, I just wish that I came away feeling… something.

Critics Rating: 5/10

‘Extraction’ Review

It is always refreshing when a movie is exactly the thing the trailer promises it will be.

“Extraction” is the latest vehicle for Chris Hemsworth to attempt and establish himself outside the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and follows a black ops mercenary who must rescue a drug lord’s kidnapped son from a rival dealer in Bangladesh. Rudhraksh Jaiswal, Pankaj Tripathi, Randeep Hooda, Golshifteh Farahani, Suraj Rikame and David Harbour also star. Career stuntman Sam Hargrave makes his directorial debut, as “Avengers” directors Joe and Anthony Russo produce.

While they long-ago perfected the television binge and seem to have a grasp on Oscar movies, Netflix has been trying to compete in the big-budget blockbuster game for a while now. Their first attempt back in 2017, “Bright” starring Will Smith, was a critical failure but a hit with the views. Other attempts, the overly expensive but solid adult actioneer “Triple Frontier” or the brainless “6 Underground” from Michael Bay, have also failed to make a lasting impression. “Extraction” may not stay on the mind for very long after watching it, but while you’re on the ride it provides several standout action sequences.

I have long been a fan of Chris Hemsworth, and really want him to find his niche outside playing Thor. He seems to be enjoying the character now that it was reinvented by (Oscar winner) Taika Waititi, but I have always thought he was at his best and most-natural as the supporting player in comedies, like the “Vacation” and “Ghostbuster” reboots. He has tried his hand at dramas and lighter action pieces before, but this is the first time I think he was able to really find something that worked for him. His character development is pretty thin, but Hemsworth is able to get one emotional scene in that he does a pretty good job with. But, for the most part, he is running around with a gun, and for the sake of the story he does a convincing job doing that.

Since this follows in the footsteps of “John Wick” and has a stuntman in the director’s chair, the action sequences here are all very well put together. For the most part the camera isn’t too close or shaky, allowing the audience to take in the fights and the actors to actually put on a convincing bout. There is a sequence in the middle of the film that includes several car chases, a shootout and a knife fight, and it is shot and is edited to look like one continuous eight-minute take. The individual moments in the scene are very impressive entertaining, but unlike a “Revenant” or “1917” the spots where they stitch the (at least four) separate shots together are a bit obvious, if not distracting. I love a one-take, but feel it must have some sort of purpose, not just to show off.

The script by Joe Russo is, fine. I don’t think he set out to write the next “Social Network” or anything, just need excuses to get characters from A to B. There are some awkward bits of dialogue (although also a couple entertaining quips), and the ending is, well, something. There is also a lot of violence and a comically high bodycount, and while I’m fine with that since this is, well, an action movie, I know some people have lines even with R-rated films, so just a heads up.

“Extraction” is certainly a take-it-or-leave-it movie, in a “you’re stuck at home right now anyways, so how picky can you really be about the things you watch?” way. The actors all do a solid job, and the gunplay and hand-to-hand combat sequences are well put together. Could it use a little more meat on its bones? Sure. But for being locked in my house and going on nearly two months without movie theaters, “Extraction” was a welcome mindless treat.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Ridiculous Six’ May Be Sandler’s Worst

The_Ridiculous_6_posterAdam Sandler may not be funny, but give him credit; he is one heck of a businessman.

“The Ridiculous Six” is the first of Sandler’s four film deal with Netflix (because he wised up and realized people have gotten too smart to pay theatrical price for his “comedies”). The film stars Sandler, Terry Crews, Jorge Garcia, Taylor Lautner, Rob Schneider, and Luke Wilson as half-brothers who must set out to rescue their father (Nick Nolte) in the Wild West. Frank Coraci directs.

I personally gave up on Sandler long ago, and I was never a huge fan in the first place. I think he is great in films that he doesn’t write/produce (like the underappreciated “Funny People”), but all too often (aka always) he phones in his performances and instead just delivers an unfunny film as an excuse to go on vacation with his friends. Clearly Sandler realized audiences were wising up to his act and decided to strike up a deal with Netflix (which, why, Netflix? You’re doing so well…), where his films cannot be judged off their lack of box office success. But maybe not having the stress of the box office would make Sandler try, and maybe being with director Frank Coraci, who directed Sandler’s arguable best film, “The Wedding Singer,” would be the kick-in-the-butt he needed. Yeah. And maybe Donald Trump isn’t insane.

I went into this movie thinking it was going to be a bad, lazy, sexist, racist, unfunny Adam Sandler film, and lo and behold, I was right. But there is just something about “Ridiculous Six” that seems even worse. It is somehow worse than his film from earlier in 2015, “Pixels,” and arguably the worst film of his career (it is without a doubt his worst performance).

I guess I’ll break this film down by what it is and what it isn’t. First: in true Sandler fashion, it is lazy. You want an example of one of the jokes? A donkey projectile poops against a wall for five seconds. Now if you thought that wasn’t funny the first time, you’re going to stare in amazement at the next four occurrences. No joke, I was leaning over to say something to my friend (who had the misfortune of watching this alongside me) and the first time the donkey did its thing I genuinely exclaimed, “what the [expletive] was that!?” Not because I was frightened by a jump scare, but because it is so random and so juvenile that it mere existence took my inner-being by surprise.

The film is also racist and sexist, per ush. There are plenty of Native American “jokes” sprinkled throughout the film (and I don’t put jokes in quotes because they’re tasteless and I’m being PC; I put it in quotes because they never show anything resembling an attempt to be funny). There are also black and Mexican jokes galore; Rob Schneider plays a Hispanic man who wears a sombrero the entire film. Get it? Because he’s Mexican? And they ride donkeys and have sombreros? HA!

There’s then a scene where the Six come across Abner Doubleday as he is inventing baseball (the film’s only scene of merit, as it pokes fun at some of the sport’s sillier rules). However, and I kid you not, in the moment leading up to the scene I turned to my friend and said, “well I mean the Natives and Hispanics are getting hit pretty hard, but at least Sandler is leaving the Asians alone.” I jinxed it. Because mere moments later, the men come across Doubleday talking to a group of Asian men, all wearing stereotypical Asian headwear, and I let out a long sigh and “offff course.”

Then there’s the classic Sandler trope that God-forbid any female character impacts the plot. Also may Hell freeze over if any woman has ANYTHING to offer besides their cleavage. The one woman person who has the benefit of being more than a flesh trophy is captured and escapes in the same scene, begging the question why the scene exists, and then only returns to become a damsel in distress in the film’s climax.

And the editing in this film, oh my God. Some scenes just draw on forever (did I mention this film is two hours long?). My only theory is the film made it through the first cut of edits and the editor quit because he could not in good conscience watch any more of this film, much less take part in sending something out into the internet that would be seen by millions of innocent, underserving civilians.

I’ll give the film a pat on the back, at least it is…watchable? Like it isn’t like “Fantastic Four” bad where I was squirming in my seat and needed the film to be over. I was having a good enough time making fun of it, and I did laugh maybe three times, albeit I instantly felt guilty for doing so.

Here’s the bottom line about “The Ridiculous Six” besides “don’t watch it.” It is just another and yet somehow worse Adam Sandler film, and further proof he does not care about you or any another movie-lover. He only cares about getting richer and hanging out with his friends, and for that he is a brilliant and ruthless businessman. It will be interesting to see if Netflix honors the remaining three films on Sandler’s contract, because I cannot see a single person itching to see anymore Sandler anytime soon.

Critics Rating: 3/10