Bit disappointed by this film. I saw the amazing short that was the basis for this film a few years ago, and it packed more punch in 7 minutes than this version packs in 105 minutes.
Everyone does their job well, the acting is uniformly good, the cinematography and setting are great. The problem is, the story is too thin and lacks depth. There are a couple of interesting ideas, the 48 hour time-line of the infection, the wrist bands counting down the 48 hours. But the padding of the plot feels forced and ultimately unnecessary. Everything could have been and probably should have been wrapped up in a much shorter time frame, and that is why the short film worked so well.
All in all, it was a good enough film, but considering the source it should have been amazing.
6/10

An artful and inspired retelling of a classic. Delightfully Wes Anderson esc with a feminine pallete.

Well, what a happy surprise. The director set up absolutely beautiful scenes of stunning upper class English homes. Elaborate rooms. Just an awsome film. A most happy ending for everyone. A bit tongue in cheek portrail of English life during the Victorian era. Really enjoyed it.

When I saw the previews for this latest interpretation of Jane Austen’s Emma, I envisioned a reimagining of the classic, with the plot or the setting radically changed with creative license applied liberally throughout. I was ready to not like it.
But instead I discovered that wondrous creativity was launched to make small tweaks to details. There was Harriet Smith, who may have been plain, but marching here and there with her classmates, dressed in matching red dresses and large hats, providing a very striking Image for the eye. There were the chorale music resonating at the end of scenes, leading to or melding into the beginning of the next scene. And Bill Nighy, who was suitably wary of illness and draughts, but had a spring in his step at times to juxtapose with his fearfully cautious nature.
I thought Rupert Graves and Miranda Hart were imaginative choices for the roles of Mr. Weston and Miss Bates. And there is even an creative tweak to the one-word title, whereby a period is added after the name to indicate that the movie is - wait for it - a period piece.
So this is the third version of Emma in the past 25 years - two movies and a mini-series - and for now at least, it is my favorite.

Thinly plotted but enjoyable enough drama-comedy with a nice performance from Anya Taylor-Joy. Never read the Jane Austen novel nor seen any of the other adaptations, so I don't know how this one compares, but I liked it well enough. **3.0/5**

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Emma. is Autumn de Wilde's feature film directorial debut, as well as Eleanor Catton's screenwriting debut. I never watched any previous adaptations and period movies aren't exactly "my thing". This doesn't mean I can't appreciate them! The Favourite and Little Women are the most recent examples of films belonging to said genre that I absolutely love. The main reason why I felt the need to watch this adaptation was Anya Taylor-Joy's first time as the sole protagonist.
I genuinely believe she'll become one of the greatest actresses of her generation, along Florence Pugh, Chloë Grace Moretz, Hailee Steinfeld, Kaitlyn Dever, Saoirse Ronan, and a few others. Her performance in this movie is yet another argument to validate my prediction. She's phenomenal as Emma! It took me a while to get used to her voice since she applies a much higher tone than her usual one. Seeing actors doing different accents is pretty common, but changing their voice as Anya does, even if it's a simple modification, it still shows how committed she was to her role.
As cliche as it might sound, she carries the whole story on her shoulders. She's the link that connects all storylines and characters. Without her, the film doesn't work, so her display had to be near-perfect. Anya demonstrates her range and emotional ability, as well as a seamless control of the complex and rich script. Most dialogues possess long sentences with sophisticated vocabulary, something only the best actors can deal with effortlessly.
Anya shines, but her character does too. Emma's arc is quite interesting. Besides being "handsome, clever and rich", she has no respect for the poor, manipulates her friend's romantic decisions, and sometimes acts in a very selfish, arrogant manner. Her transformation into a better person is the most captivating arc of the screenplay, but it also demonstrates my main issue with the movie as a whole. Ten minutes in, and I knew everything that was going to happen.
Now, I always try to avoid thinking too much ahead. But when it comes to relationships between characters, it's all so predictable and obvious to me that I can't help but guess the whole story. The same screenplay trick is used throughout to twist certain relationships, becoming repetitive and a bit dull. I never felt truly invested in the film until the one-hour mark. It's mostly well-paced, but when nothing is surprising, innovative, or creative regarding the overall narrative, there's not that much that can keep me captivated.
The first act is a tad confusing, with too many characters getting introduced too fast. Honestly, I just discovered while writing this review that a secondary character is supposed to be blood-related to one of the main ones. Story and characters are the two pillars of any movie. I've always written this. If these two don't work, then everything else crumbles. It's far from collapsing, it's actually very well-structured, but it's like these two pillars are just like thousands of others. There's no distinct characteristic that makes these unique.
Weirdly enough, I never felt bored. The cast really does a nice job of keeping me entertained by every remarkable performance. Bill Nighy (Mr. Woodhouse) and Miranda Hart (Miss Bates) are quite funny. The costume design is gorgeous besides being extremely important since it actually elevates the story by clearly identifying who's rich and poor. Production and set design are fantastic. Great cinematography (Christopher Blauvelt), and an enjoyable score (Isobel Waller-Bridge and David Schweitzer). Nevertheless, as outstanding as the technical achievements might be, the film still lacks a unique directing style, which is normal, having in mind it's the director's first feature.
All in all, Emma. doesn't reach the latest period movies' level like The Favourite or Little Women, but it's a fine start for debutants director Autumn de Wilde and screenwriter Eleanor Catton. Anya Taylor-Joy delivers an exceptional performance as a very well-written Emma Woodhouse, carrying the film on her shoulders until the very end, cementing her place in Hollywood as one of the greatest actresses of her generation. The rest of the cast is also pretty great. The costume design steals the "technical show", but the production level in this movie is impressive. However, the narrative lacks surprising elements, making the existence of this new adaptation a bit questionable. Why make another film if there's nothing unique about it? Predictable from the get-go, confusing first act, and very hard to feel invested before the one-hour mark. If you enjoy period comedy-dramas, I recommend it. Otherwise, the two movies mentioned above are probably a better choice...
Rating: C+

If you doubt the need for another Austen, let this gorgeous film change your mind. Instead of ignoring the offers made to the period film genre by great films like 'Anna Karenina' and 'The Favourite', 'Emma.' runs with them, finding a new language for approaching the great works of one of the great writers, realising her wit and humour in new and exciting ways while honouring the deep intelligence and generosity within them. I spent the entirety of Autumn de Wilde's wonderful film with the dumbest smile on my face, mixed with peals of laughter and gushing tears of joy. This is how we must approach the great classics - a celebration of what we love about them and an engagement with how they can speak to us here and now. That's how and why they can continue to matter so much.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-emma-a-dazzling-new-adaptation-of-jane-austens-classic

A beautiful encouraging love story.

Honestly, I don't even like George Clooney as an actor, but I love John Grisham books and this script was the perfect vehicle for Clooney. I actually was riveted to this movie and thoroughly enjoyed it.

a mostly unoriginal compilation of every previous Liam Neeson film...

Third rate thriller, with a messy plot (along with bad dialogue), is made a little worthwhile thanks to Liam Neeson. Nothing terribly memorable including the action scenes which was pretty average, however it's a satisfying enough if only as a one-time viewing. Will say, at least it is better than Taken 3... **3.0/5**

'Honest Thief' has an engaging enough premise aided with a decent cast that is worth checking out, especially if you're dying just to see something new in cinemas - just don't expect to be blown away or fully invested in this one.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-honest-thief-an-honestly-average-time

My favourite of the most recent three, if not of them all.
'Halloween Ends' gave me more than I was expecting, if I'm honest. After the solid if slightly underwhelming 'Halloween Kills' I thought this may fall further adrift but, happily, it doesn't. I think that I like this the most of all twelve entries after the original, which is probably still a jot above this one in my mind.
I won't repeat myself too much as I've summed up my overall thoughts on this franchise in prior reviews of those other flicks, but in short I enjoyed this release more consistently throughout and the characters actually interested me a fair amount.
Jamie Lee Curtis is, obviously, the star of the show, but Rohan Campbell is a great addition and Andi Matichak gives her best showing of these David Gordon Green films. In previous installments the cast behind (or sometimes in place of) Curtis have failed to truly entertain me, perhaps aside from the first one and (minimally) 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later', but here I was happy to follow the scenes involving those behind Curtis.
I will say that the third act lost me a little in terms of interest, though that's only ever so slightly as all in all I had a good time with this. Let's hope they end this franchise here but I highly doubt that they will - gotta catch that £!

Okay, seriously, when is the real "Halloween Ends" be released? What I saw for the bulk was some lame CW-like story. I have to think at this point David Gordon Green and the writer crew are just pulling a prank. I half expected a post-credit scene with Impractical Jokers...
I don't even know what to say. I had low expectations going in given how much I disliked Halloween Kills but Ends didn't even meet the lows of the lows. Really dumb. **1.0/5**

Well there is a hewn-out pumpkin that looks ever so slightly scary... Otherwise, this is just one "Halloween" movie too many and it's only scream yells "put me out of my misery" pretty much from the start of this slow and plodding denouement to the franchise. Rohan Campbell ("Corey") is bullied by some kids who end up shoving him from a bridge. He is dragged into the storm drains by you know who and emerges a man possessed. He has also attached himself to "Allyson" (Andi Matichak) who just happens to be the daughter of long suffering "Laurie" (Jamie Lee Curtis) and after a bit of hysteric family melodrama, all of her demons are flee-flowing and we are heading, slowly and ponderously to a conclusion that the best of which has already been seen many times in the trailers. This is far too long, virtually nothing happens until the last fifteen minutes and even then, there isn't even the vaguest hint of menace or jeopardy. The production is adequate, but JLC doesn't really feature often enough - as in "Halloween Kills" (2021) to make much impact - and the whole thing is episodic and smacks of made for television. Please let it be the final instalment - this bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original 1978 introduction to "Myers" et al.

_Halloween Ends_ does provide what it promises and that’s a proper end to the Laurie Strode saga. However, the birth of a new rushed, hot-headed, and sloppier version of The Shape seems to take precedence only to be squashed before Laurie and Michael meet one last time. Entertaining at times and frustrating at others, _Halloween Ends_ is a bloody scenic route of a conclusion that is mostly satisfying despite its underappreciated albeit risky detours.
Full review: https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Halloween-Ends-2022-Review-A-Square-Shape-in-a-Round-Horror

It's a sad state of affairs when HALLOWEEN ENDS (2022) is being classed as a "bad", "terrible" or "disgraceful" motion picture and I worry for cinema as a whole if the only direction the mass want is nothing but cookie-cutter.
This film is a straaaaaaange beast and it probably holds the world record for the quickest development of a relationship on screen. Bloody hell, I wanted that relationship to succeed.
I'm going to be controversial here... did we need Michael Myers at all here? Maybe the 2 or so scenes we get in the sewer early into the film and that's it... maybe pass the evil on and Michael die of his wounds.
The evil is contagious element worked for me and Corey (played by Rohan Campbell) was the standout character.
Issues? Yes, there are some - the narration and memoir aspect weren't needed and Corey's mum... erm, I'll leave it there.
But I admire this film, oh boy do I. I'd rather the risk be taken than them fall back into the same old routine.
Now, before I start the Corey Appreciation Society, all I have left to say is... give a new biscuit a try.

An unfortunate end, to a horror franchise, that started way back in 1978.
Halloween Ends, is an inarticulate mess, that fails to build on past films. Instead, it delivers an incomprehensible story, that makes little to no sense, save that it brings the overriding story, to a somewhat confused, conclusion.
On the upside solid acting and some tense, jump scare moments but really, its not enough.
In summary, a reasonable cast in a poorly scripted film, that add's little to nothing that is meaningful, to the tale of serial killer, Michael Myers.

**Poor writing and a confusing story overshadowed a few shining moments and satisfying conclusions to character stories.**
It’s so hard to choose whether I liked or disliked Halloween Ends. I enjoyed the resolution to Laurie Strode’s 40-year story arc and the hopeful journey for her granddaughter, Allyson. Even the final showdown between Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Myers was satisfying, although the story didn’t build to the climax well. Sadly that is where the pros stop. The story was a convoluted mess that ignored all the build-up of the first two films and focused on a new character that didn’t matter to the overall story and didn’t have much impact on the film. As a result, Halloween Ends forgot what made its two predecessors successful and told a pointless meandering tale that had its moments but ultimately disappointed.

_Halloween Ends_ is such a weird film, as a standalone movie I enjoyed it but in the trilogies totality it underwhelms and undermines. With each entry in this trilogy, the movies get farther and farther away from what Halloween is. With Ends there is no tension and no horror, there are some good kills but with nothing building up to it they felt stale. This movie also tears down Michael Meyers in a way that felt out of place in the trilogy. Halloween Kills built Michael up to be an indestructible force with the ability to withstand fire or multiple gunshot wounds, but in Ends that is flipped on its head making him weak due to the ending of the predecessor. It left me feeling like the writers had no idea what they were doing in developing this trilogy. The marketing of the movie was a total farce as well. It was building up to a final clash between Laurie and Michael, and while that does happen the majority follows a character that was just introduced (Corey Cunningham). Even though I really like the opening sequence and backstory to Corey, it had no place being centerstage in the final installment. Overall, this movie was slightly better than the sequel but still squanders the potential that Halloween (2018) had for the trilogy. If any more movies or trilogies are made in the future, please for the love of God hire a producer/writer to develop the entire series instead of piecing it together film by film.
**Score:** _44%_ |
**Verdict:** _Poor_

Second time seeing this one, the other was when it was released on DVD some time ago, and thought it was an okay espionage-thriller, though the ending was on the laughable side, primarily the monologue one character does when any CIA agent, bent or not, would've shut their trap shut.
Anyway, it was entertaining and actually if Disney (who I think owns the rights) wanted more adult-oriented content for Hulu, could make a series out of this, would be timely IMO. At this point, they could get Farrell to make a cameo...
**3.25/5**

SPOILER REVIEW
For the first half hour or so the movie looks like being your standard revenge thriller, but then the tone of the movie takes a dramatic unexpected shift.
It's at this point our protagonist, Jen, falls off a cliff and lands onto a tree below in which a branch impales her through the back and out through her midriff. After what in all seriousness should've been a fatal fall you're left thinking; "Surely she's dead, right?" I mean, I know action flicks are far fetched, but surely they aren't gonna just write this off as the equivalent to a grazed knee. Half an hour in and you've seemingly killed off the main character, hmm. Is her identical twin or ghost or something going to take revenge, you're left wondering? Even if she were somehow to miraculously survive, there's no way she'd be in any condition to take Revenge.
Alas, she does survive and she finds a novel way to free herself from the tree she is impaled and suspended from. _Note: this is the part in the movie when you turn your brain off._
After bleeding out for hours in the desert heat, our heroine spots a lighter on the ground within reaching distance. Remember this part; she's in reaching distance from the ground, got that!
She comes to the conclusion that the best way to free herself is to **burn the tree down.** That's right, she's going to burn the tree down of which she is impaled just feet from the ground where a fire is burning below her. Genius!
Anyway, her big brained plan actually works and she manages to get down without burning herself alive.
Skip ahead to where she needs to patch herself up. Next task is to fix the gaping wound running through her body. She finds a cave after acquiring some supplies and you're thinking the 'Rambo scene' must be coming up where she cauterizes the wound.
Now I'm no stranger to suspending my disbelief, but what happens next defies all logic and reason.
She recalls she stashed some peyote in her locket from earlier. According to her now ex-boyfriend, you can cut your own leg off no problem with this stuff and you won''t even feel it, so it'll pass for a painkiller. Instead of pouring gunpowder into her open wound and then lighting it, she decides to go the 'heated beer can route.' Not just any beer can, MEXICAN BEER - with a nifty eagle logo.
After branding herself with the hot metal beer can it magically seals up her back wound also. Ah, the wonders of modern medical care.
As an extra to her life saving self-surgery, she picked up a new eagle tattoo imprinted from beer can. There appears to be some witchcraft at work also, because instead of leaving a negative print (a reverse image) the eagle's logo along with its text are transferred the correct way around. You can't help but laugh out loud. This is one of many plot holes throughout the movie that are so gaping (like the one that should still be visible in Jen's back) you cannot help be drawn to them.
Mirror images seem to be a theme as you'll notice later in the movie.
At this time, Jen has taken on a kind of Mary Sue meets Rambo persona. She doesn't need blood, food or water to survive; or internal organs for that matter, and she has an essence of indestructibility. The film has entered a kind of dark comedy territory.
We proceed in the story when she hunts down her transgressors and it turns out Jen's not the only one who can withstand near fatal damage. The Friday the 13th franchise passes more for realism at this stage in comparison and the movie more resembles an outrageous music video.
In summary: Revenge is mildly entertaining if you can get past its absurdity and idiotic plot holes. Unfortunately, that's where it has to lose so many marks for me. The filmmakers treat their audience as morons and you cannot ignore so many obvious errors. That ruined the experience for me.
**Verdict: 2/10**

**_Gory, but brilliant_**
> _It was very important for Jen to be fully objectified at the beginning of the film, to show that she is at ease with her body and how she uses it, at ease with how she seduces men and attracts male attention. But what I'm trying to get across is that this is not the problem, but rather that the male characters believe that the way she looks authorises them to treat her as though she is to be used and then disposed of like a worthless piece of rubbish. The male gaze in film often implies that women are to blame for acts of sexual violence committed against them,_ _which is deeply problematic. Through each male character, I wanted to show the different abusive behaviours that, to a large extent, have become normalised in today's society._
- Coralie Fargeat; "Exclusive Interview with _Revenge_ Director Coralie Fargeat"; _Bird's Eye View_ (December 5, 2018)
Jen (a superb Matilda Lutz) and her married lover Richard (Kevin Janssens) are enjoying a romantic weekend in his isolated house in the desert. However, shortly after they arrive, Richard's friends, Stan (Vincent Colombe), Dimitri (Guillaume Bouchède), and Roberto (Jean-Louis Tribes) show up unannounced, urging Richard to join them on a hunting trip. As tension mounts in the house, Stan rapes Jen, but when she says she is going to go to the police, and to alert Richard's wife of his affair, the men attack her and leave her for dead. However, unbeknownst to them, she survives the assault, and has set on revenge.
Very much in the vein of films such as Sam Peckingpah's _Strawdogs_ (1971) and Meir Zarchi's _I Spit On Your Grave_ (1978), _Revenge_ is an insanely gory rape-revenge thriller. In her feature debut, writer/director Coralie Fargeat displays an astonishing visual panache as she reappropriates this exploitative sub-genre for the post #MeToo era. From the expansive Ford-esque vistas of the desert to the claustrophobic and labyrinthine finale, her visual language is as dexterous and thematically justified as one would expect from a master stylist such as Michael Mann. The film is very much about the dangers and darker implications of the male gaze, and the way Fargeat's constantly moving camera lingers on actress Matilda Lutz's half-naked body is deeply unsettling, challenging the audience to look at her in the same way the male characters do, before turning this notion on its head in the second half of the film. If you can ignore the plot contrivances, and stomach the gore, you will find a socially relevant film that is as auspicious a debut as you're likely to see all year.

Revenge had so much going for it. The acting was surprisingly good. The symbolism was well done. She actually looked like she'd gone through hell in the desert with dirty hair and grime. Camerawork and the setting was outstanding. Unfortunately the first conflict, which is the basis for the rest of the movie, ended up being way over the top and completely unbelievable. Not to mention the ridiculous amounts of blood everywhere. I wanted more relatable believability and less pointless gore.

The kick in the pants that exploitation films needs.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

To be fair, this film does pick up quite plausibly from the television series. The characterisations are roughly the same, if somewhat older - and that does help give it some cohesion; but the opening scene goes on interminably. The premiss is stretched to breaking point and riddled with metaphors and pseudo-philosophical clichés; and there is precious little action. Persis Khambatta who plays "Ilia" - the conduit between the all powerful alien power and our gang of intrepid adventurers - is almost robotic and sterile; as is the general plot of the film. It seems lost between an adventure film and one with a deeper message to convey; as such it delivers well on neither front. Luckily, there were more, better, films to follow - but this one is best forgotten.

BORING.
I mean, it opens great. The first few minutes sort of give you the impression that this movie is going to be epic...
... and then the rest of it is best spent looking at your phone, cleaning your finger nails, watching linoleum curl, defrosting your freezer...
... finding anything else you can do as it plays in the background just to keep you form dying of Boredom.
And I say this as a Star Trek fan.

***Stands Alone in the Feature Film Series***
A colossal, mysterious space cloud called V'ger travels across the galaxy and threatens Earth, annihilating interlopers along the way ; the origins of V'ger are revealed at the end.
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (1979) addresses some of the deepest questions of life: Is this all there is? Why are we here? Does love exist since it cannot be proved via pure logic? Who is the Creator? The core message is the intrinsic need to seek one's Creator and reconcile in order to attain a (necessary) higher level of consciousness. Those found the film boring simply failed to penetrate beyond the surface.
Like the Star Trek episodes "The Corbomite Maneuver" and "Metamorphosis," “The Motion Picture" (TMP) is a mature, cerebral sci-fi story with very little action. Most kids and young adults won't like it or grasp it. It's depth is evidenced by the emotional wallop experienced when Spock grasps Kirk's hand in Sickbay, truly revealing emotion despite his conflicting desire to attain a consciousness of pure logic; or later when Spock weeps for V'ger and comments on its personal dilemma, which perfectly coincides with Spock's own search for fulfillment: "As I was when I came aboard, so is V'ger now: empty, incomplete and searching. Logic and knowledge are not enough... Each of us at some time in our lives turns to someone — a father, a brother, a God — and asks, 'Why am I here?' 'What was I meant to be?' V'ger hopes to touch its creator to find its answers."
Another powerful sequence is a crewman's self-sacrificial fusion with V'ger so that it may evolve to the next level of awareness (seemingly self-sacrificial, that is).
My conclusion on the film runs parallel to Roger Ebert's comments: "My inclination, as I slid down in my seat and the stereo sound surrounded me, was to relax and let the movie give me a good time. I did and it did." In other words, just accept the film as is, and you WILL be entertained ; put on a pot of coffee (you're gonna need it, lol), kick back and relish the movie magic.
Let me add that TMP was one of the most expensive films of its time, but it did well at the box office and thus made a decent profit, a testimony to how hungry the public was for Star Trek after ten long years (since the cancellation of the original TV series in '69). In fact, aside from "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" (1986), TMP is still the most profitable of all the Star Trek feature films with the whole original cast (Making FOUR TIMES its expense worldwide); it therefore can't very well be the cinematic turd that many critics claim. Also, consider the fact that TMP made more at the box office than the acclaimed films "Alien" and "Apocalypse Now," both released the same year.
I should add that, although this film is an "Grade A" picture as far as epic, awe-inspiring pieces of cinematic art go, I understand why some would grade it lower. In such cases I suggest making the necessary psychological adjustments and watching it again as it is more along the lines of "The Cage" than "The Doomsday Machine.”
TMP is the sole Star Trek film that aspires to and attains a level of cinematic awe along the lines of "2001: A Space Odyssey." Actually, TMP is leagues better IMHO. "2001" lacks characters to care about; it's also cold and overly artsy, with way too many unnecessarily boring sequences. TMP, by contrast, has heart. Not to mention an interesting story that delves into the deepest of all universal questions.
Say what you will, but "The Motion Picture" towers alone, utterly unique in the feature film series — a profoundly spiritual TRIUMPH.
The movie runs 2 hours, 12 minutes.
GRADE: A

I can’t describe how or why I felt so fully immersed in the emotions of this movie. The overwhelming storytelling masterfully intertwines themes of love, resilience, and human complexity, keeping you captivated from start to finish.
Its emotional depth is unparalleled, leaving a lasting impact that resonates profoundly. Every element, from the performances to the subtle use of music, feels perfectly tailored on the movie.

In my personal opinion, I found this film to be truly remarkable. While I believe there were moments where it could have been improved, particularly in terms of the actress's performance, overall, I was pleasantly surprised by how well the movie "Where the Crawdads Sing" was executed.
Some scenes may have not been as impactful on the big screen as I had hoped, but I must commend Reese Witherspoon for her excellent work as a producer. Despite the film's commercial success, it was unfortunate that it did not receive any recognition in awards categories. I strongly believe that this movie deserved more accolades and it has certainly made me more aware of other deserving films that may go unnoticed. I wholeheartedly recommend giving this movie a chance.
The film's development and script were truly impressive. While there were minor flaws in the world-building and storyline, overall, it achieved what it set out to do. I urge anyone to watch this movie as it offers a unique and engaging experience.