Mystery Team (2009)

The Mystery Team is the first feature film from comedy troupe Derrick Comedy, who have many members in US TV comedy shows, mostly on NBC. This is about a team of Hardy Boy-esque young detectives in a small town, who are still solving similar mysteries now that they are 18, and about to finish High School. They are then given the task of solving a murder of two parents by their younger daughter, and then the movie turns from there, with a balance of these immature buffoons solving the case, and some heavier dramatic stuff about who they are, and why they behave like small children still.

The main mystery team member is Jason (the hilarious Donald Glover from "Community"), who really wants to be a detective, while his dumber side-kick Charlie ( Dominic Dierkes), and "boy genius" Duncan (D.C. Pierson) follow along with him. These three do have very good chemistry together and, as they wrote the film, deliver the lines brilliantly. The love interest of Jason, Kelly (Aubrey Plaza), who is the older daughter who had her parents murdered, also has her moments comedically, but serves more to bring out some of the more dramatic moments.

Donald Glover though, is far and away the best of the main actors. He seems to be innately aware of what he looks and sounds like with the camera pointing at him. His every gesture comes across brilliantly and unforced, while he creates a character which is both hilarious and poignant. The only shame about his performance was that he wasn't able to be delivering lines with his "Community" co-star Danny Pudi, who would have fitted in well to the movie.

The cinematography was also surprisingly good for a comedic first feature. Using almost all non-handheld shots, with some great lighting and dolly use. The cinematography would have only appeared competent in a serious feature by an experienced director, but in a movie like this it truly stands out as being a cut above normal.

The film does have some pretty serious flaws unfortunately. The pacing is one thing that really does not work. The opening couple of scenes set the mood very well, but the solving of the murder does drag a bit, and the dramatic scenes between the mystery team don't always fit smoothly with the comedy. The ending scene is also very effective, showing that for all the change they have gone through they are still just as immature as ever.

The music is also not as good as other elements of the movie, with some musical cues that are re-used far too much. The comedy is a bit hit-and-miss, for example a scene where they fetch a ring out of a toilet is comic gold, whereas a scene with a kid that seems just a bit too mature for his age is quite unfunny as he keeps on coming back. The comedy seems just a bit too much to be based around the child-like mental state of the mystery team, and as a result is inconsistent. When it does hit though, it is often hilarious.


In the end, it is a pretty ambitious first attempt from these guys, and it is often hilarious, but in the end it just didn't quite connect well enough for me to be a brilliant comedy. I will definitely be looking forward to their future work though, whether it be on TV, or another feature like this.

3/5, good in parts but inconsistent overall.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

Sometimes a movie can be so enjoyable that you are able to look through shortcomings in story-telling and just focus on the spectacle. Robert Zemeckis has made a few films like this (Back to the Future trilogy), but this would undoubtedly be his best effort at one of these spectacle films. In fact, convincing my twin Stephen to watch was probably the hardest part of watching this movie, which was an enjoyable, easy viewing experience.

A film noir/comedy set in a world where cartoons interact with real-word characters, The film follows private detective Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) as he takes a job for one of the large animation companies, unwittingly taking pictures of Jessica Rabbit (Kathleen Turner, with concept art above) that would help to frame her husband, and popular cartoon star Roger Rabbit (Charles Fleischer) in murdering 'toon creator Marvin Acme (Stubby Kaye). This framing turns out to be part of a larger plot to create a freeway system in L.A by destroying 'Toon Town (where the 'toons live), and the tram system. These lead us to the real antagonist Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd), who has had a prior run-in with Eddie Valiant and his dead brother.

The animation is simply superb, and the interaction between the animated characters and the real people is amazingly well done, down to the 'toons shadows. These are not simply characters drawn in post-production, the filming stage was so well designed and planned that the animated characters fit perfectly into the film world. The animated characters appear to move and touch objects just like the actors are, and the timing is perfect with the interactions between the animated and real characters. The brilliant editing and cinematography play a large role in that as well.

The story is told in a straight-forward manner, which is easy to follow for all-ages, particularly small children who were a key audience of the film. This does mean that the story lacks a lot of exploration, with a few exposition-heavy sequences doing the bulk of the story-telling work, while the rest of the movie continues as a spectacle.

"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" also plays with many of the tropes of film noir, as well as a few specific noir films (mostly "Chinatown", as the framework of one of the sequels features prominently in the plot of this movie though there are more direct references). The femme fatale Jessica Rabbit is brilliant at weaving around and showing up suspiciously, but isn't actually bad, she's just drawn that way. She is actually trying to help Valiant and Roger the whole film, subverting the trope via some great misdirection in every aspect of her character.

There are negatives about this movie though. As a family-friendly movie it lacks a certain edge that you would expect from a noir, though it does make it up for it with some hilarious sexual innuendo ("Dabblin' in Watercolours Eddie?", "Pattycake"). The main part which feels poorly done, as a result of the family-friendly tone, is the ending. The relentlessly upbeat ending is a little out of context, and has far too many flukes and twists (even for a noir, which are famous for twists). The end feeling is a bit unsatisfying, though it was definitely a fun ride up until the kidsy ending.

I felt it was just fun to watch. There was no expectation on of anything greater than a fun movie with a good story, and it mostly succeeded. A major technical feat at the very least, in my opinion a cinematic achievement in creating a family-friendly film that you can watch without your family and still enjoy.

A 4/5, as I was let down by a couple of things that are noticeable, but don't detract from the overall sense of fun I had while watching.

Psycho (1960)

Have you ever had that spooky feeling that something isn't right, or that someone isn't right. Psycho is an exploration of those ideas by brilliant director Alfred Hitchcock. I had already seen Rear Window, Vertigo and North by Northwest, along with various episodes of Alfred Hitchock presents, so I was already comfortable with the visual style and storytelling method of his films. Psycho is in many respects similar to that style, but is also a bit different.

Psycho tells the story of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a secretary who is given $40,000 to put in the bank by her employer. She runs off, and we follow her until, after a few days and some close calls, she is forced to pull over due to weather and stay at the Bates Hotel, ran by Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), who lives there with his mother. Marion is killed about halfway into the film, in a scene (pictured above) that is so brilliantly executed that, even though it has been referenced and parodied endlessly, it still is terrifying today.

In fact the whole film is so magnificently crafted that though, as an avid film and TV watcher I already knew the plot, the movie was giving me chills as each scene went by, and each new development happened. The shower scene may be the most memorable, but the reveal about Norman's mother and who killed Marion Crane, is equally potent and scary today as it must have been in 1960.

The Black and white cinematography is very good, with some nice touches such as the voyeuristic look through the peephole and the initial discovery of the Bates hotel. The professional quality of the production team makes this into a film that is very slick for such a low budget. The string score is very unsettling in addition to the B/W shots, and perfectly complements the movie, particularly the shower scene though the musical themes are well-managed throughout.

The acting isn't a strong point in the film, with some good performances by Bates and Leigh, but the rest of the cast often seems just a little bit stilted and a little hammy as well. The acting quality though is certainly one of a budgetary issue more than anything else, and doesn't detract from the overall quality of the film.

In the end though, despite a gripping plot and some very impressive shooting, I can't help but feel that this is just a feature-length version of one of the Hitchcock Presents episodes. Though that is partly the intention of the film, it means that it lacks the scope and characterisation that made Vertigo and Rear Window such great films. Characters in Psycho really aren't given elaborate backstories, as the whole thing is largely an exercise in misdirection, as well as experimenting with a low budget. This means that when characters do things, they do them without explanation, until the framing device that is the ending of Psycho.

The film is certainly good on it's own merits though, and certainly a great film in the Hitchcock canon but I can't quite shake the TV show feel of it though and that in my mind puts it below his other works, as his TV show often had problems with the ending, which carries on into the film. Psycho definitely started a massive sub-genre in horror though, and other Hitchcock films merely tended to work from an existing model.

Overall a 4.5/5, so close but not quite a perfect film, let down by some often poor acting by the supporting cast, and the TV show feel of it.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Full Metal Jacket is one of Kubrick's later works, and one that is often seen as his last great film. Kubrick is a very polarising director so it could also be seen as just one in a pile of his films.

Full Metal Jacket holds up very well, and has very good pacing, unlike some other Kubrick films like 2001: A Space Odyssey. It follows the Marine Core during the Vietnam war in two stages. It first looks at their eight-week training course, where we are introduced to a group of trainees, focussing on Private Pyle (Vincent D'Onofrio pictured above) and Private Joker (Matthew Modine). It then looks at the Marines in Vietnam, beginning after the Tet offensive and working around that period, where we also follow Joker, and fellow trainee Cowboy (Arliss Howard) and his squad, though not Pyle, as he kills himself in an iconic scene.

Kubrick again shows his meticulous research ethic in portraying what is often called the most realistic look at a boot camp in film. The way that the drill instructor Hartman (R. Lee Ermey) systematically destroys Pyle, while giving the rest of the group someone to hate in the process, is a brilliant story that has a serious emotional punch to it at the end. The whole process is portrayed as very demoralising, only preparing them for what is to come.

There are some very impressive shots in the boot camp, with the opening scene following Hartman as he inspects the new recruits brilliantly setting the film out, but the truly jaw-dropping shots are left for their Vietnam stage. Every scene in Vietnam just looks stunning and incredibly well-staged by cinematographer Douglas Milsome, obviously working very hard to make the scenes work with Kubrick, with a refreshing lack of hand-held camera in heavy war scenes due to the amount of time put into the editing and the filming. The Vietnam story largely looks at the futility of the situation as the soldiers grow more and more demoralised about what they are achieving. We are also introduced to some more colourful characters, including the instantly recognisable Adam Baldwin (Chuck, Firefly) as Animal Mother, a trigger-happy nutcase.

The acting is brilliant as usual from a Kubrick film. He is often able to coax great performances from his actors due to his relentless drive and perfectionism. I would say that R. Lee Erney and Vincent D'Onofrio stood out as doing the best job in this movie, but it was against very steep competition from the rest of the cast.

The power that this film has is a testament to Kubrick's genius. The way that the story is told is masterful, with both segments brilliantly worked to tie together a very demoralising theme. The closing scene shows a large amount of what went wrong with the Vietnam war from a non-American perspective. Three men are downed while going after one well-hidden sniper, as Animal Mother pushes on to get the sniper. This relentless drive is able to show how mis-guided the Americans were during the Vietnam war, with this sequence representing a microcosm of the war effort.

Overall I would say this would be the best war film that I have ever seen, modern "great war movies" like Saving Private Ryan simply cannot compete for strong story-telling and lush cinematography. 5 out 5

Death in Brunswick (1991)

Often films will switch stylistically part-way through, or try to create a film that is equal parts of two or three genres. It is a tough trick to pull off, as you already have to be invested in the characters for the sudden switch to work. When it does work beautifully you get films like "Blue Velvet", which is able to hold two genres in the balance with ease and improves the film by using the two genres to tell the story.

Death in Brunswick isn't exactly in the same league of film as "Blue Velvet" but it does use the stylistic switch effectively, moving between dark comedy and crime quite well.

This Australian film is about 34-year-old man Carl Fitzgerald (Sam Neill), a bit of a loser who is struggling to find jobs as a cook, as he gets another job at his old mothers insistence, and gets himself mixed up in something far worse. He accidentally murders kitchen hand Mustafa, and has to get his friend Dave (John Clarke) to help him cover it up.

It originally seems as though it is going to be a darkly comedic slice-of-life film, up until the murder. From there on the second half of the film has some darker crime elements, which are at the forefront up until the conclusion. The switch is a little sudden, but not jarring as the characters behave much the same just in a different situation.

The comedic elements often work very well, with the sort of fantastic interplay that you would expect from Neill and Clarke, two of New Zealand's best actors. Neill and Yvonne Lawley as Carl's mother also play off each other quite well. Not every joke lands though, which leads to some slightly uncomfortable scenes which come off a little forced.

As mentioned last paragraph, the acting of Neill and Clarke is top-notch as always and they liven up every scene that they are both in. Other actors such as Zoe Carides, who plays Carl's love interest, aren't quite as good and often feel dwarfed when in scenes with Neill and Clarke. In Carides case, that is quite often.

Director and Writer John Ruane clearly knew where he was going with this, and it shows through the slick pace at which the film moves most of the time, and the music by Phil Judd is good at setting the tone as well. There is a little in-joke relating to Phil Judd's involvement in Split Enz which is quite funny in addition to the music.

One aspect which was a little frustrating to me was the time-stuck setting. For older people it would probably have some nostalgic value, and would have seemed quite fresh at the time, but to someone not alive at this time the setting is so very '80s that it leads to some teeth grinding at points in the film.

I think that this is a quite well-made film, with very few major errors, which I enjoyed quite a lot of.

3.5/5

Il Conformista (The Conformist) (1970)

The Conformist is my first taste of Italian new wave films. After recently watching the brilliant documentary on cinematography "Visions of Light", which featured the Conformist quite a bit, I decided to take a look at this movie based on the brilliant scenes that they showed.

It didn't disappoint. Every scene is perfectly photographed and lit (an example of which is the scene that this image is taken from), with the camera being used brilliantly to guide the viewer around this rather complex tale of Marcello Clerici (Jean-Louis Trintignant), a possible homosexual and member of the Facist secret police.

The story constantly plays with the chronology, moving back to his childhood to explain why he is the way he is, moving to a scene in a car which makes no sense at the beginning but becomes far more important later on. The bulk of the story is about his first murder, that of his former Philosophy Professor. He is also engaged to be married and brings his rather interesting wife Giulia (Stefania Sandrelli).

The title also explains one of the key parts of this story, which is that Marcello is weak-willed and, as a result of his past, is desperate to be perceived as normal, despite not knowing what normal people do. This is shown many times through the movie, but none quite as potent as the final scene, where he guides a blind friend down an alley only to out him as a Facist and run away.

The actors in this movie are very good, and create a sense of chemistry between each of them which helps make some of the more emotional points of the movie ring very true. The performances are very low-key and don't overdo dramatic scenes in the way that people are accustomed to.

The people who really shine in this movie though are director Bernardo Bertolucci and cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (who would later go on to photograph Apocalypse Now). Bertolucci, who also adapted the novel by Alberto Moravia, really is able to make all aspects of this film function without a hitch in bringing his vision to screen.

Having lived in Italy for two years (from when I was 8 to 10, though in Milan, not Rome where the film is largely set) Bertolucci really conveys the mentality of the Italians very well, and gets the feeling of the period perfect (based on what I read and was told). A large part of successfully bringing this to the screen is the breathtaking cinematography.

Storaro does some really lavish and brilliant shots through the movie, using pretty much everything done in cinematography up to this point, including the recent (at the time) technique of hand-held cinematography used extensively by French new wave films. Every shot serves a purpose and particular styles are used to convey emotion, such as the hand-held camera to disorientate and crane shots to give a feeling of grandeur and space.

The shots are complimented by some great lighting, that shows that playing with shadows isn't just for black and white films and the changes in lighting often are used to suggest where in the chronology of the film this is set. For example the dawn scene of the eventual murder of the professor is a different colour to the scenes of Marcello's childhood. This easily conveys different time periods without the inter-titles used by so many movies to tell you that the time has changed.

This is one of the all-time great films, and assumes that you are able to keep up with the very dense story at all times, seldom repeating a point. I have yet to see Bertolucci's other work, but this makes me think it should be a high priority.

What else can I give it but a 5 out of 5, a perfect film that seems to be often neglected by people, though I guess an inclusion in "Visions of Light" isn't to be sniffed at.

Kick-Ass (2010)

Kick-Ass is a film that shows many of the good and bad things of superhero movies, though the bad tend to show through more than the good.

Kick-Ass is about average teenager and comic-book enthusiast Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) who, after the death of his mother and a general feeling of impotence, decides to dress up in a superhero costume and fight bad guys. Along the way he becomes an internet sensation and meets "the real deal" father-daughter team of Big Daddy, pictured above (Nicholas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz).

While Kick-Ass is getting his ass kicked these two are killing mob bosses and drug dealers with stunning ease, on the path of revenge against local mob boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong). The plot eventually becomes more and more driven by this revenge story than the story of Kick-Ass.

The acting in this movie is variable, with a fantastic performance from Nicholas Cage, who uses the Adam West Batman voice despite having a character closer to Christian Bale's Batman. Cage shows that though he is often seen as a hack he still is actually a very good actor when the role demands it. On the other end of the spectrum we have a rather indifferent performance from Aaron Johnson, who just seems to exist, much like his character says in the movie.

The story, though adapted from a graphic novel, seems to have a suspicious amount in common with the first Spider-man film. The main character has a love interest rather similar to Mary Jane Watson, though this one has an interest in comic books. The movie also has the son of the gang boss Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), who is very similar to Harry Osborn in the Spider-man comics and films, interested in his fathers business, and eventually becoming the adversary to the respective protagonist.

The way that he and his friends behave also seems to invite comparisons to Superbad, with a similar attitude and a few actors from Superbad (including Mintz-Plasse, though not a friend of Kick-Ass). Their geeky obsessions and interplay are quite good, though derivative of Superbad.

The movie also has a narration which shoehorns in cultural references quite a lot, though almost all feel inorganic and designed to relate with the youth audience instead of advance the story.

The visual style of the film is definitely the major high point, with a style that seems in many respects similar to John Woo movies (Face-off, Hard Boiled), as well as the Sam Raimi films (Evil Dead Trilogy, Darkman, the Spider-man trilogy). It does help set the tone very effectively, though it does make the plot invite some unflattering comparisons to the first Spider-man movie (as mentioned earlier).

The violence is beautifully shot, with copious amounts of blood splattering and great choreography, which is the John Woo aspect of the visual style of this movie. The final scene with Hit-girl, and an earlier scene with Big Daddy are without a doubt the most exciting points of the movie. One thing which I really enjoyed was that many of the scenes lingered on shots during the fighting, which is something many movies these days forget to do.

The ending sets up a possible sequel, though not necessarily one starring Kick-Ass, and resolves the plot-points well. In the end though the film is one with a lofty concept that can't quite deliver.

Overall a 3 out of 5. A good film, but not anywhere near as good as people seem to think it is.

Con Air (1997)

A big-budget action movie is a very tough beast to master. If you put the proper amount of time into every aspect of the film you get something that has a great plot and special effects, as well as usually some pretty good actors. If you get the balance wrong, you get movies like Con Air.

Con Air is the sometimes-intentionally, but mostly unintentionally hilarious tale of a group of convicts who steal the plane transferring them between super max prisons, led by Cyrus the Virus (a ridiculously hammy John Malkovich). On the other side of the coin you have recently paroled ex-U.S. Ranger Cameron Poe (Nicholas Cage in a role indicative of his future performances) hitching a ride on the plane to get to see his daughter for the first time trying to stop them, along with U.S. Marshal Vince Larkin (John Cusack).

As the picture attached would lead you to believe, this movie is all about excess. The all-star cast including John Malkovich, Steve Buscemi, and Ving Rhames really ham it up, giving ludicrously over-the-top performances. Dave Chappelle, in one of his earlier roles, gives a hilarious tone to his cameo as well. The fake southern accent of Cage is one of the things which really got to me as I watched this, begging him for whatever reason to go back to a normal voice instead of continue on with the ridiculous charade.

The writing in this film is a real hoot with lines such as "I got a bad feeling, son. I'm feeling like maybe I'm not supposed to make it" from a man who just got shot are hilariously bad, along with the necessary melodramatic scenes being hammed up by the actors to give them an even more humorous touch than usual. The plot is predictable to a tee, equal parts "Die Hard" and "Commando", with other '80's plot devices thrown in for good measure.

The special effects and cinematography are perhaps the strongest point of the movie, with some really convincing explosions, gore and flying shots, mixed with some competent cinematography keeping things going along nicely. The piece of special effects wizardry that was really brilliant was the dead body of Dave Chappelle falling off the plane to land on a car in the middle of a city. the falling looked very good, as did the subsequent crunch on impact.

As I watched it, I wondered if director Simon West was trying to create a loving homage to earlier movies, something new and original, or a spoof of earlier action movies. My gut feeling is that it was a homage that comes off seeming like a spoof because of how over-the-top it is. The direction shows a lack of balance, with a lot of time put into the effects but little into the writing, creating a film that looks good but is even emptier than the average Hollywood action movie.

Perhaps the worst part of this movie is that has actually influenced future directors, with Michael Bay's movies feeling uncannily similar with the ridiculous explosions and lack of plot. Other movies, such as Snakes on a Plane seem to have taken the idea and gone even further, not even bothering to try and seem like a serious film.

Overall a 2 out of 5, but most of that is given to the unintentional hilarity of the whole thing than to the quality of the movie.

The Losers (2010)

Today's action films are starting to develop a distinctive style which differentiates them from some of the other classic era's of action films (1950's, 1980's). The Losers in many respects is a fine example of this new style.

Adapted from a graphic novel, The Losers showcases some pretty slick CGI sequences, mixed with the quick cuts and hand-held shots which, since the Bourne films, have started to dominate the action movie genre.

The movie centers on a CIA black ops team who are betrayed by a mysterious man named Max (Jason Patric) resulting in the deaths of 25 children and supposedly also killing the squad. The team survive and are forced to hide out in Bolivia, as they are unable to get back to the US. They are approached by a woman named Aisha (Zoe Saldana, of Star Trek and Avatar fame), who offers them a way back in to the US, in return for payback on Max.

The actors in this film are often very good, with Chris Evans in particular shining in his role as a wisecracking geek, and showing why he is going to be the next Captain America, among other anticipated roles. Other actors aren't at quite the same standard, with Idris Elba essentially reprising his role on "The Wire", with mixed success.

The cinematography is very sharp, with some very memorable shots (in particular one with the glass falling being used to show Aisha jumping into the bathroom). Unfortunately it is let down by not lingering on the shots enough, particularly in the fight scenes, where one quick cut follows another with almost blinding speed.

The expansive style of the shots invokes the great Hong Kong action movies like Hard Boiled, as well as the American films of the '80's, though you feel a bit stifled by the quick cuts and the distinct lack of blood shown as a result of the low rating.

The CGI is used very effectively as well, such as the destruction of a small island by a sonic device. The devastation of the island is very well shown, with the destruction taking a few seconds (but sticking in your mind for the rest of the movie). The explosions were also surprisingly convincing, considering the $25 million budget. I wasn't completely sure if they were real or not but they definitely did the job in a pinch.

The writing is a weak link in "The Losers". The story is very light on plot, though it is high on great one-liners and references (The Matrix and Reservoir Dogs being two of the more prominent ones). The end product is a fun ride, that leaves you a bit empty at the end as a result of the lack of character development.

The resulting movie from these components is one that feels very much like a generic popcorn movie, though some great moments put it a cut above. The humour in this is really one of the key features in putting it a touch above, as I found myself laughing quite a lot through the short running time.

Overall a 3 out of 5 from me. It was a good way to spend an hour and a half, but nothing more.

Millers Crossing (1990)

This is my first review on this blog, and it is of the 1990 film Miller's Crossing, written and directed by the Coen Brothers. The film centers around a war between Irish and Italian-American gangsters in 1930's America. The main character, Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne), is a lieutenant for the Irish, before switching sides to the Italians.

Tom's allegiances and, by extension, morals in gangster society is the crux of the film, as we see both sides of the war fought by the rivals and see distinctly different moral underpinnings for each side. The Irish set have a loyalty-based system which puts trust and friendship at the forefront, while the Italians have a code of ethics which they follow, with trust and friendship less important.

This is all set about from the brilliant opening monologue of Italian boss Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito), which clearly shows where the key themes lie. This monologue,spoken to Irish boss Leo (Albert Finney), about whether he should be allowed to kill double-crossing underling Bernie Bernbaum (John Turturro) outlines the beliefs of the Italian gangsters, while the firmly negative response by Leo outlines the Irish stance.

The issue of trust and loyalty is further looked at in the romantic relationship between Tom and Verna (Marcia Gay Haden), who is also romantically linked with Leo. Tom's relationship is the key factor in forcing his hand into playing with the Italians until a fiendish manouver at the end.

The film is beautifully shot by Barry Sonnenfield, with some very good obscuring shots, particularly in a bedroom scene which has a suprising twist, and a really nice sense of place is put together, with the time period very obvious and well-shown.

The overall quality of acting is also superb with some great supporting performances, particularly a very small but important cameo by Steve Buscemi among the supporting performances, and Gabriel Byrne's lead performance.

This is a brilliant gangster movie, one which could easily go toe-to-toe with the Godfather in terms of storytelling and cinematography, though not necessarily in scope. A 5 out of 5 from me.