Do people like, still blog?

Tag Archives: moviereview

I actually saw Cars 3 in June (and in theatres) but forgot to blog about it till now. It’s way down in my priority list because it wasn’t something I wanted to see, but something I took the kids too (I’m not sure they really wanted to see it either).

I was looking for a kids movie to watch in theatres and this was the best option. The boys like Lightning McQueen, and even though this was the third installment, it didn’t seem to get the Finding Dory treatment and get older and scarier. It was still rated G and from other reviews it seemed fairly safe. Of course, shortly into the movie, McQueen has a huge crash and freaked out the kids for the rest of the time.

Overall, the movie gets a 3 out of 5 stars from me. Being a Pixar movie, it is expected that adults will find it interesting, and the movie didn’t feel dumbed down; although it wasn’t particularly exciting or a strong story (I may have missed a lot of context as I didn’t watch the first two movies). There was another strong female heroine which, while positive, is getting a little overplayed. In turn, the male protagonists are now goofballs.


I never heard about the movie Passengers until I saw people watching it over a few flights. It turns out that I enjoyed this movie a lot.

The main reason is because it is a classic sci-fi movie. It happens in the near future, where humans have reliable space travel and colonization. A ship with over 5000 colonists and crew are travelling 120 years in a sub-light ship to a new world. The trip is mostly on auto-pilot and everyone is in hibernation. Except, an asteroid field causes one hibernation unit to fail and awaken its inhabitant. This happens about a quarter of the way into the trip so he’s destined to not just live out his life and die of old age on the ship, but to do so alone.

The movie portrays him as he goes through a variety of stages – from denial to despair, to making the most of it, to finally trying to decide whether he should forcibly wake up another traveler (spoiler: he does!). Then the cycle happens again with the newly awaken.

I think the idea is fascinating – to have an entire self-functioning and renewable spaceship at your disposal, at the cost of being alone. I’m glad that the movie spends ample time exploring this idea and developing the characters through that. It is a thought starter and the main reason why I enjoyed this movie.

There are also some external challenges that move the movie along. I wasn’t a big fan but it’s necessary for the movie – it doesn’t detract from it at least. However, I think this movie does what scifi does best – creates an interesting and plausible situation in the future and examine how it would be handled. Because of this, I give it a 4 out of 5.


Although I always knew of it, I never watched Ghostbusters when I was a child. I recognize a couple of the memorable images (the station wagon, suit, green ghost guy) but don’t know the story. I guess I might have watched some Ghostbusters cartoons on TV at some point. But essentially watching the new Ghostbusters was a new franchise to me.

There was a couple of things to like about it; it had style and was unique with the gender reversed roles. The comedy had some hits and some misses but for some reason, the fact that it didn’t take itself seriously and be an action movie bothered me. Also, even though this movie calls for a high level of suspension of disbelief, I just can’t get past the how they “fought” an army of ghosts. Bring non-corporeal, the ghosts have a huge advantage. Instead, they were done in by some positive-ion lassos. Seriously??

The movie had a lot of fun and funny parts, but it just didn’t gel together into a good movie for me. Two out of five stars.


I would’ve passed on this movie as just another Hollywood sci-fi flick, except that a couple of months ago I saw the trailer to Blade Runner 2049. I’m looking forward to that sequel and when I was reading about it online, the fan reception was positive because Denis Villeneuve was directing.

The Arrival was also directed by Villeneuve and it was supposed to be moody and atmospheric. I think it was quite successful at that. Even though I saw it on the plane, the sound was spectacular, especially during the scenes with the aliens. The audio made the aliens seem scary, even though I knew this was not a scary movie (and the aliens themselves weren’t scary). I guess it might have been a bit of the audio, and a bit of the “unknown” factor.

This film navigated the fine balance between disbelief and realism. The idea of learning the alien’s language and time travel (paradox) is actually a bit farfetched; but it was believable enough in the context of the story. Overall the film was interesting and a four out of five stars from me.


After I watched the latest Star Wars movie, I watched the latest Star Trek one! I’m much more of a Trekkie than a Star Wars fan so I was excited to see this.

My first thought was that this was the first time I watched a JJ Abrams Trek movie, and that the casting & dialogue of the bridge crew were pretty close to my expectation (especially McCoy, although he is a lot fatter). But then I realized that I must have watched the reboot at some point (I remember Kirk fighting in a bar) – turns out that I did almost 6 years ago! Wow, that was a long time ago (looks like I totally missed never heard about Star Trek Into Darkness).

The second thought I had was – wow, they destroyed the Enterprise in a movie again. It seems like they do that every movie! Up to that point, the movie was pretty interesting. I liked seeing how the Star Trek world was imagined vs the Star Wars world, particularly how the Starbase Yorktown was laid out. But after the crew ended up on the planet, the plot started going into lucky 777 mode just to push the story along. There was not a lot of rhyme or reason why things happened the way they did that killed the movie for me. I like my Star Trek stories to have a logical arc, and this is one movie that didn’t.

I had some expectations for this movie and since the plot was so outlandish in the second half, I’ll have to give Star Trek Beyond a two out of five.


It took me a long, long time to watch this movie. I forget why I originally picked it, but I think it was on a flight from New York. The movie is 97 mins long so I only saw 2/3rd of it, but the next flight I took (I think it was in the same month) didn’t have it playing anymore! So I haven’t been able to finish watching it until this month. Fortunately, I had to ffwd to the spot were I stopped, and was able to get a refresher.

Whenever I watch cartoons now, I evaluate whether my kids can watch the movie. Finding Dory is definitely too scary for my young boys – Dory and baby Dory are put into too many situations which would be frightening. However, if you were young and watched Finding Nemo when it came out, I think you’d be the right age for this movie now (if not too old)! Otherwise I think you need to be over 7 to really watch it.

The story deals with Dory’s issue…namely her lack of short term memory. She goes on a mission to find her parents and discover her childhood. Along the way, she encounters a bunch of other marine animals who each have sort of significant mental or physical problem. Working together, the group overcomes their individual challenges and are stronger as a whole. That’s a decent moral message.

The other moral message in this movie seems to be to “take risks!”, even against the behest of your parents. I’m not sure this should be a blanket moral message though, and I thought Finding Nemo taught it better (sometimes you need to go out of your comfort zone).

I felt Finding Nemo was more enjoyable and fun, and Finding Dory had a lot more scary or challenging situations. That might leave your child in a unhappy state. But it’s no problem for an adult – this is a 3 out of 5 star movie.


There was a great selection of movies this month on Air Canada flights. I didn’t have enough flight time to see them all so I had to prioritize, and Rogue One was top on my list. I actually thought about seeing this in theatres because Apollo is interested in Star Wars; however, we decided it was probably too violent and scary for him. I’m glad we didn’t because it is definitely too scary for him.

Rogue One is like a prequel to A New Hope, and you can actually watch them back-to-back:

"Rogue One" Spliced with "A New Hope" from Barre Fong on Vimeo.

The story follows a rag tag team of characters who have to steal the plans for the death star and deliver it to Princess Leia & R2D2. As a story, it’s quite predictable and uses common themes (including the RPG trope of the reluctant hero). However, it is fun and enjoyable to watch, and I didn’t notice the over-two-hours run time.

The cast of characters were interesting, without a traditional white male lead character. It’s refreshing to see the diversity in this and The Force Awakens, although it’s almost like the traditional white male is underrepresented (or maybe they are being subliminally portrayed as bad guys). Also K-2SO is the characer that Jar Jar should have been!

I’m curious how Rogue One will be thought of within the entire volume of Star Wars movies (now that Disney has the franchise, I can see it being more like James Bond than Indiana Jones). It was a fun and polished movie, but it’s just too cookie cutter for it to be more than 3 stars.


We became members of the Ontario Science Centre almost two years ago, but it is coming to a time where the membership is about to run out (the kids are sick of this place and they changed the plans to our detriment). One of the benefits of our current plan is that we can get free OMNIMAX tickets each visit – something which we’ve only used once! We decided to use this feature once more before it goes away and chose to watch Rocky Mountain Express.

I picked this one because the kids love trains and hopefully it would keep their interest – but that really only worked for about 20 minutes. The film is about connecting the Trans Canadian Railway from BC to the interior and like most IMAX films, it is a documentary. This documentary is quite poor as there is no storytelling that keeps the viewer engaged – the narration simply relays a bunch of facts about the history of what was done. It is like listening to Wikipedia. In fact, I was curious about many things during the film, but the documentary stayed far away from the interesting topics, like what convinced the GM to go through Roger’s Pass, or how the trains worked or how railroad building happened.

The narration served to show videos of a restored train in action, as it took the Trans Canadian Railway; and that is basically the point of watching an IMAX film. You can see and hear the train in high definition. Some of the shots were way to close, showing you the guts of the machine, but without the context of what it does. There were also many old photos which helped to relay history, but was otherwise a waste of IMAX.

I’m actually disappointed in the visuals, because there was severe distortion. I left wondering whether the film was shot for a normal screen but then shown on an omnimax curved screen. I wasn’t sitting in the absolute centre of the theatre, but it was still very bad.

I wouldn’t recommend this film, at least on the OMNIMAX screen. The film left me wanting my money back, but since I didn’t have to pay for it, then I was just disappointed. One out of five stars.


Familyhood is a Korean film about an aging, (approaching middle age), but still relevant, actress who fakes a pregnancy in order to find meaning in life. Naturally, being pregnant increases her stature but also, she is found out and her bubble burst. The tragic, fallen hero must then deal with the consequences and redeem herself.

It’s kind of a cliche, and actually given the hype of K-Dramas, a pretty disappointing movie. Perhaps I’m not the target audience for this film. The parts I enjoyed about this movie are the ones that show or satirize the management/agency nature of being a Korean celebrity. Aside from that, there isn’t much redeeming about the movie, and it is a sorry state of the film releases on my flights in January that I had to watch this movie instead of a better one.

Familyhood gets a 2 out of 5 stars from me.


I watched this oldie (from 1982) because I’ve been playing a Star Trek game and one of my Legendary characters is “Wrathful Khan”. I actually had also read the synopsis a few months ago too, and I think at some point I saw this movie on TV. Yet somehow I was still surprised at the plot and it wasn’t the movie I was expecting – for some reason I expected the Augments to take over a Klingon Bird of Prey.

In any case, I enjoy Star Trek but didn’t enjoy Wrath of Khan that much. The plot was fine but I think the pacing is too old fashioned – too many grandiose shots of the ship and people walking around the hallways. I don’t have an affinity to the Original Series so perhaps the nostalgia of finally seeing the ship again after the series was off the air for many years is lost on me. I also think that the villain Khan just wasn’t that imposing, scary or believable. He was actually a bit cartoon-y because he was so vengeful.

Overall, I would rate this movie 2 out of 5 stars. I would have preferred to watch an episode or two of The Next Generation or one of their movies instead.


Morgan is the story of a bioengineered being which has had an “incident” which causes the parent company to send out a risk management consultant to assess the situation and the program. However, it turns out that the team, which has worked in seclusion for many years to birth and develop the being as their own child, has grown emotional attached to it.

You can see where this is heading as the team fights to show how Morgan is special; but this is a rated R thriller so the story ends up having a lot of unexpected action following the initial drama-esque start. I wasn’t expecting it and it turned out to be much better than I thought it would be (given that I originally picked it because it had a short, 90 minute, running time).

After watching the movie, the themes remind me a lot of Bladerunner (and that’s always a good thing). It turned out to be the most enjoyable movie of the last several I’ve seen. I give Morgan a 4 out of 5.


This is a completely fantasy Chinese movie that is half CG. That might sound a lot like Monster Hunt but I actually enjoyed this a significantly more. The reason is because League of Gods doesn’t treat itself as anything other than a vehicle for superhuman Kung Fu/Chinese movie fights.

The premise is that there is an evil & bad King who uses an oracle’s eyes to see how he will rule the world, except he sees his own ruin. A renegade faction/city also sees this and sends a young apprentice to seek out the Sword of Light that can defeat the Black Dragon King. The protagonist has some special powers, but he finds a couple of additional warrior buddies to help him complete his quest.

All sorts of battles break out, but its mostly magical and martial arts against straw men and paper swords. Once that is over with, the heroes even have to fight an enchanted troll that is similar to the one in Lord of the Rings. After all of that fighting, the heroes get the sword and some guy who looks like Jet Li (but isn’t, as he plays someone else) turns into the Golden Dragon in order to battle the Black Dragon King.

But do they defeat the Black Dragon King? Nope! Because that’s the end of the movie. I guess League of Gods is a series of movies – and its really frustrating when they only put one episode on the inflight entertainment system. Overall, this is a fun romp so it is a 3 out of 5 rating from me.


I think I missed a few Bourne movies in the middle because this is the fourth one. In this one, Bourne takes a nod from Spectre and revisits his past – although now that I think about it, I think all of his movies have something to do with his past, and finding out who he is, and why he is an agent. Well, this one is no different and looks at the role his father played.

I get the plot and there are a lot of action scenes that push the Jason Bourne ahead, but nothing is new or overly different between this movie and any other action blockbuster. The exception might be an up and coming CIA analyst (well she is already pretty senior, unless you compare her to the director) who plays a political game for her own gain. She is the Julia Stiles 2.0 in the Bourne movies so I guess we will see more of her (although unlike Bond movies, these happen in sequential time order so at some point Bourne might just die of old age).

The comparisons to Bond are many, but I just don’t feel the excitement, style or mystique in the Bourne series as I do the Bond ones. This is just your average summer blockbuster, so a 3 out of 5 star rating.


I don’t know the backstory of Suicide Squad but I think this is required watching as DC continues to build up its movie universe to the Justice League movie. But after watching it, there doesn’t to be a big need for this movie.

It’s basically a self-contained movie similar to Guardians of the Galaxy where a rag tag band of shadowy figures save the world. There are some cameos from Batman and The Joker but its just to fill in the backstory. There are some character introductions and the after credits scene is important (for the universe) but I think those can be shared without tagging an entire movie along with it.

The plot is formulaic. Bad guys get together to help (read: are forced) the good guys, but the good guys suffer a setback and then bad guys develop a conscience and volunteer to beat the big bad guy. Its not boring but it is forgettable. I remember reading some press saying the atmosphere or music was great, but neither impressed me. This is a quite average three out of five stars.


I have never watched any Godzilla movie and everything I know about Godzilla comes from Rampage. In fact, I would have ignored this film, because I was on an Air Canada Rouge flight (with no seat back screen), if not for just coming across a thread on this movie on Reddit as I was waiting for my flight to Vegas. It was actually interesting and not what I thought a Godzilla movie would be about.

Sure, you saw the beast and it laid waste to Tokyo, but that is really a side-bar and raison d’être for the underlying commentary – namely a satire about how politics and government operates. The film begins with Godzilla causing mass (but minimal, only flying cars and boats) destruction while the government paralyzes and sends orders up and down the chain of command. I enjoyed that various politicians would inject with comments on how decisions would affect their own political career or the economy.

Eventually the film settles down into more familiar territory where they actually have to get rid of Godzilla, and work with foreign governments to do so. That made the film weaker as the plot just kept being driven forward without a lot of rationale. The first half of the film gets a 4 out of 5 but the latter half only a 3. I’ll be generous and give it 4 out of 5 overall.


Sing! is an animated musical by the makers of Despicable Me that is similar to American Idol – a bunch of rag tag normal folk who turn out to be great singers compete for a grand prize. The only difference is that this is a cartoon and it takes place in an animal city.

Sing! almost seems inspired by Zootopia because you again have the cultural hotpot of different animals living together in a single city. However, the execution is much poorer as there really isn’t a lot of interaction between the traits.

In fact, it’s a pretty poor imitation with a subpar, formulaic plot. Every character struggles through some challenges, which they eventually overcome (mostly because they are in a cartoon world). Then they sing and the entire world is happy!

We actually saw this in a movie theatre and picked this movie because Apollo was with us (it was the most appropriate one over Rogue One or Moana or Trolls). I enjoyed it because I liked music, but otherwise I think it would be pretty boring. I’ll give this a (barely) three out of five stars.


I had seen this seminal classic in bits and pieces before, but I think this was the first time that I watched it completely in one sitting. I enjoyed it as a masterful story told with great pacing. You don’t see pacing like this in movies nowadays, where the main character are just wandering the wilderness without really advancing the plot. The main characters played by Brando, Pacino, Duvall were great but the other characters seemed like caricatures. In fact, I would argue that the plot isn’t very compelling but you watch the movie just to see those actors play their characters. I guess another reason would be to get a glimpse of how the top levels of the mafia work – but who knows if that is accurate or not.

I’m going to give the Godfather a 3 out of 5 star rating because while I was never bored while watching it, I just didn’t connect with it such that I would be fascinated about their world, or have a desire to watch the sequels.


I found this Japanese movie under “New Releases” and misunderstood the summary and ended up watching it. What I thought I would be getting into was a movie where they pluck a teenager from our era and drop him into historical Japan, where he happens to be a doppelganger of a warlord who is attempting to unite Japan. I thought the movie would be about how he adapts to historical times and convinces rival warlords to his cause.

It turns out that Nobunaga Concerto is actually based on a manga and the above plot is completed in a summary in a quick 5 minute introduction to the premise. I suppose the movie is based on some of the later books in the manga. Anyways, it turns out that this movie is about how his fellow warlords plot to kill him. That was not nearly as interesting to me.

The movie played out like a live action manga. There were lots of weird exclamations and scenes where the character would make faces with ominous music in the background. Actually, it was a lot like a Bollywood movie in that respect. Both the premise and plot are a bit crazy and intended to be a light-hearted fantasy. I was my mistake to try and watch this movie, but it still doesn’t make it any better. Two out of five stars for this concerto.


Korean Air has a small movie selection so I didn’t have a lot of things I was looking forward to watching. I read through basically all the movie descriptions and Book of Love was the 2nd best choice – that’s how bad the selection was!

Anyways, this movie is a Chinese film that tells 2 separate stories, and one meta-story. One story focuses on a addicted gambler/hostess in Macau who is in a perpetual borrow money/payback cycle and the other focuses on a real estate agent in LA trying to sell houses to overseas investors and astronaut moms. Of the two, the latter was much more interesting to me because who ever makes a movie about that?? The meta-story is that they are both single and come across a book called 84 Charing Cross which is about 2 people starting a relationship by writing letters. They start doing so and find that that is the solution to their own love problems.

I felt the meta-story was kind of weak. Until the end of the movie, it was used as a plot device to comment on each character’s love life, which occurred at the same time as their individual stories. There were too many primary stories that the watcher had to focus on and the meta-story lost since it wasn’t visualized. When the movie had time to focus on the meta-story, then it had some impact.

I felt the movie was messy because of this, but had a bunch of novel situations so I would give this a 3 out of 5 stars (but still would rather watch a summer action blockbuster instead of this one!)


This was another film that I had no expectations about, but I was interested in seeing because I read so many X-Men comics when I was younger. I think there were a couple of X-Men movies that I missed but luckily this was like a reboot.

The movie was set in the 80s (whenever Return of the Jedi came out) and was quite charming because of it. No doubt it helps the movie appeal to target an older demographic with disposable income. One of the best parts in the movie was set to the Eurythmics’ Sweet Dreams Are Made Of These.

I liked the movie overall because there were a lot of characters, cameos and quirky things from the Marvel universe, but from a plot perspective I think it was very fragmented. There were a ton of characters introduced which meant the story wasn’t very deep or long. Apocalypse didn’t even get to do much aside from recruit, stand around and order his minions. Kind of a boring villain.

The were a lot of grand scenes a la Batman vs Superman, but overall I found the fights not very interesting. It was kind of like trying to punch through each other by unleashing your mutant powers all at once – the exception were the Nightcrawler fights.

Before writing this review, I was thinking of giving this movie 4 out of 5 stars because i really did enjoy it. But I think that I was just marvelled about the surroundings and didn’t pay too much attention to the story. I think I’ll give X-Men: Apocalypse 3 out of 5 stars.


I like movies about magic but was hesitant to watch The Illusionist because I thought that it would pale in comparison to The Prestige, which I liked a lot. However, due to a lack of selection, I ended up watching it.

Magic films are inherently fun because there is the expectation that there is going to be a con – much in the same vein as Ocean’s 11 series. However, the setup is a bit different and more subtle because sleight of hand (sometimes at the macro level) is needed. In The Illusionist, the goal of the con is pretty obvious but for some reason I didn’t realize the con was happening while I watched it (it was obvious afterwards). I guess that’s the sign of an engaging story.

In fact the story is pretty straightforward, a love story between people of two castes, but Edward Norton’s character has a lot of mystery to it (after spending 15 years in the Orient). That helped me enjoy the movie a lot more, and while it is not near the quality of The Prestige, it’s a solid 3 out of 5 stars.


I watched this movie because it is in the “God of Gamblers” franchise which I had enjoyed when I was a kid. Some quick researching seems to indicate that this is the 7th movie in the franchise (even though it has a 3 in the name). Since I wasn’t an avid follower of the series, I wouldn’t be surprised if I didn’t know or understand a lot of the backstory.

I was surprised that this movie is completely wack. It is no surprise that the gamblers have some sort of supernatural powers (i.e., they are super heroes and villains) but I was expecting something more in the vein of the swordplay in olden day Chinese films.

As an aside, on my flight to Korea, I also (re-)watched Hero. I wasn’t sure whether I had watched it completely or not even while I was watching it – some of it was familiar but I had to check after I got back and noticed that I blogged about it previously. The sword play there is unnatural and unreal but it feels like a choreographed dance between the opponents. Similarly, I expect the gamblers to channel some sort power to change cards on the table or whatnot.

Instead, the protagonists have completely crazy powers that make this movie more satirical than anything else. It’s not even a parody of action films like Austin Powers, it’s just completely made up. Maybe the plot is grounded in some sort of story if you watch the previous ones but watching this objectively is somewhat pointless.

I guess one redeeming feature is that the plot keeps moving (because who knows what crazy thing is going to happen next) so it’s not boring. However, it’s subpar even when compared to the plots of summer blockbusters. I’ll give this movie a 2 out of 5.


I remembered that Stories We Tell received press and hype at a previous TIFF and to be honest, that was the only reason why I chose to watch this movie/documentary. Well, that and the movie selection on the AC flight to Seoul was pretty lackluster.

This wasn’t my type of my film because it dealt with a “people-story” and wasn’t an easy-to-consume blockbuster, but I was pleasantly surprised that it captivated my attention and kept me engaged more than the other movies I watched on the same day. It is a documentary so I’m not going to be too careful about spoiling it – the film is about Sarah Polley’s discovery that she in fact had a different biological father than her siblings. More than half the film was devoted to describing her mother (died to cancer 20 years ago) and the vibrancy of her life; told through personal interviews with family and friends. Towards the end, there is a “twist” in that the message the movie wants to deliver is not just the story itself, but the idea that a memory of an event is different depending on who tells it.

While I see the intent (you’re kind of beaten over the head with it), I felt the argument is weak because the defining moment that we’re supposed to see that illustrates how everyone’s perspective is different is the foggy memory of who is actually Sarah’s dad. I don’t think it was controversial that Sarah had a different father, and it’s not like there were a lot of answers beyond speculation and guesses.

However, I found the actually story telling and look into Sarah Polley’s private life to be interesting and worthy enough to give this movie a 3 out of 5 stars.


When I read the comic series upon which this premise was based on, I was very impressed at the scenario and the questions it posed. However, I was not confident that this story arc would transfer well into a single movie, so wasn’t especially looking forward to watching it. Also, I missed Avengers 2 so that was no good either (where did Vision come from?).

There were some good parts that discussed the pros and cons of the human registration act (Sokovia Accords) but overall this was just a beat’em up fest. I liked and disliked the commercial for the Spider-man reboot. It was fun, but it felt forced (although he was in the comic story arc). For whatever reason, the Marvel movies just don’t appeal to me as much as the DCU ones right now. I’ll give this 2 out of 5 stars


This movie was classified under avant garde and caught my attention due to its weird scenario. The world this movie is set in is much like ours except that it is illegal to not be in love. If you are not in love (such as due to divorce or death), you are sent to a special type of hotel to find love. If you don’t meet someone in 45 days, you get transformed into an animal of your choosing – the main character chose a lobster, hence the movie name.

This movie started off really slow and I was thinking of cutting my losses and picking a new one. I kept watching as there wasn’t a strong movie selection this month. I think this movie is a caricature on how society finds love, and the pressures that people feel to find the one so they don’t get labelled as being bad goods. The problem is that the metaphors aren’t very clear and it is difficult to find the parallel to an absurd rule in the movie with our societal norms in real time.

Eventually the protagonist escapes from his 45-day deadline into the arms of “the loners” which as you might guess is the complete opposite of the hotel in which a band of refugees fight for survival with its own set of opposite rules (must not find love).

Aside from societal criticism, The Lobster also tries to shine light on the difference between love and having stuff in common (characteristics or children). It doesn’t really answer that question though (or maybe it is trying to say there is none). In any case, I think this movie is only half baked so I’ll give it a 2 out of 5 stars.