A Most Violent Year (2014)

4/5

JC Chandor's A Most Violent Year takes place in New York City in 1981. A rising oil businessman (Isaac) finds himself at a difficult crossroads. His drivers (Gabel) are being carjacked and he is losing thousands of dollars in stolen oil; the DA (Oyelowo) is looking into his company for criminal misconduct; and he risks losing a $1 million deposit on property after the bank backs out of a loan.

Whether you call it an homage or piracy, the movie takes a number of cues from The Godfather, which I won't enumerate here. But it does it all in a different era; it's learned from its predecessors. It feels like what The Godfather Part III wanted to be.

It is visually and thematically rich, polished and perfected by studies of the countless gangster movies that came before. Soft sepia tones belie an unspoken intensity and slow pacing hides an unrelenting momentum. This movie defies expectations--violence is not the same as action--but rewards the patient viewer. The powerful finale perfectly encapsulates the entire movie: a quiet moment of reflection punctuated by a gut-wrenching act of violence, a striking visual composition with enormous emotional resonance, and a morally ambiguous denouement to leave the saga ever unraveling.

The acting is spectacular--there is nuance and subtlety, even in loud moments of vitriol and rage--and the cinematography is breathtaking. But it is not a perfect movie. Some early scenes felt off kilter; a few sideplots felt unnecessary and unresolved; and parts of the movie felt boring. But on the whole it's a much more mature project compared to Chandor's earlier Margin Call, and it's definitely a film worth watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2937898/

It Follows (2014)

3/5

The plot of It Follows centers around Jay (Monroe) and her family and friends. After having sex with a boy (Weary), she discovers that he has passed something on to her, something that makes her the target of a sinister force that wants to kill her. The force can take on any human form, from a loved one to a stranger, and it can only walk--never run--towards its next victim.

It Follows is a very interesting take on a horror movie. It's a film with a clever premise that is inherently fascinating and intriguing but one that never manages to capitalize on its own initial potential. It's a modern film that feels very much set in the late 80's, with ominous, overbearing synth music reminiscent of Michael Mann's Manhunter and slow, overbearing super-long zooms.

It has some very impressive qualities, including more than adequate special effects. By setting the film in Detroit, it provides an eerie and haunting backdrop behind the main event. There are two scenes of incredible tension and uncertainty--one on a beach and one in a pool--that stand out in my mind. I love the way the film forces you to watch the background of every scene, scanning for a body gradually closing in on the camera. But it's also really, really, really weird: from the bizarre apparel teens wear to the clamshell e-readers they use. And the filmmakers have a seeming obsession with body fluids and the idea of sexual contamination. The movie is unsettling in many ways, but it never quite delivers on what it always seems to be building up to.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3235888/

Whiplash (2014)

4/5

Whiplash is a phenomenal film about ambition and the lengths people will go to create something great. After beginning school as a first-year jazz musician in a prestigious music conservatory, Andrew (Teller) finds himself recruited into the awe-inspiring studio band. He soon discovers that his instructor, Fletcher (Simmons), is verbally and physically abusive to his students in the hopes that he will direct them to greatness. And Andrew pushes himself to his limits to earn Fletcher's respect. The plot grips you from beginning to end, even as it takes you down some unexpected turns, and concludes with a finale that is somehow simultaneously satisfying and ambiguous.

The movie is full of fantastic music--that's a given--but it is also full of fantastic cinematography and editing that elevate this movie past its constituent parts. The camerawork is stunning, whether grandly swooping into a complicated scene or using a simple rack focus, and is supplemented by dramatic lighting and singularly beautiful compositions. The editing was playful and precise, adding another dimension to the music on screen. I was truly flabbergasted at the level of cinematic technique on display in this film.

However, I found the message to be a little simplistic and a little overdone. The film tackles a fairly clichéd question and doesn't add all that much to the discussion. Still, this movie is such a joy to watch that it's hard to come up with anything negative about it at all. JK Simmons is absolutely incredible, always going one step past acceptable behavior to be both eminently entertaining and instantly horrifying. Watch this movie. You won't regret it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582802/

Foxcatcher (2014)

1/5

Foxcatcher, set in the 1980's, tells the troubling true story of an enigmatic multimillionaire wrestling enthusiast (Carell) who enlists two Olympic gold medal-winning wrestlers (Tatum, Ruffalo) to help him start a training camp for the US Wrestling Team on his enormous estate. I won't go into more detail so as to prevent anyone reading this review from getting too interested in the movie.

The trailers for the movie give it a creepy, chilling atmosphere. And indeed it starts out intense and brooding, but the mood doesn't last and the pacing turns awkward and slow. The cinematography is bland and lingering like the worst kind of indie films. There is an obscene amount of silence to make the whole movie unendingly boring. A lot of shots seem to be nothing more than random events without any context. Nothing feels concrete (except the ending), which makes for an infuriating and unsatisfying film filled with nothing but hints and suggestions. And it was somewhat unsettling that I couldn't tell if there were homosexual undertones or not. That's how subtle everything was.

I will admit, though, that Steve Carell gives an impressive acting turn. The same could be said for Channing Tatum, although all I really got out of his performance is that he gets slapped in the face a lot. The problem is that the characters seem to perform actions with either unclear motivations or intentionally veiled ones, both of which are frustrating to watch. But the biggest surprise of all was when the credits rolled and I realized that this garbage was directed by Bennett Miller (Capote, Moneyball). I ended the movie asking myself why I spent the last 2+ hours watching it and I didn't have a good answer.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1100089/

The Imitation Game (2014)

4/5

The Imitation Game tells a fascinating story spectacularly well. Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Alan Turing, a British math professor who gets enlisted into a covert military mission to break the Nazi's Enigma Machine and help win WWII for the Allies. (Spoiler alert: he succeeds.) He plays the role to perfection, although I fear that Cumberbatch is well on his way to getting typecast. Here he plays an unlikeable genius lacking any interpersonal skills, nearly identical to his equally uncharming title role on BBC's Sherlock.

The writing somehow simultaneously represents the best and worst aspects of the movie. It is expertly paced, engaging from beginning to end, continuously drawing you in. But the timeline is also unnecessarily complicated, going back and forth between three distinct time periods much too frequently. Also, the film seems to use Turing's homosexuality sometimes to great effect and sometimes for shock value. It ends the movie in a surprisingly sad light and gives the title enormous new weight, but it also deviates from the character study we signed up to watch to tackle Britain's abhorrent policy on the matter.

There was also a little too much old timey footage, and its inclusion feels more like laziness rather than value-added benefit. Or maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, like unnecessary voiceover narration. Still, The Imitation Game is an engrossing and compelling watch. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/

Boyhood (2014)

2/5

Richard Linklater's decade-long experiment Boyhood is not a very good movie. It feels honest and true, with almost voyeuristic and documentarian authenticity, but those qualities don't make it engaging or compelling. It's a great idea, filming short snippets in real time across years, and I'm amazed that it was accomplished at all given the industry's eagle eye on quarterly profit margins. It could be the future of filmmaking, but I hope that better storytellers can do something more with it. While it tackles some strong emotional threads, including domestic violence, alcoholism, and abandonment, Boyhood feels incomplete and unsatisfying. Even though it recycles a number of themes, it all feels like one big unfinished thought. The only thing more frustrating than a slice-of-life movie without an ending is 12 of them stacked together. Linklater delivers an emotion instead of a story, but perhaps the same people who appreciate Terrence Malick's evocative but empty films will also appreciate Boyhood.

It should have been called Before Adulthood, because it feels very similar to Linklater's previous series of interconnected films where the predominant architecture of the film involves a couple walking around and waxing poetic across the expanse of time. No matter how intriguing the discussion is, the Before series is just a bunch of talking heads. In Boyhood especially you realize that even when things besides conversations happen, Linklater prefers writing to acting, prefers telling to showing. Is there any reason this was a movie instead of a book or a podcast? Did we gain anything at all from having this appear on screen? No. This is not a movie. This is a piece of prose that just so happens to involve cameras and actors.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1065073/

This Is Where I Leave You (2014)

4/5

This Is Where I Leave You is a tender, funny film about a dysfunctional family reuniting after their patriarch's death. The title comes from one son (Bateman), who leaves his wife (Spencer) after he finds her cheating on him. His sister (Fey) knows about their separation but must hide it from the rest of their siblings (Stoll, Driver) until he is ready to tell them. But their mother (Fonda) forces them all to sit shiva for a week after his funeral and all their neuroses comes out.

The brilliant script is full of meaningful writing, espousing big ideas on a small scale. Watching it makes me wish I had grown up with Tina Fey as my sister. It also makes me want to watch Girls just to see more of Adam Driver. Because this movie is hilarious. That being said, This Is Where I Leave You contains pretty ho-hum cinematic technique other than the writing/acting. Still, I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371150/

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

5/5

Alejandro González Iñárritu's Birdman is a cinematic masterpiece. The movie follows a washed-up actor (Keaton)--made famous by gaudy superhero movies--as he prepares for opening night of his Broadway debut after years of ignominy. He must hire an abrasive but extraordinary actor (Norton) at the last minute, ingratiate himself to a prejudiced theatre critic (Duncan), and combat his own personal neuroses and psychoses in the form of his Lycra-suited alter ego, the titular Birdman.

Sometimes a movie has all the right elements for success but they just don't fit together right. That is not the case with this movie. Here every spinning plate makes every other spinning plate that much more impressive, all building together to create an unforgettable experience. The screenplay is filled with smart observations, textured discussions on the differences between movies and theatre, performance and criticism, art and entertainment. The actors take that sharp and incisive writing to the next level with equally dynamic range--subtlety and loudness, introspection and histrionics--whenever the script calls for it. And it has one of the most genuinely ambiguous endings I can recall in years.

But Birdman will be remembered most for its inspired cinematography. The entire movie is filmed as if in one long camera take thanks to advanced CGI and unerring, excruciatingly detailed pre-planning. Not only is it visually mesmerizing and logistically jaw-dropping, it enriches the film by adding an element of claustrophobia to Keaton's mental deterioration. Movies like this are why movies exist, why creativity cannot survive in the world of books and music alone. It is a wholly fulfilling work of artistic genius. Birdman is a cinematic masterpiece.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2562232/

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

1/5

Matthew Vaughn's Kingsman is an abhorrent exploitation film masquerading as a delightful action flick. The movie serves as a modern send-up of the British spy movies from the 60's, but it does everything it can to distance itself from James Bond. It trades in dry humor for vulgar jokes, action for violence, and style for looks. It's self-referential in a way that outdoes even the countless satires of the genre. It's funny and fun until it's not. It takes a sharp turn and quickly becomes dark and disturbing. The ultra-violence is grotesque and nauseating, seemingly thrown on screen with gleeful abandon and disregard for taste. It's hard to imagine a world where people enjoy the stomach-churning images and call it entertainment, but the success of this film means that we are apparently living in it right now.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2802144/

Wish I Was Here (2014)

2/5

Zach Braff's second film, Wish I Was Here, is about two brothers (Braff, Gad) who must deal with their father's illness and impending death. The movie has less to say than Garden State and is even more plain in how it says it. The characters are less interesting, the writing is less interesting, and even the music is less interesting. (The funniest part was Josh Gad trolling Miley Cyrus on Twitter, and I don't mean that as a compliment.) There's just no magic in this movie and no compelling reason to keep watching it. Even though the effort of sitting on a couch and staring at a screen is minimal, I found myself itching to do something else.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2870708/

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

4/5

Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel is like many of Wes Anderson's other movies: delightful and magical if you like his style, banal and irritating if you don't. The plot follows a hotel concierge (Fiennes) who teams up with a lobby boy (Revolori) to prove his innocence after being framed for murder. The plotting is surprisingly intricate for a Wes Anderson movie, but is also somehow easy to follow at the same time.

What I like about Anderson's earlier movies is his ability to seamlessly switch between comedy and tragedy at the drop of a hat. Luckily, that opposition is still here, albeit in a less profound and less immediate form. Anderson superimposes an overall levity onto the relentless march of impending war, switching between the two moods from time to time, but The Grand Budapest Hotel focuses predominantly on the darker side of life.

Anderson has an undeniable visual style and he doesn't disappoint here. There's a reason this movie won the Oscar for best makeup and costume. He dresses his locales and his characters precisely and pristinely. The characters themselves (and the performances that underlie them) are not particularly deep or textured, but they are distinct and charming and unforgettable. They are brought to life by appealing, fast-paced storytelling and an irresistible, uncontainable magnetism. For Wes Anderson fans, The Grand Budapest Hotel is near-perfect filmmaking.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2278388/

The Skeleton Twins (2014)

4/5

The Skeleton Twins feels eminently indie, thanks to unique characters and astute writing. The movie follows two fraternal twins, Milo (Hader) and Maggie (Wiig), who reunite after Milo's failed suicide attempt. Maggie, married to Lance (Wilson), surreptitiously takes birth control pills while Lance fears he is infertile. Milo, now back in his hometown, starts talking to his old high school English teacher (Burrell), with whom he shared an intimate relationship at age 15.

The content is far from mainstream, and that may put people off, but this is a movie that delivers heart and humor in spades. The acting is incredible, delivering subtle details that reveal a wealth of history between the siblings. The way they bicker and forgive, the way they ruin and rebuild each other, feels so true to life. The movie is filled with ups and downs, drama and comedy, but is well worth the rollercoaster ride. I highly recommend this film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1571249/

Into the Woods (2014)

3/5

Into the Woods is a musical fairy tale that revolves around a baker (Corden) and his wife (Blunt) who cannot seem to get pregnant. They discover that a curse of infertility has been placed on them by the witch living next door (Streep). The only way to reverse it is to bring her ingredients from other fairy tales: Rapunzel's hair, Little Red Riding Hood's little red riding hood, Jack and the Beanstalk's white cow, and Cinderella's slipper.

The film version of Into the Woods suffers from the fact that it was made by Disney. The play's raison d'être is to satirize the overly-romanticized fairy tales on which Disney prides itself, to make them darker and dig deeper into their sentimental "happily ever afters." Disney's version is no longer edgy; all the adulteries and deaths are cleaned up and hidden so that the film will be appropriate for little kids. There is one glaring exception to this general sentiment and that is the Big Bad Wolf. Johnny Depp somehow manages to turn the character of a hungry wolf into a stalker pedophile, which would be uncomfortable to watch in any film but is downright disturbing in a Disney film.

As if that wasn't enough to ruin the movie, they cut out my favorite part. In the original production, the narrator eventually becomes part of the action and gets killed in the ensuing chaos. There is no narrator in Disney's movie. (Well, there is, but he's not a character involved in the story.) The worst!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

2/5

The third installment in the Hunger Games trilogy is--surprisingly--not the last, as you might expect from my use of the word trilogy. Instead, the producers behind the franchise are hoping to eke out every last cent possible from its fan base in the great tradition of Harry Potter and Twilight. It is worse off for it, as this film plods along slowly, without much purpose except to prepare us for the next one. It is not only painfully slow, it is also tremendously different in terms of style, mood, and thematics. The third Hunger Games movie could have been great if it ended the series, building on the momentum generated from the first two films, but it's not. Instead it's mediocre filler that prolongs the inevitable release of the finale.

This is (obviously) not an issue with the book, because the book doesn't end where the movie ends. If, in fact, the story benefited from being split into two parts, I presume the book would have been split into two books. It is not. It is one book. It is one story. If you need more time to tell the story you want to tell, make a miniseries instead of a movie. If you are unable to make creative decisions when it comes to editing, you are not a filmmaker. You are a moneymaker. And The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1, if you couldn't tell from the title, is a moneymaking grab.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/

Big Hero 6 (2014)

4/5

Big Hero 6 is a wonderfully enjoyable animated film by Disney. Much of the film centers around the relationship between Hiro (Potter), a young technophile and "bot fighter," and his older brother Tadachi (Henney), an engineering student at a futuristic tech institute. Tadachi has created a health-focused robot called Baymax (Adsit), but Hiro is less than impressed at the huggable marshmallow of a machine. After a catastrophe at the institute's tech fair, Hiro must join up with a band of misfit superheroes to protect the city from a nefarious villain.

The same production company behind Frozen makes essentially its action-oriented counterpart, focusing on brotherly love in the context of a superhero world instead of a princess fairytale. It features similar themes and predictable plot points, but the repetition surprisingly does nothing to take away from the overall experience. Disney films are never really about shocking audiences with plot twists but about wowing them with stellar storytelling and magical details. Big Hero 6 delights--it's adorable, exciting, and fun--and is another big win for Disney.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2245084/

Chef (2014)

4/5

Jon Favreau's Chef is a surprisingly affecting movie. It tells the story of an acclaimed chef (Favreau) who is unable to make the creative dishes he wants to because his boss (Hoffman) prefers "crowdpleasers." His ex-wife (Vergara) wants him to start up a food truck because it will allow him the freedom to be innovative and adventurous, but he dismisses the idea. After a fiasco with a food critic (Platt) spreads like wildfire on social media, he finds himself out of options.

I'll be honest, most of the movie is fairly mediocre. Straightforward story, predictable plot, forgettable photography. Like all food porn, this movie will make your mouth water. But it's also emotion porn, a real tearjerker and heart-warmer that will make you go awwww. The acting shines. From rather basic characterizations emerge real people in real situations, radiating a life on screen that is rarely seen in the commoditized Hollywood machine. I'm smart enough to know I'm being manipulated by the story, but I still enjoyed every minute of it. The movie hits all the right notes, combining hilarity and heart, and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2883512/

Interstellar (2014)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's overindulgent Interstellar is a pretentious pile of crap. It will draw instant comparisons to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, mostly because it's overlong and cerebral, but it doesn't achieve nearly the same success as its predecessor in the field of art or entertainment. The plot is the least important part of the movie, but Nolan spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort explaining all its inane details. Whereas 2001 contained groundbreaking universal ideas, Interstellar contains unexciting characters performing specific tasks in a fictitious world. Nolan adds in an emotional tug that was absent in 2001, but it almost serves as the antithesis of the existential crisis at the core of both sci-fi films. I never felt myself pulled in by the relationship between Matthew McConaughey and his daughter (it felt inauthentic) or by Anne Hathaway's silly monologue about believing in love over science.

But my biggest problem with the film is that everything is wrapped up too neatly. I normally enjoy circular stories--where the end brings everything back to the beginning--but here it feels so written, so planned, so deceptive. The movie is too tidy for the big ideas it presents. Nolan tries to lecture and explain instead of let the film exist as a jumping off point. He wants to control the discussion instead of letting the discussion occur organically. Perhaps 2001's greatest strength is that it was so unexplained, so open to interpretation. Interstellar doesn't have that, and it leaves the movie flat. Despite the gorgeous visuals, spot-on acting, and surprise cameo, the movie just doesn't do it for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692

Men, Women & Children (2014)

5/5

Jason Reitman's latest film is an utterly absorbing, thought-provoking film. It is a movie about kids growing up and couples growing apart, about technology and communication, and about interaction and isolation. An ensemble drama, it follows several threads: a husband (Sandler) and wife (DeWitt) who start cheating on each other, a mother (Garner) who safeguards her daughter (Dever) from the dangers of the Internet, another mother (Greer) who seems to do the opposite, and a high schooler (Elgort) who gives up football for online gaming.

The topic of technology leading to isolation has been done before (the aptly-titled Disconnect tackles the issue exceptionally well). But Men, Women & Children is not about technology. It is about coming of age in modern society. And it teaches us all about that in devastating, funny, touching ways. The title tells you the focus of the film; it is about the individuals that make up society, not the technology. Each story feels heartfelt and true, rich with subtext and hidden meaning. The performances are subtle, with big names playing small roles. Despite restrained acting, the movie does occasionally veer into melodrama. But on the whole, it reflects life accurately in both tone and color.

People will talk about this movie for its depiction of technology, because everything is replicated with precision. The UI is spot-on, whether we're looking at Facebook on a computer or a text message on an iPhone. Even the sounds of notifications ring true to our 21st century ear. But Reitman takes it one step further. The way he shows technology is itself a comment on technology. Screens pop up and overlay the action with every bowed head. They may sit in the background, but they never go away. As audience members, we find our eyes drawn to the neighbors' Twitter feed instead of the protagonists' actions. Is this how we live now, looking down everytime we feel a buzz when something else is going on right in front of our very eyes?

The big problem with being so pixel-perfect is that it securely sets Men, Women & Children in this time and place. User interfaces and interaction metaphors change at an ultrafast pace, which may date this movie just 6 months from now. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think I'll have a very different perspective watching this movie 20 years from now. Not just because the change in technology will make this movie look and feel old, but because life will have happened to me. I will start to recognize the nuance in characters' motivations; I will be hit harder by the mistakes they make and touched more profoundly by the affection they show. And that's what this movie gets so right. That's why I can't wait to watch this movie again: 20 years from now and hopefully many times in between.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3179568/

John Wick (2014)

2/5

John Wick is a pretty silly movie. The conceit of the film is that a well-known assassin named John Wick (Reeves) retires from the killing business for a woman (Moynahan) who ends up dying of an unknown chronic disease. When a seemingly random crime takes away the final gift from his late wife, Wick returns to his violent past on a quest for vengeance.

The movie has a few unique aspects, but is otherwise drab and uninspired. What's cool? The video game-like action and the snippets of comedy. It didn't feel like other shoot-em-up action flicks; it felt like a shoot-em-up action game. And it never takes itself too seriously, throwing in hilarious jokes at its own expense. Sometimes it feels overly silly, but it works more often than I would have expected. What's poor? Everything else. The movie starts in media res for no other reason than that it's commonplace now. It adds nothing to the excitement or the plot; if anything it flattens and compresses the story's progression. The script is full of cliched one-liners delivered with surprising blandness coming from the somewhat well-respected actors. There is no build-up to an explosive finale. It just continues from one random action scene to the next, with perhaps the coolest one being the first one. All in all, I cannot recommend this film to even the most diehard of Keanu Reeves fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2911666/

Gone Girl (2014)

4/5

David Fincher's adaptation of Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl is extremely faithful to the source material. The novel is a disturbing, chilling story of twisted love and cunning revenge and Fincher brings it to the screen expertly. Nick Dunne (Affleck) discovers his wife Amy (Pike) has gone missing on the morning of their fifth anniversary under suspicious circumstances. Although their relationship started with unquestioning affection, it deteriorated over the years to a hateful place when the movie begins. And as the police investigation progresses, Nick is suspected of being her murderer. With a script that is very intelligent in what it retains and what it excises, the story has plenty of twists and turns to surprise and shock.

The casting is spot-on. Ben Affleck plays Nick to perfection, exuding calm aloofness at inopportune times or cool charm when it counts. He is able to be loved then hated then admired then disdained. He is as complex as you could imagine him to be, and then some. Rosamund Pike steals the show as her persona is gradually revealed over the course of the film. I don't want to ruin any of the surprise, but you will be absolutely stunned by this performance. She is a revelation.

Fincher's directing is as smooth and atmospheric as ever. Cinematography is moody and brooding; editing is tense but pensive. Everything works together to present a polished, pristine version of incomprehensible acts of evil and villainy. Even the way the on screen text is displayed, from the way the intro credits seem to disappear just a half-second too quickly to the way the dates fade in as the story progresses, works to unsettle you.

But despite how well-made it is, both as an adaptation of a book and a film in its own right, the story is just too exhausting, too excruciating to watch more than once. It deflates you and disgusts you. The poignant points are all cynical ones and the movie seems to deliver a message without hope. It is worth watching once, but take in as much as you can when you do because I can't imagine many people will take much pleasure in rewatching it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/