Change Your Image
661jda
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Ulisse (1954)
A little cheesey but still good enuf to keep me entertained
The film suffers when compared to today's sword and sandal flicks, but still this is 1954 and in it's time, it was a great flick. Ending being very true to the story shows off Kirk's ability as an action star. Rousing fight scenes, epic storytelling, cinematography~costumes~and sets make for a thrilling telling of Homer's THE ODYSSEY. Was hoping Wolfgang Petersen would give us the ODYSSEY after he filmed TROY. Guess that was not to be: this might be a good candidate for a reboot. Would love to see something like this - it's been a long time and sword and sandals make good popcorn films. Someone pick up on this!!!!
Wolfs (2024)
Butch & Sundance > re 2024
First off: I would have enjoyed a lot more in a theatre. With no laughter or laugh track, the jokes HIT but they don't SPLATTER. Still, the buddy part is there due to the chemistry between Clooney & Pitt. The kid did a good job too, reminding me a lot of a teenage Martin Short. The story is good, the gags are intricate but well played. The subway scene took me in > The last time I fell for something like that was THE STING. In my mind, I play out a sequel or series: the doctor chick comes to the rescue and they go rogue fixers; get into a "fix" and the kid comes back and helps kinda like robin and 2 Batmen. You just can't get tired of Clooney and Pitt when they are doing comedy/drama.
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
If you go to Monster Truck Rallys - you won't like this film.
This is for all the people who wrote bad reviews of this film. HOW CAN YOU NOT LOVE THIS FILM???? The whole point of the film is that Shakespeare was a hack who got most of his ideas from his contemporaries and events around him. You know it's not true, but Stoppards script is peppered with lines that Shakespeare uses in his R&J script. It's a farce and you just go along for the ride. Good example: a befuddle Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes are discussing => Rush: "The show must.... must .... must" Fiennes: "GO ON!" These lines are throughout and are Golden! Fiennes is good as Shakespeare; Paltrow is good as Viola (I wouldn't say it was Best Actress work but very good). Rush should have won an Oscar for his role-he is hilarious. The sets and costumes are very authentic and the music is appropriate and easy to listen to while the yarn unravels. The narrator of R&J has a stutter issue. If you take it seriously, it could be construed as offensive; but taken in context as the story unfolds, this is hilarious. Kudos to all involved. If you choose NOT to view this film it is your lose - go back to watching Smokey and the Bandit.
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
You don't go see this expecting to sing along with the score.
After reading some of the reviews, shocked at what some of the viewers were expecting. Some pictures you go to for the music, some for the romance, some for adventure. WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF you go see if you want to view acting at it's finest. There are 4 characters (plus a couple bar people that Nichols used to open the play up a bit). MARTHA-the shrewish wife played by Elizabeth Taylor in what has got to be one of the top 100 acting turns EVER. This is not a part Taylor was used to playing and she threw herself into this. Very worthy OSCAR winning performance. Her performance alone was worth the price of admission. GEORGE-her husband played by Richard Burton. I'm not a big fan of Burton's acting ability, but in this film he claws and fights tooth and nail to keep up with Taylor and he succeeds. How he didn't win an Oscar is something I don't understand. Sandy Dennis plays Honey (the wife of the new professor on the block). Written to be a whimpy dishrag of a person, Dennis carries it off deftly winning a best supporting actress Oscar in the works. The last character is Nick played by George Segal. His is the weakest (if you can call it that) role written, but still Segal plays the role with skills that he really never used since. For the four on-screen giants, you have equal talent behind the screen. This is a film that was the first film that received nominations in every category it qualified for at the Oscars that year - all 13 Nominations. The story is deep-some people have trouble following it, but the acting alone is worth viewing. A great film that still brings up conversation when mentioned.
Isadora (1968)
I wanted to like this film but..........
This is my 3rd viewing of the film. My first was at the single theatre in a small midwest town in 1969. There was one other woman in the theatre with me and it was a Sunday afternoon. My second viewing was sometime later when I was aspiring to be a film afficionado. Now the third viewing. Let me tell you it really doesn't improve with age. Universal financed this film yet didn't have the confidence to at least give it a wide screen adaption and I will say the flat screen gives ISADORA a more personal feel. So first the good things: VANESSA REDGRAVE: it's obvious that she was a driving force for propelling the film and she gives it her all. Dramatically she hits all the high and low points Technically her dancing is rudimentary. Maybe that was Duncan's style but it still looks awkward at best. Her performance was worth the Oscar Nomination, but against the other nominees that year she was not destined to win. The cinematography is breath-taking and the art direction is admirable: not items that are first on my list when I go to see a movie but were still very good. Now the bad stuff: the direction by Reisz is plodding but really not his fault. The screenplay is sedimentary: there is no way that there is one exciting scene in this film => it is heavy and, unless you know something about Duncan's life, it is totally uninteresting. What epitomizes my feelings about the film is the way it ends: you know she is strangled by her scarf being caught in the spokes of the sports car she is riding in, but you see no reaction from the driver of the car. He messes with the scarf to see it's tight around her neck and she's dead and then he walks off. He just disappears out of the scene and the camera focuses on the ocean. You think "where'd the driver go? What happened?" which pretty much sums up the whole movie.
Hawaii (1966)
Flawed with Many Good Qualities
First Off-Never read the book = can't get thru it.
BUT
The film is truly a monumental effort. I have the 161 min DVD version that I watch every once in a while. Why?
Because the sets and locale are beautiful. I really can't understand how it failed to get an Oscar nod when the other pics nominated are so inferior. The costumes are authentic and stunning to look at.
In short = this is a pretty picture.
The performances are good-not Oscar good-but accomplished. I will point out a couple of items:
Von Sydow's performs in the comments are negative. But that's the way the role was written. He was supposed to be awkward and wooden around Andrews because he never was around women. Then as he moved to the islands, he becomes inflexible in his workings with the natives-he was raised a god-fearing man from Boston, he wasn't going to change.
Jocelyn LaGarde =good performance, but hardly worth the Oscar nod.
The only place the film suffers - and this is the critical point is the screenplay. At times it is spot-on, but there are moments when you wonder why did you say this? Is that really "how" you would have said it in the 1800s. There's just a number of inconsistencies that leave me to think "huh?"
Those are really minor when you take into consideration all the rest. I never saw this in a theatre: would have loved to seen it in it's roadshow version with the sound and picture. Guess an 85" television is the best I can do for this performance. *sigh.
Heaven's Gate (1980)
Epic tale that few had heard of and no one was interested in
Every time I watch this film (and I've viewed 8 or 9 times now) I could kick myself in the posterior. I WANT to like the film as it was an ambitious undertaking, but I can't bring myself to view it as a great film.
THE GOOD:
Some of the scenes are absolutely poetic: The waltz at Harvard and the roller skating sequence. The Stillwater sequence (carriage ride by the lake) while not as beautiful as the other two, is captivating thanks to the beautiful music in the background.
THE BAD:
The cinematography gave me a headache switch for reason between full color, subdued hues, sepia tone. Just didn't make sense. The sound editing really wasn't great; there is a scene (I believe they are in the HEAVEN'S GATE roller rink where Ella walks across the floor and her stomping is all you hear.) A pack of baby elephants walk quieter than she did.
THE UGLY:
While most of the cast is good in portrayal, Kristofferson and Huppert are most egregious at their roles. I couldn't relate to her as Ella and Kristofferson just can't act. It is painstakingly embarrassing when he is called upon to cry.
If you like the movies and you either have seen the film or are thinking of viewing the film, I suggest you find a copy of a book called FINAL CUT by Stephen Bach who was an Executive at UA during this time period. It's a fascinating read on how this picture ever got made.
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Irreverent But Mel Brooks at his best
Talk about a busy screenplay -- I don't think that 30 seconds goes by in this picture when there isn't a sight gag, old time homage, or just a verbal joke that doesn't hit the screen and it's a full handed slap. Brooks sends up everything that is Hollywood: movies or television and he takes no prisoners. Ironically, the film did NOT receive an Oscar nomination for best screenplay! It did receive 3 noms including one for Madeline Kahn for her Lily Von Stoop character based on Marlene Dietrich (her "it's twoo, it's twoo" and "schnitzengruber" scenes are classic). This is a film that received an "R" rating when it was released and maintains that rating admirably: it's hilarious, offensive, funny and the best time you will have watching a film. The term "they don't make them like they used to" is very appropriate for this Movie. Thanks Mel Brooks!!!!!!
The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming (1966)
Bad Aging on a Hilarious film.
The premise behind this movie in the 60's is what propelled this picture to be as great as it was. But the cold war isn't here anymore and Russia isn't out only problem. WHAT YOU DO HAVE THOUGH is a hilarious cold war spoof where both sides are equally scared and adept in dealing with the problem: Russian sub goes aground off the eastern seaboard in a small island because they want to get a look at America. Theodore Bikel as the sub commander in a rare comic role. Arkin is in charge of a group of russian speaking inepts that go ashore to find a boat to pull them out to sea again. This is Arkin's best role in a legacy of many fine film performances. What they succeed in doing is scaring the townspeople that is made up of every comic character actor that Jewison could dig up. The running joke is Ben Blue trying to catch a horse so he can warn all the townspeople but by the time he catches them, everybody knows. One of the greatest faces of the past: Paul Ford as the American Legion vet who goes head-to-head with Brian Keith as the town sheriff is just great comedy writing. The whole film is written beautifully and the ending is appropriate. So just sit back, relax and take the picture at it's word. Your reward is a two hour situation comedy that may not make a lot of sense to you now, but have millions rolling in the aisles when it was released in 1966.
A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014)
How is this rated so low????
OK, this is not high-brow humor. BUT it's funny as hell. I just watched it again (14th time). MacFarland orchestrates everything to the lowest common dominator in the audience. It hits on all notes: MacFarland's nerdy sheep farmer; Neeson's villain; Silverman's whore with a heart of gold. This is just a great film to eat popcorn with, but don't look for symbolism or a moral or message: it is what it is => funny and enjoyable. The cameos and walkons are just as funny. Remember: "everyone dies at the fair" and "there's literally a million ways to die in the west". I've got the dvd and digital copy for the plane. It's a fast 2 hrs.
Darling Lili (1970)
Sorry guys: I have always liked this film.....
I saw this originally in 1969 when it was released. It was the Paramount sanctioned cut and it was good - just nobody in the theatre. I bought the directors cut on dvd some years ago and watched and watched again today as I'm going thru my dvd's.
I still-to this day- feel this picture got a bum rap. It's not a perfect film, but definitely NOT the bomb the critics made it out to be. Musicals in 1969 were box office poison. But there's comedy in the film that is humorous. The film cost $25MM to make and the money is all there on the screen: from the sets and costumes to the stunts. The music left is vintage WWI songs that everyone knows plus a couple of original unremarkable but unoffensive numbers from the music hall sequences and truth be told, it's nice to hear Andrews voice before she quit singing. The sets and costumes and cinematography are first rate. Edwards directions is a bit prejudiced as he makes sure he shows his star/wife with the best possible light and in the best possible direction sometimes, maybe, at the expense of the costars - but who cares? Andrews looks AWESOME!!!! The only bad thing? Editing and continuity: very easy to spot reshoots and inconsistencies. But who gives a damn, this is a fun flick. More people need to enjoy.
The Thrill of It All (1963)
Remember when life was simpler?
That's what you get here: A simple life ~ A simple story. Doris and James alive and in the prime of life doing what they do best >> Champaign comedies. He's a doctor and making the bacon; she's his wife who's supposed to stay home, cook, clean house, have babies. All's good until she get a job by accident. Then his life is turned upside down. I saw this when it first came out and it seemed normal to me. Then we had Vietnam, Womens Lib, Watergate, Assassinations. Now we're smarter and truthfully, this doesn't hold up real well. (maybe that's why I had trouble finding it). But grab a tv dinner, watch it in front of the tv and laugh at the jokes. It's a good time. Spoiler alert: If you try to watch it with the kids, they may roll their eyes and tell you it's lame LOL.
Joyeux Noël (2005)
What a great war film!!!!
I like WW1 & WW2 films but this one is really special. It deals more with the stories of the men rather than the blood and guts of the war. You see the actual war thru the supporting players who push the main characters to be ruthless to win battle and conquer the world, Intertwined is the characters and how they have lives that really matter more than the big picture.
It all comes together in the final half of the film when they are dealing with the trench warfare and Diana Krueger's desire to get to her husband regardless. When the impromptu cease-fire happens on the front for Christmas, you get a rush of satisfaction as they all fraternize to celebrate the holiday.
Yes, it's a foreign film but one that transcends the barrier of language. This was a real event so ... if they could sit thru it for an evening, you can sit thru it for a couple of hours. You won't be sorry once you've viewed it.
By the way, the technicals are pretty good as well. Special shout out for the costumes and the cinematography which are outstanding.
Nyad (2023)
So much drama - so little story
This is the story of one woman's quest to swim the straights of Florida between Cuba and Florida Keys. I have two questions after watching #1- Why? And #2 - Who cares? Benning and Foster do much better than their roles are written. Benning a little on the hammy side and Foster is ok, but she doesn't have a whole lot to do. I can see why it was a direct to tv feature (yes, I KNOW it was in theatres a week before streaming), but it would have been a disaster if it would have received a commercial release. Holds little interest for anyone except the diehard swimming fan and believe me, no one else really cares.
Napoleon (2023)
Poisoned before I viewed>but the poison was truthful
Not sure how to feel about this pic: and this (with KILLERS) was one of the movies I was really psyched to see this season. What I watched was (for me) I don't know what. On the plus side; Vanessa Kirby as Josephine did what she could with the role that was written. If everything would have been on par with her performance, I would have given a stronge 7 maybe 8. BUT IT WASN'T. Let's start with Phoenix. Napoleon in other films has been a brooding self centered man (Brando, Herber Lom, Rod Steiger)Phoenix doesn't come across that way. He wants to be brash and arrogant, but i got the impression that he didn't know where to go with it. The boring screenplay was like reading a grocery list in monosyllable. The musical score was just BAD. I'm lost why there were no sections of the 1812 Overture included in the soundtrack. The cinematography, designed to be grainy in some points made my eyes hurt. Knowing it was Scott directing, I was expecting another GLADIATOR. Instead I got another EXODUS GODS AND KINgs.
Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)
A very short 3 1/2 hour movie.
Great film. Not sure how I want to describe it after that. It's a brutal story, but Scorsese doesn't dwell on the brutality side - he focuses on how the brutality affects the characters. In particular, It focuses on Lily Gladstone and how she deals as her family is slowly killed off. There really isn't any gore or gruesomeness in the film. The worst scenes have been in the previews so if you've seen the previews, that's what you will see in the film.
This is pretty much a Gladstone movie: she is not a supporting player by any means. DiCaprio is good as the catalyst to keep the story action moving. He's used as the pawn in DeNiro's clever game to get the oil fields from the Indians. His makeup is subtle but convey his sliminess. DeNiro, when he does drama like this, always does a tremendous job in the role: it's a "Trumpian" type role when he manipulates you to do the job, then he makes sure you're the fall-guy for the issue. It's a well made film that tells a fascinating story. All technicals are top rate.
The only issue I had was with the ending: not a bad thing/not a good thing -> just something I wasn't expecting and i'm not going to tell you what it was - only that I had never seen that type of resolution before and, in hindsight, it was a pretty nifty way to wrap the story.
Can't wait to see it again when it comes to AppleTV.
All the Beauty and the Bloodshed (2022)
Muddled Life / Muddled film
Just not sure where to go with this film. If the film is asking for sympathy - I have none. I know exactly what I am putting into my body. I ask the doctors what I'm getting and why I'm getting it. I've done that all my adult life and I would expect others to do the same thing.
From a narrative point of view the story switches time frames, personal view points and subject matter rather frequently and abruptly - this is not a documentary to watch piecemeal but rather all at once.
In so far as the oxycontin subject matter, there is no mention of the government or the FDA. While the Sacklers bear some responsibility, where is the admonishment for the Govt? The FDA? The prescribing Dr? Didn't those doctors warn the patients about this drug? Is there not a warning label by the pharmacy explaining the addictive properties? Where was discussion concerning lawsuits against the Doctors (hint: I didn't hear any. Why? Because doctors would simply quit their jobs and we'd have socialized medicine in this country now.) The protagonists of this film, chose to go after the big dollars rather than the people that also benefitted: the gov't in the millions of tax dollars that were generated; the doctors who had their patients coming back for more of the drug and when they couldn't get from him, they took to the streets. There are a lot of unanswered questions for a documentary that is 122 minutes long.
Barbie (2023)
WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE SEEING????
This is not a great movie - when you get down to it, it's not even a good movie. It's a popcorn movie at best. The best thing it has going for it? Margot Robbie as Barbie: she does channel the role well and when her world turns upside down, you genuinely feel sorry for her. At the other end of the scale - Ryan Gosling as Ken. Gosling is good at stretching into roles, but no matter what - Ken was an androgenous doll and Gosling can't stretch the role anything more than that. He looks like a character out of ZOOLANDER and whenever he is on the screen, i was cringing in my seat. There are definitely funny moments: my favorite? When Ken runs into the ocean to surf. Definitely a woman's movie from the first preach to the final cast roll - it got old fast and the screenplay didn't seem to have much substance after the "I am woman" speeches. I thought it was me, but there was a lot of kids in the theatre and they all appeared to be bored as well. Sorry Greta => This is not your ticket to the Oscars.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
Even a fair Indiana is better than no Jones at all.....
Thank you for bringing Indy back-after the last one, I thought you buried him. As long as Harrison Ford is around, you can always bring up an Indiana Jones saga. I'll never say anything bad about Ford's performance as Jones. Honestly believe he should have at least been nominated for RAIDERS. He never fails to please and does so again here. But the story is uneven. Sometimes speeding manically along and then when it slows down--it stops. Bringing in Waller Bridge was a good idea to keep the story lively although I'm not convinced so much of her conversion from thief at the end. Maybe the next will push her back to the dark side and the emergence of a new "indy junior" would be a good thing. Mads is a good villian-you will really want to hate him at one point. Unfortunately, Teddy is no Short-Round. He lacks the likeability and thats a hole in this story: he's not charismatic nor is he really likeable so you almost don't care what happens to him other than he is integral to saving Indy and Wombat towards the end. Indiana Jones is a character that really shouldn't die: he is the 1930s version of Luke Skywalker: to make him go away will almost be unAmerican, but we need to get to another hero and the next jones should be the bridge that this one wasn't. Still - I would rather pay money to see this flawed jones than pay money to see half the films that are also coming out this year.
The Flash (2023)
I don't know what you people saw but.......
I just left the theatre where 3 people around me had to be woke up from their sleep by the person they were with. I dozed off several times. Maybe I'm not into the DC universe, the story was difficult to follow - at times silly, at times down-right stupid and at times, plagiaristic. The main (?) plot of the story appeared to center on the death of the Flash's mother - it bookends the movie. But you never are given a clue as to the resolution of that. Then you have the very obvious error where someone dies in the middle of the film which should have ever lasting effects on the balance of the film, but oh well - not sure how that one ends up. On top of that, they parade thru every person whos ever donned a DC superhero outfit - even Nicholas Cage. Nicholas Cage????? Please! EF are fair; acting is marginal; story and screenplay are poor at best. Someone should look up the meaning of continuity. Advice: don't waste your money, it will be on TV in 45 days.
Bacheha-ye aseman (1997)
What's the hype.....
I am going to stop watching these kind of movies. It pretty much hits all the stereotypes that one can imagine and it elicits prejudices against stupidity that exists in the world today. Here is a family - so poor and destitute, they need to have 3 children to share their misery with. PEOPLE! OVERPOPULATION IS RUINING THIS PLANET! The boy is irresponsible and loses the girls only pair of shoes so they switch shoes for school so they don't have to tell the father who will beat them. The girl never gets home on time, so the boy is always late for school. He finally gets kicked out for tardiness but, lo and behold, one teacher stands up for him. Hurrah for teach!!! They owe the grocer but he still gives them food. They're 5 months behind on the rent, but they still keep on living there (how does that happen in the US? I'd love to know) The mother is ill and can't go to work, but the daughter takes care of the baby. The boy wants to race and get his sister the sneakers so they will get back to normal (how long is this? And dad hasn't noticed???) The boy goes to register 5 days after the entry deadline but again, lo and behold, they let him register. He wants to come in 3rd to win the shoes, but golly darn - after tripping and falling - he comes in first! Don't worry about the fact that he has a 2 foot stride while all his competitors that lose to him have a 3 foot or great stride. BUT THE BEST PART!!!!! Dad decides to become a gardener with no skills and he takes the boy on his first day on a bicycle 10 miles away from home where to "good" houses are. He's too stupid to articulate himself, so the boy has to explain what they do. Then after a full day, on the way home, they have an accident because the bike they are riding has no breaks????? WOULD YOU NOT HAVE TESTED THIS ON A FLAT SURFACE RATHER THAN A DOWNWARD INCLIDE BEFORE YOU PUT YOUR CHILD ON THERE WITH YOU??? A bunch of stupidity and nonsense that I have no patience for. Because of all of this, that 87 minutes seemed like an eternity. This film is a good argument for population control.
The Look of Silence (2014)
More Personal than THE ACT OF KILLING
When I watched TAOK, it didn't affect me as this film did. Because everyone knew they were making a movie, it somehow removed the event from me, that these were people. But this story of a man looking for the killers of his brother to understand what happened digs deeper. You meet people who are so proud that they cut heads off tied up people or they stabbed and tortured, you think that you've pretty much seen it all except, in some cases, they are so proud of their work, they've written books and illustrated them. When the families are confronted with the stories and evidence, they simply shrug and say "we didn't know". That's bull****. This film pretty much evokes the prejudice in me: all the people interviewed appear as inbred, addled idiots, who have no clue about what is going on. If they were in the US, (which one man seems to think he should be rewarded with a cruise to America for his murders), they would be in an institution, prison, or dead. I pretty much have contempt for everyone in the film except Ramli's family. The filmmakers achieved what they set out to do: inform and motivate. There is no sympathy as you are told how the murders occur and the witnesses are proud of their complicity with the events. Still, from a film making perspective, it's a fascinating piece of film, worthy of it's accolades.
Kynodontas (2009)
Absolute perverse crap
I have now seen 3 films of this person which is 33.33% of his filmography. The films are preverse; bear no resemblance to film entertainment and are just boring because there is little to no cohesive narrative. It's almost as if he takes great pleasure in shocking his audience. Some of the grotesque items in this film: a boy that kills a cat with a pair of hedge clippers; the family barking like dogs; a man who picks up a vcr and smacks his son's lover in the head with it because they had sex which is what he got the girl there for in the first place. The whole premise of the story is the parents don't let the children off the property in order to protect their innocence, but that's a stupid concept and borders on child abuse. Rather than educating them, they lie to the children: they tell them "Zombies" are flowers and other stupid aspects. There is NOTHING entertaining about this film - in short - it's more like audience abuse. It's unfathomable that this picture received the praise it did. It was the greek entry into the Oscars in 2010. If this is what the Greeks think is Art and Entertainment, then the past Greek culture is probably rolling over in their collective graves. If this is what AMPAS considers superior film fare to be nominated for Best Foreign Film, then someone has to be on the take. This is NOT film - this is NOT entertainment - this is just crap to be avoided.
Sunbonnet Sue (1945)
The Gay 90s! The Bowery! A Simpler time ~ a relaxing 90 min.
I had never seen Gale Storm in a movie: I knew she made some, but just hadn't seen any. Then I came across this one. The story has all the classic elements: kind hearted, widowed dad taking care of his daughter the best he can. He owns a saloon in the Bowery to support him and his daughter who works in the saloon as a singer. He has political causes that on the surface are a source of his problems but the underlaying cause is an evil sister-in-law who wants to take his daughter away from him and give her a respectable life (which will rid her of any potential embarrassment). If you do come across this, don't go into it thinking that you'll find the meaning of life - just sit back and enjoy the fun and the music -- there's nothing deep here.
Tell It Like a Woman (2022)
like others: only watching for the Oscar nod....
There was a big hoop-de-doo this year because no woman was nominated in the Best Direction category - THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY!!! This is absolutely a waste of time. Documentary-like, the stories are boring, some creepy, most meaningless. A total waste of time and talent (?). I paid $4.99 to watch this on Amazon and am seriously considering asking for my money back. There is nothing entertaining about this. The is nothing "great" or even "good" about this picture - it's normal. The acting is "normal" no standouts. The behind the camera personal perform their jobs - there is nothing out of the ordinary about this. In short - wait til the film is available on a free service - don't waste your money on it.