spsarkar Reviews

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)

2 Hours in my life I will never get back

[2/10 · 9 February 2019]

Reputations are funny things. For decades the name Coen Brothers has evoked quiet respect, much of it well-deserved. But what was this? A demented soiree of incalculable pretentiousness, mirrored only by the reviews here swooning over this alarming mediocrity.

Starts well, but swiftly goes in only one direction..and here I am thinking with every passing tedious minute, may be it will get less tedious.

But NO. Gets worse. Netflix producers have a lot to answer for.

Annihilation (I) (2018)

There oughtta be a law..

[2/10 · 17 March 2018]

Criminalizing not only making this kind of tripe but to market it, even if it was only limited release and then straight on streaming. We see a bunch of ordinarily talented actors degenerate into a performance matching those of D-list extras. I hope they did not get paid.

But as Critics would remind us, the movie bombed in the box-office (11mill on opening weekend as opposed to 40mill budget) because we movie-goers are basically stupid and we don't 'get it'. Such 'progressive' love fest must be feted just for its very existence. I mean, come on- all-female cast, diverse as rainbow cast- black, white, pink, maroon...a hint of same-sex or homoerotic tension, some cool inter-racial stuff..we must celebrate it even if the plot is shallower than the valley girls and the CGI that seems fakery made up by a 8th grader in mainland China.

But it is 'progressive' because it has 'diversity' and the World is unsafe. I am just glad that somehow it was not all President Trump or Russia or NRA or the climate deniers who are somehow at fault.

It was my choice, to spend/waste almost 2 hours of my time and at least I still got that going. But looking at all the 10/10 scores and a Metacritic score of 73, I am beginning to worry, how much longer will we have free will as a concept in America before we all are ordered to think in same 'progressive' voice.

Until then, there oughtta be a law!

BTW, critics carefully avoid mentioning that the movie was directed by Alex Garland whose past crimes include 'The Beach' starring no less an Eco-Warrior than Leonardo "Private Jet" DeCaprio. Anyone remember that?

There really oughtta be a law!

Darkest Hour (2017)

Indomitable British Spirit

[10/10 · 20 January 2018]

When you have a reviewer complain about Churchill 'polluting' the room with his cigars, you know you are in troll territory. But seriously, what a performance. What a movie. Historically accurate, well-paced - no make it 'perfectly paced' and terrific script.

The tube journey to Westminster station takes 5 minutes, someone complained. As if that bit of accuracy (it takes about 2 minutes today-who knows how long it took in 1940) is what the war effort hinged on.

I am a grown man but I cried when the little girl in the Tube sequence said 'Never'!

If you love films, go watch it. If you love the spirit that won the war against all odds, by a tiny Sea-faring nation against tyranny, watch it over and over again.

Strong performance from all the supporting cast, especially Lily James and even the snake Lord Halifax played a perfect little and believable snake.

First Kill (2017)

Just BAD. Very bad.

[3/10 · 27 July 2017]

As someone who enjoys watching movies (and relies on IMDb fraternity) I am writing this as my 'paying my dues' to my fellow sufferers. I watched this movie, not motivated by anything except the premise looked OK. I was not in the least bit influenced either way by seeing Bruce Willis in the cast (he had his best part in Pulp Fiction and everything has been downhill since) and did not even recognize who the lead actor was (Hayden who?). Boy, was I in for some serious disappointment.

The story is not original, but OK. There are tons of corrupt cops in this world although to be fair it is not immediately apparent that the entire PD (or Sheriff's Dept or whatever) was in cahoot with some bad guy doing bad stuff. The acting is uniformly bad, so bad that you actually root for the evident bad guy who is taking hostage and stuff. His portrayal of the semi-bad guy is semi convincing, the rest just awful, amateurish. And that is insulting amateurs everywhere. The kid does a decent job and there is a decent message on bullying. What the woman (mother of the child) was doing in the movie will remain a mystery (my theory is she is the Director's fiancé or the producer's mistress).

Back to the movie- the cinematography is bland, uninspiring. The chase on the quad- bikes through the forest as convincing as the Obama's 'you can keep your doctor'. The plot is made more threadbare by the repeated back and forth trying to protect the plot. And it does not succeed at any level. The leading man is slightly less charismatic than a wet cardboard show-box or three-day old stale pizza slice with anchovies on it. If he qualifies as an actor (and gets paid for it), we all have hopes.

Bruce Willis is abysmal at best. He needs to either pack it in or try acting. I assume that is what he was paid to do (unless it was his 'Star' name that would 'bring bums on seats'). The music score- someone else said- it is absent at key moments, and atrocious when present. I could not say it better.

Having wasted about 90 minutes watching it- why am I wasting another 15 writing about this? Because, I care. About my movie going brethren. It was a choice, a bad choice, like many others I have made in life. No one forced me to. I did not have full information and my choice, although turned out to be unwise, was not coerced. You, my friends, now have no excuse.

Final word: Sucks!

Stressed to Kill (2016)

Important Moral Conundrum

[7/10 · 17 July 2017]

Watching this film, from the very beginning, I was troubled by a very big moral dilemma..one that I would like to sound out from you, ye faithful pilgrims on IMDb. Is it wrong to kill bullies (all types, including the PC police and the progressives/liberals these days) and those who makes your blood boil and those who do you wrong? Who would NOT want to kill the people killed by the lead (Since KILL is in the title- I hope it is not going to count as a spoiler!). I mean who amongst us was not (internally) screaming with delight when the first prick gets hit by a car (and meets his maker, one hopes)? Come on..be honest.

Similarly, who did not want the cinema cellphone idiot killed? The fat woman in the elevator? Or the fat guy driving the puny Ford while speaking on the phone? Why are they all fat by the way? Such prejudice..hahha!!

While thinking about it, and relishing the fate of these vermin (it ain't a crime yet- but give the coastal types a chance, it will be!) I came up with a bigger moral conundrum..if you catch your spouse cheating with another, who would you kill? The Spouse? Or the other? Both? Neither? Which one first?

This movie, I caught only per chance, and I am glad I did. It is a well made film, backed by some terrific performances by the lead and the 'enabler', the best friend of the lead. It was ruined somewhat by the Armand Assante trying to do Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now (someone please tell him he ain't no Marlon Brando- actually he is more like a nobody!) and some poor editing. It is rated as a thriller/black comedy but probably best described as a black comedy. The premise is simple, the execution mostly flawless although the presence of Armand Assante does ruin it a bit. It feels as if the director has a man crush on Assante or owes Assante's agent a favor for letting him sleep on his couch when he was struggling ..or something like that. I mean his knee high socks is supposed to make it OK for us?

The movie is carried superbly by the acting of the two less known (I never heard of them) actors, the lead and his best friend Stan..at times it descends to farce but intentionally. The lead guy is so terrific that I am sure we will see a lot more of him. The plot is predictable, the pace just right and the direction, for most part- superb. Dialogs are taut, with very little redundant save the entire lines for Armand Assante who would have been more of a comic relief he was rendered deaf-mute by a half effective poison dart, but I digress.

One additional criticism is not so much of the film or the director, but who picked the lead character's daughter? I mean, how dark you want your dark comedy to be if you hire a 5000 year old mummy and make them speak through a ventriloquist? Or maybe the director owes her agent for a ..or something.

But my moral conundrum is still not answered..readers, please help.

Logan (2017)

Brilliant

[9/10 · 28 March 2017]

Dafne should at least get an Oscar nomination. What a powerhouse at just 4'. I thought all child actors since Natalie Portman in Leon (The Professional) are overrated and although Dakota Fanning was good. Scarlett Johansson grew up to be the liberal troll and Obama-Hillary apologist in chief followed by the latest 'Feminist' but topless, UN ambassador, Disney's first foray into gay icon-hood Emma Watson. Some line-up! Some hard acts to follow!

Along came Dafne (real name Daphne ), a selectively mute, kick-ass X-23. This girl has announced to the world far bigger than her pint-size that : 'I have arrived' and that too with a finely nuanced bang! Whoa Dafne!

But this last installment of the Wolverine saga is not all about Dafne. The plot is deceptively simple, the execution similarly plain. There is the story of some bad guys wanting to capture the DNA (and by extension, their spirit) of the mutants (so that they can make their own). The real X-men in the meantime have fallen on hard times. Money is hard to come by, medicines are expensive, and Border Patrol are seen doing their job. I am not sure if this was Hollywood's first attempt at satirizing the Trumpian America as the traffic of mutants (read 'illegals' or 'undocumented' as the luvvies would like to call them) flow from South to 'safe haven' Canada because the middle, the great US of A is not so great after all because the 'big corporations' with their 'defense-biotech' nexus is out to make a few bucks (for its greedy share-holders no doubt). Even some good old racism is not spared a liberal treatment where a bunch of hicks (Whiteys for you and I) come to grab land owned by a righteous, very nice Black Equesterian family once assisted by Logan and co.

The mutants are an endangered species but there appears to be no UN or PETA or even EPA folks bent to save it. So it is all, 'fight your own fight'. There would be of course no analogy with the gradual extinction of the White folks, and the future of the dwindling bunch of Mutants are conveniently diverse. Blacks, Hispanics, girls and such. I was not looking, but I think it was rather cruel not to have included a Trans-gender. What a shame!

Of the few left, Logan is one. Xavier and Caliban are others. But laws of nature are taking its toll on the aging flock, who retain only a portion of their self-healing, telepathy/telekinesis power which are fluctuating at best. Logan has resorted to being a Chauffeur/courier and if the little X-23 could be classed as a 'Human', a Human Trafficker of sorts! The 'good' type. Bad guys give the chase, meets with resistance, especially the fiery resistance of Laura who is supposedly Logan's 'baby-daddy' (the baby-mama nowhere to be seen). And she kicks some butt! The scene where she is screaming like a banshee to her Uber driver (Logan) in a language presumed to be Spanish/Spanglish or 'GodAloneKnows' (no subtitles- how racist!) despite more and more timid orders of 'shut up' from Logan is pure acting heaven. This girl will go places. And born of American and Spanish parents, I hope she grows up to remember that we are interested in her acting prowess, not her political opinion or one-liners on Twitter pretending that she can solve the World's problems in 140 characters. Lord alone knows if the liberal stalwarts named here can even spell the word politics, although to be fair, Natalie Portman (born Hershog in Jerusalem) went to Harvard and Emma Watson apparently graduated (after suffering much bullying for being famous and a zillionaire..boo hoo!) from Browns. Not that they are privileged or anything!

Across the great landscape of America the trio (three generations of mutants) travel, chased relentlessly by the baddies, shepherded by the good doctor played with the villainous flair Richard Grant has become known for, heads gets beheaded, ass gets kicked, you know the drill. But the real beauty of this movie comes from the humane treatment of Logan, and his nascent and evolving bond/attachment with Laura, and the re-statement of his bond with the aging, cantankerous but essentially well meaning Patrick Stewart as Prof Xavier. There are moments of reflection, self -pity by the bucketful and some home truths being spoken by Logan, played magnificently by Hugh Jackman, better than his previous renditions I dare to add. The cinematography is good, direction pretty tight with minimal grand-standing and the score is fine (it won't get any Oscars, let's stop at that). The baddies do a decent job although why they are so singularly incompetent to take one shot accurately remains a mystery to me.

In the end, it is business as usual. Any more will get me banned for not selecting *Contains Spoilers* and normal service resumes. America has remained Great by having diversity amongst us, Canada remains the ultimate moral high ground from where Justins (both Tredeau and Bieber) rule, Mexico remains the lawless hell-hole and Hollywood after its obligatory America bashing and Trump bashing (although to be fair they do not take his name) leaves room for sequels. Isn't life wonderful?

Now we can go back to protests, hashtags, Geriatric Meryl Streep grandstanding at the pre-Oscar media buzz, bemoaning the good old days as if any one gives a rodent's nether region and Patrick Stewart campaigning for Second Independence Referendum for Scotland. Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer not having left USA despite the fascist regime there, proclaiming that they love the fact that they are fat. Meanwhile, in screens across America and elsewhere, Dafne kicks serious butt. Watch out for this little dynamite.

Why Him? (2016)

Seen Worse

[6/10 · 4 February 2017]

First a confession. I love Zoey Deutch. She is cute, a very strong actor and although she is getting roles, she should be landing more substantial roles than being the love interest of debauched frat boys, deranged millionaire/billionaire, or side kick to a dirty old man. She deserves the roles that once went to Scarlett Johansson like in Lost in Translation. Zoey is a bit too old (funny that- she is only 21) for 'the Horse Whisperers' role but she needs to show she can pull the 'Black Swan' kind of roles. Even I cannot see her pulling 'Black Swan' or even 'Black Dahlia' with the roles she is being offered. She is a great actor, who also happen to be cute so give her roles that she is capable of. It is no coincidence that Great people are born on the 19th of November!

Now returning to the movie. I see so many bad reviews here as if this is the first time an idiotic movie has been made. For crying out loud! Most of the sewage coming out of Hollywood are far far worse. This one was at least funny in parts. Brian 'Heissenberg' Cranston is a strong powerful actor, but after the 'infiltrator' he seems to be just banking his name in preparation of an imminent retirement/Stroke/both. His recent Political pronouncement and liberal politics is not a surefire way to stay in relevance. Having said that, he did a decent enough job but any half-decent actor would have done as well. The revelation is the little guy playing Zoey's brother who announces that he has arrived and you lot better believe it. James Franco, does a decent enough job again, in a role typecast to be an idiot, albeit likable in parts.

I want to know however what was the deal with the Gustav character? What did he bring to the movie because the none-too-subtle homoerotic current that threatened to derail the movie. But then no one needs to take the movie seriously. It was funny at times, Zoey is great, Cranston OK and all of you have wasted far more important slices of your life watching Tina Fey and Amy Poehler..or Amy Schumer for that mutter. SO shut up with the hate. Hail the arrival of Zoey Deutch and feel blessed that now Scar Jo is an old hag, you got fresh talent coming up. I very much hope though that unlike her senior colleagues of the same bracket (cute child actors) such as Natalie Portman and Scar Jo, she learns to shut her mouth when it comes to politics. Frankly, no one gives a rodent's anus to what Natalie Portman or Scar Jo thinks of American Politics. Get over it already!

La La Land (2016)

Decent Movie- More Fitting in BollyWood than Hollywood

[6/10 · 28 January 2017]

BollyWood is the nickname of the Indian film Industry, largely centered in Bombay (now called Mumbai). It produces a steady stream of pisi-kaka every year. So much so that it is in Guiness book of World Records in some category. Most of BollyWood films are in that sense musicals because it has a lit of music and dance, and they are absurd (the song and dance sequence) but cleverly done.

With that out of the way, I think the reader can figure out why I chose the above heading. If you have seen the movie, not sure why are you reading it (although I read reviews after I seen a movie to just check out what other people think) and if you have not, I would suggest you do go watch it. I have been meaning to ever since it came out and been postponing it because I wanted to be sufficiently depressed so that if the movie sucked, which it kinda did on many levels, then my day could not get any worse. And it did not.

It is a strange movie. Almost like Seinfeld. A TV show about nothing. Although there is the loose connection with one's dreams, how dreams are almost difficult to pursue, bla-blah-blah and of course ends with the hackneyed cliché where boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy and girl go separate ways and boy and girl meets 5 years later to think what could have been. Boring. So BollyWood.

Emma Stone is not even pretty but she grows on you and looks cute in the middle. Gosling is in equal parts good looking, good actor and does a decent job. Neither his performance, nor Emma Stone's , or for that movie as a whole is nothing to write home about. So aptly (if I may use a symbolism) summarized in Emma Stone's (Mia's) phone call to her mother describing Sebastian, her new boyfriend ('he is not anyone yet'). There are hardly any other characters of any significance in the movie. The guy who plays Kevin, or Keith- besides perpetuating the cliché' 'White Boys Can't Jump' (You have to have Black People if you are talking Jazz), do not see what was his role in the movie. I hear he is some kind of a musician of some fame. My advice would be (not that he needs it, or cares) that do not give up your day job. Talk about 'Product placement'!

Acting is ordinary, sets are great and THAT dance sequence (with the Canary Yellow Dress) which is plastered all over the promo material is really good. Besides that, not much. Why it is so much of a craze, I would not know. Why 14 nominations, who knows? I don't get to nominate. And frankly who cares besides the folks who made the movie? It does not deserve the 'hate' (did not even know it had hate till I stumbled along the boards), nor does it deserve 14 Oscar nomination or 7 Golden Globes (surpassing One Flew Over Cuckoo's Nest- seriously?).

My wife watched the movie with her girl-friends on release day and described it as 'Magical'. I knew then I better not rush to watch it. It is a 'chick-flick' but with a sub- text. The queen of unrequited love is the man. How BollyWood! A solid 6.

Equity (I) (2016)

Feminism 3.0

[4/10 · 25 December 2016]

I hated Anna Gunn's character in Breaking Bad. Not Gunn herself, but her character Skylar. Then after reading the reviews and Anna Gunn's Open Letter in NYTimes or some feminist rag out there, I started hating Anna Gunn herself, the Actor. Over the years the hatred did not fade unlike her career. In 'Sully" she was the pointless but very much 'required' female character who did nothing for the movie or the sisterhood. Insignificant. Irrelevant.

Then came 'Equity'- first 'Wall Street based movie on women'. On display were vices men are inevitably associated with. I read a column by some reviewer on metacrtic where Anna Gunn is praised to high heavens for being the strong female lead in a 'men dominated world of banking'.

In the blog mentioned above, written no doubt by a card carrying member of the 'sisterhood of perpetual victims', Anna Gunn was praised for her stand against the bullying and abuse she suffered (as Skylar) because she played the character of a 'strong woman trying to keep her family together'. Not that she was abused because her character would annoy the hell out of Lord Buddha, or Mother Teresa, but she played a character of a 'strong woman who was standing in the way of the 'fun' the anti-hero was having'. Seriously? Have you not watched 'Breaking Bad'? She was abused (well Skylar was actually) because she was a whining. manipulative hypocritical lump of human excrement, a shrew, who the viewer had to endure in every shot, with her 'man hands' (there you go, a misogynistic phrase) lovingly rubbing her fake belly (have you ever seen a real pregnant woman do that every moment for 3 months?).

Yesterday, on a train from London to the affluent South East of England where property prices matches that of London, I had the luck of sitting next to a foursome of 'millennials', 2 boys, 2 girls, not much older than 21. During the long 40 minutes, we heard from the two girls about their sexual escapades, pee-fetish, their drug taking, and how one of them in particular felt so hard done by 'patriarchy' that she did not think getting through a whole night out without spending a penny (just by flashing her bits, and rubbing against a boy to get free drinks- her words) is a 'victory for women everywhere'. Because women have been oppressed for just about 650 years, so those drinks were for 'everyone' who was ever asked if she was going to have a child (in her interview) and how feminism 'allows' them to exploit men in a fraction of ways like they have been exploited for 650 years.

When I watched 'Equity', last night's incident, or the Anna Gunn - Skylar thing was not in my consciousness. Anna Gunn does well, in her role as a burnt out IPO handler for a big Wall Street company where poor her had been tied in a 'Golden Handcuff' for 20 years and she cannot leave. She botches an IPO early in the movie and although the exact circumstances are not made clear (not relevant for the plot anyway), she feels hard done by because she is not being considered for promotion. In the two scenes where she confronts her boss questioning why she is not being considered for the position, she does not tell us why she should be promoted. All she says, with the same incredulity that Hillary Clinton did muster (why am I not 50% ahead already?)- 'When is my f***ING time Randall?'

In the movie itself Gunn's Naomi is a driven, honest, hardworking woman whose rise may have been well earned. Her sob-story about how hard her life had been (having a single mom with 4 kids, her working small time job to get the siblings through college etc.) is essential Hollywood fodder but takes nothing away from her acting, not even when she asks her former boss (Mentor?) 'would you have fired me if I fell pregnant'? The former boss says; 'Of course not!'

Instead we see a scheming Erin (nice work by Sarah Megan Thomas- really earns the epithet witch spelt with a B) trying to do what exactly by hiding her pregnancy (another cheap shot at Patriarchy)? Sabotage Naomi who didn't consider her for promotion for what 'two years' now, even though we see Naomi batting for her the only opportunity she gets? She goes scheming, trying to get into the pants of the CEO of the IPO guy (nice portrayal by Samuel Roukin of the proverbial 'Dick') to get laid/ get things 'wrapped up' but yet she is offended when the CEO/IPO guy bluntly tells her: 'If I wanted to discuss business, I would call Naomi'. Ouch! So she goes over to Naomi's lover (across the 'wall' of ethical discretion). To do what exactly? Copulate with him or give him info that she knows will be leaked and will in turn screw Naomi? And the IPO guy.

So many things remind me of the 2016 elections while I was watching 'Equity'. From "There is a special place in hell for women who do not help each other" to "Hillary would not be criticized for her laugh if she was a man", the whole playbook was played out. There is a role of a 'principled' Enforcement officer (played with the finesse of a drunken bull in a china shop by Alysia Reiner) whose 'woe is me' is not complete without having a twin (presumably through a Turkey Baster- we always get twins or triplets with IVF), a lesbian fat black woman as her lover to complete the tick box of diversity.

Anyone remember 'It's her turn'? It is the same sense of entitlement that is holding back whatever little headway the first wave feminism had made which is now being pushed back by the Third wave Feminazis who can only say 'when is my F***ING time Randall?'

The Hollow Point (2016)

What the F?

[2/10 · 25 December 2016]

I must come clean. I wanted to like this movie. I watched every nuance, every shadow, every twist wishing to like this movie. And then when the credits rolled, I was like, W.T.F? It is possible that I did not get the plot (if there was any). It is possible, but not very likely that I kind of didn't get what others did (given the few stellar reviews here- presumably not from the Director's immediate family). But besides the admittedly superb acting from Ian McShane (did not know he was still around, never mind active) and Patrick Wilson (the one whose face here must have been behind inventing the term Deadpan) what was there that I devoted/wasted almost two hours of my life to?

We know lots of nonsense goes on in those shady, dusty border towns no one has heard of (hence I hope PE Trump makes good of his promise of building a beautiful wall), but why those kind of shenanigans become plot of a movie? So many questions. Mostly starting with 'why'. Or simply 'why'?

But hey, this might just raise awareness among folks that the trade in illegal arms and Ammo is as bad for the 'bad Hombres' out there as is the drug trade that requires the Arms. And since when Hollywood (in its widest sense) condone bad guys getting away with, say 'ill gotten gains'? Are we supposed to feel sorry for Marla? Because she is conflicted in love and life?

And By the way, the fine medical treatment the character of Patrick Wilson gets to his severed hand (Shame they never find it to re-attach) must be the dream of Surgeons everywhere..just wrap it up nicely buddy and all will be well...WoW!

Someone said if you look into a room full of horse manure, you might find a pony there somewhere. Believe me, I looked.

Come and Find Me (2016)

Dark, but not so handsome

[8/10 · 14 November 2016]

I watch hundreds of movies, not for a living but for enjoyment. I bumped in to this one although Aaron Paul was a definite attraction. The reason I do not write reviews is that it is too much hassle to log in, write and stuff. Amazon does not make it easy although IMDb kinda runs on user reviews. I really don't understand why they have to be suck donkeys about it but each to his own.

Anyway, back to the film. While I found the plot to be convoluted enough at times and simple at others, the whole enterprise is kinda lost in the various layers, and a layer too many in my opinion. The film started slow, had a few nice touches but it stayed slow, sometimes painfully so, without getting far. I see people gushing over the Whedon clan but what was young Zach thinking when he put that one layer too many of suspense? I must be the only one who did not get the entire picture, like what was Claire's deal? What happened to the millionaire guy? What was the deal with the Russians besides causing some stereotypical bad guy stuff? Why was the detective so insignificant in the story. Who were the guys (and the one with bullets in leg) and what was their deal with the Govt. Suspense is great, and suspenseful it was to the end. I am still in suspense. What were everyone fighting over? What about the Black guy? And would Aaron Paul finally learn how to use a gun besides having it wrested away from him at half an opportunity?

So many questions. So few answered. Was that the idea? Hope no one is thinking of a sequel, or a franchise. Disappearing girlfriends gone bad is not a new concept. 'Gone Girl' aced the idea, but Gillian Flynn is a superior story teller and this dude is not. Still, the acting is good. Aaron Paul gets a 8/10 although it is hard to see him as someone relying on basic hardware store stuff like a hammer when Breaking Bad looms large in his face. The woman playing Claire, pleasing to the eyes in a understated way but this won't get her name recognition any higher. She came as a nobody and left as one although the acting was decent. In the end, it is as pleasing as a bottle of cheap Bourbon..numbs you, in a pleasant way but does not give you the enjoyment. In the film's defense, nothing was promised, so it did not fail. But shame for not taking it to a notch higher where it could easily been were the film-maker for a moment thought that idiot is not the new smart. Overall, deeply disappointing although I gave it a 8/10, but mostly for Aaron Paul and the fluid camera work. I mean, seriously, what was the deal with the dead banker guy and his terminally constipated widow?