About Adam (2000) [R] ****

Lucy Owens (Kate Hudson) works as a waitress and singer in a local pub in Dublin, Ireland. She's the youngest of four, with two sisters and a brother. Lucy is pretty, fun-loving, lighthearted, and a heartbreaker. One evening, as she's singing, Lucy sees a new face in the pub - Adam (Stuart Townsend). She suggests an entree and wine, and then asks him out. In no time Adam meets her whole family, and, before we know it, Lucy asks him to marry her, and Adam says yes.

Then, curiously, we see the story retold, but this time from the perspective of Lucy's sisters, Laura and Alice. Laura (Frances O'Connor) is sensitive and romantic; she's dissatisfied with her M.A. thesis in Victorian literature. Alice (Charlotte Bradley) is sensual and voluptuous; she's dissatisfied with her life as a wife and mother.

Adam senses their dissatisfaction, understands what each one needs and responds accordingly. Around Laura, he's shy, tactless and tongue-tied, unable to express his desire for her. Around Alice, he's earthy and direct, telling her how gorgeous she is, and how much he wants her. This is what Laura and Alice need to hear and each one opens up to Adam; before long he is involved in secret love affairs with both sisters. When Alice expresses her fear that he'll be unfaithful to Lucy, Adam explains to her that when he's with people, listening to them, he notices that they always want something from him. He really likes it, and he likes to give people what they want - to make them happy, if he can. Adam doesn't actually reassure Alice, however, and we're left wondering if Lucy realizes what she is getting herself into.

The film's concept is well executed, with a great screenplay and direction. The cast is excellent, and Townsend has terrific chemistry with all three sisters, especially O'Connor and Bradley. If you enjoyed Alfie, Don Juan DeMarco and What Women Want, then I predict you'll really enjoy About Adam. 

Labels: comedy, romance

Internet Movie Database
Metacritic 64/100
Tomatometer (critics=68, viewers=47)

Better Than Sex (2000) [R] ***

Josh (David Wenham) is a wildlife photographer, in Australia for only three days before returning to London. Cin (Susie Porter) is a dress designer. They meet at a party, enjoy a one-night fling and then something happens. Knowing that Josh is leaving encourages them to spend the three days together. The fact that they have great sex together clearly helps. But what begins to develop is an emotional bond, a passionate entanglement that joins them even when they are satiated with sex.

Wenham and Porter are believable in their roles. With lots of freckles and moles, and less than perfect bodies, they aren't airbrushed Hollywood glamour. But their eyes genuinely sparkle and they have terrific chemistry together. On one level this is a delicious little romantic comedy. It is quite erotic, although most of the sex is only heard and not seen since it takes place under the bed sheets. But it is all quite titillating and believable. On another level, however, it's a cautionary tale. Be careful about extending a one-night fling. It might turn into something far more passionate and emotionally compelling than you ever intended.

Labels: drama, romance

Internet Movie Database
Metacritic 47/100
RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=50, viewers=68)

Frequency (2000) [PG-13] ****

A film review by Roger Ebert, April 28, 2000.

I know exactly where the tape is, in which box, on which shelf. It's an old reel-to-reel tape I used with the tape recorder my dad bought me in grade school. It has his voice on it. The box has moved around with me for a long time, but I have never listened to the tape since my dad died. I don't think I could stand it. It would be too heartbreaking.

I thought about the tape as I was watching Gregory Hoblit's Frequency. Here is a movie that uses the notion of time travel to set up a situation where a man in 1999 is able to talk to his father in 1969, even though his father died when the man was 6. The movie harnesses this notion to a lot of nonsense, including a double showdown with a killer, but the central idea is strong and carries us along. There must be something universal about our desire to defeat time, which in the end defeats us.

The father in 1969 is named Frank Sullivan (Dennis Quaid). He is a firefighter, and he dies heroically while trying to save a life in a warehouse fire. The son in 1999 is named John Sullivan (Jim Caviezel), and he has broken with three generations of family tradition to become a policeman instead of a fireman. One night he's rummaging under the stairs of the family house where he still lives and finds a trunk containing his dad's old ham radio. The plot provides some nonsense about sunspots and the Northern Lights, but never mind: What matters is that the father and the son can speak to each other across a gap of 30 years.

The paradox of time travel is familiar. If you could travel back in time to change the past in order to change the future, you would already have done so, and therefore the changes would have resulted in the present that you now occupy. Of course the latest theories of quantum physics speculate that time may be a malleable dimension, and that countless new universes are splitting off from countless old ones all the time - we can't see them because we're always on the train, not in the station, and the view out the window is of this and this and this, not that and that.

But Frequency is not about physics, and the heroes are as baffled as we are by the paradoxes they get involved in. Consider a scene where the father uses a soldering iron to burn into a desk the message: I'm still here, Chief. His son sees the letters literally appearing in 1999 as they are written in 1969. How can this be? If they were written in 1969, wouldn't they have already been on the desk for 30 years? Not at all, the movie argues, because every action in the past changes the future into a world in which that action has taken place.

Therefore - and here is the heart of the story - the son, knowing what he knows now, can reach back in time and save his father's life by telling him what he did wrong during that fatal fire. And the father and son can exchange information that will help each one fight a serial killer who, in various timeline configurations, is active now, then and in between, and threatens both men, and in some configurations, the fireman's wife. How do the voices know they can trust each other? The voice in the future can tell the voice in the past exactly what's going to happen with the Amazing Mets in the '69 series.

Are you following this? Neither did I, half the time. At one point both the father and the son are fighting the same man at points 30 years separated, and when the father shoots off the 1969 man's hand, it disappears from the 1999 version of the man. But then the 1999 man would remember how he lost the hand, right? And therefore would know - but, no, not in this time line he wouldn't.

There may be holes and inconsistencies in the plot. I was too confused to be sure. And I don't much care, anyway, because the underlying idea is so appealing - that a son who doesn't remember his father could talk to him via radio and they could try to help each other. This notion is fleshed out by the father's wife (Elizabeth Mitchell), who must also be saved by the time-talkers, by partners in the fire and police department, and so on. By the end of the movie, the villain (Shawn Doyle) is fighting father and son simultaneously, and there is only one way to watch the movie, and that is with complete and unquestioning credulity. To attempt to unravel the plot leads to frustration, if not madness.

Moviegoers seem to like supernatural stories that promise some kind of escape from our mutual doom. Frequency is likely to appeal to the fans of The Sixth Sense, Ghost and other movies where the characters find a loophole in reality. What it also has in common with those two movies is warmth and emotion. Quaid and Caviezel bond over the radio, and we believe the feelings they share. The ending of the movie is contrived, but then of course it is. The whole movie is contrived. The screenplay conferences on Frequency must have gone on and on, as writer Toby Emmerich and the filmmakers tried to fight their way through the maze they were creating. The result, however, appeals to us for reasons as simple as hearing the voice of a father who you thought you would never hear again. [Ebert’s rating: *** ½ out of 4]

Labels: crime, drama, sci-fi, space-time, thriller

Internet Movie Database 

Metacritic 67/100 

RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=65, viewers=68) 

Blu-ray 

Closer (2004) [R] ****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net.

If you pay attention to Hollywood's romantic comedies, the interaction between men and women is all about love and companionship. If you instead rely upon the philosophy of Closer, it's all about power. Closer starts like a nice romantic drama, with a couple of meet cutes (as Roger Ebert called them), then does a 180-degree turn and shows what happens when happily ever after rots from the inside out. It isn't just the relationships that curdle, but the characters. Their interaction becomes bitter and cynical. Sex is a tool used in power struggles and one-upmanship games. Although the word love is mentioned a few times, it has little place in this movie, where emotions are weaknesses to be exploited by others. With Closer, director Mike Nichols and screenwriter Patrick Marber (translating his stage play) have ventured into Neil LaBute territory (In the Company of Men, Your Friends and Neighbors). For Nichols, this is not new terrain - he has visited here twice previously, in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Carnal Knowledge. Put those two older films together with Closer and you get a grim trilogy that doesn't have a lot of good things to say about the human condition.

On the surface, Closer is the story of two couples whose infidelities rip them apart. Dan (Jude Law) and Alice (Natalie Portman) meet on the streets of London when she is hit by a car and he comes to her rescue. He takes her to a hospital and the pair are soon living together. But Dan, an obituary writer who has penned a novel, finds himself obsessed with Anna (Julia Roberts), the photographer who took the picture for his book jacket. He wants her, and tells her so, but she demurs when she learns he has a live-in girlfriend. You're taken, she comments, as if that puts an end to things. Dan inadvertently introduces Larry, a dermatologist, (Clive Owen) to Anna when a practical joke (in which he pretends to be Anna in an Internet sex chat room) goes awry. The two start a romance, and are eventually married. But there's sexual chemistry between Dan and Anna, and, to a lesser extent, between Larry and Alice. Over the next four years (the film occasionally jumps forward by months in order to span that much time), infidelities occur, betrayals are discovered, and all manner of ugliness ensues. From a physical standpoint, Closer is not a violent film. From an emotional one, it's brutal. Nichols doesn't pull his punches. You leave the theater shaken.

The film is notable for its frank dialogue. There's plenty of profanity and also a host of interesting observations. (Although these characters speak with an erudition not found in conversations between real people.) Closer is talky, but in a smart way. You never feel that the characters are talking to hear their own words or to fill up screen time. Nevertheless, those unaware that the story began its life as a play will not be surprised to learn this fact. Yet the rawness of emotions keeps us from noticing how few sets there are, and how little conventional action occurs.

The film turns the tables on just about everyone. Users become victims, and vice versa. Innocence is corrupted, and corruption learns too late that there's no return path. Alice, who is arguably the most naïve member of the ensemble (despite being a stripper by profession), is hurt the most deeply, and that pain results in an irrevocable change. Larry, a decent guy when the film starts, turns into a cold, calculating man, having sex on at least two occasions to torment Dan. In the end, he wants to possess Anna not out of love, but because doing so means beating Dan. But to paint Dan as guiltless is unfair - he's a weasel (albeit a charming one) and an instigator. He cheats without concern for repercussions, then is astounded when any of them impact him. Anna is fundamentally weak and dishonest. She doles out and receives hurt in equal measures.

In Closer, the actors get a chance to shine, and no one is brighter than Clive Owen. Despite a number of memorable turns (and one big mistake: King Arthur), Owen still lacks household recognition. A likely (and deserved) Oscar nomination for this performance will change that. The ferocity with which Owen delivers his lines, and the restless energy he imparts to Larry, electrifies every scene that he's in. Closer's two most riveting sequences involve Owen and Natalie Portman - one in an art gallery where they first meet, and the other in a strip club where he has all the money but she has the power, and uses it.

Portman, in what has been called her first truly adult role (it's certainly nowhere close to Queen Amidala), is also very, very good. Like Owen, she must essay a character who undergoes a complete personality transformation - from vulnerable waif to ice queen seductress. There's a rawness and courage to her work (and, although there's no overt physical nudity due to camera placement, her scenes in the strip club are frank). The aforementioned scenes are Portman's highlights as well as Owen's, and she has one other - a heartbreaking moment in which she turns to the camera with tears on her face, and we recognize that the first piece of Alice's innocence has been stolen.

It would be unfair to describe either Julia Roberts' or Jude Law's performances as lesser, but the two high-profile actors are not on the same level as their compatriots. Each has their moments, but neither captures the attention of the camera with the intensity of Owen or Portman. This is Roberts the actress, not Roberts the movie star (see Notting Hill if you crave the latter), and her dedication to the role rather than glamour serves her well. Law is a little flat; I actually found him more convincing in Alfie.

Movies that look deeply into the human soul and uncover putrefaction are hard sells. But they are also some of the most fascinating films to be found. Are Nichols and Marber's characters too cynically drawn? Perhaps. Do they occasionally seem like marionettes manipulated by a clever writer? Yes. But those things don't diminish the film's compelling emotional qualities. Closer is powerful and disturbing stuff. It is not life-affirming, and it's not for those who want to leave a movie theater uplifted and convinced that fairy tale endings can happen. And this is most definitely not a date movie. But if you appreciate films that are more substance than style, that take challenges and don't follow formulas, and that feature Oscar-caliber performances, Closer is not to be missed. [Berardinelli’s rating: *** ½ out of 4 stars]

Labels: drama, romance

Internet Movie Database 7.3/10 

Metacritic 65/100 

RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=66, viewers=70) 

Blu-ray 

The Italian Job (2003) [PG-13] ****

A film review by James Berardinelli for ReelViews.net.

The 2003 version of The Italian Job is less of a straightforward remake of the 1969 picture than it is a complete re-interpretation. Enough has changed that it's possible to see the two films not as the same story separated by three decades, but as distinct entities. Expectedly, there are plot similarities (the centerpiece heist contains many of the same elements, including the Mini Cooper automobiles), but the chemistry and motivations of the thieves is different, and the playful, semi-comedic tone of the original has been replaced by something a little less lighthearted.

It's easy to do a heist movie wrong – the genre is littered with countless examples, some by prominent filmmakers. Director F. Gary Gray has discovered the right recipe – keep things moving, develop a nice rapport among the leads, toss in the occasional surprise, and top with a sprinkling of panache. The Italian Job isn't a masterpiece, but it gets the job done. There are some problems (in particular, the climactic car chase – the one featuring the Mini Coopers – goes on a little too long), but, for the most part, I was entertained. There's a fair amount of suspense, and I was generally impressed by the thoroughness of the caper plots.

Despite being called The Italian Job, only about 20 minutes of the action takes place in Italy. The lion's share of screen time belongs to Los Angeles, with a quick stop in Philadelphia along the way. (It's worth noting that both the Venice and Philadelphia scenes appear to have been filmed on location, not in a surrogate city like Toronto. This is surprisingly important to the movie's strong sense of atmosphere.) There are three capers (or two and one-half, depending on how you count), the most audacious and ingenious of which occurs during the final 20 minutes. The Italian Job has plenty of little twists and turns, but the storyline is not so serpentine that the average viewer will find himself or herself becoming lost. Nevertheless, trips to the bathroom or snack bar are not recommended.

The movie opens in Venice, where a group of six crooks are about to pull off the heist of a lifetime: $35 million in gold, and they plan to do it without holding a gun. The rogues' gallery is comprised of: Charlie (Mark Wahlberg), the young leader running his first big job; John (Donald Sutherland), the crusty veteran safecracker who is Charlie's mentor; Lyle (Seth Green), the computer whiz who was the real inventor of Napster; Handsome Rob (Jason Statham), who once drove across the United States just so he could set the record for the longest freeway chase; Half Ear (Mos Def), who, at age 10, put one too many M80 firecrackers in a toilet bowl; and Steve (Edward Norton), who is about to betray the other five. Once they have the gold, Steve pulls a gun on John, shoots him, then leaves the others for dead. A year later, the group, now including John's daughter, Stella (Charlize Theron), a professional vault & safe technician, tracks down Steve and plots to take away the gold he stole from them (or what's left of it).

With this film, Mark Wahlberg is appearing in his third recent re-make (the other two: Planet of the Apes and The Truth About Charlie). Wisely, he doesn't attempt to mimic Michael Caine (who played the part in the original), but instead uses his own brand of understated charisma to get us to like Charlie. Charlize Theron, who is incapable of a low-wattage performance, brings some energy to her scenes with Wahlberg. Seth Green, Jason Stratham, and Mos Def alternately provide background muscle and comic relief. Edward Norton does his best Snidely Whiplash impersonation, right down to the mustache.

The Italian Job has occasional bursts of smart dialogue (There are [thieves] who steal to enrich their lives, and ones who steal to define their lives.), but not enough to elevate it to the level of David Mamet's most recent caper movie, Heist. And, while it boasts a less fatuous tone than the original (no Noel Coward or Benny Hill), there are times when it goes for the funny bone. As one of the early entries into the 2003 summer movie sweepstakes, The Italian Job delivers all that one could reasonably hope from it, and that makes it worth squeezing in between The Matrix Reloaded and The Hulk. [Berardinelli’s rating: *** out of 4 stars]

Labels: action, auto-racing, crime, thriller

Internet Movie Database 7.0/10 

Metacritic 68/100 

RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=64, viewers=70) 

Blu-ray 

Bicentennial Man (1999) [PG] ***/****

A film review by James Berardinelli.

Few things irritate me more than unrealized potential in a motion picture, and Chris Columbus' Bicentennial Man is replete with it. The basic idea, about a robot's journey from household appliance to human being, is inherently fascinating, but, by relegating the story to a disappointing level of superficiality and never attempting to venture more than skin-deep into some intriguing themes, Bicentennial Man comes across like recycled, diluted Star Trek. Even Pinocchio had more substance. Bicentennial Man is more interested in being a parable about the nature of humanity than in being a science fiction movie, which is fine. The problem is that the final product is too trite to work as anything more than light, pointless entertainment. Laugh a few times at Robin Williams, cry a little at the manipulative, melodramatic finale, then get in the car and forget about it. Only someone deluded or hopelessly naïve would see this movie as profound.

Bicentennial Man, based on a 1976 Isaac Asimov story, owes as much to Star Trek: The Next Generation as it does to its stated source. (Although, to be fair, Star Trek frequently borrowed from Asimov.) The long-running syndicated television series featured a character named Data, who was an android seeking to achieve a semblance of humanity. This is precisely the situation we are presented with in Bicentennial Man, except that the synthetic entity is played by Robin Williams, not Brent Spiner. Over the course of its lengthy run, The Next Generation featured a number of stories focusing on Data's quest, some of which contained intriguing moral and ethical observations; Bicentennial Man doesn't come close. Perhaps those who have never watched Star Trek will be less irritated than those who have seen all of this done before, and much better.

The film opens in 2005. A father (Sam Neill) has just bought his family an NDR-114 robot to help with household chores. After being introduced to his owners, the robot spouts off the three directives that bind him: he must never injure a human being, he must obey all human orders, and he must protect himself. The robot, christened Andrew, soon forms a deep friendship with the youngest daughter, whom he refers to as Lil' Miss (Hallie Kate Eisenberg as a child, Embeth Davidtz as an adult). The years pass and members of Andrew's family grow old and die. He changes as well, receiving upgrades that make him look and act more like a person. But, the more human he becomes, the harder life is to cope with, since he must confront emotions like grief and love.

It's hardly worth discussing Bicentennial Man's thematic content, since the light, feel-good script has effectively emasculated nearly every possible area of interest. The movie sets up humanity as a noble goal worth striving for, without bothering to mention man's barbaric nature. Legal, medical, and technical issues are brushed aside as minor inconveniences. Andrew wants a bank account - no problem. Andrew wants a beating heart - no problem. Andrew wants to have sex - no problem. Admittedly, since the story spans 200 years, there's a need to condense, but the way this movie approaches things, little is left over aside from a half-baked romance and a big courtroom climax.

The best thing about Bicentennial Man is the production design. The film offers some eye-catching glimpses into the future, including visions of New York, Washington D.C., and San Francisco during the late 21st century. We are also afforded an opportunity to see how wardrobe and home environments might change. Unfortunately, with so little of interest going on in the foreground, the viewer is given a significant opportunity to study such background details.

While Bicentennial Man's corps of actors won't be garnering any Oscar nominations, there are some capable performances. Sam Neill is his usual reliable self. Embeth Davidtz gets to play two roles (although, despite some superficial differences, they end up seeming like the same person). Wendy Crewson is capable as Neill's wife, and Oliver Platt, playing the affable scientist who works on Andrew's upgrades, has some of the film's best moments. On the down side, Hallie Kate Eisenberg is only on hand to ratchet up the cuteness factor, and Kiersten Warren, who portrays a female robot, is annoying. As for Robin Williams, Bicentennial Man's star - he is upstaged by the costume he has to wear during the movie's first half. Later in the proceedings, he's okay - nothing more or less. This is one of those features where Williams tries to mix humor and drama, and, as has been proven in the past, the approach really doesn't work.

However, while Williams has to bear some of the blame for Bicentennial Man's creative failure, the real culprit is Columbus (Mrs. Doubtfire, Stepmom), who forces every movie he directs into a model that oozes sentimentality, manipulation, and false emotion. While some of Columbus' early efforts were cute (like Home Alone and the aforementioned Mrs. Doubtfire), it didn't take long for him to turn into a filmmaker whose next project is inevitably more cloying than his last. Coupled with a hackneyed script, this quality assures that Bicentennial Man is unworthy of sharing the end-of-the-year screens with so many top-notch motion pictures. © 1999 James Berardinelli

Labels: AI, drama, family, fantasy, romance, sci-fi

IMDb 69/100

MetaScore (critics=42, viewers=78)  

RottenTomatoes Averages (critics=48, viewers=68)

Blu-ray

Entrapment (1999) [PG-13] ***

A 1999 film review by James Berardinelli, for ReelViews.net.

For roughly four decades, Sean Connery has been one of Hollywood's favorite leading men. Rugged, handsome, and (most importantly) bankable, the actor has generally been enough to assure at least a modest return at the box office. Recently, however, one has to wonder whether Connery still has what it takes to top the marquee for big-budget action films. Last year, he went down in flames with The Avengers before rebounding with a small role in the ensemble film Playing by Heart. Now, from director Jon Amiel (Copycat) comes Entrapment, a much-publicized caper movie that pairs Connery with 1998's delectable flavor of the year, Catherine Zeta-Jones (The Mask of Zorro). The result is distinctly lackluster.

Part of the reason for Entrapment's failure is Connery. There's no energy in his performance. He's still likable and charismatic, but, now that he's past the age of sixty, he's no longer capable of the James Bond derring-do that once defined his screen personalities. However, to lay the full burden at the actor's feet would be both unreasonable and unfair. He is saddled with a script that, at its best, is inconsistent, and, at its worst, is laughably implausible and riddled with obvious flaws. And, while Zeta-Jones is definitely easy on the eyes, she's not given a whole lot to do other than tag along behind Connery and look sexy as the camera lingers over her shapely curves.

Those who belong to the movement trying to convince people that the millennium begins on January 1, 2001 will be mortally offended by Entrapment, which constantly refers to January 1, 2000 as the all-important date. The action takes place during the final two weeks of 1999, and focuses on the pursuit of master thief Robert Mac MacDougal (Connery) by insurance investigator Gin Baker (Zeta-Jones). Her scam to reel him in involves baiting him with a robbery opportunity he can't possibly pass up - overcoming the impressive security system at Bedford Palace to steal a $40 million ancient Chinese mask. But, the more we see of Gin (and we do see quite a bit of her), the more we wonder whether she's trailing Mac or playing both ends against the middle.

Significant weakness #1 with Entrapment is the nearly complete absence of conflict. Most of the movie features Mac and Gin planning and executing various capers -- an approach that's fun the first time, but tedious thereafter. All of the action and excitement come in the final 20 minutes, when the dynamic duo executes their New Year's Eve heist in the tallest building in the world. At this point, there are so many twists, contrivances, and implausibilities that I felt like throwing up my hands in disgust. Entrapment's denouement also offers one major surprise that seems clever until you consider the storyline in retrospect and realize that everything falls apart.

For me, the real attraction of Entrapment wasn't the crime tale, but the opportunity to experience what I hoped would be a perfect example of romantic chemistry. Unfortunately, with the exception of a few fitful sparks here and there, Connery and Zeta-Jones never click. There's minimal sexual tension; in fact, they often seem more like father and daughter than would-be lovers. Some will doubtlessly cite the age difference as the problem, but I don't think that's it. Some couples mesh well, while others don't. This is an example of the latter, and, since Entrapment demands some heat from Mac and Gin's relationship, its absence further weakens an already thin motion picture.

Besides Connery and Zeta-Jones, who appear (either together or apart) in nearly every scene, three other actors of note make appearances. Ving Rhames is criminally underused in the part of Thibadeaux, one of Mac's former partners who appears to have his own agenda. Will Patton, who never seems to play a good guy, is Hector Cruz, Gin's sneering boss (a totally superfluous character). Finally, Maury Chaykin slathers on a heavy layer of makeup to portray yet another in his patented gallery of colorful supporting individuals.

It really irritates me when movies can't even get the little details right. In Entrapment, there's a mathematical flaw that a seventh grader could have caught, yet it made it all the way to the screen. A mistimed clock is supposed to run fast for an hour, gaining one-tenth of a second for each minute over that period. By my calculation, that would result in a six second differential between the clock's time and real time. The film, however, maintains that it's ten seconds. Apparently, someone forgot that an hour is comprised of 60 minutes, not 100. This particular instance is indicative of the poor quality of writing and planning invested in this movie. At least the name is appropriate. Entrapment is a snare for all those lured to theaters by Connery's name, Zeta-Jones' beauty, and the false promise of an enjoyable caper film. 

© 1999 James Berardinelli

Labels: action, crime, romance, thriller

Internet Movie Database 

Metacritic 54/100 

Tomatometer (critics=38, viewers=51) 

Blu-ray