skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Julie Delpy from Before Sunrise/Sunset (1995;2004) fame is back with a witty, romantic comedy, except she isn't just acting this time, but also writing, directing, co-producing, making hte music, editing the film and well to be honest she pretty much did everything in this film. It has a very similiar European flair as Sunrise/Sunset, but at the sime time seems less serious and much more comedic in nature. While both movies have dialogue that is natural and roles off the tongue this film seems less "real" and more a mixture between the European romantic beauty of Sunrise/Sunset and Meet the Parents (2000). I don't think that should be taken as a negative comment, especially since this is Delpy's first stab and writing or directing. I will say I was especially pleased by the ending to the film, which makes me believe she will have a promising directing/writing career if she attempts to pursue it, since this is always the most difficult part of any literary work. An 7/10.
7/10
This movie is difficult to review because of how much I loved the first 90 minutes of the movie and how quickly it went downhill. The movie reunites the team behind 28 Days Later (2002) Danny Boyle (Director), Alex Garland (Writer) & Cillian Murphy (Actor) and follows a team of astronauts whose duty is to drop an atomic payload into the sun to "restart" it. If it wasn't for the talent involved in this movie, I would have easily written off the movie based on its plot which dreadfully lacks originality. The movie starts off slow (in a good way), in which we meet the diverse cast and are given time to appreciate the beauty of space as we have been unable to do since the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Solaris (1972). From there shit starts going crazy and before you know it some man who resembles Nemesis from the Resident Evil series is cutting down the cast of the Icarus II (what astronaut would want there ship flying towards the sun with a name like this) like in a typical horror movie. While I've seen some logic in people's arguments behind the existence of this Nemesis-like character (some which I agree with), I still believe the characters inclusion in the movie diminishes my appreciation, rather then adding anything to the movie which contains some beautiful moments. I give this movie a 5/10, because I just recalled how bad the last five minute of the film were.
5/10
Two viewings of this movie and I still have very little to really grasp onto. The facts as they stand now though are that both times I'm really pumped to watch the movie, start to wane after the first hr, lose complete mental functions after the 2nd hr and leave the movie another hr latter hating the movie and having very little brain fuctions left. The next week all I can think about is the movie. If it had been made by any lesser director then David Lynch I would have probably dismissed this movie right off the bat, but based on my history of appreciating Lynch's work I know the man is no joke. This said, I really don't get any of the movie, really none of the movie, but that won't stop me from watching it again and again and eating up the three hrs of bonus features on the DVD. I give this film a 7/10, since no one can terrify you like Lynch can, his images are horrifying.
7/10
Wow was I dissapointed by this. Bland non-existent story line + ridiculous/unrealistic characters + over sexualized situations = crap. I didn't like any of the characters, found very little draw towards any of their acting abilites except for maybe the young kid and just was cringing throughout the film from minute 15. There were perhaps two or maybe three slightly humerous scenes and or moments that actually matered in the film, but how can we realy care about moments that matter when we don't care for the characters at all. How can a movie create a young female charcter that is creating a dowry for her future husband and not explain why she is the way she is and as a male please tell me why two girls never decided to comapre blow job technique on me and when I become a creepy old man will young girls pretend to be lesbian lovers for my amussement. I give this movie a 3/10, since it only cost me 90 minutes of my life.
3/10
Up till this point most of the Godard films I have watched have been his early film which while experimental in nature are a lot easier to "get into" then his later politically experimental films. Tout Va Bien is one of those such politically experimental films and one which I had a great deal of difficulty getting into. The movie follows an American woman and French man during the turbulent May 68 Student Revolution and how the revolution impacted a meat factory. The movie moves from moments of sponatneous signing to long drawn out monologues the characters seem to be having either directly with the audience or with the camera itself. At the time this movie was made the audience would have far more background information about the current situation in france then I myself did. Due to this lack of information I immediately fell behind in this movie and quickly lost my way. I give this film a 5/10, since it doesn't reward the viewer enough for all the difficuly.
4/10
We all know Miyazaki is a phenominal director and has creaed two of my favorite movies of all time, Spirited Away and My Neighbor Totoro. Howl's may not have as much depth as Spirtied Away, but is still a great movie with a quality and unique plot that one would only expect from a Miyazaki film. The animation is also quality and Billy Crystal provides some pretty humerous comic relief as a fire demon that due to a curse has to maintain the form of a meer household fire and power Howl's Castle. I give this film a 8/10, for falling into format which has been typical of Miyazaki's film,but a what a brilliant format it is.
8/10
By this point Godard was at the heights of his fame, everything he touched was gold or at least silver. In this film he tackles the oh so confusing topic of love, relationships and males and females. The movie does contain some great scenes like the painting of Peace In Vietnam on the side of the American car or Madeleine's speech about her dreams of having a number one record and a brand new car. Even the random moments when people randomly die and we are told "One Woman, One Man, An Ocean of Blood"...(or something like that...are quite entertaining). For each great moment the film has though, it has an equal moment that just doesn't sit right in the film and partially this isn't this film. The best descriptions I've found of his films, describe them as a car with a loose wheel that is about to fly off, but never does. I give this film an 7/10, for being too serious to take lightly and too light to take seriously.
7/10
Godard's second film, which was banned in France for 3 years because of its neutral view on France's current strugle in Algeria. The film is interesting because it really isn't a strongly anti-Algerian War film like you would expcept from a leftist like Godard. Instead the film is very much Godard trying to use film as a public forum to figure out what his own views on the complex situation are. Besides these positives I found the rest of the film kind of lacking when compared to many of the other films which I have loved by Godard. I give this film a 7/10, because if you love Godard then you will eventually get around to see this and appreciating it, but if you haven't seen Godard before don't start here, its just not his best work which seems obvious under all the pressure he must have been under to follow up the success of Breathless.
7/10
Jacques Rivette brings us a film loosely centered around a production of a play by Pirandello (famous for writing plays about plays), so a film about a Pirandello play already gives this film some depth. The 6 characters in this movie, who are in search of themselves, reminds me of the play and characters in Pirandello's 6 Characters in Search of an Author. The simularities and difference between the charcter's past and present love interests is another fascinating area of this film. Pierre continues to love the artsy type, while Camille continues to love scholars. Us as the audience and the characters themselves keep thinking that they are growing and changing, yet the movie ends where it began on a stage. The characters like a play are doomed to the same fate of continual repetition. There is a lot more depth in this film I could speak on. I give this film a 8/10, since the first 30 min were slow, but the thoughts of the 220 min director's cut makes me drool.
8/10
Another gem from the mind of Hayao Miyazaki, thought I'm not sure if its of the same gem quality as the prior two films I had seen by him, Spirited Away (which just has so much more depth) and My Neighbor Totoro (which just has more creativity). Kiki's Delivery Service does stand on its own though as a brilliant and unique children's anime movie that will also appeal to adults. Everything in the film is what I've come to expect from Miyazaki it just doesn't seem to have the extra spark which the prior two films have. If this had been the first film I'd seen by him then perhaps I would've been more impressed, though I guess for all the stuff I'm saying thats putting the film down I should reassure you that the film is good and worth seeing. I give this film an 7/10, if for the sole fact that it has Phil Harthman doing the english voice over for Jiji the cat, each line he said got a laugh from my brother and I just because it was Phil Hartman voicing a cat.
7/10
Didn't winning the Palme d'Or used to mean something? The last "great" movie that won the Plame d'Or in my opinion was probably Dancer in the Dark, though I know as many people who hate that movie as those who love it. L' Enfant the 2005 winner of the Palme d'Or is just &*#*$#(#. Should I continue. The main characters are uninteresting, the ending is horrible, the story doesn't move you at all (perhaps cause you dont' like the characters), parts of the story seem unmotivated, illogical and done for the sole purpose of being "more dramatic", crucial information isn't given in the story, instead leaving it up to the audience to fill in the information since we've seen a few movies in our life time with similiar depressing story lines. If i want to compliment this movie, I guess there were some good scenes of tense emotion that were drawn out through silence and other cinematic aspects. I give this movie a generous 3/10, because I guess someone out there thought it was ok.
3/10
So I'm still stuck in my Nouvelle Vague rut...this time I bring you a review for Godard's third work, first color film and what many call Godard's first "film." His prior two being just movies I guess. People say this is where Godard finds his style which he progresses on throughout his career (which I have yet to explore), but I'm not sure where you can build from here. This film will definetly not be for everyone (I'm certain of that), though I'm not sure what is going through the mids of the people this film isn't for. The movie is a romance, musical comedy and plucks every string so true. This is a film that is made during a time when you could have fun making a movie, and I'm not really sure how much of that happens anymore. I give this film a 10/10, for making me feel utterly depressed at the current state of world cinema. This is a film that makes you think, laugh and conveys a dramatic story in a creative way, what more could you want?
10/10
Another great French New Wave film, which has been the film rut I have been stuck in recently. This one by Agnes Varda tells the tale of a singer, Cleo, and what she does between the hrs of 5 and 7 as she waits to learn about the results from her biopsy. The story itself is simple being told in almost real time, yet as the movie progresses you realize how complex the character of Cleo is. Also this is a very rich film, for a running time of only 90 minutes, there are so many symbolic representation of Cleo's life and just moments that stick with you as being slightly curious for an audience members viewpoint, yet are probably forgotten by Cleo since it is just a moment in her life and we don't remember every moment in our lives so why should she. I should also note that Corinne Marchand performance as Cleo is extrodinary. I give this film an 8/10, though it could score much higher on furthering viewing do to all its depth, which I feel I have yet to find.
8/10
Lewis Carroll's best known work gets a creepy yet beautiful facelift from Jan Svankmajer the master Czech animator. Combining live action, stop motion, moving skeletons, moving pieces of meat and other bizarre combination a faithful yet imaginative rendetion of Alice in Wonderland is produced. While some people will jump on this movie for lacking well known character from the novel such as the Mock Turtle and the Cheshire Cat or rendering familiar characters like the Caterpillar and Dormouse in ways they haven't seen them imagined before I find these arguments against the movie very weak. I give this film a 7/10, because its like when you have a dream and try to tell someone about the dream, you remember some points from what actually happened in the dream, but some details get forgotten, exagurated and changed around in your mind or at least that is how i see this version of Alice.
7/10
I rarely watch documentaries, yet this has been the 3rd or maybe even 4th (I'll have to check your wall) documentary that I have watched so far this summer and each one has been great. This has been probably my favorite and most balanced documentary so far this summer. Entering the film I knew I agreed with a lot of Nader's politics, yet at the same time also knew that he was a very polorized figures in American politics, though I didn't really know much about this. What makes this film so good is that it really does portray both the pro and anti-Nader's in a positive light. I think Nader would be happy about the documentary if for no other reason that it allowed everyone to equally speak about the issues (which in this case is him). I give this film a 9/10, for portraying an unreasonable man in a reasonable light.
9/10
Another French New Wave film and another raving review, this effort coming from the most well known member of the movement Jean-Luc Godard. This is a film about youth & crime and is described as Godard's film for people who don't like Godard. The film contains at least a half dozen classic cinema moments, from running through the Louvre, to 1 minutes of silence and the madison dance. This movie still seems experimental in many ways to me as it must have in the 60's, showing you how little film has changed since then and how much of a lack of experimentation there is in today's cinema. I give this film a 10/10, because the film was just plain fun, nothing more and nothing less, just a great ride with great characters, a great story and a great story teller.
10/10
If you go and see SICKO and just come out saying "I really want to see another liberal muckracking documentary about how horrible conservatives are/the faults in American polotics" then boy do I have a film for you. Now I never was one of those people that got caught up in the Guilliani hype after 9/11, but then I never really knew what too critize him on until after watching this documentary. Again as I said this is a liberal muckracking documentary so don't go into this expecting to learn all 100% facts, but still the "stuff" the documentary does paint, creates an image of a person I don't want to be my president. The documentary does run way too long at over 2hrs and also doesn't talk much at all about what he did for NY post 9/11, because that might've painted a better image of the man, but still hands down an interesting film that more Americans I believe should see to educate them for the upcoming elections. I give this film a 6/10, because this is a democracy.
6/10
If you don't know the plot to this movie, then I'll quickly fill you in: Sierra Leone + War/Violence + Diamonds + Leo as a smuggler + Jen Connelly as a journalist + Djimon Hounsou as the helpless native who needs to save his family, and then in a nutshell you have the movie. Obviously from the three names I've mentioned the film has a very solid acting core with each doing equally impressive performances. The story does fall into some cliches, but also steered away from some cliches I thought it was going to fall into (especially the relationships Leo forms with Jen and Djimon). Hands down this was really a great movie, that addressed an issue that needed to be addressed and did so in a powerful and moving way. The only real glaring fault I see in this film is that I don't see it having the longevity to last and be remembered. I give this film an 7/10, because people will enjoy it when they buy a boxset of Leo's best films in 20 years and remember this film.
7/10
Take a romance story (something I love), make it written by Margrette Duras (someone who I hate and am confused by, but Len Berkman loves her) and then make it directed by Alain Renais (major loving) and you get a movie that really I just flat out love. The movie tells the story of a french actress who is in Japan on a film shoot and meets a Japanese architect. They have a brief affair, and some beautiful moments and pretty much that is the movie. When you sit down to watch this movie you aren't sitting down for an epic War & Peace type story (though this is one of the first movies to encorporate flashback sequences), but just a few beautiful moments and in that way the movie delivers ten fold. While not a movie for everyone, it certainly retains its importance to film history after almost 50 years. I give this movie a 9/10, if for only the first fifteen minutes of the film and it's poetic beauty.
9/10
A collection of 18 short stories about love and paris and of course vampires staring an impresive array of actors (Natalie Portman, Elijiah Wood, Steve Buschemi, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, etc.) and an equally impressive lineup of driectors (Wes Craven, Gus Van Sant, Alexander Payne, Alfonso Cuaron, Coen Brother, etc.). The film runs the gamut of types of characters, forms of love and places in Paris which are explored. My only really complaint would be that there was a lot of brilliance in the film that I feel I personally missed out on due to the fact that I have never been to Paris and don't know any French. For example the story of the nanny and the baby didn't make much sense to me because I didn't know any french, but according to Jessi the nanny sings a different song to her own child then to the child she is nannying, which makes a drastic difference in how i interpreted the story. I give this film a an 6/10, for showing some beautiful moments.
6/10
This is a very British take on Psycho and fittingly came out rigth aroudn the same time. The film tracks a filmaker who can always be found with his camera, and can always be found killing young, attractive girls. I really don't have much to say about the film. I think it was a good film, but I think its one of those things that has had a difficult time surviving the test of time, unlike Psycho which I still believe is horrifying and wonderful. This on the other hand was amusing and well done, but just is missing something I feel. Don't get me wrong the movie does have some very disturbing moments and is a good film. I give this film a 5/10, for being what at one time was probably a great film and now is just a good film.
5/10
(Spoiler Alert, though I don't know why you would want to see this movie)I came into this film with very high expectations. Zhang Yimou's two previous efforts, Hero and House of Flying Daggers were both spectacular films, leaving my mouth watering for this film, especially since the trailer to the movie made it look quite exceptional. Wow was I wrong. Everything that had been done perfect in the other two films, somehow was butchered in this film. The music sucked, the characters were uninteresting, the story felt like I was watching the Spark Notes to the actual story, the color pallette, while probably the only mildly redeeming factor, nauseated me at certain times. And oh lets not forget the CGI in this film which appeared to be out of a poor PS2 game, or the fight scences which didn't come close to the grace and beauty of the two previous films that I have mentioned by Yimou.While watching this film my brother walked in and asked why I was still watching the movie if I hated it so much and I told him because good endings can often save a movie. This film's ending hurt an already horrible film. Did anyone who saw this not laugh when Prince Jai's body is tossed by the enemy soldiers and they say "Throw" and then the golden soldiers but their spears together and say "Catch". Also the very last scene and then the immediate transition to a horendous song. The only glimmer I have after watching this film is that Yimou has always been critized for being a Chinese director that appeals to American's, but not to Chinese people. I can only hope that perhaps this movie hit on some note that is understood in Chinese culture, but that doesn't translate to my Western thinking mind. I give this movie a generous 1/10, one point for the ok fight scenes and occasional good color pallete and one for all the female character's breasts who are almost popping out.
1/10
Before anything else is said I should mention this film was beautiful, since there is no getting around praising Gondry for the astounding visuals in this film. The film also has above average acting, good music, Gael Garcia Bernal (which is always a plus) and an interesting romantic storyline. The storyline itself still has me somewhat transfixed, though transfixed may not be the best word. It was an interesting storyline, it kept me interested and didn't really fall into cliches, so I'm not sure what problems I had with it. Simply put there were just parts in this movie that didn't flow well and confused me. While I liked all the characters...I simply was confused by certain aspects of what I thought was the real world, but perhaps I wasn't supposed to view the real world in this movie as a real world and more of a more realistic dream world. Overall I give this movie an 6/10, for taking risks and capturing my dreams.
6/10
This movie was everything that I expected Closer to be, a dark depressing movie about characters we really shouldn't like cheating on each other, yet unlike Closer this one succeeds in almost everyway. Not only do you relate and sympathize with these characters, but almost all there charcters in this movie aren't the characters you normally are rooting for in pictures. I won't say there aren't any redeamable characters in this film, but none that truly shine. Besides a few issues with some plot choices, this was a great movie with quality acting, and great directing by Todd Fields who hasn't done anything since In the Bedroom. I give this movie a 8/10, though it was close to getting a ten.
8/10
For those of you who know Anais Nin then you will probably know to expect a lot of sex when seeing this movie. For others, prepare yourself. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I actually really liked this film, though if you go to rottentomatoes, you will see a score of 0%. While I still would prefer reading Nin to seeing her on the screen, I believe her charm and poetry is captured for the most part in the film adaption. While their is a lot of sex, I don't think it ever reaches the point of being unnecessary or purely for shock. You pass throught the film like a dream, meeting characters along the way and then seeing them drift away, only to eventually be shattered by the start of WWII. In a similiar fashion to Moulin Rouge, this film paints a time period that is very difficult to do, and won I personally would adore to visit, if not for the start of WWII. I give this film a 8/10, for being the scandelous baby of The Dreamers and The Notebook.
8/10
After discovery that their was a documentary film about James Nagthwey, my favorite photographer of all time, I knew that I had to immidetly watch that film and expected that I would goble up the film quickly and be wanting more. I mean wouldn't you expect that, considering that I know next to nothing about the photographer besides his pictures and am obsessed w/ him enough to buy his $100 book called Inferno. Sadly the film didn't meet my expectations, which I believe I set fairly low considering I was willing to kill for any info about him. The focus of the documentary at times seemed very unclear, which again confused me since what else would the film be about then James Naghtwey. At times people were interviewed whose relation to James was unclear and spoke about topics which seemed unrelated to the movies focus. Other shots ran on far too long, as if the director knew the movie was running short and decided to gain another 5 minutes by adding silenceand shots of people "deep in thought". Nonetheless there were several moments that were very rewarding as the film had footage from a small camera that was attached to Nacthwey's own camera, this enabled the viewer to see what he was seeing and how quickly he had to take the pictures he was talking and change the shutter and focus. Other powerful moments allowed you to see him taking and developing several of his most famous shots. Other moments in this film though held it back from being the insightful documentary I thought it would be. Everything stayed too much on the surface, and rarely delved into the important issuues like how Nacthwey deals with the horrors he sees everyday and is what he doing really making a diffference. I give this film a 6/10 for people who are a fan of Nacthwey's work, but a 5/10 for those who aren't familiar with his work.
5/10
The film is satire of what films are supposed to be and the elements which make up the films we know and love (similiar in many ways to Scary Movie, but a lot smarter). From this base, the film progresses to tell a noirish type story of how Robert Downey Jr.'s character winds up in LA and how he gets involved in trying to solve a murder mystery alongside Val Kilmer. While this duo may not scream out great acting, I was more then suprised by the performances they brought to this film. Hands down this movie is just entertaining, funny and intelligent about the choices it makes. My only big quib w/ that the films self acknowledgment of itself seemed to be inconsistent, arising to interupt the story when there was a joke to be made, yet completely dissapearing at other moments when it was less convienent to have an all-knowing narrator, which held the film back from a 9. I give this film an 8/10.
8/10
Documentaries are not often my cup of tea and are something I find more difficult to evaluate then narrative films. The film delves into the topic of sexual abuse and the following cover up peformed by the catholic church in reference to one priest in particular, Oliver O'Grady. The film like many documentaries today, shocks and scares, the audience with the horrific truth. Though unlike most documentaries I believe it does do a good job showing both sides of a topic that in the media, would probably only gain one perspective. While the film doesn't glorify what O'Grady has done, it does give him a chance to talk and tell his side of the story and reveals his own troubled childhood with sexual abuse. I give this film an 7/10, since it showed two sides of the argument, but occassionaly dragged and pushed the drama farther than was necessary to communicate the films message.
7/10
Robert Altman's final film is unfortunately the only film I've yet to see by him, though I imagine that will soon change. Old auteurs making films can often be the kiss of death, just look at anything antonioni has done since the mid-80's, but here Altman still has it. The movie tells the story of a live radio show's final show and has a homey, david lynch type feel to it, never thought I'd say that. It has a spectacular cast and doesn't try to push them too far or do too much with them. One of my favorite things about the movie is that you realize you are watching one night of a radio show that has been on for 30 odd year, you realize you are only seeing a piece of everyone's life. This movie is an example of a movie that can leave things unwrapped at the end and succeed, because we aren't supposed to know their character's lives, just one special day in their live. I give this movie an 7/10, because Kevin Kleine has never been so fucking funny.
7/10
Coming out at the same time as The Prestige, the movie theatres last fall were crammed with magicial movies. The Illusionist tells the tale of an ill-fated childhood romance that is rekindled between E. Norton and J. Biel in their adulthood. The film has fair acting and does a very good job of setting the mood for the Viennese culture which uses magic as an escape from their problems. That is unfortunately about all it does well. The story jumps way too quickly when Norton and Biel meet again turning their innocent childhood love, in no time into akward sex. From here the movies builds too its far too predictable ending, in which they explain everything you could've guessed, but none of the things which you were confused about. Like how does he make those dead boys appear? The movie should have either left all the magic unexplained or explained everything. I give this movie a generous 4/10 for Norton's Giamatti's and Sewell's performances.
4/10
(Spolier Alert) While the original is a classic, this one isn't exactly there. W/ Danny Boyle and Alex Garland Executively Producing, the eerie vision of the original movie is kept, yet there are problems in the story. Most of my issues with the film are instances where itchooses to be too dramatic. Instances of this are the fathers "knowledgable" stalking of his kids, the main soldier's choice to leave his post and escort the british citizens and the ending where they had to show you the eiffel tower. Besides these flaws, a few other holes in the story and many parts which pushed the level of believability (something which I prided the first film), for the most part I believe the original vision of the first film was kept. Also as prevelant or more prevelant than in the first film are the global parallels that exists in both film. One of a few horror sequals that is worthy of using a title similiar to to that of the original. I give this movie a 6/10.
6/10
Emilo Estevez writes, directs and acts in Bobby along side an all-star cast that is too lengthy to fit in this 1,000 character space. Anyone who goes into watching the film expecting to see a film about Bobby Kennedy, like my mom, will be suprised. This is a movie about a fixed moment in time. While this is at times very interesting since the movie isn't trying to capture people's outlook on life on a vague period of time like "the 60's", at the same point things run thin at points and there are too many characters involved who are all very shallow, unconnected, difficult to keep track of and difficult to determine their signicance. While the end of the end of the movie does help to connect the characters more it is too little too late. One is also left at the end wondering how much is actually true and how much is part of Estevez imagination. I give this movie a 5/10, for its weird drug scenes.
5/10
Alfonoso Cuaron is a director I have loved from his independent foreign work as the director of Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001) to his more commercial work as Harry Potter Prizoner of Azkaban (2004). This work is no exception as he again balances the line between commercial work with an independent flair similiar to what he did with Harry. In Children Cuaron pulls off some brilliantly long take shots like the opening and the dramatic camera in the car chase scene which must have taken forever to film. The film takes an interesting approach and uses these extended takes to create a documentary type feel which brings you into this somewhat futeristic world. CGI is also effectively used throughout the film with the stand out achievement being the effects used to create the baby...(wait have you seen this film...yet now i feel bad if you haven't seen this movie though i think you have...)...if you haven't um...i won't spoil anything...the acting is also superb. The problems I have though are with the story and the characters. Even with everything Cuaron does I still find it difficult to get into this world which really I don't think should be difficult to get into based on the trick Cuaron uses and the fact that it isn't very far in the future...I think we aren't given enough background information to see how such a future could come about. This lack of background I think also extends over to my appreciation of the characters which seem like fleshed out characters without a deep history. I give the movie an 8/10.
8/10
