Review: ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ is a Magical Cliffhanger

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is J.K. Rowling’s newest addition to the popular Harry Potter Universe. With David Yates once again directing, this sequel to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is an ambitious but down-to-earth transition piece for future sequels. With a large cast and an overbearing plot, the film doesn’t quite measure up to the magic of its predecessor, but it’s the perfect film for your average Harry Potter fan. Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Alison Sudol, Ezra Miller, Dan Fogler, and Johnny Depp reprise their roles from the first film. Controversy surrounded Rowling’s decision to keep Depp on the cast after domestic abuse allegations came to light regarding Amber Heard, Depp’s ex-wife. However, Rowling stood by her decision, citing both Depp and Heard’s mutual requests that they both be able to continue with their careers and move on from the scandal.

Continue reading “Review: ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ is a Magical Cliffhanger” →

| Image

Review: ‘Ralph Breaks the Internet’ Is an Unremarkable Sequel for the Family

Remarkably, Ralph Breaks the Internet is the first full-length theatrical sequel to come out of Walt Disney Animation Studios in almost 20 years. Its predecessor, Wreck-It Ralph,  was released 6 years prior to critical acclaim and enough commercial success to spur Disney’s faith in a follow-up. As such, the pressure is on for this film to hold up against the original. While it doesn’t fall flat on its face, Ralph Breaks the Internet certainly doesn’t manage to exceed or even meet the standard set by the first film in the franchise.

Once again starring John C. Reilly and Sarah Silverman as the voices of Ralph and Vanellope respectively, this film picks up 6 years after the events of Wreck-It Ralph. After an accident that threatens to shut down Sugar Rush, the video game housed in Litwick’s arcade that Vanellope calls home, Ralph and Vanellope embark on a journey through the internet to find a replacement part that promises to fix the game and prevent it from being shut down permanently. On the way, they encounter a slew of new characters who help them along the way including J.P. Spamley (Bill Hader), a purveyor of clickbait, and Yesss (Taraji P. Henson), the “head algorithm” at the YouTube stand-in deemed “Buzzztube,” and a daring race boss named Shank (Gal Gadot).

Once the story gains momentum, the first big issue starts to emerge. The plot ambles along, clearly lacking — at least for the first half — a strong focus. Many of the events, most notably the narrative’s entire impetus, are mostly driven by coincidence or happenstance. For a good portion of the film’s runtime, our characters’ journey feels more like a series of arbitrary obstacles than a proper narrative vehicle.

Admittedly, Ralph Breaks the Internet is an animated film directed at younger audiences who aren’t likely to care about what I just discussed. However, I do think these kinds of family movies can be elevated with a strong plot that centers around a thematic core. It doesn’t have to be complex, it just needs to be focused. Stand-out animated films, such as the majority of Pixar’s output, have this exact quality, which Ralph Breaks the Internet regrettably lacks.

To its credit, there is certainly a thematic “moral” at the center of the film. It deals with accepting change and maintaining friendships despite it, but while this notion is quite nice, my issue remains with the way it is executed. These ideas are brought up at the start and only resurface once the audience nears the climax of the film. Before then, the plot takes a large detour that doesn’t accomplish anything other than prolonging runtime. Granted, once the story refocuses, it manages to actually be pretty touching and heartfelt. There are exchanges between Ralph and Vanellope that are poignant, albeit not up to the level of the first film. What the filmmakers are trying to say is honestly quite good, but it’s the way they are saying it that caused me to lose interest.

In between these story beats are obviously a lot of Internet-based references and gags that are, at best, clever nods to Internet culture and, at worst, downright cringe-worthy and unfunny. Often these moments can be rather accurate and demonstrate an understanding of the world wide web and its many nuances. For instance, the way clickbait is handled is rather clever, with characters representing pop-up ads wandering the world heckling online avatars as they walk by. However, some moments, such as references to Fortnite or screaming goats, are either strained attempts to connect with a young audience or entirely out of date. To top it all off, at one point in the film, Vanellope ends up at the “Oh My Disney” fan site. Needless to say, this detour in the narrative is painfully self-serving as the studio goes out of their way to practically flaunt the all-encompassing nature of its properties. It’s as if the film’s creators really hoped the audience’s interest would be maintained by appearances by Groot from the Marvel Cinematic Universe or Disney Princesses. Unfortunately, at least for me, these attempts failed.

Once again, I do have to give credit where credit is due. For the most part, the way the Internet is portrayed as a world of its own is fun and consistent. While the proliferation of brands is self-evident, it definitely doesn’t suffocate or dominate the story. Certain companies, such as eBay, play a central role in the narrative, but it doesn’t feel ham-fisted. Similar attempts to capture a digital world, such as 2017’s The Emoji Movie, show us that it could certainly be worse.

When the credits rolled, I was left with an distinctly neutral impression of this film. It was a pleasant time and I certainly don’t regret seeing it, but it also didn’t do anything to excite me. On a technical level, Disney manages to uphold their animation prowess, but at the same time, nothing signals that a lot of effort was put into the film either. Ralph Breaks the Internet is an inoffensive follow-up to a better movie, and while it doesn’t make a huge splash, it will likely be an enjoyable time at the theater for most families.

Score: 2.5/5 Stars

Review: The Coens Combine Anthology Short Films with the Wild West in ‘The Ballad of Buster Scruggs’

Of recent, Netflix has been snagging up auteurs left and right to produce content for them. In the past, it included the likes of Cary Fukunaga, Noah Bombach, and Dee Rees, but this year, they brought out the big canons. In the hopes of vying for Oscar nominations that can convert to Oscar wins, they scoped up Alfonso Cuaron’s Roma (which has a very good chance of winning it all), and, the subject of our discussion, the Coen Brother’s The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. 

Continue reading “Review: The Coens Combine Anthology Short Films with the Wild West in ‘The Ballad of Buster Scruggs’” →

| Image

Review: ‘Museo’ is an Entertaining Heist Thriller

Following his critically acclaimed directorial debut, Güeros (2014), Alonso Ruizpalacios’ second feature re-imagines the story of one of the most notorious heists in Mexico’s history. In 1985, two students managed to pull off an unimaginably ambitious crime, looting over one hundred priceless artifacts from the National Museum of Anthropology and confounding authorities. Museo strays a bit from factual accuracy in order provide an engaging insight into the personal journeys of the unlikely criminal masterminds of this outrageous national embarrassment. With a deftly executed thread of caustic comedy, this entertaining heist thriller proves to be a daring yet successful sophomore film for Ruizpalacios.

Still living in their parents’ houses in the outskirts of Mexico City, thirty-something-year-old Juan (Gael García Bernal) and his best friend Wilson (Leonardo Ortizgris) can’t seem to graduate veterinary school. Tired of their humdrum existence in suburbia, the pair cook up a madcap idea to steal some of the country’s most treasured historical relics. After celebrating Christmas Eve with their families, Juan and Wilson sneak off into the night, armed with a tool bag and some makeshift balaclavas. They hop the fence of the film’s titular museum and, as they make towards the loot, the camera barrel rolls to follow them, marking the point at which their lives are turned upside down. From the outset, it is clear that Juan and Wilson are not professionals; their own ability to pick locks comes as a surprise. Ruizpalacios provides a well-balanced blend of tension and comedy through the farcical yet anxiety-inducing amateurism that punctuates the pair’s entire criminal operation, from the heist itself to their futile attempts to flog their stolen wares. When a potential buyer (Simon Russell Beale) asserts that Juan and Wilson are “boys, not crooks,” we are once again made painfully aware that these two are in over their heads. In a devastating realization, they discover that the only value of the treasure is in its cultural significance; its pricelessness ultimately renders it unsellable.

Ostensibly, museums are constituent of an imperial hangover, filled with stolen artifacts, and in the film, there are suggestions that Juan might be seeking to avenge some cultural injustice through this act of grand larceny; assuming a Robin-Hood-like role, thieving to right the world’s wrongs and give back to the people. When things get rough, however, Juan abandons any semblance of a noble cause and it seems like he would do anything to free himself of the relics burning a hole in his backpack.

Bernal has an abiding youthfulness that lends itself so well to the character of Juan, who is essentially an overgrown teenager hoping to prove something through a grandiose act of rebellion. Bernal’s quick wit and morbid sarcasm play well against his co-star Ortizgris, who excels as a somewhat reticent sidekick with strong family values that contrasts Juan’s often brash individualism.

Offering a glimpse of locations never-before-filmed, the beautiful cinematography and sharp editing of this film mean that it’s as visually stimulating as it is narratively. Museo is stylish, witty, and extremely watchable. Clearly, Ruizpalacios is establishing himself as a filmmaker that deserves our attention.

Score: 4/5

You can catch Museo playing at North West Film Forum between November 23rd and November 29th in Seattle.

Review: ‘The Girl In The Spider’s Web’ is an Action Thriller that Forgot Its Story

In 2011, David Fincher showed us that adapting Stieg Larsson’s Millennium series for American audiences was possible, following the Swedish adaptations in 2009. Lisbeth Salander, one of the most complex and interesting female characters in literature was given renewed life on the big screen. Not only was it a box office hit, but it was nominated for five academy awards and won one for Best Film Editing. Fast-forward seven years later: I never thought I would see a sequel adapted from the fourth book in the Millennium series starring a whole different cast and directed by a completely different director, yet here we are.

Continue reading “Review: ‘The Girl In The Spider’s Web’ is an Action Thriller that Forgot Its Story” →

| Image

Review: ‘Widows’ is ‘Ocean’s 8’ With A Dramatic Heft

Upon first announcement, Widows seemed like a peculiar albeit talented coupling of filmmakers. Director Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave, Shame) has been known for highlighting the cruelty of the real world through the suffering of the characters in his films, with the aim to make the audience uncomfortable yet understanding and sympathetic. Writer Gillian Flynn (Gone Girl, Sharp Objects), though a talented author in her own right, undeniably garners much more mainstream attention than McQueen. However, rather than being an artistic “dumbing down” of McQueen’s artistic prowess, the best elements of both filmmakers are out in full force. Widows is a somber, melancholy heist film that is so much more than what it seems on the surface level; it is one of those rare blockbusters that prove that artistic vision doesn’t need to be sacrificed in order to be successful. The film is incredibly entertaining, thought-provoking, and easily one of the best films of the year.

Viola Davis and Cynthia Erivo in Widows (2018)

Widows is riveting from the very beginning. For the most part, we are launched straight into the action of the heist-gone-wrong which leaves the wives of the criminals involved widowed. The action is intense, with point-of-view shots of the getaway vehicle filling the screen; excellent, bass booming sound design; and in-camera car stunt work. Excellent visual storytelling is exemplified here, as we are introduced to each of the criminals, particularly Harry Rawlings (Liam Neeson), in inter-cuts to his personal life with his wife Veronica (Viola Davis). The editing here portrays the double life lived by Neeson’s character in a particularly sharp and efficient way. Additionally, this opening scene gives the audience the basic premise within just a couple of minutes, where the widows of four criminals are set to take on the ultimate heist and finish what their husbands started. However, the film is so much more than just a typical action heist film, unlike Ocean’s 8 from earlier this year.

One of the things that makes this film so great is that on top of being a heist story, it attempts and succeeds at telling a poignant story that comments on grief, violence, political corruptness, being a minority in America, and so much more. As Veronica states regarding the heist, “they had the balls to pull it off,” which is true of the film as a whole. The real accomplishment of Widows is McQueen and Flynn’s ability to so seamlessly integrate the film’s lofty sociopolitical themes and ideologies into the narrative, where nothing ever seems heavy-handed or forced. It’s still an incredibly entertaining heist film regardless, but what makes it truly shine is its ability to use this framework to tell a story that matters.

Widows also features one of the best and most effective ensemble casts this year, with some incredible standouts. Daniel Kaluuya, best known for his Oscar-nominated role in Get Out, is brilliant here as Jatemme Manning, an ice-cold killer whose unpredictability combined with his undeniable swagger make him an electrifying presence to behold on screen. But the real star of the show here is Viola Davis, who really needs no introduction at this point. She steals almost every scene she’s in, and her performance expertly rides the line between immense vulnerability and undeniable grit. Her performance and character embody the intense grief one experiences in a time of loss and the difficulty and desperation that comes with experiencing that loss. It’s a thrilling, nuanced performance that’s sure to make rounds at many awards shows come next year. The rest of the main cast, including Elizabeth Debicki, Michelle Rodriguez, Colin Farrell, and relative newcomer Cynthia Erivo, all give fantastic performances as well.

Steve McQueen embraces his artistic ambitions with a bravado unlike many directors in Hollywood right now, and for good reason. He has yet to make a movie that is less than stellar, and Widows is certainly no exception. It’s everything you could possibly want out of a heist film, with all the energy of an exhilarating, perfect third act along with emotional and dramatic heft. The combination of Steve McQueen, Gillian Flynn, and this amazing cast is exactly the sort of thing Hollywood needs right now.

Score: 5/5

| Image

Review: ‘A Private War’ Shows the Horrors of a Shallow Character Study

Matthew Heineman, traditionally a documentary filmmaker, tries his hand in the realm of biographical drama with his newest film A Private War, starring a deathly committed and hardened Rosamund Pike playing the late war journalist Marie Colvin, who most notably covered the siege of Homs in the Syrian civil war. While no doubt a well-conducted tribute to Colvin, the film falls short of becoming a truly great bio-drama because of its inconsistent tonal shifts and lack of contextualization of Colvin’s actions.

The film follows the tribulations of the famed journalist as she hops from war zone to war zone in a valiant attempt at giving a voice to civilians living in the conflicts. Equipped with only a kevlar press vest and a couple of like-minded journalist companions, she puts her life and limb at the hands of insurgents and rebel groups to report what nobody else is willing to. After returning to her home in London, Colvin is mentally plagued by the horrors of war. Images of the dead and dying flash through her mind and permeate every aspect of her life, only to be quelled by an excessive habit of drinking, smoking, and cynicism. Being wounded both physically (having her left eye blown off from the shrapnel of an RPG) and emotionally, she finds it increasingly difficult, yet is ever so compelled, to return to the front.

The most pressing issue I had with the film is its structure, which is made up of distinct segments. There are the segments where Colvin is in the field, writing and reporting on world conflicts in mainly the middle east, and then there are the segments where Colvin is back in her home in London, reliving and struggling with the horrors that she lay witness to. This format, if executed properly, could have worked extremely well. We would not only get to see Colvin’s actions and the effects those actions were having on the world around her, but we would also get to see how she dealt with her personal struggles and PTSD that came with her debilitating job. However, the film instead tries too hard to be a pure character study of Colvin and doesn’t allow any breathing room from a constant switching between offbeat behavior, attitude shifts, and emotional outbursts. It loses sight of what made her such a famed journalist in the first place: her actions. Instead of highlighting the cause Colvin is putting her life towards, and therefore of seeing why what she does actually matters in the grand scheme of things, we are met with internal tirades about the noble and self-sacrificing duties of a war journalist.

Even as a pure character study, the film could have functioned well, but only if we were allowed to grow with Colvin, to see her change, to witness her inner demons morphing or coming to be. From the get-go though, we are introduced to Colvin as someone who already has seen the traumas of war, and the audience is supposed to sympathize and like Colvin at face value, because, after all, who wouldn’t feel sympathy for a war-torn, badass, wise-cracking war journalist? Colvin’s character is nothing more than a one-trick pony. Her one-dimensionality doesn’t foster any inquiry to her actions, her character never evolves, and you are constantly aware of what she is going to do next.

These aspects of the film, do not, however, altogether inhibit its ability to pay tribute to an influential, brave, and rebellious war journalist. The cinematography is nothing short of brutal. Battle sequences aren’t blown out of proportion to action movie heights. Rather, each and every bullet and scream carries a  breathtaking weight along with it. I found myself actually holding my breath as the camera flew past broken families and communities, showing true and real-world devastation—not just Hollywood explosions and acrobatic severed limbs. The power and resolve that Colvin displays as she passes enemy checkpoints and reports under mortar shell bombardments is impactful and memorable. The twisted sequences of Colvin going on writing binges, forcing herself to relive the conflicts to tell a story are also beautifully shot. Even though Colvin’s awkward shifts from comedic to dramatic ruin some of the tension and may not work within the scope of the film, they stay true to a person in real life who shrouded her suffering with dark and offbeat humor. She constantly battles with her editor (Tom Hollander) to push for the release of her stories, fighting for their importance and need to be heard. Her cause is evidently noble, and her dedication is admirable.

Overall, the film struggles to tell the story of Marie Colvin in a compelling and meaningful way. While it does a wonderful job of depicting the personal horrors that war journalists experience, it is so general it could almost be about any war journalist. Many of the excellent technical aspects of professional filmmaking are present, and the film feels and plays out in a cohesive manner, but the lack of outside context for the attempted in-depth character study significantly detracts from its success. The movie shows the bravery, will, and fearlessness of Colvin, but falls into a pit of predictability and generalization, which subtracts from the significance of the film’s real-world subject and events.

Score: 3/5

| Image

Review: ‘Overlord’ Doesn’t Quite Satisfy B-Movie Horror Cravings

Overlord is the newest film from powerhouse producer J.J. Abrams (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Lost, etc.), producer Lindsey Weber, and relatively unknown director Julius Avery, the man behind multiple short films as well as the feature-length Son of a Gun from 2014. From the first viewing of the Overlord theatrical trailer, one can observe the film’s lofty attempts to dip its toes into multiple genres; it is at once a gritty war drama, an action movie, and a B-rate horror comedy in the same vein as Evil Dead. For this reason, there seems to be an evident confusion online as to what exactly Overlord is; there was even a video posted onto IGN’s website entitled “WTF is Overlord?” with director Avery attempting to clear this confusion. While much respect goes out to the filmmakers for their attempt to make a fun, original, genre-bending flick, the confusion surrounding Overlord seems justified; it’s a messy, tonally inconsistent film that seems unsure of itself and what it wants to be as a whole.

The plot of Overlord surrounds American paratroopers on the eve of D-Day with a mission to destroy a German radio tower placed atop a French church. On route to their drop zone, their plane is shot down right in an admittedly exhilarating opening scene. It’s graphic, terrifying, and claustrophobic, almost akin to the Omaha Beach scene from Saving Private Ryan. Avery shows off his directorial prowess here by delivering a tense and well-crafted opening with smart cinematography and rattling sound design. Unfortunately, the rest of the film never quite matches this level of quality. It makes me confident that with a better, more consistent script, Avery would be an excellent director for a war drama.

The subsequent adventure follows five survivors: Corporal Ford (Wyatt Russell),  Boyce (Joven Adepo), Tibbet (John Magaro), Chase (Iain De Caestecker) and Dawson (Jacob Anderson). Though Dawson is unexpectedly killed by a landmine almost immediately upon landing, the rest of the survivors attempt to carry out the mission. They then stumble upon a French woman named Chloe (Mathilde Ollivier), who agrees to shelter them in her home next to the church. It’s here where we get a first glance at the more horrific aspects of the film through Chloe’s aunt, whose face, in a very poorly constructed jump scare, is revealed to be disfigured due to Nazi experiments taking place within the church. The war elements here are still at play, but the horror elements continue to be teased, especially with the introduction of Nazi officer Doctor Wafner (Pilou Asbæk) as the film’s antagonist.

Later on, Boyce, in an effort to make it to the scheduled rendezvous point, discovers an underground lab beneath the church and goes face-to-face with the undead (literal Nazi zombies). It’s at this point where any semblance of a war drama is completely thrown out the window; it feels like a completely different movie. What could have been a bold stylistic endeavor here instead reveals itself to be a poorly directed and unfocused mess. There is one scene in particular that is indicative of the entire film as a whole and which highlights both its ultimate strengths and weaknesses. In the scene, Chase is injected with the Nazi’s secret serum, and the tone shifts from horrific to comedic to back to horrific within a matter of seconds. There are shining moments of genuine terror hidden within the film, particularly with the ‘body horror’ elements, but they are unfortunately too few and far between. Even those who are looking for a fun ‘gorefest’ won’t be fully satisfied due to the film’s genre-bending ambitions, which are more of a detriment to the experience as a whole. Maybe if this film was a full-on war drama or horror movie it would make the experience more compelling and watchable. I wouldn’t recommend seeing this film in theaters; it doesn’t do enough to satisfy as a gestalt, but certain individual elements may encourage general audiences to check it out for themselves after its theatrical run.

Score: 2.5/5

Review: ‘The Nutcracker and the Four Realms’ Falls Short of Yuletide Blessings

Based on the German story “The Nutcracker and the Mouse King” by E. T. A. Hoffman, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is Disney’s latest attempt to put a fantastical spin on one of history’s most beloved fairy tales. The film is co-directed by Lasse Hallstrom and Joe Johnston, both of whom carry a respectable resume of films including What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (1993) and October Sky (1999). Unfortunately, I don’t think The Nutcracker and the Four Realms will be joining those films as a well-remembered classic. Despite a star-studded cast including Mackenzie Foy, Keira Knightley, Helen Mirren, and Morgan Freeman, the film falls short of what this Christmas tale truly deserves.

Continue reading “Review: ‘The Nutcracker and the Four Realms’ Falls Short of Yuletide Blessings” →

| Image

Review: Suspiria Channels High Brow Art Horror

The original Suspiria by Dario Argento is a cult classic. Since its original run in the 70s, the film has grown into a sensation of praise, being cited as the one of the definitive giallo films to inspire the American slasher and a horror favorite of both John Carpenter and Edgar Wright. Even with all its praise, it is still very cult-y in many regards. It’s narrative isn’t all that cohesive, the acting is sometimes laughable, and the logic leaves much to be desired. So with plenty of headroom to improve, a remake wouldn’t seem all that unreasonable in 2018.

In steps Luca Guadagnino. After the success of Call Me By Your Name, Guadagnino set his sights on remaking Suspiria with a new vision in mind. Gone is the bright technicolor saturation of the original and in are muted red, brown, and blue pastels. Gone are the infamous maggot, dog, and barb-wire scenes and in are horrifying dance sequences. Gone is the pulpy nature of the original and in are the heavily artistic sensibilities of Guadagnino. The result is a remake which improves on the original by intentionally avoiding what made the original so well liked. Instead, Luca Guadagnino’s Suspiria is a wonderful retelling of a cult classic that channels high brow art to create an intellectually challenging, but equally frightening horror film.

Like the original, Suspiria follows Susie Bannion (Dakota Johnson) as she travels to Berlin with the hopes of joining the famous Helena Markos Dance Company. After being recruited by Madame Blanc (Tilda Swinton), Susie quickly climbs the ranks and becomes the lead in their premiere performance, but with it, strange occurrences begin to occur as students disappear, become ill, or wind up dead. With so many anomalies, students begin to suspect that something other than dance is taking place within the walls of the academy. 

Like Call Me By Your Name before it, Luca Guadagnino has imbued Suspiria with plenty of art house sensibilities. The film is considerably more eloquent than the original and firmly sides with sophisticated art rather than the cult origins of its source material. Earlier this year, fellow writer Jamie Housen wrote how Call Me By Your Name used similar creative decisions to give itself an artistic feel; as he put it, the decisions made in that film may “isolate many audience members,” and for better or worse, the same notion is true here. 

So much of this film has symbolic meaning, hidden subtext, and ulterior motives that will have you asking yourself, “What did I just watch?” (especially when the final act kicks in), but to the film’s credit, that’s what makes it so good. It’s not clear cut like most horror films and it doesn’t concede to traditional horror tropes. In fact, it feels more like an art house film rather than a horror film. Instead of emphasizing as many scares as possible, the film finds ways to build up to them. Rhythmic editing, irregular patterns, graphic matches, and so on all amass to a pervading sense of unease that lingers over the film; it could very well be a textbook study in most cinema classes with regards to its techniques and how it creates unsettling undertones in fairly unsuspecting scenes.

It’s masterful work, but it won’t be for everyone. Few scenes embody gore and violence like you find in other horror flicks, but those that do make up a marginal part of the run time. Clocking in at 2 hours 32 minutes, the film certainly takes its time to reach those moments. Only three major scenes will make audiences wince with terror and the rest is methodical plotting. For this film to work, you need to buy into the smaller moments so the larger ones have a greater impact on you, and unfortunately, I don’t foresee general audiences  willing to do so. If the Cinemascore for Hereditary or It Comes At Night — two films which are without a doubt a part of the best horror films of the decade—are any indication, Suspiria will undeservedly be dismissed by most as a pretentious art piece with little merit. However, to do so would be woefully naive. Under the surface and within its own technical construction, Suspiria is a horror film that is as impressive as it is sinister.

Score: 4.5/5