User Reviews

Newcomer Dylan Kidd's first feature is a very refreshing exercise in filmmaking. This is an incredible debut for Mr Kidd. Let's hope his next release will be worth of the promise he shows in this one.

Of course, this film would be nothing without the presence of Campbell Scott. Mr. Scott gets better with every new screen appearance. His Roger is a tragic figure in spite of the front he presents to all the women he tries to conquer. The last scenes of Roger in his apartment are nothing short of magnificent. We get to see the real man then, and it's not funny what we see.

The interplay with the nephew, Nick, beautifully played by Jesse Eisenberg, is the best acting of the year.

The women in the film are brilliant too. Isabella Rosellini is incredible as Roger's boss. The ladies in the single bar, Elizabeth Berkley and Jennifer Beals are true portraits of women that are looking for Mr. Right in the wrong places.

This film is a rarity. Discover it.

Meet Roger Swanson, the world's most arrogant and chauvinistic SOB. To him, women are inferior and are to be regarded as conquests. Yet as appalling and thoroughly unlikable as Roger is, he's played by Campbell Scott, who's so good that he makes Roger a person who is quite literally addicting to watch.

After getting dumped by his boss, Joyce (Isabella Rossellini), the ultimate player Roger is more than a little peeved. But when his nephew shows up at his office asking for advice on women, Roger takes it upon himself to show the 16 year old how to be the ultimate womanizer.

Needless to say, this film is about Roger. Unless the performance was pitch-perfect, the film would fall flat on its face. Fortunately, indie-film king Campbell Scott is playing him. Campbell Scott is dynamite. With a razor-sharp wit and an arsenal of one-liners, pick-up lines and other assorted ways of getting sex, Roger is compulsively watchable. There's really not much that he says that hasn't been said before, but Scott is so stunning that it doesn't matter. His dialogue is electric, and Scott attacks it with relish. Yet as darkly funny as some of the things he says are, Scott understands all facets of Roger. His scenes with Joyce are some of the most telling about Roger, and arguably some of his most well-acted. He still has the same penchant for one-liners and shocking views on women, but Scott delivers it with anger and frustration.

His co-stars are great as well. Jesse Eisenberg is terrific as his nervous nephew, Nick. He's young and naiive, and Roger is more than happy to enlighten him. Their two targets, Andrea (Elizabeth Berkley) and Sophie (Jennifer Beals) are terrific. Both are gorgeous, and are totally into Nick (and to his surprise, not the least bit into Roger). Andrea has a wit to match Roger's, while Sophie is nice and falls for Nick. Isabella Rossellini is also solid as Joyce, Roger's boss, who is more than a little annoyed with him when he won't let their affair end.

Dylan Kidd has a terrific script. Unfortunately, this was shot on a hand-held camera, which is not the way to shoot it. However, this was probably due to budget constraints. The only scene that doesn't work is the final one. It's out of character for Roger, and thus rings false.

Yet this film is all Campbell Scott. The cast and script may help, but this is his movie. And Campbell Scott is unforgettable in a performance that in a perfect world, would have garnered him an Oscar. We can only hope that in the future the prestigious award will finally come his way.

This first film of director Dylan Kidd is a smart and entertaining tentative for a male version of 'Sex in the City'. There certainly is a question mark over the morality of a story involving a 16 years young boy tutored into skirt-chase by his adult uncle, and this is one of the very few occasions where the R-rate is justified in my eyes. However, in the era of 'Sex in the City' this genre is already in line with popular entertainment.

The film is smart, extremely well acted, sometimes funny, sometimes moving and overall a pleasant cinema experience. It is probably worth seeing on small screen, as many scenes are intentionally filmed with an unsure hand-held camera. This works well on TV screen, may be a problem in a theater. 8 out of 10 on my personal scale.

Roger Swanson is a coldhearted, fast-talking yuppie businessman who has cynically reduced the man-woman equation to its Darwinian essentials. To Roger, women are objects to be conquered not people to be respected, and he has learned to employ his good looks, charm and over-analytical mind in the service of getting laid. When Nick, his naïve, inexperienced 16-year old nephew comes to town, Roger decides to train the boy in the fine art of manipulation and seduction, taking him out for a night on the town that the youngster will not soon forget.

As conceived by first time writer/director Dylan Kidd, `Roger Dodger' is less a full-fledged narrative and more a series of extended conversations. And I, for one, couldn't be happier, for the dialogue Kidd has come up with is sharp, observant, insightful and witty, as Roger opens up and reveals his unique perspective on the dating scene. He uses his mouth like a machine gun, shooting rounds of rapid-fire, staccato comments, indifferent to who's left standing when he's done. He really has no qualms about `corrupting' his underage nephew, never seeing or caring about the corrosive effect he may be having on him. In the process, we learn quite a bit about Roger as a person, most especially the aloofness he feels from others and his inability to make any kind of emotional connection that really works. Long estranged from his father and sister, Roger is also facing a breakup with the older woman he's recently come to fancy (his boss in fact). Roger is a humorous figure but also an immensely sad one, for he really does seem - for all his bravado and bluster to the contrary - to be a lonely, unhappy guy. We are simultaneously drawn to him by his confidence and charisma and repelled by his smarminess and coldness, just like the characters in the film. As Roger, Campbell Scott does a superb job bringing out both of those seemingly contradictory qualities. A non-stop talker, Roger knows how to draw all the attention in the room to himself; he is (at the risk of mixing my metaphors here) like a chattering vortex up there on the screen and we can't help but be sucked in by his personality and presence. No wonder Scott won the 2002 award for Best Actor from the National Board of Review. In fact, I haven't seen a performance this smooth, alive and energetic in a very long time. Equally impressive is young Jesse Eisenberg whose wide-eyed innocence and youthful decency provide an effective counterpoint to the brash but empty Roger. Isabella Rossellini, Elizabeth Berkley and Jennifer Beals also turn in outstanding performances as the various ladies who play a part in the two men's adventure.

In his debut film, Kidd shows himself to be in full control of his medium. He employs a jittery, handheld camera in almost every scene, a technique that may bother some people but which heightens the sense of realism so essential to the nature of the story. In this way, the audience is made to feel almost like an eavesdropper on the various conversations. Kidd should also be commended - in this day of maximum special effects and minimal verbiage - for allowing his characters to speak at great length on any number of topics. Many another filmmaker would have felt intimidated by such a heavy reliance on dialogue. Kidd, obviously, feels intoxicated by the beauty of language and his intoxication becomes ours.

Roger is a fascinating case study mainly because we feel so ambivalent in our attitude towards him. Just as we are about to consign him to the category of heartless, cold-blooded b***ard, he wins us over by showing us that barest glimmer of humanity that peeks out every so often from beneath his well-oiled exterior.

`Roger Dodger' is not only an intriguing, amusing and poignant tale of realtionships and sex in the modern world, but a confident first film that augurs well for its gifted young maker.

Roger Swanson (Campbell Scott) scores every night, he likes to say. However, he has a breakup with his boss and lover (well, duh…) Joyce (Isabella Rossellini), and his 16-year-old nephew Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) shows up, saying that he was looking at colleges in the New York area and decided to give his favorite Uncle Roger a visit. Roger talks a mile a minute, very suave like, and decides to take Nick out on the town in search of sex, which, he claims, is `everywhere'.

A fine, inventive movie, with good acting by the leads. Not many movies would dare to go out on a limb, and this isn't a Hollywood movie (it's distributed by Artisan), but those who have seen it have enjoyed it. Its script, by director Dylan Kidd, is often funny, and could go as Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask Part 2, since Nick is basically naïve and oblivious. However, the script leads into the first problem I would like to talk about.

Although funny at many times, during the many lulls, the drama, which is supposed to ensue, doesn't ensue. I didn't feel touched or sympathetic or anything during the `dramatic' sequences, especially during the end, but at least it goes back to comedy, with the fate of Roger and Nick. The script has many laugh-out-loud moments, however. I love the first scene, where Roger is talking to Joyce, Donovan (Ben Shenkman), and Donna (Mina Badie) at the restaurant, and he's going on all about Darwin and evolution, and the eventual fate of the genders. This is a good introduction to Roger: lots of talk, but he can't back it up, and you can tell he has now idea what in the world he is actually saying.

Scott won a few awards for his performance in Roger Dodger, which I can understand. He totally got into his role, and at times it didn't seem like he was acting, everything was coming naturally to him. An example of that is when he's talking to Nick about different ways to look at women (which is about a 10 minute take), he just keeps on talking and talking like it wasn't scripted. I could almost hear the director laughing in the background. I hope that this bounces his career more, because he is a great actor. Eisenberg was also very good as the nervous teen, he also seemed to know what he was doing.

Another point I really liked was the music. It was crystalline, and it sounded solid, which is probably symbolism for Roger: he thinks he's solid with the women, but he really has as much to learn as the student. He thinks that he knows everything that's there, but he doesn't really, and he figures that out throughout the movie. To be forewarned is to be forearmed, so here I go: if you're a feminist or against sexism, this isn't really your movie. Roger's view of women won't appeal to those, but he does talk about that the female sex will eventually rule the earth and men will be their slave (aren't they already?). If you don't mind, though, it's a very good movie that may not deserve all of the acclaim it's getting but is still better than most of the Hollywood drek that's out now.

My rating: 7/10

Rated R for sexuality and language.

I wouldn't have thought from previews that "Roger Dodger" would have an ounce of romance in it, but it does. The scene between Elizabeth Berkeley, Jennifer Beals (both very good by the way--who would have thought?) and Roger's nephew is incredibly sweet and touching, but without being overly sentimental or cloying. Campbell Scott gives a fabulous performance as Roger, illustrating how broad his acting range is. My only complaint with the movie is its incredibly annoying cinematography. All of the compositions are cluttered and claustrophobic, sometimes so much so that the main focus of the shot is entirely obscured. And this trend toward hand-held cameras needs to be stopped. I think directors feel that hand-held cinematography lends a gritty, realistic point of view to their films, but more frequently it serves only to distract.

But a fairly minor quibble about an otherwise very good film.

Grade: A-

Rather unpleasant movie with a terrific performance by Scott as a quick-witted chauvinist. I liked the opening scene best, which was sharp and funny and drew Scott's character very nicely, but I felt the movie never had a clear idea of its own intentions and never knew where it was going, which is why it never really gets anywhere.

Now, on the one hand I can understand not wanting to make the movie pat, not wanting to spell things out for the viewer, but I just felt not enough was done with Scott's obvious rage and self-destructive behavior. The movie gives you a fairly awful person but veers uncomfortably between showing you him at his worst and trying to work up some empathy with him, a gambit that fails because the character is always kept at an emotional distance.

I gave this 7/10 but I'm not sure if it deserved something that high or not. But it is intriguing.

By the way, the cinematography, which has elicited a lot of hostility, didn't bother me at all. I saw it on TV, perhaps it's more bothersome in the theater.

Roger dodger is a script driven masterpiece that examines theories of manhood while presenting you with the journey of a adult into adulthood (Roger). This transforms the formulaic "player" movie into a critique on the psyche of men with the an abrasive honesty that only a perfect script can. The cast portray's each character with a humanity that breaths life to the script. The attention to detail coupled with the depth of story makes this movie amazing to watch and better when re-watched. It is a testament to the possibilities of independent film.

The player movie has been done to death. Usually there is one guy with all the answers who can diagnose women and has the looks and ability to get them. Rarely are the motivations of these characters or the depths of the personalities ever examined in an real extent in a movie. Usually there flaws are the some of childhood tragedy/ needing to find the right person to settle down. In Roger Dodger the flaws of Roger and his "gifts" are presented to you unfiltered. You build an understanding of who he is by following how he interacts with people. Its through his flaws you realize that for all of his talent it takes a child to teach him about maturity.

This happens in a way that is so strong that people who've watched and like the movie can debate about the motivations of Roger. The remaining cast does an amazing job of presenting dynamic characters who shape Rogers experience while establishing a strong characters themselves.

I don't want to shape your movies experience so i suggest you watch the movie and study how they shape and present the characters. The couldn't have made this movie better.

In Manhattan, the arrogant, cynical and witty Roger Swanson (Campbell Scott) is a publicist of an advertisement agency owned by Joyce (Isabella Rossellini), who is also his lover. Joyce breaks their relationship due to the lack of maturity and manipulative behavior of Roger. Meanwhile, his sixteen years old nephew from Ohio Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) unexpectedly arrives in his office asking Roger to teach him how to seduce women. Along the night, Roger drags Nick into New York nightlife providing directions about women.

"Roger Dodger" is a great study of two characters: the corruptive, arrogant and cynical Roger and his naive and pure Nick. What I liked most in this amoral urban tale is the counterpoint of their actions. The personality of Roger, brilliantly played by Scott Campbell, is very well developed, but if his methods of approaching women work or not it is never clear. When the two ladies in the bar leave him, he says to Nick that his tactic was "bad uncle, good nephew". Later he confesses to Nick that he does not necessarily score one woman per night, as he previously mentioned. He blows his relationship with Joyce and loses his job due to his immaturity and arrogance. His fail safe ending of the night was in a brothel. Therefore, it seems that his despicable procedures are not so well-succeed as Nick and his mother believe. Nick is the symbol of innocence, and curiously the women in the bar liked his behavior, probably recalling their youths. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Roger, o Conquistador" ("Roger, the Conqueror")

I'm sure most people won't find my comment to be of much value, but to those of you with any tendency toward motion sickness, please read on...

I cannot comment on the bulk of the content of this film, as I only saw a very few minutes of it. I'm afraid the shaking camera was almost enough to induce seizures, and was simply more than I was willing to bear. (Does anyone still think this type of camera-work adds to the cinematic value of a film?) I suppose some people still consider a shaking camera to be artistic in some way, but as for me, this poor camera work constantly reminds of two things:

1) that I'm watching a poorly filmed movie, with no chance of really getting into the story, and...

2) that I need to add Dramamine to my shopping list

Luckily, I borrowed this movie from the library, so I'm only out my gas money. Oddly, I still feel somewhat ripped off. (Must be those high gas prices...)

Jesse Eisenberg's first ever major film, Roger Dodger, is a unique coming-of-age story with enough simplicity on the surface and enough complexity beneath it to take the form of an impressively entertaining study of the social interactions between men and women. As writer/director Dylan Kidd's first project and winner of the Best Feature Film Award at the first ever Tribeca Film Festival in 2002, this surprisingly well-done little gem will leave you wondering why it wasn't a bigger commercial success and why Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland, The Social Network) is the only member of its production that you still see in the business on a regular basis. (No discredit to Jesse; if there's anything Roger Dodger does reinforce, it's the fact that he deserves every bit of success that he's achieved).

"Sex is everywhere," Roger Swanson, played by the show-stealing Campbell Scott (Dying Young, Big Night), tells his socially lost, 16-year old nephew, Nick (Eisenberg). Nick has traveled alone to New York City in the hopes of convincing his smooth-talking Uncle Roger into teaching him the ways of seduction so that he might end his romantic troubles by finally getting a girl and losing his virginity. While Roger is overwhelmingly cynical, incessantly arrogant, and often brutally forthright (blatantly exemplified by the motto he applies to the advertising business– "You can't sell a product without first making people feel bad"), there is no one who knows the rules of the game better. He solidifies his tactics with an impeccable track record; he takes a woman home "every night".

Originally reluctant to open up his one man band to the prospect of apprenticeship, Roger agrees to spread his wisdom to Nick. What follows is a night out in the city that never sleeps in a crash course in charming women. From hilariously ridiculous scenes of the two scouting out women on the streets to unexpectedly profound conversations at a bar, the night proves to be an open examination of these two previously mysterious characters.

However, the movie is far from simply a character study. While Scott's and Eisenberg's performances are near-perfect, the execution of the film ensures that its value is not dependent upon the quality of the acting. Behind a simple plot and seemingly simple characters is a noteworthy script that delivers witty, realistic dialogue and intriguing conversations. Free from Hollywood-ized n0nsense and feel-good drivel, the scenes between the two guys and the two women they engage at a bar are perhaps the film's best, showcasing not only Roger's subtle tricks and Nick's charming innocence, but also the natural chemistry between Scott and Eisenberg and the vulnerabilities they both carefully expose with their characters.

The chaotic events of the night lead to an ending that, while it strays slightly from the tone of the rest of the movie and perhaps comes a bit too suddenly, is perfectly raw and unexpected. I can't remember being more satisfied with an ending in a good while.

All in all, Roger Dodger teaches the common moviegoer that not all good indie flicks have to be about vibrant colors, trendy folk music, and quirky families (Little Miss Sunshine, Juno). And more importantly, this smart man's American Pie (even if that sounds like an oxymoron) proves that not every coming-of-age, cherry-popping comedy (or maybe more dramedy, in this case) has to be sullied with sloppy and overdone high school stereotypes, eye-rolling dialogue, and unlikable characters of both genders.

I'm hooked, Jesse. Keep making movies.

Here is a great example of how an ending can make or break a movie. I thought this movie had some really great highs, but mostly was filled with lows. In the middle of the movie, we're treated with this great high, then we're kicked in the crotch (almost literally) and hit the lowest of lows. The girls ride off in the cab. Ugh, it would've been so great. But I thought the ending was brilliant and made the movie worth watching again. I have a feeling this is one of those that gets better on multiple viewings.

My biggest problem was the synopsis says the guy is a Chauvinist, and he's NOT. He doesn't talk down to women, he talks down to two women, and not because there're women, just cause he's a arrogant jerk. Actually he is in love with a powerful woman, this love is WAAAAY out of character for him, not cause he's a chauvinist, but because it's just not him.

The movies is actually filled with many loose ends, like the "Last Resort" What would the uncle pull his nephew out then apologize?? Thankfully, most of the loose ends don't matter, because of the HIGH highs.

I was unable to watch this film to completion due to the poor cinematography. I understand that the bobbing and weaving camera technique is done for effect, but when the "effect" makes it unwatchable, the director has failed from my perspective.

As long as I have a free will, I can walk out of a poor film. There are too many good films to see for me to tolerate the nausea created by one man's "art form".

ROGER DODGER (2002) ***1/2 Campbell Scott, Jesse Eisenberg, Isabella Rosselini, Elizabeth Berkley, Jennifer Beals. Scott gives a remarkable performance as a silver-tongued misanthropic New York advertising copywriter facing a personal crises that only takes fuel to the fire when his teenage nephew Eisenberg (a nice thurst and parry polar opposite turn) comes to visit him to gain some insight to his ‘lady killing' social skills which leads to a night of unveiling some inner demons via his fast-talking eviscerations and character assassinations in a furiously funny way. Scott's bravura (and brave) take on a smart, verbose and insecure jerk straddles the fine line of being a complete monster and an honest to goodness dyed-in-the-wool cynic on the subject of the fairer sex (who are represented smartly by Rosselini as his on-the-skids lover/employer and Berkley and Beals as two young women the relatives hit on in an eye-opening lesson in the battle of the sexes and what it really means to be a man. A real sleeper gem with wickedly snaring arch humor to spare. Written and directed by novice filmmaker Dylan Kidd is one of the few politically incorrect triumphs in recent memory.

The movies offers funny scenes, but its intentions are left unclear. Not being a native speaker, the English, that Roger showcased, was something to note. I would not recommend this movie for men, who are trying to obtain knowledge about the dating game though. It lacks the essentials of seduction and the learning process of Nick is not rightly paced. The ending leaves something to be desired. The idea behind the movie is fresh and innovative, but the realisation is mediocre If you are not into very in depth movies, this one is for you.

Roger (Campbell Scott) is a great talker. Being an intelligent, modern guy, he has opinions on everything and anything, usually garnering an audience when he is speaking. Yet, he is a pain in the bottom quite often. He knows when to push buttons and offend people, even among his circle of friends and co-workers. One evening, the older woman he has been seeing (Isabella Rosselini) breaks things off. As she is also his supervisor at an advertising firm, this makes the situation difficult. Roger is in disbelief. Isn't he the greatest thing since sliced bread? How dare she dump him? Just at this moment, his shy nephew turns up for a visit. He is in town, checking out Columbia as a possible college, and hoping Roger can give him some tips on women. Roger agrees to take his young relative out on the town, teaching him the ways men can pick up females. But, is his advice truly helpful? All one can say is, mamas don't let your babies grow up to be jerks, like Roger. Yes, he is a handsome, rich, and intelligent, making him attractive to women. But, he is a rotter, through and through, one who has no respect for women in the final analysis. For Roger, to score with a lady is the most important thing, and what happens next of smaller consequence. As such, he can hardly give any advice worth hearing. Scott is very fine in his portrayal of Roger, making him a pretty loathsome figure, despite his great looks. Rosselini also shines in a lesser but very important role. The rest of the cast, including Jennifer Beals and Elizabeth Berkley, is likewise very nice, especially the young man playing the nephew. Sets, costumes, and production values are high. Be aware, however, that this is not a romantic comedy. Rather, it is an exploration of a ladies man and hustler who thinks the world is his oyster, much to the detriment of himself and those around him. In this light, it is an interesting psychological study, indeed. But, for those who like their movies all sweetness and light, steer clear of this one.

After a slew of film festival back-slapping (Tribeca, Spirit), writer/director Kidd had high expectations for P.S. Not to get ahead of myself, but after watching that disappointment I had to re-rent Rodger Doger and remember what I liked so much about his storytelling.

Roger Dodger follows a "day-in-the-life" of young Nick (Eisenberg), who craves becoming a MAN by losing his virginity and looking to his uncle Roger (Scott) for guidance in the ways of manhood, women, and the social habits of Manhattan's single men and women. Unfortunately for Roger, he's a player in the worst sense. Bitter because of a hard life, a crummy job, a boss and girlfriend who uses him more than he admits (played beautifully by Rossellini), the role of teacher-student changes as both Roger and Nick begin to discover more about their own hopes and realities after meeting two strangers (Beals and Berkeley) and a haunting scene in a New York brothel.

This is the Kidd that's brilliant.

Scott is terrific as an arrogant jerk, a ladies man who teaches the fine art of picking up women to his nephew. This is an impressive film debut for Kidd in the triple roles of producer, director, and writer. The screenplay is quite good, full of keen observations about the male psyche. As producer, however, Kidd should have hired a competent director. So annoying is the camera work in this film that this man should not be allowed anywhere near a camera. Not only is the shaky hand-held camera nauseating but most of the shots are in extreme closeups with lots of blurry images. It is a shame that the good acting and script are undermined by the atrocious direction.

Campbell Scott's character, Roger, is not only amoral but he's someone who feeds off of his amorality, loves it. Then he is confronted with his nephew, who wants help to have sex with women but still hangs on to his moral center throughout the movie, often desperately. Nick is a good kid put down again and again by his arrogant uncle.

In the end, at the brothel, the amoral Roger must make a moral decision. He sees his nephew for frail human being, someone who needs compassion. From this dark drama there is an emotional arc worth seeing.

It is not as if Roger sees the light and becomes a puritan, but he does become someone who wants to help people, teaching his greatest skill, talking to women. This is a morality play, and it is a very good one.

'Roger Dodger' is a wasted opportunity, a film with a great central character but no idea of what to do with him. Roger is a predatory male, a womaniser who feeds off weakness, a wise guy whose every comment carries sexual intent, and who is in consequence completely incapable of ever establishing a truly meaningful relationship. Beneath the slick patter, Roger is desperate, though he'd never let himself, let alone anyone else, know this. The potential is here for a great black comedy, but instead we get a curious plot, whereby Roger attempts to induce a teen-aged relative into the world of sex. The problem is that it's completely unclear what Roger's motivation is mean to be during this episode - he varies from trying to force his nephew to sleep with a comatose woman, to relying on this 16-year old to pull 30-something women for him. It all comes across as forced and unnatural, and our insights into Roger's character seem simplified, not deepened, by the clumsy chain of events. He could surely have carried a subtler movie. As it is, 'Roger Dodger' is a reasonably fresh film, but not an especially good one.

Excellent acting. Enjoyable movie. It lags at times and the humour is sparse but it is very well acted. The kid is good too. I didn't even mind Elizabeth 'what's-her- face'. It doesn't finish too strong though and Campbell Scott's character is not too likable and doesn't really chang in the movie. I laughed at many lines in the flick but it was a Saturdat afternoon and I might have laughed at anything. I don't know what I think now...I might tell someone else to check it out but they probably won't listen to me.

It's not often that I actually bother to write a review of a film but I feel it only fair to post my review in order to prevent the general public wasting their precious time on a film that really is one of the worst piles of garbage I have watched in a very long time. There is one thing I have to hand to the producers of this film which is 10/10 for finding the most highly annoying actor (the main character) and also for providing the most bizarre and quite frankly headache inducing way of filming a movie - if that's what you could call it. Furthermore why this is described as a comedy is beyond me. It is simply not funny and totally depressing and odd! So if you have seen this film listed on Netflix don't bother cause it's awful.