Reviews

This review contains both spoilers and scorn.

Russel T. Davies was the writer of most of the emotionally relevant and grown-up episodes in the whole of 60 years of the Doctor. And he wrote this garbage.

What can I say? I am not disappointed, just angry with myself for wasting more time with the incresingly increpid and vapid stories of a person, who has been goobled up by itself, in story as well as in real life. There is nothing left, hollow inside and out, no longer any charm or purpose or meaning to it all. Please just go ahead and do the sad turd in - it has had its day. And it was not this day. Not by a long shot.

I guessed the story the second I saw the alien. The oldest trope in the book: Don't judge a book by its (fluffy, soft) cover. And self-assuredly the doctor comes to rescue the day like a TimeLord messiah, rather than the paradoxically unruly narcissist almost incapable of not loving.

Speaking at the level of another turd of mr. Davies, Wizards vs. Aliens, in simplistic terms: It talks down to people. Mr. Davies can only write for adults - dumbing down invariably leads him to speaking louder, when meeting a deaf person - he. Lets. You. Know. What. Is. Happening. As. If. You. Are. Dumb. Pun intended.

It is just SO bad. The 2 previous doctors have been some of the worst writing - everything steven moffat touches turns to imbicile crap not even fit for young people.

Examples? Compare the latter half of Russel T. Davies' work, including Torchwood, with the whole of Steven Moffats as writer for Doctor Who. Moffat cannot not hold a candle to the sensitivity and depth and vision and exuberance and pain and real drama of Davies. All of Moffat's work is just shell - nothing inside. Lines come out emptly, and Oh, how Capaldi struggled with the material - what ever possessed the man to stay on, I will never understand. And Jodie Wittaker... that was just embarrassing. But now Russel T. Davies is infected byt the same bug, that will rot away at children's brains: The inability to respect and understand drama, thus being made ready for the forcefeed of adult crap served on every channel and seen in most movies and series and books and plays.

The collective dumbing down of a generation, and what better vehicle than a popular show spanning generations!

Actually this could be a relevant synopsis for a Doctor Who arc from the good days. "The Lost Generations".

Sad.

Stay away from this!

The story is messy and unresolved, the cats have no characteristics, it is overly violent, cats would never have a king, its basically made by people, who do not know cats and/or have never had a relationship to a cat.

It is kinda strange, as there are rarely any cut-aways in an animation, but not only does the script border on sloppy or lazy and the animation is blurry in parts; the conflicts are also indistinct, the morale almost non-existent (this whole film to have the lead character believe more in herself!), and the Ghibli trademark craziness (Totoro and Howl and the baron etc) is weak and malicious in places - which SHOULD have been resolved during the script phase. Maybe the producers had to force the film longer?

But who cares!

And then a 0/10 for the music from the secondary side streets of European classical music, misplaced and flowing underneath everything as a general stream much akin to elevator music - the word horrible does not cover it! I suspect Disney was somehow part of that choice!

Do not be misled by the first 5 minutes, though its an obvious selling point - but its downhill from there. Who actually paid for this muck?! Who did failed to oversee the productions as they were underway?!

These are minutes I will never get back. Do NOT expose innocent children to this in the belief that it is a Miyazaki masterpiece. It most certainly and in every ways a misplaced product in the history of a nearly faultless animation company!!

Maybe it should be the book I gave 9/10, I don't know, as I unfortunately haven't read it yet. We'll see.

The aliens are very well rendered. Their privileged colonists attitude are dead on, as are the collaborators, the suckers-up and the profiteers. Everyone has a very clear agenda for not opposing the invaders, obviously that it seems impossible to win, which to some is the only way forward, call it cowardly or realistic, as you will, but what is the worst about the script: We see no resistance.

Since this is an allegory in its very clear sense, and satire to boot, in spirit related to "don't look up", what we are seeing is the soul of the capitalist society, where everything is for sale. In some ways more an image of US reality than of the older cultures presently nearly conquered by profit maximisation, though still on a basic level resisting empty ideas and crass behaviour by reminding each other of a LONG history of unnecessary killings and conquest.

Art is your heart. And HEART is what the invaders are trying to buy, cajole, bribe, threaten etc. From humans, belying that they have no heart themselves, because they CAN appreciate it enough to know that some of their species would want to have it for themselves, experience it, enough to pay for it.

There is nothing involving human heart that does not have enough value (true) to the aliens that they are not willing to pay. But art in its blue-eyed ideal is never a matter of making to sell. Its a matter of "kicking against the pricks" (which is not a profane word in this context, censors!) - of resisting suppression and the hardship of life, of showing resilience to which ever controlling factor governing one's life in spirit as well as in factuality and symbolism and understanding of self vs. The other. A way to intend to stay alive.

The human heart as the actual resistance, which is why we see no one with guns and plans to overthrow the invaders. Because our heart - courage, empathy, sympathy, resilience, friendship, care... - is all we really have, when it comes down to it. Not weapons of war and dominance, but the ability to not break, and not as a species, where the living matter more than the dead, but as individuals, integral to themselves by their ability to care and feel and stay!

Yeah, actually, I think I will change it to a 10.

Here is a really good message. You will have wanted to see it, even now, having read this. I promise - if you felt anything from the above.

This is a very troubling script, or version of script.

Usually with real world film: They become a movie in the editing room, and until then they are a lot of loose intentions centered around a script and the abilities of the hired actors and the editor - but the more CGI the movie is working with, the less material to manipulate in the editing room.

What works:

Speciel effects, the (child) actors, maybe except for the Disney darling, who is more Disney daytime show than snotty Earthling in a feature film (she DOES grow a bit), the Lunar landscape, the employed hardware.

What is not so good: The glass domed habitats on the moon and everything taking place in a meteor shower, give me a break!! (Look to the recent series "Silo" (2023) to get an idea of how to build to protect against the environment). The presentation of character motivations, as if a young audience would be confused by less sobby back-stories and more character action explaining motives.

And then: There are some unresolved points to mention. Some really nasty ones. And this is where the move is spoiled and this review spoils the movie.

• The lead is a young man, who discovers late in the movie that apparently his dad (and only parent) did not die by accident, but killed himself to give his boy a brighter future on a new planet away from the dreary minining colony on the moon

• That the place, which is the driving point for the story - and the kids literally drive across the lunar surface to get there, during a meteor storm, no less (HOW dumb are they, who have only ever known the moon?!) - turns out to be a place with nothing but a (beautiful) 3D projection of Earth similar to what Star Trek uses its Holo Deck for - which would only ever function as a painful reminder to the other children of impossible beauty, when...

• Yeah, and that's the next bad plot point: The young lead, following his father's death and insurance money because of that, is to be placed on a cryo ship to a New habitat, 70 years in deep sleep, to arrive as his own 14-year old self. But Boy does not want to - because he wishes to remain with the only friends he has ever known. But he has no say in the matter - he WILL be placed on the ship and sent away. Which is the reason for the kids' drive through the meteor shower to the famed place - which Boy's father made him promise to visit, before he is sent away, following Father's death...

yeah, it sounds complicated, but it really is very simple: Dad kill himself, boy go to Earth-TV to see what unspoiled vibrant LIFE really is, Friends go with boy, Car break down, Friends go to midway station...

• Midway station turns out to be a "model home" - built to lure early-on settlers to the moon, beautiful 60's/70's decor, and only this one was ever built, Mining company failing their promises. And for this reason Friends thrash the place, no questions asked. No beauty in itself is allowed, and the error of the deceit fully allows this destruction.

• And having seen (at the Moon holo deck) how the Earth and LIFE could be, Friends leave to go back to Mining Colony, as Boy is to be sent off, no questions asked by any of the children, Adults rule!, the other children returning to lead dreary lives with memories of a vibrant LIFE they can never experience. And then Lunar car breaks down, spacesuits shut down one by one, rescuers are approaching and then

• cut to the future, Boy wakes up on new planet. Never got to say goodbye to his friends, unconscious he was cryo-shipped away, and upon awakening he is given 70 years of yearly recordings from his best friend as a consolation meant to dissolve the trauma of his unwanted abduction, the journey he specifically asked to NOT go on, the forced journey, caused by Dad's suicide, and caused by his dad's explicit demand to Son to go see the "last of Earth, so he would understand why Dad was making this sacrifice..."

Argh! There is SO much wrong with this script on SO many levels. The transgression of Dad into life of son. The transgression of authorities abiding by dad's insurance. The transgression of putting Boy on cryo ship, AND while unconscious, despite Boy's prior and clearly stated refusal to go. And the children's un-questioned acceptance of the transgression of the Mining authorities. And the transgression into his abduction trauma of simply handing the 14-year old Boy 70 years of goodbyes from his friends maybe 2 hours later subjective time. AND the children's Disney-given right to trash the symbols of the past in an orgy or destruction, perfectly disregarding any understanding of OR desire for man-made beauty. As a statement to the future - in a kind of grovelling for present day children "YOU are the future - you can do what the hell you want with the past".

I DO apologise for this jumbled review, but really... I cannot be bothered to structure my anger and frustration and loathing of the approval of this edit, and maybe of this script altogether, like I said in the beginning (lots of SFX make it hard to cut a film to deviate relevantly from the script - you can almost only remove scenes and plot lines altogether)

4/10 stars I give to the Lunar backdrop and the actors in general. The missing stars...

Watching this without having read any of Pratchetts books (besides the 1st, when it came out), I thoroughly enjoyed the characters, the scenery, the crazy characters, the weird storyline reminiscant of Douglas Adams, the weird characters delightfully reminiscent of Douglas Adams, the inventions, the tech, the non-tech, the magical tech and the characters too.

It was a fun romp. Rump?

I am not sure I liked the allusions to "the round world". I find it hard to believe that anyone as consistent as Pratchett would feel the need to point readers towards "our world" as a way of understanding the Discworld. It feels demeaning, belittling, arrogant, superior etc. Pratchett would have said it better and with fewer-letter words.

But I DID like the characters - an Sam Vines's puppetteer seems to me altogether consistant and in good company with other delusional characters from (mostly) other serials.

The alledged WOKE element... I am tired of forced equality of the US garden variety. BBC America, go suck eggs. BUT, that said - I find the solution, the transition from Forced Beardiness through the dark of the dark and into the light of Self utterly in tune with the otherwise zaniness of the scene. Oh, and the Goblins! How I love the Goblins. And the Talking Sword - it must be a relative of Marvin the Paranoid Android!

My head's full of The Watch - many images framable. I see some of the weaknesses, but YOU try and re-tell a story, and someone says: Well, hurry up, then - we don't have all night! - YOU see how you like that, AND stay true to the gist and spirit of the story at the same time. You take a DEEP breath, and decide you want to INHABIT the story on the surface by depicting the world, and not so much go into deeper motives of the characters and the consequences they face. Which, incidentally is how most US series are made... But on the whole it stayed true in spirit, is what I say: Damn it, look at Sam Vimes. Just look at that snivelling coward he became, and still he managed to (occasionally) point a way that didn't put everyone into mortal peril! I liked his puppeteer, the energy! Hated his unlit cigar, though! That was weak, BBC US. But very much in tune with... well, the version of WOKE from another universe, where everyone is doing ALL THINGS RIGHT and there is no temptation and no pain and no suffering, and no Watch is needed, because everyone is self-regulating. You know, that one. NOT the one Pratchett most certainly intended. But... first things first. Remember how everyone, whoi actually READ Lord of the Rings felt insulted, when the movies came out?! But 2000 pages + plus source and background material is packed into 3 films. Here we only have 1 book depicted in 6 hours. That's not altogether bad.

Actors, scenery, characterisation, 8-ep construction, Goblins etc allows me an 8 out of 10 the last 2/10 are taken from cowardly CEO-choices in USA, who have no regard of authors.

Adequately cast, the 2 leads and the docu-director best.

But a sincerity in the supporting cast, which was satisfying.

Man is infatuated with a woman seen in an 80 year old youtube video, and volunteers to be a test subject for human time travel in order to meet this woman.

Right up until the end I was buying the premise, but since all the previous part of the documentary shot about his decision was the film, we were seeing, who shot the last bit? He arrived at a showing of the movie we had seen, to greet 2 adults in a movie theatre, who were... yeah, who?

Sorry, someone explain it to me, please.

Watch it at filmshortage.

This is actually a chamber play - frame sets it, voice-over, some scripted reminders to stay us in the world outside of "the Castle (actually The Hollywood Castle, all fake and strange), while the whole movie takes place inside of the house.

Elaborate story, just to be able to say that

1. People are losing connections and there is a price to pay

2. Love is about giving

3. Families and humans in general are best off honest and frank.

10-15 years under way, several died, before it was released, missing scenes (I assume) were done with animation (great!! - because the movie doesn't need cinematic violence), all roles were filled more than adequately, it was (according to the director) intentionally made ugly for the first 30 minutes to "lower expectations"), and someone said "it was like Ed Woods had made a movie with Stanley Kubrick.

I was so certain in my evaluation that I went and scored it after 30 minutes - lest I would forget. You can detract from in on many levels, but it has that thing. Where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts added up.

My only real critique is a logical fallacy at the very end. The inventor could not in the recording, which everyone in the world knows, have spoken of the fate of the Lead, before killing himself, as the movie Without Ward takes place after the death of the inventor. Or I missed the mark, where it became a Time Travel movie?

But even this rather big thing for me, as I maintain a list of Time Travel movie from 1895 and on, diminishes in importance, because the film just has "that thing, you know".

8/10 (maybe even 9, if someone can negate my question.)

I was instantly reminded of Bladerunner, and I see many references to it in the images, the tone, the setting, the music - all without the facade of larger-than-life storytelling causing the dream state that makes Bladerunner iconic.

LOVELAND or EXPIRED (a bad title, because it is neither fully correct nor a genuine mis-lead) consists of the grit of reality, even if a bit into the future - not social realism, just the unwavering loss of hope, the emptiness of existence, in the big city or simply among other people. In this sense it is almost merciless - the only redemption that which is given freely from one human to another, posing as the singular meaning of life. And then even that is taken away. Maybe. Possibly, Unclear

I can't really feel it. Wish I could.

The problem is not exactly the acting, or the lighting, or the directing. It's the voice-over, or rather the dramatic necessity of the voice-over. However similar to the 1st theatrical version of Bladerunner, which worked to ease the audience into what was seen as a dark story, to lighten the mood in the tone of snub-nosed detectives of the 1930s - but LOVELAND without the voice-over would simply not work. There would be no heart, because that text cause our lead to be human - except that the voice-over's monologue describes a character COMPLETELY different from the one of the lead - as the filmed lead never says or hints at brain activity at a level of poetry approaching that of the voice-over. Unfortunately and incredible.

I do however love the theme. How a person can literally adapt to a life without feeling, because their hormonal cause of deep emotion is taken from them, and then - if attraction causes them to produce these hormones again - begin to die. But even if the TAKE on the old story of the price of falling in love is actually quite good, it overstays its welcome - as if the director does not trust his audience with the material. Yet another script treatment - possibly to integrate the voice-over - would have made it a greater story and possibly a GREAT film.

And what happened to Hugo Weaving? That was abuse of an interesting role as well as actor. Nasty to just turn a good actor into function. And worse if it happens in the cutting room.

I would love to give it a 10.

But I have to give it 6.4. And if I think more about it, that grade will drop further. But it IS a good story - inside all of the noise, the pretentiousness, the director's fear, the length without real payoff, as I am left to imagine what kind of film it COULD HAVE BEEN.

Basically a young woman with a power, which someone wants to get hold of, thinking there is a person first to find, before they can get to the truth. There is not. And that is the story. Really. There is nothing here. No story. Brilliant elevator effects. The same used to great effect. But nothing else. Very peculiar. Who funds these kinds of things. They must have been drugged or threatened to finance it, or had their thumbs cut off to open bank vaults or something. A story behind the non-existant story. And the film itself anticipates a follow-up. Are they insane? They must me. Seduced by effects. THAT is a big mystery. Make a film of that. I might see it just to reclaim lost time here.

People with low attention spans is what this film is made ABOUT, not FOR. Or rather, it is a message to people with sufficient attention span to DO SOMETHING about the destruction of science through pressure to release, insufficient testing, competition to monetise, incomprehension of the concept of methodical SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE. In that sense it is not a science fiction story.

But, don't worry - it IS! :-)

The trope is tried - the sudden advancement of intellectual capacity. Flowers for Algernon is probably the saddest, as it explores both the loss of innocence and the loss of gained intellectual prowess. QUANTA is however not interested in the actual gain of mental acuity - at least no more than to say high mental facility equals loss of empathy and proper social codes - duh! - but rather explores the actual cost of doing science today as mentioned above. How you cannot NOT own your idea, but someone can own YOU and gag your and tie your hand and foot and prevent you from influencing your creation. As such it criticises every capitalist institution from publisher to streamer, to paid exhibitions and IKEA and more - all institutions, whose contribution seem to be less about emotional, intellectual, soulfull content and more about making investors money.

This, however, may be an image of an old-fashioned ideal of the Maker/Creator as a singular individual - while today very few people can hope to create something and then test its value on recipients, display its use to the world, market it, sell it, to singlehandedly reap the profits - be that acclaim or money or both. Most research and creation today is done in teams - and as such the movie's idea of Lonely creator vs. The desire to publish (before anyone else does) with science presented as a race to the finish line, sorta crosses its own lines to defy its own logic:

1. It want to protect the sole creator - do good science 2. It wants to warn against making bad science, warn against early publication 3. Science is mostly done via other people's money 4. So science is something that is always a product to market and sell - so it IS a race, and you have to get there first

And it kinda solves the whole issue with a fine word call leverage, which in this case is simply blackmail - just to prevent the scientist from paying too high a price for "doing the right thing", thus ending the movie on a good note. As it also tries not to take itself too seriously - through its employment of stereotypical lead characters.

Despite my greviances, I did however give it 7.8, because it is a really romantic notion, this about the sole creator, who learns a little bit about cooperation, ambitious old-age and Asberger youth teaming up. And its well acted by all main character, AND

THE SOUNDTRACK IS AMAZING! The composer is called SONAIRE - and you know, when sometimes you hear a soundtrack and you turn off the sound and the visuals become flat and grey, and you know the sound is just an attempt to lift the film, but failing. NOT so here: To me it feels as if the composers loved the film and they used every ounce of available option to integrate and lift and make LARGER the visual side in such a way that it should have won an award for this integration to something higher than its parts. Because it is AMAZING! And more than a little depressing that I can find no trace of them apart from Soundcloud and Facebook. Maybe you will have better luck!

On with your headphones and CRANK IT UP!

7.8/10.

M. Night Shyamalan in not a visionary filmmaker. I probably agree with his own sentiment, though, that he is in fact trying something different in every movie, but this one is simply bad movie-making. Bad direction, bad, meaningless, stupid script, filming is un-inspired and encumbered in terms of shot length by the need for editing to constantly hide the only trade-off the director has from employing only 2 locations: He cannot show the ageing, because then there is nothing, and he cant leave the primary location. So there is nothing - nothing but tenseful music and meaningless shots of rock walls, sand and waves to fill out the movie-time. Thus, actors working hard at trying to whip up enough energy to be the director's accomplice and hide that fact.

Let me just repeat myself: It is a mono-linear and highly boring movie filled with lack of surprise about absolutely nothing but an idea to speed up ageing for a reason. Which I will keep to myself as a gift to the die-hards, who can spare this never-really-has-been of a director a dime and enough minutes to possibly even feel a bit like the characters in the movie: Aged beyond belief.

My recommendation: Don't do it. It is only a moment in film history, which will soon be forgotten. There are much better films to grow from. Not even cult material here. Not even that.

3/10.

This is an AMAZING movie. Well acted, well written, well directed and well edited with no flaws that I can see or recognise. A pearl of a movie with lots of friction, where the pain of watching makes the writing relevant to the bone.

At its core it is an eternally relevant, social commentary on life in the aftermath of what appears to be divine rejection following a metaphysical event (a white light over a Chinese city "taking" all those, who are "truly in love", leaving only those behind, who do not feel that connection with anyone yet or anymore).

We follow several characters' reactions to the apparent divine "weighing and found wanting" of the majority of people having thought themselves in love. A simply brilliant concept: How does one face one's self-deception, when the mask appears to have been torn of without mercy by some powers of godlike proportions?

In one heartbreaking scene our central protagonist is trying to persuade a whole party of similarly "left behinds" of his marital perfection - that his wife was actually in a different city, when the light took other people in real love.

Its simply an excellent, brilliant, amazing and heartbreaking commentary on modern expectations AND depiction of facets of love - without the romance and oft "glorified" physical passion and desire of falling in love.

I cannot recommend it enough to those, who ever doubted their own love towards someone, or felt it change into something less glamorous than in the moveis...

10/10.

• you will recognise the framework for this movie.

While I will not walk you through the consequences of taking LSD or any other hallucinogenic, there are certain similarities between this type of drug and the consequences of reality/irreality portrayed in the film.

Much of the drama is anchored in the concept of flashbacks - a term employed by users of hallucinogenics to explain recurrences of very vivid memories most often directly hinging on a specific situation of drug use (like a burn-in on an old TFT monitor). And by way of these flashbacks a certainty-dissolving dissonans is replacing forward-movement as if "the past is still taking place" - messing with our male protagonist, who realises something from years past is forgotten and demanding attention, as he returns to his hometown to start a new job.

I have not watched a movie so steeped in the arcana of hallucinogenic-use SO well executed. I can think of other movies representing other drug-groups or dealing with consciousness dissolution, but not any movie showing the actual risks and reality disturbances of LSD without lifted fingers to warn people off, while not actually painting the attractions in gold veneer. For old fiends, this film probably reminds them, why they returned to hallucinogenics after their first use, while quitters are reminded, why they never returned, and both groups understand, why some never come down from their trip :

The world is in the eyes of the beholder, and if personal "beholding" is enhanced by hallucinogenics, some want to see more aspects of the world appearing out of increased data processing, while some just want a return, if possible, to normality residing in un-disrupted serotonin-production in the brain.

While never touching on (possible permanent) physical changes in the brain from drug use, wrapping the confusion of increased data procession during a trip and uncontrollable (possible) flashback replacing future life AROUND the protagonist as a reality coccoon, is simply brilliantly done. Never mind WHAT IS REALITY - no the problem is losing the one you have, apparently for no reason. Apart from consequences of concrete use of hallucinogenics, this also works very well as a general metaphor for life in general: Suddenly your are hit with dire circumstance, dangled head down over an improbable blackness, and everything in your life screams THREAT - but you have no idea, what went wrong.

So, is it a good movie for people, who never dropped acid? I have no idea. MY world was replaced with the similar sensation of multiple words, which is on offer for the protagonist. Which is why I only give the film 9.2 - because he is offered a return to normality.

Even as I love and collect time travel movies, I am reluctant to genre determine this as such - because if regarded as such, it is not a film steeped in drug arcana, but simply the basic do-over-option of Time Travel seen a 1000 times, and if it is NOT intended as a TT movie, then the offer to return to normalcy jars with the very fine depiction of drug confusion. I can live with both options being possible and feel no need to decide. But as I can see from other reviewers not all feel like I do.

9.2/10.

There are many ways to go against the prejudices of one's peers towards one's background, colour, sexuality, opinion, demeanor and so on. Many therapy hours are directly linked to learning how to constructively deal with the load of oppression from the world. A well know other option is to invoke an attitude of cool 'aíre'. OR one could go for direct, aggressive opposition to anyone presenting anything that could be taken as critíque.

Dealing with prejudices as the premise for a short film is never easy. But this young director is not afraid of going into fantasy in order tom give a modern girl a chance to change her OWN views of her family's past.

____ SPOILER ____

The peek into past or future via time machine or looking glass often is the granting of an impossible wish (via magic or pseudo-science). Be it from desperation, sorrow, curiosity, greed or ambition - a barrier exists, which cannot be transcended. A past out of reach or a present not yet here causes the desire for knowledge, 'please give me understanding, please help me in my need (to know)'.

Political calculus is in play every time one accepts or rejects an action performed, an opinion voiced, a deed done, what ever the reason for acceptance or rejection may be. We MEASURE our own life on the basis of others' - but it takes a strong person not to rest our self-image on the perpetual rejection of someone or some thing we like or fear.

The gifted and self aware high school girl in this story cannot bear to share her past with her fellow students. She knows of the photos passed down to her - of family members allegedly of low repute - but suddenly her wish for deeper understanding is granted, via magic: She is given a peek into the past, and will in due course come to realise that her long dead relatives were humans like everyone else, not degenerates or hardened criminals or cold parents and spouses. Just people, victims of circumstance, in the wrong place at the wrong time, or exhausted by life, or less calculating than charlatans exploiting them. Regular people, whose lives are measured by the results of their ill fortune, and all other deeds and their general attempts at loving, caring humanity disregarded, suppressed or long forgotten.

Though the artistic level of the acting in this movie may be lacking and the script is un-honed as such first endeavours usually are, the director Ms. Collins should be commended for the portrayal of an essential idea in the battle against prejudice: 'Dig deeper, people!' is what she says. 'See more! Take a narrow perspective and make it broader! See more normal people and less headlines!'

7/10