The Wolverine (James Mangold, 2013)

The man with the adamantium skeleton is back. No "X-Men" word in the title, just his name, Wolverine AKA Logan goes solo for the second time after X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Hood, 2009). The comic story arc of Wolverine in Japan is well known among X-Men-philes. So expect to see Katana wielding samurai and ninjas. 

The prologue shows Logan being held captive by the Japanese troops in Nagasaki during WW2. The American B-52 bomber was coming to drop the A-Bomb, he saved Yashida's life, a Japanese soldier. Switching back to current time, we see Logan had nightmares about his former lover Jean Grey (Famkee Janssen returned, remind me of the creepy Leonardo Di Caprio character's wife in Nolan's Inception). The remorse Logan is haunted by his past, the guilt consumes him in many ways. He went for secluded life in the wild, this is where the plot picks up after the event in X-Men: The Last Stand (Ratner, 2006).

This fish-out-of-water plot shows how Logan is called upon to bid farewell to his long time friend, a dying old man Yashida, who he saved half a century ago. Yashida is grateful for Logan's deed and wants to repay him by offering something that everyone has, except him: Mortality. The so called mortality curse possessed by Logan has already been made clear in the previous X-Men Origins movie. The idea of wiping off the Wolverine's memory is essentially the same as ending his life. Things get knotty when Yashida's grand daughter, Mariko is hunted by Yakuza gangs, this is where Wolverine cross swords (or cross swords with claws for that matter) with his opponents.

If there is one movie the bankable star Hugh Jackman guarantee to carry a movie on his own, it is the portrayal of the resentful feral mutant which makes him always watchable. From the three X-men movies, to the spin-off X-Men Origins: Wolverine, down to the eye catching cameo appearance in prequel X-Men: First Class. Having said that, in this latest chapter, the lack of memorable supporting casts and the decent script let him down big time. Logan's supposedly love interest, Mariko, besides he saves her from suicide and escape with her during the funeral scene, where is their sudden mutual affection coming from? Pure bad writing, period. Then there is the red-haired Yukio, bodyguard (do not ask me why) of Logan, who serves little purpose in the movie. 

I will not be the minority who think Logan fighting with the gun-trotting Yakuza members is not as exciting as fighting with another equally matched mutants, is it? The lack of worthy villains soften the intensity factor. The blonde who played the forked tongue mutant, who I reckon her special ability is ..... spreading disease (?) and superhuman strength (?), hardly a third tier X-Men character in special power hierarchy. Are we suppose to believe she can challenge Wolverine's superiority? Then there is this finale's villain (the name I should remain a secret) disinterested me by the time the plot got to there.

The funeral set piece is one of the highlights and the prologue is the best scene in the entire movie, it just went down hill afterwards. The plot does not bring anything new to the table, aside from he is in a culturally different territory and temporary loses the self-healing power. I yawned as much as Wolverine's adamantium claws pop out from his fists throughout the movie. As far as a X-Men theme movie goes, I am surprise by the bland effort.









1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Man of Steel (Zack Snyder, 2013)

* * * * *

Jor-El: You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders. 

* * * * *

Jonathan Kent:        You are the answer, son. You are the answer to "are we alone in the universe".

Young Clark Kent : Can I just .... keep pretending I am your son?
Jonathan Kent:        You are my son. And I have to believe that you were sent here for a reason. And even if it takes the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.

* * * * *

Jonathan Kent: [to young Clark Kent] You are not just anyone. One day, you are going to have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, it's going to change the world.

* * * * *

Look, it's a no longer a bird, nor is a plane......it's Superman Begins! For decades since 1970s, Christopher Reeve was the person who made us believe a man could fly on the screen. The moment our favourite Kryptonian son dons the blue suit with red cape, bearing the "S" symbol on his chest, he is among the most recognized icon in the world. Bryan Singer briefly revived the immortalized superhero in 2006 but not quite able to make a lasting impression from the mainstream audience notably the comic book geeks.

The movie studio has a massive task to make a Superman movie without the heavily potential cheesy factor. We all know he is the beacon of Hope, Truth and Justice, he is the saviour of mankind, the Mr Nice Guy. He has no weakness, virtually indestructable (OK calm down, kryptonite does not rear its head yet). Deep down he did not suffer from childhood trauma unlike Bruce Wayne, who has tragically lost his parents during early days, Batman was a vigilante blinded by the rage and vengeance he vowed to take. Contrariwise, Superman is always portrayed as a jolly good fellow inside out. Let's be honest, a do-gooder character is boring, modern sophisticated audience wants to know how and why is the do-gooder's inner struggling with, or has he got any dark secret waiting to be unveiled.

Zack Snyder, who was handed the directorial task, must have expect a walk in the park. After all he directed the visually astounding 300 and Watchmen movies. The gestation of Man of Steel actually came from the teaming of Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, the powerhouse that brought us The Dark Knight trilogy. Does that mean we can expect the same dark and gritty approach of re-booting Superman? Well, not really. What Goyer and Nolan did was to emphasize Kal-El as an isolated alien, not merely instilling him as a superhero from planet Krypton. Man of Steel is a loosely retelling of Superman I and II movies (in 1978 and 1980) minus the villain character Lex Luthor. The prologue was panned out as in 1978's version, planet Krypton was on the brink of destruction, the newly born Kal-El was forced to send away to Earth by his biological parents. In this new version, we get to see more of the Kryptonian's world and their technology. We get to find out about their social structure as well. It is notable to mention that the Superman suit underwent a major facelift. The suit was revamped to darker coloured with textured surface, ditching red undergarment (hooray to that!) and yellow belt although the red cape remains.  the "S" crest was engraved.

Briton Henry Cavill gaves a self assured Superman-esque performance, Christopher Reeve would have nodded with approval. He looks muscularly imposing in the newly designed suit, and the alter-ego gawky Clark Kent portrayal is nowhere to be seen yet. The two patriarch figures portrayed by Russell Crowe as Jor-El and Kevin Costner as Papa Kent are my favourite parts. Despite not having much screen time, they certainly left a lasting impression. Hope to see more of them for the coming sequel.

I am all for non linear narration depicting what makes Superman the person he is, how the lonely descendant of Krypton was nurtured by his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha in a small town farm from Kansas. While trying to find out about his true identity and his purpose in this world, he was cautioned by papa Kent not to reveal his super human abilities eventhough lives may be at stake. Those tiny details such as the first time the very young Clark discovered his power and could not control it added a nice touch to it. The way the screenplay panned out in the first half, told in bits and pieces flashbacks makes this movie such a winner. The riveting first half is about the destruction of Krypton planet to how Clark Kent embarking on quest to discover his true origin. The latter part is all about the arrival of villains General Zod et al and how the world discovered an alien has been living among them.

I do felt the movie suffered from narrative pacing problem in the second half of the movie, where the big fighting sequence between Superman and General Zod et al is a tad overkill. I have not timed it, it could be a straight 20 minutes of Superman and General Zod punching each other out. See how Metropolis' skyscrapers tumbling down, people fleeing and perishing, it is the same old, same old stuffs like watching Transformers movies. I would trade Superman and Zod punching each other scenes with Clark Kent character development scenes in a heartbeat.
 

This movie could be the classic in the making if not marred by the never ending CGI fighting sequence at the end. Man of Steel is now the definitive version in modern time to tell the story of Kal-El origin. In fact I boldly proclaim that this movie is going to be better with repeated viewings, as what I thought of Batman Begins (Nolan, 2005)

Unforgettable scene: It gave me a shiver to see the Clark Kent kid with the red cape plays with the dog under the watching eyes of papa Kent, it is so poetically awesome, the signature fists-on-his-hip pose with the fluttering cape!

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Iron Man 3 (Shane Black, 2013)

Back in year 2008, the first Iron Man movie was introduced to the cinematic world. It kickstarted the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), paved the way for the character of Hulk, Thor, Captain America to star in their standalone movie under the banner of Marvel Studios. Phase 1 of MCU ended with a bang in The Avengers (Whedon, 2012).

So now what can Iron Man 3 offers to us apart from having to face new villain? The latest installment has Tony Stark suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, he has nightmare sleeping at night or not sleeping at all. You may wonder why a super wealthy guy having a girl he loves and who can literally build anything any man can built has anything to worry about? Well, simply put, he is just a man in a can after all. The entire chapter in The Avengers was a whole new ballgame for Tony Stark. He discovered about alien invasion, demi-god from other dimension (Thor and Loki). He went into wormhole, fought with alien and almost die from it. Bear in mind in pre-Avengers movie timeline, since his escape from the Afganistan cave, he only fought with terrorist and mortal human beings with armour.

The new nemesis, in the form of The Mandarin, I love how the great Ben Kingsley portrays the menacing and wacky role. He has a significant different origin and character compare to the comic books. The dashing looking Guy Pearce plays Aldrich Killian, the inventor of Extremis virus and which may or may not has close allied with The Mandarin. The twist plotline about The Mandarin and Aldrich Killian may not goes down well with comic book purists, I admit it kind of take away Mandarin's authoritative presence in the end, despite the cleverness of the disguise plot. Then of course Gwyneth Paltrow returns as Tony's love interest Pepper Potts, who has a bigger role this time. Happy Hogan who was no longer a body guard to Tony Stark anymore, What? Tony Stark needs a bodyguard? War Machine was re-painted in red, blue and white, in case you do not aware of the flag-waving spirit, it was renamed to Iron Patriot for the sake of the obviousness.

Jon Favreau, the director of first two Iron Man movies replaced by Shane Black, who I did not notice stamping any distinctive directorial mark in the movie, however as a co-screentwriter, his snippy one-liners are reminicence of his 1980s & 1990s buddy cop movies. You can really see the technology advance of the metal suit throughout the Iron Man trilogy, frrom the crude prototype from Afganistan mountain cave to the brief case-like Suit as in Monte Carlo scene in second movie. Now Tony Stark is able to use neuro-controlled headgear to command his armour suit assemble to his body piece by piece. Moreover, he has a whole army of unmanned Iron Man at his disposal.

The middle act of the movie is set in a small town during Christmas season (in fact the whole movie is). Tony Stark takes shelter befriends a boy, need his assistance to recharge his iron suit. Here is where the storyline strip off his armoury complacency. When he is in the Iron Man suit, there is nothing onslaught that he cannot address (just remember what he went through with his Avengers fellows). Take away his hi tech suit, all left underneath is his resourcefulness to turn things around, a side that we seldom get to see.

 

I will never get tired of watching Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, I would bring up the old cliche of "he was born to play this role" if I have to, seriously I just cannnot see other actor who will be as charmingly arrogant as he is. "I am Iron Man", he quipped. What stand out from other Iron Man story is, Tony Stark does not hide behind the mask of Iron Man, he does not shy away of letting the whole world knows that he is Iron Man indeed. It is important to know that at the end the movie, I am still eager for another chapter of Tony Stark story. The viewing experience of Iron Man 3 is marginally enjoyable than the pedecessor, while the first and original Iron Man movie is still my favourite among three

 

 

 

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012)

"D-j-a-n-g-o, the D is silent"

The D may be silent, but the sound of flesh wound's splattering blood signals the return of the flamboyant Quentin Tarantino (QT). After a 3 years hiatus followed by WWII Nazi occupied revenge tale, my favourite auteur is back with another revenge theme western genre, I repeat, Quentin did western, can it get any cooler than it sounds? The answer is a resounding yes.

I bet he still having the fond memory from watching countless of western movies such as Django (Corbucci, 1966) and Sergio Leone's Dollar trilogy et al which help create the whole Spaghetti Western fad. Though I must say it is not that he had not paid homage to the Spaghetti Western genre before: He already did it in Kill Bill Volume 1 and 2 a few years ago.

If you are looking for historical fact about the slavery in US Civil War, go ahead and switch to TV History Channel; if you are yearning for Quentin's throwback western feature, waste no time and join the pandemonium! Do not worry about the long running time of 2 hours 45 minutes, because you will hardly notice it, though the non linear narrative style is nowhere to be seen this time. Django Unchained tackles the subjects of slavery and racism, blends with
QT's richly quotable dialogues and ultra violence style throughout the course of the movie. Try not be too disturbed by how Quentin poke fun at racism, the stupidity of mankind and what not. To be honest, I guiltily find it mighty hilarious with the portrayal of racial bigotry. This is an incredible movie all around, matching the standard of the man himself, a vastly entertaining novelty, which is what a fine moviemaking is all about.

Like Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds, The revenge theme is what Django Unchained made of. The movie sets 2 years before the American Civil War, a German dentist turned bounty hunter Dr Schulz (played by Christoph Waltz) and a freed slave Django (Jamie Foxx) team up to headhunt US government's wanted men and on the quest to find Django's missing wife (Kerry Washington). The casting is top notch as usual for QT standard, Christoph Waltz gave a very assured performance while the intensity of Jamie Foxx added dimension to the Django character. Then there is Leonardo Di Caprio as the francophile plantation owner Calvin Candie, a pure impersonation of evil. Samuel L. Jackson is Stephen the head servant, who is Calvin Candie's eyes and ears in running the plantation. His intimidating stare is enough to scare anyone pissing in their pants.

There are so many moment to be savoured such as The pre-KKK bag head scene had me laughed so hard I nearly choke myself. The "three dimples in a black man's skull theory" monologue coldly delivered by LeonardoDiCaprio about genetic inferiority. Interestingly, that scene draws parallel with the "Italians are spawned by N*gg*r " speech from True Romance (Tony Scott, 1993), scripted by none other than QT himself. The dialogues in the movies are written in a very typical Tarantino-esque style, you know, the usual long winded verbosity. The following are some typical example of the Quentin's scripted dialogues:

Dr Schulz: My good man, did you simply get carried away with your dramatic gesture, or are you pointing your weapon at me with lethal intention?

 * * * * *

Calvin Candie: [about Django] He is a rambunctious sort, ain't he?

The trademark talkfest he wrote, rambling or not is debatable, even at time It may not seems colloquial. But make no mistake, the script is nothing short of the usual QT awesomeness. If Spike Lee is furious with the overusage of the N-word from QT's previous movies, he better be wearing soundproof earmuff all over Django Unchained. After all he refused to watch, or so they said.

A Spaghetti Western feature will not be complete without the music composed by the legendary Ennio Morricone. Aside from that, there are out-out-place rap tune but fit perfectly to the movie, and then there are super-cool-rarely-heard songs. In fact the soundtrack is so cool I have the soundtrack audio CD to relive its moments.

The last act of the movie, about 30 minute from the end is pure total carnage. The bloody shootout was brilliantly executed, it may not for the faint hearted due to blood soaking violence. The torso takes bullet hits, exploding blood squibs during gun fights everywhere. I always expect to see somewhere's someone's head being blown off, instead I saw someone's penis being blown apart by shotgun.

I have been tinkering on the star rating for Django Unchained. I want you to be assured that my admiration for Quentin is nothing to do with the full 5 stars out of 5. Maybe a tinge of bias, hahaha. OK, all joking aside, I would like to think this is among Quentin Tarantino's most accessible movie. In other words, it is a great introduction to non fan will most likely find this to be entertained and absolute must see for any QT's aficionado.    

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

A Good Day to Die Hard (John Moore, 2013)

Bruce Willis, I first came to know him since the TV series era, Moonlighting (from year 1985 to 1989), the non stop bickering between him and Cybill Shepherd, the wonderful chemistry from the odd couple. This Moonlighting Theme Song reminds me of used to glue to the show regularly on channel TV3 on 11:30pm (or is it 12:30 midnight?). Saying that kind giving away my age. I am not that old, mind you.

The previous Die Hard movies are always about the right man at the wrong place and wrong time. The reluctant hero is always forced to take matters into his own hands in a confined location with race against the clock. Bruce Willis reprised his role as New York City police detective John McClane for the fifth time.This time, His NYPD badge means nothing when he goes to Moscow looking for his now grown up son Jack (Jai Courtney did not annoy me with his performance here), who was imprisoned for an assassination incident. The problem escalates when a high rank ex-Russia government officer executes a sinister plan to smuggle nuclear weapon (whole lots of uranium based canisters) for reason that I did not fully aware (sorry I must have blank stare moment during the scene they mentioned it). Obviously the father and son team up to stop them.

 No brainer to say it is always a tough act to follow the first Die Hard, I mean this was the movie which re-invented the action genre back in late 80s. Those days, it was a timely antidote to the invulnerable action movie protagonists such as Arnold, Stallone, Van Damme, Norris who so used to blast off their enemies without making much sweat. Two decades later you still find the concept of "Die Hard on a...... (fill in the blank: train, stadium, boat, bus, plane etc). Die Hard 2 and 3 did not embarrassed their predecessor. When it comes to the forth one - Live Free or Die Hard, you start to feel hmmm..... this is really stretching the point of being a proper Die Hard movie.

Let me tell you what is wrong is AGDtDH: The plot and John McClane. I did not have the EXCITEMENT of watching a Die Hard movie. What happen to the wise cracking everyman hero that I used to know? McClane mocked the villains delivering witty lines, and oh who can forget his smirk! I dare you not to cringe at some poor dialogue, "You know what I hate about the Americans? Everything!", the carrot chewing villain scorned, the said villain with his superior have about one tenth of Hans Gruber on Flamboyant Metre scale. The same villain's SWAT-like team possess one tenth of Simon Gruber's IQ, They line up and are shot down one after one like a sack of spud. I was expecting to see the vulnerable McClane, but what I get here is him doing some superhero stunt with his son. And the indisputable proof of how much Die Hard's writing had fall from grace is the repetition of "I am on vacation", McClane quipped four times through out the movie, as if the screewriter wants to coin another immortal catchphrase from "Yippee ki yay, motherf**ker". The "I am on vacation" line is totally corny and out of place.

Bruce Willis looks bored and tired. (Read: not acts to look tired, but Bruce seems not really bother to be in McClane role). The only saving grace is the high tempo cars chase scene at near beginning of the movie, where McClane Sr hijack a Mercedes Unimog SUV in pursuit of an armoured tank like vehicle which in turn on the trail of McClane Jr. Overall It is only a half-ass effort from the movie studio to cash in the diminishing Die Hard brand, in other words, a stripped-down sequel nothing more than a poor attempt made to appeal to younger audience.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it  
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Bait (Kimble Rendall, 2012)

The idea of making a movie about killer shark munching on hapless people has been done to death, I really mean it. Here, BAIT is a colloboration of Australian/Singaporean produced movie about shark attack, and I have to admit it has quite an interesting but sort of are-you-kidding-me concept: a freak tsunami strikes a small costal town of Australia, floods a supermarket while the survivors takes shelter inside. They are trapped in it no thanks to part of building structure collapse and blocks the entrance. Just as the survivors thought the situation could not be worse, beneath the flooded water is great white shark's new hunting ground . . . . . .

For the wrong reason, the prologue scared the hell out of me. It freaked me out not because
of how scary the shark attack sequence was, but I shuddered by the sight of very shoddy CGI effect of the shark (maybe due to the fact that I was not watching in 3D version). At that moment I thought I was surely in for a dreadful "so bad it is good" movie. But, the movie turn out marginally better as it progressed.

Visually, BAIT has enough suspense and bloody moments to to satisfy killer creature movie goers. The stranded people trapped at the top of the supermarket shelves while the shark is patrolling the submerged aisle, seeking for cgance to pick them one by one. In other words, it lets movie maker to show the gory images of mutilated human body. Giving how the seemingly huge appetite shark keep coming back for human snack after devouring some, I was a bit suprise by the rather smaller sharks portrayed in the movie compare to those other movies usual godzilla size. The portrayal of shark is a combination of the old school animatronic (yay!) and CGI (duhhh....can a great white shark swim that fast?) ) mainly for underwater sequence.

So, who are those potential shark meal? sorry i mean who are the survivors? They are cookie cutter characters are straight out from a typical disaster surviving theme movie. It has a timid character, a quiet but brave one, an annoyingly hysterical one, a few criminals, a cop, cop's daughter....the list goes on and I guess you get the idea, and oh do not forget the ultimate young and good looking hero with death immunity. I also think that I saw Julian McMahon, the only one actor I recognised as one of the robber. My favourite characters are the young couple who trapped inside a car at the basement car park level as they just argue about everything despite shark is frantically trying to take a good bite on them. 

BAIT does not help by its amateurish acting level all around. It is a major letdown. It does not matter if this is a low budget movie or a film student experiment movie, acting is the first and foremost the important aspect in a make or break for a movie. All in all, lower your expectation and you may like it, at least it does not has a full assault on my IQ which happens in a lot of the B-horror movies. Better to watch BAIT rather than Shark Night (David R. Ellis, 2012).

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Taken 2 (Olivier Megaton, 2012)

Previously I have gone for the original sleeper hit, as such, it is easy as pie to review a this lazily-titled sequel (come on, Taken 2? I can come out with better title, how about Taken Again? or Taken 2: Wrong Place At the Wrong Time?). The similarities are all over the place. It has almost the same behind-the-scene crews where Luc Bessons produced it and wrote it with Robert Mark Kamen; same casts (father/husband, estrangled mother/wife, teenage daugther); the action still takes place at foreign soil, this time change from Paris to the hustle and bustle streets of Istanbul; and above all the same storyline (father comes to the rescue when his family is abducted by the Albanian hit-men)

The no nonsense Liam Nesson as Bryan Mills is back to kick some sorry asses. There is nothing to be said that has not been said before, but here I am rambling: Liam is the main reason I watched this rehash. He excelled in this role just as he did in the first movie. He is still the over-protective father of his daughter, and will use deadly force to paralyze any brutal threat, though when it comes having a relationship with his family, this is the same guy struggle to get along with his family.

The movie retains the grittiness of the hand to hand combat. Jackie Chan' fighting cheoreography, this is not. However the shaky camera work coupled with quick cuts during the fist fight gave my poor eyes a hard time to see whose limbs are punching whose bodies. The minor trouble with Taken 2 is some of plots' plausibleness plunges to a lower depth compare to the predecessor. You know that the suspension of disbelief is the viewing pre-requisite, but the requirement is wearing thin by now and could well be snapped in the inevitable Taken 3 (another unimaginative title?) judging from the current rate.

Sorry to say the law of diminishing quality returns appear in this sequel. But I suppose it will not matter much, a 90 minutes fast paced, heart pounding action thriller is akin to a quick fast food meal. In the end, if you are still wondering why you need to watch the rehash of Taken Mk. 1, take this as comfort: Liam Neeson will not carry the action movie role forever as he is in his 60s now. I wish he still got the extra oomph to act in action movie as he looks more believable as a ex-CIA agent compare with Steven Seagal as ex-Navy SEAL posed as a chef.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List