Magnolia Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x528 | 8121.36 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x288 | 1861.27 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x236 | 941.41 MiB | divx | |
|
320x128 | 396.75 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Things fall down. People look up. And when it rains, it pours.
Magnolia is the study of nine lives in one day in San Fernando Valley, California. These nine lives all connect and revolve around the game show "What Do Kids Know?"(WDKK), where a team of three kids play against adults and everytime the show is on, there is a new team of adults and the kids remain; if they won the previous game. Earl Partridge (the late Jason Robards) produced "WDKK" when it was first on in the late 60s. He is dying of brain and lung cancer and is being taken care of by Phil Parma (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a male nurse. Linda, Earl's trophy wife (Julianne Moore) starts to fall in love with Earl for real, despite her cheating. Earl, rapidly dying on his bed, asks Phil to find his estranged son, Frank T.J. Mackey (Tom Cruise), who grew up hating Earl and now runs a seminar for single men, which teaches them how to seduce a woman and leave her... The host of "WDKK", Jimmy Gator (Philip Baker Hall), is also dying, but not as rapidly as Earl. He has a very rocky relationship with his daughter Claudia (Melora Waters), who sniffs crack 24/7 and accuses her father of sexually molesting her. Police Officer Jim (John C. Reilly) goes to Claudia's house after getting called about a disturbance. He falls in love with her right away... Stanley Specter (Jeremy Blackman) is a contestant on "WDKK", who is a genius and is being used by his father to make money. If Stanley and his team keep winning, they will set a record on the show and get tons of money. The record Stanley is trying to beat is the 1968 record set by Donnie Smith (William H. Macy), who had the exact same childhood when he was on the show and has now grown up to be a pathetic loser. He's been recently fired from his job, and is trying to find his way into happiness...
| Tom Cruise | Frank T.J. Mackey |
| Pat Healy | Sir Edmund William Godfrey |
| Julianne Moore | Linda Partridge |
| Genevieve Zweig | Mrs. Godfrey |
| Mark Flannagan | Joseph Green |
| William H. Macy | Quiz Kid Donnie Smith |
| Neil Flynn | Daniel Hill |
| Philip Seymour Hoffman | Phil Parma |
| Rod McLachlan | Stanley Berry |
| Allan Graf | Firefighter |
| Melora Walters | Claudia Wilson Gator |
| Philip Baker Hall | Jimmy Gator |
| Patton Oswalt | Delmer Darion |
| Jeremy Blackman | Stanley Spector |
| Raymond 'Big Guy' Gonzales | Reno Security Guard |
| Paul Thomas Anderson |
8.00 out of 10 (53877 votes)
Visitor Reviews
"It's not going to stop 'til you wise up"
posted on 24 Aug 2009Normally I would have taken such a 'wise' lesson for granted but in this case no-one could've said it better than Aimee Mann. It provides one of the most emotional and beautiful scenes of the movie, no of all-time movie history. Characters starting to sing along with this moving song, frogs coming down from heaven. You all simply let it come to you.'Magnolia' with its 190 minutes is a true gem. A moving epic portraying people and the relationships they are in. Emphasizing the fact we are all connected to one another and how much people are capable of and how much people are able to hurt each other.All stories have a common core and it is interesting to see you can create branches starting from each individual character.In advance I read that this movie was hard to follow but I didn't have any problem with it. The characters were real as well as surreal. They are all interesting because of the growth they undergo. This is also what makes this movie so realistic. They all have needs, doubt and worries.Tom Cruise is truly excellent. This time he's not just Tom Cruise playing a character, no it's Tom Cruise playing a character. Julianne Moore is fabulous. An actress of classic allure. And surely she meant to have gotten the Oscar for best actress. I can hardly wait to see her starring as Clarice Starling in upcoming 'Silence of the Lambs' sequel 'Hannibal'. The scene in the drugstore is amazing in its simplicity yet its complicity.These are true emotions we're talking about.And the music of the movie is stunning. I never heard of Aimee Mann but she blasted me away. The movie is built around her songs (added with some extra sounds by director's girlfriend Fiona Apple and her and Mann's producer Jon Brion).I loved the presence of the music, also in the beginning when Mann sings the cover 'One'("One is the loneliest number"). Some scenes are almost being dominated by music without creating an annoying effect.Breathtaking, very long, but still breathtaking.9 out of 10 points. One of the best movies I've ever seen...
A piece of c**p
posted on 16 Aug 2009This movie intertwined nothing. It was a bunch of haphazard writing ... which was supposed to make us believe it was artsy, intelligent, whatever. Let me clue you in: it wasn't!I am especially appalled to recall that Tom Cruise said he took the part because it was part of an "ensemble cast". Does anyone recall him being involved with the ensemble? Don't think so. He did his little edited in pieces. No interaction with the other characters. It killed me to sit through the whole thing and watch it. I'm insulted that the media fell for the pitch that this was a movie that was good. Sorry guys. It wasn't!
Lebowski's Rug
posted on 14 Aug 2009I am going to give my view simply and briefly. I have seen it once and feel that I need to watch it again to fully understand it but I don't think I would really enjoy watching it again. I didn't love it or hate it. I feel the same way about it as I feel about Lantana. It didn't say anything to me about my life and it didn't give me a sense of watching extraordinary people or events. There was nothing to love. I kept thinking there would be a marvellously clever dénouement but it never came. As for the Darwin Award stories at the beginning, I was very familiar with them already.It really needed Lebowski's rug – it would have really tied it together.
Coincidence
posted on 14 Aug 2009This film is beautifully acted and shot and the three hours do not seem to drag at all. Paul Thomas Anderson in my opinion is one of the best young directors about and I look forward to all his films. The cast is amazing with superb performances from in particuliar John C Reilly, Julianne Moore and Tom Cruise. In what is an unusual role for Mr Cruise he plays a very eccentric character and he performs it very well displaying great emotion in later scenes with his dad.The music also plays a big part in the film as most of it is done by Aimee Mann. Their is one song of hers which is played out in the middle of the film with all the major characters singing along to it in their own environments. I think a lot of people would be put off by the running time and also with understanding what the film is mainly about. My own opinion is that it just tells us that peoples lives get tangled up with others not for any mysterious reasons but just because of coincidences. I would put this film in my all time top ten.
I can't remember the last time I was so entertained while being so confused.
posted on 12 Aug 2009I went into this movie with very high expectations. Being a big fan of Boogie Nights and of a number of the actors in the movie it was eagerly anticipated. I am happy to say I wasn't disappointed. Even though the running time seemed a little daunting at first the 3 hours seemed to fly by. All the performances are superb and Tom Cruise deserves the recognition of the awards and nominations. However the best of the performances goes to John C Reilly. Can this man do no wrong??? Never has a loser appeared so likeable without appearing dumb or being used as comic relief. The only gripe with the movie is that it is so damn confusing. It seemed to be about nothing in specific and just random stories connected by the most narrow of threads, and nothing really coming to a satisfactory conclusion throughout the movie.
Brilliant, very inspiring and everything a movie needs.
posted on 10 Aug 2009Other people who have commented on this either think it is stupid or a waste of time. For those of you that are looking for a good movie and are reading this, then my first recommendation to you is Magnolia. The movie is brilliant. I really can't even describe the power it holds but it is there. Once you see it you like it, but don't like the ending. And wish you hadn't watched it.But the very next day you will realize(or I did atleast) this is more than just a movie. The true emotion and by far the best acting that I have ever seen, comes out much like a magnolia. The stories in it are all connected and they all have a meaning. And the ending(which is the best part) holds the most meaning. It really means, things are meant to happen and sometimes they do just that. They seem weird at the time but over more time you understand that it happened for a reason. So, if you are looking for a movie that is brilliant, with superb acting and deep meaning. By all means rent this. Then Boogie Nights.I am 13 years old and I got it. I suppose others just over analyze. Disliking something because it looked stupid and not what it meant. The ending I have just described is not all that it means. And there is many ways that I figured I can interpret it. The one above was just one of the many ways you can look at it.
Magnolia Performances - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
posted on 10 Aug 2009The movie itself is a wonderfully ambitious film. If I were to base an opinion on whether the movie was or was not worth the time it takes to watch it, I would definitely vote yes. However, for all its ambition, the film ultimately fails. The segment where the soundtrack music is played throughout all the scenes does not work. Neither do the urban legends that are put into the film - and yes, they are urban legends - no Green, Berry, Hill; no diver in a tree; no suicide made murder. The performances in Magnolia are its strongest and weakest points. For example, Tom Cruise really is awesome as the misogynistic Frank "T.J." Mackey. John C. Reilly is amazing as the Christian cop and Melora Waters definitely holds her own in the scenes she shares with Reilly. However some of the other actors - actors known for their talent - are performing well beneath par. The scene where Jason Robards goes on about the difficulty of dying is not heart-wrenching at all. All I could think about during the scene was William Shatner as Captain Kirk screaming, "The pain! The pain! The pain!" Many people find Julianne Moore's performance one of Magnolia's saving graces. I beg to differ. Her performance was contrived, calculated, and just way over the top. When she is visiting the lawyer and starts going on about her illicit affairs and says, "i sucked other men's c****," I honestly laughed out loud! The riveting scene in the drugstore too, provides Moore with another opportunity to leap off the over-acting ledge. Her bad performance is surprising to me because I think she is a great actress and the "Magnolia" role is not that different from her "Boogie Nights" role. She played the part of a drug addict in 'Boogie Nights" beautifully and with complete understand of an addict's frame of mind. It appears though, that playing the part of a guilt-ridden, loaded, gold-digger just doesn't work for her.
art + depth + ambition = a classic
posted on 06 Aug 2009CAUTION: SOME PLOT DISCLOSURE BELOW!"...and in the end, this will all make sense." (taken from the trailer for Magnolia, 1999)If the flying frogs bothered you but you liked the rest of Magnolia, do yourself a favor and see this film again. I just saw it for the second time, and now it fits together beautifully in my eyes.Paul Thomas Anderson is the most ambitiously innovative young director to come along in years, and if you can't see his genius with his most recent offering, I almost feel sorry for you.I've read a lot of posts here complaining along the lines of, "The film was great until the frogs dropped from the sky." But think about it... What better way could the irony of the three short tales that open the movie be tied in with the rest of the film? There is no logical explanation one could gather from seeing a scuba diver stranded in a treetop, or from witnessing a boy being shot in the chest during a suicidal mid-flight drop, without knowing the background stories of each.Sure, the frog falling sequence is far-fetched compared to our perception of reality, but so are the original three incidents. Just because Anderson doesn't hit us over the head with a logical explanation for everything doesn't mean that it's automatically impossible. I believe the director was trying to leave the amphibian disaster as an open-ended occurrence, to allow the viewer to draw his/her own conclusion.I've drawn mine. Magnolia is the best film of the year.
Frogs?
posted on 04 Aug 2009'Magnolia' is too long, in fact it lasts about 3 hours. Everyone (except maybe Kevin Costner) knows movies tend to get tedious after 120 minutes. There are far too many characters, too many sprawling storylines tenuously held together by two men dying of cancer, creating a lack of focus and leaving many loose ends. At one point the whole cast, for no apparent reason, start singing along to the soundtrack. The self same soundtrack features Gabrielle's 'Dreams' for chrissakes! So how come Magnolia works?Paul Thomas Anderson's latest ensemble melodrama doesn't cover the same timespan of 'Boogie Nights' but is more eventful and emotional; and despite all the things listed above, it is essential viewing. The film follows several characters through one day in San Fernando, documenting their lives, loves and losses. The element linking all the storylines together are two men, both dying of cancer and seeking forgiveness for mistakes they committed during their lives. However, Anderson includes many threads that are only weakly linked to this idea, all brought together under the umbrella of bizarre coincidence.Isn't it great when Tom Cruise acts? I don't mean onscreen flashing his perfect smile and tossing his flaxen hair. I mean really acts. Like in 'Rain Man' or 'Born on the 4th of July'. Or 'Magnolia'. His performance here reminds you why he is a cut above the average Hollywood crowd-puller, though I wouldn't say it was outstanding. This is not because he isn't brilliant, rather that the rest of the cast match him every step of the way; despite not being household names, writer/director Anderson knows he is privileged to be able to cast some of the best actors currently plying their trade and they will nail their given character perfectly.Despite Gabrielle's dirge rearing it's ugly head, the soundtrack is otherwise excellent, and Aimee Mann's songs seem to match the events perfectly. In fact, in the album inlay Anderson admits to having written Magnolia to fit Mann's songs, not the other way around. Unusual, but like so much else about the film, it works. So not perfect, but thoroughly recommended, even if just for the scenes with the frogs.
Regret,Redemption,and the Beauty of Synchronicity
posted on 02 Aug 2009I saw this movie last night and I must say,this is the very gifted Mr.Anderson's finest work to date! Any lover of film will see the similarities between his work and the great Robert Altman,but P.T.Anderson manages to put his own twist and style into this film. I was blown away!The superb acting by Anderson's usual bunch(William H.Macy,Philip Baker Hall,Julianne Moore,Philip Sey mour Hoffman,and John C.Reilly) is gripping!Tom Cruise,well let's just say,he out does himself in his role of a motivational speaker.I won't go into detail what he talks about,but let's just say it's very interesting! The writing flows beautifully.I find it interesting how Andersons' films always deal with family ties and how we all are effected by the events that happen within them. I am amazed how he ties everything all together. We,the viewers,watch these various dramas unfold before us and witness the regret of a dying man,persons trying to seek out redemption of past deeds,those who would rather let go of the past all together,and the beauty of synchronicity! How we all, at once, could be doing something together while living our separate lives and going through our own troubles...This is an oscar worthy film!The best film of the year!
One of the worst films in the history of films
posted on 25 Jul 2009WARNING!!!! May contain spoilers and this is not a POSITIVE review of the film!!!Exodus 8:2 But if you refuse to let them go ( the people ) behold I will plague all your country with frogs.Okay, so the film is heavy on the subliminal message side. So it has great reference in it to the Bible and comeuppance and an eye for an eye and retribution and all that Old Testament stuff. Here is my question. SO WHAT? How does that make a film good? Why is it that just because there is more than meets the eye to a film that all of a sudden brilliance is associated with it? Whatever happened to a finely tuned script? Whatever happened to actors that don't overact? And how about an editor? These are just several thoughts that trouble me about Magnolia. Films are an expression of ones thoughts and of their mind but please don't sit there and tell me that Magnolia is the best film of the year just because Exodus 8:2 pops up everywhere. That does not make it brilliant. What I will say positively about Magnolia is that there is a good idea behind the film. But the execution of it is terrible. This to me, and from what I have seen in the general public, is not a film that screams classic, it is more of an abomination. The first time I saw this film I was angry. I sat in the theater and waited for something to happen. I waited for the pace to pick up. I waited for the script to get better. But nothing happened. I saw it second time out of morbid curiosity. You know, to see if now because I knew all of the secrets of the film, that maybe I would enjoy it a bit better and understand it a little more. Well the definitive answer to that theory was a resounding NO. I still hated it, only now I could understand why I hated it. Before it was like an annoying throbbing pain in my head, the second time, I felt like Malcolm MacDowell's character did when he was forced to watch all those disgusting movies/images on screen in A Clockwork Orange.The worst thing about this film is the script. I have never seen the F-Word used so liberally and in places that it doesn't belong. And before you pidgeon-hole me and say that that is my problem right there, that I am opposed to profanity and "real" sounding dialogue, please bear in mind, I love Kevin Smith films, I loved Eddie Murphy's Delirious and I am not opposed to profanity as long as it has a place in the story and it makes sense. In here, it is overkill. There is one scene where Rose ( who is the cocained addicted daughter ) and her dad, Stanley, the gameshow host, are in the same room and her last few words to her dad are all F-words in some variation. Get the F out of here, F you, F you, F you, F you, F you, F you, what the F are you doing in my house, what the F do you want? etc. etc. The idea here is to show pain between the two. Well her screaming and swearing maybe once would have done it, but it is just overkill the way she carries on. People actually got up and left at this point in the film and this was what? maybe a half an hour into it?Then there is the Linda and Earl characters ( Julianne Moore and Jason Robards ). I'll get to Robards after but first let's have some fun with Moore. Next to Linda, she is the most overacted character in the film and perhaps one of the most overacted characters that I have ever seen. Bette Midler bugs me sometimes with her overacting but she is Hepburn compared to what Moore does in here. Her favourite way to show emotion ( and she is as stable as a MAC Truck hanging over the edge of a cliff ) is to use the F-word as well. I don't even think she knows how to talk calmly in the film. Every scene she is in she is either crying, screaming, swearing or shaking. There is one particular scene in the pharmacy when she explodes at the pharmicist that is so poorly done, so embarrasing that I actually wanted to cringe in my seat. There is no substance to her, no reason, no rhyme. She is just a very, very bad person and one that we can't care about.Then there is Donnie played by William H Macy. His character could have been completely eliminated and no one would have noticed. He is not necessary and I think he was in here simply so there could be some sort of gay theme in the film. And did you happen to see Tom Cruise's bulge in his underwear when he was undressing? It looked like he had boulders where his sack should have been ( hey someone had to say it ). Does P.T. Anderson have an obsession with the penis? Just a thought?Okay, now to Cruise. He was good in a bad film. But all that was put to waste in his last scene with his father as he cries and tells him not to F***in die, you son of a bitch. Enough said about that.Robards. He is a dying old man that is comatose most of the film. But then when he does wake up up long enough, what does he tell us? What great big secret does he tell us that is supposed to make us ooooh and aaaaaaaah? He cheated on his wife. Just like almost every other character, he cheated on his spouse. When this came out, I wanted to yell at the screen, BIG F****N DEAL!!! It was an old theme. There was no shock left now. After Stanley divulged that information and so did Linda and with Cruise's character being the way he was, it was just a nothing speech. But it was done with close ups as if he is cleansing his sould and awaiting a trip to heaven. What trash!! What utter trash.Magnolia is a film that has nothing to say, has some of the worst performances of the year and absolutely some of the worst directing and editing. Just because you have Exodus 8:2 in your film and that is what your great finale is all about, does not mean that you have a great film. This is without a doubt, one of the dumbest films I have ever seen. And I really mean that. The praise that is being heaped on it is completely unjust. I would tell you to stay away from this film but in some strange way I want people to see it. For two reasons. One to show you how bad it really is and two, to show you that no matter how talentless you are, if you get really lucky then you can still get a screenplay produced. P.T Anderson has a really bad screenplay here and it worked for him. See how wonderfully twisted Hollywood is?0 out of 10 In the trailer for the film, one of the final things you hear from the narrator is this " And somehow this will all make sense in the end." How I wish that were true.An awful, awful film!
What's That Smell?
posted on 13 Jul 2009It's been a while since Paul Thomas Anderson has made a film, and a fresh look at "Magnolia" gives you a good clue why.Despite a million dollar cast including Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, John C. Reily, Tom Cruise, Phillip Baker Hall, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Luiz Guzman and Jason Robards (this was his last feature. It's debatable if this film killed him) the film is dull, pretentious and insufferable. However, it does contain one of the most unintentionally hilarious scenes in all of motion pictures: the scene where it starts raining frogs in the San Fernando Valley.Paul Thomas Anderson went on to make the equally overrated but somewhat better "Punch Drunk Love" before seeming to disappear from the silver screen for awhile. I guess he just hasn't found any financing for "Magnolia II: the Frogs Strike Back".
Either you love it or hate it, I loved it...
posted on 11 Jul 2009Magnolia is one of my personal favorite movies. But after reading some of the reviews here, and after talking to friends who have seen the movie, it is definitely not for everyone. A lot of people complain about a convoluted story, or pretentious direction, but to each his own.Let me explain why I liked this movie... First off, I don't watch movies just to be entertained. Entertainment is part of the experience sure, but that is not the sole merit by which I judge a movie. Art is about creative, emotional, political, and surreal expression. Viewing/listening/reading art is about your personal interpretation of or response to it and about how it affects you. Second, I believe good movies are not defined as good movies because of what they are about, but because of how they are about them (hopefully that makes sense).For some reason I was inexplicably drawn to Magnolia. All of the emotions expressed throughout the movie were so tangible and relevant to me. The style of direction and overall story arc of the movie is a bit exaggerated in comparison to real life, but the emotions expressed through the actors and the situations they are in are the most real and profound I have ever seen in a movie. The reason they were real, profound and relevant to me is because I could easily relate to most all the emotions and feelings in the movie, they correlate to feelings and situations I have experienced in my life.I didn't just like this movie because of the emotional connection and intensity though, it is also an extremely well directed, well acted, well written, funny and entertaining movie. P.T. Anderson handles multiple characters and storylines with skill comparable to Robert Altman, and successfully creates one of the most amazing film experiences ever. But as I stated before, this is not the type of movie everyone will enjoy. People who only watch movies to be entertained, or people who require a coherent and straightforward plot will probably not like it. Overall I rate it **** out of four stars.
The Emperor's New Film
posted on 09 Jul 2009Magnolia is, unfortunately, not so much a film as a wreck. I haven't disliked a film so much for being a complete imposter in a long time (Dances With Wolves comes to mind). It's the emptiest of empty vessels: No idea, no vision, no reason to exist. More a grad school thesis project than visionary work, it's a severe stumble in P.T. Anderson's heretofore promising career. Maybe that's why the former Paul Thomas Anderson has reverted to his initials: He, too, knows there's a sucker born every minute. Why else would he inflict such a disappointing sham as Magnolia on movie lovers? Better directors have said more in the opening credits than this movie manages to croak in its 3 1/2 hours.I give it a rating of 1, with the caveat that the Aimee Mann soundtrack is lovely.
good launch, bad ending
posted on 05 Jul 2009It's rare for 3 hour movies to rank so disappointing on my list, but this movie is such a tremendous let down. I had high expectations, yes, but even so - the movie starts out great. The first two hours are brilliant. The way we are yanked from story to story is well put together, the acting is better than most films that come to mind, and the original use of the soundtrack music is perfect. The production of just the first two hours makes the movie worth seeing.The last hour begins by leaving us hanging and ends with a scene so ludicrous I wanted to walk out of the movie and demand my money back. In short - I waited three hours for THIS??I found the biblical imagery (if that really was the intent) entirely ludicrous to be placed in a movie that had, until that point, been so firmly (and appropriately) based in reality. Come the point of THE SCENE (everyone will know what that means), the movie suddenly redefines itself as one in which anything can happen, regardless of logic or common sense. By doing that the movie has just invalidated it's entire footage up to that point.YEAH, if you hadn't seen that in a movie, I'd say you were lying. It seems to me, however, the narrator's comment was based on something that was unbelievable based on coincidence, not by being impossible.
A film with a great beginning and middle, then no point
posted on 01 Jul 2009This film starts out with an explicit premise: that there are some things too extraordinarily coincidental to be coincidence. But then never follows up on that premise. There are many wonderful things to be said about it. The pacing is fantastic. There is a palatable crescendo that builds the tension in your whole body. The pacing of the cuts is relentless. By the time the 2/3 point comes you are ready for an amazing collision of the well-crafted multiple plotlines. And it never comes. All I can think is that Paul Thomas Anderson couldn't figure out an ending. This film is like a Phil Collins song or an SNL bit. It's absolutely amazing and then nothing comes of it. I keep thinking of Hearts of Darkness. Coppola didn't have an ending for Apocalypse Now, so he just kept filming, hoping one would come to him. While the individual plotlines are all addressed, there is no bang. No congress between them. No coincidence. The intro is a lie. And the biblical plague of frogs finds no place in the plot. How could such an amazing start go so wrong? Performances by a huge number of actors from Boogie Nights are individually fantastic. Each of them threw themselves into their roles. As usual Julianne Moore is captivating. Worth seeing just for the 1st 2 hours of fantastic filmmaking. Just don't expect a payoff at the end. There are some nice comments about the fragility and sanctity of childhood as well.
THIS is American Beauty
posted on 26 Aug 2009This film is not only the crowing achievement of a brilliant film maker (Paul Thomas Anderson), but is one of the best stories I've ever seen brought to life. Cruise delivers a stunning performance of a desperate man. John C. Reilly, as always, portrays his role without flaw. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jason Robards work beautifully portraying the bond and emotion of a nurse and their patient. Paul Thomas Anderson never fails at satisfying his audience, as well as surprising. With every character having depth, growth and true emotion.I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys emotion and beauty while watching films (or if they just need an apocalyptic wake-up call). This is easily the best film of 1999, and in the top 10 of the 90's. If you enjoy P.T. Anderson's past work (i.e. Boogie Nights, Hard Eight), this film is a must. All in all, every actor delivers, at the very least, a stellar performance. I Give This Film 9 1/2 Stars Out Of 10.