The Human Stain Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
How far would you go to escape the past?
The Human Stain is the story of Coleman Silk (Hopkins), a classics professor with a terrible secret that is about to shatter his life in a small New England town. When his affair with a young troubled janitor (Kidman) is uncovered, the secret Silk had harbored for over fifty years from his wife, his children and colleague, writer Nathan Zuckerman, fast explodes in a conflagration of devastating consequences. It is Zuckerman who stumbles upon Silk's secret and sets out to reconstruct the unknown biography of this eminent, upright man, esteemed as an educator for nearly all his life, and to understand how this ingeniously contrived life came unraveled.
| Gary Sinise | Nathan Zuckerman |
| Ed Harris | Lester Farley |
| Nicole Kidman | Faunia Farley |
| Anthony Hopkins | Coleman Silk |
| Jacinda Barrett | Steena Paulsson |
| Harry J. Lennix | Mr. Silk |
| Wentworth Miller | Young Coleman Silk |
| Clark Gregg | Nelson Primus |
| Anna Deavere Smith | Mrs. Silk |
| Lizan Mitchell | Ernestine |
| Kerry Washington | Ellie |
| Phyllis Newman | Iris Silk |
| Margo Martindale | Psychologist |
| Ron Canada | Herb Kebble |
| Mili Avital | Young Iris |
| Robert Benton |
6.30 out of 10 (7706 votes)
Visitor Reviews
My thoughts
posted on 20 Aug 2009Okay, I saw this movie at the premiere with my mother. My first thoughts when I was watching was that it could have been a really really good storyline, but watching Nicole Kidman riding Sir Anthony Hopkins was not an image that I EVER needed to see. I just cannot think of him as a sexual human being. After the film was over, the more I mulled over it, the more I realized I really did enjoy the film for its story. I could really feel young Coleman's pain of having to live with his human stain(sorry the pun was needed). And I agree with the other user, that dance scene with Sinese & Hopkins was brilliant. I am pretty sure it was totally improvised, which is always a feature I love in films. Kidman did do a good job dressing herself down for the part but I have seen her in too many girlie roles(Moulin Rouge) that it was hard for me to believe her. I would recommend this as a rental, don't spend full price, and fast forward through their sex scenes.
Hopkins excellent - Kidman miscast
posted on 02 Aug 2009The film isn't as good as the book - no surprises there! However it is intelligent and interesting and raises good questions regarding racialism, political correctness, integrity and morality.Hopkins is excellent as usual. Kidman, sadly, is miscast so her lack of acting ability shows up very clearly. The role calls for a genuine but poor person, not a dainty actress trying to pretend to be one. The woman in 'Japanese Story' would have been excellent for the role - she can act.I would recommend the film nevertheless. The reminder that we lose an important part of ourselves if we align with the pack and unthinkingly support a witch hunt is one that is too seldom made.
Nicole Kidman Can Too Act
posted on 03 Jul 2009The Human Stain is an intricately plotted story about a college president, Coleman Silk (Anthony Hopkins), who runs afoul of political correctness on his campus and angrily resigns. Afterwards, he meets Nathan Zuckerman (Gary Sinese), a novelist suffering from writer's block, and they become friends. A trip to the post office introduces him to Faunia Farley (Nicole Kidman), a beautiful young woman who takes him into her bed. Faunia regards it as sex but Coleman falls in love and gradually, as she begins to feel the stirrings of love for him, the complicated and tragic story of her life unfolds, bringing us to her estranged husband, Farley (Ed Harris), a mentally-deranged Vietnam War vet who has abused her in the past and threatens to kill her and Coleman. This foreground story is interleaved with the personal history of the young Coleman (Wentworth Miller). Without revealing the nature of that history, which is meant to surprise, it should be sufficient to say that Coleman's history is different than it originally seems. Based on the novel by Philip Roth, The Human Stain has considerable strengths, among them not only the story but the acting, direction and cinematography. As is to be expected, Hopkins, Sinese and Harris are excellent. Wentworth Miller, new to this reviewer, is also extremely good. But the surprise is Nicole Kidman, whom I've always found less than impressive even in her much ballyhooed role in The Hours. It turns out that the woman really can act. Whether it's Hopkins, with whom she has most of her scenes, or the director, Robert Benton, Kidman is far better than in anything she's ever done. She communicates this young woman's vulnerability as well as her desirability. And, to my taste, she's far prettier with auburn hair than as a blonde. (For those unfamiliar with Roth's novels after Goodbye Columbus and Portnoy's Complaint, it may be worth noting that Nathan Zuckerman, the novelist in The Human Stain, often appears in later novels as a stand in for Roth himself.) This isn't a great picture but the story and the acting are far better than normal film fare.
fatal flaw
posted on 27 Jun 2009This film requires an impossible level of suspension of disbelief. I'm sorry, but we're supposed to believe that Anthony Hopkins is an African American man , and it just doesn't work. Serious issues of race are addressed, but are mangled with bad writing and questionable plot structuring. Additionaly, the film has an excess of flashbacks which are far less interesting than the primary romantic conflict between Hopkins and Kidman. (If you're going to get youthful counterparts for primary actors, PLEASE try to find someone that looks at least similar !)I ultimately thought this one was a waste of time.
The Human Stain
posted on 24 May 2009I absolutely loved this film. I will not give away a vital segment integral to the film but simply say the twist in this film is profound. I thought the performances were perfect and think that Nicole Kidman is one of the most brilliant actresses of our time because of her versatility and ability to play many different roles. This film had so much to say sociologically as well as psychologically and it did so without graphic violence or distasteful sex in a profound and graceful way. It said something about relationships and why people may be attracted to one another even if that attraction seems inappropriate to others. It was able to show the heart of the characters slowly throughout the film so that the viewer got to know them much as one would get to know the layers of who a person is over time. Anthony Hopkins is the consummate professional and delivers all his performances with a soft intensity that allows one to concentrate on the profundity of his character. Gary Sinise, Ed Harris and especially Wentworth Miller are simply excellent as well. Absolutely wonderful film and I recommend it highly.
I liked the idea **** SPOILERS ****
posted on 08 Apr 2009I really liked the main story line. But I could never get into Nicole K. playing the part she did... I just saw her as Nicole K. TRYING to ACT like white trash... And the pronounced English accent by Anthony (an absolutely wonderful actor) kept me from accepting him wholly as the character he was supposed to be.Also, the movie showed a brilliant man dumbing himself down by engaging in daily dangerous activity... ie.. a relationship with a woman whose x wanted her dead (and didn't care if someone close to her might be included in her demise). I don't think that was ever really explained. (At least it wasn't to MY satisfaction.. surely it wasn't just SEX...would Anthony Hopkins actually stoop to that level? Maybe this was one more reason he just didn't fit in that part.)I did understand, however, that he thought telling her the truth about himself would make her feel that that were more on an equal basis. Unfortunately, he was always ashamed of who he was and viewed himself as "trash". Upon hearing her comments about herself and her ideas... that she wasn't good enough for him... well, he just had to tell her. So just when things picked up for them... well you know the rest.This could have been a great movie. Didn't quite hit the mark.BUt I am STILL an Anthony Hopkins FAN.. :)
a college professor has a troubling past
posted on 23 Mar 2009I really rented this movie because I like Wentworth Miller from Prison Break but was actually very surprised. It was better than I expected, and Miller is a better actor than I ever thought,too. It was well directed and very well acted. Not only is Wentworth believable, so are Anthony Hopkins, Nicole Kidman and Gary Sinise. Ed Harris was absolutely awesome as Kidman's ex. My only problem was that it was a little confusing and the ending was not expected at all. The movie just seemed to cut short. A reconciliation with Coleman and his mom would have been nice, but probably too predictable. Plus, maybe a few flashbacks with Nicole Kidman would have been good too. All in all an excellent movie. I would recommend!
kidman appeared and ruined the whole movie
posted on 21 Mar 2009great in the beginning till kidman appeared. kidman's comment about "you've come to the wrong place" when hopkins dropped her off was so inappropriate. hellllllllooooooo ding dong- he's dropping you off at home you nut job!!!! he's not at the wrong place???? weirdo movie- bad bad acting- kidman seriously sucks in this one. can't even smoke- where's the smoke??? what's up with the British accent hopkins has if he's from new jersey??? before kidman takes on trashy roles, she needs to study smokers, it's not working for her. painful to watch. truly painful. the molestation confessional scene was grossly overacted and so fake. so much more to say but i need not upset myself further. the only good thing about this movie is hopkins, he's great except for the accent - this could have easily been solved had they added a one-liner about him going to boarding school in england or something- problem solved.
Decent movie...A few changes and it would be a Great Movie.
posted on 21 Mar 2009I found this movie to have a very intriguing subject matter. A man, who appears white hiding the fact that he is black for 50 years, from everyone, including his wife of many years. The cast was top notch but I felt that Anthony Hopkins was totally miscast in this part. First of all, he speaks using his Welsh accent throughout the movie. However most distracting, for me at least, was that Hopkins is slightly over 5'8" and Wentworth Miller, who plays his character when he was younger is 6'1". Too much of a height difference for me to ignore.Also, I never really understood his attraction to Faunia Farley who Nicole Kidman, plays a little too over the top for me. Besides being gorgeous, I can never really understand what draws Coleman to her. Sure, good looks are enough for most men but Coleman seems like a deeper person to me. Possibly, her appeal was the fact that she was hiding things, as was he. Still, due to her neurotic behavior, it doesn't seem like their relationship would have progressed that far. I just would have liked to have seen Faunia be more likable.Anna Deavere Smith and Harry J. Lennix are both outstanding as Coleman's parents in the flashbacks. Ed Harris and Gary Sinise's performances are flawless, as usual.Was it just me or did anyone else think Anthony Hopkins and Gary Sinise's dance scene was somewhat odd? I was waiting for them to kiss at any moment.It wouldn't hurt to shorten the movie either.
A good movie with great acting
posted on 05 Mar 2009I know a lot of people did not like this movie mainly because of the casting decisions of Hopkins and Kidman. I totally disagree with them. They are the perfect actors for such different roles. While it may be hard to picture Hopkins as a light-skinned black man from New Jersey, he pulls off the emotional arc that is essential for his character. The same is true of Kidman. She may not look like a white trash person, but she clearly works through Faunia's problems and shows her anger and frustration. I have no doubt that Kidman and Ed Harris will be nominated for Supporting Oscars. I only hope that Hopkins will be nominated because he gave such a great performance. I highly recommend this film, if only for the performances of this fine cast.
I don't see whats so bad
posted on 25 Feb 2009There has been a lot of bad press about this movie, and, to a point, I don't understand why. Of course, I think that both Hopkins and Kidman were miscast in their respective roles, but at least Kidman trounced her miscasting and turned in a very strong, artistically nuanced performance.This movie, to me anyways, seemed to be a bit theatrical. The camera shots are often distant, not allowing us to see the actors close up. The script is very loose, allowing for the actors to take the roles and make them their own. Also, most of the actors give very broad, exaggerated ( but not too much) performances. I consider this to be good. We live in an age when theatre is losing its popularity and the director of this film seems to have found a way to bring theatre into cinema.There are some slight flaws in the movie. Hopkins speaks with a Weslh accent for no apparent reason. The ending is a tad bit drawn out, not terribly so.Above all though, I consider this film to be a work of art. It certainly made me think about my own life; it's very powerful.
Revives memories if you've read the book; too confusing if you haven't
posted on 09 Feb 2009My rating: 7/10 if you've read the book, 3/10 if not.Background for this review: I am a big Philip Roth fan (I got hooked upon reading `The Counterlife', which is an absolute masterpiece), and believe him to be one of America's greatest living writers. I'd rate every Roth book since `The Counterlife' as a 9 or 10 - `The Human Stain' would rate a 9, although it's not Roth's all-time best or his recent best (of the recent Zuckerman books, I thought `American Pastoral' was the best). So, knowing the complexity of the Roth's books, I was amazed to hear that `The Human Stain' was being made into a movie, and naturally I rushed out to see the end product.For someone who has read and enjoyed `The Human Stain', I think the movie is reasonably good, primarily because it brings back impressions from reading the book. However, if you haven't read the book, I think that the movie is going to come across as overly complicated, jumbled mess, which obscures the many messages Roth is able to communicate in the book.`The Human Stain' is a very complex story with many disparate elements: current political scandals, coming of age, World War II, boxing, familial relationships, academic politics, race relations, political correctness and modern-day witch hunts, life in the underclass, abusive relationships, homosexuality, and multiple deaths and love affairs. Any two or three of these elements could easily fill up a two hour movie. Surprisingly, the moviemakers chose to bring almost all of these elements into the movie, in an attempt to be faithful. However, without hundreds of pages and hours of the reader's attention, and without Roth's genius to tie it all together and add meaning, I don't think it works as a stand-alone movie.There is one excellent acting performance in the film: Ed Harris is almost as riveting playing psychotic Vietnam vet Lester as Anthony Hopkins was playing Hannibal Lecter. Casting this film is indeed a nearly impossible task. I was able to suspend some disbelief to appreciate Anthony Hopkins as Coleman Silk, but it is true that the actor who plays the young Coleman Silk (who is actually closer to Silk's racial profile) doesn't look anything like Anthony Hopkins. The worst casting was Gary Sinise as Roth's alter ego Nathan Zuckerman. Sinise is way too young to play an impotent Jewish writer in his twilight years.What recent Philip Roth book would make the best movie? I think `Operation Shylock': it has the most straightforward plot whose central element (Roth's double identity) could easily transfer to the screen, and there is even a decent amount of action and suspense. I don't know why the producers chose to film `The Human Stain' - it presents a much greater challenge for them and audience members who haven't read the book.
Really deceiving
posted on 01 Feb 2009One of the most deceiving pictures I've ever seen. When I saw Hopkins, Kidman and Harris starred this film, I missed not one minute to convince my friends to go watch it. What a mistake! Is there any sense in making fun of the audience by presenting Anthony Hopkins as a black person? Personally I felt really disgusted with this joke, because I assume it was a -bad- joke. And very disrespectful towards many wonderful black actors. Even worse, shortly after I saw Anthony Hopkins in 'Titus'. My esteem for this great artist has fallen quite a lot since then. Two jokes in a row were two much. Nicole Kidman performance is OK, but her character is absolutely lost in such a bad movie. If you can't believe the actors around her, why should you believe her? And finally, the absurd, empty and grotesque character of Ed Harris. I really like this actor, both because of his performances and because he chooses his movies really well. But this time I simply can't understand what moved him to accept this particular job.
Thought-provoking, worthwhile
posted on 30 Jan 2009I try to read a little, but not much about a movie before watching it. Rarely a cinema-goer, I "discover" my favorites through late night television and marked-down videos. In this case, a Blockbuster sale as it plans to phase out videos and deal exclusively in DVDs. I bought "The Human Stain" for $1.Fatigue is my enemy as I usually relax and watch a movie in bed, resting my eyes for moments at a time, then finding myself sleeping through important scenes, only to wake up and have to rewind (one of the advantages of videos, I think, is the ease with which this can be done as compared to DVD's). A fast-paced entertainment film is always a good choice, and fine for many nights, but like fast food and chocolates, too much of this sort of diet leaves one craving something more substantial. This movie was just what I needed.Slightly confusing with flashbacks and seemingly unrelated characters, it is not a good bedtime movie unless you plan to watch it again, but I am glad I made the effort because it is wonderfully satisfying and the acting is superb. Anthony Hopkins is wonderful as ever and Nicole Kidman has grown on me over the years as her depth and skill as an actress are ever increasing. My main problem is not with her but with the tendency of make up people to try to unnecessarily enhance her beauty in a role where her natural beauty would suffice. The hardworking character of Faunia, with tattoos and all should not have had such noticeably perfect makeup - that distracts from the character and Nicole Kidman does not need it. Think of Meg Ryan in "In the Cut" - sometimes less is more.While not perfect, The Human Stain is excellent.
Some books just can't be adapted (spoilers)
posted on 18 Jan 2009Well, it seems like all I do lately is review bad movies, but in my defense, I have seen a lot of bad movies this year. They are so much more fascinating than good movies, because there's so much you can say about a bad film! When a movie's good, you shrug your shoulders and say "eh, it was good" or "that was awesome!" So, having said all that, The Human Stain is not a very good movie. I saw it recently during a private screening, and even had the chance to meet with the writer of the film. Some books should never be made into movies. They are just too involving, with one two many story lines going on, and the transfer to film is impossible. This is the case with Human Stain. There are three different stories going on- one in which Coleman Silk is a young man, one in which he is an older man having an affair with Kidman, and the other involving a writer (Sinise) who is intrigued by Silk's life story. The script has no real structure to it, and therefore the audience becomes bored halfway through the film. You think it's going to go somewhere, but then it never does. The real (and most interesting) story involves Coleman's past, when he grew up with a black family. It's frustrating that the flashbacks never seem to correspond with what happens in the present (the present is actually 1998, which the movie takes great pains to point out- referring to the Lewinsky scandal of that year!) The movie begins with a car crash, but that's not how it ends. The car crash takes place, but the movie keeps on going for another 10-15 minutes (after the main character has been killed!) Once again, poor story structure. The main character dies, and you don't even care, because it isn't relevant at all to his life story-which isn't told very well anyways! With such a great cast, you'd think they would have come up with something better. The actors are all performing well, but as I said, halfway through the film, you no longer care what they're saying or doing, because none of the scenes connect with each other, so the characters are no longer believable.
Interesting Parts Never Add Up to a Satisfying Whole
posted on 14 Jan 2009"The Human Stain" is a failure because the Philip Roth novel on which it is based is a failure. Roth has been granted carte blanche to do whatever he wants; he is the Naked Emperor of American literature."The Human Stain" is the product of Roth's ego and attention deficit disorder. Roth's ego: characters are obsessed with Jews, because Roth is obsessed with his own Jewish identity. Naked, beautiful, young women throw themselves at wizened, physically unattractive college professors, because Roth is an older man. A novelist saves the day, because Roth is a novelist. There is not a single, three dimensional, believable female character. There are four melodramatic deaths. A character who had been a coward and a traitor in one of the first scenes accuses himself – unbelievably – during a eulogy in one of the last scenes. There are two scenes where very beautiful women perform private stripteases for ogling men – porn for pseudo-intellectuals. Yawn.Attention deficit disorder: the script attempts to address Clinton's impeachment, stereotypical "White Trash," crazed, homicidal, Vietnam veterans, the issue of passing, artistic burnout, college town hypocrisy, and political correctness. Even a gifted novelist would find it impossible to work all those themes into a coherent and effective narrative.Roth drops the ball big time here; every theme he attempts is aborted. But, Roth is a genius, so if we aren't swept off our feet by the fruits of Roth's labor, it's because we are too small to appreciate his great genius. That, in a nutshell, is the naked emperor syndrome. Feh. Step aside. Make room for better writers.Though "The Human Stain" is a failure, in spite of itself, it contains some worthy work. Wentworth Miller, as the young Coleman Silk, the character Antony Hopkins plays in advanced age, is stunning. Miller is supercharged with star power and it is to be hoped that he goes far. Ed Harris can do no wrong. He elevates and ignites every moment of his screen time that we are lucky enough to enjoy – even when the character Harris is playing, as here, is a two-dimensional stereotype of a homicidal, wife beating, anti-Semitic, lower class white, Vietnam veteran. This is a stereotype so shallow a tyro writer could produce it based on watching grade B movies.Nicole Kidman never escapes the two dimensional, derivative, and divorced from real life quality of her character, a foul-mouthed, chain smoking, poor white nymphomaniac with a craving for plump old men. If Roth gets his homicidal Vietnam Vet characters from B movies, he gets his female characters from pulp fiction. And just from the paperback *covers* of pulp fiction. Not even from reading the text. It's actually kinda scary to contemplate how divorced Roth and his readers are from real poor white people, real women, real Vietnam veterans.There is a very fine early scene where Professor Coleman Silk (Anthony Hopkins) is berated and threatened by a committee of self-righteous, politically correct, hypocritical, gasbag, (redundant, I know) college professors who falsely accuse Silk of making a racist remark. The scene is very well played. But it is never anything more than an anecdote. Journalism has outstripped fiction's ability to comment on events like this. Want to read about politically correct shenanigans on campus? Read "Until Proved Innocent" about the legal and media lynching of the Duke lacrosse players. Roth's novel can't begin to match that account. As for Roth's stripteases? Free on the internet.
Saved by the cast...
posted on 14 Jan 2009Does Anthony Hopkins look credible as a black man? Well, he's a hell of an actor but definitely he doesn't look like a negro, he doesn't even look like an Eurpean with afro-American features. Again, is it credible a relationship based in sex between a woman such as Nicole Kidman and an old teacher that's nearly seventy? OK, if we put those two questions aside (though I think they're just essential) "The human stain" is a story with many stories in it. A drama inside another drama. Guilt, pain, revenge... the movie deals with several issues. It looks like Benton bit off more than he could chew. Maybe the novel the movie is based on wasn't easy to syntezise in 2 hours, and that's why the script looks rather hasty and arbitrary. Also some of the characters (such as the one preformed by Gary Sinise) are very diffuse.The best things about "The human stain" are the great work of the two starring actors (Hopkins and Kidman) and that's been filmed with much style. So, the movie stays in no man's land.*My rate: 6/10
fear & forgiveness
posted on 25 Dec 2008The same way that people hesitate and distract their confidant during the process of unleashing a secret, this plot follows a complex path, one strewn with the memories of joy and regret. Coleman is only made to feel comfortable sharing his secret when he learns how pale it is compared to the torment and loss of Faunia's. It is good to see Kidman in roles that cost her an effort---not won for her beauty alone. I am not sure how much longer I could suspend my disbelief that Hopkins' character is black---but we extend our compassion to characters who confess to their self-alienation in a world that goads them into deception. Why? We are vindicated by others' confessions. It restores our faith during a hat trick.
A rarity - a thoughtful, adult film.
posted on 23 Dec 2008What an amazing movie! Intelligent, thought-provoking, original and daring. I'm not surprised it failed with the public (no guns and shooting, noisy soundtrack, special effects), but I am surprised the critics didn't rally around it. It delves into some very deep issues without offering facile resolutions, for which there are none. The performances throughout are riveting. Nicole Kidman, in particular, is a revelation - better here than in her Oscar-winning turn as Virginia Woolf. Excellent location photography grounds the story to its physical context. Some scenes fly by quickly, forcing viewers to mentally fill in the gaps. Others use eloquent language or complete silence to speak volumes. You'll be thinking about this one long after it's over.
S l o w . . .
posted on 26 Aug 2009Where do I begin?After seeing the previews for this film twice I thought it would be one of the greatest mysteries I'd ever watch...wrong.This film was slow from the beginning with the credits and music following a car on a road that never seemed to end, which it didn't until the Director's name was up on screen (and believe me they took their time.).What can I say about the camera work and cinematography? Not much. I mean, I totally understood what the director was thinking while editing and filming it. He wanted it to seem really realistic with the long shots and then zooming in on dialogue, or even just what seemed like ten minutes of Nicole Kidman crying. The scenes from the 1940s when they would do flashbacks were the only faster-paced parts of the film, and they were much better than the scenes with Hopkins or Sinise. The acting was excellent, but then again doesn't Mr. Hopkins (I mean Sir) pretty much always give off the same persona no matter what role he takes on? Kidman was terrific, absolutely wonderful, but the only problem with her in the film were the long shots the cameras were forced to put on her. She was good, but those hour long close ups didn't do much for her.And my favorite in the film was Harris. He should have had more of a part.
He was outstanding in his role. Every time he looked at the camera, you could feel the psycho behind his eyes. He was very convincing, and at times a little unsettling.The real gem if you will in the film was Wentworth Miller. I don't recall having seen him before in any prior films, but as unfamiliar as he was, I'd be surprised if he hasn't made any prior films to this. He was also outstanding, and deserves an applaud for the work he did in this piece.
It's a shame the film wasn't as good as he was.Jacinda Barrett was also quite surprising, while at first I was a bit dubious about this new comer on to the screen, she did a wonderful job especially toward the end of her role in the movie. Although, she was just as bold as Kidman to strip for Coleman Silk.As I said above, the film was just way too slow paced for my taste. The story was very interesting, but they just presented it so badly I almost turned it off a number of different times. However, I will give credit where credit is due. All the actors did a fine job in it, and they no doubt will have films after this because of how talented they are (obviously I am referring to the rest of the cast, not including Hopkins, Kidman, Harris or Sinise.).I give the movie the rating as follows: Directing: 4.5 - Good effort and I can appreciate what the director was trying to get across in terms of sorrow and slow movement to the film, just too slow.Editing: 4.5 - Again, good effort, but some of the scenes definitely had nothing to do with the story (I.E. Sinise and Hopkins dancing together in the cabin...very random).Acting: 9 - Excellent acting, although I mark them down a point for choosing Hopkins for this, he didn't really add that much to the film, but then again his part was a little....well, not much to it to begin with.Music: 7 - Parts were good, other times...eeshhh...it was obviously conducted by a woman...:)Writing: 6.5 - I'm not really sure on the writing only because I'm sure that there were parts they could have left out, and other parts they should have left in. To really explain what was going on, and to not make it so confusing and well, slow.Overall I give the movie a 5.5 out of 10. It kept me just interested enough to keep watching, but it was without a doubt one of the slowest films I've ever seen.But, that's just my opinion.