Rambo: Last Blood - This had better be the last (Spoilers)

I may have mentioned before that Sylvester Stallone is cinema royalty. He has maintained an incredibly successful career for well over forty years and remains active in the Hollywood scene. One of his earlier significant successes was First Blood, the very first Rambo movie. Released in 1982 and based on the book by David Morell, it was the story of a wandering Vietnam vet named Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) who stops in a small town looking for a place to eat. Except the local Sherrif takes issue with him and tries to arrest him for vagrancy, which triggers a few war flashbacks in Rambo, causing him to go on a rampage. It is still a great film and one I appreciate a great deal. It would go on to spawn a few sequels of varying degrees of quality, but what made them all worthwhile was how Stallone would use the prestige of the Rambo character to raise awareness of important issues. Example: the main reason he did the fourth movie was to raise awareness of the conflict in Burma. His latest outing, Rambo: Last Blood, does not seem to have any kind of real issue it wants to raise awareness of, other than the fact that this movie is utterly atrocious. 

I cannot remember the last time I have felt so disappointed, frustrated, and insulted by a movie this year. After sitting through this garbage, I went straight home and rewatched the first movie again so that I could renew my faith in the original story and Stallone's capability as an artist. Rambo: Last Blood has got to be the laziest, dumbest, most aggravating piece of vile crap I have ever had the disadvantage to sit through, and I rue the day I ever come across another film even worse. 

The whole film can best be summarized as Taken meets Home Alone but with Rambo and a hard "R" rating, and not as impressive as that may sound. The story follows John Rambo now living a peaceful life on his old family ranch in Arizona raising and training Horses. His niece Gabrielle (Yvette Monreal), to whom Rambo has been a surrogate father, is heading off to college, but not before she confronts her estranged father in Mexico to seek some sense of closure as to why he left her and her mother. Rambo, already aware of the vicious and terrible person her father was, discourages Gabrielle from going. Despite Rambo's warnings, Gabrielle goes straight to Mexico and, I kid you not, immediately gets kidnapped by Mexican gangsters and put into sexual slavery, where she is regularly drugged and given to random men. They even cut a mark on her face to label her as their property. Rambo makes his way to Mexico and rescues Gabrielle who sadly dies after crossing the border. Rambo, in a fit of rage, sends a message to the gangsters and their leaders demanding his revenge, but not before Rambo sets up his ranch, and his massive maze of tunnels he built, with death traps and ready weapons for a bloody and painful showdown. Which is the best and only good part of the whole film, but I'll get to that later. 

Let's get the most significant issue out of the way. This films depiction of Mexico and Mexican people is insulting. I grant you that Mexico as a place may not be the best, especially in particular areas, but it's not like an all-evil encompassing wasteland as the movie would have you believe. Every single Mexican person (minus one or two) is either an evil gangster or the victim/endangered servent of gangsters. The only Mexican characters who are not bad guys don't have any real presence or purpose in the story other than to guide Rambo to the next plot point. In terms of horrendously bad misrepresentation of an entire people, it is officially worse than the treatment of Mexicans in the movie Peppermint from last year, and that movie had a whole drug smuggling business operating out of a Penyata factory. 

Setting aside the unnecessary demonization of an entire culture, the movie suffers from a severe lack of texture. None of the characters are given any real development, it has nothing to say about the pressing issues it's playing with, and it is in such a hurry to get to the big bloody finale that the whole film feels like it's playing in fast forward. Scenes end abruptly, the dialogue has no meat to it, and any possibility the film had of being genuinely engaging is thrown away and forgotten by the next scene. This movie feels like huge chunks of it were cut away at the last minute for the sake of putting together something extreme and intense in theaters for the tail end of Summer. It's like the producers watched the original cut all the way through and said: "Okay, take out as much as you can so it's still technically feature-length, and there's little going on before the big bloody finale." I would say that the inmates are running the Asylum, but I'm not sure they wouldn't do a better job. 

What ticked me off the most was the fact that they fridged Gabrielle for no good reason. For those of you who don't know what I mean, "fridged" is a term coined by comic book readers used to describe an unnecessary death of a female character which only serves the purpose of giving the male lead a cause for which to be heroic. I would prefer not to describe the exact origins of the term here but, I can assure you, it is not at all pleasant. Aside from it being disgusting, my main issue with this trope is that it's lazy. It instantly provides a reason for revenge which is the worst thing to desire in a narrative and indeed in real life. It deprives the story and the audience of more texture and development of the characters as well as a more satisfying motivation for the hero to take action. I have utterly despised this trope and its lazy repetitiveness ever since I encountered it in The Bourne Supremacy. The moment it happened in that movie (which was within the first thirty minutes), I instantly lost any and all interest, because it signaled to me that the storytellers didn't care, and that is probably the most insulting thing any storyteller can do to an audience. 

 The film was directed by Adrian Grunberg, who is really a second unit director, mainly focusing on action scenes. Sadly, Rambo: Last Blood has proven that hs is not ready for an actual narrative, and maybe never will be. The guy clearly has little to no experience working with actual scripts and actors. The only things he's directed before this movie was Get The Gringo starring Mel Gibson from 2012 and an episode of the TV series Here On Earth. Otherwise, his time is spent piecing together action sequences and any other second unit stuff that may be required of him. I am not saying that second unit people cannot transition to higher positions, but directing a movie requires talent in more than one area. If Adrian Grunberg has any actual ability as a full-time director, I have yet to see it. 

Now, I will admit that despite how awful this film is, I found its climactic battle scene between Rambo and all the evil gangsters to be primitively satisfying. Mainly because I am of the firm opinion that any and all sex traffickers deserve to be mistreated in the most inhumane fashion possible with extreme prejudice. No exceptions and no mercy! So watching the entire gang of less-than-human peddlers of female slavery getting utterly destroyed in the worst possible way by Rambo was...almost cathartic. I am not ashamed to admit. If this were how all sex traffickers were punished, I would not mind it. This is literally the only positive thing I have to say about Rambo: Last Blood. 

This movie is inexcusable, and Sylvester Stallone should have known better. There is no justifiable reason for this movie to be the way it is. The only reason I can think of for the existence of this film is that Sylvester Stallone needed something to pay his taxes with, and a quick cash grab with his Rambo franchise was the easiest thing to do. This movie is a travesty, a mockery, and possibly the ugliest stain on cinema to date. All I have left to say is this: Sylvester Stallone, we deserve an apology from you. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

No. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

No. 

Why? 

It is total, absolute, and utter garbage. A disgrace to the world of cinema and a sign of the imminent implosion of Hollywood. Stay as far away from this film as you possibly can. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Downton Abbey - A delightfully grand season finale

Airing on KQED in 2010 here in the U.S. and running for five seasons, Downton Abbey is a show that is both classical and modern. Set in the early 1900s, the story follows the exploits of a British aristocratic family known as the Crawly's and their relationships with the staff who work on the glorious manor known as Downton Abbey. It's a show about family, loyalty, friendship, opportunity, and above all, class perception. The show was enjoyed by many, including myself, for its rich characters (no pun intended), witty dialogue, gorgeous set and costume design, and timely commentary on the nature of class disparity. It's a romantic depiction of how those who are more fortunate than others ought to be and what it truly takes to be happy in life. It is one of my favorite shows on par with the likes of Avatar: The Last Airbender and M*A*S*H. So, naturally, when I heard there was a movie coming out based on the show, I was, simultaneously, tremendously excited and very concerned. 

While I was overjoyed at the prospect of seeing these characters in action again, I was somewhat surprised that it was to come in the form of a traditional feature film for the big screen. Most of the time, television-style of storytelling (especially British television) is tailored around smaller and more personal steaks. Stories that could either be easily told in less than an hour or grand arcs that span the course of an entire season, which usually requires ten episodes at minimum. Translating a TV show to the big screen requires typically one of two routes: Create an entirely new story explicitly tailored for the big screen (usually with a different cast) or treat the film as a feature-length finale of the series. The feature film presentation of Downton Abbey decides to take the latter approach and function as a fantastic conclusion of a well-crafted show. Resulting in a film that is relatively enjoyable for most audiences, but is ultimately aimed at those who have watched and enjoyed the series before the movie. It may not be like The Avengers where you won't understand most of the story if you haven't seen the stories prior, but having experienced the show first will give you a better appreciation for the feature-length finale. 

The story takes place sometime after the events of the fifth and last season of the series. Things are relatively calm at Downton Abbey as everyone seems to have found their footing. However, things suddenly take an unexpected turn when news arrives that the King and Queen will be visiting Downton. Now everyone must prepare for a most delightful Royal visit like they've never experienced before. 

And that's about all I can say without spoiling anything. Though, to be fair, that's about all the trailers and other promotional material has told about the movie. 

As you might have surmised by now, the film plays less like a movie and more like a two-hour season finale of the TV show. That is in no way intended as an adverse criticism, but a compliment. The series has a signature style and wit about it that, were it absent from the film, would have made the proceedings feel out of touch with the shows charm. Those who have seen the show will feel right at home with the presentation of the film. While those who have not yet watched the show will have a different experience entirely. 

If you plan on going straight into the movie without having seen the show prior, I can tell you right now that, while you will likely get a great deal of entertainment value from the writing and the performances, there will be smaller details sprinkled throughout the movie that may go right over your head. Characters occasionally mention events and other characters from the show that don't play a massive part in the film's story, but will add that little bit of texture to make the proceedings more engaging. One element, in particular, revolves around one of my favorite supporting characters named Tom Branson (Allen Leech) as an Irishman who married one of the Crowley's and goes through an engaging arc regarding his disagreement with the crown and his love for his in-laws. Again, you don't necessarily have to have watched the show to fully appreciate the film, but it will help. 

While I can gladly recommend this film to fans of the show (speaking as one myself), I feel rather unfortunate that I cannot give the same to those who have not yet watched the series. While there is still a great deal of entertainment value to be had from the general presentation of the film, it is ideally aimed at fans of the show. I suppose you could simply look up the events of the series online, but I would personally recommend against that since it will not provide the same experience. If you're interested in this movie but have not yet seen the show, now might be a good time to get started. Last I checked, the complete series was available on various streaming services and on disk. If you haven't watched the show yet, I recommend doing so before seeing the movie. If you have seen the series, this is the grand finale you have been waiting for. Put on your best dinner clothes and have a ball. I know I did. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Mostly yes. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Maybe. 

Why? 

While fans of the show will be pleased, some may find its presentation a little too mellow, provided you are not familiar with the original series. My personal recommendation would be to watch the show first, then enjoy the film, and if that means waiting for a video release of the film, then so be it. It may be better enjoyed that way. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Jacob's Ladder (2019) - Not really a remake

Remakes of beloved classic films are inevitable. So long as the entertainment industry remains static in their story crisis terrified to take on any property without name recognition or not based on any kind of pre-existing property, we as an audience will see a massive title wave of remakes, reboots, and reimaginings along with sequels, prequels, and spin-offs for good measure (or lack thereof). Most of the time, remakes fail to understand or embrace what made the original film so enduring and perfect and wind up as pale imitations that are only banking on the value of the recognizable name to ensure ticket sales. Even so, every so often, there is a remake of a classic movie that manages to build upon its predecessor's accomplishments and actually be better in its own way. It is rare, but it does happen on occasion. Today's movie, the 2019 remake of Jacob's Ladder, is somewhere in between. It's not bad enough to be written off as a lazy carbon copy of the original, but it's also not good enough to be considered better. It's a movie that if it were missing a few scenes and had a different title, would actually be a decent thriller in its own right. Sadly, because it bears the title and a few similar moments from the original, most of its goodwill gets bogged down. Not enough for me to deprive the movie of a cautious recommendation, but just enough to reinforce the sad state of mainstream entertainment. 

For those of you who don't know or need a quick refresher, the original Jacob's Ladder released in 1990 is one of the most iconic and influential psychological horror/thrillers ever made. The story follows a Vietnam war veteran named Jacob (Tim Robbins) who mourns the loss of his young son while dealing with severe PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) causing hallucinations and anxiety. On top of that, Jacob slowly discovers a great mystery about his time in the war and is determined to solve it. That is, assuming he can decern the difference between fantasy and reality, or figure out which reality is actually his own. Featuring a gripping performance by Tim Robbins, gorgeously gritty cinematography by Jeffery L. Kimball, eerie and atmospheric music by Maurice Jarre, and all beautifully realized under the talented direction of Adrian Lyne, Jacob's Ladder stands tall as one of the best examples of genuinely good horror storytelling, and one of my favorite psychological thrillers of all time. What brief moments of gore it has are very few and far in between, not to mention only utilized in service of the story and not for the sake of just having it. If you have not yet seen this film, I encourage you to do so. It is a real must-see for any cinema buff. 

The 2019 remake, on the other hand, is kind of a different beast entirely (almost). 

In the remake, the story follows combat surgeon from the Iraq war named Jacob (Michael Ealy) who is dealing with PTSD as well as the loss of his brother Issac (Jesse Williams) who apparently served with Jacob and died in battle. Jacob, now working full time as a trauma surgeon with a loving wife and baby, seems to be adjusting as well as possible. That is until a stranger, who claims to have served with his brother Issac, confronts Jacob claiming that his brother is alive and on the run. Reluctantly, Jacob looks into the stranger's claims and, much to his shock finds his brother Issac alive but not very well. Turns out Issac got himself in the grasp of a drug addiction that is apparently linked to a discontinued experimental treatment for vets with PTSD. As Jacob digs deeper into the mystery, he finds that things are not all they appear to be. Will Jacob solve the mystery and save his brother, or will he discover more than he had bargained for? 

The real problem with this remake is that it's technically not really a remake. There are only a handful of scenes that are nearly exact recreations of iconic scenes from the original, and most of the overall story is very similar. It has just enough recreated elements from the original to get away with calling itself a remake, but again, it's really not. 

What's frustrating is that I cannot describe the significant difference between the two films without spoiling them. While I recognize that the original is almost thirty years old, I know there are those who still have not yet seen it, and I want to ensure they have a chance to do so with a clean slate. So, here's what I'm going to do. If you want to avoid SPOILERS, then ignore any and all paragraphs that are written in Red.

Okay? Cool. Moving on 

SPOILERS: 

So, in both films, there is an element of mystery revolving around an experimental drug being tested on vets. In the original, this was just a subplot that mostly served as a means to comment on the mistreatment of soldiers by the government during the Vietnam war. Turns out Jacob, as well as a bunch of other soldiers including his squadmates, were secretly fed an experimental drug that would increase their ferocity, making them more efficient in battle. Sadly, they all ended up killing each other rather than the enemy as the drug was not stable. This was one of the many twists in the original leading up to the revelation that Jacob is, in actuality, dying of a lethal wound in Vietnam, and that all he has been experiencing up to the end of the story was all in his mind as he reconciled with his life and embraced his own death. Finding peace with the choices he had made. 

The remake, on the other hand, takes that same subplot from the original and turns it into the main plot. Wherein it turns out that Jacob had been taking an experimental drug meant to treat his PTSD by removing the traumatic memories that are causing it. However, it turns out that the drug has one major side-effect: It causes the subjects bad memories to be replaced with entirely different ones. In Jacob's case, all of his memories of his marriage, his child, and his brother's drug addiction, never actually happened. Jacob's brother, Issac, was the one who got married, had a child, and never even touched drugs. Later on, Jacob discovers that he had been helping out a scientist who was trying to perfect the same drug and was using vets as Guinea Pigs for his experiments. 

The problem with this difference is that it completely changes the themes and overall point from the original. Because Jacob in the original eventually dies, all of the strange experiences he has are manifestations of his struggle to stay alive and the fear of death. Meaning there are specific moments in the film that reflect and hint at this very idea. The remake retains many of the scenes and elements that served the same purpose in the original, except they don't make any sense in the remake, because the new version of the story is not about Jacob's reconciliation with his life, but something else entirely not even remotely related. Yes, Jacob does die at the end of the remake, but only as a last-minute contrivance. This is what I mean when I say this movie doesn't really feel like a remake, but rather as a completely different film that just added a few familiar scenes and slapped the title onto itself only so it could get your attention through name recognition. Even worse, the movie didn't really need to do so, because it was good enough on its own as a different kind of thriller. 

For those of you who skipped the Red paragraphs, the short version is that the remake is too different from the original to really qualify as a remake, and only uses a few iconic scenes and the title to bank on name recognition. 

In spite of this lack of truth in advertising (sort of), I would still kind of recommend this movie. It has enough competence within itself to, at the very least, be entertaining in its own way, and the whole cast does a fantastic job with the material. At the time of this writing, both versions of the film are available OnDemand and on various streaming services such as iTunes and Amazon. Neither film is yet available on Netflix. If you are interested in either film, I highly recommend you at least watch the original first. It is a superior story with deeper themes and statements that the "remake" is too afraid to even try and contemplate. While the "remake" is still an okay film in its own right, it cannot measure up to the original. At least not in my opinion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Angel Has Fallen - Finally, a good entry in this series

In 2013, a film titled Olympus Has Fallen was released in theaters, and could best be described as Die Hard but in The White House, except it was nowhere near as exciting as that sounds. Suffering from terrible action scenes, repetitive dialogue, lousy special effects, and laughable attempts a tough-guy acting, the film was a total bore, saved from absolute death only by the professional commitment of Gerard Butler and the ever-welcome presence of Morgan Freeman, who may very well be the only reason this franchise even survived as long as it has. Further solidifying the films lackluster status was the release of another movie with the same premise titled White House Down, except that film was a far superior execution of Die Hard but in The White House in every conceivable way. Despite all that, for some reason, White House Down never got a sequel, but guess what did? London Has Fallen released in 2016 and, while it was still terrible, at least featured a few improvements. Now, here we are with the third installment of this unusually popular franchise, Angel Has Fallen. Which, surprisingly, is not bad. I mean, it's The Fugitive as written by Tom Clancy on steroids, but it's more entertaining than that may sound.  

The story follows aging but dedicated Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) who is facing the real possibility of having to step down as a field agent due to a series of medical and personal issues. He is approached by President Trumbull (Morgan Freeman) to become the new Director of the Secret Service. Before Mike can answer, he and his team are attacked by a mysterious Drone strike killing Mike's entire squad and putting President Trumbull into a coma. Upon arriving at the hospital, the FBI informs Mike of evidence suggesting he orchestrated the attack in an attempt to assassinate the President. With no other options, Mike escapes off the grid to find a way to clear his name and take down the ones who are responsible. Little does he know that the answers may be closer than he thinks. 

Say what you will about the movies politics (and believe me, there is a lot to say about it), but as an action movie on its own merits, it's pretty much okay. The action is exciting and easy to follow, the characters have some texture to them, and the story manages to feel familiar yet fresh. A big part of the reason why is likely because for the past two installments, they were made by talented people but either didn't possess enough skills nor experience in action. It seems that this time around the producers managed to assemble a team of people who not only have some genuine talent for high octane action, but have a lot more experience, and it shows. 

This may not be the next greatest thing in action cinema, but it is a decent use of your free time that will adequately reward you for your box office money. If you need a quick break from the boring modern world, check this one out. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

Yes. 

Why? 

It's an inoffensive piece of action schlock that does its job well. Go with a friend if you can and have fun. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

IT Chapter 2 - It's official, the ending is just terrible

Back in 2017, a brand new adaptation of Stephen King's IT was released in theaters. The film became a massive success scoring high ratings with critics and loving praises from audiences, including myself. It turned out to be a genuinely pleasant surprise of a film with incredible child actors playing textured and entertaining characters, suspenseful set-piece moments that are genuinely scary, excellent metaphorical storytelling about childhood, trauma and facing your inner demons, and all of it is held together by the real star of the show, Bill Skarsgåd as Pennywise The Clown. Even people who were not big fans of horror cinema could not help but be utterly impressed with the quality of the film as a whole. While some describe it as a horror film for people who don't like the genre, I have to respectfully disagree. I say it is more like a film that best showcases what makes horror so appealing in a relatively easy to observe manner. It is one of the few horror films I genuinely enjoy, and I am happy to call myself a fan. Needless to say, I was pretty excited for the sequel IT: Chapter 2, and needless to say, it was disappointing. While I still got some entertainment value from the tremendously talented cast and handsome visuals, this sequel, rather sadly, fails to maintain the charm of the first film. Maybe because it never really could. 

Based on the second half of the book of the same title by Stephen King, the story follows a group of childhood friends known as The Looses Club who discovered, confronted, and defeated (albeit temporarily) a mysterious carnivorous shape-shifting creature known as IT, who mostly takes on the form of a dancing Clown named Pennywise. After the kids won the battle, they all took an oath to reunite and kill IT should it turn out that IT isn't actually dead. Twenty-seven years later, the kids have all grown up, and sure enough, Pennywise has risen again and is going on his usual hunting and killing spree. Now, The Losers Club must reunite and face their fears once again. 

The biggest problem with the second film is that it is just not as impressive as the first. It has long been a common issue with this particular story that the kids as adults are just no longer as engaging or as charming as they were before. Partially due to the repetitive nature of them facing off against Pennywise again, almost as if they suddenly forgot they did so before, and the apparent lack of growth from them as characters. They all grew up into relatively decent and successful people, who have conveniently repressed their memories of taking down a killer supernatural Clown, and now they're basically going through the same arcs they went through before. I suppose the argument could be made that this part of the story is about dealing with repressed trauma and finding the courage to face it head-on, but they technically already faced their greatest fears in the previous film, so I personally believe that argument is invalid. 

Even so, let it be said that this lack of interesting characters is not the fault of the cast. Everyone playing the older versions of the characters from the first film does a phenomenal job with the material they are given. James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, and Bill Hader, in particular, deliver some of the best performances of the film. Almost enough to compensate for the inexcusable lack of Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise, who has, at best, fifteen minutes of screentime out of a nearly three-hour film. 

The good news is the first IT movie succeeds in standing on its own as an individual film. You can easily enjoy the first movie without ever having to watch the second, which is honestly my best recommendation. It genuinely pains me to come down so hard on this film because I was seriously excited about it, I was still impressed with most of the visuals, and the cast provided some excellent entertainment value. However, it is all just not enough to compensate for the less-than-stellar story, repetitive character moments, and lack of genuine scares. This is one movie that just doesn't float very well. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Not really. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

No. 

Why? 

It's too repetitive, has no real texture, and isn't scary. If you absolutely must see this movie, I recommend waiting for Netflix. Don't waste your money on a theater ticket for this one. You will likely have a much more satisfying experience coming up with your own ending. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

The Peanut Butter Falcon - A bundle of joy

2019 has not really been an excellent year for movies...until now. In a year that has been crowded with sequels, remakes, spin-offs, and lazy cash grabs (more so than usual that is), We finally have a new movie that puts all of them to shame. The Peanut Butter Falcon is not only a gloriously beautiful film, but it is also an instant contender for the best movie of the year. Purely because it has the one thing that a lot of films this year have been sorely lacking, heart. 

Taking place in rural Georga, the story follows a young man named Zak (Zack Gottsegen) who has down-syndrome and has spent the past two years living in a retirement home. Mostly due to the unfortunate situation of a lack of funding and sufficient care facilities. Even so, Zak has aspirations of escaping his confinement and meeting his hero, the great wrestler called The Salt-Water Redneck (Thomas Haden Church), who apparently has a wrestling school, and Zak want's to learn from the best. One night, Zak successfully escapes and happens to run into a drifter named Tyler (Shia LaBeouf) who agrees to help Zak get to his destination. Along the way, the two men form a unique friendship all the while being pursued by Zak's compassionate caretaker Eleanor (Dakota Johnson).

To say any more about the story would constitute spoilers, and the less you know about this movie going in, the more enjoyable your experience will be. 

I cannot think of one thing about this movie that I did not like. The characters are sympathetic and three-dimensional, the writing is smart and on-point, the direction is fluid and energetic, the cast is remarkable, and I could go on, but I think you get the idea. 

What really makes the film work is the leading man Zack Gottsegen, who does actually have down-syndrome in real life. His performance and chemistry with his co-stars are the heart and soul of the film. This should be an inspiration to anyone living with a disability of any kind. I know it was for me. 

If this movie is still playing anywhere near you, or if you happen to stumble upon it for rent or purchase on iTunes or Amazon, or if you stumble across a copy of it in any store that sells movies, I urge you to pick up a copy of this film. I promise you. Do not miss this movie. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Absolutely. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

Definitely. 

Why? 

Why are you still reading this? Please go see it already. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Now seriously, go see this movie already.