Sunday, May 31, 2009

The Girlfriend Experience

My only qualm with Steven Soderbergh's new film is that no one says anything and nothing happens.

I mean this almost literally. There are words spoken, but they have no meaning. The whole movie is chit chat. Occasionally a character will ask Sasha Grey, our main character, a series of questions about her life as a high-class prostitute. She will either deflect these questions with a non sequitur or respond with an amazingly long pause followed by "I don't know." Rarely in film has someone employed meaningless silence so aggressively as Soderbergh does here.

There is no plot, but here's some stuff that happens. Real-life porn star Sasha Grey plays Chelsea, a bland, robotic escort who provides her clients with more than sex. She provides "the girlfriend experience," which according to the film consists of saying things like "So... how's work?" and then listening to her client complain about the economy.

Has Soderbergh ever had a girlfriend? Was she as boring and flavorless as Sasha Grey's character? If so he needs to start dating more interesting women immediately. They are out there. One of them might have saved this utter waste of film stock.

The directing here is wretched. There are so many shots of Sasha opening doors, standing up, sitting down, crossing rooms, waiting for stoplights -- if all the fluff had been cut (maybe using a professional editor? Soderbergh cut this film himself -- almost always a mistake) the running time of the film would have been fourteen minutes, tops.

Despite this, and despite the terribly phony acting across the board (which is usually an extension of directorial weakness), the real problem is, as always, the script.

Of course, Soderbergh didn't do the actual writing. That's too much hard work and he's beyond it now. Scriptwriting duties fell to David Levien and Brian Koppelman, who wrote "Rounders" eleven years ago and have been writing garbage -- "Runaway Jury," "Walking Tall," "Ocean's Thirteen" -- ever since.

By disdaining narrative convention, namely the convention of having things happen in a story, Soderbergh is trying to be artsy, which worked for him twenty years ago with the insightful and raw "Sex, Lies and Videotape," but this time it's all form without function. There are no insights to be gleaned following Sasha Grey through her day, and no amount of opaque dialogue, glossy-eyed stares or musical montages can make up for that simple fact.

Over the course of the -- what, non-movie? -- Sasha Grey makes a few half-hearted attempts to increase her "quote." We never find out what comes of this. She makes a half-hearted attempt to break up with her clingy boyfriend Chris. We don't find out what comes of this either. Everything Sasha does is half-hearted. We never see her having sex, which is presumably the one thing she would have to do well and therefore the one thing we should see for sure.

Sasha's superficiality may well be the point of the film. That you only get the surface qualities of a high-class escort no matter how much you pay her, but how unilluminating is that? Is it Soderbergh's intention to save us a couple thou we would've otherwise spent on a girl like Sasha Grey? What about the ten bucks we spent for this movie?

"The Girlfriend Experience" breaks the one rule you cannot break in film-making. It bores. And we cannot have it. Somehow, at an anemic 78 minutes, the film manages to waste your entire day.


How Accomplished: 12/100

How Much I Enjoyed: 14/100 (two points for Sasha Grey being easy to look at)

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Terminator: Salvation

Here's why Hollywood is so frustrating.

A couple guys like John Brancato and Michael Ferris can get into the system writing cheap action sequels like "Watchers 2" and "Bloodfist 2," somehow write one good script (the Michael Douglas starrer "The Game") and thereby earn themselves permanent future employment, even if that means foisting Terminator 3, Catwoman, and -- sigh -- Terminator: Salvation on an unsuspecting public.

According to recent Christian Bale interviews, "Dark Knight" writer Jonathan Nolan did significant rewrites based on Bale's input, essentially creating a role for John Connor that did not exist in the Brancato/Ferris draft (and thereby creating two separate protagonists, John Connor and Marcus Wright, which to my knowledge has never worked in the history of storytelling.)

Given that Terminator: Salvation was written by hacks, rewritten by its own movie star and directed by the man who gave us the Charlie's Angels movies, it should come as little surprise that it... is... terrible.

Where to start? Like "Star Trek" and every other recent time travel movie, the plot makes no sense at all. This is especially upsetting when Skynet, whose goal is the death of John Connor, gets ahold of Connor's dad Kyle Reese before Reese has even met Connor's mother (these things happen in time travel movies), and instead of killing said Reese, thereby wiping out Connor's very existence, Skynet elects to use Reese as BAIT to lure Connor to Skynet's headquarters, whereupon Skynet attempts to kill him.

And boy does Skynet do a poor job of it! After allowing Connor to sneak into its headquarters, Skynet springs its deadly trap -- which consists of a single T-800 Terminator.

All throughout the movie we've seen more robots than you could possibly count, but suddenly, with Skynet's survival on the line, it can only muster a single defender. And of course if Connor can overcome that single Terminator, he will be free to blow up Skynet itself. That was the plan??? Skynet, I'm verrrrry disappointed.

But logical insanity is the least of Salvation's problems. Despite a cast jammed with familiar faces at every turn (Helena Bonham Carter, Bryce Dallas Howard, Michael Ironsides -- does it mean nothing that the franchise-spawning original Terminator was cast almost entirely with then-unknowns?) there are no characters to feel sympathy for, or even to believe.

The most egregious offender is the Moon Bloodgood character. Supposedly a resistance fighter in a desperate war, Bloodgood wears her hair long and luxurious, her spandex tight and stylish, and when she walks it is with the hip-swaying sexuality of a catwalk model. This is the world in the year 2018 -- not nearly as desperate and terrifying as we were led to believe.

Even Christian Bale's John Connor is underwhelming. The plot depends on the scattered forces of the resistance being devoted to Connor with an almost religious reverence, but the character never exhibits the charisma that would explain this phenomenon. Interestingly, James Cameron did more to establish Connor as a leader of men with a simple wordless walk down a corridor in T2, wherein wounded soldiers dragged themselves to their feet for the privilege of saluting the scar-faced Connor as he passed, than McG and Christian Bale do in T4's hour and fifty-five minute running time. (Subjective running time: four hours, twelve minutes.)

As always with sequels, what was once an ultimate threat is now a minor annoyance. Terminators are dispatched in T4 with all the ease of stormtroopers in a Star Wars movie. The terminators of T4 are bigger, louder and more numerous than ever before. Previously they were only scary and dangerous. What was Cameron thinking?

With its limp and pointless script, its overstuffed cast, its preference for CGI over suspense, for THX sound effects over character, McG takes the Terminator franchise perilously close to Michael Bay's Transformer territory.

For all practical purposes, you can probably consider the following score equally valid for T4 and the upcoming Transformers 2. That way we can all skip the latter. Now if only we had skipped the former...


How Accomplished: 21/100

How Much I Enjoyed: 14/100

Monday, May 11, 2009

Star Trek

It's taken me several days to get my head around how bad the new "Star Trek" is. It's like a flu virus that hits you in waves, manifesting different symptoms day by day. One day it's the absurd plot logic. The next, it's the cringe-worthy attempts at humor. The next it's the utter lack of dramatic tension.

"Star Trek's" flaws are so many and varied there is almost no theme to them. Everything a movie can do badly is done badly here.

Let's start at the top. Here's the plot of the movie:

The planet Romulus is in danger from a nearby supernova. The only person who can save it is our old friend Mister Spock, who has invented a containment system for black holes. He intends to use this system to deploy a black hole near the supernova, sucking up the blast wave that threatens Romulus.

Alas, Spock arrives too late. Romulus is already fried to a crisp.

Now, there is no indication Spock made any unnecessary stops on the way to Romulus. There is no indication he made a quick detour to a casino planet to take a few spins on the roulette wheel. Spock appears to have made every effort to save Romulus.

Nevertheless, Spock arrives too late, and this earns him the eternal enmity of the villain of our story: Nero (why not just call him Hitler?), the captain of a mining vessel -- remember that detail -- the captain of a mining vessel who was working off-planet at the time and lost his wife and presumably the rest of his family to the cataclysm.

How Spock had time to go all the way to Romulus and just miss the disaster, but Nero didn't have time to evacuate his wife and family -- just in case! -- is one of three hundred thousand questions that could be asked, but not answered, about this plot.


Nero's mad as hell at Spock. Mad as hell. He therefore attacks Spock's one-man vessel with every intention of killing him. I call this misplaced anger, but whatever. He fails to kill Spock because Spock uncorks his now useless black hole on Nero as a means of self-defense. In a sane universe, the black hole would consume both Spock and Nero. Here, Nero and Spock are sucked into a time vortex. Whoa there, you're saying. A time vortex. That's amazing! Why did that happen? Let's call that question two of three hundred thousand that will never be answered.

So Nero and Spock get sucked into a time vortex. Nero goes through first, and finds himself transported a hundred years into the past.

There he fights a Starfleet vessel. For some reason. I presume we are still in Romulan space at this point, but for some reason there's a Starfleet vessel there which fights the evil mining captain Nero. And gets its ass kicked. Because a mining vessel a hundred years in the future is more formidable than a military vessel from a hundred years in the past.

This is patently ludicrous, but again -- whatever.

So there's Nero, in the past. Unstoppable because of his futuristic mining technology. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking Nero's going to proceed straight to Romulus and warn them that a hundred years in the future they will face extinction because of the nearby supernova. Therefore Nero will avert the disaster that claimed his home as well as his beloved wife.

That would be good, right?

Wrong. Nero's plan is this. Spock isn't due to join Nero in the past for another twenty-five years -- for some unknown reason. So Nero's going to stick around. He's going to skulk around empty space for the next quarter-century until Spock arrives, and then he's going to POUNCE.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking he's going to kill Spock. Well, you don't understand Nero at all.

What Nero's going to do is CAPTURE Spock. He's going to take Spock to the planet Vulcan. He's going to maroon Spock on a nearby ice world, and then he's going to deploy Spock's black hole device on Vulcan itself. This way, Spock will have to watch from the ice world as his own home, Vulcan, is consumed by the very device Spock invented to save Romulus. Now that's irony.

You can almost hear Nero saying, "That'll teach you to show up late trying to save my planet from a natural disaster."

This may seem vindictive on Nero's part, but it's only the beginning of his nefarious plan. Just to drive the point home, Nero's going to use Spock's black hole device to destroy every planet in the Federation. Earth is next on the chopping block.

And that's where Kirk and young Spock and everyone else come into the story. They try to stop Nero's nonsensical plan with a series of nonsensical action sequences that involve sky-diving onto Nero's drilling mechanism (question 3 of 300,000: why does Nero use a drilling mechanism to get to the center of a planet? Surely a black hole doesn't need to be perfectly centered to destroy a planet), fighting amongst themselves on the bridge of the Enterprise (funny scene when Spock tries to choke the life out of Kirk and no one lifts a finger to stop him), and firing a lot of lasers, sorry, phasers, in every direction possible as often as possible.

For a JJ Abrams movie, the action feels orchestrated by Michael Bay. There's a lot of handheld camera bounciness, a lot of confusion as to the distance between combatants, and a lot of bad aim by everyone.

This is contrary to the essence of action in the Star Trek universe. The starship combat in Star Trek is supposed to feel like a naval action, with large, slow-moving, well-shielded vessels where superior tactics -- or surprise -- win battles. In the New Star Trek, fights play like loud, cheap video games where victory goes to whomever can push the fire button more times per second.

Likewise, hand phasers now spit out glowing projectiles in rapid-fire fashion like a submachine gun. Gone are the days when a drawn phaser meant someone was going to die. Or at least get "stunned."

Was there anything good about this movie? Sure. The idea of re-casting the original characters was a coup, and the casting worked out fine. Unfortunately, the two most exceptional casting choices were given nothing to do in this movie. The first is Karl Urban's McCoy, who brought a welcome dose of charisma to his role, but serves no story purpose. The second is Zoe Saldana's Uhura, who brings a supercharged sexuality to the proceedings. Kirk hits on Uhura in a bar in one of the opening scenes, and this is a fun thing to watch. Later we learn that Uhura is already in a relationship -- with Spock no less -- which is a great idea but left to fizzle out like every other promising but undeveloped subplot. What could have been an interesting love triangle is resolved before it has a chance to get going, and as a result Uhura, like McCoy, doesn't really belong in the story.

The script feels like a rush job -- which it probably was. The dialogue is clumsy (Nero saying to Kirk "I recognize you from Federation history books"), cliche-ridden (Uhura to Kirk: "I hope you know what you're doing" Kirk: "So do I"), and way, way, way overtly thematic (Nero again, to Kirk: "In this universe, you never chose to follow your father's footsteps. Instead you rebelled against authority every chance you got" or something.)

One reason the dialogue is so thin is that the story is trying to accommodate way too many characters. As a result we don't get to know any of them. I think it was a mistake to drop every character from the original show on us at once. Why not stick with a core group -- maybe Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the suddenly promising Uhura -- and unspool the rest over the next couple of movies?

The story also suffers from so many characters. It becomes impossible to keep track of what everyone is doing at all times, so the script veers into a berserk number of coincidences. My favorite example: Young Spock ejects a mutinous Kirk from the Enterprise. Kirk lands on an ice world, where he is saved from local monsters by Old Spock, who has coincidentally been marooned in the same place on the same planet by Nero. Both of them would spend the rest of their lives there but for the existence of a starbase nearby, manned by only one Starfleet officer: Scotty! Does it get everyone involved? Yep. Does it feel like it could actually happen in a million years? Nope!

Perhaps the biggest casualty of the convergence of all these characters and all these plots and so little writing time is the chill moment. A chill moment occurs when you almost shiver in response to a climactic development in the story. When Kirk calls Khan toward the end of Star Trek II and says, "We tried it once your way, Khan, are you game for a rematch? Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect," that's a chill moment. Since this story is so frazzled and frenetic, there is no moment in the new Star Trek that feels more important than any other. So no chill moments.

It's also sad to see the total lack of a relationship between Kirk and Spock. (The young Spock, anyway.) In an attempt to create drama where it doesn't exist with the evil mining captain, the writers have Kirk and Spock essentially hate each other all movie long. Nothing happens in the story that would transform this antagonism, either, save for the old Spock telling the two characters that they are supposed to get along.

That's fine and all, but it doesn't land emotionally. Relationships can't be forced, even by time-traveling versions of yourself. It hurts to see the lack of affection and chemistry between Kirk and Spock here. That too is a hallmark of the original Trek that didn't survive the reboot.

So this movie is terrible, but the franchise is not without hope.

Almost everything I've said about the JJ Abrams "Star Trek" could be said about "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" when it was released in 1978. That film was a bloated mess, overpopulated with character introductions, a nonsensical plot and a lack of chemistry between the characters. Trek 1 was a wasted opportunity best forgotten entirely. And it was.

Writer/director Nick Meyer approached Trek 2 (the Wrath of Khan) as if the first movie never existed. He changed the look, the tone and the formula, giving us a tight, authentic, emotion-filled drama. He was only given this opportunity because Trek 1 was a box office flop.

For the good of the new Trek franchise, we should hope the same thing happens. We should hope that this movie flops, and Paramount, again in a desperate situation, takes the sequel away from JJ Abrams and his overworked writers, and gives it to someone willing to get back to basics and tell a good, simple story first and foremost.

It can happen. It really can.


Accomplishment: 18/100

How Much I Liked It: 09/100 (Reflecting high expectation bias -- damn, I wanted to love this movie)


"Obsessed" is nearly a scene-for-scene remake of the Michael Douglas/Glenn Close movie "Fatal Attraction."

And why not? It's been twenty years since "Fatal Attraction" hit theaters. As long as it's competently executed, and "Obsessed" is, Hollywood should remake FA every twenty years until the end of time.

The story of a love triangle where one vortex is a homicidal bitch from hell has been modernized in a few ways. The happily married couple has gone black, with Idris Elba and Beyonce taking on the roles of husband and wife. Idris Elba must be an amazing actor, because I'm starting to be able to look at him without seeing his brilliant character on "The Wire," drug overlord Stringer Bell. Beyonce is fine, but not nearly as comfortable in front of the camera as she is in her videos. Maybe she'll get better.

Ali Larter, another TV performer, plays the home-wrecker (literally). She's a stunning blond who temps in Stringer Bell's office -- whoops! Idris Elba's office -- and sets her sights on him as early as the elevator ride to the top floor on her first day.

The beauty of the story is that it can unfold slowly but with great tension. We know, if only from the title of the movie, that Ali Larter is a grave threat to Elba and Beyonce, but they don't. Not at first, anyway. At first, Ali's advances seem harmless. Her interest in the details of Elba's life seem like nothing more than friendly curiosity. Before long, of course, she's assaulting him in the men's bathroom at the office Christmas party, and we're off and running.

In this version, unlike FA, the happily-married man does not sleep with the psychopath. This undermines the mythic "you brought this evil on yourself" element, but makes the process of character sympathy much more straightforward, and I think it was the right choice here. Elba does virtually nothing he shouldn't, so the audience is firmly in his corner. This puts pressure on Ali Larter's character to make Elba appear guilty of a variety of offenses, adultery being only the most mild. Why she would go to such diabolical lengths to win the love of a man who never really gave her the time of day might be logically questionable, but in this kind of movie we're sort of willing to go along with it.

Fans of FA will recognize the scene where Ali abducts Elba and Beyonce's child in a terrifying sequence that turns out to bring no harm to the child. Ali doesn't cook up the child's pet bunny, though. That scene didn't carry over.

The movie concludes with a grand fight scene at the couple's home. Curiously, Elba plays no role in the climax whatsoever. It's purely Beyonce versus Ali, which doesn't really work because Elba's been our main character all along, so we want to see the ending from his perspective, not Beyonce's. Furthermore the action is ridiculous, with Ali's "terminator" adultress becoming outright comical.

Nevertheless, when a crystal chandelier falls on Ali in the end, we cheer. "Obsessed" is not a perfect movie -- it's not even a great movie -- but it gets the job done. At least for another twenty years.


How Accomplished: 64/100

How Much I Enjoyed: 72/100


Mike Tyson's voice is nearly the only one heard in the documentary "Tyson." Considering how crazy, egotistical and inarticulate the former boxer can be, this is a risky choice.

It pays off. Part of the credit must go to the skill of film-maker James Toback, who is absent in front of the camera, but whose artful cuts and framings make for a strong presence behind it.

Part of the credit must also go to Mike Tyson, or the period of life Tyson finds himself in. Throughout the documentary, Tyson is reflective, candid and even philosophical. He talks about his often sordid past -- a past which includes drug use, robbery, rape and frequent brutality -- without pride or regret.

This is Tyson at his most analytical.

No aspect of his life appears to be off-limits. He talks about a violent, disadvantaged childhood, about the first fight of his life (someone was trying to steal his beloved pigeons), and about the singular event that lifted him out of a hopeless environment and set him on a course to be the world's best boxer: his adoption by fight trainer Cus D'Amato.

It's an oft-told story that D'Amato devoted himself not only to Tyson's boxing perfection but also to his character and larger sense of happiness. D'Amato loved Tyson the way a father loves a son, and the feeling was mutual. The great tragedy of Tyson's life is the fact that D'Amato died as early as he did, leaving Tyson without his necessary guidance at a time when great success would bring equally great temptation.

Hearing this tale from Tyson's perspective is affecting. So great was Tyson's obvious grief at D'Amato's passing, it almost feels as if Tyson's future self-destructiveness was already unveiled. It feels as if Tyson was grieving for his future self.

If there's a theme to the documentary, it's that Mike Tyson feels fear more acutely than most people. He ascribes his early aggression to a desire not to be bullied himself, and from that perspective his ascent to becoming the world's most famous fighter was completely unsuccessful. Fighting seems to make Tyson more afraid, not less. It catapulted him into a world of celebrity and high society he was completely unable to navigate without the help of an entourage of leeches and the management of boxing's most crooked man, Don King, who most likely stole a hundred million dollars or so of Tyson's money.

Given Tyson's inability to cope with his environment and given his unresolved issues with fear and anger, it was really only a matter of time until Tyson landed in jail.

In the event, it was a rape accusation from beauty pageant contestant Desiree Washington. In the documentary, Tyson refutes Washington's claim that he raped her, but incredibly suggests that he committed other rapes in the mean streets of his youth, and therefore doesn't consider his prison sentence a noteworthy injustice.

It's also interesting to hear Tyson discuss the fear he lived under in prison. There was a perception at the time that the world's most ferocious boxer would survive easily in an environment where physical aggression defined status, but Tyson claims he lived in constant fear of other inmates, especially those who were facing life terms. Such men have nothing to lose, whereas Tyson had every worldly luxury awaiting him on the outside in just three years.

Therefore Tyson claims he did his time with as non-confrontational an attitude as possible, an interesting admission from a guy who once bit the ear off an opponent.

Yes, the documentary discusses the ear-biting Holyfield fight. Tyson insists he devolved into an animalistic fury as a result of Holyfield's repeated head butts. I have my suspicions that Tyson didn't want to continue fighting against a clearly superior opponent. This was perhaps the only instance in the documentary of Tyson being disingenuous.

Tyson was married twice. He screwed both marriages up. Really, Mike Tyson has screwed up his entire life, and strangely, that's exactly the kind of person to make a documentary about.


How Accomplished: 74/100

How Much I Enjoyed: 84/100


How could everything that was so good turn so bad?

I like comics. I like the X-Men. I liked the first movie and its sequel. I even liked its threequel. So I came into "X-Men: Origins: Wolverine" as a very partial observer. They'd have to work pretty hard to make me walk out of the theater disgruntled.

But here's the thing. When it comes to comic-book actioners, the whole movie hinges on the bad guy's evil plan. If the evil plan is good, the movie will be good. Lex Luthor's plan in 1978's "Superman" -- to buy up worthless desert in Nevada, start an earthquake that will sink California into the Pacific Ocean, then clean up as the owner of suddenly invaluable oceanfront property -- is the best evil plan of all time, and it's no coincidence that's the best comic book movie ever made.

Here's the evil plan in "Wolverine." Bear with me.

Colonel Stryker is a man who hates mutants. His son was a mutant, and this shame made Stryker an ardent mutant-hater. Naturally he organizes a team of mutants to help him with his covert military operations.

On the team is our boy Wolverine, his half-brother Sabretooth (played well by Liev Schreiber in a pleasant surprise), super-fast swordsman Ryan Reynolds, and a couple other freaky dudes.

They perform various unsavory tasks until Wolverine's conscience kicks in and he leaves the team. Wolverine finds peace in the quiet life atop the Canadian Rockies with his sexy girlfriend Kayla Silverfox. Which is fine, until Sabretooth shows up and kills sexy girlfriend Kayla Silverfox.

This, it turns out, is all part of Stryker's evil plan.

Wolverine is so determined to avenge sexy girlfriend Kayla Silverfox that he agrees to let Colonel Stryker perform an experiment on him that will give him the strength he needs to defeat Sabretooth. He allows Stryker to infuse his skeleton with an indestructible metal called adamantium.

Little does Wolverine know, Stryker ordered Sabretooth to attack sexy girlfriend Kayla Silverfox in the first place. Stryker wanted to trick Wolverine to willingly submit to the adamantium procedure, which Stryker wants to test out before performing on his ultimate mutant-killing soldier, a transformed Ryan Reynolds we'll meet again later.

Foolishly, Stryker reveals his dastardly intentions right after making Wolverine indestructible. Wolverine promptly escapes Stryker's clutches, largely due to the fact that he is now indestructible. Wolverine 1, Common Sense 0.

Most of the rest of the movie involves Stryker chasing Wolverine.

Wolverine turns the tables when he finds out sexy girlfriend Kayla Silverfox was only pretending to be dead, as she is also part of Stryker's evil plan to make Wolverine indestructible in order to kill him and his fellow mutants. Evidently Stryker was holding Silverfox's sister hostage, so she had no choice but to pretend to be killed by Sabretooth, who also wants to be made indestructible. (Wouldn't you?)

Wolverine finds Stryker on Three Mile Island, where Stryker has gathered together -- and in retrospect he would do things VERY differently -- every mutant he has ever captured. Stryker is on the verge of imbuing his new mutant killer, a lobotomized Ryan Reynolds, with every power possessed by the captured mutants. (Evidently mutant powers can be spread by blood transfusion.) Now he will rid the world of mutants forever, provided someone -- especially someone made indestructible by Stryker himself -- doesn't show up, open all the cages and trash the damn place.

Ironically that is just what Wolverine does.

In the process he kills Stryker's mutant killer, Ryan Reynolds, whom Stryker didn't have time to make indestructible despite the fact that the procedure worked perfectly on Wolverine himself, showing that it didn't really need to be "tested out" after all.

So if only Stryker had been LESS careful, if only he had been LESS cautious, if only he had gone forward with the original experiment on the mutant-killer Ryan Reynolds -- instead of testing it out on his own arch-enemy Wolverine -- then mutant-kind would have been destroyed for good.

On such judgments rest the fate of us all.

Man, this movie sucked.


How Accomplished: 19/100

How Much I Enjoyed: 14/100