Top Gun: Maverick - Movie Review - An exhilarating and emotional big screen experience

Top Gun from 1986 is alright. Some enjoyable flying sequences, a memorable soundtrack, and a sort of novelty from seeing such a young Tom Cruise, but nothing really that special. However, it is certainly a very popular film among many people, so when I heard a sequel was on the way over thirty years later, I thought I knew exactly what it would consist of, that is to say, what every other sequel to a culturally popular film made a decade or two later consists of - an experience that is almost identical through repetitive plot points and an excess of callbacks and references to that original film, capitalising on the audience's nostalgia. I watched the original film for the first time in preparation for Maverick and wasn't overly impressed, so I wasn't so sure if I'd get much out of the sequel. But, it got some amazing responses so maybe I would.

After thirty years, Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell returns to Top Gun, but this time to train the next generation of pilots in preparation for a dangerous mission. Among these new pilots is the son of Goose, who goes by Rooster. 

Between this film and the original Top Gun is such a bizarre shift in quality. The first film is, as I said, just kind of decent. This, on the other hand, is genuinely terrific stuff, even in the eyes of someone like me who isn't especially attached to this world and these characters. 

The major factor is that the action sequences in the fighter jets are absolutely excellent. From the goosebumps you get at the sound of the engines starting up to your hands gripping the side of your seat at all the high-speed dogfights and insane manoeuvres, they're just spectacular. A big part of this is how they're constructed; I'm not an expert, but from what I've heard, I believe most of what is seen on screen is practical effects, with little reliance on CGI / greenscreen. This is believable because all these sequences have a certain heft to them, they feel so grounded in reality, which amplifies the tension at hand. Tom Cruise is a very admirable figure in the film industry today, as he's clearly someone who wants to preserve the traditional crafts of filmmaking in the midst of CGI being most dominant, as well as the cinematic experience at a time when streaming is becoming most dominant. If you plan on watching this film, catch it on a big screen instead of waiting for it to come to your TV, it's at its best in the cinema. 

Beyond that, the film also does a good job investing the audience from an emotional standpoint. The original film did barely anything to make me care about how the death of Goose affected Maverick, but this film really made me care about such based on how it incorporates Rooster into the narrative, and the emotional beats involving them all feel earned and sincere, as well as satisfying. I equally have no investment in the relationship between Maverick and Val Kilmer's character, but through a really endearing scene with the two in this film, I found myself with a big smile on my face at the two. It's easy for films like this to make the fans in the audience feel something, as most of the time the mere sight of familiar characters is enough to satisfy some, but to do so for very detached audience members like myself isn't as simple, so I'm impressed that this film managed to do so. 

Part of why I found myself so engaged is that the film was actually somewhat unpredictable. I expected it to just be the same plot as the original but with a new coat of paint, but it wasn't. At a time when we've seen films like The Matrix Resurrections or Ghostbusters: Afterlife, that being sequels made many years after their predecessors that just repeat the original narratives / themes in slightly varied ways, this was such a relief. Parts of the film are deliberately mimicking the original for sure, but the narrative, for the most part, contained what felt like developments as opposed to retreading familiar ground, which is what the best sequels do. Maverick's arc in this film is distinct from his previous one - instead of being a young and arrogant pilot who has to rein in his confidence, he's an experience flyer who has to get over a trauma from his past. He definitely has elements of the character in the first film, but grows in distinct ways.

Overall, I'm glad I was able to enjoy this as much as I did. Top Gun: Maverick may be a sequel to something that isn't particularly amazing, but it in itself is really awesome. The action is well-crafted and the characters are well defined. It's the quintessential summer blockbuster for this year, so I highly reccommend you give it a go even if you couldn't care less about its predecessor. 

I'm going to give Top Gun: Maverick an 8.5/10 

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness - Movie Review - A refreshing but restrained return from Raimi

After Spider-Man: No Way Home, I think it's fair to say that almost everyone's most anticipated upcoming Marvel movie was Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. The former gave us a taste of the possibilities of different Marvel universes colliding on the big screen, and the latter looked as if it was going to go even further and take this series into new, even stranger territory. 

In the film, Doctor Strange must help protect a young girl capable of travelling between universes throughout the vast multiverse from the dark forces that seek to acquire her ability, namely Wanda Maximoff, the Scarlet Witch. That's all I'll say about plot here, I won't be going into spoilers in this review. Any other plot points I mention are things that have been revealed in trailers. But, if you're being extra cautious, I suggest you don't read ahead anyway.

Having seen the film, I'm both relieved at how it ended up, but also slightly underwhelmed. Although I was excited for it, I still had some concerns. I was worried that the film would descend into nothing but cool cameos and crazy visuals for no reason other than for their own sake, and that there'd be no substance to it. That and the film's production of being rewritten to take place after No Way Home and also having reshoots over a considerable period of time indicated that it may turn out to be a bit of a hodgepodge. Luckily, none of this was true. It feels mostly coherent, and although it does have cameos and bonkers visuals, both of which were cool in their inclusions, it prioritises telling a story focused on the characters at the centre of it more so than just exploiting all the substanceless possibilities. This was a relief. 

However, even though this is the case, I think the story was a little misguided. I really wish the film did more with the character of Strange himself. I like him very much and Benedict Cumberbatch is great in the role, but he hasn't really experienced much growth or change over the course of all the films he's appeared in since his origin story. In this film, the perfect opportunity for such presents itself, as Strange's pragmatic / logical mindset that we're all familiar with is challenged as he begins to care more for the people in his life, as represented by a recurring "are you happy?" line. That's an interesting arc for him to go through, the film didn't do much to flesh this out and expose his emotional / vulnerable side, which we haven't seen any of aside from that one episode of What If...? What makes this worse is that the film gives more attention to Wanda and how she changes over the course of the narrative. She has very interesting development for sure, but she had a whole TV show where her grief and inner struggles were explored in great depth, so it feels quite frustrating that she's being given the most amount of focus here, especially when considering this is Strange's movie and there's much that could be done with him.

This would also be beneficial for boosting the horror aspects of the film. One I really liked about Multiverse of Madness was how boundary pushing and audacious it felt. This feels like a horror film within an MCU superhero film, thanks in no small part to director Sam Raimi at the helm, whose distinct presence was certainly detectable. There are things that occur in this film that are gruesome, as well as things that are very unsettling. However, that being said, this is the aspect of the film that felt underwhelming. Although I did admire how far the film went from a horror standpoint, I feel they could have gone even further. We see a lot of nightmarish things in the film, but I don't think the full implications of them were explored with the necessary depth. This could've easily been done if the film took a more psychological approach to the character of Strange. For example, at one point he is confronted by an alternate version of himself, who was responsible for bringing an entire universe to ruin, and the film barely scratches the surface regarding just how terrifying that must be for him. Have you ever thought about just how scary it would be to meet a version of yourself that lost everything? It's quite a big, horrifying idea, and I wish the film did more to properly let the impact sink in because there's a lot of potential themes and drama that could be derived from it.

Okay, so the film seems to have its focus in the wrong place and it doesn't go all out with its horrific side as much as it could have. Does that mean it's bad? Absolutely not. Regardless of my issues, the film is still largely enjoyable. While I don't think it went quite as far as it could have from a horror perspective, it certainly ticked all the boxes in terms of being a solid MCU offering. The action is great, a lot of it being just as good as the last Doctor Strange film, but some of it was truly excellent. There's a fight between two characters that involves them using musical notes and it was just unbelievably creative. Additionally, as alluded to earlier, it is more brutal than your average entry in this series, with characters getting killed in extreme ways, characters covered in blood, and more, which I really liked. The visuals in the film were also terrific, bringing the variety of mind-bending worlds across the multiverse to life very successfully. 

Also, with the MCU films being largely character-driven pieces, the characters were all great as usual. As I said, Strange is still terrific, and the new side of Wanda is very intimidating. As for everyone else, namely Wong, Mordo, Christine, newcomer America Chavez, and all the exciting suprise appearances, they all worked very well too. Some could've been given a bit more depth, especially America, who unfortunately feels like a plot device more than a character at times, but they were all solid nonetheless. 

Overall, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness feels like its being held back a little and is also somewhat misguided in its narrative, but there's still plenty on offer. It has everything you'd want to see from an MCU film, and much that you perhaps wouldn't expect, admirably so. 

I'm going to give Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness an 8.0/10

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent - Movie Review - A fun time with Nicolas Cage as Nick Cage

Apologies if this review is a little too brief; I don't really have much to say about this one so am not going to bother padding and will just say all that I feel needs to be said. However, don't worry, because I can say for sure that I will have a very in-depth review out next week as we're days away from Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. I look forward to writing that once I've seen the film this Thursday! Anyway, for now, let's discuss something else.

I'm not the biggest fan of Nicolas Cage, not because I don't like him, but because I'm just unfamiliar with most of his films. When I think of films with him in that I've seen, really the only one that comes to mind is Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, in which he is absolutely hysterical as Spider-Man Noir. So, my main reason for going to see The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent was just because, on its own, it looked like a fun movie. 

In the film, Nicolas Cage plays Nick Cage, a washed up actor who is invited to Spain to visit a massive fan of his who is eager to work with him. However, Nick soon ends up working for the CIA as he discovers that this superfan is actually a very dangerous individual.

I had a lot of fun with this movie, and primarily because of Cage. He's the sort of person that can get away with playing a version of himself in a way that doesn't come across as smug or self-indulgent, it's just really entertaining. He was such terrific fun throughout the film, and I really enjoyed watching him. On top of that, the film is really hilarious, I laughed out loud on numerous occasions, and most of the humour was derived from the delivery of Cage as well as the situations he found himself in, most of which were really well stage. I like how bonkers the film gradually becomes as it goes on, it's all very exciting and just right given what the film sets up. If I do have any issues, my main issue is that the film doesn't have an awful lot to it beyond just being a good time; I doubt I'll watch it again, it was just solid while it was on, so it does feel somewhat disposable. Still, I had a great time with The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent. I'm now going to watch a bunch of Nicolas Cage movies because I now realise just how terrific a talent he is.

I'm going to give The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent a 7.5/10

The Bad Guys - Movie Review - They may be bad, but their movie isn't

I love Dreamworks Animation. While not one of my very favourite animation studios, they've certainly made many terrific films and many of which I grew up watching. Despite this, I haven't really been paying attention to much of their recent work, especially in the 2020s so far. It's mostly been sequels to films I didn't especially care for, and so they've kind of gone off my radar. Their latest offering, The Bad Guys, is not one I was anticipating at all. From the trailers, this film looked very unfunny and conceptually it just seemed kind of generic. So, I wasn't initially going to check it out, but ultimately decided to after hearing some good things about it. 

In the film, a team of criminals simply known as 'The Bad Guys', consisting of a Wolf, Snake, Tarantula, Shark, and Piranha, are put the test as they are captured and only allowed to be set free if they reform themselves into better people, which is the only way they can return to the lives they feel are best for them to live.  

The best part of The Bad Guys would probably be the characters, as they are all really well realised and a ton of fun. Whether it's the slick and sly Mr Wolf, the cynical Mr Snake, the sassy Ms Tarantula, the goofy Mr Shark, or the energetic Mr Piranha, they all make for a highly entertaining ensemble. They may be a little one note, but remain entertaining nonetheless. The film also did a good job tying the particular animals that the characters are to their character traits, as you may have inferred from my brief descriptions. All the voice acting was really strong as you'd probably expect from a Dreamworks offering, especially that of Sam Rockwell, Awkwafina, and Richard Ayoade.

I also like how the film fully took advantage of the animals that the characters were, which isn't always apparent in films with a cast of anthropomorphised animals as it can just be a gimmick implemented due to a lack of creativity. Here, the opposite is true, such as the snake functioning as a rope, or the tarantula's many legs frantically clicking away at a keyboard. The animation is also really nice, having a distinct style that initially struck me as cheap but quickly won me over as the overall uniqueness of the aesthetic made the viewing experience a pleasure. I sometimes don't like animated films when they're excessively wacky and cartoony, but here it worked perfectly as it tonally aligned with what the film was going for.

The film is quite heavily focused on the action, and a lot of it is delightful. From the zany, explosive car chases, to the low-key, meticulously organised heists, it's all very engaging. But it's not just the action scenes that work effectively, as some of the simple dialogue-centred scenes are also very competent, and surprisingly don't always talk down to the younger audience members. The opening is just a casual scene in a diner with two of the main characters chatting, clearly giving off Pulp Fiction vibes, and the exchanges between them were actually very well written, and honestly would have been passable in a film not intended for children. This is true for various other dialogue exchanges in the film. I mean, it's certainly no Ratatouille, but still really decently done. The cinematography was also very solid, especially in that opening scene which is very neatly captured in one smooth, unbroken shot.

There are also some nice themes throughout the film, such as redemption, fulfillment, and the damaging nature of stereotypes. They were all fairly sufrace-level in execution as the plot itself was mostly predictable, but still nice to see the film include. It bears a fair amount of comparison to Disney's Zootropolis, which also featured a cast of anthropomorphic animals and tackled some similar ideas, though it did so with far more complexity and nuance, so this obviously can't quite live up to it. 

I don't have a ton of problems with the film; aside from the afore mentioned predictable plot, my only other main issue would be the humour. Some of the lines and sight gags were funny, but a lot of it is your typical Dreamworks humour that caters to the younger audiences. I can't complain too much as they obviously are the primary target audience, they just didn't really land for me. I also think the world of the film is quite ill-defined, as it's clearly a world where humans and animals co-exist, but it felt like only the protagonists and other noteworthy characters were animals while all the extras were humans, which ticked me off a little. I think it should've just been a world of purely animals. 

Overall, it gives me much pleasure to say that I really enjoyed The Bad Guys. It's nothing amazing, even by Dreamworks standards, but the great animation, terrific cast of characters, and generally enjoyable antics made it a jolly good time. 

I'm going to give The Bad Guys a 7.5/10

The Northman - Movie Review - A beautifully brutal epic from Robert Eggers

Robert Eggers is one of the most interesting filmmakers of the last few years. The Witch and The Lighthouse, the two films he has made so far, are both films I have some reservations about, but are both wonderfully distinct and mesmerising experiences that leave you with much to think about and piece together. So, I was very excited to see not only a new film from him, but a medieval epic, something I absolutely love.

In The Northman, after witnessing his father's murder and his kingdom get overruled, the young prince Amleth sets out on a journey of revenge, in order to fulfill what he believes to be his fate. 

This film was amazing, and it was amazing for a number of reasons. Robert Eggers is almost like a modern day Shakespeare - he takes these concepts that are relatively simple on paper and manages to craft extremely mesmerising experiences around them that explore every ounce of their thematic potential. This was true for his last two films, and equally true for The Northman. For some of my discussion I am going to go into spoiler territory, so do not read ahead if you have not yet seen the film.

This is a story about a number of things, most fascinatingly of all, the questioning of the notion of 'fate'. Amleth, played very well by Alexander Skarsgård, begins very clearly on a path where he is destined to avenge the murder of his father by killing the man who murdered him, and for the longest time, it seems as if that is what he will end up doing. Even when he finds himself embracing his animalistic side and being barbaric towards others, he manages to correct his ways and set himself back on the path that would lead him to doing this. But, at one point, it seems as if this will not be the case. In attempting to get closer to his father's killer, he becomes a slave and meets a woman named Olga, played by the fabulous Anya Taylor-Joy, whose influence seems to send him along a different path; a path where he will have children of his own and continue his father's legacy. This raises the question: is life reducible to one's fate, or is there room for change as life goes on? The film implies that the latter is true at one point, as it seems Amleth will abandon his supposed fate and live a new life with Olga and their children. But, just when this seems true, the film reminds you of the simple times this film takes place in; a time when fate was what defined someone, as Amleth leaves Olga in order to avenge his father. In the end, after a breathtaking final battle, he successfully achieves this by killing his father's murderer, but only to die in doing so, making it clear that perhaps all there is to life is a destiny that one will inevitably fulfill. This idea and all the steps along the way to build it made the film such an enaging and thought-provoking watch. 

All this thematic wonder is presented in such spectacular ways. The cinematography is so full of life and captures the scope of this story, with the huge landscapes and vast seas truly feeling as big as they are. The score is pulse-pounding and enchances the brutality on display excellently. There are visuals that are completely memorable, whether it be all the intense, bloody action, or the haunting faces around a fire, or the two damaged men fighting to the death amid lakes of lava. Almost everything about this film had me transfixed and in awe. 

With all that being said, I have a key issue with the film, and that is the overall nature. While the utter brutality of the film and its willingness to completely emphasise every ounce of pain / shock certainly created a stellar atmosphere, it does make the film a tough watch. It is quite difficult to endure and it takes its time to let every aspect be properly understood / explored. However, this is at a small cost as I'm glad the film didn't play it safe and was daring enough to be as intense as it was, and parts of this did truly make it enthralling. 

I think some people may get the wrong impression of what this film is from some of the marketing, the idea that this is "This generation's Gladiator" is quite misleading. Gladiator does have thematic and narrative parallels to this film but it is a tonally different watch - it feels more like a crowd-pleasing film with an undeniably likeable protagonist and features more sumptuous visuals due to the time period it takes place in. The Northman is far less accessible and goes further in its portrayals of some of the more shocking aspects of this sort of story than Gladiator does. 

Overall, I loved The Northman. While it is a tough film to sit through and can certainly be quite overwhelming it brings so much to the table with its excellent themes and ideas as well as its masterful filmmaking. Robert Eggers continues to prove that he's a hugely talented writer and director, and I can't wait to see what he does next. 

I'm going to give The Northman an 8.5/10

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore - Movie Review - The magic might be starting to fade

J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World is one of the most popular and well-known franchises of all time. I'm not a massive fan of it but I've seen all the films and enjoy them all, not least Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. This spin-off of the Harry Potter franchise is terrific; a film that works for me because it limits its ties to this universe to function as its own simple, enjoyable, standalone adventure with great characters and extremely fun creatures. Even though it takes place in the Wizarding World, it can easily be enjoyed by very lukewarm fans, myself included. It also isn't really a film that I think warrants sequels, especially not four. The Crimes of Grindelwald is a perfectly enjoyable film, but feels quite narratively muddled as it tries to link the characters of the first film to narratives more closely associated with Potter. Now, we have The Secrets of Dumbledore, and I didn't really know what to expect from this entry, but I assumed it'd likely be on a similar wavelength. 

In the film, Newt Scamander, along with Jacob Kowalski, Albus Dumbledore, and his suitcase full of magical creatures, continue their pursuit and fight against Gellert Grindelwald as his influence throughout the Wizarding World continues to grow.

While the previous film in this series probably had a bit too much going on for its own good, this film suffers on the opposite end of the spectrum by having far too little going on, as you may have inferred from that plot summary. This is your typical filler film, as basically nothing of note happens throughout and it feels as if nothing new has been accomplished by the end. As a result, it can be quite boring at times as it just feels like nothing but padding. Between this and The Crimes of Grindelwald, I feel there's about enough content for a single film; the last one ended on a cliffhanger, and it feels like this is just what should've been the final act of that film extended to be feature length. 

J.K. Rowling is undeniably a talented world-builder and has great ideas for stories and characters, and I don't really think she's that bad a screenwriter either. What weakens her storytelling abilities is likely the mindset that what's being told needs to go on for as long as possible, as she's clearly aware that the Wizarding World is a lucrative property and thus wants to capitalise on that by taking this new story and extending it beyond the point of necessity. If she was more efficient with her storytelling, then I think the second and third films in the Fantastic Beasts series probably could've been condensed into one solid entry. 

The downside to this headspace Rowling is most likely in is the fact that the result is multiple films that feel either incomplete, or padded, or both. I understand that it can ensure a greater profit being made, but I also feel it can have the reverse effect. While dedicated fans will no doubt sit through hours of filler to the very end, general audiences may well pick up on the trend of these last two sequels and assume that whatever comes next will be equally dull and uninteresting, thus checking out of the series and not returning, which could be detrimental. If she just told the story of this franchise as concisely and efficiently as possible, at most forming a trilogy (keep in mind I don't know what the supposed fourth and fifth entries will consist of but I imagine will also be a single film stretched into two), then not only would the films be better off, but that fact would spawn positive word of mouth and maybe lead to solid success.

Okay, so the film overall is quite padded and uneventful, but does that mean its terrible? No. Despite its pacing issues, The Secrets of Dumbledore still has much to enjoy. Unsurprisingly, the titular fantastic beasts themselves are the best part of the film, even if they're slowly getting sidelined in a series named after them. Niffler and Pickett are back and still as fun as they were before, and there are some entertaining new additions, including these scorpion-like creatures, which lead to a funny sequence where Newt mimmicks their movements around a cave. The performances are also still great all round, with Eddie Redmayne, Dan Fogler, and Jude Law reprising their roles very well, despite the fact that their characters are hardly developed. The obvious standout, however, is Mads Mikkelsen, who replaces Johnny Depp as Grindelwald and makes the character far more menacing than he was before. There are also some well crafted set pieces, such as the afore mentioned scene with the scorpion creatures, various wand duels, and a climax that is very creatively set-up, as well as taking the Wizarding World to new locations. These factors all made the film passable while it was on, but unfortunately weren't enough to completely salvage it. 

As a whole, Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore is a fine watch, but nothing special. It has many of the good attributes of that great first film and the previous entry, but its highly uneventful and padded nature make it a fairly dull watch. This will certainly be the one, and hopefully only, film in the series that is looked back on as the skippable load of filler, with its closest relative in the Harry Potter series being The Deathly Hallows Part 1. I'm not sure if I'd rank it lower than The Crimes of Grindelwald, but the fact that stuff actually happened in that film, even if much of it is contrived and overstuffed, makes it slightly more attractive. This was nothing awful, but nothing awfully good either.

I'm going to give Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore a 6.0/10

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 - Movie Review - As much zany fun as it ought to be

Sonic the Hedgehog was one of the last big releases to come to cinemas before COVID struck. I didn't catch it during its short yet successful theatrical run, but I did see it on Netflix a few months ago, and it wasn't too bad. I'm not a massive Sonic fan, the only game featuring him that I remember playing as a kid is Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games on the Wii as well as maybe a few others, but the movie was still a perfectly servicable time. Quite generic and maybe a bit tiring, but still fun in parts. As it managed to perform pretty well, it was only a matter of time before we got more Sonic on the screen, and after hearing some good things about this sequel, I decided it might be worth a watch. 

In the film, Dr Robotnik and his new ally, Knuckles, are on a journey to recover a powerful item known as the Master Emerald. So, Sonic, along with a new companion, Tails, must beat them to it to prevent them from causing chaos. 

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was a ton of fun, far more so than its predecessor, and I think this is due to a few things. The main thing is that the antics in this film are far more in line with what a Sonic film ought to entail. As I said, I'm not the biggest fan of this character, but even I could recognise that the first film was just your typical movie where a popular character is given the realistic CGI treatment and shoved into the real world, and the main character just happened to be Sonic. This feels much more like an adventure out of a Sonic the Hedgehog video game, and that instantly made this one more engaging. There were plenty of solid set pieces and the action was consistently exciting.

The new additions are also really enjoyable. Knuckles, voiced to perfection by Idris Elba, was really entertaining, and Tails was a really endearing sidekick too. Watching these two alongside Sonic had a certain charm to it, and I really liked that. The returning characters remained enjoyable as well, with Sonic still being a likeable protagonist, and Jim Carrey as Robotnik being extremely fun to watch, and even more so in this film than the first as his appearance is made more wacky and closer to the source material.

Some big issues I have with the film are the pace and the story structure. At one point, the plot kind of screeches to a hault as a sub-plot involving a wedding with the human characters is given far too much focus, with jokes that weren't even funny enough to make up for that fact. The film is also just too long in general; by the third act I felt I'd had enough even though what was going on was still fine, it just felt like it was meandering on at that point. But, to be honest, those are really my only problems with this film. 

While nothing amazing, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was just as fun as it needed to be. It may be a bit too long and a tad messy but it's a big step up from the original film by having a far more interesting series of events and well realised characters. I doubt I'll be watching it again any time soon, but I certainly wouldn't mind sitting down and having fun with it again, and I'll also happily watch any inevitable further sequels if they're on the same level of quality. 

I'm going to give Sonic the Hedgehog 2 a 7.0/10