but not more. the story is collection of nice crumbs. Cam Gigander is not inspired option for Jack role. all is a game of glass beads. or blanket of patches.search of answers, a young man and his birthday as axis of homework, trips, meetings, love/hope/friendship slices and the feel of vicious circle. the end - moral lesson, far from credibility. fundamental sin - astrology only like excuse for a new formula of Grail search. nothing else. however, it is not a bad film. only a superficial exercise, it remains an interesting promise. and point for script for another attempt. Jena Malone is perfect axis. and Jake Gibson may be a bider role for another actor.

This film is about a young man who had a very bad birthday despite his horoscope saying otherwise. He sets out to see if other people born on the same day and at the same place share similar stories."Five Star Day" spends a lot of time portraying what happens to several people born on the same day. The events are heart wrenching, and I feel sorry for these people. However, the film is somehow not right, as the characters are not as engaging or enigmatic as hoped. There is not enough love to be a romantic film, and a little distracted as a drama. The debate as to whether star signs are believable or not is rather open ended, leaving the basic premise of "Five Star Day" unanswered. "Five Star Day" is an interesting idea, but it sadly does not fulfill its potential.

I was happy to see that the way astrology is first described in the movie is an accurate and reasonable assessment: that the horoscope is a snapshot of one's natal chart and the positions of the planets and luminaries at the exact moment of birth. The main character, Jake, reads his horoscope in the paper and prepares to have a "5-star" birthday; however, he has a Murphy's Law day instead. Angry that the horoscope "lied" to him, he decides to write a paper for his ethics class, demonstrating that astrology is B.S. propaganda. The newspaper horoscope he reads is bogus. It mentioned the "mid-heaven". A professional astrologer cannot know where the mid-heaven of a subject is without knowing the birth time and place, so any newspaper horoscope that would assume the mid-heaven of everyone in a particular zodiac sign or even born on a certain day is fake.Thanks to the I-net, Jake obtains the names and addresses of three other individuals born at approximately the same time as he, at the same hospital, and he searches out the three other people. To his consternation, he discovers that 2 out of 3 had rotten birthdays too. (SPOILER: The third was not honest with him when he said his birthday was fine. His sucked also.) This third person, Wes, played by Max Hartman, seems to be somewhat older than all the others (maybe 10 years), but they're all supposed to the same age. This was a little weird.These goobers don't spoil the main message of the film, however. As it manages to demonstrate very nicely, it's not about what chart or fate you are dealt, but how you react to what happens to you. On account of Jake's zero-star day, he becomes a better person and ends up (SPOILER, but you could see it coming) kissing Sarah. He does have a bit of an ethical dilemma as he presents his research to the class.I am in the minority, but I felt that the actress who played Sarah (Jena Malone) seemed to be parroting rehearsed lines and gestures in her first scenes, although she relaxed later. At the beginning when Jake tracks down his first subject, I disliked him (the character) for seeming more like a creepy stalker than a college student, but he eventually becomes more human. There were two hilarious scenes: one with the diner waitress and another with the receptionist at the facility for troubled youth where one of Jake's B-day twins works. The guy who played Jake's roommate was also very funny in a low-key way.

Let's be honest here.When I read a book, I give it about 50 pages to convince to get to the last page.It is the same for movies. About 20 minutes. I have no problem whatsoever walking out of a movie theatre. But, it does not happen very often. But in this case it did.The main character is played by an actor who comes across as lazy, pretentious and completely self absorbed.The directing, filming and editing looked like they were done with no purpose.And, most of all, the storyline and the initial sequences had no credibility.Before this film was made, there should have been some rewriting, and in the pre-production stage, the casting of the main character should have been made more carefully.