On its face, I would give this film 7 stars because it has gripping characters and story telling.

If it had just been a film about 3 children growing up in a lower middle class complex in Queens, it would be effective in showing the turmoils of their lives in 1962. The acting is great, the cinematography and directing are effective, and the characters are very engaging.

Where this film failed, and the reason it lost 3 stars in my estimation, is in that it exploits the tragedy of the Kitty Genovese murder for no purpose other than to attract viewers. The attack is barely addressed at all, and there are huge holes in the story once "it" begins. Now, there's nothing wrong with making film based on, or inspired by, true events. However, this film does nothing for the story or what truly happened on that day to merit its use of those events as a way to draw an audience.

There are a lot of lessons to be learned from what happened that night, and if this film addressed those issues, it would be a legitimate tribute to Ms. Genovese and would at least teach the audience about the bystander effect. Instead, this film does not teach anything as most of the characters, except one, are completely unaware that anything was happening (for different reasons). Shame on whomever used this tragedy as a marketing ploy.

I won't repeat all the justifiably outraged comments this film deserves by distorting not only the basic facts of the Genovese murder but also perpetrating misguided fiction. If you decide to make a movie based on any *real* case, at least do basic research. Even before "The Witness" (an amazing film) was released it was well-known that the Times had fluffed the apathy angle to stoke sales.

No, what makes Puk Grasten's film irredeemable is it's utter lack of a story or any compelling (strike that --- NON-repellent), even interesting characters. These fantasy "neighbors" are all given stereotypical bad-sitcom dilemmas and we watch them yell, kick, scream, and drag for the longest 85-minute run-time I've endured this year. None of the subplots has any bearing on the crime (you could be watching a really dull Law and Order) and Grasten falls back on primitive symbolism such as the innocent all-seeing nature of the child vs. jaded self-absorbed adulthood.

Maybe "37" is what it appears to be --- a glib, inauthentic, attention-seeking morality-play payday. But if "37" *is* a sincere attempt at making a meaningful or engaging film, its dismal failure doesn't make it any less a waste of anyone's time.