Film4 Frightfest 2012 Day by Day: Friday

After Thursday's manic rush I would probably have stayed in bed a few more hours on Friday and skipped the first film were it not for that film being Nightbreed: The Cabal Cut - my most anticipated film of the festival. So there I was at 9am shambling through Leicester Square like the walking dead trying to locate a Tesco's to pick up a bit of breakfast snackage in a hopeless attempt to rouse myself. At this point I was, at the back of mind, wondering whether this whole film festival lifestyle was for me after all. Nightbreed was going to have to deliver big...

Thankfully it did. Having never seen Nightbreed in its butchered theatrical cut it's hard for me to compare and make any statement as to whether the Cabal Cut is superior however I cannot imagine the film without ANY of the inserted footage and so surely that has to say something for it. The sentence may not make a lot of sense to people who know little about the project, I understand - How could I distinguish between the theatrical footage and the new footage? Well the "new" footage is recently recovered from long thought lost VHS tapes - not publicly released and mastered VHS tapes - but rough cuts for internal studio use (and trust me when I say that 20-odd years is not kind to VHS tapes left on the shelf gathering dust). Therein laid the problem for The Cabal Cut for most of the audience and myself to a degree. There's LOTS of new footage here from multiple sources and it's often a real strain on the eyes to focus on just what is happening in the shot. Combined with the constantly readjusting aspect ratio (which sometimes clipped over the top of the screen), the timestamps which appeared from time to time and the muffled sound it was hard to fully immerse yourself in the film. As the restoration director Russell Cherrington said prior to the screening though if we love the story we should be able to get past the disrepair of the image and it's a real privilege to have seen this film which could have quite sadly gone forever abandoned. It truly feels like a horror version of Star Wars by the time the credits role and I can't help but think that if only the film hadn't been chopped up and subsequently flopped at the Box Office we might have had a really great series of films under the Nightbreed name. For now though we have the Cabal Cut, a film well worth tracking down whilst its doing festival rounds before its Blu Ray release hopefully coming in the next couple of years.

Next up was an interview with Italian director Dario Argento - master of the Giallo film. Though the interview suffered a little bit from the language barriers in play there was more than a few interesting questions asked from Total Film's Jamie Graham, and certainly some interesting answers from Argento. One such anecdote involving Rutger Hauer, a bush and a young Russian girl being a particular highlight. The real let down for this (and its something the rest of the festival suffered from as well) was in fact the poor Q&A questions asked by the audience. Time and time again we were subjected to people coming up to the mic simply to profess their love for whoever was on stage, or to ask such inane questions as "Who are your biggest influences?" simply so that they could haul some free swag. Of course there is no way to truly counter these sorts of things, but the audience on the whole needs to take more effort to construct meaningful questions in order to earn their posters or t-shirts.

The films continued later on with Hidden in the Woods, a Chilean made piece which was one of those rape-centric films I talked about in Thursday's round up. Extreme, incomprehensible and on the whole a story not worth telling. I don't really care to talk about the film any more than that.

V/H/S was the first film of the evening and coming into the festival I had high hopes for it. When it finally came to watching the film I wasn't a fan. It's not so much the film that's so bad, I just feel that the overall concept of the film is a missed opportunity when compared to the finished product. The idea of someone stumbling a collection of VHS tapes full of scares should be nostalgia and creepy gold. Instead of making the anthology of films a mix of realistic, spine-chillers and paranormal mindfucks, all the mini-films are boring slashers starring detestable teenagers. There's no connection between any of the events in the videos, and even worse still one of the videos is in fact a recorded Skype conversation. Why even bother having them on VHS tapes? It makes no sense if all the film was recorded in the digital era. No logic, no fun, a truly wasted effort.

[REC]3: Genesis was a thankfully much better film than the previous two that day. Although opinion was split as to whether the foray into comedy was a good idea for the franchise (and I had my doubts myself) the film pulls it off effectively, as well as its romantic moments which I think worked really well into the realism of the franchise. I really hope to see the two leads return in [REC]4 in some capacity, ensuring that the film is not simply forever deemed as the red headed step child of the family, because it really deserves more than that. My only qualm here was being sat behind somebody wearing a large trucker cap which conveniently managed to cover the entirety of the subtitles from any comfortable viewing position.

Closing out the night was Stitches starring comedian Ross Noble as a killer clown. Whilst it was no classic, it was a more than competent entry into the horror comedy genre featuring some inventive kills and a surprisingly likeable cast of teenagers. Sure some of the jokes were a little Inbetweeners-lite and Ross Noble's brand of humor was underused, but it was certainly enjoyable and a great little film to go home on.

Film4 Frightfest 2012 Day by Day: Thursday

Frightfest may be a few weeks in the past now, but due to the nature of my rather uncompromising work hours since I returned, my time for writing has been slim to none. I managed to write short Twitter reviews for every film I saw and for most films those little ditties will suffice, however I feel a few of the films (and the event itself) were worthy of a few more lengthy passages.

The weekend didn't get off to a great start. Realizing I was sans mobile phone moments before the train was about to leave the station led to me being delayed an hour whilst I trekked back home to pick up the phone (being in a minor motor vehicle related collision and getting stung by a wasp on the neck in the process) only to be further delayed when in my frantic and massively excited state I managed to walk 40 minutes in the opposite direction to my hotel leading to my plan of spending the afternoon in The Captain's Cabin meeting and interacting with fellow fest-goers being replaced with a hurried race to Leicester Square in time to nab my goodie bag and pick up my festival pass. I did manage to have a swift pint in The Captain's Cabin after all which was - as I had been told it would be - packed with the most number of horror fanatics you're ever likely to find loitering in a pub. 

Once 5:30 rolled around and I headed over to the Empire after a most speedious bite to eat (and believe me speedy eating is par for the course if you want to catch as many films as possible over the weekend) I was positively gobsmacked by the volume of people gathered in the lobby. Actors, directors, authors, press, critics and of course horror hounds were all milling about and it was fair to say that everybody was buzzing with anticipation for the weekends programme.

After finding my seat in the gargantuan Screen 1 of the Empire things were kicked off with a humorous pre-amble from comedian Ross Noble before the opening film The Seasoning House got its world premiere. The film just about managed to balance on the very edge of being overly bleak thanks to its impressive production quality. Seasoning House was a fairly appropriate mood setter for the rest of the festival which featured a number of other films featuring uncompromising scenes of rape, something which I personally find to be a rather detestable trope in the modern horror film. I'm not saying that it's too extreme and shouldn't be shown in moderated circumstances, but I simply find it to not constitute as a scare, but more a cheap shock. A shock which at this point has been wrung dry and is no longer effective in all but the most scant number of circumstances. I digress however as The Seasoning House managed to just about pull it off and was a worthwhile if forgettable and flawed watch.

The Seasoning House was followed by the frankly pants Cockneys Vs Zombies - a film which managed to execute neither its comedy or horror elements, instead seeming juvenile and really quite boring. The humour was simplistic and cheap relying on the outlandish premise of it's title to entertain throughout a very stretched running time. Some people loved it so much so they compared it to Shaun of the Dead. If you like Shaun of the Dead, take my advice and just watch that again. You'll have a much better time.

Grabbers swooped in to save the night at the 11th hour (quite literally). The perfect midnight movie, not only was it much funnier than Cockneys, but it had real heart. Richard Coyle was excellent in the lead role and save for Russell Tovey (who was annoying and obnoxious, seemingly there to inject a modicum of unnecessary star power to proceedings) the rest of the cast were all great too and made the film the fun viewing experience it is. Not to mention the quite stunningly effective CG work. It's only a shame the alien wasn't somewhat less generic looking.

So at the end of the first day, 2 good films, 1 not so good film, nothing that I was desperate to put on my Blu Ray shelf. Friday was just a few hours away though and I knew I was in for a treat after a much much needed sleep.

Surrounded by Plebeians Film4 Frightfest 13th Coverage

It is now just less than one week away from Film4's annual London based horror film festival Frightfest. This is the 13th year of what has become the biggest horror festival in the UK, but this will be my first time in attendance. To be honest I had hardly heard of Frightfest (let alone given any thought to going to it) before this year, but I was unquestionably convinced I had to go soon after discovering it would be playing the UK premiere of a film which I have been waiting to see now for quite a long while.

That film is Nightbreed: The Cabal Cut. Yes, my most anticipated film I'm going to see at a film festival is indeed a redux of a 1990 commercial and critical flop. It's not really that film at all though, as this is the years in creation extended cut of the film more in line with director Clive Barker's original vision for the film. Barker has long been one of my favourite horror maestro's (I'm a huge fan of the Hellraiser mythos) however due to the rarity of Nightbreed (particularly in the UK where it has never seen a DVD release) I've never gotten round to watching it. The film has had a troubled but interesting history involving horrific studio cuts, years of long thought lost footage, and an abandonment of the finished film by both the studio and Barker himself upon its original theatrical release. In recent years however fans of Barker's, and Barker himself have worked tirelessly to resurrect the film, find the lost footage and piece it back together so that the film may be released and seen in the manner it was originally intended. Now in 2012 this complete 3hour redux is being shown across a limited number of cinemas in hopes that the buzz will persuade distributor Morgan Creek to give the film a full remaster on Blu Ray - something that is looking ever more likely as each showing passes. Up until now the film has been shown only across the pond, but next week the UK will get it's first ever showing of the film at Frightfest and I couldn't be more excited to be amongst the audience.

Strangely enough my second most anticipated film is yet another film dug up from the archives, this time James Whale's masterpiece The Bride of Frankenstein. I've always enjoyed the old, Gothic charm of the 1930's Universal Studios horror films and I've been waiting for their Blu Ray remasters for as long as I've owned a Blu Ray player. A collection of the studios finest is about to hit streets in October, but in the mean time we have the new remaster of Bride of Frankenstein showing at Frightfest. I had the pleasure of seeing Frankenstein on the big screen a couple of years ago, so I'm really looking forward to being able to say I've seen the sequel too.

As for new films I've tried to go in with as little knowledge about them as possible, having watched very few trailers, so that hopefully I can be pleasantly surprised by a few of the films. The buzz surrounding a couple of the films however has me very excited, mostly Berberian Sound Studio which seems like a unique little claustrophobic picture, and V/H/S which despite getting mixed reviews overseas has developed a bit of a cult fanbase already. Also, let's not forget Rec 3: Genesis, which again has received mixed reviews, but I saw the first two films in the series a couple of nights ago and was utterly blown away.

Unfortunately due to work I'm unable to make the final day of the festival, so I'll miss out on films like American Mary and The Possession, which although I'm rather disappointed about, cannot be helped. During the festival I'll be posting tidbits and mini-reviews on my Twitter account, and in the week following I'll post full reviews and longer articles about the festival here on the blog.

Review: Batman Begins (2005, Dir.Christopher Nolan)

In 2005 fans of Batman living in a post Batman & Robin world really had no idea what was in store for them prior to watching Batman Begins - the first film in what would become the definitive trilogy of Batman films directed by a then relatively unknown Christopher Nolan who at the time was best known for his cult amnesiac thriller mind bender Memento.

Prior to Warner's decision to reboot the franchise in this new dark, gritty and realistic way the plan had been for a fifth movie in the Burton/Schumacher series, again directed by Joel Schumacher, with Clooney set to return as Batman. The film would once again feature a number of villains including Man-Bat, Mad Hatter, Harley Quinn and the Scarecrow who would cause Batman to hallucinate seeing the Joker in a much anticipated return for Jack Nicholson. After the monumental critical and audience backlash from Batman & Robin however the studio dropped the project and looked for a new direction to push the franchise. After toying with a Batman Beyond film (based on the TV series in which a future Batman has taken the mantle from an aging Bruce Wayne) and an ultra realistic take on Batman directed by an early in his career Darren Aronofsky (who wanted Clint Eastwood to don the batsuit) the studio finally settled on Christopher Nolan directing a loosely adapted version of the much lauded origin comic book Batman: Year One by Frank Miller.

You'd think that after the debacle of Batman & Robin any actors worth their salt wouldn't touch a Batman film with a barge pole, however a cracking cast soon assembled who obviously believed in the script and vision of the film which helped add a lot of credibility leading up to its release. Admittedly however, thinking back the hype for the film wasn't really all that big before the reviews started rolling in. The film looked slow and was a stark contrast to the colourful Batman the public was accustomed to seeing at the time. It grossed a moderate amount at the Box Office but nothing compared to its sequels.

Anyway, as the titles implies its an origin story starting the tale of Batman afresh, however where the previous series merely touched on Bruce Wayne's childhood and subsequent maturation into becoming the Batman this film's purpose is to establish the forces and events which led Bruce Wayne to become the saviour of Gotham, explaining everything from his martial arts training, to the reasoning behind the choice of his bat based persona. For the first time on the big screen Batman/Bruce Wayne (played perfectly by Christian Bale who puts his trademark intensity to great use in the trilogy) becomes the star of the show instead of his gallery of villains who take an influential but more reserved role in this film. Interestingly for the first time also Bruce/Batman's gallery of allies play a large role in the story, every bit as much as the villains. This makes sense though as they are there throughout the trilogy and grow along with Bruce Wayne, but perhaps their most important role is to add credence to the Bruce here being an ultra-determined but altogether "normal" man as opposed to being the psychopath loner that Burton was so interested in depicting the character as in his films.

Nolan's finest achievement in the saga though is his characterization of Gotham City. Throughout all three films he continually builds upon the layers of the city - from the criminal fraternity run by the mobsters and gang bosses operating in the slums, to the rich, oblivious and often easily corruptible people who reign supreme over the upper city, as well as the outside forces manipulating the populace. The way the characters influence and attempt to control not just the other characters but the city itself gives Gotham it's own identity and it's parallels with American history compliments well the air of realism the city exudes from it's pseudo-Chicago architecture shot in beautiful warm orange hues by Nolan's long time collaborating director of photography Wally Pfister. Not only does it give the film a distinct look, but it invokes a pulpy neo-noir style which fits in well with the heavy emphasis on Gotham's criminal syndicates and gangsters which seem more at home in a 40's detective film than the kind of outlandish villains you'd expect to see in a superhero film.

The Dark Knight is consistently credited as having set the bar for the superhero film genre, but Batman Begins laid down the foundations. I'm a firm believer in the idea that not every superhero story needs to have an origin film, but anybody would be hard pressed to argue against Begins as being not only a great film in it's own right, but a marvellous introduction to Christopher Nolan's vision, without which the succeeding two films would have far less weight.

My Notes on Bringing He-Man and the Masters of the Universe to the Big Screen

This week came the news that finally a new version of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe was back on track towards getting a live action feature film helmed by Jon Chu, director of the upcoming G.I. Joe Retaliation. With that franchise and the Transformers movies churning out box office hits and with a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot on the way from Michael Bay's production company Platinum Dunes it was inevitable that the other big 80's Saturday morning cartoons would be adapted before long. The two remaining ones which immediately come to mind from my youth are Thundercats - which has just aired a new anime style TV series which I have yet to see, but which appears to have been cancelled after just 1 season - and He-Man, the story of... well I'll just let the opening theme tell you-

As a child He-Man was a perennial favourite of mine so naturally the thought of a re-emergance of the franchise give me both nostalgic excitement and a bout of terrible nervousness. I thought the first live action Transformers was an interesting enough adaptation, but both sequels are absolutely horrible. G.I.Joe: The Rise of Cobra was just too far separated from its roots to really excite me, thought the trailer for its sequel looks at least a marginal improvement. In both instances I've found the emphasis on putting the characters in dark, realistic situations to be their downfall and the story and mythology behind the series' comes second to visual effects and painful attempts at humor. I still often get the urge to watch both the Transformers and G.I. Joe animated films on a regular basis, but never their live action counterparts, because frankly they're better in ever conceivable way.

Of-course MOTU itself had its own live action film long before Transformers and G.I.Joe, and even the original series of live-action TMNT films. Though the film is oft forgotten for good reasons I honestly find it to be enjoyable in a cheesy, campy way so long as I don't think of it too much as being a He-Man film (but then again I have a soft spot for trashy un-ambitious sci-fi and horror). It has a lot of charm, something which cannot be said of the recent revivals of its fellow cartoons. The one area where everyone can agree it did hit the nail firmly on the head (or skull to be exact) would be in He-Man's arch nemesis Skeletor, played by screen legend Frank Langella who absolutely stole the show from a well cast but poorly written He-Man played by old Drago himself - Dolph Lundgren. I've always thought that the villains of these old cartoons' were the most important and interesting characters of all, and Skeletor here is every bit the bad-ass villain you want him to be - a stark contrast to the live action versions Megatron who is just another indistinguishable CG render, and Cobra Commander who got all of 2 seconds screentime. The final fight between Skeletor and He-Man sits in the same part of my memory as the Luke vs Vader vs Palpetine fight from Return of the Jedi (with which is shares a lot of parallels) as blowing my mind as a young boy.

It's hard to think of anyone who could top that performance off the top of my head however my personal choice would be Michael C Hall who seems to have the right facial structure at least, and would probably be an interesting contrast to Channing Tatum who seems to be the front-runner for the He-Man role, though I'm not sure he could muster the over the top evilness he would have to bring to the role. As a more "out-there" choice however I think Michael Keaton would be very interesting and could bring just the right mix of tongue-in-cheek sinisterness that's required. Being slightly older I think he'd also compliment well my choice for He-Man...

...Matthew McConaughey. The man can do no wrong at the moment and has the long hair and physique that are perfect for the character. The hair in particular I think would be difficult to pull off for most of the potential actors going up for the role, but I think it's an iconic part of the character and needs to be kept. His diversity as an actor too gives me confidence that he could pull of the duality of the character as the bumbling Prince Adam as well as He-Man.

As for the tone and story of the film I would simply say keep it simple. There's no need to get hung up on complicated origin and back stories or making it dark and gritty. I just don't think it would suit the material. Make it a simple story of goodies vs baddies in a fantasy world and make it as fun as possible. I really don't see the harm in making the target demographic children. Childrens films seem to be dominated by original Pixar and Dreamworks creations, but I don't see why you can't put a big, colourful, live action cartoon up there on the big screen. I guarantee fathers and sons would eat it up, especially if the big name stars where there to give the film some credibility.

Review: Batman & Robin (1997, Dir.Joel Schumacher)

Here we are- Batman and Robin, one of the most universally despised and frequently slammed films of all time. Though, believe it or not I prefer it to Batman Forever. Controversial I know, but if you care to stick around for just a minute I would like to try to convince you to see eye to eye with me on this one.

Joel Schumacher returns to the directors chair for the second time here, back with Akiva Goldsman on full time scripting duties and Elliot Goldenthal composing. Val Kilmer is replaced rather oddly by George Clooney who has very little to do to show off his talents, but Chris O'Donnell is back as Robin, and Michael Gough is back to play Alfred for (sadly) the last time. Interestingly Gough and Pat Hingle who plays the rather minor role of Commissioner Gordon are the one 2 actors to star in all 4 of the Burton/Schumacher Batman films. Rounding out the cast is top billing Arnold Schwarzenegger as the puntastic Mr.Freeze, Uma Thurman as femme fatale Poison Ivy, and Alicia Silverstone as the unnecessary Batgirl.

It's easy to look at Batman Forever and Batman & Robin and simply say that the latter film is everything its predecessor is only amplified to 11 (neon EVERYWHERE, a huge array of two dimensional characters, action figure fodder left, right and centre), though it actually has something Forever doesn't have -  a sense of continuity. Where Forever's turbulent development process had resulted in an off-balance, un-commited and focusless mess of a film Batman and Robin is fully devoted to its purpose for existence - to be as over the top, tongue in cheek and campy as possible - and whilst that perhaps is something nobody back in 1997 really wanted from a Batman film, now that we have Nolan's seminal trilogy it's actually a curious oddity of a film which isn't actually too unwatchable if you put yourself in the right mindset. You can see Christian Bale play a straight up broody and serious Bruce Wayne 3 times, this film has an Oscar winning actor surfing through the air dressed as Batman - roll with it.

Review: Batman Forever (1995, Dir.Joel Schumacher)

After Tim Burton's (let's just say) overly auteuristic take on the legends of the caped crusader in Batman Returns didn't fuel the kind of box office numbers and merchandising opportunities that Warner Bros would have obviously wanted, it was inevitable that the studios would go back to the drawing board for Batman Forever. New Batman (Keaton out Val Kilmer in), new director(Burton out Joel Schumacher in), new composer (Elfman out Elliot Goldenthal in) and most importantly of all, new tone(Gothic out, Neon in). Despite these changes it should be noted that Burton's influence is here in some very minor capacity (for the final time in the franchise) though its obvious that the final product is as far removed from any vision that Burton would have had that its barely worth him having the Producer credit at all. Reportedly there is a "lost" extended cut of the film out there, parts of which can be found in promotional music videos and trailers for the film, which offers a much darker version of the story, whilst also helping to explain some of the more out of place and often toyetic scenes in the theatrical cut.

That remains hidden though so for now we're stuck with the theatrical cut of the movie which is just frankly not very good. And I'm not saying that it's terrible, just simply not very good. It just feels really disjointed both from an editing point of view and tonally. Its tongue in cheek moments are played too seriously and it's dark moments are shot too colourfully. It doesn't help that Gotham itself is utterly bland and lacking in character itself. Gone is the deco/expressionist architecture which created the world for Burton's characters, instead being replaced by some very shoddy looking CG buildings which lack any interesting attributes. Absent too is the misty, moody and dirty aura that drenches the scenes of the previous two films, instead being replaced by jarring neon lights covering well, just about everything. Everything just ends up looking too clean and uninhabited - not really Gotham City at all.

I hear a lot of people say they really rate Jim Carrey as The Riddler in this film, but this is just people from the general populace as opposed to people who's opinions I actually value. I love Jim Carrey don't get me wrong and I think he takes on the character his own way using his own personality traits to his benefit much the same way that Jack Nicholson did with the Joker. Catching that lightning in a bottle again though proved too much and as an interpretation of The Riddler character it just doesn't work for me. The wacky antics of the character and really rather rubbish riddles just make it hard to believe in him as a credible foe even to Kilmer's unenthused looking Batman. Still, as I said, I consistently have people trying to tell me they love Carrey in the role so obviously something here worked in the eyes of a lot of people (just not mine).


Tommy Lee Jones is equally as dumb and unimposing as the poorly translated to screen and horribly fleshed out Two-Face - notably in place of Billy Dee Williams who played Harvey Dent in Batman '89 and was contracted to reprise the role in a subsequent film in the franchise. His small part in Returns - where he was to be shocked by Catwoman and transformed into Two-Face in the finale - was re-written for Christopher Walken's character, and when it came to Batman Forever Joel Schumacher ousted Williams in favour of Jones (in return for a handsome pay off). Strange in that Jones never really seems invested in the character at all, but I guess it was just another step in separating the film just enough from its predecessors.


Batman's long standing sidekick Robin finally makes his debut in the series(again after being shafted out of the Returns script) played by Chris O'Donnell who seems to enjoy playing the character, but never really embodies the Robin we know. That was always going to be an uphill struggle with that naff earring in though - a poor effort to make the character seem hip and somehow relateable to younger audiences, but now serving only to date the film more than the terrible CG could ever hope to. The saving grace here really is that Christian Bale would thankfully fail in his audition to be cast in the role so he could go on to become Batman a few years down the line.

In all fairness, knocking the performances here feels like cheap and easy prey as they're just set up to fail from the get go thanks to the absolutely dreadful script which was obviously rewritten to death by so many scribes over the years that any semblance to the characters we hold dear are just scrubbed away and moulded into whatever ridiculous caricatures they need to be to fit the direction any particular scene wants to take regardless of the overall plot. Whilst Batman '89 finds the perfect middle ground between the darkness of Returns and the über-camp of Batman & Robin, it's curious that the instalment that is actually sandwiched between them manages to get it so, so wrong.

The Dark Knight Rises: Immediate Reaction [Spoiler Free]

After 7 years of waiting I have now seen the concluding chapter in the saga that started with Batman Begins way back in 2005 and it's literally all I've been able to talk or think about since I left the cinema yesterday. I don't want to give a full review right now for two reasons- one being that I still want to review the other Batman films first so I can review this one in context to those, and two because quite frankly it was just so damn epic. Now that's a word which I really do dislike these days as it's just thrown around so bloody casually it's practically lost all meaning (the infinite cosmos is epic, the latest Saw film is by no means epic) however there's really no better superlative to sum the film up than just that.

This is absolutely all you could ask for as the finale to the trilogy. The stakes are higher, the villains are more dangerous, and at long last Nolan seems to have managed to work some emotion into his films. On three occasions I had a lump in my throat and other people in the cinema were actually physically crying. It's an extremely dark film, and at times everything seems hopeless, but the ending just balances out the film so perfectly that the film seems incredibly rewarding especially if you do watch it as the 7.5 hour singular film I honestly think it should be looked at as being.

I really feel like I don't want to give a lot more away at this point, but I just need to spread the word that despite the few bad reviews the film has garnered, just forget about them, go see the film and decide for yourself. In my mind it is by far the best film I've seen this year and I absolutely cannot wait to go see it in IMAX in the next couple of weeks. Every single person involved in the film both in front of and behind the camera delivers in every possible aspect and it's just an absolute joy that the film has turned out the way it has.

The Dark Knight Rises Pre-Screening Ramblings

At long last The Dark Knight Rises, the third and final chapter in Christopher Nolan's Batman Magnum Opus is in cinemas. Although I was hoping to write reviews for all the previous Batman films prior to the release of TDKR, thanks to a combination of busy work hours and devoting most of my spare time to catching the rest of the Summer Blockbusters' released already in cinemas my time for writing about other films has been severely cut into. As I am now less than an hour away from hopping on the train down to Cambridge to catch a 1pm showing at the Picture House I just wanted to throw together a very quick piece setting my expectations down on the table.

Wednesday I watched Batman Begins and The Dark Knight for the first time since probably about 2009 and, for the first time on Blu-Ray. Having watched Batman Forever and Batman & Robin just a few days prior it really put into perspective just how amazing it was that we managed to go from such a dire extreme to what will undoubtedly be not only the greatest superhero film trilogy of all time, but in-fact probably one of the greatest film trilogy's ever. That may sounds like hyperbole I know, but if you actually take the time to think about series' of 3 films which consistently deliver and leave you with a satisfying beginning, middle and end they are very few and far between. Of the top of my head I can think of- Toy Story (definitely), Lord of the Rings (certainly), Star Wars (just the Original Trilogy), Indiana Jones (Dips a little in the middle) and Back to the Future (maybe). In the huge canon of cinema that's a pretty small list.

Christopher Nolan more or less single-handedly turned the world of superhero filmmaking on it's head back in 2008 with The Dark Knight, but it's obvious watching both films back to back that Batman Begins laid those foundations even further back in 2005. Not only is it equally as good as TDK, but I think perhaps after repeated viewings of both films that it actually holds up better. I don't want to give too much away on what I think about the films here as I do still plan on writing full reviews for the remainder of the Batman films in the coming weeks. Needless to say however I am a big fan, and am as a stalwart Batman fan eternally grateful for what Nolan has done with the franchise. I'm practically trembling in anticipation for The Dark Knight Rises right now. Thinking back the last time I was this excited for a film would be The Dark Knight. Nolan delivered the goods then and I think that unless he somehow manages to miss the mark completely here I'm just a few short hours away from one of the best cinema experiences I will have this year.

Review: Magic Mike (2012, Dir. Steven Soderbergh)

I mentioned Magic Mike in my article last week concerning which upcoming films I was looking forward to for the rest of 2012, saying that I hoped it would be a film which evoked similar feelings in me as Boogie Nights does (my second favourite film of all time). For whatever reason I like films that deal with the sex industry in an affectionate way, showing the human nature of the people within the industry, whether they're capitalising on it for monetary purposes or simply the primal pleasure of it all. Naturally after reading the premise of the story and watching the first trailer I was -  much to the dismay of my male friends and co-workers - eagerly waiting to see if Steven Soderbergh could deliver a film that would give me my fix in a genre which rarely gets any mainstream attention.

The plot here is nothing particularly new - The eponymous Mike (Channing Tatum, who not coincidently was a stripper previous to becoming a film star) is a self-titled "entrepreneur" working a thousand jobs so that he can eventually afford to start-up his own custom furniture company. Along his way he meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer) a rebellious 19 year old flitting aimlessly from job to job. Mike introduces Adam into a male revue led by Dallas (Matthew McConaughey) and together they form a strong bond of friendship. As is the usual case in these types of films however it isn't long before the life of excess becomes too much and things soon spiral out of control.

Despite it's clichéd predictable storyline the film manages to succeed thanks to a taught, fast moving progression, plenty of funny moments and some really excellent performances primarily from Tatum and McConaughey. Both have been on a warpath lately to shed the constraints of the one dimensional pretty boy images they've established up to this point in their career and this is another big step in the right direction to proving they're credible actors worthy of meaty roles in more difficult material. I was surprised just how much humanity Tatum injected into his role even during his characters more egocentric scenes, maintaining a glimpse at a weaker person behind the focused visage. McConaughey on the other hand steals the show as the ultra self-assured ringleader Dallas, who provides many of the films funnier moments. So dedicated and passionate is he regarding his craft that he seems almost maniacal at times. The weak spot in the casting would be Pettyfer who seems wooden as the sulky and really rather unlikable Adam. Watching his rise and fall I couldn't help but be oddly reminded of the similarly stiff Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars prequels. One last interesting note on the casting is wrestler Kevin Nash as the oldest and clumsiest looking of the dancers Tarzan. His rugged, oafish (though not dumb) character added a little bit of humorous variety to the otherwise typically young and handsome remainders of the troupe.

Magic Mike is an absolutely fantastically enjoyable film with some of the most memorable moments I've had at the cinema this year. The movie is never embarrassed by its subject matter, packing in it as many well choreographed and performed strip numbers as the audience could want, but the real beauty is that it isn't a lazy film which rests all of its attentions on these scenes. It may not be the perfect piece of cinema that that Boogie Nights is, but you're unlikely to see a more funny, heartfelt and just plain enjoyable film that will appeal to both female and male audiences this summer. It had me smiling throughout and thus I've made it my mission to recommend the film to every single one of those male colleagues of mine who sneered at me when I said I was going to see it.

Opinion: Michael Fassbender and what it means for the Assassin's Creed movie

I don't think im speaking out of turn here when I say that there are very few video game adaptations, if in fact any are worth even watching, let alone could be considered as good films. Studios for one reason or another just haven't embraced video game adaptations in the way they have comic book movies in recent years and with the limp efforts they've been putting out, it's not entirely surprising that neither have audiences.

What the genre needs is a studio willing to commit to making a huge tentpole movie that will open the flood gates and prove that this is an endless well that is ready to be exploited. I thought for a while that Disney's Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was going to be the film that finally did it, but despite it having all the right ingredients- a famous director, a great cast and the Pirates of the Caribbean formula sprayed all over it, it just turned out to be too generic and frankly it was crap. Now, after seeing one of its biggest franchises failed attempt at being adapted unenthusiastically for cinemas it's no wonder that Ubisoft is taking a stance and launching its own creative development enterprise as to have more control over their intellectual properties.

 Now this week Variety has reported that Michael Fassbender, fresh off his stand out role in Prometheus is signed on to star in the upcoming feature film adaptation of Assassins Creed- Ubisoft's current most successful franchise. With this in mind you can be certain that they won't be wanting to half-ass the job and by picking a talent like Fassbender it's a definite step in the right direction.


At this stage it's unlikely that development won't be fast tracked as Fassbender's star power only continues to rise. Fassbender is a hard working actor starring in several films a year since his eye opening turn as Bobby Sands in Steve McQueen's critically lauded Hunger in 2008, however his schedule is likely to fill up quickly and with 2 other franchises on his plate in X-Men First Class and Prometheus, Ubisoft are going to want to be laying down a shoot date sooner rather than later.

As Prince of Persia showed though having a big name actor on board isn't enough to sell a movie these days. It needs a good story to captivate the already established fan base of the IP and bring in and effectively allow new comers to participate, and whilst there's no doubt that the premise of the Assassin's Creed franchise is ripe material for adaptation to the big screen, perhaps a straight conversion isn't exactly what would be best.

The central unique element of the Assassin's Creed universe is the Animus, a machine which allows the user to connect with his or her ancestors and relive their memories. That alone is enough of a connection to the games and a great plot device that seems perfect in a post-Matrix world where cinemagoers are craving the next Inception. Combine that with the ongoing hidden war between the Assassin's and the antagonistic Templar's and there isn't really any reason to have to retread the same story told in the games, that of Desmond Miles. There's so many potential stories to be told in this mythology I think it would simply be a lazy decision to translate the games straight to film. Instead stick to the roots of the franchise, the sci-fi/period amalgam, the conspiracy theory backstories and of course the climbing and jumping, and give the fans something fresh to get excited about which takes place alongside the games, and gives newcomers an easy way in.

Of course any story speculation would be hard to do at this point as Assassin's Creed III is just around the corner and promises to be a major entry into the canon, but I think possibly the smartest way to do the aforementioned would be to take the idea of the Animus and tweak it so that it more appropriately suits the context of the medium its in. In the games the concept works well as the games user interface correlates with that of the Animus, in that for whoever is using the Animus its almost as if they're playing a game. Perhaps in the film the memories of the Animus user could be viewed and edited as though it were a piece of film. To me this sounds as though it could be an earlier version of the Animus, a perfect opportunity to do a prequel to the games offering a fresh but none too inconsistent evolution of the source material.

The only think lacking then would be to find a suitably creative and well honed filmmaker to direct. For years now Darren Aronofsky- director of Black Swan and The Wrestler - has been on the verge of jumping on a franchise, first with Batman, then Wolverine and then Robocop. It's obvious that he wants to be broken loose on big material like this, but I don't think studios are brave enough to let him run wild with his vision of these characters. What videogame film adaptations need is to take a risk in the way Warner Brothers did with letting Tim Burton direct Batman back in 1989, an action which forever changed the way people regard the genre. It's time for someone to take the jump, and if Ubisoft were brave enough between Fassbender and Aronofsky I don't think there would be anybody who wouldn't get excited over Assassin's Creed.

Review: Killer Joe (2012, Dir.William Friedkin)

Despite The Exorcist being my absolute favourite film of all time I was surprised to note that prior to seeing Killer Joe I had never seen another of William Friedkin's films. Not even The French Connection. Nor Sonny & Cher in "Good Times". So seeing Killer Joe was an almost daunting experience. Standing in the shadow of the Goliath that is The Exorcist I had high hopes that Friedkin didn't just hit a fluke in my consideration of The Exorcist being the greatest film ever made.

At the start of the film I wondered if the intimate scope of the film and the reasonably simple premise of a family seeking to knock of their mother/wife/husband's ex (delete where applicable) so that they could inherit her substantial life insurance, would be able to deliver something that would stand out in the middle of Summer Blockbuster season. By the time the film had finished however those thoughts were far from my mind and I felt a pang of self-contempt for doubting Friedkin.

If you've read any previous reviews for the film, or in fact heard just about anybody talking about the film you will likely have heard of a certain shocking scene involving a piece of fried chicken. I'm not going to spoil you the fate of the piece of chicken but rest assured you won't see anything else like it in a cinema this year or possibly ever. I was completely unprepared with the level of violence this film would descend to as were numerous members of the audience who upon exiting the cinema at the end of the film complained of feeling ill and wanting to walk out but simply couldn't due to being so captivated.

I've no doubt that part of that is down to the genius casting of Matthew McConaughey as the titular contract killer Joe Cooper. No doubt misleading many members of the audience after a career of recognition in mostly insipid chick flicks (despite numerous roles in grittier pieces). He absolutely steals the show here though displaying a likeable charisma despite the perverse maniacal tendencies of the character he's portraying.

I had heard a lot of people complaining that Juno Temple seemed miscast but I certainly couldn't see it myself. This is certainly a challenging role for a young actor and she seemed to handled the material as well as could be hoped. The other surprise for me being Thomas Haden Church who for once has picked a decent film to put his considerable acting chops to good use. His character is every bit as jaw dropping as McConaughey's in the final scenes. Oh, and whilst I think about it I have to take my hat off to Gina Gershon for THAT scene.

Whilst not an exceptional film it's not without its numerable merits which make for a curious character piece and a great change of pace at this time of the year on the film calendar.

Review: Cosmopolis (2012, Dir. David Cronenberg)

At this point it's pretty obvious that Robert Pattinson is desperately keen to escape his Edward Cullen tween idol image and move onto mature material. I've always championed him as a decent actor with a great screen presence and I was really hoping that by attaching himself with director David Cronenberg for Cosmopolis he could finally metamorphosis to the highly regarded performer he deserves to be considered as.

I thought the trailers and clips from the film I saw prior to release looked a little ropey, but I had faith that upon watching the completed film it would be an off-kilter but challenging piece that one has come to expect from the usually reliable Cronenberg. Sadly however that isn't the case. In fact I find it very hard to say anything good about the film at all. The acting and cinematography are all well and good but as far as the actual content of the film itself goes it's nothing short of an absolute mess. I can't think of any other film that has tried to touch on so many different topics, be it socioeconomics, religion, technological reliance or in fact just about any other prominent issue the world is facing right now, and fail so pitifully to represent or shed light on any of them in any impacting or thought provoking manner WHATSOEVER. Sitting there watching it, I couldn't help but feel that everybody involved in this soulless production had thoroughly lost themselves in their own asses, and judging by the reactions of the rest of the theatre upon exiting the screen I can assure you that I wasn't alone.

I really like the thought of the Pattinson/Cronenberg team-up and I think with better material to work from it could mutually benefit both their careers. Maybe the time is right for Cronenberg to return to his body horror roots.

Coming Attractions- The Rest of 2012

So the first half of 2012 has come and gone and we've so far had a fairly "meh" year, with a few surprises along the way. The latter half of the year though is where everything looks to really kick off, starting of course in just under 2 weeks time with The Dark Knight Rises.

Advance Preview screening opinions have started rolling in and despite the NDA they're all overwhelmingly positive, which has more or less caused me to go into an utter frenzy of anticipation making everyone around me a little annoyed. I will have my reviews for the rest of the Batman films complete and on the blog within the next week or so as well as reactions prior to and straight after watching the film, before finally uploading the full review sometime later in the weekend after release.

Before The Dark Knight Rises however I'm really excited for this weeks UK release of Magic Mike. It seems like a very fun film that appeals to the same part of me that enjoys films like Boogie Nights and The People Vs Larry Flint. Also it's great to see Matthew McConaughey back to picking decent material. After seeing him in Killer Joe last week (review coming in the next few days) he's certainly one of my favourite actors right now.

Another cheesy film which I'm looking forward to is Dredd. I think Karl Urban is a bit of a hidden talent and I really enjoyed the trailer to this, despite everybody telling me I shouldn't. It's harmless fun. It's not going to be a masterpiece, but I'm hoping it'll be an enjoyable comic book movie akin to the Hellboy films in pure watch-ability.

I have to admit I didn't particularly enjoy Brick, but I could see a great director in Rian Johnson and with the fantastic premise of Looper being backed up by such a formidable cast I think this could stand up there with the likes of Moon and District 9 as one of the smaller out-of-nowhere sci-fi greats of the last few years.

There's not really much to go on here as little footage or synopsis for the film has been released, however you can guarantee that Paul Thomas Anderson will deliver a powerful epic with The Master which I've no doubt will cause controversy, shock audiences and spark debate for a long time come November.

Casino Royale has turned out to be one of those films I can watch time and time again, and have since it was released. I'm even one of the few people that prefer it to the Bourne films. Quantum of Solace wasn't quite as solid as Casino Royale, but it was still a reasonably entertaining romp. With Sam Mendes behind the camera of the long awaited conclusion to the trilogy however it would be surprising if this wasn't one of Bond's best outings to date. Its great to see franchise fare like this taken on by such a high calibre of talent.

I may be eagerly anticipating my return to Middle-Earth, but the real reason behind my excitement for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is my curiosity over its 48fps format. It may not sound as drastic to the average filmgoer as the likes of 3D, but I think it will turn a lot of heads when it's released. Will it be the future of cinema or a huge mistake?

Review: Batman Returns (1992, Dir. Tim Burton)

Up until very recently Batman Returns was by far and beyond my favourite of all the Batman films. I used to watch it obsessively a few years back, but until yesterday I probably hadn't seen it in 2 years-ish, so I was curious to see whether I still liked it as much. Returns is by far and beyond the most divisive Batman film as far as critics and fans are concerned and pretty much has been since its 1992 release. Some people, such as myself, love the focus on the darkest side of Gotham, whereas others find it a depressing anti-heroic excuse of a superhero film, many going as far as to say that with such a strong focus on the 3 villains the film packs into it that it's a Batman film in name only. There's no doubt that this is wholly the responsibility of Tim Burton, the returning director from Batman '89, now given full creative control of the franchise thanks to the resounding box office success of Returns' predecessor. With his new power in tow, Burton set out to create the Batman film he always wanted to make without studio interference. A darker, sinister and more adult version of the characters than had ever been seen before. A film that was so dark in fact that McDonald's famously had to recall their happy meal line of Batman Returns toys. Watching the film even now, you can easily understand why.

Having just come off of directing Edward Scissorhands, a film still seen as his quintessential masterpiece, Burton has at this point clearly found his footing in Hollywood and defined himself as an auteur and his confidence is on show in Returns' in full force. The whole feel of the film oozes the gothic expressionist influences that had such a profound effect on Burton's youth. The deco style architecture of '89 remains in degrees, but everything has a less defined, washed out and oppressing feeling which sets the tone of the film perfectly. Gone are the bright purples and greens which scantly added colour to the original, as Returns' is plunged in varying hues of black, grey and white, the iconic yellow symbol adorning the Batsuit, the only remaining small glimmer of hope and colour more or less throughout the entire film. All except for Selina Kyle's neon pink house, an aesthetic choice pulled straight from Scissorhands, showing as before Burton's philosophy of how average suburban residents are all just a hair's width away from insanity.

The criticism that there is too much of a focus on the villains and not enough development on the side of Batman/Bruce Wayne is a disparagement which I had always rebuked people for in the past, but upon finishing the film this time I felt their anguish for the first time. It's not that the villains aren't interesting by any stretch of the imagination, in fact they're as interesting as the protagonist, but with each of them assaulting Bruce's psyche in the manner they do in key scenes in the film you just end up wishing those moments weren't so few and far between. Perhaps that feeling is amplified however knowing that after two great performances from Michael Keating as Bruce Wayne, and the ambiguous ending for Michelle Pfeiffer's fantastic Catwoman that would be the last we would see of them, leaving us to imagine any future encounters between the perfect but tragically matched pair so brilliantly set up in that masquerade ball scene, whilst instead we get Batman Forever...

Batman Returns isn't the perfect film I had in my formative years thought it to have been, yet despite its issues with character balance it's not only a unique entry into the Batman mythos, but a great and often forgotten display of Tim Burton's talents, which although sadly never gave us a true sequel to Returns', instead gave him the time and confidence to create Ed Wood, so we shouldn't complain too much.

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012, Dir. Marc Webb)

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a tweet stating that I really wasn't sure about this reboot and that I had a feeling I was going to hate it. Walking into the cinema I was really bracing myself for a tedious 2 hours sat getting angry at Spider-Man being turned into a hipster. Within 30minutes or so however my fears had completely subsided and save for a few small niggles what I instead watched was a new Spider-Man film perfectly suited to what this decade demands from a superhero movie.

When I first heard that Marc Webb was to direct the film I had really mixed feelings. On one hand I thought 500 Days of Summer was a great chick flick for guys, but on the other hand I didn't want to see Peter Parker turned into a chic dressing metro-sexual who spends the whole film moping after Gwen Stacy. I have to admit I did expect Andrew Garfield to suddenly break out into a Hall and Oates dance-a-long but thankfully that never happened. Everything was played serious and grounded yet it still managed to be persistently fun and not the gritty Dark Knight-esque wannabe that some of the marketing material seemed to imply. Surprisingly I would probably say that the high school and romance portions of the film were probably the weakest, all feeling a bit rushed and underdeveloped, a problem that the rest of the script certainly does not suffer from as the tired origin story is given numerous complex twists whilst still remaining true to the core elements of the established mythology. It's clear however that Marc Webb has one of the most dynamic and interesting directorial eyes in Hollywood right now though as the web slinging and fight scenes in particular feel refreshing and exhilarating throughout.

The cast has settled into their rolls perfectly and in many ways already seem more suited to the roles than the cast of the original trilogy. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone in particular have great chemistry and I really can't wait to see how the inevitable death of Gwen Stacy will play out. Rhys Ifans also did a fair job as Curt Connors, but I can't help but feel that The Lizard is not a strong enough villain to carry a film alone and although it worked fine here, the second film really needs to up the ante in the villain stakes. That's not to say that it diminishes just how good the first 2 Sam Raimi directed Spider-Man films were though instead I think it could quite happily sit side by side it in the manner that Tim Burton's Batman films co-exist with Christopher Nolan's. Both tell different stories in different styles which are suited for the time they were made. In this instance I'm very happy to admit that my assumptions were wrong having walked away from the cinema wanting more of this perfectly balanced new take on a franchise that a lot of people, myself included, thought should be left on the shelf.

Review: Storage 24 (2012, Dir. Johannes Roberts)

I only heard about this film for the first time about a month before it was released just last week, but I had high hopes for it being a fairly competent bit of British sci-horror. Sadly the finished product was a really disappointing, clichéd and trope ridden mess with the word "forgettable" scrawled all over it.

I have to say I am by no means the worlds biggest Noel Clarke fan, having dismissed him back in his Mickey days on Doctor Who and having seen nothing of his work since. However after all the acclaim he's gotten for his writing, directing and acting in numerous "growing up in the London ghetto's" films since then I thought this genre film turn would be a good reintroduction to the popular star. I clearly must have picked the wrong film though as his screenplay is, as I said earlier, a bit rubbish and worst of all completely unoriginal. Fair enough, Alien is the prototypical science fiction horror that all others shall forever stand against, and its inevitable that certain elements are going to be reused and in some cases paid homage too, however this is just the exact same core concept just taking place in a storage facility as opposed to a space ship. Make up your own mind as to which is more exciting. Oh, but at least the aliens don't look like Xenomorphs! But.... they do look just like District 9's "prawns".

The real tragedy for me though was the completely eye roll inducing final scene, which I won't spoil for you, but let's just say it sets the film up for a sequel which will likely never see the light of day (except maybe direct to DVD). Between the ending, the derivative plot and the boring alien concept design it just all left me with little to do except sigh.

Review: Rock of Ages (2012, Dir. Adam Shankman)

I wanted to review Batman Returns for you today however due to the fact I have no Blu-Ray player currently its going to have to wait until next week when I'm able to pick up my PS3. In the meantime I thought I would do a brisk review of a film I saw last night which I really hated with a passion.

Due to being a big fan of Tom Cruise (yes really) I was eager to see Rock of Ages despite the dodgy looking trailers and the fact that I'm generally not a big fan of musicals. However, I went into the cinema with a mild expectation that I might on some level be entertained on some level. Unfortunately these expectations were far FAR from met.

Rock of Ages is a mess of a film at every stage of its existence. I may as well start with the story, or more to the point, the lack thereof. Even with the amount of characters vying for screen time one would imagine that in 123 (agonizing) minutes the majority of them would have some sort of character development right? Wrong. If you went onto Wikipedia right now and read the character synopsis' you would probably be able to learn all there is to know about them. Don't get me wrong they've all got character arcs for example Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand's characters discover they're both secretly in love with each other, but the reasoning behind this turn of events is completely unexplained leading up to the point they kiss save for one tiny shot of them looking into each other's eyes. Then, once they have their scene of romance about 3/4 of the way through the film its then completely ignored for the other 1/4 of the film. Each and every character has similar unexplained and unmotivated plots and it soon turned me to a state of utter nonchalance towards any of them.

Then there's the matter of the music. The film is obsessed with its nostalgic love for "rock n roll", but anybody who lived in the 80's or has so much as a fleeting interested in rock music will see very plainly that this is an extremely watered down representation of the rock n roll lifestyle. Yes I understand the need for the film to appeal to a wide an audience as possible, however I wonder have to wonder what demographic the film was aiming for at all. If it wants to attract rock and roll fans then go for an all out sex, drugs and rock n roll film which gives an accurately nostalgic look at the era, otherwise don't bother as far as I'm concerned. The "sex" scene between Tom Cruise and Malin Akerman is frankly pathetic and tops even the levels of cringe produced by her Watchmen sex scene. Drugs are not so much as mentioned in the film, instead all the characters drink bourbon whisky. Every one of them. It seems so instant on this act being edgy and rock n roll that it made my toes curl up every time somebody glugged a bottle of the stuff. And as for the rock music well, it's rock it it the tamest of manners. Sure they've assembled a host of great bands to pick music from, but they've just the most well known, chart topping, poppiest numbers from them. I guess that's fair enough, I wasn't expecting rare B-sides galore, but it's rarely not helped that all the renditions of the songs are utterly terrible - stripped of all passion and meaning, and chosen for each scene maybe because of one relevant line.

Upon my sigh of relief at the films ending I wondered to myself just who would actually enjoy this film. As I turned to my girlfriend however she told me that she thought it was good harmless fun and that she'd be getting it on DVD when its released. I like to imagine however that she's one of the few as the rest of the audiences reactions seemed more in line with mine than hers and thankfully the film doesn't seem to be doing anything Earth shattering at the Box Office. Its a shame to see such a great cast and concept wasted, but suffice to say I'll be more than happy to see this film sink into the obscurity it deserves.