Liverpool Calling.

There were a lot of criticisms levelled at Nowhere Boy when it opened here last year. Coming, as it did, from acclaimed artist Sam Taylor-Wood, a lot of people were hoping for something edgier, something a little more artistic. Probably coming off the back of films like Hunger and Le Scaphandre et le Papillon by artists of similar stature didn't help. Then, a lot of people had similar criticisms that were heaped on Coco Avant Chanel - why focus a biopic on the time before the subject was famous? Surely there are better stories to tell from that period. After all, that's the John Lennon/Coco Chanel/whoever that we all know and love, right?

The last sentiment I totally disagree with - if anything, we already know that story. All we may know of the earlier period is 'John Lennon grew up in Liverpool, primarily looked after by his Aunt. He was kind of rebellious.' His later life? So well documented that showing it on film isn't really going to provide any insights - we know it all already. Unless you take a different tack and go down the lines of something like I'm Not There, the Bob Dylan biopic (which is coming up on here shortly, when I catch up), which was an incredibly innovative way of presenting a story we may otherwise already know way too well.


The first criticism I can understand, however. Prior to the release of the film I was looking forward to it like... something that is is looking forward to something a lot. I was very excited about seeing what Taylor-Wood would do with this story, how inventive it would be. Then the reviews came out, and I thought 'oh, ok, maybe I won't rush out and see it.' And then I got busy and didn't see it. And then I saw it on DVD and hired it. And that brings us to here. (Please do let me know if you would like blow-by-blow descriptions of how I came about watching every movie. I think that was possibly the most thrilling few sentences I've ever put on paper. Or pixel. Shut up.)


So, I went into this exploration of Lennon's early years not expecting visual fireworks, and that's exactly what I got. What Taylor-Wood has provided, instead, is a solid little look at what it may have been like for our little Beatle (played by Aaron Johnson) growing up with his aunt Mimi (Kristin Scott Thomas) without knowing his mother Julia (Anne-Marie Duff.) When he discovers his mother in fact lives close by, he rebels against Mimi, who may have been strict at times but is heartbreakingly portrayed as hoping for only what she considers the best for John, before discovering precisely how unreliable his real mother his - she is prone to fits of depression and despair, irrational anger that forces those near her again and precipitated the need for Mimi to take control of her son's life.


Throughout this John is beginning to spread his musical wings, fashioning himself after Elvis Presley as he puts together a band, including first meeting and collaborating with Paul McCartney (Thomas Sangster.) His music is an outlet as much as an escape route, but his egoism threatens to break everything apart - as we know, however, Paul and John went on to the incredible partnership with George Michael and eventually Ringo Star. And the rest is history. Which is presumably why it is not in this film.


Scott Thomas and Duff have been suitably lauded over the year since the film's release, so I won't really go into it again except to reiterate that they are, indeed, magnificent. Johnson is very good in his portrayal on Lennon, much better than my impression received from his turn in Kick-Ass earlier this year. Sangster has an incredibly intriguing look about him that is almost too distracting - I still remember him very well from his brief stint in Bright Star last year because he just jumped out at me. He is incredibly intense and just cocky enough to put up with Lennon and fight back when necessary. His is a job very well done.


Matt Greenhalgh, who penned the fabulous Control a few years back, was on scripting duty here, and did well, layering the characters nicely and providing depth to all who shared the screen. Goldfrapp duo Alison Goldfrapp and Will Gregory provided the great accompanying score, which featured pretty much no Lennon tunes - it was nice to see that in a biopic. Of course, it makes perfect sense - you can't feature a song in a biopic before it's written, right? And Seamus McGarvey shot the film very nicely - there was nothing flashy about it, but everything looked... well, right. Like it fitted. There were no visual distractions.


Ultimately, this is probably going to be my criticism here. Yes, the film was good. It was a good little film, well made, well acted, well told. But nothing popped. And when someone like Sam Taylor-Wood is at the helm, you kind of expect it to pop. Even if it pops in a terrible, terrible way. Like, put Andy Warhol at the helm of Lonesome Cowboys and you don't really get a great film, but fuckdamnit it's interesting! It's at least fascinating as an artwork. Sure, there's real money from real investors at stake here, so maybe you don't want it to be a total disaster, but you can take some risks. Steve McQueen's Hunger could have been a total failure. The film had virtually no dialogue, for god's sake. There's, what, a sixteen minute static shot in the middle of it? It could totally have fallen on it's face. It didn't, but without the risks it just would have been another biopic. This was interesting, and yes it turned out terrific. But only because the risk was taken.


In the end, I don't think a desire for what the film may have been in a situation like this should take away from the verdict of what the film was, and what I would have been perfectly content with had the director been someone other than Taylor-Wood. It's a definite 3.5 star film. And ok, while it may have been closer to 5 stars had Taylor-Wood pulled off some risktaking, it may also have fallen to 1 star. But what's better - mediocrity or failure?

I Don't Want To Lose My Virginity To A Piece Of Fruit.

I'm always surprised when a film gets only a couple of Oscar nominations, but one of them is for Best Picture. I guess this year that possibility was much higher with the expansion to ten nominees, but An Education has been tipped for inclusion in the finalists for ages, most people were calling it one of the five locks for a nomination, and that would mean most people would have included it in the list of five were this any one of the previous, what, sixty years or something. As it is, it only received noms for Best Actress (for Carey Mulligan) and Best Adapted Screenplay (for Nick Hornby, based on an autobiographical essay by Lynn Barber.) I guess that maybe means it wouldn't have been a lock for Best Picture in another year, it may have been squeezed out by something else, which would be a pity because it's a great little film.

Mulligan plays Jenny, a teenager studying at school with an aim to shortly finishing her A-levels and being accepted as an English major at Oxford. One rainy day on the way home from orchestra rehearsals, where she plays the cello to show she is rounded enough for the venerable tertiary institution, David (Peter Sarsgaard) stops and offers to give a ride to her cello, as he is a lover of music but would never dream of inviting a young girl into a stranger's car. So begins a relationship of sorts between Jenny and this much older, very smooth, oft-sleazy man.


David and his friend Danny (Dominic Cooper) make their money (and seem to make a fair bit of it) through dodgy art and property dealings, leaving a foul taste in Jenny's mouth (despite Danny's girlfriend Helen's - Rosamund Pike - entreaties not to think about it) that she nevertheless is able to overcome in order that she might maintain the exciting and very mature lifestyle she is leading as a sixteen/seventeen year old school student. When David proposes marriage she gives up her studies to become his doting and adventurous wife - only to discover that he already has one of those, and she is not the first mistress he has had.


The script is a lot of fun. Sarsgaard is perfectly sleazy and icky, despite obviously knowing how to exhibit exactly the right sort of charm to win over any particular person he sets his mind on. Mulligan plays his wide-eyed but precocious charge, seeming to learn life lessons just to throw those lessons back out the window, definitely up to the standard of an Oscar nomination - one of the more delightful showings I've seen in a while. All you want to do is take her by the hand, admire her fortitude, and then tell her she's a fool and there's a whole lot out there she doesn't understand before sending her up to her room to practice her cello. The supporting cast (Pike, Cooper, Emma Thompson as Jenny's headmistress, Sally Hawkins as David's wife) are all also very solid. Thompson, god love her, was Thompson, which is never a bad thing, but I loved Hawkins' brief scene. After being swept off my feet by her Poppy in Happy-Go-Lucky, it's nice to see her again.


Lone Scherfig may not have helped hammer in the 'year of the woman' title everyone was going for with the Oscars this year (if she had been up for Best Director alongside favourite Kathryn Bigelow, and if Jane Campion hadn't faded for Bright Star, it would have been quite a sensation), but she does a fine job of weaving Hornby's fantastic script into a humourous yet touching film, keeping it tight without it ever feeling rushed, letting the film breathe just enough without letting you get restless. It's a decade since her Dogme 95 film Italian For Beginners, and that decade has done a lot. 


A great film, enjoyable for a number of reasons to any number of people. It's not really forceful enough to leave deep lasting impressions past the script and Mulligan, and I imagine that's why it didn't register stronger with the Academy, (though I'd argue that Sarsgaard and possibly Alfred Molina as Jenny's father should have been paid a lot more attention this year) but it is very worthy of the acclaim it has received around the world regardless. 5 stars.

Who Likes Short Shorts?

Wham. So, The Cat Piano, by the terrific peeps at the People's Republic of Animation out of Adelaide, made the Short Animation Oscar shortlist a while back - well done kids.

Then, just announced, the Short Live Action Oscar shortlist, featuring not one, but two Australian shorts - The Ground Beneath by Rene Hernandez, and Luke Doolan's Miracle Fish. Surely, out of those three, one of them should at least get a nod. I mean, there are only ten on the live action shortlist, though there are fifteen on the animation shortlist. And The Cat Piano is well loved, I understand.

Throw into the mix the fact that a number of pundits are throwing Samson & Delilah into the mix for Foreign Language film (the shortlist hasn't yet been announced, I don't believe), and Bright Star is still out there hanging on by the skin of its teeth, and there could be a number of Oz productions, instead of just the standard slew of Oz talent working on overseas shoots (hello Dion Beebe - hot again for Nine I believe.) Actually, looking at the Cinematography race is interesting. Greig Fraser is in there for Bright Star, Beebe for Nine, and Andrew Lesnie could come through for The Lovely Bones, giving three Aussies a shot in that category - why is it that we're so freaking good at cinematography?

That is all.

Smells All Right, I Guess.

Adapting novels to the screen is always tricky business. What do you cut? What do you leave in? How do you portray in vision what the writer can take pages to describe in words, freezing time as they focus on the tiniest little detail?

Then again, adapting a novel where the overriding theme relates to another sense, smell, is always going to be even trickier. How on earth do you portray smell? Heighten colours? Really hammer home the production design? Introduce smell-o-vision into hundreds or thousands of screens?

Tom Tykwer (who did the fabulous Run, Lola, Run) decided to tackle the Patrick Süskind's book Perfume (co-writing and directing), where the main character is primarily notable for his incredible sense of smell and his desire to create the one greatest perfume. It is an admirable attempt. I liked the book when I read it a few years ago, I really felt that I could smell what the lead character (Jean-Baptiste Grenouille) was smelling, seeing, feeling. It was beautifully written to really wrap you up in the odours of the environment surrounding him.

Kudos to Tykwer, but it didn't really happen. And I think the biggest problem is that inability to truly affect any senses other than the optical and aural. You can't portray smell, and without the descriptions of the smells and what they are doing to Grenouille you just can't really get absorbed in his story. Ben Whishaw plays Grenouille admirably, really doing everything he can to put into his face, his voice, his actions everything Süskind had hours to do on paper. Intellectually, I think you can, in a respect, understand what Grenouille is going through, but it doesn't hit home emotionally because you just. Can't. Smell. Film. You can't. And that was always going to be the failing.

Look, it looked good, it sounded good, the performances were pretty good (and whilst I did just praise Whishaw, I felt his performance sometimes hammed up and caricatured a little - but then again, maybe if you could have smelt him it wouldn't have been necessary), but it just didn't feel. It didn't feel.

I do, however, respect the valiant effort. I think they did as well as anyone really could have done. But I also think maybe nobody should have tried. You can make a film about how, say, the touch of velvet against the skin can drive someone crazy, because we all pretty much know what velvet feels like. Even if it doesn't drive you crazy, you at least have a launching point. When Grenouille talks about the smell of glass, however, no one out there can touch it (no pun intended.) Glass? Smell? Nope. Hits nothing inside me. Sorry.

Having said that, I was never bored, but I also think that may be because I might be developing a crush on Whishaw (who I saw only a couple of weeks ago in Bright Star.) It wasn't that bad. It just wasn't that good.

Points for trying. 2.5 stars.

Bright Star Again

I was reading over at In Contention about how some reviewers have been singling out Paul Schneider for his supporting work in Bright Star, and I realised I had completely missed discussing his work in my write up yesterday.

I think his performance was good, playing the best friend of Keats who supports him through so much and then lets him down right at the end, if not a little histrionic. Whilst his temperament for the most part reflected and heightened the mischievousness aspects of Whishaw's performance, there were a few moments that did leave me wondering if he weren't overdoing it.

Basically, if we're discussing it on the basis of his hope for an Oscar nod (which is what In Contention is all about) then I think he will only pull through if the rest of the film pulls through in a fairly big way (I'm talking film, director, everything.) He needs to ride groundswell, and I just don't feel there is enough there behind the film to carry him through.

Meanwhile, hopefully today I'm going to see An Education. Here's hoping.

Bright Star

So, I was going to go and see An Education this evening, but was distracted and missed it, and took myself instead to see Bright Star. I wasn't entirely convinced this would be a good idea - I was quite tired and I thought a period drama, no matter how good, may have put me to sleep. I was proven wrong, however.

Jane Campion's latest, her first feature since 2003's In The Cut, bore some semblance in the striking cinematography from Greig Fraser, a relative newcomer of considerable talent (this is only his third feature after The Caterpillar Wish, where I first noticed him, and Out of the Blue, both 2006 titles.) While his lensing has strong similarities to that of the similarly exceptional Dion Beebe (and I shall note that they are both from Down Under) in its use of focus, his work on this film is simply stunning, letting the design, story and acting speak for itself when it needs to, but adding a certain beauty to lift all elements beyond their own individual merit and into something particularly stunning. His work in this film deserves to be noted - as always, from his shorts (which I'm more familiar with), he tends to make me wet in places one shouldn't talk about publicly.

Abbie Cornish is someone I've always found to be a strange one. Something about her eyes makes me not trust her, and there were a number of points in the film where this rang true. She does, however, shine and shine strongly in many points throughout the story, which is indeed one of simplicity, beauty and tragedy, something you might expect. It is the story, ostensibly, of Cornish's character Fanny Brawne, and her relationship with the young John Keats in the lead up to his untimely death at the age of 25, a period when he was writing to no acclaim or fortune, despite the esteem in which he is held now. Of course, love conquers his poverty and all social obstacles standing in the way (including the rubber-armed Kerry Fox as Fanny's very abiding mother, a good performance though I was not entirely enamoured with her accent.) Their love cannot, however, conquer the illness that eventually proves Keats' downfall.

Whishaw's portrayal, which is not really being spoken of, is one that I found quite disarming, not to mention surprising. He brought a graceful levity to the intensity of the poet with quite simple movements and actions - a cheeky, flirty glance up here, a simple fleeting smile there. His humour resonated and lifted the entire film, without it ever feeling like he was trying to bring down the stakes that propelled the story. Fun-loving, loyal, but ultimately a romantic, Keats' poetry felt entirely real and natural coming out of his mouth. While I understand that my reservations about Cornish may be mine alone, and are not limited to this film, Whishaw, for me, was the brightest star (oh yes I did.) Though it should be noted that the two did play off each other perfectly - while I feel he was the character I was more drawn to, he never overplayed Cornish, and I can't imagine the one without the other.

While these elements, with the total design of the piece, were generally perfect, I did struggle with some aspects of the handling of the narrative, with some of the beats in the film and general direction. There were occasional jarring transitions, and moments that I think could have been handled better. So it was definitely not Campion's best work (her oeuvre includes The Piano, after all), but all in all a fine film. The final scene was understatedly powerful, and Keats' words over the closing credits kept everyone in their seats, and I must say that I feel it is worth the film if only for that, though there is a lot more to find in the two hours preceding.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? Yes. Let's.

This may end up being a little long, but we're all grown-ups.

It's the beginning of November. In the States this signifies the beginning of the Oscar season, in real and expensive terms. I thought I might just run my mouth off a little about what I think sits where in terms of this particular awards ceremony, in order that those participating in workplace sweeps and the like can start their planning. I'm only going to go over some of the major categories right now, because... that's what I'm going to do. It's worth bearing in mind that, due to my lack of media pass and living on the other side of the Atlantic, I haven't actually seen many of these movies yet. This is all based on what is being said in various forms from around the world. And I'm going to link to a trailer wherever I can. Because trailers are pretty.

First up, let's kick off with some supporting players, shall we?

Best Supporting Actress

The only name that really rings in this category right now is Mo'Nique for the cumbersomely titled Precious: Based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire. She's been hot favourite for this category literally all year, since she snaffled a Special Jury Prize for her performance at Sundance. From what I've been hearing, every single notice for this film is ranting and raving to the high heavens about her performance. There has been talk lately of the fact that she's not doing any promotion for the film, which traditionally has hurt people in a campaigning sense, and there have been whispers of diva-style antics. But fuck it. If the performance is even half as good as what I'm expecting, she'll be a shoe-in. I think this film is actually going to be hard to kill in a backlash, and she along with it, but we'll get to that. At the moment, I'm putting her as the actress to beat. And that's probably going to be an impossible feat.

Also-rans would include Julianne Moore for her role in Tom Ford's debut A Single Man; any one of all the girls in Rob Marshall's Nine, though my personal hopeful is Judi Dench because she is actually my god; and Maggie Gyllenhaal (be still my beating heart) for Crazy Heart now that it is getting a release. Some people are bigging up Anna Kendrick for Up In The Air, but I'll get to that film later.

Best Supporting Actor

I'm throwing Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds and Matt Damon for the unseen (by anyone) Invictus at the top of my list. Waltz for obvious reasons. Everyone's talking about this performance, and have been for months. He's not as strong a lock as Mo'Nique in her respective category, but he's still probably the one to beat. Damon... look, I've never been a major Matt Damon fan. But there's something about him this year, the props he's getting for this (where I think, if the film turns out all right, should at least net him a nom) and that he received for The Informant!, which actually bombed a little at the box office and will probably not pan out to a second lead actor nod (after that which he received for Good Will Hunting back in the day.) This is a film by Clint Eastwood, about a major recent historical figure, with allegorical ties to the current American administration (both black, both reconciling a country, both trying to make up for past wrongs etc) with Morgan Freeman in the lead - I think it will be a formidable contender, and the trailer looks fantastic.

Also-rans: Christopher Plummer for The Last Station (why can't I find a trailer! Waaah!), which I'm not really feeling, especially since it feels a little like category fraud, though that didn't stop the Winslet win last year. Not that I'm complaining about Kate Winslet winning - I think she's incredible. But still. Where were we? Oh yes. Anthony Mackie for The Hurt Locker because I don't think anything can kill that film and he'll pull through with ground support.

Best Actress

This category is a little all over the place. Gabourey Sidibe is hot right now for Precious, but I think she will have to content herself with a nomination. Come on - she's a non-actor who, granted, may be pulling off a stunning turn, but until people actually know that she can indeed act in anything else, they're not going to give her a naked gold man to play with. Carey Mulligan is running hot for An Education, but she's very young... Helen Mirren is getting attention for the aforementioned The Last Station, but she just won one and this isn't The Queen. People are talking Meryl (of course) for It's Complicated or Julie & Julia, htough probably the former. There is also still lingering sentiment for Abbie Cornish for Bright Star. None of these, however, are slam dunks. I think Mulligan and Sidibe can count themselves in for a nod, but that's about it. I'm not willing to speculate any further until I've seen some more.

Best Actor

It kind of looks same-old, same-old in here, a kind of Best Of of the last forty years. With Crazy Heart being pushed into this season, Jeff Bridges seems to have overnight solidified himself as the front runner, almost four decades after his first nomination. He's never won the man, so I'll pay it. Plus, his performance is meant to be extraordinary, meaning he can get this deservedly and not be forever talked about like Michael Caine - a career-achievement award wearing the plaque of a Best Performance award. He looks set to beat Colin Firth for A Single Man, for which he won the Volpi Cup in Venice and has been receiving a lot of notice for. George Clooney is looking like a nominee again for Up In The Air - who would have thought he'd be such an Oscar darling when we were drooling over him on E.R.? I think Daniel Day Lewis may make a showing with Nine, Morgan Freeman may turn up with Invictus, Damon may turn up with The Informant!, I think Jeremy Renner will turn up with The Hurt Locker. This is a mighty strong category this year, with a lot of product still to come. I think it's Bridges' trophy to lose at the moment, however.

Best Director

This year has been touted as the year of the woman in film. Kathryn Bigelow is hot here for The Hurt Locker. Jane Campion has cooled somewhat but is still a possibility for Bright Star, though not a strong one. Lone Scherfig is looking likely for An Education. So that's three, which is a fair number. Lee Daniels has to be thought of for Precious, but it actually wouldn't surprise me if he didn't get it. There's a bit of a backlash against him personally for kind of taking the credit for the direction of Monster's Ball (which he produced) and for just generally appearing to think that he is god. So he might drop out of the race, probably controversially. I don't think you can count James Cameron out for Avatar. If the film is actually any good, I think it will redefine a number of these categories. And obviously Clint Eastwood for Invictus. If Eastwood is working, he'll get nominated these days. There are a number of other strong contenders, but I think it will look like being amongst these people at the moment, with one or two being replaced by any number of others. So let's leave it at this until it clears up, shall we? Yes. Lets.

Best Picture

This is the biggie, and now the hardest to make any sort of call in, as they have widened it to ten nominees. I'm just going to run through a few that I think will be in, and maybe a couple of others.

Precious is a gimme. Seriously. If this film doesn't end up in contention I'll buy a hat, and then eat it. (Please note that I reserve the right to not actually buy a hat, or eat it. But I don't think it will come to that.) It's the only film to ever win the Audience Award at Sundance and Toronto. It's an Important Film. It's a black film. It's backed by Oprah. It is receiving kudos from around the world. And it opened over the weekend to an estimated USD$100,000 per screen on 18 screens, the highest screen average for any film playing on over 6 screens, ever. This film is going to be big. While most people whose opinions I've heard say that it's a hard slog of a film, and that going into second viewings they have trepidation, winning those two big audience awards says that, difficult though it may be, it is pushing buttons with viewers.

The Hurt Locker is more than likely going to hit home here. Most critics are calling it the film of the year. It is at a disadvantage because it was an early release, though it is not unprecedented for a film to hit cinemas in the States early and go on to major glory - just look at The Silence of the Lambs. I don't think it will manage to trump any major awards, really, but I think it will heavily feature.

Up In The Air will probably feature. I don't know what I'm thinking about this film. I think the widening of the field to ten nominees will pretty much assure it a place, but there's something about the trailer... it all looks to easy. People are loving it from festival appearances, and Clooney is on the campaign trail and well liked so that won't hurt its chances, but for me, he kind of looks like George Clooney in it. There must be something bubbling under the surface, but it's just not ringing with me. I liked Jason Reitman's Thank You For Smoking as a debut, I really liked Juno as an entertaining piece of cinema, and this is meant to be much bigger, better, deeper, metaphorical, all that stuff without doing away with the entertainment aspect. People have been comparing Reitman prematurely to someone like Billy Wilder. The must be something to this film, but I'm just not gagging for it like so many others seem to be. It looks like the kind of film I'll go and see, really enjoy, and then forget about when it comes to crafting a best of 2009 list. This is totally judging a book by its cover, but there you go. That's my feeling. If there is going to be one major upset this year, it wouldn't surprise me if this is it. I don't think it will be, however. I think it's a nominee lock in this category. But don't expect it to be lifting the trophy.

Invictus. It's Clint Eastwood. It's Morgan Freeman. It's political. It's everything they want it to be. Unless the film is a pile of crap, expect it to show up here. If it's good, I'd even be calling it a shot at a Precious upset. There's really not much more to say about this one.

Up is going to be the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture. Deal with it. It won't win, but there you go.

Avatar - it's too early to call for sure. But, like I said earlier, you can't count Cameron out of the race. Remember Titanic? The movie we all love to slag off? It's still one of the highest grossing films of all time when adjusted for inflation, it's still one of only three films to win 11 Oscars. He's a powerhouse of blockbusters, and the Academy will want to show that they appreciated diversity, even if it means saying hello to a major CGI film from the director of Terminator. This is groundbreaking stuff. If the film works thematically, expect it to be here.

Nine? Maybe. It'll depend on how it plays. A Serious Man? I'm not an enormous fan of the Coen Brothers, but a lot of people are. It could show up here. It's not going to pull a No Country For Old Men, however. The Lovely Bones? Again, don't count Peter Jackson out, but it is WAY too early to tell. Anticipation runs from white hot to totally cold. An Education will probably pull through because of the bigger list. But really, I think the major contenders here are Precious, The Hurt Locker, probably Up In The Air, probably Invictus, and that's about it.

I know I haven't seen it yet, and I am totally aware of the lukewarm critical and commercial receipt it is getting, but I really want to call Where The Wild Things Are a contender. It's easily my most anticipated film of the year. And if that isn't just one of the best trailers ever... But I don't think it will be. I'm DYING to see it, and I can't believe I have to wait another MONTH to see it when it has been out for WEEKS in the States and it is a HIGHLY ANTICIPATED MOVIE that they really should be releasing DAY AND DATE across the globe. But there you go.

So they're my major thoughts right now. It will of course change over time, and I'll probably update bit by bit as I get around to seeing the films mentioned. But it's a bit of an overview of what you should be watching out for should you be interested in all this jazz.