Sherlock Holmes

Blah, blah, blah something about the end of 2009. Sherlock Holmes!

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

"Guy Ritchie can fuck off and die in a fire for all I care. He couldn't direct an orgy in a centre for recovering nymphomaniacs and will never, ever redeem himself in my eyes.".That quotation is my convenient and sadly fictional, personal account of Mr. Ritchie's body of work. Truth be told though, I probably would have said it at some point if it wasn't for Sherlock Holmes - the least Ritchie-like film he's done and probably the closest to redemption he will get in my book.

"Madame, I need you to remain calm and trust me, I'm a professional. Beneath this pillow lies the key to my release. "

When crime-solving duo Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) get caught up in the case of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), things take a turn for the supernatural as Blackwood can apparently cheat death and seems to have otherworldly powers at his disposal. Things get more complicated when Holmes' old flame Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) is added to the mix. The plot itself is pretty good, with the main success of the film being the banter and general relationship between Holmes and Watson. Mark Strong was fine as the generic baddie Blackwood, McAdams was good, but underused as Irene and Eddie Marsan was great as Inspector Lestrade. This is a broad comic-book take on the Holmes stories and I think it works well. The stylised steampunk-esque (shut up, I know something isn't steampunk if you set it "in olden times" and chuck a few cogs and gears on it) Victorian London setting also works fantastically well.

Jesus, look at Downey Jr. now. Thanks to Jon "Iron Man" Favreau for reminding us en masse how good he was and is capable of being. I loved his performance as Holmes for many different reasons. Downey Jr. seems to be playing him as a high functioning autistic- with few social skills and a brilliant eye for small details. If I remember my Conan Doyle (and I don't remember much) Holmes was portrayed as very much this sort of character in his earlier adventures and it was refreshing to see the character go back to his literary roots. I thought the bare-knuckle boxing and Holmes' approach to combat were both brilliantly done - although the slow-motion boxing screamed Snatch so loud I went temporarily deaf. There's a fantastic scene where Watson's fiancee Mary (Kelly Reilly) asks Holmes to deduce things about her. Holmes brilliantly dissects everything about her without any consideration for tact or feeling. He ends the scene eating alone with indignantly thrown wine dripping down the side of his face. I thought Jude Law's Watson was a great foil to RDJ's Holmes. The banter between the two is the film's major strength and it's always fun to watch them bicker.

 The integral clue solving scenes were great too, really giving the impression that we were watching a master at work. It left me with a big smile on my face. I was surprised at the verbose nature of the average line of dialogue. I'm glad things weren't dumbed down for the average arsehead cinema goer (although a "farting dog" gag slips through the net). I do kind of wish that this incarnation of Holmes had a proper mystery to sink his teeth into. Yes, there are things that aren't immediately explainable, such as Blackwood being seen breaking out of his own tomb, but for me it didn't quite click in a way that even certain episodes of Columbo or Jonathan Creek did. Here's hoping we get something substantial for the sequel.

My initial problem with the film was the fact that Ritchie directed it. The man is all style and no substance. He really thinks he's being deep and poetic when he's being dull and obvious. An example of this was the constant cutting to a raven whenever Blackwood was around. We see this fucking bird about 6 or 7 times. Jesus, we get it already! It kept reminding me of that running gag in The Simpsons when you always hear a crow cawing every time you see the nuclear power plant. However, in terms of tone, Ritchie and Holmes are a perfect match. The main problem I had with me ol' geezer Guy was that everything was hyperedited and juvenile. However, Sherlock Holmes doesn't have that need to be taken seriously that has made most of the Ritchie back catalogue a masterclass in pretentiousness and unintentional camp. Some of the shots he chooses to use also baffle me. There's that bit at the beginning of Snatch where the frame goes a full 360 degrees and looks like it was done on a PC from 1995. There's one such shot in Holmes where a big Frenchie lad is running away from Holmes and Watson. The camera focuses on a "This Way Up" note on a box only to pull out and reveal that- ha! The camera and the box are upside down. It's fine though and a very minor point.The same goes for the explosion (intentionally vague here to avoid spoilers) where everything ssssssllllllllloooooooooooowwwwwwwwssssssss down. It's pretty but there's no real sense of actual danger or "oomph". I reckon Holmes would have been a much better film if Ritchie didn't have the directorial reigns in his mouth, drooling over them like a concussed toddler. Having said that, maybe a more competent director would have had a less fun approach to it all.

"You do know what you're drinking is meant for eye surgery?"

Still, it's clear that this film is intended to be the first in a franchise and there are some solid and fun foundations to build upon here, especially with the true to essence takes on Holmes and Watson. It's a really entertaining watch and is definitely recommended viewing.Thank fuck the stupid and untrue line "Elementary, my dear Watson" didn't appear.

Avatar

I wouldn't be much of an amateur film reviewer if I didn't set my cinematic sights on James Cameron's Avatar. On a personal note, I've been ignoring this blog of late, which is inexcusable. I do apologise. Now, onto the blue cat people!

Avatar (2009)

I'm sure I wasn't the only one thinking that James Cameron had gone a bit crazy with his work on Avatar. After all, when a respected director like Cameron works on a project for 14 years and then the first images released of said project depict some weird Smurf/feline hybrid, it's perfectly natural to assume that maybe not all of his dogs are barking. Regardless, I decided to check it out in super-dynamic, wallet-raping 3D no less.

"You are not in Kansas anymore. You are on Pandora, ladies and gentlemen."

When his twin brother is killed, disabled ex-Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is recruited to aid a mining expedition on the distant jungle moon of Pandora as only his DNA will bond with the alien hybrid body, known as an Avatar, that allows humans to breathe the toxic air. However, Jake falls in love with one of the native aliens Na'vi hunter Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) and things start to go awry. The plot itself is nothing new- it's pretty much Pocahontas meets Fern Gully. Whilst that description is scarily close to my own personal vision of Hell, it's passable. Sam Worthington is much better here than in Terminator: Fermentation and Zoe Saldana is brilliant as Neytiri. It was great to see Sigourney Weaver back in the limelight too. Story-wise, Avatar is as average as you can get. Supposed plot twists are signposted so clearly earlier in the film that there is no element of surprise whatsoever when they do finally roll around. The dialogue is a bit of a problem too, with some exchanges so clunky and awkward it caused me to flashback to Attack of the Clones like a scarred Vietnam War vet.

However, Avatar's charm does not lie in story. Cameron has created a fantastic world in the form of the lush vistas of Pandora. Floating mountains, breathtakingly beautiful flora and fauna and some of the most imaginative creatures you'll ever see all inhabit this stunning landscape. I genuinely had my mouth agape in parts of the film, a very rare occurrence for me. The Na'vi are brilliantly done too, with a language and customs all of their own. It's very difficult to not get swept up in it all. The 3D is pretty impressive too, although I think that 3D is a silly gimmick, I've never seen a more justified reason for the technology. It would take someone far more cynical than I to not be impressed by the opening scenes of the film, let alone the first moments we get to see Pandora.

"Everything is backwards now, like out there is the true world and in here is the dream."

I'm extremely conflicted about what to give Avatar. It's technically astounding, but the script is too damn average to back up the amazing visuals. It reminded me of something like Captain EO or Honey, I Shrunk The Audience! at DisneyWorld. Much like them, Avatar is a tremendously fun experience but not really a great film. You'll leave the cinema buzzing, but unlike something like District 9 (Best film of 2009 at the Benjys™) I can't really see it having much life beyond the cinema or holding up to repeat viewings on DVD. So, I've decided to hedge my bets. I figure that if the film is a five star experience, but a three star story then it would make sense to give it four, with some free advice thrown in- go and see it at the cinema, it just won't be as good at home.

District 13

"Hey, remember the BBC1 adverts in 2001 of a man free-running across London to watch his television? Well, they were pretty cool right? They should make a film of it. They have? Awesome!"

District 13 (2004)

No, not a sequel to District 9, but a film from 2004 from director Pierre Morel. Set in the “near future” (2013, so not that far in the future then), it tells the story of Leïto (David Belle, the guy from the BBC adverts), who is particularly adept at free-running (or parkour, if you’re in the business, which I’m not), and his attempts to stop a bomb in the middle of ‘District 13’, a Parisian shanty town where not even the police dare tread.

“I'm retired as of tonight and I'd like to take advantage of it. It was her or me. I'm sorry.”

At the beginning of the film, Leïto rescues his sister, Lola (Dany Verissimo) from one of District 13's drug barons, but is instead framed and sent to jail. He is then paired up with policeman Damien Tomaso (Cyril Raffaelli, another free-runner) to break into District 13 and stop the bomb (which has landed in the hands of the same baron who framed Leïto). So far so clichéd. However, there is a moral dilemma; the district is so corrupt (somewhere in the film it is mentioned that it is about 50% corrupt, which is convenient), is it better to let the bomb go off, and easily remove the problem district. It’s here that the film fails. This issue is mentioned once or twice, but never really discussed in depth. I know this is an action film, but it doesn’t mean there is no room for intelligent discussion.

“Where did you learn that?” “A cookbook or some official manual... I don't remember.”

The action is ok, and this was before the fantastic parkour crane chase in Casino Royale. It’s just as the film appears to be a vehicle for the parkour skills of Belle and Raffaelli, there isn’t really that much free-running, save for the beginning and end. Having said that, the fight in which Damien and Leïto meet is really well choreographed, and wouldn’t look out of place in a Bourne or (new) Bond film. Yet the main actors don’t seem that qualified to carry a whole film. They don’t appear convincing, and this is nothing to do with me not speaking French. The only character really worth bothering about is Lola, and that is because she was the only character to have any sort of spine. Oh, and the main henchman of the drug baron, but that’s because henchmen are generally good characters.

Finally, it’s a bit of an odd gripe, but the title doesn’t work. In France, the film is called Banlieue 13, and soi s reffered to as ‘B13’ in all the writing throughout the film (excluding the subtitles), not D13. In the climax of the film this is quite crucial. Fundamentally so, in fact. Therefore, why not call the film ‘Borough 13’? We’d still understand it. In conclusion, it’s an average film. The action is ok, but there are better examples (including the BBC advert), and the story needed far better execution, which could have provided better examples of free-running. Personally, I’d rather they made a film of this Frenchman, to display his skills.

Rob Bender

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

It's been a while since I last updated this blog. It's weird- sometimes I can't stop myself from typing down every single cinematic thought I have and other times I just cannae be arsed. Well, I figured it was time to end this lull with a fairly long review of some sparkly vampire nonsense.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

It's very easy to sneer at the Twilight phenomenon. I mean vampires that sparkle in the sunlight? What's next- Frankenstein's monster wearing pink Speedos? However, since the first Twilight was marginally better than a kick in the nuts, I figured I'd better check out New Moon, lest I loosen my grip on popular culture's jugular.

"Have you ever had a secret you couldn't tell anyone?"

New Moon is a direct sequel to 2008's massively popular teen vamp flick Twilight. We again follow the life and romance of Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) as she continues her relationship with vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). However, when Edward suddenly leaves, Bella becomes depressed and is driven into the incredibly muscly arms of childhood friend Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) who has a dark secret of his own- he's a werewolf. The plot of New Moon is much, much better than Twilight's slice of banality. The characters are more interesting, the action actually moves outside of the dreary town of Forks and the general feel to it is a lot more enjoyable. Having said that, Kristen Stewart's inability to actually act bugged the fuck out of me. Good ol' R-Pattz wasn't much better, always looking like he's trying to scowl directly after having a gallon of Botox pumped into his face. Special mentions go to Ashley Greene and Michael Sheen, bringing incredible sexiness and brilliance to proceedings, respectively.

As I said in my review of the first film, I know I'm not exactly welcome at the Twilight party. However, I did find this film more accessible than the first. Whilst the arse-clenchingly embarrassing dialogue is still present- "Bella, you give me everything by just breathing." it's broken up with light humour and action beats, which keeps the whole thing running smoothly. I felt that New Moon was going to revert back to mopey form when Edward leaves and Bella drips around like a rain-soaked crumpet. However, it pulled it back with her interactions with Jacob, a considerably more likeable character than zero charisma Cullen.

Onto the business of the werewolves. I actually thought that they were well done, albiet some shonky CG slightly lessening the impact of seeing feckin' huge wolves on screen. There is no doubt who the film is aimed at when you find that Jacob will take his shirt off at a moment's notice. While it will inevitably cause giggles from anyone over 14, let's just remember that girls are always flinging their tops off in teen movies, it's nice to see some role reversal for a change. Plus, I'd be perpetually ripping my shirt off too if I didn't have the physique of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man...

The one thing that kept striking me about New Moon was how well it was shot and scored. Some of the camera work is truly impressive and the soundtrack is great. One of the best scenes is when the wolves are chasing series baddie Victoria through the woods, intercut with Bella diving off a cliff, set to Thom Yorke's Hearing Damage. It's a genuinely fantastic scene and is now in my top 10 film scenes of the year. Honestly.

"It would be nice to not want to kill you all the time."

New Moon is an enjoyable film. Whilst the two leads still have all the chemistry of their action figure counterparts, the relationship between Bella and her dad and later, Bella and Jacob are done well enough to keep you watching 'til the end. Yeah, I had problems with it (dialogue, smack-in-the-face obvious product placement) but they weren't enough to spoil the film as a whole. It won't be for everyone, but if your check your scepticism at the door, you may be in for a pleasant surprise.

Angels & Demons

After finally getting to see this film, I felt it rude not to witter on at great length about it, pointing out any flaws to make myself feel like a big man.

Angels & Demons (2009)

I don't know what it is, but I seem to be a glutton for cinematic punishment. If a film has some bad buzz about it, I'm immediately more intrigued by it and will try and seek it out. It's probably because I like tearing into bad films with my claws of unnecessary indignation, but maybe it's to do with the fact that I like seeing what makes a bad film bad in the first place and make a mental note not to make that mistake when my filmic magnum opus finally comes to fruition- Capt. Dick Thrust and the Exhibitionist, Nymphomaniacal Women of Boobalonia.

"Religion is flawed because man is flawed."

After some anti-matter created by the Large Hadron Collider is stolen and placed somewhere in Vatican City, it's up to Prof. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to decipher a centuries old mystery and stop the Vatican from being turned into a holy dust cloud. The plot is utterly stupid, but I wasn't expecting anything compelling. It's there as a way of connecting the clue solving, and that's fine by me. I still feel that Tom Hanks is miscast as Langdon, but at least he's cut out a little niche for himself in the role, and his hair is less ridiculous. As for Ewan McGregor's Oirish priest, he was alright but the bad accent kept distracting me from the tings dat were being said, begorrah!

Angels & Demons seems to have decided to cater exclusively for the residents of Duncetown. Gone are most of the "working out the clues" bits and the talky bits and we are left with Robert Langdon : Human Super-Computer, who can work out obscure clues in nanoseconds flat. Throughout the film there were exchanges like this:

"LANGDON: Wait a minute- that statue seems to be holding a fish!
WATCHMATITS: A fish?!
LANGDON: Yes. Now,"fish" rhymes with "dish" and "dish" is the first part of the word "disciples" if you say it like Sean Connery.
WATCHAMATITS: ...
LANGDON: Plus, it's 7 o'clock. That must mean that we must go to the 7th Disciple's place of burial. To St. Barry's Cathedral!"

One of the only things I liked about The Da Vinci Code was all the explaining stuff, as I'm a fan of history in general and conspiracy angles in films, however- we're not given enough time to dwell on anything interesting as the film is tear-arsing to the next church before the audience can blink.

In terms of things I liked, there were quite a few things. Tom Hanks is always watchable, the sets and locations are truly incredible and I liked the way that the cardinals were killed in a Se7en-type way, by using the four elements. I really liked the scene set in the Vatican Archives where Langdon has to escape the hermetically-sealed room whilst running out of air. It's tense and very well done.

The ending let the whole thing down for me, I won't spoil it, but if a certain character had died in an act of heroism rather than changing tact for no apparent reason I would have liked the film a lot more. Plus, it seemed like after the furore that The Da Vinci Code caused, Angels & Demons wants to suck up to the Catholic Church, by painting them in a good light throughout. After the Atheism fest that was the first film, to turn round and give God the ol' thumbs up seems like an odd direction to take.

"Faith is a gift that I have yet to receive."

Still, Angels & Demons kept me amused. It's bollocks, but entertaining bollocks. Just switch off your brain and treat the massive flaws as part of the fun.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

After ages of neglect, I'm back with another review to reclaim what is rightfully mine. Can't think of anything else to put here. Kthanxbye!

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

As I've said before on this very blog, I'm not the biggest Gilliam fan out there. I can appreciate his brilliant visual style, I've always found very little actual substance underneath the surface gloss. It's hard to explain, but I always feel that something is off-kilter whilst watching a Gilliam production- be it purposeful or not, it still irks me slightly.

"Nothing is permanent, not even death."

Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) leads a travelling theatre troupe with a difference: they transport audiences into a realm of strange wonders. But he risks losing the soul of his daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole) in a bet with the Devil (Tom Waits) that newcomer Tony (Heath Ledger) might help or hinder. I liked the story and loved the Faustian element to it all (Doctor Faustus is probably my favourite of "the classics"). I know you shouldn't speak ill of the dead (although- what the fuck are they going to do about it?) but Heath Ledger was pretty average as Tony. Maybe it's because I was so blown away by his Joker portrayal but I expected fantastic things from Mr. Ledger rather than Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein (from A Knight's Tale) with the word "mate" thrown in on occasion. Lily Cole surprised me with her ability to actually act (although her unusual facial structure kept reminding me of that creepy Chris Cunningham PlayStation ad) However, Tom Waits stole every scene he was in, with his portrayal of the Devil. He was amazing.

The big thing people want to find out about the film is how the story was affected by Ledger's death. Many know that Ledger's friends- Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell stepped in to complete the late actor's unfinished scenes. To be honest, if I hadn't known that Ledger had died, I would have thought that the "changing faces" thing was completely organic. It works really well. However, I wasn't really that impressed with Johnny Depp, Jude Law or Colin Farrell in their scenes. Jude Law was pretty bland, Colin Farrell was, well Colin Farrell with a funny wig and Johnny Depp managed to squeeze in a bit of Jack Sparrow in the 5 or so minutes he was on screen.

...Doctor Parnassus is an odd film, in the best sense of the word. What I really liked about it was the contrast between the fantastical and the banal. For instance, when the travelling Imaginarium pulled up in a Homebase car park, it brought a wide smile to my face. I was less impressed with the CGI-tastic imaginations, as I felt that while the ideas on display were brilliant (that multi-faced Parnassus balloon will haunt my every waking moment) the CGI was done on the cheap side and it looked a bit ropey at times. Having said that, the dance between Valentina and the Devil with the broken mirror shards was fantastically done.

"Can you put a price on your dreams?"

I enjoyed ...Doctor Parnassus quite a lot. It had a fun story, some truly astounding set design and ideas and Tom Waits as the motherhumpin' Devil. I get the feeling I may have to watch it again to fully appreciate what was going on, but I was definitely entertained.

Love Happens

We have a new reviewer on The Popcorn Bucket, she's called Miss Lily Rae and she's even more sarcastic than I am. Honestly. Anyway, she sent in her review of some guff starring Rachel from Friends and Harvey Dent. Rock on!

I’d like to say, before we start, that I would never, ever watch Love Happens out of choice. It manages to sandwich everything I hate about film – appalling script, ill-considered plot, Jennifer Aniston – into two gruelling hours that I will never get back. However, given that it was my first assignment as a film reviewer, it was a damn good reminder that Any Work Is Good Work; and, if nothing else, it makes you really appreciate the next decent film you watch. Read on, if you dare...

Love Happens (2009)

The debut film from director Brandon Camp, Love Happens tells the story of Burke (Aaron Eckhart), a man struggling to come to terms with the death of his wife, and Eloise (Jennifer Aniston), a florist determined to help him move on.

"If you had a brain in either head, you'd know that I'm doing what's best for both of us."

Burke Ryan, a man with the empathy of Trisha Goddard, is the author of “A-OK!,” a bestselling self-help book. In his seminars, Burke smiles beatifically at his grieving audience whilst constantly reminding them that “I’ve been there.” Privately, he goes dark and brooding every ten minutes over the death of his wife, be it in the low-key lighting of the Space Needle or the low-key lighting of the hotel pool.

Enter Eloise (Aniston), a flicky-haired florist with a penchant for doing ‘kooky’ things such as writing long words behind paintings and communicating in sign-language (neither of these inane habits is ever explained.) After the fastest break-up in cinematic history, Eloise inexplicably becomes the mohair-jumpered girl of Burke’s dreams.

Love Happens is a very confused film. It sets out as a romance with Burke and Eloise’s encounter in the lobby of a hotel, morphs into a drama as Burke begins to accept that he hasn’t been able to move on since his wife’s death, before suddenly becoming a comedy, with a surreal subplot involving Burke breaking into his in-laws’ house to steal a parrot. Although the subject of grief and loss is dealt with in a remarkably heavy-handed way, there is genuine poignancy to be found in the character of Walter, a man left devastated after the death of his son, who doesn’t believe Burke’s shtick. However, even Walter succumbs to the benign smile of Burke by the end, after a montage in a home-depot.

Had more thought gone into the plot progression, had the subplots gone somewhere, had the character of Eloise actually had a point, Love Happens could have been a credible drama. The romance between Eloise and Burke seems at odds with the rest of the plot – the unconvincing chemistry between the two characters does nothing to help this, both being so incredibly self-absorbed you wonder how they ever managed to notice each other. Both performances are unremarkable and lack charisma, and the supporting characters – Burke’s manager, Eloise’s shop assistant and Burke’s father-in-law – just feel undeveloped and annoying.

"Funerals are important rituals. They're not only recognition that a person has died; they're recognition that a person has lived."

As Eloise says, “My life is a day by day experiment in very bad decisions.” Rarely does a film sum itself up so perfectly.

Lily Rae

High Fidelity

Another Rob Bender review. This time it's about an indie film, just for a change...

Ben

First things first. I love the book from which this film is taken. Nick Hornby is a fantastic writer, and this is one of my most favourite books of all time. So I approached this film with a mixture of excitement and apprehension. I’ve been burnt by adaptations of novels before (I’m looking at you, Harry Potter 4!). And also because the film moved the story from the charming hidden alleyways of London to the backstreets of Chicago.

High Fidelity (2000)

As it happens, it doesn’t matter. The hidden alleyways of Chicago are as equally charming as those of London. High Fidelity tells the story of Rob Gordon (John Cusack), an owner of a delightfully obscure record store (think ‘Spillers’ in Cardiff), and how he deals with the breakup of the relationship with his long-term girlfriend Laura (Iben Hjejle). As well as being a music fanatic, Rob seems to have an almost obsessive compulsive nature when it comes to making lists, particularly of music, so it is natural that this is how the character deals with his break-up. At the beginning of the film, following the breakup, Rob lists his ‘Chronological Top Five Emotional Break-Ups of All Time.’ The film then follows Rob trying to run his record store, whilst getting over xxx, and meeting up with the ‘Top Five’ in order to see where he has been going wrong in relationships.

“What really matters is what you like, not what you are like... Books, records, films - these things matter. Call me shallow but it's the f****** truth.”

The script is hilarious, and Cusack is fantastic as Rob. He repeatedly breaks the fourth wall, often whilst standing with other characters, to explain to the audience his feelings and thought processes, or what is about to happen in the film. This is a nice touch as it brings the audience in to the story. At first I thought the perhaps the other characters, in particular Rob’s exes, could have done with some more fleshing out. But upon consideration, I realised that the film is meant to be from Rob’s perspective; he tells the audience what the women were like when he was with them (particularly his adoration and romanticism of Catherine Zeta-Jones’ Charlie Nicholson), and then we, along with Rob, see what they are like now. This works as it shows how hindsight and distance makes you look at relationships.

“Don't tell anyone you don't own "Blonde on Blonde". It's gonna be okay”

As well as Cusack fitting the main character extremely well (as if he was made for the role), the other parts are played well. I particularly liked Zeta-Jones, and Lisa Bonet as Marie DeSalle. Jack Black steals the film in every scene he is in as Barry, one of the employees at Rob’s record store, playing what could easily be the older brother of his School of Rock character. There is also a fantastic cameo from Bruce Springsteen. The only person who I feel isn’t as good as the remaining characters is Tim Robbins as Ian/Ray, Laura’s new partner. I don’t feel that the character is particularly convincing.

“Should I bolt every time I get that feeling in my gut when I meet someone new? Well, I've been listening to my gut since I was 14 years old, and frankly speaking, I've come to the conclusion that my guts have shit for brains.”

Overall, I love the film, and it is a fantastic adaptation. Perhaps that says something about Hornby’s writing, as About A Boy is another good adaptation. The characters are well acted, and are all people I wouldn’t mind being friends with. Except Ian/Ray.

And so, in tribute to the story, here are my top five things about this film:

1. A fantastic story.

2. Great soundtrack.

3. The cameo from The Boss.

4. A good and faithful adaptation.

5. Rob’s record collection, which I would just love to own even half of.

Rob Bender