Toy Story 3

I tells ya, you wait for one bound-to-be-good summer film and then two turn up at once! Well, before I deal with the inevitable post-blockbuster blues, let me just post up my thoughts on Toy Story 3 - the film I've been waiting 11 long years for.

Toy Story 3 (2010)

If anything has proven the worth of a good idea, it's the Toy Story series. After 1995, CGI caught on like crabs in a brothel and soon everyone and their dog were pumping out CG films like there was no tomorrow. In 1999, the king of computer animation returned and showed the pretenders how it's done, by delivering a sequel (arguably) on par with the original. So, expectations are understandably high for this threequel.

"You've got a playdate with destiny!"

Toy Story 3 is set nine years after the events of Toy Story 2. We catch up with a 17 year old Andy (John Morris) as he prepares to leave for college. After a mix-up, Woody (Tom Hanks), Buzz (Tim Allen) and co. find themselves donated to Sunnyside Daycare Centre- a place full of hyperactive, loud and rough toddlers by day and run dictatorially by the strawberry-scented Lotso Huggin' Bear (Ned Beatty) by night. When they find out Andy is looking for them, the gang decide to escape Sunnyside to finally return home. In my opinion, they couldn't have chosen a better plot for the final Toy Story film. It seems like a natural progression to have the toys become obsolete and allows for many funny and touching moments. It almost seems trivial to mention that all the voice acting is fantastic, but I will because I like the clackety sound my keyboard makes when I type. Of the new additions though, Michael Keaton's Ken and Timothy Dalton's Mr.Pricklepants are the standouts. Both of which made me chuckle an embarrassing amount for a 23 year old male.

After the exceptional Pixar short Day and Night, the film opens with a fantastic action sequence involving a speeding train, a porcine spaceship and a bomb full of monkeys. It was funny, clever and everything I've come to expect from the Toy Story franchise. However, my smile soon faded as Woody and the gang hatch a plan involving a mobile phone just to get Andy to reach into the dusty toybox they're stored in and pay them some attention. It's really touching and the first of many emotional gut punches to come. The film doesn't get hung up on trying to tug on the heartstrings, but a lot of scenes have an emotional resonance not really found in the first two. There is one scene where (invisotexted- trust me, you don't want this spoiled) Woody and the gang find themselves facing their doom in an incinerator with no means of escape. Believing they're done for, the gang resolutely and grimly hold hands and prepare themselves for a fiery end. It's this level of poignancy and maturity that proves why Pixar are held in such high regard.

I realise I may have made Toy Story 3 sound as upbeat as a Schindler's List remake starring terminally ill puppies. It really isn't. The jokes come thick and fast and there's plenty of fun to be had throughout. I've always loved it when the toys plan some sort of crazy scheme, so imagine my delight when it all goes a bit prison breakout halfway through. It's a joy to watch the elements of the escape plan come together, especially when it culminates in a fantastic Potato Head moment. My heart sank when they did the same old "delusional Buzz" bit from the first two, but it eventually won (or should that be Juan?) me over. Oh, and the cymbal-banging monkey has now replaced that giant mutant crab in my recurring nightmare. He's fucking terrifying.

"C'mon. Let's go see how much we're going for on eBay..."

All stories, no matter how good, have to come to an end and Toy Story 3 is a fitting final chapter. If you don't even feel a pang of sadness when the credits start to roll, you're beyond help. I could hear people sobbing ten minutes before the end and it only escalated from there. My only problem with it was that it was in 3D, but not much can really been done about that as long as studios continue to dangle super-shiny 3D in front of the flock of magpies we know as the general public. Still, it's a great film and rather than merely suggest you watch it, I shall command you to. It needs to be seen. Make it so.

Inception

Well, everybody's bloody talking about it. I suppose I'd better review it like the good little sheep I am. Of course, I merely wrote that to cover up the fact I have been literally counting down the days until Inception came out. But that pretence has now been shattered thanks to the preceding sentence and this sentence confirming it. Foiled again by my love of the neater looking six line paragraph...

Inception (2010)

Dark Knight, Dark Knight, Dark Knight. I really love The Dark Knight. There. Now that's out of the way I can get on with actually reviewing Inception without any fear of my bat-love taking over and turning this review into another bat-wanking sesh. They're different beasts anyhow. Any comparison would be a bit of a moot point and take up valuable reviewing space. Speaking of which, any real discussion of Inception could be considered spoiler material and I'm not going to invisotext the entire review, so proceed with caution. I'm not going to spoil the big stuff though, so no worries there.

"You're asking me for inception. I hope you do understand the gravity of that request."

The film centres around the concept of being able to steal ideas and secrets from a person's subconscious dreams. Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio, looking like a shoo-in for any possible Christopher Nolan biopic) is a skilled Extractor, a man who does just that. However, when Cobb is approached by businessman Saito (Ken Wantanabe) about inception- the supposedly impossible process in which ideas are planted on a subconscious level, Cobb is forced to consider as if he succeeds, he can be reunited with his estranged children. The plot is actually deceptively simple, but undeniably great. Leonardo DiCaprio is annoyingly good as usual and has great support from a stellar cast including Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page and Michael Caine.

If I had to glibly label Inception, I'd say it was like a heist film set in somebody's brain. All the hallmarks of a heist movie are here- an eclectic bunch of people all with vastly different skills and personalities attempt the biggest job they've ever done so as to quit the heisting business. There are times where Inception does veer dangerously close to Clichésville, but Nolan keeps it on the ol' straight and narrow. The characters are interesting enough to keep them from being cardboard cut-outs, merely used for the occasional supposedly funny line or to demonstrate some plot convienient ability. My only real qualm was with Ellen Page's character who seemed to exist purely to have the plot explained to her (and therefore, us). However, it's a small gripe and pretty essential to a complex story such as this.

Once I heard Nolan banging on about Inception being a "contemporary sci-fi action thriller set within the architecture of the mind." my eyes rolled. It sounded like the sort of bullshit idea a fresh graduate from film school would have. However, in practice it's spellbinding. The central idea of dreams and dreams within dreams is a fascinating one. I loved the effect of certain stimuli on the dreamer's world. For instance, when we enter Yusuf''s (Dileep Rao) dream, it's raining because he has a full bladder. The attention to detail is remarkable.

The effects are genuinely amazing. There were certain physics-defying parts which had me wondering how in Satan's glorious name they pulled them off as I left the cinema, scratching my head in an unbecoming, ape-like manner. Inception is one of the few contemporary films where it seems like the effects are there to help the story, not to show off what an entire army of nerds can do with the latest computer technology. Inception isn't a completely flawless film though. There's a definite lull, funnily enough during a big action sequence, in the third act. I'm not sure why, but I think it's due to the fact that after seeing folding cities and the like, a normal run-and-gun sequence seems a bit conventional. If the scene was in any other action film it'd be the highlight, but in Inception it seems a bit unimaginative compared to some of the crazy shit seen leading up to it.

"Dreams feel real while we're in them. It's only when we wake up that we realise something was actually strange."

Inception is fantastic. It's a mindfuck of a film, but in a good way. I get the feeling Inception is going to be one of those films that inspires a whole new wave of filmmakers. It's basically The Matrix for the iPad generation. See it on the biggest screen you can find. You won't regret it.

The Princess and the Frog

Y'know what? I don't think I've reviewed a traditional Disney non-CGI film on this blog. Whilst I'm sure the reaction to this will be a huge, resounding "So fucking what?!", I personally believe this to be a massive oversight. Allow me to set things right with a review of Disney's recent return to classical animation, The Princess and the Frog. And watch your language.

The Princess and the Frog (2009)

In 2004, Disney announced that their animated cow fuckburger of a film, Home on the Range, would be the last traditionally animated flick the House o' Mouse would put out. I'm sure that a lot of children, both inner and actual, were pretty gutted by this decision. Five years later, after Disney realised that maybe CGI couldn't cure cancer, they released The Princess and the Frog- a grovelling repentance if ever I saw one.

"Friends, I know I'm in hock to y'all pretty deep already, but it seems our little froggy prince lost his way. And I need your generous assistance getting him back."

The film follows the life of hard-working New Orleans waitress Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) who dreams of having her own restaurant. However, after a fateful kiss with a recently frogified human prince, Prince Naveen, (Bruno Campos), Tiana finds herself turned into a frog as well and the two must try and find a way to be human again, all the time avoiding evil Voodoo shadowman, Dr. Facilier (Keith David). The plot itself is your classic Disney escapade, borrowing elements from The Brothers Grimm's The Frog Prince as well as the much more recent novel, The Frog Princess. The voice cast are fantastic without exception, as you would expect from a highly polished production such as this. The songs are also a return to form, with some really memorable toe-tappin' numbers. The characters are well rounded too. Our heroine is spunky and hard-working and the supposed Prince Charming is actually a bit of a spoiled, cretinous dick with no real world skills. It's an interesting subversion and definitely a welcome one.

So, let's get the main talking points out of the way. Yes, the main character is African American. Yes, this is a return to beautiful, traditional cell animation. Thing is, I'm not tripping over myself to congratulate Disney. It all smacks of the whole "New Coke" fiasco back in the 80s. It's a handy allegory as just like Coke, Disney felt it knew what the public wanted and got it wrong (excluding the Pixar films) with output like Chicken Little. Now they've returned with their tail between their legs and expect everyone to start frosting their underwear over the fact that they're back to where they were in 2004. The whole "racial" issue is bullshit as well. It's fantastic to not have a typical Caucasian lead, but it was made in 2009- this should have happened back in the '70s or the '80s at the latest. It just seems so backward that it took this long.

The surrounding issues aside, the actual film is very good. The characters are funny and likeable, the musical numbers are fantastic, especially Dr. Facilier's Friends on the Other Side piece, which is coupled with some truly amazing and surprisingly creepy animation. It's definitely in the top five Disney villain songs of all time. In terms of scene-stealing though, it has to be the Cajun firefly Ray, who gets a lot of the best lines and has a great love story arc involving Evangeline, a suspiciously absent firefly. The conclusion of which is just the right amount of sweet without tipping over into vomit-inducing, saccharine territory. Talking of conclusions, (Invisotexted- highlight to read) Dr. Facilier's death is easily one of the scariest demises ever in a Disney film, second only to Frollo's terrifying end in The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

"There is no way I'm kissing a frog and eating a bug in the same day."

So, The Princess and the Frog. To be honest, it's tough to really criticise because it's a solid Disney film. They're a genre of their own and The Princess and the Frog fits snugly into it. It's not one of the all-time greats like The Lion King, but it's in the upper echelon of the Disney ranks. A word of warning though- it may be a bit too scary for the young'uns in places and from a purely financial standpoint, the years of therapy will cost significantly more than the £6.99 impulse buy in Morrisons. Still, the film is ridiculously entertaining and certainly worthy of a viewing.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

Yeah, yeah- I know. But like it or not, the Twilight films are significant when viewed from a popular culture standpoint. The Popcorn Bucket wouldn't be the young, thrusting blog it is without some kind of comment on the newest film, Eclipse. So, let the commenting begin!

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

Oh God. Since accidentally saying that previous installment New Moon was "an enjoyable film", I've had to face some odd looks since. Thing is, I can't really get on Twilight's case. Maybe it's because I grew up watching things like Rocky, but I always side with the underdog. It's the cool thing to have a pop at Twilight and to be honest I can't see what the big deal is. I'm by no stretch of the imagination a "Twihard" or even a fan of the series, but criticising Twilight for its presentation of romance is like calling out a My Little Pony for not being a proper representation of a horse. And just like those horrible, malformed pieces of the 80s, going apeshit for all things Twilight is a stage girls will go through and will hopefully grow out of. Just let them have their fun now and then remind them of their Edward/Jacob fantasies in twenty years' time.

"I know the consequences of the choice you're making."

Eclipse picks up where New Moon left off. Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson, looking increasingly like a discarded pair of comedy eyebrows stapled to a piss-soaked hay bale) is still madly in love with Jane Everygirl character, Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and has asked her to marry him. However, Bella still has feelings for werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner). Outside of the angsty love triangle, a war is brewing as Victoria (Bryce Dallas-Howard) is creating an army of vampires to kill Bella. This forces an uneasy alliance between the vampires and werewolves who will have to work together to keep Bella safe. The plot is pretty poor, with the feeling that this is merely a continuation of the story, rather than an evolution. Both R-Pattz and K-Stew still can't act, which will only become a bigger problem as the story presumably gets more epic. Eclipse is an odd entry to the series as it doesn't really go anywhere. The main three characters are still in the same situation they were at the start of the film and it's hard to not feel that Eclipse is merely filler until the concluding two parts of Breaking Dawn arrive to rake in the last of the obscene piles of teen money.

Eclipse feels like a return to bad habits, undoing some of the good that New Moon did. Once again, we're landlocked in Forks, Washington and so the film just stagnates whilst everyone agrees they love Bella and need to protect her. At least New Moon went to Italy. The writing hasn't got any better either, with embarrassingly shit lines prevalent throughout. The film aims to provide most of the entertainment in the form of Edward and Jacob squabbling over Bella, which happens again. And again. And again. I quickly got bored watching ol' Pecs and Lenses clash over who was more forgiving of Bella's inhumanly large chin. There is a bit of enjoyment to be had when Edward and Jacob are talking over a sleeping Bella and Cullen grumbles the soon-to-be oft quoted line: "If we weren't natural enemies, I might actually like you".

I liked the armies element to Eclipse. It reminded me a bit of the last two X-Men films what with the uneasy alliance and superpowered battles. Trouble is, the CGI wolves haven't really been improved and still have no weight to them. They just look odd. However, the actual action isn't bad and is surprisingly sever-happy. As I said in my Twilight review- yes, I realise this seems like me being terribly blokey and grunting about all the violence, but these scenes are the only fucking break from the incessant blathering scenes which all basically boil down to this:

BELLA: Oh Edward, I love you so. Totally do me.

EDWARD: No, not until we're married. I totally want to though.

JACOB: I'll do you, Bella! I totally love you.

BELLA: I totally love you too, Jacob. But I also love Edward. Oh Edward, I love you so...

And it goes on like that ad infi-shite-um. The fact that the characters can't talk about the past without giving us a rubbish flashback sequence also really started to irk me. Maybe they could have saved some money by not showing us some sort of odd period drama and shifting the funds into the CGI wolves account, since the wolves are actually integral to the story.

"This wasn't a choice between you and Jacob. It was a choice between who I am and who I should be."

You may pick up on the fact that I said that I'm not part of the "cool to hate Twilight" crowd, but have spent nearly all of this review slagging Eclipse off. Well, Eclipse has made it a lot harder to defend the Twilight series. After New Moon actually did something with the formula the first film laid down, Eclipse is more like a long trailer for the final two instalments, content with just existing until it all kicks off. So, predictably I didn't rate it much, but I get the feeling that even the most hardcore Twilight fan will walk away from this one feeling slightly disappointed.

Where The Wild Things Are

I've seen quite a few films lately so I'll be updating this blog throughout the next week or so. Anyway, here's the first of about 8 incoming reviews, my thoughts on Where The Wild Things Are.

Where The Wild Things Are (2009)

If there's anything harder than successfully adapting a book for the big screen, it's adapting a well-loved children's book for the big screen. This is because by the time the film version comes out, the children who obsessed over the lovely likkle words and pictures have grown into cantankerous adult bastards who will accuse the director/actors/whoever of "raping their childhood" if even the slightest thing is amiss. Feel sorry then, for Where The Wild Things Are, an attempt to bring the modern children's classic book to life via technical wizardry. You've got to admire the cajones of anyone who takes on the task of stretching a sparsely worded (there are a total of nine sentences in the whole book) children's masterpiece into a feature length film...

"You're the king, and look at me -I'm big! How can guys like us worry about a tiny little thing like the Sun, hmm?"

As I mentioned above, the film is based on the Maurice Sendak's book of the same name. Whilst the film messes about with some of the book's key bits (the transforming bed and sea monster encounter scenes are not present) the basic story is the same. Max (Max Records) is a badly behaved little squit who argues with his mother (Catherine Keener) and can't relate to his older sister. After an almighty fight that culminates in him biting his mother, Max runs away to a fantasy land to escape reality. It is here he meets the Wild Things- a group of big, lumbering monsters who like to play rough. The plot is great and surprisingly multi-layered. As with the book, the Wild Things are open to all sorts of psychological interpretations which sets it aparts from your standard kiddie flicks. I thought Max Records (!) was fantastic as the screwed-up kid Max and managed to not annoy me. James Gandolfini was also great as lead Wild Thing Carol, although it was slightly odd hearing Tony Soprano's voice coming out of this. Paul Dano also makes an uncharacteristic appearance as a whiny bitch, further cementing him as the go-to guy for all your whinging needs, be it in the guise of a monster or not. He's still good though.

The first thing you'll notice is how good this film looks and sounds. Director Spike Jonze really put great effort into bringing the essence of Sendak's pictures into a fully realised film and it shows. Some of the shots are truly beautiful and could have easily appeared in the original book. The decision to score the film with cooler-than-thou indie tracks also works surprisingly well. The Wild Things themselves are great, although on first sight they look scarily like massive Ewoks, however once the film settled down and I stopped shuddering, the combination of costumes, puppetry and CGI that brought Carol and co. to life really started to work.

The film is undeniably sweet at times. The scene where Max and the Wild Things all sleep together in a big, warm pile had me cooing like a concussed grandmother. There's also something strangely powerful about the simplistic speech the Wild Things communicate in coupled with Max's childhood innocence. There's a bit where Wild Thing Douglas (Chris Cooper) asks whether Max will "keep out the sadness" to which Max replies: "I have a sadness shield that keeps out all the sadness, and it's big enough for all of us." I don't know whether I was feeling extra girly that day or what, but I got a lump in my throat from that.

It's not all sunshine and lollipops though, as there's an element of darkness to it all that pops up every now and again to combat the syrupy sweet moments. For instance, when Max first encounters the Wild Things he quickly glances a pile of human bones strewn on the woodland floor. There's also a scene where Max tells a chronically depressing vampire story about rejection and abandonment to his mother. These may not sound like much, but these little touches add the necessary shadow to this well-rounded film.

"Who threw Richard?"

I've come to the conclusion that Where The Wild Things Are isn't a kids' film. Its nowhere near bombastic enough to keep your average ADD ankle-biter entertained. The visuals and the lack of the Baha Men on the soundtrack would also suggest a more mature target audience. It won't be for everyone though, as the film does drag in places and uses some cheap emotional tricks to try and get the poncier members of the audience to shed a few tears, but I was quite charmed by it all. It's not perfect, but it's got a lot of heart and a surprising amount of brains.

Kidulthood

I've been sat here for 15 minutes trying to think of something to say in the preamble. I was going to replace the previous sentence when I thought of a better one, but it's so delightfully meta I'm going to keep it in. Anyway, here's a review of Kidulthood, you pussyoles.

Kidulthood (2006)

"Bloody kids". "Not like it was in my day". "What kids today need is a good world war to thin out their numbers..." and so on. There have been numerous films to try and present contemporary teen life to the masses and hopefully create more understanding between the generations. Kidulthood aims to be Britain's answer to a Larry Clark-esque exposé. Key word there is "aims".

"Wife? I thought you were a battyman."

Kidulthood mainly focuses on a few pupils at a London comprehensive. After a girl commits suicide due to incessant bullying, the pupils are given a day off and Kidulthood follows a day in the life of Trevor aka "Trife" (Aml Ameen) and Alisa (Red Madrell) as they deal with their friends, family, drugs, sex and local bully Sam (Noel Clarke). It's clear from the off that Kidulthood is going to be an "issues film". We've got teen suicide, bullying, drug use, gun crime, theft and all sorts of other hot topics presented to us in the opening 15 minutes or so. Thing is, Kidulthood keeps piling on all these issues to the point where the reality the film seems so desperate to convey is distorted and undermined. The lead actors are all decent, with the possible exception of Mickey off Doctor Who, who spends most of the film scowling like he's trying to frown his own nose off his face.

I can appreciate what Kidulthood is trying to do and to be fair, it does touch on important talking points, but there is a real sloppiness in the execution. The group seem to be merely ferried from one issue to another without any time spent on making the characters actually likeable or relatable. Trife and Alisa are our main power couple and most of the time the film keeps the focus on them, but I would struggle to tell you what their personalities were like. As a result, when things happened to them, I didn't really care enough to be shocked/appalled/whatever. Issues are fine, but if we get no real sense of the impact of it all, what was the point in raising them to begin with?

I also disagree with the quotation up on that them thar poster for the film. Kidulthood doesn't really kick the door "off its hinges". If anything, Kidulthood wanders up to your front door, knocks loudly a couple of times, pushes some pamphlets about teen pregnancy through the letterbox and ambles off. It just didn't have any real shock value for me. That's not to say it was all comfortable viewing. The scene where (invisotexted) Trife slices a man's face and the fact that nearly all the girls are used like punching bags you can put your knob in are disturbing but won't stay with you like this sort of film should.

"I want you to carve a "c" from the corner of him eye to the corner of him mouth."

So Kidulthood. It's entertaining enough, but its delusions of lifting the curtain on teen life soured it for me. It may shock parents and the older generations, but I'm not sure. Chances are that Kidulthood is just a confirmation of their fears. An incorrect confirmation at that. This isn't real life. It's real life as cobbled together through Daily Mail headlines. Which, I think you'll agree- is a terrifying notion.

Chloe

After the Fantastic Four films, I was feeling in the mood for a different kind of movie. Preferably without Jessica Alba. So, I watched Chloe. I don't know what it is, but after watching Bully, I'm cautiously seeking out angst and tension. Perhaps I'm just indulging my inner whinging teen.

Chloe (2009)

The first thing I heard about Chloe was that the young, toothy one from Mamma Mia! was doing her first "serious role" after famously lezzing off with Megan Fox in Jennifer's Body. I intially balked at the idea of Miss Seyfried comfortably holding her own with veterans like Neeson and Moore, but because both time and this blog have proven that I'm a bit of a knee-jerk reactionary prick, I decided I'd give the film a go. Also I heard it has a lot of nudity in it.

"My husband's cheating on me. At least, I think he is."

Chloe is a remake of the French film Nathalie... and has the same basic story. Chloe tells the story of Dr. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) who starts to suspect her lecturer husband, David (Liam Neeson) of cheating on her. After a while, Catherine's suspicions get the better of her and she hires the titular (in all possible senses of the word) Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), an escort, to tempt her husband to see if his eyes (and other parts of his anatomy) are indeed a' wanderin'. The story itself is sound and often quite gripping, but it ultimately falls apart in the third act, undoing any atmosphere the first two acts created. Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson are both good, but neither of them put in a career-defining performance. However, I truly think Amanda Seyfried is great in this. I'd previously written her off as sappy rom-com fodder, due to her being in mawkish toss like Dear John, but she puts in a solid performance tinged with an unsettling creepiness.

In my admittedly limited opinion, America can't do mainstream eroticism well. The term "erotic thriller" personally conjures up terrifying images of Mickey Rourke's leering face in Nine 1/2 Weeks or Willem Dafoe trying to burn some acting out of Madonna with candle wax in Body of Evidence. Whilst Chloe is definitely better than those thudding anti-boners, it does suffer some of the same problems. Part of Catherine's anxiety is her waning confidence in her ageing body, not being able to turn her husband's head like she once did. However, Catherine is played by Julianne Moore-a glamourous Hollywood mainstay who has a body most women would kill their beloved household pets for. It undermines the very point the film is trying to make which results in a confused overall message.

There are some genuinely surprising twists in the tale, but a lot of the main plot points are concluded very predictably. As I said, the third act collapses under its own weight and left me feeling quite cold. It's a shame as the film does have some decent moments up until then. There's a fantastic scene where Catherine asks Chloe how she deals with her less attractive clients and she simply replies that she just tries to "find something to love". The main mystery of Chloe the film and Chloe the character is her motivation. Sometimes it seems it's the money driving her, other times it seems that Chloe is just a sensitive young woman who has a gift for ignoring peoples' defects and focusing on one small, loveable detail. Later on in the film, when Catherine bluntly states to Chloe that their "business transaction, which is what this was, is over! ".The hurt which is evident on Chloe's face is palpable and empathy is immediate. Atom Egoyan keeps us guessing what Chloe's all about throughout, which is admirable in an age where most people seem to want their films to have 2 dimensional characters and all loose plot threads tied off.

"I guess I've always been good with words."

So, Chloe. It's a well-acted character piece let down by a trip to Ridiculous Plot Advancement Land two-thirds of the way in. It's too psychodramatic at times, but there's some decent dialogue and ideas here that balance it out. However, I can't help but feel the whole film isn't nearly as important as it believes it is and as a result it's more of an anxious gasp of a film than the sustained, steamy web of intrigue it would like to think of itself as.