HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 (2011 - Cert 12A)

I don't think I've even been more confident that a film would live up to my expectations than when I was sat in my reclining chair at the Clapham Picturehouse to watch the big finale to the Harry Potter series. After the first two very child friendly and perhaps a little too innocent Chris Columbus entries, The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets, David Heyman with his team of co-producers and a selection of directors (Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and David Yates), managed to make a series that was both faithful and dedicated to the source material. As a reader of the books I was constantly impressed with how the films managed to grasp the wonder, youth and darkness of J K Rowling's creations so perfectly. There was a real sense that the makers of these films were putting a lot of care into what they were doing, yes they wanted to make a lot of money but they also appeared to be desperate to do the story justice. They were only getting one crack at this, there isn't going to be a reboot, they didn't want to be the people who made a hash out of Potter. The quality of the films along with the continuing story has meant that it has never really felt like a 'franchise', although there's no doubting that it really is, it's more of an epic series that has spanned the last 10 years. This means that there isn't the usual dread that comes with a sequel to a film that you like. When I watched Spiderman 3, I knew deep down that it wasn't going to meet my expectations and the standards set by the previous two. With Part Two of The Deathly Hallows I just knew that this was going to be a brilliant end to a series of films that I love.



Imagine my disappointment when it came to light that The Deathly Hallows Part 2 was, in my opinion, the weakest since The Chamber of Secrets. Disappointment is perhaps a bit too strong a term, I really enjoyed it, but it just struggled to live up to the incredibly high standards set by the Prisoner of Azkaban through to the first Deathly Hallows film.

The decision to split the last book into two films meant that very little plot set up was required in this sitting.  The first film was all setting up, not much happened, it was criticised for being too wordy, but it was a necessity and it added a huge amount of depth to characters that we all thought we already knew so well. In part two we are thrown straight into the action, dragons, Gringotts vault, a roller coaster style bank job, Horcruxes. It's all there and before you know we are back at Hogwarts for the huge final battle, that takes up much of the film, and it has to be said that it is visually superb. The scale was reminiscent of the biggest and best that The Lord of The Rings had to offer, Death Eaters vs the teachers and pupils, giants, huge spiders, suits of armour coming to life, spells being cast, counter spells raining in, Hogwarts crumbling, it's relentless and is great to watch. Huge battle scenes come out every week in mediocre effects movies but there is something extra special about seeing Hogwarts at the centre of it, especially when we've been waiting ten years to see it.

This might be a good moment to mention the 3D. None of the previous incarnations were in 3D, there was a plan to have the first Deathly Hallows film in 3D but they decided that it just wasn't working and they didn't want to compromise their creation. I have to ask whether they stopped to think about whether it was a good idea this time around. This is a dark film, not in the usual Harry Potter sense of the word, but actually dark in terms of colour. There are the occasional flashes of colour through a spell or an explosion, but this is largely set against a black back drop as the battle plays out during the night. The 3D drains the film of what little colour it has and you have to wonder whether there is any point in giving darkness depth, it doesn't exactly leap out of the screen like the penis in piranha or immerse you like the surroundings in Avatar. There were also a couple of instances where the effects let the side down, for example a broomstick chase looked a little on the cheap side, contrasting with the otherwise very accomplished effects.

The cast continues the 'biggest' theme, everyone is in it. I mean everyone. Any character from the Potter universe that hasn't been killed off is in this film. Some have beefed up roles integral to the story like Maggie Smith's Professor McGonagall becoming an action heroine, some have a line or two but others,  such as Jim Broadbent, have nothing more than a couple of seconds of screen time. There is a great deal of pleasure to be taken from all of the characters from all of the films coming together at once, a school reunion of sorts only one where you're pleased to see everyone and not avoiding the smug bloke who is now a TV presenter.

It's much more than just bit parts by all the best British thespians though. There are some very good performances in the film. The main three, Radcliffe. Watson and Grint are perfectly solid, they don't really have a great deal to do other than running around trying to save the day, which is a bit of a shame after the quality and depth of their characters in Part One. Ralph FiennesVoldemort as desperate, almost scared. As the horcruxes fall one by one, I got a very real sense that Voldemort knew that things were unravelling, the closer he gets to his goal, the more the wheels start to fall off. He really isn't in control. It's a great additional dynamic to the usual good vs evil. Matthew Lewis' Neville Longbottom finally gets to the party and has his pivotal role. It was great to see the bumbling fool from the earlier films grow into a hero and there are a couple of stirring speeches from Lewis that got the goosebumps going. What was noticeable about the film to me though was the lack of any real 'goosebump moments', or for that matter, many moments of genuine emotion. It really should have been packed to the rafters with them, the book is after all. The kiss, the deaths of important characters, the reveal of Snape's importance to the whole story - that reveal is probably the best part of the film actually, Harry seeing Snape's memories and his past is the closest I got to a tear and it was brilliantly played by Rickman, as you would expect, and superbly handled by David Yates.

I've thought long and hard about why the grandstand moments didn't feel jaw dropping like I expected them to, perhaps it's because I've read the book and I knew what was coming, although I had read all the books before I'd seen the films and that didn't diminish from the wow factor. I think the reason is, strangely, that the film was too short. Everything felt a bit too brisk. There are a number of changes in direction and plot in the story and the closer you get to the ending, the less time you are allowed to pause for contemplation. Deaths happen and then you are quickly forced to move on, you don't have time to get upset, a set-piece pops up, you want to be impressed but all of a sudden you're following a broomstick through a fiery room and you need to brace yourself for the next big effect. I wanted to be able to appreciate these important moments, as they make the leap from page to screen, but there are just so many of those moments. It's a strange thing to criticise the film for but at only just over a couple of hours I though there could have been another 20 minutes or so just to give us all a chance to actually enjoy what was happening. I thought that was the reason why the last book was split into two wasn't it? To avoid the feeling of everything being shoehorned in. The prime chunks of storyline lobster from the book become tightly packed sardines in the film.

I think this may have all come across a lot more negatively than I have intended. It is a very good film, it does the usual things well, it's funny, it is exciting, it has all the spectacle and scale that I expected, it has great actors doing what they do best, but it just fell short of what I wanted. To say it's the weakest film since Chambers of Secrets isn't to say it's rubbish, it's just that number three through to seven were all amazing. Perhaps my expectations were too high, they were never going to be met, perhaps the 3D ruined it for me, I may re-watch it on DVD and think differently about it (I hope so) and realise that it was the perfect sign off for a film series that really has been one of the greatest achievements by the British film industry.

PAUL (2011 - Cert 15)

I approached Paul with a great deal of caution. I love Spaced, I love Shaun of the Dead, I love Hot Fuzz. However, when ever Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright and Nick Frost did something that didn't see the trio fully united, I've come away disappointed. Scott Pilgrim vs The World just wasn't what I wanted it to be, it had all of the flair that I knew Wright was capable of, but none of the content that his usual flashes of brilliance compliment so well. Pegg's 'solo' ventures have also left a lot to be desired with Run, Fatboy Run probably his best effort, miles ahead of the poor Burke and Hare and the woefully unfunny and painful to watch How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.



Paul is the first time that Pegg and Frost have written a film together (Shaun and Hot Fuzz were both penned by Pegg and Wright) and in the director's chair they have drafted in the safe pair of hands belonging to Greg Mottola (who directed Superbad). The story of two Alien-obsessed geeks travelling across America and befriending an obnoxious extra-terrestrial is a project that has been a long time in the making. Pegg and Frost using it as an excuse to have a road trip round the States looking for inspiration, they finished filming in 2009, only to have to shoot further scenes in 2010 and the film finally getting released early 2011. From reading Pegg's auto-biography I know that it is a film that he is very passionate about and proud of, something he's put a lot of work into and something made in conjunction with his best mate Frost. All of that doesn't necessarily make a good film though. I'm sure Zach Snyder worked bloody hard on Sucker Punch, and I'm sure he feels strongly about what he's made, however that doesn't stop it from being rather shit.

It's inevitable that Paul would be compared to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, I suppose that comparison is in some ways fair and if you are going to compare them then Paul is clearly not as good a film, but it really is a different film. While Shaun and Fuzz were knowing genre pieces, playing up to, referencing and also taking the mickey out of the conventions of those types, Paul is a love letter to sci-fi adventure films more than anything, there is something more sincere and innocent about the sentiment behind Paul.

There is clearly a massive amount of themselves in Graeme and Clive, granted they aren't exactly as nerdy as the two heroes of the film but they are cine-literate geeks and you suspect that the trip to Comic Con was written into the the script to give them both a chance to go to the event and hang out with a room full of Boba Fetts. There is a certain something about the performances of Pegg and Frost, it's not their best and most polished accomplishments by any stretch, but they are enjoying themselves in a child-like way and that permeates through the whole film, giving it a youthful and unsullied essence.

Speaking of child-like, that brings me nicely on to the other star of the film, Paul himself. Voiced by Seth Rogen, he is a completely CGI character, and it must be said we have come a long way from the days of Jar Jar Binks and even Gollum to an extent. The animation and effects of Paul are really impressive. There are rarely, if at all, moments where you the existence of CGI leaps out at you, Paul exists solely as another character, not a special effect. There is also a huge achievement in managing to stop him from being irritating (like our friend Jar Jar). It's very ambitious to pin an entire film on the character and they do get away with it. The quality in the effects mean that the visual and physical jokes do work well and the familiarity of Rogen's voice give the gags a bit extra despite there arguably being too many lowest common denominator jokes involving toilets, probing and farting.

While we are on that brand of humour, I think it's important to point out that this is another factor in making this so different, and ultimately inferior, to Shaun and Fuzz. Some of Paul is very broad comedy. Exceedingly broad in fact. For those of you familiar with the subtle laughs and very British jesting of Pegg's work with Wright will feel alien (sorry) around poo, wee and sex jokes. It seems to lack the indie feel that we would have expected. I have heard interviews with Pegg and Frost where they suggest that the bigger studio backing and consequently bigger budget resulted in a diluting of the idea and the script, the money makers and bean counters getting in the way again (exhibit 1 - the obscenely bad trailer).

I think the dilution really does give the film a wonky feel. Some of it works, some of it doesn't. I can't help but feel that if they didn't interfere, then there could have been something really special. However, if they money men just wrote it themselves then I'm sure they would have made a lot of cash from stupid teenage boys who don't know any better. Instead we are left with something that falls in between. This is perfectly highlighted in the inclusion of a plot thread about creation theory vs evolution. The boys pick up a girl on their travels (Kirsten WiigPegg and Frost, but it is a powerful idea that is sandwiched in between Paul getting his bits out and smoking pot. It loses much of the impact. I also hear from press coverage that this aspect of the story was downplayed during the 'studio' process which of course makes it seem shallow and contrived rather than a fundamental piece of the film as I imagine it was intended. Although not as contrived as the plot itself which seems to have been abducted a galaxy far, far away. It's clearly not going to be the most important part of a film of this nature, but it really is the sort of stuff that could have been drawn on the bag of a fag packet. It's the usual sort of Governmental alien cover-up thing that has been done many times and has a host of well known names like Jason Bateman, Bill Hader and Sigourney Weaver being amusing at various points. The farce of a story is I suspect part of the whole knowing wink to sci-fi films gone by but it doesn't work as well as some of the other referencing that pops up throughout. Much of my enjoyment of the film was taken from spotting which lines were lifted from classics we've all seen before. Aliens, Back to the Future, Close Encounters, they're all flagged up here - this really is a film geeks film made by film geeks for film geeks.

And therein probably lies another problem. Yes I enjoyed all of that part, the jokes about Adam Shadowchild books (which was originally meant to be played by Stephen King), the voice cameo from Spielberg, the puns on film names, but that's because I fall into the film geek category. I suspect for those who don't, much of the film just won't work, which is what I've heard from a number of people who have seen it. The referencing lines are delivered in a very knowing overstated way, almost pantomime-esque, if you don't get the gag, it all just comes across as bad acting. Another thing that I must admit is that if it wasn't Pegg and Frost in it, I probably wouldn't think it was that good a film. If, for argument's sake, it was Ant n Dec, or Cheech & Chong, I think I would probably not be as kind to it, but as it is Pegg and Frost and I have a huge amount of affection for them and love watching them on screen no matter what they're doing, because of that there is a significant amount of  giving them the benefit of the doubt.

It is flawed, hugely flawed, but it is funny in places, also unfunny in places, it's got it's heart in the right place and although some of it is mis-judged it still resonated with me, but a bigger budget and a baggy script mean that this just doesn't quite make it. Pegg and Frost fans should enjoy it, film geeks will revel in it, but as a film in itself it unfortunately isn't up to scratch, it's like not being 'in' on an 'in-joke'.

REC 2 (2009 - Cert 18)

The original Rec, about a zombie-ish virus outbreak in an apartment block, is one of my favourite horror films of the last ten years. The handheld camera footage/faux documentary style has become more frequently used in recent years but that film is certainly one of the best exponents of it. It had a simplicity to it, a realism. Quality acting managed to make you feel for the characters despite there being little to no back story for all of them. There was a constant sense of panic and peril, there were jumps, it was creepy. It did everything a horror film should do, scare, disturb and emote. All of this in a Spanish language film, nothing lost through subtitles at all.

There was an American remake (shock) called Quarantine that was almost identical, shot for shot, but somehow managed to lack all of the terror and substance that the Spanish original had. Another example of something being lost in translation.

I then discovered that Rec 2 was being made. I presumed that it would be a case of another director/writer coming along to try to build a franchise cashing on the original. However, my presumptions were wrong. Rec 2 was to have the same co-directors and co-writers of the first, Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza, and they were going to set the sequel directly after the first with armed police going in to the building to get rid the demonic menace. I was picturing a type of Aliens scenario, the joy of the first but with more guns.



Well that'll teach me for getting my hopes up. The two film makers have made two completely and utterly different films, on both content and quality.

Whereas the first film was simple in it's set up, people in an apartment block trying to survive, this only succeeds in being overly convoluted and bogged down in plot. There is a dual story line involving two different hand held cameras that come together at various points in the film. It's a bold move and does do something interesting with the narrative threads and makes the familiar format slightly more intriguing, however rather than just keeping it simple the writers have built on the clues at the end of the film referring to the origin of the virus and in doing so they have immediately destroyed the simple premise of the original. It becomes a bit like the exorcist meets the scene in Aliens where the marines enter the nest. But in a shit way. As it develops it quickly becomes apparent that the story hasn't been thought through at all, the plot has got more holes than colander, all suspense is lost, you don't give a toss who gets killed. In fact you're never really sure who is getting killed. I know the handheld footage is meant to be a little erratic but there are whole sequences where you haven't got a clue what's going on.

It's a mess, a hurried mess. The more I think about it afterwards, none of it really made sense. Why did the second batch of people go in to the building? The Fireman's motives were clearly not thought about. Where were all the monsters from the first one? Did they just pop to the shops? At times the monsters are there, then they disappear just for the sake of having some exposition without the people being under attack. And the ending, oh the ending. It thinks it's clever, but it's just dire. The whole film is a shambles. I'm not being too harsh, it shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt because it's a genre piece. If the first film, made my the same people remember, can be so good, why can't the second at least be 75% as good. It's like Jaws 3 compared to Jaws. Not worthy of playing on the name of the original.

I was thinking of signing this review off in the manner of a parent, 'I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed'. The truth is though, I am angry, really angry. At Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza, at the studio for letting it happen, at myself for contributing some money towards the coffers. That's the key thing, people will see this because the first one has become a bit of a cult hit, and if Rec 2 makes money, the chances are they will make another one (look at Police Academy - how did it get to 7 films?). I just hope there is some return to sanity for the makers and they manage to put some thought into what they make.

BRIDESMAIDS (2011 - Cert 15)

I used Bridesmaids as an opportunity to treat my girlfriend and mum to a trip to the flicks. On the face of it seems like a lovely gesture, almost a sacrifice, taking them both to see a chick flick. However I was safe in the knowledge that the 'girl's Hangover' had been described as a film that boyfriends won't mind seeing with their girlfriends. It was win-win. Two sets of brownie points and a few laughs at the Electric Cinema.

Then as I sat in my obscenely comfortable seat and lifted my legs upon the foot rests, I started to worry. The Hype machine had been cracked up to 11 for this film and I became hesitant, what if those pesky marketing men had created a wave of hoopla that nothing could possibly live up to. The familiar dread of watching a rom-com set in.....



Then the film started and we meet Kirsten Wiig's Annie for the first time, having sex. Not in a nice, fluffy, rom-com way, but an awkward, slightly but not too graphic, funny way. From that moment I was sold on the film, it had me at 'Hello'.

What follows is Annie discovering her best friend is getting married and she is to be Maid of Honour, then to find out there is a another Maid of Honour, a rival, and how all of this affects the girls and the wedding plans in the run up to the big day. A not totally original set up, but one not ever seen like this before.

It really is a funny film, possibly the funniest I've seen in a long time. It's got the big set-pieces, the headline grabbers, yes they're based on familiar themes (toilet humour and getting pissed), yes they possibly go on a little longer than they should but they're done with so much dare that they feel original, and if you've got a funny scene, who is going to resist the temptation to wring every last drip of laughter from it. Plus, there aren't many massive toilet humour gags involving dress fittings - I can honestly say that if I ever see a woman in a wedding dress crossing the road hurriedly I will be quickly going in the other direction. Without looking back.

It's not just big long stretches of farts and slapstick. Bridesmaids has much more to offer than that and much of that is down to Wiig. There are two distinct layers to her impressive performance as Annie, one is that she is obviously inherently funny. Even with dialogue that doesn't contain a joke, she manages to deliver it in such a manner that it seems both natural and funny, I'm not talking Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell gurning, just subtle, natural on-screen humour. She's a great physical comedian too. She doesn't take herself too seriously so that she worries she's making herself look a fool or unattractive. Often with female actresses in comedies (yes you Jennifer Anniston) they will attempt a a gross-out or a slapstick sequence, but end up looking perfect without even a hair falling out of place. Wiig doesn't give a monkey's. She's running around kicking cakes, trying to push water features over, climbing on top of heavy swinging doors, putting herself through cringing sex scenes. It's refreshing and, more importantly, funny. The other layer to her performance is how believable she makes the whole thing. Despite all of the chaos around her, and the mad cap characters bouncing off her, I was totally convinced by her character and the mid-thirties crisis she is going through. It grounds the film and makes Annie a character we empathise with. It must also be said that this is helped hugely by some brilliantly acted and written scenes in the early part of the film where we are introduced to the friendship between Annie and her best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph). I had a quick scan around the cinema during these scenes at the women around me and the smiles indicated to be that they had got those exchanges pitch perfect.

Supporting characters in the party include Wendi LcLendon-Covey as a bitter mother locked in a sexless marriage, a character we've seen many times before but it still manages to squeeze out a laugh or two, a goodie two-shoes square played by Ellie Kemper who doesn't really have a great deal to do, Rose Byrne as Helen, Annie's rival is great, despite seemingly being perfect in every way, she does a great job at being deliberately malicious but at the same time never letting her Stepford Wives persona slip. It's creepy and funny at the same time. Then there is Melissa McCarthy's Megan. I'm not really sure how to describe her. Mental, eccentric, deluded, realistic, heroic, disgusting. They all apply but each adjective on their own wouldn't do the character justice. She really needs to be seen to be believed but she does steal the show and if Wiig doesn't worry about looking a fool, McCarthy revels in it and rolls around in a bath tub of it.

It's not all praise, praise, praise I'm afraid though. Chris O'Dowd as the love interest really didn't do it for me. It's a huge shame because he is a funny bloke, and it must be said that he is fairly funny in this, but his scenes with Wiig just don't work at all. It's a massive issue because the rest of Wiig's character is done so well, she then stumbles in to scenes with O'Dowd's policeman that contain no chemistry whatsoever. It may seem a minor concern but while the make up/conflict scenes between Annie and Lillian feel heartfelt/upsetting, I didn't care what happened in those scenes where Annie and the copper were going through the would they/won't they routine. It detracts massively. Some of the supporting cast seemed to come and go at random, there would be a bit of back story for one of the girls, then you wouldn't see them again for the rest of the film. It felt as though there were more scenes in there for the cast that were cut out, but thought wasn't given as to how those cuts would affect the rest of the movie. It's a small gripe but for it to be noticeable means it should have been addressed.

After the film I had a post-mortem with my girlfriend and mum and I seemed to enjoy it more than the two of them. Mum thought it would be funnier (a symptom of the hype machine I'm afraid) and the girlfriend thought it was a bit more soppy than she expected. I thought it was very funny, touching in places, and probably the best, all out comedy I can remember in years.

I think the excitement generated says a lot about the quality of so-called 'chick flicks' and rom-coms as the stampede towards cinema screens alludes to an admittance that those films really aren't all that. Hopefully the success of Bridesmaids (£3.44m in it's opening weekend here) can raise the bar and make film studios realise that the can't get away with just putting Jennifer Aniston or Kate Hudson in a film with a half finished script where they forgot to put the jokes in.

Oh and make sure you stay for the credits.

PERRIER'S BOUNTY (2009 - Cert 15)

Here is an example of a film that just shouldn't work. It should be rubbish.



We are in an age when Lock Stock is over a decade old, there have been many attempts to recapture the success of that film, not all based within the sound of Bow Bells - Smokin' Aces was a dire attempt by some Americans that seemed to be liked by quite a few people, although I'm not sure why because it lacked humour, story and any positive attributes whatsoever. Then ten years later came In Brugges. Not exactly the same sort of film, but it had the crime, violence, witty dialogue and black, yet juvenile humour that made Guy Ritchie's break out film so appealing. It got decent reviews, had a relatively good box office return, but once it hit the DVD shelves and word of mouth got underway, that was when it really took off. It was one of those that no matter where you are, pub, work, dinner parties, round the parents', someone talked about it and quoted lines from it. It came from nowhere. I suppose it was inevitable, much in the same way as Lock Stock, that people would try to copy all that they could to try and jump on the gravy train. However, I didn't expect something to see something so similar so soon, not quite a carbon copy, but perhaps something that a child might manage with a blunt pencil and some tracing paper - It's not identical but the correlations jump out at you immediately.

Perrier's Bounty's likeness to In Brugges isn't just down to Irish accents, violence and a good looking Irish lead (Colin Farrell is replaced here with Cillian Murphy). Tonally, if it were on TV, Perrier could almost be the second episode directly following on from In Brugges. It's got the same edgy, realistic feel, gritty tourist shots of a scenic city, but with playful banter and humour between the characters. It even has Brendan Gleeson in it as well. If you're making a film that does clearly have similarities to another, having the same actors as well is only going to exacerbate the problems.

The problem is, if we are going to continue with the TV series analogy, that Perrier's Bounty feels like a second episode where the joke has worn thin, the creative pool has run dry, something that should never have got past a pilot. Despite it having the same feel and as In Brugges, the attempts at wit more often than not disappoint. The best you get is a smile and an internal single chuckle, however that is the exception to the rule and more often than not the jokes fall flat on their faces. Scenes that strive for random oddball laughs only succeed in feeling out of place and contrived. Peculiar characters come and go, I was always unsure what purpose they served, whether it was vital to the progression of the plot or just there to amuse, the truth is they failed to do either. The edgier side of the film also misses the mark. The proper drama and gangland violence struggle for credibility alongside the attempted comedic touches, it all feels cartoony, a bit caricature.

So it a comedy drama that fails on both the comedy and the drama. It's a rip off of other films and only ends up as being a pale comparison when looked at alongside those films. It's plot goes one way, then the other feels, disjointed and doesn't really make sense or convince. It's a film that should be rubbish. But it isn't rubbish, it's mediocre, not more than that, but it certainly isn't the worst film I've ever seen (Couple's Retreat, Sucker Punch - I'm looking in your direction).

The only thing that does elevate it to the lofty heights of 'just about watchable' is the cast. It really is a stellar line up - Cillian Murphy as they hero of the piece Michael McCrea, Brendan Gleeson as Perrier, the villain, Jim Broadbent as McCrea's dad, Jodie Whittaker as the love interest. When you have four people on screen like that, the glass quickly becomes half full rather than half empty. Murphy is brilliant at whatever he does and anything that he appears is all the more interesting because of him. Gleeson is his effortless self, making acting look easy, Whittaker continues to climb the ladder and once again impresses (her forthcoming appearance in One Day should only make her even hotter property) and it is always a pleasure to see Jim Broadbent in action (how different would the world be if David Sullivan went with, Broadbent, his initial choice for Delboy). The very fact that these four are playing out proceedings on screen, no matter how nonsensical and pointless the proceedings are, gives the film a bit more gravitas. Of course, the base level of the move is so low to begin with, they can only lift it so far and it's a case of too little too late. Further evidence of this is a voice over/narrator from someone (or something) that is all warbling musing and philosophies on what life and death means. In terms of the content it's dull, dull, dull and quickly becomes irritating, but the voice itself, there's something about it that reels you in. Then when the credits roll you realise it's Gabriel Byrne and you then cotton on to why you found the voice so hypnotic. It just goes to show how important a good cast are to making a film work. When it's a success, it's easy to underestimate the role the actors play, but when you see those people polishing a turd you know how valuable an expert in the craft is.