Review: This Is England

Review: This Is England (Shane Meadows, 2006, UK).

One of the most critically acclaimed films from the UK in quite some time, This Is England has arrived on a wave of hype. A successful premiere at the London Film Festival (I have to go this year), an official selection at the Rome Film Festival, and a multitude of enthusiastic reviews has made this a truly must-see movie, epsecially so as this will be the last less crowd-pleasing film I see before the blockbuster season kicks in, a season I become rather wrapped up in. Will it make me long for it after the Bourne - Spider-Man - Pirates - Simpsons - Transformers hits I will be mainlining over the next few months?
Shaun (Thomas Turgoose) is on his last day of term when everything changes for him. After getting in a fight with an older boy, he encouters a gang of lads lead by Woody (Joseph Gilgun) and Milky (Andrew Shim). He soon starts hanging around with them and their friends and they start a summer where Shaun will experience real friendship and some things older boys experience. Things take a turn when Woody's friend Combo (Stephen Graham) is released from prison and starts to exert his influence over not only Woody's gang but also Shaun.
This Is England wears its heart on its sleave right from the start, shots of Roland Rat and Knight Rider show that we are in the 1980's and judging from this, a nostalgia trip. This changes quickly when we are shown shots of the Falkland's, an interesting war in English history to say the least. Its relevance proves to be one of the key points in determining the character's motivations and the events which will follow. We are then introduced to Shaun as a sweary but good boy who is sick of being picked on. His interactions with Woody and his gang are at first fun-filled. They parade through deserted homes and trahs them in a way which would be commonplace to many children and teenagers, the want for destruction being an element in boys throughout time. They have a great time and even when there is tension, it is sorted quickly. This juvenile behaviour is not just for the boys but for the girls also. They shave Shaun's hair as an initiation of sorts, let him smoke weed and... let him do stuff (well one of them does). All this childishness is entirely diminished in one scene, the introduction of Combo. He brings with him the resentful feeling sburning inside many people at that time and indeed now. The blaming of those who are different for all the problems in their lives, even if the reasons why are rather absurd. His reasons indeed maybe childish but his hate and his conviction are all adult. Combo's speech and the use of a weak spot in Shaun's life is enough to convince members of Woody's gang to follow him into this path into hate. The rite of passage is brought into full ber by Combo, he takes Shaun to a National Front meeting which Shaun doesn't seem to understand, he cojoles Shaun into intimidating some lads playing football and to traumatise a shop owner. All this makes Shaun feel powerful but the climatic act brings into focus just how young Shaun really is and just how wrong he was to trust in this particular father figure.
All of this is done in an entirely believeable way and this is a sill that Shane Meadows excels in. When he does it, he produces films like A Room For Romeo Brass and Dead Man's Shoes. When he doesn't, we get Once Upon A Time In The Midlands. Here, he is truly on the top of his game. Everything about this film feels entirely natural. Woody and Milky feel like the type of guys who would take a lad under their wing. Shaun feels like he would be able to handle himself in these situations and truly seems older than he is. Combo feels like a full-on portrayal of a man who has been influenced by the wrong people and really is an example of where Shaun could be going. The scene where Shaun wants to get a particular type of shoe feels like any child you see in a shoe shop all the time. The ending, while predictable feels like the kind of thing that will happen when a pressure cooker like Combo explodes. The only thing that does feel false is the relationship between Shaun and Smell feels very false. The sight of this kid and a obviously older girl to me was very very funny (Donna couldn't look though), but their rleationship strikes an off-chord boy's fantasy version of what is quite a realist take on England at that time, and maybe now.
The cast are uniformly amazing. Thomas Turgoose is a little revelation as Shaun. His attitude, his way with words, and his vunerability are soemthing that will take something for him to beat in later life. Stephen Graham as born to play his role, his wide-eyed psychopathic portrayal feels like soemthing he has been builiding up to for a long time and what could have been a one-dimesional perfomance becomes a fully realised character through his force alone. The others all do great jobs and I want to mention the guy with the galsses who joins Combo's gang. I don't know who he is but his intimidating of the lads playing football is a depressing image which I will take with me for a long time.
It feels awful of me to say that in my opinion this is not the best Brit film of the year. Meadows has done a great job in capturing both a realist portrayal of what the 1980's was like and a chilling look at where England could be going, and he should be applauded for doing as much. However, in terms of pure enjoyment, Sunshine and Hot Fuzz eclipse it completely. I will say this however, I respect This Is England far more for what it has to say. It is a film I ill revisit time and time again. I suppose I am just too shallow! Please do go see it though, it deserves to be seen by as many people as possible, and with its reclassification by the Bristol City Council to 15 (bravo by the way), any schoolchild should see it as both a fun trip, and a good lesson.

Back during the week with some more DVD reviews and then on Saturday my review will be up for my most anticipated movie of the summer, Spider-Man 3!! Anyone who gets my second and third wins a prize. Seriously, emails to ian-loring@hotmail.co.uk, decent prize too!! They have to be the right order by the way.

Ian out.

DVD Review: Spider-Man 2.1

After a very scary mornig where I thought I would see none of my pay this month, I saw my pay today. At least some of it. At this point I just want to say thank you to my incredible girlfriend Donna, without whom I would be a complete mess/idiot. On with the show...

DVD Review: Spider-Man 2.1 (Sam Raimi, 2004, 2007, USA).

This release is one of what is commonly referred to as a "double dip", essentially a new edition of a DVD, brought out to even poromote a closely linked film or, more likely, a sequel. And so this is the latter case. Now I don't usually deal with double dips, I think they are a waste of money as a rule and the features only seek to promote the latest film. Spider-Man 2.1 offers something that many others don't. Extra scenes put back in to create an extended cut. Not only this but they are editied into the film under the supervision of the director, the man, the legend, Sam Raimi. This is often not the case, if you look at X-Men 1.5, the scenes are put in through really distracting branching where the video and audio are not made to the qaulity of the finished product. With this, it is. And so the question is, is this "extended cut", note not director's cut, better than the theatrical version?
I won't be running through the story as I think anybody who reads this has seen Spider-Man 2 or at least knows what it is about. This also won't be a long review as this 8 minutes does not add a lot. What we do get is some fine stuff. Individual scenes sometimes feel longer, an extra couple of lines have been put in here and there, I feel most notably so in the backyard scene between Peter and MJ. I say most notably, because it is also the most distracting. The scene's sound design seems to have not been mixed properly and the feel kind of takes you out of it. The whole thing is seamlessly edited aside from this but the rhythm feels odd where nothing really needed to be added. The scene between Spider-Man and the guy in the elevator (whom the features tells us is an American comedian) also feels jarring. Whereas in the theatrical cut the banter bewteen them about the difficulty of wearing the Spider suit was a really funny moment, this different version just feels flabby and self-indulgent.
The good stuff now and yes oh yes, it is good. J Jonah Jameson in the Spider suit is a sight to behold. I love the way he still has the cigar in his mouth while he is goofing around and the whole scene is a delight. While I can understand that the tone is too light in the darkest part of the film, but I think it is a fine addition to this "extended" cut. The extended train fight sequence is also all good stuff. It feels more violent, I think this coupled with the terrific Evil Dead riffing is the satnd out moment of the film and this adds much more to it. I don't want to ruin the extra bits because hey it is only 8 minutes in total.
Is it a better film then? No, no it is not. It adds unecessary character bits that make the film a bit too bloated, although the run time is still a quarter hour shorter than Spider-Man 3 (thoughts to which I will get to after the review, no I haven't seen it). The extra action is terrific and adds to the epicness of the obviosuly biggest action sequence of the film. What this is however is a worthy "extended cut" in that it is for fans of the original film who want a bit more, another example of this being the Gladiator extended cut. These films are authorised by the directors involved but they are not neccesarily the cut the directors want to be seen defenitively. What this offers are moemnts the fan will enjoy but which may make the film more of a slog for the casual viewer. Me? I may stick with this one for the longer train sequence and more of the Dunst. Love the Dunst.
One ore thing which i raised on the Empire Online forums ealrier today. This is the fiurst time I have ever notcied the acknowledgement that this is a different cut in the titles of the film. Instead of Spider-Man 2, the film itself actually says Spider-Man 2.1. Never seen this before, and it was a nice touch.

Video: Same standard as the previous DVD, really very good but I have a feeling when I get Blu-Ray I ill be re-buying for the extra detail. Added stuff looks just as good as the original DVD.

Audio: Really involving soundtrack from the start, great use of bass but not distracting, great surround effects, terrific overall. Again, the audio of the additional bits fits in entirely.

Features:

I have not seen all of them. I really can't be bothered to listen to the Screenwriter/Producer commentary.

Inside Spider-Man 2.1: Shows us how they intergrated the extra stuff and why. Conspicuous by Raimi's absence but I suppose understandable given Spider-Man 3's apparently troubled production.

Spider-Man 3 sneak peek: 3 minute pointless exercise in advertising what anybody who buys this wil already be seeing opening weekend. Also get a admittedly terrific trailer, as all the Spider-Man 3 trailers have been

Other features, all self-congratlulatory.

I bought this for 6.84 and was intrigued. I would not recommend anybody buying this for more than a tenner but as a warm up for the new one, its all good.

The first reviews of Spider-Man 3 are out and... a bit meh really. When you knock the ball out of the park given number 2, this was to be expected. But I am still pretty much drooling for it. I will love it, I know I will. All I am worried about is the length of time we get some Venom, considering what I heard not a lot considering Raimi was kind of forced into including him...

Back tomorrow with This Is England, which I am hoping I love. Still though best brit-flick of the year? One word: Sunshine Two words: Hot Fuzz Three words (please!): 28 Weeks Later. We will see. Again I am working at 6am tomorrow morning so to those who read, have a great Friday night for me!

Whoever wins, the viewer loses...

Really quick post. If you ever get the urge to rewatch Alien vs Predator, just don't. Fair enough if you have never seen it, the premise alone was enough to make me drool. But by christ what a clusterfuck. I know they have to gear it for big audiences but it is some tame and so ruled by a busted internal logic that it fails on just about every level. Even the end "twist" can be guessed at just if you think about it. God, why on earth did I think about watching this again lol. Anyway rant over. Hopefully back tomorrow as it be payday so I WILL be getting the Kingdom of Heaven Definitive Edition and Spider-Man 2.1, especially as that is apparently £6.84 at Asda and KoH is also under a tenner. Will have reviews of both, and This Is England up before the end of the weekend. Laters...

DVD Review: Sheitan (Satan)

DVD Review: Sheitan (Satan) (Kim Chapiron, 2006, FRA).

Vincent Cassell is arguably one of the best younger actors in the world and yet he will never truly break through into American mainstream cinema. I say this because while he may act in some American films, these are mainly in supporting roles. However, I would say that the main reason is that he is happy in what he is doing for European cinema. Films like Doberman, Le Appartment, La Haine and one of the most contrversial European films ever made, Irreversiable have cemented his place as an important actor. With this kind of reputation, an actor can get films made. He can pick a pet project and get studios interested through their involvement alone. This must have been one of the reasons that Sheitan managed to get made.
After a night at the Styxx Club a day before Christmas Eve ends in Bart (Olivier Bartelemey) getting kicked out for starting a fight, he and his friends, Thai (Nicolas Le Phat Tan), Ladj (Ladj Ly) and Yasmine (Leila Bekhti) are offered the chance to stay at a country place by a girl who Thai is interested in, Eve (Roxanne Mesquida). When they get there, they are introduced to Joseph (Vincent Cassell), a housekeeper who lives with Eve and is looking after the place while her parents are away. What follows involves goats, dolls, a threesome, dolls, and possibly, the birth of the antichrist.
Now usually, I give a more detailed runthrough of the plot to a film I am reviewing but in this case, I am leaving it at this point. I think this film has to be seen to be believed. Whoever read the scropt to this and thought that it could be a viable commercial property is mad. I mean I loved every single bat-shit crazy minute of it but this film is for such a small audience, I don't know how it got made. Some of the things in it are of the blackest kind of comedy you can imagine. Some of it is just plain disturbing. But then some of it is just well... comparable to La Haine. Contreversial maybe, but its look at young French life feels authentic. The dialogue between them feels real, the nightclub feels real and the stunt they oull in the petrol station feels real. Another odd thing about this film, the first half or so seems targeted for a young French audience looking to identify with the protagonists and laugh at the strange village people. Then it takes a more blatantly surreal and creepy film and really kicks into another kind of audience, the cult horror audience. The end result the film is leading to is so odd, so gothic that to think the start ended in it is just bizarre. Bravo to the filmmakers for being able to make this transition and yet not break the diegesis of the film; it feels real in its own self-contained insanity throughout.
The younger people all do a good job of being convincing in their bratty and self-absorbed way, and the girl who plays Eve displays a real seductive quality which makes Thai and Bart's actions all the more plausible. But this film is not about them. This is a film of tour-de-force method insanityby Vincent Cassell. He is virtually unrecognisible for a start, playing what seems like at least 10 years older than he actually is. His character feels like a bunch of improvisations stiched together. His interest in Bart is at first gut-bustingly funny, the look on his face when he gets Bart some milk is prcieless. He deisplays an uneasy friendliness where you could believe tat he is just a tad eccentric. This continues on throughout much of the film. And then we start egtting the scenes with his pregnant "wife" where we realise that he is a lot less innocent than he seems and he is indeed a strange, satanic, psychotic, loon. He just so happens to be very very funny. One more thing - his "wife" although on IMDB seems to be played by someone else, she really looks like Cassell! That just makes the last grinning shot all the more freaky.
This film is an experience, it really is. Demented and yet quasi-mainstream, funny yet creepy, with what will go down as one of my favourite perfomances of the year. So very much an aquired taste, but if you have the taste for it, I think you will love it. I'll be buying it that's for sure.

Video: Looks like it was shot on digital video, so it is free from scartches and genereally looks good. Everything is clear though the contrast is a little disconcerting in the daytime shots. Adds to the atmosphere mind. Good stuff from an occasionally ropey company (when it comes to video transfers), Tartan.

Audio: Your choice of a 2.0 stereo, Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 surround soundtracks. I played the DTS and it was very impressive. Great, clear directional effects, and some wickedly strong bass. At one point, I honestly thought that was it for my sub-woofer. I have never had that before so take that as an impressive thing.

Extras: Making Of - 25 minute making of piece hosted by Cassell in a video diary sort of way in which he talks abiut the genesis of the film and his role of producer and how he had a hand in the film. He comes off as a genuinely nice bloke (not only in this but other things I have read/listened to) and this is an interesting watch.

Trailer - Perfectly sums up the cross-genre barminess of the film.

Short: Vampires - This is seen on a small TV screen during the film and starts Cassell's wife, Monica Belucci. Odd, funny thing which fits into the mood well.

Not the greatest selection of extras ever but the soundtrack is something to behold. In my opinion, well worth a buy overall but you may want to rent first off.

Back possibly tomorrow, otherwise Friday. Might well be the Simpon Pegg-David Schwimmer starring Big Nothing, might be something completely different. Have a good night/day.

Ian out.

DVD Review: Midnight Movies: From The Margin To The Mainstream

This came a day earlier than I was expecting so here we go...

DVD Review: Midnight Movies: From The Margin To The Mainstream (Stuart Samuels, 2005, USA).

I was going to see this at the Watershed last week as a precursor to El Topo. Then I found out that it was pretty much day-and-date with the DVD release. Which one to go for A tenner for the bus fare and cinema ticket or 15 quid to own it? Think I'll buy it thanks!
The midnight movies movement was something born out of a cultural shift in American life in the late 1960's. The hippy movement was dying out and the death's of JFK and Martin Luther King combined with the start of the Vietnam conflict was leading to a large series of riots between the authorities and the liberal sections of society. Midnight movies represented this counter-culture, the films that became synomonous with the feeling of the time amongst the marginalised sections of society. The most famous of these films are the one's featured on this film, El Topo, Night Of The Living Dead, Pink Flamingoes, Reefer Madness, The Harder They Come, The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Eraserhead.
The Midnight Movies phenomena is an odd one to be sure. No matter how much they try within the documentary, the films examined have very little links between them. Many have common threads, that the films seem to be best enjoyed when under the influence of some sort of substance. I can confess that The Rocky Horror Picture Show is much better when enjoyed under the haziness of weed. However, this thread and the one they try to establish most when it comes to the prople who viewed these films cannot be used for, at the very least, Night Of The Living Dead or Eraserhead. Eraserhead in particular is something that I feel you have to have a clear mind just to tolerate, I cannot imagine how terrifying it could be if you were not fully mentally awake. Eraserhead is the one that signals the end of the movement and is the most strikingly different; the audiences were smaller and it was not a particpatory event and through this, its addition is somewhat puzzling. I would go so far to say that its inclusion is simply to give the documentary more credibility and with the prescence of David Lynch in the piece, I am sure it gained more viewers for this alone.
It may sound like I did not enjoy this documentary based on what I have said. That is not the case. The odd inclusion of Eraserhead aside, the content is both interesting and illuminating and strikes a very comfortable balance between information on the films themselves and their effects on the people showing them. These films provided what many felt was a refuge, a place where they could come together and experience something that cannot be possible in life. The interviewees they got for this is also impressive. The directors of all the films featured, Reefer Madness aside, are all present and correct as are the operators of the two foremost Midnight Movie cinemas, the Elgin and the Orson Welles. I say foremost, but I don't really know. And here we come to my second problem with the documentary. I cannot truly say I know that the films featured and the people interviewed are those that were truly the forerunners and the filmmakers who made this whole thing happen. Could it not be that they were just the people they could get? The film does not provide a lot of basis on which to belive that the films were such crossover hits as we are led to believe at the start of the piece. The sub-title "From The Margin To The Mainstream" is painfully misleading. El Topo, The Harder They Come (which I had not even heard of before watching this) and Eraserhead cannot ever be considered something the mainstream will recieve. That is the true flaw with the piece, it never gets to the heart of what the film is obstensibly about.
It's a short review, but I think I can't review too much when as a documentary, its job is to tell you things. I shouldn't tell them. What I will say is that it is well worth a watch but its not as illuminating as you may expect.

Video & Audio: It's a documentary so standard stuff. Good quality video with the interviews, varying quality with the clips.

Extras: You get 2 Midnight Movies in the package, Night Of The Living Dead and Reefer Madness. Both are here purely because they have no copyright, are public domain and if I wanted, I could show both on this website with no comeback. NOTLD is a classic movie and is as chilling and creepy tody as then, Reefer Madness I have not seen, but apparently its very funny.

Have not watched the other features, may do in the future.

Well worth watching if on TV, I will watch it again but I am a full blown geek.

Was my first day off in a while today, and quite crappy outside so I have been catching up on some movies. As well as this, I managed to watch John Carpenter's Assault On Precinct 13 for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed it. The child killing was shocking in its coldness and seemed to be an oddly explotative moment but that aside, a lean, mean, little number. I also watched Robert Wise's The Haunting, which really was as creepy as its reputation made out. Old-school frights and some crazy overacting and well worth a watch. Also watched the last third of The Pervert's Guide To Cinema, a very academic but visually arresting look at how our desires and fears are manifested on screen, something which I found engaging and a look at how Film Studies can be represented visually.
I'll be back probably tomorrow with a look at the apparently insane French black comedy Satan starring Vincent Cassell, star of such great works as La Haine, Le Appartment, and Doberman... and stinkers such as The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions and Ocean's 12. Notice the difference between the great ones and the stinkers?

Just a quick one...

Feeling rough as fuck and bloody tired so I'll make this short lol. I'll be having some new stuff up hopefully tomorrow but defo Wednesday. First day in 5 that I don't have to be up at 6am tomorrow so I'll have a load of sleep and I'll be right back on it tomorrow. Have a good night...

El Topo? Oh no, no...

Fuck. Couldn't see El Topo because I missed the screen due to work stuff, basically I have been running the shop all weekend, by myself. To say it has stressed me out is an understatement. So... it's out on DVD next month, I am going to blind buy it and will review it then. I am getting Spider-Man 2.1 on DVD tomorrow and will have a review up in preparation for the third installment, hopefully I will be getting Kingdom of Heaven: Definitive Edition and will also review that. At the cinema this week, I will have a review of Shane Meadow's apparently brilliant This Is England up on Saturday. After Dead Man's Shoes, I am very much looking forward to it. So for now, I will say get the new Artic Monkey's album when it comes out properly tomorrow, I have aquired it and it is fucking fantastic, great stuff which takes the first album and *shock* progresses on from it. "Flourescent Adoloscent" is an anthem in the making and "Teddy Picker" is a great little biting tune. Buy it. See you, probably Tuesday unless anything gets my knickers in a twist.

Oh and estimates for US Box Office this weekend were just released. Hot Fuzz, sixth place, 5 million dollars on a third of the screens usually allowed for a big release. Great fucking work.

Laters...

On a lighter note...

Having a very vigerous debate on the Empire Magazine forums regarding the issue I talked about earlier. Anyway....

Hot Fuzz opens in the US today. It is truly an outstanding film. If anyone, I wish anyway, reads this and lives in the US, go see this. I have a review in my February section but seriously just go see. It is only opening on about 750 screens, which non-US folks is about a third of what is considered at least a wide release over there, but SEEK IT OUT!!

Back tomorrow with a review of El Topo. Strangely can't wait for that. Tomorrow, 2.50 at the Watershed in Bristol, I'll experience what John Lennon called "The greatest movie ever made". Should be interesting at the very least.

Have a great Friday, I got work at 6am so make it up for me!

A rather depressed rant

So Oldboy, Park Chan-Wook's viscreal, haunting, mesmerising beast of a film is now being linked in the mainstream media s infulencing the fucker who perpertrated the Virginia Tech massacre. I feel for all the victims, their families and their friends and anyone hurt by this tragedy. I was apalled to hear of the events that happened last Monday. But now the British mainstream media has done something which while I can't say I am suprised by, I am depressed by. A likening of pictures of the guy to shots from Oldboy has been taken and ran with by not only the usual target the Daily Mail, but the BBC no less (on the 10pm news last night). OK, this guy may have seen the film, he may have thought the shots were cool and whatnot. But how out-of-touch can the media be? This film is about something quite different to what happened. I do not want to go through spoilers because this is a film, that if you are old enough and can stomach, should be seen. A likening of films to these tragedies is both lazy journalism and dangerously irresponsible. The fact that Oldboy does not feature any major elements involving guns has been suprisingly left off of reports of the "links". Indeed the Daily Mail was wildly off the mark when trying to find similarities between the events. Things like -

- The guy was Korean, so he could have seen a Korean film.

- Oh Dae-Su is locked up for 15 years. This guy was in America for 15 years.

- Oh Dae-Su cuts out his tounge. The guy was mute in his early years.

Ridiculous. Just ridiuclous. I am listening to a devate about this on Radio 5 at the moment where Mark Kermode is defending the shit out of the film industry against this nonsense. Thank fuck for that. He makes the point that in all these cases, whenever this happens, a link is found between the incident and a specific film. This time Oldboy. Next time, what?

50th post!! Review: The Lives Of Others

Review: The Lives Of Others (Das Leben der Anderen) (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2006, USA).

The Lives of Others is a film which has two contreversial apsects attached to it, one not nearly as serious as the other, I will add. The first, lighter one, is that it took the Foreign Language Oscar this year, beating out the hotly tipped, Pan's Labyrinth, a film which won other Oscars also. Many people have asked whether this film can be better than Pan's, considering that that film is steeped in almost unanimous critical acclaim. The second is far more serious, as critics have condemned the film for portraying a member of the Statsi, the German Secret Police, as a sympathetic character, when it was known that it could never have happened in real life. These are noth issues I will address in this review. A warning: considering the subject matter, this review is going to be more academic than most of mine, and I will be quoting from varying sources (all of which will be credited honestly, and not presented as my own ideas).
Wiesler (Ulrich Muhle) is a member of the Statsi who specialises in interrogation and surveillance. He is assigned by his superior, and long-time friend Grubitz (Ulrich Tukur) to spy on a playwright and his actress girlfriend (Sebastian Koch & Martina Gedeck, respectivley), an outwordly respected couple who tow the line of the GDR in oublic, but is suspected of more by both Wiesler and Grubitz's boss, Minister Hempf (Thomas Thieme). Wiesler becomes attached to his subjects and finds himself being influenced by them, and soon, influences the course of events to come.
From the start of this film, we immeadiately know exactly where our main characters are at in their lives. We are first presented to Wiesler as the emotionally dead husk of a man he is supposed to be. Donnersmarck presents this in two ways, by what is said and what is shown. He is teaching a class of future Statsi agents and he tells them of how exactly to break a liar. When a student says that the treatment given is "inhuman", Wiesler is quick to say that these people are traitors and need to be treated harshly. We then see him look at a plan of the room and put a cross by this student's name. Wiesler knows exactly what is needed and that is people who do not question the methods. It is people who feel deeply that what the Statsi do is right and that is all they have to think. It is known that Statsi agents were all like this in real-life, they were fully indoctrined into this way of thinking and this is something shown clearly from the start. Even Wiesler's clothing and style of life shows that his life is uniform. He is literally shown "buttoned-up" his shirt completly done up and his jacket also. His hair is cut to within an inch of his life and the colours he wears are dull. The flat we later see him living in is drab, grey again, and the only sign of any culture are a few books which seem to be more for show than for anything else. By contrast, Dreymer and his girlfriend are presented as flamboyant, we see them early on dancing, enjoying themselves fully. A later scene shows that Dreymer is so unlike Wiesler and the Statsi that he does not even know how to do up a tie. His shirt is unbuttoned for most of the film. In his flat, there is almost a sense of bohomie, of recklessness and a style whch was very much unwelcome to East Germany at the time. It is to Donnersmarck's credit that he is able to bring both visual elements and storytelling together to make the contrasts so simple to grasp.
So the plot of the film has had many people up in arms. What Wiesler does through the course of the film, as said earlier, would never have happened in real-life. These men believed vehemently and as Anna Funder says in her article "Eyes Without A Face" in the May 2007 issue of "Sight & Sound", many of them still believe the principles and denounce those who speak against them. It is not like the example of Stalinist Russia or even Nazi Germany in that in those cases, many claimed they were just following orders; in East Germany under the GDR, those who acted truly believed it was the best whether it be for their own ends or for their country. That is where the problem of Wiesler's character really comes into play. He seems to believe what he is doing to a point of almost too much intensity even for his friend Grubitz. The course of the film, and the ways in bwhcih he intervene, can certainly come off as too simplistic, in film-making terms, or offensive if you take it as something based on reality, which given the realism of the rest of the film, is a valid way to come at the film. I would argue that Donnersmarck's juxtaposition of Wiesler, Dreyman, Grubitz, and Hempf validates the course of Wiesler's character. Grubitz, Wiesler's friend is presenetd as a man who will do what he can to get ahead. He acknowledges early that he steals Wiesler's ideas and indeed the starting of spying on Dreyman is suggested by Wiesler but stolen by Grubitz. He is getting ahead while Wiesler is stuck doing the donkey work. Hempf is the man Grubitz is looking like becoming. Bloated, powerful and capable of dispicable acts (including a borderline rape sequence which is the most disconcerting thing I have seen since Gaper Noe's Irreversible. Hempf is a disgusting man who through the GDR has become powerful, something Wiesler is very much not. So then Wiesler? If he had been in a postion of power, I think his transformation would have been far less realisitc. Hempf and Grubitz have filled their worlds with temporary happiness, and just want more power. Wiesler has othing, he has monotonous sex with a prostitute to try and jave the emptional fulfillment Hempf gets in his blackmailing, and Dreyman gets in his love for his girlfriend. His eyes become open to the world though Dreyman and indeed the more he becomes involved the more he starts to feel about the impact he is making in other people's lives, and in a strange way the happier he seems to become. His reading of Brecht makes him happy and indeed, his clothing becomes looser even, his sirt becoming unbuttoned, visually starting to replicate Dreyman. This transformation is done in an even-handed and, in the context of the film, a satisfactory way. The key for me is that Wiesler never seems to acknowledge that what the Party is doing is wrong. Indeed, his transformation is emotional not moral. His actions of interfering with the invetigation is more of an act of friendship, one of protecting those he has become attached to, rather than protecting the messgae Dreyman is trying to get to the West. Wiesler changes very little and indeed his victory is a personal one, he is able to break out of the life he was living and in the very last sequence of the film, finds that his actions did not go unnoticed. Wiesler does not become successful, he doesn't gain from his actions but he seems to achieve a kind of inner peace.
So... the rest of the cast. Uniformly excellent, all great, I'm a bit drained in truth so I will say just that. The script is superb, not an inch of fat on it, and it works as both a character piece and an involving thriller, and that is very much to Donnersmarck's credit. The direction is also superb, he achieves a sense of geography that a lesser director would screw up and the fact that he is a debut director is suprising.
Onto the second question. Better than Pan's? These are two very different films in some ways but the themes of opression and the human spirit rising above it is shared through both. The ways both show this could not be more different however. I would have to call it a tie, I could not decide between the two and it will take another watch of both before I could decide. However, what I will say is that this is an engaging, thought-provoking, sad, haunting, but strangely uplifting number of a film and I very much recommend it to anyone interested in serious, adult cinema.

I'll have thoughts up on various topics as and when, the next review will be for El Topo which will be up late on Saturday or Sunday morning. Thanks as always for reading.

Spider-Man, Pirates and Surfers

So I just read some early reviews of Spider-Man 3 and apparently all is well. To say I am relieved is an understatement. For those who don't know, the shoot was actually kinda troubled. Considering they had a release date for the film locked before a script was written, and that there had been re-shoots, this is not a shock. Its got to say something that Sam Raimi is able to pull through the problems and deliver something that while long, around the 2 and a half mark, is apparently a streamlined fat-free epic of a movie. One with all the good stuff from the first 2, with added Defoe goodness, and also a more grandiose sense of storytelling, with multiple threads twisting and turning their way through and apparently all making perfect sense. Friday 4th May, it comes out, god willing I will be seeing it that day, I know Donna wants to see it so I'll have to get her in the right mind set for a long trip to the cinema, maybe with Spider-Man 2.1 which is out on DVD next Monday, so then I can have a review up on the Friday night or Saturday morning.
Contrasting with this, chud.com just reported that Pirates 3 is weighing in at 170 minutes. Even taking out credits, its gonna be over 2 and a half hours. Will it be needed? Fuck no. Pure speculation I know, but with Spider-Man 3 one gets the sense it is long because the story told requires the length. Pirates however, feels like it is alowing itself to over-indulge. The first two were long and didn't hurt their box office, but there is a lot you could take out of both of them, and this feels like it is self-conciously epic, it feels like it has to be because its Pirates Of The Carribean 3. I honetly think you could trim a lot of fat from the second film in particular and ram the 2nd and 3rd together. Of course they would never do that. Look at Grindhouse, piss poor second weekend has shown that two films in one may not work, for some bloody reason I can't get my head around (Seriously, I have it bad for Grindhouse at the moment), and two films = twice the profit, maybe more. Nature of the world I guess, tis a Capitalist society so to make money is an acceptable thing but what price a coherent movie and not a bloated beast which, judging by the second film which I don't think I will ever watch again, the third will turn out to be.
Still though, it won't be as bad as the cluster-fuck that will be Fantastic Four 2, a film which is being sold entirely on the prescence of a CGI creation and not the original cast. Early reports of this is that no matter how good the admittedly great teaser for the film was, its only 2, 3 minutes of film, and that this film is as much of a waste of time as the first. The question for this film is, why? They are taking a major risk with this one, the first did OK but nowhere near Spider-Man numbers and I believe the budget has been increased for this one. I will see it for the Silver Surfer but I may wait for DVD like the first one. I think I may not be alone but the Surfer is such an inherently cool concept that people will go see this for him. We all seem to focus on him as the main bad guy/ambivalent figure in this picture, but the fact is, he is CGI, CGI is expensive and they have a human bad guy, Dr. Doom, also in the film, although publicity material for this have not feature him extensivly. Rather than him not being in it too much, I think Fox are being clever on selling us on the idea that the Surfer is front and center, it is called Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer after all, but I get the feeling he won't be there too much. To be honest, I want this to work, Fantastic Four are a very good little property and it is nice that there is a PG superhero franchise that smaller kids can get into and the fact that co-creator of Twin Peaks, Mark Frost, was one of the credited writers of the first, and I believe second, had me intrigued and has me intrigued for the new one. Plus what I am hoping the film ends with. Again, for those who don't know, the Surfer is not really a villain, but a messenger essentially blackmailed into doing his job. By a big mother-funker by the name of Galactus...
What was meant to start as a little piece about Spider-Man, turned into a beast. Look at it as a metaphor for the increasing length of blockbusters. Or not. So, seeing The Lives Of Others today, will have a review up tomorrow, doing stuff tonight which inloved not sitting in with a laptop so I'll catch up tomorrow!

I am Jack's raging inner emotion...

Well it's all over the net and I thought it was April 1st, Ed Norton has signed on to star as Bruce Banner as the Hulk in the sequel/reboot THE INCREDIBLE HULK. Suprised? Hell yes. Marvel seem to be taking the bull by the horns when it comes to their casting decisions lately, and god next summer will be exciting, Robert Downey Jr, Terrence Howard and Gwyneth Paltrow in Iron Man and Ed Norton as the Hulk? Oh yeah! What I wonder though is what interested Norton? This guy doesn't whore himself out for just anything and he seems to pick projects he wants to do. But a comic book film eh? Script written by Zak Penn writer of X-Men's 2 and 3 and directed by Unleashed and Transporter 2 director Louis Letterier, this film was supposed to be more of a balls out action film than the first but with Norton involved, one wonders about this. Could they just be trying a more credible actor than Eric Bana to give it some cred then give us some crazy action to go with it? Bana must be pissed though, his film seems to be getting completely shoved aside to make way for this. All very interesting stuff. Going to be a real battle of the comic-book movies next Summer. The Dark Knight, Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and hopefully Hellboy 2. Still though we still have Spider-Man 3 to come, early reviews of which are saying.... better than the first 2 and a downright epic. May 4th cannot come soon enough.

Update...

Back next week with reviews of this years Oscar winner for Best Foreign Language Film, The Lives Of Others. Also a forerunner of the "Midnite Movies" movement El Topo which has been restored and is touring the country. Also any new DVDs I get sent. Bye.

Advance Review: Grindhouse (Part 2)

The revenge....

Advance Review: Grindhouse (Part 2) (Robert Rodriquez/Quentin Tarantino & Others, 2007, USA).

So..........

Eli Roth's Thanksgiving eh? Brutal 1970's horror mixed with the smoke pot/have sex = death slashers of the 1980's distilled in a 2 minute trailer "White meat, dark meat, its all carved" and the results of a trampoline, a girl and a knife... all those delights await you in this strange, kind of funny mixtape of a trailer from the bloke who brought us Hostel.

And now Our Feature Presentation.

What do you want to see more, even outside of Grindhouse? I believe the majority would go for Tarantino over Rodriquez, as would I. The right one?
Three ladies reunite after spending time away after college, in Austin, Texas. They spend the night at a bar which is also attended by Stuntman Mike. That's all I'm saying.
Tarantino characters, dialogue and style mixed with balls-to-the-wall car stunt craziness. An odd combination to be sure. But then Tarantino is one who has a fondness for the oddness when it comes to mixing it up. A talky heist film, a throwback explotation film brought to the ninetees and a throwback explotation film brought to the noughties, Tarantino is not one who is shy of taking risks. And not only is Grindhouse a great risk in itself but after the theatrics of PLANET TERROR!!!!, showing Death Proof after is quite something. The thing about the Grindhouse movies is that they have the lesser film before the "A" feature, the less explosive before the balls-out crazy second flick. This is the opposite with Grindhouse. PLANET TERROR!!!! is flashy, explosive, gory and sexy, Death Proof is.... a Tarantino film. Best way I can explain it really. You have your "mixtape" of a soundtrack, you have your obsession with women's feet, you have your long conversations which don't service the plot but are still achingly cool. QT pops up for a cameo again, Eli Roth makes an appearance it in itself is like a mixtape. The second half, the women getting revenge is a theme which runs through many of the man's work. Indeed this is one of its weaker points, the motivation for the girls to do what they do in the second half of Death Prood doesn't feel real except for the idea of them doing it for kicks (Throwback to Russ Myer there for you) and while they are pissed off, it doesn't quite seem right. Indeed, Joe on the rather wonderful podcast Cinemaslave makes a good point around this. Joe, I am stealing your thoughts! Sorry! I agree though,maybe not quite as vehemently as yourself but the film jutst ends. It's a funny ending, and feels oddly fitting but you do expect at least another 15 minutes, a final final showdown. Not what happens. Like I say though, what happens is very very funny and feels much like we have been exploited (as does the missing reel section, which dare I say it, is better than PLANET TERROR!!!!!). OK, so feels like a Tarantino film. The strong women, most notably the incredible Zoe Bell who you believe every second is capable of pulling off the stuff she does, are all excellent in playing stock Tarantino girls. BUT, the thing that makes this arguably better than PLANET TERROR!!! (though I reserve the right to strongly underline, ARGUABLY) is the man who drifted in from another movie entirely...
Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike. Dear god, do I want a movie of just him hunting people down, men, women, children, animals, buildings, whatever. He can exude charm, confidence, old-man sexiness even but turn on a psycho personna in a second. He does it remarkably well and all I can see is, we have one scene of it. One. And it is arguably the best part of the entire experience. He eats the role off, cracking off the dialogue like he has been working with Tarantino since he started writing Reservoir Dogs. He knows the scene entirely and the end to it is shocking and very exciting. Not compared to the following scene where we witness what happens when a car and its passenegers after the Death Proof juggernaut hits them head on. Quite simply breathtaking. And I haven't, and won't even talk about the car chase which ends the film. Cracking stuff, up there with the best and I won't spoil a bit.
So I have been in the Grindhouse completely. I would go through it again now if I could, and I will again in the next few days. People have generally loved one, hated the other. The overblown theatrics of Rodriquez or the mash-up of Tarantino? I would edge for Tarantino only if it is because I eat up everything he puts out. However, I'll say this much It is the best film Rodriquez has made yet, but certainly not the best Tarantino has. The trailers add to the experience with no complaint from me and I cannot wait to see this on the big screen. So fucking recommended, I can't believe it was as good, no better, than I hoped.

This, Sunshine, Hot Fuzz, Perfume, Last King Of Scotland, Inland Empire. What a year so far. It's only April!!!

Way Advance Review (For outside US): Grindhouse (Part 1)

OK, OK, I may have obtained this through less than legal means but hey, waiting till June? Fuck that. Spoilers at times but not too detailed, don't worry. I am currently "obtaining" the second half but for now...

Advance Review: Grindhouse - Part 1 (Robert Rodriquez, Quentin Tarantino & Others, 2007, USA).

Robert Rodriquez and Quentin Tarantino have made an awful lot of money for the Weinstein's. The Mariarchi Trilogy, the Spy Kids Trilogy, Pulp Fiction, The Kill Bill's and Sin City have all made a huge profit and so they have been given free rein for probably the most risky investment yet. A 3 hour throwback to a genre of film not seen for decades. Two films, and trailers to create the "true" Grindhouse experience released in the US on Easter weekend. The result? It flopped pretty hard over there and now there is talk of seperating the 2 in the US and everywhere else, even though I have already seen ads in UK publications advertising it as a double feature. However, for those looking forward to it, nothing will stop them from experiencing the Grindhouse. Indeed, the belated UK release could not stop me either, but trust me, I know I'll be seeing it in the cinema.
I'll do the review in the order of contents within the film. The first thing we see is a trailer for a fake movie, as all the trailers are. The movie in question? MACHETE. Rodriquez stalwart Danny Trejo starts as a Mexican Machine of a man double-crossed and swearing to get revenge with the help of his brother, another stalwart Cheech Marin. The trailer has it all, the cool lines, the boobs and the guns that make up a great Grindhouse trailer (yes I've seen some, just go on YouTube). Rodriquez perfectly sets up this film in the trailer, and you truly get the sense that all the best bits are ion the trailer, as a great Grindhose tradition insists it must be. This settles you in perfectly for the tounge-in-cheek but kick ass action to come. Then the first movie starts, Robert Rodriquez's PLANET TERROR.
A go-go dancer called Cherry (Rose McGowan). A wandering trucker with a secret past called El Wray (Freddy Rodriquez). A husband and wife team of doctors with marital problems and a needle fetish (Josh Brolin & Marley Shelton). A scientist and an Army general who let off out green gases with horrific consequences (Naveen Andrews & Bruce Willis) A bar owner with the best BBQ recipe in Texas (Jeff Fahey). All their lives will collide as they all try to survive the night and get away from PLANET TERROR!!!
First things first, this title cracks me up. It's Earth! I went into this honestly thinking it was set on Mars or something, no its Earth. Points alone for that. The tone is set perfectly from the start with Cherry showing one of her "useless talents", dancing. A very hot scene setting the tone that explotation is the name of the game. This is further backed up by the next scene showcasing the KNB effects perfectly. These zombies? When they go down, they don't just go down, they fucking explode! Shit flys everywhere. Not just the zombies either (I'm looking at you, Lost man!). These old school throwback effects do very well in taking ny kind of realism out of the film and remind more of the horror of the 1980's, notably Society or Re-Animator. Of course, realsim is not the name of the game. Any film featuring Quentin Tarantino trying to rape a girl with his penis falling off can not be called anything like realistic! Everything in this film is hyper-real, the characters a suprising amount of room to breathe considering their number, they all get their moments for development and to shine and for Rodriquez to do this should be applauded. The film is tight with not an ounce of fat on it and it may be his strongest script to date. It is also a very funny film. One character's obsession with collecting balls is one of the most deranged character beat I think I may have ever seen. The film revels in its ridiculousness and feels more like parody than tribute. The Missing Reel gag is noteworthly brilliant. It cuts off at a point you really want it to continue and the film never explains what happens after the reel, brilliance.
To the cast. Rose McGowan is hot and kick-ass in her role and sums up a perfect explotation heroine. Brutal, sexy and not afraid to have a gun/rocket launcher attached to her leg. Freddy Rodriquez is quite the revelation as El Wray and fully aquits himself as an action hero. His wall-roll-kill is just awesome. Josh Brolin is a sick bastard as the Doctor and meets a pleasing fate, Marley Shelton is quite bizarre in her potrayal, her obsession with needles feels a little off but fits in perfectly given the film. Naveen Andrews is also suprisingly good. He is charming and also a bastard and that is something I never thought he could pull off. Good stuff from all really.
I did not expect to enjoy this section as much as I did. i have tried to remain fairly vague as to not spoil the film too much but the combination of outright coll factors Rodriquez has made has created something I will happily watch again and again.
We next have an intermission of sorts starting with a trailer for WEREWOLF WOMEN OF THE SS. Bizarre stuff fitting in with the general work-ethic of Rob Zombie's. Dark but ridiuclous, smutty and outlandish, this is a fun little trailer with a terrific cameo I did not know was coming. I'll see this much, I want to see that person in that role in a full film RIGHT NOW. Following this trailer, we get what may be the most out-of-keeping aspect so far but one which is one of the highlights of the entire package so far. A mash up of Hammer Horror cliches, Edgar Wright's DON'T warns us of many perils which swirl faster and faster at us and then just... stop. You will know what I mean when you see it, but it is actually quite the gut-busting little moment.
And that be all for now. Back, god willing, tonight, otherwise tomorrow with the rest of GRINDHOUSE...

Review: Sunshine

So after yesterday's post, the review...

Review: Sunshine (Danny Boyle, 2007, UK/USA)

Danny Boyle is one of Britain's top directors. A varied canon of work have involved the era defining Trainspotting, Zombie rule-book rewrite 28 Days Later, kids film Millions and catastrofucks The Beach and A Life Less Ordinary. With Boyle, you never know what you are going to get. He shifts genres with almost diturbing ease and is also capable of mastering these genres in his first attempt. 28 Days Later was rightly celebrated as breathing life into the zombie genre (Just realised while writing what a shit pun that is) and the film was hailed as one of the best horrors in recent years (and rightly so). Trainspotting needs no introduction. Less well known film Shallow Grave, his debut, is praised as being as storng a debut as many other directors have managed and is a taut, creepy little thriller. His last film, Millions, took him in another directon. A moral fable about the real value of money against that of the soul, this film hoped to lighten children's imaginations but was unjustly cursed with an ever-changing release date and a 12 rating due to some unsavoury activites practicsed by one of the saints who visits the portagonist. So what next for this ronin of Brit flicks? Space of course!!
The sun is dying. And if it extinguishes, so will humanity. To stop this, a "last best hope" is established. By dropping a bomb the size of Manhattan into the Sun, there are educated guesses that it will kick-start the sun but no one knows for sure. As ship phyicist Cappa (Cillian Murphy) says if one day you "See its a particularly beautiful day, you will know that we succeeded". The ship carrying the bom, the Icarus I, is crewed by an international group of astronauts and scientists who upon finding a marooned ship near the Sun, embark on a mission that will decide the fate of the world.
What does the premise of this film remind you of? Armageddon? Deep Impact? I would agree. But to sy that this film does not resemble those in the slightest is a harsh understatement. This film owes more to the science-fiction of the 1970's. Reviews I have read to this point have said that it owes more to 2001, Alien, Solaris etc. i would not disagree. But these reviews have said that it feels like a compilation, a montage of their best moments, more than anything truly original. At this point, I would disagree. It has been argued that nothing in cultrure is original anymore and that it is merely the combination of previous original facotrs. This in itself can be seen to be unoriginal. However, in combing these parts, is soemthing original not created? What if elemts from areas you would not expect are also added to the mix? That is what we get from Sunshine. The film may be obstensibly about saving the Earth and indeed, we are never allowed to forget taht this is wht the purpose of the mission is. But that is not why we are here. That is not what the film is about. It is about more. It meditates on the insignificance of man, about the overwhelming, seductive power of the one thing that both saves us, and has the potential to anihilate us. The Sun. the film does this by maing a perfect balance between visuals and audio. All that is said, is intergral to the plot. There is no bullshit included entirely to make us care. Alex Garland has crafted a screenplay which allows us to see his noevl writing past, his feel for character and events which creates opinions without telling us. We are allowed to think of characters what we will. Nothing is ever done to make us feel a certain way about them. Adding to this, the music in the film, which is blissful and haunting all at the same time, simply lets us wallow in the movie, it is not telling us what the story is, it lets us feel, and think at the same time. The cast are all exemplary. All are likeable in their ways, and everything they go through feels entirely uinderstandable. You may think of a character as a bad person, but you can understand their own justifications. All are beliveable and great turns are put in by all. Chris Evans shows himself as a better action than I thought he could be and brings a real depth to his role. Cillian Murphy also show that he is fast becoming one of the best actors of his generation with a slightly blissed out perfomance that conforms to none of the stereotypes offered by many films of its ilk.
Speaking of stereotypes, one criticism levelled at this film is the third act. It has been said that after such a strong first hour it starts letting itself down. I stongly disagree on this point. Any plot point can work as long as it feels right in the contezxt of the film. i will not reveal it here by what happens sounds horrible on paper. However, with the world that Garland and Boyle have created, the events that happen make a strange kind of sense. The revleation of the "big bad" as such, is done in such an intriguing way and the dialogue given so strong that I just rolled with it. This seemingly unworldly force seems like a real threat in this world and it i to the credit of everyone invlved that it does. Saying this, the film also screams of a kind of realism. A major threat revolves around the use of oxygen, something not seen in many of these films. Much time is taken into talking about the logisitcs of the mission. A fight has to be stopped because the people involved cannot breathe due to the lack of oxygen. What othe film does this happen in?
So Danny Boyle? He has filmmaking down to a tee. The opening shot (love the use of the Fox Searchlight logo) shows that he is playing with the big boys. The production and set design he has chosen and the visual motifs he establishes are simply inspiring. His use of the Sun pervades all the aspects of the film. the retro spacesuits are golden, the Sun itself is an astounding piece of visual effects and the way that much of the film is potrayed in a sort of glare present a world which could only be dreamed of in the 1960's and 70's. This film belongs in the 1960's but the visuals bring it kicking and screaming into the contemporary film world we live in. For example, I could not imagine the quick flashes of various things we see being used in films of the 60's and 70's and Boyle brings these flashes to create both another world for this film to exist (and you during its running time) and to make an atmosphere of severe all encompassing dread. Danny Boyle may be criticised for ripping off the works of old, but I would argue he has added to them and deserves a place with them. On another note, to learnt hat this film was made for 45 million dollars is quite amazing. It honestly looks like a 100 million plus blockbuster. I just hope it makes back on the investment. This is a risky film and to make it is quite an achievement. i can only hope it makes its money back to fund more exciting, exhilariting and inspiring work. In my top 20 of all time at the very least. I expect it to go higher.

Do yourself a favour, see this film, wallow in it, and want to see it again straight away like I did.

Sunshine...

Review up tomorrow. I'll say this. It's in my best films ever list. No joke. Tomorrow...

Sunshine...

Review up tomorrow. I'll say this. It's in my best films ever list. No joke. Tomorrow...

UPDATE!!!

Sorry for the rather barren field I have left yet again, I have been catching up on a lot of older films which I didn't feel were worth reviewing. I will review 300 on DVD (or please god HD-DVD) as I feel too much time has passed since it came out but as I will be reviewing it at that point, you can tell I liked it.
Will be back on Friday or Saturday with a rveiew of genre-hopper madman Danny Boyle's latest, Sunshine...