OK. It’s a bit of ‘Choose Your Own Review’ today. I’ll be your narrator. You have just seen the Sherlock Holmes trailer. It has a bunch of explosions, some stilted dialogue, and a bit of fighting. Are you:

1. Thrilled that it seems they’ve ditched that pesky mystery crap that Holmes has to deal with usually and thrown him into a solidly structured action-o-rama. Scroll to Heading One.
2. Amused but concerned that the core of Sherlock Holmes may be completely absent from the film, and indeed, that it may be shite on a level similar to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Scroll to Heading Two.
3. You didn’t care either way. Scroll to Heading Three.

Heading One

You’ll feel ripped off by this film. All the action in the movie has pretty much been seen in the trailer, and all the bits that weren’t there involve the Great Detective… detecting. WTF? Also Holmes and Watson are, like, totally gay. OMG. Boring, lame and gay. And you don’t even see Rachel McAdams in the corset she wore in the trailer.

Heading Two

You’re me.¹ Congratulations. Not just because you’re generally awesome, but also because this review is largely relevant to you. I don’t really understand those other two. Don’t make eye contact. Follow me.

I’ve always been a bit of a Holmes fan. The Hound of the Baskervilles has long been a favourite, and possibly is my most re-read book ever. I have some really nice collections of all his stories that I’m very seriously meaning to read at some point. Oh alright. I’m a pretty average Holmes fan. But I know what I like. And I liked this. I reckon there’s three things you really need to tell a good Holmes story, and this movie has those things.

Firstly, you need your leads. You need an unflinching portrayal of Holmes. He’s a dick, a social misfit. Don’t shy away from that. Oh alright, I understand you probably can’t go near the drug use without upping the rating. But don’t shy away from the rest. And while you’re not compromising, don’t you dare make him stupid, either. Or if he is going to be stupid, it has to be in a logical sort of way. Which leaves the way for a good portrayal of Watson, as the emotive, humanising link between Holmes and society. There’s a few moments in the film where they draw the relationship between the two wonderfully. Holmes’ trick with the fortune teller. Holmes deeply offending Watson’s fiancé. Watson starting to realise that he can’t really let go of his life with Holmes.

Secondly, you need a decent mystery plot. Like quite a few of the Holmes stories, the mystery is less ‘whodunnit’ but ‘howdunnit’. Guy Ritchie’s quick flashes of past visuals as Holmes explains his reasoning are particularly helpful in making the whole seem generally plausible, even when I’m sure with less skillful writing and direction, the same ideas would have seemed like complete rubbish. The main disappointment with the plot of the film is that the villain’s motive is “take over the British Empire”, which in old-timey scale is rather like starting off with the Daleks wanting to destroy REALITY ITSELF in the first episode of Doctor Who. There’s not really much room to escalate things in the sequel.

Thirdly, you want the themes to be spot on. Holmes has to solve things with logic and deduction; even if his unerring ability to divine the exact details of people’s holiday plans from a scuff mark on their shoe looks like magic, it’s got to be explainable. And the film doesn’t put a foot wrong here. In keeping with the time of the stories, there’s a lot of interest in the supernatural, and communing with the dead. This stuff all works well, and it builds up a bit of suspense around whether or not there are dark forces at work. From early on in the film, Holmes is unfazed by this–he reasons that even if the explanation is supernatural, he’ll still be able to use reason to decipher it. This seems to me the right way to handle it. Mind you, I’ve not yet gone back to Hound of the Baskervilles to see exactly what his reaction was to the idea that a giant flaming hound was terrorising Dartmoor.

So, there’s your three. There’s a few other elements worth throwing in. Humour–check. The film is far funnier than some of the trailers would lead you to believe. Holmes in disguise–check. And cleverly handled as well. Some lesser-known elements of the Holmes stories, such as boxing and gambling. Perhaps most importantly, they’ve grabbed one of the most interesting female characters and thrown her in to disrupt Holmes and Watson’s sausage fest. Rachel McAdams charms your socks off as the charismatic, manipulative, yet caring Irene Adler. Between her and Watson’s fiancée, the writers have done a good job inserting a female touch without it feeling contrived.

In summary: hurrah, it’s a good, fun, modern Sherlock Holmes film. Hopefully we won’t have to wait 24 years for the next one.²

Heading Three

I’m impressed you even bothered to come down here. Why did you even click on this review in the first place? What’s wrong with you? Leave this place.

1. Well, alright, not completely. I do have some corset-related disappointment in common with option 1.
2. What? How could you not love Young Sherlock Holmes?

In the future, we have bases on the moon. We harvest energy from the sun and send it back to the Earth, and power over half the world. We have ingenious robots who can control all the systems on a moon base whilst also empathically relating to its human crew. We’re awesome.

We’re so awesome, we only need one person to run our energy bases. It’s a bit draining — you work for three years straight, and there’s no one around to help you or keep you sane. This might not seem like such a good idea, but don’t forget, there is a helpful robot hanging around. He can even make a smiley face to match your mood. You’ll be fine. Just don’t screw up.

Moon is a peculiar sort of movie, but disappointingly not quite peculiar enough. It starts off with an intriguing sort of mystery, and slowly the pieces fall into place. But… not really that slowly. In fact, if you’ve watched any science fiction before, you’ll grab the ideas pretty quickly. This can lead to disappointment if you go into the film expecting a more head-twisting, ambiguous and elusive sort of story, so I’m telling you now so that you don’t. I’ll not say anything else about the story however, as by the same token, I don’t really want to spoil any of the film’s relatively shallow yet well directed mystery.

There’s not many people in it. I’ll spoil that much. However, the primary character amongst the aforesaid not many, Sam Rockwell, is tremendous. I’m not entirely sure why he isn’t a massive, massive movie star yet. He has a pretty huge responsibility carrying this movie, but there’s no question he’s up to it. If you make a film about one guy, he’d better be an interesting and engrossing guy; Sam Bell is at least that, even if he hasn’t watched as many genre movies as he really should have. He should also learn to communicate with himself a little better.

The Cylons amongst you¹ will be pleased to hear that the film represents a massive step forward in the positive portrayal of robots on television. For too long, well-mannered, softly-spoken robots have been portrayed as psychopaths; heartless, unfeeling idiots that are incapable of reconciling their dedication to the mission with their basic programming to protect and assist humans. Kevin Spacey’s GERTY bucks the trend, and I hope gives programmable toasters, automatic roller doors and plastic guitars hope that one day they can live in a life where people don’t treat them like untrustworthy villains-in-waiting.

Moon is beautiful, and well acted, and generally interesting. But it starts so very well, and appears so intriguing, that the fact that it’s only actually good, and not awesome, is tremendously disappointing. Let this be a lesson to film-makers everywhere; don’t make your films seem this good. Actually, that’s a rubbish lesson, and open to misinterpretation. Let’s not have a lesson. Let’s have more films from Duncan Jones instead.

1. I know you’re out there. You don’t fool me by looking and feeling human.

As those of you who will have read Jackson’s Star Trek review will one day know,¹ this year J.J. Abrams brought us a pretty impressive film. I was even able to rise above my childhood Doctor Who versus Star Trek rivalry to enjoy it. Perfectly paced, funny, exciting, moving.

It’s just out on DVD, Blu-Ray, and iTunes as well. May I caution you as an aside; do not just buy it on iTunes. It’ll cost you $25 there, but for an extra $5 you could get the blu-ray edition which comes with its own digital iTunes copy. Even if you don’t have a blu-ray player, one day you might. Think about it.

Anyhow, that’s not the point, as you may have guessed from the picture up in the top left hand corner.² What people often rightly applaud Star Trek for is its agenda of social progress and togetherness and the triumph of humanity against its base urges. The first inter-racial kiss on television. The first romance between a cyborg and an artificial intelligence.³ So it surprised me somewhat to be watching the scenes deleted from Star Trek and to find a pretty ropey scene between our hero Kirk and an Orion woman. Allow me to paraphrase:

KIRK: I’m really sorry. I realise it looks like I used you shamefully but I won’t actually come out and say that I did. I’m very awkward right now. I’m even a bit reluctant to make eye contact with you but I clearly have on several occasions in this sentence.
…pause…
You’re not Gaila, are you?

For those playing at home, that’s a joke about how all girls with green skin look the same and how Kirk can’t tell them apart. And we’re not talking about girls he’s barely met. We’re talking about girls he’s slept with. Take a moment to think about just how that’d play if, say, Kirk had the same issue but with Uhura and another girl of similar skin colour.

Luckily, it didn’t make it to the film. But not because it was in bad taste — in fact, J.J. and his crew still seem to think it’s really funny. It’s all a bit weird. How tragic that on the same day that I note that anti-robot stereotypes are on the decline, we see once again the ugly face of intergalactic racism. Truly, equal rights in genre movies is an ongoing battle.

1. Patience my children. Remember the parable of the Not Fade Away review.
2. I reserve the right to one day change the layout of this website and not update this sentence.
3. Well, almost-romance. Curse you, Voyager!

Have you occasionally watched a sci-fi movie and wondered: “What happens after first contact? What would happen if the aliens didn’t all get wiped out by some virus/have their fleet sent into the sun/turn out to be allergic to water? Then District 9 may be the movie for you.

Have you often wanted to see hundreds of humans explode in hilariously bloody ways? Because District 9 can help you with that, too.

I hate to say much about the movie at all, really — I came into it knowing almost nothing about what it was going to be about, and found the whole experience pretty refreshing. It’s a rare thing to manage that with any movie, but it’s especially rare with a science fiction movie (at least, if you’re a nerd like me it is). So I’ll just comment on completely unrevealing aspects of the film.

Sharlto Copley Is the star of the film, despite having rarely acted before. You wouldn’t know it; Wikus is a deftly created character who appears on the surface to be a cartoonishly stupid bureaucrat, but who slowly reveals layers of insecurities, selfishness, sadism, cowardice and heroism throughout the story. In the end his personal journey from loser to action hero reminded me a lot of Timothy Balme’s Lionel in Peter Jackson’s Brain Dead. I’m not sure if this is the hand of Jackson (the Producer) showing in the film or just me imagining it though.

There’s some very special effects in the film, too. Now that everyone’s proved they can make giant fucking robots do whatever the hell they want, the playing field is levelling out, and the difference between good and bad effects is more clearly than ever all about intelligence, style and creativity, rather than just who has the shiniest computers.¹

The one vague concern I had going into the film was that it might be a bit… on the nose. I mean, South Africa, aliens, racism — Captain Subtext was clearly coming for a visit. But the whole thing’s so real, and played with such humanity, that it never bugged me. The history of segregation informs the movie, of course, but they never stoop to some dreadful moment where Wikus’ eyes widen and he realises that aliens are people too, or it’s just like apartheid. At the same time though, the film almost feels racist itself at other times, using as it does a bunch of Nigerians as superstitious crazy evil arms dealers. It seems a bit implausible that anyone in the modern world is really going to buy the “eating the aliens gives us their power” plan, although I can at least admit that if someone on the planet was stupid enough to think such a thing, they would be pretty likely to set up shop in District 9.

There’s a fine line between a good science fiction action movie and a rubbish one. By using a unique and intriguing protagonist, some pretty fresh science fiction tropes, and giving the viewer a tiny peek into a larger world, District 9 makes sure it’s well on the side of the line where you’d find The Terminator and The Matrix.

1. Well, that’s how it feels from this end, anyhow. For all I know, someones’ invented a computer so insanely intelligent that it can simulate creativity, intelligence and style to within such a small degree that you can’t tell the difference.

And now, five rules for surviving in a post-apocalyptic world dominated by marauding machines.

Rule 1. Do not let John Connor into your helicopter. He will do his very best to destroy it. He may be a false prophet; he may be the saviour of humankind, but he is most certainly the doom of all whirlygigs. Even if he’s incapacitated and unable to crash the thing, he’ll find a way to set off massive explosions right next to it without giving the pilot any warning.

Rule 2. Open heart surgery is a piece of piss. The human body is essentially a giant lego set. Just plug and play. I don’t care if you’ve got a normal human heart or an enhanced bionic one. They all use the same adaptors. Just remember to push it in firmly.

And don’t bother scrubbing up or going inside either. Waste of time.

Rule 3. Watch out for MASSIVE FREAKING CRAZY AWESOME STOMPING ROBOTS. They can really sneak up on you. In the middle of a desert. Masters of stealth, they are.

Rule 4. If you’re a hard-ass wannabe leader of the resistance, remember to talk like there’s a lining of gravel all the way up your throat. People will respect you more. If you can manage it, talk exactly like Batman.

Rule 5. If you can find yourself an adorable kid to come with you, bring her everywhere. Initially this may seem cruel and reckless, but you’ll soon realise that having her around means that nothing horrific will happen to you, because you’re in an M movie, and no one’s going to do gross things to or around a little kid in an M rated movie.¹ You’ll find your life will become a lot less tense and scary.

And now, five rules for dominating a post-apocalyptic world and controlling the pesky surviving humans. These rules contain spoilers and should be avoided by would-be robot overlords who like surprises.

Rule 1. Not everyone has to have permission to come into your base. I’m thinking particularly of the motorcycles here. I’m not just thinking of security concerns; those speedy little buggers would probably break all your best china. For all I know, those little wormy swimming robots are allowed in too. What you need is a multi-level user permissions structure.

Or, even better, since you’re a massive computer with presumably a lot of brainpower, you could make the call on a per-visitor basis, thus weeding out potential visitors who look a lot like humans holding up dismembered Terminator eyes. But then, maybe you’re just lazy?

Rule 2. Once you manage to make your robots look human, don’t bother giving them clothes. The puny humans will be intimidated by your T-800’s presumably massive cyber-wang. And, when you send them back in time later, you won’t waste perfectly good threads.

Rule 3. Don’t be afraid to over commit. If you think one terminator is enough to do the job, then fine, send him in. But if you have a massive fucking army of robots and a factory floor making thousands of new awesome ones, you might consider sending some more in later if your confidence in your Terminator turns out to be misplaced. After you send three of the buggers back in time, you’re going to start to realise that Terminators are only really good at killing everyone except for their target.

Rule 4. Timing is everything. If you’re making thousands of new awesome terminators, why not wait until they’re all finished before you let John Connor into my base as part of your cunning trap? I’m just spit-balling here.

Rule 5. Don’t over complicate things. If your plan is to have someone infiltrate the resistance, save John Connor’s life to gain his trust and lead him into your stronghold so that he can almost defeat you but then get killed, then it’s just possible you’ve introduced a level of convolution to your evil scheme that’s generally unnecessary.

And now, one rule for fans of The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day who’d like to see some good stories about Terminators.

Rule 1. Grab Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. It’s not perfect, and its name is far too long, but it’s a whole lot better than the crappy Terminators that wander across our movie screens these days. And, Summer Glau is in it.

Terminator Salvation is a big dumb movie, with a bit more brain than T3, but not much more. It’s moderately entertaining, Sam Worthington is good, and there’s some amusing action. But ironically enough for a film that features hearts as such a major, stupid plot point, it hasn’t really got one itself. I’m a bit puzzled at how writers can come to make a Terminator movie and miss all the things that made the first two awesome. Twice.

1. No one’s allowed to flash their boobies either; a scene was removed where the impressively named Moon Bloodgood got a little naked, which actually leaves a noticeable gap in the film.

Bond films have a long history. Like anything that’s been around for a while, everyone’s developed an opinion on what they are, in terms which qualities are characteristic to them. There’s nothing wrong with this. Science wouldn’t have gotten very far if we didn’t spot patterns amongst the things we observe. But there are differences between science and art. I’m unlikely to get into an argument with a biologist about a tiny six legged creature with antennae and a segmented body being an insect. However, I’m spoiling for a fight with all the people out there who seem to have decided that Quantum of Solace isn’t a Bond film.

There’s a temptation to view a Bond film as a checklist of elements tied together with a spot of action and wit. It’s especially tempting if you’re reviewing them. Bond must say “Bond, James Bond.” Bond must make suggestive double entendres. Bond must order a vodka martini, and this martini must on no account be stirred. Bond must meet Q and get his nifty gadgets. Bond must use all the demonstrated gadgets before the movie is over. At the end of the film, whichever girl has survived the film must be in bed with Bond. The list goes on, and on, and if you try to make a movie out of it, then you’ll probably end up with a waste of celluloid like Die Another Day. Meanwhile, in the red corner — the corner where we keep good films — we have Quantum of Solace. Like it’s predecessor, Quantum can’t be arsed with a lot of the usual Bond trimmings.¹ And I like it.

The film continues from about ten minutes after the the last one finished. Bond’s grabbed Mr White and is intent on using his information to find the ones responsible for Vesper’s betrayal and death. From this simple premise, action and drama ensue, as Bond gets caught up in the machinations of Mr White’s organisation. But even though the plot continues on more closely from the previous film than any other Bond film has done before, Quantum is still its own beast.

For a start, it’s paced faster than most Bond films, and comes in as the shortest of them all, though you don’t feel cheated at the end. There’s nothing even remotely like Casino Royale‘s somewhat sagging romantic interlude this time round. You may have read their reviews saying that the film doesn’t make sense; in fact it does.² It just makes sense very quickly, and usually finds time only for one plot point and one character moment between each major action sequence. On the more subtle level, it uses different fonts for each location-switching subtitle, and integrates them into the picture. If I were in charge, this would become a Bond tradition right away.

While things change, others remain the same. We’ve got to have a Bond song, and this time around it’s Jack White and Alicia Keys to the rescue. “Another Way to Die” has its moments, and some good ideas, but it’s frustratingly short of being an good Bond song, mostly because the two singers spend half their time shouting out the chorus in the same pitch and render each other almost inaudible. It’s a shame; perhaps Amy Winehouse’s manly voice could have balanced out White’s girly tones. Alongside the music, though, is the best and most involving title sequence the films have had since at least Tomorrow Never Dies. It’s certainly a step up from the timid playing-card animated violence from Casino Royale.

Another constant element is M, who is given yet more to do this time around, and Judi Dench, as always, makes the most of the opportunity.³ Indeed, if the core of Casino Royale was Bond’s relationship with Vesper, then the core of Quantum of Solace is his relationship with M. The moments when they both realise they can trust each other are oddly touching. Between M, Camille, Mathis and Felix, there’s quite a few spies running around the film, and at times you almost feel like there’s a vaguely realistic representation of the intelligence community going on. Well, more than your average Bond film does, anyhow. In a perhaps less realistic, but very appreciated touch, the mysterious Quantum organisation seems to have become SPECTRE for a new age of Bond films.

Bond’s partner⁴ this time round is Olga Kurylenko’s Camille: a good mix of vulnerable and cocky, with a troubled past, naturally.⁵ Daniel Craig continues to be a dab hand both at moody spy stuff and at selling the physicality of his action scenes. The rumours you’ve heard are true; he still doesn’t perform any of the checklist items I mentioned above. There is a scene where he could almost say “vodka martini, shaken not stirred,” but I reckon it would’ve just felt forced. And what would be the point? Quantum of Solace is a good Bond film. It doesn’t do everything you might want a Bond film to do; but the items it does choose from that big shopping list are done well.⁶

1. This seems to have pissed more people off than it did in Casino Royale though. Perhaps everyone assumed that after Bond’s ‘origin story’, Q would be back with an invisible ejector-seat-equipped helicopter. Not a good idea, by the way.
2. Well, as much as any Bond, in that some plot elements are a shade implausible.
3. She’s also, perhaps unexpectedly, the funniest character in the film.
4. I wanted to say ‘companion’.
5. Camille has burns on her back as a souvenir of said troubled past which are often in shot; however I was delighted when no one actually said “so that’s how you got your scars” at any point during the film.
6. Including quips. There’s a bit of whinging out there about the humourlessness of the film, too. There aren’t many jokes in Quantum of Solace, but they’re all funny. If it’s a choice between this attitude and the hail of second rate double entendres of previous films, then again, I know what I’m after.

These are, of course, the same film. But oddly, the one which has been stripped of all things Yuletide is the one being released in Australia and New Zealand. Here’s the trailer — watch as the voiceover guy completely fails to actually mention the name of the movie. I’m not saying either of them look good, per say, but one of them at least manages to get across some kind of concept to the audience. I don’t recall what the tagline for the Down Under version is, but it didn’t do much to dispel the obvious and erroneous conclusion that our two vertically different actors would be travelling to four different relaxing destinations and getting away from it all, rather than having four awful family experiences in one day.

At least, Four Christmases sounds shorter.

I’m not the first person to notice this, by the way. Clearly sensible people everywhere are bemused. Unlike Mr Dunks, I’ve never read a letter to the editor whinging about overly Christmasey overtones — rather, I only ever seem to read the ones which whinge about said hypothetical whingers. But either way, I find it hard to imagine anyone taking issue with a film for involving Christmas as a tangential and not particularly Christian plot point.

And if these people do exist, is the plan to hoodwink them into seeing such a film? There must be more of them than I can possibly imagine to make the effort of rebranding the film worthwhile.

I don’t get it. What upsets me more, though, is the realisation that at some point in my life, “Four Christmases” turned from sounding awesome to sounding terrifying, and I didn’t even notice.

I’m all for progress, don’t get me wrong — I want things to be smaller, faster, thinner, higher, brighter, bigger, stronger with every passing day — but I’ve never liked Blu-ray.¹  This is due to the protracted dispute between HD-DVD and Blu-ray,² and its attempt to replace DVDs, just as the general population had come to understand DVDs.  Even my grandma can use a DVD now.  It can be frustrating to be constantly explaining new technology to the general population so it’s been nice having a decent standard for video that everyone understands, as CDs have been for music. 

Then along comes Blu-ray³ and HD-DVD, who fight for a couple of years, thus prolonging general acceptance while everyone sits on the fence.  Would it have been so hard to come up with a unified standard?  That didn’t have the name Blu-ray?⁴ If there’s going to be a change, I’d like it to be quick.

Finally, I’ve found a film that makes Blu-ray⁵ worthwhile.  The difference in quality between Blu-ray⁶ and DVD is not as significant as the difference between DVD and VHS, so it is difficult to justify the extra cost of a new player and more expensive discs.  That is until I saw The Fall. It is a gorgeous film with spectacular scenery and landscapes and fabulous costumes.

It is also a whimsical film, in the style of The Princess Bride, but without the annoying boy. Set in the twenties, Roy (Lee Pace) is an injured stuntman, who amuses a fellow invalid, Alexandria (Catinca Untaru), with a wild story of bandits seeking to remove the evil Governor Odious. The tale, while told by Roy, is seen through Alexandria’s eyes with her own hilarious changes and misunderstandings added in. It starts out light, but grows darker as Roy, deals with depression and loss.

Catinca is amazing as Alexandria. Unlike Macaulay Culkin or Dakota Fanning, she’s doesn’t try to act.  She is just herself. She mangles her lines and goes off topic as a normal kid would. She fidgets and she doesn’t sit still.  Lee Pace does an amazing job of steering the conversation in the right direction. So while the dialog can be awkward and meandering, it does sound natural and Catinca is adorable.

The Fall was filmed over four years and in 28 countries and was funded by the director, Tarsem Singh, by piggy-backing the filming onto his work directing music videos and commercials. It also contains no computer-generated special effects. Even if you don’t see the film, it is hard to find, at least look at the pretty pictures.

1. Don’t forget the hyphen, otherwise Blu-ray looks a lot like blurry
2. “Hi Andrew, this is your mother calling.”
3. “Hi Mum, what’s up?”
4. “I’ve bought a blurry dvd, but the dvd player won’t play it.  Can you fix it?”
5. “A blurry DVD?”
6. “Maybe it’s pronounced Bluh Ray. I’ve got a Bluh Rays DVD.”

If you went to see In Bruges to see Bruges, you might be a little disappointed.  On the other hand, if you went to see a dark comedy about hitmen who just happen to be in Bruges then you might enjoy it more.

Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson play Ray and Ken, contract killers, who have been ordered by their boss Ralph Fiennes, to hide in Bruges while the heat dies down in London after their last job.

Gleeson is what you’d expect from a killer.  He’s patient, reliable, calm.  Farrell is new to the killing game — he’s twitchy, prone to sulking, and distressed about his violent ways. They make an excellent pair, never in direct conflict, just gradually niggling at each other. They’re both skilled actors and with a script with a sense of the absurd, results in an amusing tale about Gleeson forcing the unwilling Farrell to enjoy sightseeing in Bruges.

Actually there’s more to it than that.  So sure, the actors are great and the script is deft but that’s not why I went to see it.

I went to see the film so I could say “I’ve been there” in every scene and say “I’ve eaten there” every time I saw a chocolate shop.  Unfortunately, aside from the bell tower and the main square, the film spends very little focussing on the scenery of Bruges. The background is either out of focus as the camera does a close-up of one of the actors or it is whizzing past in a chase scene, plus the buildings in Bruges are all old stone buildings so they look the same making it difficult to tell whereabouts in Bruges they were. Frankly I was disappointed with this film.

But if you wanted to watch a buddy movie which is just a bit wrong, then you’ll be much happier.  Maybe I should just go to IMAX: Bruges 3D.