Johnny Simmons

            

On more than one occasion, in response to a negative review of a mainstream film I’ve read comments to dissenting critics along the line of “turn off your brain”. Sometimes I do wonder what the advantages of such an action would be. I can’t say, though, because my natural penchant for overanalyses prevents it. Less than halfway into Thor I found my mind wandering asking questions that I knew wouldn’t be answered and wondering how a film with five credited screenwriters could fail to address so many rudimentary issues. It’s a prelude to the imminent Avengers’ film, a picture which I’ve all but forgotten about, and in this instalment we’re introduced to Thor – the hero from another realm. After indiscretions at home in his home kingdom of Asgard he’s subjected to a life on earth.

The film is comprises two parts in one. The first is an Asgard a place that is Grecian legend inspired, but sounds and looks like Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale. Odin has two sons, the overwhelmingly blonde Thor and the Loki, who’s given enough penetrating close-ups for us to assume that this shall be our villain for the next two hours. Thor, unwisely, wages war against a land that Odin defeated some time ago and for his imprudence Odin banishes him to a life on earth. Earth is where scientist Jane Foster is conducting a research of obscure foundation and as Thor crashes into her, literally, it leads to the derailment of said research when a group of men in black begin investigating the meteorological madness that has followed Thor’s appearance on earth.

Next to the lavishness that comes with the Asgard portion of the story the New Mexico portions seems especially bland, which is unrotunate because there’s a whole number of more interesting scenarios. Chris Hemsworth is a lot of fun as the male lead and Natalie Portman, who’s relegated to playing more than “Girl” is much better than the role deserves. They work well together, in a kitschy way. I couldn’t help but let my brain run away with me, though. I immediately found myself asking why Thor, who’s legend has been recounted in stories of old (which a character observes) would happen to fall to earth in what is the conspicuous. It’s the least of the issues, though, because I’m not adept at the logics of time travel so I’m hardly the best candidate to discredit the filmmaker’s intent with. The oddest thing about Thor ends up being one of is most unintentionally hilarious – the adeptness with which Thor adapts to earth living. It’s such an odd state of affairs that I begin wondering whether or not Asgard’s inhabitants are cognisant about the other realms. Thor seems unfazed by concepts like cars and civilian clothing of the 21st century, but still has a predilection for cup smashing and 11th century mannerisms. It’s both frustrating and entertaining. In a scene that I cringe and smile at Thor walks into a pet store and audaciously demands a horse.

As such Asgard, by default, seems to come across as the better of the two halves even if it’s far from perfect. The storyline of the warring brothers seems especially rote even if Hemsworth is credible, and Tom Hiddleston the delivers the film’s finest performance as the tortured Loki. The worst thing about this portion of the film is that each time has the potential to develop as a significant character the story moves from him. His final scene (not counting that eye roll inducing epilogue) is excellently done and makes me wish that the film had been a character study of him.

Anthony Hopkins and Stellan Skarsgård are two stalwarts who do much more than you’d expect with their roles. Taking into account all the terrible films Hopkins has been in lately, he’s quite good in this managing to induce his de facto regal Brit role with a whole lot more charm than I expected (shame that Rene Russo couldn’t have been given more to do, though). In the end the film manages to be (marginal) success because the actors, and Branagh at times, throw themselves into the insipid story. As far as the translation of legendary stories to screen goes, it’s no Clash of the Titans. Thor makes for a way more harmless venture. And that, I suppose, is a bit of the problem. It’s completely harmless and ineffectual. 

           

I often wonder why the actor and actress categories are considered superior to the supporters, but judging by the nominees this year I’d actually support that theory. The nominees for the leading categories significantly outweigh the supporting players.

            

Who’d have thought that Colin Firth would be the thespian to reach here before his contemporaries like Neeson, Branagh and Fiennes – but, that’s Oscar for you. He gets an immediate second shot at gold over last year’s loss, and he’s not likely to lose.

NOMINEES: Javier Bardem in Biutiful / Jeff Bridges in True Grit / Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network / Colin Firth in The King’s Speech / James Franco in 127 Hours Prediction: Colin Firth Alternate Javier Bardem

I should probably qualify that alternate prediction by saying that of all the feature film categories this is the one where I believe an upset is likely. Still, at this rate, if any upset were to occur it would be one of catastrophic proportions – and who better than the man who turned into (somewhat) of an upset nominee. Analysing the field, on performances, I’d say that the prize is between Eisenberg and Firth so I don’t mind that Firth has sort of swept through the season, even if some deserving men got no love (my ballot). I never actually considered Sean Penn’s Milk to be an upset, the last real “surprise” this category saw was Adrien Brodey, but parallels between he and Eisenberg are tenuous at best. It’s Colin’s race.

         

Logically, I shouldn’t be getting any sort of headache with the prediction for this category because Natalie has sort of swept through the season, well the majors anyway – but I’m still not absolutely certain that she’s the indisputable winner. Hell, it’s possible that I’ll see her on stage with the winning statuette and still doubt the veracity of her frontrunner status – I’m sort of ridiculous like that. I was depending on the BAFTA to give Annette the statue, and prove my theory whereby the Annette/Natalie race would turn into a converse version of the Marion/Julie race (both win Globes, one wins SAG and the other wins BAFTA) – but alas, I was wrong. Logically, if Annette had any hope you’d expect her to take at least one major from Natalie – but other than the surprise British Critics' win (which isn’t exactly a major) she's got nothing. And she still lost the BAFTA, so there’s no proof that she has the British voting bloc behind her.

           

NOMINEES: Annette Bening in The Kids Are All Right Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole / Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone / Natalie Portman in Black Swan / Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine

Prediction: Natalie Portman Alternate: Annette Bening

So, I’m predicting Natalie – which makes me feel a little bit like a Judas because I still think that Annette can win this. I’ve never been one to have ridiculous Oscar hopes (I gave up on Cate winning for I’m Not There even before Tilda t urned into the frontrunner) but I’m just getting a feeling, heaven knows what it is. (Really, though, how ironic is it that a win for Annette would be an upset – mindboggling, some.) So, Natalie’s my prediction with Annette as my alternate. You all know what I’m hoping for, though....(my picks)

         

I always like watching the road to the Oscars because it’s always cool seeing the nominees fraternising with each other; a bit like watching animals in their natural habitat or whatnot. Last year, I’d have given anything to see an eventual pair-up between Gabourey Sidibe and Carey Mulligan (they always seemed so chummy at events) or Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep. So, I made my own list – using the 20 nominees for the 2010 here are the five duos I’d most love to see.

          

I’ve always wanted to see Mark Ruffalo play an ultimately badass (though it is fun watching him play the ultimate stoner). And, with Renner being in good form throughout The Town playing the aggressive role for all its worth, I’d be much interested in seeing them battle it out as criminals at war. My limited imagination is seeing too much of The Departed playing out, which probably wouldn’t work as well. But, they’re such opposing technical forces it’d be interesting watching them battle it out.

I hate to sound superficial, but Jennifer Lawrence is so pretty I want to see her actually use that beauty (for good or ill) in a movie. And who better to pair her opposite than James Franco? That’s a whole lot of hotness. I don’t know why, though, but I’m now immediately flashing back to Bright Star (I swear, I can’t get that movie out of my head since we started studying Keats this semester). I’m not sure if either has a good British accent, but I wouldn’t be averse to seeing them in a period piece, but – really – I’m not that picky. Their aestheticism may distract me...

        

Perhaps it’s the red hair that I’ve seen them each sport before, but don’t they seem like an obvious duo to play a sister/sister pair. One reason I hate the Oscars’ is because in cheering on our favourites there’s that tendency to end up (ostensibly at least) disliking the competition, but though I’m not backing her I do like Natalie Portman. I find her general nature quite charming, and I’m even fonder of Amy Adams. I can’t see how any casting director could go wrong pairing the two women opposite each other in a nice drama.

          

Both Annette and Geoffrey have a stringent theatrical nature to them that’s often mistaken for histrionics (see Quills, Being Julia) and they’re both actors who work well opposite their respective scene partners. This makes me keenly interested in the idea of seeing them play opposite each other in something decidedly theatrical. Honest truth, the first idea that popped into my head was seeing them play opposite each other in Macbeth, but even something deliberately whimsical or anachronistic like a play within a play (a la Shakespeare in Love, or once again – Being Julia). Just think of the glorious shouting matches the two would have.

                

I have no idea what I’d want them to star in together, but it’s possible that this much brilliance in one film could make me combust. They’re at such opposite sides of the spectrum as actors it would be especially interesting to see what they’d be like in close proximity to each other – Kidman could be a younger stand-in for the Margaret Schlegel type in Howards End, even if I’m not in love with her British accent. But, really, I can’t be the only one who’d like to see them play against each other – they both have underrated (albeit brilliant) comedic performances. Perhaps, frenemies at war?

        

Not long into Black Swan Thomas Leroy, the director of a prestigious ballet company, tells us that his new performance of Swan Lake will be stripped down to the bare essentials. Creatively, the decision seems sound when you remember there’s no production as stereotypically indicative of ballet as Swan Lake; moreover, when you consider that Aronofsky’s film only has 100 minutes to give us his story. It’s an especially slight story – Nina is the prototypical driven ballerina, a girl determined to sacrifice all she can for her art, goaded to perfection by her sinister mother who is (in typical fashion) a failed ballerina (an archetype in itself). True to form, Nina’s precise over-consciousness is firmly paralleled by a lighter and more spontaneous dancer in the company whilst the director, every bit as suave and oily as you’d imagine seems to be courting every girl in the company.

 Notice my constant allusions to archetypes? It is not coincidental, in the same way that nothing Aronofsky does in the film occurs with spontaneity. There’s a dual natured issue at the heart of my reaction to Black Swan that I find especially confusing. Aronofsky’s constant literal mindedness and meticulousness of execution renders the  film evident as a drawing board for Nina’s own perfection (and self destructiveness). It’s his attempts to get inside the head of his lead that makes the camera movements, cinematography all decidedly internal as an indicative of Nina’s trouble. What troubles more, though, is that even as Aronofsky crafts an especially psychological drama there is a palpable divide between Nina and him, and ultimately the audience. Aronofsky surveys Nina’s “plight” – but it is from a distance and with less interest in Nina, the dancer, and more care for the blatant obviousness of the artist at the mercy of her art. By doing this, he  never robs us of missing the essential point to his tale – and he knows this. Nina’s struggle isn’t a new one, Barbara Hershey is so grotesquely made-up it’s not difficult to miss the harsh severity of a character that’s almost gaudily realised, but it robs the film of a soul. Nina doesn’t develop like a true character, but travels from moments of pain and suffering to more pain and suffering, and so on. Dramatically consistent, but ultimately stifling – which, perhaps, is his intent.

When it comes to falling into a deluge of overexposure Black Swan is nowhere near as ingratiatingly ubiquitous as Inception was in the summer. Like that much fared piece, I’ve avoided reviews even though I’m been unable to avoid the asides about it that certain top critics have made while perusing year-end top 10 lists. I remember keenly a critic being irked that another one could be more impressed with The King’s Speech than Black Swan. I haven’t seen the former, but I was already sceptical – because there’s that palpable feeling emanating from all things Black Swan like Eva Peron, “you must love me”. Portman, especially, has gained effusive praise but I’m slightly irritated that a significant portion of the praise rendered her way takes great pains to mention her six-month long struggle to transform into Nina, which only reminds me that garish transformations are so easily misinterpreted as strong acting.

Not that she isn’t fine in the role – the strongest compliment I can pay her (with a clear conscience) is that she does everything the script asks her to. She doesn’t bring anything especially individualistic to the role, and that’s not a problem in itself– but I’m moved to think that Portman’s own “good” performance only seems excellent because Aronfsky refuses to let her sell the role on her own. Perhaps, it’s a continuance of his continuing attention to the unsubtle. It’s not that cinema doesn’t call for ameliorations from music, and lighting to emphasise character but I get that feeling that the visual frenzy we’re thrust into intensifies what’s there so it emerges as more forceful than it really is. It’s as I noted in my write-up on Portman, she thrives in the quiet moments, which of course makes Nina’s problems with finding the “black swan” within more difficult. And once again, it’s possible to read the any fickleness in characterisation as an extension of the character and not a fault of Portman. When she shines brightest, though, it’s especially luminous – like a bathroom call from her mother which is a perfect portion of the film that’s incredibly personal and not at all pretentious perfectly encapsulating Nina’s isolation and loneliness. The sort of scene that makes that final confrontation between Hershey and Portman at the film close all to obvious – even if I’ll single out Hershey as the film’s best-in-show despite of (and not because of) the film’s visual intensity where she’s concerned.

What I fond oddest, though, is that despite its overt tendencies and dedication Black Swan seems especially devoid of passion, which makes me return to my supposition that the film is a stand-in for Nina’s issues which makes me wonder in retrospect if the obvious disinterest the film has for Nina is indicative of Nina’s own slight self-loathing for herself. There’s something inspired in framing the beautiful wide-shots of dancing against the ugly images of broken toes and bruised skin – but it’s just too easy to serve it to us an excuse for perfection because in all her deluded intensity I never get the feeling of overwhelming passion that Nina should feel about the task at hand - her dancing; ironically Hershey’s stoic mother seems to suggest more passion for the dance than Nina which gives her plight a feeling of forced dedication but lacking any true impetus. And, it’s sort of how Black Swan ultimately emerges austere and mannered, and graceful and svelte even when it’s interested in the basest of emotions and the ugliest portions of dance. But, when my adrenaline races it’s not for an honest interest in the story, but evidence of Aronofsky’s obvious skill for visual manipulation – which is admirable, but not exactly emotionally moving.

                                                

I vaguely remember in the wake of the, somewhat, mixed reactions to Nicole Kidman in Cold Mountain a slew of bloggers suggested that Natalie Portman would have been a more ideal choice for Ada Munroe. I’ve never read the book, so I can’t say anything about the translation to screen. I am a big fan of Anthony Minghella, and Nicole Kidman so I loved Cold Mountain. It’s nowhere near Minghella’s best, but it’s admirable – and its cast is top-notch.

            

Even if I don’t cherish the prospect of young Ms. Portman as Ada I do appreciate the performance she gives in the film as a young woman who Inman meets on his journey. Like any story divided in two one take precedence and Ada and Ruby are more interesting that Inman’s trek across the country – even if Jude Law is brilliant. But the moment where his journey gets most poignant is in the scene with Sarah. I’m vaguely fond of Portman, but I’m not wholly bowled over by her talent. Case in point, I think she’s fine in Closer, but still the least impressive of the quartet. When it comes to taking small roles and making them memorable her incarnation of Sarah ranks at the top. Everything in those few moments works in a way that I don’t expect. We are salivating waiting for Inman to reach Ada but for that scene we’re completely focused on Sarah.

 

It’s the type of role I’d like to see Natalie tackle. My excitement for Black Swan is slightly tamp though I’m still anxious to see Portman hold down an entire film. Perhaps the role of a woman waiting at home for her husband to return from war is generic, but an inspired writer could always do wonders with the story. It would be a fine piece for Natalie to tackle, she’s the sort of actor who’s good when pushed but is easily lost in the shuffle in an ensemble. I wouldn't mind seeing her headline something like this.

             

Sometimes – often I should say – I doubt my credibility when it comes to making these best of lists. Yeah, yeah it’s all subjective and whatnot but some actors just work for me more than others but then again maybe I’m just being paranoid. The whole point of making this list is to highlight those performances that have impressed me the most, so it would be remiss of me not to have this on the list...even if no one agrees.

             
#8 Jude Law in Closer (2004)

Not to regress, but when I spoke about The Messenger (one of my favourite films last year) I remarked that I couldn’t quite understand who all the critics could remember Harrelson’s (admittedly good) performance and ignore Foster’s brilliant one. It’s one of the many things I don’t understand about awards. You can’t notice one good thing about a film while being oblivious to the rest. The same thing happened in 2004. Natalie Portman and Clive Owen picked up accolades left and right for their performances in Closer but Julia Roberts and Jude Law earned few. The thing is, I was particularly angry since Jude’s Dan continually emerges as the best performance of the film for me and nothing short of excellent.

Jude Law’s most memorable performance is probably The Talented Mr. Ripley and Dan is different and yet similar to Dickie, though the two do have the same face. Dan is a struggling writer slumming it as an obituary writer at a newspaper. He meets the irrepressible Alice and after a traffic accident he takes her to the hospital. Closer is a play, and though it’s no Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf (another Nichols’ piece) it depends on its dialogue, and Jude sells it. His first conversation with Portman in the hospital is perfectly executed and it’s nice to see him turn on his charm (albeit a boorish one) for her. There’s a hint of slyness about him and you notice his eyes seem to be taking in more than just the obvious, but he’s not suave. I remember the scene where Portman tells him she was a stripper, his knee-jerk response as his eyes widen is perfect. But like all the characters in Closer Jude is no angel.

As we flash forward to his first meeting with Julia I wonder why he’s less nervous now. Is it Alice? His novel? But there is a pep in his step now and he flirts with Anna his charm is undeniable. As cute as he and Natalie look together I remain convinced by the relationship between he and Julia here, even before it begins. The two work brilliantly together, and as they drift into their banter it’s a delight to watch. It’s obvious what’s coming next, or is it? I, surely, wasn’t expecting Dan’s chat-room liaison with Larry. But it’s the appearance at the Julia’s party where Jude has another brilliant moment. Most recall Portman and Owen’s scene but it’s the adjacent scene between Roberts and Law that impresses me. The attraction between the two is palpable and the resulting confession Dan gives to Alice is no surprise. It’s memorable as being Portman’s moment but the sincerity of Jude here is worth remembering. “I want someone who doesn’t need me” is what he tells her. Dan is selfish, perhaps the most selfish of the story, but Jude is careful not to make him unredeemable and that’s an important quality of his because even though he’s the most selfish he’s also the most sympathetic.

His final scene with Julia always saddens me a little. It’s the lone moment of happiness the two share, and they’re soooo comfortable together it’s a pity they couldn’t remain thus. That solitary moment in the bathroom when he realises what has happened is superb. It’s a talent Jude has of showing his emotions with the slightest movement. If I have to single out a moment it’s his breakdown to Clive Owen. It’s pathetic and shameful and Jude sells it completely. It’s difficult not to pity this poor fool – and it’s really downhill from there, relationship-wise. The romance with Portman isn’t as authentic anymore and that defining moment (the “slap”) is unfortunate. I know that many feel Dan gets what he deserves but as Julia and Clive return to each other and Natalie returns to herself I feel badly for Dan as he remains there and learns in the most pitiable of ways who Alice Ayres really was. It’s right, I guess, that the last moment of him features him using his excellent facial expressions again.

Films on war have been a norm every year – from historical All Quiet on the Western Front, to The Deer Hunter to Saving Private Ryan. This year was a bit of different spin, we had films on war but instead of the highlights being the Vietnam War or World War II we had contemporary war films on America’s plight in the Middle East. The Hurt Locker was an early gem that impressed me. It was a riveting piece cast excellently from Renner’s leading man to Ralph Fiennes’ cameo. Fellow summer film Inglourious Basterds was more in line with the traditional war epic, kind of. We’ve been to World War II before, but never like this. I was reticent about appreciation of the film as you know, as I’ve said before the target audience would eat this up – and they did. I just was not part of the audience. Still even I could not ignore the scintillating performances of Christoph Waltz and especially Diane Kruger – certainly, neither would be my pick for a multitude of laurels but they’re performances were the highlight of the film for me with that intelligent Chapter Four standing out as the best of the lot – strangely, the one that was Christoph Waltz free. Still, Diane Kruger’s uninhibited turn as Helen Von Bismarck was the most significant part (acting wise) in Tarantino’s Basterds.

                       

The Messenger came out of nowhere turning into one of the more significant examinations of war. It was actually free of any scenes in or around combat, but the tale of a soldier recently come home whose job is to now inform the families of victims of soldiers’ death was one of the more harrowing pieces of the last few years. It’s obvious to see what the film’s selling point is though. It doesn’t show us so much the horrors of the war as it shows the trauma of war for the families of soldiers. Woody Harrelson’s Tony makes an astute point to the hypocrisy of it all. Families all wave and host parties to celebrate deployments and then are shocked when soldiers turn up dead. Of course, not all families are turning a blind eye to the potential misfortune ahead. Samantha Morton’s widow doesn’t, and neither does the entire cast of Brothers, I film I enjoyed much. The first half of Brothers, in fact, rests on this. One of my favourite scenes occurs as the soldiers turn up to tell Portman’s Grace of her husband’s (nonexistent) death. I wonder if Ben Foster’s Will would have taken to her too… There is not overt sadness here, Grace knew this moment was a possibility and she simply covers her mouth and the tears well in her eyes.                              

Next to these portrayals, I suppose In the Loop does look a bit irreverent, and it is – in some ways. Still, the entire point of this intelligent comedy is that the divide between actual combat and the promulgating politics is so different. The very document bemoaning the realities of war is after all amended simply to carry out a political agenda, it’s a bit frightening if we think too hard – but we’re too busy laughing to notice. Even those against war are not cuddly, teddy bear types. There’s nothing cuddly about Mimi Kennedy’s dirty mouthed (literal and figurative) Assistant Secretary of State. Three Blind Mice exists on the same level as In the Loop seeming to gloss over the traumatic incidents with humour, but it goes deeper. Of course, this deals with the Navy which is not the army – but it’s not far off. When Toby Schmitz makes his confession at the dinner table it definitively changes the tone of the film. His mother-in-law gasps, “That’s torture.” – I can’t help thinking in response, that’s the army. It’s not that the film isn’t funny after that; in fact the subsequent drunk scene is the funniest in the film. But the laughter has become less pure, more nervous.

                          

Two films I’m anticipating this year (The Way Back, The King’s Speech) both have war as secondary factors in it. King George struggles to be a better king in the latter and a group of convicts escape imprisonment during apparent guerrilla warfare in the former. If it’s good for nothing else, war is always a good starting point for film. Which was your favourite this year?

Well we're getting slowly, but surely. Now for top half of the forty films that I'm anticipating for this year. By this time, these are the films that I'm expecting very much of. So here's the next ten.  I hope you read Part One and Part Two.

            

Ethan Hawke probably takes the crown as the most underrated actor of his generation. He has a lead role in this cop drama which looks as if it could be a sleeper hit, and I’m hoping for that. I don't really know what it's about, which should make it somewhat lower on the list. But, that's me. Richard Gere and the talented Don Cheadle costar and the film is directed by Antoine Fuqua of Training Day fame. Here's to this.

             

I'm worried that this will not be completed for this year: three Weisz films this year does seem to be much. Weisz and Collin Farrell star as two broken people who share a tentative romance. The book is a bit of a thriller. This could be a good low-key drama, if it gets done.

           

Woody Allen. That’s enough to make me watch.The film centres on a family and the drama in their lives which isn't much, but Woody never lets on about his films - plot wise. I sure would have liked if Nicole Kidman was still attached, but the cast still looks strong. Anthony Hopkins, Naomi Watts and Antonio Banderas are actors I like and Josh Brolin is rising in my esteem, so I'm particularly hopeful for this. I like Woody's drama as much as his comedy actually.

I’m still not sure if it’s only this country that doesn’t have this or not. Is this even a 2010 release? Well, it’s Rachel Weisz who is enough of a pull for me, but the entire premise is quite interesting and it looks to be quite a provocative drama and it's directed by Amenabar who was the director of the underrated, but wonderful The Others.I expect this to be a good one.

                   

As The Mad Hatter said it’s Iron f***ing man. Of course it’s not that high on my list, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t expecting this to be good. Robert Downey Jr. is a whole lot of fun, Gwyneth Palthrow is fun when she’s having fun, Mickey Rourke is flippantly cool. And then there’s Scarlett: va va voom. It’s wrong that she’s my biggest draw her, but she is. Blame it on the hormones, but Scarlett Johansson in leather. Count me in.

             

To be honest, I was not a big fan of the first Wall Street since Michael Douglas is still a question as far as I’m concerned and Charlie Sheen is just ugh. Still, I’m interested to see what Oliver Stone can do twenty years after the fact and with Susan Sarandon and Carey Mulligan joining on with Shia LeBouef, who I believe has more potential than we can discern from Transformers, I’m excited for this. The plot follows Gekko [Douglas] who is now out of prison and trying to repair relationships with his estranged Daughter [Mulligan].

                   

                 

This could have been higher,  but form here on out it's all a toss up. William Monahan, writer of the almost  perfect The Departed adapts this novel and makes his directorial debut with this piece. It centres on a reclusive actress [Keira Knightley] who befriends  a London criminal played by Collin Farrell. Yes, this is Colin's fourth film in my top 40. Told you, he's going to be having quite a year. I'm very excited for this. Keira Knightley is broadening her horizons, and I like it. She's underrated, same goes for Farrell. I'm unsure about Monohan, I hope his debut is not too gratuitous.