Crashing the Sausage Party

Sausage Party may be lewd, crude and beyond lowbrow, however, it should be congratulated for doing something new and refreshing within the animated genre and giving audiences a different kind of movie to the formulaic mostly average fair that has been presented throughout this summer’s blockbuster period.

We’ve had the usual assortment of remakes (Ghostbusters/Ben Hur) and sequels (Independence Day: Resurgence) none of which have proved revolutionary. The only films to have put a dent in the worldwide box office since June have both been animated: Finding Dory ($945m) and The Secret Life of Pets ($766m).

Suicide Squad ($678m and rising) and X-Men: Apocalypse ($543m) have also done respectful business for comic book movies but none come close to Captain America: Civil War earlier this year. Could it be a knock on effect from the Olympics? Could it be that our On-demand services and television shows are so good now that it really has to be an event movie to merit going to the movies? Or could it just be that this year’s selection of films has been neither good nor original enough for audiences yearning to see something new and exciting?


Not that I’m saying Sausage Party is anything more than an entertaining and at times hilarious comedy but it’s an original idea. Hollywood studios seem to be so terrified of producing anything other than known quantities over the last few years it takes a very long time and a lot of lobbying from a team of people to get anything off the ground. It took at least six years for Seth Rogen before a studio would take a chance on Sausage Party. This isn’t an isolated incident, Ryan Reynolds waited about a decade before he could finally play the Deadpool he wanted to play thereby making one of the films of the year in the process.

Maybe it’s a case of both these movies being deemed too adult for general audiences but surely if a film is good enough it doesn’t matter what certificate it is anymore. Gone are the days when a higher certificate means the death knell of a movie. Obviously the family favourites will still take the majority of money at the box office but films like Deadpool have gone on to become very economically fruitful whilst still garnering huge critical acclaim and retaining its essence.

Sausage Party also stays true to itself and although it’s easy to dismiss it as an excuse for Rogen to get all his buddies along and swear down a microphone for a healthy pay cheque there is a message underneath. A very well crafted metaphor for religion, which is portrayed in a very interesting manner. It may at times be rammed down the audience’s throat at times but the notion in which different foods represent a diverse range of races, religions and characteristics adds an extra layer to a film in which a vaginal douche seeks revenge on a sausage that denied him access to his ‘promised land’.

Yes, it’s occasionally stoner comedy at its most puerile and predictable but Sausage Party took a chance, was very enjoyable and funny and a perfect film if you just want to have a little fun at the cinema. Film is at risk of taking itself so seriously at the moment, and whether is likes it or not, is at war for audience attention with the Golden Age of television, so maybe, we need a few more risk taking movies that aren’t afraid to take a few chances even if they may offend some people.


Comedy Actors In Superhero Movies


Most of the time, in comic book movies, we like our superheroes mighty and daring, but, also likeable and often witty. In our villains we want an evil calculated side whilst desiring a sense of humour that is smart and fiendish. Both of these traits suggest that there should be more comedy actors in superhero and villain roles. Comedy is often mentioned by great actors as being the hardest thing to do right. However, the past has proven that it can be an absolute disaster to hire a comedic actor to play your superhero or villain unless they are mocking and parodying.

The most notorious case of a villain being cast in a comedic role was Jim Carrey as The Riddler in Batman Forever. In 1995, Carrey could of been in whatever movie he so wished. He was unequivocal box office gold and producers knew anything he was in would make massive amounts of money. However, Batman Forever was a critical disaster and almost ruined the franchise before Batman and Robin plodded along to finish the job several years later.


That’s not to say that Carrey was the worst thing in Batman Forever, the massive influence from the campiness of the 1960’s show that strayed away from the world created in Batman and Batman Returns by Tim Burton and the horrible chemistry between the leading actors Val Kilmer, Nicole Kidman and Chris O’Donnell, also has to take the blame somewhat. Carrey has a body of work that any actor would envy, both in comedy with The Mask, Dumb and Dumber and the wickedly dark and massively underrated The Cable Guy, and drama, for Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind and The Truman Show in which he should have won best actor ahead of Roberto Benigini in 1999.

However, looking back at Batman Forever, you see how miscast he was. It was like director Joel Schumacher let him do whatever he wanted on set and just rolled the cameras whilst he improvised continuously. His moments and jokes in the film go on too long and make The Riddler little more than a farce rather than a threat. The Riddler should be Batman’s psychological equal and challenge Bruce Wayne’s intellect with his genius and cunning. Instead, he just dances around the room with Tommy Lee Jones’ Two Face and doing weird accents whilst prancing and laughing.

There is a big parallel for me with Richard Pryor’s casting in Superman III in which director Richard Lester let him improvise for huge amounts of time which turned the film’s tone into something strange and centred the movie on the story of Pryor’s character as opposed to that of Superman. Superman very much became the second string character in his own movie because Richard Pryor was beloved by the American public and directors thought he could be shoehorned in to lend humour to the franchise. It would be like Kevin Hart or Rob Schneider being the sidekick to Henry Cavill’s Man of Steel in the upcoming Batman v Superman. Just writing this now, I remember, with regret that Rob Schneider already played a sidekick to Sly Stallone’s Judge Dredd…


Other cases include that of Seth Rogen in The Green Hornet. Like Jim Carrey and Richard Pryor you could say that Rogen is also the comedian of his generation, he is always guaranteed to make a huge amount of money at the box office with his comedies and he is massively well liked, some would go as far to say he has been the era defining comedian of the past decade. Unfortunately, the move to a superhero film didn’t suit him. It’s a lot more likely that the disastrous outcome of the film was not because of Seth Rogen and his inability to be serious or understand the tone of the movie. It’s a lot more to do with the many production and personnel issues on the movie.

Rogen has stated in interviews that when he wrote the movie with co-writer Evan Goldberg they had an idea that started well and began to change as the budget escalated. The screenplay was often heavily scrutinized by studio executives, nipping needlessly at pieces of dialogue. This explains the confusing tone of The Green Hornet which is constantly changing. Director Michel Gondry, better known for his excellent independent films, had also never worked on a big budget movie before. Even though the same can be said of Jurassic World’s Colin Trevorrow, at least he had the support from Steven Spielberg and studio executives who knew what they could expect and just wanted to make the best film they could.

The Green Hornet was not Rogen’s fault, like Batman Forever wasn’t Jim Carrey’s, but they’re the ones who get left with the mess while the director’s, the writers and the rest of the cast go about their careers without any criticism by the mainstream audiences. Because they are actors more known for another genre, they are pinpointed and given the most criticism as clueless hacks tell them to go back to “what they do best”. Although not strictly a comic actor you could argue Ryan Reynolds got a similar treatment as both Deadpool in the abysmal X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which he is atoning for with his forthcoming standalone movie, and the perennially derided The Green Lantern.

Which brings me to Marvel’s newest offering Ant-Man. It’s been over a ten year wait as the baton of director has been passed from Edgar Wright to Peyton Reed but throughout the entirety of Ant-Man’s production history the lead actor has always stayed the same. Paul Rudd is an actor of immense quality and is known mostly as a comedy actor; it is the genre that he has appeared in most and if you were to think of three Paul Rudd films off the top of your head the chances are they would be comedies.

Both the filmmakers and Rudd are taking a huge risk with Ant-Man because if this film flops, it will flop hard, considering Marvel are currently on such a winning streak. Sadly is would be harder for Rudd to recover than Marvel, it won’t ruin his career but it will be a blot on an otherwise wonderful oeuvre. He will forever be known as Ant-Man which would always have those negative connotations and would be the face of the Marvel movie that didn’t quite meet the standards of the others. Some people survive the bad reviews, comedic actor or not (George Clooney in Batman and Robin) and some don’t (Brandon Routh in Superman Returns and arguably Halle Berry in Catwoman) we will see what the audiences think in a few weeks’ time.

What Marvel are great at doing in terms of casting is hiring actors who are deemed serious actors, and then add the comedy as opposed to hiring comedians and then writing the script to suit them. The Marvel writers make the characters witty and funny, and that is due to great writing and the charisma of the actors, especially the likes of Robert Downey Jr. But it’s fair to say Paul Rudd could boast the same amount of charisma as any of The Avengers.

These days you don’t see too many comedians in these films. When people like Kevin Hart, Adam Sandler, Ricky Gervais, Jonah Hill and Jason Segel are making millions and millions of pounds with their movies why would they want to risk sullying their career with a massive flop of a superhero film. They don’t need that grief, especially as the superhero movies now move into the deep echelons of darkness; there may not even be room for these talented actors within the genre.

I think Paul Rudd is going to excellent as Ant-Man, whether the film will be equally great is another matter. He can take a ray of light from the fact that before The Guardians of The Galaxy last year, Chris Pratt was primarily a comic actor with Parks and Rec, The Five Year Engagement and What’s Your Number, with only really cameo appearance in films like Moneyball and Zero Dark Thirty to flex his acting chops, but has now established himself into the go to action hero for casting directors in Hollywood.

You Saw It Coming


When you walk into a blockbuster movie in the present day, I think it is fair to say, we are not going in waiting to be as shocked and surprised like we used to. Most of the time a film’s trailers will give away large amounts of information, sometimes to the extent where the entire plot is revealed. From there each frame from trailers and sneak peaks are speculated about on message boards, blogs and social media until, if we wanted, we could all have a good idea of where the movie is going in a narrative and character sense. I’m not saying this is a bad thing at all, in fact, sometimes the anticipation and speculation outweighs the excitement derived from the actual film. What I am saying, that in this day and age the movie has to understand that a large chunk of its audience will have been exposed to its money shots and best lines of dialogue already, so instead of insulting their intelligence it’s all about embracing the predictability.

Predictability is not a bad thing, some would say it is connected with a film being boring. However, the ubiquity of a massive summer blockbuster and the marketing associated with it will not change. Jurassic World has handled this fantastically and is a great example of producing a film with the knowledge that everyone is going to have a good guess at the storyline and will have watched the trailers quite a few times.

In the last month, the marketing team behind Jurassic World has been hitting us hard. Trailers, TV Spots, merchandise, magazine covers and not to mention the app where you can build your own Jurassic World (if you have the money to buy the £40 packs of cards to play the game via in store purchasing) my point is, you know there’s a new Jurassic Park film coming out and you know the basis for the plot and have already seen the dinosaurs. Add this to the fact that a lot of people going to see this film have seen Jurassic Park I-III or at least the first one which Jurassic World mainly derives it ideas from. It all looked set up for a potential disappointment where we’ve seen it all before. But director Colin Trevorrow was probably aware that this would happen which is why he just went all out.


The best case and point would be that of the new park attraction, the hybrid dinosaur Indominus Rex. The early trailers tried to mask the appearance of this creature but with the merchandise coming out many months before in Lego form and as its design was starting to be shown online and on magazines, the cat was out the bag and from that stage you might as well show it as much as you can in the film. The Indominus is shown very early in the movie, unlike Jaws which this movie borrows from in some respects. Trevorrow mentioned in an interview these days you don’t get the luxury of just one trailer like Jaws had 40 years ago so you can keep your best secrets hidden, so, to his credit, he just went all guns blazing and it worked wonderfully. Also, the main reason the suspense was so great in Jaws was down to the mechanical shark not working and so Spielberg had no choice but to keep the shark hidden for the majority of the film.

In Jurassic World we knew the raptors we’re going to be smart and Chris Pratt was going to be their trainer, also the Mosasaur was going to play some part, as we also knew that Bryce Dallas Howard holding a flare in in front of an opening of a door can only mean one thing is coming up. The plot was massively derivative of the first film where two children, who are related to somebody very important in the running of the park are left to alone with carnivorous dinosaurs. However, it does it in a way that is still entertaining and because there isn’t the element of surprise that Jaws or the original Jurassic Park had in 1993, Jurrasic World presents us with huge amounts of action and a well written script from Amanda Silver and Rick Jaffa.

This isn’t the only franchise in which the movies must up their game to survive at the box office. Although studios know that lots of people like the same thing presented, there has to be some difference, something new to keep us coming back to the cinema. Studios that have become complacent and have churned out the same rubbish all the time have suffered bad financial returns. People are not that easily fooled and many franchises have needed a reboot to survive or been destroyed completely (Terminator Salvation, Speed 2, Batman and Robin, Spiderman 3, etc.)


A studio like Marvel has to keep upping its game to create a sense of something you haven’t seen before with the huge amount of films they have produced in such a short space of time. When we had Phase One with Iron Man, 1 & 2, Thor and Captain America, that all culminated in The Avengers which was ground breaking because of the build-up and the sheer scale of the movie. Now, with Avengers: Age of Ultron, new characters are being established to give the audience something new but through marketing and the previous films we have already seen so much in the last few years. That’s why Guardians of the Galaxy was so great, because it was such an original choice of comic to adapt compared to the normal Marvel universe. Age of Ultron was a well made film but it lacked surprises and didn’t do anything special, besides establishing the vision, to remedy the overused formula.

Jurassic World is a great movie though, whether my opinions are deep seated in nostalgia is one for everyone else to determine but it was so great to go into a movie in which I had seen the trailer to death and not be disappointed with the end product. I can only hope that it is the same with The Force Awakens. Although J.J Abrams does like to keep a lid on his films and not give too much away it’ll be a big ask in the world we live in now. At this moment, we’ll just have to speculate.

Stepping Into The Superman Series


We all have gaps in our film watching knowledge. Whether you’re unfamiliar with La Nouvelle Vague, or haven’t seen a Woody Allen movie, there is always that allusive movie or series you keep meaning to spend a weekend with but never get around to it. With the best intentions we try and sit down and spend our precious time with the unfamiliar but ultimately it is so much easier to put on a Blu-Ray of Jurassic Park and just slump on the sofa.

Personally, I like to think I have a good grasp of a wide range of movies, but obviously there will be massive chasms of knowledge that I may have to fluke my way through. For example, you could count the number of Bollywood films I’ve watched on one hand and please don’t expect me to know a great deal about The Japanese New Wave movement because I’d probably just start to change the subject onto Star Wars. It’s not that I don’t enjoy and respect these movies, they’re purely gaps in my ongoing film education and I’m sure I’m not the only one out there to admit this.

I even have these gaps in popular film. It wasn’t until the last year in which my wife’s obsession for all things 007 compelled me to watch the entire series of James Bond films. Previously I had only seen Goldfinger and the Bronson/Craig movies post 1995. Looking back, I’m very glad I had somebody to share their enthusiasm otherwise I may have continued without watching them and wouldn’t have found out that the Timothy Dalton movies were actually really good and how politically incorrect many of them were. It’s great to watch something, especially something that a huge amount of people have seen already and make your own assessment of it.

This brings me to another very popular series in which I was only recently introduced to in its entirety. The Superman series of films that began in 1978 with Superman:The Movie and commenced with Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. I had already seen Superman Returns, that besides Kevin Spacey I didn’t enjoy very much and 2013’s Man of Steel, that besides the ridiculous amount of wanton destruction in the final third, I did enjoy very much. So, I went into Superman: The Movie with a basic idea of the mythos, the characters and Richard Donner’s other work but not much else. Here are my thoughts on Superman I-IV:

Superman: The Movie:


Unlike today, movies weren’t afraid to have really long opening credits. A massive amount of names come speeding towards you in a space of 5 minutes as John William’s amazing score gets the audience ready for something epic. I’m really surprised that the opening scene shows General Zod (Terence Stamp) and his accomplices sent to The Phantom Zone where it is not referenced again until the next movie. It’s a really brave move to spend five minutes setting up a sequel in an already very long film with lots of exposition and although both Superman movies were shot simultaneously it is still an interesting move.

From there we get the origin story that looks like it inspired pretty much all that came after it and before you know it we have our Superman who is played sublimely by Christopher Reeve. In fact the whole film is excellently cast; Gene Hackman, Marlon Brando, Margot Kiddo and Jackie Cooper are all really inspired choices.

The special effects are really amazing for its time and although I’m watching it out of the period it was made and have therefore seen hundreds of bridges collapses and helicopter crashes in movies it still holds its own.

Unfortunately many of the dramatic and romantic scenes do feel very much of their era and feel a bit overlong. However, it’s a very likeable movie and although tonally it is all over the places sometimes it very much feels like a pioneering piece of work.

Superman II



I watched the 1980 sequel without knowing much about the controversial shoot that seems to have haunted the production of Superman II. It’s a strange thing that there were so many issues on set between Richard Donner and producers Ilya and Alexander Salkind and it doesn’t show in the movie.

In fact I think Superman II is better than the first, it brings us two of the greatest villians in movie history Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) and General Zod (Terence Stamp) and combines their two motivations to create a real force for Superman to deal with. There seems to be more at stake throughout the romantic scenes as Kal El must choose between his powers and Lois Lane and it’s ultimately sharper and funnier than the previous film.

They must have had an excellent editor because it really sounded chaotic behind the scenes. Richard Donner, director of the previous movie, and most of this film (he claims 75%) had a row with the producers over the final cut amongst other issues. They, in turn, hired another director, Richard Lester, who has his name as director on the finished movie. After this, many of the cast and crew including Gene Hackman and Marlon Brando, both of whom finished almost all their scenes under Donner refused to return. After Brando sued the Salkinds for $50 million, he had his scenes removed and Hackman had his role reduced and everything else was filmed with a body double.

We still don’t know for sure how much footage was shot by Donner or Lester, however in 2006 a Richard Donner cut with Brando’s scenes reinstated was released. What we do know is Richard Lester did come back for the sequel…

Superman III:


Oh boy did Richard Lester come back for the sequel. A huge amount of what Richard Donner was trying to do in the first Superman was incorporating verisimilitude, which is placing a reality into the narrative of cinema, making it feel real, making it feel like a man can fly without it looking like he’s floating on wires. What Richard Lester incorporated was a slapstick, comedy tone. Superman III is a very different movie. No Brando, no Hackman and Margot Kiddo, another supporter of Richard Donner, is only present for about five minutes before she is sent off to cover a news story for the entirety of the film.

The opening scene is as campy as they come; I thought I was watching The Great Muppet Caper with the amount of pratfalls. Then we get to the “story” which is essentially Richard Pryor’s story, In fact it might as well be a Richard Pryor movie with Superman in the background. Don’t get me wrong, I love Richard Pryor, he is a comic genius, Stir Crazy, See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Brewster’s Millions are classics in my eyes but there is a time and a place for his comedies. For instance, you wouldn’t see Ricky Gervais as the lead in Avengers: Age of Ultron because it would dramatically alter the tone. On the making of documentary you can clearly see everyone, especially director Richard Lester is overawed by Pryor and let him improvise for minutes at a time despite how it might change the movie. It is very much a case of the star being bigger than the movie and the crew not knowing how to use his abilities.

Anyway, Richard Pryor, through a series of events embezzles money from his employer Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn) and ends up building a super computer for him. Meanwhile, Superman goes bad after encountering some kryptonite and starts acting like a dick, blowing out the Olympic Torch and straightening up The Leaning Tower of Pisa for a laugh. It all culminates in a fight between his two selfs in a scrap yard.


Probably, as a comedy it would be regarded as a classic but it looks like a series of films that as declined and died due to the greed of the producers and the self indulgence of some of the cast and crew.

Superman IV: The Quest For Peace:


Not to worry, every franchise has that film where the standards are not as high. Superman IV promised so much more with Gene Hackman and Margot Kiddo back as Lex Luthor and Lois Lane respectively and the director of The Ipcress File, Sidney. J. Furie at the helm. Surely Superman III was just a blip…unfortunately Superman IV is just as bad if not worse. It clocks in a half an hour shorter than the other movies and pretty much every member of the cast and crew knew it was going to be a disaster. The Salkinds had already sold the franchise, thinking it had run its course and the budget was being slashed in every way by the new production company Cannon Films.

What little story there is one big, heavy handed Cold War metaphor. Lex Luthor is broken out of prison by his annoying nephew, they then steal a strand of Superman’s hair and attach it to a nuclear missile that Superman throws into the sun. From this, comes Nuclear Man, a one dimensional muscle man. He fights Superman a few times and then I think his powers are taken away when there is an eclipse. Oh, and there is a subplot where The Daily Planet is taken over and made into a tabloid newspaper. Apparently there are an extra 45 minutes of footage including another Nuclear Man. Luckily I will never witness it in my life.

Well, there you go. My first viewings of this classic series and it is very much a case of two great films and two terrible films with a massive production battle in the middle. Whatever the outcome I still enjoyed the movies for myself and if, next year, Superman v Batman references Superman III at all, I’ll get the reference!

A Busy Week In The Film World

Hello readers, it’s good to be back writing after a long absence. A few factors, including becoming a newly married man, have left me with no free time whatsoever and its refreshing to finally be able to open up my laptop again and start tapping those keys and talking about movies. Anyway enough about me, so much has been happening this week in the world of film that it was impossible to write a blog pinpointing on one issue. Therefore, here is a rundown in what has got the world talking:

1) There will be a Toy Story 4 in 2017


Not content with a perfect, rounded off ending and the odd half hour episode, Pixar have decided to continue with their most successful set of films. There has been a huge amount of online excitement regarding the announcement that the franchise will continue on the big screen. However, there has been another section of people curious as to where all the original ideas have gone at Pixar. Toy Story 4, which will be directed by the legend of Pixar, John Lasseter, has been added to the list of sequels announced by the studio including Finding Dory, Cars 3 and The Incredibles 2. Although these are all probably going to be a wonderful combination of visually stunning graphics and heartwarming stories it was the consistant, fresh ideas in the early years of Pixar that earnt it so much love and respect from worldwide audiences.

It looks as though from next year we will start to see a combination of old favourites and new ideas as two original Pixar films come out in quick succession with Inside Out directed by Pete Doctor with an ambitious premise about the workings of the human mind and the less cerebral The Good Dinosaur. Fundementally, Pixar could release anything they wanted and earn huge box office receipts, that’s not what they’re about. Toy Story 4 will introduce a new generation to these characters in a film that will entertain and astonish them as the original did almost twenty years ago.

2) Star Wars Episode VII has a title


Yes, and let’s hope that the script is better than the title that precedes it. Maybe that’s unfair, but Star Wars: The Force Awakens is going to take some getting used to. Obviously you don’t want to spend too much time scrutinising a title, no, a subtitle even, but because it’s Star Wars and therefore the biggest franchise in the history of cinema people are going to analyse it with a passion.

The Force Awakens seems more like a title plucked from the extended universe, a Clone Wars episode or Xbox game perhaps rather than a movie that’s going to make a billion dollars. It also looks like it will do away with the Episode VII part, which has been a fixture of the films since A New Hope introduced it. But as Shakespeare said “what’s in a name?” Everything else that’s come from the Star Wars camp has sounded positive, besides Harrison Ford breaking his ankle. The casting is solid with a mix of old and new, science fiction juggernaut Rian Johnson is going to be heavily involved in directing and writing on episodes VIII and IX respectively and principal production is complete. So, we’ll wait and see, maybe when we see the film the title will have a special significance, or we’ll just forget the title and enjoy the movie.

3) The Battle of The Five Armies has a new trailer

Just over a month before The Hobbit’s long, long, long awaited final chapter comes one of the trailers of the year to show us that it could of been worth the wait all along. It’s just pure action and intensity and everything that Peter Jackson does best. He knows this will most likely be his last venture into Middle Earth and is throwing everything at his denouement. There’s been so much said about these Hobbit films, especially the long debated questions: Are they too long? Can three films be justifies for a book of just over 200 pages? If this film proves both of the answers to those questions as no then it has done its job. Whereas An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation Of Smaug were pretty bloated in places Battle of The Five Armies looks like is doesn’t intend on wasting a second and treating the audience for bearing with them and paying for three separate films.

4) Tarantino has his Hateful Eight


In January Quentin Tarantino decided to abandon his next project The Hateful Eight as a leaked, online script had left him feeling betrayed. Ten months down the line he’s calmed down, withdrawn his lawsuit and has announced his cast for the movie. A mix of fresh talent and old Tarantino alumni, the eponymous Eight have been revealed as: Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kurt Russell, Walton Goggins, Michael Madsen, Demian Bicher and Bruce Dern. Channing Tatum also stars, however, his role has yet to be revealed.

We are going to be truly spoilt in 2015, alongside massive budget, effects laden blockbusters like Star Wars and Avengers 2 it’s great to have a true event movie that is just good, old fashioned film making. Tarantino will most likely shoot on film, as is his preference and combined with another of his great scripts this is going to be a real treat.

5) Interstellar is out, and you need to see it at the cinema


This weekend, you’ve probably seen countless Interstellar reviews already and all of them consist of immense praise for the truly groundbreaking effects, the original and exciting script that will leave your emotions all over the place and fantastic performances from the brilliant Matthew McConaughey. All, of this and more is true, it is a fantastic film that respects its audience, as Christopher Nolan is known to do, which will leave you thinking long after you’ve left your seat.

If I were just going to give one word of advice though, it would be to see it at the cinema with the big screen, the speakers blaring and the chairs rocking. It’s tempting sometimes to wait for the Blu Ray or the on demand services what with the prices of going to the cinema spiralling out of control but this is a picture that requires the environment of a darkened cinema to truly appreciate it. Just let Interstellar take you for 2 hours and 40 minutes and you’ve got an unforgettable movie going experience. An absolute triumph of a movie that wants me to go right back to the cinema and experience it all again.

So, a very busy week for film and with a huge amount of big movies coming out in the next few months I can only foresee some even busier ones on the horizon. Good to be back writing!