Celebrities are all over the media these days. The public seems to have an insatiable appetite for finding out the tiniest detail for what they all do. This one group took things too far.
It is probably an offensive stereotype to classify this film as the perfect example of what is wrong with teenagers today. But it is probably not just teenagers who are to blame for the proliferation of celebrities who are only famous because of their wealth and not for actually doing anything. I just don't get it. But what really struck me about this film was how lax famous people are about their security. The way these kids were able to break into people's homes was amazing. Do people still really leave a key under the door mat? Or leave back doors open? Sophia Coppola has done a very good job of presenting this story. She does not over analyse the situation and pretty much presents the events as they played out with very little social commentary. I think this was a clever way to do it as these characters pretty much speak for themselves. While they are not 'rich', they are still very well off and I think the blame lies with the parents. The film is not a very good advertisement for home schooling. Marc is the only one of the group who seems to come from an average house and get sucked into the groups madness. The girls have very little morals and only seem to care about their own well being and making themselves famous.
Katie Chang is excellent as the leader of the group Rebecca. She plays the role so well that you see she is really evil. The cool manipulative way she charms Marc and then betrays him. Equally as good is Emma Watson as Nicki. She does not care about anyone but herself and is brilliant at acting nice when underneath she is pure evil. As Marc Israel Broussard has the best role. He is the one we as an audience can relate to and we feel sorry for him as he gets drawn into the scheme. He is the only one in the group you have any sympathy for.
One more example of what amazes me about society. I do not know what it is about these vacuous celebrities that fascinates people so much. And I am still baffled.
Drug smugglers are always trying to come up with ways to get their product across boarders. This is one of the more interesting ones.
There are times when reviews of films can be quite scathing. This is one such occasion. I don't think I read or heard any good reviews for this film. Normally bad reviews are supposed to be a guide for what not to see, but, depending on the film, this can be more of an encouragement to me. I have to go see the film to see if it is as bad as what everyone says it is. Sometimes my expectations are so low, because of these reviews that I become pleasantly surprised by how much I end up enjoying it. While this film is not the greatest comedy ever made, neither is it the unmitigated disaster that most critics would have you believe. The concept is a nice one for a broad comedy and lends itself nicely to some great juxtaposition humour. The film has lots of it and some works but some does not. The biggest problem I had though was the film's length. There is a whole section when Will Poulter's character Kenny goes to hospital. I know it was meant to be a plot point to give the heroes another obstacle in their journey but it felt unnecessary.
Jason Sudekis is an excellent comedic actor. He is another one of those actors who doe not usually play a 'character' but he has enough witty one-liners to keep you entertained. Jennifer Aniston seems to be taking her career in a good direction by playing less clean-cut characters. I like how she is embracing her inner dirty girl. Here she does a decent job but being Jennifer Aniston she would not go all the way when playing a stripper which would have been better. Emma Roberts is also getting dirty herself and is quite good at it. I remember Will Poulter from the brilliant film 'Son Of Rambow' and he has certainly grown up a lot since then. He is excellent in this film as the group's punching bag. Ed Helms, Nick Offerman and Kathryn Hahn are very good in their supporting roles.
This was not the horrendous disaster that I was expecting. I found myself enjoying it a lot more than I expected and got a few decent laughs out of it.
Magicians pulling off a heist would be an intriguing concept for a movie. Sadly though in the hands of Louis Leterrier it has become ordinary. I am a fan of heist movies and love to guess at the various twists and turns the story might take. It took me a while to work out what it was about this film that I did not like and I think it was the film's perspective. The film is told from the perspective of Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo), the detective looking for the magicians. For me that was the wrong way to tell the story as it takes away from the more interesting characters in the film which are the four magicians pulling off the heist. The audience should be getting to know these characters and why they are doing what they are doing. In some ways I know that it might give away the films final reveal but I'm sure there are ways to work around it. The final reveal is very good but the magicians reason for being involved in the heist is quite lame and a big let down. Perhaps if we knew the characters better and their motivation we would care more about their reasons.
Jesse Eisenberg is very good as the leader of the magicians. But as mentioned above we do not get to know his character all that well so his role is mostly doing magic on stage. The same can be said of his team played by Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher and Dave Franco. Mark Ruffalo is his usual excellent self as he gets the most to do. Melanie Laurent does a decent job in the side-kick role. Morgan Freeman seems to be having the most fun in his role as the magician debunker. Michael Caine is OK but his is another character that lacks motivation.
There was so much potential here to have a great fun heist film. But sadly the director and writers have let us down.
The last Wolverine film 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' while financially successful is not very highly regarded. So thankfully they did a 'do over'.
We have been so conditioned with most comic book films to expect a certain type of film. Christopher Nolan has managed to buck this convention but many others go with the same formulae. This time it seems the producers of the X-Men series have gone for story over action. That is not to say that there is no action but there is very little when compared with many other action films you see. I think the hiring of director James Mangold helped in that area. He is not know for his big budget action films but for low key character films. We explore the character of Logan/Wolverine more with this film and it is all the better for it. There are still some great action sequences in the film and James handles them with a great deal of excitement.
Hugh Jackman has so firmly established himself as Wolverine that it will take a while to see anyone else in the role. It is this reason that he does such a good job with the character. The supporting cast are also excellent. Rila Fukushima is probably the best of them for me. She gives such an amazingly layered performance and is so subtle in some aspects that I was totally blown away.
'The Wolverine' makes us love Wolverine all over again. It is more character driven and so all the better for it.
One of the biggest decisions a parent can make for their child is what to name them. It can sometimes effect their lives. Especially if they choose the wrong one.
Films that are based on plays can be tricky to adapt. Plays usually take place in only a few locations and use a different style of performance. These need to be changed in some ways to make them more cinematic. This story takes place in one room and is just four characters talking but manages to be very cinematic and is a good film. The inappropriate naming of a baby is only one element to the story that explores this groups friendships and secrets are revealed. It is very funny and there are several laugh-out-loud moments. The various twists in the story are also nicely handled and are also very funny too.
The cast have a great deal of chemistry too which makes the film enjoyable. You feel like they are really friends. I have been getting acquainted with Patrick Bruel in a few films lately and he is an excellent actor. Charles Berling is great as the groups hotheaded member. Judith El Zein is the outsider of the group but still feels like she fits in. Guillaume de Tonquedec is excellent as the one in the group with biggest secret. The best though is Valerie Benquigui as the most neurotic of the group. It might be because her character has more to do but she has some of the films best moments.
A great self contained French comedy that nicely explores the reationships of a group of tight-knit friends.
In 2011 Seth Rogen provided the voice for the alien Paul in the film 'Paul' written by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Now Seth Rogen has co-written and co-directed a film about the end of the world. Coincidence?
There has been a lot of criticism about the films released in this year's blockbuster season. That they mostly deal with doom and gloom and the end of the world. While 'This Is The End' deals with that subject it is done in a humourous way. When actors play themselves in films there is mixed emotions. On the one hand there is delight in seeing an actor being themselves as opposed to a character they are playing. But you are left wondering if they are 'really' playing themselves. I think there is a certain thrill in guessing what's real and what's not. The apocalypse premise is just there to let these actors play around with their public perceptions and hopefully develop funny situations. When these guys have improvised in the past, for me, it did not always seem funny. But I really liked this one. There are some quite funny scenes here and I found myself enjoying it a lot more than I expected.
When actors are playing themselves, are they really acting? I the guys are playing more the public perception of them and not the real selves. Even so it is quite funny. Normally I am not a fan of Danny McBride but I thought he was quite funny here. His scene with James Franco where they discuss porn is the highlight of the film. The other thrill is seeing all the cameo appearances by famous faces. Michael Cera also has some of the films best scenes.
It might not really be how these actors behave but it is still quite a funny film. Any film that ends with a musical number is not all that bad.
Co-writers Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright bring their Cornetto trilogy to an end. Both literally and figuratively.
For those who read my very first blog will know, one of my top 10 favourite films of all time is 'Shaun Of The Dead'. Not only was it brilliantly written but it featured my three favourite genres: comedy, romance and horror. The follow up 'Hot Fuzz' was brilliant too. Now Simon and Edgar take us to 'The World's End'. You can tell that I am a huge fan of Edgar, Simon and Nick Frost but I am willing to admit there are problems with their work (except maybe 'Shaun Of The Dead' which I think is perfect). The problem with this film is the mixture of genres. In 'Shaun' they were able to successfully make a romantic comedy with zombies. In 'Hot Fuzz' they managed to make a big action packed buddy cop film but set it in a small English village. This time they were less successful in making a reunion comedy with alien invasion. While there are many funny moments there were they were just not as funny as their previous films. I did not laugh-out-loud as much as I have before. I also noticed a few problems with the plot and characters. Despite all that I still enjoyed the film. Edgar is skilled at making create action scenes and there are several good ones here. I really liked the fight scene in the toilets. The films best moment was the way they referenced Cornetto.
I think Simon Pegg is one of the best comedic actors working today. He can also do drama as well. He is excellent here but I found his character too annoying and thus not as funny as he has been in previous films. I did however like Nick Frost in this film more than in previous films. He seems more subdued in this role and it really suits him. Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine and Eddie Marsan are great as the rest of the gang but don't have all that much to do plot wise. I loved Rosamund Pike in this film. She is mostly known for her dramatic roles so I liked to see her expanding into comedy. There was also great delight in spotting some familiar faces (and voices) in cameo roles.
While it does not live up to the high expectations I had for it based on previous Cornetto films. Being a fan I'm willing to over look its flaws.
The film world was shocked when director Guillermo del Toro gave up directing 'The Hobbit' trilogy because he could not wait around for MGM to get their financing issues sorted. Instead he went off to make this film.
Guillermo is a brilliant film director. He is not only a great visual director who creates wonderful creatures and beautiful images but he makes great stories as well. Sadly he was unable to bring that greatness to 'Pacific Rim' and why I hate it so much. While there are a few minor good points with the film I feel that in general it is a terrible film. Admittedly the films trailers did not heighten my expectations. The idea of giant robots fighting giant demons did not look all that thrilling. It looked too much like a mash-up of 'Godzilla' and 'Tranformers'. I did have a bit of faith that Guillermo might be the one to take a cheesy and bland concept like this and turn it into something interesting. Sadly for he has failed big time. He is guilty of doing what 'Oblivion' did and starts the film by using voice over to set up and explain the setting for the film. There are some visuals but they should have stuck with that and not used voice over. Then the rest of the film is pretty ordinary storytelling with all the familiar plot points you see in films of this kind. The characters are all the same as well. Only a few have any interesting features. What really lost it for me was when they decided to build walls around cities to protect them from the aliens. Besides the fact that a wall seemed flimsy there is the fact that they used humans to build the walls rather than the huge robots which were not being used. Considering the number of people who died while building the walls.
Charlie Hunnam does look and act like a typical hero but he is still boring. Charlie is unable to bring anything distinctive to the role. Equally as boring is the normally brilliant Idris Elba. He plays the typical boss who, when he is not making big speeches to inspire his men, is acting all angry and tough. The only actors that seemed to bring anything of interest to their roles are Charlie Day and the ever reliable Ron Pearlman. Their characters are the only fun thing in the film and keep it from being really terrible.
Being a film by Guillermo del Toro I am probably being more harsh on it than I should. But I expected more from this brilliant film maker.
We don't seem to get many Spanish films outside film festivals unless they are directed by Pedro Almodovar. But this one was a big hit in Spain so it gets a release here.
As you know I love films that are largely dialogue driven. People talking about their lives and working through issues. That is essentially what this film entails. It is just a series of scenes of people talking to someone about their love lives and issues they are having. I quite enjoyed these seemingly unrelated scenes. They are very cleverly written as the exposition for each situation is woven so cleverly into the dialogue that you don't really notice it. It is done in a such a natural way. There are a couple of scenes which have some really great twists and turns. This provides much of the film humour as you see these characters struggle with their many relationship issues.
As you can see from the poster these actors are big stars in Spain. I am not overly familiar with any of them but they are still excellent. It is an ensemble film so no one actor stand out. To me they are all equally good and are quite funny in a very realistic way.
An excellent alternative to all the glossy Hollywood romantic comedies you see in cinemas. There's very little action but that does not depreciate its value.
The team behind 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' try to bring their magic to the wild, wild west but not like the movie 'Wild Wild West'.
Sadly it looks like it ended up being 'Wild Wild West'. By now you know it has become one of many flops that came out during the USA summer blockbuster period and has been a big loss for Disney. For me there are a few good elements but they just did not come together as a cohesive whole. I can understand film makers wanting to give people value for money by making really long films but they need to make them interesting to sustain the length and sadly director Gore Verbinski is not able to do that here. I am a big fan of Gore's and have enjoyed all his other films. But I think he has joined that group of directors who just do not know when to stop their films. 'The Lone Ranger' just seems to drag along with a story that could easily have been shortened and tightened to make it more tense. While I cannot say exactly what needed to be cut just a general trim of a few scenes would have been sufficient. I was also not fond of the use of the railroad as the films central premise. It does provide for the film's best moment at the end with an exciting chase scene, I don't think it was a good plot for the entire film. You are meant to care that the evil rail road owner who wants to use the rail road to effectively take over the country. I never felt that anyone was threatened by this premise. I suppose I should feel bad for the Indians who were used as pawns in the take over but I did not feel that strongly for them.
Johnny Depp is one of the best actors working today and I love when he plays his more wacky characters. Sadly that is not the case here. Part of the problem is that he is an actor of such high regard that he must get top billing in the film even if he is supposed to be playing the lead characters side-kick. Normally his characters are so strong that they usually steal the film and are the thing you most remember. I did not feel that here. While he is trying to play one of his more wacky characters, he seems to have toned it down slightly. I'm not sure if that was so he did not overshadow Armie Hammer who is supposed to be playing the title character. Armi Hammer is quite good but I tend to get the impression he is not playing the part as heroically as he should. He does not come across as forceful enough to be the title character . Tom Wilkinson is very good as the bad rail road owner but as mentioned above I did not feel his plot to take over the country was effective enough. William Fichtner is probably the best thing in the film with his disfigured face making him an effective henchman. Also great is Helena Bonham Carter but I wish she had a bigger part.
There was the potential there for greatness but it seems to have been squandered by a director that cannot show some restraint.
I have seen this film on DVD several times but never on the big screen. Seeing films in the cinema is always better.
'The Shining' is another one of those films whose poster scared me when I was younger. That image of Jack Nicholson hacking his way into a room an be very scary looking. Stephen King is one of my favourite authors so I was very keen to see this film after reading the book. I know that Stephen is not very fond of this film and I can see his reasons why. But I still think it is a brilliant film and is my favourite directed by Stanley Kubrick. Some of my favourite films and TV series are those where a group of people become trapped or cut off in a confined space. That situation provides so much tension and/or humour. Kubrick is so skilled at creating tension, especially with his camera work and use of music. This was one of the first times in a film that the camera was moved around so much and is quite effective. It is almost like the ghosts of the hotel are floating around and following our characters around. While you do know that something bad is in the hotel and it will menace our family you are continually wondering how it will manifest its self.
One of Stephen Kings biggest problems with the film is the casting of Jack Nicholson. Jack is one of those actors who is intense in just about every role he does. Stephen's problem was that the character of Jack Torrance is supposed to be an average guy who turns bad when he comes under the influence of the hotel. But with Jack Nicholson you can see that evil coming and it is not that far for him to go. While I understand Stephen's problem I still think that Nicholson is brilliant in the role. You do know that he is going evil but he is just so great at it when he does. Equally as good is Shelley Duvall. She is perfect as the sweet innocent wife who must fight off her nasty husband. She just has this general sweetness about her which makes you feel for her more in this situation. The real star of the show is Danny Lloyd. The kid is simply amazing as Danny. The way he behaves when his gift comes out is stunning.
The first Stanley Kubrick film I saw and is still the best. The cinema certainly accentuates the tension so if you can make sure you go see it there.
Traditionally buddy cop films have been the domain of men. But occasionally we get some women taking it on.
It would seem that the buddy cop genre is one of those things that does not allow for much variation. You basically get two people together who really hate each other and then must put their differences aside and work together to solve a crime. That's pretty much what happens here. So what it comes down to is the characters and the situations they get themselves into. The character of Ashburn, the FBI agent is the typical straight-laced, up-tight character you expect one of the duo to be. She is not particularly interesting and does pretty much what you expect. On the other hand her partner, Mullins is the more outrageous one. Her foul mouth is what makes the film more interesting.
The one thing they got right with this film is the casting. Sandra Bullock is good in the uptight role that she has played many times before. Sadly she is not as funny as her co-star. Melissa McCarthy is the only reason to see the film. She is such a skilled comedic actress that she can elevate the ordinary material into something decent. The rest of the cast are just there to fill out the film for the two leads. I was delighted to see Jane Curtin and Thomas F. Wilson in there as well.
Follows the buddy cop rulebook word for word. If you want some escapist fun then this is for you. Melissa McCarthy is the only reason to see it.
French director Francois Ozon is once of those eclectic directors who makes a different film each time he directs.
As you know I am a writer and so films about writers always interest me the most. Films about script writers are my favourite but other forms of writing are great as well. What also got me fascinated with 'In The House' was that it involves a teacher which is another area I have experience in. It is not just these elements which made me love this film so much. It is one of the most well written films I've seen in some time. Not just for the story but also for the many themes and issues that it explores. There is just so much going on in the film that it would require several viewings to take it all in. Francois is such a skilled director that he tells the story in a flawless manner. You never quite know where it is going and there are several great twists. One of which I won't mention here so as not to spoil it but suffice to say it will make you see the film in a completely different way. The way it explores writing and writers is simply amazing.
The cast are as equally as brilliant. Fabrice Luchini is an actor I'm seeing quite a lot of now in films and he is always excellent. While his character is a bit stereotypical, Fabrice is able to make him seem fresh and interesting. As his wife Kristin Scott Thomas is delightful and the two of them are such a great duo. Emmanuelle Seigner is quite good as the mother in the house under surveillance. The highlight of the film performance wise is Ernst Umhauer. He is such a brilliant young actor. The subtle way he plays Claude is amazing as you never know what is true intentions are so you are constantly wondering whether he has sinister motives or not.
By far and away the best film I have seen this year. I understand many of you get turned off by subtitles but for those who like some intelligent and though-provoking cinema then make sure you check this out.
Many older people have been struggling lately to keep up with the emerging technologies and their impact on society. It has been especially tough in the work place.
The trailer for this film did not inspire me with hope that it was going to be a good film. The impression I got from it was that these guys, Billy and Nick, were real dinosaurs when it came to the internet. To me that looked ridiculous considering the guys age. If they were say over 50 years-old then I could understand them being clueless about the internet and 'X-Men' but these guys are younger and would have some idea of how it works. This is another one of those films that took a little while to get going for me. Much like 'Monsters University' the first third of the film was very ordinary and not that funny. It is not until after that the film gets better. 'The Internship' shares not only a similar plot to 'Monsters University' but my impression of it was similar too. It is not until Billy and Nick team up with their misfit team of interns does the film really take off and get good. But unlike 'Monsters University' I felt that the central characters were not the most interesting thing about the film. Billy and Nicks team mates, while fitting a few stereotypes, had more character quirks and dimension to them than our main heroes. Plus Billy and Nick did not seem as clueless as the trailer made them out to be which was a welcome relief.
When you see a film with Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn you pretty much know what you are going to get performance wise. These guys are part of an emerging group of comedy actors who play pretty much the same character in every film they do. So the material they have and the jokes they generate from that material is what sets each film apart. I got quite a few laughs from this film but most of them came from the supporting characters and not our leads. Josh Brener was quite funny as the Google representative that helps the group out. Rose Byrne makes a nice romantic interest for Owen Wilson's character. Max Minghella once again plays the bastard role really well.
I found myself enjoying this a lot more than I expected. It is not the greatest comedy around but is still a fun film.
Pixar has really become like Disney now, turning out sequels to past successes. Rather than trying new films.
I know they made brilliant sequels to 'Toy Story' but other than that Pixar has not had much success with sequels. To me they are becoming too much like Disney and it has been reflected in some of their films lately. So going into this film I was not as excited as I should have been. I loved 'Monsters Inc.' but my doubts made me lower my expectations. And for about the first third of the film those doubts were realized. The beginning of the film is pretty corny, clichéd scenes about going to college or university and meeting someone you do not get along with. It is not until the Scare Olympics start that film really takes off and becomes excellent. The core of 'Monsters Inc.' was the friendship between Mike and Sully, and it its not until the Scare Olympics start that the guys must put their rivalry aside and team up to win the competition. That is when you see their friendship develop and the film is on surer footing. There is also the charm of seeing this group of underdogs finding a way to use their lack of skills to take on the more experienced scarers.
Billy Crystal and John Goodman as Mike and Sully would have to be one of the best duos in cinema. The rapour they have with each other is so brilliant. As mentioned above the film and their relationship does not get going until later in the film and this is when you really see the chemistry that they so wonderfully displayed in 'Monsters Inc.'. Steve Buscemi gets to play a nicer version of his character from the previous film which is great. Helen Mirren adds a great deal of dignity to the film as the head of the university.
It does not reach the greatness of other Pixar sequels like the 'Toy Story' series but neither does it reach the low levels of the 'Cars' sequel.
DC Comics has been struggling to get their superheroes into big screen franchises like their cousins at Marvel. Hopefully this is the start of something big.
I need to give you some background before I write this review. Superman is my all time favourite superhero. That is because I have a very strong emotional connection to the character. One of my earliest memories of going to the cinema is my grandmother taking me to 'Superman: The Movie' when I was about 5 or 6 years-old. What I remember most about the experience was that I cried almost all the way through the film. All those disasters that befell Lois Lane were quite scary for a young boy. One other time that I had an extremely strong emotional reaction in a film was 'The Iron Giant'. One word spoken by Vin Diesel as an animated metal robot always makes me cry uncontrollably: 'Superman'.
I am probably one the few people that actually liked 'Superman Returns'. I think that is because it was essentially a remake of 'Superman: The Movie' and it evoked a sense of nostalgia which had a strong emotional appeal. So I think what I'm trying to say is that a film maker would have to go to some pretty extra-ordinary lengths to make a Superman movie that I would hate. I can understand many of the criticism people have of 'Man Of Steel', that it is too serious and lacks much of the fun the other films had. But I did not mind that. I quite liked the story and how writers Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer have created a story which takes a different approach to the Superman character. Most films and TV series have used the very familiar plot so it is good to see it done in a different way. Another criticism has been the level of destruction in the action scenes. While I can understand that problem, you are dealing with characters fighting who are very hard to kill and can fly. So there is bound to be lots of destruction. My only one problem with the film was Superman's final fight with General Zod. That went on for too long and a got a little boring. I don't think the film benefited from being in 3D either.
Henry Cavill is certainly a very good looking guy and fills out the Superman suit nicely. But he is not just a pretty face and brings a great emotional range to the character. There were a few moments when he takes charge of situations that made me very excited. Amy Adams is perfect as Lois Lane. Over the years the character has walked that fine line of being tenacious and forthright but also a damsel in distress that just gets herself into trouble so Superman can come rescue her. Luckily I never got that sense here as Amy brings a great deal of dignity to the role. On the one hand Michael Shannon is a brilliant actor and is brilliant as General Zod. But I think he is playing too many mean characters. I think he might just be one of those guys who is sadly going to be type cast as baddies. Kevin Costner is also brilliant as Clark's adopted father. He has a small part but brings a great deal of emotional depth to it. I also like Diane Lane as his mother. Russell Crowe is excellent as Kal-El's birth father. I liked how they were able to integrate him into the film more so he had more to rather than a quick few scenes at the beginning.
As I said, I may not be the best person to judge this film as I would be willing to go with almost anything they made. There were a couple of small problems, but over all I found this to be a superb addition to the Superman film saga.
Cinema is full of films that feature lovable bad guys. A couple of years ago we were introduced to one of the most loveable Gru.
Sequels can be very tricky things. They need to be able to advance the story and provide viewers with something new that still has all the elements of the first film. Sadly 'Despicable Me 2' has very little of the magic which made the first film so great. The problem for me was that it seemed to be aimed more at children this time and lacked some of the more cutting edge or sophisticated humour that the first film had. Without giving too much away there is a major plot point where the writers went in an incredibly obvious way. There was a chance to do something a bit different but instead they went the predictable route. I think children could have handled a more interesting twist so instead they did not give their audience enough credit. That really spoiled the film for me. I know it probably shouldn't have but it did. There are a few nice elements and the Minions usually provide most of the laughs.
Steve Carell once again does an excellent job as Gru. His strange accent really suits the character. Kristen Wiig has one of those voices that's not very distinctive so it is great that she blends in with the character. Benjamin Bratt does an excellent job with Eduardo considering how he got the job. I quite liked Steve Coogan as well.
Judging by the success of the film, you do not need me to tell you what it is going to be like. I was very disappointed and expected more.
