Review: Mrs Carey's Concert

Mrs Carey's Concert
Dir. Bob Connolly & Sophie Raymond
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: PG
Running Time: 95mins

It has been ten years since renowned documentary filmmaker Bob Connolly – not to be confused with Robert Connolly, director of Balibo – made a film. Connolly has kept a low profile after the death of his directing partner Robin Anderson in 2002, but the two made some of the seminal documentaries in Australian history; think of Facing the Music, Rats in the Ranks and Black Harvest. Connolly has now returned with Mrs Carey’s Concert, charting the struggle of Karen Carey, Director of Music at MLC School for girls in Sydney, to get her students ready for a concert at the Sydney Opera House that will hopefully help shape the girls’ outlook for years to come.

Read the rest at Onya Magazine

Review: American Graffiti & Two-Lane Blacktop

American Graffiti
dir. George Lucas
Year: 1973
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 112mins

Two-Lane Blacktop
dir. Monte Hellman
Year: 1971
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 102mins

Having only THX 1138 to his directorial credit, George Lucas’ second film was a radical departure from that science fiction thriller, not to mention the Star Wars franchise that would consume the rest of his filmmaking career thereafter. American Graffiti is a groundbreaking comedy from 1973 that sees Lucas putting the focus on his own childhood of the early 1960s. Lucas’ iconic movie would go on to become a box office blockbuster that would define the independent film movement for decades to come.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine
This review originally went up at the end of last week in time for the week-long season of American Graffiti and Two-Lane Blacktop at The Astor Theatre. Alas, Trespass Magazine went away for a few days for a makeover. They're back now, but this glorious double feature is only screening for two more days so if you're in Melbourne do check it!

When a Spoiler Calls, Part II

At the start of this week I told you dear readers about the escalating controversy surrounding Melbourne-based (yet nationally published) film critic Jim Schembri. You see, Schembri had written a review of Wes Craven's Scream 4 that revealed the identity of the killer in the very first sentence. A crime of stupidity if ever there was one, especially from a critic as seasoned and high ranking as Schembri. Read this piece from Monday that explains the whole story as we knew it at the time to catch yourself up because, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Schembri has one-upped himself in the "oh no he did not!" stakes.



Throughout the past week the man had promised "the full story" behind the "Scream 4 meta controversy", as seen above, which followed after a truly bizarre series of ridiculous tweets about time travel and Luke Buckmaster of Crikey. He kept promising and promising and never delivering. Naturally, it emerged at around Midnight on Good Friday when he suspected nobody would notice/care because it's a five-day weekend. It's amazing to think that on a weekend in which people celebrate a man who CAME BACK TO LIFE AFTER BEING EXECUTED that this would be the most ridiculous thing you'd read about today?


Yes, Jim Schembri posted up his "full story" and it's the biggest load of bullshit you're likely to read all week! In the piece titled "How I punk'd the Twitterverse" Schembri muses on how he played a big ol' prank on us Twitter users by outing the Scream 4 villain in his review; "I decided to create a online event. I wanted to become the scourge of the Twitterverse as I led the hordes down a merry trail of cryptic messages and misdirection." Except he didn't lead the hordes down a merry trail of cryptic messages and misdirection. He blatantly gave away the identity of the "who" in a "whodunnit". That isn't being cryptic, it's being an arrogant prick.

"I anticipated that the moment Scream 4 opened, sites such as Twitter would be positively brimming with spoilers", he says before later opining "Twitter wouldn't respect Scream 4, surely. Twitter doesn't respect anything." While it's true Scream 4 spoilers were overflowing on websites like Twitter as well as IMDb, YouTube and even websites like Scream-Trilogy.net, none of the people announcing said spoilers were film critics who get paid by a mega-corporation (Fairfax) to review movies on a professional basis. I'd also hazard a guess that many of them were not grown men who were clearly smart enough to end up as the lead film critic at publications like The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. You don't get a job like that by being an idiot, but you sure can become one afterwards it seems. Still, this is the newspaper that somehow stuffed up today's paper by headmasting it with "THE SATURDAY AGE". On a Friday.

What it all boils down to is that Jim Schembri doesn't like Twitter ("(T)he Twitterverse, in my view, is largely populated by idle minds seeking to engage in banal, repetitive discourse and revel in the cheap thrills derived from being crude, vulgar, ignorant and abusive",) and felt like playing a prank on us. Except, wouldn't it have made sense to ACTUALLY PLAY A PRANK? Revealing the actual, true, real identity of the Scream 4 villain isn't a prank. Revealing the villain as someone who was not the villain would have been a prank. He would have gotten the vitriol is he craves and we all would have had a laugh when we realised "Oh that Jim Schembri was just fooling with us!"

Except here he wasn't just playing with the so-called "Twitterverse". Schembri's spoiler-laden review sat pretty upon the top of Rotten Tomatoes for several hours before, eventually, newer reviews began to push him down the lead page. Still, anybody who clicked on his review for the first day it appeared (it wasn't altered until 8am on Friday - a full day after the film's release and several hours after the print edition went on sale) would have been greeted with a spoiler that would ruin the movie's big climax. That's ANYBODY WHO CLICKED. I supposed Schembri believed everybody who uses the internet must use Twitter (and thus must be evil?), but they do not. Many do not like Twitter and yet they still would have been "punk'd" by this inexcusable social experiment. As another critic stated on, you guessed it, Twitter: "Once you start using your reviews as a forum for anything aside from your views on the film you're reviewing, it's pretty much over folks." Another states it "That piece insults the intelligence", another "How fitting of @jimschembri, on Good Friday, to depict himself as Twitter Christ. He spoiled for our sins, people", and another "I lost a bit of respect for The Age if it actually runs @jimschembri 's lie in print." And, of course, this one that sums up everything I've been saying: "Even if #Schembrigate was a genius twitter experiment, surely that doesn't justify spoiling the film for people WHO DON'T EVEN USE TWITTER".

And, even if Twitter is evil and full of crude, vulgar, ignorant and abrasive folks who are willing to spoil the enjoyment of movies for others then it's quite easy to find Twitter users who are not. I follow 460 people on Twitter and not one of them revealed the identity of the Scream 4 killer. I am followed by 1175 and I'm happy in knowing each and every one of them could go into Scream 4, if they so wish, and not know who the villain is. Unlike anybody who read Schembri's review. His revelation shows a distinct lack of respect for all of his readers, not just those who use Twitter as a valuable social networking tool.

And, for that matter, the irony of Schembri playing a wicked "punk" on Twitter is surely not lost on the man. Schembri himself has (as of right now) 497 followers and he started off the week with significantly less than that. Schembri, however, doesn't follow a single person; no filmmaker, no fellow critic, no friends. Nobody. And, for that matter, until this past week's clusterfuck of time machine tweets the man had never used the site for anything other than self-promotion of his The Age affiliated blog, Cinetopia. And, even further, as the image below shows, he doesn't even Tweet his reviews in any timely fashion! As ever, he's ahead of the technology curve is Mr Schembri.


None of this would have even been necessary if Schembri had have just admitted his fumble and apologised. Instead, he sent us down a ridiculously convoluted rabbit hole of pranks, punks and spoilers. It was obvious from his 1.5/5 review that he wasn't a fan of the movie, and yet in his article he continues to act petty and pouty towards the film whilst treating anybody who didn't want the ending spoiled with contempt.

Nobody likes being insulted, especially by a lame film. But that's how I felt about 10 minutes into Scream 4. ... No originality, no imagination. And predictable. The identity of the masked killer was obvious from the moment you first saw him. Or her. Or it. Hey, wouldn't want to spoil the film for anyone.

No, you wouldn't, but you did and I won't soon forget. Nor will anybody else who sees through his childish tantrum as anything but what it really is: a last minute attempt to save credibility, peddling a topic that his newspaper and other forms of print media are trying to push to their dwindling readers.

Poisin Pen has already written about it and I am sure you'll read a lot more about this throughout the weekend - freelance writers don't necessarily get five-day weekends - and beyond. Just remember, Jim Schembri played fast and loose with his readers by single-handedly destroying years worth of work by Wes Craven, Kevin Williamson, the cast, crew and producers with one sentence of a review. He thought his readers were beyond contempt, played a gag with no thought of the consequences and then admitted to using his position for an elaborate gag that nobody can make heads or tails of (apart from Schembri himself, of course).

He concludes his article by giving Wes Craven, a filmmaker for 40 years (his debut, The Last House on the Left was released in 1972), condescending tricks on how to truly breath life in Scream 4's tagline of "New Decade, New Rules". It may be a new decade, but the old rules still apply to being a film critic and Jim Schembri broke them. It appears doubtful The Age will hold him accountable at all, which is truly sad, since they published this nonsense drivel of his. I guess it's up to us to let him and The Age know that playing games with readers is a cruel thing to do. Especially if they want us to keep paying that $1.50 every morning, right?

Review: Scream 4

Scream 4
Dir. Wes Craven
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: MA15+
Running Time: 103mins

**NOTE: This review is spoiler free!**

Some people appear to have mistaken my anticipation for Scream 4 as just geeky franchise worship. And while it’s true that I would most definitely go and see even Scream 8: Ghostface Takes Manhattan, a lot of the reason why this movie feels like such an event is because this is the Scream 4 we never thought we’d get. By the time the fourth film of a horror franchise rolls around the cast and crew that made the original(s) so worthwhile have almost all but moved on, so when it was announced that not only that the original creative team – director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson – were returning, but also the three main principal cast members – Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courteney Cox – well, that was the tipping point from being an exciting curiosity to full-blown mad anticipation. Did it live up to my own hype? It sure did!

Coming 11 years after Scream 3 reconfigured its story to Hollywood and became one big in-joke (a funny one that I like much more than most, it would seem), Scream 4 returns to the Californian town of Woodsboro from the original Scream where the residents seem equally divided between those who mourn the original tragedy and those who revel in it. The anniversary of the slayings is treated like Halloween by the younger generation, sending mock telephone calls to their friends and dressing public property up in scary costumes. Hollywood turned Woodsboro’s – or more specifically, Sidney Prescott’s – tragedy into a movie named Stab and now the students of Woodsboro High host a yearly “Stabathon”, a movie marathon featuring all 7 of the Stab movies. Even the fifth one that, hilariously, somehow involves time travel.


Returning to Woodsboro is the aforementioned Sidney Prescott, touring a new self help book touting herself as “no longer a victim”. But, needless to say, her return brings about a new batch of killings, committed by somebody – or somebodies – in a Ghostface mask who uses the telephone to taunt his prey. Sidney’s cousin, Jill, and her friends appear to have become the killer’s prime targets, and along with Sheriff Dwight nee Deputy Dewey and his former Hollywood entertainment reporter wife Gale Weathers they must try and hunt down the perpetrator for as long as they can survive.

Some may say I was predisposed to liking Scream 4, but as has been proven time and time again it is usually those who are so closely tied to a franchise that will find the most at fault with a new one - just look at the Indiana Jones and Star Wars series’ for examples of that. And while Scream 4 has its issues, it succeeds through a mix of the old fashioned slasher movie conventions that the original Scream trilogy manipulated so well, as well as new twists and tricks that will surprise anybody who has watched the original trilogy enough. Just when you think nobody else can die, they do. Just when you think the filmmakers will take a break from the murdering mayhem, they don’t. Just when you think the movie has ended, it hasn’t. Long-time fans will find a lot of cherish about this new sequel, which abides by its tagline of “new decade, new rules”. Regular moviegoers who just want a few frights on their Friday night will also find plenty to satisfy, I’m sure. Gorehounds disappointed by the rather bloodless Scream 3 will rejoice.

Where Scream differs so greatly to the vast majority of horror movies is in its characters. Where most have generally anonymous actors playing stock standard roles that equate to nothing more than “heroic boyfriend” or “sassy best friend”, Scream 4, just like its predecessors, goes a long way in establishing its band of new and old cast members as a real group of friends and family. Their interactions with one another, their back and forth dialogue and secrets bubbling beneath the surface make them far more interesting and worthy of investing time in. When one dies – and to pretend they all get out alive is silly – there’s actually feelings there. When the killer (or killers) is revealed, it hits like a punch to the gut. In fact, Scream 4 works much better than Scream 2 or 3 in that regards, by having worked its characters harder and stronger (despite a much shorter, punchier running time). There are several deaths that were met with shock, surprise and near hysterical behaviour (and not just by me, I assure you). The performances are generally strong, with particular notice going to Campbell – looking so mature and beautiful, even if she’s dressed in dowdy outfits for the second half – Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin and Alison Brie. And to say it doesn't feel good to see Arquette and Cox in fine form is a big fat lie. Cox especially gets several great one-liners, relishing the chance to spit foul language out of her mouth that she can't do on Cougar Town.


If I have to be critical then my displeased glare would be focused very quickly upon the opening scene. For a franchise that became famous for its typically violent prologue (remember Drew Barrymore’s untimely end 15 years ago?), Craven and Williamson have taken an incredibly big gamble with it this time and haven’t altogether succeeded. They do, however, include several great gags that go a long way to relieving the pent up pressure that 11 years between franchise instalments can produce. Elsewhere, I have to question the character of Mary McDonnell’s Kate Roberts. Written like an afterthought, acted like she’s in another movie (actually, she would fit right in with the more comically aligned Scream 3) and all but forgotten at long stretches. It’s especially disappointing for a franchise that has always gone to great lengths to make the adults as interesting and important as the teenagers. It’s also sadly quite obvious that some scenes have been heavily tinkered with, especially when you compare it to the trailers and television commercials. It’s like there’s a different film waiting for the DVD release.

And, honestly, the number of times a character places their body against a door with the killer right outside? The number of times a character walks outside to investigate a strange noise? That's a bit silly. Haven't they learnt anything?

Still, Scream 4 succeeds far more often than it falters and that’s most surely because of the direction of horror maestro Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson. Both have done a stunning job of subverting expectations, whilst at the same time delivering on exactly what we wanted. They have given us Scream nerds what we wanted, and given Hollywood what it needed. They have shown how you do a sequel and proven that the fourth film in a franchise needn’t be a simple throwaway grab for cash. It can be relevant and necessary.

Williamson, who wrote with additional work done by Ehren Kruger and Craven, appears to have made Hollywood and this generation’s ever-churning instant news cycle his prime target. One scene in which Hayden Panettiere’s Kirby reels off a seemingly never-ending list of horror remakes is particularly telling and even mustered up an applause or two from the audience. The screenplay also has swift, if increasingly meta, jabs at the horror genre in general as well as the internet’s jagged turn from being a place of film discussion to a place of mass hysteria. There’s even a joke about the use of the word “meta”! Meanwhile, the media, in their bloodthirsty quest for the latest in breaking news get the biggest twist of the knife of all. Emma Roberts gets a moment of such pure and utter classic filmmaking that I have to hand it to Craven for having the guts to do it.


The Scream films have always been known for their references to other films and the latest is perhaps the most referential of all. The jokes on its own franchise with the Stab film-within-a-film-within-a-film-within-a-film(?) as well as footage from Scream 2 (if that makes sense) are just the beginning. Endless horror movie citations from Saw to Peeping Tom, film posters adorning the walls of nearly every room, two police officers that recall Craven’s own Last House on the Left and even recreations of other famed horror movies (one such scene that emulates the original Scream from 1996 specifically had me in fits of “oh shit!”) They never let up and even when Halloween II gets a big shout out, I couldn’t help but admire the bravura. It even gets in jokes about Facebook, Twitter and Jersey Shore without looking desperate for hip points and its handling of modern mobile phone technology is keenly done alongside the old fashioned clunky landline phones that are as iconic to these films as the Edvard Munch inspired mask.

The team behind Scream 4 have gone for broke. They know people stop caring about horror sequels after a while and the only way this was going to be any different was to take everything they had done before and turn it up to eleven. They succeeded in making a Scream for a new generation, one that is more brutal and more gory, yet still funny and entertaining. This could perhaps rank as the greatest franchise revival in cinema history and while even discussing the potential for a Scream 5 seems ridiculous given where this fourth film goes, if they show half as much ingenuity in it as they do here then it will be just as much of a must see as Scream 4. A- (although who knows where it'll sit once I've seen it five times, 20 times, 106 times...)

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 15 of Scream 2 (0:43:31-0:44:53)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 15 of Scream 2
Length: 1min 22secs
Primary Characters: Sidney Prescott, Derek, Officer Andrews (Philip Pavel) and Officer Richards (Chris Doyle)
Pop Culture References:

• None
  

One thing I'm noticing with Scream 2 is that there are a lot of shorter scenes. Perhaps that was a trick by Craven to keep the pace punchy, especially since this one is longer than the first by a hefty margin, they probably needed it. Also since none of the new characters are quite as enjoyable as Tatum, who I could watch for the entire length of War & Peace. Doubled.


I normally wouldn't consider them "prominent characters" in this scene, but one of this scene's major points is to show how these two detectives are "attached at the hip" to Sidney. They get their moment in the sun later on, as you're no doubt aware.


"You are concerned with my personal well-being and not with trusting me or anything, right?"
To quote Grandpa Simpson; "a little from column A, a little from column B."

One of the secret hidden joys of Scream 2 - although I have curiously never even attempted to test it out on other Jerry O'Connell films - is watching the abnormal frequency with with O'Connell blinks. Seriously. In this one static shot that runs from 0:44:23-0:44:33 (in which he says the above dialogue) he blinks 12 times! That's more than one blink a second! Settle down, Jerry!

Scream:
Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14, Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, Scene 31 Scene 32, Scene 33, End Credits

Scream 2
Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 14 of Scream 2 (0:42:16-0:43:30)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 14 of Scream 2
Length: 1min 14secs
Primary Characters: Gale Weathers, Dewey Riley and Chief Hartley
Pop Culture References:

• None
  

One of the things I love about the first two movies is the way that Craven routinely uses establishing shots that, with each one, lessens the number of people around. In Scream it reaches the point of "the town that dreaded sundown" and then with this shot we see the numbers starting to decrease before eventually, later on the film, there's nobody else around. Scream 3, however, had people everywhere, which perhaps says something different altogether about how Hollywood reacts in the face of violence (gather the troops, for instance). Hmmm...


Everytime I see Chief Hartley write "COOPER" on his blackboard (aside: BLACKBOARD!!! wow. ancient.) I think back to the Twin Peaks episode "Zen, or The Skill to Catch a Killer" wherein Agent Cooper teaches the local police on Tibetan detective methods or whathaveyou.


Gale's in her reporter mode and upon being told Cici's real name is actually Casey, you can she's turns to Dewey and telepathically shares an "uh-oh". Dewey, meanwhile, is probably all "I could go for some Pringles right about now..."


Do you think the Arquette family get together featured many an anecdote about the Scream trilogy, with Lewis - David's father - piping in with about that time he "worked on the sequel"? I think so.

Meanwhile, this is the 200th Scream 2 screencap, apparently. Frightening. We're not even half way through!


"I think you've got a copycat on your hands, Chief."
It's this sort of scene, brief as it may be, that adds that little something extra to these films. It not only deal with adults, but shows them working and investigating, trying to solve something. Not like, say, Halloween that only ever seem to show adults being a) idiot police who always underestimate their foe, or b) Dr Loomis who's always frothing at the mouth spouting verbose dialogue about Michael Myers being the "bringer of DOOOOOM!" or some such. It's also not like most imitators that think having a cop character means they just stand around and say "i pulled the files, looks like HE IS INSANE! Let's catch this creep."

I dunno, it's hard to explain, but I've just always felt like the adults were just as much a part of these films as the knife-bait teenagers and that's a good thing. The adults are just as integral to the story and they add much needed weight. Plus, it helps that the performances, especially Cox, are so good. But we'll say more about her later. Make sense? Probably not.

Scream:
Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14, Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, Scene 31 Scene 32, Scene 33, End Credits

Scream 2
Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13

Review: Justin Bieber: Never Say Never

Justin Bieber: Never Say Never
Dir. Jon Chu
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: G
Running Time: 105mins

Just what the world needed; a new version of Madonna’s iconic documentary In Bed with Madonna focused around a barely pubescent boy pop singer. I know what you’re thinking, and for some readers there will be no budging on the predisposed opinion they have of Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, but for some this documentary about the now 17-year-old music sensation may prove an eye-opening, if still fundamentally flawed, experience. The slavish devotion of Justin Bieber’s fans – predominantly “tween” girls, but all ages are welcome – will be unchanged after this film and may just earn the guy a few new ones along the way.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine
I'm so glad I got in my references to In Bet with Madonna, Celine: Through the Eyes of the World, Glitter and The Lord of the Rings.

Review: Rio

Rio
Dir. Carlos Saldanha
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: G
Running Time: 96mins

Last month the animated film de jour was the bonkers and adventurous, yet rather family unfriendly Johnny Depp comedy Rango. The latest cartoon fare is from the makers of Ice Age and goes in the opposite direction, trying to be as child friendly as possible, perhaps to its detriment for the parents who will attend with their kids. Still, even if Carlos Saldanha’s Rio errs on the side of G-rated shenanigans and colourful jungle beats, it still provides enough excitement and unabashed joy that allows its brisk 90 minutes to drift on by in a haze of neon-coloured feathers and catchy tunes.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine

Review: Sucker Punch

Sucker Punch
Dir. Zack Snyder
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: MA15+
Running Time: 110mins

Original concept, female-led fantasy films don’t come along very often these days, what with Hollywood’s obsession with men, remakes, reboots and sequels, making Zack Snyder’s newest film, Sucker Punch, noteworthy. Moreso noteworthy is how truly awful it is. Snyder has succeeded in turning his female empowerment action extravaganza into a full-blown bore.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine
Oy... what a train wreck. I'd also recommend you check out Clem Bastow's review at The Vine, which is a fantastic dissection of this colossal WTF-fest. In an early draft of my review - which, if you click over to Trespass, includes references to Sex and the City, Mortal Kombat, the "I Spit on Your Grave School of Feminism" and "Zach Snyder: Empowering women to wear matching hooker ensembles whilst seducing and murdering evil rapists since 2011!" and much more - I actually had many of the same observations, but had to cut them due to word limit. As Clem quipped on Facebook, "This movie is so dumb it's reduced all critics to sharing the same synapse." So true. D

Review: Brighton Rock

Brighton Rock
Dir. Rowan Joffe
Year: 2011
Aus Rating: M
Running Time: 110mins

Audiences may not be aware of Graham Greene’s 1938 novel thriller Brighton Rock, or its original 1947 adaptation starring Richard Attenborough. Even those who berate filmmakers for constantly returning to the same old wells of inspiration with remake after reboot after sequel can’t fault director and screenwriter Rowan Joffe for making another version; 64 years is a long time! What can be faulted, however, is Joffe’s handling of the material, which certainly doesn’t live up to the precedent set by the Boulting Brothers’ 1947 version.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine
For those interested... Brighton Rock (1947), B+ > Brighton Rock (2011), C-