It goes without saying that James Marsh's new film Shadow Dancer, based on Tom Bradby's adaptation of his own novel of the same name, paints a very bleak picture of Anglo-Irish relations in the early 1990s. It is definitely a thriller but the slow-burning kind, where the tension and the intensity build throughout the 1h40 film. There are hardly any action sequences, but they would have been overkill for this subtle and superbly acted drama.

In Belfast in 1973, a young girl encourages her little brother to go to the shop to buy her some sweets, but he never comes back alive, to the despair of the family. Twenty years later and Colette (Andrea Riseborough) is riding the Tube, nervously eyeing her shoulder bag. After a botched attempt (or was it?) to set off a bomb on the Underground, she is picked up by MI5 and escorted to a hotel room where she meets Mac (Clive Owen). He has enough information on her and her family to send her off to a grim prison for the rest of her life and to send her young son into care. Or, she can turn informant and meet with Mac once a week to let him know any IRA-related activities her two brothers Gerry (Aiden Gillen) and Connor (Domhnall Gleeson) are planning. In return, he promises to keep Colette and her son safe. As a further carrot, he seems to have information that may reveal who was really responsible for the murder of her younger brother, all those years ago.

Writer Tom Bradby (R) discusses Shadow Dancer at the Mayfair Hotel

It isn't much of a choice, and Colette grudgingly agrees to her weekly appointment on the beach with Mac. It quickly becomes clear to them both, however, that the higher-ups in the IRA are soon going to work out the source of the leak, making Colette's position extremely precarious. Mac promises to do everything he can for her--indeed, he seems to be rather more emotionally involved with her than he ought to be, and certainly more than his boss Kate (played by a cool, power-suited Gillian Anderson) thinks he should be--but is that enough? And what if his own agenda doesn't match as closely with that of his colleagues? In 1990s Belfast, it's hard to know who is 'doing the right thing,' if it's even possible. And as Colette struggles to balance her roles of loyal sister and mother, and informant, it's clearly not going to be long until everything comes to a head.

Riseborough is great as the scared but strong Colette, tasked with the unenviable go-between role, caught between family duty and self-preservation (and love of her son). She barely smiles during the entire film, but although Marsh is clearly avoiding trying to make any moral judgments or to define the 'goodies' and the 'baddies,' Riseborough is extremely sympathetic and human, even in her most tragic of decisions. Despite his high billing on IMDb, Clive is only a "with" role (as is Anderson), although he does get a fair chunk of screentime, where he does his husky, crusading, papa-bear best. This is not by any stretch of the imagination a romance, but the chemistry between Riseborough and Owen crackles and sparks throughout the film.

I watched Shadow Dancer at a preview screening at the Mayfair Hotel this evening, and was lucky enough to listen to a Q&A with Tom Bradby after the film. He talked about his own experiences as a young political correspondent in Belfast in the early 1990s--unsurprisingly, many aspects of the story he tells are inspired by real events. What he really wanted to create with Shadow Dancer, he said, was a really good thriller about a small group of individuals in a terrible situation, analyzing how they behave to one another. In that he certainly succeeded.

He also talked about some of the differences of opinion he and Marsh had. Marsh was apparently very much of the opinion that the audience should be left to work things out and draw their own conclusions; Bradby tended to argue that some scenes needed a little more spelling out. The ending--which, without saying too much, is shocking, powerful and does very much leave it up to the viewer to interpret--worked very well, I thought, but there were a few other scenes that seemed to have been over-edited and a couple more lines or moments of explanation might have been handy. Not because I need spoon-feeding but because there are lots of complications around the relatively simple set-up, and it was good to hear Brady talk about a couple of cut scenes, including one between Mac and Kate, where Mac asks her if she likes playing god. We are supposed to identify emotionally with Mac, you see, but intellectually with Kate. The film seems to have changed a lot from the book--Mac's character was much younger and had a bit of a different role, including a rivalry with someone from Special Branch; for the film, Bradby decided to keep the focus on Colette and those immediately connected to her, which I think was probably a smart choice.

Shadow Dancer is jarring on the nerves but well worth watching for the powerful performances and its portrayal of the brutal, unapologetic realities of 1990s Northern Ireland, and, on a more basic level, its portrayal of the competing burdens of family duty, love, trust and betrayal.

I went to see My Week with Marilyn with Balham Babe on Saturday, although the fact that I haven't blogged about it until now is probably indicative of my relative ambivalence towards the film. I had been looking forward to seeing it since it was suggested as a possible surprise film at the London Film Festival. Since then, however, I've made the mistake of reading and listening to too many reviews of it, most of which describe it as fun and frothy but overly ambitious. This seems fair to me, although as these reviews lowered my expectations, they may well have reduced my enjoyment as well.

As the film opens, it is 1956 and, we are told by the title cards, Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) is at the peak of her career. The ink still damp on the certificate for her marriage to Arthur Miller (Dougray Scott), she is all set to come to England to film The Prince and the Showgirl, directed by and starring the imposing Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh); Marilyn's role was portrayed on stage by Olivier's then wife, Vivien Leigh (Julia Ormond), but Viv was deemed too old to play the eponymous showgirl on camera.

Meanwhile, in a castle/posh estate somewhere in the English countryside, Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) is lamenting his fate as his family's 'spare' rather than its 'heir.' But this status does mean that his family can humour Colin's desire to work in the movie business and they help to put him in touch with Olivier's production company. Through sheer persistence and some quick thinking, Clark manages to talk his way into the role of third assistant director on TPATS; task one: find a big house near the studios for Marilyn and her entourage (including her acting coach Paula (a very funny Zoë Wanamaker) and her manager Milton (Dominic Cooper, whose Noo Yawk accent could have been better)) to inhabit during filming.

Clark is terribly excited driving into the set on his first day, loves every bit of his job and promptly starts seeing the wardrobe assistant Lucy (Emma Watson). But the rest of the crew despair Marilyn's inability to: a) turn up to the set on time, b) learn her lines, and c) show suitable respect to her eminent co-cast members like Dame Sibyl (Dame Judi--a casting that wouldn't be out of place in a Private Eye parody). She does rather take a shine to young Colin, however, and before long, he's standing up Lucy and sneaking out with Marilyn to show her his old school (Eton, natch) and his godfather's place of employment (the library at Windsor Castle), and to go skinny dipping in the Thames. He soon realises just how troubled the actress is, even if he is rather flattered to know that he is the only person on set who can encourage Marilyn to do her job--and show up on time.

Perhaps fortunately, the film doesn't focus too much on Marilyn's problems, focusing instead on the fun and frolics of the film set and the unlikeliness of a young, green 'second son' becoming her closest confidant for one week only. Williams looked stunning and her performance was solid (she seemed to be channelling Jen Lindley in the Dawson's Creek finale). Redmayne was also charming as the eager beaver Clark (I first saw him playing Jack in Pillars of the Earth and he'll soon be in an adaptation of Birdsong, and BB and I were worried that he was way too young for us but apparently, he's nearly 30). Their friendship (or romance, or whatever it was) was convincing and they had good chemistry. MWWM is also a nice film for would-be film buffs like me--it's always fun to see what might have been going on behind the scenes in movies like TPATS. Many cast-members are, of course, somewhat underused but that's OK.

My most important question is: how do I get to become the third assistant director on Clive Owen's next film?

I've been looking forward to the UK release of the film Trust for quite some time now. Not because I was particularly excited about the film itself, although it definitely sounded like an interesting if hard-hitting movie, but because it's been almost two years since I last saw Clive in a film, at the London Film Festival premiere of The Boys Are Back. Indeed, his role in Trust, as Will, the father of a teenage daughter Annie, who is groomed by a guy she meets online who claims to be 16, combines some traits of Joe Warr in The Boys Are Back, and with those of an older version of Larry in Closer. Like Joe, Will is fiercely protective of his family, desperate to keep them from getting harmed by a world full of harm. Like Larry, he is angry, vengeance-seeking, and seems to have the same accent, tone and "working-class" coarseness of which Larry is so proud.

***Some spoilers follow***

And Trust is plenty hard-hitting. Sad too, and I certainly wouldn't have guessed it was directed by David Schwimmer had I not known this in advance. But it was also very well made, with great performances from Clive (of course), Catherine Keener (as Annie's mother Lynne), and Liana Liberato, who plays Annie.

The opening of the film is much more light-hearted. In fact, the opening scene could easily have been an advert for either Apple or Starbucks's Frappuccinos, as Annie waltzes around the kitchen making a smoothie and chatting to her online buddies on her phone. The messages pop up on the screen, the text a different colour for each person. Clearly, one of her best online friends is someone called ChRleeCA (Charlie from California; incidentally, some of the txtspk in the film did feel a little bit like it was written by an adult trying to sound like a 14-year-old, which, I guess it was). Annie is quite taken with this Charlie, who is, supposedly, 16 , very funny, smart and sweet. Like Annie, he plays volleyball, so he can give her lots of helpful advice for making her high school team and so on. On Annie's 14th birthday, her father presents her with a new MacBook Pro (see what I mean about the Apple ad?), which facilitates her relationship with Charlie and allows her to video chat, send photos of herself and otherwise pursue this ill-advised liaison.

But then Charlie admits he's actually 20 and a sophomore in college. He didn't want to scare her off, he says. Later, when they've reached the stage of phoning each other (how 20th century), he says he's really a 25-year-old grad student. She's freaked out at first but eventually forgives him and when her parents go away for the weekend to take her older brother off to his first semester at college, leaving Annie and her younger sister in the care of their aunt, she takes the opportunity to meet Charlie at a mall. And of course, he's probably much closer to 40 than 25. Again, Annie is seriously freaked out but he persuades her to go and have an ice cream with him (where they are spotted by Annie's best friend) and slowly, he convinces her that he's still the same Charlie she knows and loves. He just didn't tell her because he wasn't sure she was mature enough to handle the age difference (eek), which, of course, wins her over. He presents her with the gift he's bought her -- inappropriate red, lacy underwear -- and soon she is in his motel room modelling it for him. She doesn't really want to take things any further but with a combination of sweet-talking and physical force, Charlie makes it happen. Oh, and he films it.

When Annie won't talk to Brittany, her best friend, about what's happened, worried Brittany tells the head teacher about who Annie met at the weekend, and soon the police are called in, and Will and Lynne find themselves called to the police station or hospital where their daughter is being examined so evidence for the rape kit can be collected. They are devastated and furious that they aren't even allowed to see Annie until the examination is complete. Finally, they take her home and while the FBI make a start on the case to try to track down "Charlie," Annie and her family have to start dealing with it.

Perhaps the most difficult thing is that Annie doesn't believe anything wrong happened. She believes that she and Charlie were in love and that thanks to her "jealous" best friend, the police and her family have brought an end to the best relationship of her life. Her relationship with her father, in particular, disintegrates because he doesn't know what to say or how to act. He feels stricken with grief because he was supposed to protect his daughter from this kind of thing and he couldn't. He failed her. Will tries to help by taking the investigation into his own hands, flying to New Jersey to meet with a "pervert tracker" group for advice on how to try to find Charlie. At Annie's volleyball game, he sees a guy who looks a bit like someone in the neighbourhood who is a registered sex offender and who is taking photos of the girls. He beats the guy to the ground and won't stop hitting him until he finds out the guy's daughter is playing in the game. Amazingly, the guy is pretty understanding and no charges are pressed. Meanwhile, Will becomes increasingly uneasy about his job -- he works for an advertising agency, one of whose clients is a teen and tween clothing company and so whose ads tend to feature scantily clad teens.

Eventually, the FBI find out, thanks to DNA analysis, that "Charlie" has targetted three other girls in the past few years, one of whom was only 12. Slowly, it dawns on Annie that she wasn't special, as Charlie had said, after all, and that all of the other things he had told her, that she was "wise beyond her years," "an old soul" and that he loved her were probably just lines. The knowledge of this coupled with some of her classmates PhotoShopping her head onto a naked porn star's body, adding her phone number and various lewd comments, and posting it online causes Annie to try to take extreme measures. But finally, she starts to come to a sense of peace and to deal with what has happened. And Will too starts to forgive himself and to realise that no matter how hard he tries to keep his children from getting hurt, he won't always be able to do so.

By the end of the film, there has been no indication that the FBI are any closer to catching Charlie but then, as the credits roll, we see a home movie being shot of a young child at an amusement park. When the kid turns the camera on his parents, we see that his father is Charlie and that Charlie is a teacher, probably of high school students. Grim stuff...

Grim but gripping. The story is told very sensitively and while it could have taken the crime thriller route of focusing on the investigation, the hunt for Charlie and perhaps Will's efforts to obtain his pound of flesh, instead it mainly addressed the effects of what had happened on the family and on their relationships with one another. For example, Will and Lynne's relationship suffers some strain as the events unfold; Lynne thinks Will should concentrate on helping his daughter rather than his misguided attempts at misguided justice. Meanwhile, the subplot of Annie's brother heading off to college provides another angle in the theme that at some point you have to let your children go; bad things may happen to them and that they may make mistakes but ultimately, sometimes all you can do is to help them pick themselves up afterwards.

I joined the BFI a few months after moving to London, almost two years ago--shortly after the 2008 LoFiFest as I was in San Fransisco for the whole of October. Many people join in the weeks running up to the Festival in order to qualify for the LoFiFest members' priority booking period. BFI membership is excellent value with a range of free tickets on offer throughout the year, special members' events and discounts on tickets (and other things) but I would say that it is bad value if you don't plan to use your membership after the festival.

Last year, I was a LoFiFest virgin. I was very excited to receive the programme in the post--how could I possibly choose which films to attend? I wasn't fussed about attending the opening or closing night galas so I didn't apply via the post and just waited until the online members' priority period. The only events I really cared about were the Clive Owen Screen Talk and Clive's new film, The Boys Are Back. The website was very crashy that morning but I got my tickets. I then picked a few others including Chloe, The Informant! and the Surprise Film and managed to get tickets for them--but only by checking the BFI website several times a day to see whether there were any returns (the BFI does email and tweet about returns but I had more luck just checking myself).

This year, I felt a little more confident about the booking process. I really wanted to see Never Let Me Go but I knew the odds of getting tickets weren't good. Of the other films, I chose two galas (Black Swan and Conviction), two regular films (Les petits mouchoirs and Blue Valentine) and the (free) members' surprise film. To apply for the opening night, you have to apply by post and I thought that as postal applications are processed first, I'd apply for the other tickets at the same time. Online booking opens a week or so later but if you've applied by post you don't necessarily know by then if you've already got tickets so you can't apply online for the tickets that are released for online bookings. It turned out I didn't get tickets for any of the galas but I did get tickets for the other three films.

Many people have complained about this on the BFI's Facebook page (well, about the fact they didn't get tickets for the films from their postal apps even if they dropped off the booking form in person, rather than about me not getting them). It is a little frustrating but after finding out my ticket allocation (or lack thereof), I just stalked the LoFiFest website to see if any tickets had been returned. Maybe I was just lucky, but I got tickets for all three galas, including Never Let Me Go. Black Swan was the hardest to come by--I happened to come across one lone seat in the front row for Friday night's screening and decided to pounce rather than hold out for a better offer. Yes, it's a bit of a pain to keep checking the website but I really wanted to see these films and I figured it was worth a little extra effort on my part. Also, I chose films that won't be released in the UK soon and so didn't mind paying a little extra for the tickets.

I don't blame BFI for their booking system (although it wouldn't hurt a) to clarify how it works and what "first come, first served" means and b) to rent some more servers when the online booking opens) because for me to go to these kind of events at all is pretty amazing, let alone to six over the course of two weeks. It's a shame that others do and that they are threatening to rescind their membership.

Another thing I had to learn by experimentation was which screenings to attend to get the Q&As with the cast and crew (the BFI has now provided an explanation here; perhaps this could go in the programme next year). Some screenings are listed in the programme as "galas" and are more expensive but I found that generally, you would only get the Q&A and celebrity guest appearances on the screenings on the first night the film is on (even though the screenings all cost the same). The BFI also says that if there are two screenings of a film (at 8.30 and 8.45, say), it's often best to go for the later one because the actors will usually want to watch the film with the audience and so introduce the first film, introduce the second film, watch the second film and do the Q&A with the second film audience. This happened at the 8.45 performance of Conviction and hopefully it will happen with the 8.45 of Black Swan. Meanwhile, cast and crew sometimes turn up for non-gala films--I think The Informant! last year was a non-gala but the director and writer showed up. I don't think The Boys Are Back was a gala either but I knew Clive would be in town for the Screen Talk the following day and so guessed he'd be there.

My main request for the BFI is to bring back Clive Owen next year. Other than that, I'm happy to soak up the LoFiFest atmosphere and see some great new films; if I also get to see the actors and crew, that's an added bonus.

LoFiFest screenings/events attended: 4
Red carpets crossed: 2
A/B List actors sighted: 6
Bars of Green & Black chocolate: 2
Clive Owen sightings: zero

One of the great things about LoFiFest is that it is relatively easy (and cheap) for members of the public to go to the premieres of some of the biggest films. Now that I've snatched up a ticket for Black Swan, I've acquired tickets to all the films I wanted to see and all it took was a bit of stalking of the BFI website. Last year, however, I found it a bit tricky to work out which events would have the cast and/or crew showing up to answer questions after the film--this didn't happen for all of the films marked "galas" (only if you were attending the film's first screening) even though you were paying more money.

This year, I was a little clued up but I was still surprised not to see any of the actors or crew of Blue Valentine today given that it was the only screening of the film in the programme. It turns out there was a separate gala for the film to which public tickets were not, I assume, available. I didn't mind too much; I like Michelle Williams--although my questions for her would probably have been about her Dawson's Creek days --but it wouldn't be like missing an opportunity to see Clive Owen in the flesh.

Blue Valentine itself was good (and has already been tipped for possible Oscars). It's the polar opposite of Away We Go: it takes a young couple who are so in love and then shows how easy it is for their relationship and their happiness to be ruined. Cindy (Williams) and Dean (Ryan Gosling) married young and have a young daughter and a nice house. But Cindy had always wanted to be a doctor and had to settle for being a nurse instead and Dean's various talents (singing, drawing, playing music) are wasted as he spends his days painting people's houses (which is great, he says, because he can start drinking at 8 a.m.).

The film intersperses scenes from a few consecutive days in the present with scenes from earlier, happier days--when Cindy and Dean met, how they got together, some of the decisions they had to make. They both seemed to think that because they loved each other, that would be enough to get them through whatever fate threw at them. And they are so happy in the flashbacks. They sing and dance in the street, they make promises and they believe they can do whatever they like. A number of years later and life isn't so great. They both love their daughter a lot but suddenly, it feels like that is the only thing they have in common as the grind of everyday life starts to wear them down.

Williams's performance was brilliant; I was less keen on Gosling, although that is possibly because I found his character unsympathetic. We shall see, though, come awards season. If there was an Oscar for Best Credits, this film would win hands down. The credits roll over a black background with a fireworks display taking place and every time a firework goes off, for a moment we see an illuminated image of Cindy and Dean from earlier in the film. It was really beautiful and a nice way to end what wasn't a very happy film.

LoFiFest screenings/events attended: 2

My alma mater is having something of a celebration having reached the ripe old age of 800. Actually, it turned 800 last year but apparently with all of last year's fun and games, they must have ran out of time for the grand finale--because sure, there's always so much going on in Nowheresville. Anyway, the said grand finale turned out to be a little son et lumière show, which I thought sounded a bit lame and which meant I didn't bring my camera into work today. This was a shame because it was actually very pretty and apparently so newsworthy that it even made the London free newspaper this morning.


Undeterred, I made a little detour to Market Square on my way home this evening, just in time to see Senate House--the very building in which I obtained my BA and my (ah hem) MA only a short time ago--all lit up and with a seriously cool PowerPoint presentation projected onto its walls. Nowheresville as you have never seen it before... There were also some crazy ass bells ringing too, which I suppose counted towards the son part of the entertainment.


I had no time to stop and stare so I just snapped a few iPhone pics by precariously sticking my hand between the bars of the fence around Senate House. Not a bad sight for what may well be my penultimate Monday in Nowheresville--ever. Well, until St Jocks' turns 500 next year and if they want me to ever donate money to the college, they had better have a really kick-ass party and they had better invite me. Then again, perhaps I'd settle for Clive Owen's image being projected across New Court...

It always surprises me how quickly the Golden Globes come around. One minute it's Christmas and you're stuck in Blockbuster City and the next, you're looking at the nominations for the various categories, which, this year at least, don't seem to correlate very closely with the movies you've seen and loved over the past year.

Before I could make the selections for my favourite in each category, however, I had to go to see Up in the Air, the latest film from Jason "Juno / Thank You for Smoking" Reitman. I often enjoy a bit of Clooney and I'd wanted to see the film when it premièred at LoFiFest but by the time I'd booked all of my tickets to see Clive's performances, Up in the Air was all booked up. Never mind--although it was very entertaining and Le Clooney was very good in his usual charming-but-cynical role, I didn't laugh quite so much as I did during Juno.

Clooney plays a guy who travels 320-odd days per year on business--his business being firing people on behalf of wussy bosses--and who has millions of air miles and every executive club card available but not much in the way of a personal life or indeed a life. His apartment is almost bare--there isn't even a Nespresso machine! Le Clooney meets two women, one of whom is a fellow frequent flier he encounters in a bar at a corporate hotel and the other works at his company. In fact, she is a bright young thing who basically wants to start firing people over Skype instead of in person; Clooney objects, mainly because he likes his life of travel rather than because he worries about the effect it would have on the firees. He is charged with training up the Bright Young Thing in the art (or is it a science?) of firing people and they take to the air together.

As the film progresses, thanks to the two women, Clooney starts to see the error of his ways and so it is perhaps a surprise that when someone utters the line, "Your real life? I thought I was part of your real life," it is said to him not by him. Luckily, the ending is rather trite although Clooney is a lot more fun to watch when he's being the regret-free, (emotional and physical) baggage-free cynic than the slightly emo "oh hey, have I wasted a large portion of my life with my crazy attitudes?" guy who surfaces towards the end of the film.

So, onto the Globes. As ever, these aren't my predictions, just my favourites in each category. Hopefully, by the time the Oscars roll around, I will have seen all or almost all of the films in each of the major categories and I will have more to choose from (equally, I hope that the films included come Oscar-time fit more closely with my thoughts on the best films of the past year).

• Best film (drama): Up in the Air (although I would really have categorised it as a comedy--relative to other films I've watched at least) -- I've seen four of the nominees
• Best film (comedy/musical): Julie & Julia -- I've only seen that and (500) Days of Summer and it was a tough call; neither was outstanding for me
• Best director: Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds) -- I've seen four but if I'd seen Clint Eastwood's Invictus yet, I suspect I would have voted for that instead
• Best actor (drama): George Clooney (Up in the Air) -- by default as it's the only film I've seen, though I plan to see Invictus, A Single Man and Brothers
• Best actress (drama): Carey Mulligan (An Education) -- by default but she was great
• Best actor (comedy/musical): Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) -- out of the three I've seen
• Best actress (comedy/musical): Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia) -- I've seen Duplicity too but I was too busy looking at Clive to notice Julia Roberts much
• Best supporting actor: Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) -- by default
• Best supporting actress: Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air) -- almost by default
• Best foreign language film: Broken Embraces -- but I suspect when I finally see A Prophet, I'll rate that more highly
• Best screenplay: Up in the Air

I'm in a list-making frame of mind--or maybe I'm just listless. Either way, it's too early to start compiling my favourite books, movies and songs of the year but it isn't too early to round-up my top 100 films of the decade (at least, Time Out have already done it). I worked this out by taking all of the films I've given 8/10 or higher on IMDb and removing any made before the Noughties. Of these, four were awarded 10/10, 16 got 9/10 and the rest 8/10. This gave me a list of about 120 films so I removed my 20 least favourites.

Some caveats:

1. Most films get 7 or 8/10 when I first see them. The reasons for this are explained here. I do subsequently update ratings over time and if I end up buying the DVD or downloading an 8/10 film and watching it often enough, it might get promoted to 9/10. Similarly, once my post-cinematic euphoria has worn off, I may decide that the film wasn't worthy of a 7/10 rating and demote it accordingly. However, I don't scour my IMDb ratings page very often and so most films have inaccurate ratings, especially the newest ones (2008 and 2009).
2. I haven't seen enough films this decade to really have a worthwhile Top 100. I only had to take 20 films off my original list, which didn't require much deliberation or any agonising decisions--a sign of good list-making.
3. I only got the cinema bug in 2008. Although I went to the cinema quite often as a student (2002-2006),  I didn't see very many films in 2000-2002 and 2006-2008; the former cinematic drought is compensated for to some extent because these films are now quite often on TV or quite cheap to buy on DVD. 
4. Yes, I am a geek.

LoFiFest screenings/events attended: 6

LoFiFest screenings/events attended: 5

LoFiFest screenings/events attended: 4

LoFiFest screenings/events attended: 3

Oh! what a tangled web we weave,

I've been neglecting Keanu a little, lately, usually in favour of Clive or Christian and a range of other supporting characters. It doesn't help that much of his back catalogue is pretty cringe-worthy and there are only so many times I can plausibly watch Speed without wanting to tear off my finger-nails--yes, even I can only watch Speed so many times--and weeknights are a little heavy for The Matrix. However, I recently (finally) acquired a copy of Point Break and watched it tonight in all its good-bad glory.

It's always risky going to the cinema in London--especially in my quartier--because the presence of the French is almost guaranteed. The Screen on Baker Street tonight was no exception and there was a French couple in front of me who spent half the film talking (not whispering, not even pretending to make an effort to talk more quietly) and the other half kissing and making Gallic grunts; I knew they were French even before the first Gallic grunt, though. I didn't do too well in the cinema seating lottery as a couple of seats along with me were three very fat Middle Eastern women who didn't seem to have grasped the concept of shutting-up-and-watching-the-film either as they chattered away, texted, ate food noisily and even took a phone call during the film. I was initially hopeful as the steward was standing in the aisle with arms folded at the start, which kept everyone quiet but as soon as he left the chattering restarted.