Archive for the ‘Cinema’ Category

This film review of Star Trek: Into the Darkness merits so little of my time, so here are some simple bullets for your swift perusal:

* Visually beautiful
* Quality CG
* Progressive Scottish accent
* Ample opportunity for homoerotic innuendo
* Mediocre action scenes
* Embarrassing script
* Zero likeable characters
* Turn off tracking system? Star Wars anyone?
* Spock is a pompous, lego-haired (”It’s only lego-ical”) c@#t

Yep, that covers it.

Django_unchained_banner

Quentin Tarantino hits the silver screen once again, deploying his familiar style in a hereunto unexplored cinema type, with the eagerly-anticipated Western flick, Django Unchained (“the ‘D’ is silent…”).

Though this may seem perhaps unfamiliar territory for the director, Tarantino is well-established as a director unafraid of new challenges, exploring new ground rather than simply rehashing old material. He’s the celebrated chameleon of cinema – and not just because he looks like a lizard.

Quentin Tarantino Chameleon

Chameleon – Tarantino

Tarantino has a penchant for genre deconstruction, comfortably immersing himself into entirely disparate cinema types with a confidence and eagerness. Of recent note is his dabble into modern military history with the Second World War counter-caust found in Inglourious Basterds. Less successful, in my Chan/Li/Lee/Hung loving opinion, was Quentin’s martial arts mishap Kill Bill. Now, we see him dive head first into the spaghetti western. The verdict? This spaghetti needs a little more meat.

For a film that approaches 3 hours in length, it’s surprising how linear and superficial much of the content appears. Now, I wasn’t expecting a thorough diatribe of pre-American Civil War slavery, but perhaps something more than a simple, and predictable, revenge narrative. The real problem is that Django Unchained is plainly too fanciful. From confused morality to the unconvincing romantic quest that drives the plot, there is perhaps too brittle a foundation for the audience to comfortably place their feet, spurs and all.

Take dentist come bounty hunter Dr King Schultz, a welcome return by Christoph Waltz. For a man whose compassion and support for the hero protagonist persists throughout the film, whilst also combating the racial hierarchy in the Southern states of America, there is an odd sense of calm surrounding his calculated murder of wanted criminals. It is interesting that Tarantino selected Waltz for this morally ambivalent role, particularly after his striking performance as Hanz Landa, a man whose undeniable hatred of the Jewish race suddenly dissipates at the end of Inglourious Basterds in favour of a quick deal. He is an opportunist through and through, much like Dr Schultz.

Schultz is a bounty hunter, mercilessly killing for financial gain; wealth is his ultimate goal. Though his targets are wanted criminals, and he does explain that he’s a man of the law, his efforts are entirely in pursuit of monetary reward, not as a result of some judicial desire for justice. This being the case, it seems incongruous that he would want to share his earnings, let alone risk his own life to help a man who he has no substantial affiliation with, particularly a secondary citizen, a slave. Schultz’s desire to partner up with Django is completely untenable.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that the dentist is an old romantic. Let’s pretend he’s a virtuous hero, unable to ignore the plight of a devoted, loving couple. Then, and I emphasise, only then, can we begin to understand his motives. Clearly this isn’t the case in Django Unchained though, this fragile argument further damaged by the notable lack of any substantial reference to the relationship between Django (Jamie Foxx) and his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Though there are a few flashbacks to earlier events in the couple’s lives, they revolve entirely around a bumbled attempt to flee their masters and the bitter punishment when caught. This is certainly believable fuel for Django’s violent quest for revenge, but the audience never witnesses any real tenderness, any sincere depictions of love. And if we can’t see it, how can Schultz? Their relationship is presented as fact: they are in love, they are destined to be free together, and we must simply accept it, despite feeling that it’s been sadly skimmed over.

High on the frivolity list is QT’s incessant use of the word ‘nigger’ in Django Unchained. Though he’s argued that it’s used simply to authenticate the language used in the film as a construct of its time, one feels that perhaps he gets a little carried away. I don’t feel so strongly as to censor the word entirely, and I agree that it’s useful as a point of verbal emphasis and linguistic accuracy. But 110 times?! Enjoying your cinematic freedom a little too much eh Quentin? Jackie Brown (1997) only had 38 mentions of the racial epithet, that’s an increase of 4.8 n-bombs a year. Yeah, I did the maths.

Not seen Django yet? Stop here!

Towering over all of these criticisms however, is Django’s hugely disappointing ending. Really, the film should be 20 minutes shorter, which would have helped my bladder to no end. The entire film builds in anticipation of the final showdown, as the heroes confront the figurehead of white oppression, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Django and Schultz make their way to Candie Land, one of the largest plantations in the South, with blood on the hands and a hankering for more. When a covert attempt to rescue Broomhilda fails, an explosive action scene ensues, one which sees the death of 2 key characters. The end of the film is nigh, it has to be. Suddenly, Django is alone, up against the wall facing waves of Candie’s men. But, as conventional heroes always do, he survives. White jacket after white jacket is splattered with blood as Django claws on to life. And then he surrenders…. What? After the intense build up, he simply gives in?

And then he gets captured, sold into slavery once again, only to return to Candie’s estate for his final revenge – all in the space of 10 minutes! This dual ending seems completely pointless, entirely breaking the pace and fluidity of the film up until this point. It deflates the ending, resulting in a needless anti-climax. Was this supposed to be some sort of plot twist? If so, it came far too late and had too little consequence. Surely the final scenes couldn’t get any worse? Well yes, throw in a poor quality cameo from the lizard man himself, including a horrendous Aussie accent I might add, and we’ve hit bottom.

Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of positives in Django Unchained: momentum gathers early on and is maintained throughout the film (until the final scene, anyway); stylistically, the film adheres to Tarantino’s acclaimed style, musical score in tow; action scenes are gritty and relentless but powerful, brilliantly juxtaposed with pithy humour, not delivered so gloriously since his cult classic Pulp Fiction. Samuel L Jackson executes a first-rate comic performance as institutionalised house slave Stephen, while the Ku Klux Klan scene engenders some unexpected comic relief, effective in its rarity and sudden transition to slapstick hilarity.

Django Unchained. Decide for yourself.

Safe Film Banner

Over recent years, mainstream cinema has taken a new action hero under its generously proportioned wing. He’s tall, he’s strong, he’s butch, and he’s British.

No, not David Walliams.

It’s East end beefcake, Jason Statham.

Safe Film Jason Statham

“Maybe I shouldn’t have had that burrito for lunch..”

Since his cinematic debut as Bacon in Guy Ritchie’s 1998 smash Lock Stock and Two Smoking barrrels, Statham has become a Hollywood darling, entirely synonymous with high-octane, brutal action. Perhaps it stems back to his role as mute, psycho goal keeper Monk in Mean Machine, who knows? Regardless of its origin, Jason can always been seen in a host of action-packed films, including the Transporter trilogy, Crank one and two, and most recently, and indeed most high profile, the Expendables series. He also voiced Sergeant Waters in the original Call of Duty and Tybalt in Gnomeo and Juliet – how’s that for masculinity!

New release Safe, sees Jason once again performing the role of an aggressively heroic Prince Charming (rather, Prince Harming), devoting his life to the rescue of another. It’s a cinematic archetype that’s worked for him in the past, but is perhaps getting a little tedious now. All three Transporter films situate Statham as a protector, delivering his human ‘packages’ alive and well, no matter what the personal cost. Talk about customer service, it’s Parcel Force meets Apocalyse Now.

Safe Movie Jason Statham

It’s ok Jason, there’ll be another train along in a minute!

His role as Luke Wright in Safe is a tired, Statham-shaped mould, unfortunately rendering the narrative of little significance. We’ve seen it all before:

– victim in trouble  > Statham becomes aware and assumes role of protector > they are attacked consistently > he ensures the victim’s safety –

We can fill in the rest of the story by ourselves. It doesn’t help that the narrative of Safe is treated with such superficiality and speed. Within the first five minutes we are thrust into the separate world’s of Luke and Mei, hastily presented with each of their predicaments (she has been kidnapped because of her knowledge of a secret code / his wife has been killed, because he knocked out a viral YouTube sensation in a cage fight, costing gamblers huge stakes – take that Tay Zonday, yoot bes’ be singin’ ’bout Chocolate PAIN from now on. Getme fam?) Though the film does marginally explore Wright’s ostracism after his battle blunder, there is no evidence of any kind of emotion as to the horrific murder of his pregnant wife. This is perhaps the greatest flaw of Safe; apart from a single moment where he considers suicide, Luke never really relinquishes the tough guy exterior. But hey, perhaps that’s Hollywood’s fault for type casting Statham so much, maybe he just can’t do sensitive?

Safe Film Mei

Cor bliMei…

Furthermore, the viewer is allowed no time whatsoever to sympathise with Jason’s rather staid performance, as the plot progresses far too rapidly. Similarly, Mei’s troubled home life is soon dismissed, instead replacing it with a somewhat absurd narrative regarding her photographic memory and a highly sensitive numerical code. It doesn’t really get any better from there….

For me, Safe was reminiscent of Luc Besson’s incredible thriller Leon, in so far as it depicts a young, vulnerable girl with sensitive information being protected from vast hordes of menacing villains, including crooked cops. Though, to say the film cowers woefully in it’s impressive shadow is a huge understatement. Where Leon details the life of a reclusive hitman Jean Reno, suddenly interrupted by a recently orphaned Natalie Portman, a glistening performance I might add, it manages to deliver a real tenderness. The blurred emotional, even sexual, boundaries between Leon and Matilda are genuinely heart-warming, and the viewer has a huge investment in the films solemn conclusion. With Safe, you just simply don’t care. Yeah you have the general desire for Statham to rise victorious, and for Mei (played by Catherine Chan) to remain unharmed, but there is no real connection to the plot or its characters. And for a storyline centred around survival this is a problem.

Also, the Russian mob boss looks like Lou Carpenter. Not quite Gary Oldman eh?

Safe Film Police

Reservoir dogs they ain’t!

The real trouble with Safe is that Jason’s brand of cockney militance is delightfully watchable. By all reasoned logic I should hate this film… but I don’t. I’ve always found Jason Statham a likeable chap, if somewhat two dimensional. Back since the Transporter I’ve been slightly in awe of him, first getting a glimpse of his ‘got to be photoshopped’ six-pack, which was entirely hidden from view in Lock Stock and Snatch. Moreover, as a huge fan of martial arts, it was particularly exciting to see a British film star begin to make a name for himself in the industry. The Transporter was brilliantly choreographed, with some wonderfully memorable fight scenes (of note, the bike pedal on oil-covered floor – it was like something out of Strictly Come Dancing!) Statham’s now worked with some of the finest names in the action and martial arts industries, including Sly Stallone, Bruce Willis and Jet Li. Go on moi san!

The choreography in Safe has more of a gritty realism than Statham’s usual fight scenes, but is still enjoyable. The scope of his acting however is severely limited, and the only thing less convincing than his accent is his ability to eat a sandwich on screen. The plot is indefensibly poor; but can it be any worse than Crank, a horrendous take on the Speed franchise?

And you thought Cruise Control was bad.

Safe, is just that, ‘safe’. It’s thoroughly watchable, with adrenaline-fuelled action permeating the entire film. You won’t find any intellectual discourses here and certainly won’t be challenged. But isn’t that the level of comfort you expect from a Jason Statham film?

Avengers Assemble Banner

Earlier this week I was fortunate enough to see perhaps the most hyped film of the year (dismissing Prometheus and Dark Knight Rises of course), Marvel‘s Avengers Assemble. Never has a film review been so necessary – I promise to make it as spoiler-free as possible.

Marvel film releases have been at best a mixed bag in the past. There are some great successes, Jon Favreau’s celebrated Iron man series perhaps the most obvious of late, but some horrendous failures too; Sam Raimi’s Spiderman trilogy is particularly offensive on many levels. Bloody emo Spidey. Roll on Marc Webb‘s Amazing Spiderman I say!

Yet, with this rather volatile back catalogue, Avengers Assemble has been eagerly anticipated across the board, receiving rave reviews.

I was as excited to see it as everyone else, but had a number of concerns:

– Being a big budget comic book adaptation, will it deliver more substance than the conventionally expected visual competence using CGI?

– With six hero protagonists, will it manage to spread screen time evenly, treating all with necessary significance?

– Will Chris EvansCaptain America be as uninspiring and one-dimensional as in his solo film?

Wow… boy did it deliver! Multiple Thorgasm!

Avengers Assemble Cast

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn’t belong…

Rarely do you come out of a film with a desire to watch the whole thing again immediately… you do with Avengers Assemble. I get the impression that it’s one of those films you could watch endlessly without it becoming tiresome.

Perhaps the greatest success of Avengers Assemble is that it manages the difficult task of dividing screen time between the many protagonists, doing exactly what Spiderman 3 couldn’t. Raimi’s third instalment introduced two villains, Venom and Sandman, resulting in a poorly conceived and lengthy plot that somehow manages to skim over each of their respective stories. Avengers on the other hand, takes double the amount of characters and delivers a generous helping of each, satisfying both cinema and comic book aficionados alike. Though little individual narrative is developed throughout the film for each hero, there is just enough of their personal back stories to introduce them, ensuring that the viewer is not lost.

Obviously Joss Whedon was helped by the fact that the heroes in Avengers Assemble are all interacting in one concise narrative, whereas Venom and Sandman featured in entirely separate storylines. In this respect, being an ensemble film, there is fortunately no real need for a developed examination of each character’s origins. Furthermore, for the most part they have been all been introduced already in other Marvel films, with the exception of the new Hulk and Hawkeye.

To remedy this, Whedon’s introduction of Hawkeye as a villain (I shall say no more..) works as an effective replacement for a back story, giving the viewer an insight into his abilities and an immediate sense of recognition.

Avengers Assemble Hulk

Ho ho ho… Green giant.

The cast of Avengers Assemble is absolutely wonderful. There are top performances across the board, paying particular attention to Robert Downey Jr’s familiar role as gloriously narcissistic inventor Tony Stark/Iron Man, and a surprise new appearance by Marc Ruffalo as Dr Bruce Banner/Hulk. Ruffalo’s performance is especially memorable, portraying the duality of a calm, collected intellectual subduing a beastly, undiscriminating aggressor. As a new hero on the scene (let’s ignore the poor adaptations by Ang Lee and Louis Leterrier), he stands out massively, with a role as huge and menacing as the green giant himself.  This effectively explains why Ruffalo has been signed for 6 Marvel films as the Hulk. On a less significant note, there is also a nice cameo from Cobie Smulders, forming a well-needed departure from the turd pile that is How I Met Your Mother.

Avengers Assemble Iron Man

Iron Man, the Swiss Army Knife of super heroes.

An impressive script sees each character playing off the others, providing some genuine moments of hilarity. Tony Stark is clearly king here… but unexpectedly, Viking god Thor manages to throw down too! At its heart, Avengers Assemble is a high energy action flick, proficiently mixing composition, acting and CGI. However, one of the greater triumphs is its comedic execution. From the taunts of Downey Jr, to the incredibly funny confrontation between Loki and Hulk (you’ll know what I’m talking about when you see it), the film captures the fists and the funny bones, ensuring that there is a level of accessibility for those being dragged to the cinema by their sons/boyfriends/husbands.

One criticism of Avengers Assemble is that perhaps there is not enough substance there, beyond the heavyweight action and sporadic comedy, to satisfy those uninterested in comics or action films – though, if you fall into this camp I don’t know why you would go to see the film anyway; it’d be like a fan of Scorsese going to see the latest Twilight banality. The plot is incredibly simple, sacrificed entirely for balls-to-the-wall action. This is certainly a necessity however; a more complex, layered film would have made the ensemble casting impossible to achieve successfully. I have to admit though, seeing this film without prior knowledge about the Avengers comic history, or at very least having seen a few of the characters solo films, may leave you a little puzzled at times, and certainly have a reduced appreciation for everything that’s happening. The subtle introductions of each hero make this pre-knowledge key to an understanding of how characters relate to each other, although the amazing action sequences and comedic rivalries can be appreciated regardless of this.

Avengers Assemble. It’s non-stop action from start to finish.

It’s constantly moving forward, without even a minute of lag or waffle. That explains why the two and a half hours felt like just fifty minutes. Wish I could say the same about more Marvel films…

I just wasted an hour and a half of my life watching perhaps the worst film I have seen in a long time, Year One. As a result, I refuse to spend much more time reviewing it!

Knowing very little about this film, beyond the fact that talented comedic actors Michael Cera and Jack Black were the main stars, dressed as cavemen, expectations were limited. I was open to be impressed however…

First mistake.

Second mistake: thinking to myself after 10 minutes, “heyyy, give it a chance”.

What a ripe pair. The fruit looks nice too.

Year One tells the story of bumbling duo Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera), unsuccessful hunter gatherers who fade entirely into the background of their tribe. This dubiously vague set up supposedly acts as a catalyst for what ensues. Within minutes of the opening credits rolling, Zed seeks out and eats ‘the forbidden fruit’ in a moment of biblical iconography that distresses. Please don’t shoe-horn some semblance of religious allegory in here, please Harold Ramis, not after your brilliant work on Groundhog Day!

Good news (not a pun, just a happy coincidence), religion isn’t unnecessarily squeezed into an odd corner of this film to add a ‘’deeper’’ layer of meaning – the whole thing is centred around it! What starts off as an uninspiring, poorly-written situational comedy, progresses (a word I use loosely) into an exploration of Old Testament history. In fact, that’s bollocks. Year One no more explores the themes, traditions, contradictions or religious controversy of the Old Testament than does the Westboro church explore San Francisco during Gay Pride. The biblical references (the Tree of Knowledge, Abraham preparing to sacrifice Isaac, Cain killing Abel) all function as nothing more than a method of establishing setting. Beyond single references to homosexuality, the gender and existence of God, and the nature of slavery, there is nothing intelligent enough to warrant a second thought. The trials our heroes go through only serve to promote the romantic conclusion at the end, an inconsequential conclusion at that.

Jack Black: Loud. Michael Cera: Meek. Typecast typecast typecast.

From the outset we are made unsubtly aware that our protagonists each have a love interest, forming some kind of predictable romantic thread that traverses the film. Yet, with little to no exploration of these desired relationships, the viewer is left with a feeling of sheer emotional detachment rendering them entirely apathetic as to whether the couples get it together by the end or not – though it was always guaranteed!

So that’s the premise slated, now for the acting. Black plays the role with typical gusto, but unfortunately is supplied with a character who is so unbelievably one-dimensional that he’d be far better suited to a three-cell Andy Capp strip than a Hollywood silverscreen comedy. Disastrously, particularly for Michael Cera, the accomplished actors are given roles that play exclusively to their typecasts: Zed is loud, oafish and undeservedly egotistical about his abilities and looks; Oh is a meek, mild-mannered teenager whose social awkwardness becomes a perpetual limitation. Sound like something you’ve seen before? Add to this forgettable cameo appearances from Vinnie Jones, Kyle Gass, Paul Rudd, and Chris Mintz-Plasse and you have a recipe for comedic failure.

Year One is a mixture of predicable slapstick comedy and unimpressive action sequences, all wrapped up in a severely undeveloped biblical theme. Simply put, it’s not clever enough to function as a religious parody, or funny enough to work well as a comedy. Instead of wasting your time with this flick, my suggestion is to watch Monty Python’s Life of Brian, an unparalleled success in both of these areas…

… or read the actual Old Testament. It’s more entertaining than watching Cera and Black deliver a poor script, and there’s no cockney interlude from Vinnie Jones. Win win.

I was first made aware of Cabin in the Woods by a delightfully vague and intriguing viral video marketing campaign called Ultimate Cheerleader Fail. Watch it..

Cabin? Rubix Cube? Hmm.

Though at first it seems confusing (and annoyingly irrelevant to the title if you were hoping to see some broken cheerleader legs!), with hindsight after having seen the film it’s actually a delightfully subtle reference to one of the key scenes – no prizes for guessing which one.

I didn’t actually see any promotional trailers before going to the cinema, so the only insight I had was this seemingly meaningless viral video and general compliments heard through the Tweetvine. My expectations were high, without having an real understanding as to why this was. Drawing upon the vague praises I’d read online and other perhaps tenuous clues like the title, I was awaiting a typical teen horror: attractive jocks and cheerleaders go to holiday in the woods, camping out in a cabin doing what American teens do best (drink/high five/conform to innate sexist gender hierarchy). Until suddenly, unexpectedly they are set upon by some kind of fantastical threat (wolf/serial killer/giant badger etc), and mercilessly massacred in ways perfectly suited for 3D viewing. Cue the copious amounts corn syrup.

On the surface, I wasn’t wrong!

Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins - long way from Step Brothers eh?

From the outset, Cabin in the Woods, appears to conform to this somewhat staid representation of teen horror, which is surprising from Joss Whedon, the creative talent behind such geek classics (classeeks) as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, the contemporary Avengers Assemble… and of course four episodes of Roseanne. Oh, and Drew Goddard, the co-writer of modern Godzilla doppleganger Cloverfield ,was involved too! Yet, as you would hope from this nerd-God made mortal, there is something deliciously special bubbling beneath the surface.

Cabin in the Woods starts off with a depressingly conventional set up, whereby 5 stereotypical  teenage archetypes (the virgin, the jock, the scholar, the stoner, the promiscuous female– played by Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Jesse Williams, Fran Kranz and Anna Hutchison respectively) embark upon a summer break to a picturesque American setting. We have the rustic wooden cabin, the crisp exotic lake. All that’s missing is the Californian surfers and a bald eagle – wait, he was there wasn’t he, briefly. So far the film wouldn’t seem amiss categorised alongside the stupidly strung out American Pie or Final Destination franchises… In case you’re unsure, that is NOT a compliment.

Cabin in the Woods cast

In their attempt to “get off the grid”, as conspiracist Kranz explains with disappointing conventionalism, they find themselves the unwitting protagonists in an unexpected tale of murder. This is where Cabin in the Woods really comes into its own. Though the typical blood and gore remain, it manages to relinquish all other teen horror precedents, and it does so forcefully. Foul play is hinted at throughout, especially in the brilliantly delivered scenes between Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford and this becomes the main focus of the film. There is a devastatingly satisfying plot twist to unearth, unseen since the likes of Memento, Fight Club or the Shawshank Redemption, culminating in the opulent CGI of the films blissfully geeky finale. What follows is a cinematic diatribe, commenting on the nature of the entertainment industry, of reality television and most significantly, of the horror genre. Cabin in the Woods is beautifully self-reflexive, satirising the very nature of horror and how it is delivered on the silver screen.

I’m reluctant to say any more, in the hope of whetting your appetites without ruining the pay off. Suffice to say though, this is a film that you simply must see! It offers  interesting characterisation executed by a genuinely likeable cast. Coupled with this is the spectacularly clever ulterior discussions, and the seamless unity of hilarious black comedy and gory fantasy horror, reminiscent of Sam Raimi’s celebrated Evil Dead franchise.

If you see one film this year, make sure it’s Avengers Assemble. If you see two, add Cabin in the Woods to the bill. Whedon will thank you for it.

So on the surface the title of this post means very little. But keen web enthusiasts and Spaced fans might be able to extract some kid of meaning from it.

*Countdown clock* –  “Sorry we’re closed…” – No answer?

As we start to meander slowly into 2012, you can be forgiven for feeling a little downtrodden with all the pap that pervades our screens – tele, computer and silver. Apart from a few choice selections (for example, the BBC’S Sherlock, or Ridley Scott’s new Alien iteration Prometheus)  2012 has very little to offer us.

But don’t despair, all is not lost!

Comedic overlord Simon Pegg (Spaced, Shaun of the Dead) and geek messiah Edgar Wright (ditto, Scott Pilgrim vs the World) have seemingly started work on the third film in their ‘Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy’, The World’s End.

Working hard..... almost.

Posted on Twitter a few days ago by Wright, this picture has got fans all in a tizz about what to expect from the final collaboration. Though little is known about the film beyond it’s title (and the fact that it will feature a mint choc chip Cornetto), speculation is rife! Is the title a reference to Pirates of the Caribbean At World’s End, implying a pirate-themed final instalment (including Nick Frost as a chubby Depp), or perhaps a twist on the The World is Not Enough suggestive of a Bond-esque covert agent plot line. Both would fit the action-packed variations of the first two instalments – though if it is the latter, Johnny English got in there first! Perhaps the title actually refers to some kind of apocalypse, highlighting the disaster movie franchise including the likes of Volcano2012  and The Hangover Part II. Satire.

Clearly I am letting my mind run away with the smallest tidbit of information here but it is exciting news nonetheless. Roll on the next photograph – hopefully we’ll see more than just the title!

Now do the hokey cokey and turn around, that’s what it’s all about. Hoy!