Reviews

Really good Canadian television is a bit of a rare breed. Truthfully, even though I was born in raised in Canada, most of the TV that I watched in my childhood was American made. Up until a few years ago, I can honestly say that I can't name a single Canadian drama or comedy that I watched and it never really bothered me all that much. Then came the writer's strike of 2007 and Canadian TV started getting picked up by American networks to fill the content gap left by those fighting for the rights of content creators everywhere in the American industry. Suddenly, I found a reason to watch Canadian television and I'm very glad that I did.

Because then came Being Erica. A show about a down and out woman whose life just hasn't turned out the way she planned it. A woman who can't help but think that if only she'd made different choices in her past, her life would've ended up being so much better then it ended up being. And of course, who hasn't felt that once or twice in their life? Who hasn't taken a look back at their life so far and said "If only I could go back and do this differently, my life would've been so much better." But is that in fact true? If you could go back and change it, would it actually be better or just different? Are you sure you wouldn't make it worse? Even more importantly, are these moments really the things that have kept you from being happy? These are the central questions at the heart of the show that is one part comedy, one part drama, one part sci-fi/fantasy, all blended together to tell a story of strength and personal growth, championed by the great and talented Jana Sinyor. While occasionally feeling like an ensemble cast, the show never loses sight of the quirky, smart, funny, and powerful yet feminine Erica Strange (played by the fantastic Erin Karpluk) who is on a journey of self discovery that never lets her take the easy way out.

It's worth noting that in the middle of the show's four year run, Erin Karpluk had the opportunity to work on an American TV show, and did, as a supporting character on a show called Life Unexpected but eventually had to leave in order to continue with Being Erica. I don't think there are many people in the industry who would argue that if you want to make it in the industry today, Hollywood is where it is at. So the fact that she for all intents and purposes left an American TV show for a show in which she starred in being watched by a much smaller audience, means there has to be something pretty special about the show, and I can honestly say that I understand why.

She was once quoted as saying that people who watch the show have come up to her on the street and told her that Being Erica has encouraged them to make changes in their life when they weren't happy with it before. Given the way in which it has affected me, both as a writer and on a personal level, I have no trouble believing that other people have felt the same way. Whenever life gets me down or I start to worry about much I have yet to accomplish in my life that I want to do, I turn on Being Erica and I remind myself that no matter how bad things might feel, they are never as bad as I think they are. There's always a way to salvage things and make the most out of a bad situation.

And so, what's the importance of Being Erica? That's the importance of Being Erica.

To check out more of my reviews, go here:

http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

There are some shows that are just strange. Shows that are strange in a bad way like The Vampire Diaries, The Secret Circle and Dollhouse, all three of which I watch (or watched and enjoyed for what it was in the case of The Secret Circle and Dollhouse that got cancelled early on). You also have shows that are strange in a really good way. Shows like Dexter, Episodes, and just about every British TV show that tiny island manages to put out. And then there are shows like Glee, shows that not only border on the absurd, but actually embrace it when the story calls for it.

A show like that tends to be very divisive, there are people who hate it and people who love it. But those that love it often do so with incredible passion and devotion. This can be both a good and a bad thing depending on which you are, particularly because there are those who fall somewhere in between. I have experienced this in other fandoms. Incredibly devoted fans can begrudge the less fanatic members for sometimes being critical or less than enthusiastic about the show. As a result these "more moderate" fans can feel less engaged and drop off from a show if it becomes too much for them to handle.

Social media platforms can be the bridge that keeps that from happening, and one of the things that Glee has done really well is embrace social media like Twitter to keep people interested. Most of the cast is on Twitter like Lea Michele, Naya Rivera, Kevin McHale and others, though they seem to be the most prominent members on a consistent basis. The fans appreciate it no matter what your level of devotion, but then I count myself among those who are more moderate in my opinion.

One of the best aspects of the show though is the music, the way in which music is both the focus of the story and the thing that makes it different from others. Before the show came on the scene four years ago, musicals were a rare thing. There were occasional successes like Moulin Rouge and West Side Story, but in general they were something to be ridiculed and looked down upon in the film community, then came Glee. A show that preyed upon the nostalgia of music from the 80s and 90s, making the music cool again for the current generation. It even managed to revive some long dead tunes that were themselves ridiculed and kind of weird.

This too is at the heart of the show. It's about a group of misfits who are constantly made fun of and fight tooth and nail to get respect from people who don't want to give it to them. As I was reminded quite well recently, everyone loves an underdog. People love to root for the guy or girl who had it rough but manages to succeed anyway. Succeed despite the detractors and critics, despite the authority figures trying to keep them down and despite everyone who might otherwise have an obvious advantage.

With more number 1 hits then they can count, over 36 million digital single sales and 11 million album sales worldwide, I would say they certainly achieved their goal. Interestingly enough, the show reflects that success in many ways. As the show gears up for season 4, its characters have achieved success and are now wondering what is next, and I am too. But more than that I am curious...

Do you sing with the return of Glee? I have in the past, and I am going to be doing it again this year.

To check out more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

There are some things that are just disturbing to watch. Whether it's a disturbing image like from news of a tragic event like a shooting or a video set up on YouTube like a recent serial killer did or a more fictional depiction of tragedy like the Saw films, Scream or a television depiction like Law & Order, Bones, or Jersey Shore. However there are some things which are hard to understand why exactly you're disturbed by them. For me that show is Dexter. You can always look at a show like this and say that what is disturbing about it is the graphic depictions of sex, language and death that are disturbing, and yes it can be tough to watch the way in which people are both killed by the main character and kill other people but often that's the least of what disturbs me.

What usually bothers me about the show is the way in which the characters evolve over time. Most disturbing of all is Dexter who struggles to deal with who he is versus how he was raised. Each season deals with the reality of his life as both a forensic blood spatter analyst and a serial killer. Living with such a contradiction alone would be difficult enough, but trying to relate to people without revealing this contradiction is even harder for him. He does manage to make some connections to people, though they are pretty basic at first over time they evolve and grow much like Dexter himself. The thing that disturbs me most about Dexter is how much people connect with the character. And not just in the sense of the insane ones who try to reenact or mirror his crimes.

My own connection is quite a strange one. I know what it's like to feel disconnected from the world and other people, trying to find a way to connect to people when you don't feel connected to anyone or anything. It's hard to care about others or have a conversation that you find meaningful when you don't care about what other people are saying. But you keep trying because you see the people around you talking and caring about each other and you want to understand what they feel like. You want to know so bad that you start to feel something just from that itself.

Ultimately, I think that's what Dexter is all about, a man trying to connect to others without really knowing how. He tries to connect with his girlfriend, his co-workers as well as his family and friends. Yet no matter how many times he fails he keeps trying, despite the fact that doing so is against his nature. The main reason he fails is because his natural instinct is to shy away from people and do his own thing. But he was taught to spend time with people and to at least appear like everyone else so that he can try to fit in. This creates a tragic battle within the main character that is often played out within the inner monologue/voice over of the episodes and seasons as a whole.

As the seasons progress, he learns how to manage between his nature and the way he was nurtured to embrace in life. Watching him try to live up to both perceptions of himself that he has while dealing with the people around him and keeping them from learning the truth can be both tragic and disturbing at the same time.

So is Dexter the ultimate nature versus nurture? I think it is.

To check out more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Quite a few TV shows recently have taken something of a soap opera approach to storytelling when it comes to creating their basis for their ideas. Most notably there are shows like Pretty Little Liars which focuses on the problems you run into while lying coupled with a murder mystery plot, Ringer which was about a twin who took over her sister's life to escape her own problems, and Switched at Birth, the story of two families who took home each other's daughters, only to discover the truth almost 16 years later.

This sets up an interesting twist on the concept of family and how it is defined in the modern world that you don't generally see in a lot of places outside the soap opera genre. How does one define family? Where does the connection between you and the family you were born into begin and where does it end? This idea is taken on in many different genres and stories but it often takes a backseat to the other themes within the shows. It seems to be a foregone conclusion by most storytellers these days that family is what you make it, not what you were born into.

And that's where this show is different. Switched at Birth takes the concept of how to define family and puts it front and centre. From the very beginning, the show focuses on the two young girls who were switched, Bay and Daphne, whose life has been turned upside down by the chance decision of Bay who questioned her place in her own family. After a DNA test reveals the truth about their birth, two families attempt to deal with how their lives are changed.

Everything stems from that one moment and the way in which they deal with the fallout. The families develop all sorts of insecurities and fears because of the new dynamic between all of them. Bay and Daphne start to question who they are and who they want to be and the friends they spend time with, but also who they would be if they hadn't been switched the way they were. Their parents, Katherine and John Kennish, and Regina Vasquez have to deal with each other and figure out a way to parent their respective children together without crossing any boundaries.

As things progress for the Kennish and Vasquez families, we are introduced to other friends and family members who have their own problems with members of the two families and this helps to broaden the characters and the way they deal with each other. That in and of itself would be enough for most television shows to sustain itself for several years, but Switched at Birth adds another dynamic to the mix which makes it fascinating for me and fans of the show. About half of the characters and some of the cast themselves are hearing impaired or deaf.

Watching the show then becomes even more interesting for someone like me as a writer, because so many of the scenes are told without any audio dialogue. It relies heavily on the actors to show the story and the character's stress in the moment rather than tell it. They do have subtitles for those of us without a working knowledge of sign language but rarely do they tone things down for people who can't read them as they go by. I'd also say that I have picked up a sign or two from watching it and I love that they have managed to do that for the hearing and hearing impaired alike. Ultimately they never lose sight of the truth of the show, which is the characters and the question they often ask themselves either figuratively or metaphorically.

Could you live with being Switched at Birth? I probably couldn't, but I love watching it play out on TV.

To check out more of my reviews, go here:

http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Back in 2009, one of the first films that I went to see at the Toronto International Film Festival was The Informant, starring Matt Damon and Scott Bakula. I had never really checked out a film festival before and so the experience itself was rather strange. It's interesting then that one of my first films at the festival was a pretty strange film itself. First and foremost is the fact that Matt Damon almost disappears into the role of Mark Whitacre as a bio-chemist at a middle-American corn producer known as ADM.

There are a number of actors who can't really move beyond their fame. Actors like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Robert DeNiro and Woody Harrelson are the kind of actors who I can only ever see as the actors they are and not the roles that they play. There are exceptions to that rule, for instance, Woody Harrelson in 'Defendor', Brad Pitt as Tyler Durden in 'Fight Club', and George Clooney as Everett McGill in 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' Matt Damon on the other hand can sometimes be a bit of a wild card in the roles that he takes. Roles like 'Dogma' or 'Ocean's 11', while incredible, are roles in which he seems to have been cast for the fact of his status as an actor whereas a role like Jason Bourne or Will Hunting, he finds a way to disappear into the role he is playing and you almost forget who he is.

I would put 'The informant' in the category of one where he disappears, the subtle way in which he portrays a nervous yet simple man who believes in doing the right thing despite his co-workers views of things and business practises is nothing short of brilliant. But the portrayal is not the only good thing about the film. As the story progresses, you start to realize that things are not entirely what they seem in the world Mark Whitacre inhabits. This begins a series of twists and turns to the plot that would normally be seen in a crime drama or a political thriller but feels right at home in this rather strange and quiet comedy.

Perhaps it's the fact that so many of the characters seem genuine and honest in the way they deal with the situation at hand, the question of price fixing in the international markets of corn, that makes some of the eventual betrayals so damning and difficult to watch yet so very funny at the same time. The film ultimately becomes one in which there is no clear bad guy in all of it. Not because people haven't done something wrong, but because you end up caring about the characters despite what they've done. None of the characters really seem underhanded or angry in what they do. Perhaps that's why when things start to go wrong you don't really see it coming.

So much about this movie is understated and unexpected. From the acting to the camera work and the storytelling, which I think is what makes it work so well. This isn't a movie about clear lines between right and wrong, or good versus bad. It's about people, and the way in which people go wrong in their pursuit of success.

Would you hire The Informant? I probably wouldn't, but I would definitely hire the people who made the film.

To check out more of my reviews, go here:

http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Documentaries are not something that I tend to go for traditionally, and it's not from lack of interest. I make a point to be informed about the world and the way people live. This is far from a perfect world and there are a lot of issues to deal with. When I want to do that I go for the news and talk/debate shows which analyze the details and give them context. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't depending on who is doing the analyzing but even from people I don't agree with I tend to learn something. But the fact that I stay informed doesn't necessarily mean I need to know everything about everything. In some cases I am just looking for entertainment, and that's often the case when I go to a film.

So a documentary usually has to have something really special with it to make get me in a theatre. On occasion though I get tired of the traditional way of getting information and I look for something new. When I got the chance to go to the Planet in Focus film festival recently, I got just such an opportunity. The first of such films that I got to see is called Lost Rivers. A film about the way we view water in our modern age and how that relationship is changing in recent years. Enter a group known as The Drainers, more a collection groups with a similar name that have sprung up to explore the nature of water in urban areas and how we can help solve some of the problems we have with it. They do it by exploring rivers that have disappeared from view in most major cities because the population around it has changed.

And this is where the film kind of loses me a bit. It's true that this is an important issue and people should know about it but doing that requires a certain amount of heart string pulling that seems somewhat lacking in the film. Narrative films and documentaries are different beasts to be sure. One is the invention of emotional and physical stakes and the other is a portrayal of a real world situation. But if you look at the best of both you see some basic similarities. Usually there's a specific focus to the film, which in narrative films refers to a main character, and there is almost always an antagonist of some kind with which to contrast the focus of the film.

Somewhat ironically, Lost Rivers is missing that contrast. Of the three major focuses in the film, none of them come up against any serious constraints to their journey. Quite the opposite is the case with one in that they went from outlaws breaking city laws to an officially recognized group before the film even started. Another group being followed seems to avoid conflict in the film because the contrast is never actually seen, just referred to. Now I am not saying that all documentary films necessarily require contrast or conflict in order to move it forward, but as an audience member I just didn't feel emotionally connected to the characters because things don't necessarily happen to any of them.

We follow them and learn about them and the issue they have but we don't really care about them in any serious way. I can think of only one point in which I was really emotionally invested in the film and it was created by two people who were not the focus of the film in a strange detour into random people. To me, that's a problem whether you're doing a narrative or documentary film and it's one that Lost Rivers doesn't really overcome.

Where do we find our Lost Rivers? They are all around us, we just have to have the courage to go and look.

To check out more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

"Life is a struggle that no one actually survives." It's a difficult thing to do, figure out how to cope with the world around you and the problems you encounter. Things are hard, they take work and even then there aren't really any guarantees you'll achieve anything. Is it any wonder that people go a little crazy? How crazy can things get though? Perhaps what's crazy is the world around us, or even the people in it. No matter what it is some people can't cope, or they don't cope very well. At the core of Silver Lining Playbook is the question of what do you do then. How do you deal with a world that makes you crazy? The story centres around Pat, a guy recently released from a mental institution after a traumatic incident sent him over the edge with a condition he didn't know he had. Now living with his parents, he struggles to figure out how to move forward when in some ways he is still very much stuck in the life he left behind. With no job, no prospects and a town full of people who know what happened to him, he tries to find some aspect of his life to hold onto while managing his condition. What he ends up holding onto is his wife. Very much out of his life since the incident, Pat becomes focused on the idea of getting his wife back despite the reality that he isn't allowed to communicate with her.

Sufficed to say this proves to be more difficult then it seems to him and he begins looking for a work around to this problem through his very supportive friends and family. There's only one problem, his friends and family aren't the benchmarks for normality either. And this becomes the perfect mix for a family rom-com with an interesting twist on it. It's long been a staple of the romantic comedy genre to question the idea of normal. Stories from the 80s and 90s were big on this kind of theme, particularly in the realm of the high school drama version of a romantic comedy. Since then many stories have tried to establish what normal is, or at least what we want normal to be with some success here and there.

For Silver Linings Playbook however, normal is in fact the abnormal. Most of the characters have some strange way of dealing with the world. But in particular what makes it all work is the quirky way in which Pat, as played by Bradley Cooper, lives in the world. He is very honest and direct with people about what he sees or feels yet he does it with a kind of charm and openness about himself that it's hard to feel insulted by him. Topped off by the fact that he has learned to try and look for the silver lining in even the most horrible things.

What's interesting is that because of the unusual nature of the characters, I was never quite sure where they will end up. Romantic comedies have a tendency to go in certain ways. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. More recently they've tended to get a little ridiculous with their story lines. This film feels neither ridiculous nor cheap. It goes for the emotionally honest moments and with Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro, Chris Tucker and Bradley Cooper in the roles they manage to hit them pretty well.

Can you find the Silver Lining in your life? I can honestly say that this movie is something of a silver lining in my life right now.

To check out more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

I consider myself a fan of most things in pop culture these days. I own comic books, I've written fan fiction, I am an avid attendee of local fan conventions in the city. By the standards of most people, I would be at least a little outside of normal. In being viewed that way though, I tend to get lumped in with the crowd who go to these things and wear strange costumes. Those big elaborate things that people wear and get looked at strangely for. Even in today's society where the content these costumes are based on get made into huge blockbuster films that make millions, sometimes billions of dollars, they still make people uncomfortable and are seen as outside of what normal people do. It bothers me on occasion to be lumped in with them because I don't do that kind of thing but I realize that feeling that way is just another form of societal pressures to conform. People don't like the idea of conformity. It's been a growing trend in society since at least the 50s if not before. However even I can't imagine myself going out and LARPing. It just seems kind of weird to me.

Being part of what is referred to as fan culture, I am generally more up on the trends and ideas that the culture produces. I heard about LARPing several years back whereas I am sure there are some who still haven't heard of it today. It's the act of getting together with a group of people in costumes and fake non-lethal weapons and acting out fantasy scenarios in real time. Now when I say fantasy scenarios, I am not referring to the traditional view which suggests most people would go out and do something sexual or violent to another person, although that does sometimes come into it depending on the rules of the game being played. I'm talking about fantasies involving goblins and ghosts and other powerful beings that you read about in books like Lord of the Rings. Where most people just imagine the scenarios in their heads to enjoy the fantasy, these people actually go out and do it. Part of me can understand doing that. As part of the culture I've seen it, looked into it and had a general fascination with it, but I have never felt the need to try it.

Perhaps it's because I prefer to put my imagination into creating my own worlds through my writing rather than living out my fantasies through someone else's. Whether you understand it or not though, I think that Monster Camp is a movie worth watching. This type of thing is becoming more common, and with so much of the population growing into a culture like this, it's better to be in the know then weirded out. If you've never heard of it, see it and find out what makes these people tick. If you know about it or are part of it, see it as it's in a lot of ways a validation of the culture and the hobby as part of life. The filmmakers really take a step back and try to show you the world and at times explain it, rather than tell you how you should or shouldn't feel about it. It's definitely a film worth watching.

To check out more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Music is a huge part of people's lives. I don't think I know anyone who couldn't name some song they love or that inspired them in some way. You just have to look at the popularity of the iPod and other music platforms to see just how important it is to most people. And then there are those people who become so inspired by music that they decide to get into it professionally. Spending hours, days and years at a time learning an instrument of some kind or training their voice to do what most people would kill to be able to do as well as they do. Some even do both.

In some ways I know exactly how that feels. When I was younger I studied piano and found that I had a natural talent for it. Where my siblings would spend every day working and trying to get the practise music right, I would sit down with the instructor and somehow be better than I was last week without really trying. As the years went on and things got tighter though, I found that my passion for music was overshadowed by my passion for writing, a talent that requires its own version of rhythm and flow which I found to be something of a challenge to figure out. I still find it something of a challenge. I couldn't see myself going through the struggle of booking stage performances and attracting people to come and see me play.

Though I have a lot of respect for those that do put in the time and effort to put themselves front and centre the way many musicians do in the music scene. So when I had the opportunity to see a documentary about an 80 year old Toronto area musician named Hugh Oliver who has spent his entire life trying to make it in the industry, the words "impressed" seem somewhat lacking to express things. It's a tragic reality of any type of creative industry that people spend years of their lives trying to rise to the top of the industry, or at least get themselves noticed. Hugh Oliver has spent more than most and so the idea of a documentary about him seems like a natural fit.

You would think that a documentary about and elderly citizen of our fair country would be a problem to watch. It's not. He has had quite the journey and this has been set against the backdrop of him finally getting the opportunity to record an album. That along with animated snippets of his narrated poetry and songs which talk about things that are not your typical subjects (his songs about Facebook and Harry Potter are particularly enjoyable) will definitely make you smile.

Ultimately, this film is about perseverance and the desire to succeed. Something that Hugh Oliver has in spades. You wouldn't know it from the way he talks about himself and other subjects throughout the film but anyone who has even made a passing attempt to succeed, whether in a creative industry or not, will recognize the focus and drive that they have felt in this man. Anyone who has ever had to question their dream of making it in a creative industry will see a reason to keep going. If Hugh can spend a half century of his life chasing a dream, anyone else has no excuse.

Not that this is the message of the film, but I certainly feel that way after having seen it.

To check out more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

I have had the privilege recently to see quite a few examples of great acting in my pursuit of content to review for my blog, but I think one of the best so far has to be the performance of Ryan Gosling as the socially inept Lars Lindstrom in the strangely honest Lars and the Real Girl. Traditionally, when a person talks to an inanimate object like a life-size doll in film or television it tends to be the very strange or often disturbed sociopaths who are portrayed on screen doing it. In many ways Lars and the Real Girl attempts to challenge our ideas of what normal is and how we should deal with it and it's done really well.

Probably the only aspect of this film that disturbed me in any serious way was the fact that I could see much of myself in the main character up until about 15 minutes into the movie. The best way to describe the character of Lars is as a functional recluse in that he has a job, he has friends, but by in large he keeps to himself and spends a lot of time alone. It's completely understandable by the time the 'real girl' shows up why he felt the need to buy one. For obvious reasons, people are very much concerned about him when he starts taking the mannequin out places with him as if they were a real person, but what quickly becomes apparent in the film is that this is not a 'sex doll' for Lars.

He doesn't use it for what most people would assume. To him, this is a real person with a whole life, back story and personality. Now one might assume that something like that would come off as weird and somewhat off putting. Ryan Gosling however manages to make it work. He doesn't overplay the interaction between him and the doll he refers to as Bianca. He doesn't come off as psychotic or having broken entirely with reality. In most cases, Lars Lindstrom comes off like a man in love with a real woman. You might even be able to say that the doll is as much a character in the film as any of the actors who worked with it.

Yes, I know that sounds really strange, but I recently had someone tell me that after seeing the movie they actually got emotional about the doll. To avoid spoilers I will refrain from saying what emotion that was, however if that isn't a testament to the acting ability of the people involved, then I don't know what is. A film like this tends to get sidelined from a wider audience because of the content or controversy it might create, and that can be a real shame. But one of the benefits of the online market place and DVD/Bluray is that those who go looking for it can find it.

Actors should definitely go looking for this film. You've heard the term "Can't act their way out of a paper bag"? The actors in this film acted their way out of a difficult situation with this film. Lesser actors and filmmakers would have made this story about a creepy man who develops a strange relationship with a weird fetish. But they proved that you don't always have to go there with stories to get attention. You don't always have to be the guy in the corner who doesn't know what to do. Sometimes you can find a way to make it out of your problems and transform yourself into a better person. Even if the way you have to do it is with a life size mannequin you treat like a real person.

So which one is more real? Lars or the Read Girl? I honestly don't know, but the question itself is great to watch.

To check out more of my reviews, go here:

http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Canada is a funny country, and when I say that I don't just mean that we have all the best comedians, because we do, but we're funny in a lot of different ways. We tend to keep a low profile on the world stage and then gripe that we don't get enough attention. We like when our citizens become successful in Hollywood or other places in the world but don't like it that they can't get famous here in Canada. Most of all we make tend to make region specific movies and then take issue with the fact that no one outside our region wants to watch them. It's an interesting contradiction we live with and if you really think about it, it's pretty funny.

We are getting better at it though, in recent years I have seen a number of Canadian films that are smarter, more relatable and better generally for a wider audience than just Canadians. In some cases we're a little ways off, in other ways we are way off. One of the films that tried to move us in the right direction is Bon Cop/Bad Cop. A film that's set and focused on Canadian culture, but with a distinctly more Hollywood feel. Buddy cop movies have been something of a lost art lately. There are all kinds of cop movies and TV shows out nowadays but buddy cops had their heyday in the 70s and 80s and haven't really recovered.

In some ways Bon Cop/Bad Cop is a throwback to those types of films but with more modern technology and special effects. Where I think that the film has issues is that it relies too heavily on Canadian stereotypes. The ones we have about ourselves like the French/English divide, with some truth to it but a lot of fiction. As well as more international stereotypes like an obsession with hockey and kindness. I have never been a big fan of playing to stereotypes, I prefer commentaries to out and out parody or exploiting stereotypes, at least as a general rule. Things like Bob and Doug and Austin Powers are good in small doses but they can go too far if money gets involved.

Bon Cop/Bad Cop keeps things from going too far, but it also doesn't go far enough for a one shot movie like this. Austin Powers worked because it pushed the envelope in the comedy department but had enough held back for an extra couple of rounds. This movie doesn't go far enough for a single one much less several, not that they were planning on more but then not going far enough doesn't really make sense. It has a lot of good elements that make it fun to watch but it ultimately falls short of any serious message except that Canadian filmmakers don't have to act like Canadian filmmakers.

Bon Cop/Bad Cop: What makes a good Canadian movie? I haven't quite figured that out yet but I don't think this movie has it.

To check out my other reviews, go here:

http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Every writer has a story. Something that brought them to who they are and what they do. Sometimes they are really cool stories, and sometimes they are not. Other times they are stories that a writer has been so affected by that they just don't talk about it all that much. Never the less it is a story and it is the backbone of what makes them writers. It tends to inform the stories they tell and how they tell it. In some ways you have to have one in order to be a writer. My experience has been that if you don't, your stories don't tend to be that interesting. They come off flat and not really worth the time to read, which is not to say that you can't find a good story to tell if you work hard enough. Writing just tends to come easier if you have a story that you really need to tell. The story flows better and emotionally connects with people reading it. At least that's been my experience given my own history as a writer.

Anne Perry is a writer with a story to tell. Interestingly enough though, she seems to avoid talking about it with any great detail. You can find details if you are interested and they are put forward in the documentary about her, but it's a difficult topic to hear about. Once you do though, you can completely understand why it might be hard to say much about it. A writer internalizes most of their problems and emotions. That is why they tend to write such great stories, because what they won't say to a person, they will say in the words on the page. It can be buried under a lot of the things the stories they are telling need in order to make it interesting for the reader, but they are there if you look hard enough. For Anne Perry it seems that finding that involves reading into the opposite of what she writes about. She is searching for something deep and meaningful in her life, and many of her characters apparently reflect that reality but the reason for their search is the real prize of understand her.

Ultimately, writing is a long and difficult process for everyone. Even for someone who has written 40 books it takes time to make it feel and sound right for the people who might one day read it. This movie is a long and drawn out process but the pay off, for lack of a better way to describe it, is well worth the time and effort to get through it. Anne Perry - Interiors is a film worth watching for any writer who has ever felt frustrated sitting at a table staring at a blank page or computer screen. For anyone else, it's a deep inside look at where the urge to write tends to come from and will give you a deeper understanding of the life of a writer.

To check out more of my reviews, go here:

http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Big business is a bogeyman in today's world. When the subject of corporations and wealth come up, things often turn to talking about lies, greed an grabbing power. So it's no surprise that these ideas are front and centre in House of Lies. But where a lot of shows would explore the consequences of a life built on lies and deception, this show attempts to see the benefits. In a world of full of liars, the best liar is the one who succeeds. Enter Marty Kahn, played by the great Don Cheadle, a management consultant who is second to none at the game they play. He can sell anything to anyone on a bad day. On a good day he can talk them out of house and home and make them think it was their idea.

It's often said that with any new business or industry that there are bound to be spin off industries looking to take advantage of the relatively uncertainty that comes along with establishing it. With the multi-million or billion dollar conglomerate it seems, management consultancy is that spin off. A business built upon coming in and telling a massive organization how to be more efficient at high costs. And there in lies the fun of the show. Marty Kahn and his team of consultants are masters of manipulating businesses.

You might say that it is one of the best examples of shows which fight back for the anger and resentment towards corporate greed and power. In the same way that Arrow and other shows in recent years have been like rallying calls reflecting society's perspective, House of Lies shows that even within the system itself there are people who look for ways to screw the big boys out of their money.

Adding to this modern story is the phenomenal talent of the previously mentioned Don Cheadle, the fantastic Kristen Bell as Jeannie Van Der Hooven, the incredible Dawn Olivieri as Marty's psychotic ex wife Monica Talbot ultimately rounded out by what can only be described as the comedy duo of Ben Schwartz and Josh Lawson as Clyde Oberholt and Doug Guggenheim. They are today's unsung heroes, the wish-fulfilment of the audience in a world where things just don't tend to go their way. And it's a joy to watch them work. Set from the personal perspective of Marty Kahn as he struggles to balance work, home and his relationships we still never lose sight of the lives of the people around him and their own struggles.

Can you find truth in the House of Lies? Absolutely, especially when a lot of those lies also happen to be the truth. If you haven't seen this show, then you're lying to yourself if you say you don't need to.

To check out more of my reviews, go here:

http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

High school films are the kind of thing that I tend to be in to. I'm not entirely sure where that comes from, I didn't have the best high school experience and that probably has something to do with it. I must like watching people navigate through the experience with what is often more complicated a time then I had. All the drama on screen makes my own seem less terrible. But at a certain point you have to realize that these on screen experiences are just actors playing a role and what ends up being watchable is not necessarily reality. Still, there's an element of comfort in it and that can't be discounted. More than likely because good drama is usually based on some element of truth. In that way the emotional elements take on a universal feel that everyone can relate to for anyone who has gone through the experience of the last 50 years of education where the modern high school experience originated in Western cultures.

Circumstances and technology will change over time, but high school is always just... well... high school. No one likes it, and if you ask some people no one ever really leaves it as you can look at the world and see elements of it in every day life. While watching Echoes of Innocence, I get the impression that the circumstances of today's high school student seems to be ideology. What is belief's place in the high school experience of today? Is there a place for religion and faith in the modern public system? Most people would be turned off by such an idea, but those questions in a lot of ways are more like themes to the film that are creeping around the sides of the film's main plot, much like the background scenery of the visuals or the setting of high school itself. The real story is driven by the character of Sara, a young girl who feels out of place and somewhat ostracized from her classmates. Reasons why are pretty clearly defined through a series of flashbacks which lay out who she is and why she acts the way she does. That coupled with a number of voice overs from Sara herself make her the most interesting character of the bunch, which include her best friend who is both supportive and critical, various classmates who are both put off and intrigued by her, and the new kid in school who joined the local paper and wants to do a story about Sara.

They all play a part in Sara's story but the characters themselves don't necessarily get clearly defined. More often then not they are inserted into Sara's story when necessary to give her someone to interact with. Her own journey is very much a solitary one, defined by her own actions and her own ideas about the world and what she wants from it rather then how she relates to others. This drags down the story somewhat but Sara's progression is defined clearly enough that she manages power through the weak bits. It gives her story the necessary elements not to be bored by it. Obvious parallels to Biblical elements are present but the filmmakers clearly pulled back enough so as not to come off like a preachy film. I'm honestly not sure whether that causes a problem for the film or whether it helps. I suppose it's 50/50 in that department. Still, I think the film is worth watching for anyone who wants to look back and remember the way they saw the world when they were that age. Perhaps give you a new perspective on the vision you have of the world today. I say check it out.

To check out more of my reviews, go here:

http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Found footage films were never really my thing. It never made sense to me why someone would want to watch a shaky camera going around doing every day things. I know traditionally that's not all there is to it. I saw Blair Witch and I know about Cloverfield and things like that but that doesn't make it interesting. In fact, more often then not I intentionally avoid any film that looks even close to something like that. The last found footage type film that I remember being interested in seeing is Chronicle, and I still haven't actually watched it. But like most things, if a film is done right it's worth seeing no matter how it's done. The problem is that many people use the format as a gimmick because there's an audience for it instead of putting the work into actually using it for a purpose.

When I was watching Best Day Ever, I got that sinking feeling that it was being used as a gimmick rather than using it properly. I think the film differs from other found footage type films is that it presents itself like a film that really was shot by teenagers. That can be both a good thing and a bad thing. Mainly because at the very moment they should be doing something to grab my interest, the beginning, they don't really do anything. You end up watching as these kids sit around thinking of what to do instead of actually doing something. And that took me out of the film a bit, making the ensuing things they did less fun and the characters seem less interesting. Sticking with the film though, it earns some of that interest back as the day progresses and things actually start happening. Even then however what's key to really getting people interested is the dialogue, which while somewhat realistic for effect, again causes problems for my attention span.

I will say this though, by the end of the film I was invested in the characters enough that I actually cared what happened to them and how they dealt with the conclusion of what was set up. Kudos should go to the actors for giving enough to make the audience (or me anyway) care. That counts for a lot in my book. As I said, I am not one for found footage movies so maybe this is the standard and I just don't get it. If you're a fan of found footage films I imagine you would like this very much. If you are like me and you aren't really a fan, I will say that I did like it enough to watch it all the way through so you won't hate it by any stretch. I say see it.

To check out more of my reviews, go here:

http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Funny thing, I actually don't remember where I was when the announcement was made. I remember hearing the news, and the emotions that came along with it. It was after all one of the biggest events of the 21st century, overshadowed only the World Trade Center attack of September 11th, 2001. You might even say that this was a defining moment of my generation. A watershed moment that was 10 years in the making that could end up defining how we govern and/or deal with the world when our time comes. And it is coming soon. Yet as I was watching the movie detailing how it happened, I was struck by the thought that I couldn't recall the moment I had heard.

There has been a lot of talk about the film and controversy surrounding it, most notably regarding the torture and detainment of prisoners as a way of finding him and the representation of it in the film. I have to say, that the scenes in the film were hard to watch. Anyone who can watch this type of thing and not cringe should be examined by a psychiatrist. Which is not to say necessarily that the scenes were overly gory or violent. By the standards of some films out there in the torture porn genre, these scenes are pretty tame. They don't really push the envelope in any serious way of cinema.

I would say that the reason why there is so much controversy around this film is because we know that where in most films the characters being tortured or killed are entirely fictional. Given that this is based on a true story, it is harder to imagine that these people aren't real. It is more than possible that the characters in these films really existed. Their names and physical attributes might be different but there really could be someone out there in the world who was on the receiving end of this type of treatment, and that rubs people the wrong way. Very much rightfully so in fact.

Despite that though, I think that the scenes are necessary exactly for that reason. As much as Seal Team 6 should be commended for what they did, the people who were hurt along the way deserve to be allowed their place in history. As disturbing as it might be and uncomfortable as it is to watch they played a part in what happened and the ultimate result. If we are going to be outraged at the prospect of torture let's make sure we actually understand what it is that means. A lot of people in the Western world talk about having standards and only doing things which are morally right but they don't really understand the true extent to which people go through.

More to the point, if it was used in the process of finding and killing Bin Laden then let's not sugar coat things and gloss over it. Put it out there where people can see it and decide for themselves. Let's present ourselves as who we are rather than who we want to be. I may not like torture being used and I certainly wouldn't want it used on myself, but I don't presume to be morally righteous about whether we should use it or not. I'll leave that up to the people in a position to decide whether to use it. Voicing my opinion is one thing, but I will neither condemn or support those who I voice it to. Nor will I do that to Kathryn Bigelow for putting it in her movie.

Where were you at Zero Dark Thirty? I may not remember where I was, but this movie should be remembered and for more than just the torture being used.

To check out more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

People have a lot of ideas about what's right and wrong. There are just some things you shouldn't do, or talk about, or acknowledge as part of people's lives. Even those things which people know everyone is doing anyway. Of course this tends to vary between people, depending on their upbringing and personal history. It also differs between men and women generally. What's right for some people isn't always right for other people. But you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't agree that they had something they didn't talk about. You might not be able to get them to admit what those things are, but the fact that they won't tells you something anyway.

One of the most common things people have trouble talking about though, is sex. Recent years have changed a lot of the conventions about sex, but there are still a lot of hang-ups that people have. These ideas even exist in the porn industry. You may be able to see just about anything you could want on the internet these days, however if you take a good enough look you'll notice that certain people don't do certain things. In an industry based upon satisfying the urges and desires of a population no matter what it might be, there is a sense of respectability based on what you do and what you won't. Doing one of these "wrong things" is at the heart of the film "Shame".

Starring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan, they explore the concept of shame from the perspective of a man who doesn't appear to have any. Fassbender plays Brandon, a man with a good job, a decent social life, and no real problems with women. At least that's the way it appears on the surface. Upon deeper analysis, very much explored in the film, we see that his life might be financially and socially fulfilled, he clearly has a hole in his life that just isn't being filled. Despite everything that he has and his ability to pick up chicks, Brandon can't make a lasting emotional connection to his family, friends or any of the women he gets involved with, to the point that it's almost psychologically damaging to his ability to perform.

Enter Sissy played by Carey Mulligan, his sister and a woman equally looking for connection that she can't seem to find. Where Brandon has taken to an emotionally distant approach to people, preferring to keep them at a distance, Sissy appears to have taken the opposite view of dealing with her problems. She throws herself completely into a relationship, emotionally and physically, leaving her devastated when it inevitably falls apart. A tragic reality that seems to leave no way out.

There are people in this world who actually live this way, going from relationship to relationship searching for meaning in someone other than themselves. Or in some cases even avoiding relationships all together and looking for meaning beyond simple relationships. They even get portrayed on film from time to time, often though they end up becoming the quirky and cute character that eventually overcomes it or learns to find it all despite their way of life. Not true of a film like Shame. The director and actors take a more honest and realistic approach to people who live this way and it shows in the way the film plays out.

Just how much Shame should you feel? It's unlikely that anyone watching this movie won't feel at least somewhat disturbed by it in some way, but sometimes people need to be reminded of the parts of life we don't tend to talk about that much. And this movie will definitely do that.

For more of my reviews, check them out here:

http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

"Four score and seven years ago..." Famous words, some of the most famous words that have ever been spoken in human history. Spoken by a famous man with so many words in the history books. So much of what Abraham Lincoln did has ended up in the history books and yet very few ever really know him. They don't really understand what he did and how he did it. Figures in history often have that problem. We spend hours upon hours trying to figure them out and putting them in a modern context. What would they think of what we are doing today? How would they feel? What advice would they give to us about today's problems? Rarely though do we ever look at what they actually went through in their own time. The hardship and the struggle of every day life giving us the structure of what exists today.

Which is not to say that the details aren't out there. Volumes upon volumes of text books are dedicated to these people and the lives that they led but we are always discovering new things about them. And that's because the context, both historical and emotional, can only really be understood with that often get lost over time as history moves forward. That is until the invention of film. With film, meant in broader cinematic terms rather than the physical medium, we can attempt to capture the reality of the struggle in a new and exciting way. Not to mention with technology and techniques being what they are today, the process of capturing it can be even more accurate and honest then ever before.

As a result, we have a film like Lincoln. Directed by Steven Spielberg someone that many might consider a historical figure of the modern age, and starring Daniel Day Lewis, an actor who is on his way to becoming one of the best of the modern age if he isn't already. Through attention to detail and command performances by all involved, Lincoln paints a beautiful portrait of one of the most incredible and well known men in history. What makes the film even more remarkable is the fact that littered within the film are great lessons for the modern day. A nation divided by political and economic differences shows that little has changed in the past 100+ years and yet everything has changed.

How did Lincoln do it? Even in seeing this film I'm not entirely sure because I am left with a sense of awe at the fact that he was able to accomplish anything at all. I am left with this same sense of awe after seeing this film. For all the ways in which Spielberg could have approached this film, he chose the most difficult way and yet the most relevant to modern times. Kudos to him for that.

To check out more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Nicholas Cage gets a bad wrap as an actor. Ever since films like The Wicker Man and National Treasure, not to mention Ghost Rider, he has been seen as something of a joke as an actor by a lot of people. Most assume that he just can't hack it as a box office draw anymore and that becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy because they don't go and see his movies and the box office bombs. But he's had some great movies too, like Adaptation and Kick-Ass. One of my favourite movies of his to watch though is The Family Man. I make a point to watch it every Christmas. Of all the movies and TV that I watch and rewatch over the year, I save this one as part of a group I save for Christmas.

Why? Because it's a great Christmas movie. Much like Scrooged and A Muppet's Christmas Carol which are also in the special Christmas group, it follows in the tradition of the Charles Dickens' classic of a man who seems to have everything and is given a glimpse at what he doesn't. But what sets this film apart and why it's on my list of once a year Christmas movies is that there is an element of It's A Wonderful Life to the film as well, brought to you by the semi-angelic character of Cash played by Don Cheadle. A simple act of kindness from Wall Street mogul Jack Campbell gives him the chance at a glimpse into what life would have been like if he had made different choices.

And so he's thrust into a world he doesn't understand and a life he doesn't want, forced to figure out a life he doesn't really understand, he slowly starts to wonder if everything that's good in life can really be solved with money. Tea Leoni also stars as the one that got away turned wife and mother and proves why it's a shame that she isn't given the chance to really shine more often. Much like Meg Ryan she's been less visible in recent years. She makes being a wife and mother seem both realistic and sexy, something that's traditionally very hard to do in an industry that caters to the young and available.

Where does The Family Man fit? For a film released in the year 2000, I think it should make its way into the classics like the films it appears to be based on.

For more of my reviews, check them out here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

The thing about the first Star Trek movie, as made by J.J. Abrams, was that it had some big shoes to fill. Star Trek's legacy has lasted nearly 50 years. From it's very beginnings in the 1960s and the constant threat of near cancellation, through 4 consecutive spinoffs, 3 of which lasted 7 years in length. It already had 6 movies with the original cast and 4 with the Next Generation cast. Not to mention all the various video games, books and other content that's out there for people to absorb. Big shoes to fill might be a massive understatement given the circumstances.

Yet J.J. Abrams managed to succeed in giving old and new fans exactly what they want. A film that both respects the legacy of the previous shows, not to mention the one it's based on, and still manages to bring something to it that doesn't require new fans to understand everything about the previous version to enjoy it. J.J. Abrams has often said about the new Star Trek movies that he wanted to bring a sense of Star Wars to the Star Trek universe (a statement that some consider controversial, particularly now that he has been hired to helm the new Star Wars movies) and I think he succeeded on a certain level while maintaining what was great about Star Trek.

Personally, I've always been more of a Star Trek fan then a Star Wars fan. I enjoyed both but what attracted me to Star Trek was the sense of morality that was inherent to the way the shows worked. In the 60s, Star Trek was most often about the morality of race relations and the sense of threat that nuclear weapons posed in the face of the Cold War. With Star Trek: TNG, it focused a lot on the post-Cold War mentality, with DS9 there was talk of religious conflict and uncertainty, Voyager was most often about maintaining ideals without the structure to keep them in place, and Enterprise was about where that type of morality begins.

The first J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie never really had that moral compass behind it that I recall. I watched it again recently and I wasn't able to figure that part of it out. Thankfully, Star Trek Into Darkness didn't have that problem. It had a clear message of morality to it that was the beating heart of the story. Much like the first one however, it kept that sense of adventure and simplicity to it that made the first one a joy to watch regardless of the level of knowledge you have about the characters and the history that it comes from. It also manages to maintain a sense of humor about itself and that history which long time fans will absolutely love.

Particularly when it comes to one aspect of the story which I will not ruin for you and maintain your reason for going to see it if you're a long time Star Trek fan. Suffice to say there are expectations that people have about this film no matter what your level of interest in Star Trek is which are both met and in my opinion exceeded. For the second time J.J. Abrams has created a film that is funny, smart, action packed and emotionally honest. He understands the audience he's catering to and he's not afraid to give them what they want, but he's also not afraid to do the unexpected. He flips some expectations on their head and within the context of the story he's telling it's the best thing he could do.

I was concerned that given the title that they were going to take the story into a dark place and shift things to a place where the things I liked about Star Trek don't really apply. With the exception of a noticeable reduction in lens flairs, they haven't done it and thank god for that. There's a reason why J.J. Abrams is one of the hottest directors in Hollywood right now and Star Trek Into Darkness is proof of exactly why.

How far into Darkness can they go? Just the right amount to give us a great film that's a worthy addition to the Star Trek legacy.

To check out more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

Any decent film franchise will try to recover from a failure if the potential upside outweighs the downfall. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Like most people, I wasn't a big fan of Iron Man 2. It had its moments and some great characters, most notably Scarlett Johansson in a skin tight suit kicking butt and taking names. Not to mention any movie that involves Samuel L. Jackson always gets a bump in credibility with me. That man can read the phone book and make it fascinating. Oh, and did I mention Scarlett Johansson in a skin tight suit? Even that can't save a badly told story from a weak script. As a friend recently told me, a good story can make people forgive bad production value but the reverse isn't necessarily true.

Thankfully, Iron Man 3 has a good story and good production value. Whereas Iron Man 2 was more wrapped up in setting the scene for The Avengers and the preceding Captain America and Thor movies, this movie is about the aftermath. How does Tony Stark live with what he's seen and done? What does a scientist do when his perception of the world has been shattered and he realizes that the world is much bigger and more deadly then he could have imagined? Can a hero even operate under that kind of environment? That's the reality that Tony Stark is living with at the beginning of the film and the theme of the whole movie.

It's a powerful theme and something that's pretty common in the superhero film genre, particularly in today's world. Doing it well and in a fresh way takes a lot of planning and a good foundation. The best part about adapting a comic book character with as many years behind it as Iron Man, you have a lot to draw from. Particularly when your audience may not be as familiar with the character's history as most hardcore fans. The first film raised the profile of the character but I'm guessing that the fans of the first two films didn't go out and read all the best comics of the character. I can count myself among such fans.

Still, I know enough to know what makes a good superhero film for the bigger fans. This film has a lot of those elements but doesn't require you to go out and read through every comic book to understand the context. It also refocuses the story on the main character, something sorely lacking in a film that has such a self-centred hero. In the end though, I think most people will be very happy with the latest instalment of the Iron Man franchise. It's smart, funny and has a lot to say about the world we live in. The way a great movie of this type of film genre should do things. Even better is the fact that we know that this franchise is far from over. They have Thor and Captain America 2 coming out and while the film doesn't appear to set up anything for them, it does leave you with room to do another chapter if the folks at Marvel want to.

And with the success they have been having lately they most certainly will. Unlike other film trilogies, the character's story isn't entirely wrapped up but many elements which have been carried over through the three films do get a resolution of sorts.

Is the 3rd time the charm for Iron Man? I was definitely charmed by it and I look forward to seeing more from the character and the Marvel Universe.

For more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/

We all have questions about things. About our past, our future and how the things we do affect our lives and the people around us. But most of all we wonder if we had made different choices would our lives be different? Could we live in a world in which we could do that? These types of ideas are so often considered by time travel stories. After all, it is the perfect medium to explore such an idea as that kind of ability remains beyond our reach. Dramas too have it in them to talk about the consequences of actions and how we deal with the world. To combine the sci-fi and the drama then can often be one of the best ways of telling a story.

Another Earth is one such story. It's one of those smaller, independent films that got a bit of traction but never managed to materialize as a strong contender in its theatrical release. I think it's because of the sci-fi element that it had more trouble then it probably should have. Despite the emergence of fan culture in recent years and a vested interest in sci-fi fantasy as a more respected form of entertainment, largely thanks to recent portrayals of superheroes in big blockbuster films coming out of Hollywood studios, sci-fi fantasy is still generally looked down upon in the filmmaking community. Unless it comes out of Hollywood, or sometimes despite that fact, it's seen as popular with a specific group of people but not respectable with a larger audience.

What's interesting about Another Earth is that it in some ways attempts not to be a sci-fi film despite the basic premise of it. The story follows a young girl who makes an unfortunate mistake in her youth and struggles to come to terms with how she can live with herself afterwards. That in and of itself is a story worth its weight in gold if told properly in the independent film community. However where it most likely loses a lot of people is the fact that it's set against the backdrop of a world where another earth has been discovered in space near our own. Even though the concept of the film isn't hindered in any way by the idea of another earth and in many ways is not central to the story, I think it keeps people from considering a really great film.

Yes, the film did fairly well at the box office for what it did. With a budget of $200,000 the film made $1 million plus, but when I talk to non-filmmakers about it they haven't really heard of it, and in some cases even filmmakers have no idea what I am talking about. I even failed to see it in theatres even though I heard about it months ahead of time and had planned on it since the beginning. And that's a real shame, because having finally found a copy of it on Blu-ray, I can say that it was well worth the money I paid for it.

The story is simply told and the characters are pretty solid despite the fact that you don't really get to know much about them. What sells it is the fact that the two main characters are very much focused on a single event, an event which we witness in the film so we understand exactly where each of them is coming from and why they do the things they do.

I actually had an idea that was somewhat similar to this in that it was a sci-fi fantasy story which centred around a single event or idea but I wasn't certain it would work. After watching this film, I can honestly say my opinion has changed and I am going to have to take a crack at it.

If you had the chance, would you go to Another Earth? I think I'll leave the bigger question up to you, but maybe this film will help you make up your mind.

To check out more of my reviews, go here: http://andrew-heard.blogspot.ca/