If I had to sum up what most stories are about in one word, it would be “underdogs.” Ultimately we go to the movies for a chance to see the unlikely succeed, as this is a fantasy rarely realized in real life. As far as real life underdogs go, they don’t get much lower than the Canadian feature film. This is why anytime one manages to get financed, completed and then actually distributed, those of us concerned with this kind of thing watch with trepidation because we know that a Canadian film getting a second week in theatres is like an amateur boxer making it to round two against the champ. This makes Moon Point an underdog story in every sense, and while it struggles in places, it ultimately succeeds, at least on the fluffy entertainment level.

Our protagonist is Darryl, a 23 year-old underachiever with the meanest family on earth. Determined to prove he can get a date for his cousin’s wedding, Darryl sees a call for extras in a B-horror film starring his childhood crush as a chance at redemption. To do this he has to travel several towns over to a place called Moon Point, and with no other mode of transportation, Darryl literally hitches his wagon to his only friend’s electric wheelchair.  Perhaps my favourite aspect of this film is the idea of it being about the world’s slowest road trip, as it takes them days to cover what somebody with a car could have done in a couple hours. They quickly acquire the damsel in distress from the side of the road whom we know will ultimately come between them at some point.

While these three fresh faces do an acceptable job throughout the film, particularly Nick McKinlay in the lead, it’s the crazies they meet along the way that provide most of the laughs. The supporting cast is made up of an ensemble of Canadian talent whose names you likely wouldn’t recognize, (Art Hindle, Jayne Eastwood, Linda Kash, Laurie Elliott, Jessica Holmes, Christian Potenza, James Hartnett, anyone? Bueller?), their faces however have become familiar from dozens of commercials and comedy specials.

The writer commented that he was trying to capture the feeling of some of the John Hughes films he loved as a teenager, but I didn’t really get that vibe from Moon Point. The road trip aspect of it combined with the sometimes-too-broad humour reminded me more of a Farrelly brothers film, while the sugary ‘twee’ touches over-sentimentalized other parts. Needless to say there were several uneven tonal shifts, primarily caused by too much make-up/ break-up drama between the three main characters.

Unfortunately, like most real-life underdogs, this film will not overcome the odds and break into the mainstream, but at least first time distributor IndieCan is giving it a chance to be seen by some, most of whom I’m sure will get a kick out of at least a few parts, and that puts this one in the plus category of Canadian movies. It’s cuteness and romantic elements are well timed for Valentine’s Day and the holiday’s imagery is sprinkled throughout, let’s just hope Moon Point can still be seen by the time February 14^th comes around, otherwise all of the above becomes a moot point.

Just one month after The Devil Inside seemingly ruined the found footage film for everyone, along comes Chronicle, a sci-fi tinged powerhouse of a movie that single-handedly saves the sub-genre to stand as quite possibly the best example of the format. Even more than the iconic Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, Chronicle dares to tell a dark and bold story that actually feels painfully real and heartbreaking despite being somewhat of a superhero origin story.

The film opens as unflinchingly as possible. Shy and emotionally damaged Seattle teenager Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan) has recently bought a video camera to document attacks by his abusive, drunken father and the final days of his mother, who’s in the final stages of terminal cancer. Andrew brings the camera everywhere he goes almost as if it’s a security blanket for him to inoculate himself from the outside world. His only real “friend” is his pseudo-intellectual cousin Matt (Alex Russell), who seemingly thinks everything “cool” is beneath him.

One night outside a rave where Andrew nearly gets the crap beaten out of him for accidentally filming some drunken bro’s girlfriend, Matt and the coolest kid in school/future shoe-in for class president Steve (Friday Night Lights’ Michael B. Jordan), force a worried Andrew into using his camera to document a mysterious cavern deep in the woods that houses a giant glowing crystal. After coming in contact with the crystal, the boys begin to develop telekinetic powers allowing them to move and manipulate matter. At first, they strengthen their powers with an escalating series of silly dares and childish pranks (as teenagers are naturally wont to do even without superpowers), but when the more mature Andrew begins to question his friends commitment to doing something with these powers, fissures in their close friendship quickly begin to develop leaving Steve and Matt to question Andrew’s very sanity.

First time feature director and co-writer Josh Trank and writer Max Landis (son of Blues Brothers director John) have crafted the best thought out found footage movie ever created. They know the scope of their film is bigger than simply having one camera statically shoot everything, so they take the time of creating other ways for footage to be incorporated into a film. Unlike many film of this nature, the question of who actually edited the footage for this film becomes refreshingly vague and something that a satisfying debate can actually be made from. The film beautifully incorporates digital video, cell phones, security cameras, military cameras, and in the bravura finale every camera type known to man floating all around the main characters.

The technical specs of Chronicle are marvellous considering how little the film probably cost to make. Most of the budget seems saved up to mount one of the most dazzling, show-stopping endings to a film in recent memory, but even simple sequences where the boys discover they can fly and they use their power to goof off and play football in the clouds are just as gorgeously rendered. The concept that Andrew can also let the camera float in mid-air and move it leads to some stunning cinematography and the most shocking and subtle payoff in a found footage film ever.

While the technical merits of Chronicle could be doted on for days, Landis and Trank’s script delivers the much needed emotion that a thousand camera tricks could never cover up. While not exactly a “slow burn,” things escalate quite quickly and suddenly down the stretch of the film’s taut 84 minute running time. The pacing works beautifully since the character the film is based around (Andrew) lives a life of constant torment at home and bullying at school. Andrew only finds fleeting moments of reprieve from his daily life before something brings him crashing down to Earth. As Andrew’s personal life gets worse and worse, the movie takes on a vastly different, but wholly appropriate tone.

The three leads all sell the tone extremely well. Jones does the whole “sympathetic jock and consummate politician” routine with real, unforced sympathy. Steve might very well be the most genuine human being of the three. Russell fills the role of “put upon best friend” nicely, and gets to show some real range when he’s unwillingly forced into taking action against Andrew. The movie, however, belongs to DeHaan for making Andrew one of the most sympathetic and occasionally frightening characters to grace the screen in some time. The movie’s effort to show the full arc of DeHaan’s character in almost painful detail – especially from a format meant to show only brief moments in the lives of people – allows the actor to commit fully to his performance. It’s easily the best performance ever in a found footage film.

Chronicle works because it makes the uncanny feel like it’s actually happening in front of the viewer’s eyes. Even the film’s more cinematic moments come after viewers have been eased into an escalating situation. The characters are lush without being Hollywood constructs of teenagers. Despite having more familiar faces than most found footage film, one forgets they are watching actors. These feel like real people, with real problems, and extraordinary powers. These are people any of us could know, and by the end of the film that feeling will be both a comfort and a curse. In short, there’s too much great about this movie to spoil it any further and really nothing at all that can be said against it.

If The Woman in Black is any indication, Daniel Radcliffe will be very savvy when it comes to choosing his post-boy wizard roles. A pitch perfect bit of period horror with menace to spare, this is exactly the kind of film that Harry Potter fans who grew up with the actor would just be starting to get into at their point in their lives. While not reinventing the wheel in any way, director James Watkins has crafted a thoroughly efficient and thrilling genre exercise that evokes favourable comparisons to the works of Wes Craven and Sam Raimi.

At first, it might be a little surprising to see just how much Radcliffe has grown up in the role of Arthur Kipps. Radcliffe not only plays an adult here, but a young, widowed father of a young boy. Arthur is an early 1900s legal aide forced by his boss into getting back to work by sending him from London to the coastal countryside to go over the paperwork of an estate currently up for sale. Upon his arrival in the village where he intends to stay, the locals do everything in his power to send Arthur away before he even makes it to the secluded former estate of Alice Drablow. Driven by the desire to provide for his son and to keep his currently tenuous job, Arthur presses on and learns the hard way the tragedy that befell the residents of Marsh House.

All great horror forces the audience to pay extremely close attention to the frame. No one wants to be made a fool of and knowing audiences will be quick to spot exactly where the film’s requisite scares will come. Watkins (who previously directed the little seen, but hard to watch gem Eden Lake) gets his Craven on by knowing exactly what the audience is looking for. Much like Craven with his Scream films, Watkins plays into the viewers’ expectations only for so long. When Arthur looks around a corner to see there’s nothing there, Watkins gives the audience what they want by not having anything there and by not immediately following it up with a scare or shock effect. He’ll give it a few moments before the real scare comes. Watkins’ sense of pacing borders on uncanny as this might be one of the most well crafted haunted house movies in quite some time. His attention to period detail and an incredible art department also deserve a special nod of merit.

The echoes of Raimi come in via writer Jane Goldman’s adaptation of Susan Hill’s novel, which was previously a stage play and a 1989 BBC made-for-television production. The story gains favourable comparisons to Raimi’s well-liked Drag Me to Hell. This is another tale of someone forced into taking a job for the sake of monetary gain that is then drawn into the world of the occult. As the events of the film become more and more intense, the comparisons to Raimi’s work intensify, but whereas Drag Me to Hell was ostensibly a comedy, Woman in Black is deadly serious, making for a more satisfying viewing experience.

As for Radcliffe, large parts of the film require him to be stranded at the Marsh House by himself for long periods with no one to play off of. While his soulful performance as Arthur serves him well playing opposite the townspeople (especially a terrific Ciaran Hinds as the town’s sole skeptic and Arthur’s only ally), it’s the scenes of relative solitude that makes the performance come together. Hardly speaking, he has nothing to do but actually create an entire character arc for the middle part of the film simply with actions and glances.

It’s a no-brainer for Radcliffe to take such a difficult role in a relatively safe genre. The film aims for the older audience that made him a star, and certainly not the younger crowd. Without spoiling some of the film’s best scares, anyone who brings a young child to see this film is clearly out of their mind. Then again, this is the stuff teenage nightmares are made of. It’s the kind of movie that it feels just slightly naughty to be watching in someone’s basement or sneaking into after buying a ticket for something else. Mainstream horror audiences have been craving something original for quite some time, and Radcliffe and Watkins are more than happy to give it to them.

This morning, DC Comics officially unveiled their upcoming slate of Watchmen prequel comics. The series/graphic novel, originally created by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, remains one of the most successful and acclaimed works of comic book fiction in history. Fan reaction to the notion of anything new not being created by the original team is pretty well documented: They do not want it unless it was written by Alan Moore. So DC, being clever, has decided to do what they did with Jack Kirby’s Fourth World Characters not so long ago and release new content that will not directly affect the tone or the message of the original masterpiece… or “cash cow” as it has become known as of late. To quote Alan Moore from the New York Times, “I tend to take this latest development as a kind of eager confirmation that they are still apparently dependent on ideas that I had 25 years ago…I don’t want money,” he said. “What I want is for this not to happen. As far as I know, there weren’t that many prequels or sequels to ‘Moby Dick.’”

Hilariously ironic comments from Moore aside, let’s look at these Watchmen prequels as a chance to get some truly awesome work from great creators. While I agree to a degree with Moore’s statement about the company being dependent on 25 year old ideas, I also remember the idea of playing in your friend’s sandbox. They have all the cool toys and you can use them while you’re there, but at the end of the day they have to go back into your friend’s house. Unless they sell those toys at a garage sale, your awesome adventures are solely in their hands. Which is why comic fans shouldn’t be upset about what happens to any of their beloved characters. DC owns the characters, not Alan Moore. And given the success of Zack Snyder’s movie, this move should come as no surprise.

We get to see some of the best creators on the planet (and J. Michael Stracynski) work on one of the most cherished comic properties out there. Darwyn Cooke, Amanda Conner, Jae Lee, and JG Jones are all amazing, but when was the last time you saw them complete regular series work that lasted more than three issues? Everyone wins. These are not just challenging works for the creators, but challenging works for fans, which makes Before Watchmen an exciting project to be around for.

Do I like that DC had to pull from a 25 year old story? Not really, but that’s the nature of the business. Success sells, and while yes I would love those creators to be creating new and original content for the company, I am happy that I get to see them flex their muscles with interesting characters like the Watchmen. I just hope that this does not turn out to be like the disaster that was the All-Star Line.

What say you? Leave a comment below or share this in the social media realm.

BEFORE WATCHMEN includes:

RORSCHACH (4 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: Lee Bermejo
MINUTEMEN (6 issues) – Writer/Artist: Darwyn Cooke
COMEDIAN (6 issues) – Writer: Brian Azzarello. Artist: J.G. Jones
DR. MANHATTAN (4 issues) – Writer: J. Michael Straczynski. Artist: Adam Hughes
NITE OWL (4 issues) – Writer: J. Michael Straczynski. Artists: Andy and Joe Kubert
OZYMANDIAS (6 issues) – Writer: Len Wein. Artist: Jae Lee
SILK SPECTRE (4 issues) – Writer: Darwyn Cooke. Artist: Amanda Conner

Daniel Radcliffe at the Toronto premiere of The Woman in Black

Much to the dismay of tween girls and fake plastic glasses manufacturers everywhere, the Harry Potter film franchise is officially over. However, for the child stars we watched grow up on screen through a decade of witchcraft and wizardry, their career is really just beginning. Case in point would be Daniel Radcliffe, the then untrained 11 year-old when he landed the iconic role is now a 23-year-old international movie star trying to launch an acting career unburdened by his one-Potter-per-year schedule. Radcliffe popped up for a few interesting non-boy-wizard roles over the years like a filthy-minded condom-slinging version of himself on Ricky Gervais’ Extras and a horse-loving fool in a stage production of Equus.

However, it’s this week’s chilly British ghost story The Woman in Black that will be Radcliffe’s first major test as a solo star. He plays a suffering father (I know that’s weird, but he’s older now so we have to get used to the idea) who must travel to an isolated haunted mansion like so many unfortunate morons in horror movies before him. The Hammer Horror revival is a pleasingly dark romp packed with jump scares that presents a more mature and magical-free version of Radcliffe for a new audience. Dork Shelf got a chance to catch up with the actor during a press appearance in Toronto and found out all about the new movie, his future plans, and his recent experience hosting SNL.

After Harry Potter you must have been offered many roles, what drew you to this one?

The main thing about this film was the story. It was so compelling that I wanted to be a part of it. It was that simple. Obviously the part was really interesting and when I met James (Watkins, the director) that became an incentive as well. And also because of those little art house movies I made, people would be going in specifically to try and see bits of Harry in the performance. I thought with a film like this, which has an incredibly strong story, after the first ten minutes they would forget about what they came in there to try and see.

Did you find that doing Equus was your first way of breaking free from the baggage of Potter?

I think so, it’s interesting. Somebody said to me the other day, “Do you think your Harry Potter fans will stick with you in this film?” I was like, if they stuck with me through Equus, they won’t mind this. It’s nothing in comparison to that. So, I’m not worried about it. It’s a very good first step. I was under no illusions that people would see this and suddenly go, “Oh Christ, he’s not Harry Potter anymore. He’s completely transformed.” I didn’t ever think that was going to happen. But I think it’s a good first step in terms of, I look very different and I’m playing a man rather than a boy. It’s a different type of film to be in and I think all that stuff is very useful at this point for an audience to see that I’m going to try to do different stuff. We all are, Emma and Rupert and Tom and everybody, we want to do that. But also it’s interesting. People ask us those questions a lot. “Why are you searching so different? Are you intentionally trying to be diverse?” Yes, I am, but I don’t think that’s specific to someone coming out of a franchise. Any actor worth their salt wants to show as much versatility as they possibly can. So, over the next couple of years it’s going to be about doing as much work as possible and making it as varied as possible.

I read that you aren’t so enamoured with horror movies personally.

No, I mean I was terrified of them. A lot of modern horror can leave me cold. And also I’m not good with blood and gore and all that stuff. I’m really not. It’s not fun for me. There’s nothing entertaining about watching a film like that.

Was it strange to be in one?

A bit. During all those days where you just play terrified reactions for hours, I found it useful to take myself over to a corner of the set and just pace and mutter insanely to myself and work myself up into a frenzy. This is why I’m really desperate to have a process as an actor. You know, I used to joke and say I’m a point and click actor. My whole process has really been about trusting my instincts and hitting my mark. Which is why I love the stage, because the nature of filming is that it’s really broken up. So you can be innately something one minute and feel really in the moment, but then if you don’t have a solid process you’ll come back to it in the next take and be vaguer in what your intention is. Whereas on stage, you just have to go on and look and listen and it will all happen. There’s no room for self-consciousness to creep in like there is on film. So the next few years and I’ll keep looking for a process in lieu of training.

Because this is associated with the new Hammer Horror Films label, did you go back to look at some of the classic Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing movies?

Yeah, the first Dracula movie that they made is the one I know well. I think I’m probably the last generation in England to have sort of grown up with that. It was on TV a lot when I was a kid, but also I think the first time I watched it was when I was at school. It was an end of term sort of thing when teachers can’t be bothered to teach you anymore. One of our teachers brought that in and played it and everyone in my class wanted to be Christopher Lee, except for me who wanted to be Peter Cushing because I thought he was really cool and there’s no doubt that had The Woman in Black been made 30-40 years ago he would have beaten me to this part ten times out of ten.

Daniel Radcliffe buried in a sea of fans at the Toronto premiere of The Woman in Black

I heard that you avoided seeing the play version of The Woman in Black, but you did track down the original book’s author. What did you learn from speaking with her?

Well, it was mainly about just making sure I was on the right track. The script is an adaptation and it’s very different both in terms of the character of Arthur and the entire framing of the story. I was very keen just to make sure that I wasn’t doing anything that would piss her off, so I just ran a certain things by her. I spoke to a couple of friends about depression and the nature of depression and one of the things that I found kind of fascinating and in the kind of exploitative actor’s minds that we have useful, was the fact that they both said how physically exhausting true depression is. How it is a serious effort just to get out of bed in the morning physically and mentally. So that’s kind of where I started with Arthur, just that he is completely physically and mentally depleted and has been for five years. He’s just putting one foot in front of the other in the hope that something will change or maybe death will come. I wanted to just make sure that would line up with the vision of the character that she had. It did, so I was fine and I was told that I could carry on along those lines. I didn’t see the play because I’m a terrible mimic and I didn’t want to be influenced by all that. But, generally speaking I took my cues from James my director rather than Susan.

What other work did you do to prepare for this role?

Well, I spoke to a bereavement counsellor one day for a few hours and read a couple of books on grief and loss. I know I can never fully imagine myself into the head of someone who lost somebody, so I think it was important just to furnish myself with as much information as I possibly can. That way when I’m on set without having to think too much, that stuff just kind of naturally informs your choices. One of the things I concentrated on with Arthur was that I have this very excitable energy and Arthur should not and it would be completely wrong for the character. So, James was keen to, as he put it, “take the fizz out of the bottle and let it go flat.” It was about stripping away my natural zeal and showing somebody who has been devastated by a loss to the point where they’re in a state of emotional paralysis.

It seems that you enjoy the mechanics of acting nowadays as opposed to where you were as a child when you were kind of being rushed along into it. Do you feel like you’re starting to catch up to where you want to be as an actor?

Possibly, but there’s no blue print to where I should be. I see myself as a young good actor who still has a lot to learn. I think that’s where most actors who are my age are. There is nobody who at any point in their career is the finished article. So the next couple of years for me are really going to be about finding people to work with who really want to push me. I’ve never trained, so the only why I can get better is by taking risks and working with people who I think are going to improve me. So that’s what the next couple of years are going to be about.

Does that include playing Alan Ginsberg?

Yes, that’s the next project. It starts filming in March. It’s a first time director. I’m terrified, but very excited.

Through the Potter franchise you worked with some of the finest British actors alive, so who is still on your wish list in terms of English actors you’d like to work with?

Um, Judy Dench, never got her in. Seems amazing, but we never got her. There’s loads of young British actors that think are fantastic who I’d really like to work with. Ben Whittle. I’ve seen him on stage many times and he’s wonderful. Aaron Johnson. Helen Mirren. Russell Brand, actually. I’ve always thought he’d be fantastically entertaining and really great to work with. I don’t know who else. There’s so many.

Did you get any advice from the actors you worked with in the Harry Potter movies that you’ve tried to apply to your career?

Um…not particularly. They were all just very supportive and generous with their time. Alan Rickman particularly was amazing this year. He was in New York quite a lot, so he came to see the show twice and took me out for dinner. I don’t think any of them would really have wanted to give me advice, but they certainly were generous with their time. Actually, Alan has given me some advice, but you know some things sound amazing in Alan Rickman’s voice and if I said them to you they wouldn’t have nearly the same impact and wouldn’t seem quite as profound.

I’m wondering what role a director plays for you since you’ve had the opportunity to work with some incredible international directors already. Have any had a particularly strong impact on your work as an actor?

Um, it’s interesting. I rely very heavily on the director, absolutely. When I get a lot of direction, I do better, I think. I like having a close relationship with the director. Alfonso Cuaron is a gifted filmmaker and I would love to work with him again now. Because now I feel ready and could really appreciate it. I do absolutely stick close to the directors and it’s interesting because the director who I’m about to work with has already shown me an entirely new way of working that I never knew existed before and it’s kind of amazing to me that nobody ever told me this stuff. So we’re working with action verbs and loads of different techniques and I’m very happy to be doing that. I feel that I’ve been very lucky in terms of having the right directors come along at the right times to take me where I needed to be. Alfonso was one, Thea Sharrock, who directed me in Equus, was one and I think John is going to be the next one. It’s funny because everyone is talking about The Woman in Black now and it’s a slightly horrible feeling in a way because we filmed this movie a year and a half ago and I think I’ve come a long way since then. It’s sort of like my current ability and potential is being based on my work from a year and a bit ago, which is a very strange thought. It’s quite hard to come to grips with that. But yeah, I think over the next couple of years I’m going to improve by leaps and bounds. I want to work with people who want to stretch me.

How did you find the Saturday Night Live experience a few weeks ago?

Fantastic. I just had the best time. I’m someone who thrives off of fear and panic and chaos, so for me that was perfect. I liked the fact that someone said, “ok there’s been a slight change, just look at the cards.” Love that. Those are the situations that I live for. In the reactions to it people didn’t feel like it was the strongest episode or whatever, but I had a blast. That’s the thing, the people who are a bit scathing about SNL and for me that’s very lazy. Because they have no concept of what is actually going on. They put on an hour and a half music and comedy show from scratch in a week and actually it’s two and half hours if you include what you do at the dress rehearsal. So I just loved it, the fact that you’ll do a sketch and someone will grab you and run you to another quick change. It was great. I said to them at the end, “Ask me back any time I will run across oceans I don’t care.” And also, the Casey Anthony Dog sketch was possibly one of my favorite things I’ve ever done. I had a great time. They all were very kind. I have to see what’s impressive about that show is that there are people who have been there for 21 years who say, “There is nowhere I would rather be.” That’s speaks highly of the cast and the crew. It’s a really cool atmosphere.

The Woman in Black opens this Friday, February 3rd, in theatres everywhere.

In 2009, Ti West directed Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever, a direct-to-DVD, unnecessary beat horse sequel which embodied the huge plague upon the horror genre where even original ideas are strung out into irrelevancy. Ti West disowned it, and even requested his name be swapped with an Alan Smithee. So, in that same year, West also released House of the Devil, a character driven, style-drenched, brooding paranoia picture, showing what amazing things can be still be done in a genre that’s seen it all. If West was looking for a way to be disassociated from Spring Fever, he found a way, and if horror fans were looking for a fresh new talent, they had certainly found him. As his first film since The House of the Devil, The Innkeepers is Ti West’s opportunity to show a winning streak, or at least an uncanny corridor. It also happens to be a chance for star Sara Paxton, often cast as that pretty blonde in really forgettable roles, to earn a new start, not unlike West himself.

The Yankee Pedlar is a slow hotel in a small, even slower town. On its last weekend of business, slacker part-timers Claire (Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy) have one last marathon shift before moving on to whatever’s next. Luke’s brought a generous amount of beer, but Claire’s brought an excess of curiosity about the Pedlar’s rumoured haunted reputation, something they had both taken casual interest in during their employment. Luke, a proud dropout and pessimist, is confident his rusty, amateur, GeoCities-level web design will carry his future career, while Claire has literally never thought about the next step until provoked by sitcom-actress-come-spiritualist-come-inn-patron Leanne Rease-Jones (Top Gun and Stake Land’s Kelly McGillis.)

Claire begins to seek Leanne’s guidance, despite being turned off by her drinking habits and snappy tone, which pummels her self confidence but inspires her sense of adventure. Leanne warns Claire that the Pedlar’s spirits are not only real, but very dangerous. During her shifts, Claire can’t help but push her luck, sitting alone in the humming empty spaces of the hotel, trying to record the sounds of spectres as her work-hour hobby evolves into a deadly obsession.

A far more modestly produced feature than House of the Devil, The Innkeepers is much more interesting in terms of its identity. While House was lush with homage and slow-built dread, Innkeepers is a craftier, more cautious film. It is as much a horror film, as things are horrifying, as it is a character study or a drama with comedic freckles. The quirkiness that surrounds The Yankee Pedlar and the cast within it makes our heroes more likeable, though Lucas’ web flavoured cynicism edges on the stock side. The terror that lurks above Claire is less about fearing a grotesque, shocking sight ahead as it is you fearing for her safety and well being.

West is accomplished in this cinematic chemistry. There is horror and then there is comedy and they are not things that soil each other while simultaneously overlapping. The horror is never made slapstick or farce, and the humour is either dramatic folly or dopey witticisms from our two leads. Sara Paxton truly is Claire; a spunky, raspy ragdoll girl who walks into doors more than opens them. Paxton is unrecognizable from the deer in headlights in The Last House on the Left remake. Sara Paxton makes Claire likable, someone you’ll care about and want to pluck out of the calamity before it’s too late. While, like Luke, she can veer close to being a cropped concept of youthful kookiness, Paxton tampers it down with fragility, and discomfort. She plays up her attitude to compensate for her unshakable anxieties, she’s rattled by a loss of innocence and playfulness when she confirms to herself that the ghosts are real.

The Innkeepers has unconventional priorities for a horror film, using scares as a feature instead of the purpose of the movie. You can almost talk about the film without talking about ghosts at all. There’s uncertainty in the air; there may or may not be something in the dark, making you more vulnerable to attack. There’s a general unrest as the camera floats about the musty old in inn with its humble halls and muted carpets. There are times when a jumpy scare could have been cheesy in any other film, a moment when Claire gets a bedside visitor comes to mind, but because this fear is something banked off the characters that “yeah right”-ness almost plays directly into the atmosphere. There’s also a circular motion with a lot of the frights, almost like the second half of the film is haunted by very slight foreshadowing in the first. The development of these characters dictate the fear, and in turn will be what scares you.

The Innkeepers is good, eerie and frightening, but I didn’t feel frightened afterwards. I did feel another strong emotion, one that was hard to shake and one that will remain anonymous so I don’t spoil anything. To horror addicts, The Innkeepers may not gratify in the same way The House of the Devil did, as there’s a very hard line straight down the film that lets the audience decide whether there was any paranormal activity or if it is really a horror at all. To more flexible filmgoers, The Innkeepers is a strange, interesting atmosphere-driven blend that pushes through styles, tones and genres. It doesn’t astonish elegance quite as boldly as The House of the Devil, but it does strut West’s versatility within and outside of horror. Most importantly, it shows Ti West has absolutely no desire to create stale, routine horror films, the like you’ve seen in the last decade. So he can stay as long as he likes.

Drive (2011, Nicolas Winding Refn) – Hailed by many as the rebirth of the American crime drama and derided by a vocal contingent as a soulless exercise in style over substance, Drive arrives on DVD and gorgeous looking Blu-ray as a sleek, sparse, entertaining, and assuredly overrated genre exercise. This package isn’t going to win any new converts or make its supporters suddenly think it wasn’t robbed of some Oscar nominations, but the film itself is fun enough.

Winding Refn and screenwriter Hossein Amini spin this mid-80s styled brooder about a nameless stunt driver of few words (Ryan Gosling) who moonlights as a getaway driver. When he gets sweet on a young mother who lives in his building (Carey Mulligan), he gets caught up in a rapidly escalating “job gone wrong” involving the woman’s fresh out of prison husband (Oscar Issac) and two mob heavies (Ron Perlman and Albert Brooks) with ties to his primary employer (Bryan Cranston).

My opinion of the film hasn’t changed much since I viewed it at TIFF last year. Drive gets most of its entertainment value from Refn’s clever direction and solid performances from Gosling, Cranston, and Brooks. The main problem with the film lies in Amini and Refn’s conceit that their film is somehow operatic and meaningful when really it’s a slight movie that would probably be forgotten even if William Friedkin had made it. It’s a greasy spoon hamburger served on $2,000 china. I could care less about Drive’s far too artsy aesthetic, but it gave me what I wanted.

The disc will also really only appeals to the film’s hardcore fans as the four behind the scenes featurettes are woefully repetitive, devoid of any interesting insight, and none of which have any input at all from Gosling. In each one someone uses phrases like “Biblically simple” or “cooked down to bare essentials” at least three times, which is enough to give detractors all the ammunition they need against the film’s alleged pretensions. There’s also a painfully dull 25 minute sit down with Refn that says nothing, goes nowhere, and he sounds oddly out of it. Granted this slight packaging might be due to the Criterion release of the film that’s allegedly in the works, but it’s hard to imagine there’s really anything else to be said about a film this “Biblically simple.”

The Double (2011, Michael Brandt) – Foregoing a Canadian theatrical release after a brief run in the states last fall, the directorial debut of Wanted and 3:10 to Yuma co-scribe Brandt lands with an illogical thud on DVD. While it’s infamy from last year as “that movie that gives away the big twist in the trailer” is unfounded, this thriller tells the story of a retired CIA operative (Richard Gere) brought back to tracking down a long dormant Russian assassin believed to be behind the killing of a Senator. The veteran is teamed with a keener FBI analyst (Topher Grace, woefully miscast) that wrote his thesis paper on the newly resurfaced killer.

The film’s trailer gives away a twist that comes 30 minutes into the film, so not too much is lost in that respect, but Brandt and co-writer Derek Haas’ screenplay holds zero logical weight and the characters are as wooden as can be. It’s almost worth a look for a few fleeting scenes at the beginning with Gere and Martin Sheen as the CIA director, and the ending does pick up in terms of watchability (despite a ludicrous final twist), but it’s easy to see why this one didn’t exactly set the world on fire.

The Blu-ray includes a DVD copy of the film, interviews with Gere, Grace, Sheen, the writers, and Stephen Moyer (who shows up briefly as an imprisoned former protégé of the assassin), and a humble, self-effacing audio commentary from Brandt and Haas. Don’t watch the interviews before watching the movie, as it includes clips and discussion about the big twist ending.

Dream House (2011, Jim Sheridan) – Everything that I said about The Double’s trailer holds almost equally true for Dream House, except the big twist here happens 45 minutes in. While that’s marginally better (or possibly worse) in terms of timing, it’s still a fairly decent but poorly assembled movie.

Daniel Craig stars as Will, a writer who quits his copy editing job to spend more time with his wife (Rachel Weisz) and kids as they move into a fixer upper in a small New England town. As often happens in such movies, a horrific homicide involving the past tenants has local residents skeptical of the new owners.

While it would be all too easy to say that such a film is beneath the once great Sheridan, who started his career with My Left Foot and In the Name of the Father before eventually slumming it all the way down to making Get Rich or Die Trying, its comforting to say that Sheridan and his cast of real pros (including Naomi Watts as a sympathetic neighbour) all put in great work, but the film really reeks of studio recutting to a great degree. When the big twist comes to light, the film becomes vastly more satisfying to watch, but those opening 45 minutes are so protracted. It’s like someone in the editing room wanted to speed through and get to the “good stuff”.

It’s pretty obvious that Sheridan had very little say in the editing of the film, and that’s a shame because he was really onto something pretty interesting here. While there aren’t a heck of a lot of extras on the Blu-ray or DVD, the cast interviews and featurettes hint at a movie that was not only a tough sell from the start (just watch Craig struggle valiantly to not give away too much), but something that was also set up to be more of a domestic drama/mystery/romance than the horror film the studio probably demanded.

Grand Canyon (1991, Lawrence Kasdan) – Now available on a featureless, but nicely converted Blu-Ray, director Kasdan’s peudo-follow up to The Big Chill, focusing on the interconnected lives of mostly well-to-do Los Angeles residents instead of Southerners, serves as more of a well acted historical document than it does as a well made film.

The film primarily deals with the relationship between the white, married and wealthy Mack (Kevin Kline) and black, divorced tow truck driver Simon (Danny Glover) and how their unlikely friendship affects other people in their lives without them fully realizing it at first. It’s pretty much the same template that Paul Haggis would use for Crash almost fifteen years later only without the same “gritty” approach, and with more narrative focus and better characters (including Steve Martin in one of his first real dramatic performance as a movie producer).

While Kasdan might be one of the least subtle filmmakers aside from, well, Paul Haggis, in terms of directing ability, his writing skills are generally pretty flawless, and the fact that the film was crafted only one year before Los Angeles would become torn apart by the verdicts in the Rodney King trial, Grand Canyon actually serves as a sort of historical document of a city about to give in to long brewing racial tensions. Parts of the film will still come across as dated and cheesy, and Kasdan doesn’t do his material any favours with his hamfisted approach to shooting a film, but it’s still a must watch for people interested in how films act as a product of their time.

Monkeybone (2001, Henry Selick) – Finally, I feel I would be somewhat remiss if I didn’t include a word about the bare bones Blu-ray release of one of the strangest Hollywood studio projects of all time. The live action debut of The Nightmare Before Christmas and Coraline director Henry Selick cost 20th Century Fox a reported $85 million dollars, spent an eternity on the shelf, and was released to a piddling $5 million take over its entire run. Maybe audiences just weren’t ready for a pitch black comedy about a cartoon monkey sent from purgatory to give nightmares to people.

Brendan Fraser stars as absurdist cartoonist Stu Miley, creator of a double entendre loving character named Monkeybone (voice by John Turturo, seemingly doing his best Scorsese impression) that’s poised to become the next big thing in animated television. After lapsing into a coma following a bizarre car accident, Stu is sent to the limbo land of nightmares known as Down Town, where his own creation is a living entity and a star attraction. Stu becomes part of a plot designed to send Monkeybone to Earth in Stu’s body to create more nightmares for the amusement of the sleep God Hypnos (Giancarlo Esposito). And yes, this is that film where Chris Kattan (in honestly his best performance) shows up as a rotting corpse that literally can’t keep his head on straight.

While the tone of the film isn’t exactly consistent (probably due to the combination of a first time live action feature director and a panicked studio), Monkeybone is a dazzling and shockingly literate movie for a film whose main plotline hinges on “nightmare juice” being farted out of plush dolls. Deeply rooted in classical mythology and modern artwork (especially the works of Mark Ryden), Selick creates a unique vision of that space where art and commerce sometimes clash. Entire thesis papers can be written on everything going on within the film, but critical interpretation and audience reevaluation depends on how much the viewer is willing to buy into the film’s erratic tonal shifts. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s actually about something instead of being just a bunch of elaborately constructed set pieces strung together.

Also out this week: Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried star in Gattaca director Andrew Niccol’s mostly laughable sci-fi “time is money” parable In Time. Owen Wilson, Jack Black, and Steve Martin all go head to head in the cut throat world of competitive bird watching in the slight, but not awful time waster The Big Year. Nick Stahl follows Trailer Park Boys creator Mike Clattenburg to the poppy fields in the wonky journalist comedy Afghan Luke. And Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton go head-to-whatever with The Thing in the decent, but wholly unnecessary prequel to the John Carpenter classic.

While the wonderful and tense Iranian film A Separation has been gaining a lot of buzz South of the Border as the front runner for this year’s Best Foreign Film at the Academy Awards, Canadians have been abuzz that one of their own has made its way to a nomination on film’s grandest stage, and rightfully so. Director Philippe Falardeau’s Monsieur Lazhar takes the well worn template of an inspirational teacher movie and creates something far grander out of a type of film that often lends itself to grandstanding and speeches. It’s a heartrending look at a community struggling with a great loss where the man with the will to help happens to be in over his head.

Following the tragic and horrific suicide of a Montreal elementary school teacher during recess, the staff are struggling with not only how to grieve, but also questions of blame, the degree to which they need to coddle the shell shocked children, and ultimately, replacement, not just of the teacher, but of pretty much everything in the room that could bring about mournful thoughts. Into the school’s life comes Bachir (Fellag), an Algerian refugee who claims to have a teaching background and who knows all too well what it feels like to lose a loved one. Taking on an already tenuous role as a substitute teacher, Bachir at times seems out of place amidst his surroundings by assigning them homework far above their reading levels, but it’s his past that allows him to connect to the class and especially the two children most affected by their teacher’s passing.

Based on a one-man stage play by Evelyne de la Cheneliere, Falardeau crafts an elegiac, yet hopeful look at the healing process. Set against a beautifully realized Montreal winter, the location is certainly idyllic to look at, but Falardeau makes it known from the early going that no amount of snow or fresh paint can cover up sadness. Taking posters down in a classroom and relegating them to the boiler room only adds to the feeling that the school harbours a dark secret.

As Bachir, Fellag displays not a quiet intensity, but a nurtured understanding combined with a different cultural upbringing. Through his interactions with colleagues, some disastrous parent-teacher conferences, and his head butting with the school’s chief administrator (a powerful Danielle Proulx, matching her masterful work in Jean-Marc Vallee’s C.R.A.Z.Y.), Fellag struggles to show Bachir’s affable understanding of his new culture through forced smiles and curt body language. It’s a far more physical performance that it probably reads on paper.

The heart of the film, however, belongs to young Alice and Simon (Sophie Nellisse and Emilien Neron) as the two classmates and former best friends that now argue constantly because of the role Simon seemingly played in their teacher’s suicide. It’s through these wonderful child actors (directed with extreme care by Falardeau to make sure they never come across as precocious “little adults”), that the film dares to look at the selfish nature of suicide and the scarring it can leave behind. This B-plot manages to be every bit as engrossing and emotional as Bachir’s soul searching. When they plots converge at the end, the film becomes a real thing of beauty.

Monsieur Lazhar is every bit worthy of its Academy nod as it’s one of the year’s most humanist tales. There isn’t a single false note to be found and not a single unbelievable moment. It’s the rare film that’s as uncomfortable as watching a real life tragedy and as nurturing as hug. Not only is this a great film, it’s a great experience.

“Who the fuck was that guy, huh? I was doing alright with that chick! Who the fuck does he think he is?”

“Maybe he was her boyfriend

“Nobody is gonna tell me who I can score with! Now I want this chick and she wants me, so fuck it. We are going back.”

The year is 1983. Julie (Deborah Foreman) is a good girl from the Valley, who dates jocks and wears lots of make-up. Randy (Nicolas Cage) is a punk from Hollywood, who smokes cigarettes and listens to New Wave music. Will they fall in love, or will they’re socio-economic differences tear them apart? How will these two lovebirds conquer the vast cultural differences of those two famed Los Angeles suburbs? With the Power of Cage. It’s like the Power of Love that Huey Lewis used to sing about, but better. Trust me.

But really, who is the Cage competing against? Some hunky “Val Dude” named Tommy (Michael Bowen)? Pshhhh! Besides, Tommy’s a jerk. When Julie dumped him, he totally hooked up with Julie’s bestie Loryn (Elizabeth Daily). Like, whatever, Tommy. You think you can compete with Nicolas Cage, with his weirdly coiffed punk hair and his pretty good taste in New Wave music? All he has to do is talk to your girl, and she’s smitten like an oversexed glove mitten. Soon he’s just gonna sit back and make out with your former girl while you disintegrate with envy and Modern English’s “I’ll Melt With You” plays on repeat in his mind.

“So when can I see you again?”

“Really, Randy, Why don’t you wait ’til the end of the evening to say these things?

“It’s the way I feel. It’s what I want.”

Like Julie says, Randy is “trippendicular.” He introduces her to “the real world” of alternative concert venues, where “it’s not pressure-cleaned like television.” He knows that Julie wants to be free. He knows she wants to escape the socially conformist mentality of her superficial clique. He knows she doesn’t want to be told what to do by some collar-popping Valley prep-douche named “Tommy”. Pshhh… Tommy. What a jerk.

So when Julie dumps Randy to get back with Tommy and be in the good graces of her friends, it’s OK for Randy to stalk her, before her carpool ride, at the movie theatre, and at the drive-in. It’s OK for him to get a sleeping bag and camp out in front of her house. Because he wants her to be free. He wants her to make her own decisions. He doesn’t want her to be defined by some chump in a polo. And in order for Julie to be a free, independent women, she’s gotta get with Randy. Obviously.

But really, if someone was so in love with me they slept on my front yard, I’d probably be a little creeped out. But that person probably wouldn’t look like Nic Cage, and if he/she did, I’d, like, totally make an exception. And then we could slow dance at the prom and make puppy dog eyes at each other while Josie Cotton sings “Johnny Are You Queer?”. Valley Girl is a beautiful, beautiful film indeed.

“Oh, bitchin’. Is this in 3D?”

“No, but your face is.”

Five weirdly coiffed punk hairs out of five.

Valley Girl trailer

Nicolas Coppola began his career with bit parts in his uncle’s 80s output like Rumble Fish and Peggy Sue Got Married, but eventually took a stage name to avoid familial connections. Like virtually every young actor in the 80s, he starred in a high school rom-com. His assignment in the cornball genre was Valley Girl (screening January 28^th at 10pm), a film that, particularly in hindsight, is a campy delight. These days, Cage can chew enough scenery at will to turn a bland role into a hilarious lunatic, but was a little more controlled back then. He developed a reputation as a nutso character actor before audiences got used to his schtick. He managed to find a few movies suited to his magically misplaced intensity like the Coen Brothers’ live-action cartoon Raising Arizona (still his best movie in a conventional sense, screening February 25^th at 10pm), David Lynch’s perverted fairytale Wild At Heart (February 11, 10pm), and the so insane you have to see-it-to-believe it Vampire’s Kiss (April 7, 10pm, the only movie in the line up in which he eats a live cockroach).

People who followed Cage’s development from the beginning knew the man was a titanic force of overacting at the time, but he plunked together enough prestigious projects amongst the silly movies that he also had some serious critical appreciation brewing. That peaked with an Oscar win in 1995 for Leaving Las Vegas. Now, when any actor picks up that trophy, they briefly become in control of their own destiny in La-La Land. While most mortals would try to turn that opportunity into a string of prestigious roles, little Nicky went another route. Unlike the rest of the world, Cage saw himself as an action star and within two years unleashed The Rock (February 4, 10pm), Con Air (February 18, 10pm), and Face/Off (March 3, 10pm) onto the world. They were all monster hits and suddenly Cage was a superstar. While all three of those movies were pretty damn great, Con Air holds special distinction. That tale of a renegade plane full of prisoners is one of the funniest movies of the 90s. Every scene is either deliberately or indeliberately hilarious. With Cage hysterically miscast as a spurned former army officer with fists classified as lethal weapons, long stringy locks of hair that defied the realities of a receding hairline, and a smooth Southern drawl, it kicked the camp phase of his career into high gear.

Yep, two years after Oscar glory, Cage was playing such absurd roles with a ludicrous level of commitment that brought him into William Shatner territory. It was never 100% clear if he was doing it on purpose, but given how hysterical he could be in flicks like Brian DePalma’s Snake Eyes (March 17, 10pm the only film that allows Cage to overact for thirteen unbroken minutes in a luscious tracking shot) it didn’t matter. As one of the biggest movie stars on the planet, Cage had the right to go insane and thankfully did it onscreen as well as off. He managed to take his screaming shenanigans to new heights in The Wicker Man (March 10, 10pm), a film that bombed theatrically, but soon became a viral video phenomenon with all it’s bee-stinging, lady-punching glory and of course, that goddamn honey.

Critical opinion seemed to wane on Cage during this period, but he popped up with a few surprises. First there was the Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman oddity Adaptation (March 24, 10pm) in which he gave an excellent performance as the neurotic/wild man Kaufman twins (perhaps because he finally got to co-star with his favorite actor). Then came his amazing collaboration with Werner Herzog on the bizarro sequel/remake Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call: New Orleans (March 31, 10pm). Cage’s performance as an out-of-control cop for Herzog took his manic insanity to heights I doubt even he dreamed possible. The dark comedy was so hilarious that it seemed to suggest Cage was in on the joke and deliberately stepped over-the-line in some of his most reviled works. Granted, some of the unfortunate flicks that followed may have put that theory into question, but the Nicolas Cage crap-shoot is part of the fun of following his career. Every time you buy a ticket to ride Cage train, you have an equal shot of seeing the best or worst movie of the year (okay, maybe not equal, but he does make some gems).

The question that has filled many a geeky message board remains, is Nicolas Cage a good actor or a bad actor? I can’t pretend to know the answer, but I would respond with a resounding, “who cares?” This is a man who has provided us with some of the best and worst performances of the last thirty years. Every time he swaggers onto a screen a little tired and a little wired, you can guarantee to be entertained. Frankly, what more could you want from a movie star? Cage may run the gamut from gold to shit in a single scene at times, but he could never be accused of being boring. With Toronto’s million dollar movie Mecca offering hours of Cagey goodness over the couple months, it’s a good time to be a cinephile with a sweet tooth for trash and the perfect way to kill time before the next Nic Cage epic is released on the usual three-month cycle.

Bangkok Dangerous: The Cinema of Nicolas Cage kicks off January 28 at 10:00 PM with Valley Girl.

Related video: Nicolas Cage Losing His Shit

With the second season premiere of the sword & sandals epic Spartacus just around the corner, we had the opportunity to talk with Australian actress Viva Bianca, who plays the manipulative Roman aristocrat Ilithyia on the Starz series.

We discussed the untimely passing of Spartacus star Andy Whitfield, the show’s second season, its depictions of sex and violence, and even had a little time to talk about Punky Brewster.

Dork Shelf: First we’d like to express our sincere condolences on the passing of Andy Whitfield. He was insanely talented and a huge part of the show obviously, part of what made it such a big hit. He seemed like a hell of a guy.

Viva Bianca: Thank you. Andy is an exceptional person and quite clearly a highly talented and charismatic actor. It’s a great loss personally and also a great loss for the industry.

DS: Agreed. So you character, Ilithyia, is one of my personal favourites on Spartacus. Tell me a little bit about how you joined the show. What drew you to the role initially?

VB: Aw… thank you. Of course, that was a little while back now when we first started making the show it was 2009. I was cast from Australia and it was the biggest production I had ever been on. It was very exciting, but at that stage we didn’t even really know what the show was going to be. I’m told that that’s often the case with new series, particularly cable series on a network like Starz. So it was really kind of falling into the unknown.

With regards to Ilithyia , I had no idea that she would emerge as the villain that she did emerge as. As you might recall she began as this bratty princess on the show, but the part just kept growing and twisting and unravelling. The great thing about season two is that audiences can expect to see even more complexity in the character, and even some vulnerability.

DS: Watching Ilithyia in the second season so far, I’m reminded of some of the great TV villainesses of the 80s and 90s. That clear villainess who is always making power plays and scheming in the background. Have you drawn any inspiration from some of those classic archetypal characters?

VB: No, I haven’t conciously at least. But I watch film,TV, and go to the theatre a lot, so I think subliminally you’re bound to draw inspiriation from various past performances. I think I’m always drawn to complex, strong women, but with any kind of character like that I would want to explore vulnerability, fragility, and softness. On the contrary, if I were to be playing a more vulnerable, fragile character, I’d always be looking for the strength or the dark side. So to me, it’s about creating the most well-rounded, realized, and complex human being.

DS: Well you’re certainly achieving that in season two. What can you tell us about the new season? What can viewers expect?

VB: In season three the stakes have risen across the board. Every single character wants something desperately and every single character is seeking vengeance. It’s highly dramatic. For Ilithyia in particular, it’s a seriously epic rollercoaster. She’s fallen from grace, and she’s grappling for her very livelyhood and survival. So she’s a woman on the edge.

DS: Okay, we’re going to talk about some spoilers here, so reader beware. Ilithyia is pregnant, is it safe to say that Spartacus be the daddy?

VB: That’s a cheeky suggestion! We don’t know that yet, but that’s obviously a big question and a big secret to be revealed in season two, so stay tuned.

DS: You and Lucy Lawless’ character are growing much closer this season. The roles have almost flipped, now Ilithyia has become the manipulator. There’s a great scene in episode two where Lucretia sacrifices the goat and you’ve got the knife, and there’s that palpable tension. Are we going to see more of this new dynamic?

VB: The relationship dynamic between those two women just becomes more co-dependant and complex. The writers gave us so much material to work with, so we were very fortunate. In addition to that, Lucy and I really took full advantage of one another, we had a great chemistry together and have become great friends off-screen. So it was a real delight playing through the drama in that relationship.

I think what’s really fundamental here is that Ilithyia becomes the doma of the house, of assiartus, and Lucretia has lost all of her power in that situation. Both characters find themselves in totally new territory.

DS: You seem like you’re constantly surrounded by burly fighting men on the show, do you ever get the desire to get in on that action? Duck into the writer’s room and ask if Ilithyia could maybe take up a sword every once in a while?

VB: Oh no, I love being princess-y and pretty! Sitting on the lovely Persian cloth-covered loungers, sipping on wine and eating cherries. I’m quite happy with the decadence in which my character dwells, thank you very much. But not to spoil anything too major, there is a little bit of crossing of worlds for Ilithyia in the upcoming season. She doesn’t stay entirely clean, but that’s all I can say.

DS: Right on, that’s something to look forward to! Not related to that, but obviously at the forefront of the show is the nudity. It almost always helps drive the story forward, but what’s your take on how it’s handled on the show?

VB: First and foremost, whenever the prospect of nudity arises on the show in a particular scene or episode, there will always be a meeting about it with the director or the producers. What’s always discussed is the relevence of that scene to the story. The nudity and the sex scenes have to be driving the story forward in order for them to be appropriate and justified. I think that for all of the actors in the cast, that’s kind of the unanimous philosophy.

But doing sex scenes and doing nudity is never easy and never comfortable. It must be dealt with in the most clinical, professional, and respectful manner. And on this show it absolutely is, we’re really protected.

DS: The nudity never feels excessive or just there to be there. It’s also very balanced. I’ve seen far more male genitalia in that season alone than I’d seen in my life up to that point.

VB: That’s a really good way of looking at it. You could never say that the show is objectifying women for the male gaze, because it certainly goes both ways. And another thing, the female characters on this show are ballsy and empowered and scheming. They’re often the ones who are manipulating their husbands to get what they want. Ilithyia is a perfect example of that. She’s an incredibly empowered and sophisticated lady in a world where women really didn’t have much power.

DS: Behind every strong man is a strong woman. Ilithyia is the powerhouse in that relationship. The Praetor may strut around puffing his chest, but you can tell that Ilithyia is the one scheming and pulling the strings. As did Lucy Lawless’ character when the roles were reversed.

VB: That’s correct. The fun thing for me in season two is that I have my husband around. Glaber, played by the great Craig Parker, becomes the man of the house. I get to explore a wonderful character dynamic with Craig. The marriage between Ilithyia and Glaber is extraordinarily complex; passionate, but also manipulative and destructive. It goes down a really dark path in season two.

DS: Oenomaus looks like he’s going to play a big role in the return of the House of Batiatus. Can you tell us a little bit about what’s going on there?

VB: Oenomaus is one of my favourite characters, he is so noble and stoic. Of course, played by the great Peter Mensah, one of my dear friends from the cast. He brings such a sophistication to the show that we’re all so grateful for. He plays a note that none of us provide. His storyline stands apart from everyone elses, he’s a solitary man that doesn’t take easily to the rebellion and Spartacus’ cause.

DS: It’s certainly nice to see him return to the House of Batiatus. So we have to wrap up here, but we have to ask what is on your Dork Shelf?

VB: This is a really hard question! Well, I must say that I’m gypsy so I don’t have a home as such right now. I have a series of collectible dolls from my childhood that I’ve never thrown away. I’ve got an array of Barbie dolls and antique dolls, but I’ve recently started collecting little figurines of characters. For instance, I have a Punky Brewster doll that I’ve had since the late-80s when I was a little girl. For some reason I think it’s very cool.

DS: Punky was of course the first true independant woman for a generation.

VB: Punky rocked! The different coloured shoes, the pigtails, the freckles, the thing around her knee. She also had the phone that was a hamburger.

DS: Thank you for your time, Viva. It has been wonderful chatting with you.

VB: Really nice to meet you. Ciao!

You can find more Viva at VivaBianca.org and her official Twitter and Facebook pages.

Spartacus: Vengeance premieres at 10 PM on tonight on Starz in the United States and January 29th on The Movie Network in Canada.

Say what you will about the career trajectory of actress Katherine Heigl, there’s a decent story hidden somewhere in One for the Money. An angry, out of work woman becoming a bounty hunter and jumping at the chance to bring in a loathsome ex-lover sounds… exactly like that Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston movie The Bounty Hunter with the sexes reversed. That’s pretty much what this movie amounts to, but this is admittedly somewhat better than that debacle. It’s still not very good.

In this adaptation of a Janet Evanovich bestseller, Heigl plays Stephanie Plum, a laid off Trenton, New Jersey retail manager who takes a job at her lecherous cousin’s bail bonds agency. Stephanie, of course, has no experience as a recovery agent, has no idea how to hold a gun, and no useful skills other than knowing how to talk to stereotypical Jersey scumbags. So naturally she blackmails her cousin into giving her a $50,000 job to bring in former cop Joe Morelli (Jason O’Mara) dead or alive. Morelli, on the run from a murder charge, just so happens to be the lowlife Stephanie lost her virginity to years ago. She’s still pissed he never called.

Looking and sounding like a bad sitcom, director Julie Anne Robinson fails to inject any real life into a threadbare story that gets the entire plot out of the way in the first five minutes before a remaining 83 minutes of simply going through the rom-com motions. It’s bland and inoffensive with nary a laugh in sight or unique dialog. Sure, there are people who won’t find anything wrong with that and good on them.

What really sinks this film more than its unoriginal plotting, however, is some truly atrocious voiceover that has Heigl literally explaining to the audience everything they can plainly see on screen. It might be based on a novel and to some degree the writers might have felt the need to remain faithful to the fans of the book, but here it comes across as an unwarranted descriptive video service. If the obvious inner monologue had been cut from the film, it would be far less grating on the nerves.

As for Heigl, a woman who once so bravely spoke her mind about the lack of good roles she had been getting, she plays a character that nearly any actress capable of donning a Jersey accent could do in her sleep. The actors playing almost all the other characters in the film could be called out for the same reasons (O’Mara is uninspired, Debbie Reynolds and John Leguizamo are wasted in small, thankless roles). The only member of the cast that’s allowed to rise above the material is Daniel Sunjata, who plays a bad ass bounty hunter mentoring Stephanie when she needs help. He’s so good, one wishes this movie to be a success just to see more of his character.

In the end, Heigl really has no one to blame but herself for this one. Her name is all over the production credits and she’s front and centre for everything involving this production. Which begs the question, why after all of her complaints regarding some of her past work would she go and produce and star in the exact same kind of film she seems to be railing against? Maybe there’s some sort of production deal for a future film that no one really knows about. That’s the only thing that would really make sense.