Described as a “martial arts time travel fantasy’, ‘Elapse’ was created by Corkman Thomas O Meara who admits he has always held an interest in time travel and, indeed, in kung fu. The film also has a uniquely Irish feel to it as it also deals with Celtic mythology. Filming took place in several locations including the Currabinny Woods, and even Tom’s own garden, using an Everio hard disk drive camcorder.  In typical low-budget (or possibly no budget) style, there were often times when the mini crew had to manage without a cameraman.

As the martial arts aspect of ‘Elapse’ was of high importance, each technique was performed anywhere between 5 and 30 times to achieve the desired effect. Altogether the fight scenes took about 30 hours to complete and resulted in plenty bruising…followed by another 30-ish hours of editing and sfx applications!

So..if you want an idea of what people are creating in their gardens these days..here’s a mini trailer:

]]> http://thestubonline.com/2008/07/16/latest-cork-short-is-high-on-action/feed/ Gem http://thestubonline.com/2008/06/19/ghost-boy-and-the-hanging-munchkins/ http://thestubonline.com/2008/06/19/ghost-boy-and-the-hanging-munchkins/#comments Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:05:48 +0000 gem http://thestubonline.wordpress.com/?p=109

Movie Urban Myths Explained!

Apart from the above title being a great name for an indie band, it relates to some of the most famous of film lore. There are dozens of urban legends surrounding popular films. Some of us have heard of them in half whispers growing up, scared ourselves with the ghost boy in Three Men and a Baby, wondered about the family of the stunt man who died in the chariot scene in Ben Hur or spent some time looking for a suicidal munchkin in The Wizard of Oz. If you haven’t heard about them or seen them, they are definitely worth a look as they are a unique form of urban legend mixed with conspiracy theory; proof of man’s ability to take something ordinary and blow it out of the realm of possibility. For those that have seen them I’ll attempt to shed some light on the truth and shatter your illusion. (Also there’s no Santa, the Easter Bunny is dead and your parents hate you).

Three Men and a Baby Probably the most famous film urban legend around. There are many stories related to this film but the basic plot stays the same: a boy kills himself, his parents had already signed the contracts with the film company to use the apartment as a set and during some scenes you can see the ghost boy staring out from behind the curtain. A variation on the story has the boy killing himself with a shotgun which would explain the long black shadow. I remember the first time I saw this; it does look like proof of the existence of ghosts and that the set was haunted . Unfortunately the truth is much more sedate: the “ghost boy” is really just a cardboard cut out of Ted Danson. His character is an actor and has done a dog food commercial in a tux which was later cut from the film; a real loss I’m sure much worse than the missing scenes in ‘Metropolis’. A combination of the cardboard cut out being at an angle and the poor quality of vhs tape led to this. Also there were no reports of a suicide, murder or fatal accident, unless Ted Danson, Tom Selleck and Steve Gutenberg killed a small boy after a hard night of partying and decided to hide his body to save their careers…while the child’s ghost decided to ruin the movie. If he did, it would have backfired as I’m sure it’s boosted dvd sales.

The Wizard of Oz One of the earlier film urban legends. The story goes that during the introduction of the tin man in the woods, a depressed munchkin who, some versions say, didn’t get the job of the mayor of the lollipop village, decided in an act of revenge, to ruin the scene by hanging himself. Another story has it that he was a producer’s son and that he was upset with his father. It’s amazing that they got anything done with all these dead people lying around the place. This is another product of poor quality vhs which obscures the already dark background. It was actually a crane; one of the many exotic birds brought in to give the place a fantasy setting. The crane was preening and stands up straight to give the effect of a small body hanging. I was told, when i first heard about it, that a black box was over the figure and only on older copies of the film could you see it…Lies-!!!. To think that one of the worlds largest studios would allow a suicide in a film so they wouldn’t have to reshoot two minutes of film is crazy. Also, the film, like most films, was shot out of order so there wasn’t any munchkins on the studio lot yet. Aficionados of The Wizard of Oz, when not syncing up the original release of Dark Side of the Moon with the classic movie, will tell you the real suicide is in the munchkin village, a depressing place if there ever was one. As the mayor says goodbye to Dorothy above the head of the coachman, a female munchkin can be seen swaying unnaturally in the background. Again, on poor quality vhs it does look quite odd. On a high quality copy, however, you realize that she, like all the other munchkins was just dancing and swaying to the music. Again there was no murder or suicide on set: the studios where powerful but not that powerful

Ben Hur Ben Hur is a perfect example of a Hollywood lavish set story with epic scope and Charleton Heston at his peek. The huge chariot scene is the climax of this particular film, apart from a yellow Volkswagen Beetle being visible in certain scenes during the chase. It’s widely believed that a stunt man died during the race. The race has many well choreographed stunts but no fatalities. The only injury was a gash on the head of stuntman Joe Cannett’s forehead, which he received when he was thrown over the chariot. The original 1926 version on the other hand has a host of macabre stories surrounding it .At least five horses where shot and people may have drowned during the naval battle. The truth, however, is shrouded in mystery.

The Crow It’s true that Brandon Lee died during the making of this film when a cartridge that was lodged in the barrel of a gun was fired with blanks, projecting the cartridge into his side. It’s a commonly held belief that the scene was left in the finished film. This is false. A scene near the end where Brandon Lee dressed as the crow is shot by a group of villains is thought to be the scene where he was fatally shot with all those guns; it would be easy to make a mistake. The scene where the accident happened was during a home invasion scene at the start of the movie. Brandon was shot through the grocery bag he was carrying and the cartridge pierced his lung leading to his death. The film was shown to the police who where investigating the death and then destroyed. A pity, as it would have made a change from the run of the mill dvd extras: blooper reel, production notes, accidental homicide. His death, along with the early death of his father Bruce Lee, has added fuel to the fire surrounding the theory that the Lee men are cursed. So fearful of the curse, Bruce Lee’s family gave him a girl’s name and even went as far as to dress him in girls clothing when he was young in a attempt to fool the evil spirits. No wonder he was such a good fighter.

Gold finger At the time of the film’s release, and for years after, there was a story that the woman painted in gold had died. During the film, a secretary of Goldfinger’s, Jill Matherson, betrays him to Bond and in an act of revenge he had her killed by painting her gold because you breath through your skin…I though it was your lungs! During the filming of the scene the actress left a patch on her abdomen paint free in order not to suffocate. What’s really amazing is that people believed this and somehow still landed on the moon a short time later, if you believe that actually happened. It goes to show how far we’ve come in understanding even basic things. The actress who played the secretary, Shirley Easton, survived the film and continued to act, I’m sure, playing numerous secretaries and corpses along the way. 

The popularity of Batman is at an all time high at the moment due to The Dark Knight’s upcoming release so this animated short should be of interest to many. It was created by an ‘RA Grimes’ who commented on the Batman article below and asked if I could pop it up. The animation itself is overlaid with the voice talents of Al Pacino and Robet DeNiro as taken from ‘Heat’. Have a look for yourself:

With The Dark Knight fast approaching, ’tis surely time for a Batman debate…

By Fiona, a contributor to The Stub.

“You look like a man who takes himself too seriously” It’s the line that the grimey, grainbag-sporting Scarecrow used to undermine our hero Batman in the most recent instalment of the Batman franchise. But is he right? Has Batman come too far from his comical capers on TV and ended up looking like a serious nut, trying to occupy a moral high-ground while still, clearly, dressed as a bat? Or has he finally become the true dark knight, revelling in the shady corners of the human psyche, managing to really resonate as a character, far beyond the comic book realm?

We probably won’t be sure until July 18^th when The Dark Knight is released and we get the chance to see the most psychotic of villains face the most messed up of all heroes. In the eagerly awaited follow-up to Batman Begins (2005), Christian Bale, as the new Batman, will battle none other than The Joker.

But we’ve seen this war before. In Tim Burton’s Batman (1989), Jack Nicholson took on the role of the not-so-funny man who wrecks havoc on an art museum, and taunts Batman with style. Nicholson played the part as a simmering madman, but one who also simmers with an unnerving charisma. He could crack a joke, even better than he could crack a smile (and that’s saying something for a man with a permanent grin). At one point he quips “Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?”

And whatever about its power to heal, Burton’s Batman definitely did provoke the laughter. Even if The Joker, and Batman were troubled individuals with obvious personality issues, Burton never made it an issue. They remained comic book characters with a firm grip on unreality. Batman and, of course, Batman Returns, are all about creating a fantastically gothic atmosphere, paying attention to the fact that comic book heroes are really nothing without their implausibly perfect costumes, and keeping a character arc simple and memorable. We never delve too deep into the soul of The Joker, Catwoman, The Penguin or, of course, The Bat-Man himself. Let’s be honest, if we wandered too far from the surface, and if these people really started rambling on about their feelings, they’d all end up in therapy. Part of the reason the world loves comic heroes is because they’re not complicated. They experience a terrible and shocking childhood incident, but they quickly lock it up in the proverbial closet and set to work styling a costume on the sewing machine. Selina Kyle (aka Catwoman) didn’t experience even a twinge of back pain despite falling from a reasonably tall building. She just got back up (off the pile of cats which probably cushioned her fall) and got on with her disturbing life. I’m not saying they “get over it” but comic heroes don’t’ dwell on it, at least no longer than it takes to spit out a fight-charged one liner or two. Amidst the punches Batman and The Joker enjoy the following exchange:

Batman: I’m going to kill you!
The Joker: You IDIOT! You made me. Remember? You dropped me into that vat of chemicals. That wasn’t easy to get over, and don’t think that I didn’t try.
Batman: I know you did.

The comic hero film has always been a spectacle of human personality, as opposed to a reflection on society. A sort of gaudy showcase of core values; The good guys fight the bad guys. The bad guys are usually the product of accidents involving too much ambition, and, er, too little caution when it comes to scientific experimentation. Good guys put duty before love and remain unattached as a result. But I’m not enough of a comic book fan to really comment on their place in popular culture. All I want to comment on is Batman. He’s been gradually wandering into a darker place. Darker than the alleyways of Gotham. And darker than his own underpants (the ones he used to sport outside his tights back in 1966, when the first movie of the T.V. series was made). Burton revamped the suit, making it a more brooding all-black ensemble. And he gave our hero some screen time to comment on his rather alternative existence. Vicki Vale even puts it to him: “Well let’s face it, you’re not exactly normal are you?”. To which he replies “Well this isn’t exactly a normal world, is it?” On one hand, he might be making a comment on the society we live in today, where there are no limits to the oddities of human behaviour. But on the other hand, he really doesn’t live in a normal world; he lives in Gotham city, a fantasy land.

Which brings us to Joel Schumacher, the director who took up the reins after Burton left Batman lie following Batman Returns. Batman Forever (1995) kept its Batman (played by a pouting Val Kilmer) firmly in fantasy land. Like with the previous two instalments, there’s not much time for talk of Batman’s troubled mind, other than a two-hander between him and psychologist Chase Meridian played by Nicole Kidman.

The look was colourful, from the skinny green one-piece Riddler suit (crowned with his flame red hairdo), to the garish assorted animal print half of Two-Face’s ensemble. With Kidman, of course, providing the necessary blonde highlights. There was some light banter between Batman and his trusty side-kick Robin, which, admittedly, was quite amusing at times. A reference to the days of Adam West told us Schumacher wasn’t necessarily taking all his cues from Burton’s vision.

Robin: Holey rusted metal, Batman!
Batman: Huh?
Robin: The ground, it’s all metal. It’s full of holes. You know, holey.
Batman: Oh.

All the same, it seemed Robin was ushered in, in order to share the weight of expectation which Kilmer could clearly not manage. Divide and conquer as they say, and if our attention was divided between two and not one superhero then we would surely find less to criticise and more to please.

Burton at least left the red-breasted annoyance out of the picture. Maybe it’s just me but I think a partner in crime fighting compromises Batman’s whole persona. Bats don’t fight crime in pairs now do they? I rest my poorly researched case. Nevertheless, Schumacher didn’t do Batman an utter injustice. Batman Forever pulled in the crowds, topping Batman Returns (but not Batman, which was the most successful film of 1989 and the highest grossing of any of the Batman films to date). He should have left it there.

Unfortunately, George Clooney was at a loose end, having recently completed One Fine Day with ex-feline fatale Michelle Pfeiffer. Perhaps they got talking about Batman on set and Clooney developed a dangerous interest in playing the dark hero. Whatever the reason, Schumacher made bad decision number one in casting Clooney. Bad decision number two came with the introduction of Batgirl, another side-kick to take the heat off our rapidly diminishing hero. How my heart sank when I saw Alicia Silverstone in her shiny bat suit try to fit into the already cramped batcave. The colour and lightness of Batman Forever was brought up a notch, but it didn’t sit well with the storyline. The plot attempted to cover the themes of Alfred’s impending death, and Robin’s need to step out from under Batman’s shadow. It was a plot that also had Dr Victor Fries (aka Mr. Freeze), preserve his ill wife in the cold, punishing Gotham for failing to help cure her. If anything the film demanded an even darker, more brooding Batman than we had seen before, one who could mirror the Doctor’s anguish-spawned malevolence with his own pain. As it were, Clooney’s charisma couldn’t win us over. Batman and Robin (1997) earned the producers the lowest figure of all the Batman films, and earned none of the fans respect.

Bearing that travesty in mind, one really cannot blame Christopher Nolan for going over the dark side. The world had rejected a Batman deemed too happy for our liking. The story had also become too cluttered with heroes and villains. Eight years after Batman and Robin, Nolan decided to sweep the streets of Gotham clean and start again. He wanted to show us how an ordinary, extremely wealthy orphan becomes a vigilante in a bat suit. Previously, all we knew about Bruce was that he took a dislike to criminals after one individual shot both his parents dead during a stroll down a dark, empty alleyway. He sought to avenge their deaths and to strike back at crime, albeit using controversial methods. Burton gave us a hint at the back-story in Batman, showing the shootings but left it there.

But Nolan took his cues from the Batman: Year One comics, detailing the young Bruce’s travels to the Far East and his ninja training (which explains his ability to expertly fight evil without having any actual superpowers…). While showing sense in not making things too light, Nolan took a big risk in spending so much time showing us Bruce the man as opposed to Bruce the Batman. It’s nearly an hour into the 2 hours and 20 minute long film before our hero even picks up the mask. Batman Begins is essentially Nolan Explains. From the affinity with bats, to the batcave and the batmobile, the film is all about explanation, quite a dangerous thing for a comic book film. Obviously the origins of comic heroes are an incredibly important part of their story - What would Spiderman be without the run-in with the genetically modified (formally radioactive) spider? Or Superman without his crash landing in the cornfields of Smallville? But usually the most these heroes get is their 15 minutes of explanation or less. With supervillains it is almost certainly less. The Green Goblin was created quicker than you could say “Oops I should have tested this formula on more monkeys before I tried it out on myself”. Catwoman had macintosh converted to catsuit before you could..well..meeow. With Batman Begins however, delaying the inevitable makes it all the more thrilling when it happens. Whatever die-hard fans may feel about Christian Bale being the new man in black, watching him suit up for the first time and declare in the raspiest voice yet “Who am I?-I’m Batman!” to a terrified thug, one cannot help thinking “Yes, goddamnit, he’s back!”. Not since Batman Returns have we really felt that Batman was exciting, frightening and just a little bit creepy.

Ah yes, there’s nothing creepier than reality. It’s one thing to have a man dressed as a bat climbing around a clearly fantastical city, but to watch the same playing out in a gritty crime-hole of a place is far weirder. The Gotham created by Nolan and cinematographer, Wally Pfister is one which is jaundiced by street lights, stricken with the homeless and plagued by crime. By night, everything in the film is either a sickly yellow, a toxic orange, or an all-consuming black. By day there is only the fresh green isolation of Wayne manor, far from the influence and hues of the city. Gotham (unlike New York, which is under Peter Parker’s watch) was always very definitely a fictional city. But just as a fuming Rachel Dawes drives Bruce down into the underbelly of Gotham to reveal to him that “the city is rotting”, Nolan shows us Gotham could be real. The problems it has are real, with drug pushers controlling the gangs and drug users committing the street crimes. Fair enough, the plot dreamed up by the Scarecrow to truly take over and destroy the city is hopefully not grounded in realism but the society upon which he unleashes said plan is a reflection of our own.

So you have to think - is Batman really taking himself too seriously or is Nolan just being smart in taking us to a place we’ve never been before? We all know that comic heroes aren’t real, we know Batman would actually be locked up if he were really to make an appearance on our streets. But doesn’t part of us enjoy the spectacle all the more if it seems just that bit more plausible? Batman is probably the only hero who can truly have one foot planted in realism, given that all the others are the product of gross scientific inaccuracies. The only important thing is that he keeps the other foot firmly on the side of fairytale, and one part of him at all times tethered to unreality. Because while we live in a world with problems far more overwhelming than any supervillain, we can do with all the fairytales we can get.

After watching Indy and co ride off into the sunset at the end of Last Crusade, one had to question Spielberg’s decision to resurrect the franchise 19 years on. ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’ confirms all our fears about another Indy movie in that it is a poor reworking of the original films, veering between parody and downright silliness.

The beginning of the movie is the most tedious to watch because you cannot help judging every moment against what has gone before. At the same time you are attempting to enjoy it for what it is. But what it is, of course, is a reprisal of the classic Indy movies: therefore, comparison is inevitable, and there’s no point saying that this is a film in its own right. A number of iconic Indy images are used anew in the opening sequence, but this time around, with Ford looking his age (65 by the way) and with some terribly wooden dialogue, it all comes across as poor imitation.

The only truly new element here is, sadly, the use of CGI which has received much criticism by Indy fans. Not very much is used, but when it is used, the effects fail to impress and simply leave the viewer feeling cold. It also comes late in the film, at which stage good effects are not enough to redeem the show.

On paper, Crystal Skull could possibly read quite well. There are those who have torn it apart and uncovered countless plotholes but the combination of classic Indy moments coupled with today’s CGI stunts may have seemed like enough to distract from any loose writing. Unfortuately it just doesn’t work that way. The previous Indy movies had their share of crazy stunts and supernatural activity but the characters and the relationships between them were always ground in reality. In ‘Crystal Skull’, any reality is foregone in the rush to reach the CGI filled (anti) climax and a clichéd happy ending.

It’s especially disappointing when you realise what great actors were at the directors’ disposal here. Cate Blanchett is a talented actress but in her role as the villain, she delivers no memorable lines and, as mentioned in another review I read, comes across as rather cartoon-like with her odd outfit and regimental bob. Shia LaBoeuf was well suited to his role as Indy’s younger sidekick, but his character was also rather underdeveloped despite his being present for most of the movie: all we know about him is that he dropped out of school to fix motorbikes and that he likes to keep his hairstyle intact. This leads to the point that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull suffers from a formulaic script that was keen to tick all the boxes, often using characters to do so. Mutt’s reason for being was to serve as an aid for the older Indy in the action scenes and also to reunite Indy with Marion. Blanchett was there to play the villain because Indy (or should I say Mutt) has to fight someone. John Hurt’s character could have been memorable but he appears half way through the film with the sole purpose of leading Indy to the climax of the movie. With so many characters that we know little about, they are easily forgotton by the end of the movie.

One gets the impression that this film was a trip down nostalgia lane for Spielberg and Lucas who then decided it needed a 21^st century makeover in the shape of CGI. Unfortunately, nostalgia is best left alone and that is the case here also.

Gerard Lough, a short filmmaker from Donegal, has been promoting his new short film, Deviant, for which a trailer can be see here. It stars Michael Parle, an actor who can also be seen in Ivan Kavanagh’s Tin can Man, winner of the Sydney Underground Film Festival. Deviant, which is about a night-time prowler, used a “combination of back-lighting, colour correction and shooting at ‘magic hour’” in order to create a memorable atmosphere. Lough is an experienced short film-maker: this is his fourth short and he also has a number of music videos behind him. Deviant is mentioned in this months (May) ‘Film Ireland’.

I’ve been really lazy and not posting anything on here but finally I have some news. The Cork Midsummer Festival which is largely focused on theatre and dance, have decided to screen this cult classic in the Spiegeltent on June 29th at 1pm. Admission is €10. It’ll be interesting to see how many people turn up seeing as the dvd copy is often available at half this price. But you have to admit that there’s nothing like seeing a classic film on the big screen, where it belongs, particularly when you’re surrounded by its many fans. You can go visit the Midsummer fest site at www.corkmidsummer.com.

   Patrick O’ Shea of Southernman Films from Cork has written and directed this two minute short horror film for the Zone Horror/Fright Fest. ”Cut!”, the 2008 Horror Short Film Competition based in London. See details here. The competition is nearly too good to resist for short filmmakers, as it offers great prizes and is encouraging entries from amateur filmmakers or anyone with a “passion for horror”!

‘The Sign’ was filmed in the forestry of Watergrasshill over the course of two days with a cast and crew of eight people. Without giving too much away, the film centres on a young couple who wander into the woods but get more than they bargained for. You can check out the Southernman Films site here.

A small town modern fairytale that goes one step too far.

Directed by: Craig Gillespie.

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer, Paul Schneider, Kelli Garner, Bianca the doll.

What’s it about? Lars (Gosling) is an introverted man who is unlucky in love until he announces that he has a new girlfriend. The girl in question turns out to be a blow up doll which he has ordered from the net, but in his deluded state, Lars is sure she is the real deal. What initially seems to be an embarrassing situation improves however when the townspeople decide to support Lars and his new girl Bianca.

Surely one of the reasons behind this film’s success has to be Ryan Gosling’s excellent performance as Lars. With his air of innocence and his awkward approach to the world, Lars is a character who easily provokes sympathy in the viewer and someone that I found myself rooting for. His old-fashioned dress sense and his decision to use a baby blanket as a scarf may indicate a pathetic individual but Gosling portrays Lars as a thorough gentleman trying his best to cope with his shyness and anxieties. The other important aspect of this movie, then, is the setting, which itself plays a pivotal role in the film’s plot.

The setting for this film is a small town, somewhere far north in Canada. It lives up to the small town stereotype with everybody knowing everyone else, and where church on a Sunday is a place to meet and greet the neighbours. The town as a whole has an endearing charm, reminiscent of a time gone by when people lived life at a slower pace. A few decades ago in Ireland this lifestyle wouldn’t have seemed so unusual but today it seems strangely foreign which, when you think about it, is a sad reminder of how so many of us are living life in the fast lane. Certainly, few of us are now members of a community who would pull together the way Lars’ friends and neighbours do when he creates this delusion for himself. Only his brother, Gus, represents the more typical modern reaction to a man who is sure he should marry a blow up doll. Not surprisingly then, Gus is the least likeable of the lot, as he disrupts this fairytale image. In fact, Lars and the Real Girl does indeed feel like a fairytale for much of the time and has a comforting affect like that of a nice bedtime story: Lars meets a woman who isn’t real but it’s ok because one by one the people of the town learn to accept Bianca and make her feel welcome, even winning over Gus in the end.

This happy story does take a turn for the dark side however, when Lars suddenly announces that Bianca is unwell and possibly dying. The underlying darkness to his story is brought out into the open with this announcement. Up until this point, the other characters’ decision to join in on Lars’ delusion has played down the fact that he is a man with some serious psychological scarring. The death of his mother at the time of Lars’ birth meant that Lars grew up with a father whose own feeling of grief left him unable to communicate with his young son on any meaningful level. Lars ultimate inability to connect with women is obvious, aside perhaps from a strained friendship with his bubbly sister-in-law, Karin. Bianca is the first woman with whom he strikes up a relationship and even then, he treats her with such respect and obedience, one wonders if she is more of a mother-replacement than a that of a girlfriend: He leaves her to sleep in a separate room and makes sure she is wearing appropriate apparel at all the times. Lars’ Bianca is a far cry from the sex doll she was supposed to be. Aside from his decision to ask her to marry him at one stage, there is no indication that Lars sees her as a sexual object at all.

With such painful themes as those of death, grief and loneliness underlying the sugary exterior, Lars and the Real Girl is less a fairytale and more a fairytale for adults. Yet still a fairytale, because no matter the past hurts that Lars endured, now the townspeople are coming together to make things better. This storyline obviously lends a feel-good vibe to the movie, indicating that human kindness does exist and will reveal itself when somebody such as Lars is in need of it. By right we should all go to see this film and leave the cinema with a happy serenity, but unfortunately the final segment of the film takes a downward spiral sinking into a truly unbelievable plot. The fact that people would welcome Bianca into their homes and workplaces for Lars sake seemed possible due to the nature of this film, but those events that take place within the last twenty minutes are too far-fetched and so the bubble is burst and we are hit with the realisation that none of this would ever happen in today’s self-obsessed world.

Overall, Lars and the Real Girl is movie with many good points. It is entertaining with great acting and likeable characters many of whom are at times quite potty; the true clichés of village life. It also relies solely on decent story-telling, something of which a lot of other films could take note. However, it ultimately becomes a victim of it’s own eager need to make us feel good and the implausible ending does detract from an otherwise sweet, sentimental and even wholesome tale.

After much deliberation, it seems that the new ‘Mary, Queen of Scots’ film is definitely going to be shot in Ireland.

The new ‘Mary Queen of Scots’ movie, starring Scarlett Johansson in the title role, is going to be filmed here with production beginning in the late summer, or so it seems. There was much uncertainty surrounding the story when it first made headlines around February, and the Irish Independant had claimed that the Irish Film Industry was “on its knees” and unable to support such a movie. But now the tide has turned again and filming is set for Ireland with three weeks set in Scotland also. The battle scenes will be filmed here with help from the Defence Forces. The film will be directed by Philip Noyce ( ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’, ‘The Quiet American’ ) and it is written by Jimmy McGovern.