Tekken

The King Of Iron Fist Tournament based on the widely popular video game series hits the cinemas. But is it just another Street Fighter or does this pull more punches? Is it game over from round one?

It was only a matter of time until Tekken went from beat-'em-up madness to the big screen. After all, the first game was released in 1994 and Tekken 7 has just been announced as well as the imminent release of Street Fighter Vs Tekken. It's never been a series to give up fighting and with an intriguing storyline, with even more bizarre characters and backstory, there's a wealth of material to be played with. The game also features the toughest Grandad, Heihachi, that has ever existed. However, it's telling to say that Heihachi is a little bit different in the movie. Skinnier, less threatening and looks a bit of an idiot - much like the film.

In it's defence it takes a bold attempt to recreate the atmosphere and energy that surrounds a quintessentially Japanese title such as this. It's all bright lights, ridiculous moves and lots of colours. But it falls down in the same old places that every video game adaptation falls down in - it's too bogged down in simple plot (meaning the video game fans who are the most likely audience won't be surprised by any plot devices) and just looks a bit silly.

Saying that, it could have been a lot worse. Funnily enough, I thought the acting was good. Luke Goss was a highlight and I didn't even mind the bland cardboard beefed up guys too much - they weren't exactly left too much time to delve into their characters. However, the simple idea that Jin (who only came about in Tekken 3 if I remember rightly) is the People's champion coming up from the slums to fight alongside the best in the world is workable. The evil Tekken corporation is commercialism gone mad but for the average cinema-goer, you don't really understand the correlation properly between the Iron Fist Tournament and Tekken. The actual tournament itself seems to be a complete mess, not only is it over quickly with some characters you don't even see fighting, but the fights feel like they are over before they've actually begun. Which is a shame because they're rather good. Another terrible idea they've had is that instead of the globe-trotting that happens in the game, they've tried to recreate different scenes in the middle of the arena - meaning they have put a fake castle or some trees there. It just seems ridiculous.

The father/son/grandfather storyline is a bit dishevelled and even Heihachi comes across as a nice guy, but I can't help but feel there could have been so much more. Jin isn't a nice guy as he appears here either, in the games he's still got a bit of the (literal) devil from his father in him and this evil power would have been far more interesting than the whole revenge thing that the film turned into.

I had pretty low expectations but it does stand-up to some degree thanks to actors like Goss and Ian Anthony Dale. Harmless, brain-dead action that won't completely bore you but I can guarantee once you watch it, you'll never return to it. I doubt there will be another 6 of these.

Rating: 4/10

Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days

Kane & Lynch are back from what was a disappointing first game to try and improve upon its flaws and make killing people just look darn cool. But is it time to put this dog down?

I never played the first game 'Kane & Lynch: Dead Men' because I was one of the people who hated the demo. It was a shame since I enjoyed the premise of these two psychotic killers in for all they can get, but I just found the controls and gameplay not worth the hassle. It seemed like I wasn't the only one.

Everyone was willing to give it a try, but critics found many a flaw and the audience reception wasn't too great either, which made me wonder why they wanted to continue the franchise. A spokesperson said that this would be more character orientated, that the gameplay would be a lot smoother and will be a massive departure from the flawed 'Dead Men'.

In a sense, he's right. The story takes place some years later from the first game, so the characters have aged a fair bit, and Lynch is living in China, slightly overweight and looks like he could be in a retirement home soon. He needs Kane to help him with an arms deal and in a nutshell it all goes tits up. Plot-wise, it's sound, I enjoyed it but I wish there was a bit more depth, the story moves too quickly and it feels too forced. However seeing as that this is an action game, you don't want to be twiddling your thumbs for ages but there's a balance and unfortunately the game hasn't found it. It's close, but it's not quite the 'character piece' we were promised.

Saying that, the gameplay works well and from what I remember, it's a massive improvement from the first game. You press a button to cover and pop out with the aiming and then shoot. The problem is, this is pretty much the whole game. Run, cover, shoot, move on. It works the same way as say, Army of Two, but at least you got to drive things, customise things and you had loads of weapons. Instead, with Dog Days, you pretty much pick up whatever you can and just keep running forward. I don't really mind this per se, as for the realism it works (you're not going to be able to carry an arsenal with you) and you can't drive a tank through Shanghai but there wasn't really much variety to keep me entertained. Every time I went into a new room, I'd take a deep breath and move on knowing that I had to kill a bunch more people and then move into the next bit. Once a game begins to feel like a chore, you know there's a problem, no matter how cool it looks.

Also, the cover system isn't great. There were times where I'm covered and somehow, someone from a slight angle is still able to hit me so I'd have to 'uncover', crouch and move out of the way a bit, which becomes frustrating. Also the aiming can be annoying, unless you have a sniper rifle, you're going to have to move quite close to make sure you hit an enemy, which does add an element of realism again, but I felt like I had to shoot these guys a lot before they would die. The AI is also quite exemplary but could do with some tweaking, they will take cover and slowly try to flank you and will hide while you're shooting but sometimes it makes them a pain to come out to kill. At the same time it works well if you're badly injured; just keep shooting in the general direction while you find cover and you should be safe - something I imagine would work in real life!

When you do get hit, blood starts to fill the screen and the picture goes fuzzy and at times you will get completely smacked off your feet meaning you can shoot people on the ground or press a button to get up to cover (or if no cover is around just to get up). This works well because I imagine even with protection on, getting hit by a shotgun might knock you back a bit. There's enough guns to make the average gamer happy but in essence it's quite repetitive. However, when it does mix it up a bit, it works well. Flying over the skyline of Shanghai shooting a glass building from a helicopter was a real treat for instance and running around the tiny back alleys of the city felt like a real crime thriller. A lot of the shoot-outs would feel like they came straight out of Heat and it just felt fucking cool. You can even grab someone and use them as a human shield as you move forward.

The real plus here though is the style, something that IO have kicked up a real fuss about - and so they should! The whole game looks like it's being recorded through a shaky camcorder, so the whole things compressed, when it's dark it goes grainy, lights smear the lens and it moves all over the place. This looks absolutely wicked. When you sprint, the screen is everywhere and it feels like you're in a real movie with the camera keeping up with the pace of the action. I'm hoping this innovative style will influence a lot of other game production companies to take notice and think of things slightly differently, Dog Days proves that it can work. It's sometimes just the little details - a naked woman is blurred out, or an exploded head is blurred out, all while you are still playing. It's great. The cut scenes which are presented in the same style are exciting, the sets are exquisite, and bits such as where you're being tortured (which looks like something from Martyrs) really do make you feel like you're in a Tarantino movie. I mean, you're spending most of the game killing cops - you can't get more bad-ass.

So what's the real problem? Firstly, apart from the repetitive gameplay, I found the dialogue levels weren't quite right. Maybe it's my TV, but I couldn't hear what some people were saying which was infuriating when you're trying to move with the quick pace of the plot. But the real issue here is the length. It must have taken me about four or five hours, if that, to complete it - that's with dying occasionally and all that. The whole thing just feels short. You wonder if it's because the gameplay is perhaps too tiresome that it doesn't want to make players angry by stretching it out too long - but at least make it an 8 hour game - that's standard these days. It's a massive problem and hearing that there's the arcade mode (for the people who want to complete the levels with a score system), the co-op system (which I haven't tried and is supposed to work well) and a somewhat flawed yet interesting heist multiplayer mode, there isn't really that much here to justify it as a full game. It's like an EP rather than an album.

I have to say, I really did enjoy playing the game and it took me no time to complete it, you could easily buy it, complete it, and refund it within a day. I'm not joking. Keep in mind I completed it in three hour and a half sittings. I would recommend people play it just to see what they've done with the game but I don't think £40 (or £33 in Sainsbury's tomorrow) can justify it. I just feel there should have been so much more, which is a shame because for some reason I like these characters, I liked the game but once again it is ruined by some massive flaws. Maybe they should just come back to Kane & Lynch when they can do it justice. Rent it, borrow it, or wait until it comes down to £20 or something because it's well worth a play, but I just can't rate it highly against other, more 'full', games. I really wish I could.

Rating: 6/10

Interpol - Interpol

A return from one of New York's greatest exports in the last decade. Interpol's new self-titled album takes us back to the dark side.

In my eyes, Interpol can't do no wrong. Their first album was incredible but since then they have been getting gradually less impressive, and I'm sorry to say the trend continues.

Don't get me wrong, there are some stand out songs here, but like the former albums, it starts strong and slows down to a gradual death by the end of the album. It's the same dark epic sound that they have latched on to and slowly moved to since their inception. Opener 'Success' I would say might be their strongest, new single 'Lights' perhaps a close second. But after a while the guitars drown out to more atmospheric sounds. Songs like 'All Of The Ways' hit a very personal note and was very close to the bone (for anyone who knows what crap I've been going through the last few months) and you can almost feel the pain that clearly surrounds this record, perhaps more so than their past work. However, the songs feel like they're missing something ... oh yeah! Carlos D! Now the bass lines feel empty and has been mixed into the track so deep it's often hard to hear it. It's a shame because the bass isn't taking any chances, playing strange notes or clashing with the guitars, instead it's buried inside the music. Carlos D will be sorely missed.

The guitar-work though is still inspiring and the ever-cool Paul Banks still has a voice to kill for, but the songs feel slightly diluted and perhaps too try-hard. They've clearly tried to go back slightly to Antics days but they can't help but try to make everything sad and melancholy and for some reason it just doesn't feel right. The lyrics are again dark, cut-up and provocative - they never fail to impress.

All in all I'm giving this album a hard time. Interpol have a unique sound that can't be matched and it's a lot better than other albums out there - I just have high standards to match them against as they are still one of my favourite bands. It's becoming harder and harder though with each record to justify how much I like their work but they still are creating sounds I won't be able to hear elsewhere, so it gets marks for that alone. At least they haven't caved in and tried to go mainstream and until that day, if it ever comes, I will stand by them through thick and thin. I just don't want the thin to get any thinner.

Rating: 7/10

Splice

Produced by Guillermo del Toro, directed by the guy who did Cube, this B-Movie monster horror is a bit deeper than others, but should it even exist?

I've got a lot of time for movies like this, a high-concept, no bullshit horror film that plays out slowly and dramatically until a final burst at the end. Unfortunately, this movie feels like it should be so much more than what it has become.

This is mainly due to the director - the shots often feel standard and uninspiring yet there are odd moments where some glimmer of creativity comes through. You only have to look at what he's done since Cube to get a feeling that this is his last big shot, and it is in something that his art department background can justify, the monster horror theme.

But what makes this different, and kudos to Natali for co-writing the thing, is that you're never sure who the real monster is. The set-up is that Brody and Polley (who I don't think I've seen since Dawn of the Dead) are doctors playing with genetics to create animal medicines etc., but when they want to combine human DNA for medicines for us lot, they are quickly turned down. So what else to do but do it themselves? I think you can get the rest of it.

The problem is Adrien Brody just can't really hold a film together, his passiveness in The Pianist was either great acting or non-acting and this proves the latter. Polley I feel sorry for, she always seems to be left behind and doesn't seem to ever age, her acting is mediocre at the best of times and she's a strange choice for the role. It's really Delphine Chaneac as the creature Dren that shines through. Her animal-like behaviour and visual confusion is impressive, the brilliant CG and make-up helps, but Chaneac really makes Dren a complete character.

So what of the 'monster' Dren? From the minute she's born, she's an object of disgust so initially we seem to side with the idea of killing it. However, she starts growing at an alarming pace (not evolving - species evolve not individuals) and soon that disgusting thing with a tail is a little girl. The fact that she's mute and relatively sweet makes it harder and harder to consider her a threat as she turns more and more human. The plot moves nicely so that you're never at ease when she's around, there's a nasty streak in Dren and she tends to lash out with ferocity.

You start to realise that this all one big metaphor for how Polley's character Elsa wants to not let Dren down like her mother did her and soon, after a medical incident in a barn screaming metaphors (Freud would enjoy this film), you start to sympathise more and more with Dren. Is she being kept alive for the sake of Elsa? Is she actually just as bad a mother as her own? It's only about two thirds through the film that things start getting a bit weird, Brody's character Clive soon breaks loose from being the audience's grounding force to start messing with things he shouldn't - and for what reason I have no idea. Then when all hell breaks loose and Dren develops again, it gets really incestuous to the point of sickening. Dren's suddenly changed completely (in more ways that one) and has become a true monster. Was this from the result of her 'upbringing'? Or was this because of her genetics? See what they've done here? Because, to be honest, Dren goes through a lot in a short space of time that would mess anyone up, let alone a creature that doesn't know if it's even human.

So what's wrong with this picture? Firstly, the acting is pretty atrocious from everyone concerned, there's not enough tension as I would have liked there to have been and why the characters are doing what they are doing isn't explained fully enough, or there's not enough reference to any subtext to justify it. The effects, CG, make-up and everything in creating Dren is pretty damn good and looks authentic and it's the disturbing plot that wins it over from being some weird farce.

Overall, this is a great original story that takes a few chances that pay off. But ultimately, there's not enough method in the madness and it all seemed to happen so quickly that we couldn't get close enough to Dren to fully engage with the character. I enjoyed the idea, the story and the film itself but I was left feeling disappointed.

And also Brody's nose kept drawing my attention away.

Great film to kill some time and get you thinking about the morals of messing about with God's work, but ultimately more forgettable than it should have been.

Rating: 7/10

Toy Story 3

Woody and the gang are back in one of the most successful franchises of all time. But should this story have finished a long time ago?

I'm afraid I'm one of these people that doesn't really understand why Toy Story is so popular. I think it's clever, at times funny, but it's so full of cheese and can be so annoying that it makes me want to tear my head off. I can't stand that bloody music they use for one, I detest Tom Hanks' voice (could there be a lamer voice on the planet) and it's just so ... so ... soppy. But saying that, I would go as far as to say this was probably my favourite out of the three.

If you haven't seen it, their master Andy (who they refer to as a friend but their devotion is somewhat unhealthy) is all grown up and going to college, so the toys end up in a school of some sort where things aren't quite as sunny as they seem.

In order to carry on this review, I have to say what bugged me throughout the entire film. Firstly, Woody is the lamest cowboy ever, even for a toy, I mean - what the hell is he wearing? He's such a pansy and it just feels like he was the cowboy that was bullied at school for being 'gay' and so is left in charge of a bunch of losers. Which is probably why they're so appealing. Buzz is it's saving grace but the whole idea of him and his identity issues is made farcical in this after being quite seriously observed somewhat in the last one. The music again is enough to rip my head off, if I hear 'you've got a friend in me' again I might go crazy. But all this I can easily let go if it wasn't for one major, weird aspect which for me stood out like a sore thumb ... Andy.

Now, Andy has grown up to be 17 and is still attached to his toys. 'Cute' some might think, but I think that's just weird. It's clear he's never had a girl round, done anything bad or rebellious and he just feels so, so, so lame. He might as well be 12. I felt like giving him a slap the whole time and telling him to grow up and be a man. 'Oh but it's about letting go' - yeah, AFTER he plays with a little girl for ages that he's never met before. That whole scene made me feel physically sick - I mean, this kid is WEIRD! Go to college and get laid, don't play with 5 year old kids you weirdo! Also, going through puberty, the toys don't seem scarred or anything by any self-abuse that might have happened in his room. I mean, he's still got stars up on the bloody wall! Maybe he's a closet homosexual? It will certainly explain his close relationship with Wood(y). Either way, I developed a strange disposition to Andy that made me scared of what this kid is going to grow up to be (a paedophile). I mean, where the hell are his own friends? The toys should be thankful they got out of there.

This might sound quite dark, but to be honest the whole film was relatively dark. In a jokey way, the menacing clown standing by the window was great and slightly disturbing, but what wasn't funny was the baby. My God, that baby was horrible. For those who don't know me personally, I don't think there's anything scarier than babies in horror films. I don't know why. But this baby didn't help. The main bad bear guy was good, but he just seemed a little pissed off so didn't exactly scare me too much, not like that monkey watching the cameras did. That was weird.

I loved the way it looked like a prison and there was even something close to a torture scene at one point. Not only this, but the bit with the pit of fire even made me think 'Christ, this is a bit much'. So I'm happy to say, that this dark, evil side to Toy Story made me have a greater appreciation for it as a film and clearly they didn't want it to be as nice, bright and shiny as their previous movies.

The story worked well, but the whole escape thing kind of made me think - why didn't they sneak out how Woody sneaked in? It also felt a little short. The animation was, as always, superb and I saw it in 2D but I'm sure 3D would have looked great. Unfortunately, they have the little end bits in the credits where it's singing and dancing but I suppose I have to remember that it's a kids film. Which is what I want to stress to all those adults loving it - it's a kids film. When I hear about how sad it was and how people were crying, I could not for the life of me think which bits they were crying at. Getting melted? Saying goodbye? I was thinking they were lucky to get away from weirdo Andy and can actually be toys again. I think people get caught up in certain frenzies and the necessity to conform takes over, this film wasn't that great. Yeah ok it looks good, story was good, I even liked the dark stuff, it made me laugh a couple of times, but not once did I think - 'this film is amazing'. Maybe it's just me? But then, I love children's films, I love children's cartoons and more - so what makes this so special? I can't stand Shrek either. I just think it's all kind of lame and they might have pushed the boat out a bit with Toy Story 3 but, for kids this is amazing, as an adult it's alright. Great family movie, nothing more. I just know I'm going to be sitting on the tube next to a 45 year old man on his way to the City saying to his colleague 'oh I saw Toy Story 3 the other day, LOVED it, you HAVE to see it, it's AMAZING, best film I've seen for a long time'. I think they need to broaden their horizons. Don't get me wrong, go see it, but c'mon, get a grip - it's Toy Story.
I mean, you could be spending that money on seeing Inception again.
Have I offended enough people yet?

Rating: 7/10

Alan Wake

Microsoft's psychological thriller is finally completed in what can only be described as one of the strangest games to be released on the Xbox 360.

It has taken over 5 years for this game to be completed. Think about what you have spent the last 5 years doing - think about what you were doing in the Summer of 2005 and that was when this game was started. Unfortunately, it just isn't really worth the wait.

The initial concept is great, a renowned writer visits a small town and suddenly gets caught up in a nightmare scenario where his wife is missing and the little island they were staying on has suddenly vanished. There's a lot of nods here to TV series' such as Twin Peaks, The Twilight Zone and more, but the overall experience isn't quite as satisfying.

The game is divided into 6 chapters which play like episodes ('Previously on Alan Wake...') but each one is essentially the same thing over and over again. You start with nothing, pick up some ammo, a flashlight, then get more and more ammo as you walk in a linear fashion towards the next light. Enemies come at you and sometimes objects fly at you, but essentially it's the same thing again and again. It's also way too easy - this takes away any concept of 'survival horror' and instead you just end up throwing all your firepower at everything because it is very rare that you will find yourself short handed when you need it. To kill enemies is somewhat original, but essentially you shine a torch on an enemy until it's weak enough to shoot it and move on. That's it.

There's about 3 or 4 different types of human-like enemies (some move fast, others are slow and a lot stronger, some have chainsaws) but really, you will be hard pressed to be in a situation you can't get out of. Baring in mind a flare, which are dotted frequently around, is the same as an old-school 'invincibility potion', because they won't come near you and you can wait for your health to revitalise, it almost feels like you're cheating. It's a shame because it could be quite freaky and scary seeing as it's all about staying in the light, but it feels like a washed out Silent Hill. I was very rarely freaked out and at no point was I in a situation I felt like I couldn't handle leaving any tension at the door.

Saying that, the graphics look great and the scenarios kept me entertained enough. The length of the game was probably about 9 hours or so but there's more DLC to be had in the near future (one of which is already released). Why can't they have released this in the main game? Why should I pay out even more? Anyway, I don't want to give away the plot, but let's just say ... it's confusing.

The main pull of this game was that it was an adult interactive thriller as such, but released as the same time as Heavy Rain, there was no way this was going to push any boundaries like the PS3 hit did. Instead, Alan Wake continues a tried and tested formula and concentrates more on plot. But even after completing the game, I still have no idea what really happened. After some online research I was relieved to find others didn't either and there are a number of theories about it all swimming across the Internet which I did enjoy reading. But in order to keep the audience consistently entertained, the plot should maybe have been more grounded or the gameplay more experimental. The mix of quite boring, formulaic gameplay with such a weird story jarred with me and I was left feeling somewhat cheated.

A lot of hype went into this game, the online mini-series prequel looked promising and the trailers looked incredible, but really this was let down by the fact that rather than being cool it instead was quite boring. I hate to say it because I did enjoy playing it and glad I completed it, but I feel it could have been so much more. It's just not Heavy Rain. Sales figures also show that it didn't quite do as well as Microsoft wanted, and as you can probably see in any electronics shop, it's come down significantly in price. A little tip as well here, don't call a game Alan Wake - it was never going to fly off the shelves with a titles like that. Why not just 'Wake'? That sounds better at least - or 'Bright Falls' like where it's set and the mini-series?

I would like to think that given so much money and time thrown at it, that a team of creatives could do better and even though it looked good and the story, though confusing, was somewhat enjoyable in it's post-post-postmodern way, it's just let down by repetitive gameplay. A lesson for all I think.

Rating: 7/10

UK Film Council News - An Insiders Knowledge

Right, usually I wouldn't bother with such things as this but the closure of the UK Film Council and the big uproar that's happened in it's wake has really got to me. Firstly, before this causes so much backlash like my Lost article (death threats aren't great thank you), I WORKED for the UK Film Council so let me give you all a little insight into what kind of establishment this place was.
I doubt this will impair my career within film as not only is it ages ago, but no-one of any importance will read this and they never helped to get me into the film industry anyway and I landed in TV instead. Less money, less creativity, less time, yet more hours. It's what happens when you're not rich or related to someone on the inside.
So anyway, I worked in Development and for all you guys who don't know, this is where scripts get entered, digested and thrown back up. They decide essentially if something is good enough to fund and then they see it through. This department was headed by a woman and with about a team of fifteen people, there were three men, one was a very camp gay man, another an assistant and myself. In fact, rumours spread that they had been told off because they only employed women and it showed a lack of diversity. Naughty naughty. But then, it's widely known that TV, maybe not so much film but definitely TV, is a woman's game - and these girls stick together. I'm generalising, but it's an area where men are completely outnumbered and unless you're gay, you usually have to work harder to get a look in. Either that or you have to be good looking or lick arse. A lot of people would argue this, but more would probably agree.
So, what did these women do at Development meetings and such? Well, and I'm telling you now I'm not a sexist person, they would discuss their ex-husbands, the men they are having affairs with, gossiping about pregnancies, holidays etc. while we sit there smiling, laughing and looking like we're fine with this. I would sit there with the scripts they got me to read (to keep me busy) and we wouldn't bring it up at all. All that would happen is at the end of the meeting, they'd talk about what they're doing for the day.
A commissioning meeting would take place where they would dismiss independent films and only discuss anything that could, or has, a name attached. This means if they can't get any kind of US backing or a big star or director involved, they weren't interested, but they make up for it by commissioning shorts. Cheap, cheerful and representative of young filmmakers. It's bollocks.
They don't give a shit.
One meeting with a screenwriter I was involved with had me getting 10 minutes to quickly read the script and then overhearing one of the producers saying 'yeah, I looked over it last night but the fucking kids were running around everywhere. Doesn't matter, it's not as if we're going to get it made' then laughed. When I went into the meeting it was actually a cool little horror story that wasn't perfect, but she wanted to change it into more of a love story. I fought his corner, which he got excited about as I understood where he was coming from and rest assured I wasn't spoken to by this woman again for the rest of my contract. Also, the film never got made.
They also hated anything that was male-orientated unless it fitted into what they thought was for 'lads' - hence Danny Dyer in 'Severance' for example. Which was worse on page than it was on the screen. They were going crazy over a script that they were trying to get commissioned which was this - and I joke you not - a rich man (which was going to be Pierce Brosnan apparently) has his own zoo and one of the workers there gets in an accident and dies, so the wife of the dead worker goes to complain but ends up working there herself, she then befriends a chimp and falls in love with the rich man who she hated. That's it. If this film did get made can someone tell me because they were in love with it, and it sounded like someone had been sick on a plate and then took a shit on it and poured it down my ears.
So when people are crying that it will affect film, I agree that it's a good thing to promote British film, obviously, but I assure you the UK Film Council was a horrible establishment that paid itself up to £100k a year each for the big wigs and was solely interested in big budget movies that they could slap their name onto instead of putting the money into the actual British industry. Take a look at what films you see their logo in front of, it's very interesting.
In my opinion, they aren't worth a pot to piss in and I hope they find trouble getting another job, but let's be honest, I'll still be making them tea by the time I'm 50.
So don't commiserate because the money we were wasting on these wankers isn't worth it. It's better off going back into film via another route and I think the gutsy decision to close it down was the right one. Why have an inept Film Council? It doesn't make sense. I just feel sorry for the poor Production Assistant who worked there who would cry at her desk because she wasn't being paid enough to make rent and decided she had to give up her dreams and leave to get another career. Meanwhile, the 40-odd year old women are analysing their shoe purchases. I'm not making any of this up. But alas, it's the way of the world in this industry.
No rich parents, no family connections, no hope.
Doesn't matter how hard you work - if you can't pay through your nose to do a job you enjoy, then no wonder creativity in the British film industry is stifled - and it's NOT about piracy. It's about people like the UK Film Council.
Begin death threats now please ...