Birth (2004)

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of a few films. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

2012 #87
Jonathan Glazer | 93 mins | TV | 1.85:1 | USA & Germany / English | 15 / R

BirthControversial supernatural mystery drama. Nicole Kidman’s rationalist husband dies suddenly; years later, as she gets engaged to another man, a boy arrives claiming to be her husband reincarnated. More realistic art house drama about grief and insecurity than thrill-giving occult mystery, it nonetheless keeps you guessing as Kidman is slowly convinced by the boy’s tale, while family relationships collapse around her. Full of quiet understated performances, Kidman is particularly captivating and, as the boy, Cameron Bright is mesmerisingly unreadable. Poorly received, with some notable exceptions, Birth is a fascinating film that won’t appeal to everyone, but deserves the right audience.

4 out of 5

The Plank (1967)

2012 #97
Eric Sykes | 51 mins | TV | 1.66:1 | UK / English | U

The PlankA near-silent slapstick comedy starring Tommy Cooper and Eric Sykes, I’d never heard of The Plank until MovieMail highlighted it in a recent catalogue — I swear they gave it a fairly thorough write-up and called it a “must see” (or words to that effect), but I can’t find it now… Weird. (Incidentally, if you don’t get the MovieMail catalogue, you really should — it’s the best free film magazine I know, and probably bests a fair few purchasable ones too.) Anyway, after remembering MovieMail said it was a must see (even if they didn’t), Channel 5 helpfully put it on late one night over Christmas. So I watched it.

The film opens with the credits being sung to the viewer — a surreal touch that indicates the kind of experience you’re in for. The humour, as noted, is primarily of a slapstick variety, much of it unsurprisingly revolving around the titular slab of wood. Some of it is very amusing, but it really only works for people who like that kind of humour. That might sound self evident, but I mean I can’t see this as a film that will convert anybody. At times it coasts a little too; perhaps too much for such a short running time.

A right pair of plankersThere’s actually a surprising amount of dialogue, considering I’ve seen it several times cited as being a silent comedy. The vast majority is inconsequential and there’s no significant humour there, which does render it an almost pointless inclusion — why not go the whole hog and make it dialogue-free? But then, this isn’t The Artist, so why not have chatter?

Also worthy of note are the supporting roles, featuring numerous comedy stars, many with names still recognised today: Roy Castle, Jimmy Tarbuck, Hattie Jacques, Bill Oddie… Can’t say I spotted them all in the film, but they must be there somewhere.

Some people seem to adore The Plank, and I’m glad for them that it’s made its way to DVD. It’s certainly a left-field kind of movie, very ’60s, and while I only really enjoyed it in parts, it’s the kind of thing I appreciate having seen. Well done, MovieMail.

3 out of 5

Avengers Assemble (2012)

aka The Avengers / Marvel’s The Avengers / Marvel Avengers Assemble / Marvel’s Avengers Assemble

2012 #78
Joss Whedon | 143 mins | Blu-ray | 1.78:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Avengers Assemble

I don’t think it’s a perfect movie. I don’t even think it’s a great movie. I think it’s a great time.

So says Joss Whedon, writer/director/creator of the generation-defining Buffy the Vampire Slayer, its spin-off Angel, the inimitable Firefly, its incredible movie send-off Serenity, the ground-breaking Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, and, y’know, Dollhouse (which I’ve not seen). In short, I love the work of Mr Whedon. And, more relevantly, he’s also the writer/director of the film that represented the culmination of Marvel’s uber-successful Phase One cinematic experiment: the disappointing Avengers Assemble.

Yeah, I said “disappointing”.

Let’s tackle the big looming issue head-on: hype. Something can only be disappointing if you’re expecting something of it, and the big screen adaptation of Marvel’s long-running superhero team-up comic The Avengers certainly had more than its fair share of that. Built with subtle (and not so subtle) snippets of information through five preceding Marvel Studios films, this crossover had been teased for years, and it was a radically new method of franchise-building to boot. Mix in that most of these films and characters were very popular, and the fan-pleasing appointment of Mr Whedon, and you had a recipe for hype. In spite of this potentially damaging level of expectation, critics largely loved it, and audiences too (though there were dissenting voices — genre magazine SFX only awarded it 3.5 stars), and it outpaced everyone’s expectations to become the third highest grossing film of all time (it took more than Iron Man, Thor and Captain America combined).

Captain Iron and America ManComing to it for the first time on Blu-ray, then, there’s an even bigger level of expectation attached. Iron Man had much the same problem five years ago, and I felt that had been overrated too. I don’t think either are bad films — I very much enjoyed Iron Man, and I enjoyed The Avengers, albeit more intermittently — but I don’t think either are as good as mass opinion holds.

The problem here is bringing together so many different characters from so many different films. If anyone can do it it’s Whedon, master of the ensemble cast in just about every one of his previous projects, but even he produces a leaden first act in which we’re re-introduced to everyone and they’re gradually brought together. This is the film’s worst segment — it’s a slow 20 to 30 minutes during which pieces are shuffled into place for what follows.

Even when it picks up, the plot’s scaffolding is on show: bits feel engineered merely to set up certain one-on-one face offs (Whedon makes sure nearly every hero has such a scene with Loki, for instance), or even to keep certain characters out of the way until the plot requires them again. People talk of the fantastic dialogue, but I found the odd good line in a sea of functional chatter. Maybe it plays better in a packed cinema. The action sequences are a similar affair, though they manage to have their cake and eat it with hero-on-hero duels at first meeting before united-heroes-vs-baddies later on. However, there are some bits that played well in the trailers which, in the film, feel like they were parachuted in to play well in the trailers. As the (excellent) Honest Trailer points out, however, one key mid-film sequence is all about the exciting event of… Iron Man repairing a ship. Woo.

This ship.

Despite the relatively moderate success of the non-Iron Man previous Marvel films, this largely draws its story from their sources. Boring old Captain America is the de facto lead, though of course Tony Stark steals the scene from him on numerous occasions — those worried the film would be seen as Iron Man and His Super-Friends weren’t wholly wrong (indeed, that’s virtually how the Radio Times describe it in their 22-word summary).

But, even more so, Whedon’s chosen villain and plot make this pretty much Thor 2. The evil so bad it has to bring all the heroes together is Loki, last seen falling to his doom at the end of Thor (well, if you watch the post-credits scenes he was doing something else, but as far as Thor’s concerned, he’s gone). His motivation, only passingly mentioned (so much so that some missed it and claim he’s destroying Earth “just because”), is born out of the events of Thor; as is world-shattering MacGuffin the Tesseract (again, it was first mentioned inHammer Time Thor’s post-credits scenelet); plus numerous events from that film are mentioned and discussed, I’d say more so than any of the other four preceding films (scenes that would have more specifically related to the events of Captain America were cut for time and pace — yes, believe it or not, some stuff was left out).

I don’t know how the film plays for total newbies — there must have been some in the audience, considering how much more the film made than its predecessors — but I think that in many respects you need to have seen all the previous films. You certainly need to know who Iron Man is and who Tony Stark is; the allusions to Steve Rogers’ past, and so why his character is the way he is, are all there; and, as discussed, Thor has the most bearing on the plot. Perhaps you could follow it without having seen any of them, but I’m willing to bet you’d be very aware you were missing backstory.

Looking ahead for a moment to Marvel’s forthcoming Phase Two (a series of sequels and one new film leading up to The Avengers 2), they’ve talked about keeping the individual characters’ movies standalone, so that each works as its own series. I can see how Iron Man 3 will be just fine (though even that will be building off his psychological reaction to the events of Avengers’ climax), as would a (second) Hulk reboot (besides, it doesn’t need to continue at all if it’s a reboot). Heck, even Cap might get away with it — having deleted the “coping with the modern world” stuff here, why not use it in Cap 2? And we can tell from the title that the main plot will derive from events in Cap 1. But The Avengers completely blusters on from the end of Thor, Puny Godmeaning Thor 2 is going to have to begin somewhere after what happened here, with very specific ramifications for its characters. Maybe they’ve got some damnably clever way around that. I doubt they think it matters any more anyway — who hasn’t seen The Avengers? And in the future, well, it’s up to the viewer to piece together which order all the disparate sequels and spin-offs go in.

And on matters of “screw later viewers!”… Technically I should probably subtitle this The Blu-ray Cut or something, for two reasons. 1) The Shwarma Scene, a short post-credits scenelette that was included on Marvel’s The Avengers but wasn’t ready in time for Marvel Avengers Assemble’s week-earlier theatrical release. It’s back now. 2) The Spear Tip, which there’s every chance you’ve heard about: fans complaining it’s gone missing on the DVD/BD; the BBFC investigating if Disney breached the Video Recordings Act; then discovering it was (sort of) their own fault for (sort of) not spotting the change; Disney saying it was never even there in cinemas (which the BBFC disagree with)… Sadly, the end result was Disney had done nothing illegal. It might’ve been nice if they’d been forced to do a recall and repress, because then they’d have had no excuse to not include the director’s commentary (missing from the UK release because it was recorded late and some idiot thought hitting an earlier date was preferable to including all the special features), but I don’t imagine that was ever really likely to happen.

I haven't discussed Maria Hill either, but here's a pretty pictureAnd the glaringly obvious thing I haven’t discussed is the title. Firstly, as you can see from all my akas at the top, no one can quite agree on what it’s meant to be. Secondly, there’s the highly contentious UK renaming. Did it need it? Patronised-feeling film and comic fans say “no”; but those aware of general public perception say that, either anecdotally or through research, normal Brits did report confusion with the classic ’60s spy series (and, presumably, the lamentable ’90s movie). Funnily enough, I think the new title actually works better in context. “What do we do now?” calls Agent Coulson. “Avengers Assemble,” comes the title card’s response. Well, it kinda works. And even then, what does it matter, really? Those people who went as far as importing a foreign DVD or Blu-ray just for the original title card need to get some perspective in their life. (If you did it for Whedon’s commentary, however, I completely understand. I saved money and pirated it (the commentary, not the whole film), which feels morally pleasing.)

I realise I’ve spent much of this review discussing the pre-release hype, what this means for the future of the franchise, and how they ballsed up the home entertainment release. That those are the elements most concerning me perhaps says something about my reaction to the film. And I haven’t even mentioned the distracting way the heroes all talk to each other without earpieces during the final battle, or Jeremy Renner’s comments about his disappointment at the treatment of Hawkeye (he has every right to be peeved), or the predictable inevitably over who gets killed off (of course someone gets killed off, that’s one of Whedon’s trademarks), or the resultant outcry from some parts of fandom, or even bits that were quite good.

You'll like him more when he's angryAmusingly, one of the few bits even those in implacable love with the film sometimes criticise is Banner’s “I’m always angry” moment, which I thought was an awesome perspective on the character. It’s not just convenience either — it was put it in for a specific reason. I’ve lost the quote, but it’s something to do with how Whedon always feels somewhat angry at various things. I could identify.

Avengers Assemble left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. After all the hype and excitement, I just didn’t enjoy it that much. I tried, but it seemed slow to get anywhere, the dialogue didn’t zing as promised, some of the story seemed perfunctory and lacking requisite grandeur, there were little niggles like the earpieces… Perhaps it will fare better on repeat viewings, because there’s certainly entertainment contained within, and I’ll be divorced from such insurmountably high levels of expectation. But until then… disappointing.

4 out of 5

Avengers Assemble premieres on Sky Movies today at 4pm and 8pm, continuing for the next fortnight.

It merited an honourable mention on my list of The Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

Thor (2011)

2012 #37
Kenneth Branagh | 115 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

ThorDirector Kenneth Branagh brings all his Shakespearean know-how to one of the most innately successful of Marvel’s recent superhero movies. Perhaps lacking the mass appeal of Iron Man (specifically, of Downey Jr), Branagh spins a yarn of gods and mortals, humility and responsibility, without stinting on action or humour.

In the title role, Chris Hemsworth is an instant star; as his evil brother, Tom Hiddleston also seems to be commencing a considerable career. Too much building to The Avengers is its only major flaw. I had no interest in Thor before; now I’m desperate to read some of the comics.

4 out of 5

Marvel Avengers Assemble, aka Marvel’s The Avengers, comes to Sky Movies Premiere from Friday 15th February at 4pm.

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of the stuff I watched longest ago. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

My reviews of the other Marvel Phase One movies can be found at the following links: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Captain America: The First Avenger; plus, the first two Marvel One-Shot shorts.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

2012 #2
David Yates | 130 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2After a decade on screen, the fantasy series comes to an action-packed conclusion. Adapting the final novel’s second half, it’s mostly finale, to both the seventh tale and entire series. The climactic Battle of Hogwarts takes up much of the film. A glut of combat and cameos, most surviving characters return. Many get their moment to shine, with particular gratification from Matthew Lewis’ Neville, Julie Walters’ Mrs Weasley, and Maggie Smith’s Professor McGonagall. Not flawless, with major deaths off screen and a Potter / Voldemort showdown less stirring than the novel’s, but exciting and grand enough for a fitting send-off.

4 out of 5

See also my overview of the Harry Potter films of David Yates.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 merited an honourable mention on my list of The Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of the stuff I watched longest ago. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

The Lady Eve (1941)

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I’ve decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of the stuff I watched longest ago. In the future, when I eventually watch these again, I may well update with something longer; but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, Wikipedia defines a drabble as “an extremely short work of fiction of exactly one hundred words in length”. I first encountered it in a non-fiction book, so I’m going to decide Wikipedia is wrong and that it really means any complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

So, the first of these ‘drabble reviews’ is…

2012 #25
Preston Sturges | 90 mins | TV | 1.37:1 | USA / English | U

The Lady EveScrewball romantic comedy starring Barbara Stanwyck as a con woman who falls for her latest mark, ale heir Henry Fonda, until he discovers the truth and ditches her — and she vows revenge by conning him again. Packed with wit, Stanwyck shines as a slightly kooky, thoroughly daring con artist. Hers is the role with all the power, but Fonda’s gentler portrayal of her unconfident target is equally vital. It’s only let down by the ending, which rushes a conclusion in two minutes and didn’t seem to quite make sense. It doesn’t ruin the film, but it makes an unfortunate dent.

4 out of 5

Scre4m (2011)

aka Scream 4

2012 #45
Wes Craven | 111 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

Scre4mI had heard Scre4m (Scream 4, if you prefer) was dreadful; a misguided, belated attempt to revive a once-popular franchise. Personally, I thought it was fun.

Set ten years after the trilogy-closing Scream 3, the new movie wisely kicks off in years-later-sequel mode, re-introducing us to the (surviving) old characters and setting up a selection of new ones ready to be sliced ‘n’ diced. Unlike some subsequent horror franchises, Scream was never about inventive deaths, so the focus on character and storyline (relatively, at least) makes for a welcome change of pace from gore-riddled modern US horror movies.

One of the hallmarks of the original films, as I’m sure you’ll recall, is that they featured characters who were very aware of the rules of the horror movie. It played on these mercilessly, said characters employing knowledge of decades’ worth of horror films and horror sequels in order to (try to) survive. That’s not gone in Scre4m, which sets its sights on the US horror predilections that have followed since; mainly remakes and reboots. Sadly, there’s probably more on-the-nose dialogue-y exposition-y stuff about the poor quality and predictability of remakes than actually integrating such criticism into the film itself; but then again the parallels to the original Scream are there for those who care to look.

Arquette CoxIt also leads to quite a good extended bit where some characters reel off a list of recent remakes, which rather highlights just how far it’s gone now. There’s lots of examples of this fun ‘meta’ stuff for film fans; for real-world-stuff too, including references to Courtney Cox and David Arquette’s marriage, Emma Roberts being in the shadow of Julia Roberts, and so on.

In a nod to the rise of ‘torture porn’ films, Scre4m frequently reminds us that the rules have changed. I think what it really proves is there are no rules any more. Which on the one hand is fine — filmmakers have spent decades trying to subvert our expectations and surprise us in the horror genre — but on the other means the intelligent viewer can never be surprised, because every possibility is racing through our mind. Which, again, is fine — that’s the point: like every kind of murder mystery from Agatha Christie on, half the game is guessing the killer. And if you want to get suckered in to the jump scares, or think it through so thoroughly you remain ahead of them, that’s fine too. I think that’s one of the reasons horror movies have always appealed so much to teens: they’re still naive enough, unfamiliar with the rules of film enough, to get caught out by those things; whereas an older, seasoned viewer can see them coming.

New generationBut, ultimately, all the discussion of horror movies and their rules is just window dressing: if there aren’t rules any more (which there don’t seem to be), it’s impossible for the characters to use them to survive, or for it to lend much self-reflexive weight to how the killer behaves. The only moment when it might be of use is when they predict the climax will occur at a party, and it turns out they’re having a party that very night! But then they go ahead with anyway. So much for that then.

Like so much of the film, Marco Beltrami’s score is amusingly overblown. He makes it sound like something terrifying is happening when someone sits in broad daylight typing “I don’t know what to write” on their computer. I had similar thoughts on bits of the acting, the murders, and so on — there’s an element of a wink and a nudge, of deliberately hamming it up. I think that some would see this as a lack of skill in the acting/writing/directing departments, but I think it’s a choice. Or I choose to think it’s a choice, take your pick. Arguably the resultant mix works as well as a comedy as it does a horror movie. This, I think, is part of why the Scary Movie movies are so reviled — they simply take the piss out of something that is, to one degree or another, already taking the piss.

In many respects, Scre4m is kind of old school. It fits better in the era of the original trilogy and/or earlier horror films than with the development of the genre in the intervening decade. Old skoolThough as the main development has been torture porn, and it criticises that explicitly from the very first scene, perhaps that’s still OK. In fact, they’re one step ahead again, with a nod to the most most-recent development (the Paranormal Activity-led “found footage” boom), which actually plays a more central role than the torture porn stuff.

It’s fair to say that a chunk of nostalgia for the originals colours my liking of Scre4m. Perhaps it plays best to those who saw the first three at the right age, i.e. mid-to-late teens or so. I shouldn’t think it would engage a new audience all that much, especially ones versed in the gorier Saw and Final Destination franchises. But for those of us with fond memories (to one degree or another) of the first three films, it’s kind of a nice little revisit.

3 out of 5

Special (2006)

2012 #40
Hal Haberman & Jeremy Passmore | 78 mins | DVD | 1.85:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

SpecialA lot of praise was slung Kick-Ass’ way for being the first superhero movie genuinely set in the real world, showing the actual problems someone might face if they tried to fight crime behind a mask and a cape. But it wasn’t the first film to hit such a vein, just the most high profile.

One of the forerunners was this, in which a bored man signs on to a drug trial that, it turns out, gives him special powers — levitation, running through walls, etc. Or does it?

If you’re looking for comparisons, Special is more in line with Super than Kick-Ass. It doesn’t quite have James Gunn’s crazy surreal touch, but it shares the low-budget realist aesthetic and a surprisingly recognisable cast (albeit with smaller, TV-er faces here).

One might also argue it’s not strictly a superhero movie per se, more a comedy-drama about a man with mental health problems… though it’s less bleak or inappropriate than that might sound. That doesn’t mean it’s devoid of action or special effects, but they emerge largely in the third act and mostly serve a different purpose to the norm. Or, to put it another way, this isn’t as much of a sci-fi/fantasy film as you might expect.

That IS specialThose after a more genre-aware “real world superhero” movie would do better to stick with Kick-Ass or Super, but those who might embrace something a little different — especially something with an indie sensibility — would do well to take a look. Indeed, being a comic fan is certainly not a prerequisite for enjoyment here.

4 out of 5

Room on the Broom (2012)

2012 #94a
Jan Lachauer & Max Lang | 25 mins | TV (HD) | 16:9 | UK / English | U

Room on the BroomFrom the makers of the successful Christmas TV shorts The Gruffalo and The Gruffalo’s Child comes another adaptation of a children’s book by Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler.

This one concerns a witch, her broom, and all the creatures that want to ride on it. It’s a simple story with simple rhyme for little kids, of course, but that’s where its joy lies. Pre-schoolers are treated to far better poetry (because, ultimately, that’s what it is) than the dreary stuff us adults are meant to engage with. Along the way there’s moral lessons and whatnot too, which even if you can see coming, are freshly presented.

The animation retains the claymation-esque style employed for the previous two films, and consequently looks just as good. The creatures are all imbued with acres of character, mainly thanks to the animators — there’s an all-star voice cast, but as each has about two lines to deliver (literally, with the exception of the narrator), it’s in their actions and reactions that most of the character comes through, and consequently that most of the story is told. For what it’s worth, voice work is provided by Simon Pegg (narrating) with Gillian Anderson, Rob Brydon, Timothy Spall, Martin Clunes, Sally Hawkins and David Walliams.

Those seeking adult-aimed sophistication must look elsewhere, but for a family audience — or anyone who’s a bit of a child at heart — I think this is charming fare, more or less the equal of any short film Pixar has to offer. If these adaptations are to become a regular Christmas Day treat, you’ll hear no complaints from me.

5 out of 5

Repo Chick (2009)

2012 #35
Alex Cox | 84 mins | TV | 1.78:1 | USA / English | 15

Repo ChickAlex Cox’s belated non-sequel (despite the title, there are apparently no links besides some cast members) to cult favourite (and 2012 Masters of Cinema release) Repo Man. It’s also the second of his “microfeatures”: films shot for a budget below the Screen Actors Guild cut-off of $200,000. Although it was written for a budget of $7 million, by shooting his actors quickly (in ten days) on green screen, then putting in sets made from toys, Cox made the entire film for closer to $180,000. It’s not going to work for every film, but perhaps there’s some lessons big over-expensive Hollywood productions could learn…

Not everything, though, because Repo Chick is definitely an acquired taste — which may be an understatement. Most reviews on the internet seem to be negative; most people will tell you it’s awful; and I could sort of tell it was rubbish… but at the same time, I sort of loved it. Everything is heightened. This is emphasised by the incredibly mannered greenscreened-actors-on-toys visual style, but the performances and plot are pitched at the same daft level, so that it all kind of works… in a crazy cult-y kind of way. The humour is equally quite broad; satirical, but on the nose about it.

It’s been asserted that there are no likeable characters, which I don’t think is true. The titular Repo Chick, Pixxi (Jaclyn Jonet), starts out as appallingly irritating as her obvious inspirations (the Paris Hiltons of this world), but somehow she grew on me. I think it’s around the time of a montage which shows her to be an exceptionally gifted repo person — from then on, she’s the hero, and I was properly rooting for her by the end.

I'm a Barbie girl...True, the other characters are mostly dim and unlikeable, but is that a problem? We don’t need a film full of characters we like (otherwise we’d never have villains) — do we need there to be any? Or is the problem not that we don’t like them, but that their dimwittedness makes them too-easy targets for humour? I suppose it’s easier to just hate the film than grapple with such questions.

I’m not going to assert Repo Chick is actually a misunderstood masterpiece. As I’ve said, it will only appeal to a specific audience (and not one that’s easily defined), the satire can be blunt, and it does get a bit repetitive towards the end — all the stuff on the train once the real plan has been revealed could’ve been cut back. But, overall, Cox makes his point about doing things cheaply very well, I think… though, at the end of the day, it’s only going to work by embracing the craziness of a style such as this film’s toy sets. You’re not going to get Sin City for such little money.

Repo Chick should be a mess. In many ways, it kind of is. It’s not for everyone — it’s not even for most people — or even many people, come to that — but it worked for me. I sort of loved it.

4 out of 5