Cinema City Film Quiz #95

[28 April 2013]

Winning Team:
The Tree Of Wooden Knobs

Genre – 70’s biopic

Runners Up:
Piranha 3D: Live From Anfield
Genre – Sport/Horror
Cinema City Slickers 2: The Legend Of Curly’s Gold
Genre – Family adventure about three box office staff, who team up with John Hurt to find the golden popcorn hidden beneath Screen 3
The 35 Year Itch
Genre – A cinema catches something nasty from the punters
Genre – Romance
Extremely Clever And Incredibly Modest
Genre – Farce
The Stair Witch Project
Genre – Comedy about senior citizens and their terrifying stair lifts

1. What is the name of the singing ginger orphan in Annie?
2. Who played the eponymous deceased character, Sam Wheat, in Ghost?
3. In which film did Al Pacino play gangster Tony Montana?
4. What is the title of the third Indiana Jones film?
5. Who directed The Breakfast Club?
6. Terminator 2: Judgement Day was released in which year?
7. The following songs are from which Disney animated film: One Jump Ahead, Friend Like Me and A Whole New World?
8. What did M. Night Shyamalan direct in between Unbreakable and The Village?
9. What does Will Thacker (played by Hugh Grant) sell in his shop, in Notting Hill?
10. The Untouchables is set in which decade? [bonus point for naming the fashion designer who designed the wardrobe for the film]

1. Name all four of the subtitles for The Pirates Of The Caribbean series. (one point per correct answer)
2. Ray Harryhausen, who worked on such films as Clash Of The Titans, was known for which type of visual effect?
3. Which cast member from Interview With The Vampire received top billing on the poster?
4. Of its five nominations, how many Oscars did Philadelphia win?
5. Akeem Joffer (played by Eddie Murphy) is the lead character in which film?
6. What are the first and last sins to be utilised in Se7en (as discovered by Mills and Somerset)? (one point per correct answer)
7. What colour are the pearl-string canisters containing VX Gas in The Rock?
8. How many brothers does Private James Francis Ryan have (or has lost) in Saving Private Ryan?
9. How many years passed between the release of the original Ocean’s Eleven and the 2001 remake?
10. John Hurt had to turn down his role in Alien due to scheduling conflicts but was later able to take the part of Kane after being banned from entering South Africa. True or False?
TRUE (he was mistaken for another actor, John Heard, who was blacklisted at the time)

Screenshots: Grease / Cast Away / Crocodile Dundee
Posters: As Good As It Gets / Airplane! / Amadeus
Headshots: Henry Fonda / Denzel Washington / Diane Keaton / Julianne Moore


Heroes. There’s No Such Thing

Shane Black

Robert Downey Jnr.
Ben Kingsley
Gwyneth Paltrow
Guy Pearce
Don Cheadle

There’s something specifically unique to comic books. A feeling one gets having read a really gripping and profoundly affective story. Sure, you can experience similar things with any artistic medium but with characters that have been around for fifty-seventy years, it’s always a treat when a writer surprises you, bringing you a story and fresh perspective to a character, universe and (admittedly) gimmick you’re all too familiar with. As far as film sequels are concerned, they almost never get to that stage. Toy Story did. And now Iron Man has.

As with all sequels, I’m just going to openly assume you’ve seen this instalment’s predecessors and plough on with the synopsis. In Iron Man, the suit gives Stark purpose, in Iron Man 2 his flaws overwhelm his new responsibilities and after the events in The Avengers, this film addresses his dependency on his armour. The story opens with a flashback to 1999 and highlights a few encounters an inebriated Tony Stark [Downey Jr] has with key individuals such as Dr. Maya Hansen [Rebecca Hall], who is working on a biotic regrowth formula, called Extremis and Aldrich Killian [Pearce], an awkward, crippled scientist, who is trying to get Tony to endorse his fledgling organisation, Advanced Idea Mechanics (AIM). The film jumps ahead to the present day and we learn that Tony cannot sleep and is privately plagued by doubts and fears. Simultaneously, a mysterious figure known as the Mandarin [Kingsley] is frequently broadcasting threats and warnings to the world, followed by merciless acts of terrorism. After one particular attack puts Stark’s long-term friend/employee, Happy Hogan [Jon Favreau], into a coma he openly challenges the Mandarin, revealing his home address. Naturally, the response is horrific and the Stark mansion is decimated by an aerial assault, leading the world to believe that both Iron Man and Stark have perished. And that’s all you get, people. The rest you’ll have to see for yourself.

One of the key factors to this film’s success is the unique writing and directorial traits of Shane Black. His sporadic, flamboyant style paired with an ability to reign in erratic spiralling plot threads and almighty action sequences serves to bolster and secure what could have quickly become a steaming mess. While Jon Favreau served decently as director for the first two films, Black’s almost Stark-like manner and oversight perfectly suits this franchise. On top of fine directing and a very clever, funny, gripping script is a myriad of glorious performances. Every single character interaction is brilliantly executed, relevant to the story and offers the audiences something, whether in the form of comic relief, empathetic welling or an adrenaline release. It’s ultimately quite tricky to discuss the extent of the characters and the performances without divulging a great deal about the story and not being able to sing the praises of a select few individuals is particularly frustrating. But I can briefly touch on the tonality and themes. The overarching theme of this film is the nature of protection. What we use to protection ourselves: personal bodyguards, high-tech weaponised armour, military personnel; the perceived threats we protect ourselves from: terrorists, losing control, rivals; and those we choose/fail to protect. Over the last decade, terrorist bombings and attacks have become a regular occurrence and one which every nation is seemingly at potential risk from. The poignancy and presentation of these broadcasted sequences strikes with such resonance that the threat of the Mandarin instantly feels real and, equally, Tony’s own doubts and concerns plague us – what can I do to protect the ones I love? For the average citizen, it’s an unanswerable question but for Stark, he overcomes these fears by creating things, tinkering, building, constructing and proving to himself that with or without the suit, he is Iron Man. The armour gave him legitimate purpose but it doesn’t define who he is.

I know I rant about music a lot in a film but it’s such a crucial element that a lot of filmmakers seem to overlook. And really, it’s one of the only areas in which this film stumbles and ultimately suffers. Marvel scores have never been massively impressive, they fit the film but they’re hardly as iconic as the characters themselves. One could argue that The Avengers’ theme was pretty epic but in actuality it’s fairly average. The real affinity comes through association with the film itself. In other words, you don’t like the score because it’s good, you like it because you liked the film. Brian Tyler’s score is far from perfect but it’s definitely a step in the right direction, conveying the power and bravado that Stark projects while emitting select and sombre evocation when the script calls for it. Having said that, Clint Mansell has recently been confirmed as scoring Thor: The Dark World, so I imagine that will probably be something rather special and hopefully set a trend across the Marvel cinematic universe.

Outside of The Avengers, this is probably my favourite standalone Marvel release. The balance of humour, action, wit and drama strike a perfect chord and really feels like an extension of the comic. As discussed with a friend of mine, my biggest fear now is that we’re a little too spoilt, that we’ve had it so good for so long, it’s only a matter of time before Robert Downey Jr. drops from the role and Marvel cast someone who simply can’t follow in his footsteps. But these are future rumblings and as yet, no real threat. What we should really focus on is the fact that the Iron Man films have gone from strength-to-strength and the days of The Fantastic Four and Batman & Robin are long behind us. We hope.

Release Date:
26th April 2013

The Scene To Look Out For:
After his very public defeat and the destruction of his home, Stark finds himself salvaging parts in a garage in Tennessee. There he meets a young boy named Harley [Ty Simpkins]. Unfortunately, one cannot simply describe acting chemistry, all you can do is fail to replicate it and eventually give an example. I think the closest thing I could say to quantify it is believability. Actors interacting with their co-stars is just part of the job but when two people understand their profession and more importantly, understand each other, you completely and whole-heartedly believe that what you’re witnessing is real. In that regard, Downey Jr and Simpkins have astounding chemistry. Every scene, every interaction was hilarious, enjoyable and surprisingly heart-warming.

Notable Characters:
There are simply too many to choose from and to expand on them in any way would utterly ruin the film for a lot of people. If I’m honest, this is one of those rare ensemble casts that works so perfectly together, that support and empower their fellow actors/characters rather than scrambling for attention and elevate the entire experience to one of sheer bliss. Yes, I realise I how gushy that sounds but it’s completely true. It’s no good, I can’t leave it there. Downey Jr, Paltrow and Cheadle are amazing, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall and Ben Kingsley are exceptional, James Badge Dale, Jon Favreau and Paul Bettany support beautifully and Ty Simpkins is a scene-stealing genius.

Highlighted Quote:
“I can tell you’re cold. Know how? ‘Cause we’re connected”

In A Few Words:
“Bigger, cooler, funnier, smarter. Shane Black has crafted the perfect Iron Man film”

Total Score:



Based On The Outrageously True Story

Michael Winterbottom

Steve Coogan
Imogen Poots
Anna Friel
Tamsin Egerton

There are three clear prongs to ‘successful’ British cinema: the period drama, the urban gangster flick and the sweary/racy comedy. This established fact is very frustrating for British filmmakers as it almost dictates the conditions under which your film is expected to fall. Curiously enough, The Look Of Love could be classed as all three and yet fails to actually achieve much of anything. A completely acceptable film that held my attention to the end but I simply didn’t care about or invest in any of it.

The plot is told through flashbacks, following the death of Paul Raymond’s [Coogan] daughter, Debbie [Poots] and heir to his vast empire. If you happen to be wondering who Paul Raymond is, so was I. Thankfully, the film dutifully explains that Paul Raymond was a stage entertainer in the 1950’s who went on to own the majority of the nude clubs and theatres in London by the mid-seventies, publish the most successful men’s only magazine and was later pronounced the richest man in Britain. Taking precedence over his financial and entrepreneurial accomplishments are the various relationships and general debauchery that Paul Raymond involved himself in and how these interactions impacted on his family. Additionally, with his daughter growing up with her father as a role-model you’d assume she would be a massively unhinged nightmare but in all honesty, Debbie is portrayed as any neglected daughter, lashing out and finding drugs and bad company. All of which goes unnoticed by the self preoccupied porn mogul.

Directorially speaking, Michael Winterbottom’s varied curriculum vitae is a true testament to the man’s ability and range. Having said that, it makes it very difficult to gauge what kind of experience you’re in for when watching one of his films.. unless he’s cast Steve Coogan, in which case you’ve probably seen it before. As much as I love 24 Hour Party People and enjoyed A Cock And Bull Story, there’s something thematically similar about their structure and leading performance. The same can be said of this release. Granted, the tonality is on the serious side and the acting itself demands a little more (which Coogan adequately delivers) but it feels like a bit of a rehash of something we’ve seen before. Happily, one thing that remains constant in each of Winterbottom’s film is the attention to detail and the extremely impressive production design. All the sets, costumes, hair and makeup are perfectly fitting for the relevant time periods and genuinely sell the era. Even the quirky transition from black and white to colour for the 50’s/60’s narrative progression was a nice touch and keenly edited.

The script really tries to sell on the idea that the central character is a fairly interesting one and to a degree he is. Raymond is made more interesting by the layers piled on by Coogan’s performance and the film really shines when Raymond is interacting with his daughter – the one person he forms any real connection with, one of his most loyal supporters and ultimately, the one who suffered the most from Raymond’s lifestyle. But despite his crippled relationships with family members, baffling charisma and shallow successes with women, I failed to connect with this individual as a whole, unlike say Woody Harrelson’s gripping performance in The People Vs. Larry Flynt. And whereas The People Vs. Larry Flynt called into question the nature and politics of the pornographic industry, this film simply illustrates the existence of Britain’s most successful and wealthy pornographer. But by avoiding any political statements and failing to actually take a side as to the rights and wrongs of said industry, the entire movie feels like something is absent. One could argue that illustrating a rise and fall tale from a state of complete neutrality can work incredibly well (a good recent example would be The Social Network) but regarding a subject that is so controversial, i.e. the subjugation of women and the sheer popularity of female debasement/idolisation, neutrality will not be well met by audiences.

The Look Of Love is a commendable enough release and in parts, very well acted but as I left the screening, I could hear mutterings of “That was alright”, “Well, I wouldn’t pay to see it” and “No, I didn’t really know who he was either” all of which hung over a din of general indifference. Which is unfortunate. There’s nothing very wrong with the film, all the pieces (or ingredients, if you will) are of a decent calibre but the final product is simply lacking. An entertaining but wholly forgettable experience. It feels as though there’s a message here somewhere or something is being said but it gets lost in a rather long plodding story about a man who was pretty poor at connecting with anyone in form other than a sexual one.

Release Date:
26th April 2013

The Scene To Look Out For:
After Raymond spends a small fortune putting on the most expensive play in the UK (starring his daughter in the only clothed role), he quickly discovers that the lead performance and grandiose plot simply aren’t up to scratch and he’s haemorrhaging cash. With no other alternative, the ruthless business side of him trumps the fatherly side and he cancels the production. When informing his daughter of his decision, his utter inadequacy as a father comes to the foreground. Incapable of dealing with Debbie’s devastation, all he can do is keep repeating “The show is haemorrhaging cash! What do you want me to do?” followed by “Well don’t cry about it!” It’s a perfect representation of a man who had no knowledge of how to interact with his daughter and was later surprised when she overdosed.

Notable Characters:
Chris Addison’s portrayal of the highly coked- up Tony Power (editor of magazine Men Only) was perfectly fitting of the nature of the character he was playing but also the time in which he existed. A decent personification of the prevalent kind of sleazy professional with their ridiculous attitudes yet somehow winning people over with their disarming charm.

Highlighted Quote:
“When I first started in the entertainment industry, I did this mind reading act. And I very quickly realised that people liked to look at beautiful women and liked them more so with their clothes off. So, in that way, I could read minds”

In A Few Words:
“Well executed and well performed but unlike Winterbottom’s previous collaborations with Coogan, the subject matter is simply not as appealing”

Total Score:



Earth Is A Memory Worth Fighting For

Joseph Kosinski

Tom Cruise
Andrea Riseborough
Olga Kurylenko
Morgan Freeman

For those unaware, this film has been in production for quite some time. Kosinski pitched the story as a comic and before it was published, film rights were already being discussed. Then Disney had a problem passing it as a kid friendly PG release, so Universal picked it up. After all the hype and speculation is it worth the wait? Not really, no.

Set in the future, mankind has survived a terrible intergalactic war but the planet has effectively been laid to waste. The majority of our species have evacuated to Titan, one of Saturn’s moons, with a handful of individuals left on Earth to harvest the remaining sea water. Without their efforts, our race would die on Titan.. for some unknown reason. The story focuses on Tech Team 49, headed by former marine Jack Harper [Cruise] and his colleague Victoria [Riseborough]. Their tenure on Earth is nearly at an end and Jack is starting to suffer from strange dreams, dreams of a time and a woman that he can’t possibly know. But as the technicians had their minds wiped five years ago (again, for some unknown reason), he can’t piece it together. Despite the war being over, remnant s of the alien force are still on Earth, stealing things and sabotaging processers and drones, warranting the nickname scavs – short for scavengers. After being ambushed on one particular patrol, Jack believes that the scavs are not trying to kill him but to capture him. His doubts and suspicions are made worse when he witnesses a hibernation pod crash landing before being fired upon by the drones. Inside one of the pods is Julia [Kurylenko], the girl of Jack’s dreams.. quite literally. For a more spoiler happy analysis, scroll down.

Visually this movie is utterly spectacular. The locations, the props, the costumes, the effects, everything has a glorious high-definition sharpness to it and a sense of futuristic marvel. Granted, the fact that everything appears to be a barren wasteland bar the most obvious landmarks which, due to their size and age, would be the first buildings to be destroyed but that’s ignorable for now. The soundtrack feels a little like a re-hash of Tron: Legacy but it still manages to work and deliver a combination of fitting electronica and thundering orchestral stings. On top of that, the overall concept of the story is a reasonably clever concept, akin to science fiction films of the early seventies. But if we’re going to start talking about the story, we should probably start discussing the film’s major flaws.

We’ve established it’s a pretty film but outside of that, Oblivion leaves a lot to be desired. The acting is aptly suited but doesn’t really deliver much outside of the obvious, giving us a handful of very paint-by-numbers performances. But the actors can’t be held wholly responsible, as this primarily stems from the way the characters are written. Jack is chivalrous, rebellious and curious, Victoria is good natured but paranoid, Julia is whimpery and annoying and Malcolm is unnecessarily cryptic. And everything unfolds with an inevitably tedious pattern of predictable convenience. Then there’s the horrendous pacing issues; as an audience member, you don’t urge the story or action sequences to unfold, you simply wait for them to end. Much like Tron: Legacy the opening is gripping and the end is climactic but the middle third is so very slow and boring. If this were released in comic form (as originally designed), we would be treated to various stages of the story broken into fortnightly or monthly segments and I can imagine a lot of people dropping it after waiting for something to actually happen.

**Horribly spoilery paragraph**
Good visuals will only take you so far and the second you leave the cinema, several questions start to form in your head. To highlight these plot holes and problems, I need to ruin the story for you. Jack discovers that the scavs are actually humans. Oh my God! And there was no nuclear war. Oh my God! And he’s one of several thousand clones harvesting the Earth’s resources for an alien tetrahedron that blew up the moon. Oh my God! And Julia is actually Jack’s wife. Oh my God! Lucky for us, Malcolm Beech, played by Morgan Freeman, is leading the resistance and he has a plan to reprogram a drone, armed with a nuke and send it straight to the tetrahedron. All these developments are fine. Obvious and predictable but perfectly serviceable in a sci-fi setting. The major plot holes largely surround the survivors/scavs. First, how and why did they trigger a recall for a hibernation pod that had been floating in space for sixty years that nobody (including the alien) seemed to know about? On top of that, Beech is surprised when he learns that Julia is Jack’s wife, so clearly he didn’t know too much about its existence and mission. Then there are the silly little things like how did Beech know that Jack fixated on one specific verse, in one random book, how has no one discovered this quaint little paradise Jack has carved out for himself, if the Jack clones are fertile enough to make babies, are Victoria clones barren? I mean, they share a bed and shower and they clearly get into.. stuff.. but there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of childhood. And why the five year mind wipe, two weeks to Titan shit? Do the clones have a limited life span? And what about Tech 52, if he loved Julia just as much, how come he didn’t notice her bleeding and whimpering in a cave and not try to help her then, rather than just wandering off? And what happened to the thousands of other clones or potential survivors? Of course, the biggest problem with the story isn’t the technical issues it’s the romantic element.. which is so stupid! Just because the original Victoria had an unrequited thing for the original Jack, this has been passed down genetically (that bit is fine) but everything from Julia being revived and not asking ANY questions is plain moronic. Having said all that, there was a couple sitting behind me in the screening gasping at every revelation and then muttering out loud what was happening. E.g. A ship lands and a second Jack Harper is investigating a downed drone, while the first Jack Harper looks on. It’s obvious to everyone that this is Tom Cruise looking at Tom Cruise but they’re still muttering, “Who is that? Who’s he?” Then Jack approaches and sees, oh my God! It’s another Jack! At which point, the couple bleated “Huh!? It’s him!? How.. what? Do you think it’s like time travel?” So, while I may assume the audience is faster than the film and the slow revelations insult our collective intelligence, I may have grossly overestimated the average cinemagoer’s ability to process a simple narrative.

It’s a shame as original science fiction stories should be encouraged, especially now that we have the technological capabilities to make mind blowing visual effects. Amid the 80’s/90’s Independence Day style of blowing things up and explaining nothing is thankfully going out of fashion. But where films like Oblivion and Prometheus fail is not the gorgeous worlds they create, or even the reasonably mediocre plot-hole ridden stories, it’s the deplorable characters. If we could combine a credible science fiction setting, with delightful visual sequences and compelling characters, we would have a truly exquisite science fiction release. Oh wait.. we already did.. in 2005. But only a handful of people saw Serenity. Damn it.

Release Date:
12th April 2013

The Scene To Look Out For:
Why does Jack have a motorbike? Why does he need a motorbike? What sort of fuel powers it (I know it’s fuel because there’s a little read out that says Fuel Low at one point) and where’s this coming from exactly? If the only answer is “I like motorbike sequences and wanted to film one” then it’s shit. And that’s my highlighted scene.. a technical annoyance.

Notable Characters:
Angela Riseborough is actually very effective in her role. She emotes to a brilliant level without being irritating and her steadfast refusal to listen to Jack’s whining about ‘the old ways’ is actually quite credible. Furthermore, she’s the only character in the whole film who isn’t a 2D stereotype, there’s a subtle complexity to her character and one of the frustrations of this release is that it’s never really explored.

Highlighted Quote:
“Fuck you, Sally”

In A Few Words:
“Mesmerising visual aesthetic but the two dimensional story and some godawful dialogue sullies a commendable sci-fi tale”

Total Score:


Cinema City Film Quiz #94

[07 April 2013]

Winning Team:
The Red Right Handjob

Genre – Murder mystery

Runners Up:
Old Matt Stogdon Did A Quiz – G.I. G.I. Joe!
Genre – Musical action farmyard
Slumdog Millionairesss
Genre – Film Noir
Matthew Are Not Alone
Genre – Rabid Michael Jackson fan stalks the Cinema City quiz host, believing him to be the second coming of his pop idol, with hilarious and arguably controversial results
Three Men And A Lady
Genre – Generic comedy

ROUND I: Pre-Production
1. What is the name of the alien that befriends Lilo in Lilo and Stitch?
STITCH [2 bonus points for ‘Experiment 626’]
2. What was the alias of the Volkswagen Beetle in The Love Bug?
3. What was the title of the first Jurassic Park sequel?
4. For the sequel Look Who’s Talking Now, what received the celebrity voice-over treatment instead of babies?
5. What type of animal is terrorising Maine in Lake Placid?
6. Which actor played the lead role in The Last Boy Scout?
7. Who directed the 2006 film Lady In The Water?
8. Which series starred Mel Gibson and Danny Glover?
9. What is the full title of the Lemony Snicket film starring Jim Carrey?
10. The following tracks feature on the soundtrack for which Disney film, Wag Of A Dog’s Tail, What Is A Baby and A Night At The Restaurant?

ROUND II: Filming [Matt Stogdon’s Top 100 Special]
1. 3:10 To Yuma belongs to which genre? Comedy? Swords & Sandals? Western?
2. Who directed Road To Perdition? Ron Howard? Sam Mendes? Brian De Palma?
3. Chronologically speaking, where do the black and white scenes in Memento take place? During the main story? Before the main story? After the main story?
4. What weapon does Shuya Nanahara receive in his bag, in Battle Royale? Axe? Paper Fan? Pot Lid?
5. What nationality is Major Sophie Jean (the official investigating the shooting in the Korean DMZ) in Joint Security Area: JSA? Swiss? Australian? American?
6. Which instalment of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy appears in my Top 100 films? The Fellowship Of The Ring? The Two Towers? The Return Of The King?
7. How many tasks is Ofelia given to complete in Pan’s Labyrinth? Three? Four? Five?
8. Of the three rabbis, which does Larry not get to consult with, in A Serious Man? Rabbi Ginsler? Rabbi Nachtner? Rabbi Marshak?
9. What does Amelie’s full French title translate to? The Fabulous Destiny Of Amelie Poulain? The Young And Prodigious Amelie Poulain? The Extraordinary Adventures Of Amelie Poulain?
10. The school song sung by the lead character in Oldboy is in fact the actor’s (Min-sik Choi) real school song and was the product of ad-libbing. True or False?

ROUND III: Post-Production
Round Three [Post-Production] PP11
1. What was the title of the remake of Let The Right One In?
2. How many time has The Last Of The Mohicans been adapted for film?
4 (1920 US/GER 1936 1992)
3. John Travolta and Joaquin Phoenix appeared in Ladder 49. What occupation does the film depict?
4. Where does The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou appear in Wes Anderson’s directorial history?
5. How many The Land Before Time films have been made to date?
6. Which two actors play The Boss and The Rabbi, the heads of two crime families, in Lucky Number Slevin? (one point per correct answer)
7. The following is the poster tagline for which film: Jim, George and David take you into a dazzling world of fantasy and adventure?
8. What was Matthew Vaughn’s directorial debut?
9. Which actor replaces Schwarzenegger on the promo cut-out for Termintaor 2: Judgement Day, in a Blockbuster in Last Action Hero?
10. What year was Little Miss Sunshine released?

ROUND IV: Promotion & Release
1. Which of the following was not an instalment of the Lone Wolf And Cub films? Baby Cart In Peril? White Heaven In Hell? In The Land Of Despair?
2. What year was Ridley Scott’s Legend released? 1983? 1985? 1987?
3. In which film does Edward G. Robinson play gangster ‘Rico’ Bandello? Little Caesar? Scarface? The Public Enemy?
4. Which of the following directors did not direct an adaptation of Lolita? Stanley Kubrick? Adrian Lyne? Alan Parker?
5. What was the title of the 1987 biopic about musician Ritchie Valens? Los Lobos? La Bamba? Summertime Blues?
6. How many years passed between the release of Licence To Kill and GoldenEye? Six? Eight? Ten?
7. What was the title of the 2009 revenge drama starring Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler? Due Date? Machine Gun Preacher? Law Abiding Citizen?
8. What was the name of Bob Hoskins’ character in The Long Good Friday? Eddie Constantine? Harold Shand? Parky Barber?
9. What is the eponymous character’s surname in Leon? Montana? Badalucco? Manolo?
10. Gene Tierney was so angry with Laurence Olivier’s refusal to break character, in 1944’s Laura, that she repeatedly slapped his face in between takes to test him. True or False?
FALSE (not only did this not happen, Olivier did not star in Laura)

Screenshots: Cabaret / Corpse Bride / Copland
Poster: Children Of The Corn
Actor: James Earl Jones