It would be fair to say that movies are the major love of my life and as such I see them whenever I can, study the art of making movies and like to think I'm pretty knowledgeable about over 100 years worth of Hollywood & British film. As such, filmakers playing at the top of their game can leave me in a state of awe with beautifully crafted dialogue, astonishing and innovative editing, skilful directing and amazing actors ably supported by writers creating wonderfully believable characters I can identify with, placed in original settings and situations which make me reflect on my own life long after the final credits have rolled.

Then there are movies like "Pathology".  A movie, which happily jettison all of the above in favour of trash and yet manages to be hugely enjoyable anyway. "Pathology" has taken quite a mauling from the critics but I was pleased to see that I was right in my sneaking suspicion that it was going to be a lot of fun too. And wasn't boring.  (Thus, on that criteria, Pathology is a better movie (for me personally) than The English Patient.)  Still, it has to be admitted that yes, the plot is silly and blood and entrails are not as shocking as the movie seems to think they are in this CSI-hardened age. Sure, the characters are cardboard cutouts and yes, the ending is gloriously over the top and utterly absurd. But it all zips along at a nice enough pace and doesn't overstay its welcome.

As far as how Milo does in the movie, I would suggest it depends on how you generally regard him as a performer in stuff like Heroes. In that show he's always a competent rather than truly talented actor to me who delivers noticeably poorer work when not acting with Adrian Pasdar (does anyone NOT seem to give their best work on Heroes acting with Adrian?).  But here, I think he does okay. As I've mentioned, the characterisation for all the characters is pretty weak, so the occasionally flat feel to the performance is I think, forgivable. He isn't exactly being given Shakespeare to work with here.  Anyway, if you think he's a great actor on Heroes, I think it's fair to say you would like him here. He certainly looks very handsome on the big screen and I've seen stars that act a lot worse.

Because I was musing on Linaery's reply to my question about how much of the Heroes BroYay subtext is intentional and her pointing me in the fact that Tim Kring apparently borrowed the Romance structure for many of the family relationships in season one. And how Milo & Adrian might have taken that ball and run with it.
Wonder how it all went down? Let's watch...

Tim Kring to Milo & Adrian:

'So, basically, we will be borrowing the structure of a romance arc for your storylines- over the season you both will get to know each other, discover how much you mean to each other. Then, at the end when you both fly (possibly) to your deaths, well lads- there won't be a dry eye in the house." (Kring wanders over to tell Ali Larter about the super exciting character he has lined up for her.)

Adrian: Well Milo, I don't know about you, but I think that's all a bit thin and limited. I think it needs something else. Something extra. Mind you, I think there's elements and layers that we, as good actors can bring to the surface which will add texture amd depth  to this treatment.

Milo: I agree. I think the audience is always entitled to get the fullest appreciation of the hidden depths of any role - what's your plan?

Adrian:  You ever watch Supernatural? I want it so those guys only wish they could be as gay as us.

Milo: Awesome!
___

Seriously, I would SO love to be a fly on the wall of their early rehearsals :)