I'm chuckling to myself as I watch the ripples of publicity spread across the net. Errors being copied, reworded and becoming the new truth.
At the moment there are only two original sources; The Hollywood Reporter and Empire, but The Reporter has misspelled Marc Wootton's name as "Wootan", an error which is popping up like mushrooms elsewhere, making it quite easy to see who is simply rearranging the words from this story.
And sometimes in the reinterpretation, meaning is lost, such as Virgin Movie's assertion that "The 'Scary Movie' actress will play the role of one of three misfits who try to figure out the complexities of chronological time travel while drinking in the pub."
Come on guys. Do the maths. Or "math", if you're in the US, which is kind of appropriate as there is one less letter than there should be.
We have three blokes and one girl from the future. Which is why we name three male actors and one female. Anna is not one of the three misfit blokes.
This doesn't stop the pure speculation of filmstalker: "The story sounds a bit like a British Bill and Ted. Two guys are sitting in the pub discussing how time travel could really happen and what the issues of paradoxes are when suddenly Faris appears as a time traveller herself"
Wow. It's like he read the script. For some other film.
But a couple of sites have complemented the title, such as Cinema Blend and Slashfilm, who call it "The most interesting movie title in years"
Hooray, my first positive review!
Then they ruin it all by saying that the "plot doesn't sound as interesting as the title".
Boo! They give with one hand and they take with the other.
The moral of the story: Never read reviews. Even of the one line announcements of your films.