"There's something inherently romantic about...

TRAMS"

Go on, admit it, that wasn't quite what you were thinking of, was it. That's a quote from a guide to Riga i discovered on my recent trip there. In Edinburgh, on the other hand, it seems like there is something surprisingly controversial about trams.

For as long as I've been in Edinburgh they have been talking about reintroducing the tram and just when it looks like it might actually happen, along comes a new SNP administration to throw a spanner in the works. The other four political parties (tories, green, labour and lib-dems) all seem in favour of the tram and the reasons seem sound - a quicker, greener transport system for Edinburgh. So just what is the Nats problem with the good old tram.

• The cost is very high - £700 million for a system with just three routes that will leave vast swathes of the city unserviced. For that money you could completely replace all Lothian Regional Transport buses with more environmentally sound vehicles, increase services and still have few hundred million in change they argue. This would serve a much greater number of people in Edinburgh
• Trams are noisy - a bone of contention for those who live next to the proposed routes.
• There is also an under-acknowledged class element to this. One of the columnists in the Scotsman reported on attending a community meeting where she had been surprised to discover that the concensus was rather against than for the tram and one of the strongest feelings was that the tram was for those people who think they're too good to get on the bus with the rest of us.

The counter argument, I guess, is that the efficiency and attractiveness of the tram would be a greater incentive to get people out of their cars and onto public transport, which is surely better for the environment. You see, maybe it does all come down to romance after all. It is still undoubtedly true that more needs to be done in a city like Edinburgh to reduce car usage. I'm just not convinced that a limited tram service provides the best option for the money in order to do this.

One thing is sure - unlike the trams, the argument looks set to rumble on and on.

Pirates, murderers and magicians

Pirates of the Caribbean – 3.5/5

Essentially this forms the second part of one very long movie, continuing the story of last year’s Dead Man’s Chest. It’s a marginal improvement on last year’s effort, but still falls a long way short of the sheer fun and exuberance of the first instalment. It’s hard now to remember how surprising the first movie was – coming at a time when pirate movies generally just sucked, it was far, far better than any film based on a theme park ride and any right to be. Then came the crashing disappointment of part 2 – only I will say this for it – I had to watch it a few times with different children I worked with and it did get better with repeated viewing, and that’s quite a rare quality.

Its main problem, as with Spiderman 3, is that it just tries to cram to much in – there are too many twists and turns, too many subplots and complications, too many bad guys. Like its immediate predecessor it’s a bit of a complicated mess, hard to keep track of fundamentals like character and motivation. Most of the new characters added are given so little room you wonder what the point of having them in first place was. In the case of Chow Yun Fat in his second highly entertaining chin stroking villain role of the year (see The Curse of the Golden Flower) this is a shame. In the case of Keith Richards as Captain Jack’s dad, it is more of a merciful release. All his presence shows is that he just cannot act in any way, shape or form. Some of his lines are mumbled so incoherently other characters need to echo his words in order for the audience to grasp them. His presence must have seemed a good idea at the time to somebody. Neither Bill Nighy’s Davy Jones or Tom Hollander’s Lord Cutler-Bennett are given enough room to really work as the main villain of the piece, whilst Johnathan Pryce’s Governor Swann and Admiral Norrington reprisals of their roles are both cut very brief.

All in all it feels a bit like the makers lost confidence in what made the first film so good and decided to throw in as much as possible to the second and third parts in the hope that at least some of it would work. And some of it does work.

On the positive side, yes, the film is long, but doesn’t feel it as it rips along at a wonderful pace. Some of the set pieces are wonderfully executed – from the opening battle in Singapore to one of the most unorthodox weddings in cinema history. Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow is a delight to watch as ever. Geoffrey Rush’s joyfully hammy Captain Barbosa is also a welcome return. And, from beginning to end, the film looks brilliant. The parrot and the monkey team up quite successfully as a comic double act, and even Mackenzie Crook’s literally roving eyeball gets its moment of usefulness.

There are surprising bits here too – an unexpected surreal element with multiple Jacks. The film also performs a last minute swerve from the outcomes it seemed to have been working so hard to set up and has the courage to not really meet the pretty boy gets pretty girls and they all live happily ever after expectations.

Its entertaining stuff and a long way from being a bad blockbuster, but still leaves you with the feeling they might have been better leaving alone after movie one. Given that, you’ll probably be left with mixed feelings by a final scene clearly leaving the door open for Pirates 4.

Also Showing:

Zodiac – 4/5 (with some ethical concerns)

This is the true story of a serial killer who gained considerable notoriety in California during the sixties and seventies, but was never caught. It is adapted from the book by Robert Graysmith, the newspaper cartoonist who became obsessed with the case and believes to this day he knows who the killer was. The Zodiac killer became the inspiration for Scorpio in Dirty Harry, but himself clearly thrived on the publicity and in his letters wanted to see a movie of the killings and wondered who would play him.

And this is the aspect of the film that makes me uneasy. The film buys wholeheartedly into Graysmith’s conclusions, which would mean that the killer is now dead. If that’s wrong, you can’t help feeling that he would be getting off on the fact that there’s now a movie about him, albeit one which is very far from sensationalising or glamorising his crimes. Even if he is dead, you can’t help but wonder whether fulfilling his wish for a film is really the best way to go.

Leaving those concern aside for now, as a film it is a very good one. Director David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club) wisely decides to focus less on the crimes than on the impact on the lives of those who investigate and are all to some extent scarred and damaged by their inability to catch him. Ultimately, following the case over more than 20 years, the structure is necessarily episodic and becomes much more of a character study than standard police thriller.

As such, it makes for a fascinating story and a great cast do a wonderful job. Robert Downey Jr, although hardly playing against type, is great as the booze-soaked crime reporter. The usually reliable Mark Ruffalo gives one of his very best performance as the cop troubled by the inability to catch the man and Jake Gyllenhaal brilliantly catches cartoonist Graysmith’s obsession with the case. Even Chloe Sevigny is excellent in the thankless task of playing Graysmith’s nagging wife.

Magicians – 2/5

Ten years ago I went to see a show in the Edinburgh Fringe. In front of an audience of no more than ten, a young comedy duo by the name of Mitchell and Webb performed a hilarious show by the title of Innocent Millions Dead and Dying. Ten years later, following successful radio shows, TV shows (Peep Show) and a series of adverts for Mac computers, the pair have arrived at their first feature film together (Webb (Mac to Mitchell’s PC) having already appeared in last year’s hit and miss Brit Comedy Confetti).

Unfortunately, that show 10 years ago (and practically everything they’ve done since, adverts included) is far funnier than this lame and utterly predictable film. The opening is promising enough – Harry (David Mitchell) accidentally cuts off his wife/assistant’s head on stage after learning she was having an affair with his partner Karl (Robert Webb). The potential pastiche of The Prestige is then neglected in favour of a far more predictable route.

Webb and Mitchell still have a certain charm about them, but whether their talents are really suited to the big screen remains to be seen. Put simply, the material here is just not strong or funny enough to do them credit. The story doesn’t really hang together and the screenwriters seem incapable of writing a credible female role.

That said, Jessica Stevenson (Confetti, TV’s Spaced) gives a game performance which earns her some of the film’s funnier moments. The other redeeming moments come from Peter Capaldi avaricious hamming as the show’s compere. But overall, the film’s stars are deserving of better material than this.

The Summer of the Threequel - Midterm report

Well this weekend's release of Pirates of the Caribbean at World's End is the second of 5 big name part 3 that mark this summer's blockbuster season. And at the moment it looks like despite the hype, we might be heading for a rather disappointing time:

Spiderman 3 was a bit of a confused mess - entertaining at times, but a let down after parts 1 +2.

Pirates (full review to follow soon) is likewise a bit of a confused, but entertaining mess. A marginal improvement on part 2, but still leaves you with the feeling they'd have been better off leaving well alone after the unexpected success of the first movie.

Next up comes Ocean's Thirteen - Clooney, Pitt, Damon and co. in their collective apology for Oceans Twelve (a film that looked like it was far more fun to make than to watch). They at least have the advantage that Twelve was so bad, almost anything would be an improvement, so expectations are that much lower.

Early reviews of Shrek the Third suggest it could be the biggest disappointment of the lot, having almost completely lost the humour of the first two films.

Which might leave it to Jason Bourne and his Ultimatum to save the day again, coming at the end of the summer (August release date) and somehow, despite two commercial and critical successes under his belt, still seeming to manage to slip in under the radar and the hype of the bigger films. This is currently my prediction for the summer's best blockbuster.

Of the other, non threequel blockbusters - The Fantastic Four has so little expectation after the fun, but not that great original, it might turn into a pleasant surprise. Personally, not really too excited about Transformers, although the trailer is quite cool. Die Hard 4.0 is such a bad idea it might just work, but will probably be dreadful. On the other hand, if Shrek fails, hopefully The Simpsons can be relied on for a burst of animated humour. I doubt Evan Almighty will live up to Bruce, but maybe Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix will turn the weakest of the books into the best of the films.

On a less blockbuster'y note, for those who prefer a bit of politics in their films, watch out for Taking Liberties an angry British Documentary about the erosion of civil liberties under New Labour - out next month, whilst The War on Democracy tackles American involvement in Latin America.

A Victory for Common Sense

So, Prince Harry won't be going to Iraq after all. What amazes me most is that it has taken so long to get to this point. It seems to me that the real issue was never whether he was or should receive special treatment, but whether his presence placed the lives of the other men in his unit in greater danger and it should have been obvious from the start that it did. In the type of conflict that is currently happening in Iraq, the presence of a high profile figure like Prince Harry was always going to make him a greater target, and by extension place his unit at greater risk. Yes, soldiers are paid to be in dangerous situations, but this would be placing them under unnecessary extra danger for no good reason, and secretly, I would guess, that many of those soldiers will be quite relieved the Prince won't be joining them.

My only regret is that this whole thing has been played out in such a public way for so long in the media. You can't help feeling that this has given the insurgents a moral victory already.

Final photos from Riga

Rundale Palace

Bauska Castle

Museum of Applied and Decorative Arts

View From Riga 3

Parks and Memorials

Victory Park

Orthodox Cathedral

Monument to the Latvian Riflemen

More Movies

Bridge to Terabithia - 4/5

The children’s book upon which this is based is rather less known here than in the States, which might work in the film’s favour as two thirds of the way through it pulls the kind of twist that breaks all Hollywood rules for making a children’s film. That it works and adds new levels of emotional depth to an already moving and well-told tale is a tribute both to the source material to the excellent adaptation here.

The story centres around two outsiders who form a friendship based on their imaginations and conjure up their own magical world to escape from bullying at school and pressures at home. Jesse (an impressive Josh Hutcherson) is a gifted artist, picked on at school and pressured by his hard and hard-up father at home. New-girl Leslie is another outsider, but through her imagination and sheer vivacity they form a strong bond.

Terabithia (named as a tribute to Narnia, where there is an Isle of Terebinthia) is the magical world they conjure up. Fortunately, the film resists the temptation to become too CG effect heavy – the effects serve the imagination of the children. And the film is actually strongest when dealing with real world issues as the children take their new found skills and confidence back into school in order to make changes.

Of the adults, Robert Patrick is good as Jesse’s dad and Zooey Deschanel (Elf, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) underused as the music teacher who spots Jesse’s potential. But the real stars are the children – Hutcherson and especially AnnaSophia Robb as Leslie. Previously seen as Violet in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, she gives a performance slightly reminiscent of a young Natalie Portman and displays a real star quality which might give Dakota Fanning some competition over the next few years.

A very well done children’s film with humour, a bit of magic, a surprisingly dark side and a whole lot f heart. Highly recommended for the young and adults who aren’t too embarrassed at the thought of it.

Goodbye Bafana – 3/5

To capture a 20 years plus friendship in a two hour film is always going to be a challenge. When said friendship is between a prison guard and one of his charges the challenge increases. When the inmate in question is Nelson Mandela, it becomes nigh on impossible. The result is that this film, an adaptation of the book of the same title, feels frustratingly episodic with not enough sense of the development of relationship.

Dennis Haysbert (President Palmer from 24) is physically not a good match for Mandela. Vocally he stumbles a bit with the accent. Where he scores and scores well is in capturing the natural leadership, the charm and restrained charisma, the humanity, passion and dignity. In the early encounters between him and ambitious Warder (Joseph Fiennes) it is interesting to note how in command of things he is, even when in chains.

I’m not a fan of Fiennes in general – he too often tries to replace genuine emotion with an excess of pouting – but his performance here is pleasingly adept and mature. It would be facile and untrue to say that he becomes just as much a prisoner of the system as Mandela, but as his career becomes bound up with the ANC leader and his respect for the man grows along with his unease at the apartheid system, he does become trapped by events and circumstance. Ultimately, the films flaws are not down to Fiennes’ performance, but rather to the fact that there is just too much of him. The problems he and wife (Diane Kruger – Troy, National Treasure) encounter are competently enough done, but miss the fact that they are only really interesting as an example of the impact Mandela had on white South Africa and there is just not enough of the encounters between them to give a real impression of how and why he changes.

The script feels slightly heavy-handed in places, too, but things generally improve when we move past the stereotypically racist attitudes of the whites in the first section. This is a flawed, but still interesting offering – it lacks some of the complexity and coherence of Catch a Fire (released earlier this year) also dealing with the struggle against apartheid. Ultimately, if left me wanting to read the book to get a fuller picture, but maybe that’s not a bad thing.


My Best Friend – 2.5/5

Imagine a standard rom-com plot applied to a friendship and done in French. Miserly antiques collector (Daniel Auteuil) makes bet that he can produce best friend in 10 days, recruits general knowledge know-it-all taxi driver (Dany Boon) to help him become more friendly, forms friendship with said taxi driver, blows it big style and comes to the realisation of what he’s been lacking all along, makes selfless sacrifice to benefit friend leading to eventual reconciliation.

Not a very original storyline, but not totally lacking potential. Potential that this film sadly fails to realise. Auteuil is one of France’s best known and prolific actors (appearing in 36 and Hidden last year), but here forgets to turn off the charisma and thus is utterly unconvincing as somebody with no friends. There are further inconsistencies – his longing for the vase, which leads to the bet suggests a deeper longing for friendship, but nothing else he does until the end of the film backs this up. Those people who tell him he has no friends, seem to be always seeking him out and desiring friendship with him if only he’d notice. The peripheral roles are totally underdeveloped, including a mistress who comes and goes in his life.

All in all, it just doesn’t add up, but the Auteuil and Boon are always entertaining and watchable and lift the film into the not bad category.

The View From Riga 2

Art Nouveau Architechture

Soviet Influence

Academy of Sciences

Moscow District

The View From Riga 1

Back from my travels now, so thought I'd share some some photos from my time in Riga.

Riga Old Town

Riga Dome Cathedral

Cat House

Blackheads House

Further Movie Thoughts

Well back from holiday – will be posting some thoughts and some photos from Riga on here later, but in the meantime some films to catch up on. We’ll start with the worst of the bunch:

Goya’s Ghost – 0/5

From the trailer, the subject and the pedigree of those involved this should have been a very interesting film. Goya is certainly a very interesting artist from his more classical work to the darker, more satirical edge to some of his prints. The period, covering both the growth of a new inquisition and the Napoleonic wars in Spain also makes a grand backdrop. Director Milos Forman is the man behind Oscar winning classics like One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest and Amadeus. Stars Javier Bardem, Stellan Skarsgard and Natalie Portman have hardly made a bad movie between them. OK, we’ll make an exception for Star Wars episodes 1-3 in Portman’s case. So where did it go so badly wrong – this is not just a poor film, it’s also a positively nasty one!

It starts solidly enough with the focus on Goya’s work both classical and more politically explosive. However as attention drifts more towards the work of the inquisition and the sufferings of Portman it begins to deteriorate, lifted briefly by an interesting discussion on the merits of confession obtained by torture, and finishes in a complete mess.

Bardem (The Sea Inside, The Dancer Upstairs) gives what is surely a career worst performance and why he felt the need to do a silly accent as a Spanish actor playing a Spanish priest beggars belief. Skarsgard looks perpetually baffled and despite being the eponymous hero has very little to actually do. But its Portman who suffers the worst – she spends the first half of the film mainly naked, being tortured and rapedand the second half insane, but with makeup and performance more suggestive of the portrayal of a comedy character with special needs from a much less politically correct era. She also plays her own daughter, differentiated from her mother when young by one of the most ridiculous sets of false teeth to grace a cinema screen since the last Dracula movie.

The attitude towards women throughout the film is rather objectionable – not only in their treatment, but also in their portrayal as either insane or whores. There’s probably some deeply buried feminist point about the patriarchal order that does this to them, but its not worth sitting through this to get to that point. This is a thoroughly objectionable and bleak film without a single grace note and where the most sympathetic character is largely passive. My advice – avoid at all costs.

The Upside of Anger – 3/5

Usually when a movie’s release is delayed for a year or two it arrives with the distinct aroma of turkey about it. Given that, this makes for a very pleasant surprised. The second film within a month from writer/director Mike Binder following Reign Over Me, although this was made over a year beforehand. Like Reign Over Me it is a neatly observed film that, largely successfully treads the delicate line between comedy and emotional drama. Also like Reign, a lot of its strength lies in two strong central performances.

Kevin Costner gives one of his strongest turns for years as the drunk ex-baseball star turned DJ who provides support for the family at the films centre. Whilst Joan Allen is just superb as the wife and mother of 4 almost adult girls trying to come to terms with her husbands abandoning of them. She clearly relishes the opportunity to play a meatier role than actresses her age are usually afforded by Hollywood and demonstrates again what a talented performer she is both comically and dramatically.

The film starts at a funeral, before winding the action back three years. This immediately signals that this is not straightforward rom-com territory and also sets up an intriguing guessing game about just who is in the casket. After leading us down at least two potential blind alleys, the answer turns out to be genuinely surprising and might cause some re-evaluation of all that’s been before.

This is probably a slightly funnier film that Reign, but also slightly less poignant, but at least it isn’t crippled by a disastrous third act. All in all – a great title and an interesting and engaging film.

Tony's on Holiday

I'm going to be away on holiday for the next week or so, so if I don't reply to your comments, I'm not being rude, I've just got better things to do.

Back soon!

The Curse of Part Three

Spiderman 3 – 3/5

Its something of unacknowledged law that nobody ever makes a good third instalment to a superhero trilogy – Superman 3, Batman Forever, X Men The Last Stand all considerable disappointments and declines from the films that preceded them. There had been hopes that director Sam Raimi would buck this trend.

Well, it’s not a bad film, but it is a disappointing follow-up to the first two and the main flaw is that Raimi broke his own rule. After promising never to go down the multiple villains route, he succumbs here and has not two but three bad guys and there just isn’t enough room for all the different plot elements to breathe and it all feels a bit jumbled and overlong. In particular the relational aspects of the film are too rushed in their developing to work and the various romantic triangles that are formed lack credibility.

The most superfluous of these villains is Thomas Haden Church’s (Sideways) Sandman. Despite strained efforts to link him to events in the first film, he is only included because he is both Raimi’s and Maguire’s favourite character from the comics. His motivations never entirely work, his special effects are the ropiest and despite Church’s best efforts.

Venom, a creature formed when an alien symbiote latches onto Spidey and after he eventually rejects it attaches to his rival Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), is a potentially more interesting adversary but only emerges towards the end of the film.

The most interesting of the trio is the one we’re already familiar with – James Franco’s new Goblin. Here we already have considerable back story and thus his encounters with the webslinger carry the most emotional intensity and also the best action. His character arc is also the most interesting, although even here things a rushed with a clumsy speech by his butler needed to move him on at one point.

As for the hero himself, Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker starts the film so smugly happy with life in general and himself in particular that you can’t wait for something bad to happen to spoil it all. Although is supposed to be a film about his inner battles, theres nothing really that hasn’t been included in the previous films and at times you wish he’d stop being so mopey and just grow up. Even under the influence of the alien, apart from a couple of really malicious moments, he comes across as more pantomime villain with ridiculous swagger than genuinely nasty.

The script is as heavy-handedly moralistic as in previous episodes. Other newcomers Bryce Dallas Howard as Peter’s classmate/possible new romantic interest Gwen Stacey and James Cromwell as her police chief boss are so underused you wonder why they were included at all. And some of the effects seem to have taken a step back since the last film – a fight scene amongst underground trains seeming particularly lacking in realism. And the final showdown is the same as previous films – Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane in peril at top of tall structure – only with more bad guys.

Despite all of which, it isn’t a bad film – it still entertains and amuses. Most of the action sequences work well, despite having nothing to rival Spiderman 2’s train sequence. There are also some nice comic touches – Spidey stopping to pour sand out of his boots after the first encounter with Sandman. As ever JK Simmonds is excellently amusing as Peter’s boss at the Daily Bugle. And, as mentioned, the new Goblin storyline is done very well, when allowed room to breathe.

With a bit more discipline and a few cuts, this could have been a very good end to the trilogy. As it is, it’s a perfectly watchable and entertaining, if overlong, effort, but disappointing in the light of what went before.

Oh what a FIASCO! Alex Salmond – J’Accuse.

I write this close to dawn on the morning after the election and I’m fairly brimming with rage about the fiasco that the Scottish elections have turned into! Of all the winners and losers, it seems clear that the real losers were us – the Scottish electorate! Helicopters grounded and boats breaking down are maybe less avoidable. The software problems that delayed so many counts, maybe more so, but even these are not the real crimes of these elections.

At the end of the day, how many voters were disenfranchised either by never receiving their postal votes or by the rejection of so many ballot-papers? Somewhere between 100,000 and 160,000 will end up being rejected. In many constituencies the majority of the winning candidate is far less than the number of spoilt ballots and this is magnified on the regional list. At a rough calculation I reckon this must cast doubts over the legitimacy of between 10 and 20% of those elected. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT AN ACCEPTABLE OUTCOME! Especially in a situation where the overall outcome looks like being so close.

There seems to have been considerable confusion about the ballot papers. Holding the elections on the same day as council elections under a new STV system was always going to be a mistake. But there also seems to have been confusion around voting twice in different columns on the same paper, by the long list of parties on the regional vote (which is probably unavoidable). But before I jump on Alex Salmond’s bandwagon of moral outrage, I think he needs to acknowledge the role he has played in the confusion.

There seems to be evidence emerging that the labelling of the SNP as “Alex Salmond for First Minister SNP” has added to this confusion. This cheap and cynical tactic served two purposes – first it put them first alphabetically on a very long list. Secondly, it wrongly made out that the regional vote was actually a referendum for first minister. There can be little doubt that this tactic has worked – the SNP are doing outstandingly well on the list vote, but whilst legal, I find this tactic as being against the spirit of an election which is supposed to be based on free, informed choice! It was deceptive and manipulative. So, yes, Mr Salmond, j’accuse! You are part of the problem – put your hands up, before you start criticising others.

Other thoughts – the turnout was shamefully low – in some Glasgow seats as low as 30% for a national election. That’s DISGRACEFUL!

Personally, I’m disappointed that the smaller parties seemed to have been squeezed out by the portrayal of the election as a straight contest between Labour and the SNP. I feel the parliament will be the poorer for it. Also, we now have the real prospect of not enough seats for the Lib Dems and Greens to form a majority coalition with either party and if they can’t elect a first minister, we all go again in 28 days!

The Labour party seem to have done much better than predicted and much better than they deserved after such a negative and fear driven campaign. All in all its rather depressing.

What's On At The Moment

Enough politics, back to movies! What have I seen recently?

Next - 2.5/5

Movie adaptations of Philip K Dick's Sci-Fi stories have, over the years, produced some of the most intelligent and compelling films in the genre - Blade Runner, Minority Report or last year's A Scanner Darkly. Let's be clear from the outset that Next, based on Dick's story The Golden Man, isn't one of them. In fact, it's an incredibly big and dumb film. The script is incredibly clunky, some of the CGI effects are decidedly ropey and the story ever so slightly on the ridiculous side.

Nicolas Cage plays a man born with the ability to see a few minutes into the future but only in relation to his own life. Julianne Moore plays the FBI agent who tries to recruit him to help her stop a nuclear bomb going off in Los Angeles, while Jessica Biel is there to look pretty basically. The plot allows the director to have tremendous fun showing you something, then rewinding and doing it a different way - a trick he rather over-uses and the ending is one of the most irritating in recent cinema. Cage mugs his way through the whole thing in smug "I'm getting paid for this nonsense" mode, Moore looks continually perplexeded, presumably wondering how on earth she's meant to speak this dialogue and Biel does look pretty, but has a totally bland character.

If you can leave that aside - its actually all rather fun, sometimes unintentionally so. And some are Cage's escapes - anticipating every move of his pursuers are very well executed. A film not to be taken too seriously, but definitely entertaining in its own way.

The Painted Veil - 3/5

An adaptation of Somerset Maugham's classic tale. The excellent Naomi Watts stars as a young woman who marries as stiff-lipped research doctor (Edward Norton) in order to escape from her mother. Not loving him, and bored with life in Shanghai, she embarks on an affair with the underused Liev Schrieber. The good doctor, then displays a hitherto unsuspected vindictive side and drags her cross country to the cholera infested small town where he has volunteered to help out. During the course the outbreak, the couple see a new side of each other and gradually come back together and fall in love.

The storyline of growth, redemption and restoration has the potential to be compelling and moving, but manages to be just interesting and intringuing. You can tell a film is struggling when the scenery is almost as interesting as the action, although in this case the locations are gorgeous. The main weakness is with the usually reliable Norton - whether through mis-casting or poor scripting. He remains too much of an enigma, too much of a cerebral cold fish to really engage the audience and whilst we're told much of his heroics in battling the epidemic we don't really see enough of it to lend complete credibility for Watts' new found passion for him.

Able support is provided by Toby Jones (the short fat Lord from Amazing Grace) and a welcome return to the big screen for Diana Rigg as the Mother Superior of the convent in the cholera-ridden town. There are some nice touches along the way, but the whole falls rather short of the emotional punch it could and maybe should have packed.

Fracture – 3/5

This is an inherently pulpy thriller. Essentially a two handed affair of cat and mouse between Anthony Hopkins’ coldly calculating engineer who shoots his wife and Ryan Gosling as the hot-shot DA charged with putting him behind bars.

Hopkins seems to manage to combine elements of two of his previous creations. He has the cold calculating amorality and arrogance of Hannibal Lecter, but strangely combines this with the humour and perpetual tinkering with things of Bert Munro of The World’s Fastest Indian. He also the sense not to take this too seriously and is never less entertaining.

Gosling starts out all pride and self-assurance. He’s so cocky that in the early exchanges its hard not to root for Hopkins and wish for his comeuppance. The committal hearing where Hopkins sizes him up in an instant and carefully baits his trap is a joy to behold. However, as the film goes on and Gosling moves from being driven over-confidence and the desire to win to an actual real-desire for justice and concern for the victim, he rediscovers his more human qualities and Hopkins’ cold-blooded sociopathic tendencies start to look a whole lot less attractive.

There’s nothing too original here, but its cleverly plotted and competently executed. A talented supporting cast are more or less window-dressing to the two leads who will hold you interested throughout their little dance.

This is England – 4/5

Director Shane Meadows (Dead Man’s Shoes, A Room for Romeo Brass) latest starts with a montage of clips from the 80s, but as these turn into clips from the Falklands and street violence it becomes clear that this won’t be a rose-tinted nostalgia trip.

Shaun (excellent newcomer Thomas Turgoose) is a young lad who lost his dad in the Falklands and is bullied at school for his outdated dress sense. He’s adopted by a bunch of good-natured skinheads and a makeover later he’s found a place to belong. However, this happy bunch is disrupted by the return of Combo from prison who injects a note of racism and violence. Unfortunately, some of Combo’s views tap into Shaun’s need for a father-figure and he’s soon drawn into Combo’s world.

From there on things follow a depressingly predictable route, but the film is carried by a nice eye for period detail and wonderful performances, not just from Turgoose but also Stephen Graham, who brings depth and internal conflict to the role of Combo.

A romantic involvement between Shaun and a much older girl feels like a bit of a mis-step, but otherwise this is a thoroughly engaging, if rather bleak film.