Spot the Difference - thoughts political

OK, so I haven't blogged politically for some time - this is probably less from being busy as from a state of despair at the current political situation. Here now are some scattered thoughts on events of the last few weeks.

Firstly, some credit to David Cameron for turning things round, which led to us not having a snap election - but less of the crowing about Brown's cowardice please - we all know very well that if the situation had been reversed, he would have done exactly the same. And please, can we cut out the classroom arguments about who stole whose policy. I mean, is there any difference between this lot and that lot any more? And if they sincerely believe these things for the good of the country (rather than a means of catching votes), then there should be a celebration that these things are actually happening, but thats just naive optimism.

Now its time for Gordon Brown to stop with the eye-catching press releases and prove that he can actually govern. Similarly Cameron needs to stop fighting a campaign for an election which ain't happening and provide what this country hasn't had for over a decade - a strong but constructive opposition.

Some sympathy for Menzies Campbell - with the universal rush towards the centre-ground it was always going to be difficult for the Lib-Dems to find somewhere to stand. However, its probably good for the party that he's gone now - whoever they find to replace him needs to have a bit more dynamism in establishing a new direction and new identity for the party, because voters need some other alternatives to the identikit offerings on both sides of the floor.

Now to Europe - and to be controversial, I don't think there should be a referendum on the new treaty. Under our system the democratic means of considering such things is through parliament. Furthermore, on the whole, people are pretty apathetic when it comes to Europe and there is little chance of a referendum debate properly tackling the complexites of the treaty. So, if there was a referendum it would either have such a low turn-out as to be politically meaningless or be twisted into a debate on whether we should be in Europe in the first place - in which case the vote would not represent an answer to the question being asked. Of the the membe states, only the Republic of Ireland is going to have a referendum on this treaty.

North of the border, in Scotland, I think its time for Mr Salmond, like Mr Brown, to stop with the eye-catching press releases and prove that he can actually govern. My feeling is that he is more suited to fighting of a campaign than the collaboration needed to govern in Scotland. I'm interested to see just how he plans to pay for all his spending - where the money is to be taken away from. I also feel that whilst he says they will win the argument for independance by governing well, what he is really looking for is to be able to say we could have governed well without Westminster. He seems, at the moment, like a man spoiling for a fight - whether that be over the budget settlement or trident. And whilst I do not favour the replacement of trident and would support any legal use of the devolved powers to stop it, Mr Salmond writing to the heads of states of other countries when foreign policy is not a devolved area seems to be deliberately trying to stir up a shit-storm with Westminister in ways which won't actually be productive to resolving the issue.

And finally, the review of abortion laws - whilst I welcome the review and feel a change in the law would be a step in the right direction, I think its important to remember that in and of itself it is not enough - firstly only a small percentage of the horrendously high number of abortions carried out in Britain each year would be covered by the proposed changes, but mainly it does nothing to address one of the main issues - which is how to reduce the huge numbers of unwanted teenage pregnancies in this country. Somehow the messages that our youth are being given aren't sinking in. So what do we do about a generation growing up with little understanding of the moral value of relationships, what do we do about the large numbers of teenage girls whose confidence and social skills are so low that the concept of informed consent is meaningless? There is some common ground here for many on both sides of the abortion debate and I can't help feeling this might be a better direction for energies to channelled in.

Less is Moore

Sicko - 4/5

Let's get one thing straight from the start - Michael Moore is not a documentarian (at least not in the sense that most of us would understand that word). He's either an entertaining polemicist or a polemical entertainer. He does not provide a balanced argument, what he does is try to stir things up and stir things up he does (which is usually no bad thing) - witness the rash of anti-Moore websites and films (many of which, rather than defending the things he attacks use the same methods they descry him for using in order to attack him). I rather suspect that Moore revels in all this attention - witness the moment in this film where the gut who set up one of the largest Moore-bashing websites is threatened with having to shut down in order to pay for his sick wife's treatment and Moore anonymously (but the announced to the world in the film? Work that one out) sends him the money he needs to keep it going.

At the end of the day, alot comes down to whether the issue he picks is deserving of the Moore treatment. In Sicko he finds a worthy target and the result is a much better film than the overblown Fahrenheit 911, which was too much of a personal attack and ended up being as much about Moore and George Dubya. (In reality, of course, Dubya doesn't need to be countered with a larger than life figure like Moore - just let him open his mouth and speak for himself). It's probably not quite in the same league as Bowling for Columbine, but is still a powerful attack on the American healthcare industry. Moore wisely keeps himself much more in the background for the first half of the movie, letting his interviewees tell their own tales. In doing so he seems much more in touch with his humanirarian side than he ever did in Fahrenheit.

And his target - well you have to say that when an industry rewards doctors with bonuses for the number of patients they are able to deny treatment too and hospitals put disorientated patients in taxis and have them dumped in the street outside homeless shelters when they can't pay their bills, then maybe they are deserving of all Moore's bile. Yes it is totally one-sided and the pictures he paints of our own NHS and the French welfare state are maybe rather too rosy, but they do at least say there are other ways of doing this. His faux-naif mugging during these sections is also rather grating after a while.

But these are minor faults at the end of the day - the film also includes much more in the way of meaningful contributions from others - witness Tony Benn in passionate form on the benefits of democracy and some genuinely moving stories from those affected by failures of the American healthcare insurance industry.

And what of the final act and its vaunted publicity stunt of taking 911 rescue volunteers to try and get free medical treatment at Guantanomo - yes it is a complete stunt. But far from exploiting people, as he has been accused of, Moore does succeed in getting these people much needed medical attention (in Cuba) and there is a really touching scene where the Cuban firefighters pay respect to their American counterparts. Neither is there the level of Bush-bashing that you might expect from the trailer. In fact, whilst there are side-swipes at Bush, Reagan and Nixon, it is Hilary Clinton who gets the worst treatment having moved from trying to reform the industry to taking contributions from it.

You should know what to expect from Moore by now and this ticks all the boxes - its one-sided, but also both entertaining and moving in its argument. Worth watching even if it is with a pinch of salt at times.

Less than the sum of its parts

Rendition - 3/5

Rendition is not a bad film - it has moments that are stunningly good, it has a great cast all doing good work and yet the whole film is rather flat. Part of the reason for this is that it can't really seem to decide what sort of film it wants to be - is it an issue-based drama, a political (or legal thriller) or a multi-thread story being weaved together a la Syriana or Babel. It ends up trying all and managing none wholly successful.

Director Gavin Hood (Tsotsi) is clearly a talented guy, but the film suggests that maybe, in his first Hollywood outing, there was an over-eagerness to please. There are some fine grandstanding moments, but the pace for the first half is leaden and characterisation lacking in places. The place where the two plot strands should weave together also, given the serious nature of the subject, feels like a gimmick to create artificial tension.

The two strands of the plot loosely fall into a Western half and a North African half. In the Western half innocent father and husband is whisked away from an airport and packed of to North Africa to be tortured for information about a terrorist bombing. CIA analyst (Jake Gyllenhaal) becomes increasingly uncomfortable observing the interrogation. Meanwhile back in the States the missing man's wife (Reese Witherspoon) desperately tries to find information encountering compromising poiliticians (Alan Arkin and Peter Saarsgard) and intelligence chief (Meryl Streep). The great cast do well with what their given, and there are some great exchanges, but only Gyllenhaal (in perhaps his best performance to date) is given enough to develop a proper character, and even he is saddled with having to rip his shirt off at every opportunity (presumably because it is assumed female viewers will only watch a political film if their is some eye-candy).

Hood seems in many ways more comfortable with the African half, linked by the bombing and the character of the chief interrogator (Yigal Naor) who is also searching for his missing daughter, who as it turns out is shacked up with a guy with a secret. The characters in this half of the story are given much more room to develop, but where the two halves should mesh well, they feel disparate, so we end up with bits of two great movies, making one average one.

In one great exchange between Saarsgard and Streep the question is raised about whether we are bothered with the fate of one (possibly innocent man) or the whole policy of rendition. It is a question the film never really gets to grips with. Whilst the rhetoric suggests the latter, all the action - the fact that the guy is innocent and the struggle to prove him so, points to the former. As a political film, this is its crucial flaw. Contrast this to, say, Dead Man Walking, where the guilt of Sean Penn's character was never really the issue, but was rather used to hold a light up to the issue of the death penalty. Using an innocent man is the safe option - it might be a step too far to expect audiences to feel sympathy for a terrorist - but it limits the film's message, it never really tackles the policy of rendition, just the justice of the particular case.

This is a shame. Rendition is an abhorrence - this should be self-evident. If there was a moral justification for it, it would not need to be done in secret in foreign countries - the law in America would be changed. It is also one of the greatest signs that America has lost the war on terror and lost it not militarily, but through the abandonment of their own moral standards. The terrorists have made them change their way of life. The guilt or innocence of the victims of rendition is not the issue, the issue is regardless of guilt, they are human beings with rights that are being violated in the most extreme manners. This film should have you leaving the cinema incensed, that you leave with little more than a sense of "Hmmm..." is a sign of its toothlessness. A disappointing waste of opportunity, potential and talent.

Speaking up for Fun

We're now heading towards the end of October, its getting darker and colder and as we head towards Halloween, the cinema screens fill up with dreadful horror movies (Saw IV anybody?), so let us be thankful that the October holidays also give us some films which are just plain fun.

First up:

Stardust - 4/5

Very much a tongue-in-cheek fairy-tale which draws the inevitable comparisons with The Princess Bride and thats a hard act to live up to and if it doesn't quite manage it (there are no lines here that will still be being quoted in 20 years time and it probably won't go onto to achieve the same cult status) then there's no disgrace there. If not quite a classic, it remains a hugely enjoyable film that compares quite favourably to other imaginative adventures (The Adventures of Baron Munchausen for example).

The story, adapted from a graphic novel by Neil Gaiman, follows Tristan (newcomer Charlie Cox) who, in order to prove his love for village sweetheart Victoria (Sienna Miller) crosses over the wall into a magical kingdom in order to retrieve a falling star. When he gets there he discovers that the star has turned into a beautiful young woman (Claire Danes) who is also being pursued by evil witches and princes fighting over the throne of their recently departed father (Peter O'Toole).

This might not seem the most obvious of follow ups for Matthew Vaughn (director of Brit gangster flick Layer Cake), but he handles it very well - creating a stunning and fantastic look to the whole whilst keeping the action rolling along at an entertaining pace. Despite a running time of over two hours, there are very few moments when things start to flag.

He's also managed to attract a star-studded cast - Michelle Pfeiffer vamps it up to great effect as one of the witches, Danes brings the right mix of innocence and knowledge as the star, whilst Robert De Niro, alternately hamming and camping it up, manages to give his most lively, entertaining and quite possibly his best performance of the decade so far (but then again, he has slept walk through most of his other recent roles). There are also cameos from the like of Rupert Everett and the afroementioned O'Toole. Even Ricky Gervais manages to be not to irritating and quite amusing in his least disastrous big screen outing to date. That said, Cox provides a likeable foil to the stars as the naive lead.

The script, whilst never reaching the heights of the likes of The Princess Bride, is witty and lively and there are clever touches throughout. The ever-increasing number of ghosts of the dead princes provide a nice, but somewhat underused, faux Greek chorus providing comment on the proceedings. If the action tends slightly towards the predictable, especially towards the end, then you can forgive it due to the entertaining manner in which it is delivered.

I might be being slightly generous here, but I found the film thoroughly entertaining fun and heartily recommend it.

Also worth checking out for fun:

Razzle Dazzle - 3.5/5

The second Australian mockumentary of the month is a far more caustic affair than Kenny, and actually has more laugh out moments. Following children's dance troupes through different rounds of competition, it focusses on the rivalry between Mr Jonathon, who puts together routines built around issues of social concern, like the Kyoto Protocol Shuffle, and the far more traditional Miss Elizabeth.

Most of the humour is directed at the very pushy adults (some of whom are real monsters), whilst the children, on the whole just get on with dancing. Sometimes it skates quite close to the mark, but delivered with such deadpan by the cast, is none the less very amusing. Brit Ben Miller (as Mr Jonathon) is on great form - watch out for his speech on the fine line between over-zealous fostering and reluctant kidnapping.

There's maybe not enough of the actual routines to keep Strictly Come Dancing fans happy, but the tone and the humour will appeal to those who like the last section of Little Miss Sunshine.

A Glimmer of Hope

I was half listening to the radio yesterday when I caught a programme on Radio 4 that really struck me and was possibly the most optimistic thing I had heard coming out of the Middle East for a long time. It was about a phone line which had been set up to enable Israelis to talk to Palestinians and vice versa. It all seemed to start by chance when an Israeli settler dialled a wrong number and started talking to the Palestinian on the other end of the line and has spread from there. They had stories of conversations that had started as fairly heated arguments and ended with phone numbers being exchanged.

The programme also had stories of a Parents Circle that brought together bereaved parents from both sides of the conflict to support each other. And then there was work in schools, where the children of Israeli settlers, who had never even met a Palestinian, were given the opportunity to meet some Palestinians. One of the you Palestinians involved this talked about speaking to one boy for a very long time as he gradually shifted from an attitude of "we should kill you all" to one of apologising for his earlier views. How powerful is that.

In the midst of so much negative reporting about the Israeli-Palestinian situation, it was refreshing and inspiring to hear of some reason for hope. These are the people who are being failed by the leaders on both sides.

Is This the Most Trailed Movie Ever?

Ratatouille - 4/5

Pixar's last movie, Cars, was a solid effort - one of best animated films of last year with beautiful animation and a good, if somewhat unspectacular story. It was also a commercial success. It is a mark of the standards that Pixar have set that this was considered something of a crushing disappointment.

So what of their latest effort - Ratatouille seems to have been being trailed like forever. At least since before the release of Cars well over a year ago. So it come as something of a relief that it's actually arrived. This in itself might be symptomatic of a slightly troubled production history. Its also the only film I've ever seen to arrive with a pronounciation guide for the title. But, is it any good?

The answer would have to be a yes. Whilst its not quite in the class of the true Pixar classics like The Incredibles or Toy Story 2, it does mark a solid return to form. It is well documented that what Pixar grasp better than most of their rivals is that the secret of a good animatec film is not the animation, but the story and the characters. Here they hit upon a great story - the rat (Remy) with a refined palette who dreams of becoming a chef and the friendship he form with un-culinary restaurant garbage boy Linguini in order to help him fulfill his dreams.

It's actually a good job the story is so strong as the lead characters are, by Pixar standards, a wee bit dull. That said, the supporting characters are the usual rich assortment - watch out in particular for the Peter O'Toole voiced food critic Anton Ego. There are also some stunning set pieces - like the preparation of the final meal by a kitchen full of rats - and some clever humour in the dialogue (some of the exchanges between Remy and his imaginary image of masterchef Gusteau are a particular delight). The quality of the animation is as usual superb and if there are maybe one or two too many scenes of Remy scampering around to avoid being flattened, the whole is so entertaining and charming that you'll easily forgive.

Oh, and the accompanying short, Lifted, contains more humour in a few minutes than certain 'comedies' do in their entire run time.

So not quite a true Pixar classic, but still a very good animated film with at least as much for adults as for children.

A Compelling True Story

The Counterfeiters - 4/5

You might have thought that there was little new to tell about the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and then along comes a tale, that it weren't true, would probably be labelled unbelievable. The Counterfeiters tells the true story of a Nazi plot to undermine the economies of the allies by flooding them with counterfeit pounds and dollars. A team of Jewish inmates were assembled (a combination of bankers, printers and forgers from across the territories controlled by the Nazis) and set to work on the task.

The film centres on professional forger Salomon Sorowitsch (played by Kark Markovics, pictured) and explores more the dilemmas of the inmates than the brutality of the Nazis. They were a privileged group, aware of the conditions faced by their fellow Jews on the other side of the wall. The central dilemma is how far to compromise in order to survive. Sorowitsch is a pragmatic survivor, doing what he must in order to stay alive and keep his friends alive. He is contrasted with the idealistic Burger (August Diehl) trying to sabotage things in order to hold up the Nazi war effort. It is the tension, and friendship, between these two that provides the main driving force for the film. On the Nazi side, the brutality of one officer is contrasted with the commander Herzog (Devid Striesow) who is just as much of a pragmatist and survivor as Sorowitsch, but does this make his actions any more excusable than the brutal Nazis that serve under him?

There are some incredibly poignant moments, not least of which is the moment after the Nezis leave and these privileged few are brought face to face with those who haver suffered the full brunt of the camps and the full range of emotions experienced. If the horror of the camps in slightly underplayed compared to other films, then that is the experience of these men and it uses the audience's existing knowledge to highlight the impossible situation they were placed in. Were they heroes or collaborators or just men trying to find their way through impossible choices. There are no easy answers.

The film is anchored by two outstanding performance by Diehl and especially from Markovics who conveys and a mix of melancholy, defiance and despondancy as he tries to cling on to his humanity.

Its a compelling story and moving, thought-provoking film. Well worth checking out.

The ups and downs of actors' careers.

And now for two films illustrating two talented actors in very differing phases of their careers. Firstly, a resurgent Kevin Costner:


Mr Brooks - 3/5





Kevin Costner has never really played a truly bad guy - I guess, the closest he's got would be his criminal in A Perfect World, but even he turned out to be kind of good at heart. His stock in trade is the ex-jock (usually baseball player) or the tough cowboy, also done cops and lone travellers in post-apocalyptic future, etc... but generally speaking, he does guys who are tough on the outside, but decent within - the role model for middle-America. So meet his latest creation - Earl Brooks - successful businessman, philanthropist, loving husband and father, oh, and a serial killer.





The central plot device is basically Jekyll and Hyde with a dash of Faust as Brooks battles with his dark inner desires which are personified in the form of Marshall, his alter-ego (played by another 80s leading man turned great character actor, William Hurt). Aftergoing straight for a couple of years, Brooks is again led into temptation, but makes a mistake which leads to him being blackmailed into taking on a kind of apprentice killer in the form of Dane Cook (Employee of the Month).





To be clear, this is not a good movie by any means. It has moment which are unnecessarily gory and, to be honest, bits of the plot are absolutely ridiculous - especially Demi Moore as the tough cop who also happens to be a millionairess? But there are some nice touches, like a subplot around whether Brooks' daughter (Sky High's Danielle Panabaker) has inherited his affliction. However, what makes this really quite an enjoyable watch (even if in a guilty-pleasure kind of a way), are the lively turns by the two leading men. Costner seizes the opportunity to do bad with great relish, whilst Hurt is a constant delight as his dark alter-ego and despite all its bad points the film really gels when they are on screen together and there's interesting stuff in the temptation scenes. Unfortunately, the already torturous plot is dragged through two twists to many at the end, finishing with a cliched it was just a dream moment (although it does leave it open to interpretation just how much of the preceding events had been a dream - is Brooks a killer at all, or just a man battling temptation).



His performance here, following on from his strong turn in The Upside of Anger earlier this year marks a continued resurgence for Costner after the critical and commercial drubbings for the likes of Waterworld and The Postman.









The same cannot be said of Billy Bob Thornton, who seems stuck in freefall to lame comedy hell. Expect a joint venture with Eddie Murphy to be announced soon. Whilst not quite in the Cuba Gooding Jr career suicide path yet, Thornton has followed up The Bad News Bears and School for Scoundrels with



Mr Woodcock - 0.5/5



In my defence, I wouldn't have gone to see this, if it hadn't been with a client. It is absolutely dire - a laugh-free effort that makes his previous films seem like comedy classics. Not a single chuckle for the whole running length, whilst simultaneously managing to be offensive in places. Thornton himself, a very talented actor, clearly can't be bothered and makes no effort at any stage of his performance, and yet is still the best thing in the film by miles. Seann William Scott is totally miscast as the comedic straight man of the two, but fails to make his character either likeable or interesting. Susan Sarandon (who must be in some kind of financial trouble or why else is she in such tripe) over-emotes at every opportunity.



This is a bad, bad, bad film - avoid at all costs. Oh, and Mr Thornton - you should seriously consider finding a new agent!

It's Grim Up North

Control - 3/5

This biopic of Joy Division frontman Ian Curtis, who tragically committed suicide at the age of just 23, is not your usual music biopic. The focus is squarely on the man rather than the music - in fact the opening moments begin in almost total silence. Shot in strking black and white and set in Northern England, this is more reminiscent of British social realist dramas of the sixties (Look Back in Anger, Billy Liar) than the likes of Ray or Walk the Line.

Director Anton Corbijn's background in still photography can be seen in some stunning visual images. It's also very well acted - relative newcomer Sam Riley doing well in the lead role and the always reliable Samantha Morton doing her very best in a part that (rather strangely as the film is based on Deborah Curtis' book) feels a bit underwritten as Ian's wife Deborah.

The film's main problem is that Curtis remains too enigmatic a figure and we get little sense of what drives him either in musical or personal lives. Yes, we see a man who maybe married too young and who struggled to deal with his epilepsy, but we have no real sense of what was going on below the surface. There's just not enough to really hook the audience in or make them care about Curtis and without that it does become a bit of a grim slog at times. Let's be thankful then for Toby Kebbell as the band's manager Rob Gretton who adds a bit of life and some much needed humour to proceedings.

It's very well shot and acted, but is quite hard going at times, without really enough to reward the viewer for their labours - we never really get under the skin of either the man or his music.

A Rushed Affair

Daywatch - 4/5




Firstly, a few words of warning - this is quite a difficult movie to follow even if you have seen the first instalment (Nightwatch - released a couple of years ago), if you haven't I would guess it would be fairly incomprehensible. The reason for this is that the movies are based on a trilogy of books - the first film covered just half of the first book, in the second the try to cram the most important bits of the remaining two and half books. This, unfortunately, leaves little room for further character development, motivation or explanation - its all rather rushed.

Secondly, the world that's created here might not be everybody's cup of tea with mystical powers, vampires, etc..., but despite its trappings and being rather gory at times, this is not a horror movie. There is little intention to scare the audience, but rather to enthrall with a gripping fantasy adventure, albeit one set in modern day Russia where forces of light and darkness battle in the midst of an unknowing population. In fact, the whole thing could be seen as an extended anti-abortion allegory. OK, that's stretching a point a wee bit, but the plot is driven by the main character's attempt to atone for (admittedly unknowingly) attempting to kill his unborn son.

Thirdly, you have to stiffle a few chuckles at a few pieces of clunky exposition and the fact that something called "the chalk of destiny" plays a major role in the plot. I'm sure it sounds better in the original Russian.

If you can get past all that, how good a film is it. Nightwatch arrived as a breath of fresh air a couple of years ago with a unique vision and some breathtaking scenes and special effects all achieved on a very small (by Western standards) budget. Daywatch is more of a flawed entity - as already mentioned it is far too rushed, with just too much plot crammed in. However, it retains many of the strengths of the original - the effects still put man much bigger budgetted films to shame, the action is gripping, there's touches of wry humour and a creative use of subtitles which only Tony Scott's Man on Fire has come close to matching in Western cinema.

Whilst borrowing much from more familiar films, writer/director Timur Bekmambetov has created both a mythology and a look that is distinctively Russian in feel and does come across as something fresh and different and thrilling. What Daywatch shows is that it would have made a great second part of a trilogy. Instead, it's very entertaining, gripping and original, but flawed by attempting to lever too much in.

A Very British Affair

And When Did You Last See Your Father - 3.5/5

As this film proves, nobody does repressed emotions and failure to communicate quite as well as the British. Based on Blake Morrison's autobiographical novel, the film follows Blake (Colin Firth) as he struggles to come to terms with his father's (Jim Broadbent) impending death and looks back over their difficult relationship.

It's all very well done and many bits, especially some of the childhood recollections, are surprisingly funny. The problem is it does leave you with a kind of seen it all before feeling. The themes (father-son relationships, coping with impending loss, grief, etc...) are fairly well travelled and whilst this is a creditable contribution it adds littlr new. (In fact, as a personal opinion, Darren Aronofsky's critically reviled The Fountain from earlier this year is a far more thought-provoking and moving portrayal of coping with impending loss). And we've all seen Colin Firth doing his moodily reticent stiff upper-lip thing, whilst Juliet Stevenson can do the long-suffering wife in her sleep.

And then there's Jim Broadbent, who gives an absolute gem of a performance that lifts the whole film above the ordinary. Seizing a role which allows him to combine both his comic and dramatic strengths, he is utterly compelling in what is undoubtedly his strongest turn since his oscar-winning role in Iris.

Worth watching for Broadbent alone, the rest is perfectly good if rather unspectacular fare.

Treading Dangerous Ground II

The Kingdom - 3.5/5

This is the first real blockbuster amongst a raft of forthcoming films dealing with that most controversial (to some) topic - American involvement in the Middle-East. Watch out for In the Valley of Elah, Rendition and Lions for Lambs, amongst others, over the next few weeks. The good news is that its not quite as jingoistic as the trailer or the plot might suggest. The bad news is that it never quite gets to grips with its subject matter. In fact, in many ways, it could be seen as a paralell for the American military presence - possibly well meaning, but so lacking in understanding that it comes across as patronising and, in some ways, offensive.

Putting that aside, as a genre piece, as an investigative thriller it is entertaining piece of cinema. Director Peter Berg (whose previous film, the excellent Friday Night Lights, never received the audience it deserved over here), handles the action sequences with great skill and aplomb from the initial shock and horror of the terrorist attack to the slowly building tension of the investigation to the final showdown which takes out most of a Riyadh apartment block.

A talented cast do their best - Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner and Chris Cooper are all capable of commanding attention whenever on screen and do their best with limited space for characterisation. Garner, in particular, suffers, given a bag of lollipops instead of characterisation, whilst Foxx gets a cringe-worthy speech about the birth of his son. Jeremy Piven, in a minor role as the scared diplomat tasked with getting the FBI team safely out of the country fares much better. Interestingly though, Ashraf Barhom (who previously appeared as a terrorist in Paradise Lost) all but steals the film from his American co-stars as the Saudi colonel leading the investigation and his cautious bonding with Foxx's FBI agent provides the emotional core of the film.

However entertaining it might be as a thriller, if a film is going to enter the murky waters of Middle East politics, it needs to do so with more understanding than is shown in most of the running time here. We are presented with Saudi Arabia as an extremely hostile place for westerners with no real sense of why this is. (For British audiences, the lack of understanding will reach laughable levels at the decision to call the bad guy Abu Hamza, of all the names they could have chosen). The good intentions are undermined by the fact they make the intruding Americans the ones who are always right and there is something quite patronising and offensive about the shots of Saudis looking on as the Americans show them how to conduct a real investigation. That said, the whole is almost totally redeemed by a devastating last couple of lines that will stay with you long after the final credits.

Treading Dangerous Ground

Across The Universe - 4/5



There seem to be an inordinate amount of films being released at the moment - the average for October is over 8 per week - the majority of which are vying for space on mainstream screens. What this means is that if a film doesn't get an audience on its opening weekend, it's gone like that. No chancew for word of mouth to build (or me to keep up to date with this blog). And so Across the Universe has vanished already after attracting love it or hate it reviews (mainly the latter). And this is a decided shame, as it was one of the more unusual and creative movies released recently.

Nobody could accuse director Julie Taymor (whose last feature was Frida, but has more recently won awards for the stage version of The Lion King) of a lack of boldness or ambition. Messing with the almost sacred back catalogue of the Beatles is bound to place you in the firing line for critics. To do so without a real recognisable star in the leading roles (Evan Rachel Wood, pictured, doesn't quite count yet, although she does reveal a surprisingly strong singing voice in her repertoire here) is bravado bordering on folly.

To deal with the weaknesses first - the plot is light to the point of non-existant, the central love story (between Jude and Lucy, of course) is not really all that involving, its slightly overlong and one or two of the musical numbers (all Beatles songs) don't really work and it does, at times, play like a two hour long music video.

All of which rather misses the point. This is not a movie about the story, but about the music and a snapshot of the times that produced it - both the creative freedom and experimentation, but also the turbulent politics and spirit of revolution in the air. The emphasis is more on later Beatles numbers, the visuals borrowing from music videos, go for a decidedly unrealistic aesthetic at times, but when it works, it works well, helped in no small part by a very talented vocal cast. Let It Be sung by a black gospel choir was going to be beautiful, set to a backdrop of the Detroit riots it becomes painfuly poignant. Similarly, the shadow of Vietnam hangs heavily over a lively versio of Strawberry Fields Forever. Whilst the performance of Whilst my guitar sadly weeps is just heartbreaking. There are also skillfully handled changes in tone mid-song - the joyfully exuberant boys chorus on With a Little Help From my Friends gives way to a far more tender female solo.

The music is aided by a skillfully witty script by British TV writers Dick Clement and Ian le Frenais. Songs which don't actually appear are referenced in ways which steers just the right side of gimmicky - visually (Maxwell's Silver hammer), in the dialogue ("She came in through...") and in the score (which takes on the tune of A Day in the Life as Jude opens a newspaper). Then there are the cameos - the psychadelic guru who appears to have stolen Bono's hat and shades is, in fact, Bono seeming to enjoy a break from his saviour of the world image and giving his all to I Am The Walrus. Joe Cocker is wisely not given With a Little Help, but rather adds his gravelly gusto to a great Come Together. Others are more entertainingly bizarre - like multiple Salma Hayek's as background singers on one song and Eddie Izzard's amusingly surreal Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite.

Overall, the film scores well for ambition and visual inventiveness and is well worth watching for the times when it works well. Just a shame more people didn't get the chance to see it on the big screen.

A pleasant surprise and an unlikely hero

Kenny - 3.5/5

After all the recent movies that should have been better than they were, it's a real pleasant surprise to find one that is acrually much better than you'd think from the description. Kenny is an ultra low-budget Australian mockumentary following the eponymous hero through his work as a plumber for portable toilet blocks. Those fearing a surfeit of crass toilet humour should think again. Yes, there are the inevitable range of toilet based jokes, some amusing, some not, but the tone of the film is less gross-out and more a slightly wry, witty approach.

Whereas most mockumentaries from Christopher Guest's work (This is spinal Tap, Best in Show, etc...) through The Office to Borat make their humour from mocking their protagonists eccentricities and foibles, Kenny presents us with a fundamentally decent human being being looked down on by all around. In many ways then, Kenny is actually closer to those few people who have become stars from real fly on the wall documentaries. Thus the film, whilst never being side-splittingly hilarious has a gentle charm that draws you in and some delightful Australian phrasing of things. So much so that you can't help being delighted when, in the final scene, Kenny finally gets his own back on an obnoxious motorist.

It's probably a bit too long and takes a wee while to get going and some of the best bits come as Kenny makes a fish-out-of-water trip to Nasville, Tennessee for a trade convention - some of it has to be seen to be believed.

The opening credit offers us what seems (given the subject matter of the film) a rather grandiose quote along the lines of "There's nobody more invisible than those that we choose not to see", but in its gently, charming and amusing way the film gives us a good illustration of this.

Its probably not everybody's cup of tea - several people walked out when I went to see it (presumably because it wasn't all gross s*** gags) - and it takes a wee bit of effort to get into it, but is well worth the while, and in Kenny himself we have one of the most unlikely heroes in movies this year.

Things that are currently amusing me

Number 1:

The juxtaposition in cinemas of adverts for a Playstation 3 game, slogan: This is living, with an advert for the Alpha Course, slogan Is there more to life than this?

Hard to believe that wasn't planned by somebody.

Feeling Flat

After the highs of Bourne and Atonement we seem to have had a string of movies that have failed to live up to their potential, and here's another one:





Michael Clayton - 2.5/5





OK, really its a three out of five movie, but the potential for a really gripping legal thriller is so great, that the disappointment knocks it down. The film starts promisingly enough with Clooney as the eponymous hero (a fixer for a big lawfirm) called to see a client who's been involved in a hit and run. On the way back, he stops, gets out of the car and climbs a hill, in the background the car explodes. The action is then rewound four days to show how we got there.





The plot follows Clayton as he's called in when the firm's top litigator (Tom Wilkinson) suffers an apparent breakdown in a deposition hearing and runs naked through the parking lot shouting that he's Shiva the Goddess of Death. As Clayton gets more involved in the case he discovers that their clients are as guilty as anything and is forced to question what he's doing. As plots go, its probably slightly sub-Grisham standards, but having potential nonetheless.



Neither can the movie's failings be put down to the cast. Clooney is on terrific form - toning down the usual twinkle and adding a lo of gusto and world-weariness to his performance. He is ably supported by the brits (who actually play the movie's most intersting charcters) - Tilda Swinton displays a fragile insecurity behind the icy facade as the representative of the evil corporation. However, the real star of the piece is Tom Wilkinson, giving one of his best turns as the possibly crazy lawyer discovering a conscience and trying to bring down his client. He lifts matters greatly whenever he's on screen and provides the rather unusual moral heart of the film. Unfortunately, he checks out halfway through proceedings and the film as a whole never recovers. Even the final showdown feels somewhat perfunctorary despite some of Clooney's best lines.

No, the main problem comes with the direction - which is leaden when it should be pacy. The film lacks any form of zip, punch or tension and for a thriller that's bad news. Tony Gilroy's work on The Bourne trilogy proves that he has something as a screenwriter, but his debut as director leaves alot of room for improvement. There are too many plot strands that go nowhere and add nothing to the whole.

All in all, a good cast on good form let down by the end product.