Adaptations Good and Bad

Brick Lane - 4/5

Director Sarah Gavron's adaptation of Monica Ali's controversial novel tells the story of Nazneen, a young Bangladeshi woman who arrives in Britain for an arranged marriage with an older man, Chanu. Almost two decades later, she has two daughters and lives a very subdued life until hot-headed young muslim Karim comes knocking at her door, setting her off on the road of self-discovery and coming to life.

The cinematography is beautiful and stunning throughout, especially in the early scenes in Bangladesh, but also in the some of the later London scenes as Nazneen awakens to the world around her. I've not read the book, but I understand that the film makes large omissions including many of the more controversial elements, but what is left is an engaging story that flirts with being a romance and edges onto political drama as the events of 9-11 dramatically alter Nazneen's world, but is ultimately a very personal tale.

Tannishtha Chatterjee gives a superbly restrained performance in the lead, conveying as much with her silent looks and with her words. Christopher Simpson is edgy enough as Karim to cast doubts over the romance (note the clips from Brief Encounter in the background) without ever becoming a real bad guy. Whilst Satish Kaushik as Chanu is brilliant - he brings the film much of its humour through his attempts to better himself and deceive himself and others. At other moments he seems to be veering towards an abusive figure but always manages to pull himself back and finishes the film with a considerable amount of respect and dignity and, probably, sympathy from the audience.

All in all, its a wonderfully shot and well-acted engaging story of one person's experience of changing culture's.



Sleuth - 2/5

The original movie of Sleuth, starring Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier, is a wonderful film - managing to be both dark and fun and utterly engaging in the battle between two men, trying to outwit each other whilst fighting over the same woman. That said, its little enough seen these days to make a remake worth while and on paper this should be brilliant - Caine in the Olivier role, Jude Law in the Caine role, directed by Kenneth Branagh from a script by Harold Pinter. What results is a bit of a ghastly mess - OK, if you've not seen the original, it might make for passable entertainment and its probably not quite as bad as some reviews make out.

So where did it go so wrong. Not with the acting - Law and Caine both do excellent jobs with the material that is presented and make it at least watchable. Branagh's direction is interesting rather than effective and sometimes distracts rather than compliments the action. But the real weakness is in Pinter's script. Strictly speaking this is a re-adaptation of the original stageplay, rather than a remake of the 70s film, but that matters little - the script has little of the subtlety and none of the fun of the original. He replaces coherent character motivation with having Caine and Law say f*** and c*** alot and by changing the underlying tension between them from a matter of class to one of sex, loses alot of what made it such an enjoyable two-hander. What we are left with is dark and twisted, but not much fun.

The best that can be hoped for from this is that it might prompt a high profile re-issue of the original on DVD for more people to discover its delights.

Epics Ancient and Modern

Beowulf - 3/5

The oldest tale in the English language, filmed using the most modern of techniques. Director Robert Zemeckis returns to the motion capture (mocap) technique he used in The Polar Express. For those of you not in the know, motion capture is the pricess where actors perform against a green screen and the performance is then animated on computer, adding costumes, props and background. The technology has clearly advanced since The Polar Express - the faces are alot more realistic and there's a lot more depth to the visuals. However, they still can't seem to get hands quite right and most importantly the performances come across as slightly muted. There is also an odd mental disjunct listening to a voice which is clearly Ray Winstone's (in the title role) whilst watching a body which, with no disrespect to Mr Winstone, clearly isn't.

That said its not all bad - its visually spectacular (especially in the 3-D version) and as you might expect from a story thats lasted over a thousand years, there's enough to keep the interest. There's also some added character depth and some interesting thoughts on temptation, falleness and owning your mistakes in the additions they make to the original story (even if, at times, the script takes a sledgehammer to a nut). It's the villains who probably come off best in terms of performance - Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mother and there's fun to be had in watching John Malkovich's weaselly character.

So, its worth a look, but not quite there yet.

American Gangster - 3.5/5

After indifferent reviews, I've got to say I was quite pleasantly surprised by this one. Part of the problem, I suspect, is looking at the talent involved - director Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator), stars Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington - and a story that draws obvious parallels with both The Godfather and Heat, left many expecting an absolute classic. And this isn't. But its still a good film and keeps you interested and watching throughout its long running time.

Visually it lacks the panache of some of Scott's other films, coming off in a low-key manner more reminiscent of some of the film of the early seventies era in which its set like Serpico or The French Connection. It also lacks a major action set-piece like the shoot-out in Heat. The takedown, when it does come is far more low-key.

It tells the based on true-life story of Frank Lucas (Washington) who rose to be head of New York's largest drug group, importing direct from the far east in the coffins of dead servicemen being flown back from Vietnam. Against him is about the only straight cop on the force (Richie Roberts - played by Crowe). What we get is an interesting character portrait of contrasts - the honest cop but serial womaniser up against the drug lord but loyal family man. Crowe is as solid as you might expect, but this is Washington's show and he is superb - tapping the brutality of Training Day to some of the more human aspects of other roles to offer a fascinating character - and this is both the film's greatest strength and weakness. Scott is clearly too taken with his subject to have a clear moral stance and this leaves things slightly unbalanced - at times he strays perilously close to holding Lucas up as an idol for Black America in his rise from the streets. Where scenes of Lucas' brutality are shown, you almost feel the director is giving a reminder to himself as much as the audience.

As with Heat, the two principle characters (again two of the best actors in their generation) spend most of the movie not meeting, but when they do (again, over coffee) the scene just crackles with brilliance - its an acting masterclass as the power and control subtly keeps shifting. In a way, its a shame that the film doesn't have more of the aftermath, because one of the most remarkable aspects of this story is that Roberts and Lucas went on to become friends.

The other remarkable aspect of this film is it features Cuba Gooding Jr in his first decent role since winning an Oscar all those years ago - there's maybe a chink of light at the end of his career nightmare.

So, not quite the classic you were maybe expecting, but still an interesting and engaging film with a stunning turn from Washington.

The SNP budget - broken promises?

So, what to make of the SNP's first budget in power. All in all, I see it as a bit of a mixed bag - some good, some not so good. Yes, they have backtracked from some promises, especially over student debt, and completely fudged the issue of new police officers and reducing classroom sizes. To a certain extent this was inevitable - even without getting less money than they would have like from Westminster, it was always going to be debateable whether they could afford everything they'd promised, so, yes, I accept the argument that they have to prioritise what they think they can get through parliament.

And there is some good stuff in there - free prescriptions must surely be listed among these.

On the cautionary side, I would say that they are giving out a very mixed message environmentally - scrapping schemes which would promote air travel, putting more into public transport, but at the same time embarking on large road building/improvement schemes and removing tolls from the forth and tay bridges. The net result of which is probably a zero sum equation - little done to lower carbon emissions, but neither should they increase. My personal view, that's not good enough.

I also think, as Unison have warned, its a very tight budget for public services and it wouldn't take much in the way of unforeseen circumstances to break it.

I have yet to be convinced that the freeze on council tax is little more than an eye-catching gimmick until there are concrete plans to replace it. It will be interesting to see which authorities go along with it - given their dire financial situation currently, here in Edinburgh will be the most interesting one to watch.

Now, to get it through committee and parliament. From his responses to the various party leaders, Mr Salmond is clearly trying to woo the support of the Tories. He was far less dismissive to them and the tax incentives for small businesses will appeal to them. It remains to be seen if he has offered enough to get the greens on board as well. I kind of doubt it, which by my maths leaves him a vote short, but I may have got that wrong. Expect more serious negotiation - this is not the finished budget yet.

Living Alone in very different ways

Into the Wild- 4/5

"Happiness is only real when shared" - this is poignant conclusion of central character Christopher McCandless just days before he dies alone in the Alaskan wilderness.

Writer/Director Sean Penn is not well known for being a bundle of laughs. In fact his features so far as director (The Indian Runner, The Crossing Guard, The Pledge) are all fine films, but maybe somewhat lacking in light relief. So some might approach this true story with some trepidation. After all, after graduating college McCandless drops out of the system to get away from his violent, arguing parents and travels America under the name of Alexander Supertramp, before trying (and failing) to survive by himself in the Alaskan wilderness. Surprisingly, the film turns out to be a rather warm picture of humanity. It could almost be seen as Penn's (whose politics have laid him open to the charge of being un-American) lovesong to his native country - taking in the majestic sweep of the varied countryside, the variety of wildlife and most of all the kindness and goodness of the people through the many different people McCandless meets along the way and who help him out. At times this borders on the over-indulgent - the film is slightly over-long and at times verges too close to being a wildlife documentary.

Emile Hirsch, who plays McCandless, has done good work in the past as one of a number of youngsters in films such as (Lords of Dogtown, Alpha Dog, The Girl Next Door), here he has to carry the film himself - often all by himself a la Tom Hanks in Cast Away. That he succeeds with some style and great charm confirms his graduation to a genuine leading man. He is ably supported by the ever-reliable likes of William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden as his parents, and Catherine Keener and Vince Vaughn as those who meets along the way. Penn's direction is more inventive than previously, trying to visually match the emotional states of the characters, usually successfully, sometimes distractingly.

So don't put be off, there is a lot here to enjoy as well as to ponder and some fascinating slices of America.

In the most tenuous of tenuous links - another leading man with an inclination to live by himself in French romantic comedy:

I do /Prête-moi ta main - 3/5

Luis Costa (Alain Chabat) is a confirmed bachelor, but his mother and sisters are trying to bully him into getting married. In order to get them off his back, he hires the sister (Charlotte Gainsbourg (The Science of Sleep) of his best friend and colleague to stand him up at the altar. Predictably, through many complications, the pair fall for each.

Yes, it's utterly predictable, but Chabat and Gainsbourg make for very likeable and watchable leads and most of the funny bits are genuinely amusing. Neithe character in entirely believable and, in particular, you see little reason why she would ever fall for him. That said, believablity has never been a particular staple of the rom-com and there's enough lively sparring to keep things ticking on.

Undemanding, low-key entertainment, but with subtitles.

Sundance's Masterpiece or liberal tub-thumping?

Lions for Lambs - 4.5/5

Robert Redford hasn't directed a film since 2000's disappointing golf fable The Legend of Bagger Vance. That he chose to return with a film around American policy in the war on terror might feel some with a sense of dread of the overly-worthy tub-thumping. The subject matter and Redford's well-known liberal leanings might spell box office poison stateside and that would be a real shame, because what we have here is an intelligent, thought-provoking and brilliantly shot and acted piece of film-making. It's also possibly Redford's best movie as director to date.

The title comes from a quote by a German commander in the First World War on the British Army that never had he seen such lions led by such lambs. The plot follows three strands - in Washington an ambitious senator (Tom Cruise) unveils a new military strategy to a morally compromised reporter (Meryl Streep). At a university elsewhere in the country a politocs professor (Redford) tries to inspire a brilliant but apathetic student (newcomer Andrew Garfield). Linking these two threads two of the professors former students, implementing the senators new stategy find themselves pinned down on a mountain in Afghanistan.

Whilst it may not be completely balanced it is far from a piece of liberal propaganda. Instead the script by Michael Carnahan (who also scripted the far less impressive The Kingdom) is intelligent and thought-provoking, making a good attempt to engage with the complexity of situations and ask questions rather than provide easy answers. The targets are not just the politicians, but also the complicity of the media in cheerleading for war in Iraq and, most interestingly, the apathy of the majority that allows things to just happen. The running time is kept lean and the action happening almost in real time, with dialogue in the different strands informing each other. The action is mainly static - two sit down conversations and two soldiers who can't move. It is to Redford's credit that the whole is leant such an enthralling sense of energy.

In the interview, Cruise's unnerving charm is put to great effect in what is one of his best performances ever. He offers us an ambitious politician who slides away from the questions he doesn't want to answer almost without you noticing. He is a chilling man who can refer to the attrocities at Abu Grahib as "Bad PR" and use all the right rhethoric but seems bound to repeat the mistakes of the past he won't learn from. Opposite him, Streep gives one of her most nuanced performances for many years as the morally compromised reporter who doesn't quite buy what she's being sold.

Redford's professor is, one suspects, a character very close to his own heart - trying to inspire people to take a stand, but despairing at the apathy around him. This section offers more of a consideration of ideals in abstract, but also the need for engagement of some kind with the issues that surround us. The surprise here is newcomer Garfield (most recognisable here for appearances in the last series of Dr Who) who more than matches Redford blow for blow through their discussion. The question that is asked here is is it better to try and fail than fail to try when you end up in the same place anyway?

The Afghan section is potentially the weak-point of the film, but rising stars Derek Luke (Antwone Fisher, Catch the Fire) and Michael Pena (World Trade Centre, Shooter) prove more than up to the task, lending their characters enough charisma for it to work. In fact it becomes the moral and emotional core of the film - here is the very human reality which is governed and affected by the talk in the other sections.

If you want to quibble, you might argue that the film buys into the current Hollywood trend that the troops serving in the Middle East are themselves above reproach. The evidence of Abu Grahib would suggest otherwise. Its also true that it makes no attempt to understand or even cover the other side of the conflict. The Taliban fighters remains indistinct blurs in the distance. However such quibbles seem rather churlish - there is only so much one film can tackle and this is more concerned about the political process in America and its effects. Its ultimate message is more one of whatever your views, stand up and do something about it.

It might not quite turn out to be a classic masterpiece, but is certainly the most intelligent film on the conflict to emerge yet. Don't be surprised if there are Oscar nods - especially for Streep and Cruise. Well worth checking out.

Owen vs the Spanish

And no, that's not a football headline, but rather a pretty accurate summary of the daft plotting in

Elizabeth the Golden Age - 2.5/5

In which Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) almost single-handedly defeats the Spanish Armada. The original movie, Elizabeth, was by no means the classic it is sometimes made out to be. Lest we forget it did contain the combined acting talents of Eric Cantona and Joseph Fiennes in full pouty mode. What it did have going for it was an interesting account of the creation of historical myths and an amazing performance from Cate Blanchett.

The sequel, a decade later, has another great performance from Blanchett (possibly the most talented actress in her generation) and that's about it really. OK, it looks stunning and there is some good work from under-used members of the supporting cast - Geoffrey Rush is his usual so-good-you-hardly-notice-him, Tom Hollander is solid, Samantha Morton adds some dignity to her role as Mary Queen of Scots which is written precariously close to pantomime villainess and Aussie Abbie Cornish (Somersault, Candy) holds her own admirably.

Gone however is the myth busting approach to history, instead this film can't really decide what it wants to do or be. You kind of feel that they aim for historical political thriller, but miss by a country mile and lurch between history as melodrama, history as Mills and Boon and history as boys own adventure. In fact the Spanish are presented with such a degree of high camp that it almost feels that you've wondered into a Monty Python sketch and if Michael Palin popped up saying "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" it would probably improve matters greatly.

Far too much attention is given to the supposed romantic triangle between Blanchett, Cornish and Owen, which means that the badly miscast Owen gets far too much screen time. Clive Owen is not a bad actor, but he is a long way from being the most versatile character actor and sticks out like a sore thumb here, coming across as if he's in a completely different style of movie. In fact, by the time he (literally) swings into action to defeat the armada you're left with the distinct impression that this is Sir Walter Raleigh via Pirates of the Caribbean.

The other big weakness here is that the climactic showdown with the Spanish falls so flat despite Owen's boys own antics. Sea battles are notoriously difficult to film, but there's not enough here to make a satisfying action spectacle, whilst continual inter-cutting with the anxious Elizabeth awaiting news fails to build any real sense of tension and the ending with Blanchett looking over the cliffs at the shining horizon is pure hackneyed hokum.

Another great performance from Blanchett and some of the supporting players which deserved a better film.

Two kinds of Brutal

Eastern Promises - 3/5

Director David Cronenberg and star Viggo "Aragon" Mortensen combined two years ago to critical and commercial success in A History of Violence. Their re-teaming in Eastern Promises marks both what is possibly Mortensen's most interesting performance to date and Cronenberg's most mainstream offering - most mainstream and least interesting.

Cronenberg gets stuck into the London gangster genre and gets stuck in it - the end product is an average thriller lifted only by the complexity surrounding Mortensen's character. Echoing his role in A History of Violence, we again have a fundamentally decent man struggling to exist in violent circumstances and Mortensen is utterly compelling in the role. The trouble is that most of what is around him is paper thin. Vincent Cassell offers us another in a long line of Euro villains, whilst even Naomi Watts heroine is rather two-dimensional.

The plot follows Watts as a nurse trying to trace the family of a girl who died in childbirth on her ward. The trail leads her into the murky world of the Russian mafia and people smuggling. The action when it comes is very brutal and gory, so those who are put off by that should avoid. The film also really fails to get to grips with its subject matter.

So, if you're not put off by the violence, worth watching for Mortensen's portrayal, but the rest is little more than average. If you want a film that really tackles the trade in people for the sex industry, check out Lukas Moodysson's powerful and disturbing Lilja 4-ever.

Interview - 3/5

A different kind of brutality here as Steve Buscemi and Sienna Miller engage in a battle of wits to try and unravel each others secrets during the course of an interview. Buscemi (who also directs and co-scripts) plays a washed up political journalist sent, against his wishes, to interview a starlet who's more famous for her private life than her work (Miller, bravely playing with type).

The film is an adaptation of a film by dutch filmaker Theo Van Gogh who, tragically, is now best remembered for being murdered by an Islamic extremist.

Buscemi handles the direction well enough and both stars are on form with the performances. Some of the ideas to do with secrets and guilt are intriguing as they dance around each other both literally and figuratively, but some of the dialogue strains at credibility. The nearest comparison I can think of would be a movie like Tape, but neither the characters nor the motivations are as coherent or as credible here and, ultimately, neither character is actually likeable enough or totally believable to give enough pay-off to the revelations in the second -half of the film and, strangely for an adaptation of another film, the whole thing feels like it would be better on stage.

It makes for interesting and thought-provoking viewing, but never compelling.

A Very British Genre

Death at a Funeral - 3/5

Nobody does a farce, especially a black farce, quite like the British, whether it be on stage or screen. Death at a Funeral has all the right elements - a dead body, blackmail, accidentally ingested hallucinogenics. If the resulting film is slightly hit and miss, it is certainly more on the hit side. The moments that fall flatter are when it strays into more gross-out territory - one toilet gag being particularly unnecessary and unfunny. Lets leave the gross out to the Yanks. Oh, and old people swearing lots is no longer shocking enough to be funny by itself.

This marks something of a return to comedy form for director Frank Oz after the disappointing remake of The Stepford Wives, and he has assembled a veritable who's who of British B-list stars for the cast with the addition of The Station Agent's Peter Dinklage as the blackmailer. With the exception of Ewen Bremner whose attempt at posh English is jarringly unconvincing, the rest of the cast are on good form, even if Rupert Graves does look and sound more like Ricky Gervais with every performance. Special credit to Serenity's Alan Tudyk as the hapless recipient of the hallucinogenics, whose performance is a delight to watch.

This was never going to be a classic, but manages to hit enough of the right notes to be more entertaining than not - a perfectly good bit of light-hearted fun in a fine British tradition.

Subtle Charm

Once - 4/5




Once is the small film which arrived on the scene having attracted quite a following at the festivals - Spielberg is apparently a big fan. Given that, its a surprisingly low-key affair and very hard to define. It's kind of a musical, but not in the usual artificially breaking into song and dance kind of way, rather it follows characters who like to sing. It's kind of a romance, but the central relationship remains a platonic friendship.






The Dublin-set story, such as it is, follows a guy (Glen Hansard) who's a busker and hoover repairman who meets a girl (Marketa Irglova), they get to know each other, become friends and make music together, in a literal sense, rather than a naff metaphorical one and its as simple as that. He's still hung-up on his ex and she has a husband back in the Czech republic.



What it is fresh and engaging in a subtle way. Writer/director John Carney chose to use non-professional actors - his leads make their living as musicians, although Hansard did appear as the guitarist in The Commitments. That said, Hansard makes a natural and very likeably watchable lead. Irglova is more obviously a non-actor, but brings such an enthusiasm and innocent energy to the role that its impossible not to warm to her. The music works well to keep the film together and add shades to the emotions.

There is the odd off-note - the moment when the sound engineer suddenly realises that this ia actually rather good feels a bit hackneyed, but the rest of the film is delivered with a freshness that alternately amuses and moves ands is utterlt charming.

Two Cases of Plagiarism

Dark is Rising - 2/5

Hollywood seems to think that children's/teenage fantasy is easy money at the moment, so any suitable books will be looked at for adaptation. The problem is that it's difficult to do well. Dark is Rising, adapted from Susan Cooper's novel, at least makes a decent attempt, but comes up some way short of the mark.

It at least avoids the trap of starting with a dodgily scripted narration explaining all the legends and mythology we need to get our heads round to understand it. In the fact the start is quite promising.

The story follows Will Stanton, an American boy moved to rural England. The youngest of 6 sons, with a younger sister, two of have his brothers have left home, the two immediately above him are twins with a taste for practical jokes. (And if that family arrangement seems rather familiar, Ms Rowling, it should be pointed out that Cooper's novel was written several decades before the Potter books). A bit of a loner, Will discovers that he is The Seeker, the chosen one who can step through time to retrieve the signs which will help light overcome dark. (Ok, thats the mythological mumbo-jumbo done - and at least it gets done by Ian McShane with a bit of a twinkle in his eye.

This potentially sets up an intriguing mystery to follow through, but the film entirely fails to grasp this opportunity and the Seeker doesn't so much seek and stumble blindly across said signs. On the way there is some passable special effects and some genuine scares (with some liberal borrowing from other sources (The Birds springs to mind at several points). The running time is kept short, but certain subplots are so condensed (like Will's brother being lured over to the Dark) that you wonder why they were included at all.

Alexander Ludwig is a bit too whiny and unengaging in the title role, but the biggest disappointment is Christopher Ecclestone as the villain of the piece. Despite a suitable look, he keeps it too straight and underplayed to make a really compelling bad guy. It is left to McShane to give proceedings a lift - he at least doesn't seem to take it all seriously and the few moments of light relief all involve him (my personal favourite being the part where he asks the teenage lead to express himself, with predictable results).

The film is not dreadful, although the mystery elements are all rather predictable. Its a step up from the likes of Eragon, but still some way short of the likes of Narnia or Potter, let alone Lord of the Rings. Despite its Christmas setting, the decision not to go for a Christmas release against The Golden Compass says it all really.

The Last Legion - 2.5/5

An attempt to bring together the likes of Gladiator and Rome (even to the extent of casting star of the TV series Kevin McKidd, confusingly as a barbarian) with Arthurian legend, it all ends up almost as much of a confused mess as Ben Kingsley's accent. The grainy look suggests an attempt at realism, but the action involving an Indian warrior-woman and castles that look decidedly medieval point the other way. At least the cast have the sense not to take it all too seriously.

As the barbarians take over Rome, the child emperor (Thomas Sangster from Love Actually and Nanny McPhee doing his earnest staring thing) flees to Britain accompanied by his loyal general (Colin Firth, doing his permanently bemused thing), teacher/mentor (Kingsley, doing the what accent is that meant to be thing) and said Indian fighter (Aishwarya Rai, Bride and Prejudice, doing the totally out of place but nice to look at thing). In Britain they find the lost ninth legion and make a final stand against the evil barbarians. The final battle wants so badly to be Helm's Deep from The Two Towers it hurts, but has nowhere near the budget to pull it off.

The whole effort is complete nonsense from start to finish, but the cast at least have the grace to realise it and manage to pull it off with enough of a hint of self-deprecation to make it quite entertaining and amusing with some nice fights scenes thrown in for good measure.