The public transport roundabout and other thoughts

So, another week and its all change again with the Edinburgh trams. The Scottish parliament voted yea and the executive, maybe surprisingly, has decided to go along with this. Personally, as previously expressed, I'm disappointed in this - I think the trams are a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere and will benefit the vast majority of the city. What does this mean - well obviously its a climb down from their manifesto pledge. More worringly it leaves a £500 million hole in their budget, so something else is going to have to give.

But, to look at things a different way - it shows a readiness on the part of the executive to be bound by the wishes of the parliament. Given that the trend both north and south of the border under New Labour has been a weakening of the authority of our democratic institutions, I, for one, see this as a very positive sign.

In terms of matters more general, with the new parliament soon to enter its third month, it is the Tories who seem to have adapted themselves to the new political situation the best. Whilst Labour and the Lib Dems were still sulking and throwing their toys out of the pram, the tories surprisingly propped the executive up in some key votes, getting the areas where their agenda coincided progressed.

Whether it will happen or not I don't know, but the idea of the tories backing the SNP for an early referendum on independance would also be a masterstroke. Think about - if there was a vote next year, so soon into the SNP administration, independance would not win out, but the tories would be perfectly positioned as the champions of the union whilst Labour and Lib Dems are still in shock. It would be seen as a Tory victory - giving them a poll boost just one year before the general election, when they will need to make inroads in Scotland in order to challenge the Labour majority.

I might not agree with Annabel Goldie on most things, but I'm beginning to forma a grudging respect for her.

A superior French thriller

Tell No One - 4/5

This is a French film adapted from an American novel and directed by the young French guy from The Beach (Guillame Canet). The plot centres around Dr Alex Beck (Francois Cluzet), whose wife (Marie-Josee Croze) is murdered. Eight years later two bodies are dug up near to the murder scene and Dr Beck starts to get anonymous e-mails which appear to indicate that his wife might not actually be dead. He soon finds himself on the run from the law after being framed for another murder, hiding from a bunch of very murderous criminals and trying to piece together what on earth is going on.

It is easy to imagine a Hollywood version of this movie with Will Smith or Tom Cruise in the lead which would turn it into a warchable but average thriller. It is a tribute to Canet's skill in only his second film as director that he lifts it above this. Firstly, quickly establishing Cluzet and Croze as a very credible couple you actually care about and then holding you enthralled whilst leaving you almost as clueless as Beck himself. It is also a tribute to the uniformly excellent cast that they steer the characters away from the genre stereotypes that they could have been: from the borderline OCD cop who begins to realise that all is not what it appears to Kristin Scott Thomas (again demonstrating her fluency in French) as Alex's sister's lover. Cluzet, in the lead, is brilliant, always keeping his character grounded in reality despite the very un-real situations he finds himself in.

Canet skillfully handles some stunning action sequences - a police chase on foot through traffic being a highlight, but is equally adept with quieter more reflective moments and perfectly captures Alex's stress and confusion. Even the final act, where very dark revelations revealed by monologue, would threaten to drown a weaker film are handled with enough subtlety and restraint to see the film over the finishing line. (Apparently there are also some changes from the novel here, so readers might find themselves quite surprised).

All in all this is a very well-executed thriller, which should keep you suitably puzzled until close to the end. Check it out now, before the big budget Hollywood remake ruins it.

Superheroes and Gardeners

The Fantastic Four - Rise of the Silver Surfer - 2.5/5

The danger of raised expectations, eh? The first Fantastic Four movie got dreadful write-ups, but, whilst being a pretty bad movie, was surprisingly fun. This time round they've got better reviews, so despite being probably a marginally better film, it actually comes as a bit of a disappointment. It should be applauded though because whilst the trend for superhero flicks at the moment seems to be darker and longer, they've gone lighter and shorter - I mean jus how serious can you get about a bunch of people in skin-tight lycra (Makers of the next Superman movie take note).

Silliness aside, the main problem with the Fantastic Four is that the leading two members (Ioan Gruffudd's Mr Fantastic and Jessica Alba's Invisible Woman) might be nice to look at, but as characters they're as dull as dishwater. We simply don't care enough about the angst of these privileged elite members having to postpone their wedding in order to save the world again. Gruffudd (seen most recently as Wilberforce in Amazing Grace) is also saddled with some of the dodgiest CGI effects seen in a long time. He does at least have one decent moment - a great comeback to Andre Braugher's stereotypically macho general. Braugher himself (as fans of TVs best ever cop show, Homicide, will know - a very fine actor) does well enough with the limited part, but deserves bigger and better than this.

The film also lacks a realy decent villain - the planet swallowing dust-cloud threat lacks any form of personality, whilst Julian McMahon, returning as the defrosted Dr Doom is both utterly un-threatening and utterly predictable. Hence the final showdowns lack any real sense of pazzazz.

We should be thankful, therefore, for the criminally underused Michael Chiklis as the Thing and Chris Evans as the Human Torch. They add most of the humour and fun to the film, so much so that when the prospect of Mr and Mrs Fantastic going into retirement and the leaving a Fantastic Duo arises, most of the audience probably wouldn't be too heart-broken. Evans once again proves that he has real star quality and comes very close to making this his movie.

What stands in his way is the Silver Surfer himself - herald of the planet munching monster. Motion-capture performance by Doug Jones and voiced by Laurence Fishburne. He has the most complex character arc by a long way and also the coolest effects. As the final shot suggests, expect him to have his own movie before too long.

Grow Your Own - 2/5

This years British comedy which is still attempting to follow in the footsteps of The Full Monty and tackle social issues whilst being funny. In this case the attempt is to address immigration through the medium of allotments. Which is not as daft as it might seem – its inspired by a real project in Liverpool that helped asylum seekers deal with their traumatic experiences by giving them allotments. A decent drama telling the true story of this project would doubtless have made a much better film as this one manages neither to be funny nor to really get to grips with the issues.

Its not without its moments and it certainly has heart. Benedict Wong (seen most recently in Sunshine) gives an amazing, almost mute performance as a deeply traumatised Chinese immigrant. What is lacking from the film and its British protagonists is a sense of backbone. This is a gentle, mild, inoffensive film whose British characters never seem to get much beyond mild concern. The problem is that some of the injustices it chooses to tackle are very offensive. The film finishes with an attitude which is almost like “It’s a bit of a shame that the nice Iranian doctor got deported and the Chinese man had his plot ripped up by the mobile phone company, but never mind ‘cos the African lad won the prize for the best plot, so its all right in the end.” Except it isn’t – huge injustices are done here and you want to see somebody actually get up and do something about it, not just moan over a cup of tea.

Its also rather curious, at a time when allotments are becoming trendy for environmental reasons, etc…, that the portrayal of the allotment community is so hopelessly old-fashioned. The less said about the cringe-worthily scripted romance with all its blossoming double entendres the better.

All in all, could and should, have done much better.

A Tale of Coffee

Black Gold - 3/5




This documentary from directors Nick and Mark Francis is unlike most other recent political documentaries. There is nothing sensationalised, no intrusive narrator hammering the point home. In fact, about halfway through the film I was thinking that actually they should be making their point a bit stronger. The fact that I left the cinema fuming with righteous indignation is a sign of the blatant injustices of the global coffee trade which are simply presented and allowed to speak for themselves.

The film also has one of the year's unlikeliest but most compelling heroes as it follows Tedesse Meskela (a gentle man but one of faith and conviction who believes not only in the justice of his cause, but the quality of his product) of the Orumia Coffee Growers Co-operative around the world, trying to get a fair price for his growers so they can afford such luxuries as enough to eat, clean water and schools for their children. In fact going from a week where I've spent hours trying to get reluctant pupils into school to watching people who value education so highly and yet cannot access it, the contrast couldn't be higher. Unfortunately for Tedesse the market seems stacked against him and more and more of his farmers are turning to growing Chat (an addictive narcotic banned in the US and much of Europe, but widely used in East Africa) instead.

The documentary largely refrains from a name and shame approach, but does point out the majority of the global coffee trade is controlled by four companies - Kraft, Nestle, Proctor and Gamble and Sara Lee, all of whom declined to appear. It also shows us staff at the original Starbucks claiming they were in the people business, before showing us the area where their Ethopian Coffee is grown and children are turned away from a therapeutic feeding centre as they are only mildly malnourished and therefore can't be prioritised for support. Not all representatives of the coffee industry come off in a bad light - spokespeople for Illy and Taylors, come across rather well in their refusal to bow to the global market which dictates that the price per kilo for coffee is $0.60, whist the production costs for a small farmer in Latin America is $0.90.

The real on-screen villains are the EU and US representatives at the WTO meeting in Cancun, Mexico. The inequity of the negotiation process is obvious, but when talks break down because the developing world countries refuse to bow to agendas that continue to discriminate against them in the global market this is presented as a failure to grasp the intricacies of world trade, or a "won't do" attitude. As the US representative chillingly says: "We have an agenda on many fronts and will continue to strive to break open new markets by one means or another".

To leave you with a few more figures:

• Africa is now more dependant on foreign aid than it was 20 years ago.
• During that time, the continent's share of world trade has fallen to just 1%
• An increase of another 1% would bring in 5 times more than Africa currently receives in aid, but the system is stacked against them.

And if that's not one of the best arguments for fair trade, I don't know what is.

Biplannes are back

Flyboys – 2.5/5

This is “Inspired by the true story” of the Americans who volunteered to fly for the French during WW1. Which, translating into plain English, means its one tiny step closer to reality than a complete work of fiction. Its main problem is that it can’t seem to quite decide what sort of film it wants. And not in a good, genre-bending way, but in a confused and messy kind of way.

It starts out as an ensemble piece – each character given their own brief backstory, but most of them are then pushed firmly to the side as the focus remains on James Franco (Spiderman’s New Goblin). Towards the end of the film they suddenly remember the other back stories and bring them all back. There’s the romance which is added, presumably to try and attract female viewers, which is left underdeveloped and unresolved and only really serves to allow Franco to be stupidly heroic at regular intervals. The units real lion mascot adds a comic tone that jars with much of the action.

Jean Reno, undoubtedly a versatile actor, seems to have got himself stuck permanently in comedy Frenchman in a uniform mode and as a result seems to completely fluff any serious lines he has. There’s the black pilot to add extra worthiness to the whole – “When I’m flying up there and they can’t see me, maybe they won’t care that I’m black”. In general the script is far too knowing to be credible – too many comments on the futility of the way, how no-one will win and ridiculous conversations about whether there will be any future in flying.

Franco is an actor whose previous performances have varied between promising star of the future and contender for the Hayden Christensen award for best impersonation of a plank of wood with a pout. Here (as in Spiderman 3) he is on charismatic and engaging form and does his best to lift the film. He is ably supported by Martin Henderson (Bride and Prejudice) as the veteran flyer commanding the unit.

Where the film really takes off is when it takes off. The dogfights are brilliantly choreographed and executed – CGI enabling moves that may not actually be doable in a real bi-plane, but that look great. It is here that the real power lies and they are exciting and powerful enough to hold you through the rest of the earth-bound dross. They are also strangely moving in a testosterone-driven, Boys Own heroism kind of a way. The attack on the zeppelin and Franco’s final duel with evil German The Black Falcon being standouts, even when the latter ends in a rather surprising manner which might bring to mind one of the most famous visual gags from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

So, a messy effort, but just about worth checking out for the fight scenes alone.

Taking Liberties

“There is more than one kind of freedom… Freedom to and freedom from”. Margaret Atwood – The Handmaid’s Tale.

I’m dealing with this in a separate post than the other films, because I want to spend more time discussing the issues it raises than actually reviewing the film. For what its worth, as a film I’d give it 3/5. It’s entertaining enough to hold you attention, with enough humour to balance the heavier moments (some of the middle class protestors featured really are appealingly bonkers – the woman who presents her application to protest at the police station on the icing of a cake being particularly appealing). The tone is more level than you might get with, say a Michael Moore film. Writer/director Chris Atkins also keeps himself behind the camera for most of the film. There is of course an absence of contrary voices – soundbites from Messers Blair, Bush and Brown used more to condemn, than to give voice.

It over-reaches itself in a few places – the early comparison with Nazi Germany is overly simplistic. There the destruction of civil liberties formed more part of an organised plan to certain ends. Here it is more in overly hasty response to terrorists events and threats. A later comparison with internment in Northern Ireland is far more relevant. There are also insinuations of conspiracy between Sussex police and a Brighton based weapons manufacturer which aren’t backed up with enough evidence, but the sight of an 80 year old WW2 RAF veteran being dragged along the ground by officers is damning enough.

Atkins’ argument is a simple one – that successive anti-terror laws have eroded basic civil liberties – namely freedom of speech, right to protest, right to privacy, habeas corpus, ban on torture, etc… Most of the evidence he cites is not new – from protests disrupted in this country to Guantanamo and rendition flights, but is maybe more powerful all placed together. There are moving and thought-provoking views from survivors of the 7/7 bombings, from the parents of girls arrested at a peaceful environmental protest at East Midlands Airport and Boris Johnston making more sense than he’s ever made before.

One of the most powerful sections concerned one of the men charged in the so-called Ricin threat – despite being acquitted (and interviews with jurors here show the lack of evidence that was presented in court) his is still deemed a security threat and kept under effective house arrest with no charge and no ability to appeal. He also faces the threat of deportation to Algeria, where he could face torture.

I’ve said before that I don’t believe Tony Blair has any evil intention or conspiracy. I think he has genuinely tried to act in the country’s best interests, but we must question the outcome of some of this legislation. Mr Blair has repeatedly said that we must not let the terrorists change our way of life, but this seems to be exactly what he has achieved – the erosion of liberties in the name of protecting freedom. It’s all rather contradictory. The government, backed by some sections of the media, seem to have created a culture of fear or terror, which makes me feel like we’ve already lost the war on terror.

The other question is do these laws actually make us any safer. I’ve yet to see any arguments that they do. Terrorists are just as capable of carrying an ID card and filling in the forms to get permission to protest outside Westminister as anyone. The guy who flew the 9/11 plane into the twin towers did so carrying an entirely legitimate passport. Whilst greater powers for the authorities to detain without trial or silence protestors, in my opinion, make us less safe not more safe.

The War in Iraq.

I don’t go with the view, expressed in the film, that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea because it increased the threat of reprisals. The war was either right or wrong on its own merits, not because of what might happen – that to me seems to be playing the terrorists’ game and letting fear govern us. Personally, I think it was unjustified and illegal and the government did mislead us in the run-up, albeit from motives I believe were genuine.

What the film highlights, is that the war has actually thrown us into alliance with regimes who we were previously denouncing – Libya and Algeria, for example. Expediency has won the day (comparisons with the arms to Saudi Arabia bribery scandal are obvious) and this from a government who came in promising an ethical foreign policy. In practical terms, it means that we are acting off information obtained under torture and it could (and maybe has already) lead to people who oppose these oppressive regimes and are refugees here, being labelled terrorists.

Where the Rubber hits the road.

What are the hopes for this changing? Mr Brown clearly won’t reverse things and David Cameron has given no indication he would either. But, as the comedian Mark Thomas points out towards the end of the film – there are checks and balances in our system – and it’s us. Have we grown so used to our liberties that we’re all a bit apathetic about it, until one day we wake up and its too late. So while we can, make some noise, find out what’s going on and do something about it. For more information and what you can do about it, check out sites like Amnesty and NO2ID, go see the film, decide what you think and do something about it. Things might not be bad at the moment (I’m aware that writing these views about the government in certain other countries (like Turkey or Egypt, where bloggers have been arrested) would lead to my arrest), but I am concerned about the direction they’re going in and its time for it change.

"When the people fear the government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

A Triumphant Return to Form

Ocean’s Thirteen – 4/5

After the huge disappointment of Ocean’s Twelve, Messers Clooney, Pitt, Damon et al (Pacino, in this case) have obviously realised where they went wrong and come up with the most entertaining and enjoyable film of the summer so far. Gone are Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta Jones (their absence explained early) and it turns out this is a good thing. Even Don Cheadle’s incredibly irritating Mockney accent seems to have been turned down a notch or four. Somebody, it seems has been listening. The too-clever-for-their-own-good in-jokes have almost totally gone, and the few there are, are actually funny – watch out for Clooney’s last word to Pitt.

After a brief preamble (showing how bad guy Willy Bank (Pacino) provoked gang member Elliot Gould’s heartache by a double-cross), we are plunged straight into the middle of the revenge-scam with technical wizard Eddie Izzard arriving to bail the gang out of a fix. This allows for much exposition of the scheme at the start, so go in prepared to pay close attention to the numerous flashbacks and forwards. However, having got this out of the way, the film is able to sit back and enjoy the ride. After the first film, and many others in the genre, it was always going to be more difficult to pull the wool over the audience’s eyes this time round, so there are few genuine surprises in the plot. But to be fair, they don’t really try to take you in, just to make the journey to the expected conclusion as enjoyable as possible.

The film is also a return to form for director Steven Soderbergh and the film looks amazing, full of great shots including some amazing swooping tracking shots across the casino floor. He also nails the tone just right, as is typified by Clooney’s repeated undercutting of Andy Garcia’s character’s macho posturing. The scheme is as ingenious and confusing as ever, sprinkled with enough incomprehensible jargon to add flavour but not to drown it. The action sequences work well, but really it’s the humour that drives this forward – whether it be a running gag about Oprah or Casey Affleck’s and Scott Caan’s hilarious sidetrip to Mexico.

Each member of the gang gets their moment in the spotlight this time and use it well. Clooney and Pitt resume their seemingly effortless comic double act, but this time Damon, both as character and as actor, more than matches them, showing yet again what a versatile performer he is. Without Roberts or Zeta-Jones, the actress duties fall mainly on Ellen Barkin as Pacino’s right-hand-man and she does a wonderful job, whether in cold-hearted bitch mode or in intoxicated attempts to seduce Damon.

In fact, the biggest let-down here is Pacino, the world’s greatest living actor (I mean, when was the last time De Niro did anything remotely challenging or even decent). He brings suitable menace and panache to the opening scenes with Gould, but thereafter the character goes nowhere and finishes as an underused waste of a great actor.

That said, this is definitely well worth watching, and whilst it might not quite match the first instalment, it’s infinitely better than the second.


Water – 3.5/5

This film completes Canadian-based, Indian director Deepa Metha thematically linked ‘elements’ trilogy, following Fire and Earth. That it is 9 years since the last film is indicative of the trouble she had getting this one made following trouble with Hindu fundamentalists who objected to what they saw as an attack on their values. So, it obviously touched a raw nerve in its depiction of widowhood in a 1938 India in the throes of Gandhi-inspired change.

The plot centres around 8 year old Churyia (played impressively by Sarala), already a widow, and so dispatched by her family to a widow’s ashram where she’s supposed to spend the rest of her lives. There she meets a variety of other widows - the sincerely devout one (Seema Biswas), the beautiful one (Lisa Ray) who is prostituted to the local gentry by the greedy, hypocritical den-mother of the ashram. There’s also the slightly crazy old one, who’s experience of being married and widowed at a young age, seem to have left her in a permanent child-like state, forever craving sweets.

Things start to unravel when Ray attracts the attentions of a liberal thinking Brahmin (John Abraham) but their romance hits a tragic stumbling block when she discovers his father is a former client of hers. There is also real evil in the abuse here as is only revealed right towards the end.

The whole is stunningly shot and well-acted. However at times the dialogue does become a bit heavily pointed in a “this is the point kind of way”. As a whole, the film examines the use of religion as a means of control with Biswas moving from more passive onlooker to active hero of the piece as she begins to question her faith. The titular element provides a deeply ambiguous image for this religion – the holy river seemingly something to purify, whilst being used to ferry Ray to her clients under the cover of darkness.

Not always easy-viewing, but well worth checking out.

From Tomorrow

Just a quick plug - for those who like things thought-provoking and maybe a wee bit controversial, there are 2 very interesting documentaries coming out tomorrow:

Taking Liberties is a look at the gradual and not so gradual erosion of civil liberties as a result of rushed anti-terror legislation under New Labour. (In Edinburgh on at the Cameo Cinema)

Black Gold deals with the global coffee trade from the point of view of a representative of Ethiopian Coffee growers, asking the question why when global coffee trade has increased from $30 billion to $80 billion since 1990, the families of coffee growers in Ethiopia are starving. (On at the Filmhouse in Edinburgh).

Back to the Movies

Conversations With Other Women – 3 /5

By the time I get round to posting this, the film will have been and gone, but what the heck. This is essentially a two-hander following a conversation and subsequent events between Aaron Eckhart (Thankyou for Smoking, The Black Dahlia) and Helena Bonham Carter after they meet at a wedding. It is a barely concealed secret that they used to be married to each other. The film is shot with a grainy look and split screens used to either give another angle or show the couple’s younger selves (Brick’s Nora Zehetner providing an uncanny likeness to Bonham Carter).

There is nothing too original, the split screen has been used better elsewhere and only really pays dividends in a final shot where the images seemingly combine only to emphasise the separation of the characters. However, what there is, is done well. Both stars are on good, entertaining form and seem to relish getting to grips with a more intelligent than average script. The film is dialogue heavy, but as it turns out, that is a good thing. It also fits with the underlying theme of the movie, which concerns the stories they tell each other in order to make sense of/re-invent their pasts and presents. Bonus marks also for one of the best titles of the year.

Wedding Daze – 2.5/5

Comes in at the sillier end of romantic comedies. Man (Jason Biggs from American Pie) proposes to girlfriend, girlfriend (played by a scarily thin actress who makes Keira Knightly look voluptuous) promptly drops dead. Fast forward a year, Biggs, in order to get his best friend off his back, randomly proposes to waitress (Isla Fisher) who even more randomly says yes. There follows a journey of negotiating randy parents, escaped convicts, circus performers, imprisonment and visitations from beyond the grave later, happily ever after happens.

The humour is hit and miss and too often crosses the line into excruciating. However, when it works, its genuinely funny. Biggs, after flirting with more serious matter (Guy X and Woody Allen’s Anything Else), returns to basically playing his American Pie character. Fisher, in her first starring role, adds whole new levels of cuteness to cute. Joe Pantaliano is entertainingly even more manic than usual. Silly, but enough fun to make it just about worth the while.


All in all its been a quiet few weeks movie-wise if you don't like slasher films. Here's hoping either the weather improves or Ocean's Thirteen can liven up the cinema summer

Eck, Earl and the Big Freeze

Following up on my thoughts about trams last week, lets have a look at big Eck Salmond's other decision which has thrown Edinburgh's transport policy into confusion - the withdrawal of funding for the EARL (Edinburgh Airport Rail Link).

Again, the decision that had previously been made was very costly - re-routing all trains from fife and other areas through the airport. It would also have involved tunnelling under the runway (which we'll come back to in a minute). Leaving aside the environmental question of whether we should be encouraging more people to fly, the planning seems to have been built around almost contradictory assumptions.

Firstly, that air traffic through Edinburgh will increase (which it almost certainly will) and that better links from the airport to the city centre are needed (which, again they probably are).

However, the technical specifications for the link, and in particular for that crucial tunnel, were based around the assumption that no larger planes than currently use the airport would use it in the future. (I know this because a friend of mine works for the civil engineering firm to whom the brief was given). Meaning that if, as is quite likely with the way things are going, larger planes did start using Edinburgh, the tunnel would need a costly re-inforcing. Surely, an example of the worst kind of short-termist thinking. I don't think this is why Mr Salmond opposes the plan - I think he needs to save money to make his budget balance - but by default he has arrived at the right place of the need to look at this again.

2-0 to Mr Salmond. Until we get to the council tax - which Mr Salmond intends to scrap and replace with a local council tax - personally, I think thats a good idea, even though I'm probably going to end up a few pounds a month worse off. However, his first step towards this has been to suggest to all Scottish local authorities that council tax levels should be frozen for the next few years. Here's where I start to have a problem.

I work for a local council, I know they could be more efficient. But I also know it ain't gonna happen overnight. In fact it would probably require some investment to make the necessary changes. So the immediate result of a council tax freeze would be cutbacks in services. With local councils already having to make cutbacks to deal with equal pay rulings, the picture would be pretty grim and it would be the least affluent parts of society that would be hit most. Many of these people are already on council tax benefit, so would gain nothing from a freeze, whilst simultaneously losing support services. So, no, not a good plan. I haven't seen any indication yet whether councils will heed Mr Salmond's pleas. Obviously I hope they don't.