No More Than Meets the Eye

Transformers - 3/5

You know where you are with a Michael Bay film. Complex, character-driven plots, beautifully shot in subtle shades of grey - he's not your man. You're gonna get car chases and explosions all bathed in bright sunset lighting. Lets face it, if the man was to remake Brief Encounter there would have to be a car chase in it!. But horses for courses - at the end of the day its a movie from an animated TV series which was designed as a marketing tool to sell toys. Subtlety is, quite frankly not on the agenda.

The plot is about ... oh, who cares? Its two groups of huge robots beating seven bells out of each other. If that sounds cool to you, you'll love it, if not, steer well clear. And on those terms, the movie has to be said to be a success. Yes, the dialogue is clunkier than the robots, especially in the dreadful explanatory bits. Yes, it gets confusing as to which robot is which at times - most of them never really given a chance to show any character traits at all (although the car that speaks through songs on the radio and the amusing little spy who turns into a mobile phone do get more of a look in). But at the end of the day this is about the action - the effects look great and the action sequences are way cool!

Two other things make this film entertaining. Firstly, there's the sensible decision to go for a light-hearted feel and the film is, in places surprisingly funny. Witness five huge robots trying to hide in a suburban garden or John Turturro's totally hammy turn as a rather inept government spook.

The other redeeming feature is the human lead. Shia LaBeouf is perhaps best known as the lead in Holes, but he's already been in Bobby and A Guide to Recognising Your Saints this year and still to come are teen thriller Disturbia and voicing the lead in penguin-flick (yes, another one) Surf's Up. This is a young man whose star is definitely in the ascendancy and you can see why here - he doesn't really have traditional movie star looks, but his performance has so much charisma and talent that he comes close to actually making the dialogue sound good. Definitely one to watch for the future.

Negotiating the Ethical Consumerism Minefield

I was recently given a copy of The Good Shopping Guide. It's all thought provoking stuff, but can leave you feeling a bit overloaded with too much information. I would count myself as somebody who tries to be fairly conscientious in what I buy, but that can be difficult sometimes. For example, I try to buy either fairtrade or organic produce where I can. So recently I've been buying Seeds of Change organic pasta and sauces - a good thing, yes? Except that I hadn't realised that Seeds of Change was actually owned by Mars - a company that seems to rate lower in ethical terms than Nestle*.

As I said, its all rather complicated and we're dealing with shades of grey here, which means the challenge is to work out where my priorities lie when so many different factors collide. Yes, I care about animal rights, but I'm actually more bothered about human rights and trade justice. Even within areas of concerns, we make our own priorities. I care about the environment - and in many respects I try to minimise my carbon-footprint - I don't have a car and use public transport, my energy comes from renewable sources, but when it comes to giving up air travel, hmmm, that's maybe a sacrifice too far - I do enjoy my travelling and foreign city breaks. That said I would not object to paying more for the privilege in an environmental tax if the money was then put back into green measures.

The danger is that the more we learn, the more it seems like we cannot win. For example, in terms of the big three high street coffee houses - all now offer fairtrade options, whilst Starbucks rates badly for using GM produce, its overall environmental performance is better than Cafe Nero or Costa, so how do we choose? There is a temptation to feel why should we bother - there will be something wrong whatever we decide. But, to look at things a different way, the more information we have the more we are able to decide which things really matter to us and make decisions based on that in the belief that actually, as consumers we do have some power and the small choices we make can slowly bring about changes.

I'm sure there's more that we all can do. Personally, I feel the need to sort out my banking - currently being with Abbey, having switched to them before their takeover by the Santander

Group, when their ethical record was better than many alternatives. I've stayed with them basically out of laziness and if I'm being honest my desire to switch soon is more motivated by the completely shoddy levels of service than ethical considerations, but it does present an opportunity to make a better choice when I get myself into gear enough to do something about it.

A final thought for all you motorists - can you guess which company has the lowest ethical rating I've seen yet?*

Esso came in with a rating of just 4% in ethical terms. Now that is truly abysmal.

* Based on the Ethical Company Index from the Ethical Company Organisation.

A French Farce

Moliere - 3/5

It seems that in the Summer of 2007 most of the alternatives to the Hollywood blockbuster come with a Gallic flavour. We've already had a superior thriller (Tell No One), a musical biopic (La Vie En Rose) and an eclectic compilation of short films (Paris Je T'aime). Now comes the costume drama.

Most of us in this country being rather ignorant when it comes to foreign literature, Moliere is considered one of the greatest of French playwrights and one of the greatest writers of comedy anywhere in the world. This film, using a similar device to Shakespeare in Love or Becoming Jane, imagines some of his own works back into his own life to offer a fictitious account of how he became the writer he did.

The plot concerns Moliere, leading a debt-ridden troupe of actors, hired by a rich old fool (Fabrice Luchini) to school him in acting in order to perform a play to impress a sharp tongued young widower (Ludivine Sagnier). However, during his assignment, Moliere falls in love with his employer's wife (Laura Morante). From this ensues a plot you'd expect from a theatrical farce - disguises and plots and mistaken identities, etc...

There is a definite theatricality about it all as you might expect, which is both a strength and a weakness. The performances are larger than life, which works brilliantly on a comic level - Luchini's preening peacock is particularly amusing. It works less well when real heart is called for - Luchini's sudden self-realisation and change of heart makes sense dramatically and would work on the stage, but is maybe too sudden and too complete for cinematic credibility. Really only Morante, as the emotional core of the film and muse for Moliere, manages to inject any real emotion into proceedings. This woldn't matter so much except that they point they are trying to make is that Moliere was innovative in placing real heart and soul, portrayal of the human condition, into comedy. The comedy works, but it falters in other places.

As for the lead - Romain Duris (see previously as Arsene Lupin) - seems to have divided critics. I've read one review saying his performance saves the film and another that he's dreadful. Personally I found him eminently watchable - he is gifted with a slightly odd physiognomy which seems designed to play this kind of slightly larger than life character. He brings a likeability and energy which keeps things moving forward very nicely.

So, not entirely successful in its own intentions, but treated as a light-hearted, farce-like comedy makes for enjoyable and fun viewing.

Do The Simpsons work on the big screen?

The Simpsons Movie - 3.5/5




This currently being the movie of choice for young people in Edinburgh means that I've already seen it more than once in a short space of time, so it's maybe not as fresh with me as it was first time round. On the other hand, not having a TV, I've probably seen less of the TV series than most people, so came to it first time round a bit fresher.

There are two ways of approaching evaluating this - is it any good as a movie? To which the answer is definitely yes - its probably the best animated film of the year so far, maybe not in the defiantly 2D quality of the animation, but in keeping the humour coming. On the other hand, the film itself (rather funnily, as it happens) asks why spend money to go and see something that you can get at home for free. So is the movie different enough from or better than the TV series in order to justify the admission fee? The answer to that one might be a no, but I guess that's for everrybody to work out for themselves.

The plot concerns Homer triggering an environmental disaster, leading to Springfield being sealed in a huge dome and threatened with destruction. Bart starts to feel he would be better off with the Flanders and Homer realises that he has to out others first and save Springfield in order to win his family back. Along the way, Lisa gets a boyfriend and Maggie repeatedly saves the day.

The environmental message is about as subtle as a sledgehammer, but is delivered with a few good gags. Many of the plot elements have been used in TV shows (I mean how many times can Homer learn the same lesson before it sticks?) Of the other characters, only Ned Flanders gets a decent look-in, the rest are limited to blink and you miss them cameos.

And yes, at times, it does feel like a TV show stretched to an hour and a half and there are a few moments when it begins to sag. But, just when it seems to be losing its way they'll come back with another funny bit and off we go again. The secret of a good animated movie (which Shrek the Third forgot, and which Pixar usually nail) is not the quality of the animation, but a good story, character and humour. Of which, this is probably too weak on the story and character to make it a great film, but has enough humour to make it an entertaining watch, which is better than the other animated films have managed this year.

By the way, it's also not a film where you want to leave right at the start of the credits.

Half Nelson

Half Nelson - 3.5/5

OK - so this is hardly an up-to-the-minute review - this one's been around for a couple of months, but it vanished so quickly originally that I've just managed to catch it when it re-surfaced. And, whilst being pretty heavy going, its well worth checking out. It offers a twist to the Dangerous Minds/inspiring teacher in inner city school sub-genre, in that in this case the teacher is a crack addict.

The film centres around the unlikely frindship that forms between teacher Daniel Dunn (Ryan Gosling) and student Drey (Shareeka Epps) after she discovers him smoking crack in the school loos. This is quite a bleak film whose strength lies in the characters - all are portrayed as complex individuals and there are no stereotypes here - even the drug dealer who gradually sucks Drey into his world is given a very human part. However, the film belong to Gosling (deservingly nominated for an Oscar for a man whose claims of having things under control become increasingly desparate) and Epps giving one of the strongest child performances ever. Both are excellent and restrained in their performances, giving a believability to their characters and their questionable friendship

Although the film ends with a glimmer of hope, there is an inevitability about the descent of both characters that makes then truly tragic and the scene when things reach their nadir is a real gut-wrencher. It's also very well scripted, with some provoking ideas. Not easy viewing, but well worth the effort.

Slices of Parisienne Romance

Paris Je T'aime - 3.5/5



This is not so much a movie but rather a collection of 18 short films, by different directors, each set in a different district of Paris. As you'd expect, the quality is mixed - the weakest ones being Gurinder Chadha's heavy-handed cultural tolerance Quai De Seine segment. Wes Craven's Pere-Lachaise also struggles, mainly because the premise revolves around Emily Mortimer being fed up with Rufus Sewell for having no sense of humour, when he's easily the funniest thing on the screen. Other segments, like Christopher Doyle's Porte de Choisy and Vincenzo Natali's wordless Elijah Wood starring vampire romance in Quartier de la Madeleine, are just plain weird, but entertainingly so.


On the whole, the quality is pretty high with stand out turns by the Coen brothers, Alexander Payne and Tom Tykwer. The Coen's Tuileries section is hilarious and unmistakably them, featuring their favourite actor Steve Buscemi on great form as a hapless tourist on the metro. Payne, also on dstinctive form in 14eme Arrondissement, has character actress Margo Martindale delivering a bad American-French monologue in truly amusing manner before slipping in a genuinely touching conclusion. Whilst Tykwer is a more arty effort - all fast moving montages and repetitive voice-overs as Natalie Portman and Melchior Beslon meet and fall in and out of love in Faubourg Saint-Denis.


Other directors stay true to form - we get gritty social realism from Walter Salles in Loin du 16eme starring Maria Full of Grace's Catalina Sandino Moreno. Whilst most others take a more huomourous approach such as the mime romance of Sylvain Chomet's Tour Eiffel. Some try to use the shorter medium to tell stories with a twist, of which Alfonso Cuaron's Parc Monceau (Starring a very gravelly Nick Nolte) is rather less predictable than Gus Van Sant's Le Marais. Few manage to successfully combine the humour with genuine feeling, of which perhaps the most successful and surprising is Richard LaGravenese's Pigalle starring Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardent.


The range of talent on display here is genuinely impressive, and although varied, there is enough overall quality to make it well worth checking out.

A Little Bit of Magic

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 4/5

Potter 5 arrives on our screens - the least loved and longest of all the books. A director (David Yates) with next to no experience in film, better known for TV fare such as The Girl in the Cafe. How would it work? To date the Potter adaptations have been good enough versions of the books to please fans and good enough films to keep other viewers entertained.

The Order of the Phoenix is a class above this. Cinematically it is a very good film. It doesn't quite stand by itself - trying to cram so much into a shorter running time than the previous films, much is cut and characters are given very little introduction. Several of the books incidents are only present obliquely in the background (such as the divisions within thew Weasley family) and other bits are cut altogether (like the hospital visit and Neville's grandparents (thankfully most of Harry's almost interminable angst from the novel is also absent)). This will no doubt lead to complauints from some fans whose favourite bits have hit the cutting room floor. It shouldn't. What Yates has done is to turn the weakest book into what is by far and away the best film. He keeps the action moving at a fair pace, with the right blend of humour and excitement. His vision for bits like Harry's dreams is also really cinematic.

He is aided by the fact that the young cast continue to develop as actors and are now capable of carrying the film, ably supported by a top-notch adult cast. Of the new additions - Imelda Staunton (Professor Umbridge) and Helena Bonham-Carter (Bellatrix Lastrange) are note perfect castings and give wonderful performances. Although in smaller roles, George Harris (kingsley Shacklebolt) and Natalia Tena (Nymphadora Tonks) are also good additions. I've got to admit that I'm undecided about Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood - I can't quite work out if its really bad acting, or a good performance of somebody who exists half in a world of her own.

On the weaker side, Hagrid's half-brother Grawp has some of the worst special effects and comes across a bit too cutesy to have any genuine sense of terror.

On the plus side, the ministry of magic is wonderfully realised and the final showdown is possibly the most stunning sequence in the whole series so far. As the series gets darker, Yates' assured direction has perfectly balanced the suspense with action and humour to produce a true action thriller of a movie, which should delight fans young and old.

So Alex Salmond is going to give all his surplus wages to a trust fundto support good causes. All well and good, but to my mind the question remains why is he still hanging onto his Westminster seat at all? So far, I've got to say, I think he's doing a relatively god job as Scotland's first minister, but this issue, whenever it comes up does rankle a bit.

His standard defence seems to be that he fought the election in Gordon on the basis that he would keep both seats until the next general election, so the voters knew what they were getting when they voted for him. However, it's not the voters of Gordon who are being short changed at the moment - its the voters of Banff and Buchan who elected him to serve them at Westminster. I don't know how often Mr Salmond has been to Westminster since he became First Minister - I suspect not often, it at all. I would also be interested if he is able to maintain constituency surgeries in both constituencies. And the thing is that when he was elected to Westminster the voters on Banff and Buchan weren't informed that he would be standing for Holyrod as well for a different constituency, so they are being denied proper democratic representation.

I can see no reason for the holding onto this seat. Its not like the SNP would be in any danger of losing a by-election in that particular constituency. Its going to continue to be a PR disaster for him and the only reason seems to be that he said he'd hold both seats, so he's going to or maybe he can't bear to give up control of the seat or his links to Westminister (I needn't point out the irony there). Maybe its all about power? The whole thing is beginning to smack of the worst kind of pride and egotism.

Bruce Has Still Got It

Die Hard 4.0 - 3/5

The original Die Hard movie is one of the best action movies ever made and completely redefined the genre. Despite a weaker second film, the trilogy stood as some of the best films of their type. That said, by all logic Die Hard 4.0 really should suck big time: An ageing star who hasn't had a big hit in years, reviving a franchise which died over a decade ago and returning to a role he is really too old to play.

Of course, the genre has moved on since Die Hard with a Vengeance graced our screens. Post 24, viewers expect their action to come in a more hi-tech package. So the terrorist plot here is a cyber-terrorist one. But John McClane wouldn't understand most of that, so early on he gets paired up with a young hacker (Justin Long of Dodgeball and Accepted) to help him. Just for good measure, we'll also give Bruce a teenage daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) to get captured by the bad guys a la Kim Bauer. Oh, and people are kind of into martial arts films at the moment, so we'll make one of bad guys (Maggie Q, who wore the film-stealing dress in Mission Impossible 3) a bit kung-fu. And free-running's cool, so we'll make one of the henchman do that. And to a certain extent it really is that cynical.

But, thankfully for the fans, it works. Bruce, despite getting his ass kicked by a woman, shows he can still cut it as an action hero and the quips are note perfect. The pairing with Long (playing it relatively straight) works well and their generation gap, odd couple relationship keeps the film motoring. As a villain Timothy Olyphant (Go and TV's Deadwood) lacks the scenery chewing, grandstanding and scene stealing of an Alan Rickman or a Jeremy Irons, but has a masterful maniacal glint and holds his own. Winstead is also great and shows she is her father's daughter. But this is Bruce's film through and through and where it really pays off are in the great set-pieces - taking out a helicopter with a car, a fight in an SUV in an elevator shaft and the final juggernaut vs stealth bomber fight. In places, the CGI does show, but to be honest the actions so great you won't mind.

There are weaknesses here - acting was never Kevin Smith's (Silent Bob in his own films) strong point, and in his cameo as uber-hacker Warlock (entertaining though it is) you can sense the fanboy dying to burst out. There's also a slightly jingoistic undercurrent which surfaces in one rather heavy-handed exchange between Long and Willis along the lines of "This isn't a system, this is a country". Also, somewhere along the line from Die Hard to 4.0 McClane has moved from being unusually tough, but believably vulnerable to indesctructible superhero. I'd have to check again, but I'm sure he actually gets less cuts on his now bald pate as the movie goes on. But, I'm splitting hairs here.

So, this is no Die Hard or even Die Hard With a Vengeance, but it doesn't disgrace the series as many thought it would. It's a credible addition and throws down the gauntlet to the rest of the summer's action flicks. However, having seen the trailer, I suspect that a certain Jason Bourne might kick Bruce's ass back to the 80s.

Triumphing Against the Odds

The Flying Scotsman - 3.5/5

The Graeme Obree story has all the makings of a conventional, stirring sports biopic: An outsider whose success (and bike in this case) is self-made - check. Battle against the establishment (here represented by Steven Berkoff's head of the International Cycling Federation) - check. Long-suffering , supportive wife (Laura Fraser) - check. Dedicated, but slightly comic manager (Billy Boyd) - check. Story arc of triumph - failure - triumph - check. Inspiring, elderly mentor (Brian Cox) - check.

What lifts the story above the ordinary is that Obree's battle was as much against depression as against his competitors and the authorities. This could have turned the film into a heart-warming, tear-jerking hero-battles-illness movie of the week which we've seen so many times before. However, the film-makers wisely decide (apart from an ominous opening shot) not to foreground this, but rather let it emerge as we get to know Obree. In doing so they prodice not only a superior sports film, but also one of the more realistic and senstive portrayals of mental illness on film. One suspects that Obree, a man who refused to let his illness define him, would approve. His victories lie not only on the track but also in his struggle to come to terms with and seek help for his condition.

There are omissions from Obree's life - the brother whose death contributed to his struggles is completely absent, but what is here is presented well.

The other thing that lifts it is the almost universally excellent cast. Johnny Lee Miller as Obree is simply superb, returning to Scotland again (after Trainspotting and Regeneration) to give one of his best performances yet. Brian Cox gives one of his more downplayed performances as the parish priest who befriends Obree and ultimately sets him on the road to recovery. Billy Boyd starts out seeming to play the same character he did in On a Clear Day, but as the movie gets darker he adds new layers to his performace and gives the best indication yet that he has a career beyond Middle Earth, whilst Laura Fraser brings a real credibility to her relationship with Miller.

The real weakness here is Berkoff's bad guy, who lacking depth or motovation becomes something of a cardboard cut-out villain. And a few of the speeches about outsiders not being let into the system are a wee bit too heavy-handed.

That aside, this is an inspiring film, with suitably moving triumphs both on and off the track. Well worth checking out.

The Law of Diminishing Returns

Shrek the Third - 2.5/5

The most disappointing of the summer's threequels so far. It still looks great, but the main problem is that its just not funny enough.

Part of the problem seems to be that Shrek (Mike Myers) himself has actually developed as a character - he's grown, become happier and less insecure - all well and good, but it makes him one heck of a lot less funny! Then you have the comedic golddust of Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss-in-Boots (Antonio Banderas) who stole the first and second movies respectively. They don't seem to know what to do with them here, so they're subjected to a rather lame body-swap sub-plot which the scriptwriters obviously get embarassed by and do very little with. It amounts to a total waste of great characters.

And the thing is, that with the gag rate down, the sentiment and the same "just be yourself" message actually starts to be a bit mawkish.

That's not to say Shrek the Third doesn't have its moments and there are some genuinely funny bits here - John Cleese as the king in an incredibly drawn out death sequence, the fairy-tale princesses going into battle mode and Eric Idle as an incompetent Merlin is intermittently funny. There's certainly enough here to keep little ones entertained and older ones amused, but it all finishes up rather anti-climactic as the final battle is stopped by more sickening sentiment, your left feeling like a good punch-up would have been more satisfying. The closing credits musical number also feels like a by the numbers attempt to copy parts 1 and 2 than any genuine inspiration.

This isn't a bad film - its a passable, fun, entertaining, family animation, but after the genius of the first two films, comes as a bit of a crashing disappointment and means that the news that Shreks 4 and 5 have already been greenlit strike a note of dread into your heart.

Careless Talk

Through some combination of vigilance, good work and good luck Britain escaped from two terrorist attrocities relativelu unscathed last week. For this we should all be very thankful.

I'm not going to pretend to understand what would drive somebody to do these things. And that it appears that so many of those responsible are doctors or other medical staff - people who we would assume would be dedicated to saving lives, not taking them - is even more shocking.

The comment I want to make actually concerns something that I heard on Radio 5 on Saturday afternoon whilst the incident at Glasgow was still unclear what had happened. They were interviewing somebody who was part of one of the government's security advisory groups and whilst talking about the security measures that had meant the attack in Glasgow had been relatively ineffective, he said something along the lines of "The real nightmare scenario that would do the most damage and be hardest to guard against is ..." and proceeded to describe it in quite a lot of detail.

I've got to say I was quite surprised - is that something we really want broadcast on national radio. Even if we take it that the likes of Al Qaeda are organised enough to have considered all the options, etc..., we probably should consider that there are other people out there who might maybe be inspired for some reason or another to commit such an attrocity.

Is this a symptom of the culture we live in, with so much constant news coverage that everything gets analysed to the point of overload and "experts" get stuck on the air to comment on situations where so little is known, that they have to say something and sometimes this is something that probably shouldn't be said. Or am I just being a bit paranoid here?