Robin Kelly Reviews

Sex Lives of the Potato Men (2004)

Funny

[9/10 · 27 February 2004]

All I expect from a comedy is that it's funny and that's what this film is. Funny.

OK, so ideally in addition there would have been some emotional resonance to counter and complement the comedy and the character arcs wouldn't just, sort of, limp to a hasty conclusion but I laughed throughout and so maybe that's being too picky.

People have compared this to the Carry On films and I hope Humphries is suitably horrified rather than flattered. The Carry On films severely lacked the depth, honesty and courage that Sex Lives of the Potato Men displays. I'd go as far to say Sex Lives of the Potato Men is a spot-on satire on recreational sex and the mores of the new millennium; where the seeking of new experiences is deemed more important than true intimacy and relationships.

It is bizarre that by simply holding a mirror up and reflecting our society as it exists, Humphries has been villified in the media.

I would strongly advise not to let middle-class metropolitan reviewers or the sexphobic moral minority or jealous bitter would-be film-makers put you off, see it for yourself and make your own mind up.

Late Night Shopping (2001)

Awful

[1/10 · 23 June 2001]

The idea is to have something interesting happening in the first ten minutes to keep the audience hooked. Late Night Shopping manages to avoid interest for much longer than that. When we do get to a point, it is so monumentally moronic that I kept thinking I must have misunderstood it. But I didn't.

Sean tells the story of an Osaka landlord who rented the same apartment to two people at the same time who worked different shifts and so didn't realise they were sharing. His friend asks "But what about the weekends?" Sean doesn't have an adequate explanation. Sean then tells the story of his own similar problem, which is that he isn't sure his girlfriend is still living at home as he works during the night and she works during the day so they never see each other. This has been going on for three weeks. But his friend doesn't ask: "Yes, but as I said before, what about the weekends? You must see her then. It doesn't make sense. What are you going on about, Sean? Are you on medication or something?" But let's be generous and assume that they both work seven days a week.

We see Sean checking to see if the soap and towels have been used. (In fact, bizarrely, he starts to carry the soap around with him.) But what about his girlfriend's conditioner and shampoo, sanpro and moisturiser, toothpaste and toothbrush. Let's go to the kitchen. What about food and drink? Is any missing? Has any been bought? In the bedroom, has the shared bed been made or not? Are her clothes being used and exchanged for clean ones? Is the laundry basket fuller? In the toilet, is the seat up or down? I mean, good grief!

And to cap it all Paul arranges to leave work early to see if his girlfriend is still living at home. Why doesn't he just phone her?

But it gets worse. In the last act although no-one told Vincent where the rest of the group are going he manages to find them. Lenny's love interest and Sean's girlfriend conveniently appear to be best friends and also manage to find the group. There isn't even the slightest attempt to explain any of these extraordinarily unlikely coincidences.

To be fair the dialogue is OK but not nearly good enough to make up for the weak characters or annoyingly lame story.

I heard one of actors interviewed and he promised "no guns, no drugs, no corsets." I thought, "great". But after half-an-hour of tedium I was yelling at the screen: "I want guns! I want drugs! I want corsets!"

It wouldn't have taken much to sort these problems out but on the official website the director boasts that the film wasn't script-edited. That's all you need to know.

Born Romantic (2000)

OK

[20 June 2001]

There is ostensibly no reason why Born Romantic shouldn't work on the big screen but it seems very much like a small screen film.

The movie follows three different couples and is centred on a Salsa night at a club. The link is a taxi driver who is devoted to his wife.

The movie is nicely and neatly structured with everything being resolved at the end with only the taxi-driver's arc being a bit weak and unconvincing. The dialogue is good and occasionally very witty.

Although this film is well made in every aspect, the three couple's stories are simply not original or interesting enough.

Room to Rent (2000)

Good

[7/10 · 20 June 2001]

The adage is "write what you know" and so Al-Haggar writes about an Egyptian screenwriter who lived in London. However, he allows his imagination to take Room to Rent in a different bizarre direction to his life story.

Unfortunately his imagination isn't always teamed with logic. I didn't believe any of the story contrivances and the last twist is simply impossible - even if you accept re-incarnation really happens.

And yet strangely I was swept along and never annoyed. This is due to the believable characters, good dialogue and a valiant attempt to avoid cliché.

This isn't at first glance a formula film but Al-Haggar hits all the right structural points at the right times ensuring excellent pacing.

While the plotting is never convincing it is however always entertaining.

Bread and Roses (2000)

Bread bored

[20 June 2001]

Watching Bread and Roses is like being in school - you get the lessons but there isn't enough playtime.

Almost every character is either totally bad or totally good and that is totally tedious. Only the lead character's sister shows more than one-dimension as she is torn between solidarity or getting health benefits for her ailing husband. But for some reason it was felt she needed more audience sympathy so the character gets an overlong unconvincing confession about her past.

To liven up the proceedings and presumably allow silly stunts, the union organiser is a "loose cannon" defying the official union line. So you get a bizarre confrontation with building staff as they do lunch where the union organiser takes the food from their plate. I wouldn't have minded but the building staff were employees not bosses and had no power to change the situation. The same scene is replayed later a bit more relevantly in front of people who do have the power to change things.

Laverty is surefooted on the politics but his story-telling and characterisations are lame. I'd rather watch a documentary on the issue.

Vertical Limit (2000)

Cliff hanging

[20 June 2001]

The main problem the concept of Vertical Limit had for me was how am I supposed to care about people risking their lives by doing stupid things. I'm sorry but if you decide to climb a mountain when there's safer and more interesting things to do - like seeing a movie - then I really don't care if you fall off and die. But despite being panned by critics the movie hung about my multiplex for weeks meaning it had good word of mouth. What could possibly be good about it that kept the theatre busy? Curiosity got the better of me.

To be honest after about twenty minutes I wanted to walk out. Not because the movie was lame but because I had began to care about the characters so much I didn't want to watch any of them die. The screenwriters had solved the major problem about why should we care by putting us in the shoes of someone who did care who wanted to rescue his sister. Other characters were humanised by being noble or funny or in love.

The rescue mission in itself is one story but within that there are other little stories going on, some majorly significant to the overall picture others personal ones with accelerated arcs. A shortcut to creating characters is to create stereotypes and Robert King and Terry Hayes are a little guilty of this but they gave the characters a fresh enough twist so they still work.

Weak at Denise (1999)

Weak

[12 June 2001]

For about twenty minutes this is a good film. Unfortunately the screenwriters decided after this point to veer off in the direction of badly-plotted tedious farce rather than stay on course towards character comedy thriller.

Nothing makes sense after that point. I maintain that a simple plot where things happen for a reason is better than a convoluted plot where things happen for no reason.

Colin's is very well-drawn and believable but all the other characters less so. His mother, for instance, in one scene tells her son to avoid women and in her next scene she tells him to find one. I wouldn't have minded if this was deliberate but it was simply the screenwriter going for the funniest line and not bothering about consistency.

And the idea that any bloke could get into a lesbian-only club by saying they're friends of a regular is just plain daft. I know, I've tried it.

And bank guarantees are kept at the bank. It defeats the object keeping them at home as they won't guarantee much. I know, I've tried it.

And there are many other dubious plot-points to demolish but I couldn't be bothered.

This is the only time I have been to the movie theatre and had the cashier tell me the film was rubbish, lots of people were walking out and don't bother to see it.

The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle (2000)

Rocky and Bull

[12 June 2001]

The first time I saw Rocky and Bullwinkle I thought it was awful but Roger Ebert's review was glowing and Kenneth Longeran won a Writer's Guild award for another movie of his. So I saw it again with an open mind. It was still awful.

I liked the in-jokes like the process used by studios to choose scripts (throw away the intelligent ones). But other in-jokes seemed more designed to cover up bad plotting than give a laugh. For instance there is one exchange querying why they have to go by road to Washington - as time was of the essence - when going by plane would be a bit quicker. The answer is "it's a road movie". No, the answer is "take a bit more time coming up with a more convincing answer". The other example is why Rocky and Bullwinkle are still cartoon but the cartoon baddies take human form. A joke is made of this late on but by then it was far too late.

I'm not a grouch, really. I'm prepared to believe any world as long as it is set-up right. Even if the world involves a cartoon moose and flying squirrel wandering around it. Who Framed Roger Rabbit had a similar premise but it was consistent and so became an instant classic.

I admit that the characters in Rocky and Bullwinkle were consistent and good value but that wasn't nearly enough to compensate for such lame story-telling and plotting.

And for God's sake don't tell anyone I saw it twice.

Series 7: The Contenders (2001)

Should be cancelled

[6 June 2001]

The competitive reality genre was ripe for a good satire - unfortunately Series 7 isn't it.

The crucial element is that the contenders in real-life choose to be contenders for reasons of greed - for fame or money.

In Series 7 however, the contenders are chosen by some sort of government sponsored lottery draft-pick. They have no choice but to take part and kill or be killed. It might be a good idea but it's nothing to do with the reality genre and has more in common with the Vietnam war. In fact it was written years before Survivor and Big Brother hit our screens.

So all we're left with is an invented game show that isn't a satire of anything. As a game show with the appropriate stings, narration, etc it looks convincing. As a movie, however, it doesn't work.

Assuming you manage to get over wondering how and why this show started seven series ago there's still quite a few logic flaws to hurdle.

It's very difficult to keep a full-length movie going on such a one-note premise and the screenwriter resorts to credulity stretching plotting. For instance all the contenders are given guns but note the times when the contenders don't use guns and ask why. At the mall, it was so a contender could prolong a killing scene. At the hospital it was so my favourite contender could be killed off easily.

Which is another point. Due to the restrictions of the structure we don't get to know the characters too well so we don't care a great deal about them. The worst drawn character flip-flops so much between motivations just to keep the plot going it becomes plain annoying. Making the hero pregnant is clever but it wasn't enough to make me care about her. My favourite contender wasn't the hero but someone who was the underdog and proves to be resourceful and clever under pressure. Which made the aforementioned mistake at the hospital so unbelievable.

If contenders in fear of their lives don't always kill people by the quickest easiest method available then that's just silly. If you create a completely new world with its own rules and then you break your own rules then that's just bad film-making.

Sexy Beast (2000)

Nice film shame about the title

[8/10 · 6 June 2001]

Sexy Beast opens with Gal enjoying the good lifestyle his criminal endeavours have bought. A boulder intrudes on his happiness acting as a portent for the equally unexpected Don. Talking to Don is like talking to a boulder and that's the heart of the movie.

Gal's dilemma is that whether he chooses to go back to Britain for a job or stay in Spain in retirement he risks losing paradise. Which option offers the least likely chance?

Sexy Beast was originally a stage play but manages to disguise its origins better than the over-rated Gangster Number One managed to. This is mostly due to an excellent structure that includes a good use of flashbacks. The dialogue is brilliant but it does cause some minor pacing problems at the villa as it might reveal character but it doesn't always move the story forward. But to be honest I'm not sure if I could bring myself to edit it either.

The main thing I learnt from the writing was how the writers added layers. With the characters it means Don isn't just in Spain to get Gal - he's there to get a gal. That paradox makes him much more interesting: tough but vulnerable. With the robbery, adding layers meant that we get an original complication rather than just the usual run of the mill blag.

Bodywork (2001)

Worst film released in 2000 easily

[6 June 2001]

Contains some spoilage

I have never seen a film made from such a bad screenplay. Never. First drafts are often shot in the UK but Bodywork's script isn't nearly competent enough to be called a first draft.

I've tried to make excuses for Gareth Rhys Jones. Perhaps he couldn't afford screenwriting courses or books - or Internet access to get free courses and books on the web. But when it comes down to it there is no excuse.

The script has so many flaws that it would be easier to list what it gets right rather than list all that's wrong. On the plus side the characters are distinctive and the hero undergoes a change. That's it. Unfortunately the characters and the hero's change are still shockingly unrealistic and badly done.

The film is promoted as being about someone being framed for murder. If you wanted to get rid of Virgil would you a) kill Virgil or b) kill an innocent stranger instead and frame Virgil for the murder so he goes to prison? The entire world chooses a) but Rhys Jones chooses b). Just when you're trying to work out why the antagonist would do something like that he's been killed. Does this set the movie off in a radical new direction? Not exactly. He was killed by a new antagonist doing exactly the same thing - killing people to incriminate our hero. (Although revealingly on the official website Rhys Jones calls this new killer a 'protagonist')

When we find out who the baddie is and they're asked why they did it - they say "because I can". That's it. That's the reason. That's how little Rhys Jones cares about his audience.

The one thing that can help save a badly plotted film is the dialogue but even that is beyond awful. It's dull and on-the-nose and sometimes very embarrassing especially in the "white room" - where we flashback from - as the characters talk about their relationship with the hero.

Screenwriting of such low standards doesn't deserve the quality cast it managed to attract and it certainly doesn't deserve an audience. The only people who should see this film are casting agents.

It Was an Accident (2000)

Average cockney crime caper

[3/10 · 5 December 2000]

Most cheeky cockney crime capers fail to have a fully developed story and insult the audiences intelligence with incredibly stupid plot contrivances. It Was an Accident is no exception but what raises it a little above the others is the better than usual dialogue, which was almost enough to carry the whole picture but by the last act you're wanting more substance.

As the dialogue is the only thing going for it, it could be more accessible. What's the point of using lots of gibberish only a tiny percentage of the UK population would understand?

Huseyin and the actors do well with the material but the material is too weak and falls apart too easily.

Chopper (2000)

It's a difficult task to try and condense someone's life into a movie

[5 December 2000]

It's a difficult task to try and condense someone's life into a movie and Dominik warns us at the beginning that he takes liberties. Although it was a surprise to find that some incidents I had heard about prior to the movie were either only reported or omitted as the film starts quite late in Chopper's life.

Perhaps Dominik's choices were valid but while we are clear what the character of Chopper is like we are not so clear as to how he got to be that way. Although the interaction with his father goes some way to explaining.

The tension is mainly about whether the paranoid Chopper will act on his paranoia and do someone in rather than in tension arising from the plot but the screen does crackle as you hear the cogs in Chopper's tiny brain whirl round.

The violence is realistically done and not for the squeamish. But it is far better it is done this way than the more dishonest cheerful cockney crime caper way.

Dominik remains non-judgemental throughout the picture - which is to his credit - but comments obliquely. Some focus is given to his popularity, perhaps another comment, by showing how his idiotic fans travel to the venue of his most notorious crime and pose with toy guns.

Eric Bana's extraordinary performance in the title role keeps you watching but as the closing credits rolled, I knew no more about Chopper than I did at the opening titles.

Nasty Neighbours (1999)

Excellent little movie

[5 December 2000]

After the terminally dull spate of cockney crime capers, it is a relief to see a British film that is more substance than style.

Nasty Neighbours was originally a hit play and surprisingly Isitt manages to disguise its theatrical origins quite well. I would be interested to see what she manages to achieve with an original screenplay and full funding.

Although there are a couple of plotting decisions I disagree with there was nothing that distracted from an always entertaining film.

My only problem with the movie is that although it has funding from Birmingham City council and West Midlands Arts it could be set anywhere. The area of Birmingham, it's set in is the most densely wooded in Europe, Birmingham as a whole has more trees and parks than any other city in Europe.

Even when one of the characters visits one of the most glorious buildings in Birmingham, my local Victorian swimming baths, the angle Isitt uses means we don't see the building itself. I don't expect a tourist video just a little something to counter the ignorant jibes of those who don't know the beautiful city of Birmingham.

The Cell (2000)

Ex-cell-ant movie

[10/10 · 5 December 2000]

I saw Mark Protosevich's The Cell despite it's bad reviews and was surprised to find it was a delight from beginning to end. Actually "delight" is probably the wrong word, the movie being about a serial killer and all, but you know what I mean.

This was the first time I saw a movie based on the director's music video reputation and I was expecting nothing more than flashy cool visuals. However this film has some depth to it too. It doesn't present a clichéd villain but instead the screenwriter has the courage to say it's not as simple as that. Is it possible to condemn the crime but have sympathy for the killer? Can you get rid of the evil side of someone and nurture the inner child?

While that is going on Protosevich sets a traditional clock ticking as the FBI agent tries to save the last victim in time.

Jennifer Lopez's character is only sketched but there is enough detail there to know where she is coming from. She hasn't got a reflecting character - someone to talk to about her feelings and where she's coming from - so you have to learn about her mostly by her lifestyle.

The Cell is not exactly feel good entertainment but it is still an exceptional piece of movie-making.

Small Time Crooks (2000)

Very funny comedy

[10/10 · 5 December 2000]

In a world of comedies which are not funny, it's a relief to get a comedy that is very funny. Very funny indeed.

The sign of a good comedy is a log-line that's funny: "Crooks start a business as a front for crime but the business becomes successful". I was expecting the whole film to be about that, and quite frankly Allen could have gotten away with it, but there's a shift in focus which disorientated me for a while - as I am so used to predictable plotting.

I was following the outer goals of the characters when the carefully set-up inner goals were just coming into play. Allen twists the tale to give a new way to explore the characters.

If any film shows that comedy is subjective Small Time Crooks does. I've read reviews which say it isn't funny at all, that only the first half is, that only the second half is and that it's funny throughout. I found it funny throughout and according to recent research on Allen's style of comedy that means I'm very intelligent. But what do researchers know?

If you leave pre-conceptions and expectations behind as you go into the movie theatre you will find a truly hilarious film from a comic master on form.

Scary Movie (2000)

Average comedy

[5 December 2000]

The problem with Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer was that they had different directors. So the fact that Scary Movie welds together the Kevin Williamson screenplays for those films was overlooked by most reviewers. I mean, darn, even the title is Williamson's original title for Scream.

Williamson's films were themselves parodies of the genre and the Wayans have decided to do a rather less subtle parody, a gross-out version.

I like to work a bit harder for my laughs but Scary Movie does have funny moments and enough spunk to carry the audience's goodwill past the less funny moments. It is maybe worth seeing once but it isn't funny enough or original enough to bear repeated viewing.

Hollow Man (2000)

Predictable monster mash

[5 December 2000]

The tag-line for Andrew Marlowe's Hollow Man was "what would you do when no-one can see you" which led me to expect a different film than the one on view.

I was wanting something a bit more substantial on voyeurism and messing with people's minds - areas that are only touched on in the film.

But forget about the film I wanted to see, what about the film that was made? Basically it's Predator meets Alien. It wastes the opportunity to create the definitive version of the centuries-old invisible-man tale to give us just another monster movie.

The problem is that by now we know the formula of the monster movie so the audience can predict the order of deaths and who gets left alive at the end. I would rather be given surprises than given predictable sensations.

The film raises an interesting point about characters. All the characters in the film are known archetypes we've seen before. On the one hand that means Marlowe can go straight to the action with little setting up needed. On the other hand, it means the action is boring because you don't care enough about the characters. It's a difficult balancing act, I admit, but Hollow Man fails.

It's an OK entertainment with great special effects but it's - and I can't resist saying it any longer - a bit hollow.

Charlie's Angels (2000)

Angelic quality

[10/10 · 5 December 2000]

Oh dear, what a dilemma. Having slagged off films with no substance and lame plots in the past, Charlie's Angels should get the same treatment but I loved it. Which proves it's not what you do but the way that you do it.

Let's face it Charlies Angels was the Baywatch of the day. And it would therefore be a mistake to expect the film version to have undergone the same transformation as the Mission Impossible series made to the big screen.

It's certainly courageous for the film-makers to create something which is unashamed, unadulterated funny fun. There is a tendency to design huge memorable action set-pieces and to write a plot around them as convincingly as possible - like Mission Impossible 2. Charlie's Angels manages it quite well although the racing cars sequence is slightly blatant irrelevant nonsense. That was the second time the bad guy ran away for no reason just to have a chase scene.

People note that there were 14 writers who had their hand on the screenplay at some point. Due to scheduling conflicts they had to start the film before the script was finished. The last act was meant to be a last minute job but that works fine it's the middle section which doesn't quite hold water.

Although it has its faults I wasn't bored and I wasn't annoyed too much. The tongue is clearly firmly in cheek and quite frankly the storyline with the typical British bad guy made me forgive everything.

Where the Money Is (2000)

Top crime caper

[10/10 · 5 December 2000]

Henry robs banks because that's 'where the money is'. Unfortunately, he has suffered a stroke and is confined to a wheelchair rendering his stealing days over. Or does it?

The film starts with a flashback to Carol and Wayne leaving the prom as newly crowned King and Queen driving recklessly and crashing. Years later their relationship and life is stale and boring - but only Carol thinks so. It could be argued that the flashback is just an extraneous piece of action to keep the audience interested - which is true - but it also shows where Carol and Wayne are coming from and contrasts with the dull life they have now.

The film asks you to root for criminals and isn't the first film to do that by any means but what I find interesting is what makes the normally moral cheer amorality. Harry had to all intents and purposes retired from a life of crime but, ironically, he gets his stolen money stolen and can't go to the police - for obvious reasons. Many in the audience would identify with Carol wanting to escape to something better. The potential victims are all big businesses and one of the owners in particular is a snotty tosser. And the plan is to rob without violence or the threat of violence.

Where the Money Is never drags as it reaches its conclusion. The dialogue is always excellent and there are at least a couple of classic lines in there. Being very picky about plotting I couldn't fault the screenwriters' work.

What struck me most about the film was the simplicity and economy of the writing. It's a crime that the film didn't make its money back domestically in theatres. It's meant to be Paul Newman's last ever film and it's good that it's something so artistically successful if not commercially so.

When Brendan Met Trudy (2000)

Brilliant romantic comedy

[9/10 · 30 November 2000]

For his first original screenplay Roddy Doyle subverts the romantic comedy genre and still manages to write a film that appeals to both subversives and rom com fans.

Roddy Doyle was a teacher who loved music and film, just like Brendan, but it would be a mistake - and libellous - to read this as autobiography. In a typical opposites attract tale Brendan is an innocent devoted to singing hymns and cinema, while Trudy is a not-so-innocent with a mysterious night life.

This film is as much of a love story with cinema as it is a love story between Brendan and Trudy. The opening echoes Sunset Boulevard's opening and other films also feature - although budgetary constraints meant that Doyle's wish list of films to license couldn't be granted. The quoting of films both visually and verbally has the potential to get on your nerves but here it is wonderfully and wittily done and always relevant to the story. Although, to be honest, the A Bout De Souffle sequence does push it just a bit too far. Watch out also for fake film posters and titles in the background which give a sly hilarious comment about film.

The eponymous leads are wonderfully played by Peter McDonald and Flora Montgomery and according to the director he had to argue to the financiers to allow Montgomery to have the role as she wasn't famous enough. If a brilliant screenplay by one of the world's most popular writers needs stars to get it made then the world has indeed gone mad.

When Brendan Met Trudy is very funny and has a good compelling story that will surprise. It is highly recommended.

Going Off Big Time (2000)

Excellent British crime film

[8/10 · 28 November 2000]

Having endured the horrors of the recent spate of cockney crime capers I had equally low expectations of this scouse crime caper but it proved to be one of the best British films of the year.

Neil Fitzmaurice's screenplay doesn't do anything radically different, let's be honest, but he manages to bring a fresh eye to a tired genre. The film follows the life of an innocent who is transformed by prison. This is told in a narrated flashback - and you even get flashbacks within flashbacks - which is difficult to pull off but somehow Fitzmaurice manages it. This framing device is usually a lazy way of keeping the audience interested during the boring bits but each section of the film is interesting in its own right and leads logically to the conclusion. Although there are a couple of plot contrivances I had to take with a pinch of salt there is nothing that damages the movie too much. While I'm sure authentic Liverpool gangsters would have spotted lots of mistakes, to a law-abiding citizen like myself it seems quite realistic. And the screenplay does a better job than most of marrying the comedy with the drama.

Fitzmaurice also acts in the film in the lead and that's probably the key to its success. All drama should begin with believable strong characters and while writers often overlook this, actors are less likely to. So Going Off Big Time has the treat of character motivations you understand and can follow without being annoyed. And actors also know how to write dialogue, which in this movie is excellent. The dialogue manages to be authentic without alienating those from outside Liverpool, which is always a help.

The original release date was September, about the same time as Snatch, but only arrives in my local multiplex in November. Timing is obviously everything and while they had bad luck with the theatrical release it should prove a video rental hit. While this was always going to be second best to Snatch, it isn't as far behind in quality as one might think.

Sorted (2000)

Good

[6 October 2000]

Rather lazily one newspaper review compared Sorted unfavourably with Billy Elliot. Although Sorted has its faults it is just as good as Billy Elliot and didn't annoy me nearly as much.

The most obvious difference between the films for me is that while Billy Elliot is amateurish, Sorted is written and directed by professionals whose idea of educating themselves about film involves more than simply watching Kes.

However as I said it has its faults. The film has an whodunit element whose reveal is a surprise but I don't think it was foreshadowed enough in the character development, if I'm being generous (or downright misleading if I'm not). The first two acts are nicely paced and very interesting but I have problems with the last act. It is a traditional Hollywood last act with lots of things happening and everything tied up neatly in a big finish. Unfortunately I hate traditional Hollywood last acts because they're so predictable through all the twists and turns.

The plotting is strong and well done however it does fall down in some aspects. The MacGuffin is introduced too late for something of such importance and at one point, when it is found, the finder still keeps looking for it just so they can be discovered. The hero can find out what's on the MacGuffin by using the computer in his own apartment but for story progression's sake he takes it to somebody else's apartment. When we see what's actually on the MacGuffin it's something that can be printed off or the details passed on verbally in a single sentence. From experience I know that finding a good believable MacGuffin is difficult but you've just got to do the work.

Characterisation is good, generally, although the scene at Justin's memorial where everyone was introduced was too obvious. Acting is good, generally, although Tim Curry seems as if he walked in from a completely different picture. Jovy should learn the following line for future reference, "less darling, give me less." I guess he was so chuffed to have a big star in the movie he didn't feel he could say that. Although to be fair to Curry, if you write a character as a Shakespeare quoting old-fashioned villain there are limited choices on how to play it. Matthew Rhys proves he's not a poor man's Jude Law (the director's original choice for the part) but a star in his own right.

The club scenes are convincing and work well and the music is brilliant throughout - I was dancing in the aisles. There is also a good use of locations.

Alex Jovy was featured in the Channel 4 documentary series Movie Virgins as he tried to raise finance for his film. It wasn't until the last episode of rooting for him to succeed that I thought, "hold on, I bet the script's c**p and he can't direct." Actually Villier's script is mostly good and Jovy's direction is very good.

I hope this film makes its money back and it certainly deserves to.

Billy Elliot (2000)

Average

[1/10 · 29 September 2000]

Lee Hall has written acclaimed stage plays, radio plays and TV movies. So how has his talent transferred to the big screen? If you are in the right frame of mind then his film is a feel-good breath of fresh air. But you have to be willing to ignore some major flaws.

The central premise of a boy discovering dance with the coal dispute of 1984 in the background is a good one. The strike gives an original twist to what is a simple bog-standard rites-of-passage story but it doesn't really complement the main story. There are a couple of times where the strike affects what Billy wants; the first time to do with the audition and his brother is unconvincing and strange. The second time to do with the audition and his father is brilliant but then goes nowhere as it has no consequences which is simply unbelievable.

For the rest of the film the strike seems more like extraneous conflict to bring in action when Billy learning dancing gets too boring. There were lots of conflicts relating to Billy and his relationships they could have used instead which would have kept the film more focussed but instead they decided to keep the characterisations shallow and go for the big irrelevant event.

In fact, we don't really get to know any of the characters that well especially Billy's father and brother. They start out by hating Billy - which is bizarre and never explained - so the subsequent inevitable coming together seems completely unconvincing. We also see Billy resolving a particular conflict with his ballet teacher at the end but he had no conflict with her to resolve. It was his father's conflict, Billy had nothing to do with it. This relationship with the teacher is crucial but isn't dealt with properly just so the focus can move to the father. To be fair a lot of these problems could have been in the directing or editing rather than in the writing.

Hall does veer away from schmaltz, which is to his credit, but he does it mainly by having the characters swear a lot. But in the main the dialogue is very good and nothing made me cringe, which is good considering the story.

The first act is good and then the usual second act problems happen but this is meant to get better again when the third act kicks in but the film actually gets worse scene by scene ending with a stupid embarrassing flash forward.

Stephen Daldry makes his directorial debut and is already being held on a par with Sam Mendes, a fellow theatre director turned movie director. I simply don't see it. Like Mendes, he coaxes excellent performances from the cast. Unlike Mendes, in all other aspects, his direction was disappointing - to say the least.

I really wanted to like - and expected to like - Billy Elliot and compared to many recent British films, it's good but it simply isn't good enough.

There's Only One Jimmy Grimble (2000)

Good

[24 September 2000]

Buying a ticket to a sports movie is like buying a train ticket to, say, Manchester. It's pretty obvious that at the end of the journey you will get to Manchester, in fact you would be annoyed if you didn't get that ending. But the trick is to make sure the journey has some surprises along the way and keeps interesting. Jimmy Grimble manages that fairly successfully.

This isn't a good film in relation to other recent British films released recently, it is a good film full stop.

One main reason it succeeds is the screenplay. The plotting, characterisation and dialogue are basic but well done. The direction, however, is very well done. Football has never looked so good on film.

I saw the last British football film When Saturday Comes on television for free and still demanded my money back, everything about it was awful. Jimmy Grimble has a lower profile and a low-key release but is infinitely superior on every level.

While it is the young that will derive the most pleasure out of this, adults will also get something out of it.