JimShine Reviews

Curious George (2006)

rubbish

[4/10 · 3 July 2006]

No, I'm sorry, but this is not a good movie, for children or anyone else. I took my 3-year-old to it and we left after about half an hour because he hated it. So here are my comments on the first half hour. The animation is nice, and George is cute. Those are the positive things. The main problem is that for some reason the film makers have forgotten that the movie is called "Curious George" and instead think it is called "Some Idiot Called Ted". The plot? Why, it's every 3-year-old's favorite, the "save the beloved but commercially unviable museum from closure!" one. The humor? Aimed at preschool children who appreciate the hilarity of low-level mob gangsters having to put on fake Australian accents in order to run an outdoors-goods store. Or aimed at adults who think that having people put on a fake Australian accent is, in of itself, hilarious. Add some songs about loneliness performed by someone who makes Dave Matthews sound like Iggy Pop and you have the perfect ingredients for a humongous waste of time and money. Do not see this movie. Buy a Curious George book instead. There is more wit, imagination, and understanding of children in one page of this than in, well, the first half hour of the movie. Incidentally, I would have given the movie 5 out of 10 (for the nice pictures) but it loses 1 point for the disgraceful product placement. In a children's film? The makers should be ashamed of themselves.

The Loved One (1965)

Not just a movie about a guy who pretends to be a great poet just to win the girl...

[7/10 · 10 December 2005]

What an odd film. I really didn't know what to expect when I started watching. Didn't expect the name Evelyn Waugh to appear, nor Christopher Isherwood, nor Haskell Wexler, nor Hal Ashby, nor the various cast members... Presumably the reason this all passed me by is that The Loved One is, as I said, an odd film, and odd films just don't become famous. So here I was struggling with the open credits, and I just had this feeling. You know, lots of famous names, good score on the IMDb, but not that well known... it just felt like disaster was looming. The fact that it was in black and white really didn't help - an Englishman coming to LA in the mid-sixties and the world is black and white? Just doesn't work. Surely it has to be vibrant color. Another strike against it: if you're going to use "America the Beautiful" (or any such tune) in an ironic way, you have to earn it, as in, say, Silver City; you can't just fling it in at the start - it's a little too knowing. And yet another strike against it: it seems at first to have no clear idea what it's about. Starting out as some sort of Hollywood satire, it takes a loooong time before there's any hint as to why it might be called The Loved One.

So, yes, a lot of strikes against it. But somehow it hangs together quite well, for which we can presumably thank the various talents involved. I can't say that I loved the movie, but I did enjoy it, perhaps more so from a technical point of view than anything else. It is very much of its time, released the year after Dr Strangelove and The Pink Panther. I mention these specifically because you could attempt (but ultimately fail) to pigeonhole it with either, but the Waugh source adds something else (although I can't say how much as I've never read the original, or much Waugh of any description). For some reason Mr Joyboy's mother had a kind of Dickensian appeal - a sort of antithesis of the Aged Parent from Great Expectations, perhaps? It's those sort of odd connections that make The Loved One worthwhile. Un-pigeonhole-able films: that's what we need more of.

Bewitched (2005)

bewildered but not bothered

[5/10 · 12 November 2005]

I must preface my comments by saying I saw Bewitched on a trans-Atlantic flight while relaxing under the influence of Xanax (hey, don't knock it - I've heard it's Dubya Bush's drug of choice now). So I don't remember everything about the movie. I'm impressed I managed to stay conscious, frankly.

Good grief. You know where in things like Buffy or Dead Like Me, the writers sit down and work out all the ramifications of what it actually means to be a vampire slayer or a grim reaper, and create all these situations exploring the possibilities? Well Bewitched isn't like that. It's a kind of "Hey! She's a witch! That's funny!" sort of idea and then things don't quite progress from there. She can turn back time, she can make a guy naked on television, but why? For the sake of a romantic comedy, that's why. Just a romantic comedy. All the power of the universe and it's a romantic comedy, and not a very good one at that. I realised (afterwards) that the writers could have got as much mileage out of the idea that the character was Australian.

Kidman: "There's something I have to tell you. I'm an Australian". Ferrell (patronising): "That's great, honey, and you're doing such a wonderful job!" Kidman: "No, really, I actually am Australian. I just learned the American accent to get more movie roles". Ferrell (going along with it because he loves her): "I know! Isn't it great!" Kidman (slipping back into Aussie accent): "Listen to me! I am Australian!!" Ferrell: "Wow! Where did you learn to do that thing with your voice?" Kidman dons a hat with dangling corks, throws shrimps on the barbie, ties her kangaroo down, and plays a didgeridoo. Ferrell (terrified): "Oh my God! You're Australian!!!!" They could have used it in the trailer.

I believe Michael Caine and Shirley McLaine were in the movie too, although I have no idea what happened them by the end. Maybe nothing happened.

Your lesson today, kids: Don't do legal drugs at the movies! It really doesn't help.

Sin City (2005)

a brilliant job of producing something completely unnecessary

[7/10 · 12 November 2005]

It is true: Sin City is the most faithful adaptation of a comic or graphic novel to date. And yet, and yet… Back in the old days, about a decade ago, comic-book movies were not respectable, Joel Schumacher hammering the last nails in the coffin. And then the renaissance: Unbreakable (not an adaptation, unless you count the steal from Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol), the Spider-Man movies, and Hulk (most people thought that fell badly between two stools – too artsy for the explosions crowd, too explosive for the artsy crowd – but I love it). These were movies giving us what we loved about comics. And now here comes Sin City, essentially Frank Miller's work converted directly from page to screen. Which is the movie's biggest problem. In their heroic efforts to stay faithful to the source material, Miller and Rodriguez seem to have missed a rather banal truism: movies are not comic books. What worked so well on paper does not necessarily succeed on film (or computer, as the case may be). On paper, the whole thing is literally two-dimensional, and the stylisation is pretty much the raison d'etre. But when you actually get real people (well, actors, at any rate) saying the lines and doing the things the characters do, this brings a whole new level of meaning to light. The graphic novels could get away with the violence and the stock situations (clichés, if you like) and the intense misanthropy because they were firmly rooted in a particular kind of pulp fiction. But if you start looking at Sin City the movie in the context not of comic books but of other movies, what were once virtues now look horribly like flaws. In a movie with so many characters, and fine actors, it's a shame that only two of them (Marv and Hartigan) are anything other than cardboard cutouts – and in both those cases, the depth of character comes more from their thoughts rather than their actions. Both of these stories involve violent revenge and the search for redemption through the love of a beautiful blonde. The middle story involves… ah, I got bored at this point… gun-toting prostitutes… feminism's not my strong point but alarm bells were ringing at the idea of women who seem fully in control of their own lives and yet choose to be sleazy hookers… which gets me thinking about Nancy – was there any particular reason, plot-wise I mean, that she had to be a table-dancer and not, say, a law student? You can get away with these things in comics but in the cold light of cinema it all starts to seem a bit adolescent. As for the male characters, there is, intriguingly, rather a lot of crotch-related violence. Oh the violence. Again, a still image of violence is one thing, but on screen it careers between too-real and too-cartoony. "I didn't scream, Hartigan", breathes Nancy after getting a sound whipping from a psycho. Good for you, love, they could have done with you back in Billy Budd's time.

Which is not to say I hated the film. I did quite like most of it. I haven't addressed the technical aspects here, because I think it goes without saying that Sin City is technically brilliant. There is a time and place for style over substance, though, and while I hate to admit it, I think possibly that at 34 I'm getting too old for this sh*t.

Batman Begins (2005)

Sadly, a disappointment

[7/10 · 26 June 2005]

Don't you just hate it when you're watching a movie and you get to a point, maybe about halfway or two-thirds through, when you think to yourself, "Ah, f--- it, it's not going to get any better, is it?" So it was, alas, with Batman Begins. It's not a bad movie - far from it. If anything, the movie failed for me because it probably has too much ambition. The "Ah, f--- it" moment for me was the car chase, and herein lies the problem of any Batman movie. You have to have a Batmobile. And so you have to have a car chase. This is all well and good if you can produce a really good car chase, but apart from the neat idea of starting it on the rooftops, this one isn't much good. The other thing going through my mind at this point was something like, "Now, did that car really have to flip over like that?" Alfred the butler shared my displeasure, at least. Then of course there's the whole seeing-his-parents-being-murdered thing. I accept that a reasonable chunk of the audience won't know this already. But there comes a point where you have to say, "OK! We know! Now get on with it!" There are so many little flashbacks here it's like being bludgeoned with the complete works of Sigmund Freud. But I'm conflicted - there's plenty of good stuff here too (the prototype batsignal being my favorite). Problem is, there's too MUCH stuff. There's probably enough material here for about 4 or 5 hours worth of movie without adding any extra plotting. Rutger Hauer, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine - these are actors who could easily carry very long scenes with actual character development, but we seem to be served the minimum possible to hold the complicated plot together. Actually the plot's not complicated, it just seems that way. I have a sneaking suspicion that Christopher Nolan (whose work until now I've loved) was trying, underneath the superhero hype, to make something reminiscent of the classic seventies New York crime movies, like French Connection or Serpico. Unfortunately, he has to spend too much time on explosions and exposition. So we're deprived of more Batman (why do the movies concentrate on Bruce Wayne? Read the title, guys), more Gordon, or more Scarecrow (acting honors ultimately go to Gary Oldman's understated cop and Cillian Murphy's inordinately creepy Crane). By the time we got to the monorail bit I had lost most of my interest, although Bale and Oldman saved it in the dying seconds. I suppose I should be grateful that a summer blockbuster should aim so high, but if you'd told me 6 months ago that Batman Begins would have been nowhere near as enjoyable as Star Wars 3, I'd have thought you were insane. Perhaps the sequel will be everything I want.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

they seem to know where their towels are

[8/10 · 22 May 2005]

Well, it could have been a disaster, and a few minutes in I hadn't made my mind up. The opening sequence is a joy and raised hopes very high indeed. Then hopes were kicked vigorously by the brevity of the bulldozer scene (what happened to "Beware of the Leopard"?!), and Mos Def didn't seem very comfortable, or I wasn't comfortable with him. Where was the Hitchhikers I loved? But every so often something unexpected would happen. Or something very funny. Or both. I realized what it was that was "wrong": it wasn't the Hitchhikers I loved, but it wasn't actually trying to be. It was trying to be a different Hitchhikers to love. So we don't get the narration about the Vogon ships hanging in the sky just like bricks don't, but we do get the hilarious pull-back shot that's not only funny but actually rather clever and inventive. Basically the plot is more or less the same but most of the actual words are gone. A sensible decision, I think: the original radio show was words words words, and the book (obviously) and TV series had the space and time to preserve that. Instead the movie goes for visual humor or comic ideas rather than actual paragraphs. You do miss some things, like the full story of the Babel fish, and the long buildup to Deep Thought's answer. But you get John Malkovich's glasses and lots more (excellently done) Vogons instead, plus good use of towel by Ford. Much to my surprise, the romance angle actually worked, too. In terms of "should you see this movie if you love the originals?" I would say definitely yes; I think the movie has an Adams vibe throughout (not just the reference to Madagascar) so that when the dedication comes up at the end you realize how much you still miss him. The clincher is the "factory floor" on Magrathea: absolutely awesome, and Martin Freeman's response to it is wonderful. Should you see it if you're not familiar with the originals? You might be left at sea in places, but then at least you'll have Zaphod for company (Sam Rockwell is great; he plays the role as a cross between Tom Cruise and Dubya Bush). The group of girls behind me, who I don't think had even heard of the originals, really enjoyed it. They even got upset when... well, I can't tell you that bit.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Turning a kingdom of heaven into a hellhole

[7/10 · 22 May 2005]

Roger Ebert says you should only review the film you saw, not the film you wanted to see. Oh well, so much for my review then...! Kingdom of Heaven is enjoyable in its way, and it's full of visual wonders. That is of course a Ridley Scott trademark, but another regular Scott trademark is what I would call pomposity, though others might be more charitable and call it an operatic sense of drama, or something. Too often I found myself grumbling at the movie, asking the music to shut up or the supporting players not to look quite so awestruck at Orlando's achievements. I actually have no problem with his performance; true, he's not exactly Maximus, but then Maximus was a military commander throughout Gladiator. Here Balian is a blacksmith who rather quickly learns close-quarters fighting, then irrigation techniques, then finally the art of defending a city from a siege. It's the script I don't believe in, not the performance. In fact the performances are generally great, although the best of them (Jeremy Irons and Ghassan Massoud are underused). And was it me, or was Edward Norton deliberately trying to sound like Marlon Brando? The more bloodthirsty of the crusaders were a little irritating (I didn't recognize Marton Csokas as the same man who played the diametrically different Celeborn!) but then again history is full of leaders bent on pursuing courses of action that are directly contrary to their own best interests. There was a point in all the shouting of "God wills it!" (from both sides) that I decided Kingdom of Heaven, or something like it, would have made a great satire on power and the abuse of religion. Instead it's simply a comment on them, and a plea for tolerance. I have to admit I wanted to cheer when Balian threatened to destroy every single holy site in Jerusalem so people would stop fighting over it.

The Jacket (2005)

so much better than it could have been

[9/10 · 22 May 2005]

Reviews had been mixed so I was going in prepared that I might not like the movie. As a result, I was delighted with how good it was. But it could so easily have been a disaster; these sorts of stories operate on a very specific level that must be balanced just right. Fortunately John Maybury seems to have come to the film with the correct attitude: yes, it is just a quirky bit of pulp fiction, but that doesn't mean it can't be done with sincerity. On the other hand, some hack director might have decided to equate sincerity with pomposity, and think how awful The Jacket would have been then. No, here there's an undercurrent of humor, accepting but not belittling the plot's inherent absurdity (or perhaps fantasticness is a better word). As an example, consider the "group therapy" scene, which goes that little bit further into craziness than you might expect (and the wonderfully perfunctory shot of what happens to Jack straight afterward). The second thing in The Jacket's favor is the cast, notably Adrien Brody's high-wire act. He's given a line late in the film that is pure movie cliché: "What's the matter? You look like you've seen a ghost". Brody's character knows it's a cliché and delivers it knowingly but there's also an almost despairing bitterness in his voice that's just right for the plot at this point. Many actors, under many directors, would only have managed the "knowingly" bit. I came out of the cinema feeling good, like I'd just seen Twelve Monkeys filtered through Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

À Margem (2001)

spooky

[7/10 · 27 March 2005]

A couple and their son drive to a holiday home on the shore of a quiet lake. There's an air of unease about the whole thing (although admittedly I saw this as the first item in a program of shorts with a "fantastic" theme so I was coming to it with an air of expectation anyway). The mother seems a bit gloomy and not as enthusiastic as the husband and son, who immediately want to go swimming. What happens next falls directly under the title "spoiler". My one criticism is that I never felt any real connection with any of the characters. In a short film, am I supposed to? Obviously not to as large an extent as in a feature, but the end result was that the film was not only chilling but also perhaps too chilly. I'm probably being harsh; ultimately this is a creepy little film high on atmosphere. 7/10.

Paradisiaque (2000)

Great fun

[9/10 · 27 March 2005]

A daft-looking alien lands on Earth and delightedly takes in his surroundings: plants! animals! I don't think I've ever seen such innocent joy in a movie - while at the same time it's utterly silly. To say anything more about what happens would be to spoil it. Unfortunately I have to put in 10 lines for my comment! This is rather a lot. In fact it's taking me more effort to write these lines than it would take you to watch "Paradisiaque" if you got a chance. So if you do get a chance (at the time of writing, this movie was "awaiting 5 votes" so I think we can safely say it's an obscure item!) then I heartily recommend it. If it fails to put you in a good mood then there's no hope for you, really.

The Village (2004)

fear - faith - love - hope (and spoilers!)

[9/10 · 21 August 2004]

OK, I think Unbreakable is the best of Shyamalan's movies, so no doubt my opinion is immediately worthless to most moviegoers. Apparently a lot of people think The Village is a bad horror movie. Yes, like Casablanca is a bad action movie. Ho hum. How dare Mr Shyamalan create a film that does not fit neatly into a pigeonhole! And as usual there are whinges about the twist and how it is a cheat. It's not a cheat if there's no contradiction. The comments I've read here seem to have ignored the deeply spiritual/religious side of all Shyamalan's work, and that is to the fore here. If you have not seen this movie and wish to be surprised by it, do not read the following sentence: The Village is like The Truman Show, but with Christof inside the bubble. A film that has something to say about how we perceive reality and freedom. What a pity huge numbers of people approach movies with such closed minds.

Two English Girls (1971)

shoot the narrator!

[5/10 · 29 April 2004]

This movie is based on a novel. This is a very important fact. The opening credits show us the novel, presumably so that we will all know what a book looks like. To emphasise the fact that this is a movie based on a novel, there is lots of narrative voice-over. The voice-over is helpful for those of us who cannot see the screen. It describes what is going on on screen, and it also describes what is going on in the characters' minds, presumably because for some reason the director has no other means of letting us know what is going on in their minds. And the voice-over is rather tedious just like the way I'm writing this is tedious. No, seriously, it's awful. The French guy is staying with the two English girls and their mother, and as the camera shows us 1 French guy, 1 English girl, and 1 mother at dinner, plus 1 empty chair, the voice-over tells us the other English girl isn't there. We watch them eat in silence. The voice-over tells us they ate in silence. It got to the stage where the voice-over said something about them (out for a walk) coming to a rushing torrent. My own personal voice-over said "If I see a rushing torrent in the next two seconds, I'm out of here". Bingo! Of course, this all wouldn't be so bad if the story itself was particularly interesting, but, as judicious use of the fast-forward button made clear, it's just your standard tedious French drivel that claims to have the last word about human relationships. Some movie adaptations you can dismiss as "better off just reading the book", but with this one you're better off reading a book on a different topic by a different author. (Note added later: I subsequently have seen a couple of Eric Rohmer films and didn't like those either! So I concede that there's a particular type of movie that I hate: the French philosophical relationships movie).

Time Changer (2002)

lions, tigers, and no school prayer, oh my!

[4/10 · 5 January 2004]

Not being familiar with US television stations, when I flicked onto this on my in-laws' cable, first I thought it was just a low-budget sci-fi film, then after a couple of minutes I started thinking it might be a clever satire on the worst excesses of Christian fundamentalist, and then it dawned on me - good grief, these people are serious! It's been a while since I saw anything so unintentionally hilarious. I hesitated about writing a review of this for fear of offending believers, but then I saw other reviews and thought, hey, they can take it. Tough philosophical conundrum: how do you make a movie criticizing movies without actually showing what it is you're criticizing? Answer: make it in such a way that the only people who'll appreciate it are people who hate the kind of movies you're criticizing. I suppose some liberals (ugh! spit when you say that!) might be offended at the filmmakers' contempt for those in the audience who aren't obsessed with the J**** C***** myth, but I didn't mind - it was so darn funny!

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

Huzzah! This isn't the movie I feared it would be

[9/10 · 6 December 2003]

As a fan of the O'Brian books, I was worried by the trailer I saw: almost no Maturin, an apparently pivotal moment when a young boy takes command of the ship... oh dear, I thought; maybe it will be a great film but it won't be anything like those wonderful books. Fortunately (for book fans, at least), the marketers were lying! Pretty much everything you could want from an adaptation is here, which of course explains why a lot of people don't seem to like it: it has an episodic nature, the humour is embedded in character, the attention to detail is almost obsessive, and (I think this is the crucial one), it makes little concession to readers/viewers who don't know the environment. Few "mainstream" films of recent years have chosen to assume that the audience is this knowledgable and intelligent, for which Peter Weir must be roundly applauded. You have to bring your brain in with you for this one. For any book fans with lingering doubts: The weevil joke is perfectly done; and rest assured, Killick is perfect too.

Eroica (2003 TV Movie)

Finally, classical music gets the television it needs

[10/10 · 25 October 2003]

For some puzzling reason, I never really "got" the Eroica, but thanks to this marvellous production I (and hopefully many others) finally understand not only why the symphony was so important but also why it's so good! The basic idea of the film is that Prince Lobkowitz's orchestra is giving the first performance of the symphony for the prince and princess, the composer, and a few guests. After a shortish buildup to introduce the characters, the orchestra begins - and carries on for most of the film. As the music plays, we watch the characters listening, and occasionally hear their opinions. There is outrage when a trumpet comes in at the "wrong" time; smiles at certain musical turns of phrase; frowns at how loud it is. This superb film marries a great performance of a great work with an intelligent effort to put the whole thing in the context of its time. It isn't a film for people who already know all about the Eroica, but for a viewer who doesn't know Haydn from Howard Shore it must surely be enlightening.

Faces in the Dark (1960)

You might not have seen this...

[7/10 · 7 September 2003]

In terms of the number of votes for this movie (mine is the 10th), this could be the most obscure film I'm ever seen! Which of course means nothing to you, but it does get me wondering about how some films survive the decades and others just vanish. Certainly there are many much worse ways of spending 80 minutes than watching "Faces in the Dark". On the very slim chance that you might get to see this movie, I won't spoil what was for me the most enjoyable aspect of it, which was speculating as to what would happen next: is it a horror film? a psychological drama? or what? Anyway, the basic plot is that the main character goes blind after an accident; he and his wife plus sundry other relevant persons take a break at their holiday home; and then strange things appear to happen. There are a few things wrong with this film, primarily the rather dull direction (it's not all told from the main character's POV, which deflates some of the tension), and I found John Gregson a little too gruff at times (I only know him from comedies, including, by the way, a film called Genevieve which is one of the most thoroughly entertaining movies I know). Some of the other acting is occasionally dodgy too. Overall, though, it held my interest up to the end, which is, I think, a good enough recommendation for any obscure movie!

Hulk (2003)

well I liked it

[9/10 · 26 July 2003]

There are a lot of really negative comments about Hulk here, and if people like it so little there's probably nothing a really positive review would do to change their minds. So rather than try to justify my position all I'll say is I had decided I wanted to love the movie and after a few minutes of the opening montage I was certain that I would, and all the way through I was thinking "this is great" and at the end I was happy. So there. Loved the Greek tragedy storyline (children punished by the sins of their fathers), loved the acting (especially Jennifer Connelly), adored the editing (the closest watching a film has been to reading a comic, not just the split screen but the closeups, significant lack of panning or tracking shots, etc), loved the fact that there was so little action for most of the movie, was amazed and constantly surprised by the action when it came (heh! Hulk falls from the stratosphere and Ang cuts to a brief metaphysical interlude! oh yes!)... OK, yes, I am justifying why I loved it. I had a feeling this was going to be the first summer blockbuster that people hated because it was too clever, and it seems I was right. People don't seem to appreciate Ride With the Devil either. Puny humans!

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Oh. My. God.

[2/10 · 26 June 2001]

Some movies are so bad they're funny. Pearl Harbor isn't one of them: it's so bad it's... interesting. I spent most of this very long film thinking about the various ways in which it was awful. Michael Bay seems to be the Jade Fox of directors - he obviously owns a copy of How To Make A Classic Movie but he's only looked at the pictures, not the text. Films like Armageddon are forgivable because they're just bubblegum, but Pearl Harbor really, really wants to be a sweeping wartime romance (or epic romantic war story, or whatever) in the classic mode and it really, really, *really* isn't. A few things that stand out as particularly dreadful: the hamfisted History 101 newsreels, the RAF guy's awe at just how heroic Ben Affleck is, the perfunctory and staggeringly patronising treatment of Cuba Gooding's character, the whole fourth act (a cruel blow to those of us who had assumed there were only three). Actually the Japanese assault is very well done - the special effects are superb and the whole thing degenerates into an obscene massacre, as presumably it did in real life, but then Bay ruins everything with the tearful music and the slo-mo and the blurry bits and the obligatory dead likeable supporting character and the whole blasted fourth act which is there only because (a) you can't have a movie end with the US on its knees and (b) you can only resolve a Hollywood love triangle by killing one of the protagonists and none of them is dead yet. Did I mention the nauseating patriotism? Maybe if you're American it's okay, but Kate Beckinsale's voiceover at the end is truly horrible.

The Innocent Sleep (1995)

good actors fail to rescue dull film

[5/10 · 25 February 2001]

Mostly bland crime story in which a homeless man (Rupert Graves) is witness to a hanging from London's Tower Bridge. When he goes to report the crime, he discovers the cop leading the investigation (Michael Gambon) was one of the hangers, so he enlists the help of a journalist (Annabella Sciorra) to expose the story. Unfortunately, aside from a neat twist about three-quarters of the way through, there is little real mystery or suspense: we know Gambon did it, and Graves manages to stay out of any real danger for most of the film. The actors do the best they can, but get little support from the unsubtle script and direction; Sciorra spends most of her time being earnest and Gambon chews a little scenery but not enough to make a lasting impression. Graves is a solid lead but falls victim to the film's biggest failing; this is one of the least convincing depictions of homelessness I've seen. Overall, the film feels like a typical British TV crime show, but with most of the depth carefully removed.