At last, someone who knows good service

Nuovi Sapori

Eating on: 17th July 2010

Eating with: Family

I was beginning to think it was just me but for the last couple of months the service I have received going out for meals has been truly indifferent. It was getting to the point where I was struggling to remember going out to eat and enjoying both the food and the restaurant I was eating in. Sometimes I was lucky to enjoy just the food. I can think of two notable exceptions this year, Whits in Kensington being one of them. However, that was before this weekend. Things were looking up last week at Masala Zone, really friendly service though not the best food in the world. But in the end the whole thing felt a little scripted and by the book, rather than from the heart. Plus the thali I had was not as good as Woodlands, the whole thing felt more ready meal than made to order. The restaurant was also a little empty which did not add to the atmosphere. Last weekend was the chance for a nice family meal, the last of which was at one of my exceptions to the rule for great food this year, a small Italian restaurant round the corner from me, which one from the chain of three I forget!!

We arrive at Nuovi Sapori around 7pm, the restaurant was completely open at the front, perfect for a nice summer's evening. Thanks to our early reservation we had a great table right in the middle of the room, perfect to soak up the atmosphere that would build during our meal. The restaurant manager greeted us and made us feel comfortable right away. Menus and ample time given, no concept to explain, the option of pre-meal drinks but politely declined so that we could balance our wine with our meal. So far so good. We placed our order and when the wine arrived (a nice fruity Pinot Grigio) we were also served some bread with a sundried tomato tapenade. Starters were ordered: mozzarella with parma ham, melon and parma ham, warm avocado with crab, and mussels filled with crispy bacon and avocado (the specific stuffing for the mussels escapes my mind). The food was nice and hot (except the melon!) and came quickly. By observation the timings seemed around the same for other guests, even as the place got busier. The meal was off to a good start, the portions were just about the right size and we were all looking forward to the main course.

Throughout our meal staff were on hand all the time and were continually watching (non-intrusively) to make sure our glasses were filled with water/wine and that we were enjoying ourselves. The atmosphere from the staff was that they were happy to be at work, and that they could see whether or not you were enjoying your meal rather than, as you suspect in many places, it's just in the handbook to go and ask, with the expectation that the customer says "fine, thanks". The whole thing was thanks to a fantastic restaurant manager that truly led from the front allowing the team to be themselves with customers, in all, very impressive on the service front.

A short, but needed wait for the mains followed. We ordered two different takes on veal, both served with rosemary potatoes (a touch underdone but not swimming in olive oil, thank goodness), a very good sized chicken dish served on mash potatoes and a seafood risotto. Again, all food was cooked well, served nicely and simply and just the right amount. There was plenty of banter with the restaurant manager to make sure we were happy, time for a pause and then dessert. We had tiramisu, pancakes and panna cotta, again, with appropriate break between the end of the main course before the dessert came. I think we needed the time to soak up that second bottle of wine. Before leaving the restaurant manager came over to offer us a grappa (on the house) and made sure we left with a smile on our faces, but also in need of the cup of coffee that was awaiting us at home!

Did Nuovi Sapori have the best food ever, the most original concept, the most fancy decor? Not at all. The food was just above average, the decor was plain, there was no fancy concept. So why does this place work so well? One really easy answer comes to mind, this restaurant seemed to have one simple philosophy, "what can we do to make our customers happy?" I know I would be happy to return again, even if I was paying the bill this time round!

Sex and Death: What Could Possibly go Wrong?

Y tu mamá también (Alfonso Cuarón, 2001)

Watched: 22nd May

Where: TV

I first saw Y tu mamá también around seven or eight years ago, yet somehow my feelings towards it have remained unchanged. I still feel both sad and uplifted by the ending, the different journeys that life takes and how quickly they come to an end, the fragility of the relationships between the participants of life's journeys. There are a few journeys in Y tu mamá también, and many opposites sitting alongside. At the centre of the film you have rich vs poor, urban vs rural, young vs old and life vs death amongst others. The journeys that our characters take and the relationships they build help break down the barriers between the oppositions but also bring up new ones in their places.

The oppositions in the film begin with the opening sex scenes where young lovers make each other promise their fidelity as our young ladies are about to embark on a trip to Italy, leaving their men behind in Mexico. Like the many vows we see in the film this one proves to be empty. The boys Tenoch (Diego Luna) and Julio (Gael García Bernal) tell Luisa (Maribel Verdú) on their drive along the coast of their "brotherly vows not to be unfaithful and sleep with each other's women" but by the end of the film both admit (though somehow you feel like at least one of them is lying) to having slept with each other's girlfriends, and they both end up sleeping with Luisa too. Jano and Luisa are married, Jano (Juan Carlos Remolina) phones his wife whilst drunk admitting an affair, thus prompting her final journey with the boys and her sexual experiences with them.

The physical journey that our characters take from urban to rural (read also rich to poor) is also central to the relationships in the film, especially when contrasted with the social backgrounds of our characters. Tenoch is wealthy, was born wealthy and will probably die wealthy. Julio is very much middle class and not as wealthy as Tenoch continually reminds him (mostly in jest and also when they fight). Luisa had a tough upbringing in Spain looking after her sick grandmother while her husband is an author and academic who gets invited to a wedding where the president is a guest of honour. Although there are comments in the film about the class struggle it does not judge the characters themselves in terms of their class but we do see some of the consequences of the power the "haves" have over the "have nots". The change in politics the film mentions does not have disastrous consequences for Tenoch's wealthy father, but the building of a hotel whilst creating many jobs takes away the livelihood and family profession of Chuy who is no longer able to fish and take tourists on private boat tours. Progress comes at a price it seems, for some the price is easier to pay than others, but the innocence and simplicity of friendship and family are lost forever.

Another opposition that is set up is birth, this is in the form of a new set of sexual relationships, a new marriage, a trip to a secret beach, trying things for the first time, an escape from death, moving from school to University and the inevitable progression to adult life that follows. This is inevitably followed by death in the final scene of the film. Julio and Tenoch meet again and have coffee together. Both have now grown apart and have long since split up from their girlfriends following their road trip with Luisa. Tenoch tells Julio that Luisa died of cancer shortly after the end of their trip. Luisa wanted to spend the last moments of her life with no regrets, sharing her experiences and regaining a little of the youth she lost caring for her sick grandmother. For Luisa the trip was a chance to be reborn and feel freedom for one last time (or perhaps for the first time). For Tenoch and Julio it was the chance to be adults for the first time and children for the last time. The end of their friendship signified their coming of age. When we see them in the coffee shop they are dressed more smartly, more conservatively, they are not the same people we saw mocking the guests at the wedding party, their freedom and youth seem to have vanished. Their shared memories seem distant and blurry.

I love this film for the innocence of its characters, their fun adventure versus the sullen reality of the factual documentary style voice over narration. I like the childhood innocence and the fragility of young friendships. I understand how everything feels like it will last forever but tomorrow it is gone and the day after that but a distant memory. I feel that sometimes the big things don't matter but it's the little ones that count. Then I realise that these little things are big things after all; a passing remark, calling or not calling, participating or sitting out. Everything adds up, sex and death, the beginning and the end. What could possibly go wrong in between?

I did it! Didn't I?

Heavy Rain (Quantic Dream, 2010)

Who is the origami killer?  That is the quest that Heavy Rain sends you on.  Young boys are being kidnapped and drowned with the same clues left with each body.  Your job is to solve the mystery and save the latest victim in this tragic tale, Sean Mars.  You take control of four characters involved in the story to save Sean.  Depending on the choices you make, different plot points may (or may not) come into play that dictate the final outcome of the game.  Heavy Rain starts out like a bad film noir and builds into something so much more, it is a game filled with emotion and addiction that haunts you for days.

We kick off with Ethan Mars, a bit of a sad sack and thanks to the voice acting he feels like he has a huge gaping void inside him.  Even in the opening segment of the game where he is playing with his sons feels somewhat hollow.  Ethan's life falls into ruin when his son Jason is killed in a car accident after Ethan loses track of him on a family trip to the shops.  Ethan ends up in a coma in his attempt to save Jason.  Months later Ethan is a washed up and desperate man living alone.  He suffers from blackouts and strange dreams which always end up with him holding an origami figure in his hand.  Being the great dad that he is, Ethan loses his other son, Sean during a blackout episode at the park and so begins his search to get his son back.  Ethan's strand of the narrative takes on a serious of trials that are laid out for him by the origami killer to reveal the whereabouts of his son.  For Ethan however, life is not so simple.  He harbours a large amount of guilt over what has happened with his sons, and with his blackouts he starts to believe that he may be the origami killer and the trials he must complete he has created as a way to uncover his split personality and remember where he hid Sean.  Somehow Ethan is just not very likeable, you tend to feel he's a bit of a depressing social outcast who is unable to interact with anyone.   Though depending on how you do with the trials and which outcomes you chose you do begin to warm to him as the story progresses.

Our second protagonist, Scott Shelby a fat, trench coat wearing, hard as nails private eye and former police officer who is investigating the origami killer case privately.  On completion of the game he is the character who you will want to replay the most.  Shelby seems bored with the investigation, he shuns help and seems to genuinely not care about the real killer being found out.  Instead he chases after part animal and bored rich boy Gordy Kramer who he believes is the origami killer.  A classic clichéd detective filled with personality flaws that come to light as the game goes on.  Depending on your path he may suck you into liking him but his strange behaviour is initially hard to explain until you slowly uncover his truth, at this point how you feel about him is the real beauty of the game.  My favourite bit is when he leaves his assistant Lauren to die in the sunken car after Kramer has tried to kill him.  But maybe that says more about me than about the game!

FBI profiler and drug addict Norman Jayden is our third protagonist.  With his magical C.S.I. glasses that he uses to review the crime scene mixed with a sceptical and hilariously violent partner, Blake who is happy to lock up the first person he finds and close the case.  Will Jayden find the origami killer, will he OD on drugs and can he get around Blake and do the job he was hired for?  You can have quite a bit of fun with Jayden, you can be spineless and weak, cold hearted, caring, in fact you have quite a lot of choice as to how you want to play him.  However, make sure you don't take too many drugs if you want to make it to the end alive!

Finally we have Madison Paige, journalist, kind heart, and insomniac.  Or is she just undercover and playing a role to get the inside scoop?  For some reason Madison feels a little shallow and underdeveloped in the two times I've made it through to the end of the game.  You just feel like making her walk around semi naked rather than solving anything in particular.  Perhaps it's because I have not fully explored her character, but it feels like there is something missing with her.  It would be interesting to know what triggered the nightmares and insomnia.  Does she also have a difficult past like Ethan and Shelby?

Heavy Rain is not a game for long summer nights.  It is a game for wet, dark, overcast days at home.  That relentless rain and those endless shades of grey make you want to end it all.  Still, you keep on playing to find that clue and unravel the mystery.  The way the game cross cuts from character to character makes it very hard to put your controller down.  Not to mention that most of the levels are short enough for you to say to yourself "just one more" when really you should have been in bed an hour before.  The game looks amazing, great location set pieces that you want to see over again with lots going on.  What I like most about Heavy Rain is the morality test.  Do you do what you think is right?  Do you do what you think you need to do to complete the game?  How do you react again to the same scenes once you know who the killer really is?  What would have happened if I did this differently?  However hard you try and play in a dispassionate fashion the game sucks you in time and again, testing your mental strength and at times dexterity to beat some of those challenges.  Heavy Rain is not perfect, sometimes the controls feel a little clunky and sometimes you feel forced to behave in a specific fashion when you want to try something else.  To end the review I think I'll retrace my steps and see if I can get away with the killing Sean this time, or perhaps not!

Three Takes on Jazz

Little Dragon, Jose James and Soil & Pimp Sessions (2010)

Heard:  Little Dragon, Jose James, Soil and Pimp Sessions

Where:  Relentless Garage, Jazz Cafe, Relentless garage

When:4th March, 18th March and 6th April

During the last month I've had the fortune to enjoy three great live shows each with their own take on Jazz.  

Let me start with the first and the most unexpectedly good, Sweden's "Little Dragon".  I ended up booking tickets to see them back in March this year and also for Soil & Pimp Sessions when I saw that Jose James was doing a live show in London and thought it would be fun and interesting to see how they worked as a live band.  The show was a lot of fun and the band have an interesting dynamic.  The energy of their little singer with her big voice and personality shine out on stage; running, dancing, jumping etc. she is a stark contrast to her trendy, beardy band mates hiding behind their instruments.  The music itself is well crafted pop but with the underlying jazz influence and lots of electronics that drifts me off in to a hypnotic trance.  Hmm... I really should go and buy their last album now, I want more than just the memories.

On to Jose James a few weeks later, this time at the Jazz Cafe.  The nice thing about the Jazz Cafe is that it's a nice small venue so you can get a great view and nice and close to the action.  So close that the support act was stood right in front of us!  Jose James has a classic sounding southern bluesy voice and has taken a really great band on the road with him.  There was lots of banter between the musicians and I left with a smile on my face.  The whole show was a bit of a ronseal effect though, it did exactly what it said on the tin, not a bad thing, it just it felt a little underwhelming, whereas with Little Dragon and Soil and Pimp shows they were more then just a sum of their parts.  Perhaps this was more down to the fact he seemed to have a very well drilled show in quite a different environment.  If I go to the Jazz Cafe again I might try the upstairs thing and get dinner as well.

Saving the best till last was Soil & Pimp Sessions out of Japan.  What a show!  Big entrance, mad clothes, bigger hair.  They may look like a bunch of wannabe "hip-hop" gangsters but these guys can play with some crazy energy.  The band are made up of trumpeter, double bass player, percussionist, keys, a sax player and a shouty big pimp-a-like!  Starting with their trade mark high energy death jazz and willing us into a frenzy it was tiring just to watch the guys in action, despite the image they are fantastic musicians who play great and upbeat jazz music.  The show was not all one paced hyperactive jazz either, they go a little disco and also a little more loungey when the sax and trumpeter are taking a break. I have been hammering the CD since and I hope very much they come back to London sometime soon for me to catch them again.

There we have it, Electronic Jazz Pop, good old fashioned Jazz and Blues and 21st Century Death Jazz.

Could I Trouble You For A Foot Massage?

Death Proof (Quentin Tarantino, 2007)

Watched: 23rd November 2008
Where: On TV


Sometimes I wish I was 15 again, not often but sometimes. Watching Death Proof was one of those times. Actually pretty much every Tarantino film makes me wish I was 15 again, right from the first time I saw Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994) and just as much so with Death Proof. Death Proof has all the ingredients needed for my 15 year old self: Sexy girls, fast cars and faster crashes, great conversation and the ability to bring out the trainspotter in me to be the first to have seen all the films Tarantino quotes. The other joy of being 15 again would be just to re-write the film for my blog. Yes, the joys of being 15 again, writing a review would have been fun, but life is not quite that simple if you want to try and understand what is happening, not just repeat what you see.

I find it so easy to become lost in the world created by a film, sometimes this makes bad films interesting and for me makes Bond films the greatest movies ever made. Thank goodness I've never started watching Star Trek... Death Proof and in particular all of Tarnatino's movies get me completely lost when I try and understand what world they live in. Tarantino's world is spun together with quotations from the history of trash cinema, the people that live in his world are usually amalgamations of the characters from these movies. However, sometimes we forget that the real world is all around them. Tarantino blurs this distinction when we have the things that make us think they are quotes from the distant past, or products from the real world but are in fact Tarantino's own concerns, like the Big Kahuna Burger and Red Apple Cigarettes, to name just two. When someone in Tarantino's world tries to enter the real world it is not a pretty sight, The Bride (Uma Thurman) trying to look after her daughter in the opening scenes of Kill Bill (Tarantino, 2003/2004) whilst ending up in a big fight.




Death Proof is a film spoofing/paying homage to the 1970s Grindhouse movies, which I can't say I have ever really watched. Though with a little help they can be explained:

"What is a grindhouse movie? Here's my best definition: it's a movie that makes
you want to run, not walk, to the nearest shower, but leaves you unable to
decide whether the shower should be hot or cold" - Tim Lucas - Sight and Sound - June 2007

Probably the best thing about Death Proof is how simple it all seemed after watching it. Just like that film for a 15 years old. However, the problem with Death Proof is that it cannot exist in isolation. It forms part of the Tarantinoverse which you could spends years researching, ticking off your trainspotter list of quotes, (self) references etc. As usual with Tarantino in doing this alone you are missing the point. The films work in their contrasts, conflicts and copies, not only their references and stories.

"Grindhouse audiences are seldom sated by blood and nudity alone; they also
want to see ageing actors crawling on their stomachs across the
broken-glass-strewn floors of scripts they would have snubbed in their
heyday"
Tim Lucas - Sight and Sound - June 2007

Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) is a relic, just like those before him, think pretty much the whole cast in Pulp Fiction Vince Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) are killed on contemplating a way out of their Tarrantinoverse, Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), the boxer is trying to settle down with his partner. Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is trying to give up a life of drug smuggling. In Death Proof it is no different. In Warrens bar, the outsiders Dov and Omar mock Mike, "Dude fucking cut himself falling out of his time machine."

Stuntman Mike is trying to interfere in the world of women, the world as it is, outside the Tarantinoverse. Mike's only way to get a thrill and stay alive is to run them down in his death proof car, it keeps him in the world. Outside of the car Mike is the weak, vulnerable nobody than those outside the Tarantinoverse see him to be. The two parts of Death proof show this. The first part is within Mike's world, Warren's bar (where Tarantino pours the drinks and makes the rules) the girls, despite their initial attitude seem based in Mike's time, they need help, Pam (Rose McGowan) asks for a ride home and Warren sets her up with Stuntman Mike who eventually kills all the girls with his death proof car. Mike is left with minor injuries and gets away with the crime. Part one is the grindhouse. In part two, the girls are out there again: the lips, the legs, the feet. They seem so close to Mike, as if they are offering themselves to him.

Part two of Death Proof is in the real world, unfortunately for Mike the women hold the power. This is not Mike's world anymore. Where's Warren when you need him. When Mike enters his car he is death proof. In the second segment of the film, Zoe Bell, the stunt woman attacks Mike in his death proof car, she can ride the car strapped to its outside. The women can drive like men, the women can fight like me, they can do Mike's job better than him. Once Mike's out of the car he's a dead man, no longer death proof, no longer in control, stuck and startled in the real world. A creature of his time leaves death by the women his only option. Mike enters the real world in 2007 as a dead man. The reality of the situation is compounded by the fact that the stuntwoman Zoe Bell, who is playing herself in Death Proof, was Uma Thurman's stunt double in Kill Bill, reality has truly caught up with Mike, this time it's real. One day time catches up with you, you're not 15 anymore, not a movie star, this is the real world, get out of the movies!

How Many More Mistakes?

Film: Quantum of Solace (Marc Forster, 2008)

Watched: October 31st 2008

Where: Gaumont Parnasse, Paris

The James Bond films have been changing of late and I don't mean in personnel from Brosnan to Craig. Failure, mistakes and mistrust are at their heart. Not in the Cold War sense, but amongst the so called allies. The villain vs Bond is not the centre stage, instead it is M's decision making. In The World is Not Enough (1999, Michael Apted), it is M that falls for Elektra King's (Sophie Marceau) plan and places herself, the mission and the world in jeopardy. In Die Another Day (2002, Lee Tamahori), it is her that hires Miranda Frost (Rosamund Pike) to check on Bond when she is working for the bad guys. Not one to learn from these mistakes she is the one who hires Vespa (Eva Green) to look after Bond despite Vespa being blackmailed in Casino Royale (2006, Martin Campbell). In Quantum of Solace it is her personal body guard that is found to be a member of the secret criminal organisation, Quantum. M's peers and allies are involved with Quantum and at times she mistrusts those who are her true allies. Whilst I remember the odd run in between Bernard Lee's and Robert Brown's M and Bond, the old Ms never called it wrong. Maybe those were different times and now one is allowed to make a mistake, or three. Like we have a Bond for our times perhaps we also have an M for our times to go with him.

The world of Bond is more ordinary than ever before. The villains blend in to their surroundings, they are more like eccentric CEOs and entrepreneurs than Assassins, and utopian dreamers. They are the villains of the cinema of Bush era politics. They are simple blackmailers and bomb makers rather than entertaining side stories. Perhaps this is because the Bond films have always been a slightly late to market mirror on the world. This is why the last two Bond films closely resemble those of Timothy Dalton played out at the end of the economic boom and the start of recession. The '80s ethos, music and fashion and politics of that time of Dalton's Bond very much mirrors the world today. Like Dalton, Craig's Bond is simple, pared down and blunt. Unlike Dalton, Craig's version of Bond is on drink, drugs; a step away from rehab and breakdown, more so than in Licence to Kill (1989, John Glen). I suppose this must be par for the course for secret agents these days, but then that's Bond, he is always the man of our times, it's what keeps him going and us interested in his stories.

Quantum is also the first Bond that is officially a sequel to the previous Bond, as usual James Bond is late to market. Sadly it seemed that few people were prepared to pair up Casino Royale with Quantum so we could watch it as the single four hour bond film that it really is. In the end we ended up with one slightly too long Bond and one slightly too short Bond. There is also something enjoyably Kitanoesque about Craig's Bond. The way he intentionally, bluntly and silently does the ridiculous with every intent to die and take everyone with him. However, unlike Kitano who always dies in a pool of blood, a hail of bullets, explosions or whatever else, Bond being Bond walks away.

Whilst Quantum is nothing new it has some great touches in the way Bond attempts to expose the bad guys. In particular the scene when he intercepts their communications at the opera causing them all to expose themselves as victims of his camera phone. This is a great Bond moment, a huge set piece coupled with a great bit of product placement. Like wise Bond getting smashed on the plane, drink after drink. No terrorists, no bad guys, no jumping out at 40,000 feet, this is our James Bond.

My favourite thing about Quantum is that whilst the story concludes all to nicely where it started at the beginning of Casino Royal, you still feel that the bigger picture is left unresolved and just like the classic Cold War Bonds the enemy is ever present. However, this time that enemy is the next big shot CEO bidding for government contracts, he is advisor to the PM, an American Diplomat for peace, a leading political figure in a friendly government. The enemy is there but so far he has yet to play his full hand, something S.P.E.C.T.R.E. was not the greatest at. My final feeling is that the fate of M is our fate as a viewer. When will there be a consequence for her actions and what will this mean?

W. - The Man Maketh the Movie

Film: W. (Oliver Stone, 2008)

Watched: October 30th 2008

Where: Gaumont Parnasse, Paris

I did not think I'd have much to say about W, but I've ended up proving myself wrong. My initial impression of W. was that I was not sure why it was made when it was, or what it was supposed to say but maybe now I'm beginning to understand. The most controversial thing in W. is George Bush (Josh Brolin) the man, you actually begin to like him, feel for him and put yourself in his shoes... Perhaps it's because one expects something stronger and more controversial from an Oliver Stone picture, about telling a story otherwise dismissed. Not only that but even his technique (mixing real footage in with his story - or "truth" in with the "fiction") looks and feels a little unremarkable these days. Maybe it has been this way for a while and I've just not watched as much Oliver Stone as I have thought. However, one thing that is not missing in W. is that it feels truly American, as least as true as it can feel to someone from outside that society. W. feels like an American film, telling an American story about an American family that affects America.

W. looks at the three families that George W. Bush belongs too, his blood relations, the church and his political advisers. Whilst perhaps it is his father George Bush Sr (James Cromwell) and his blood relations that steals more scenes than anyone from the families the two remaining ones are equally important in the effect they have on Dubya's life. Bush is not as stupid as he is often shown to be, but he is not from the same stock as his father and this is something we and he are reminded of throughout the film. Bush feels like a failure in his Father's eyes, in his youth being bailed out of prison, helped out of the airforce and given opportunity after opportunity, all of which he spurned. Life for Bush changes a little with marriage, he becomes more settled, his wife, Laura (Elizabeth Banks) is a good influence on him and he makes more moves to find his place in the world. Bush also watches his father's continuous rise in the family business (politics) - helping out as campaign manager due to brother Jeb's (Jason Ritter) unavailability, as his father makes it all the way to president. Bush then watches Jeb enter the family business of politics and with it the accolades he gets from his father. Dubya then finds another family, that of the church. He becomes a born again, beats his battle with alcohol and decides it is his destiny to enter the family business too, much to the dislike of his father, who wants to focus on his other son, Jeb's career. This does not stop Bush Jr and he runs for Governor of Texas whilst Jeb runs for Governor of Florida. Bush Jr does himself no favours with his father again when he decides to run for president after an instruction from God. The family (Bush Sr) were all expecting Jeb to run for President, not George. They do not believe he will win. The rest there as they say is history.

The third family of Bush is the one we know all too well, his advisers. The frightening gollumesque Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) or Vice as he is called by Bush. His lovely spin doctor with him from day one of his political career who grows increasingly evil as his power increases. Not forgetting cameos from Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton) and poor old Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright). The plotting of W and its skips in time work really well as we see how Powell and Cheney's relationship changes from the first Gulf War to the second where we see both of their true faces.

Perhaps W. is controversial after all, we are all used to seeing the public George Bush, his army of advisers, the rhetoric, the stumbles and the Iraq war. I think Oliver Stone felt there was more to say than just making another Michael Moore style inquisition into Bush and his cronies (Iraq, Oil, war on terror, etc). What we did see that was new is how much Bush wanted to be his own man, to make up for his past and to do something good, to be a man of the people. We also see his frustration at his failure of not being himself as President, taking advice and guidance from those with different ambitions to his own. W is a little bit of a frustrating film, there are great performances all round (especially from Brolin and Dreyfuss), a familiar story with a few new twists and turns outside of the established Bush story. However, there is something unsatisfying about W, why was it made now and for what purpose? Maybe we are missing the point and that this story is for another film. Somehow W. feels like There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007), what with the oil, and family difficulties, certainly some fun could be had reading one as an allegory of the other. It would have been fun to watch Bush Sr. beat his son to death when he decided to run for President though! Perhaps we are disappointed because there is no conspiracy about George W. Bush, perhaps that is the missing story of controversy and conspiracy from Oliver Stone.