The Freakpit Oscar Diary

I finished my festival outings (Glasgow and Dublin) last night with a couple of hours to spare before Oscar time. The festival stuff will be posted at a later date - in the meantime, I thought I'd post my Oscar thoughts. Being the organised, and ever so slightly geeky, person that I am, I scribbled some stuff down as I went along so, rather than try to remember everything the next morning, here's my special Oscar diary. Well, when I say "the next morning" that's obviously not quite right since it would really be the same morning, due to the time difference.

Anyway, I've slept it off and here it is. I'm sure you'll agree that this is far more exciting that watching the highlights on TV. So here's how it all unfolded.

23:40 I'm watching Sky One's pre-ceremony coverage. It's the usual kind of stuff, including getting very excited about British nominations despite the fact that most of them will win nothing. I've just started on a very strong cup of coffee (Gold Blend if you're interested) which, combined with the couple that I've already had at the Glasgow Film Festival tonight, should be enough to keep me awake until 5am or whenever the show finishes. Penelope Cruz looks great, Cameron Diaz doesn't. Jennifer Lopez looks ridiculous. Argh, the main event hasn't even started and I'm already commenting on the ladies' dresses.

23:49 Why do women always pose on the red carpet in that odd looking-back-over-the-shoulder pose? Why is the back of their dress more important? Why do they not just get photographed from the front? What is it with that pose? I don't get it, and it annoys me. And another thing, I don't care who designed the dresses. Stop talking about them, please.

23:51 Sky's coverage at the moment involves some lassie by the name of Fearne Cotton interviewing people. Who is she? I'm informed that she's some kind of TV celebrity but I have no idea who she is (possibly because I don't watch TV much, I guess). She's got weird eyes that look like they're staring at you and beyond you simultaneously, and I think she might be possessed by a devil. She has that kind of face, a bit like Harry Secombe used to always look like Satan. Seriously, check out any of his LPs from the 70s - you'll find them in any charity shop.

00:16 I've just seen Celine Dion. Bile is rising. Anger building.

00:19 Jessica Biel's nice enough but that pink outfit - what's that all about? Cate Blanchett's hair makes me think of a female Max Headroom. Fearne keeps telling everyone that Sky is the only channel broadcasting this back to the UK. That's odd, because a few digital channels up, E! is also showing. As far as I'm aware, I'm in the UK.

00:24 Helen Mirren is being interviewed but all I can think of is that the woman standing behind her has a massive head.

00:30 We've now switched to the main coverage on Sky Movies and MY GOD, it's presented by Claudia bloody Winkleman. What did I do to deserve that? And what's with that fringe, and that eye shadow? I can't actually tell where her eyes are. I preferred it when we got the US coverage broadcast to us for the half hour before the show, with that guy who's name I can't remember. Having watched it so many times (this is the 12th consecutive year I've stayed up until the wee hours of the morning watching the show) he was like an old friend.

00:58 One of the studio guests is some woman who I think is a critic for a newspaper. Her hair entirely covers one eye. I don't care how fashionable it might be, hairstyles should never take priority over depth perception.

01:04 Joy! It turns out the show starts at 1:30, not 1:00 as I thought, so we've now got the US coverage. Chris Connelly is the name of the guy that I couldn't remember.

01:07 I'm no fashion guru, but it's a big thumbs down to Nicole Kidman, Naomi Watts and Jennifer Hudson, who looks like she's just stepped off a spaceship in a 1950s B-movie. Beyonce on the other hand. Aye. Damn it, I'm talking about dresses again.

01:27 God, I forgot Ellen was hosting this year. I predict a rather unfunny show.

01:30 The show begins!

01:46 PAN'S LABYRINTH wins the first award of the night, for Art Direction. I'd have preferred THE PRESTIGE, just so that my favourite movie of last year got an Oscar, but on the plus side I did have a bet on PAN in this category (yes, I've got money on every category - it's more fun). So as far as gambling goes, I've got a 100% record so far. I'll have that luxury yacht in no time.

01:58 PAN'S LABYRINTH wins for make-up. Great film and I'm happy for it again. I guess I shouldn't have put my money on APOCALYPTO.

02:01 THE DANISH POET wins animated short. Yeah, I've no idea either.

02:04 Another bet comes in, as WEST BANK STORY wins for live short. Lucky guess for me there.

02:13 There's a choir performing sound effects. Weird. They'd be great to have around when you're tripping on LSD though. I have never done drugs, by the way.

02:16 Sound editing for LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, followed a couple of minutes later by sound mixing for DREAMGIRLS. There goes my BLOOD DIAMOND prediction.

02:23 Mmmmmmm, Rachel Weisz. Alan Arkin makes a late run to scoop the award for supporting actor. My gambling kitty just got a bit healthier!

02:26 I always get concerned when interpretive dancing is involved in the Oscars. Actually, they're not too bad.

02:33 First of the song nominations is performed. I like James Taylor but this is bland. When was the last time a really good song was nominated for an Oscar?

02:37 Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio are giving a speech about the environment and how the Oscars have gone green. Enough of this twaddle, where's the excitement? I want a streaker!

02:44 HAPPY FEET wins the best animated movie. Aussie director George Miller comes up to collect it. I like to think that this is the academy honouring him for the Oscars it should have given him for directing MAD MAX, MAD MAX 2 and BABE: PIG IN THE CITY. He's wearing a scarf. That was unexpected.

02:53 Adapted screenplay goes to THE DEPARTED. Is it going to be Scorsese's night?

03:03 Okay, so I've not seen all the films nominated, including the winner, MARIE ANTOINETTE, but the costume design award should have gone to CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER. I was at its UK premiere a few hours ago. It's great. Why do costume designers always wear the worst outfits? I guess this shows why surgeons don't operate on themselves.

03:14 Paltrow's dress is minging. PAN'S LABYRINTH wins for cinematography - I wanted THE PRESTIGE to win, but fair enough, PAN is a great film and I'm happy for it.

03:17 Time to crack open the sandwiches. Yes, I made them earlier, that's how prepared I am. They're cheese and ham. The show is now at the halfway mark.

03:22 Disney's PIRATES movie wins for visual effects. Being the comic geek that I am, I wanted SUPERMAN RETURNS to get this one. Bah.

03:31 Okay, I've not seen THE LIVES OF OTHERS, but PAN'S LABYRINTH has been outrageously robbed of the foreign language Oscar. Damn you, Hollywood. I kind of expected this was going to happen but it still annoys me.

03:35 Hudson wins supporting actress. Not much of a surprise there. Not the best performance of the five though.

03:39 Mono-vision critic woman has returned. I wish Claudia Winkleman would just shut up. Fed up of her already. Coffee seems to have done the trick - I haven't had to crack open the emergency can of Red Bull.

03:43 Best documentary short goes to BLOOD OF something DISTRICT. Sorry, I missed the name. It was something Chinese sounding. I'm not that bothered to be honest, my more immediate concern is that I have hiccups.

03:49 AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH unsurprisingly wins the documentary category. Probably shouldn't have bet on MY COUNTRY, MY COUNTRY.

03:52 Clint Eastwood, appropriately enough, introduces Morricone tribute and lifetime achievement award. Messes it up. Morricone looks unphased by the whole thing from his seat in the balcony.

03:56 The moment I've been dreading. Following a short tribute, Celine Dion steps onto the stage. If you've read my previous rant about this then you'll not be surprised to learn that I've just turned the sound off.

03:58 Some unpleasant gurning by the ear-shredding music-murderer suggests it might be finished. I turn the sound back on. Thankfully, it's over.

04:00 Morricone gives emotional speech in Italian, Clint Eastwood interprets. LEGEND.

04:08 PAN'S LABYRINTH robbed of best score award by BABEL.

04:14 The screenplay award goes to LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE. It's good, but I really wanted PAN'S LABYRINTH to win that one. Not just because I bet on it either.

04:18 Claudia Winkleman loves the sound of her own voice. I'm beginning to wonder why they even bothered with studio guests. God, I wish she'd just shut up. Someone slap her.

04:22 The three nominated songs from DREAMGIRLS are performed. I'm going to sound like an old man, but is modern pop music all just screeching and shouting? Whatever happened to people singing a simple melody?

04:29 None of these three win. The award goes to some dull dirge from AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Once again, I really have to point out just how dull Oscar-nominated songs are becoming.

04:40 A montage about what America is, as viewed through its movies. Why not just show a clip from TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE? I'd have taken it just as seriously.

04:43 THE DEPARTED wins for editing. Thelma Schoonmaker wins it. She appeared at the Edinburgh Film Festival a couple of years ago. Nice.

04:47 The annual montage of people who have passed away in the last year. I'm surprised, but pleasantly so, that they choose to remember Richard Fleisher with a picture from SOYLENT GREEN.

04:55 Helen Mirren wins for THE QUEEN. Least surprising win in the history of the Oscars. I was just thinking that this must be one of the few films in which she doesn't get her kit off. Possibly just as well, as it would make you think horrible thoughts at 3pm on Christmas Day. Sorry for mentioning this horrific image. I wish I hadn't now.

04:58 In between slapping Winkleman senseless, I'd also like to explain to her that "properly" is not an adjective and should not be used as one. It's really getting on my nerves now.

05:05 Not surprisingly, Whitaker wins Best Actor. Actually why do we always refer to it as "Best Actor", when really it's about "Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role" or something like that? Why don't we call it the "Best Performance" Oscar if we're going to abbreviate it like that? One performance doesn't make you the best. Oh no, we're getting the standard "it's possible for a kid from [insert average American town] to follow his dream" etc. We've known for ages that he'd win; he could've prepared something more original. Should've given the award to Peter O'Toole anyway.

05:08 Scorsese wins Best Director. No surprise at all, since they got Lucas, Spielberg and Coppola to present it. And they expect us to believe that nobody knew he was going to win? Get a grip.

05:10 My bets have mostly missed the mark. I really need LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE or THE DEPARTED to win Best Film in order to break even.

05:15 Best Film goes to the only nomination I've not seen - THE DEPARTED.

05:23 The show's over and, since I can't stomach any more of Winkleman's incessant pish, I'm off to bed.

I guess since it's the Oscars I should sign off with an Oscar-style ending.

I'd like to thank everyone in the Academy for making this possible and I'd like to thank the geographical differences between the UK and the US for ensuring I have to stay up until 5am every year to watch the show. I'd like to thank Nescafe for ensuring that I stayed awake and Tesco for supplying the ingredients for my sandwiches. Finally, I'd like to thank THE DEPARTED, PAN'S LABYRINTH, WEST BANK STORY, HAPPY FEET and LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE for ensuring that my gambling ended with an epic profit of £12.14. Thank you and good night.

Four more for Oscar

Oscar season continues with three more nominated films and one that just likes to poke fun at it all.

The latter, Christopher Guest's FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, is a comedy that focuses on the production of a small film about a Jewish family holiday that suddenly finds itself talked up as an Oscar candidate following a blurb on an internet message board. Friendships and the movie are plunged into turmoil as the Oscar buzz surrounding it threatens to tear everyone apart.

Guest returns with all the usual gang for this film and spins out his tale in much the usual fashion. The documentary format perfected by Guest and friends (last seen in the excellent folk music mockumentary A MIGHTY WIND) is toned down slightly but still used; it's unfortunate, as the documentary style moments (featuring Fred Willard and Jane Lynch especially) are often the funniest.

The problem is simply that it feels more half-hearted than usual. Well, I say that as if I've seen all the other films these folks have worked on but in truth I've only seen A MIGHTY WIND. But anyway, that film worked because it was hilarious while still demonstrating attention to detail and a genuine affection for the subject matter. Here, however, there simply aren't enough funny jokes and the fun being poked at the Oscar hype simply feels cliched and insincere.

NOTES ON A SCANDAL has picked up acting nominations for both Judi Dench (lead) and Cate Blanchett (support), although it's debatable who's supporting whom. The film's about a young art teacher (Blanchett) who embarks on an ill-advised affair with a fifteen-year-old student and falls foul of the only person who discovers her secret - her friend, the history teacher Barbara (Dench). Unfortunately it turns out she's not so friendly, and in fact is more of a psycho lesbian. Oops.

Blanchett and Dench are both superb - Blanchett in what is a rather controversial role (particularly if you're a reader of the Daily Mail or some other such tabloid rag) and Dench as an old battleaxe-turned-nutcase. It's all too common for a thriller to forget the thrills but there are no worries in this case. The story is a solid effort, livened up by the two central performances and a typically reliable modern classical score by Philip Glass, which gives the whole film a relentless and sinister tone throughout. I wish I'd had a teacher like that when I was fifteen though.

DREAMGIRLS is a musical film based on the, er, musical which follows the fortunes of a black girl group named the Dreams as they emerge from a local talent contest to dominate the pop charts and turn a homemade enterprise into the giant-killing Rainbow Records. For Rainbow, read Motown; for the Dreams, read the Supremes. While a lot of the characters seem to be amalgams of others (the soul star played by Eddie Murphy seems to possess elements of Marvin Gaye and James Brown, while looking not unlike Wilson Pickett), it's fair to say that the main story arc involving Beyonce Knowles and newcomer Jennifer Hudson would appear to be based mainly on the story of Diana Ross and Florence Ballard.

It's not a bad film, in fact it's very good - it's just not outstanding, and it isn't particularly new. It covers ground very similar to previous Oscar contenders RAY and WALK THE LINE, the main difference being that DREAMGIRLS is more like a proper musical, by which I mean people just randomly start singing in no particular melody. There seemed to be some surprise when it didn't receive a Best Film nomination, but having now watched it I can't say it deserved one. It deserves a couple of hours of your time, but not anything more.

The area where it did pick up nominations though, and where it would seem to have a good chance, are in the supporting categories of the acting gongs. Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson both walked away with Golden Globes (Hudson also just adding a BAFTA to her tally at the weekend) and are odds on favourites with the bookies to lift the Oscars too.

I can't say that I'd pick either of them to be honest. Murphy is good but not really playing much against type. His character is a tragic one to be sure, but aside from toning down his comedic talents a notch, there's not much else to suggest he's worthy of an Oscar for it, and in fact I actually thought he didn't look all that comfortable with the more musical aspects of the production.

Hudson is much better although I'm still going to be cynical and suggest she's being recognised more for having terrific vocal talent than for outstanding acting. Still, she does a very good job and I'd expect her to win - so please, disregard my ludicrous previous prediction in the Supporting Actress category. Murphy on the other hand I'm not sure about - he's still the favourite but could well be pipped by Alan Arkin at the last moment.

Finally, I managed to catch THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS before it disappeared from our screens. Yes, that is how they spell it but trust me; it makes sense once you see the film.

This one's about a man (Will Smith) who struggles to make any money, gets kicked out his house and has his wife (a thankfully brief appearance by an overacting Thandie Newton) desert him, leaving him struggling to make ends meet while looking after his young son (played by Jaden Smith, the star's son).

It's based on a true story, which always gives a film that extra gravitas, but like all such cases I'd ask how much of it. Cynicism aside, it's a really satisfying feel-good heart warmer. You do ache for Smith and the lengths he goes to for his son and in his efforts to make it into a job as a stockbroker (despite being homeless and, relative to the other candidates, not particularly well educated) as everything continues to go wrong, one thing after the other. Think of it as a modern day (well, it's set in the 80s, so it's just about modern) take on IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Thankfully, I didn't cry at the end like I always do when watching IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, as that would have been embarrassing when the cinema lights came up.

Before I saw the film, I was extremely cynical about both the story and the thought of Smith in the role and only went to see it because I try to see as many Oscar contenders as I can (Smith has an acting nomination for it). However, after seeing it, I can safely say that Smith is actually great in it and while I don't think he's got a snowball's chance of actually winning it I certainly wouldn't mind if he did. It's a good old-fashioned slice of sentimentality that people hardly make any more, and Smith is at the very core of it.

Please note however that this outburst of praise for the quality of Smith's acting in a serious movie does not negate my previous rant about his involvement in the remake of I AM LEGEND, which I still anticipate being an utter abomination. I hope I'm proved wrong but I can't see it happening.

Sorry, I just wanted to leave you with a moan just in case you thought I was going soft.

I am currently beginning another festival frenzy (Glasgow and Dublin) so updates are likely to be rare over the next week or so - but I'll be back in time for the Oscars on Sunday night though!

Something's rotten in the state of Texas

Recently - well, okay, quite some time ago now that I think I about it - I picked up a German DVD of the spaghetti western QUELLA SPORCA STORIA NEL WEST. I've no idea why the Germans love their spaghetti westerns so much, but they must do because they release a hell of a lot more there than they do here in the UK.

I've mentioned before that spaghetti western storylines only ever fall into one of three categories - they're about greed, revenge or both. This one concerns both. There's something a little more interesting than usual about this particular storyline though.

The hero of the film (Andrea Giordana) returns home one day after a lengthy period of absence to discover that his dad is dead and his mother has married his uncle. If that sounds a little familiar, you should also know that the hero's name is Hamilton; his girlfriend ends up dead in a river; he lives on a ranch named Ellsinore; and yes, at one point, he does end up having a chat with a gravedigger. And did I mention that the film was released under the title JOHNNY HAMLET?

Yes, that's right, in case you'd forgotten when I mentioned it previously; it's the story of old Bill Shakespeare's Hamlet, but as a spaghetti western. Admit it, you're sold already.

The idea for the movie came from Sergio Corbucci, possibly the only director to rival Leone for the impact he had on Italian westerns, having directed the classics DJANGO, THE GREAT SILENCE, COMPANEROS and THE HELLBENDERS (among others). However, while there are some Corbucci-style touches (a nasty injury at the end of the film reflects the mean-spirited flavour of most of Corbucci's efforts), the film was directed by another legend of cult Italian cinema, Enzo Castellari.

While there were a lot of hacks specialising in genre cinema in Italy in the 60s and 70s, Castellari was not one of them. Despite often working with limited budgets, his passion and talent for visuals always elevated his efforts, whether he was working in westerns, crime thrillers or even my beloved post-apocalyptic MAD MAX rip-offs. JOHNNY HAMLET is no different, and serves Castellari with plenty of opportunity to make his mark on the story.

The film's lighting, sets, location work and cinematography are all first rate, and one of Castellari's most striking scenes sees a swirling camera twist its way around our hero as he delivers a Shakespeare-style soliloquy in an underground graveyard. Touches like this, combined with Castellari's brilliance at squeezing impressive action set pieces out of minimal budgets make JOHNNY HAMLET a film to remember.

The idea of remaking classic works as spaghetti westerns wasn't exclusive to this production - Leone's A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS was a shameless rip-off of Kurosawa's YOJIMBO, the story of Carmen supplied the inspiration for MAN, PRIDE AND VENGEANCE and, in one of the oddest ideas, the assassination of JFK was retold as a western in THE PRICE OF POWER. JOHNNY HAMLET remains one of the finest examples though, and one of the most faithful to its source. And, just in case you missed it, there's a "subtle" nod to the source material when a travelling band of actors turn up in town performing Hamlet.

The only aspect of the story where this film steers slightly away from the original play is with the finale. The whole "the play is the thing" idea is brushed aside, at least literally, and instead the bad guy is dispatched in a more traditional way - the good old-fashioned shoot-out.

On closer inspection however, it's possibly not as far from Shakespeare's vision as it might appear. As Johnny lures his uncle to his fate using a trail of gold dust, the villain is undone by greed in much the same way as Hamlet's uncle was undone by his own guilt. I hope I've not spoiled the ending for you - I'm assuming most of you were probably forced to read the play at school anyway. But heck, I bet you never surfed into the Freakpit today expecting me to be talking about Shakespeare though, did you?

Sure, the purists might argue that this isn't faithful to Hamlet or that it's a bastardisation of the great bard's work, or something like that. Nonsense. The only reason Hamlet didn't play out like this is because William Shakespeare (overrated by the way) was unfortunately born too early to have seen a spaghetti western.

If he had seen them, I'm sure Bill would admit that having a couple of sweaty men staring at each other sternly then shooting it out to the death is a far better ending than some nonsense about poisoning each other. JOHNNY HAMLET is Shakespeare as I'm sure the bard intended it to be seen!

Oscar gets it wrong again

How could Hollywood get it so wrong? It was all going so well. Sorry, let me start at the beginning...

I've mentioned on here before just how delighted I am that the Academy will be honouring Ennio Morricone at this year's Oscars with a lifetime achievement award. There are few people, if any, who deserve this award more than Morricone. The man is simply the greatest living composer of film music - in fact, to hell with it; I would say he's the greatest composer of film music in the history of movies. I know that's going to upset fans of Steiner, Waxman, Williams, Goldsmith, Herrman, etc. but in my humble opinion it's the truth.

So now imagine the evening goes something like this...

A member of the Academy walks on stage and starts enthusing about Morricone's contributions to film music - his partnerships with Sergio Leone, his five Oscar nominations, etc. - then invites Morricone to collect his award. As Morricone approaches, the presenter insults his family, punches him in the face, knocks him to the ground, stamps on his head, urinates all over him, then steals his wallet and runs away.

Sounds crazy, but if the rumours are true that's exactly how much respect they have for the man and his music.

You see, there's an awful rumour circulating (which has now been mentioned on various major entertainment news sites) that in order to "honour" him or "pay tribute" or something like that, someone has taken one of Morricone's themes from Leone's gangster classic ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA... and written lyrics for it.

Sounds awful already, doesn't it? But sadly, there's more. Who have they apparently got lined up to sing it? Celine Dion.

Yes, that's right, Celine Dion. The woman who is most famous in the movie world for subjecting us all to that sickening mush that made you wish the Titanic had sunk an awful lot sooner and taken her with it. My heart will go on, she sang - just as the pain was to go on for the rest of us, for those of us who with even the slightest hint of respect for music. And she's going to be at the Oscars, hopefully dressed better than that lesbian gangster white tuxedo number she modelled on a previous Oscar night, warbling a load of tosh over the top of a classic piece of music.

What's the story there? Why in the wide, wide world of entertainment did someone think that a woman who resembles a chicken and causes ears to bleed as soon as she opens her mouth would actually be the perfect person for this tribute? And why did they even feel the need to soil Morricone's music in this way to start with?

Paying tribute to the greatness of his music is one thing, but how exactly does one pay tribute by bastardising it and making it sound considerably worse? Do the show organisers not think that people will sit still long enough for music if it doesn't have some wailing banshee shouting pish over the top of it? I've sat through three of Morricone's concerts and loved them, so I think the Oscar audience ought to be able to manage a few minutes of reverent silence.

I genuinely thought that recognising Morricone with a lifetime achievement award showed some real progression from the Academy, and I already expected it to be the highlight of all the shows I've watched (and I believe this will be the 12th consecutive year I've stayed up until the wee hours of the morning watching the show). Now it seems that it will be accompanied by the unrivalled low point. Looks like I can forget about James Cameron's embarrassing TITANIC acceptance speech, or Halle Berry forming a puddle on the floor as she accepted her Best Actress award - this year's Oscars are going to plumb new depths of cringe-worthy horror.

As you might know, I like to have a few bets on the Oscar race just to make it that much more exciting. Tonight I cast my eye over the Best Actress category and noticed that Helen Mirren is so far ahead that she's an astounding 1:33 to win. I think these are probably the same odds I'd give you on me swearing loudly during the Morricone tribute while suppressing the urge to vomit.

Missed out on the Oscars but...

I wasn't entirely sure what to think when I heard that Emilio Estevez of all people was writing and directing a film about Bobby Kennedy. I was even less sure about it when I heard what it was called. I realise that this is meaningless to those of you not familiar with Scottish colloquialisms but try going up to someone in Scotland and telling them you want to see BOBBY. Trust me, it might not be a problem in American cinemas but I struggled to keep a straight face.

Sorry, back to the movie.

When it ended up receiving some decent plaudits and some Golden Globe nominations I decided I should probably see it. BOBBY however is not so much about Bobby but his effect on people. The film follows the lives of 22 people who lived or worked in the Ambassador Hotel in the day leading up to his assassination at the hands of Sirhan Sirhan and sets out to show how, in some small or not so small way, Kennedy touched each of these lives.

What transpires is a noble effort but far from perfect. There's no doubting that it's one of the most recognisable ensemble casts seen in a long time, but in a story where each character arc strives for importance, none of actors stand out. When I think of Estevez, I think of a guy who was pretty famous, but no megastar, in the late 80s and early 90s but has faded from the public eye - it's probably appropriate then that the cast is assembled from faces who are well known but either never quite made the A-list or else who have since faded.

Harry Belafonte, Anthony Hopkins, Emilio Estevez (looking more like his dad every time I see him), Demi Moore, Laurence Fishbourne, Sharon Stone, William H. Macy, Joshua Jackson, Lindsay Lohan, Elijah Wood, Ashton Kutcher, Christian Slater, Heather Graham, Helen Hunt, Martin Sheen... that's just the ones I can remember. You can't say it's not a recognisable cast, that's for sure. As stated above though, none of the actors stand out and that's probably because none of the characters stand out. There are too many stories to fit in, so each one is given very little time to develop or to generate much sympathy. A three-hour film or a TV miniseries might have managed, but Estevez reaches too far for his film.

The other problem is that there are a few characters who don't really seem to be affected by the whole thing and are largely redundant. The arc involving Demi Moore and Emilio Estevez for example does not tie in with Kennedy or his story and could easily have been cut to make way for more of someone more worthy.

None of this is to say that any of the actors are bad - actually they're all pretty good, or least as good as you have come to expect them to be. Unfortunately for them, they're short-changed by the script; and unfortunately for Estevez this short-changes the entire film, making it a glorious and heroic failure more than anything else.

If I had to point to the parts of the film that work, I'd say that the opening scenes, showing what a turbulent period of history this was, and the emotionally charged finale stand out way above the rest of the movie (though I couldn't help feel a little uncomfortable at the blurring of Estevez's fiction and the real life events during the chaotic scenes following the shooting).

As with any political movie, your enjoyment may well hinge on your political leanings, so ask yourself this. Was Robert Kennedy the great "what if"; was he about to become one of the greatest presidents in the history of the USA? Or was he a ruthless political opportunist who just knew how to say the right things? Your answer to this will probably give a fair indication of how you'll feel about this film because, make no mistake about it, this is more hero worship than documentary.

I couldn't help thinking of one famous quote uttered by Teddy Kennedy in his memorable speech at Bobby's funeral. He stated "my brother need not be idealised, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life". I'll leave you to decide if Estevez got it right.