Oddly, I had a bit of trouble convincing other people to see this play with me. I think the title really puts people off - it did me and only the positive review of several people I respect convinced me to go. This isn't an anti-fat play, no matter what you might think.

My posse convened at Red Hot, a new Szechuan restaurant on Charing Cross Road (actually quite close to the theater, though closer to Wyndhams). I could go on and on about how good the food was - or the irony of going to a play called "Fat Pig" when I was so stuffed I could barely walk - but I'll save that for later. At any rate, I feared I would fall asleep during the show and downed cup after cup of green tea during the meal. Thankfully, service was fast and we made it from arrival at the table (at 6 PM) to arrival at the Comedy in a mere hour and twenty minutes. More restaurants should follow this example!

At any rate, I was surprised to find Wilco playing over the loudspeakers when we arrived. How pleasant! Unfortunately the theater appeared to only be about half full, which did result in us being moved forward about ten rows (to my relief, I really dislike being under a low ceiling in the stalls). And the program came with free chocolates! I was still too cheap to buy one, but it almost changed my mind - and if there'd been a bit of room inside of me, I'm sure I would have been swayed.

To my surprise, this play is actually set in America. This is pretty nice for me, to see my home depicted in a modern play (as opposed to some Tennessee Williams chestnut - we have moved on!). The actors actually did fairly well with the accent as well (with the exception of Joanna Page, who kept falling apart around the edges). I couldn't place the location - while with its mention of "beach" and "big office" it seemed like it was supposed to be New York or East Coast, but the way people were acting made me think much more of Ohio. And the reference to the Albertson's grocery store was very West Coast, but it was clear this wasn't taking place in California.

The story is about a youngish man, Tom (played by Nick Burns) who meets a girl named Helen (Ella Smith) while having lunch one day. They hit it off pretty well, and soon he's dating her - a fact he hides from his best work friend/tormentor Carter (Kevin Bishop) and office accountant Jeannie (Page), who (oops!) Tom was apparently dating but hasn't really had the guts to break up with. She still thinks it's going on, Carter wants to make them fight with each other, and the next thing you know, the whole office has had the picture of the "Fat Pig" Tom had dinner with plastered on their desktops.

The cast is apparently just half of what it was originally, as both of the women carried over from Trafalgar Studios, but the men have both been replaced. Bishop seems to have jumped in with both feet, but Burns has more work to do, as a lead character who is basically weak is hard to make sympathetic (witness Rosmersholm). I found Smith's Helen just incredibly sympathetic, and while much of this can be ascribed to great dialogue, she also just really seemed to "get" the character 0 - the self-deprecating humor, the honesty, the brave girl face on top of the person who actually still wants to be accepted and loved. I was also really surprised that her conversations with Tom were so incredibly naturalistic - normally in plays, couples are in high drama mode, but this "working through our issues" stuff could have come right out of my mouth. It was especially a contrast with the high-octane bragadoccio and just plain filth that came out of Carter's mouth - it got a lot of laughs but over and over the audience gasped at his unrestrained words.

This was really a good show and all of us got into it. Though the set is simple and the costumes plain (really, could Jeannie have had more than just two outfits - one of them the swim suit in the final scene?), I found the dialogue great and the play really convesation provoking. Despite my very full stomach, I had absolutely no problems staying awake for this entire show. It's worth seeing, absolutely, and I think the people who didn't come with me didn't know what they were going to be missing.

(This review is for a performance that took place on September 25th, 2008. Ambassadors is running a deal for £20 tickets: "Best Tickets £20! (Valid all Mon- Fri eves & both mats until 10 Oct)
Enter Promotion Code: FPSTAND." Also Kelly Brook, whoever she is, is taking over the role of Jeannie from October 13th, and someone named Katie Kerr is taking over the role of Helen, I think from the same time. )

Maggie (Marianne Faithfull) has “the best right hand in London”.Which is a tad disturbing, considering she is a kindly, middle-class grandmother. But it’s OK, because she’s only pleasuring men in Soho so that she can pay for her dying grandson’s medical treatment. Which is a shame, because Corey Burke, the young actor playing the grandson, is quite irritatingly bad, and the money would be better spent on acting lessons than life-saving procedures.

Thankfully, Kevin Bishop and Siobhan Hewlett inject some authenticity into the proceedings as Tom and Sarah, the devoted parents. Sarah is quietly optimistic, trying not to let the strain affect her son or her marriage. And Tom is quietly despairing, almost accepting his son’s fate. Until, that is, his mother hands him a huge wad of cash and refuses to tell him where it came from.

Of course, none of this really matters. Nobody will walk into the cinema wanting to see a family come apart at the seams dealing with the possibility of their son’s death. No, the punter’s will buy their tickets for Irina Palm to see how a grandmother deals with giving the best hand jobs in Soho.

It’s all done very quaintly. Maggie winces her way through her first few clients, before getting to grips (pun intended) with her new profession. And all the while her relationship with her stuck-up friends at home deteriorates, while her friendship with Miki, the club owner, blossoms.

It’s all very predictable, really.

The script seems a bit forced at times, as do the performances, and the occasional attempts at some kind of social commentary aren’t as successful as they could have been. And the soundtrack is oddly bleak, given the film’s comedic bent. In fact, there’s quite a list of faults. But somehow, Irina Palm manages to entertain, and there’s not a lot more you could ask for.

· Last March, Channel 4 announced to anyone who was listening that they were planning on launching another standalone channel alongside Film4, E4 and More 4, this time solely based on music. It's was ridiculed by some at the time as being yet another attempt by the channel to try and re-invent itself, shedding it's skin like a python to try and stay 'cool' in the eyes of the youth of today. Admittedly, even though I'm not a fan of the show, they achieved this with shows like Skins, and even amongst the thousands of other channels it still managed to keep its chin above the fashionable water, and a year on from the announcement, adverts for this new channel have started to surface.

However it was another series of adverts which seem to have caught everyone's eyes as of late; the channel is advertising its Generation Next campaign at the same time, possibly stealing the thunder of the new channel, which could prove fatal. This new series of adverts features teenagers swarming towards the Channel 4 headquarters like a battle scene from Lord of The Rings crossed with Step-Up, or another kind of pointless kid movie I love to avoid, and yes, you guessed it, the objective of these adverts and the marketing campaign is showing the channel once again desperate to stay hip with the pre-pubescent watershed market by promoting a whole month of programming celebrating new creative talent within the company.

Maybe that's a harsh approach, after all, Channel 4 brings me some of my favourite TV personalities on a regular basis, from Kevin McCloud to Gordon Ramsey, and there's even shows like Come Dine with Me which are totally watchable, and, more importantly, enjoyable. But what the channel is most worried about, is not about well established shows like those, and others like Desperate Housewives, but more towards where the unknown potentials will surface from, like.. the next Spaced, or Black Books, or Green Wing. In other words, where are the products to entice the supposed 'target audience'?

Look at what Channel 4 has to offer at the moment- a quick flick through the TV guide shows how far it has fallen in just a few years: My Name Is Earl seems to be the only out and out comedy programme, while outdated repeats of The Simpsons and Friends seem to be holding the fort. Sadly, the schedule is currently being suffocated by the evil Big Brother, but that's no excuse, especially as they've fallen behind channels like ITV and Dave.

So the comedy cavalry have arrived, and they first set up their tents on Friday, in the shape of The Kevin Bishop Show. Many will know Bishop from the big hit Star Stories, where he parodied stars such as Tom Cruise and Simon Cowell, and was a winner of the best Newcomer (at the same time the Star Stories team were winning the Best New Comedy) of 2006 at the British Comedy Awards. Joining him will be the ever-so-slightly overrated star of 8 Out of 10 Cats Jason Mumford, who will be sitting in the host seat of Tonightly, in a show being billed as a 'milestone' of this new setup, where it involves "a daily dose of satirical news, comment and all-round silliness."

Fear not those who feel Channel 4 should stick to what it does best, as documentaries are arriving thick and fast also - First Cut begins this Friday, and the first documentary of the series will focus on the bid to 'save' Britney Spears. Fans of the channels Three Minute Wonders series will enjoy this new, bold direction.

In my humble opinion, Channel 4 excel best in dramas; the kind of hard hitting, nail biting stories such as Secret Life, starring the frighteningly talented Matthew Macfadyen. Dramas this time around include the much hyped Emo, and Kings of London.

What annoys me is the fanfare needed for this kind of re-vamp; what's wrong with just... releasing the programmes? Are times so hard that you have to spend every available advert time to promote the socks off of them? I'm sure the youth of today couldn't care less either way, and I type that like I'm over-the-hill, when it's more likely that 23 is their target age more or less, and as that 23 year old I have faith in C4, E4, More4 and every other 4 that falls under this wing, and unlike other channels, I know they can put on TV shows that will be enjoyable and entertaining, without being OTT and daft, so why can't we just carry on as normal?

Generation Next started last Friday, but will find second gear this coming Friday.

~

· The last comic superhero film I talked about on here was Marvel's Iron Man back in April, and I focused on its release date battle with GTA:IV, and how it should survive and go on to be one of the best films of the year. Even a few weeks after that post everyone realised this was the case, and after positive reviews many thought it could be a strong contender for various awards like 'film of the year'. For it to win awards of that ilk, it would have to survive the rest of the summer against other big hitting comic/superhero films such as The Incredible Hulk, Hellboy II and Hancock. Even if it were to surpass all of those, it would still have to go one on one with the new Batman film, The Dark Knight.

In preparation for this eagerly anticipated follow up (and as I do with most sequels) I sat and watched the first film Batman Begins last week, immersing myself back into a high quality film from a franchise that had fallen by the wayside. I tried as best I could to avoid any trailers or spoilers for the new film, but when the rumours of 'Oscar potential' start up, and you see that the American audience had voted it at #1 on IMDB's top 250 of all time (above greats like Shawshank and Godfather) it's hard not to get your geeky hopes up.

The first film had an underlying yet distinct theme of fear, with the Scarecrow and his hallucinogenic vapour, the explanation of the young Bruce Wayne's bat phobia, and how later in life he morphs that into the symbol of fear known as Batman, but after seeing TDK, fear has been taken to a whole new level. I loved Batman Begins, but TDK surpasses it in every way possible. Director Christopher Nolan and his brother and co-screenwriter Jonathan pay the Batman 'brand' the ultimate compliment of taking it completely seriously. Batman Begins was a great way to introduce us to this film rebirth of a legendary character, scrapping everything we already knew about Batman, going back to the beginning and starting again fresh, and yes, it focused on the origins quite heavily, but it doesn't take away from how good the film is. What TDK does is build on that, something that very few sequels achieve with success, especially superhero films.

And yet, this isn't really a superhero movie per se. Nolan said he "never viewed the movie as a superhero film" and does not compare it to some of the films I mentioned above. At no point during the movie does it start to feel OTT, or corny to the point where your attention drops. Apart from a few minutes dedicated to his playboy ways, Bruce Wayne is almost always depicted in, or around the Batman suit. In most of the scenes where he isn't Batman, he's doing something Batman related. Even when he throws the fundraiser, it's a part of the storyline totally focused on The Joker and Harvey Dent. There's even more time spent to the supporting actors such as butler Alfred Pennyworth (Caine), engineer Lucius Fox (Freeman), and Detective Gordon (Oldman), all three of which could be watchable long after the film had concluded.

The plot is a dark, dense, gritty affair; it doesn't allow you to catch your breath, however nor is the film one long fight scene after another. The sub plots are imaginative and clever, they don't insult your intelligence and together they make the whole story a stimulating, wondrous event.

Fear in this film is totally different from BB; whereas before it was written into the script as mentioned earlier, this time it comes from fantastic scenes stuffed with insufferable moments of slow building tension and suspense. The film did have its split second 'jump from your seat' moments (such as the Batman effigy hitting the office window, and the disappearing pen trick), but for them to be overshadowed by the figurative (and literal) 'ticking time bombs' shows just how well it was done. One scene in particular with The Joker where he says "Wanna know how I got these scars?" for the first time shows this off brilliantly; co-composer Hans Zimmer had put in this eerie, distressing background noise underneath shots of this resigned yet psychotic persona; you know somethings going to happen, but the suspense of not knowing when is handled with great care, and makes the difference between a great film for 2008, and the greatest film of 2008.

Most of the tense moments of the film focus around the two actors added since BB, Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart, and it's the addition of these two characters which make this film as great as it is. The Harvey Dent district attorney character is handled so much better than the 1995 Tommy Lee Jones version. Two Face in that film was too much of a cartoon, with no depth within the character. Eckhart, with the help of Nolan, had a much better direction, and comes across as slick yet still likable, and adds a certain light to an immensely dark film, even with the character heel turn, it doesn't take anything away from the performance, perhaps one of his finest to date.

And then there's The Joker.

Where to start? Watching Health Ledger on screen was mesmerizing, as he twitched and stumbled around Gotham with the faux innocence of Verbal Kint crossed with the obsession of John Doe from Se7en. Straight from the start we're plunged into the thick of the action, with a bank robbery planned by The Joker that's angry and bloody and brilliantly executed, and everything escalates from there. There were points of the film where I was so hooked on The Joker's every word, every glance, and every movement that I completely forgot I was watching an actor in a film. There were also points where Heath wasn't on the screen and I so desperately wanted to see more of him. Whenever the focus was on The Joker, you could almost see this strong, uncaring atmosphere akin to Sid Vicious emitting from him, yet at the same time he could appear as unpredictable, focused and tense as Hannibal Lecter. Much has been written about how his performance is Oscar worthy, and how much of a fitting tribute it would be for an actor sadly no longer with us, and although both are true, only time will tell just how much praise he will receive. For now, the title 'Best film villain performance' seems absolutely spot on.

Take nothing away from Bale, though. His role as the lead isn't as strong as it was in BB, and coupled with this being the first Batman film without Batman in the title, the emphasis falls as much on those around him than of the main character itself, but he still manages to portray the lead in a solid, effortless way. His chemistry with Caine is fabulous to watch, and scenes with Freeman aren't far behind- Bale's as good a Batman as ever.

For Nolan and the current Batman franchise, the future looks bright. As far as I'm concerned, it's 2 films, 2 successes, and with a third is already being talked about, despite being a few years away. A perfect new villain coupled with the possible return of Scarecrow has fans salivating at the thought of this reinvention becoming the best comic trilogy, blowing both X-Men and Spiderman out of the superhero water. Not bad for a film franchise that a decade ago had become a laughing stock with George Clooney's nipple suit, and the disastrous reviews of Batman and Robin.

The possibilities for the third film are vast, and with Nolan they're in the right hands, but why focus on that when we already have one tremendous film to enjoy over and over again. From one review in Cinematical:

"The Dark Knight may be based on a comic book, but it's a real movie made by real talents -- exciting, engaging, gorgeously crafted and thematically rich. Nolan's set himself up for a third film, of course, and even with Ledger's passing removing the possibility of his returning to the series, there are still plenty of places Nolan might take Batman; the confidence, vision and skill he's brought to The Dark Knight make that something to be hoped for."

and the last word from Coming soon:

"While someone, someday might make a better superhero movie, the bar has been set very, very high. 'The Dark Knight' isn't just the best movie of the summer, it's the best movie of the year so far, and everything else is going to have to try very, very hard to top it."

~

· It's not just glowing reviews that highlight just how well The Dark Knight is doing - the box office is showing it too, with a whopping $315 million over 10 days, with it's current worldwide total as of July 27 at $355.5 million. It's looking as though the record of $600 million set by Titanic is well within Batmans sights, which is very impressive indeed.

It's the cherry on the top of the cake as far as 2008 is concerned - a very successful year for comic based films, the question now is, can anything better the quality seen in Iron Man and The Dark Knight? Where can the hero movie genre go from here?

Looking ahead to 2009, 2010 and beyond, there's some decent sequels coming out, and some hotly anticipated new projects as well. Forgive me if I miss anything important, but joining Iron Man 2 and the 3rd Batman film will be The X-Men Origins series, first Wolverine, and then Magneto, The new trailer for next years Watchmen film looks immense already, The Green Hornet is pencilled in for 2010, as is Thor, there's rumours about Christopher Nolan picking up the Preacher series once he's done with Batman, SpiderMan 4, A Superman sequel or prequel is rumoured, Captain America, The Avengers... the list goes on. Yet with all of those mentioned, they have a real tough task of trying to reach the same level of greatness, let alone trying to go any higher. And let's be honest, it's a crowded boat, what if too much of a good thing would be the eventual downfall?

A decade back, all hopes of a good run of comic hero films seem to fade away. After an unsuccessful attempt at keeping the Batman brand alive, cinemas and producers seemed scared to even touch other projects, and even if they were, creators were closing doors, terrified of them ruining it. What Hollywood big-wigs must remember, before signing every single 'graphic novel' up for numerous films and merchandise, is that for every Batman and Spiderman there's bound to be a Phantom, or Punisher. In fact, if it wasn't for successful attempts like Spawn in 1997, and Blade a year later, we may not have had such a rich and colourful start to the new millennium.

However, with every rise comes a fall, and after the dawn of a new era of comic book movies, surely what must follow soon will be the superhero sun setting?

Asking a similar question was Larson Hill, on The Deadbolt Feature:

"Is it blasphemous to even suggest such a thing? Maybe to some diehard comic book geeks, but I certainly don’t feel compelled to like every comic book on the market simply because it’s a "comic book" or "graphic novel". Although I’m caught up in the excitement of the current wave of super hero movies, I sometimes wonder when we’re going to reach a point when too much of a good thing will have an adverse affect."

For the rest of the great article, click here.

~~~

That was the week in lumps, a week in which: the youth of today are actually taking less drugs and consuming less drink, Brad Pitt and Leo DiCaprio are inglorious bastards, not being satisfied with rescuing the Batman franchise, Christian Bale looks set to do the same for Terminator, Super Monkey Ball is leading the way for iPhone apps, chocolate works wonders on teenagers in school, and The Totally Rad Show was live at Comic-Con this past Friday (with the podcast up later tonight for us UK fans), can't wait.

and if you're going to quote a movie, make sure you get it right. Flixter list 8 of the biggest mistakes to avoid.

ttfn
x

¿Qué puede hacer una mujer sexagenaria cuando su nieto Ollie necesita urgentemente un tratamiento médico que sólo se lleva a cabo en Melbourne? Sí, ¿qué puede hacer cuando tanto ella como los padres de la criatura tienen ya más deudas que lágrimas y no disponen de los medios necesarios para un viaje tan costoso?

Maggie lo tiene claro: sea como sea debe conseguir el dinero que le proporcionará a su nieto un atisbo de esperanza. Intenta pedir un crédito que le es denegado, acude a una oficina de empleo en la que (evidentemente) nadie va a contrararla dada su edad, así que esta abuela coraje deambula por las bulliciosas calles de Londres sin rumbo fijo hasta que se encuentra con el “Sexy World”, un club de alterne que luce un cartel en el que se solicitan (eufemísticamente) “acompañantes”. El trabajo consiste en masturbar a los clientes utilizando un curioso invento japonés. Maggie sale del lugar algo horrorizada, sin embargo el sueldo es de lo más suculento y lo más importante: puede ganar mucho dinero en poco tiempo. Ni corta ni perezosa, deja atrás el apacible lugar donde vive, sus tés, su solitaria viudedad y a las (repelentes) amigas con las que comparte alguna que otra tarde y acepta el trabajo con la idea de que nunca nadie sepa qué está haciendo para salvar a su nieto. Lo que esta mujer no imaginaba es que va a convertirse en toda una celebridad “masturbatoria” a la que se conocerá con el sobrenombre de Irina Palm.

Este es el sorprendente arranque de “Irina Palm” (2007), una película dirigida por Sam Garbarski y que tiene como protagonista principal (nada más y nada menos) que a la cantante y actriz británica Marianne Faithfull. Conocida por ser la responsable de algunos hits de los años 60, por su noviazgo con Mick Jagger, por su coqueteo con las drogas y por haber sido la primera persona que utilizó la palabra fuck en una película.

Resulta, cuanto menos, interesante verla desenvolverse en la piel de la tierna Maggie y superar con nota el desafío. Su personaje lucha (sin desfallecer) contra cualquier contratiempo y así, por ejemplo, la observaremos defenderse de la hipocresía, los recelos y la incompresión que sufrirá cuando su secreto sale a la luz.

Junto a la Faithfull, aparece el actor yugoslavo Miki Manojlovic (al que pudimos ver en “Underground” de Emir Kusturika, 1995) que encarna a Miki, el gerente del local en el que la protagonista encuentra una manera de salvar a su nieto. El frío Miki que recibe por primera vez a la asustada Maggie, irá derritiendo acabará sucumbiendo ante la ternura que despliega esa entrañable mujer de más de 60 años.

Si algo debo reprocharle a esta producción es una BSO que en algunos momentos me resultó pesada, no por mala sino por repetitiva y un final que no me acaba de cuadrar del todo. Estos dos últimos aspectos quedan soslayados por los estupendos 100 minutos anteriores.

La tragedia que supone la enfermedad de Ollie podría haber convertido a “Irina Palm” en un película empalagosa y de lágrima fácil, pero el finísimo humor que salpica algunas escenas y la tremenda tenacidad que despliega el personaje de Maggie la transforman en una cinta que evita los excesos de cualquier tipo y nos hace partícipes de la idea de que “lo último que se pierde es la esperanza”.

Trailer en español

Para ver la ficha de la película, pinchad aquí

Briony   

Este é o texto de número 100 do Blog. Fiquei pensando em qual filme trazer. Até porque pretendo nesse mês de maio trazer filmes que mostram um universo feminino. Numa homenagem a nós Mulheres. Mesmo àquelas que não geraram filhos, carregam em si também um amor maternal. Entre alguns, escolhi esse: Irina Palm. Também pela Data de hoje: Dia do Trabalho. E Grata a Todos que por aqui passam!

Entrando no filme... Maggie (Marianne Faithfull) para conseguir dinheiro para um tratamento novo que é a última chance de salvar seu netinho, resolve procurar um trabalho. Mas para alguém sem qualificação profissional, nem experiência fora o de dona de casa, as portas se fecham. Acontece que ela não desiste.

Nessa busca eis que surge um... A princípio fica espantada, até porque era algo que nem em sonhos conhecia. Mas o amor pelo netinho, a fez voltar atrás e aceitar. O salário, as comissões eram altas. E o tratamento médico era caro. Além das posses dela e do filho.

O filme também aborda o preconceito a certos tipos de trabalho. Claro que ele não está ditando regras. Mas um pouco de consideração, até para saber o porque de algumas pessoas estarem nessa. Como a colega de trabalho diz, é preciso separar as duas pessoas. Ter consciência de que Maggie e Irina Palm eram duas pessoas diferentes. Será? Pois se a Maggie ficou até mais radiante com a chegada da Irina Palm em sua vidinha. Trouxe-lhe sangue novo correndo em suas veias. De uma coisa Maggie sabia, de que sua família e suas amigas não iriam entender, dai fez segredo. Mas de onde menos se espera, surge um abraço carinhoso.

Falar mais do filme é estragar a surpresa de vocês. O prazer em acompanhar essa Guerreira! Eu fiquei fã da Maggie! Que em vez de ficar rezando por um milagre, ela foi à luta. Arregaçou as mangas e colocou a mão na massa... E que tapa de luva que ela deu na companheira de baralho, que quis posar de dona da moral.

Só tenho uma queixa que censura besta em não mostrar o talento da Irina Palm. No mais, o filme é ótimo! De ver e rever. Nota 10! Amei o filme!

Por: Valéria Miguez.

Irina Palm. 2007. Bélgica. Direção e Roteiro: Sam Garbarski. Elenco: Marianne Faithfull, Miki Manojovic, Kevin Bishop, Siobhan Hewlett, Dorka Grylus. Gênero: Comédia, Drama. Duração: 103 minutos.

Irina Palm 

Regia: Sam Garbarski

Cast: Marianne Faithfull, Miki Manojlovic,
Kevin Bishop, Siobhan Hewlett, Dorka Gryllus,
Jenny Agutter, Corey Burke.

Distribuzione: Teodora Film, Belgio, Germania,
 Lussemburgo, GB, Francia, 2007

Guarda il trailer

Maggie, una vedova inglese poco più che cinquantenne, ha un urgente bisogno di trovare il denaro necessario per la costosa operazione del nipotino malato. Mentre cammina per le strade di Londra, posa per caso lo sguardo su un cartello con la scritta “Cercasi Hostess” e, senza accorgersene, si ritrova in un sex club. Miki, il proprietario del locale, le spiega che dovrà lavorare come "masturbatrice" nascosta alla vista dai clienti. Per il bene del nipotino, Maggie accetta. Affinerà a tal punto la propria abilità nel 'lavoro’ da diventare la mano più richiesta dai clienti, che faranno la fila per ‘Irina Palm’...

  Commedia esilarante ed intelligente, diversa dal classico film natalizio, che unisce l'ironia inglese alla critica sociale.

Marianne Faithfull, smessi i panni di icona pop anni 60 e di musa degli Stones, interpreta in maniera perfetta questa casalinga di mezza età, senza nessuna abilità particolare, con una vita piatta, senza avvenimenti di sorta e dedita esclusivamente al nipotino malato, per le cui cure ha venduto la casa ed è sommersa dai debiti.

Si tratta di un personaggio fragile, ma che scoprirà dentro di sè una forza insperata quando si tratterà di trovare il denaro necessario al viaggio in Australia che può significare la salvezza del nipotino.

Per lui è disposta a tutto, anche a lavorare in un locale a luci rosse, finendo poi con lo scoprire di possedere una grandissima qualità, ossia  di avere la migliore mano di tutta Londra. 

Questa esperienza la cambierà, cambierà la sua percezione di sè e le sue relazioni con le amiche di sempre, che l'avevano sempre considerata poco interessante.

L'artefice di questa metamorfosi è Miki, il proprietario del sex club, interpretato da Miki Manojlovic, attore visto in molte pellicole di Kusturica, uomo all'apparenza freddo e calcolatore, l'esatto opposto di Maggie, ma che grazie alla donna mostrerà un altro lato del suo carattere, nascosto da molto tempo.

La pellicola ha ricevuto la nomination per l'Orso d'oro 2007 al Festival del cinema di Berlino ed è stato un successo di critica e di pubblico.

Garbarski riesce a trattare in modo piacevole e avvincente un tema tabù e decisamente poco politically correct dosando bene umorismo e pathos, senza scadere mai nel melodramma o nella volgarità.

La pellicola è la pura e semplice celebrazione dell'affetto incondizionato di una nonna per suo nipote.

Conclusione: Consigliatissimo.

Voto: 8