Tiscali Quicklinks. Please visit our Accessibility Page for a list of the Access Keys you can use to find your way around the site, skip directly to the main navigation, to the page content, or to more links within entertainment.

When Ken Loach's new film won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 2006 with his new film, the British press went into shock. Citing it as unfeasibly anti-English, they disowned one of England's best directors, despite the fact that many of those commenting on the film had not actually seen it. What seems to have been completely overlooked is the question of whether or not the film itself is actually any good. The answer, rather sadly, is that this is in truth a lacklustre work: one which may engage ardent students of Irish political history, but is likely to leave most other viewers dazed and confused.
Loach is entitled to express his opinion that the English-Irish situation of 100 years ago reflects present day Iraq. However, one would expect a little more subtlety and skill in the way he gets his message across. Far from providing a compelling argument, he presents a heavy-handed and didactic effort which relies on a cumbersome screenplay by Paul Laverty.
The film takes place during the troubled 1910s and 1920s in West Cork, where the upstanding residents are continually terrorised by marauding English forces, or worse, their Black and Tan counterparts. Two young brothers decide to do something about it with Cillian Murphy playing Damien, a prospective doctor who gives up a promising career in London to join his brother Teddy (Padraic Delaney) to revolt against the thuggish invaders.
Loach shows us everything through the eyes of the Irish rebels as they progress from small scale ambushes to eventual dialogue in Dublin with the British authorities and an agreement that was seen as either victorious or a sellout. But he is also happy to twist the internal logic of the film to suit his own needs: at one point the Irish slay a number of English soldiers but return home to witness a cruel atrocity carried out on one of their own. They are apparently armless and helpless, despite the plethora of guns and weapons available to them from their previous successful attack.
It's this sort of inconsistency that riddles the film and undermines its message. Things take a sharper nosedive in the second hour, when plot is dispensed with to allow several long and in-depth political discussions to take place. By the finale, instead of cheering on the underdogs, most audience members will be looking forward to exiting the theatre. Loach may well have a valid point to make but he fails in successfully getting it across. For a far more innovative and fascinating film which explores a country's previous crimes, it's worth checking out Michael Haneke's Hidden from earlier in 2005.
Paul Hurley