tricorne-u8 This micro inspection of a brilliant love affair gone wrong, only focuses on two aspects of the relationship, which I really liked; the beginning and the ending: It is really the dual performances that kept me watching. They, or Kris mostly, breezed through a beautiful range of emotions, from restrained desire to sheer despair, with delightful absurdity in the scenes. The story was mostly back told without visual evidence and this was delicious. The ending was all about Kris letting go in a whimsical and gentlemanly manner, whilst Eloise was really hoping for some socially-acceptable passion!The beginning, (a cliché'd but perfect theatrical device) sees the two opposite types start up a relationship in a broken elevator, mid-flight. A more experienced writer/director could have led these two to passion without having to take their clothes off due to overheating in a broken elevator. But once that was achieved, we gladly accepted the sexual desire as part of the very slim narrative thus far.At the end of their relationship is a quirky and a bit unlikely meeting between the two apparently one year since they split up, five years after they met. At this outdoor cafe meeting, Eloise tells Tom that she is moving back to France but asks him to walk her to the station as a farewell. This movie-length walk-through the neon lights of Southbank London is where the background to their relationship is supposed to be revealed, whilst also preparing the audience for a desired lovers reprieve.The walk to the station with Tom occasionally dragging Eloise's luggage is theatrically wonderful and entertaining (if not geographically implausible) with spectacular London sights becoming the foreground. It is also amusing because Eloise is clearly delighted that Tom should finally be paying her the attention she required. However, Eloise's cryptic and whimsical responses to Tom's declaration of love (at the last moment) are the most shattering moments of the film; we really wonder if Tom was a fool or an arsehole: It's not till she has boarded the train with her new fiancé that we realize she has made a mistake.I love watching theatrical two-handers turned into movies; whilst the themes are not always so obvious, the journey and delivery become far more accessible. Well done, someone else has finally tackled the Woody Allen genre with respect and dignity.

Majuro I'm a Kris Marshall fan and I remember Annelise Hesme from "Hors de Prix" which is one of my favorite films, but this one was a switch-off after 20 minutes. The flashback format wasn't working, the relationship between the two wasn't believable, and Annelise's accent made her English hard to follow at times. The switch-off moment came during a present time sequence when she suddenly turned flirty and which seemed so forced and implausible. The flashback sequences were uncomfortable and claustrophobic. I understand that was the point of that, and also that I did not give the movie a full chance, but life is too short to waste on a situation and characters I don't care about in the first place.I always welcome writers directing their own films, so I hope Gavin Boyter has better success with his next effort.

studioAT 'Sparks and Ember's is an odd film. It seems to be trying to be a compilation of other rom-com's. It's a little bit Richard Curtis, a little bit Woody Allen, and more than a little inspired by the 'Before Sunset' trilogy.But is it any good on it's own merit? Annoyingly not quite. Because for all the hard work the two leads are clearly putting in they are let down by a very, very clichéd and weak script, that thinks lines like "you've pulled a cracker there mate" is the height of humour.There are nice moments, but we've seen them all done so much better elsewhere.I like Kris Marshall, but this film could never shake off the shadows of those it was clearly trying to imitate.