I saw this cracking movie during the recent Jameson Dublin International Film Festival. It’s all narrative. So, if you the kind of person that likes a meat and two veg movie, this is not one for you. It wouldn’t surprise me if Maggie Gyllenhaal gets an Oscar nom for this role. She dresses down and slums it as ex-heroin addict Sherry. Hollywood loves that. Voting Hollywood even more.

We join Sherry as she leaves prison and tries to make a clean start. She’s full of hope and wants to build a relationship with her young daughter who has been raised by Sherry’s brother. Sherry idealises her daughter and you get the feeling that her dreams of raising her own child were sustaining throughout her stay in prison.

The strange thing about this movie, is that Sherry is a dichotomy. On one hand, she tries to carve out an idealistic existence for her and her daughter while on the other hand, she pays for her criminal past by selling her body, self-respect and abusing drugs. It makes for an interesting mix.

However, the premise of the film falls apart when writer-director Collyer attempts a show-and-tell approach to explaining why Sherry is so messed up. It’s executed quite clumsily and doesn’t sit beside the rest of the film well. This is a small complaint especially when put in perspective of the magnetic performance of Gyllenhaal. I loved this film.

Kirsten, pull yourself together. His untidiness is side-effect of the real reason you love the pants off him. He’s a rocker – down dirty. He likes to style himself on the Jagger look, all angles and shaky hair.

He even bulked up for you. It’s a genuine mark of true, celebrity love. You don’t see Jarvis Cocker or Grahan Coxon putting the muscles on for the nearest and dearest.

Actually, aside from the whole issue of kids viewing porn (which is illegal, and moreover despicable!), what do recipents of these laptops think of Western interest groups and countries who espose charitable goodwill and then tell users what they can and can’t do with their machines? So, imagine if users of these OLPC laptops decided that they wanted to use their machines to support rebellious leaders who resist Western power and influence in the developing world. What would Western interests say then? Are the philanthrophic stirrings that Western countries feel entirely based upon how we want to control how our money is used?