The Eagle and Child ~ Ramsbottom's revamped staple pub deserves to be celebrated

Another slight foray into the world of food/restaurant critiquing here. Anyone who has lived in and around the area of Ramsbottom in Lancashire (which in itself is rapidly becoming established as a quite a name in the world of North West culinary achievement) will tell you that The Eagle and Child has been going for donkeys. A staple watering hole for regulars for generations, it has also gone through various iterations of providing "a bit of grub" under the helm of various guvnors over the years. Recently however, I sampled a slice of the latest Eagle and Child incarnation, and was pleasantly surprised.

Apparently, the new regime "opened" the Eagle and Child (or their version of it) in October 2011, led by a man simply known as "Glen", and it has since gone from strength to strength. A new interactive and edible beer garden, an intuitive and apparently highly successful youth training scheme, and a whole host of awards from the likes of Thwaites, The Great British Pub Awards, and the Observer.
All this of course, I have since found out with a bit of research. However on Saturday I spent a little while in the Eagle and Child and found the whole experience very enjoyable, on the whole, and what's more, all the work the staff claim to be doing was easily visible to the eye of the humble customer.

The place was packed, they struggled to fit walk-ins in and they obviously had great call for their services, so whatever they're doing seems to be working, even over two years on. Their front of house staff seemed decisive, organised, and welcoming, despite being quite rushed it would seem. With regards to their youth training scheme - despite one or two  (one young boy walking around and speaking with a constant dazed and bemused expression and who also didn't seem to know the difference between a lemonade and a latte - which was slightly off-putting) they seemed to be doing quite well. Also, for simply trying hard to train these young people and openly advertising the fact that they are; I cannot help but admire the Eagle and Child for that.
Though I was only there for a spot of lunch, their culinary hospitality still leapt out at me. My honey roasted ham hock sandwich, served with some remarkable 'pastry-tortilla chips' that I'd never seen before, was most enjoyable. Not only that, but I did read the full menu (which can currently be found on their website) and almost every dish sounded deliciously intriguing. Well worth a look I think.

So yes, overall I feel that the new minds behind the regenerated Eagle and Child are doing very well, and I am quite impressed with what they have produced. I reccomend it to anyone who has not been, and I for one would welcome another visit.

Man of Steel

Around the summer of 2013, there were a few films that were generating massive hype, films that I really wanted to see, but sadly didn't get around to. One of them was Zack Snyder's epic Superman reboot; Man of Steel. Of course, come Christmas time the DVD came out and I made sure I got my hands on a copy. In a lot of ways, Man of Steel is an amazing film. Yet in some key areas, I do not feel it was worth all the fuss.

Visually, a great proportion of what we see is fantastic. Zack Snyder has treated us to a well and truly hefty chunk of Krypton, albeit in its dying days, but such a broad and detailed depiction of Superman's home world, and the Kryptonians who dwell on it, hasn't been seen for a long time in any incarnation or interpretation of Superman. Not only that but, on Earth and off it, we get action sequences galore. Each one is breath-takingly fast and furious, presented in exquisite detail. Yet you might be forgiven for thinking that not many of them presented anything too inventive and alternative, which is what you might expect from such a hyped up remake. However, this is a comic book film if ever there was one, and the action certainly reflects that.

Yet that is certainly not enough, and must be backed by good characters and good actors behind them. Superman/Clark Kent/Kal El himself, Henry Cavill is I think, a refreshing and dynamic new man to don the cape. Their is enough of that classic quality to him to satisfy die-hard fans (dare I say a little Christopher Reeve-ish at times) as well as having enough little nuances that I don't think any incarnation has had before. I truly believe that this is a very modern day Superman, and he better be, as he has already signed up for several sequels! Of course where there is Superman, Lois Lane is never far behind. On her own the beautiful, beguiling and brilliant Amy Adams makes a very good Lois Lane; again classic but fresh. However, I feel the somewhat haphazard chemistry and interplay between her and Cavill is a little lacking. At a guess I think, in trying to revamp the whole Clark/Lois/Superman saga (which is interesting in itself) I feel they've tried to slot some romance and closeness between these two characters that shouldn't be there, at least not all at once, as it comes across. On the face of it, all is fine, and we're rooting for these two as per, but look a little deeper and the pair don't look as convincing as they might together.

A lot of people praised Michael Shannon in his portrayal of villainous General Zod no end. Again, whilst it was great in terms of the mythology to see a new version of the dark Kryptonian, this is where I feel most let down character-wise. Yes he pulls of a few evil and manic facial expressions now and then, but when it matters most, I feel Shannon comes off as eerily distant, shallow and wooden even.

Zod is a character whom we see a lot of, nearly as much as Superman himself. This is a shame to me in some ways, as there are other, much more believable performances that we don't see so much of. Clark Kent's parents, John and Martha, are played by Kevin Kostner and Diane Lane respectively. Now I know Kostner's character dies (SPOILER! SORRY!) but we have enough jumps and flashbacks through time in this film, and I just wish we got to see more of his portrayal as Clark's loving and concerned Earth-father. More so slightly than Diane Lane's character (who survives the film) for yes, she is a quaint and warm motherly figure, but her performance wasn't as good I think, it even headed toward the dreaded cliche. Talking of screen time, another great actor/performance/character I wish we got to see more of was Lawrence Fishbourne as Daily Planet boss Perry White. Whether its the voice, the eyes, the power, I don't know, but I think Lawrence Fishbourne brings such gravity and watch-ability to almost everything he does, and Man of Steel was no exception. Luckily though, he has signed up to the sequel.

We did get to see quite a bit of the legendary Russell Crowe as Jor El, Superman's biological father, both before and after his demise. Again, no complaints from me, and I think, within the highs and lows of the mixed bag that is the casting of Man of Steel, Russell Crowe was surely one of the best bets, and one who delivered most definitively. 

I don't normally mention this, but this time the musical score of this film struck me as a tad disappointing. Though, it was created by the truly iconic Hans Zimmer, so this is a surprise and a shame. Hans Zimmer has produced some truly brilliant scores for brilliant films in his massive career (Pirates of the Caribbean, The Dark Night series, and The Last Samurai to name but a few) so I was really quite gutted when I didn't get a lot out of this one. Rousing at times yes, brisk and fast paced OK, but nothing that ever blew me away or made me prick my ears up a bit more, or anything I would actively listen to again. Again not really living up to the reputation of this blockbusting film here then.

Yet blockbusting it was, and by and large I can see why. This is certainly not just "another Superman movie" and thank God for that. No, I truly feel that, despite some things that need working on (maybe I'm being a tad picky!) those behind Man of Steel have done a good job, and can do so again in the obviously imminent sequels to come. I for one can't wait, especially as the next one apparently features a certain caped crusader...

SHERLOCK.IS.BACK!

Ah yes, Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Mark Gatiss...they're all back to kick off Sherlock's return with a bang! I have to admit that I, like millions of highly enthusiastic fans around the world, was looking forward to this one. Yet strangely, as with Sherlock in the past, I kind of got used to it not being around, this probably being a combination of the writers/producers wanting to tease us as much as possible (remember - the brilliant but devilishly devious Steven Moffat heads this one too!) plus the two leading men having careers going from strength to strength, which clearly mean other filming commitments. Lest we forget, in between this series and the last, there has been the ginormous Peter Jackon-helmed epic that is The Hobbit franchise, which stars Freeman as the Hobbit in question, as well as Cumberbatch lending his prodigious vocal skills to the characters of the Necromancer and Smaug the dragon. And that is just one of the many projects these actors have been working on, hence the two year wait, so at one point it was doubtful we'd see Sherlock again. Yet we have and I am sure we are all hugely greatful.

The speculative hype leading to this series outdoes that of previous series by miles. That is due of course, to the awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping cliff hanger at the end of series 2 that saw Sherlock fake his own death. On the face of it, series 3 kicks off by answering that crucial question - how did he do it? However... things (again, this being Sherlock/Moffat led) are not entirely as they appear. Oh don't get me wrong, the audience were massively treated to many great "scenarios" shot, scored and acted brilliantly; depicting just how Sherlock did it. But as the credits started to roll, we were left in some doubt as to whether or not we had seen how events actually did play out, and not just the various musings and fantasies of several characters. That I feel, is the only fly in the ointment for me, and I suspect a few others too.

Other than that - epic, amazing, spectacular, funny, exciting, touching, cryptic, dramatic. All this and more, done in the best of ways possible. This is of course in some ways, "the difficult third album" for Sherlock, and though it was set up, and thus far executed brilliantly, I can understand some niggling doubts that people may have. Luckily Sherlock is still as vibrant and as fresh as ever, as well as having that incredible, charismatic, and oddly quite warm-hearted, chemistry and familiarity that fans have now come to know and love well and truly. The characters were on fire both new and old. Cumberbatch and Freeman's Sherlock and John were just as wonderful to behold as they ever were, we got quite a packed episode from Mark Gatiss' Mycroft Holmes, and Mrs. Hudson and Molly Hooper were a joy to watch too, as always. We also have a new dynamic or two, to add to the beautiful character mix. Without wishing to give too much away, there are definitely things a' changin' for the Baker Street Boys

Yes, I am well and truly chuffed that Sherlock is back. And though we've already had one of only three new episodes, needless to say I can't wait to see what is to come in the next two.