their photographs, of angel sharks or other animals in wales, to really understand where they used ta be ggggrring and-ehaflgeg beat {baggage-e: ,,,, , ,,, in the waters off wales, and the researchers hope surveys later in the year will lead to confirmed sightings. viral this week. evfl’géafis’g’s’s’f‘iflé giss sag gagsg sg hello and welcome to the film review on bbc news. to take us through this week's cinema releases is mark kermode. so mark, what do we have this week? we have vice, a political drama—cum—satire, starring

christian bale, the mule, the new movie from clint eastwood, fii gaff; gilugagg'sgig'zig £53341 mass saa saa as a sasaa and make—up and hair" g g g many of us have put on a0 pounds, and we were not part of the movie. when christian bale received an award recently, he thanked satan for inspiration for the role, and there is definitely a kind of demonic edge to his vice president. he is somebody who uses the unitary

executive theory to make sure the president is unassailable, but he is the real power behind the throne, so it is basically a film about making and taking power. here is a scene with sam rockwell, who is also oscar—nominated, as george w bush, attempting to enlist cheney. i am the ceo of a large company. i have been secretary of defence, i have been the chief of staff. the vice presidency is mostly a symbolicjob. right, right. i can see how that wouldn't be enticing to you. however, the vice presidency is also defined by the president, and if we were to come to a different understanding... go on...

i'm listening... i sense that you're a kinetic leader, you make decisions based on instinct. i am, people have always said that. yes, very different, very different from your father, in that regard. now, maybe i can handle some of the more mundane jobs, overseeing bureaucracy, managing military, energy, foreign policy. that sounds good. it is an extraordinary performance, and it is very convincing. during that clip, you saw the thing about the analogy of the fly fishing, and very much like the big short, which adam mckay made before, it has all these quite showy, dramatic devices to tell

and comment upon the story. so, at various points, people break the fourth wall, they talk to the audience, there is one section where dick cheney and his wife suddenly burst into shakespearean dialogue. there is another moment where the film appears to end, as if it is an alternative, hollywood ending. my problem is this. i liked the big short, with reservations. i thought it was funny, and very flippant, but i liked the flippancy of it, but i also thought the big short explained something that i didn't really understand before, it talked about the financial shenanigans. it was almost like a card trick, somebody doing a card trick, and showing you how they did it at the same time. in the case of this, by the film's own admission, dick cheney is very hard to get under his skin. they say at the beginning, they have tried to tell a true story as much as possible, with the secrecy. it is not as funny as the big short. it feels more polemical, particularly in the last third, where it feels like there is an awful lot of information they are trying to cover. and, oddly enough, although i think individual performances are very

because it is good, solid, but, for me, not as good as big short. it doesn't have that sucker punch, that clear line, there is no moment in it, as there was in the big short