text: The fact that this film was distributed free with a certain national newspaper which I do not care for did, to a degree, put me off of watching it, but as I had come across a copy that a local charity shop was giving away for nothing I felt I could watch it with a clear conscience.<br /><br />The film does have its moments, the evocation of the Thameside location is nicely done, but it does suffer, I feel, from a few too many faults. Firstly, Vinnie Jones is simply not convincing as the journalist. Whilst Vinnie himself is an interesting character, the truth is that he simply does not have the range of acting ability to pull off a role like this.<br /><br />Secondly, who would carry around with them a lost manuscript that they have been informed is "priceless"? It seemed that everywhere Mr Jones went this manuscript went with him! Thirdly, the whole Dickens aspect of the story, whilst appearing to be important, gets in the way of what could have been an interesting film of corruption in high places. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I really could not see the point of the story-within-a-story Dickens style. This added nothing to the film, and only served to confuse matters when things started to become interesting within the modern day story line.<br /><br />The one bit of praise I will give the film makers is that at least they did attempt something a little different. I am all for British Independent films that try to be 'out of left field', but this is not a 'Red Road' or 'This is England'. What it is is a bit of a mess, and an over-long one at that. Yes, it entertains in part, but in the end it felt like two films merged together to make a whole, and failing both by doing so. (Also, I can not help think that I have seen something similar done recently on TV by Ian Banks, set in Edinburgh with a story concerning Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes).