It starts with a voice over from protagonist Joe Anderson who sounds uncannily like Marc Warren (he of Hustle fame) and, I'm afraid, I can't stand the accent. Although I loved the series, I hated his character. So with such associations still burning deep, Flutter gets off to a very poor start for me.

Coupled with the protagonist's disheveled/scruffy look and his 'job' as a professional punter (and the way he goes about it is not at all how professional bettors work) it's unbelievable that the lovely Laura Fraser could ever fancy him. Well, beyond my suspension of disbelief.

Having said all that he plays a good part as a chavvy gambler although I doubt that's the original idea.

There are cameos from Billy Zane and Anton Lesser (who must be desperate for work). The femme fatale is Anna Anissimova (or Anna Schafer as she seems to be known now) who has an absolutely brilliant part but doesn't quite manage to pull it off. Whether that's her or the director, who knows but she just doesn't have the depth, menace or gravitas.

The plot is far from original. Most reviewers quote Cheap Thrills (although Flutter preceded it) but there are other similar storylines, too. There are several little plot holes if you watch with more than one eye, and the ending is unsatisfactory at best and a cop-out at worst.

So, overall disappointing and really should have been better. You mighty enjoy it, but I'm not betting on it.

See what I did there...?

I was fortunate enough to be invited to a film premiere for a film called Flutter. By British director, Giles Borg, it focuses on the greed of man and the lengths a person might go to preserve appearance of control. Touching on the issues of trust, attraction, friendship, family and obsession, the script writer, Stephen Leslie, fashions a compelling story of a young husband, John, who makes a living, with the blessing of his wife, played by the not-hard-on- the-eyes-at-all, Laura Fraser , gambling. His preferred place of earning is the dog track, a place for him and his friends, Adrian and Wagner. Their favorite bookie, Stan, is not in his usual place, his spot occupied by a female bookie. John investigates. He finds out that the female bookie is the new 'Stan'. Initially, after a tip from Billy Zane's dentist cameo, John has a big win at the track. Unfortunately his luck desserts him. After a streak of miserable luck, Stan offers John a way out of his financial mess. Joe Anderson as John, is excellent and totally believable as a slightly roguish, but amiably popular face down at the tracks. Anna Anissimova gives an equally watchable performance. With her heavily lidded eyes and lips that would challenge Angelina Jolie for plumpness, she is a model of chilling detachment as the mildly smirking Stan. The performances are good across the board, especially from Luke Evans and Max Brown, as John's gambling buddies. In conclusion, I would have to say I found Flutter a very watchable and enjoyable film. At eighty-five minutes long, it does not cause the bum numbness of many a film released of late and keeps you engaged right up until the end. Some may find elements of the script a little far-fetched, but if you are looking for reality check bbc news! If you want to enjoy ninety minutes of cinema, catch Flutter nationwide next March.

'Flutter' is a pretty good movie that's about the dark side of people addicted to gambling whether it's the 'blue collar' worker betting a few 'pounds' or a financial wizard trying to become wealthy, and everybody in between. The main protagonist 'John' starts out with relatively small bets but soon gets caught up with the mysterious antagonist...a woman named 'Stan' who soon begins to control his life by getting him to wage larger and larger bets with higher 'stakes' each time. About the weak points: One of the 1st large bets has him wagering that he can stay in his bathroom, that he shares with his wife, for 1 week without leaving it. Why he can't tell his wife about the bet makes no sense as she knows that he's a daily gambler, and only requires him to tell her the truth at all times, although he lies about it.(Why?) The next point I noticed is when Stan tries to get John to kill his sick father-in-law for a lot of needed money. His wife is standing by in the shadows unbeknownst to him listening to their conversation and does or says nothing to stop him from possibly killing her father that she cares for.(?) Having said this, I still think the film is worth watching as it has an original storyline coupled with good acting from the cast, and could even stand a sequel if only to explore what happens to John as he supposedly lost his soul to Stan after losing the last bet by not killing his father-in-law. And to find out Stan's motivation, (i.e.) why she enjoys destroying people's lives....is she in reality some demonic figure preying on man's weaknesses? That would be worth watching also, I bet :-)