Released across the pond this week are wannabe blockbuster Speed Racer, crap romantic comedy What Happens In Vegas and the David Mamet MMA flick Redbelt. Soooooo, what did the scribes think? Well Speed Racer is a bit of a mess; sure it’s stunning looking, but overall the film doesn’t really work and most critics agree. The Washington Post was probably the most damning when it said it was "a frenetic, densely layered, narratively scrambled blob of moviemaking that will leave viewers alternately baffled and sensorially stunned"; The New York Observer agreed spewing that "to suffer through this kind of hell, movie critics deserve combat pay". Some folk did manage to like it, as Newsday thought it was a "spectacularly strange viewing experience". What Happens In Vegas isn’t very good either, being essentially an hour and forty five minutes of two attractive people being attractive, and the critical consensus matches that branding. The New York Times called it "one of those junky time-wasters"; while The Arizona Republic thought that "What Happens in Vegas . . . should have stayed in Vegas" Redbelt appears to be a much more successful affair, as celebrated playwright and director Mamet tackles the world of Mixed Martial Arts. Folks have generally dug it, with Peter Travers at Rolling Stone complementing its director by saying "Mamet is on his game, and that is a sight to see".