The walking dead Season 3 Episode 2: Sick review

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Warning, Episode 1 and 2 spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click the link to reveal review.

The walking dead Season 3 Episode 1: Seed review

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Warning: season 2 spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

click the link to reveal review.

Super review

Frank D'Arbo: Shut up, crime! 

Director: James Gunn
(2010)

Super centres on Frank (Rainn Wilson), a man who chooses to fight back against the criminals in the town where he lives. After losing the love of his life Sarah (Liv Tyler) to a drug dealer who causes her to relapse, he takes matters into his own hands to clean up the streets and extract his revenge. Director James Gunn gives us a completely outlandish satire on superheroes, but one that often caused me to grimace when I should have been laughing.

It’s pretty obvious that Frank is a very deluded individual. Even though Sarah takes her possessions with her, he’s convinced that she’s been kidnapped. After a bizarre scene that is interpreted as a message from God, Frank sees this as a reason to don a costume and cowl to take vengeance on those who break the law. While his vigilante actions are presented as good intentions, he lacks the abilities and morals to do the job with any degree of success. Befriending the comic book store working Libby (Ellen Page) they team up to make a team of deranged crime busting lunatics.

The message that Super portrays is bewildering. While yes, Frank attacks criminals, and there's nothing wrong with a child molester getting smashed in the face with a pipe wrench, things soon get taken too far. Some people (drug dealers, muggers) also deserve such a violent punishment, while others (people who cut lines at the cinema) shouldn’t be beaten within an inch of their life. While no one likes line cutters, Frank exhibits the traits of a psychopath, almost instantaneously causing a total loss of empathy for him. He claims this is a task set to him by god, which makes for genuinely unsettling viewing. Gunn attempts to conceal this by sprinkling in some actually funny humour, but the laughter is drowned out by Libby, who becomes his maniacal kid sidekick, Boltie. While Page puts in an electric and quirky performance, though her character multiplies the films psychopathic nature, almost bludgeoning a man to death with a statue just for maybe keying her friend’s car. The misplaced anger and rage of the first 2 acts is finally focused through the climax, an assault on the drug dealing, wife stealing swine Jacques (an ace Kevin Bacon). The action is solid, making for an eventful and explosive climax

So, after 80 minutes of flitting between a black comedy and brutal violence, Super finishes with the strangest of endings. It’s almost as if Frank is rewarded for his crazy actions, and things are tied up with a warm and fluffy bow. This is Gunn’s biggest failing throughout Super, he can’t decide what kind of tone to settle on, resulting in a film that makes us laugh one minute and hate our ‘protagonists’ the next. The film acknowledges this and perhaps giving a nice ending to such a monster of a person was the point. Super is consistently breaking conventions with great results, but this justification for psychopathic, actions sours the experience somewhat.

Monsters review

Samantha Wynden: Doesn't that kind of bother you, that you need something bad to happen to profit from it? 
Andrew Kaulder: You mean, like a doctor? 

Director: Gareth Edwards
(2010)

Up until I saw Gareth Edwards’ Monsters, I was convinced that low budget films and excessive CGI don’t mix. How could it, CGI isn’t cheap, and the money could be spent in other, more needed areas. But Monsters is a different breed of film, seamlessly combining personal drama and conflict with imaginative science fiction.

Set 6 years into the future, a photojournalist (Scoot McNairy) is tasked with escorting his bosses’ daughter (Whitney Able) from Mexico back to the United States. This rather simple sounding task is made immensely challenging due to the infected zone, a large chunk of northern Mexico that harbours a mysterious alien race. Monsters is very much a drama film at its core, but frequently strays into thriller territory. The monsters themselves are used very sparingly, ratcheting up the tension when they do arrive.

Through grounded characters and a solid script, we truly get a sense of what it’s like to live in a world where the government struggles to contain a dangerous foreign entity. The performances feel real, partially because some of them are, most of the cast are locals or extras. While our 2 leads are solid, Andrew is overly cynical and Sam occasionally has her performance descend into being nothing more than a pretty face. They do become fleshed out sufficiently, and we delve into their relationships and past experiences. Neither of them possesses much of a character arc, but the conversations they hold inject enough intrigue to their journey.

Seeing the effect that the alien invasion had on people and communities is quite easily the finest thing about Monsters. The smoking skylines and ruined hotels, it’s clear this part of the world has gone through hell, and we get to witness the glorious aftermath. It’s a fine example of visual storytelling. Throughout the film there are signs of struggle and encounters, painting another layer onto the conflict. Monster carcasses litter the countryside, ships have been flung into trees by the aliens and plane fuselages litter the river bank. What’s even more impressive is the tiny budget that Gareth Edwards managed to create this world with. The entire production is said to have come in at around 800,000 dollars, loose change to many studio executives in this day and age. The CGI was also created by Edwards, and while it creates an evocative foreboding atmosphere, it looks a little cheap at times. Hardly a fair complaint though, given the microscopic budget and fantastic end result.

While centred initially on the affects the aliens have caused both the USA and Mexico, things take a sharp shift into the land of that of a clear as day allegory. The infected zone stretches from northern Mexico right up to the US border, their method of choice for keeping the ‘illegal aliens’ out is by erecting a massive wall. It’s obvious that this is an extended metaphor for America’s immigration policies, but thankfully this issue becomes less prominent as the film develops and more focus is placed on character interaction and unsettling tension. All this is aided by some stunning cinematography, capturing the Mexican wilderness with a tender beauty. The sunsets are glorious and the forests magnificent, Edwards’s proficient shooting has a profound effect on both our protagonists and us as an audience. Monsters possesses a style that blends the personal perspective of handheld filming with more traditional shooting; a close example being 2009’s The Hurt Locker. This brings the audience along with the characters, but without stifling them by going with a first person perspective such as in The Blair Witch Project.

By its finish, Monsters has taken the audience on an atmospheric, personal journey. While heavily marketed as an action film, we’re given little in the way of alien encounters, and Monsters is all the better for it.

Looper review

Older Joe: I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws. 

Director: Rian Johnson
(2012)

Ah, time travel. Despite being illogical and impossible, it still crops up to mesmerise and confound its audience. And while it often results in a film that has more than its fair share of plot holes, Rian Johnsons Looper is utterly compelling and ranks as one of the better Sci Fi’s of the last 10 years.

The film focuses on Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt) a form of hitman called a ‘Looper’. His job is to kill people that are sent back from the future where technological advances make murder almost impossible to commit. Eventually a Looper will have his future self sent back, who he must kill to retire himself. From here, he has 30 years to live his life before being sent back in time to be killed by his younger self, an event that happens indefinitely. Things go wrong for Joe when he fails to kill his older self (Bruce Willis) he’s hunted by the mob, all while his older self attends to his own future altering agenda. It’s initially a lot to get your head around, but once the logic behind the time travel is understood, Looper is a fantastically enjoyable film.

What isn’t initially obvious is that Looper is very much a drama, there’s surprisingly little in the way of action. Instead, we get a compelling story about time travel and the repercussions and consequence of characters actions. It’s a Smart, intelligent sci fi, the likes of which seem to be a dying breed. The little action that is present is particularly underwhelming. A sprinkling of gun combat is thrown in, but fails to offer the thrills or entertainment of Johnsons riveting script. And that’s exactly what Looper is, riveting. From Joes opening monologue, Looper is constantly developing; its plot gripping and its execution strong.

What aids proceedings are the performances that are solid across the board. Despite having a face mangled by prosthetics to make him look similar to Bruce Willis, Gordon Levitt does a well in his role. His performance in well synchronised with Willis’ old Joe, and through small nuances we really get the feeling that these 2 are indeed, the same. Emily blunt puts in what may be her best performance yet as Sara, a single mother and farm owner. She turns this character, who seems relatively young, into a worn and restless soul. We also get minor yet important turns from Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels which propel the narrative along in the opening third. Much like every aspect of Looper, these characters are aided by great writing, but this shouldn’t detract from the quality everyone's performance.

The biggest failing of Looper is that it doesn't offer a large enough payoff for all of the interesting build-up. While it smoothly sidesteps a dreaded anticlimax, it doesn’t fully capitalise on its potential. It should be noted that the film does manage is to tie up loose ends, rounding off a satisfying film. Time travel is a messy subject for a film at the best of times, but most directors aren’t as deft or focused as Rian Johnson.

Gladiator review

Maximus: Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here? 

Director: Ridley Scott
(2000)

Its sort of a curse anyone who watches a film after awards season. While many don’t agree or even listen to the academy of motion picture and arts, a film with its awards success plastered all over its DVD box still has grand expectations to live up to.  This very curse may have afflicted me, as Ridley Scott’s gladiator should be considered synonymous with the internet’s favourite word; overrated.

Gladiator kicks off with a rather lackluster battle between the Romans, lead by general Maximus (Russell Crowe) and the native Germans. Once the battle has finished, and Maximus’ close friend and emperor (Richard Harris in a small but excellent role) is dead, Maximus is branded a traitor by the new emperor, Commodus (Joaquin phoenix). He escapes, only to find his family murdered and himself sold as a slave. Anyone who believed gladiator would have a deep and involving plot will be rudely awakened here, as everything consists around this shallow, violent revenge tale. The narrative is driven solely by brutal battle scenes which are, admittedly, the best part of the film. The vicious sword slices, decapitated limbs and feral screams of the combatants thoroughly add to the intensity of these scenes, and the film is better for it.

When we watch events unfold outside of the arena, things are far more mundane. Gladiator is a very unique film due to being rather empty. Events never descent to the status of boring, but none of this content is interesting either. Instead it can be compared to the chewing fat in a fine piece of steak, totally tasteless, but essential for making the steak (in this case the fight scenes) taste good. The only other exception to this is Joaquin phoenix’ emperor Commodus. He's Maximus’ betrayer and the sniveling, slimy villain of the piece. Phoenix is phenomenal in this role, adding the layers and subtle emotions required to make Commodus the dislikable figure that he is. His is the best performance in gladiator; if anyone was deserving of a statuette that year, it’s him. I can’t pay the same compliments to Crowe however, who fills his role with blank expressions and a gruff voice.

For the majority of its long running time, gladiator is emotionally vapid. We don’t attach to Maximus’ family, and despite watching his little boy getting bowled over and trampled by a horse, we don’t care as much as we could. This has serious repercussions for the rest of the film; Maximus is fueled by emotions that we the audience, don’t share. Only at its climax is where the film gains some emotional weight, during a battle between a strong willed hero we love to watch fight, and a villain we’ve been made to hate. Only then are these emotions possible when the focus moves from Maximus’ struggle to the effects he’s had on the lives of others.

With its bloated length, Gladiator isn't a film for the impatient or action hungry. In retrospect, the 2000’s were the start of the end for Ridley Scott, the once brilliant filmmaker who crafted classics such as Blade Runner and has been relegated to making above average films. It’s not that Gladiator is a bad film, but outside of the arena and Joaquin Phoenix, there's little here that’s actually worth enduring its 2 and a half hour running time.

Mystic River review

Jimmy: How long? 
Whitey Powers: How long what? 
Jimmy: How long till you catch my daughter's killer? I need to know. 

Director: Clint Eastwood
(2003)

A film like Mystic River shouldn’t be an enjoyable experience. At its core, the subject matter of loss, grief and child abuse paint an impossibly bleak tone. Surrounding it, 3 excellent performances that expertly detail the pain these themes can cause. For the most part director Clint Eastwood handles Mystic River excellently, creating a film that stays with the viewer for many weeks after being seen.

Mystic river centres on 3 friends, Sean, Dave and Jimmy, it begins with the trio as children playing hockey in the street. Dave gets abducted and abused by 2 men posing as police officers, an act that traumatizes him deeply. An early scene that has stuck with me is that of his parents pulling down his bedroom blind; almost stating that the abuse that Dave has suffered should be out of sight and out of mind in order for it to get better. We transition to the 3 characters in their adult years, no longer the tightly knit group they used to be. Jimmy (Sean Penn) is a shop keeping family man, Sean (Kevin Bacon) is a police detective and Dave (Tim Robbins) has a son. They become reunited after Jimmy’s daughter is murdered, and we witness how these characters handle the situation as the hunt for the killer begins.

Mystic River succeeds in part thanks to terrific performances from its 3 leads. Kevin bacon plays his role well, bouncing witty dialogue off his partner Whitley (Laurence Fishbourne). Like almost all of the characters in Mystic River, he is suffering from loss in the form of his wife, who frequently calls but never speaks. Tim Robbins is excellent as Dave Boyle, showing the trauma of his childhood has had serious implications on his adult life. Robbins does so with delicacy, never overblown but constantly nuanced, a terrific show that won him a well deserved Oscar.  Much like Robbins, Sean Penn is also excellent. Loss isn’t new to him, but the loss of his favourite daughter Katie (Emmy Rossum) shatters him. Penn captures a man whose world has collapsed to a tee developing Jimmy’s desperation perfectly.

Beyond the brilliance of the performances, Mystic River sustains itself not only as a drama, but as a murder mystery too. As Sean and Whitley search for answers, so too does the audience. Delicate clues strewn in forgettable pieces of dialogue, characters with ever changing alibi’s and guilty consciences give the viewer something to chew on while being mesmerised by quality performances. This mystery storyline, running parallel to jimmy’s personal search for answers builds up to a sensational finish. The strands intertwine, perfectly edited to show the breaking points of the characters. In the hands of a lesser director and cast this scene could have fallen to pieces. Instead it successfully delivers a powerful knockout blow.

While mystic river gets a great deal of things correct, it also has some issues; poor dialogue being the most notable. It’s generally solid stuff from Brian Helgeland, but 3 or 4 times becomes pretentiously laughable. While this may seem few and far between, these dire exchanges damage the serious tone significantly enough to hurt the overall quality of the film. Sean Penn is oddly at the heart of the worst scene in the film, when he’s informed that his daughter is dead. His melodramatic screams are laughable as half a dozen police officers hold him back. This scene should resonate with emotion; it is the starting point to his life plunging into desperation and sadness after all. Still, its flaws can’t detract from the fact that this is another excellent output from Clint Eastwood. Part drama, part mystery thriller, mystic river is riveting from beginning to end.

Short review: The Cabin in the Woods

Director:  Drew Goddard
(2012)

The cabin in the woods is a satire on the horror genre, poking fun at the various conventions that the majority of scary films adhere to. 5 teen stereotypes go on vacation and start getting bumped off as quickly as conventions are shattered with a cool wit. The jock has a degree and the whore is a normal girl, but these are changed to stereotype by the minds behind events, kind of like a horror spoofing Truman Show. Still what’s done here was done better in Wes Craven's Scream (1997) and proceedings are ruined with a final scene that shoots the rest of the film in the foot, making the whole notion of mocking events up like a horror flavoured big brother totally unnecessary. Watch this one for the satire, not the horror.

Lawless review

Forrest Bondurant: I'm a Bondurant. We don't lay down for nobody. 

Director: John Hillcoat
(2012)

I’ll admit, the main reason I went to see lawless was because of the big names on the poster. I mean, who could resist a film that features Jessica Chastain, Gary Oldman, Tom hardy and Guy Pearce? The story, centred on a supposedly true story about moonshine bootlegging during the prohibition also gained my curiosity. What director John Hillcoat doesn’t do, is mesh all of these excellent features into a good film, and instead, lawless can only be described as squandered potential.

Following the Bondurant brothers, the eager Jack (Shia LaBeouf), animalistic Howard (Jason Clarke) and leader Forrest (Tom Hardy), we witness their illegal moonshine making business in the Virginia outback. With even the law enforcement in the palm of their hand, the brothers certainly live up to their reputation of being invincible. Things begin to change though, with the arrival of special deputy Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) who intends to make their life “real difficult from now on”. And so begins lawless, a film that simply underwhelms at almost every turn.

Hillcoat tries to paint the Bondurants occupation as large scale, a well oiled machine of moonshine making, but fails horribly. For the most part, it’s like only these 3 brothers have most of the state in a chokehold all on their own. The lack of scale is also applied rather disappointingly to the action scenes. Shootouts are small and insignificant, and besides Forrest’s penchant for punching people in the throat, fight scenes lack anything other than a gratuitous amount of blood, the red stuff being used in an attempt to make things more interesting. It doesn’t. This extends to the films all out climax, which also lacks the scale and conviction needed to become an interesting facet of the film.

Easily the redeeming features of lawless are the performances from a great cast. While Mia Wasikowska’s was one dimensional and Clarkes’s role revolved around alcoholism and punching, the remaining performances are a bright light for the film. Chastain (back after making what felt like millions of films in 2011) is the sultry Maggie, a woman after the affection of Forrest and the peace of the countryside. Tom Hardy’s Forrest possesses an indomitable presence, but doesn't get the screentime to be developed as well as he could, despite Hardy’s great effort. LaBeouf is surprisingly watchable, something I never believed I would say after the abhorrence that was Sam Witwicky in transformers 3. Oldmans performance lasted mere minutes, but it was great. He plays Chicago gangster Floyd Banner a ruthless killer and lover of moonshine, complete with a wink loaded with more charm than most of the entire film. The defining performance (and best thing about lawless) must go to Guy Pearce as superficial villain Charlie Rakes. A man of extreme vanity, slick hair, perfume and shaven eyebrows, he is a camp, yet dangerous adversary for the trio of brothers. He’s a scene stealer, that’s for sure, and is undoubtedly the best thing that Lawless has to offer.

When the film rolls into its arbitrary epilogue, I began to feel more and more short-changed by Lawless. It’s not to say it’s a poor film, but rather a film that was less than the sum of its parts. The cast is predictably good, but there’s little here to build up tension or interest. As soon as the credits role, the pangs of disappointment start, and the only memorable thing about Lawless is that it won’t be remembered.

Law Abiding Citizen review

Nick Rice: You think your wife and daughter would feel good about you killing in their name? 
Clyde Shelton: My wife and daughter can't feel anything. They're dead. 

Director: F. Gary Gray
(2009)

From its brash and weakly developed opening, Law Abiding Citizen is happy to stumble from one poorly written plot device to another. The concept is an intriguing one, a man who is locked in prison causes havoc on the outside world to prove highlight the flaws of the justice system. Unfortunately, thanks to an awful script and lacklustre direction, Law Abiding Citizen is about as subtle as being hit in the face with a baseball bat.

The film focuses on husband and father Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) who only moments into the film, has his family killed and house robbed by junkies. His attorney Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) helps in the sentencing of the culprits, with one getting a death sentence while the other only gets 5 years due to a loop in the justice system. Understandably, this angers Clyde, who feels that their punishment must be more severe, resulting in him taking matters into his own hands. What could have developed into a satisfying revenge thriller is abruptly ended just 25 minutes in, with Clyde exacting his revenge on the killer Darby (Christian Stolte) in the most brutal way possible. If director F. Gary Gray had any sense, he would have rolled the credits and prevented law abiding citizen from descending into a dreadful mess.

Locked up on murder charges for the slaughter of Darby, Clyde meets Nick once again. Form inside his cell, he reigns terror on the city with an aim to bring the justice system to its knees. From here, we stop caring for Clyde; he has, after all, avenged his family with the death of their killers. But instead, he aims to kill lawyers, attorneys and judges on his sick and misguided quest for proving a point. He mindlessly slaughters people who had little if not anything to do with the case of his family’s murder, all to show his distain of the law. He goes from vigilante to outright bastard in seconds, something almost reflected by giving the majority of the remaining screentime to Jamie Foxx. Though this isn’t good either, as Foxx puts in as little effort as possible, resulting in a horrendously bad performance.  

For the rest of the film we see a good idea get buried under a colossal mountain of bad writing, plot holes and events that are outright impossible. The stilted dialogue and excruciatingly bad plot combine to generate laughs instead of the thrills that law Abiding Citizen needs to pull it through its terrible second third. Only once the narrative has been dragged through hell and back, we are served an ending that is broken logically and thematically, a rotten cherry on a mouldy cake.

Despite its horrendous flaws, law abiding citizen isn’t all bad. Butler puts in a solid performance and an early chase scene; complete with the escapee being guided by a guardian angel on the other end of the phone, is thrilling. But that’s about where any form of compliment ends.

Stand by me review

The Writer: [voiceover] I was 12 going on 13 the first time I saw a dead human being. It happened in the summer of 1959-a long time ago, but only if you measure in terms of years. I was living in a small town in Oregon called Castle Rock. There were only twelve hundred and eighty-one people. But to me, it was the whole world.

Director: Rob Reiner
(1986)

I will admit, I'm not one to usually rewatch films. I feel that many films aren’t as good after the first viewing. If a film does come along that I would like to watch a second time, I often wait a year before seeing it again, so it will feel fresh upon this repeated viewing. There are of course, films that are just as good the first time as they are the second, and Stand by Me is one of those films.

An almost too simple tale of friendship and self discovery, stand by me is one of the best coming of age stories ever told. It follows Gordie (Wil Wheaton) Chris (River Phoenix) Teddy (Cory Feldman) and Vern (Jerry O’ Connell) as they embark on a journey through the woods on the outskirts of their hometown to find the body of a missing boy. After learning the body’s location off Vern’s idiotic brother, they depart with hopes of becoming famous for uncovering his fate. Despite the majority of the film being dominated by child actors, Stand by Me effortlessly manages its dramatic moments. All four on the leads have talent, and do a fantastic job of holding the film together. It’s fair to say these are the best child performances of all time, an achievement that looks like it will stand for a while.

Thomas Del Ruth’s excellent cinematography captures the beauty of the Oregon countryside. The green leaves and orange sunsets are stunning, and really add to the film, making the journey in which the boys undertake feel so much grander. Granted, they are only travelling 20, maybe 30 miles, but to them, and to us, it feels like a vast adventure. In today's age of technology and urbanization, the fields and forests that the gang treks through seem quite alien, making their journey feel like the exploration of uncharted territory to today's youth. Coupled with a dreamy haze that lingers over every inch of this corner of Oregon, the location becomes a character itself.

The story that takes place on this journey is rather simple, but it merely acts as a vessel for the journey before the destination. Around the midway point the boy’s camp out in the woods, discussing cartoons and food, or as our narrator puts it “the kind of talk that seemed important until you discovered girls”. This growing, this coming of age makes up the heart of Stand by Me, and the emotional scenes really hit home here. The characters remain grounded and likable throughout, a far cry from other child starring films. Stand by Me is all about growing up, and this sentiment gives the film such universal appeal, it’s a throwback to the good old days, when the world was the town where you lived and the biggest concern was the next homework assignment.

A special mention should go to Kiefer Sutherlands antagonist Ace Merrill. Initially just a bully to Gordie and Chris, he finds out about the body and takes his gang of thugs to find it in an attempt for personal glory. The paths of Ace and our heroes cross in a sensational climax, a phenomenal moment to go down as a scene that is the definition of coming of age. Shortly after, the film swells to a powerful and emotional conclusion. Stand by me isn't a long film, but by the end you feel like you’ve been on a journey with these characters; done what they’ve done and seen what they’ve seen. Yes, the script is a little spotty at times, but when a film is as engrossing and evocative as this, it’s hard to notice. Stand by Me is the definitive coming of age film, the rite of passage going from a child to adolescent, an odyssey of self discovery with the people who mean the most to you. Simply a masterpiece that I’ll watch again and again.

Sinister review

Director: scott Derrickson
(2012)

It’s almost Halloween. I know this not because I looked at a calendar this morning, but because I checked the showings at my local cinema. Frankenweenie, Paranorman, Paranormal activity 4 and my choice for Saturday night, Sinister. From director Scott Derrickson, his first after 4 years since the poor ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’ remake, he has a lot to prove with his latest foray into the horror genre.

And from the film’s opening shot, super 8 footage of a family of 4 being hanged from a tree in their backyard, Sinister begins as grimly as it means to go on. Focusing on true crime writer Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke) and his family. Things begin innocuously enough, he moves into his new home in a new town so he can attempt to write his next big hit, as well as solve mystery of a missing girl Stephanie, the 5^th member of the family we see in the film’s opening. It seems that Ellison likes to move as close as possible to crime scenes, as in his garden is the tree used to hang the family we saw in the opening shot. From here, Sinister throws everything from bumps in the night, malevolent spirits and some very grisly violence at its audience in its almost desperate attempt to generate scares.

 And the thing is it does. If based solely on the originality of its content, Sinister could and should be thrown of the scrap heap with most of the horror offerings from the past 10 years. Predictable doesn’t begin to describe it. False scares, people tripping, strange figures that lurk so obviously in photos that it’s a wonder they’ve never been noticed . But for its lack on original ideas, Derrickson does a good job of pacing his film efficiently, giving enough family themed lowdown to balance out the blood chilling scares. After finding a box of ‘home movies’ in the otherwise empty attic of this new home (where else would they be?) they reveal the horrific murders of other families, with each family having one survivor, the youngest child, who promptly goes missing.

The plot development happens almost exclusively in these tapes as Ellison watches and rewatches them, hunting for clues. Without wanting to spoil proceeding too much, the evidence that Ellison gathers takes the film in a different direction than previously implied, and this change hurts the film dramatically. It becomes less psychological and threatening, but the trade-off is an increase in scares, both quality and quantity. These scares do little to get inside your head and creep you out, but capitalise of the tension that Derrickson builds up so well with decent camera work and pulse pounding music. The second half of sinister features a plethora of scary faces, screaming heads and creepy, half decayed children lurking in the shadows.  It’s a real waste that some of the jumps are telegraphed to the point where you can see events 2 minutes before they happen. Yes, the attic isn’t the best place to go at 3am in the morning, ever.

It’s this stupidity from the characters that lowers the quality of sinister yet another degree. Why creep round a darkened house with a torch when it’s sunny outside and you could just open the curtains? If the attic steps suddenly descend from the ceiling, don’t go up there. And if the masked serial killer committed all of the murders in the tapes left in your attic appears in your garden; don’t exit your house to ‘investigate’. These aren’t crimes that are exclusive to Sinister, if characters were smart in horror films the genre would probably die, but here it sure as hell damaged my enjoyment of the film.

It has a myriad of flaws, its predictable, cheap and wont haunt your dreams like it should, but sinister almost effortlessly generates the scares that horror junkies so badly crave. It’s nothing that you probably haven't seen before, but sinister is worth its weight in screams.

Short Review: The guard

Director: John Michael McDonagh
(2011)

The best aspect of the guard is undoubtedly Brendan Gleeson. This man doesn’t do poor performances, and he continues this streak with his turn as Gerry Boyle. A police officer in Ireland, he goes beyond the stereotypes of bent cop or saintly do gooder. He refuses bribes, yet steals drugs off criminals and messes up crime scenes; acting completely on his own accordance. He has a fondness for hookers and enjoys Disneyland, Goofy is his favourite. Teaming up with Don Cheadles American inspector, the duo must thwart a drugs shipment of cocaine. The jokes, while good, merely produce chuckles instead of rip roaring laughter. This combined with some poor pacing put the guard in an awkward place at times, the plot development being almost nonexistent. When this occurs things meander aimlessly, and the guard stops being charming and funny long enough to become dull.

Brave review

Princess Merida: There comes a day when I don't have to be a Princess. No rules, no expectations. A day where anything can happen. A day where I can change my fate.

Despite appearing to be Pixar attempting to do a classic Disney style fairytale, Brave is much more than what initially meets the eye. In the place of the stereotypically evil villain, we have a troubled relationship between a princess and her mother. Our heroine Merida (Kelly McDonald) isn't looking for a prince charming but is repulsed by the idea, in spite of a grand tournament being held to find the most eligible bachelor. When her mother Elinor (Emma Thompson) pushes her to breaking point with incessant nagging to be more like a princess, she utilizes magic to try to change her fate.

Despite what seemed like a promise of a fresh take on the fairytale genre, the first half of brave is rather run of the mill, and unfortunately plays to its predictable stereotype of being another Disney fantasy. There's a castle, a king and queen and a set up for the antagonist.  Only during the second half does brave transcend its genre and becomes an enjoyable film. To try and avoid the marriage that she desperately doesn’t want, she consults the help of a witch (Julie Walters). This is very much the point where Pixar show us the quality they can produce that was sorely lacking in cars 2. They effortlessly shift events into the high gear, just as we've come to expect from them. The amount of action is higher, scenes hold more tension and with more screentime for Merida’s triplet brothers, things are much funnier as well.

 The biggest stumbling block in the second half of brave is that it lacks the grand scale needed to accommodate its story. Much of the story continues to take place in and around Merida’s castle home, only once venturing far out into the highlands. This scene gives the required scope to augment the films adventurous side, an aspect that was sorely lacking and then disappears, once again becoming absent for the remainder of the film. Culminating with what is best described as a chase scene is merely good instead of the brilliance it could have been.

All in all, brave is still a good film. It features enjoyable characters, good dialogue and enough emotion to satisfy with a strong finish. Many were concerned after the stumble that was last year’s cars 2, worried that it marked the fall of Pixar’s golden age. While it was by far their worst entry in their 17 year history, brave can be considered as their revival, albeit a small one. It’s not as fun as the Incredibles or as poignant as UP, but is something of a landmark for Pixar; Merida is their first female protagonist after all. Brave is a solid film that appeals to both adults and their children, and could well become one of the best animated films of 2012.

My most anticipated films for the remainder of 2012

As we enter the final few months of 2012, the quality of new films should be significantly higher than that of the rest of the year. It’s almost a cycle of sorts, a few sleeper hits from January to April (although I wouldn’t call The Hunger Games ‘sleeper’ by any means), an endless spew of explosions, aliens and superheroes throughout the summer. The autumn and winter months are when things really pick up. The Academy Awards are just around the corner, and studios release their films accordingly, the closer the film’s release to Oscar season, the more likely it is to be nominated. The films below are those that have the most appeal to me, the potential warmth in the impending harshness of the winter.

5. Skyfall

As much as I enjoy the works of Skyfall director Sam Mendes (has he ever made a bad film?) I was a little worried when he was appointed the man behind James Bonds latest. He may be able to command the dramatic side of 007’s latest mission, but his filmography is relatively light on action, an integral part of and Bond film. Still, with villains played by the likes of Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes, Daniel Craig returning as Bond and Roger Deakins as director of photography, I feel that Skyfall is in safe hands, and easily be the finest action film of the year. 

4. Argo

Based on the reactions it garnered from Toronto International Film Festival, many have slated the Ben Affleck directed Argo to take the best Picture category at the Academy awards in February. Based on a true story, Argo is about a plan to save 6 Americans hiding in the Canadian embassy during the Iranian revolution in 1979. The rescue is executed by sending a mock film crew into Iran to scout locations for a Star Wars rip off. The crew is actually an ex-filtration team who intend to rescue the hiding Americans. If you told anyone 10 years ago that Ben Affleck would star in a film that is an Oscar contender and critical darling, they would have laughed in your face. And the thing is, they’d have every right to. But as a director, Affleck has improved dramatically, could he have a shot at winning best director? Only time will tell. 

3. Beasts of the Southern Wild

Debuting at Sundance and taking Cannes by storm, Beasts of the Southern Wild is one of the most acclaimed films of the year so far. Following the young girl Hushpuppy as she leaves her bayou community to find her mother as her father becomes ill in health. The 2 actors in the starring roles Quvenzhane Wallis and Dwight Henry are a bunch of unknowns, but according to many will be looking at Oscar nominations for their incredible performances. It’s certainly shaping up to be one of the most magical films of the year ahead of its October 19^th UK release date.

2. To the Wonder

This one is slightly cheating. While it’s finished filming and has been released to the usual chorus of boos and cheers as various film festivals (Venice and Toronto), the chances of it being released anytime soon seems fleeting. Director Terrence Malick’s has never been one to rush the release or production of his films, the 20 year gap between Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line supports this. While Magnolia pictures have stated To the Wonder will have a 2013 release, a year is a long space of time, and it could come at any point. The Tree of Life was a visionary masterpiece and the finest, most polarizing, film o f 2011; could To the Wonder replicate this feat for 2013?

1. The master

After the Dark Knight Rises had come and gone, there was only ever one other film I would crave with such feverous anticipation. While Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest effort will be considerably different in its definition of epic when compared to Nolan's explosive Batman finale, I'm no less intrigued about it. Much like Beasts of the Southern Wild, viewers in the USA have already seen it; its release was moved forwards to September stateside in order to improve its Oscar chances. In the UK, it was moved from the initial October release date to the middle of November, so understandably the extended weight has been arduous. 2012 has been the year I discovered PTA, starting with his finest (There Will Be Blood) being let down ever so slightly after watching Magnolia and having my faith fully restored with the excellent Boogie Nights. As far as performances go, the buzz around Joaquin phoenix’s turn in The Master has been at fever pitch, could he give something that could usurp Daniel Day Lewis’ performance in There Will Be Blood as the greatest of the 21^st century? In a little over a month I’ll be able to find out.

We Need to Talk About Kevin review

Eva: You don't look happy. 
Kevin: Have I ever? 

Director: Lynn Ramsey
(2011)

It isn't very often that a film sticks in my mind almost every moment after a watch it. But then again, not many films are like We Need to Talk about Kevin, a film which shows a troubled relationship between mother and borderline demonic son. Not that this is a supernatural horror film, WNTTAK is very much grounded in reality, something that makes it all the more horrifying.

 The film centers not on the demon child that is Kevin, but on his continually suffering mother, Eva (Tilda Swinton). Swinton is a tour de force here, playing a woman who hates her son, the child it seems she didn’t really want in the first place. She would much rather live in the city, but after husband Franklin (John C Reilly) persuades her persuades her it would be better for their son as he enters his first years of life, they move to the suburbs. The titular Kevin is played excellently in his teen years by Ezra Miller, and by Jasper Newell and Rock Duer in his childhood. The trio of these actors deliver something special here, performances that go beyond the bratty toddler/teenager stereotype. Seemingly wrong from birth, the purpose of his satanic behavior seems only to torture his mother. He destroys her room and paints over all her maps, masturbates with the bathroom door open and kills his adoring sister’s pet hamster. He is a horrible, horrible person, a deep resentment that we as an audience shares with Eva. These performances are what keeps the film riveting throughout, even when the plot grinds to a halt.

Flashbacks are put to excellent use in WNTTAK and the non linear narrative shows the aftermath of Kevin’s unspeakable actions, and chilling build up to them as well. This allows director Lynn Ramsey to finish the film brutally, with an ending that can very much be described as a bit of a downer. These flashbacks further amplify Swintons performance, the contrast between a woman dealing with the child she doesn’t love and the woman who’s life has been destroyed is astronomical, and Swintons catches all of the nuances needed to make this so.

For the most part, the films ambiguity works marvelously, with focus on the aftermath of Kevin’s incident, not the violence that caused it. But other aspects (how does eve lose her money? What happened to Celia’s eye? Why is Kevin the way he is?) Don’t give enough exposition for the viewer to search for answers. This leads to the films biggest flaw; why is Kevin the way he is? A child isn't born ‘wrong’, and he suffers no neglect or incident to turn him this way. An early scene shows the baby Kevin almost perpetually crying around Eva, but is fine around father Franklin. Are we to believe he is born evil making WNTTAK more of a horror film, or are we seeing things from the warped perspective of a grieving Eva (these scenes are flashbacks after all). It seems that everyone in the town hates Eva, something that can be deducted from the paint thrown on her car and the citizens that punch her in the face. These reactions are extreme, Kevin’s ‘incident’ has long since passed, it’s highly doubtful that Kevin’s mother be remembered for all of this time. Regardless, this is an example of We Need to Talk about Kevin at its worst; it asks questions that have no answers, instead of asking questions with answers that the audience has to search for.

Regardless of an abundance of empty questions and implausible plot points, we need to talk about Kevin is sublimely shot, a factor that adds to the gruesomeness of the films events. There’s no doubt, this is a cold, chilling piece of cinema, hard to stomach, but unmissable all the same. I would place it in the same category as Mystic River, a difficult, harrowing watch, but one that must be seen all the same.

Reign Over Me review

Angela Oakhurst: Charlie, before you go, I'd like to say something. Look, the fact is you had a family and you suffered a great loss, and until you discuss that and we can really talk about that, this is all just an exercise. I can be patient, Charlie, but you need to tell someone your story. It doesn't have to be me, but someone. 

Director: Mike Binder
(2007)

Is it possible to be able to make an audience understand an event that most of them might never experience? Almost everyone will suffer loss in their lifetime, but will they lose everyone they care about at exactly the same time? According to director Mike Binder, the answer to unlocking this empathy is to cast Adam Sandler. While this sounds ridiculous, it’s not the biggest failing of Reign Over Me, and despite Sandlers- and many others- best efforts, reign over me falls a little flat.

Adam Sandler is solid here as Charlie Fineman, a man who lost his entire family in the 9/11 attacks. Its odd seeing Sandler in a completely serious role, a far cry from his usual comedic performances. To my surprise (and pleasure) it appears Sandler has some degree of talent, and helps round out the solid cast here. Fineman is at a loss in life until he bumps into his saviour and old college roommate, Don Cheadles Alan Johnson. Much of the film revolves around getting Charlie to visit a psychiatrist, help that he doesn’t feel he needs. He’s locked his emotions away, to him forgetting is better than overcoming, something that makes for some tender scenes.

Despite its topic, the fact that Charlie loses his family in the 9/11 attacks has very little place in the overall story, and is never rammed down the audiences throat. It could be that this underplaying is to be subtle and respectful to a great American tragedy. Conversely, reign over me is a meditation on loss and suffering, and the loss and suffering caused by the 9/11 attacks could be an exploitative attempt to pull on the audiences heartstrings. In all honesty, this choice by Binder comes across as irrelevant, as the film is void of almost any emotion. A key point in the plot involves Sandlers character having an emotional breakdown, something that should rock the film (and its audience) to the core, especially after he spends so much time bottling up these powerful emotions. Yet it doesn’t. Sandler does wonders with his material, but the emotional punch just isn't there.

Apart from this heartfelt outburst, the rest of the film is very one note. Events tick over with no real purpose and nothing drives the plot forward. Content is very thin on the ground here, and the saving grace comes from the great performances from the all star cast. Cheadle is compassionate and caring towards his old friend, while Liv Tyler is a psychiatrist who tries to help Charlie find the light at the end of the tunnel. Without all the hard work these fine actors, reign over me would have very little going for it.

Lost In Translation review

Bob: For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.

Director: Sofia Coppola
(2003)

Lost in translation is a heartwarming tale of 2 lonely people trying to find who themselves in an alien country. Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is an aging movie star who has travelled to Tokyo to shoot a whiskey commercial. From this commercial we can see that he’s an unhappy man, he smiles broadly at the camera, but his eyes are expressionless and empty. Its clear from this scene alone he would rather be ‘doing a play somewhere’. Early on during his stay in Tokyo he bumps into Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) a lonely newlywed who feels neglected due to the tight schedule of her workaholic husband John (Giovanni Ribisi). Bob and Charlotte meet by chance at the hotel bar in which they're staying, and instantly hit it off. They go to lunch, parties and bars together, they have to, there's no one else to alleviate there loneliness. Bobs wife remains at home and Charlottes husband has left Tokyo on a works trip. And through these encounters, a strong bond of friendship is born.

These encounters excellently highlight Lost In Translations greatest strength, its screenplay. Written (and directed) by Sofia Coppola, the dialogue zips, the emotion rings true and the characters have depth. Murray, usually the comedian, does wonders in a serious role here as Bob, and if the writing creates the shell of the character, Murray certainly gives it its soul. Johansson is fantastic in her role as Charlotte, imbuing her with a child like, wide eyed innocence. She’s searching for herself, something any audience member would be able to deduct from the shots of her sitting on a windowsill, looking onto the Tokyo skyline. This scene alone is a phenomenal example of the pedigree of Lost in Translations cinematography. Lance Acord captures some stunning images of Japan, from the neon glare of Tokyo’s high-rise districts at night to the elegant beauty of various temples and shrines. None of the film is shot in soundstages and it’s a testament to Acord’s skills that Lost in Translation looks so good. Its undoubtedly one of the greatest strengths of the film.

Where lost in translation falters most is its lack of story. Coppola seems more concerned in spending time with her (admittedly well written) characters rather than spurring events forwards. It’s these divergent moments (strip clubs, karaoke, call girls) that don’t work, and things grind to a frustrating halt. It’s fair to say that both story and plot is thin on the ground, and it’s left to Murray and Johansson to carry the film in this absence, a task they perform magnificently. Regardless of their hard work, they cannot prop up the films conclusion, which finishes in an ambiguous, unsatisfying way.

At its best, lost in translation manages to garner an emotional response without becoming weepy, sentimental or melodramatic; an excellent trait that can be attributed to Coppola’s strong script. Films that manage to achieve this are few and far between; here it’s achieved perfectly.  As a film showing the affects of loneliness and the power of friendship, Coppola is onto a winner. If it wasn’t for the lack of plot, Lost in Translation would be a fine piece of cinema. Instead, it’s merely a good one.