Ill Manors review

Director: Ben Drew
(2012)

Despite his primary occupation as a musician, Ben ‘Plan B’ Drew is also a half decent actor, playing key roles in films such as Harry Brown (2009) and this years The Sweeney.  The 29 year old seemingly isn’t content and has delivered Ill Manors, his directorial debut. For a first effort, it’s certainly a solid film.

Set in the rough end of London, Ill Manors is an interlocking mosaic of a film, portraying characters lives as they collide together, like P.T Andersons Magnolia (1999) but with more swearing. While screentime is split well between the multitudes of characters, our protagonist can be identified as Aaron (Riz Ahmed), a young man tangled up with the drugs and violence of his neighbourhood. His friend Ed (Ed Skrein) is a racist thug and drug dealer, but a friend none the less. Over the course of the film they interact with hookers, drug addicts, gangsters, children trying to live the street life, pub owners and kids that struggle with the affects their neighbourhood has on them.

Make no mistake, Ill Manors is gruesome and gritty, and while it can be slightly over the top, it isn’t a pleasant film to sit though. Throughout its 2 hour run time we witness murder, assault, sex rings and drug abuse. Drew paints a gritty neighbourhood filled with some truly horrible characters; a permanent attempt to make every scene hit as close to the bone as possible. This is primarily the failing of Ill Manors; it wants every scene to be harrowing and uncomfortable. The incessant foul language (the first piece of dialogue features the word ‘cunt’), perpetually angry thugs complete with shaven domes and whores who fall asleep with needles lodged in their arms is intended to be upsetting stuff, but it really isn’t. Drew shows no signs of pacing these horrors, and within minutes we’re accustomed to the myriad of swearing and violence. You can show me a prostitute being beaten by a Russian gangster, but the brutality of the scene is rendered weightless by the films monotone pacing of its violence.

By using rap music to fill in the backstory of the films characters, we have a film that's crammed with remarkable characters without the burden of a bloated running time. Drew wrote and performed the songs himself, aptly transferring his talents from the music industry onto the big screen with aplomb. These raps are accompanied with sped up footage that charts that characters life up to the point where they are now, and the depth this brings to the film is insightful and refreshing.

While mostly adhering to a linear chronology, Ill manors occasionally leads one story arc to its climax and leaves it so simmer while another is developed. These 2 strands will then collide ferociously; viciously smashing its audience is scenes of powerful drama. Hardly an original device, it’s handled excellently, with the aftermath acting as excellent motivation for another plot arc to progress. But due to the overload of violence that seeps into every pore of the rest of the films scenes, these mini climaxes engage rather that engross, a sign that Drew almost had no intention of being restrained.

Culminating with a climax that wraps its plots up a little too cleaning considering the filthy subject matter, we’re served once more with a scene that doesn’t hit its lofty potential. And that's what makes Ill Manors so very frustrating. Drew does so much right, and it’s obvious that he put his talent and a huge amount of effort into every scene. He just slights the quality of the film by trying to smash his audience over the head with his portrayal of the slums of London. Ill Manors is on the tip of sheer brilliance, and with some more experience there's no doubt in my mind that Drew will deliver something truly special. Until that time comes, this will micro budget drama will certainly do.

Animal Kingdom review

Leckie Things survive because they're strong, and everything reaches an understanding. But not everything survives because it's strong. Some creatures are weak, but they survive because they're being protected by the strong for one reason or another. You may think that, because of the circles you move in or whatever, that you're one of the strong creatures, but you're not, you're one of the weak ones. That's nothing against you, you're just - you're just weak because you're young. But you've survived because you've been protected by the strong. But they're not strong anymore, and they're certainly not able to protect you.

Director: David Michôd
(2010)

Despite vicious shootouts, exhilarating car chases and intense bank heists, the best thing about the crime genre is the intricacies and personalities of its characters. This mould, perfectly demonstrated by The Godfather and Goodfellas, is embraced by David Michôd’s Animal Kingdom, the true story of a family of Australian criminals set around the time of their downfall.

After his mother overdoes on heroin, Teenager J (James Frecheville) is taken under the wing of his estranged Grandmother ‘Smurf’. Via voiceover we are quickly acquainted with his uncles, the core of the crime family that the police have finally had enough of. We are quickly plunged into an engrossing and violent story about a young man getting embroiled with his criminal family and the repercussions it has on his life.

 The reason Animal Kingdom works is due to superb performances from the majority of the cast. While J’s family initially come across as a bunch of thugs and psychopaths, each one exhibits hidden depth that is revealed thanks to their nuanced performances. His grandmother ‘Smurf’ (Jacki Weaver) is a compassionate and caring woman who takes J in and brings him into the family business. She’s the glue, keeping his volatile uncles (played by Luke Ford, Sullivan Stapleton, Ben Mendelsohn as well as their partner, played by Joel Edgerton) in check. After the a family member is killed by the police, Michôd plunges his characters into panic as J watches the family crumble , becoming ensnared in their downfall as the plot develops. As the Cody family falls, compassionate Sgt Nathan Leckie (Guy Pearce) tries to save J from his potential criminal future. This personal conflict that begins to pull J apart propels Animal Kingdom past its light crime genre roots into a much more gripping, harrowing film that absorbs its audience and doesn’t let go.

Animal Kingdom does what many films fail to do, create moments of genuine shock. While this may not sound like a towering achievement, it makes events unpredictable, and therefore more engaging. Much like the other great non American thriller of 2010, A Prophet, these shocks aren’t used for cheap thrills, but instead are integrated into essential character and plot development. Still, these shocks would be meaningless if the build-up to them was lacklustre, and this pitfall is avoided thanks to a great script from (writer). This, combined with some eerie and surreal music seamlessly improves the atmosphere of many of the films scenes. It’s a subtle feature, but like many aspects of animal kingdom, the most interesting parts are those that we as a viewer uncover ourselves.

Where Animal Kingdom fails to be consistent is in the performance of its lead, J (James Frecheville). Offering an almost expressionless mannequin void of emotion, it detracts from our connection to the family. The result is the impact of the family’s downfall is lessened, making its audience care less than it should. It’s not like Frecheville can’t pull off the required emotion, a late scene involving his solitary emotional breakdown in a bathroom proves he is a more than capable actor, making the directors choice to blunt his performance maddening. Other flaws, such as a lack of development for Leckie’s home life is more of a missed opportunity than a deal breaker.

2010 was a year of fantastic films. On the mainstream front we got the intricate and bombastic Inception, the masterful The Social Network and pure nostalgia in the form of Toy Story 3.  On the other end of the spectrum, films like A Prophet and Never Let Me Go can be grouped together in the ‘criminally overlooked’ category. Animal kingdom also resides in this domain, a crime thriller that's more about its characters than violence or drugs, and is all the better for it.

Short review: Troll Hunter

Director: André Øvredal
(2011)

Troll Hunter is yet another found footage film, right down to the ‘this is real!’ opening title. A film crew follows a man through Norway believing he’s behind the recent bear killings. Turns out, he’s hunting trolls. From here Troll hunter wants to be a cross between the Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, but doesn’t quite succeed. This failure can be attributed to a lack of excitement in its troll related scenes. These scenes lack both tension and entertainment; the vigorous camera shake and choppy editing don’t help proceedings. Things are worsened by showing too much of the trolls. Instead of glimpses here and there, the first encounter is an outright reveal, killing any mystery behind these intriguing beasts.

When it comes down to it, troll hunter is a shallow affair. Lovers of found footage films should check it out, but there are far better alternatives. 

Skyfall review

Sévérine: What do you know? 
James Bond: Well, it takes a certain type of woman to wear a backless dress with a Beretta 70 strapped to her thigh. 

Director: Sam Mendes
(2012)

Let’s face facts; Daniel Craig’s last outing as the iconic James Bond was an utter disappointment. Coming after the incredible Casino Royale, Quantum of solace felt like a cheap imitation rather than a successor to Martin Campbell’s 2006 007 reinvention. After Bond studio MGM sorted out there financial troubles, we have been given something of a return to form in Skyfall, helmed by the ace Sam Mendes. Not only is Skyfall a fine film to commemorate the 50^th anniversary of the franchise, it’s also one of the best films of 2012.

Opening with a fast paced, if slightly underwhelming chase through the streets of Istanbul, its clear that Mendes’ Bond means business. After leaping between train carriages and then getting shot unintentionally by fellow field agent Eve (Naomi Harris), Bond is presumed dead. Resurfacing after a terrorist attack, Bond must track down the missing hard drive which possesses the names of all agents that are undercover in terrorist organisations. Thematically, there's much emphasis on technology, with the question of “how relevant are field agents in this day and age?” being asked on a frequent basis. From a pistol that only Bond can fire to a super villain who can control almost anything using his computer, it certainly makes for an interesting topic to explore. Hell, we even get the return of gadget master and computer whiz Q (Ben Whitshaw) to further cement the importance of technology in modern espionage.

In terms of style, Skyfall sits between the realism of Casino Royale and the unpredictability of Quantum of Solace. What we have is a grounded film that likes to add spice to proceedings with motorcycle races across rooftops and fights in Komodo dragon pit. Despite this occasional silliness, Skyfall boasts some impressive set pieces, placed perfectly to augment the storytelling. Shootouts, chases and hand to hand brawls feature prominently, and are mostly well shot and gripping affairs. The films standout set piece is easily a shootout in a courtroom, a perfect concoction of suspense and action, captured and edited perfectly. This is helped tremendously by the talents of cinematographer Roger Deakins who is easily one of the finest in his field of expertise. Skyfall is quite easily the best that a James Bond film has ever looked; the use of lighting being a particularly impressive feat that is worthy of all the praise that it deserves.

Much like Casino Royale, Skyfall also possesses some fine performances. Craig is still a fantastic Bond, and while not the best in the series history, he certainly does a fantastic job of portraying Bonds charm and brutality. Judi Dench reprises the role of M, once again giving a great performance, something that holds even more importance considering her important part in the story of the film. Our 2 bond girls, Eve (Harris) and Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe) are something of a revelation. While Harris is solid and Marlohe is merely a pretty face, what Mendes does with them was intriguing and unexpected. But the real scene stealer goes to Silva (Javier Bardem), the villain of the piece. Making his grand entrance in a gorgeous, unbroken shot, he is utterly engrossing to watch. Armed with a camp accent and a terrible haircut, Bardem imbues him with such hidden malevolence, his feigned sexual desire towards Bond more threatening than its initial appearance. Bardem was exquisite in 2007’s No Country for Old Men, a level of quality that he almost equals once again in 2012.

Still, Mendes hasn’t got everything right in this instalment  While the action is good, the CGI is absolutely dire. Looking like it has been spat out from the 90’s, it’s an immersion shattering detraction from the high production values of the rest of the film. The plot is flimsy too, sending our protagonists from location to location based on half facts and unlikely outcomes. While some are more severe than others, they nonetheless reek of sloppy writing, though I doubt those Bond fans who’ve been waiting for the series to recover since Quantum of Solace will mind.

The Vow review

Leo: How do you look at the woman you love, and tell yourself that its time to walk away? 

Director: Michael Sucsy
(2012)

Another year, another RomCom. What sets The vow apart from the others is that it has a reliable cast who give this film the potential to be quite good. What makes it similar to other films in this boring genre is that it isn’t very good. In fact, that's a colossal understatement; The Vow is a mess of a film.

Centring on the relationship between Paige (Rachel McAdams) and Leo (Channing Tatum, wasting his potential in another dime a dozen RomCom). The film focuses on Leo’s attempt to get Paige to regain her memory after a car crash induced bout of amnesia. From then on the predictability sets in, and The Vow becomes a vile concoction of soppy, generic and horrendously boring. For the most part the film feels like its progressing in slow motion; mainly because it is. An excessive use of slow motion shots almost tricked me into thinking Zack Snyder had made a RomCom. Scenes that have very little relevance to the overall narrative are needlessly cranked down to a grinding slog, a flaw that crops up repeatedly. What's worse is its application during the crash that causes Paige's memory loss. We see her flaccid body launch through the windscreen, chunks of shattered glass hovering around her head. For such a serious event, it reeks of poor taste and excessive exploitation. Although it sets up the remainder of the film perfectly, as The Vow is a nonstop slog through endless clichés and terrible attempts to force an emotional response from its audience.

McAdams, an actress who has some degree of talent, doesn’t even seem to be trying here, switching expression from confused to smiling throughout the films painful yet relatively short running time. You’d think that with the abundance of RomComs that she’s been in that this shtick would’ve been nailed down to a tee, but if anything she’s regressed in terms of ability. While this doesn’t bother me that much, the very inclusion of Channing Tatum in another soppy mess of cliché that is the modern romance genre is almost a travesty. 2012 has been a good year from him, starring in Magic Mike and proving he’s an able funny man in 21 Jump Street. But much like McAdams, he’s on the saddening path of regression, back to when his performances were irksome rather that enjoyable.

Tatum’s horrific monologuing is another one of The Vows many flaws. He talks about ‘collisions’ (yeah, really) and how they make us what we are. Only this simple statement is dragged out over about a dozen lines, each one more irritating than the last. Despite feeling incredibly false, it still isn’t as frustrating as the films trio of villains. As Paige’s memory loss has caused her to forget the past 5 years of her life, she still has a connection with ex fiancé Jeremy (Scott Speedman), the typical slime ball that is as much of a part of the genre as McAdams is. The other antagonists come in the form of Paige’s parents who, despite not talking to her for 5 years, want to tear her from Leo in order to get her back. These paper thin characters are so obviously evil that the only thing they lack is a dastardly moustache to twirl. For example, shortly after the accident, the doctor informs everyone that Paige should go back to her normal routine in order to help her regain her memory. Seconds after a fully qualified doctor states this, her parents try to force her to go and live with them. The idiocy boggles the mind.

So what happens when you combine bad performances, a lack of chemistry, trashy special effects, one dimensional characters and quite possibly the worst script of the year? A mess designed solely for those women who find every film in the genre to be ‘OMG amazing’ just because the girl is relatable, the guy hunky and they get some sort of pleasure from being emotionally manipulated. While a lot of RomComs are very similar, clichéd and predictable, only a few are truly as bad as The Vow.

The walking dead Season 3 Episode 6: Hounded

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Warning, episode 4, 5 and 6 spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click the link to reveal review.

Short review: Biggie and Tupac

Director: Nick Broomfield
(2002)

Nick Broomfield’s documentary on the murders of Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls is certainly an interesting one. Starting with an insight to the duo’s early years, it charts their friendship and fallout, with interviews from friends and family for both of these hip-hop legends. It covers some interesting theories about the killings, with culprits ranging from corrupt cops to gang bosses. However, the captivating subject matter is deflated by Broomfield’s monotone voiceover, dismantling the enjoyment of the documentary somewhat. His jump tactics to acquire interviews are also a little haphazard, making for interesting encounters which are simultaneously insightful and vague. Despite only lasting 108 minutes, this documentary seems to drag while feeling underdeveloped in certain areas. A prison interview with Deathrow Records Suge Knight marks a severely missed opportunity in this solid yet unspectacular documentary that doesn’t fulfil the potential of its topic.

A prophet review

César Luciani: [to Malik] If you can walk around this place, it's because I had you made porter. If you eat, it's thanks to me. If you dream, think, live... it's thanks to me! 

Director:Jacques Audiard
(2010)

For someone who thoroughly enjoys foreign cinema it strikes me as odd that I could count all the ones ive seen on my fingers. Oldboy, pans labyrinth, the diving bell and the butterfly, the thing they have in common is that they’re all excellent films. French crime thriller A Prophet continues this tradition, effortlessly becoming one of the best gangster films since 2006’s The Departed.

A Prophet follows 19 year old Malik (Tahar Rahim), an Arab French man who has finally landed himself into prison after countless stints in juvenile detention centres. Illiterate and purposeless in life, a matter of convenience catches him up in a brutal white prison gang, run by the indomitable Cesar (Niels Arestrup). Cesar wants an Arab man assassinated, and due to racial tension, is situated (quite obviously) in the Arab wing of the prison. They force Malik into doing their dirty work, and from here, he begins his ascent in the gang in what can basically be described as a rags to riches tale.

What helps flesh out and develop this stunning transition from lowly grunt to high flying lieutenant is the phenomenal editing. This allows director Jacques Audiard to fill the films lengthy 155 minute running time with constantly evolving scenarios. No content can be considered filler here, with the plot unfolding at a lightening quick pace. Coupled with some excellent handheld camerawork, scenes are consistently riveting, helping to tell the story just as well as any line of dialogue.

Performances are solid from the entire cast, most notably Arestrup’s gang boss. A powerful and violent man, it was his decision to take Malik into the gang. It’s Arestup who should be commended for filings the role out by him hard as nails, but frail and unsettled on the inside. Tahim does a good job as Malik, applying the subtle nuances to his rise to power. Malik has a fiery temper, but possesses deep emotion and a sense of wonderment with the outside world. In this sense he’s almost symmetrical to Cesar, they both front a person very different to the one that they harbour on the inside. Jacques Audiard’s work isn’t obtuse, these emotions and weaknesses don’t litter the script, but instead are delicately placed into a scene via thoughtful cinematography and mise en scene.

While the majority of A Prophet is a drama, it’s injected with splashes of gut wrenching violence. Easily the most unforgettable is Malik's first job for the gang, the assassination of a man called Reyab. Before Malik has entered his cell, Reyab has had almost no development and much like Malik, we know nothing of him. In a cruel revelation, Reyab is a compassionate and caring human being, offering to help Malik overcome his illiteracy, even offering to give him some books. Violence in films very rarely shocks me, but the climax of this scene made me gasp and cover my mouth in horror. The word vicious doesn’t even begin to describe it.

This snappy pacing does occasionally pass over some small details though. A prophet features a large cast of characters, with the script giving them far too little dialogue to make them memorable. Because of this, their importance is often diminished and it can be difficult to remember who is who. It doesn’t ruin the film, but it can make it more of a challenging watch than it needs to be. Events get a clustered in the second third, but things are worked out to a point of understanding by the time the credits role. It’s the films biggest flaw, the only thing stopping this mystical, hauntingly exquisite film from becoming a masterpiece.

Hobo with a Shotgun review

Hobo: I'm gonna sleep in your bloody carcasses tonight! 

Director: Jason Eisener
(2011)

Until I watched Hobo with a shotgun, I had never seen a Grindhouse film before. I really didn’t see the point; to me all they seemed to consist of is ridiculous dialogue and gratuitous violence. About 30 minutes into this film, directed by Jason Eisener, it hit me. These films are ridiculous and cheesy because they're supposed to be, and this outlandish style is what makes Hobo with a Shotgun an outrageous amount of fun.

Rutger Hauer is the hobo of the title, fresh off of the train in a new city, looking for a new start. He aims to collect enough cash to buy a lawnmower, wanting to start his own business and leave his days of being a bum behind him. After witnessing a beheading in the street, numerous muggings, abductions and robberies, he takes a stand; the 50 dollars he saved up for the lawnmower going on a second hand shotgun instead. Teaming up with a hooker with a heart of gold, our homeless hero aims to take back the city from the evil Drake (Brian Downey) and his 2 sons, Slick (Gregory Smith) and Ivan (Nick Bateman).

Hobo with a Shotgun is unapologetically violent for the majority of its duration, with blood spilt by the bucket load. While seeing someone’s chest get ventilated by shrapnel should be almost traumatising, Eisener has done a sublime job of making us loathe the villains of the piece. Complete with sharp suits and slicked back hair, our antagonists aren’t designed to be serious characters, rather moustache twirling caricatures. Secondary antagonists (paedophile Santa’s, corrupt cops and snuff film directors) are more traditionally evil, a choice that allows for us to revel in their always gruesome, never merciful demise. One scene does take things a little too far though, and as much as I do hate children, seeing a bus full of them getting set on fire with a flamethrower is a bit too much.

Throughout, Hobo with a Shotgun leaves its tongue firmly in its cheek, never attempting to take itself seriously. Every line that Hauer spews is cheesy and gruff, yet he is a likeable protagonist, albeit a one dimensional creation. The hammy dialogue is infused into the villains too, with side splitting phrases such as “I'm gonna wash away my blood... with your blood!” and “When life gives you razor blades, you make a baseball bat... with razor blades”. This silly tone is represented by Karim Hussain’s solid cinematography, complete with dramatic use of zoom and a garish colour palette. Many scenes are bathed in pastel colours, blues, greens and reds almost dominate the entire film. Whites are overexposed and shadows and night time scenes feature crush and banding artefacts. Hobo with a shotgun was in fact shot on a Red Epic camera and was heavily altered in post processing to apply a harsh gritty tone to the images, adding heavily to the films style.

Hobo with a Shotgun was never intended to be a serious experience. The story revolves around a homeless man slaughtering bad guys and never attempts to become any more complex than that. In all honesty, it’s not a particularly good film either, with Eisener more interested in corny jokes and gratuitous bloodshed than any shape of development. But Hobo with a Shotgun is surprising in a way; a film that's so bad it’s good.

The Walking Dead Season 3 Episode 5: Say the Word

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Warning, episode 4 and 5 spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click the link to reveal review.

Short review: Defiance

Director: Edward Zwick
(2008)

Set in the forests of Belorussia, Defiance follows 4 brothers (Daniel Craig, Jamie Bell, George MacKay, Liev Schreiber) as they build camps to protect their fellow Jews from the invading Nazi’s. The performances make Defiance work, especially from Craig and Schreiber who have good chemistry together, making their brotherhood seem genuine. Wonderful pacing helps keep events interesting; as essential to the enjoyment of the film as the solid action scenes. Defiance falters by doing little to develop its characters, with a too little focus on supporting characters that often play a lame stereotype. This also applies to the leads, Craig’s character possesses no development, save for getting sick and grouchy half way through. while far from cheery, little is done to make the Germans seem like a threat, making events less distressing. Defiance makes for a solid drama, but not a spectacular one.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World review

Penny: You're a really nice person. 
Dodge: You are an awful judge of character. 

Director: Lorene Scafaria 
(2012)

What would you do if you were told that everything in existence would end in 3 weeks? Some would do all the things that they wish they could before society collapsed, while others, I suspect, would go on living exactly the way they normally would. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World poses this question to its leads, the melancholic Dodge (Steve Carell) and quirky Penny (Kiera Knightly) as they set out fulfil their final desires before the human race is destroyed by a meteor. What's more important is that SAFFTEOTW is a terrific RomCom, as funny as it is emotionally resonant.

As a radio announcer informs of earths demise in 3 weeks, Dodge sits gloomily in his car as his long-time wife Linda opens the door and runs off. It’s a funny scene, but also a sad one, leaving Dodge to sit out the Armageddon on his own. As society becomes liberated from the shackles of decency and responsibility, he encounters his rarely seen neighbour Penny, for the first time. They're both alone, so decide to go on a road trip, searching for those they love before it’s too late. Dodge wants to find his high school sweetheart while Penny is searching for a plane to get back to England to see her family. The biggest initial surprise here is that Knightly puts in a good performance. It’s not up to that of 2007’s Atonement, but it’s a damn sight better than the majority of her filmography. She’s charming, funny and while her performance becomes borderline hysterical a little too often, likeable. She is overshadowed by Carell though, who delivers another great performance, akin to last year’s superb Crazy, Stupid, Love. Playing an almost serious character in a comedy is becoming his forte, and long may it continue. He’s an empty man, purposeless without his unhappy wife, aptly demonstrated by his attendance of his dull insurance job for an entire week.

The pair sees some odd sights on their journey, from orgies in restaurants to others who prepare for the end of the world by hiding away in bunkers and bomb shelters. This is easily the finest aspect of Seeking, how people are portrayed when facing the end of existence. Some riot, fight and steal. Like Dodge and Penny, some take the remaining planes and busses to find their loved ones. But the most interesting is those who continue doing their routine, almost as if they're unable to process the near insanity of the predicament that they find themselves in. Some of these are funny, Dodges boss offers the remaining employees in the office a promotion to CFO, the money is better, but you’ll be dead before you get your pay check. One man has stuck in my mind since I viewed the film; seemingly content with cutting his front lawn. It’s a split second of footage, but it captures the tone of the film excellently; a perfect marriage of odd, funny and endearingly sad.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World has a good ending, though it’s almost spoiled by being needlessly rushed. An ending can make or break a film, and while this is a successful conclusion to a bittersweet story, it’s ripe with underdeveloped potential. The road trip film of the year, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is a fine example of how RomComs should be done.

The Village review

Lucius Hunt: I am not the one with secrets. 
Alice Hunt: What is your meaning? 
Lucius Hunt: There are secrets in every corner of this village. Do you not feel it? Do you not see it? 

Director: M. Night Shyamalan
(2004)

I’ll admit, I was all too happy to bash M. Night Shyamalan until recently. Like many of his detractors, I liked The Sixth Sense, but it was 2002’s Signs where I started to become disappointed with the famous directors work. The ending felt weak compared to the tour de force of The Sixth Sense, and Mel Gibson could be in contention for one of the worst performances I've seen. With disdain for the director and knowledge that it didn’t fare particularly well with critics, I went The Village without the burden of expectation. If only every movie goer could do this for every film, cinema would be a far more enjoyable experience.

The film is set in the late 1800’s; focusing on a village is surrounded by dense woodland. The villagers don’t enter the woods, due to a pact that they’ve made with the fearsome creatures that reside there. No human enters the woods, no creature enters the village, a rule that every member of this tightly knit community are taught from a young age. Our protagonist Lucius Fox (Joaquin Phoenix) wishes to venture through the woods to the nearby towns to gather supplies to improve the standard of living for his fellow residents, most notably Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard). The elders (including his mother) forbid it, something that he outright ignores, plunging everyone in mortal danger.

Just like his last film Signs (2002), Shyamalan does a spectacular job of mounting and developing the atmosphere of The Village, accentuated by howls in the wind and schools that teach of ‘those we do not speak of’. Shots that are seemingly insignificant, a figure in a red cloak for instance, soon has great meaning bound upon it. Cinematographer Roger Deakins allows Shyamalan to infuse loneliness in images of empty rocking chairs and flickering candles smothering scenes with a creepy, foreboding vibe that dominates first half of the film. It makes for unsettling viewing; so far the beasts that lurk in the tree line haven't even been seen. This is what The Village does so well, the little details add up to make an intricately detailed whole.

Like the vast majority of Shyamalan’s films, things aren’t exactly what they seem. To pinpoint this exactly would be a horrific spoiler, but it’s easy to say the film gives payoff to its build up. In differentiation to the signs or the sixth sense, the twist here leads the plot in a different direction, rather that signalling the end of the film. As a result we have a more satisfying film that doesn’t spend its entire time building up to one moment, portraying Shyamalan’s subtle maturation as a filmmaker instead of the centre point of his films being a cheap trick on the audience.

Even with its terrific atmosphere and gripping narrative, The Village stumbles with its writing on more than one occasion. Halfway through the film I realised Ivy was actually blind, a disability that really wasn’t made clear from the beginning. Exchanges between character is stilted, the 19^th century dialogue comes across as wooden regardless of the actor who delivers it. Weaver is horribly miscast and Phoenix little in the way of lines or development. But through intense build up, shocking payoff and thoroughly haunting music, the village is a good film. It’s not the same calibre as the Sixth Sense, but it isn’t deserving of the hate that it is so often lavished with.

Short review: Watership Down

Director: Martin Rosen
(1978)

Watership Down does things a little differently than other animated children’s films. The goal for Hazel (John Hurt) and the other rabbits is to find a new warren after Fiver envisions the destruction of their current home. They achieve this goal half way through, and the story turns to liberating rabbits from a warren owned by the vicious dictator General Woundwort.

Despite its audience, Watership Down is remarkably violent, with rabbits slice through each other on a frequent basis. But nothing compares to the snare scene. Warrior rabbit Bigwig gets tangled around his neck, choking and throwing up blood. Its harrowing stuff, even today. The films emotionally upsetting too, with an ending seemingly constructed to make grown men weep. Watership Down will be, and to an extent is, a timeless classic, destined to go down as one of the most beloved animated features of all time.

Beasts of the southern wild review

Hushpuppy: In a million years, when kids go to school, they gonna know: Once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in The Bathtub. 

Director: Behn Zietlin
(2012)

Since an incredibly positive word of mouth had erupted earlier this year, I became especially excited to watch Beasts of the Southern Wild. Its story, setting and themes were something I simply had to see, making an immediate trip to the local arthouse cinema. 90 minutes later I left feeling incredibly deflated. Beasts isn’t a bad film, but it frequently shows glimpse of pure brilliance that Behn Zeitlin and his crew simply fail to capitalise upon.

After a phenomenal opening parade, we learn that the bayou community the Bathtub is likely to be flooded as the polar ice caps melt. Our main character is Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis), a 6 year old girl who lives with her loving yet abusive father, Wink (Dwight Henry). What begins at a snappy pace soon runs out of steam though, and Beasts of the Southern Wild relies solely on its gorgeous location, dreamy voiceover and knockout performances from its leads.

 But what a knockout these performances are. Quvenzhané Wallis was amazingly only 6 years old during filming, yet she washes over the film with her wide eyed brilliance, more so than any storm could ever hope to achieve. The same can be said for her onscreen father Wink (Dwight Henry) also an amateur actor, found by Zeitlin due to his crew frequenting Henry’s bakery. He gives a very stark, real character, harbouring great love for hushpuppy but supplying it with a heavy dose of brutality. Most notably, he makes her live alone, his own way of morphing her into a self sufficient being in the event that he’s no longer around. Something that is bound to happen after he returns wearing hospital apparel, much to Hushpuppy's amusement. While Hushpuppy tries to make sense of the world that rages on around her, prehistoric monsters called Aurochs have awoken from the melted ice, and are stampeding towards the Bathtub. While a very interesting idea, these titular beasts are a wasted opportunity. After being built up throughout the film, Hushpuppy's encounter with them squanders of one of Beasts more magical aspects. If they weren’t in the film, events would be exactly the same.

Beasts is yet another film that suffers from some needlessly shaky camerawork. While it does allow us to become more intimate with Hushpuppy and her perception of the world, it also becomes immensely annoying. When the film’s opening establishing shot is the equivalent of a plastic bag being blown around in the wind, something clearly isn’t right. It isn’t nausea inducing like say, The Hunger Games, but it’s far from perfect.

Despite being full of post Katrina imagery of homes flooded and retaken by nature, Beasts is not an allegory to that shocking storm of 2005. The residents of the bathtub could have abandoned their homes, but chose to stay and wait out the floods. It’s clear that they love where they live, an emotion that shines through strongest when aid workers from the other side of the divisional levee force them into care centres. This marks the worst 20 minutes of the film, gone is the beautiful yet ravaged countryside and instead we get to look at the sterile walls of a treatment centre. Its excruciating to bear and the lacklustre escape by the people of the bathtub is relieving.

After a good hour of nothingness in the bathtub and treatment centre, Hushpuppy decides to search for her mother. There’s no build-up to this quest; her and her friends just jump into the sea and swim outwards as far as they can, aiming for the light that sparkles in the distance. It’s doesn’t mesh with the rest of the narrative, but at this point any event that drives the plot forward is relieving. The next scene is wonderful however, and is what the film should have been like for the entirety of its running time. It’s emotional, taught, beautiful and mystical, coupled with amazing music and camerawork.

In all honesty, I'm disappointed with Beasts of the Southern Wild. Failing to deliver little over sublime acting and incredible beauty, it left me with a rather bitter taste in my mouth. At its best it’s a good film, emulating Malick while retaining its own sense of identity. At its worst it glorifies poverty with its limp story and dead in the water plot. While others witnessed a film equivalent of a force of nature, all I saw was the calm before the storm.

The Walking Dead Season 3 Episode 4: The Killer Within

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Warning, mild episode 4 spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click the link to reveal review.

The Walking Dead Season 3 Episode 3: Walk with Me review

!!!!!!!!!!!!!Warning, Season 2 and Episode 3 spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click the link to reveal review.

The Raid review

Mad Dog: Pulling a trigger is like ordering a takeout. 

Director: Gareth Evans
(2012)

When I went to watch the raid, I had set my expectations in accordance to the little I knew about it. Through various sources I knew that plot, character development and depth were almost nonexistent, with the action being placed centre stage. With this in mind I could appreciate the Raid for what it is, a riveting and intense action film.

Through the films first minutes we’re introduced to the films protagonist, Rama (Iko Uwais). Within minutes he is in his swat uniform and has joined up with the rest of his squad. Their objective is simple, reach the top of a tower block in the slums of Jakarta and capture the gang leader Tama (Ray Sahetapy) who resides there. Soon after the bloodshed has begun, the police team must fight for their survival as the gangs close in. This is about as complex as the raid ever becomes, it is very much a film with a simple story and even simpler characters. Thankfully director Gareth Evans cares not for such frivolities, and instead puts focus the stunning fighting style of Pencak Silat, a decision that has turned out to be the correct one.

The action is fluid and fast paced right from the get go. Ranging from 1 Vs 1 fights to massive one sided 12 man brawls. From the first gunfight, Evans paces his set pieces perfectly; they're close enough to each other to keep the audience interested, and far enough apart to prevent them from becoming overwhelming. The highlight is undoubtedly the meth lab brawl, with Rama and the remaining SWAT team beating down a bunch of scientists and junkies. The scene hits a strong climax as our hero runs across an incredibly long table that’s smothered in meth, clashing with gang member in a furious table top battle. The fight is brutal, the blows amplified by the clouds of the powered drugs that litter the air after every blow that connects, reminding me very much of The Matrix subway fight.

By the time the credits role, the Raid has done such a good job hiding its empty plot and lifeless writing by being a breathless and furious experience. In place of story is mind-blowing combat, where there should be character development there’s a stunning score from Linkin Park’s Mike Shinoda, the lack of gunplay is covered by tight pacing. If you manage to take The Raid for what it is, it’s hands down the best action film of the year.

Hanna review

Hanna: Adapt or die. 
Erik: Think on your feet. 
Hanna: Even when I'm sleeping. 

Director: Joe Wright
(2011)

Joe Wright isn’t a director who produces many films a year. While he isn’t as commercially lucrative as other more productive filmmakers, I find that when a director takes his time with his films by working on them one at a time they often turn out to be better, more enjoyable films. After my surprise at the quality of 2007s Atonement, Wright has done it again with Hanna, one of the finer action films of 2011.

 After her great performance in Atonement, Wright reunites with the talented Sariose Ronan, who has bounced back wonderfully after her shockingly poor turn in the abhorrent The Lovely Bones. She owns her scenes as the titular Hanna, a 16 year old trained assassin. She has lived with her father alone in the isolated wilderness of Finland almost since birth, being trained so that one day she could take her revenge on mysterious CIA agent Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett). From our first shot of Hanna, we know she means business, and is one of the strongest female protagonists since Alien heroine Ellen Ripley.

The highlight of Hanna is the action sequences. Not a fan of shaking cameras and jumpy editing, Wright frames his fights well, and lets them play out in real time.  Sariose Ronan certainly holds her own in these scenes, engaging with multiple foes in brutal hand to hand engagements. The undoubted highlight of the set pieces comes from Hanna's father Erik (Eric Bana). Upon arriving in Germany, we witness a single, unbroken tracking shot from exiting the train station all the way down to a subway station, where he engages in a fight with 4 of Marissa’s goons. If there was ever a shot to rival the Dunkirk scene from Wrights Atonement, this is it. What amplifies the intensity of these scenes is the excellent original score from the Chemical Brothers. It’s purely electric, a factor alone that raises the tension before the during the fighting. What’s more of a credit to Wright however, is that while he does use the score to amplify tension, he follows this up by giving the viewer a worthwhile payoff, making Hanna all the more satisfying.

Hanna's biggest flaw is its dull and unfulfilling story that cant capitalise on a thrilling and well paced build up. The first 2 thirds are shrouded in mystery, feeding us only the basic information about Hanna, her father and their connection with Marissa. Once the final third rolls around, any unanswered questions are met in such a fashion that describing them as boring is a detriment to the word. The quality of the climax is lessened further by lacking a good action scene. Until now, every engagement and encounter has been delightful, but Wrights focus on trying to be clever seems to come before making a well rounded film.

On the whole, Hanna is much like Ronan's performance; an elegant blend of edgy, exciting brilliance. But it also resembles Blanchett's antagonist, armed with an accent so bad it almost devalues the entire character. Regardless of flaws Joe Wright has done a marvellous job with Hanna, and has given 2011 one of its finest action thrillers.

Adventureland review

Director: Greg Mottola
(2009)

I'm sure that this is the third Greg Mottola film that I have watched. Given the fact that Superbad was average and Paul was a poor effort, I shouldn’t have even bothered watching Adventureland, his coming of age drama that was made in between the 2 aforementioned titles. I'm incredibly glad that I did. Not only is Adventureland Mottolas best film, it’s also a fine example in how to correctly make a coming of age film correctly without it feeling forced or superficial.

Like all of his work, Mottola doesn’t force an overly complex story onto the viewer. James (Jesse Eisenberg) has just graduated high school and is preparing to backpack around Europe through the summer before heading off to university. This summer of culture and debauchery is short lived when his parents reveal that their financial troubles can’t afford for him to go; troubles that also threaten his chance to go to university as well. The solution is to get a summer job; the only place that will take him is Adventureland, the local theme park. From here were thrown head first into a touching and genuine film, something that Superbad should have been. They do, after all, sport similar themes, the final summer of adolescent youth, drinking large quantities of alcohol and looking for that final love before departing to make a name for themselves in the big, bad world.

A big part in what helps keeps Adventureland fresh is that it has humour that works. Perhaps not as constantly funny as Superbad, the jokes here resonate more, so it’d be unwise to expect talks about semen and being possessed by a dick devil. I think what makes Adventureland more grounded that Mottolas other work is due to the toned down language. Almost every character has the word fuck pass their lips, but compared to Superbads 186 uses of it, less is definitely more here.

The brilliance of Adventureland is helped significantly by solid performances from the entire cast. Eisenberg imbues James with a dorky clumsiness, when juxtaposed next to the tomboy Em (Kristen Stewart) makes for some cute, awkward scenes. The park owners, Paulette and Bobby (Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader) bring chuckles, his hideous 80’s vibe and her complete uselessness. Even actors who I feel aren’t adept at their profession in good turns here. There’s no doubt that its helped by good writing from Mottola, but actually caring about Ryan Reynolds is something I never thought I would do. The script is so tight in fact, that its ending looks weak next to the rest of the film. Adventureland does so well to stay well away from the typical clichés for the most part, but the ending couldn’t have been more clichéd even if it tried. It might give some much needed closure, but did why do these scenes always feature terrible weather?

Personally find it wrong to compare the works of a director. I believe that each film should be taken as an individual piece of work. But with Adventureland, Mottola has proved his development as a filmmaker. Practically all his mistakes in Superbad have been rectified here, demonstrating tighter editing (Superbad outstayed its welcome far before the end), deeper characters and more resonating sentiment. His talents don’t hit stratospheric heights, but they do mesh together to make a fantastic film its performances are stronger and the humour less childish. Adventureland is a part coming of age story, part comedy, and all heart.