Holes review

Mr. Pendanski: You are here on account of one person; do you know who that one person is? 
Stanley: Yeah, my no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather, that's who it is. 

Holes, Shia Lebeouf’s breakout film is not what’s expected from a film aimed at children. It isn't simple, or dumbed down, or inaccessible to adults; but rather enjoyable, fresh and fun. The film centers on LeBeouf's Stanley Yelnats, a boy wrongfully convicted stealing from a charity auction and sentenced to 18 months in camp greenlake. In a contrast to its name, camp greenlake is a barren desert. Once here he is made to dig holes, 5 feet wide and 5 deep in order to ‘build character’. The camp is overlooked by ‘the warden’ (Sigourney Weaver) and managed by the kooky Mr. Sir (Jon Voight). Both this veteran actors are good here, adding a mature edge to an otherwise exceedingly young cast. Lebouf is also good, making his performances in transformers look ironically childish by comparison.

It’s without a doubt that Sigourney Weaver stands out here as the domineering camp warden with her threatening demeanor and icy presence. It’s her who has the kids digging holes, and as the plot develops it’s clear that she isn't interested in building character.  The narrative is easily the best aspect of holes, most notably due to the films superb use of flashbacks. These portray camp greenlake at a time when it really was a greenlake with a town community and not a barren desert. These flashbacks focus on the relationship between school teacher miss Katherine (Patricia Arquette) and local onion merchant Sam (Dule Hill). These flashbacks give the narrative depth and intricacy, and show how events affect important members of the story. Enough time is also taken to make sure that these flashbacks are fully integrated into the story, preventing them from feeling tacked on.

Despite the strong development of the narrative, holes does lack significantly in some areas, most notably in its young cast. The children of camp greenlake are poorly developed, and the majority are instantly forgettable aside from Zero (Khleo Thomas), a mysterious young boy who only begins communicating with people when Stanley arrives. The CGI used on the deadly yellow spotted lizards that plague the camp is also poor and looks cheap, detracting from how deadly they actually are to our hero’s.

As the adventure concludes, all the strands of narrative successfully come together and tie the story up. It’s apparent that hiring source material novelist Louis Sachar to write the screenplay was a wise choice, as nothing feels drastically out of place. It’s just a bit of a shame that the ending is far too generic and cliché. Up until this point events have been stark and realistic (the boys have been, after all, forced to dig holes in the desert, often till their hands blister), but these elements are abandoned for a saccharine sweet finish. There is nothing wrong with holes finishing in this way, but when the ending is this happy, the fresh narrative falls prey of catering to the audience that it appeals to. Regardless, holes is an enjoyable adventure that is about as universally appealing as a film can become.

Battleship review

Cal Zapata: If there is intelligent life out there and they come here, it's going to be like Columbus and the Indians, only we're the Indians. 

Director: Peter Berg
(2012)

 When viewing a film like battleship, it’s only fair to set your expectations accordingly. There is no point a cinematic masterpiece, especially considering pop singer Rihanna is in a starring role. Even with these not so great expectations, battleship is still a poor film, produced solely to appeal to lovers of bright lights and loud noises.

For me, action scenes are as only good as their context. In battleships case, its biggest selling point; an expensive concoction of visual effects and deafening noises falls remarkably flat. The plot is simple; aliens invade the seas around Hawaii, using a forcefield to trap 5 US/Japanese ships to force a small scale war. One of these ships is helmed by protagonist Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), who tries to stop the alien fleet. The main characters on this ship have been established previously as annoying and unlikeable; if any were to die in the first minutes of the invasion, I wouldn't bat an eyelid. From here we get lots of meaningless explosions until 2 thirds of the way in where the ships play an actual game of battleships (the board game the film is based off of). It’s here the action scenes change from dull to ridiculous, and still fail to hold any tension or suspense.

Unfortunately, battleship isn't content with just being a dumb action film; instead, it dedicates far too much time to characters that are shallow and poorly written. Rihanna is only present to attract a bigger audience and Taylor kitsch reaffirms everyone’s belief that after john carter he isn't cut out to be a leading man. The only decent performance comes from the reliable Liam Neeson, but his role was over played; he only had 2 minutes of screentime. The plot is brimming with holes, inconsistencies, poor dialogue and ridiculous moments, even considering its genre. The alien ships don’t have bullet proof glass. A man can choke out an alien in a robot suit using his prosthetic legs?? An alien ship can use a sonic shockwave attack which shatters glass windows, but does nothing to the speedboat that is positioned just metres from the initial blast. The final straw is when an alien confiscates a briefcase (vital to stopping the invasion) form an IT technician, then gives the briefcase back to said technician and lets him escape. Like many things in battleship, it makes absolutely no sense.

The madness continues during the films climax that involves using a ship that’s been acting as a museum to fight the remaining aliens. The film goes out of its way to state that the ship is old and has manual controls and targeting systems, yet 5 minutes later Rihanna is using a touch pad control panel to send a barrage of shells towards the enemy. Besides, why would a decommissioned ship acting as a museum still store live munitions? The film is riddled with trash like this, it seems director Peter Berg and co thought the pretty CGI would cover up the films flaws. They couldn’t have been more wrong.

Short review: The town

Director: Ben Affleck

(2010)

The town is a crime thriller from surprisingly good actor turned director Ben Affleck. After a bank heist, Doug MacRay (Affleck) becomes intimate with one of the hostages (Rebecca Hall) and develops feelings for her. Hall and Affleck’s relationship is a solid and well developed one, complete with good dialogue and genuine emotion. Career bests from them both.

Opposite this love story arc are the heists themselves, complete with satisfying shootouts and car chases. Despite getting the balance between these 2 arcs correct, the final 20 minutes are limp in terms of narrative; it slumps under its own weight and fails to be consistent with the rest of the film. Aside from its poor ending, the town is a well constructed, enjoyable film. In terms of Acting, directing, cinematography, script and action, the town is a success, but it’s nothing above remarkable.

7

New topic: short reviews

In order to be able to write about every film I watch, once every 3 or 4 reviews I’ll change things up by posting a short review of a film. These are intended to briefly summarise the pro’s and cons of a film, all in under 150 words. Short reviews will have their own label so they can be easily searched for. 

Extremely loud and incredibly close review

Oskar Schell: I started with a simple problem... a key with no lock...

Director: Stephen Daldry
(2011)

At face value, Extremely loud and incredibly close seems like a sure fire winner. Its based on Jonathan Safran Foer’s bestselling book, it has Toms Hanks in it, arguably the finest actor of the past 20 years, and it centers on the emotional affects on a child’s wellbeing after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. All of these elements give ELAIC the elements to become a great, powerful film, like pieces of a perfect jigsaw which should add up to make an incredible image. Unfortunately this isn't the case, and due to some frustrating decisions and very aggravating characters, ELAIC fails to meet its immense potential.

The film follows Oskar Schell, a young and troubled boy who has a special connection to his father Thomas (Tom Hanks). Oskar may or may not have aspergers syndrome, something that his father does his best to help him overcome by setting him challenges called ‘reconnaissance expeditions’. These tasks keep his mind occupied and forces him to interact with strangers, an action that scares him. When Oskar’s father dies in the 9/11 attacks, he loses the only person who understood and his relationship with his mother (Sandra Bullock) becomes unstable. The film starts a year after Thomas’ death, and revolves around Oskar finding a key in his father’s closet, a key he believes his dad has left him to find the lock to.

The story makes good use of flashbacks that help fill in initial gaps in the narrative which inject just enough emotion into the narrative to keep things flowing. It’s in these scenes that we see the events of 9/11 as they happen. Despite how horrifying this sounds, director Stephen Daldry handles this delicate matter with the upmost sensitivity. We see Sandra bullock’s character standing in her office, looking out to see the towers smoking in the distance. In later scenes we witness footage of the collapsing of one of the towers on a television. The camera holds for a few seconds and then cuts. It’s all that’s required from these scenes, and isn't shown to the point of being manipulative or cheap. This is, after all, a very delicate matter, which also makes for the most delicate aspect of the film.

What isn't delicate though, is the main character Oskar. At what is no fault of young actor Thomas Horn, we could well have a contender for most annoying character of all time. He’s rude, whiny and impolite; his verbal exchange with John Goodman’s doorman showing the full extent of this. I understand that Oskar does have a problem, something worsened by the loss of his father, and I can empathise completely. But after 2 hours of screaming at trains and the persistent rattle of his tambourine, switching the film off was looking more and more attractive. To counter this we have the renter (Max Von Syndow), who steals the show. Completely mute, he joins up with Oskar on his hunt across New York, interacting by writing notes or using the yes/no tattoos that reside on his hands. Syndow is superb here, showing that his Oscar nomination was well deserved.

Still, for every moment of genuine emotion, there are 5 that consist of a forced saccharine sweetness. When ELAIC flashes its true colours, it’s a powerful, enjoyable film. But all too often it wants to be radiating a constant feel good vibe, something that it simply fails to achieve. After what had been a pretty solid buildup, ELAIC squanders everything with an ending so cloying the audience is at risk of developing diabetes. But look beyond this and its completely unlikable lead character, Extremely loud and incredibly close is a decent film, even if it is a hollow one.

Bullitt review

Bullitt: Look, Chalmers, let's understand each other... I don't like you.

Director: Peter Yates
(1968)

Bullitt is one of those films that doesn’t deserve the reputation that is has garnered. It’s one of those popular films that everybody has seen and loves, but in reality, isn't actually that good. Instead, it relies on a gimmick, and in that regard Bullitt is the Avatar of the 1960’s. Here though, groundbreaking CGI is replaced by a groundbreaking car chase, undoubtedly the highlight of an otherwise dull film.

The man behind the title is Steve McQueen’s lieutenant Frank Bullitt, a cop assigned to protect an ex gangster who will testify against the crime group known as the ‘organisation’. After things go awry, Bullitt takes matters into his own hands. While this has the potential to be a good crime thriller, it fails mainly due to far too much emphasis is placed on Bullitt and his dull life. He goes to the store, sees his girlfriend, goes to bars; it’s all highly mundane. Too much time is also spent in a hospital in the films first half. The story that the film tries to develop here is scarce, and as a result feels stretched too thin. The characters are boring too, and add little to spice up proceedings. Thankfully redemption comes along in the form of the best scene in the film.

It is, of course, the famous car chase. Bullitt in his mustang, the criminals in their charger. The mood is set perfectly. Both vehicles are driving around steadily, trying to figure out each other’s next move. It cuts to one of the antagonists buckling his seatbelt. And in an instant the tires screech and the engine roars into life. It begins. What is so refreshing about this scene is how well shot and edited it is. In today's world, shots are so quickly cut together it’s hard to understand what events are unfolding, but not with Bullitt. The camera is either placed on the corner of the street or inside the car, allowing the viewer to feel more intimate with the unfolding events. The vehicles scream round corners and launch over bumps, their engines deafening. It’s such a raw thrill that it caps the high point of the film, which means things can only go downwards from here. After the explosive conclusion of the chase, Bullitt settles into its dull rut once more, right up to the wholly unsatisfying conclusion.

Bullitt isn't a good film. It's laborious to watch thanks to a large amount of uninteresting and unnecessary scenes. It drags too, despite the running time coming in under 2 hours. Still despite this, Bullitt is a recommended watch just for that car chase; it almost makes the film worthwhile.

The lovely bones review

Susie Salmon: My name is Salmon, like the fish. First name: Susie. I was 14 years old, when I was murdered, on December 6, 1973.

Director: Peter Jackson
(2009)

Peter Jackson. Fran Walsh. Stanly Tucci, Sariose Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz. From the names listed above, the lovely bones seems like it could be a great film. It’s based on a popular book. Who better to craft the film adaptation of a popular book that peter Jackson and Fran Walsh? They did, after all, turn Tolkien’s lord of the rings books into money making, Oscar dominating masterpieces. Despite this abundance of talent, the lovely bones is absolutely trash, and is a perfect example that a good cast and crew doesn’t equal a good film.

The film stars the usually excellent Sariose Ronan as Suzie salmon, a young girl who is brutally murdered by her neighbor. She narrates the majority of the film from the afterlife as her loved ones grieve her murder. This is as detailed as a plot summary can become; the lovely bones is exceedingly thin on the ground. It trades in good narrative and development for characters who mope around and lots of CGI. The first person narration is ample opportunity to give the film some material but instead comes across as very self indulgent. Everything that Susie narrated is meaningless trash and is undoubtedly the worst use of narration I've ever encountered in a film. A fine example of this nonsensical drivel is “My name is Salmon, like the fish. First name: Susie”. If there was ever a quote to sum up the quality of a film, it’s this.

For its first half, the lovely bones is a drag. Characters are paper thin and little important actually occurs in this time. The only redeeming features are in the form of some pretty visual effects shots and the performance of Stanley Tucci’s Mr. Harvey, the films antagonist. The afterlife in which Susie spends most of the film is really quite beautiful, and coupled with some strong cinematography, makes for some pleasant eye candy. Tucci is the films real redeeming feature though, offering a creepy and disturbing character. His intricate actions and unsettling demeanour add considerable tension to the film; he’s the glimmer of light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

Still, Tucci can’t prop up all of the film though it’s overly long run time which is made worse by the constant narration and completely disjointed plot arcs. Susie frolics around the afterlife spouting nonsense while her family grieves her loss. While she does this, the films somber atmosphere is ruined by the character of Suzie’s grandmother. Its only months after Suzie's  murder, but Jackson feels the need to give the film comedic relief in the form of a terribly unfunny montage of drinking liquor and smoking cigarettes. It’s moments like this when the lovely bones shows its true colours; a cheap, lazy, misdirected mess. Even Sariose Ronan was poor, a surprise considering the talent that this young actress possesses.

The lovely bones stumbles to its conclusion, rounding a bad story with a generic and soppy ending. Its manipulation is cheap and transparent, it fails to bring the tears because Jackson has done such a bad job of making us care for these characters, anyone who sees this film for what it actually is will just be glad it’s finished.

Battle Royale review

Teacher Kitano: So today's lesson is, you kill each other off till there's only one left. Nothing's against the rules. 

Director: Kinji Fukasaku
(2000)

Battle Royale has an excellent premise. 42 school children stuck on an island, given a bag of provisions and told to kill each other. The lone survivor can go home. The reason for this tournament of sorts, to try and keep adolescents in check in a crumbling Japanese society.

The film wastes little time in starting the bloodshed, with practically no character development at all. The class of highschoolers have learned of the fate; being part of the battle royale programme. Their games master is ex teacher Kitano, happy to force his old students to kill each other. The murder starts promptly, with Nobu -best friend of protagonist Shuya- is brutally slaughtered. With the killing happening this early, it’s almost impossible to care just 15 minutes into the film. This scene does, however, give a glimpse of the impending violence and gore. From the start of the tournament, Shuya and friend Noriko hide together, later allying with mysterious exchange student Kawada.

From here on, battle Royale is a waterfall of death. Shootings, stabbings, suicides, the bodies hit the floor at times by the minute. But with 42 contestants, the film can’t develop their characters, making their murders seem empty. Seeing 2 characters kill themselves to avoid being dehumanized by the games should be harrowing, but instead it’s hollow. The small amount of backstory that is developed comes in the form of flashback, but this is only for the 3 protagonists. Furthering the emptiness of the murders is the hammy acting. Dialogue is stilted and death scenes are often laughable.

Battle Royale does have some great moments though, the best being a sort of Mexican standoff between friends. In an instant the trust they have in each other dissipates; the result is a massacre. It’s gory, gripping and plays to the strengths of the themes of the film. Must of battle Royale is well shot, so action is interesting and brutal, the camera is happy to linger on the mutilated corpses of children, earning the film its 18 rating.

The films climax truly is its weak point. After an hour of people dying, all tension built is lost in a final shoot-out with the films dull antagonist. From here the plot loses is simplicity, throwing a curveball into the narrative that makes no sense to those who haven’t read the book. Despite its flashes of brilliance and interesting idea, battle Royale is an unfortunately average film. It seems that a good idea isn't always executed into a good film.

Crazy, Stupid, Love review

Cal: How about we say what we want on three? One, two, three. 
Emily: I want a divorce. 
Cal: [at the same time] Creme brulee. 

Directors: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
(2011)

As far as being predictable goes, the rom com subgenre is as unsurprising as you can get. Burdened with bad characters, shallow writing and predictable, blindingly obvious conventions, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. Every once in a while though, something special comes along, making the genre seem a little bit brighter. This film is none other than Crazy stupid love, undoubtedly one of the highlights of the genre.

Crazy stupid love is about Cal (Steve Carell) and his imploding life after his wife and childhood sweetheart Emily (Julianne Moore) admits to cheating on him with co worker David Lindhagan (Kevin Bacon), and wants a divorce. His life crumbles, and he idly spends his days moping in a bar, telling everyone how David Lindhagen ‘cuckolded’ him. This very same bar is the haunt of Jacob (Ryan Gosling) a smooth talking womanizer. Being the nice guy he is, Jacob sees Cal drowning, and promptly saves him from his sorrows. He takes Cal under his wing and teaches him his womanizing ways, from dress sense to chat up lines. Cal’s conquest to sort his life out is the backbone of the film, and is as tender and bittersweet as a story can get.

 Branching off from this is the story of teenage babysitter Jessica (Analeigh Tipton) who has a crush on Cal, while his son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) has a crush on her. Separate from this is the excellent Emma stone as Hannah, an aspiring law student who takes Jacobs eye. While one would think that this many plot arcs would make for a messy narrative, it strangely never devolves to this. Each is sufficiently developed and given just enough screen time to mature correctly. This results in  a delicate, weaving narrative that is always interesting but never difficult, a balance that directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa have struck perfectly. In one of the best scenes in the film, all these strands collide, making for hilarious laugh out loud antics. To say more would spoil things, but it’s needless to say you’ll know it when it happens.

The performances too, are sublime . Carell is at his best here, he’s funny and geeky, expressive yet subtle. The way he blends these emotions gives a lot of depth to the character. Gosling is on fine form as well, determined to show his acting chops. He oozes charisma with his smooth pickup lines and a dapper dress sense. He’s crafts an effortlessly likeable character and an absolute scene stealer, no mean feat when up against Carrell. But he also puts emotion behind his character, superbly portrayed in a scene where he drops his womanizer attitude, revealing a gentle and soft man underneath. This level of brilliance extends to the rest of the cast too. Emma stone, Marisa Tomei, Kevin bacon, Julianne Moore; each of them bring a wealth of substance to their respective roles.

 The result of this is that each main character feels fully fleshed out, a far cry from a great deal of rom coms. CSL doesn’t exploit its emotional moments to cheaply tug on the heartstrings of emotionally weak women. Instead it develops them excellently, giving depth to the story and characters. It exposes their fears and their loves, the situations they are in are very real, if a little cliché. This is really what sets CSL apart from the dregs of a poor genre, it has real heart.

Unfortunately, crazy stupid love has its issues. Carrel and gosling dominate the majority of the screen time here and considering the quality of the assemble, it can feel like a waste of talent. The climax doesn’t quite live up to the standards of the rest of the film either. It works, but comes across as a little cheesy. This is a minor blip though, as crazy stupid love’s ending transcends in genre, eschewing the usual ending of rom coms for something more complex. That’s not necessarily saying that grim and miserable film, but it feels more real and grounded that practically all similar films out there. Needless to say, it also proves that love is a little stupid, and definitely crazy.

Cars 2 review

Finn McMissile: My apologies, I haven't properly introduced myself. Finn McMissile, British intelligence. 
Mater: Tow Mater, average intelligence. 

Director: Jon Lasseter
(2011)

Like many film lovers, I adore Pixar films. Toy Story is ingrained in my childhood and since I saw toy story 2 (my first cinema experience), I've loved their films ever since. This affection continued for some time, why wouldn’t it? Yearly releases, excellent visuals and a focus on story made their films must watches. That was until 2006, when they released cars. The story of racing champion Lightening McQueen wasn’t a bad film, but more of an unspectacular one. Why a sequel to this underwhelming film would be made is beyond me, but needless to say, Cars 2 is unmistakably un-Pixar.

After the unfulfilling ending of the original Cars, Cars 2 returns to radiator springs, a thriving community once again. Racecar Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is off winning races and his best friend mater (Larry the cable guy) spends his days towing broken down cars and planning his return. Events soon transpire, and McQueen enters the grand prix, a set of races through Japan, Paris and England. While this seems like a decent story, things quickly take a remarkable U turn and Mater becomes embroiled in a secret agent plotline with Finn Mcmissle (Michael Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). The grand prix and lightening McQueen are tossed to the background as maters ‘hilarious’ antics take centre stage.

The focus on this shallow spy parody is what hurts Cars 2 the most. Its grating and unfunny thanks to the childish script. Whereas the rest of Pixar’s films appeal to all ages, Cars 2 is aimed solely at children, and boy does it show. From cars wetting themselves to characters speaking is silly voices. The worst culprit is the John Turturro voiced race car Francesco Bernoulli; equipped with a stereotypical Italian accent and not a single funny piece of dialogue. Worse can be said about Mater though. He has far too much screen time and is horrendously written, the choice to make him the main character is the most misjudged in Pixar’s history. It’s obvious from this alone that the animation giant has totally forgotten about their older audience.

While I'm not the biggest fan of the original cars, its story about a town that is getting forgotten in a rapidly advancing world was interesting and poignant, a factor that cars 2 eschews for outright speed. The races are furiously fast and are smartly paced to add adrenaline to the film at the right moments. The same can be said for the action scenes, which are in abundance. Explosions and fight scenes are littered throughout, and are actually quite enjoyable. This is the only time the spy subgenre is effectively utilized; various weapons and gadgets add considerable flair to set pieces.

Once cars 2 limply rolls over the finishing line, its safe to say the pangs of disappointment will be felt by every member of the audience who thought they were watching a Pixar film. In the place of brilliance we have been given a poor script and story, lacking the dimensions that we've come to expect from such a brilliant studio. Even the trademark credits that finish their films are dull and uninspired. Here’s to hoping brave will be a return to form.

Everything Must Go review

Nick Halsey: You know they say that the dining room is the least utilized room in the house? I think it's the front lawn. It's starting to look good, don't you think? 

Director: Dan Rush
(2010)

There’s something so very interesting about comedy actors out of their depth playing characters in serious roles. Jim Carrey in Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, Marlon Wayans in Requiem for a dream and will Ferrell in the surprisingly good Stranger than fiction. Ferrell is at it again here in ‘Everything must go’ a drama about relapsing alcoholic Nick Halsey. His addiction causes him to lose his job, his wife and his home, with his belongings strewn on the front lawn. With nowhere to go as living on his own front lawn is illegal, cop friend Frank Garcia (Michael Pena) says he can circumvent this law by holding a yard sale for his possessions. He complies, hoping to make a fresh start with the funds that he’ll raise.

The undoubted highlight of everything must go is Farrell’s performance. He’s subtle, yet surprisingly effective, considering his relative inexperience in dramatic roles. Nick is a shell of a man who puts on a brave face, but is being eaten away from the inside by his uncontrollable alcoholism. The remainder of the cast is solid as well; with Rebecca Hall as new neighbour Samantha also putting in a good turn. Both are supported by some well written dialogue.

The plot of everything must go is an intriguing one, but unfortunately it doesn’t deliver. Even though it is a relatively short film, things are stretched out stretched out, making it feel very thin. Events are made worse with a bevy of plot arcs that are explored for a few minutes and then left unresolved for the rest of the film. Furthermore, despite its tone, the film comes across emotionally hollow as well. Farell and Hall make as many scenes as they can work and connect with the viewer, but only so much can be done to support empty writing. For a film about the negative effects of alcohol, this is a severely missed opportunity.

It’s not that everything must go is a bad film; it’s just that it feels like a waste of a very good idea. Will Farell is capable of putting in some good, serious performances, but is powerless to do anything with a sterile script that does little to fill the films running time with worthwhile substance.

Ted review

Narrator: No matter how big a splash you make in this world whether you're Corey Feldman, Frankie Muniz, Justin Bieber or a talking teddy bear, eventually, nobody gives a shit. 

Director: Seth Mcfarlane
(2012)

At a first glance, Ted could be mistaken for a family friendly film. It does, after all, star a walking, talking teddy bear this would also seem apparent from the film’s opening ten minutes, were little John Bennett is seen on Christmas eve, excluded from the group of children in his neighborhood, he’s not allowed to join in on their Jew beating antics (yes, really). Late Christmas day, John wishes for his favourite present, a giant teddy bear, to come to life and be his friend.  As our narrator (Patrick Stewart) informs us, there is nothing more powerful that a child's wish, except maybe an apache helicopter, of course. A hilarious montage chronicling 27 years, we see now see Ted and John (Mark Wahlberg), devoid of all their previously portrayed innocence. John is a slacker, Ted's voice has gone from adorable to manly, both of them with thick Boston accents surrounded by an even thicker cloud of weed. 

From here on, Ted has the trademark humour of Seth McFarlane, creator of family guy and comedy genius to many teenage boys. Some of the humour here is smart, funny and clever; McFarlane really shows he can produce genuine laughs with a kind of ease. The humour aint pretty and is very crude, but works well at getting the audience to laugh profusely. The writing is sharp and the jokes are constantly piled on, although sometimes becomes too offensive, and jokes about 9/11 aren’t funny, despite what McFarlane thinks. The quality of the comedy often takes a massive nosedive too; clever references and witty lines are dropped in favour of poor pop culture references. Jokes based around Katy Perry and Justin Beiber are stupid and bring the quality of humour down, from excellent to exploitive. It happens frequently throughout the film, causing stumbles, but recovery is ensured with side splitting scenes; doing cocaine with flash Gordon being particularly memorable.

The story about having to grow up is simple and generic, but just about manages to act as a backbone for the laughs to stem from. This is none more apparent with Ted trying for a job due to his slacker behavior. It’s essentially a coming of (very late) age for whalbergs John, whose girlfriend of four years Lori (Mila Kunis) is fed up with his constant attachment to his best friend, and wishes for John to make something of his life. The plot veers away from this later on, with the arrival of collector/stalker Donny (Giovanni Ribisi), who sets his sights on Ted being his newest prize. It’s here where the film completely falls apart. The humour dries up and the films climax is a dull and unengaging car chase through Boston. This is interesting compared to the remainder of the film, which descends into melodrama and  a pointless attempt to tug on the heartstrings. It’s clear from some episodes of family guy that McFarlane can write serious and emotional stories (Brian and Stewie getting locked in the bank vault being the first that springs to mind), but those worked as standalone episodes. By bolting this tone onto the end of Ted causes it to feel disjointed, effectively fracturing the hilarious core of the film from its contrasting final 30 minutes.

Thankfully, for two thirds of the film, Ted is a riot. Its undoubtedly one of the funniest films of the year. The laughs are frequent, the performances work and the story does just enough to give the comedy context. It’s just a shame that the writing relies a little too heavily on shoddy pop culture references and fart jokes. The ending is terrible, but anyone who thinks that Mark Whalberg, a talking teddy bear and flash Gordon doing cocaine together in a bathroom is funny; will fail to be concerned.

In Bruges review

Ray: Do you think this is good? 
Ken: Do I think what's good? 
Ray: You know, going around in a boat, looking at stuff? 
Ken: Yes, I do. It's called sight-seeing. 

Director: Martin McDonagh

 In Bruges is one of those odd films where it’s hard to describe what genre it falls into. At times, it’s completely a hilarious tale of 2 hitmen struggling to lay low in the picturesque town of the title. At others, it’s a bleak drama about suicide and death. What really matters is that In Bruges manages to balance both of these excellently. It knows the right moment to make you laugh, and when it’s the correct time to make you think. That alone makes in Bruges a must watch film.

 The film stars Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell as ken and ray, 2 contrasting Irish hitmen. After a botched job, they’re ordered to lay low in the picturesque town of Bruges to await orders from mob boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes). While ken is happy to do as he’s told, ray is irritated by the town, citing that a trip the Bahamas would have been preferable. It has to be said that in Bruges is a hilarious, yet bitter tale. Its script is extremely funny, enhanced by Farrell’s and Gleeson’s perfect delivery and excellent chemistry. The laughs are strong and frequent, without resorting to flatulence humour like so many comedies do. Still, the humour is peculiar and quite dark; midgets on horse tranquilizers dating hookers being a good example of the oddities that are present throughout. The humour trails off during the second half of the film and is replaced by a more somber drama. This shift in tone fits with the events that have taken place, showing that in Bruges can be deadly serious when it wants to.

As a result of this, the story remains grounded throughout. Flashbacks fill in important plot points and rich dialogue between the leads develops their characters beyond the wisecracking killers they appear to be. Themes of existentialism run throughout the film, bringing each character full circle. This builds a strong crescendo that’s capped with a powerful, yet ambiguous ending. Bruges is represented and referenced as a fairytale town, through clever cinematography and dialogue. The film takes advantage of this with situations that have slightly unrealistic outcomes. While this does mesh well thematically, it’s hard to suspend disbelief when events occur that are simply absurd.

Regardless of these flaws, in Bruges is a very good film, and is consistently strong in almost all areas. Colin Farrell is at the top of his game here, a role in which he’s never been better, and never bettered since. Consisting of a core of strong drama with often hilarious dark humour, in Bruges is certainly a memorable, affecting film.

The numbers: what they mean

The little numbers at the end of reviews are pretty much a requirement in today's age of film criticism. Many people don’t actually care for the written, in depth analysis of a review to judge the quality of a film. Instead, they scroll to the bottom of the page, make a brief mental note on the number displayed, and base their choice off of this. While my opinion of the films I review will be almost solely in the writing, I also assign a number rating, to cater to those who don’t want to/have time to read the full review. As a result of this, I’ll break down these numerical values to show what they actually mean. The ratings are on a scale from 1 to 10.

1:  A score reserved for the worst of the worst. If a film scores a 1, it’s not worth your time in any way imaginable.

2:  This is the sign of a very bad film, poor in almost every regard. Only small redeeming features prevent it from getting a rating of 1. The majority of films in this score range should be avoided.

3:  Films that garner this rating often have many issues, but had an aspect that the film has done very well.

4:  This is signifies a below average film. 4’s are usually assigned to films that aren’t worth owning, and are better to rent or borrow.

5:  Middle of the road, average score, aptly summing up the quality of the film. These films are by no means bad, but significant flaws hold them back from greatness.

6:  Many see this rating as a negative, but this isn't the case. Films that garner a 6 are often good, but are flawed enough to hold them back from higher ratings. Fans of the genre/director should definitely give them a look.

7:  7’s are given to good films. While films with this rating should be seen, you shouldn’t go out of their way to view them.

8:  A film that gets an 8 is a sign of a great film. Fans of the genre/director/writer will want to view them as quickly as possible. This rating can be seen a mark of fine quality, as 8’s and higher are aren’t awarded that often.

9:  This score is used to represent brilliant films. The flaws that they have do little to detract from the quality of the overall product.

10:  A 10 does not indicate a perfect film in any case. There is simply no such thing. Instead, a 10 means the film is masterful.  Like previously mentioned, a film can never be perfect, but films assigned this rating are as close as they will ever come.