Seven Psychopaths review

Hans: An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, I believe that wholeheartedly.

Billy: No it doesn't. There'll be one guy left with one eye. Hows the last blind guy gonna take out the eye of the last guy left, who's still got one eye! All that guy has to do is run away and hide behind a bush. Gandhi was wrong, it's just that nobody's got the balls to come right out and say it.

Director: Martin McDonagh
(2012)

Following up In Bruges, his excellent crime comedy from 2008, Martin McDonagh is back with his second feature, the gloriously funny Seven Psychopaths. The film follows Marty (Colin Farrell), a struggling screenwriter who just can’t seem to finish his latest movie, also known as Seven Psychopaths. His girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) is fed up with his lazy, borderline alcoholic lifestyle while his best friend Billy Bickle (Sam Rockwell) only acts as a distraction to his job. After Billy and his partner Hans (Christopher Walken) kidnap the dog of a big shot gangster (Woody Harrelson), Marty is embroiled in the situation, an experience he draws from in order to finish his writing.

While Seven Psychopaths can be accurately described as a similar kind of film to McDonagh’s previous effort, it distinguishes itself possessing a wry, postmodern edge. The women in the film either die or nag perpetually, something that Hans picks up on in Marty’s script. “What can I say, Women have it hard” Marty retorts, the films shameful borderline misogyny transformed into something witty and cerebral. Later on in a confrontation with Harrelson’s fearless gangster, his gun jams to Billy’s amazement. “In the final standoff!?!” he roars exasperatedly, shocked at how unconventional the film is. It’s by no means the smartest film to poke fun at itself, but it’s definitely one of the funnier ones.

Sam Rockwell demonstrates his acting talent once again as Marty’s borderline insane best friend Billy Bickle. Rockwell has done unhinged before on a more serious scale in Moon (2009), but here McDonagh gives him free reign to have fun with it. He’s utterly devoted to Marty and his writing, offering him ideas for characters (a psychopath that target mid to high ranking members of the mafia) as well as a friend to confide in. The films highlight, where Rockwell writes an ending to Marty’s script consisting of a shootout in a graveyard is hilarious, McDonagh’s smart writing, vivid imagery and the pitch perfect delivery of lines makes for an exquisitely funny action scene. Elsewhere Farrell brings some much needed consistency to the feature to keep events grounded and Walken’s cool as a cucumber Hans brings a veterans intelligence to the trio. Alone they are as, but together they make a trifecta of talent that perpetually keeps the films head above water.

When McDonagh is on form, Seven Psychopaths feels very reminiscent of Tarantino, a perfect concoction of violence and a sharp screenplay. This is none more apparent than the opening of 2 gangsters waiting for a target on a bridge, talking about eyes and killing women. The exchange between the 2 is almost flawless, tremendously paced and brimming with engrossing humour. When he connects, he knocks it out of the park, but is all too often prone to missing wildly. It’s here where the Tarantino allusions seem so very hollow, the script feeling more like a lazy rip off than something that can stand side by side with the master. It’s in these sloppy moments that Seven Psychopaths feels like a tired late 90’s film that wears its influence to other, better films becomes overbearing; McDonagh is looking up at the greats instead of standing beside them.

For all the humour involving hookers who speak Vietnamese and an emphasis on postmodernism, the movie is remarkably violent. While the bloodshed does augment the films comedy, the amount of headshots, acid burns and lacerations to the throat is almost overbearing. Violence is something that should be embraced in any form of media, its impact on a film can mould it into a truly remarkable piece of work (see The Departed and Reservoir Dogs) but it becomes such a cornerstone of the film that the next flow of claret loses a considerable quantity of impact.

While the dialogue is exciting and the editing is tight, the quality of the film takes a nosedive during the second act that’s borderline catastrophic. Hans, Marty and Billy leave the city and take refuge in the desert that results in the plot losing its powerful charge that has made the film such a joy up until this point. McDonagh recovers admirably with the afore mentioned graveyard scene, but this doesn’t make up for the films complete dissipation of energy. It’s a step back from his previous film (In Bruges), but that doesn’t stop Seven Psychopaths from being a charming, entertaining, thoroughly underrated film. A cult following is almost definite.

Zombieland TV pilot review

Tallahassee: Oh, I am this close to losing every last bit of my shit. 

Director: Eli Craig
(2013)

The original Zombieland (2009) was something of a surprise when I first watched it with some friends a few years back. At the time I expected a cheap cash in on the rising popularity of media that features the undead, but turned out to be a genuinely entertaining, funny film. While we all anticipate a sequel, Amazon have created a TV show Pilot following the films characters which has been airing around the net for free. Taking cues from Netflix, the internet superstore have produced 8 comedy pilots where viewers will get to vote on their favourite, with the most popular evolving into fully fledged shows, most likely for distribution through Amazon instant video and Lovefilm. While it’s almost a certainty that Zombieland is going to get green lit, this isn’t necessarily based on the quality of this first episode.

The most alarming aspect of Zombieland is how poor the plot is in this sometimes hilarious first outing. Following a disembodied voice on the other end of a radio, Columbus (Tyler Ross), Wichita (Maiara Walsh), Tallahassee (Kirk Ward) and Little Rock (Izabela Vidovic) search for survivors in a post-apocalyptic world, an act so tedious it almost incites boredom. If these names seem familiar to you, it’s because they are, as these are the same characters returning from the film. The major differentiation is that Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Woody Harrelson and Abigail Breslin don’t reprise their roles, so these much loved characters are embodied with almost total unknowns. While the new meat does a decent job of things, it’s most unfortunate that Ward’s Tallahassee is nothing like how Harrelson portrays him in the film, the gunslinging badass has been reduced to a bumbling fool. It baffles the mind why writers Rhet Reese and Paul Wernick didn’t just create a new group to centre the show around instead of the recycling of old characters.

Looking beyond such absurdity is something of a challenge, but Reese and Wernick’s humour is solid stuff. Columbus’s awkward, rambling attitude causes cringe worthy comedy, while Tallahassee makes lines about killing the elderly with a fire poker oddly side-splitting. The rules to surviving Zombieland as well as the ‘zombie kill of the week’ are retained from the film, and while Columbus constantly droning on about his precious guidelines is grating, the zombie murdering antics could suit the episodic nature of the show exceedingly well.

While it makes for a largely inoffensive 30 minute watch, Zombieland TV is still plagued with a myriad of issues that really need to be ironed out when the first season goes into production. The CGI is poor, the narration is overbearing and the driving force behind the characters actions has no semblance of weight. The new cast have some gigantic boots to fill, with many fans of the film writing them off before they are given a chance to prove themselves. The internet’s love of zombies coupled with the disappearance of The Walking Dead until October all but guarantees Amazon will put their weight behind this project, the real question to ponder is if it’ll actually be worth watching?

Go review

Simon Baines: He's a good guy.

Marcus: Oh, he's the good drug dealer.

 

Director: Doug Liman
(1999)

Coming out at the end of the 90’s, Go is a film that succinctly surmises the entire decade into a neat 90 minute package. The small budget, emphasis on dialogue and characters as well as the non chronological narrative, Go is the product of its decade. While it does wear its love of Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction firmly on its sleeve (very few films didn’t at the time), it’s the hidden gem of 1999, sitting quietly at the back behind the behemoths of such a fantastic year for film.

The most entertaining aspect of Go is its interlocking 3 pronged narrative that shows the same event from the perspective of multiple characters. Beginning at the end of a 12 hour shift, we see a botched drug deal and illegal rave from the perspective of high school dropout Ronna (Sarah Polley) and Claire (Katie Holmes), the former desperately in need of money to avoid eviction from her flat. Her buyers are Adam (Scott Wolf) and Zack (Jay Mohr), 2 TV stars being forced into becoming temporary undercover cops. Ronna's story is presented first and is arguably the most integral of the tales, charting her progress from scoring 20 hits of Ecstasy from dealer Todd (Timothy Olyphant) to dealing and dodging cops makes for exhilarating viewing. Her journey concludes just 30 minutes into the film, a choice that’s both narratively satisfying as well as being ambiguously open ended. The real joy that comes from watching Go is seeing the links that lock the 3 acts together into an interrelated whole.

Act 2 follows Ronna's co worker Simon (Desmond Askew) as he parties in Las Vegas with some of his friends. Although Simon doesn’t have much of a physical presence in Ronna’s story, his actions and phone calls have severe consequences that reverberate through a multitude of other characters. This is the shallowest of the films chapters, but its lack of depth is more that covered by the excellent humour, a thrilling sense of urgency and unmatched sexiness on display; these 30 minutes feel like 10 by the time the story shifts perspective once again.

In contrast to Simons story, Adam and Zack’s feels like it’s far longer than it actually is, making the weak link in an otherwise entertainingly consistent film. Showing events from the final, unseen perspective certainly wraps up some of the films more interesting questions, but too much of this act is bogged down by William Fichtner’s Officer Burke. That's not saying that Fichtner gives a poor performance, it’s just his character almost singlehandedly kills the films snappy pacing with an overly extended dinner sequence which gives little in the way of payoff or relevance. The fact that both Adam and Zack are TV stars makes the decision to have them partaking in an undercover sting seem bewildering, one of the few instances of sloppy scripting that is so contrasting with the excellence that writer John August has crafted.

In a sense, Go gives us what we expect form an independent production; pure, inspired energy that pulses throughout the films strongest stretches. In this sense it’s the anti Magnolia; sharp and throbbing with velocity compared to P.T Andersons leisurely paced and overflowing love letter to Robert Altman. It loses this zip in the third act, but still remains a highlight in one of the greatest years for film in recent memory.

Monsters Inc review

Mike: I think I have a plan here: using mainly spoons, we dig a tunnel under the city and release it into the wild.

Sulley: Spoons?

Mike: That's it, I'm out of ideas. We're closed. Hot air balloon? Too expensive. Giant slingshot? Too conspicuous. Enormous wooden horse? Too Greek.

Directors: Andrew Stanton, David Silverman, Lee Unkrich
(2001)

It’s an almost surreal experience being able to revisit Pixar films during their infancy after knowing just how successful the company’s streak would turn out. Almost singlehandedly responsible for the second golden age of animation with their pioneering piece of perfection that is Toy Story (1995) the studio has proliferated the use of computer animation to the point where no one does anything by hand anymore. Despite being universally adored by audiences of any age upon release, Monsters Inc critical reception was warm rather than blisteringly molten like Toy Story’s, and even to this day I find this baffling. In a near perfect run of films spanning more than a decade, Monsters Inc is one of the company’s absolute highlights.

Set in the monster populated Monstropolis, Monsters Inc follows Sully (John Goodman) and Mike (Billy Crystal), 2 best friends and employees at Monsters Inc, a factory that collects the scares from children in order to power everyday activities. The factory has doors that lead into children’s closets, allowing the monsters to infiltrate the human world to gather the required ‘scream’ energy that society has become so dependent upon. In a hilarious revelation, human children are considered to be poisonous, with a single touch being able to kill instantly. After a shift one day Sully finds a door left on the factories scare floor and accidently lets a human child called Boo (Mary Gibbs) into the monsters realm. This puts the duo on a crash course with the antagonistic Randall (Steve Buscemi) a malevolent camouflaged lizard who has bold ambitions about the future of the monsters world.

What makes the film work is its genius, high concept idea and precise, entertaining storytelling. The concept of another world inhabited solely by monsters whose way of life is powered by the screams of frightened children might sound like something out of an arthouse horror flick; the idea and its universe are developed sensationally by Pixar’s creative minds. The way the city of Monstropolis functions is so similar to ours, but is flipped on its head by the physical state of its creatively designed inhabitants. A janitor cleans up a trail of slime only to create another when he moves due to being a slug, a monsters tongue is so long it doubles up as a child’s skipping rope and deodorant is based upon foul smells (wet dog anyone?). These quirky aspects of an otherwise relatable society make for some tremendous laughs, as well as establishing just how original the film, and films in general, can truly be.

While both Toy Story’s and A Bugs Life are films that do an excellent job of catering to 2 broadly different audiences, it was with Monsters Inc that Pixar really began perfecting the art of pleasing such a varied audience. Mike and Celia go to a fancy restaurant called Harryhausens and Mike is put off by the idea of yellow snow cones (“they're lemon!”) while younger audiences will adore the slapstick humour and comedic violence. The written gags are razor sharp and are slanted more in favour of entertaining adults than they are of children, and this catering to such a diverse audience is executed flawlessly, making for a cohesive, well rounded feature.

Much like Toy Story 2, Pixar saves one of its strongest moments till last as Sully, Mike and Boo soar through the factory warehouse, using the door track line as a form of makeshift rollercoaster/getaway vehicle from the villainous Randall. Soon the characters are using the doors as portals, travelling to various locales around the world. The chase is visually stunning and totally exhilarating, culminating with an emotionally charged finale that could reduce a grown man to tears. The films flaws (obvious, cliché villain, the usual Pixar buddy comedy routine) are minor, the successes are astronomical. Watch it again on Blu Ray to remind yourself how the Cars films are minor lows in a company that’s only in the business of crafting phenomenal highs.

Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers review

Director: Nick Park
(1993)

There's only very little that needs to be said about Nick Parks Wallace and Gromit the Wrong Trousers, a short stop motion animation that's The Godfather of its genre. After renting out the spare room to an ambiguously sinister penguin, Gromit’s Techno Trousers are integral in the heist of a diamond by the malevolent bird. From start to finish Parks magnum opus is crammed with pitch perfect humour, genius gags and an astute sense of britishness. The low fi charm of Claymation is delightful that enhances every scene with such detail and ingenuity putting everything else similar to shame. And then there’s that climax, a chase on a miniature train track around Wallace’s home as Gromit lays down additional track as the locomotive barrels forward at an alarming and exhilarating rate. Quite possibly one of the greatest moments in the history of film, animation or otherwise.  A true masterpiece.

Garden State review

Sam: Hey, I recognize you.

Andrew Largeman: Oh, did you go to Columbia High?

Sam: No, not from high school, from TV. Didn't you play the retarded quarterback?

Andrew Largeman: Yeah.

Sam: Are you really retarded?

Andrew Largeman: No.

Sam: Ooh, great job man! I really thought you were retarded. I mean, you're better than that Corky kid and he's actually retarded. If there was a retarded Oscar you would win, hands down, kick his ass!

Director: Zach Braff
(2004)

The only reason I decided to watch acclaimed indie film Garden State was for a very ignorant and almost childish reason. It’s the reason why teen girls watch Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis and young women feel the need to watch 2011’s critically revered Drive. The answer? Because the film stars an actor who I enjoy watching. That and Scrubs is a fantastic piece of television. That's right, I watched Garden State solely on the basis of writer/director/star Zach Braff, and this choice was a surprisingly sound one, as Braff’s directorial debut is terrific little film.

The film follows Andrew ‘Large’ Largeman, a little big actor who resides in LA. His career highlight was playing a retarded quarterback in a TV film, but since then the acting well has turned barren. Upon receiving the news of his mother’s death, Large returns home to New Jersey for the first time in 9 years for the funeral that awkwardly collides him with his estranged father (Ian Holm). Soon after catching up with his friends from this previous life he bumps into Sam (Natalie Portman), an incredibly eccentric 20 something who he instantly has a connection to. In the remaining days of his visit to Jersey he attempts to find himself and understand his path forwards in life.

The remarkable themes of self discovery and progress are at the heart of Garden State, and Braff's script tackles such bold subject matter in a remarkably successful way. In different hands the film could’ve veered off into the direction of monologues and nature shots, but the focus is very much on the emotions of the characters. Large feels very isolated in his life, perpetually on medication and unaware of his next move. One hilarious scene sees his new handmade shirt match the wallpaper; a not so subtle metaphor for being lost. Make no mistake, Braff’s direction isn’t particularly subtle, but his choices certainly ring true without devolving into total pretentiousness.

What’s certainly odd to see is Braff in a role that isn’t the recognizable JD from Scrubs. The childish quirks of his medically adept alter ego are missing here, instead Large is filled with a somewhat emptiness. His voice is quiet and movements are reserved, never wanting to be the centre of attention, even when people bring up his successful ventures as an actor. Juxtaposing Large is the oddball attitude of Portman’s Sam, the catalyst in Large’s life that brings him out of his self imposed isolation. Portman certainly pulls it off here by bringing Sam to life and making her simultaneously quirky and incredibly cringe worthy.

In interviews Braff has stated that Garden State is a film about 20 something’s who haven’t planned out their lives past the age of 21. This is employed in full force for the majority of scenes, from the unemployed millionaire friend (“I've never been so bored in all my whole life”) to gravedigger Mark (“I'm only 26. I'm not in any rush”). It certainly allows the film to appeal to the aimless crowd of late teenagers and college graduates, even if Braff’s script becomes incredibly melodramatic in some of the more emotionally intense scenes.

For all its themes of existence and finding ones path in life that takes up the majority of the film, it’s a complete shame that the film’s final third (if it can be called that) is utterly lacking in a multitude of departments. After some strong scenes of Large and Sam bonding, the film goes quite literally on a detour leading the cute couple and Mark to an abandoned quarry. Not only is the journey out of place and a little dull, the film abandons its strongest thematic beats in favour of silly moments of cliché. The climax is a kicker, the films thoughtful groundwork is undone by a hideously generic RomCom ending. If it wasn’t for the quality tarnishing final act, Garden State would be a slice of indie heaven. Instead it’s merely a good film that never truly reaches its full potential.

Short review: Tucker and Dale Vs Evil

Director: Eli Craig
(2011)

Despite being totally stupid, there’s something so gratifying about Tucker and Dale Vs Evil. Seemingly tired with modern horror films, Director Eli Craig has crafted a fine satire that spends its time poking fun at a genre that is conventional to the point of predictability. Tucker and Dale are 2 beer loving rednecks who buy a woodland cabin as a holiday home, only to be attacked by a group of ignorant college kids our duo rescue their beautiful friend (Katrina Bowden) from drowning. What makes the film so fresh is the change of perspective, we see through the eyes of the supposed ‘villains’; good, honest men who’re misunderstood by today’s idiotic youth. Soon the gore and humour flow freely, but the film is on a slow descent by the end of the first act, the runtime unfortunately outlasts the smart, fresh concept.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower review

Charlie: I really wanna be a writer but I don't know what I'd write about. 
Sam: You can write about us. 
Patrick: Call it 'The slut and the falcon' make us solve crimes 

Director: Steven Chbosky
(2012)

2012 has been a surprisingly strong year for film. The brilliance has ranged from the explosive (The Dark Knight Rises), the clever (Looper) and the magical (Life of Pi). With such quantity in the quality of mainstream films, scores and scores of smaller, but no less entertaining films get pushed aside in cinema listings, unfairly overlooked. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is one of these films.

Perks focuses on Charlie (Logan Lerman) a troubled teenager who is about to go to a public school for the first time due to being homeschooled all his life. Through a letter for his anonymous friend he narrates his journey, offering insight to his mental condition and his feelings to how his life is unfolding. After a few days struggling being the new kid, Charlie befriends Patrick (Ezra Miller) and his half sister Sam (Emma Watson), 2 constantly quirky seniors who take him under their sheltering wing. Soon Charlie breaks free from his shell as he takes a journey to the end of his childhood that exposes who he truly is.

While Perks is most definitely a coming of age story, it’s not fuelled by adventure (the Goonies) or vast amounts of self discovery (Stand by Me). Yes, Charlie does find his place in the animal kingdom that is high school, but he adapts to fit his environment, spurred on by his need to feel normal. Despite his mental condition, Lerman makes him almost universally likable; everyone has moments of loneliness or longing while growing up. This urge to gain the respect of your peers is what Writer/Director Steven Chbosky channels constantly, a thematic choice that allows Charlie’s sometimes strange behaviour to have little impact on how relatable he is.

The trio of Lerman, Watson and Miller make up the core experience in Perks, and each is a perfect match for their characters. Watson is sublime in her first post Potter role as Sam, Charlie’s potential love interest and guide through his progression from near silent protagonist to eccentric socialite. She’s a sublime blend of dependable and seductive, although not without some serious baggage. Her brother Patrick is similar in many ways, his idiosyncratic lifestyle and warm demeanour is offset by his struggles with his hidden relationship with Brad, a fellow student with an urge to remain secret about his sexuality.

It’s in these more serious vibes that Perks suffers from its poor change in tone. One scene will consist of fun humour and engaging scenarios, only for child abuse and violent homophobia to rear their startling heads in the next. What's even more terrifying is how casually such themes are handled and the flip-flopping between styles is exceedingly uncomfortable at times. These dark moments are totally necessary, but are downplayed far too casually. The use of drugs fares much better, from a nervous Charlie eating a brownie at his first house party and getting stoned, winning him a great amount respect to doing LSD and falling asleep in the snow. Chbosky’s delicate comic touch works in the case of substance abuse but his attempts to brush other issues of so nonchalantly is detrimental to the quality of the film.

While it does tick most of the boxes of its genre, The Perks of Being a Wallflower never feels stale or derivative. There are enough jokes, relationships and chemistry between the 3 leads for the entirety of the film to work sufficiently. Chbosky’s handling of mature themes is haphazard at best and atrocious at worst, a flaw amplified considering he wrote the book the film is based upon. It may lack that powerful aura of youth that something like Stand by Me has, but that doesn’t stop Perks from being a hidden gem in a year of strong films.

Short review: Big Fat Gypsy Gangster

Director: Ricky Grover
(2011)

I'm still not quite sure what inspired me to watch a film called Big Fat Gypsy Gangster. I think I was hoping to watch a film so bad its good, but I couldn’t have been more wrong. A sort of mockumentary, an American film crew follows a recently released British gangster called Bulla. The film initially focuses on his attempt to regain his empire, but loses focus and goes on about mystics and dwarf fighting arenas. The acting is weak despite some decent names, destroyed by a dire script that's light on actual laughs. After a funny opening 5 minutes, the film resorts to cock gags and racial profiling, both of which aren’t funny in the slightest. It even fails as a mockumentary, ignoring its genres rules: it’s not even shot correctly. From directing to editing, Big Fat Gypsy Gangster is an abysmal film.

Short review: Keith Lemon: The Film

Director: Paul Angunawela
(2012)

Every year there is a film that’s sole existence is to exploit money out of its fan base. Keith Lemon: The Film does exactly that. Following the crude Celebrity Juice host on an adventure from Leeds to London, Paul Angunawela only intent is to pad the abysmal storyline is with disgusting and often incredibly unfunny gags. So if semen, cock and shit jokes are your thing, every scene will cater to your tasteless needs. When putrid remarks aren’t spewing from Keith’s (Leigh Francis) mouth, synonyms for the word cock are, the icing on a horrendously bad script. The nonsensical plot is padded out with C list celebrity cameos, from washed up pop stars to the lovely yet talentless Kelly Brook. One funny moment about Rambo aside, Keith Lemon: The Movie is so offensive, cliché, humourless and mundane that it becomes a painful experience.

Moonrise Kingdom review

Sam: What happened to your hand? 
Suzy: I got hit in the mirror. 
Sam: Really? How did that happen? 
Suzy: I lost my temper at myself. 

Director: Wes Anderson
(2012)

In a way, it’s a shame just how little of Wes Andersons work I have seen. A weird and wonderful director, I was instantly drawn to his 2012 film Moonrise Kingdom due to the delightful Fantastic Mr Fox (2008). While my love for stop motion animation did factor somewhat on my enjoyment of the film, the oddball and erratic sense of humour was the true reason for my affection. With what felt like grand expectations I viewed Moonrise Kingdom, a film that’s as challenging as it is wonderful.

The story of Andersons latest is incredibly basic, lacking in any form of narrative complexities. Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman) is the most unpopular member of the Khaki scouts, lead by the often hilarious scoutmaster Ward (Edward Norton). On the other side of the Island of New Penzance resides Suzy Bishop, a young girl with aggression issues and an affection for reading. Both are feeling stifled from their respective lives and hatch a plan to run away together as a storm approaches the island. With the help of Scoutmaster Ward, Police Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) sets up a search party to find the youngsters before the weather ravages the island.

Staying true to form, Moonrise exhibits the same charm Anderson is renowned for. An emphasis on children, who often possess grown up tendencies, a bittersweet tone and lots of quirky situations; it’s all here. Yet in spite of this delightful front, Moonrise Kingdom feels remarkably half-hearted. It’s not as kooky as some of his other works (such as Fantastic Mr Fox) but doesn’t possess a strong core narrative to make up for the lessened charm. It makes for a bizarre film, one that equally hard to define as it is to appreciate. A fine example is Suzie’s parents, played by Bill Murray and Frances McDormand. Both of these talented actors are squandered in almost throwaway roles, their lawyer lifestyles and almost eccentric tics being severely underutilized by a director who smothers his films with such actions.

Other members of the cast aren’t squandered in the same manner however, with both Norton and Willis stealing a good few scenes. They're helped by an extravagant script from Anderson and Roman Coppola (the duo’s second collaboration after The Darjeeling Limited) consisting of some of the oddest humour you’ll ever come across in films. From electroshock therapy for orphans to fishing hook earrings, the use word bizarre would be an understatement. While the dry humour has been retained, Moonrise hasn’t been written to make its audiences sides ache, but rather to make them chuckle instead. The restrained comedy sits well with the overall tone of the film itself, which exudes a gentler, mellower feel. This is unmistakably Anderson and detractors won’t find solace in this latest outing, the humour remains as wet as any desert.

Set in 1965, Moonrise Kingdom is steeped in immersive period touches that bring this small island community to life. Augmenting this is the choice of shooting the film on 16mm, bathing scenes in a smeared, mystical hue. The format’s restrictions rears its ugly head every once in a while-especially with long shots- but Robert D. Yeoman’s cinematography is strong. While the distinguishing visuals may signal otherwise, Moonrise Kingdom is unmistakably a Wes Anderson film. The man clearly has a formula and his love for having focus on youthful characters, whether in age or spirit, is fully intact. Yet the final product feels a tad disappointing, under cooked somewhat. It’s not a bad effort, but doesn’t feel as fleshed out as one would expect from such a talented director. A film to watch and enjoy, but not to love and cherish.

Short review: Pineapple Express

Director: David Gordon Green
(2008)

From producer Judd Apatow comes yet another dull comedy aimed solely at teens who want to do soft drugs and laugh at penis jokes. Seth Rogen is our stoner in question, mistaken for a hitman and chased by corrupt cops and his drug dealers (James Franco) supplier. That’s as deep as the film gets as director David Gordon Green pads the film with unfunny jokes and a vast amount of time dedicated to smoking pot. Though some are solid; helped tremendously by some sharp delivery by Rogen and Franco. An action packed climax covers its grim brutality with some fun slapstick brawling, but this is another perfect case of too little, too late. The rest of the film is forgettable fluff, as boring as it is unfunny. There's no need for it to be 108 minutes long, its concept burns out after the first half.

Short review: The Simpsons Movie

Director: David Silverman
(2007)

The Simpsons Movie simply doesn’t have the right to be this good. Constant rewrites and the weight of expectation should have buried it under a landslide of disappointment. Yet this feature length episode does what we've come to expect from the series. After Homer poisons Lake Springfield, the government enclose the town in a giant dome causing the famous family to go on the run. While the plot is mediocre, the humour is the true core of the film; perfectly blending smart jokes with postmodern nudges. The snide jabs at the government mostly fall flat however, often causing the laughs to dry up. While The Simpsons boasts a wonderful cast of side characters, very few are utilised beyond the odd joke, a severe waste of potential. The tiny 75 minute running time damages the film too, making this an accurate example of quality over quantity.

Your Sisters Sister review

Director: Lynn Shelton
(2012)

As effeminate as it may sound, I have a soft spot for romantic indie films. Big budget star studded RomComs are the bane of cinema, but by stripping away the falsities that come packaged with big studio filmmaking allows for talented directors to craft excellent work. Your Sisters Sister is that kind of film, free from the restrictions of generic mass produced shit like Friends with Kids and almost any Rachel McAdams film, allowing Writer/Director Lynn Shelton to make a film that wears true, genuine emotions and resonates with drama.

What helps bring the emotion of My Sisters Sister to the forefront is the use of a simple story. Jack (Mark Duplass) is (understandably) still grieving a year after losing his brother, so his BFF Iris (Emily Blunt) sends him to stay in her fathers spare cabin in the country in order to get some headspace. Upon his arrival at the secluded lodge he meets Hannah (Rosemarie Dewitt), Iris’ older sister who’s also looking for some privacy to clear her mind after a messy breakup. A night of heavy boozing and the surprise arrival of Iris add needed complexities to the tale which is as perversely funny as it is heart-warming.

Shelton manages to make Your Sisters Sister work by bringing together 3 genres and constructs a seamless blend that averts any banality that could crop up. This tone is set from the get go, Jacks botched speech about his dead brother being a sometimes asshole is awkwardly funny, and is followed by a chat from Iris that's tender and comforting in tone. In many directors hands this could cause for some harsh juxtaposition, 2 very differing scenes failing to garner cohesion with one another. Your Sisters Sister possesses no such trouble melding these varying tones, a talent that Shelton intelligently applies throughout.

In its simplest form, Your Sisters Sister is constructed from quality parts; each adding something necessary to the film. Shelton’s script brings the laughs and the tears, but if not for the impressive cast such talent would have been wasted. Duplass, Blunt and Dewitt tackle the screenplay with apparent ease despite the limited location and lack of other characters. When the narrative calls for it, the trio shift into high gear, delivering scenes of real emotion perfectly captured in gloriously long takes. Its scenes like this that elevate Your Sisters Sister to levels above most other indie- and for that matter mainstream- films, the brakes come off and we’re delivered a scene of blistering and memorable intensity. Sometimes this drama is applied a little thick, feeling more heavy-handed and less refined than the comedy elements. Yet this shouldn’t always be seen as a negative, events often call on moments of fierce passion in order to generate a sufficient payoff.

After a relatively fresh 90 minutes, Shelton shamelessly succumbs to the conventions of genre, even making sure to wrap things in a pretty bow. The final shot may suggest otherwise, but events resolve neatly before this attempted curveball aims to throw audiences of the scent. Yet despite this cliché, the way Shelton goes about delivering the resolution works thanks to the time invested into our trio. As a result we care, so much so the generic outcome isn’t as bothersome as one would think. As the credits roll, it becomes apparent that Your Sisters Sister is a powerful and confrontational film, capable of tackling difficult, fresh themes without breaking a sweat. Like many great titles this year, this diamond in the rough was unfairly overlooked and underrated.

Short review: Scary Movie 2

Director: Keenan Ivory Wayans
(2001)

After the inconsistent, yet funny and occasionally clever Scary Movie, a sequel seemed like it should deliver more of the same. Its most disappointing that Shawn and Marlon Wayans (amongst 9 other writing credits) have given us a dire follow up, offering no intelligence and very little comedy making for a simply terrible film. It follows its predecessor’s formula, almost with the intention of screwing it into the dirt with constant toilet humour is and terrible jokes. The film The Haunting is the framework here, an inferior choice to Scary movie 1’s use of smart slasher Scream. Plenty of other films get treatment from the Wayans brothers, ranging from Charlie’s Angels to the butchering of Dirty Harry’s famous speech; the material feels contrasting with the horror based core of the film. Oh, shit jokes aren’t, and never will be considered good comedy. Avoid.

Short review: Scary movie

Director: Keenan Ivory Wayans
(2000)

Aping Wes Cravens Scream (1997) to the point where it might as well be a remake, this Keenan Ivory Wayans helmed spoof is just as funny as it is stupid. Opening with Carmen Electra’s demise at the hands of a ghost faced killer, our group of teenage stereotypes bring slick gags referencing I Know What You Did Last Summer to weak humour involving fat girls and garage doors, Wayans lathers on his ‘comedy’ and intertextual references by the bucket load. When it works, it’s hilarious, but some shoddy attempts at being postmodern are painful to watch. The film hits a serious low in the second third, eschewing its satirical edge for dick and semen gags, a feeble attempt to emulate American Pie, it seems. Bonus marks for the reveal though, a clever take on Screams smart reveal. Shame about the toilet humour though.

Short review: How to Train Your Dragon

While I'm not a particularly big fan of DreamWorks films, How to Train Your Dragon was something of an improvement upon their usually middling standard. The film centres on Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) a young Viking boy whose village is stuck in a constant battle with a gang of fearsome dragons. Things turn around when he befriends one of the injured fire breathers and learns the secrets of these flying monstrosities. Voice acting is solid yet the characters are very one dimensional, many of which are dull stereotypes despite the Nordic setting. The animation and use of colours is an improvement by DreamWorks standards as well, both of which render the impressive flying and action sequences incredible. Yet both of these features are offset by a story that is completely predictable and horribly cliché. Still, HTTYD remains a fun, family friendly film.

Somers Town review

Graham: You’re gonna get yourself into all sorts of trouble if you stay down here

Director: Shane Meadows
(2008)

After the stunning ‘This is England’ and the disturbing yet entertaining ‘Dead Man’s Shoes’, I was hankering for more of Shane Meadows films. Possessing a reputation of being both underrated and well known in his native Britain, Meadows is a director known for stories involving children, growing up and being set in the midlands. In many ways Somers Town continues this tradition, yet for the first time, the Midlands are no longer the setting, and our story takes place in the hustle and bustle of London.

Much like This is England, Meadows once again casts Thomas Turgoose as the main character Tomo. Fresh off the train from what can be interpreted as a broken home in Yorkshire; he sees London as a city for change, and with only the bag on his back looks to start a new life. The rough and tumble of the capital is hard on him, and when things seem their lowest he encounters Marek (Piotr Jagiello) a polish boy of similar age. Soon their friendship blossoms as they vie for the love of Maria (Elisa Lazowski), a local cafe waitress.

What adds to the development of the duos friendship is Meadows choice to let the camera roll, allowing both Turgoose and Jagiello to show there bond in a naturalistic fashion. Instead of this initially awkward friendship being stiff and unsatisfying, we get additional development through ad libbed shots that are melded into existing scenes. While this gives a rather rough, amateur feel to the finished project, the results are more than worth the lack of polish.

Yet while this friendship is strong, it doesn’t possess enough momentum to fulfil its role at the core of the film. While they bicker over who loves Maria more most of the time, the plot is exceedingly thin on the ground and not even the plot arc involving Marek’s father (Ireneusz Czop) and his harsh unloving nature can salvage proceedings. In fact, for the amount of screentime this takes up, the father and son element is relatively throwaway beyond its use to show Marek's near constant loneliness. The result is a film that almost aimlessly wanders for its 71 minute running time; Meadows concern at portraying these 2 lonely teenagers outstrips the need for cohesion in his eyes. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t necessarily a bad decision, but anyone viewing Somers Town hoping to be struck by the stark bite of Dead Man’s Shoes or This is England will walk away from the film practically unscathed.

What helps raise the sense of isolation was the choice to shoot the film in old school black and white. This limited use of colour fits the location of Somers Town well, the drab art style and blocky, constrained apartment that Marek resides in makes it feel like shooting them in colour would be a crime. Only in the final scene does Meadows move away from the lack of colour, a delightful segment that shouldn’t be spoiled until it’s seen. The change of stock has some significance in one wishes to find it, both in a positive and negative fashion.

Somers Town isn’t Meadows best work. It’s short, scrappy and has far too many montages when taking into account its minute length. Yet the characters and the situations that they find themselves in are a surreal blend of optimism and melancholy in both their present state and potential future predicaments. This meaning the gently simmers throughout the film makes Somers Town a worthwhile, if unspectacular effort.

Carnage review

Nancy Cowan: At least our kid isn't a little wimpy-ass faggot! 
Penelope Longstreet: Yours is a FUCKING SNITCH! 

Director: Roman Polanski
(2011)

Its films like Carnage that I'm almost instantly drawn to. I mean what's not to like? A world class director in Roman Polanski, 4 wonderful actors in the form of Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly and a trailer that is simultaneously engaging and humorous. While Carnage is an enjoyable, dialogue heavy film, the fact it’s based on a stage play has caused some severe negatives on its transition to the screen.

The premise for Carnage is a basic, yet effective one. Penelope Longstreet (Jodie Foster) and her husband Michael (John C. Reilly) invite Nancy Cowan (Kate Winslet) and Alan Cowan (Christoph Waltz) to their Brooklyn apartment after their sons get into a playground fight that results in the Longstreet’s son losing a tooth. The opening credits aside, the entire film takes place solely in the apartment as the 2 couples go about solving the issue that their respective children have caused them. Soon enough, the civilised behaviour rapidly spirals out of control.

Despite its limited setting, what keeps Carnage engaging is a strong script that's rammed with conflict and confrontation. While the meeting between the couples starts off with some awkward back and forth, small incidents build up to an emotional breaking point where the childish sides of both parties are shown in their full glory. Alan is constantly on his phone, Penelope makes snide, unneeded remarks and Michael agrees to disagree with every argument. This comes to a head with Nancy vomiting, truly setting events into motion. The quarrel quickly strays away from its initial issue of the 2 boys playground fight into a variety of other topics, from Michael’s mother to Penelope’s emotional breakdown. Everyone sides against her, until the hate transfers solely onto Alan. Just minutes later Michael comes to his defence, it’s this shift in dynamic and the opinions of the characters that gives the film an unpredictable and gripping edge.

While this is easily the film’s best aspect, not even Polanski’s direction can save Yasmina Reza’s script (based on her own play) from running out of steam at the end of the second act. The final third runs solely on the fumes of the films great earlier scenes as the characters get drunk on scotch and slur their words to the point of incomprehensibility. Even the consistently ace Winslet shows her average side here, her attempt at being drunk ranks as one of the lowlights on offer. The films climax came far too early and the resulting scenes feel like the aftermath; the dreary calm after the vicious storm.

Still, such an ambitious and restricted idea would fall flat on its face if the performances from our four leads weren’t up the necessary standard. All pull their weight, yet it’s a shame that the characters they embody are borderline stereotypes, from Fosters incredibly liberal approach to proceedings to Waltz’ work obsessed, uncaring husband, there's nothing that we haven't seen before. Carnage begins awkward before hitting an enjoyable sweet spot right through to the vapid and redundant final third. This damages the film to the point of not being recommendable, but its dialogue heavy approach to dramatic comedy has its moments amongst the carnage.