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.

Short review: Trance

Director: Danny Boyle
(2013)

In his 19 years of making films, Trance, Danny Boyles latest, is the first that could be considered a complete let down. The premise of the film seems relatively simple, a botched art heist puts a criminal (Vincent Cassel) the amnesiac, double crossing thief (James McAvoy) and his hypnotherapist (Rosario Dawson) on a trippy, mind bending venture in order to uncover the hidden location of the painting. While the film possesses decent cinematography and performances, the narrative is a complete shambles; a mess of plot arcs and dream sequences bog the film down from the get go. It leaves the audiences head spinning aimlessly, a far cry from other, smarter crime thrillers in recent years (Shutter Island, Inception). The story twists and turns itself into the ground, Boyle simply doesn’t want events to make any sense. A couple of revelations resonate, but the end product is relatively poor.

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.

The Dark Knight review

The Joker: It's simple, we kill the Batman. 

Director: Christopher Nolan
(2008)

Over 4 years on, it’s easy step back and observe the effect that The Dark Knight has had on the superhero genre, as well as films on the whole. When one thinks of comic book adaptations, crappy effects, shoddy dialogue and men in ridiculous rubber suits all unfortunately spring to mind. But Christopher Nolan has changed such a trite genre for the better. After sowing the seeds of change with 2005’s Batman Begins, he blossoms this hard work into a truly fine effort, the genre transcending blockbuster that is The Dark Knight.

18 months after Batman Begins, Gotham is becoming cleaner, criminals fear the night and thanks to The Batman (Christian Bale) the city is relatively safe. Through the combined efforts of The Dark Knight, Lt Gordon (Gary Oldman) and district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), mob bosses are slowly losing their grip on the underworld. Things change dramatically with the arrival of The Joker (Heath Ledger), an insane and formidable adversary, hell bent on bringing Gotham and Batman to their knees. As the Jokers mania spreads, Bruce Wayne must push his alter ego to the very limit in order to protect those closest to him, namely butler Alfred (the always sublime Michael Caine) and attorney Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Katie Holmes).

If fear was the central theme of Batman Begins, then The Dark Knight is fuelled by unpredictable Chaos, a tone that Nolan sets from the get go. A 6 man bank heist is orchestrated, complete with a multitude of double crosses and the reveal of our scene stealing antagonist. From this stunning scene on, Nolan doesn’t let up. Explosions, chases, brawls and city wide pandemonium act as the fuel to a mesmerising film which pushes its genre, and filmmaking in general into bold new territory. This is in equal parts due to the dark, gritty tone, shooting key scenes in the ultra sharp IMAX format and The Joker himself, excellently portrayed by the late, great Heath Ledger.

While Batman Begins was no slouch in the acting department thanks to a strong assemble of talent, the performance that will be remembered for years to come is Batman’s most infamous foe. Ledger knocks it out of the park as the psychotic clown, his excellent dialogue delivered in such a zany, mesmerising manner that we almost forget that the caped crusader is indeed the star of the film. Ledger’s career has been a fine one, but this is what he’ll be rightfully remembered for.

The dark knight marks the start of a new phase of Nolan films, no longer restricted by budget; he is able to craft his film to fit his vision. Going against the grain when it comes to superhero films, the use of CGI here is kept to a minimal, with practical effects being used as often as possible. So when a bus crashes through a wall, a truck gets flipped on its head or a car gets destroyed, we’re seeing it actually happen. Such a practical approach is even used in bigger situations, the Jokers demolition of Gotham hospital is done for real, right down to the roof crumbling to the floor.

Taking an almost Spielbergian approach to set pieces, Nolan once again defies modern convention by showing us as much of the action as possible. The camera doesn’t shake around violently but remains smooth, framing the action so we as an audience can digest each punch and explosion. The editing is sound in this respect too, scenes are relatively long; nothing gets shredded into incomprehensible blur like other, lesser offerings. For the most part this works wonderfully, but there are moments when this directorial choice is a detriment to the overall quality of the film. Take Batman himself, dishing out hefty blows to Gotham’s criminals and the Jokers goons. It looks realistic, but the slow nature of Bales movement makes him appear sluggish in his brawls. It’s not a monumental issue, but it paints the caped crusader as a lumbering brute rather than the agile ninja that he truly is.

There is little doubt that The Dark Knight is a masterstroke in filming, a delicious concoction of old school philosophies and convention obliterating plot twists. But like all of Nolan's films, even those seemingly designed to be watched more than once (Inception), the film doesn’t lend itself well to multiple viewings. If The Dark Knight is watched once, and only once, it’s a 10/10 film in every regard. Viewing it a second time is a lessened experience however, and the narrative creaks under its gargantuan weight. Both Two Faces rampage and the ferry sequence seem rushed and implausible. It’s still a terrific film, but the magic it generates when viewing for the first time is an unrepeatable feeling. Regardless, this is bound to go down as Nolan's masterpiece, the great second act in a genre redefining trilogy.

Drive review

Driver: There's a hundred-thousand streets in this city. You don't need to know the route. You give me a time and a place, I give you a five minute window. Anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours. No matter what. Anything happens a minute either side of that and you're on your own. Do you understand? 

Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
(2011)

There is something about Drive that makes for a somewhat awkward viewing experience. Make no mistake, it’s an effortlessly stylish film, directed with such elegant precision by Nicolas Winding Refn, yet these factors don’t make for an easy watch. The cool as a cucumber 80’s vibe and mesmerising cinematography is almost unhinged by some incredibly odd encounters, as our chiselled protagonist ‘The Driver’ (Ryan Gosling) is as emotionally complex as he is socially incapable.

A stunt driver for films by day and expert getaway driver for the criminal underworld by night, The Driver exudes independence that maintains a distance between him and everyone in his life. His employer Shannon (Bryan Cranston) is a compassionate ally, even though such niceties fruitlessly rebound off of Goslings glacial 1000 yard stare. This enigma of a man opens up somewhat when he meets neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan). The romance that is poised to blossom is abruptly interrupted by the return of Irene’s husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) fresh out of prison and a changed man. Standard owes the wrong people protection money, and in order to help Irene and son (Benicio) (Kaden Leos), The Driver opts to help him out, putting him on the wrong side of local gangsters Nino (Ron Perlman) and Bernie (Albert Brooks).

Drive is an interesting film for Winding Refn, who’s remembered for Valhalla Rising and the Pusher trilogy. It’s primarily a drama with a focus on The Drivers relationship with Irene and her son, but takes frequent forays into a multitude of other genres. The opening scene is a prime example of this, a getaway chase after a botched robbery by The Drivers clients. Despite the thrilling build-up of tension, the quick tick of a watch, the beep of the open door indicator and Goslings slight worry hidden under a face of complete coolness and control, the chase doesn’t involve loud cars and handbrake turns around corners. Instead we’re treated to something of an arthouse action scene as the driver evades patrol cars and helicopter spotlights before shaking the off the police by synchronizing the getaway with the finish of a local baseball match. There is no denying it’s is a sublime scene, but it doesn’t entertain in a conventional matter, very much setting the groundwork for the rest of the film.

Seeping from every pore of Drive is an innate coolness that is worked into every frame of the film. The Driver nonchalantly chews a toothpick for the most of the film, staring into space. Many of his encounters with other characters involve lots of silence and awkward eye contact. It’s almost a competition of sorts, who can pose in the most stylish way possible in order to make their on screen counterpart look inferior. This is largely due to a minimalistic script, in which dialogue is used as sparingly as possible. Each line is carefully chosen, almost as if he’s afraid to waste any words in a sentence. We don’t need to have Irene talk about her unhappy marriage when we can gain this information from her husband’s story about how they first met.

Augmenting the films ice cool attitude is its stellar soundtrack, a glorious sample of 80’s club techno that bursts into life at precisely the perfect moment. Its no secret the film wears it love of this bold decade for all to see-its title font for instance- but the choice of songs seem inspired. When Real Human Being fades in as the sun peaks into shot while Gosling and Mulligan drive down an abandoned storm drain, it feels like Winding Refn is in complete control; the master of his retro universe.

While Drive feels so very fresh faced in a crowd of getaway films, it occasionally stumbles when it turns to convention, a dull decision made worse by how unique the film actually is. A development in the second half makes the antagonists off screen east coast mobsters, an unseen presence that lazily drives the plot forward. This also demeans Perlman and Brook’s wonderful work as the bad guys, both of whom seem less of a threat when they themselves have their own, bigger enemies. The finale is also an issue, bordering on unsatisfying anticlimax. These factors coupled with the uneasy exchanges between characters makes the first viewing of Drive is relatively hit and miss, though this shouldn’t be a deterrent for watching the film a second time. The more times it is seen the more it can be understood, and this layered approach is partly what makes Drive on of the best films of 2011.

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: Safe

Director: Boaz Yakin
(2012)

Writer/director Boaz Yakin brings us Safe, yet another generic action flick starring Jason Statham. He’s a homeless ex cop whose life gains purpose after he saves 11 year old genius Mei, whose memory holds a very important code to a money filled vault. The story here is childishly basic, yet Yakin convolutes events to give the appearance of depth and intricacy. Regardless, the Chinese, Russians and corrupt NYPD officers battle it out for the code that Mei possesses. It’s very cliché, acting almost as filler until we stumble onto the next action sequence, of which there is a plentiful supply. Some of these are practically shot and interesting, the Russian kidnapping scene for example. Yet the majority descend into sharp edits and trite camerawork, both of which render the action incomprehensible. The climactic shootout is erratic yet immensely dull, summing up the entire film rather neatly.

Batman Begins review

Henri Ducard: No, no, no. A vigilante is just a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification. He can be destroyed, or locked up. But if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you, then you become something else entirely. 
Bruce Wayne: Which is? 
Henri Ducard: A legend, Mr. Wayne. 

Director: Christopher Nolan
(2005)

Batman Begins is one of those films that is far better than it should be. On paper it’s a recipe for disaster, a talented yet relatively unknown director working with a huge budget for the first time to create a film about Batman. After the mess that was Batman and Robin, everyone was sure the caped crusader would never star in a half decent Hollywood production ever again. Yet seemingly out of the blue comes Batman Begins, the first in director Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and hands down the best superhero origin story ever made.

What's most surprising about Batman Begins is how Nolan has taken what we think we know about the character and moulded it into a fresher, more organic form. Gone are the ridiculous gadgets, corny lines and lazy attempts at comedy; all thrown away to make room for a more serious Batman. This is an origin story, so we don’t even start with our titular hero, but instead with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale). Holed up half way around the world beating criminals while in the confines of a jail, he meets the enigmatic Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson). Ducard offers him training with the League of Shadows, a ground of vigilantes and assassins. Through flashbacks we learn of Bruce’s childhood and relationship with Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), his parent’s demise and his phobia of bats. Soon Bruce returns to Gotham to take power from Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) the mob boss who has a chokehold on the city.

Nolan's Batman works because of this extensive backstory and a lengthy portion of screentime is used to fully flesh out the man behind the cowl. The first half of the film is Bruce Wayne’s story, a choice that certainly pays dividends to this legendary character. By developing Bruce this extensively, Nolan has managed to make us truly care for Batman. The strength of this strong script is proliferated by Bales ace performance, quite easily the best representation of Bruce that has ever been committed to celluloid. The importance of well written characters extends to the whole cast too, a keep emphasis from Nolan seems to be bringing DC’s most famed universe alive. Bruce’s loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine) gives the film a touch of comic relief, his wise observations and wisecracks are worked excellently by veteran actor Caine. The same applies to Wayne Enterprises employee Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) the genius behind Batman’s technologically advanced gear. While these roles may appear relatively minor in the grand scale of things, they nonetheless feel deep enough to augment Bruce- and therefore Batman- as a character.

While the primary focus of Batman Begins is on character and plot development, the action sequences are never neglected in favour of more drama. For the most part Batman’s brawls are shot and edited sharply, a clever trick to give the impression of his incredible speed and ability. While some fights descend into a blur of thugs falling to the ground, we’ve invested so much into the character that the messy editing doesn’t negate to severely from any enjoyment the film radiates. No such issues persist with the vehicle scenes though, which are blisteringly fast and exciting. With the newest iteration of the Batmobile (in this case named the ‘tumbler’) the film delivers an immense payoff with a chase through the streets of Gotham. Evasions, pile ups and stunts that rip the tiles off of roofs, Cinematographer Wally Pfister certainly knows how to craft an engaging, exhilarating scene.

While Batman Begins is a grounded film, it’s by no means completely immersed in realism. Villains and their usually absurd powers are either dropped or backed up by some vague yet consistent science. Batman’s cape allows him to glide by passes electric currents through it and the Tumbler has a rocket booster attached to the back. Yet because the narrative isn’t silly, these oddities can be overlooked at no expense of the films quality or how enjoyable it is. Even secondary villain Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) has his reasons; the tattered mask is to intimidate his patients, an accessory that compliments his mind shredding fear gas.

For its strong writing from David S. Goyer and Jonathan and Chris Nolan, Begins does have its moments of audience patronising handholding. Close to the films stellar climax, exposition is lathered on not once but twice, both of which feel slightly unneeded. Still, it’s easy to poke holes in such minor issues when the rest of the film gets everything so very right. Batman Begins is the film that gave the world a fantastic new director and the rebirth of one of the world’s most famous superheroes. In this context, it’s unmissable.

Gangster Squad review

Sgt. Jerry Wooters: Well ya gotta die of somethin'. 

Director: Ruben Fleischer
(2013)

I’ll admit, I'm a sucker for films like Gangster Squad. Much to the delight of the studio, I'm drawn into watching such a film when the cast is star studded and story is based around true events. It’s an understandable weakness, Emma Stone, Josh Brolin, Sean Penn, Giovanni Ribisi, and Ryan Gosling. With actors of such impressive calibre what could possibly go wrong? As it turns out, a whole lot.

Gangster Squad kicks off in the most worrisome way; via monologue. While a director like Alexander Payne or Terrence Malick would use such a device to smoothly set the groundwork for the narrative or characters, Ruben Fleischer (Zombieland, 30 Minutes or Less) has primary protagonist John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) talk about badges. The irony of the situation isn’t fully comprehended until later, when he forms a group of elite, gangster fighting cops who don’t actually carry said badges. This team, the ‘Gangster Squad’ of the title are formed by Chief Parker (Nick Nolte) to set in motion the downfall of notorious gangster Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), a mob boss who’s criminal activities are bringing the west coast to its knees.

Unlike most films that owe themselves to the provocative timeframe that is the the 1940’s, the protagonists don’t fight Cohen with police warrants and detective like sleuthing, that would require a subtlety that both script and director simply don’t possess. Fleischer would much rather blow shit up, and he wastes little time in the assembling of his team of terrors. Up until this point only O’Mara and Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling) have any form of development or noteworthy appearance. In many ways this is a positive choice, as Gangster squad functions as a rough and ready action film far more than it does a drama, which undoubtedly feels like is been tacked on at the last minute in order to give the false impression of depth.

The action is passable though, despite lacking any form or originality. Each member of the squad possesses a certain skill, brawler, gunslinger, gadget expert etc that, while horrendously unoriginal, adds spice to the shootouts and car chases. Fleischer doesn’t skimp on said scenes which he excellently places in amongst the beat downs and downtime. The outcome of these set pieces is almost always predictable, but they do a fine job of maintaining a firm grip on the audience’s attention. Its engaging stuff, but anyone hoping for scenes akin to The Dark Knight Rises or The Raid won’t find anything of the sort here.

It’s a shame that Fleischer relies on clichés so often when characters guns aren’t blazing. This is most notable with our antagonist Mickey Cohen, a badly scripted stereotype of a character. Sean Penn is a phenomenal actor, but here he’s far more interested with wearing a perpetual sneer and growling with a laughable, animalistic tone. It’s a shoddy performance, although the script doesn’t give him much to go on considering the most complex action our villain does is scorn at as many people as possible. These laughable aspects of Gangster Squad are situated throughout the script, often tarnishing the atmosphere and tension during critical moments of the plot. during the climactic shootout in a hotel lobby, Penn pulls a face akin to a duck chewing on a lemon, loads a Tommy gun, screams “say hello to Santi Clause!” and engages in a slow motion shootout which includes dozens of presents and baubles shattering under the impact of hot lead. Its utterly ridiculous, one example of some of the abhorrent writing that makes up the majority of the final product.

Gangster squad is a rough and ready film, punctuated by brutal action and Ryan Gosling reaching into his bottomless pit of charisma. The script is dire, story development is often overlooked in favour of another witty one liner and its use of monologuing is atrocious. Yet those who choose to view Gangster Squad will get exactly what’s on the tin; a stupid yet stupidly entertaining action flick masquerading as a slick period thriller.

Pulp Fiction review

Jules: The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee. 

Director: Quentin Tarantino
(1994)

There's something very special about Quentin Tarantino films, something that’s difficult to pinpoint. It’s not the quality of the cinematography, the flashes of hard violence or the intriguing narrative. No, I think my love for his films comes out of the fact he has characters sit somewhere and talk about shit for an entire film and still manages to craft some of the most brilliant, perversely funny films I've ever seen. There’s little doubt in anyone’s mind, Pulp Fiction is a fast talking, pop culture phenomenon.

Opening with a couple chatting about robbing liquor stores and restaurants, Pulp fiction grabs your attention from the get go. The dialogue is a standout; these characters remain seated for almost the entire scene, our interest held by the enthralling conversation. These 2 characters (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) are almost discarded as we jump cut to a pair of hitmen, Vincent (John Travolta) and Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) as they do dirty work for their boss, Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames). Tarantino isn’t content with just following this duo, and we witness more jump cuts involving prize-fighter Butch (Bruce Willis), Marcellus’ wife Mia (Uma Thurman) and the mysterious cleaner, the Wolf (Harvey Kietel). It’s presented in a non linear fashion, the story consists of various plot arcs that don’t instantly mesh, but become entrancing in the way they fall perfectly into place.

Tarantino shows us that he is one of the finest writers of his generation. There is nary an exchange that isn’t brimming with style or class, every word spoken is thoughtfully chosen. Homage’s are lathered on thick, his previous occupation as a video store clerk being used to full affect. Pulp may last 2 and a half hours, but sublime dialogue makes the time fly. The best scenes are those with Jackson and Travolta. The dialogue here is insane, ranging from the weird (comparing foot rubs to oral sex) to the hilarious (you wanna know what they call a quarter pounder with cheese in Europe? Royale with cheese.) The middle of the film becomes severely bogged down by Bruce Willis’ character Butch. It starts splendidly, with an excellent Christopher Walken starring flashback, but becomes tiresome. The following cab ride with a driver obsessed with death (Angela Jones) was good, but too much time is spent on Butch’s girlfriend Fabienne (Maria de Medeiros) talking about pot bellies and blueberry pancakes. This arc does finish excellently though, violence and death preventing this sizable chunk of film from becoming a total loss.

Complimenting the phenomenal dialogue is the superb work of Cinematographer Andrzej Sekula. His incredibly gorgeous cinematography goes beyond excessively flashing framing in order to augment the narrative. One scene that always stick in my mind is when Butch realises his precious pocket watch is missing. Things begin with a long shot framing both him and girlfriend Fabienne, as he roots through his suitcase to find it. As he searches, the camera slowing zooms in to focus on him, Fabienne out of shot but still talking. Pulp Fiction is full of shots as meaningful as this; both Tarantino and Sekula have successfully added a further layer to the way the story is told.

Once the credits role and all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, Pulp Fiction can very much be considered and influential, genre defining classic. Rammed with iconic, memorable scenes and backed by a scintillating script and a perfect use of music, we have the defining film of the 90’s. The middle is dragged down and Tarantino pushes the boundaries of self cameo a little too far, but Pulp Fiction is and always will be a classic.

Short review: Killer Joe

Director: WIlliam Friedkin
(2012)

From The Exorcist director William Friedkin comes Killer Joe, a dark yet comical thriller about murder and deception. When Chris (Emile Hirsch) comes up with a plan to kill his mother for her insurance payout, he hires Killer Joe (Matthew McConaughey) to do the deed. Without the blood money upfront, sister Dottie (Juno Temple) is offered as a retainer. Naturally, things go pear shaped, and conflicts amongst the family arise. Based on a play of the same name, the best scenes are those that feature multiple characters sitting in one location conversing. The dialogue is sharp, managing to be simultaneously witty and gruesomely dark. McConaughey is good as the unhinged Joe, the highlight of a remarkably solid cast. The ending serves up a massive anticlimax however; the careful build up destroyed in a hail of disappointment. Regardless, it’ll put you off KFC for life.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo review

Henrik Vanger: You will be investigating thieves, misers, bullies. The most detestable collection of people that you will ever meet - my family. 

Director: David Fincher
(2011)

When it comes to remakes, sequels and reboots, I'm almost always in the group that strongly opposes the decision to make such a film, even more so when it’s a Hollywood remake of a foreign masterpiece. While I sure as hell won’t be watching Spike Lee’s Oldboy remake, I did decide to watch David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo instead of the original. Why? Because it’s directed by David Fincher.

While this decision may seem silly and slightly absurd, Fincher’s track record has so far been fantastic and out of the many I've seen they’ve all been likeable, riveting pieces of cinema. So while the original Swedish trilogy is definitely something I intend to watch, I'm more than happy to wait for the ‘American’ versions instead. Although this wait might be easier said than done, as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a fantastic thriller that keeps you guessing thanks to its twisting plot and engaging characters.

It’s obvious from the opening scene that you’re watching a Fincher film. It has Jeff Cronenweth’s stunning cinematography, Trent Reznor’s understated yet effective score and a muted colour scheme that plunges Stockholm into a dreary yet provocative haze. Our protagonist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) has just lost a court case for libel, and now possesses a depleted bank account and a reputation in tatters. Things begin to turn around when industrialist Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) offers him a murder mystery case that has gone unsolved for 40 years, concerning his niece, Harriet. Henrik is convinced the killer is a member of his family, all of whom live on the same island that possesses only one bridge to the mainland. Juxtaposing Mikael’s journey is that of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) a mentally damaged woman who is an exceedingly talented hacker with a bizarre dress sense.

What's so fantastic about these 2 characters is how Fincher and his award winning editors Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter perfectly pace these plot arcs in the first half of the film. We spend the exact amount of time with Mikael and his initial clue mongering before getting an insight into Lisbeth’s life, in which she suffers the abuses of her new social worker and an attempted mugging on a subway. This allows for a breathless pace, allowing for intricate yet never overly complicated plot to become totally engrossing. The second half of the film also receives such superb treatment and the 2 and a half hour running time simply flies by; a colossal achievement for a film of such length and intricacy.

The complex plot is thanks to Steven Zallian’s stellar script, a solid adaptation from the book of Stieg Larsson. By drip feeding the audience clues in amongst plenty on exposition, Zallian gives the viewer enough information to keep up with the plot, but never allows for them to become overly knowledgeable about which direction events will travel in next. The dialogue doesn’t feature the quirks or snappy pacing that was so prominent in The Social Network, but this is a different breed of film, one that's cold and mysterious as opposed to being overtly smart and nerdy. The script falters towards the end, where the climax of the book is relegated to mildly gripping epilogue. The reveal itself is somewhat lacking also, but this can be chalked up to the build-up being so finely crafted; the payoff simply couldn’t live up to tactful work from both director and writer.

One thing is for sure, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a dark, unsettling film. Violence and murder are brutal, but almost pale when compared to the early rape scene. It’s hard to stomach, but Fincher knows its importance to character development, so the full force of such an evil act is shown. Such a scene would be pointless if the protagonists weren’t engaging, but thankfully Craig, Mara and Plumber all do more than enough to show the depth and nuances of their characters. The payoff might not be mind blowing, but The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a smart, riveting thriller guided with Fincher’s talent and precision. Easily one of the best remakes ever, as well as the best thriller of 2011.

The Dark Knight Rises review

Jim Gordon: [lying in a hospital bed] We were in this together, and then you were gone. Now this evil... rises. The Batman has to come back. 

Bruce Wayne: What if he doesn't exist any more? 
Jim Gordon: He must... he must... 

Director: Christopher Nolan
(2012)

The weight of expectation is a very dangerous thing. This is a fact we all need to remind ourselves of from time to time, an exercise well worth undertaking if you’re a Star Wars fan. After the surprise that was Batman Begins, and the surprise hit that was The Dark Knight, it’s understandable that the hype for the third installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, The dark Knight Rises, is at fever pitch. And while there's no doubt that TDKR is a superb film, it’s far from perfect.

Following on from a stunning action scene that introduces new antagonist Bane (Tom Hardy, complete with biceps the size of small children), we learn that many things have changed in the 8 years since the dark knights stunning conclusion. Harvey Dent is a hero, Gotham is clean of crime and the man behind the Batman, Bruce Wayne (Christian bale) is a recluse, wasting away his days in Wayne Manor. Afflicted with a crippled knee (a visual sign for his depression?), Bruce spends his days wasting away, much to the heartbreak of his loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine). After and encounter with slinky cat burglar Selina Kyle and the arrival of Bane in the city, Bruce decides it’s time for the Batman to rise from the ashes.

What's surprising about TDKR is the quality of the performances from the entire cast. This would be a remarkable feat in any motion picture, but considering the sheer amount of characters on show here, it’s certainly more of a phenomenon. Christian bale is easily the best actor to don the suit, his subtle performance as Bruce accurately portrays his tortured soul. Michael Caine gives some much needed heart to proceedings, endlessly trying to usher Bruce out of his depression. Caine has been consistent throughout his career and continues that trend, although has considerably less screentime than the other films in the trilogy. Gary Oldham and Morgan Freeman return as Commissioner Gordon and Lucius fox respectively, and like Alfred, they do a good job in the few scenes that they're in. Newcomer Marion Cotillard is love interest Miranda Tate, and Ben Mendelsohn takes the role of Roland Daggett, a seedy business man who wants to topple Wayne Enterprises.

The biggest characters come in the form of Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) John Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt) and the fearsome Bane. Blake is a rookie cop new to the force eager about the return of the batman, but its Hathaway’s sexy cat burglar who gives the strongest performance. The announcement that Hathaway was to play Catwoman made fans such as myself rage furiously, but we’ve been proven totally wrong. Nolan handles the character carefully, making sure to weave her into the main story. She's helped by some good writing, a feature that Hathaway takes and transforms into something truly special. Next to the Heath Ledgers Joker, this is the finest performance in the entire trilogy.

While Hathaway’s Catwoman is subtle and sophisticated, Hardy’s Bane is something new entirely. He offers a considerably different form of adversary for Batman; for the first time in the trilogy we have a villain that is a physical match for The Caped Crusader. And boy does Nolan deliver, offering the most brutal fight scenes possible for a 12A film. Bane and batman go at it on multiple occasions, offering visceral fistfights that push both characters to their limits. Yet Bane is far from just muscle though. He’s a highly intelligent foe, with a plan to take Gotham by storm in a story that’s a parable to the occupy Wall Street motion. He does so with such style, armed with an intoxicating almost Irish accent and an unforgettable mask to deliver him the anesthetic that he requires to live. Nolan stated that pain would be a prominent theme of the film, and between Bane and Batman, we are shown enough to last a lifetime. As a character Bane does have his flaws, most notably due to his iconic headpiece. The mask muffles his voice, sometimes to the point of incomprehensibility. It also obscures 60% of his face, leaving tom hardy to carry such a great character only with his eyes and body. This is a feat that is achieved, but still could have been so much more.

After the visual feast that was the dark knight, Nolan needed to raise the stakes once again in the action department. After filming around 30 minutes of IMAX footage for TDK, almost an hour is used for The Dark Knight Rises, and to excellent effect. Every key action scene looks spectacular. This is not just due to filming at a higher resolution, but due to Nolan’s love for being practical. Chases, plane heists and explosions, the amount of CGI used is minimal. The highlight though, a 1200 man fist fight on the streets of Gotham, is a real treat. Where most directors would use computer generated imagery, here we have 1200 extras fighting it out, the good guys vs. the bad guys. This is bold and ambitious filmmaking that’s almost unheard of in today's films, something that only Nolan seems to be doing.

Unfortunately, some of The Dark Knight Rises brilliance is lost through the hard editing style that is employed. While this allows events to unfold at a snappy pace (a must, even though the film is almost 3 hours long), it lessens the emotional impact of the scene. It also damages the story in some occasions, making the transition between scenes seem disjointed. This problem is aggravated by some surprisingly sloppy writing; plot conveniences, sloppy devices (the stock exchange set piece) plot holes (how does bane know the location of the applied science vault?) does surprising damage to the overall film. Time and time again David S. Goyer and the Nolan brothers have proven they can produce solid material, but here, things aren’t quite up to their usual standards.

However, all these minor flaws are rendered redundant by the film’s final 3^rd, a string of epic set pieces and riveting narrative. The final 20 minutes is the reason that I watch films, stunning doesn’t begin to describe it. The climax is a textbook example of how to properly finish not only a film, but a trilogy as well. Saying more would spoil things, but needless to say, those who turned up to see a fantastic ending will get what they came for, and then some. At its worst, it’s sloppy and rough around the edges. At its best, there's little that can touch it. A fine ending to a superb trilogy.

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.