Short Review: The guard

Director: John Michael McDonagh
(2011)

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

Brave review

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

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

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

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

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

My most anticipated films for the remainder of 2012

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

5. Skyfall

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

4. Argo

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

3. Beasts of the Southern Wild

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

2. To the Wonder

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

1. The master

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

We Need to Talk About Kevin review

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

Director: Lynn Ramsey
(2011)

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

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

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

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

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

Reign Over Me review

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

Director: Mike Binder
(2007)

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

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

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

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

Lost In Translation review

Bob: For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.

Director: Sofia Coppola
(2003)

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

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

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

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

The Muppets review

Walter: ...and then, when he thought they were alone, he said, "There's oil under this theater, see! I'm gonna tear it to the ground, see! Sweet, sweet oil, see!" 
Mary: People still talk like that? 
Walter: Maybe that's just how he sounded in my head. 

Director: James Bobin
(2011)

I’ll admit, I wasn’t expecting much when I put the Muppets into my blu ray player. It does, after all, star a bunch of puppets that sing and dance to infectiously catchy music. A short while into the film, my expectations were being met quite considerably. There was nothing in the way of worthwhile plot, plenty of one dimensional characters and a perpetually smiling Jason Segal. But once you look past how shallow everything appears, the Muppets is actually a pretty decent film.

As mentioned above, the plot is flimsy at the best of times. The film follows new puppet Walter, his human brother Gary (Jason Segal) and Gary’s girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams). The trio uncovers the plan of evil oil baron Tex Richman to destroy the Muppet theatre for the oil that lies underneath. Enlisting the help of Kermit, they team up to reunite the gang to perform one last show, with hopes to raise enough cash to save said theatre. The first half of the film is like a road trip movie as we become reacquainted with the old gang. This alone will sell the film to many Muppets fans. Everyone’s favourite Muppets make an appearance, complete with their still charming characteristics. One hilarious Meta gag later (a character suggests that it would be quicker to collect the remaining Muppets by montage) and the whole crew is back together, ready to perform. The runtime is ambitious, but a slew of very funny jokes are sprinkled into the spaces where the plot should be. Rather fittingly, cameos are frequent, and Jack Black and Animal attend an anger management class together is sidesplitting. While roles by Neil Patrick Harris and Jim parsons are integrated successfully into proceedings, Selena Gomez seems to only be here because she works for Disney.

Being a Muppets film, there are a fair few musical numbers present. Some are good (the Oscar winning ‘Man or Muppet’) some are rehashes (Rainbow Connection) and some aren’t even Muppet songs (Starships ‘We Built This City’ feels slightly out of place here). The chickens doing their version of Cee Lo Greens ‘forget you’ was a horrible decision though, and marked one of the few times the film failed to put a smile on my face. A special mention should go to Chris coopers rap scene, check out the bonus features to see the full version, very much as weird as it is funny.

So yeah, in many ways the Muppets exhibits the traits of a bad film, but its humour, characters and feel good vibe renders these flaws almost irrelevant. While it’s so sweet you can feel your teeth begin to decay, but the chance to see everyone’s favourite puppets together singing songs and cracking jokes is well worth the metaphorical fillings.

Young Adult review

Mavis Gary: I'm going to a rock concert with an old flame and I think there is a chance we may reconnect. 
Sales Lady: Let's show him what he's been missing. 
Mavis Gary: No, he's seen me recently. He knows. But his wife hasn't seen me in a while, so. 

Director: Jason Reitman
(2011)

Everyone knew someone like Mavis Gary when they were in high school. Mavis (Charlize Theron) is that stereotypical homecoming queen, bitch to everyone and obsessed with her image, the girl that no one wants to see after graduation. The only difference between this bitch and the star of young adult is that Mavis is 37, divorced and is a mildly successful ghost author for a young adult series. If nothing else, it’s apparent that not everyone grows up.

Theron is absolutely brilliant here as Mavis, the depressed/alcoholic book writer who returns to her home town in order to steal back the heart of teenage flame Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson). While she does this while knowing that he is married and has just had the arrival of his first child, she doesn’t care in the slightest. Mavis’ goal for her trip back to the town of Mercury perfectly portrays the kind of character she is, a totally selfish bitch. She’s obsessed by this goal and possesses destructive intent in order to try and win Buddy back. If I were to add to her colossal list of faults, ‘attempted home wrecker’ would certainly be top of the list. Yet her role as the antagonist is exactly what makes her captivating, there's no way anyone could perceive her as the good guy in all this. She's selfish, mean, bitter and immeasurably self centered, as an audience we should abhor her, yet instead we fall in love with her charm and audacity. She’s rooted completely in her prom queen past, stuck in a time when looks and popularity were the only things that mattered. Her writers block is overcome by basing her latest book on the films events, and this gives us an unsettling glimpse of her perspective on proceedings.

While back in town Mavis also meets Matt (Patton Oswalt) a victim of a hate crime while in high school and Mavis’ locker neighbor, something that she doesn’t recall. She informs him of her return to Mercury is to win back Buddy’s (Patrick Wilson) heart, not for real estate. While the script is excellent throughout Young Adult, it’s none more evident than in its dialogue, especially between Mavis and Matt. Diablo Cody (also of Juno fame) can craft moments of genuine hilarity, but can also give the film emotional weight when it’s needed. An excellent example of this is a scene where Mavis accuses Matt of holding onto the past, using his hate crime induced injuries as an excuse for not making something out of his life. Its hard hitting stuff that’s bitterly ironic, considering Mavis’ only goal on returning to Mercury is to get back with Buddy.

Young adult isn't perfect however, and has its fair share of flaws. Characters like Mavis’ parents are severely underdeveloped, suffering from too little screen time and purpose. Buddy and his inability to acknowledge that Mavis is enamored with him shows him as innocent initially, and a complete moron every time after that. This cannot be faulted to Patrick Wilson, but rather one of very few flaws in the script. Still, young adult is an incredibly charming film, showing that this Jason Reitman/Diablo Cody partnership won’t be running out of steam any time soon.

Superbad review

Seth: You know when you hear girls say 'Ah man, I was so shit-faced last night, I shouldn't have fucked that guy?' We could be that mistake! 

Director: Greg Mottola
(2007)

In all honesty, I'm not a huge fan of comedies. That’s not to say I harbor a dislike of the genre, but I feel humour doesn’t fit the 90 minute run time that most comedies possess. What's worse is when a comedy surpasses this length; the film becomes worse because of it. It happened to the 40 year old virgin, and it’s happened again, this time to Greg Mottolas Superbad.

The plot of Superbad is simple. 2 co dependent high schooler's Evan (Michael Cera) and Seth (Jonah Hill) are invited to a house party, and agree to supply the alcohol in order to impress their crushes, Jules (Emma Stone) and Becca (Martha McIsaac). The film starts as a solid pace, the jokes flow and events progress well. After a liquor store mix up, Evan and Seth get separated from alcohol buying friend Fogel (played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse and going by the name of his fake ID, McLovin), and go searching for their own source of the golden liquid.

It doesn’t help that the story here is weak. While this isn't necessarily a crime in a comedy such as this, it does fail to act as a good vessel for the laughs. Plot is severely bogged down in the middle, with a continuing stream of events that appear to have been invented just to prolong the credits.  At 114 minutes, Superbad becomes an increasingly dull experience; it fails to hold the viewers attention for this duration of time. The shining light in this dismal patch are 2 role abusing policemen (Bill Hader and Seth Rogen).  Using the perks of their job to get free beer and run red traffic lights, these 2 are at the center of the films funniest moments. Without these this side splitting duo, Superbad would have crumbled to incredibly unfunny pieces less than an hour into its running time. Once the final 3^rd arrives, the film picks up again, but the party they have spent all night trying to get booze for is minor and underplayed, consuming far too little of the screen time.

To conclude, Superbad tries to craft something touching and emotional, but far too little time has been spent on character development prior to this. This is cemented by hill playing an unlikable character and Michael Cera playing exactly the same guy he plays in every film he's ever done. Still, despite its name, Superbad isn't a terrible film by any means, it just suffers heavily from its long-winded running time, and with some judicious editing, could have been so much more.

Short review: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Director: Wes Anderson
(2009)

Rather than being a direct adaptation of the book, Wes Anderson’s fantastic Mr. Fox is more of a reimagining. Its hits most of the correct story notes, but is imbued with Andersons trademark charm and quirky humour. Its stop motion animation adds considerably to the films magic, and all of the characters (and their respective voice actors) are excellent. Clooney is perfect as Mr. Fox, the wiley animal who returns to his animal stealing ways. As well as the expected heists of chickens and ale, we get a heavy dose of peculiar oddities, a common trait of Andersons work.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is a loveable film throughout, but often covers its lack of plot and development with more hilarious eccentricities. This makes for a very sweet experience, but not necessarily a filling one.

8

Real Steel review

Charlie Kenton: How the hell do you know Japanese? 
Max Kenton: Video games. 

Director: Shawn Levy
(2011)

My biggest complaint of the sports film genre is that if you’ve seen one of them, chances are you’ve seen them all. There are some exceptions of course, such as Warrior (2 protagonists) The Wrestler and Raging Bull (more focus on the character outside the arena/ring). Despite the fact that Real Steel is about boxing robots in the future, it’s still a slave to the conventions.

The film centres on Hugh Jackman’s character Charlie, a robot boxing promoter who seems to always be down on his luck. After losing his money and robot in a fight, he suffers another blow when his estranged son Max (Dakota Goyo) has to stay with him when his mother dies. The relationship between Charlie and his son max is cold and unloving, something of a pleasant surprise actually. Charlie only takes custody on him after his mother’s death to make a quick buck from the boy’s uncle. This initially makes Charlie the bad guy, he possesses more interest in money than he does in the wellbeing of his own flesh and blood. It’s actually a bit of a shame that their relationship does mend through their shared passion of robot boxing, Charlie’s love for cash outstripping his need to look after max made him a far more interesting character. Instead, he’s becomes predictably cliché, something that Real Steel is unendingly guilty of.

This predictability runs into Real Steel’s many fight scenes as well. Fighters will get up as the ref counts to 9 and the underdog always seems to snatch a surprise victory from the jaws of defeat. Despite being well  shot, these fight scenes lack any real bite. These massive metal robots leather the hell out of each other and nothing noteworthy happens, other than some loud clangs. It’s a shame that the punches completely lack conviction, as the choreography of these fights is solid.

Real Steels issues persist throughout, both inside and outside of the ring. The soppy love story that doesn’t go anywhere, the awful product placement intended to ram Microsoft products down our throat and the abundance of clichés aren’t even the biggest problems that Real Steel has. That would go to Charlie’s son max. He’s a precocious, bratty kid with no manners and is dislikeable from beginning to end. While it seems he is intended to grow on us as the film progresses, he still has a loud mouth and a bad attitude. This is obviously no fault of Dakota Goyo, but his character was annoying enough to lower my enjoyment of the film.

Overlooking its dislikeable characters and clichés, Real Steel is an easy watch, with successful pacing of its fight scenes so its 2 hour running time flies by. It’s a shame that it doesn’t do any different to other, better films that reside in this genre.

Kill List review

The librarian: Thank you

Director: Ben Wheatley
(2011)

There is something incredibly powerful about the ending of a film. A mediocre film can be saved by its finish, with plot twists leaving the audience locked in a state of thought about what they had just witnessed. Conversely, an ending can destroy a film in mere minutes, tarnishing all of the hard work from the cast and crew. It’s seems almost unfair to put Kill List in that last category, because up until its final 15 minutes, it’s an engaging, disturbing thriller.

Kill List centers on hitman Jay (Neil Maskell) and his wife Shel (Myanna Burring). After being mentally scarred from a job 8 months prior, Jay must return to the world of contract killing with friend Gal (Michael Smiley) in order for his family to survive financially. Jay and gal are assigned 3 targets from a man known only as the ‘the client’.  Once the contract is accepted, things fall into an unsettling and shocking rhythm. This descent into the disturbing is amplified by the film’s mundane opening 3^rd, which centers on a dinner party. Things are relatively normal, a vast juxtaposition to the events that are primed to unfold.

Kill list is tremendously compelling thanks to director Ben Wheatley’s bizarre script that makes for tense and interesting viewing, effectively maintaining our intrigue for most of its duration. Why does ‘the client’ cut jays hand? Why do the targets thank Jay for before he kills them? What happened in Kiev? These questions add depth, but most are left unanswered. It’s fine for a film to be ambiguous and in no way do I feel that every strand of narrative should be resolved, but Kill List takes things a little too far. There are no answers. There is a difference between ambiguity and vagueness, and Kill List is more of the latter.

When the time arises to respond to some of these questions, Wheatley doesn’t even attempt to give answers. Instead things change direction entirely, its thriller genre dropped in favour of a fast paced and violent horror. This doesn’t fit with the rest of the film, and the climax falls completely flat. Nothing is explained; the ending is poses yet more questions and isn't integrated into the rest of the narrative in the slightest.

When all is said and done, Kill List fails to capitalise on its well crafted and interesting story in an attempt to elicit a strong emotional response from its audience. Right up to its finale, Kill List was excellent, solid in every department. It’s a shame really, another film ruined by its ending.