Hunger Review

The 1981 IRA hunger strikes have been done on film before. We've had Terry George's Some Mother's Son a powerfully emotive piece featuring standout performances from Helen Mirren and Aiden Gillen. We've also had the lesser seen H3. So why do it again? As always, the answer to this question - whether it be asked about remakes or the rehashing of popular subjects - is simple. There is no reason to do it again unless you are trying something completely different.

And Hunger, directed by first time director and former visual artist Steve McQueen (no, not that one), is certainly something different and some will find that alienating. The standard operating procedure when dealing with a true-life historical story is to explore the world through a character's eyes. Tell their story and allow the audience to connect, empathise and have a cathartic experience as they partake in the character's transformation. This approach works, time and time again but it is by no means easy to achieve. But it's not the only way to tell a story. It is simply the most reliable.

Hunger flips the script and rips up the rule book. It eschews the traditional 3-act structure (though it is still resolutely in 3 acts). It deliberately switches point-of-view, preventing the audience from identifying with any one character and their world view or political point of view. While we feel empathy, we are not encouraged to position ourselves with any of the characters. Dialogue is used sparingly until suddenly we are cast into a 15-minute scene in which two people talk to each other in a simple 2-shot without any cuts. Narrative resolution is deemed unnecessary and character's arcs are dropped mid-stream, again discouraging identification.

Of course, many may find this frustrating because, it is unnatural and not commendable for its own sake. It is only laudable if these choices achieve something else. And they do. They allow a political hot potato of a story to be told relatively objectively, which prevents the movie from being dismissed by critics as an apology for terrorists. It forces the audience to feel the effect of the events for themselves. Rather than identifying with characters you identify with the pure pain, suffering, hardship and human strength, independent of too much context. Again, this would not work if the pain and suffering wasn't so brutally rendered and if it failed to shake the audience to its core.

None of this sounds like an entertaining night at the cinema but it is an expert peice of filmmaking that is engaging in its brutal honesty.
4/5

Man On Wire

In 1974 daredevil wirewalker, Philippe Petit, carried out the greatest ‘artistic crime’ of the twentieth century by fastening a cable between the roofs of the two towers of the World Trade Center and walking across it.

At a time when all films seem to have the sub text of the 9/11 disaster lurking in the background; it is a breath of fresh air to watch a documentary where the towers are portrayed as a symbol of hope, of human endeavour and of man’s unyielding urge to go where no man has gone before.

Our animated and tenacious hero, Philippe Petit, narrates the story along with the rest of his crew taking us through the years of preparation which was required to pull off this incredible act. From the first moment when Petit was inspired; by drawing a line between the towers in a dentist office, to the thrilling events of breaking into the World Trade Center and actually executing the heist.

Petit saw this mission not as a performance but as a bank job and that is how director, James Marsh, treats the subject. He has masterfully constructed this tale into what feels like a 70’s crime thriller; opening the story as the crew are infiltrating the World Trade Center and twisting the screw of tension almost to breaking point only to jump out for rest bite and fill in the back story which fleshes out the characters and efforts which they have taken to get to their point of no return.

Yet underneath the excitement of this compelling narrative lies the story of two men, Philippe and Jean-Louis, who are as if bounded by fate to be on this mission. Philppe’s blind determination is balanced by Jean-Louis’s pragmatism. As if Jean-Louis is destined to be carrying the weight of potential failure for Philippe so that he can blindly step into the abyss between those towers with child like glee and excitement.

Man On Wire is an uplifting and thrilling story which dares you to chase after your dreams no matter how peril filled they may be. A must see.

4.5/5

Pineapple Express

When people mention Pineapple Express, it is usually in the same breath as Superbad and occasionally Knocked Up. Granted, Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen were behind all three movies (to varying degrees) and they all come from the Apatow stable - which is now enjoying the inevitable backlash from critics - but to call it a follow-up and imply a more-of-the-same attitude is to do it a disservice. Pineapple Express is not another teen comedy or another frat-boy-comes-of-age movie, where the characters find themselves in embarrassing, socially awkward situations and generally make fools of themselves, while having the breathing room to improv and riff off each other with hilarious results.

No, Pineapple Express is a very different beast. It's a 'genre' movie bringing with it all the associated challenges. It's an Action Comedy. It's a Stoner Action Comedy to be more specific. For a stoner action comedy you're gonna need a significant plot, you're gonna need lengthy elaborate action sequences, you're gonna need the obligatory smoking sequences and cheap stoner gags and on top of that you're gonna need to be funny, so funny in fact, that you don't suffer in comparison to Superbad. That's a tall order. How did they set about achieving it? Well, by doing almost everything differently, something to be roundly applauded.

They keep the plot fairly simple; Seth Rogen's pot-smoking loser, witnesses a murder and has to go on the run with his dealer, getting unwittingly caught up in a war between 2 rival drug gangs in the process. As far as the, action sequences go they stick rigidly to one rule. These guys are not action stars! They are stoners! So we have no athletic, quick-thinking bad-ass action moves, followed by comedic quips ala Lethal Weapon or Rush Hour. Instead the comedy comes from their complete inability to achieve anything remotely physical. There is one sequence in which the pugilists even seem incapable of hurting each other because they are completely lacking in any physical prowess, ingenuity, strength or athleticism. Apparently the idea for this movie came from asking, what if the bad guys had chased Brad Pitt in True Romance instead of Christian Slater. Just like Lebowski was thrown into a Film Noir plot for comedy gold, they throw two everyman stoners into a convoluted action movie set-up and have them react almost realistically to every situation i.e. with utter panic, inarticulacy and incompetence. These guys are not Mel Gibson.

As far as the stoner comedy goes, there almost is none. Don't get us wrong, they mine the fact that the characters are stoned in the most inappropriate situations for all it's worth. They just don't assume for one moment that smoking weed in itself is funny. It's all about the context. One example: Smoking weed = boring. Selling weed to 12-year-olds to get money to flee town, smoking it with them, thinking you're cool but ultimately getting so stoned that you get caught by the police = funny.

In all this perhaps accidental innovation, they don't quite achieve everything. They don't achieve the same comedy hit rate that Superbad managed as they just aren't allowed spend as much time mining for laughs. Also, the success of the their previous efforts has often been down to the audience getting to spend time with a group of friends who have a ready-made sense of humour complete with recognisable rivalries, resentments and raillery. This is more about the burgeoning of a friendship rather than the exploration of an existing one. And yet again Rogen and Goldberg have tooled their script as a love story between two males. Of course buddy comedies always have that undercurrent (witness the countless Brokeback Mountain trailer parodies) but Pineapple Express - and Superbad before it - dispense with the coyness and overtly set up the relationship of a weed smoker and his dealer as essentially a fuck-buddy relationship that turns into love. The attempt to invest this friendship with such metaphorical undertones (or overtones) illustrates the care and attention to detail and the desire to do something a little different with the genre that permeates the whole enterprise and sets it apart from a turgid Ratner rip-off. Still, to step all over our original point, it's no Superbad.

3/5

RocknRolla

RocknRolla is a Guy Ritchie film. From the opening voice over you know what is coming next. It seems that after recent failures Ritchie has decided that the best way to proceed is simply to copy the general outline of his previous success Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. One Two (Butler) and Mumbles (Elba) are two criminals who get in over there heads in a dodgy property deal and end up owing money to Lenny Cole (Wilkinson), a notorious London Gangster. They have a week to come up with the money. As with his previous work there are numerous interlinking subplots.

Ten years ago when Ritchie’s debut Lock, Stock and Two Smocking Barrels hit the silver screen we were impressed. The films many interwoven subplots worked well together, the characters were cool and there was enough humour and action to keep us entertained. A couple of years later he brought us Snatch an undoubtedly enjoyable film, but effectively a sequel. Since then Ritchie’s films have been a commercial and critical failure with Swept Away being a particular low. RocknRolla is not going to change our opinion that Ritchie is a one hit wonder.

RocknRolla is not without merit - some parts are well shot, there are a few funny moments but in the end there are no stand out performances, no great dialogue, no great characters, no dramatic twists and not enough hot women. So basically RocknRollla is Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels without the mojo. Having said all that, its reasonably entertaining.

Rating 2.5/5

Babylon A.D.

In a post apocalyptic world where global warming has mucked up the environment and where corporations are the new religion; a mercenary, Thoorop (Vin Diesel), takes a job of transporting a 'special' girl and her minder from Mongolia to New York.

After supposed studio tinkering with the final cut, Babylon AD ends up a vacuous neutered beast of a film. It’s hard to say how much at fault director Mathieu Kassovitz (La Haine) and screenwriter Eric Besnad are since they have publicly stated that this not their intended cut. Despite their protests, we can only judge the work on display; which is greatly flawed.

One would think that director Kassovitz had left his ‘How Actors Should Act’ handbook back in France when dealing with Diesel, Yeoh and lovely actress Melanie Thierry. A particularly guilty scene set in a tent in Alaska where our nuclear family supposedly ‘bond’ and ‘share a laugh’ ends up plain creepy and weird. Like at other points in this film, the scene is misjudged in its direction but there is a resounding feeling that something has been cut immediately preceding this which would make these scenes seem less out of place.

The blame can’t all go on the head of the big nasty studio though (of course, the action scenes are dull since all the money shots have been unceremoniously wrenched to make this a PG12 cert.) the story as it stands is uninteresting and is devoid of character depth. This is not to lecture that all action films have to be character driven, not at all. But what the genre does demand are central characters that either a.) we care about or b.) we enjoy watching them kick the shit out of the big boss’ henchmen. So, because the action has been clipped there is no window for us to like Vin Diesel’s hard man act e.g. ‘Pitch Black’; and because Mr. Diesel’s mercenary is a mono-syllabic oaf we don’t give two flying ones what happens to him.

It’s not all doom and gloom for this venture though. The cinematography and set design conjure a bleak and semi-compelling vision of the future. We may be sick to the teeth of seeing a future filled with scorched skies and radioactive bed sheets but it’s about the only aspect of this film that may be worth the cinema ticket. Otherwise, keep your cash in your pocket and take a look at the director’s cut once it is inevitably is released on DVD.

2/5

The Dark Knight - Masterpiece or Hype?

So what did everybody think of The Dark Knight? Let's hand this one over to you. Instead of a stuffy review why not give us your thoughts instead? Post a comment here and join the debate.

The Wackness

We've spoken at great length on this site about the potential pratfalls involved in making a typical indie movie and there's none so typical as the low-budget coming of age movie with a quirky indie spirit. Sometimes it works to the point where the movie overcomes the inevitability of the teenagers in question being painfully irritating (see Juno for reference). Other times it doesn't.

The Wackness hits screens fresh from success at Sundance (of course) and sounds like a cross between Charlie Bartlett and Thumbsucker in its tale of a loner high-school graduate who takes to selling pot for a day-job whilst attending therapy with a stoner shrink who is his best customer and could be his best friend.

Where The Wackness succeeds in differentiating itself is in its unusual stylistic choices. It's set in the early 90's for almost no discernible reason (the protagonist is a white-boy who listens to hip-hop instead of grunge, which may set him apart in the 90's but surely a similar distinction could have been made today). The colour grade is extreme and stylised with sickly greens and sepia browns making it look almost like a low-budget thriller or prison drama rather than the light hearted dramedy that it is. It could be jarring but what it does is takes us away from expectation and formula and anything that makes us feel like we've seen this sort of thing before.

The two central performances are of the highest order. Ben Kingsley will get all the plaudits for his entertainingly unhinged, eccentric shrink but whilst his performance is undeniably enjoyable and scenery-chewing, it still falls into the category of predictably quirky. The real kudos should go to Josh Peck who impressed so much a few years ago in Mean Creek and who now offers us a subtle, bravely nuanced performance which has the courage to remain stilted and isn't preening for attention or showing off. The kid is somewhat numb to the world, insulating himself at all times and accordingly that's exactly how Peck plays him.

Unfortunately, the movie is meandering and quite directionless in its story-telling. There seems to be little indication of what anybody wants to do or achieve until right near the end. Consequently, it flags in places and whilst it isn't attempting to be a comedy, it still isn't as funny as it thinks it is. It does finally come together to pack an emotional punch and just about manages to amount to the sum of its modest parts and it deserves extra credit for treating familiar material with a fresh eye. Now that Josh Peck has lost the weight of his younger years, which could have pigeon-holed him, Hollywood should come knocking...if there's any justice (Editors note: there isn't).
3/5

The Mist

The Mist is Frank Darabont first directorial effort since The Majestic. After the success of his earlier films The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, the Majestic was a failure critically and commercially. The Mist, a horror with a seventies b-movie style, his third adaptation of Steven King material sees Darabont return to form.

As the film begins we are introduced to artist Dave Drayton (Thomas Jane) and his family. As night falls a storm hits their little town in Maine. The following morning as an ominous Mist closes in on the town Drayton, his son and his neighbour head into town to get supplies. By saying more we would run the risk of giving away to much. Which would be a really pity, this is a film where the less you know going in the better.

Suffice to say that The Mist is well worth the trip to the cinema. Strangely for a horror it is observing how the characters react to the pressure they are put under rather than the action itself that makes this film so great. The ensemble cast is excellent here with some great performances. Particularly from Marcia Gay Harden and Toby Jones. Even Thomas Jane, though an actor of limited ability, gives a solid performance in the lead role.

The action though is also great, with some excellent CGI. Despite its 126 minute running time, it doesn’t seem like a long film as Darabont keeps us enthralled throughout. Go enjoy!

4/5

The Visitor

It has long been acknowledged that there is barely such a thing as a real indie movie anymore. Most so-called indie movies are actually financed by specialist arms of major studios or by companies that are ultimately owned by the same corporations as the major studios. If a movie is made independently, it is almost always picked up for distribution by a major. So it seems the term indie is used more as a reference to style/genre/ethos than to a specific financial category. As with any style/genre (we use the term loosely here since it probably doesn't strictly fit the bill) there are formulas and audience expectations that make them feel predictable. This is particularly true of the character-based 'life-affirming' indie as opposed to the low-budget guns and gangsters kind. There's definitely a creeping sense among audiences that we've seen it all before.

It's into this difficult climate that Tom McCarthy's sophomore film The Visitor emerges. McCarthy's is an actor turned director whose debut film The Station Agent was a small, charming gem that deservedly garnered critical acclaim on the festival circuit and arguably added to the template of 'typical indie fare'.

The Visitor is about a lonely college professor who has effectively resigned from life until he finds 2 immigrants squatting in his apartment. The trio become unlikely friends and life lessons are learned, passion for life is re-ignited, residual grief over dead relatives is surmounted, romance is hinted at, but never overtly expedited (nothing so crass!) and credits role amid much ambiguity.

All this is fine and works extremely well in many indie films, in much the same way as a thriller can be formulaic but gripping if it's treated right. As mentioned The Station Agent is so full of easy-going charm that it succeeds brilliantly within this formula. The Visitor however, is a more difficult beast, to be admired for certain reasons and to be given the cold shoulder for others.

What makes this admirable and unusual for a character-based indie movie is its political edge and it's acute sense of anger at the treatment of asylum seekers. It manages to tackle an issue, if not quite head on, then through the indirect prism of the characters' worlds and is all the better for this angle of exploration. It doesn't feel preachy. It doesn't seek to inform but rather to explore and help find understanding.

That said, this causes some associated problems. The film can never quite decide if this is a story about a man rekindling his zest for life or whether it's a story about a man finding his passion through anger and a sense of righteous indignation. It seems the latter scenario would be fresh and interesting for a film of this type (or for any film for that matter - as Jonny Rotten said; anger is an energy - one too often ignored). Instead, what happens is that the zest-for-life moments sit a little incongruously in such a sombre, morose piece with the result that they feel shoehorned in and stick out as what they are, boring staples of the 'genre'.

It seems a strange criticism to level at a movie but this wasn't as enjoyable and entertaining as The Station Agent quite simply because it lacked that movie's charm. Yet it fails to break new ground and be an unusual example of the form, in that it tries too hard to have charm. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. It's still a damned good effort and worth a look.

3/5

The Incredible Hulk

Early expectation of this rebooted version of the Marvel’s ‘Hulk’ franchise was not great since some considered ‘The Incredible Hulk’ to be one of the risky releases of the summer. Since audiences were under whelmed by Ang Lee’s decent 2003 ‘Hulk’ film and in the months leading up to the release of this incarnation (co-written by Edward Norton and Zack Penn, and directed by ‘The Transporter’ helmer Louis Leterrier) the internet was rumbling of editing room arguments between Norton and the producers over the theatrical cut of the film; all this combined with a late marketing campaign boded ominously for the film’s release.

If anything ‘The Incredible Hulk’ knowingly owes buckets to the successful 70’s TV series. If you had seen that as a child you too would remember diving behind the couch as David Banner transformed into the Hulk. And it’s because of this connection that there is a warm comfortable familiarity surrounding ‘The Incredible Hulk’. Edward Norton’s ‘Bruce Banner’ reminds us of ‘David Banner’ of the series, wandering the world trying to find a cure for his green condition while encountering troublesome locals who just insist on making him angry.

But this is also a hindrance to the film. ‘The Incredible Hulk’ never feels like more that an extended television episode where the themes and the texture are thin. Edward Norton’s Bruce Banner is somewhat underwhelming and almost vacant. He’s neither as entertaining as Tony Stark or as complex as Bruce Wayne, he’s just a bit, well, boring. Which is a shame since we all know how fine an actor Mr. Norton is and the character of Bruce Banner should be fertile ground for a cerebral exploration into the root of Banner’s rage; maybe a study on repressed paternal rage… Wait, they did that and fans hated it, oh well, no character development then.

This leads us to the reputed missing seventy minutes. Certainly ten or fifteen of those are covered in the opening montage but one has to wonder what was lurking in the cut pieces of celluloid. Where the producers so scared by the underperformance of the 2003 film that they removed any material that wasn’t pertinent to fulfilling a ‘HULK SMASH’ film? Maybe a DVD cut will answer the fans speculation.

‘The Incredible Hulk’ works in its visceral set pieces when the Hulk finally gets to unleashes his fury; notably in an exhilarating sequence on a college campus where the Hulk faces off against the military. And it’s the direction of these action scenes where director Leterrier should be applauded, his experience of OTT comic book action from ‘The Transporter’ films certainly pays off here. Also, Tim Roth’s ‘Super Soldier’ antics are a pleasant surprise by miraculously not looking crap.

The film’s major down fall are it’s characters, from Liv Tyler’s shrinking ‘Betty Ross’ to William Hurt’s over distant and snarling ‘Gen. Ross’, all are literal adaptations from the comic book pages. Something which is not necessarily a good thing since film audiences are more accustomed to some sort of character development.

Of course, we are now in uncharted cinematic territory with this coming stable of ‘Marvel’ films. For the first time in Hollywood cinema, Marvel will be expanding the universe of there characters across several different franchises and ultimately unifying in a team up film of ‘The Avengers’ to be released in 2011. This ambitious and expensive endeavour in turn limits the range of movement of the individual films since they must consider a unity of tone and character for not only their own franchise but the super-franchise of ‘The Avengers’.

At the end of the day, ‘The Incredible Hulk’ looks and feels like an updated version of the classic 70’s TV show, a little bit episodic and underdeveloped but when the Hulk does rip through Bruce Banner quaint garments it’s a real treat.

3/5

Gone Baby Gone

After a four year old girl is kidnapped and a flailing police investigation the child’s aunt hires two private detectives (Casey Affleck and Michelle Monaghan) to look in the seedy crevasses the cops cannot.

For audiences who have seen the Clint Eastwood directed ‘Mystic River’ they will find themselves in familiar territory with ‘Gone Baby Gone’ since both films are adapted from Dennis Lehane novels. It’s not only the sourced author that both films share, there is a sense that director and co-screenwriter Ben Affleck was keeping a close eye on Eastwood’s film when creating this project. And in doing so, he has managed to imitate both the accomplishments and shortcomings of ‘Mystic River’

It’s in the adapting that ‘Gone Baby Gone’ begins to fall short of the mark of an altogether satisfying crime story. The second half of the film feels like an abridged version of the novel where voice over and flashbacks do most of the story telling. Despite this being a detective film where both those devices are staples in the genre, here, they feel like short cuts and take away from an engaging first half.

Despite this Affleck’s directorial debut is a solid success. He brings to what could have been a conventional Hollywood thriller a personal touch, making the landscape of the film real and harnessing solid performances from the cast, notably from brother Casey Affleck. It’s in the films final moments where it regains itself and left this reviewer feeling that writer and director Affleck could become a solid Hollywood director.

Who would have thought ten years ago that younger brother Casey will have the greatest potential to be the leading man over the Affleck brothers. But Casey is a hero for the 21st century, the disenchanted century where our heros are the trusted boys next door.

‘Gone Baby Gone’ is a solid entertaining detective film which are too far and few these days. It’s almost a four star film, almost. The trip up in the second half makes it fall just short of the mark but it will be enjoyed by anyone looking for a good old crime yarn.

3.75/5

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

Gee whizz! How does one review this movie? Perhaps it would be easier to transport oneself back to childhood to remember the excitement that an Indy film would arouse. If that seems difficult, ask George Lucas how he has manged it. He appears to have remained a child trapped inside the body of an aging Alf the alien lookalike. It seems anything he touches these days is tinged with the feverish and unfocused excitement of a kid with a big train set.

Until we talk to George, you'll have to put up with an adult review for the moment. Crystal Skull has a set-up that, like it or hate it, comes right out of the Spielberg and Lucas playbook. Indy becomes embroiled in the a quest for a Crystal Skull that the Russians (the new baddies) are seeking as it may have powers that are not of this earth i.e. extra-terrestrial. So it's heroes, action and aliens and a bit of sci-fi. The key to this quest is finding an loopy professor and the mother of Shia LeBeouf's cheap imitation of a young Brando. Yes, we are now in an era that Lucas and Spielberg can personally remember, the 1950's. Thus the reds are under the bed, the UFO's are in the sky, everybody looks like an extra from Grease and soft focus apple-pie Americana is everywhere.

Lucas and Spielberg lay all this on thick but somehow the 1st act still works quite well. It zips along at a nice pace and with good humour, charm and top-notch action set-pieces that never let Indy veer into CGI superhero territory. We feel his human limitations and believe the peril we're seeing even if the Russians obviously went to baddie shooting school. Then the quest and the goal arrive and he sets off upon Act 2 and things start to creak until they fall apart.

A horribly expedited plot leads to a quest we don't quite understand involving characters we don't really care about for reasons we're unsure of and we begin to wonder why everybody doesn't just pack it up and go home. That said, putting on rose tinted kid glasses, wasn't this the case with the previous 3 and they worked quite well. The plot is of course irrelevant so as long as all the other ingredients work then what's the problem?

Well ingredient 1 is the breakneck, popcorn friendly old-school action sequences that had us all having epi-fits as kids. Well the bad news is these just don't work. Though impressively choreographed and executed as one would expect of Spielberg, they betray the spirit on an Indy movie in that a) Indy and many of the other principles feel superhuman and immune to injury of any sort. b) Simplicity is jettisoned for an orgy of over-the top action with CGI that feels like it's straight out of The Mummy. There are (almost) no booby traps, closing walls, bridge's over corcodile pits and trap doors from which to rescue his hat. Instead we have characters impossibly swinging from tree to tree on vines as if they are Spiderman, surviving waterfall drops as if they were immortal and straddling 2 jeeps simultaneously as if they were...well, as if they were on a green screen stage in front of a wind machine quite frankly. In other words, simple effective visual drama is exchanged for meaningless, supposedly awesome spectacle. The curse of the CGI era. Shock and awe over story.

Ingredient 2 is Indy's dry wit. Apart from the first act it's mostly missing. Harrison Ford just doesn't have the timing any more and his one-liners are hopelessly cheesy. When he winds up for one, we see Harrison not Indy and we cringe appropriately. To be fair, he's not the only one to let the side down. It's perhaps harsh to say but there might be a reason that Karen Allen hasn't had much work since Raiders. 2 words. Ham Sandwich.

Ingredient 3 is Indy's repeated character arc of reluctant sceptical hero who ends up doing things for the right reasons and truly believes in the mystical power at the end. This is hiding among the mess somewhere, but it's unfocused and unclear and ultimately unsatisfying.

Ingredient 4 is our respect and love of Indy for just being so damn kick-ass and all-knowing. Here he makes so many mistakes that the audience are just screaming at him to cop on! Keep an eye out for his relationship with Ray Winstone's shamefully underwritten character as an example.

To be fair, this isn't a disaster. The set-up is good and it offers us a chance to view Indy in a new era and in an altered cultural landscape, which justifies his return. Dispite the criticisms above, this is still an Indy movie and there are enough traces of the original ingredients of the recipe to make this taste like the real thing. It's fun, it's unpretentious, it's technically well-crafted, and it seems to have been done in the right spirit. Whereas John McClane's return pissed all over the legacy of a rounded trilogy and offered no artistic reason for the comeback, this just about manages to fall closer to Rocky than Rambo in this emerging aging hero sub-genre.

Lucas and Spielberg neither deserve a pat on the back nor a bat to the head. I can't help wonder how Lucas would defend our criticisms if he had the chance. Based on this slice of Americana apple-pie, one suspects he might stay stuff like gee whizz!

2/5

Doomsday

30 years after closing the gates of a giant wall around Scotland to prevent a nasty and highly lethal virus to spread, the british government faces a new break out. Their only hope : a bunch of super cops are to go on the other side of the wall and make contact with the survivors who are believed to be immune therefore to have the antidote in their blood.
At this stage, you might be thinking you've heard this story a hundred times. Well... That's only because you have heard this story a hundred times !
Neil Marshall's first movies (Dog Soldiers and the Descent) were his own stuff. Even if inspired by horror classics, the man still managed to apply his own vision and tone; and it was good fun and quite scary as far as the descent was concerned.
Marshall was more than likely pushed hard to deliver Doomsday or, for that matter, "any movie" because, well, you know what they say... You've got to feed the monkey! So what do you do if you HAVE TO make a movie but no idea for the story? You borrow material. And there is a lot of borrowing in Doomsday, actually that's all there is...
The arrival in the post-apocalyptic Glasgow clearly takes from Aliens but is not quite as good. The first encounter with the overexcited and, it must be said, totally insane survivors wants to look like 28 weeks later but again, no luck there. The rest of the movie is a mix between Escape from LA (but without Snake Plissken) and Beyond Thunderdome (but without Tina Turner's legs)which says a lot about the overall quality. Because let's face it, when a movie can't match the not very high standards of Escape from LA and Beyond Thunderdome, it is a pretty poor performance.

First of all, someone will have to tell me why every time people survive an apocalypse they turn into insane punks with improbable hairdos and a huge amount of black eyeliner spending their time snarling, sticking out their tongue and obviously slaughtering any living thing in sight. The first half of the movie could have been almost scary if you weren't too busy laughing at the bad guys and their "Billy Idol like" leader. There is even a cameo of "the gimp" from Pulp Fiction... And I'm not going to mention the other "faction" seen in the second half because we're touching here the "mount Everest" of ridicule.

There is action in Doomsday, a lot of it. And gruesome, very gruesome. The scenes follow one another at lightning pace without any order or sense for that matter. And this is the other major problem here. The plot doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We're briefly given material that could be used to build a decent storyline but all of it shoved aside immediately and never mentioned again. Same thing for the characterization. So basically, a lot of people are killed in truly atrocious fashion but we don't care because they mean absolutely nothing to us.
I don't want to go too hard on the actors since all they're ask to do is scream (in pain or rage depending on whether they're good guys or bad guys) and jump around to dodge bullets, blades, cars, explosions and... cows. Rhona Mitra (see picture above) has a good "Underworld thing" going on here and she looks very sexy. That doesn't do anything to improve the quality of the movie but it's always a bonus.
Bob Hoskins, is once more lost in a crap movie but we're getting used to it.

In the end, if you like action and blood, Doomsday might just about do it for you but bear in mind that there is way better out there. Between the price of the ticket, the popcorn, the drink and whatever else you need to be comfortable in a cinema you'll more than likely spend 20 euros. Well, for that price, you can rent out Aliens, 28 days/weeks later, Escape from New York and Mad Max. Doomsday is nowhere near any of these.

1/5

Speed Racer

After ‘Iron Man’ kicked off the summer to an exciting start, ‘Speed Racer’ has the unwelcome task of trying to repeat its critical and commercial success. So here comes ‘Speed Racer’ out of dressing room wearing the brightest, most sparkling colours ever seen on a cinema screen.

‘Speed Racer’, which is based on the 60’s Japanese cartoon, sees ‘Speed Racer’ (yes first name ‘Speed’, surname, ‘Racer’) trying to win the worlds greatest race and overcome the ghost of his older brother who has put the family name in tatters due to selling out and becoming a cheater. Speed aims to do this by defeating all sort of crazy villains on the track.

And it’s on the track where ‘Speed Racer’ is great. The visuals are bright and vibrant, the special effects are almost comprehensible by comparison to last summer’s ‘Transformers’. The races themselves are visceral and a feast to the eyes. But it’s off the track where the film suffers.



‘Speed’ (Emile Hirch), our hero and middle child of the race obsessed ‘Racer’ family, is a bit of a drip off the track. He spends most of his time being told what to do and having heart to hearts with his parents. ‘Speed’ (excuse the pun) doesn’t drive the story, he broods a bit too much and as a result the film slows unforgivably down.

It’s as if the Wachoski Brothers are covering their bets by making a light, child friendly film to contrast the philosophically heavy ‘Matrix’ trilogy. As if ‘Speed Racer’ were to be a critical failure then they could always say that it’s a film for children and not critics.

8 Year old boys will love this film and some of their dad’s will find it fun also. The style and colour are OTT and the races are wacky. It’s almost worth the admission for those genuinely curious.

2.5/5

Where In The World Is Osama

Morgan Spurlock shot to fame in 2004 with his documentary Super Size Me, an exposé on the fast food industry in the US. With an original hands on approach Spurlock deserved the plaudits he received. His follow up Where in the World is Osama seems an absurd idea. After finding out that he is to become a father, Spurlock decided to make a documentary on the biggest threat to the US and his unborn child, Osama Bin Laden.

In practice this involves Spurlock travelling around the middle east to find Bin Laden and maybe prove to his fellow rednecks back in the US that not everyone in the Middle East is a religious fanatic out to get them.

Spurlock touches on some of the contentious issues in the Middle East. US support for authoritarian regimes, the Israeli - Palestinian conflict and so forth. But it’s a very basic. Michael Moore has been similarly criticised in the past. The difference is Spurlock hardly makes reference to Iraq an issue which has inflamed anti-western sentiment in the Middle East.

Avoiding controversy hardly makes a great documentary filmmaker. Nevertheless its not all bad. Spurlock seems like a rather affable chap, he communicates well with ordinary people in the middle east. If he achieves anything it is showing that poor people in the middle east, rather than having religious or political motivations, have the same aspirations as the poor anywhere else - to survive.

Ironically Spurlock states later in the film of the faith he has in the good people of the middle east to fight extremism. Maybe someone should have pointed out to him that the rest of the world believed in the good people of America during the presidential elections in 2005 to do the right thing - instead we got four more years of GWB.

Rating: 2/5

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Judd Apatow has been hailed as the saviour of comedy. It's easy to see why. He seemed to have cracked it. The box office figures would agree. His producing template is simple. Get a talented troupe of comedic actors and directors together, including himself. Generate the material from within that group allowing the talent to try their hand at writing, directing, producing and whatever you're having yourself. Ensure that the material is foul-mouthed and crude to appeal to the guys and has a strong romantic element to appeal to the girls. Ensure it has genuine characters and arcs to make people care (if they're so inclined). Lastly, let the talent loose by allowing them to improvise and come up with stuff that is too random and inspired to ever be dreamed up by a scriptwriter sitting in front of a laptop, thus making it all feel like a party that the audience is let in on.

Unfortunately there have been dark clouds gathering. His saturation of the marketplace after his initial success (possibly the studios fault for giving him the keys to the city and unloading his waste on the public) has lead to diminishing returns at the box office. Drillbit Taylor was a recent notable failure. Forgetting Sarah Marshall was a slightly safer bet, sailing closely as it does to Knocked Up. Written by the goofy self-effacing everyman star that we can all root for, playing opposite a highly attractive female lead who is more famous for her TV roles, an enticing blend of improvised Apatow sweet and sour from a selection of his usual troupe. A simple low-concept premise: Man gets dumped, goes on holidays to get away from it all, his ex his there with her new rock star boyfriend and he can't avoid them. It should work. And it does. Though it never quite reaches the heights of Superbad or Knocked Up.

Segal is endearing and funny at times but can't quite match Seth Rogen in these stakes. The movie unfolds predictably but it doesn't matter when there are enough laughs along the way. Russell Brand delivers a lot of these, essentially playing himself and, as in real life, initially seeming like a prat but actually turning out to be likable. Mila Kunis holds her own as the new love interest but her character is pretty thin and falls annoyingly into a new cliched character-category - the quirky girl who 'understands' the lead and whose passion for life helps the protagonist over a recent trauma. See Garden State and the awful Elizabethtown . Some of the supporting cast seem to be on auto pilot or a little miscast. Jonah Hill is still effortlessly funny though.

There's enough in here to make this a DVD that will be brought around by a comforting friend with a tub of ice-cream after a break-up in years to come (again, if you're so inclined) But it still seems a little further down the graph as Apatow's stock slowly falls. Maybe the upcoming Pineapple Express can buck the trend and make the graph U-shaped again.

3/5

Street Kings

Street Kings, based on a story by James LA Confidential Ellroy, tells the story of detective Tom Ludlow (Reeves) a veteran LAPD cop who is willing to break the law in order to bring down the bad guys. His methods bring him into conflict with his former partner detective Washington (Crews) and internal affairs captain Biggs (Laurie). Though with the support of his boss captain Wander (Whitaker) and other cops Ludlow always manages to come out clean. When Detective Washington, who was talking to internal affairs about Ludlow, ends up dead Ludlow vows to track down the killers even if it means implicating himself.

Looking at the cast, the plot, the director and the writers of Street Kings you would think you where on to a winner. You would be wrong. The only thing Street Kings succeeds in doing is proving that it takes more than the right ingredients to make a good film.

With his first and only other film as director, Harsh Times, Ayer gave us an excellent study of a gulf war veteran unable to fit in after returning to LA after a tour of duty. To say Street Kings is not as good would be an understatement. The story is convoluted and yet the ending is obvious ten minutes into the film, the characters are clichés and the dialogue tries far too hard to be cool.

Keanu has given us some great films over the years but the poverty of this material shows up his limitations as an actor. Neither Forest Whitaker nor Hugh Laurie offers any salvation. Indeed there are some memorably bad performances. If there is a silver lining here it is some decent action scenes and a good supporting performance by Chris Evans.

Rather than going to see Street Kings, go rent LA Confidential or NARC.

2/5

Leatherheads

George Clooney’s third directorial effort sees him tackling the difficult genre of the screwball comedy. A genre which is defined by the use of sharp, witty dialogue and with strong romantic leads by films like ‘Bringing Up Baby’, ‘Adam’s Rib’ and in more recent times ‘The Hudsucker Proxy’.

Set in 1925, Leatherheads sees Clooney play ‘Dodge Connelly’, manager and player of a struggling professional football team. Facing financial ruin, Dodge concocts a scheme to lure ‘All-Star’ college footballer and War hero Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski) to the team in an effort to boost ticket sales and save the day. Enter Lexie Littleton (Renée Zellweger), a feisty reporter with her eye on the assistant editor’s desk; which, she’ll bag if she gets the story that will shatter the tale which made Carter an American golden child. All sounds pretty screwbally so far, doesn’t it?

So, Leatherheads should work, all the parts are there; screwball comedy set against the backdrop of the birth of professional football where the rule book hasn’t been written and dirty tactics are par for the course. Also, Clooney has had some experience with the Coen Brothers who know a thing or two about this flavour of film. For all intensive purposes, this film should at the very least have us giggling from beginning to end. It doesn’t.

The film makes too many wrong decisions. First the script, all that witty, snappy dialogue that should be there, isn’t. And when it is there, it’s forced. The ‘wacky’ football team which is set up from the beginning and should the gold mine of fun and frolics is simply thrown to one side to focus on the lesser and underdeveloped love triangle between our three leads.

A staple in the genre of the ‘Screwball Comedy’ is the feisty leading lady. Her presence and machine gun delivery of dialogue will set the tone and pace to all of her scenes. Not here, Zellweger seems laboured in a role that isn’t freshly realized leaving her to act via squint.

Leatherheads is mostly one big missed opportunity. Apart from minor laughs from the football team, there is little to recommend about this film. Instead get your hands on ‘The Hudsucker Proxy’ for a proper contemporary stab at the screwball comedy genre. Then for to get your fix of some reckless sporting team antic watch ‘Slap Shot’ where Paul Newman tries to manage violent but hilarious ice hockey team.

This doesn’t mean we don’t like George, we do. Let’s just hope that his next directing effort (which should be the Coen Brother’s script ‘Suburbicon’) will be better.

2/5 (for effort)

21

Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) needs either 300000 dollars or a "real life experience" in order to reach his dream, a scholarship in Harvard medical school. Problem: he's a bit of a dork, and a broke one on top of that. However, being a maths genius he's soon spotted by one of his professors (Kevin Spacey) who includes him in a group of gifted students he takes every week-end to Vegas. There they use a method based on pure statistics to beat the casinos and "live the life".
All in all 21 isn't a bad movie. It's correctly shot, especially the scenes in Las Vegas with slick, fast paced camera moves that keep you interested. You don't need to be a math genius yourself to understand what's going on and that's probably a good thing for most of us !
It is quite obvious this movie targets teenagers or young people up to 20-22 years old. I'm not saying this in a demeaning way but be aware that anyone older will have seen it all at least a hundred times already. And we're touching here the major issue : the story is highly predictable. Now I know what you're gonna say. This is based on a true story and anyway which movie isn't predictable these days ? And that's a valid point; but in all fairness this one is right up there for you'll almost be able to picture every single scene and twist in your mind long before they're shown on the screen and this up to the very end. If you're not overly attracted by the subject, you might get bored after a while.

Surprisingly enough, the major disappointment amongst the actors was Kevin Spacey who tends to overact. He doesn't look very comfortable in not having the main part and seems to be on a mission : giving the audience as much "Spacey" as he can in his limited screen time. Not a good performance by his very high standards. Same result with Lawrence Fishburne as the angry casino boss. Kate Bosworth's character (Jill Taylor) is clearly a "stand there and be pretty" type of character, so she didn't have to do much. Young Sturgess however is doing quite OK and has a real "nice dude" touch going on. We'll see him again.

Not bad but not great, 21 is the kind of easy movie that doesn't require to be seen in the cinema unless you're really into the whole "Vegas effect". My advice if it's not the case: wait for the DVD. Deserves better than a 2 but is definitely not a 3 so...

2.5/5

Son of Rambow

Son of Rambow is the tale of child odd couple (Will and Lee) and their attempts to create a short film to enter a national youth film competition ‘Screen Test’. Using just a borrowed camera from Lee’s bullying brother and Will’s sparkling creativity inspired from watching a bootlegged version of ‘First Blood’ they set out to create their own spin off from the first Rambo film.

Son of Rambow is a witty and well observed but never sentimental piece of British cinema. The two leads, Bill Milner and Will Poulter, give performances that director Gareth Jenning’s should be proud who is directing his second feature film, the first being the enjoyable ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’.

Despite a forced subplot centring on a French foreign exchange student and a dodgy climax, the script still dances on the verge of a very deep lake of emotion. The story’s heart is strongest when Will escapes to his fantasy world and when observing his mother’s internal battle between religious duty and the charge of being a mother. Jessica Stephenson (you’ll remember her from ‘Spaced’) gives a touching performance as Will’s conflicted mother.

With news of Prom Night’s domination of the US box office this weekend it’s good to know that there is still at least one film charming and pure enough to actually warrant our hard earned cash. Son of Rambow is far from the best film of the year, but it has bloody heart.

3/5

10000 BC

That's it. Once again they got me. Once again I opted for the easy solution, the one that was gonna leave my brain in standby for a while. Once again I trusted a blockbuster to entertain me a minimum with decent special effects and good action packed sequences. And once again I lost my time.

Roland Emmerich could be described as Michael Bay's evil (eviler ? ) twin. However when Bay seems to be getting better at what he does - Ah come on ! Transformers is definitely more enjoyable than Armageddon !- Emmerich seems to go the opposite direction and his "quality" standards are dropping dramatically as his career goes on. Already the quite ridiculous CG wolves in "The day after tomorrow" should have been enough to make me think twice before watching 10000 BC. What can I say... We all make mistakes. But let's scratch the wound open.

Question : Is it really too much to ask for a half decent storyline these days ? You know, not a "life changing experience" type of storyline but just something that kinda holds together and makes sense to a certain extent. Well, apparently it is too much to ask. I had decided not to talk about the plot in my review but in all fairness it's not going to take long :
The good guys (you know they're good because they're good looking and they speak) are attacked by the bad guys (you know they're bad because they're fierce ugly and they grunt) who kidnap the hero's very cute girlfriend, and, doing so, start a chase across jungle, desert, mountains and more or less any kind of landscape you can wander in. And...well... that's about it really. That in itself wouldn't be too much harm if the story was cleverly put together. It's definitely not the case. We're jumping from one scene to another without any kind of link or sense which completely ruins the "epic factor" that should have been there.
Also I know this wasn't supposed to be the History channel stuff but come on ! They used mammoth pets to build the pyramids ?! Seriously lads...

Surely the action scenes and the special effects were gonna save the day! No, the main problem being that everything looks awful cheap. The mammoths look a bit too "cartoony", so does the sabertooth tiger. Apocalypto (clearly the source of inspiration for this movie) was written in mayan language which brought a wee touch of realism to the whole thing, here they just gave a vague eastern-european accent to the characters, don't ask me why.... Even the main bad guy seems to be wearing several layers of clothes to make him look bigger... Pathetic.

I'm not gonna say anything about the actors because to be fair they had no material whatsoever to work with, the dialogue being nothing short of dreadful. I just wish them good luck for the future. They're probably worth better than this.

In recent years a few movies such as Sin City, Kill Bill, 300 (oh man, that was cool!) and even Apocalypto or Transformers proved that you can put up a good show even without a strong story. For each of these the whole storyline could be written on a stamp but it didn't really matter; in the end these films were visually cool and highly entertaining. 10000 BC isn't... by any standards. To avoid like the plague.

1/5 only because I'm in a good mood

Semi-Pro

When approaching this kind of comedy, you have to turn a blind eye to the litany of one-star reviews that tend to befall such works and Ferrell's latest opus Semi-Pro is no exception – one stars all the way. Sometimes the common critic expects too much, such as a ‘story’ or ‘characters’, whereas all anyone who goes to these flicks wants is to laugh. So, confident that everyone else is wrong and that laughs will be had in some fashion, I proceed.

Everything about this movie spoke to me - it's set in the 70s (great music, hilarious clothes, shiny women); it's about basketball (one of the most cinema-friendly of all sports, witness White Men Can't Jump and...others I can’t think of now. Teen Wolf! So money); and it's got proven comic talent involved with Will Arnett and Woody Harrelson. Yes. I will like this film. This cannot fail.

90 minutes later and it did not so much fail as suck so spectacularly I was staggering around blind outside the cinema - my face was hoovered off my head and stolen by this unfiltered slice of ass.

Damn it was bad. Evidence - I saw it in a suburban cinema that was 70% full of tracksuited college larries who no doubt worship at the moustache of Ron Burgundy or the belly of Frank the Tank. Barely a chuckle all the way through - bar the forced giggle of the guy in the group who insisted they go to witness this jive. That's bad.

That's akin to Ronaldo - or whoever you prefer - not scoring in a footy game of eight-year-old girls. A goal, I mean. Perfect conditions, supplicant audience and still it doesn't work. That's bad.

I like Will Ferrell. He has made me laugh a lot. His movies have a simple formula. They hone in on a scenario that's rife for comedy, dream up a larger-than-life character, slap on some perfunctory rivalry-based storyline and then they roll the cameras on him, hoping he pulls something out of the bag.

More often than not it works. Of late it seems sports are his thing: ice-skating and NASCAR were his last two playgrounds. The more ludicrous the better. It also helps a lot when he's surrounded with other comic talent to bounce off.

Perhaps – purely by chance, I assure you – I have stumbled across the problem with this rhubarb. Basketball may be too mainstream a sport to yield comedy gold - even rubbish 70s basketball does not carry the same in-built laugh factor as male figure skating.

Also, the surrounding talent on show here is well below par - Woody is lumped with the straight man role, forgotten sports hero struggling to cling to past glories, etc; Will Arnett as a commentator has very little to do, none of it funny; while the rest of the team are simple stereotypes used for one gag, if even for that. The foreign guy who doesn't speak English and…that's it. There's a guy who is religious, I think. I genuinely can't remember anything to distinguish the rest of the cast. That's bad.

The real hassle with this pungent fart of a film is the awful, awful laziness. It looks as if it was put together in a couple of days. Short days. Like Fair City, if everyone blurts their lines out in one go and no one walks into anything - it's in the can. Next shot. After each scene ends, there's a palpable feeling of 'is that it?'

Nowhere near enough effort has gone into writing, improvising something funny here. There is either a rampant over-estimation of how funny these guys think they are, or a callous lack of consideration for their audience – churn it out, bag the opening weekend scratch and run.

Director Kent Alterman - you fucked up. In his first shot in the chair after a brief career as executive producer, Kent has not set the screen alight. I remember a while back there was a flick called Paparazzi or something of that nature which Mel Gibson's hairdresser directed. The shaved pubes on the floor of that guy’s exclusive parlour would have done a better job here.

Utterly uninspired all the way through, the dispiritingly disconnected early scenes lurch over to stock sports movie clichés. Slo-mo? Check. Team striding out to meet their destiny? Check. Last-minute heroics? Check. Here we have the cinematic equivalent of a very, very simple paint-by-numbers page.

Don't get me wrong – I love sports movies and I will happily watch the underdogs come good all day long if it's put together well and if I care about the team. Even bad sports films can get me going. And recent film history is littered with really appalling attempts at splicing sports and comedy. It is in that bin that Semi-Pro is going to end up. As a comedy, it’s woeful. But compared to the likes of Major League, Caddyshack and even tripe like Mr. Baseball, Semi-Pro is straight up pants.

If you want to laugh at American sports in the 70s, go watch Paul Newman in Slap Shot. Hilarious clothes, funny peripheral characters, moderately effective romantic subplot, great action. Everything this film shoots for and misses by a country mile.

In basketball parlance, this is a brick. In fact, this film shoots up so many bricks, they should gather them all up and build a shelter for the homeless – from White Men Can't Jump. A far, far superior basketball comedy. Watch that again. Anything but this.

But I suspect if you like Will Ferrell, you’ll do what I did – ignore this one star review and go anyway, hoping for the best, thinking I’ve got it wrong as well. I haven’t. It’s punishingly bad.

1/5

The Accidental Husband

Whatever possessed Uma Thurman to act and PRODUCE this film is beyond me. Seeing her in this soulless, cold bit of product makes me wince and reminisce for a Uma in a Tarantino film.

How anybody saw this film through is a mystery. Take the set up, a stuck up radio talk show host, lets call her 'Uma', presents a popular chat program centred around putting sense into love. Lets not forget she's about to get married to a sensible British chap, we’ll call him 'Colin Firth'. In one of her routine calls she convinces a nervous bride-to-be to pull out of her wedding to unpredictable, childish, fun loving, fire-fighter fiancé, lets call him ‘Mumbles and Grumbles’.

Due to Uma’s interference, Mumbles is dumped and has his heart broken. Uma then becomes his object of annoyance, not hatred, hatred would have been interesting. And with the help of the child computer wiz downstairs (whose window ‘Mumbles and Grumbles’ climbs through whenever he takes the fancy?!) he electronically marries Uma. This puts a spanner in the works of Uma’s marriage to Colin Firth. So Uma tracks down Mumbles and Grumbles to get him to sign the annulment papers… I’ll stop there.

Imagine for a moment how the story pans out. Are you thinking of various hilarious situations leading to a bubbling yet unstoppable attraction between our opposites? Even a little bit of a tear jerker as our leading lady is forced to choose between her head and her heart? Stop. Well done, you just thought of a better film that what the rest of this pile has to offer. Even if you thought of nothing at all, it is bloody Shakespeare compared to the rest of this rubbish.

‘The Accidential Husband’ is in every possible way bad. Everything was wrong: wrong script, wrong casting, wrong acting, wrong directing, wrong choice of music; even the God dam it projectionist was wrong, forgetting to put on the gate thingy so the boom mic was bouncing in and out of every other shot.

The three credited female writers seem to be rookies, and trust me I’m all for rookies but it doesn’t take a seasoned veteran to see that everything in this film is forced and contrived. The actors are left without a leg to stand on having to inject some sort of life into these un-likeable, unrealistic characters.

The direction, by Griffen Dunne, is completely misjudged. Thurman overplays her part and Jeffery Dean Morgan both underplays and overplays in different scenes. Poor old Colin Firth seems to have resigned himself to ‘Rom-Com’ hell. It’s a check I suppose.

Although director Dunne has not had the best track record in the field, his ‘highlight’ being the 1998 Nicole Kidman, Sandra Bullock stinker, Practical Magic; he has however had one film golden moment, you may remember him as the lead in Scoresse’s wonderful ‘After Hours’.

To wrap up I believe that I was not the only person in the cinema who didn’t like this film. I don't intend to be cruel, but there was a mentally disabled girl in front of me who started shaking her head in disgust halfway through. I'm not joking.

Not even 1/5

In Bruges

This may be Martin McDonagh’s first feature but strangely, many people will know exactly what to expect from it. McDonagh’s unique blend of jet-black comedy, high drama, graphic violence and stagey kitch has seen him emerge as one of the most singular voices in modern theatre. His plays have the pedigree and awards to prove it. He even has an Oscar to his name for the short film Six Shooter.

The problem is, if you’re a McDonagh virgin, this film will be a little like your first time. Not quite how you pictured it, a little confusing and unsettling, you might feel a little guilty but damn straight you wanna do it again. Certainly, In Bruges confounds expectations. On the surface it appears to be a guns and gangsters caper telling the story of two hitmen (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson) who retreat to Bruges to hide out after a hit goes wrong. They are pursued by Ralph Fiennes in full blown cockney mode. Indeed as the trailer promises, all manner of calamitous capery inevitably ensues. But, those who know McDonagh’s work will know to expect more.

Rather than lapsing into a sub Guy Ritchie comic strip (insert obligatory reference to Tarantino concerning any film with guns and sharp dialogue) the film sets the characters up as real, living, breathing people and lets them lead the plot to places one wouldn’t expect. Places where their decisions matter on a personal level rather than merely serving the plot machinations. Rarely has such broad comedy sat so closely along side such genuine dramatic tension and tragedy.

It’s this unsettling and innovative tonal mix that may divide audiences however. McDonagh’s plays have always succeeded in appropriating cliched, stage Irishness and its associated broad comedy and caricature, whilst blending it with drama, violence and pathos. Perhaps the subtleties of cinematic tone present more of a challenge. To his credit, McDonagh aims high, attempting a tone that is almost unique and for the most part he succeeds admirably. The damp, dreary cinematography, the consistent dwelling on the medieval and gothic architecture, the ominously haunting score from Coens regular Carter Burwell all bare the mark of a master filmmaker. That all this sits beside broad, sometimes puerile and often deliberately offensive comedy is undeniably unusual and mostly impressive. Its not for the feint of heart or the feint of taste, but that’s the whole point.

At every juncture, the film is asking the audience moral questions, not least what they are willing to accept and forgive from a person and from a joke. Thus the blackest of the comedy feels consistent to the themes rather than being contrived for shock value – though many will see it as such. Yes, the mix jars at times. Yes, Colin Farrell speaking with Colin Farrell’s voice and accent for what seems like the first time – and all the associations we attribute to it – struggles to navigate the tonal shifts occasionally. Yes the ball is dropped now and again. Yes it lapses into the self-indulgence of a debut film on at least one occasion, but this is a hugely ambitious and auspicious debut that has more big ideas and moral ambiguity than any film with a gun, a gangster and a geezer has any right to.

Any fan of cinema has to welcome a filmmaker who can mix jokes about fat Americans, midgets and Tottenham Hotspur with a dark, morally ambiguous drama. Pop your cherry.

4/5