JACK REACHER - Forget the internet outrage, Cruise IS Reacher

Jack Reacher is the final film to be seen of 2012. It stars Tom Cruise as the title character who has been taken from the Jack Reacher novels written by Lee Childs. There are seventeen in total but this first film adaptation of the series is the story of the ninth book called One Shot, which was supposed to be the title of this film but was changed so people who didn't know the book would begin to understand the character. Personally I prefer the title One Shot but that isn't the reason for this review so I will brisk past it. Ever since this film was cast fans of the books caused mass outrage across the internet as they felt Cruise was not the Reacher they had in their minds, mainly because Reacher, according to the book, is six foot five and two hundred and sixty pounds where as any human with eyes will know Cruise certainly doesn't fit this profile. I haven't read the books so I am unaware of the depths of this character but I think Cruise is the perfect fit for it especially charisma wise. I have read that Brad Pitt and Will Smith were rumoured for the role but I really can't imagine either of them as Reacher. The fans of the books may think Cruise isn't their man due to his physical presence but as an action lead the fans can relax because Cruise is perfect.

The film opens in style with a slick opening credit sequence before showing us the incident that triggers events of the film. Jai Courtney (to be seen later in the year as John McClaine Junior) pulls a van up in a parking lot, removes a sniper rifle from his van and shoots dead five people with six bullets. He litters the scene with evidence and disappears. The following day a different man is arrested and charged for the murders, a man with a history of murder with a sniper rifle whilst in the army. The only words this suspect uses are 'get me Jack Reacher.' While the police and District Attorney try to find out whom this Jack Reacher is, Tom Cruise arrives on the scene to announce his presence. Jack Reacher is a ghost, a man who drifts from place to place with no identification and brings justice to people who deserve it regardless of the laws. Reacher begins to discuss the case with the defence lawyer (Rosamund Pike) and tells the story of how the suspect, James Barr, was involved in a shooting which Reacher investigated, meaning Reacher knows Barr only too well. Reacher believes Barr to be guilty but as he begins to help investigate the case he realises he is becoming the target of 'random' attacks and that someone doesn't want him to dig any deeper. Due to this Reacher questions Barr's innocence and sets out to bring justice to the people who are doing all they can to cover their crime which is linked to a bigger conspiracy then simply five random shootings. Reacher's investigation leads him to a man known as the Zec (Werner Herzog) who will do anything he can to survive, including chewing off his own fingers.

There is plenty of charisma in this film, especially in the first hour. The opening sizzles and the introduction of Reacher is well done. As the crime is investigated we begin to see Reacher's investigating abilities and plenty of background exposition is delivered by showing how the lawyer's and Reacher's opinions differ depending on the information they have received. In this half we are also given some decent action sequences involving Reacher taking on five men in a bar fight and teaching them all a lesson. A fight with three heavies in a suspect's house where he receives a blow to the head from a bat, and an exhilarating car chase though the streets with Reacher being chased whilst being in hot pursuit of a potential lead. The action sequences are very well done by director Christopher McQuarrie and are acted out brilliantly by Cruise who brings his usual action panache to proceedings. The mystery cranks up to ten with plenty of intrigue floating around and the introduction of the Zec is horrifying as we see how far he will go to survive. Surely this could only make for an intense second half.

The answer to that would be no as the second hour falls apart. Once the centre point car chase finishes the story line becomes slightly generic and we begin to learn about a typical mole who is playing for the opposite team, and we meet an otherwise unmentioned war veteran who just turns up to help for no reason. This is nothing against Robert Duvall, who is great in the role, but he seems to be a character who was explored in the books but not so much here. This is how the second half felt, like much of the book was skimmed to get to a climatic fight. The Zec is never really mentioned and for a creepy villain he is reduced to two scenes, with is motives for the conspiracy never really being wrapped up. There are also many moments that don't make sense with Reacher giving the Zec's main henchman an opportunity to survive by challenging him to a fist fight instead of shooting him dead, what if Reacher lost the fight, everything would have been for nothing.

It is a shame how the second half turned as I was really enjoying it but by the end I felt completely unsatisfied with the plot never really wrapping up the loose ends. It felt like a film I had seen many times before and nothing could save it from falling drastically. The action scenes are well done, even in the finale, but it was all too generic and I never once felt afraid that Reacher was going to lose. The plot fails to realise which genre it should be settling in as at times it is a deep thriller and suddenly comedic fight scenes are thrown in which feel slightly out of place. Cruise is great in the title role; Pike unfortunately fails to back him up. The opening is great with the ending running out of steam. And the opening mystery disappears for the sake of mindless action by the climatic finale. This was a theme of the movie where something so good was equalled out by something particularly poor which means this has turned out to be a rather average action thriller, which is kind of what you expect from Tom Cruise now days. An underwhelming end to the year then.

Pros: Begins strongly and Cruise oozes charisma.

Cons: Fails to have any closure and loses its way in the second half.

6 / 10

Top 10 of 2012 so far:

1. The Dark Knight Rises     10 / 10 
2. Argo     9 / 10 
3. Skyfall    8.5 / 10
4. Silver Linings Playbook     8 / 10
5. The Hunger Games     8 / 10
6. Snow White And The Huntsman     8 / 10
7. Avengers Assemble     7.5 / 10
8. Looper     7.5 / 10
9. Ted     7.5 / 10
10. 21 Jump Street     7.5 / 10

LIFE OF PI - A nice story on a big scale

With The Hobbit also being in cinemas at the minute, people have a choice of two fantastical stories to go and see. Both are adapted from books, both have top directors adapting them; with a cast full of future potential, and both display fantastic visuals. The one we chose to see out of the two then was Life Of Pi which we decided on having never been big fans of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Life Of Pi is the apparent 'unfilmable' book from Yann Martel about a young boy's adventure when he is cast adrift at sea with only a Bengal Tiger for company. If this is classed as unfilmable then I believe director Ang Lee deserves huge credit because he has given this film some breathtaking visuals that show that if you employ the correct people then anything is filmable.

The film begins in present day with an adult Pi, played by Irrfan Khan, sitting down to dinner with writer Rafe Spall. Rafe's writer, who remains unnamed in the film, is looking for his next big story and he has been put onto Pi who potentially has the greatest story ever told. One so amazing that it will make people believe in God. The pair begin to talk about the story which is an experience that happened to Pi when he was younger. He begins by explaining the origins of his name (after being unfortunately being named Piscine he abbreviated it to Pi and convinced those by memorising the numerical equivalent) and continues on to connections he made growing up with his family, a potential love interest, and a new addition to his Father's zoo. With life starting to shape to the way Pi intended to live it, his Father announces that they are to move to Canada and sell their animals whilst there. Pi is unhappy at this but must move with his family and it is on their voyage across the Pacific that his great journey begins. The boat is sunk during a terrible storm and only Pi is lucky enough to survive, despite his attempts to fight for his family. When the storm settles the ship is gone and Pi finds himself in the middle of the ocean in a lifeboat occupying a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan, and the Bengal Tiger he attempted to befriend at the zoo. As the days turn into months the animals become hungry and eventually just the tiger, named Richard Parker, and Pi remain. Pi begins to understand that Richard Parker's presence is keeping him alive so he does all he can to keep the tiger living on whilst learning to understand the unpredictability of the sea and remain uneaten by the hungry carnivore.

The story is certainly inspiring and told very well. The shot choices, cinematography, and effects are absolutely beautiful and they really add in putting a smile on your face as you watch. Shots when the lone boat floats on a still, placid sea that reflects the stars in the sky just look astounding, and really add to the tone of the film. The connection between man and animal is a slow burn but when it gets there it is full of heart and you really believe in their relationship. As Pi tames Richard Parker the emotion between the two alters and a hungry beast soon turns into an ally that is keeping each other alive. Richard Parker is played by a mixture of real life tiger and CGI effects. The tiger is used for the scenes of Richard swimming through the ocean but a CGI rendered alternative is used for the up-close scenes with Pi. Either way Richard Parker looks breathtaking. The graphics for him look highly realistic and you could, at times, mistake him for a real tiger. You can tell a lot of effort went into him alone. Alternatively there are a few scenes which switch to different animals or mammals that look highly computer generated and they don't look anywhere near as good. This is a shame when others look so realistic. As well as the animals, and effects, the actors also play there parts very well. Newcomer Suraj Sharma is impressive as Pi who must have spent a lot of time acting alone. Along with him Khan, as the older Pi, brings plenty of wisdom as he tells his story. The positives in this film evolve around the story, which by the end brought a huge smile to my face and I left the cinema feeling very pleased indeed.

Although the visuals and acting make for a fantastic story some of the slow paced build up can make your mind wander as opposed to keeping you entertained. The film is fairly long at just over two hours considering it spends the majority of it with a child and tiger alone at sea and at times I was willing the story to move forward quicker as there is only so much of a boy taming a tiger I can take. Also in the build up to the sinking ship I got a little bored with Pi's back story. It was all very nice but some of it failed to seem necessary and didn't help me strike a connection with him, meaning that when the ship sunk I didn't really feel for him. Other moments that let the film down involved odd scenes that had very little place such as Pi 'painting' the ocean and a whale leaping from the depths. The scene looked very nice but didn't really add to anything.

By the end I understood I had been on a nice journey. It was a story that you would always want to tell but the issue is that this was all it was. At no point did I feel much suspense or worry that Pi was going to suffer at the paws of the tiger, meaning it is easy to become underwhelmed by the entire experience. When we left I had a nice smile and felt I had been to see a gentle movie with lovely visuals with an ending that had me nodding in inspired appreciation however my partner left unflustered by it all and failing to believe there was any point to it all, and she loves stories involving animals. To her it never really gripped and at times became repetitive. Despite me thinking it was a very good film I still understood where she was coming from and there are many scenes that could have been cut. It is a nice film to see but only if you make the effort to see it on the big screen as it is the visuals that make all the difference. Ang Lee has definitely brought to life the visuals the book painted in his imagination as they are very dreamlike and surreal. Definitely see this film once as it is a good watch but don't expect anything tense or overly dramatic, simply expect to be taken on an incredible journey with some astounding visuals that you can only gawp at in appreciation.

Pros: The visuals and acting are strong and aid the telling of a gentle story

Cons: Can be repetitive resulting in some underwhelming scenes.

6.5 / 10


Top 10 of 2012 so far:

1. The Dark Knight Rises     10 / 10 
2. Argo     9 / 10 
3. Skyfall    8.5 / 10
4. Silver Linings Playbook     8 / 10
5. The Hunger Games     8 / 10
6. Snow White And The Huntsman     8 / 10
7. Avengers Assemble     7.5 / 10
8. Looper     7.5 / 10
9. Ted     7.5 / 10
10. 21 Jump Street     7.5 / 10






       

RISE OF THE GUARDIANS - Jack Frost will be believed in after this.

Rise Of The Guardians could have easily been pitched as The Avengers for children. It brings together many of the character/mythical creatures that children choose to believe in, and uses them as protectors of this imagination. Without belief they cannot exist. This crew are the Guardians and they are Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Sandman but in order to protect the children from the Boogeyman they must bring a new Guardian into the fray, Jack Frost. Alongside the famous imaginary characters we have some famous 'A-List' actors willing to lend their voices. Alec Baldwin voices Santa, Hugh Jackman the Easter Bunny, Isla Fisher the Tooth Fairy, and Chris Pine is Jack Frost. The Sandman doesn't speak and simply communicates via thought bubbles. The villain of the piece, the Bogeyman, is voiced by Jude law. In my eyes that is a pretty stellar cast and a film with this top talent and some imaginative characters can only mean one hell of a movie. Right?

Jack Frost is the character who leads this movie and in the prologue we see him surfacing from an iced over lake and learning that he now has powers to create ice and snow. However when he ventures to a nearby town he realises no one can see him and he is isolated and alone. Moving forward 300 years later we meet the four Guardians of the children, lead by Santa, who have just learnt that Pitch Black, the Bogeyman, has returned and intends on bringing fear to the children of the world, causing them to cease in believing in their heroes and instead believe in the Bogeyman. With the Guardians looking to the 'Man In The Moon' for help (the moon highlights solutions and meaning via shadow) they are given the one mythical character that can help them; Jack Frost. None of the Guardians are happy with this solution, especially since Jack causes more trouble than he is worth, but set out anyway to find him. Jack has turned into a fun loving character and creates snow days for children to enjoy themselves in regardless of the time of year; however the children don't believe in him which means he ultimately fails to exist. When the Guardians find him and take him to the North Pole he makes it clear that he isn't interested in working hard like the others do and simply wants to continue having fun. He gives in when Santa offers him a ride in the sleigh, now what fun loving child wouldn't want a ride in Santa's sleigh, and on route they find Pitch has removed all the teeth (which carry children's memories) from the Tooth Fairy's mountain meaning the children are beginning to not believe in her. With Tooth now disappearing the Guardians must fight to keep children's imaginations afloat whilst also stopping Pitch from turning Sandman's dreams into nightmares, and all can only be done by the one uninterested party and the one the children fail to believe in; Jack Frost.

Now I have to say I think the plot sounds marvellous. It is fun, original, and brings together all the characters we all believed in as a child. What more do we want to see at Christmas? The Guardians all group together well and the banter between them all is a lot of fun. These aren't your usual interpretations of the characters though. Santa is called North, covered in tattoos, and Russian. The Easter Bunny is called Bunny, is Australian, and grumpy. The Tooth Fairy is an avatar looking creature who sends smaller fairies out to collect the teeth, and the Sandman is a mute but tough as an ox. These different interpretations are simply splendid and create a whole new world for a child's imagination. It isn't just the children in the film who are inspired it is also the ones in the movie theatre. One of my pet hates is children in the cinema as they usually can't keep quiet or still but in Rise Of The Guardians they were mesmerised and not a peep was heard. That can only state that this film really did capture the world of a child's imagination. My initial worry would be that the darker sides of the film might have frightened them but it didn't in the slightest. The film even opened on a dark tone, an opening that I thought was excellent, where the first word is 'darkness' and the floating body of Jack Frost is the first image. For me this opening completely gripped me and by the sounds of it, it did for the children.

Unfortunately though it did go slightly down hill after this fantastic opening. From the trailer I was expecting to see something darker than your typical children's movie but instead this is closer to an all out children's movie than the likes of Shrek, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo are. Those films at least had some adult references in there which made the parents love them as much as the children. This film though is pushed mainly toward children with the humour coming from typical visual gags as opposed to any quirky dialogue. For a child this won't be a problem but for me it was as animated films have become aimed toward children and adults over the past few years but I feel like this one was not. The writing was also very generic and you could guess at each point the certain arcs and story twists were coming, and as it was aimed at children they felt no need to explain random moments that take place in the film. It was as if to say the kids won't know any different but I beg to differ, I reckon they do. I'm sure they will be asking why it was snowing at Easter, considering the film is set around Easter and not Christmas which I found slightly odd, and they may even ask why the Easter Bunny is so grumpy. Certain aspects of the film just seemed out of place, like it was weird it was set at Easter and not Christmas considering the time of year it has been released, and that Santa begins as the leader of the Guardians but ends up being the buffoon of the group and is the only Guardian who is never really characterised. The ending is also far too easy and too many tired cliches are used. By the end it has moved from a fantastic opening visual, with great direction to a tired script and a film made abundantly for children.

For kids this film will blow their minds, and it will hold their attention span. A parent will only be going to keep them happy as, although it is enjoyable, it isn't as amazing as other films DreamWorks has made. The visuals are good but again aimed more for children with the 3D and the characters being a lot of fun. I would recommend this film; I think people should see it at least once. It has some great moments, especially visually, and it is a film many will enjoy. Just don't expect the next Toy Story as you will be thoroughly disappointed. For a young child however this film will be the best they have ever seen and taking them to see this could be an early Christmas present by itself.

Pros: Great visuals and a great idea. The opening five minutes are particularly well done.

Cons: Too much of it is aimed towards children resulting in some poor plot devices and tired cliches being used.

6.5 / 10

 Top 10 of 2012 so far:

1. The Dark Knight Rises     10 / 10 
2. Argo     9 / 10 
3. Skyfall    8.5 / 10
4. Silver Linings Playbook     8 / 10
5. The Hunger Games     8 / 10
6. Snow White And The Huntsman     8 / 10
7. Avengers Assemble     7.5 / 10
8. Looper     7.5 / 10
9. Ted     7.5 / 10
10. 21 Jump Street     7.5 / 10 

SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS - Too random for its own good

We had a tough choice of what to see this week but we stumped for the film brought by the makers of the great, In Bruges. With that film, about two hit men sent to Bruges when a job goes wrong, director Martin McDonagh created a story that was highly original and humorous to watch. Seven Psychopaths is very much the same. It is shot the same, looks fairly low key, stars Colin Farrell as an Irishman, has a random plot, and is humorous in a quirky kind of way, however to me it failed to live up to the standard set by In Bruges. This film will certainly have its lovers, I've read many reviews that have raved about it, but there will be some viewers that just won't get it, I've also read plenty reviews that aren't so sure, and others who just sit on the fence, I am one of those people. There are moments that work, and work well, but there are too many that are just too random for their own good. It could be seen as a bit of a mess and as if the writing is just that bad or trying to be far too clever.

Farrell plays Marty, a screenwriter behind on his latest project. His new script is called Seven Psychopaths but he is struggling to come up with the seven. So far he has one; the Jack O'Diamonds who kills gangsters. His best friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) wants to help on the script, much to Marty's reluctance, and tells him a story for psychopath number 2, a Quaker who stalked the man who killed his child for many years before slicing his own throat. Billy's business also unwittingly gives them psychopath number 3; a remorseless gangster who will do anything to get back his missing dog that Billy has kidnapped. Billy and his partner in crime make up 4 and 5, whilst 6 and 7 come from Billy's advert he places in a Hollywood magazine looking for psychopaths. They find one in a man who spent his life travelling the world with his wife and killing notorious serial killers. Now he has his seven he ventures into the desert to put together his story with Billy and his business partner Hans (Christopher Walken), who are also on the run from gangster Woody Harrelson. Whilst in the desert the trio attempt to come up with a way to end this story, from shoot outs to dialogue heavy scenes to subplots involving a Vietnamese war veteran, at the same time realising that this story isn't far off from the truth taking part in their everyday lives.

The plot is something I had an issue with. It is intriguing, it is different, but it was just far too random. Even trying to write a synopsis for it was hard as there are so many story strands that just don't connect or could be completely throw away. The film seems to be self-aware and highly satirical. Many of the lines are used to poke holes in the actual script of the film we are watching and at times it is difficult to establish what is supposedly real and what is an idea for the film Marty is writing. The dog-knapping thread has very little to do with the overall story other than to show that these people are psychopaths, where as the trailer lead you to believe that this was the through thread. The trailer also had you believe that Olga Kurylenko is one of the psychopaths, don't be fooled she is in it for about thirty seconds before being killed. This is then self referenced later on when Hans tells Marty that his female characters are poor. Another self referenced 'in joke' was with Hans talking about the pointless Vietnamese war sub plot. Marty is convinced it doesn't go anywhere and Hans suggests a way that it can. Turns out Marty was right as it has no impact on the story and it feels like this whole section was just McDonagh's way of ripping into himself for adding a pointless sub-plot. So much of it was trying to be too satirical about its flaws when it could have just been easier to create the film without them.

There are some positives though. Rockwell, Harrelson, and Walken really are on top form. Rockwell's Billy Bickle really is a random character that fully deserves the psychopath moniker and Harrelson is creepy as the gangster who is more worried about his Shih Tzu's life than his own.  Farrell is solid in another stripped down role but I still feel like we're waiting for something really good from him and haven't quite seen it yet. The humour mainly oozes from Rockwell, and at times Walken's dry approach. Billy Bickle's over the top personality and the way he allows random strangers who stroke bunnies enter his home are the sort of moments that tickle the funny bone, however many of these moments are seen in the trailer. Unfortunately other potential funny moments are lost due to the confusion as to what is really being referenced. For those who are drawn into the absurd plot these jokes will work but for those finding it all too random may struggle to see the funny side.

Billed as a crime, comedy Seven Psychopaths fails to live up to either. It isn't funny enough and the confusing plot devices could have people losing interest. It seems like a clever idea but as if they've tried too hard to show it and to me that hasn't paid off. I'm sure there will be people out there who really enjoy this film. It does have the quirky originality that many do like within a film but it will have those that just don't get it. Like I said before I am in the group in the middle who enjoyed some moments but just found it trying too hard to be something fresh and never made me feel engaged enough to understand the point of the self-referencing satirical plot threads. All in all a film this will only be remembered for being the film within the film without a film.

Pros: Some solid performances and neat ideas.

Cons: Tried too hard to get these ideas across and lost my attention because of this.

4.5 / 10

 Top 10 of 2012 so far:

1. The Dark Knight Rises     10 / 10 
2. Argo     9 / 10 
3. Skyfall    8.5 / 10
4. Silver Linings Playbook     8 / 10
5. The Hunger Games     8 / 10
6. Snow White And The Huntsman     8 / 10
7. Avengers Assemble     7.5 / 10
8. Looper     7.5 / 10
9. Ted     7.5 / 10
10. 21 Jump Street     7.5 / 10

END OF WATCH - A gritty, frightening following of an ever tightening bromance.

David Ayer is possibly best known for the great film Training Day. That film starred Denzel Washington as a corrupt narcotics cop who was more gangster than the gangsters themselves. Washington was that good in the film he even won himself an Oscar, which was a huge achievement at the time as Training Day was not seen as Awards worthy. What Ayer done there though was create this huge world and stripped it bare to focus on two characters that made that world theirs. End Of Watch is a return to this type of movie. It is a big world shown through the eyes of two LAPD cops. The leads aren't detectives, they're not corrupt, or heroes, they're two ordinary guys going out to work and doing their job in a neighbourhood full of gangsters and drug movers. In the very first scene Jake Gyllenhaal's character, Brian Taylor, states in voice over that he is a cop who will arrest you but shouldn't be judged for that as it is his job to detain those who break the law. He claims he didn't write the law or may not even agree with it but it is his job to uphold it. He finishes by reminding us that he is still human underneath the badge. This sets us up for the film brilliantly as that is what it is; two guys at work doing their job. Problem is they are two little pawns in a much bigger world.

The film opens then following Taylor and Z (Michael Pena) as they chase a vigilante through the streets. When the vigilantes are caught they open fire on our cops in their final attempt to flee but the partners are all for it and upon firing back kill their targets. They are known in their division for having a unique way of dealing with law breakers. There are many scenes where their Captain is berating them for killing someone when they could have detained them. Problem with Taylor and Z though is that it is the action that gets them going, and they are good at what they do. As they continue on with their jobs we witness the pair parading the streets in their cruiser and responding to 911 calls. Each call has something different but in small doses leads to the bigger picture which causes them to be green lit by the top drug cartel operating in the area. Their arrogance leaves them unfazed but the cartel have tricks up their sleeves and soon are in all out pursuit against the two cops who are threatening to destroy their whole operation. As well as their day jobs we see the partners in their own environment. Z has been married for years and is looked up to by Taylor for finding his perfect woman. Taylor does finally meet his match though in Janet (Anna Kendrick) and we see him change from the player to the family man. More than anything else this film is about the partners and touches the themes of police officers being humans too.

The film is mostly shot hand held with invisible static cameras still picking up some of the action. It isn't a found footage film in the style of Cloverfield or is it ordinarily shot like Training Day. This film crosses them both over and we see most of the bromance shot via the hand held cameras. The excuse for this is that Taylor is taking a film class and wants to document his job. He films as much as he can without being told off and even attaches mini cameras to his and Z's uniform. Other ways of it being filmed are via the in cab cameras in their cruiser, which is where we see most of the partner's interaction. When the cop's find themselves in a situation where the hand held cameras won't work we are taken back to the ordinary style of shooting a film, although the photography is still the same gritty and realistic approach that the hand held cameras give. It is rather an odd film to take in really and I think that is due to the camera choices. It isn't a found footage movie but at times highlights that it could be by having the characters talk directly to camera. When we cross to normal practice it can become slightly confusing as we are now spectators of the story as opposed to being part of it. I find it a slightly odd way of portraying this film and think it would have benefited more from being one or the other. At times the technique works, and it is a unique way of doing it, but at other moments we have what feels like thrown in scenes of the cartel, who are also using hand held cameras. Scenes like this felt slightly out of place and when the camera wasn't following the main two characters you questioned as to who was filming the other scenes. It should have remained one or the other. This camera technique also removed much of the story. As a matter of fact it removed all story as there wasn't one. The characters were the story and, although it was a great way to show their relationship, at times it felt like I was watching a documentary of two LAPD cops. It isn't till the final third where the story actually takes place and they are hunted by the cartel, before that it is just two cops responding to calls and having a social life. It works in showing the partner's connection but at times I was waiting for that incident that sent the cartel after them.

There are some negatives with the film but there are also some big positives. The two lead actors are great in their roles. Both are like real cops and not actors which maybe the reason as to why this feels so much like a documentary. They are so believable as cops from their language, their stance, and their attitude. The writing, direction, and acting really bring a good sense of this police world and you really will believe you are part of it. The film may lack any real plot but the characters connection and the acting make you route entirely for these characters. The film is all about them and you care for them so much that the end goes out with a bang. It ended in such a good way that it blew me away. Despite the fact it lacked any plot, the way Ayer chose to bring it to a close made me feel like I had watched these two cops their entire lives and I cared about them. It was like watching two friends just going out to work and getting on with life, not like we were watching a film.

End Of Watch does have some great moments. It is brutal and realistic at times, one scene showing a cop with a knife in the eye, but let down with parts being cliched and unrealistic, the two cops run through a barrage of machine gun fire and one only gets hit in the hand. With the great moments though it has negative moments and in the end I feel like they evened each other out. I loved the main characters but had little care for anyone else. Their on the job banter was brilliant but never believed their out of work connections. The cops were realistic but the gangsters were highly cliched. The camera worked in establishing the characters but failed to pick up any real story. It seems like for every positive there is a negative which is a shame as there is something quite unique about End Of Watch, unfortunately though there is only so much knocking on people's doors and stumbling across a crime that an audience can accept and in the end I wish I was gripped by the story as much as I was the characters.

Pros: Unique idea that shows some realistic action. Some scenes are highly brutal that really shock you.

Cons: Interchanging camera at times can be confusing and lack of any real plot.

6.5 / 10



Top 10 of 2012 so far:

1. The Dark Knight Rises     10 / 10 
2. Argo     9 / 10 
3. Skyfall    8.5 / 10
4. Silver Linings Playbook     8 / 10
5. The Hunger Games     8 / 10
6. Snow White And The Huntsman     8 / 10
7. Avengers Assemble     7.5 / 10
8. Looper     7.5 / 10
9. Ted     7.5 / 10
10. 21 Jump Street     7.5 / 10

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK - A slow starter that picks up speed and eventually grips you until the credits roll.

Silver Linings Playbook was a film I only ever really wanted to see because of the actors playing the leads and that it was directed by David O. Russell, who directed The Fighter. For my partner she was desperate to see this due to its look into the sufferings of people with mental illness and how they internally struggle to overcome obstacles many of us don't see. The story to me didn't seem entirely interesting but I was more than happy to give it a watch and to see how some top actors could portray people with serious issues, especially Chris Tucker who is back on the big screen in a film that doesn't involve the words Rush Hour. By the end of the film I was gripped into the relationships, the illnesses, the conflicts, the disillusions, the performances, and most of all; the story that left me leaving the cinema with a big smile on my face.

The story centres on Pat, a former school teacher who was placed into a mental institute after beating his wife's lover to a pulp. 8 months later and the doctors are happy he can try life on the outside again and off he goes with his Mother to move back home. When Pat gets back home he unveils to his family his plan of action to help beat his illness. First off is to drop all medication, second is to get fit, and third is to prove to his wife he is better again and is willing to take her back. The problem though is that his wife has moved on, she's frightened of him and his unpredictability. Restraining orders are set out against him meaning he can't go near any of the people he may have offended, and that is a lot. During his rehabilitation he goes for dinner at one of his closest mates, the main reason being because he sometimes sees Pat's wife and he wants to get a message across. Whilst at dinner he meets his friend's sister-in-law, Tiffany who has got as many problems as he has. Her husband was killed and ever since she has resorted to sleeping with many different men so she doesn't feel lonely. Tiffany sees something she likes in Pat and wants to become his friend but she can only persuade Pat when she tells him she can get a note to his wife. Pleased to hear this Pat is quick to become friends but there is a catch; he has to be Tiffany's dance partner at a competition coming up. Accepting it in order to get what he wants, Pat learns to become closer to his new friend and find new ways to control his temper, ways his family, friends, and doctors don't agree with, by befriending a woman with as many emotional constraints as he has.

The story is very dry and very simple. It isn't one that is going to bend your mind in many different directions. It is more of a character study into two very different characters with the same emotional problems. The performances in the film really add to the relationships that drive this story. Bradley Cooper is brilliant at Pat, performing in a very different way to which we are used to seeing him. Jennifer Lawrence is fantastic as Tiffany who in facial expressions, delivery of dialogue, and dress sense really highlights a troubled mind. Robert De Niro is also on good form as Pat Senior, a man so obsessed with his local football team that his superstitions are getting out of hand. And finally, and something I never thought I'd say, even Chris Tucker is pretty good in his performance as Pat's mate who continually manages to con his way out of the mental home. The performances really are ace but the direction and writing by David O.Russell are also spot on. The story is predictable but the dialogue and plot threads are so well done that you're too invested to care. One of my favourite scenes was with Pat fighting at a football game in a rowdy brawl only for it to cut to a lone figure in Tiffany waiting to rehearse their dance. The direction here really added to the feel.

The film builds to an emotionally pleasing climax. The B story, with Pat Snr's OCD and gambling problems, drive us to this end. His addiction leads him to gamble on his son at this competition, even though he disagrees with his reasons for doing it. Pat Snr shows as many mental illness elements his son does but is never judged like his son. Pat calls this in an opening exchange with his doctor where he states, 'my Father beats up many at a football game and is banned for life, I beat a guy who I catch sleeping with my wife and I'm labelled insane', I thought this line was brilliant as it really highlights his frustrations and to how he is more similar to his Father than either of them think. All of this builds in the second half and once it does you breeze through to the end as it really does captivate you, however the first half is a little slow, and I was willing it to move on a little quicker. It does establish the characters well but, in the first half mainly, it was really missing a Christian Bale type character like out of Russell's previous film The Fighter. That being said thought the second act is so good, a high point being a scene in Pat's family home where all the characters are involved, that the qualms I had with the first half were instantly forgotten.

This won't be everyone's cup of tea. It explores themes that aren't always explored in these types of films, and it does it in a slightly comedic way. I have seen it be billed by some people as a romantic comedy; I can assure you now it is not. It is a drama with some black comedy involved. If anything the comedy mainly comes from the bluntness of the two lead characters as they both struggle to cope in social situations. It isn't supposed to be a comedy it is more a light-hearted take on a rather serious matter. Silver Linings Playbook is a very different film from ones I have previously seen this year. I would highly recommend it and ask you to go in with no judgement. If you sit down and enjoy it you will be guaranteed to leave with a smile on your face as it shows you no matter what your troubles there is always a silver lining.

Pros: The performances, direction, script, and character relationships that catch your attention.

Cons: The first half is a little slow.

8 / 10


Top 10 of 2012 so far:

1. The Dark Knight Rises     10 / 10 
2. Argo     9 / 10 
3. Skyfall    8.5 / 10
4. Silver Linings Playbook     8 / 10
5. The Hunger Games     8 / 10
6. Snow White And The Huntsman     8 / 10
7. Avengers Assemble     7.5 / 10
8. Looper     7.5 / 10
9. Ted     7.5 / 10
10. 21 Jump Street     7.5 / 10 

HERE COMES THE BOOM - Lacks the killer punch

Not being a Twilight fan myself it meant that there was very little to pick between regarding movie choices for our cinema trip this weekend. Each year when Twilight is released it takes over cinemas leaving very little else on. It also doesn't help that we have seen the few films that remain playing alongside it, which meant Twilight was considered as a film to watch; however there was a little film starring Kevin James that I thought would be perfect for getting away from the 'twi-fans'. This film was Here Comes The Boom that is your very typical Kevin James movie where he plays a down on his luck loser and through a crazy source turns out to be a man full of morals and inspires loads of people. It sounds everything I dislike in a movie but seemed ideal for the weekend where I wanted to avoid screaming teenage girls. I have to say it was not perfect. Here Comes The Boom basically reiterated everything I dislike about these types of film. They're corny, unbelievable, daft, and not as funny as what they possibly could be. My partner thought it was hilarious so perhaps it was my preconception of the film that tainted my vision, who knows? All I know is that this is just a typical comedy film that was so old school I had seen it a hundred times before.

Kevin James stars as a biology teacher, Scott Voss, who has lost all enthusiasm for the job. Ten years ago he was voted teacher of the year and he still tries to live off that achievement. His class dislike him as do his colleagues. He is a teacher who openly admits everything they learn is unnecessary. His one friend among the teachers, Marty (Henry Winkler), is a music teacher who is fantastic at his job and has produced some wonderful talent; however he is told his job is to be cut due to budgeting issues. After hearing Marty's wife is pregnant (a ridiculous sub plot considering the guy is in his sixties), Scott vows to help raise the money to keep the class funded. To start, Scott takes on a job teaching immigrants how to pass the citizenship test and upon doing this meets a man who was once a Mixed Martial Arts cage fighter. Whilst watching a fight with him one evening Scott learns that even if you lose a big fight you will be paid ten thousand dollars so Scott decides to take it up. His immigrant friend Niko and Marty help Scott on his journey from fighting back stage with no holds barred to pushing himself to fight against one of the best fighters alive. Not all teachers can show this much passion about their school.

The idea is very simple so it isn't a film you have to take your thinking cap to. Instead it is just a film of a bumbling idiot being beaten the hell out of for sixty minutes and somehow managing to get a top billed televised fight. These are my sort of issues with these films. The way they turn out is ridiculous. They're unbelievable, corny, and have little relevance to the real world. I understand not all films are real but at least the writer and director make me believe in their world. Here I never believed anything that went on as it all seemed silly. In all fairness the world wasn't ridiculous enough to make the film work. In my eyes if they had made it sillier it could have been better.

The best laughs come from the fight scenes, which is the areas I would have highlighted if I made this film. What I wanted to see was fat Kevin James fighting other fat useless people who don't belong in the ring. The one time this happens in a rain soaked fight it is funny but the film then starts to take itself too seriously. By taking the mick out of the world it could have been hilarious but all too quickly Scott was thrust against fighters doing it their entire life and he was beating them. It was ridiculous. Yeah it showed he had heart, courage, passion but this needed to be a film that stayed silly in order for us to like it. This is why Winkler is good in this film and the funniest. His character is daft and we can believe it but I can't believe a useless school teacher goes from climbing in the school window late for class to a MMA Champion in a semester. For me it took the wrong direction.

It does have one or two moments, one being when Marty forgets the stool for the breaks inbetween rounds so he ends up on all fours posing as a bench, and the film really would have benefited from more of these. Unfortunately they are few and far between. People did laugh out loud in the cinema but for a top billed comedy starring Kevin James I expected to laugh more. I don't mind Kevin James, although feel he has never hit top form since King Of Queens or Hitch. I actually think he has come to play the same character in every other film he has done. The potential for this to work could have been there and it was lost at the very first progress of development. We saw a tight and tense MMA film last year in Warrior so we should have seen a ridiculously silly MMA film here that could have been the polar opposite. Instead with it taking itself too seriously it just brings out similarities to Warrior which is a far, far superior film in every respect. These are connections I shouldn't be making and if the development of Here Comes The Boom had gone a different route then I wouldn't be making them. In the end we have Kevin James starring in an Adam Sandler movie without Adam Sandler in it.

Pros: One or two laughs especially from Henry Winkler.

Cons: Too generic and (in case I haven't said it enough) took itself way too seriously.

4 / 10


Top 10 of 2012 so far:

1. The Dark Knight Rises     10 / 10 
2. Argo     9 / 10 
3. Skyfall    8.5 / 10
4. The Hunger Games     8 / 10
5. Snow White And The Huntsman     8 / 10
6. Avengers Assemble     7.5 / 10
7. Looper     7.5 / 10
8. Ted     7.5 / 10
9. 21 Jump Street     7.5 / 10
10. Lawless     7 / 10

ARGO - The best bad idea makes one of the best movies of the year!

So far this year, in my opinion, we've been blessed with some decent films but none that have been quite as good and different as what we have viewed in other years. Yeah sure we've had The Dark Knight Rises, Avengers Assemble, and Skyfall but these huge movies have all been franchise movies, not really very original. Last year we had brilliant sleeper films like Warrior and 50/50 (based on a true story but not a franchise or sequel etc) and the year before we had the brilliantly different Inception and The Social Network (again roughly based on true events). This year has failed to really have any of these sleeper films until now. Argo is a film based on a true story so perhaps it isn't particularly original but it isn't a franchise, sequel, prequel, or reboot and it is fair to say the premise doesn't sound money making so it is definitely a different type of movie to the best films we have already seen this year. The plot of the film is based on the 'best bad idea' and I'm pretty sure the production meetings for this film went with the same kind of lingo. The premise of the film sounds like a risk but talk about a risk that has paid off as this film is brilliant.

The film is based on a declassified true story. The operation undertaken was kept so secret that it took seventeen years for it to finally be announced to the public and for the people involved to finally take some credit. It is set around the time of the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. I wasn't born at this time but the prologue of the film gives you a brief history of what took place. Basically members of the Iranian public were so against the US for taking in their Prime Minister, who they hated, that they attacked the US Embassy in Iran and took the people inside hostage; however six managed to evade capture, escaped the Embassy and took refuge in the Canadian Embassy. A few months later the CIA were told of the six and that the Iranian rebels were going door to door hunting them, so the CIA had to get them out. In they call Tony Mendez, an ex-filtration specialist, tasked with bringing them home. They came up with some pretty terrible ideas but the one that cut the mustard was Tony's proposal to go in as a film producer on a location recce and bring the six out as if they were part of his crew. That is the story of this movie, Tony's plan going into action as he attempts to get these people out. Of course it isn't as easy as that and the first part alone means they have to publicise this movie as if it really was real, meaning he had to get producers on board and advertise it in the Hollywood press. Once the public believe in it then can Tony go into Iran where they will find out if any of this will actually work.

If you're clued in to the history you will know the outcome but if you don't I won't spoil it here. I have read some gripes that the ending isn't true to the history but after reading what actually happened I can't help but think how boring it would have been if they hadn't of changed it, so thank you to screenwriting newcomer Chris Terrio who has written one of the most intense final acts I have seen on the big screen. I mean it is so intense I was leaning further and further forward as it played out. Much of this also has to go to Ben Affleck for his excellent direction. He captures the intensity of the entire piece as well as highlighting light hearted moments of humour, especially in the first half from Alan Arkin and John Goodman. He has made a cross of genres and a historical story one full of wit and tension. In theory this shouldn't work but it is a kudos to the production team for making it work and making it brilliant. The acting is also very good. Affleck also stars and, although his direction is better, plays Mendez in a subdued fashion. There is no emotion to him he is there to do a job and Terrio has written him really well. The six hostages, although with very little back story, are played well by their actors, especially Scoot McNairy whose arc at the end is very well done. Bryan Cranston also stars but has a lot less screen time than I had hoped and finally, the two stars in my eyes, John Goodman and Alan Arkin. The banter between them and the delivery of their dialogue is great. One of the best lines is Goodman speaking to Affleck and saying, 'you could teach a monkey to direct a film in two days', which I thought was great especially since he was saying it to the actual director of the film. There are many top actors who show up in this film even if it is for a minor role.

The story is very well handled. It will have its critics for its accuracy but from what I've read it is fairly on the money. The parts that have been omitted seem like they have been taken out for dramatic reason and to not over complicate things which I think is fair enough. Many of these films have to waver slightly from the truth as the truth doesn't always make perfect fiction. Truth has no structure and the small bits that have been reworked are so they fit to a fiction formula. The film plays like two films with the first filled with more humour and witty remarks and the second being nerve racking tension that I never thought I could bare. Seriously this is so tense it is unbelievable.

There aren't really any negatives I have with the film. It does lack back story to the characters but I felt that this only added to the whole notion that this was kept completely top secret. There is a small sub plot involving Mendez and his family which doesn't pop up enough to make us care but at least gives us something about him. The film is the unbelievable story and it is the humour and tension that this film racks up to the nines. Don't be put off by its content because you will not be disappointed, this is without a doubt one of the films of the year. Oscar nods have already been touted for this film. It should definitely be up for Best Picture but even more so for Best Director. Affleck has recreated the 70/80s right down to the hair styles. Even the production company logos at the beginning are in a 70's fashion. As soon as it starts you are in Affleck's world and it isn't until you breathe after you've left the theatre that you come back to yours. A top, top film.

Pros: Hooks you in and makes you feel involved. You are only routing one way throughout and you really do care if they make it.

Cons: Lack of back story but I'm happy to overlook that.

9 / 10

Top 10 of 2012 so far:


1. The Dark Knight Rises     10 / 10 
2. Argo     9 / 10 
3. Skyfall    8.5 / 10
4. The Hunger Games     8 / 10
5. Snow White And The Huntsman     8 / 10
6. Avengers Assemble     7.5 / 10
7. Looper     7.5 / 10
8. Ted     7.5 / 10
9. 21 Jump Street     7.5 / 10
10. Lawless     7 / 10












 

FRANKENWEENIE - Should have remained as a short!

With cinemas this week still riding high on the Skyfall express train we decided to double back a few weeks and see Frankenweenie: the black and white animated tale from Tim Burton about a boy who brings his dog back to life a la Frankenstein. It was a film I had followed loosely in its build up but one I felt went fairly unnoticed when it entered the cinemas a few weeks ago. The name Tim Burton used to attract millions almost instantaneously. Some of his older films were seen with such class and an unusual degree of pedigree that only a man with his imagination and his creativity could conjure up. Unfortunately, and especially in my eyes, Burton's films have taken an alarming turn for the worse over the last decade and we are now seeing films that don't seem as outstanding. You've only got to look at his earlier film of the year Dark Shadows to see what I mean. Could Frankenweenie be his saving grace? If he had remade it as another short this time with animation than yes but sadly as a feature film it runs out of steam in the middle act and actually becomes boring.

The opening scene is interesting, and one I rather liked. Victor Frankenstein sits his parent down to watch a film he and his dog, Sparky, have shot in their back garden. It was a neat opening and really showed this child is clever and imaginative. It doesn't however show he is a scientist which is one of my grumbles but anyway. He then goes to school and we meet all his classmates who are all highly competitive and Victor's Father wants him to be too so he makes him play baseball the following weekend. During that game however Sparky breaks free and is killed by a car. Victor is hysterical, he has just lost his only friend. In school later in the week, Victor's science teacher tells his class about electricity bringing the muscles to life in dead animals so Victor goes home and attempts this on his own dead animal, Sparky. During a mega storm and within the world's largest attic Victor manages to bring his dog back to life. Now he must keep Sparky's resurrection a secret otherwise he may start something that there is no stopping. Of course Sparky's presence doesn't go unnoticed and before long Victor's highly competitive classmates are attempting their own electrical resurrections with much bigger consequences.

The film is fairly simple, which is actually the way the original short film was told. It isn't one that is overly complicated but it does feel like it just isn't enough to sustain a feature running time. Towards the end of the second act especially I found myself rather bored and then during the third act I found it a little silly. It was good fun in the opening half, especially the first act which really set the whole film up. Unfortunately once he brings the dog back to life, the part most people are waiting for, it fails to ever really go anywhere and feels like it should have remained a short and that should have been the nice happy ending. Instead we get a dragged out middle act that is more about style than substance. The heart from the first act just disappeared and it really seemed to lose its way.

The animation is great though. The black and white stop motion really added a gloomy feel and from the minute the titles rolled it was blatant this was a Tim Burton picture. The issue with it though is that the entire film remained dull. When the story was meant to be happy the darkness of the scene would hold you back from cracking that smile. The dull colours, which actually looked impressive, ironically made the film, story, and characters dull to watch. The film definitely has its moments and does illustrate some nice ideas. The invisible fish and the invention of the giant sea monkeys were two of my favourites, but despite these the film really failed to ever grip me and pull me along for the journey. It actually caused me to glaze over and not really be taking it in.

Style over substance is what seems to be the problem here. Burton's films have always looked amazing but his stories have always been off-key. The awesome look and feel of his films used to be able to cause an audience to forget about the outrageous plot holes but now it feels like Burton is starting to become lazy in his films and he really just wants to create something that looks good. That is the case I get with Frankenweenie. It starts off well and with a lot of heart but by the end it really has run out of steam and all the emotion has disappeared. It is like an animated B-Movie by the end. From a strong start we get a weak film and I think my girlfriend summed it up perfectly when she said, 'perhaps Tim Burton got bored by the end too', because I certainly did.

Pros: Looks amazing and starts off strongly.

Cons: Runs out of steam in the middle act and fails to recover.

4 / 10


Top 10 of 2012 so far:

1. The Dark Knight Rises     10 / 10 
2. Skyfall     8.5 / 10
3. The Hunger Games     8 / 10
4. Snow White And The Huntsman     8 / 10
5. Avengers Assemble     7.5 / 10
6. Looper     7.5 / 10
7. Ted     7.5 / 10
8. 21 Jump Street     7.5 / 10
9. Lawless     7 / 10
10. The Expendables 2     7 / 10