Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Director: Steven Spielberg
Story: George Lucas and David Koepp
Starring: Harrison Ford, Shia LeBeouf and Cate Blanchett

It has been 19 years since Indiana Jones graced the big screen with his presence and I’m glad to say he’s back in style and it feels like he never left.

Few big screen trilogies have been as highly regarded as those written by George Lucas. He captured the imaginations of an entire generation in 1977 with Star Wars and then did so again in 1981 with Indiana Jones, this time bringing in old friend, Steven Spielberg, a man with a record as impressive as Lucas’. In both trilogies Lucas also had found a leading man capable of carrying both trilogies in Harrison Ford. Ford, a star in the making thanks to Star Wars, cemented his leading man status with Indiana Jones and became an idol to many fans.

Now, fast forward to 1999 and Lucas is releasing his first new Star Wars film in 16 years. Filling in the history of the galaxy he established in his original trilogy, armed with the latest special effects but minus most of his original cast, The Phantom Menace brought in a lot of new fans to the Star Wars franchise but almost alienated many fans of his original trilogy. While some respect was regained with the following two Star Wars prequels, it certainly cast some doubt over whether Lucas still had all of that old magic. Now, it is 2008 and we are seeing the return of another Lucas creation in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It has been 19 years since the last Indiana Jones film was released and despite the return of Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg, there has been a fair amount of fear in addition to anticipation over whether this new film would capture the magic of the original films.

I am happy to say that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is not only a fun, action packed summer blockbuster, it is also an Indiana Jones film. I can think of no higher compliment to award it. It has been 19 years since the last film and Harrison Ford is older than and not as spry as he was and it has been a long time since Lucas and Spielberg have worked with these characters but it doesn’t take long for them to find that old rhythm. Opening with action and intrigue, the film feels a little uncertain at first, no doubt reflecting the feelings of audiences that have been around to remember the earlier Indiana Jones films before we had CGI. But after the opener, we get a moment to stop, breathe, and catch up with what has happened with our characters in the 19 years since we last saw them (the film taking place 19 years after the last, from 1938, now to 1957 reflecting the real world time gap between films). These scenes add a new spin to our old character. Like the audience, Indiana himself doubts his abilities and future in these new times and different attitudes (again a comparison between the 1930s and 1950s of the film and the 1980s and 2000s for audiences). This sets the stage for the new film and for the characters as Indiana is quickly involved in a new adventure as he’s brought in to rescue an old friend, lost on a quest and facing a new enemy (the Soviets of the 50s filling in for the Nazis of the 30s).
Almost everything from here on is vintage Indiana Jones. Indiana, and Harrison Ford, find new energy, reunite with old friends (seeing Karen Allen return as Marion Ravenwood is a heartwarming sight for any old fan), being brought in a mystery of a lost civilization, finding the clues, fighting the enemy, big action and a bigger finale. Everything that’s old feels fresh again and while the film injects a little of the Sci-Fi sensibilities of 1950s cinema into the plot, it feels natural rather than forced.

There are some flaws however, and most of these lie with the film’s appeal to newer audiences. There are many nods to old fans and successful attempts to appeal to the nostalgia possessed by old fans of the franchise that might not appeal to newer audiences who have never seen an Indiana Jones film or came to them after growing up on a diet of CGI blockbusters and superheroes. The romantic subplot in particular might not appeal to newer audiences that haven’t seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. Also, while Spielberg has only gotten better over the years at delivering exciting action sequences (and there are some fantastic ones here, a jungle chase sequence in particular is stunning), the occasional uses of CGI feels oddly out of place and sometimes make the dangers our characters face seem less real than those faced in the past.

In the end though, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull succeeds admirably in its goal of being an Indiana Jones film. Performances are mostly top notch. Ford and Allen recapture their chemistry as Indy and Marion, Cate Blanchett is an effective villain and Shia LeBeouf holds his own admirably and certainly proves capable of carrying the torch should rumors of a new Indiana Jones franchise prove true. Ray Winstone and John Hurt provide decent support, although their roles are fairly underdeveloped. Hurt’s character in particular serves mainly to be an expository device. But everyone works together well and the most important performance, Harrison Ford’s, captures his old character perfectly.

Overall, while there are a few minor nitpicks for old fans and some aspects might seem unappealing to new fans, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is fitting addition to the Indiana Jones series and can stand proud alongside the rest. Not the best Indiana Jones film but certainly an equal. Indy is back!

Rating: 4/5

Charlie Bartlett

Director: Jon Poll
Starring: Anton Yelchin, Robert Downey Jr & Hope Davis

A mildly amusing comedy that has some good moments but is ultimately less than the sum of its part.

There is some uncertainty surrounding Charlie Bartlett. There seems to some confusion over who Charlie Bartlett is and, as such, it leaves the film feeling somewhat uneven. As the film begins, we have a scene where Bartlett is being expelled from his private school for producing and selling illegal IDs. This rebellious act and that he has also been expelled from several other private schools prior to this, gives an impression that Bartlett is more rebellious than he later appears to be. When Bartlett is then forced to attend a public school as a result, the potential is set up for an enjoyable and, perhaps, thought provoking comedy but is, instead, something much more mild mannered.

Bartlett arrives at public school and promptly discovers his intellect is not as winning with the student body here as he believed it might be and finds there are troublemakers far worse than he. Wanting to be popular, Bartlett exploits his intellectual image and his access to prescription medication through various psychiatrists to become his school’s drug dealer. His motives and methods to become popular, along with his background make Bartlett a difficult lead to like. It does not help that aspects of his character bear similarities to other, more successful, films. An intellectual standing out from the rest of his classmates? Sounds like Rushmore. Access to various avenues of psychoanalysis, whilst having an eccentric family background? Igby Goes Down. Rebelling against the school principal whilst dating his daughter? Too many films to name.

The film that Charlie Bartlett most seems to imitate however is Risky Business, the 1983 comedy that set Tom Cruise on his road to stardom. Where Cruise’s character Joel, was a rich kid who rebels and starts his own prostitution racket, Bartlett rebels against his school by dealing drugs. In one scene, Bartlett parades around in his underwear, wearing sunglasses and randomly singing. Remind you of a scene from Risky Business?

Charlie Bartlett also does not appear to say anything original or risk straying outside of its comfort zone. Bartlett’s relationships with his mother, his girlfriend and the principal seem to wrap up too easily when the consequences of his actions are realized. The suicide attempt of a student overdosing on Bartlett’s drugs and the rising alcoholism of his principal all solve themselves in the end without any major lessons learned for Bartlett.

Performance-wise, Yelchin is watchable as Bartlett but his inexperience as a lead actor shows and some scenes (like when Bartlett trips out on Ritalin) come over as forced and the overall mild mannered nature of his performance makes it difficult to believe that Bartlett is capable of gaining the popularity and respect of the students that he receives. Hope Davis offers a decent performance as Bartlett’s mother but her performance here suffers slightly in comparison to similar roles in the past. The one stand out performance in the film is Robert Downey Jr as the school’s principal. His principal is a man trying to run a school when he’d rather be teaching instead while also having to raise a daughter alone and struggling with alcoholism is response to the stress he feels. Downey Jr’s principal then finds Bartlett to be a major obstacle preventing him from managing what is, already, a difficult set of responsibilities. Robert Downey Jr actually delivers such a strong performance the film suffers whenever he is off screen and his character feels more interesting and sympathetic than Bartlett himself.

Overall, Charlie Bartlett is a decent film with a good performance from Robert Downey Jr. While it has some good moments though, it owes too much too other films that have covered similar grounds and suffers to add anything worthwhile in comparison. Charlie Bartlett is a rebel, just not a memorable one.

Rating: 2/5

Speed Racer

Director: Andy & Larry Wachowski
Starring: Emile Hirsch, Matthew Fox & John Goodman

A stylish, if shallow, live action adaptation of the 1960s Japanese Anime.

First off, the Wachowskis (creators of The Matrix films), have done impressive work bringing the 2D Japanese Anime series Speed Racer to life as a 3D, live action and CGI universe. All bright neon lights and futuristic design, Speed Racer is likely to amaze younger viewers and should impress more discerning adult viewers. And, while clearly CGI, you are able to suspend disbelief and revel in a cartoon come to life. Unfortunately, the directors have not put quite as much effort into the characters or their story as they had in creating their world.

While Speed Racer is based on a popular children’s cartoon and is, therefore, a film whose target audience will mainly be children and older fans of the same cartoon, it still feels as though the storyline is thin and the characters two-dimensional (ironic since this film adapts a 2D series into 3D for film). Many other family films are capable of looking good and delivering a decent story, Pixar for example, but the Wachowski’s have chosen to focus purely on the racing aspect of the cartoon and builds a story around them. Speed Racer, middle son of the Racer family, has always wanted to race. His father builds race cars and his older brother drove them, until his death. Speed just wants to race like his brother did but, when he turns down an offer of racing for a greedy racing corporation; Speed finds his career at risk and must race to prove that corporations don’t control racing, him or his family. So far, so good but the delivery comes over rather too simplistically, corporations are bad, the little guy is good and try your hardest and you can win.

Characters are similarly simplified and the casting suffers for it. Susan Sarandon has little to do as the supportive mother, Christina Ricci is the spunky girlfriend but takes a second place to racing in Speed’s heart though the effect this might have on their relationship is not explored, Roger Allam is so OTT as the villainous business man Royalton that it’s hard to believe anyone is surprised when his nature is exposed to the world and Paulie Litt perfects the role of annoying little brother in that his presence distracts scenes away from more important characters and events. Emile Hirsch, an up and coming talent, plays the lead role of Speed Racer, and while usually a strong performer instead feels quite bland and wooden here. A lot of the problems with the characters lie, not with the cast, but with the directors who rely too much on clichéd dialogue which might be faithful to the cartoon on which it is based, but does not give any of the characters any real depth or insight.

The Wachowski’s also make miss-steps in the first half of the film in regards to pacing. For a film called Speed Racer, about racing and starring a character called Speed Racer, it seems odd that the opening races in the film suffer constant interruptions to show flashbacks of the characters and how they came to be where they are in the present. The races lack the feeling of adrenaline present in other racing films or even action films and a main racing sequence in the middle of the film stops for a break half way through just as it starts to impress, although the middle racing sequence still feels a little too similar to the Pod Race from Star Wars: Episode One. It’s not until the final race that the audience gets to see a race that truly impresses and when it comes it is a sequence that will take your breath away.

Overall, while the film looks great, as some decent racing/action sequences and ends quite strong, the underdeveloped characters and story does not live up to the visuals and the films struggles too much to get moving in the first half that it’s final shot of energy feels too little too late and no family film, especially one about racing, should clock in at over two hours in length. So, Speed Racer is a film with style, but little substance.

Rating: 2/5

Teeth

Director: Mitchell Lichtenstein
Starring: Jess Weixler, John Hensley & Ashley Springer

A unique and brave idea results in some effective shocks but the execution does not always live up to the potential of its premise.

Destined to become a cult horror based purely on its subject matter alone, Teeth deals with the Vagina Dentata myth as teenage Christian Dawn (Jess Weixler) finds she has more than just religious reasons to maintain her virginity but also finds that her condition to have the potential to be empowering. It’s a tricky subject matter and one that is certainly more likely to prey on male fears than female which makes Teeth stand out from other horrors where women are usually the victim.

What follows is a film that is often chilling although its low budget production sometimes proves to be as much a hindrance to the film’s tone as it helps. The film starts off with a cute opening scene with Dawn and her bullying step brother, Brad as children in a paddling pool. Playing a variation of “I’ll show you mine”, it proceeds to Brad receiving a minor injury that not only hints at the type of individual Brad will become later in life but also at Dawn’s condition. Moving on to the present day and Dawn is now a leading member of her school’s chastity group. Her role allows her condition to go, believably, undiscovered from childhood and her conservative beliefs allow Dawn herself to live her life unaware that she is different than other girls. Her beliefs also mean she has reason to fear sex, at least before marriage, so when a fellow group member romances her and later proceeds to pressure into sex, the result is horrifying as Dawn and her attacker discover she has teeth where none should be. The horror is effectively conveyed and uses some graphic, yet effective, effects to render the gore and this attacks remains shocking afterwards when Dawn goes to see a gynecologist about her condition with predictable, but no less effective, results.

After the halfway point though the film begins to falter. Unsure about its direction or just unsure on how to get to its destination, the plot begins to wander as Dawn is presented with more occasions with which to risk sex and horror. At this point it seems clear that are limited ways in which to use her condition and the introduction of some black humor regarding her situation has limited success and while it seems obvious that a confrontation with her step brother has been due since the film’s opening scene, the climax of that particular sub-plot is somewhat dullened by previous scenes. There is also a very uneven musical score in the film that rarely manages to set a strong tone in the scenes where it is used and sometimes feels reminiscent of low budget TV drama.

Overall, thanks to some effective horror in the first hour, and a strong performance by Jess Weixler as Dawn conveying her early innocence and fears as they become strengths effectively, Teeth is still an above average horror and succeeds in its role as a cautionary tale. It does falter somewhat in its later scenes and occasionally in its execution but it is still an interesting film and worth seeing for its attempts to add something new to the horror genre.

Rating: 3/5

Iron Man

Director: Jon Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Jeff Bridges & Gwyneth Paltrow

Iron Man kicks off the 2008 summer blockbuster season with plenty of fun and style due, in no small part, to the performance of Robert Downey Jr.

Unlike Batman, Superman and Spider-Man, Iron Man, while a recognizable superhero name, is a superhero without an origin as memorable as those that have seen movie adaptations previously. Not the son of murdered parents, not the last son of another planet, not bitten by radioactive spiders, ask the average filmgoer how Iron Man came to be and most would be stumped. Luckily this is not a problem when it comes to making the film. While maintaining a lot of accuracy to his comic book origins, Iron Man is a hero whose origins are simpler and more relevant to today’s climate. Iron Man is Tony Stark, a wealthy businessman whose company designs weapons. When attacked by a terrorist group using his own weapons who take him hostage to demand he build them more, Stark turns his skills towards building a weapon to free him from his captors. What he creates is a suit of armor and from his experiences realizes the errors of his money-making ways and the innocents harmed by the weapons he has produced. His choice then is to modify and improve his suit and proceed to protect the innocents instead of endanger them.

The use of weapons manufacturing, greedy corporations and terrorism seems even more relevant today than ever before (originally Stark was captured in Vietnam in his 1960s incarnation, now changed to Afghanistan) and add a bit more realism than would normally be expected of the superhero genre movie. Finding an actor then that could play a billionaire inventor who is believably blind to the problems his corporation has caused yet willing to take action when these problems come to life might seem difficult. In this case, director Jon Favreau chooses well in the casting of Robert Downey Jr. Downey Jr is an actor whose life bears some resemblance to that of his character Tony Stark. Initially thriving off his success early in his career, Downey Jr hit bottom after several publicly acknowledged cases of drug and alcohol abuse and several stints in rehab, yet has recently turned his life a career around to find himself back on top again with a new lease on life. This history certainly helps in establishing believability in Downey Jr’s role as Stark. He is also extremely charming and delivers wisecracks and sarcasm with style adding much humor to his character, his journey and even to his relationships.

It also helps that Iron Man has a strong supporting cast, most notable amongst them is Gwyneth Paltrow as Stark’s long suffering assistant Pepper Potts, without whom Stark’s life would fall apart and whose relationship with Stark also includes a very touching romance that neither is completely prepared for. Terrance Howard is solid as Stark’s best friend, Jim Rhodes whose character should be destined for greater things should future installments in the Iron Man movie franchise see light and seems to be in capable hands with Howard. Jeff Bridges is also good as Stark’s business partner and enemy Obadiah Stane, adding some intimidating physicality to the role despite the character’s personality and motivations actually being the least developed of the film and relying too much and stereotypical villain traits. Whilst lacking the humanizing factor, the sympathetic angle on a Spider-Man villain or the moral complexity of a Batman villain, Stark’s enemy Stane and the terrorists he faces in earlier scenes suffer from being too two dimensional in comparison and especially so in comparison to Stark and his friends but Jeff Bridges manages well enough to make an impression regardless thought when the final conflict between himself and Stark comes, it comes in the form of a very impressive CGI battle between Stark as Iron Man and himself in his own armored battle suit.

Iron Man also benefits from some effective CGI as Iron Man himself looks very convincing and the battle scenes within the film rendered very well, no doubt due to machines being easier to render realistically then flesh and also following on from last year’s Transformers movie.

Overall this was a very enjoyable action/superhero film. Downey Jr and Paltrow are great to watch, the action is great and the story is good when compared to many other superhero origin films and future storylines promise to maintain the balance of fun and action following on from an excellent decision made by Tony Stark in the film’s closing press conference scene. A good start to the summer and to the franchise.

Rating: 4/5

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Director: Nicholas Stoller
Starring: Jason Segal, Kristen Bell & Russell Brand

Another enjoyable comedy from the Judd Apatow stable that finds comedy within the common heartache of being dumped from a relationship.

Following on from the success of 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up and Superbad comes Forgetting Sarah Marshall, another comedy from producer Judd Apatow. Forgetting Sarah Marshall this time spotlights another Apatow collaborator, Jason Segal gets the opportunity to move from supporting role to lead actor. Segal, like Seth Rogen in last year’s Knocked Up and Superbad, not only stars this time around but wrote the screenplay and finds Segal talented enough to not only provide us with many great comedy moments but also strikes the right emotional tones and anyone who has found themselves on the receiving end of a break up from a relationship will find much to empathize with.

While Forgetting Sarah Marshall is funny, it does not quite succeed in reaching the levels achieved by last year’s Apatow comedies. Much of this could be due to the relative inexperience of Segal and of director Nicholas Stoller. Stoller is a first time director while this is Segal’s first writing effort and first time as a leading man whereas Rogen and Apatow had more writing and directing experience between them before they made Knocked Up and Superbad. Early scenes in Forgetting Sarah Marshall suffer a little from some uneven editing which moves the scenes along a little too quickly often cutting punchlines short (including some otherwise funny uses of nudity) and skipping back and forth from present day to past events a little erratically but in time the film finds its footing and aside from the occasional scene that’s runs too long, the film itself flows more smoothly.

On the acting front we have little to worry about from Segal. Segal comes across as very natural. He plays the loveable loser role well and his character’s responses to his situation are simultaneously funny and recognizable. At first it may seem that there is not much about his character, Peter that would make us root for him. He’s a nice guy if slobbish and lacking the inner strength to achieve his goals but the more time we spend the more of his positive qualities we see and the more he sees in himself making his ultimate destination in this film all the more emotionally rewarding.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall also benefits from some strong supporting talent. Back are former Apatow collaborators Bill Hader, Paul Rudd and Jonah Hill, all providing funny performance, Hill especially. Russell Brand also makes his Hollywood debut as the hedonistic popstar boyfriend of Peter’s ex, the title character Sarah Marshall. What initially feels like a one-note performance develops becomes one of the strongest comedic performances in the film and Brand impresses. The only criticisms I have in the acting department is with the female characters. Kristen Bell (of TVs Veronica Mars) and Mila Kunis (That 70s Show) do their best with the roles they have as former and potential love interests for Segal, but their roles underwritten considering their importance to the plot. Sarah Marshall (Bell) is written a little too stereotypically needy and career driven in early scenes that when she later begins to doubt her decisions it becomes a little difficult to feel supportive of her while Rachel (Kunis) is unevenly portrayed as being both caring yet even a little crazy at times which puts doubt over whether her character is good for Segal’s until much later.

Overall though, this is a very funny film. Segal proves he has what it takes to write good comedy and support a film and hopefully will see improvements as a writer that will eventually see him as a talent equal to friends Apatow and Rogen. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is not as good as earlier Apatow productions but it’s a worthy addition to their catalogue and will certainly entertain audiences.

Rating: 3/5

In Bruges

Director: Martin McDonagh
Starring: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson & Ralph Fiennes

A quick witted, darkly humorous gangster movie that is much more than described and feels like a breath of fresh air in what had become a stale genre.

To dismiss In Bruges as a Gangster Film, a British Gangster Film no less, would be to ignore what is one of the funniest films of 2008 while remaining a touching human drama. The story revolves around two Irish hitmen, wizened old timer Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and inexperienced first timer Ray (Colin Farrell), as they arrive in Bruges to hide out after a hit goes wrong. As they await further orders from their boss back home, they are ordered to stay in Bruges and enjoy the sights. While this suits Ken, the younger Ray struggles with boredom in a strange town he doesn’t know and brands a s***hole and is left to struggle with own demons over what happened during the botched hit. The choice of town, Bruges (it’s in Belgium), is a quiet medieval town filled with historical sights and other cultural places of interest but very little in the way of modern entertainment.

With the drama, contemplations on how to reconcile themselves with God over the things they do and coming to terms (Ray especially) with what occurred recently and with the choice of locale, In Bruges might have otherwise turned out to be a quiet, sedate drama if not for the humor and occasional violence that also occurs. The humorous tone is immediately irreverent, occasionally offensive but delivered in a way that it provokes laughter in a way that may make you feel guilty afterwards. The humor feels very true, very honest as our characters are just human and prone to the same prejudices as we can be. If you would think that comments involving dwarves, the mentally handicapped or stereotypes of Belgians and Americans might offend you then you might want to steer clear of the film, otherwise you can relish in the fact that this is what people are like and if you yourself don’t voice similar remarks then you’d likely know people who do. It helps that our main source of humor lies with the character of Ray and the performance delivered by Colin Farrell.

Farrell has spent recent years developing his role as a Hollywood leading man (Alexander, Phone Booth, SWAT etc…) that you forget he used to be more effective in smaller productions playing average guys (Intermission being the last such instance). Here, in his native accent, he excels as Ray, a young gangster who botches his first job and is stricken with guilt yet is undoubtedly young preferring a night in the pub to a night of “culture” who still finds a childlike fascination in Dwarves (or Midgets as he refers to them) and lacks the tact most develop later in life in regards to voicing their opinions delicately. Farrell possesses a nervous energy, all frowns and furtive glances that makes him believable yet also quite likeable despite his politically incorrect commentary and his reliance on violence when he can’t think of a way to defend himself verbally. We know we shouldn’t like a guy like Ray, or Ken either for that matter, but during the course of the film you grow to care about them. Much of this empathy is also due to Brendan Gleeson’s portrayal of Ken, the experienced hitman looking after Ray who is looking for a quieter life after years of crime. Ken is a man of honor, he feels bad about the people he’s killed but consoles himself some over the fact that his victims were bad men too and their deaths often justifiable. He enjoys the quiet atmosphere on Bruges and while he sometimes struggles to cope with the impatience of Ray, he sees the guilt Ray struggles with himself and feels protective of him.

Between the humor and the occasional moments of violence, we see a believable and touching connection develop between Ken and Ray which serves to make later scenes more emotionally powerful when their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes delivering a performance somewhat similar to Ben Kingsley’s in Sexy Beast but with a little more humor and heart) arrives in Bruges to clean up Ken and Ray’s mess by looking to kill Ray.

While the finale of the film involves several shoot outs, it manages to maintain a darkly humorous tone throughout and the effectiveness in how Ray and Ken’s relationship has been portrayed earlier in the film, along with the reveal of what went wrong during their last job to disturb Ray as it has and also the relationships Ray and Ken develop with other characters (Ray finding romance with a local dealer, his encounters with a dwarf actor full of his own prejudices) serves to make the violence that occurs during the film’s finale all the more shocking and effecting. There is also a tragic inevitability felt throughout the film that despite its humor, the film couldn’t have ended any other way without undermining the feelings of honesty demonstrated throughout the director’s handling of his subject matter.

Overall, this is a very good film. In Bruges delicately balances drama, humor and violence while demonstrating that there is still life in the British Gangster Film and that Colin Farrell is much more enjoyable when he’s not restricted by the confines of Hollywood.

Rating: 4/5

Street Kings

Director: David Ayer
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Forest Whitaker & Hugh Laurie

A solid cop drama boosted by a script by acclaimed crime novelist James Ellroy and featuring a strong turn from actor Keanu Reeves.

Street Kings (originally title The Night Watchmen) is not your typical Keanu Reeves film. The opening 10 minutes of this film will convince you of that and that you are seeing a different Keanu Reeves. Opening with a hung-over Reeves, coughing/puking into his toilet, then arriving at an arms deal to sell weapons to Koreans while spitting venomous Racial slurs, getting beaten, then following them to their home and gunning them down in the name of the law. What we see is a crooked cop and a deeply racist one at that. What we also learn is that his actions save two girls who have been kept prisoner a raped. Justice is done but it’s violent and accomplished by breaking the law and covering for it later. It is a powerful, punchy opening and grips you immediately.

It comes as no surprise then to find that this film is written by crime novelist James Ellroy whose prose is famous, and acclaimed, for its punchy dialogue, morally suspect anti-heroes, corruption and for using violence almost as punctuation. The material is also what director David Ayer is well known for. Ayer, the writer behind Training Day who also adapted a James Ellroy story for the film Dark Blue is known for looking at the darker side of law enforcement, condemning corruption but endorsing a more aggressive method of crime fighting as being almost necessary to accomplish real results. So, no new ground covered then? Maybe not, at least not by Ayer or Ellroy. What does feel new is Reeves.

Keanu Reeves, while a popular actor, has not been judged critically as an actor capable of demonstrating much depth in his characters. A little unfair perhaps but Street Kings is one of his strongest roles to date. While Reeves has played cops before (Point Break, Speed) and has even dabbled in Anti-Heroes (Constantine), he’s never been this dark, this complex. Reeves character, Ludlow, is a cop in the Vic Mackey (on TV’s The Shield) mould. A cop who will happily break the law to get his suspect, even without evidence to back him up. Part of a squad of similar cops led by Forest Whitaker, he seems to be unredeemable but as we find, there are lines he won’t cross, lines of honor. When a former partner who is reporting him to Internal Affairs is gunned down in Ludlow’s presence, Ludlow investigates and uncovers evidence that there is more to the attack than believed and that while he might break the laws to apprehend crooks, there are those within his department willing to do use those methods and also profit from it. So, a racist cop, a violent cop, but not one to take a bribe. It’s a fine line to separate Reeves’ character from the villains but a line nonetheless and while it makes Ludlow our anti-hero and we root for him to survive, it doesn’t necessarily excuse his own character flaws. Reeves then manages quite well to tread that line between likeable character and sympathetic one. He manages to convince us that Ludlow is a force for good without actually being good himself.

While Reeves is good and carries the film well, the supporting cast varies in terms of quality. Hugh Laurie appears as an Internal Affairs officer investigating Reeves and others in his team. While good, Laurie merely re-hashes the American accent he utilizes in his role in TV’s House and doesn’t receive enough screen time to really develop his role beyond that of cop that tries to turn Reeves on his team. Chris Evans also appears as young cop looking for some action who gets pulled in by Ludlow to help investigate the death of his old partner and expose the corruption within his team. Evans role is underwritten and his motivations are underdeveloped which is a shame as recent performances (i.e. Sunshine) demonstrate an actor on the rise. Rounding out the remainder of the supporting cast is Forest Whitaker as Ludlow’s boss and suspected mastermind behind events. Whitaker’s turn is solid, using his physicality to intimidate while adding a bit more depth to a character that could have suffered under a different actor.

Overall, this is a strong cop drama. While the ground covered isn’t original for either the director or writer and the plot follows a fairly predictable path to it’s conclusion, it benefits from a strong performance by Reeves and while the film’s writer has written better, his dialogue is better, stronger than most cop dramas manage. Street Kings is still a film worthy of being seen and one with plenty to recommend about it.

Rating: 3/5

Son of Rambow

Director: Garth Jennings
Starring: Bill Milner, Will Poulter & Jessica Stevenson

A wonderful little indie-comedy about childhood friendship and the emancipating power of the imagination.

Son of Rambow has been released at the perfect time. Following the latest installment in the Rambo movie series and also following the release of another indie-film about the power of imagination in filmmaking in Be Kind Rewind, Son of Rambow (with it’s endearing, childlike spelling mistake of it’s namesake’s hero) succeeds at beating both films in terms of it’s creativity, heart and ability to entertain.

The film tells of the unlikely friendship that develops between Will Proudfoot (newcomer Bill Milner), a put upon child from a religious family than forbids TV, music and literature from its members, and Lee Carter (Will Poulter), the troublesome boy raised by an uncaring older brother and wanting to make his own film for the BBC. The friendship begins with Lee Carter bullying Will into helping make his film. Will being naïve, unaware of some dangers and ultimately forgiving, accepts and so begins a partnership that develops into a close friendship.

There appears to much in common between the two boys, both missing father figures (Will’s died, Lee’s disappeared after his birth) but this shared history is acknowledged by neither and allows the friendship to develop more realistically for less obvious reasons. Will, having never seen a film before, finds an outlet for his repressed creativity (his imagination largely confined to doodling in his Bible or toilet cubicles) when he sees a pirated copy of Rambo at Lee’s home. The effect this has on Will’s impressionable mind is illustrated in a beautiful and stunning dream sequence where Will saves his dead father while battling scarecrows and flying dogs while imagining himself as Rambo.

Based, in part, on director Garth Jennings’s own childhood experiences, the following scenes as Lee and Will embark on their filmmaking career, with Will as star and stuntman, is filled with great humour (there are many hilarious sight gags) and also great warmth. Jennings’s also captures the look and feel on 1980s England superbly, particularly school life in the 1980s which includes a brilliant Disco scene within the school’s 6th Form. Jennings’s decisions in his casting of unknowns into the roles of Will and Lee also succeed. Will Poulter convinces as the troubled child of a broken home whose bullying nature feels genuine in light of his background while Bill Milner steals the whole film as Will Proudfoot, brimming with childlike enthusiasm beyond what his small frame seems capable of containing.

There are the occasional indulgences that sometimes interrupt the flow of the story, the inclusion of a French exchange student who gets involved in the filmmaking and becomes an obstacle between Will and Lee is given too much screen-time and representatives of the religious order that Will’s family is a part of is sometimes portrayed a too one-sidedly oppressive but this is otherwise a fun and uplifting film and even when the boys find their friendship tested and inevitably realize it’s is time to grow up, it comes naturally and still maintains plenty of hope for their futures without feeling too saccharine.

Overall this is an entertaining comedy which can be enjoyed by children and adults alike.

Rating: 4/5

Leatherheads

Director: George Clooney
Starring: George Clooney, Renee Zellweger & John Krasinki

An entertaining comedy thought not quite the screwball classic that actor/director George Clooney was aiming for.

George Clooney is a man in high regard. Often referred to as being an actor in the classic mould who has the charms and talent of old Hollywood stars like Cary Grant and Clark Gable. These comparisons are generally well deserved. Clooney is also held in high regard in relation to his filmmaking based on the critical success of his earlier directorial efforts Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Good Night and Good Luck. Clooney’s choice for his third film is a screwball comedy. Considering the comparisons made between Clooney, Grant and Gable, this would seem them perfect use of Clooney’s abilities as an actor and his experience with period pieces would seem suited to his skills as a director and he does succeed quite well at using those skills effectively. Clooney does exude charm and further demonstrates a skill for physical comedy and the period detail and atmosphere of the film is top notch however, while Leatherheads is charming and is funny, it’s not funny or charming enough to join the ranks of classic Hollywood comedies such as Bringing Up Baby or The Philidelphia Story.

If there is fault to be found in concern to why the film does not fully achieve its ambitions as a screwball comedy, that fault is to be found in the tone and pacing. The witty banter between Clooney and Zellweger is good but lacks the energy of Grant and Hepburn while the pratfalls that occur during football games portrays a Clooney that sometimes seems at odds with the charmer we see in other scenes. The film also slows down on too many occasions when it should speed up and Clooney tries to add a little too much, serious, commentary on the changes that occurred in professional football during the 1920s when he could be focusing on the comedy that can be mined in those changes.

Overall, this is an entertaining comedy. Clooney is good on screen as usual and Zellweger looks like she was born to appear in films from this period. John Krasinski (from the American version the The Office TV series) manages to hold his own fairly well when working alongside two bigger Hollywood stars and there are some very good sight gags and occasionally witty banter. Not Clooney’s best film to date but entertaining nonetheless.

Rating: 3/5