15 December 2011

Movie Review: We Need To Talk About Kevin



We Need To Talk About Kevin
2011, 112mins, 15
Director: Lynne Ramsay
Writer (s): Lynne Ramsay, Rory Kinnear, Lionel Shriver (novel)
Cast includes: Tilda Swinton, Ezra Miller, John C. Reilly, Rock Duer, Jasper Newell
UK Release Date: 21st October 2011

“We Need To Talk About Kevin” is a deeply unsettling watch, director Lynne Ramsay capturing the disturbed essence of Lionel Shriver’s 2003 novel capably. Ramsay assembles the narrative in a fragmented style, mirroring the state of motherly distress that its protagonist endures for the majority of the feature. It’s not a movie for all tastes, and possibly goes overboard in its pursuit of a surreal visual aesthetic, but “We Need To Talk About Kevin” leaves a pointed mark thanks to solid acting and a consistent aura of subdued dread.

Kevin (Ezra Miller in a stunning debut) is a teenage serial killer, having utilized his fascination with archery to bloody effect on several of his classmates. The police quickly whip him into custody, leaving his mother Eva (Tilda Swinton) to publically deal with the consequences of Kevin’s psychotic actions. As the local community turns against her, Eva is left alone and exasperated to reflect on her life as a parent, with particular focus being applied to Kevin’s ominous upbringing.

Due to the splintered fashion in which Ramsey interprets the tale, it is impossible to discuss “We Need To Talk About Kevin” without touching on some minor spoilers. From the outset it’s obvious that Eva’s life has been stung by massive tragedy, the source of which quickly transpires to be Kevin. We don’t know exactly what has occurred, only that it is a cause of immense local distress, leaving Eva to have her house vandalised regularly and to suffer through vicious confrontations with disgruntled residents. Ramsay uses the power of uncertainty effectively, deploying it to crank up the tension resourcefully. A chronological retelling of the story might have allowed for a more accessible link with certain characters, but it would also have undoubtedly robbed the film of the suspense that ultimately acts as a core driving force.

Swinton is never overplays her hand as Eva, subtly communicating various degrees of emotional abandonment throughout the picture splendidly. It’s a fantastically grounded turn, the actress finding appropriate onscreen dynamics with her various co-stars. She and John C. Reilly (playing her husband) make for a believable pairing, and her scenes with young Ezra Miller are astounding. Miller also conveys a lot through very little, the actor providing “We Need To Talk About Kevin” with a very human menace. He’s never entirely sympathetic, but the teen does a fine job of depicting a person simply hamstrung with sadness from birth, converting his disdain into action through the most despicable means possible.

The opening 15 minutes of the film are almost unwatchable, Ramsay simply stitching together a series of striking images with little regard for context. With every frame the film’s intent becomes more obvious, but whilst it is strikingly photographed and edited, one feels that some of Ramsay’s choices aren’t always to the story’s benefit. There are chunks of “We Need To Talk About Kevin” that feel hollow and overly frosty, Ramsay’s fixation on bizarre aesthetical choices and forceful cinematography overriding the impact of the harrowing plot. The director never pulls her punches and during the focal scenes always applies stern attention to the cruel interactions depicted, but amidst vital pieces of character building she occasionally gets lost. These dips in focus loosen the pacing frustratingly, killing the project’s intrigue and fever at inopportune moments.

“We Need To Talk About Kevin” will be remembered as one of 2011’s more unforgiving motion pictures, unwilling to play ball with conventional expectations or to wimp out during its more horrific sequences. As a result it might find trouble converting its critical acclaim (the film was a hit at Cannes earlier this year) into statues, although pundits would do well to keep a keen eye on Swinton and Miller during the forthcoming season. This is an adaptation worth watching, but not one I can see the masses returning to again and again. If you need to talk about Kevin now’s the time, because come Oscar night I have a feeling he’ll be strangely forgotten.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

13 December 2011

Movie Review: Hugo



2011, 126mins, PG
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: John Logan
Cast includes: Ben Kingsley, Asa Butterfield, Sacha Baron Cohen, Chloe Grace Moretz, Jude Law
UK Release Date: 2nd December 2011

Having built a now legendary career on the back of hardboiled genre flicks such as “Goodfellas” and “The Departed”, it is odd to observe Martin Scorsese transfer into the arena of family fuelled adventure with “Hugo”. An adaptation of Brian Selznick’s novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret”, “Hugo” is a beautifully designed feature, shot with all the majesty and detailed craft that one expects from its famed director. However despite a roster of strong performances and a resonant finish, the first two acts of the movie drag, a fact likely to deter the very young from appreciating its other moderate charms.

Hugo (Asa Butterfield giving a tremendously sympathetic performance) is an orphan who secretly operates the clocks in a Parisian train station, spending his days keeping the cogs ticking whilst also avoiding the gaze of the station’s goofy police inspector Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo also has one other purpose; he is desperate to rebuild an automaton his father was working on shortly before an untimely fire claimed his life. Collecting bits to try and get the robot mechanized once more, Hugo runs afoul of cranky shop owner Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), a man who takes a suspicious dislike to Hugo and his various projects. Teaming up with Georges’ goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), Hugo embarks on a mysterious adventure, one that will answer questions about his own past and help others come to appreciate and cope with their own.

The look of “Hugo” is phenomenally polished, Scorsese sparing no expense with his lavish set design and eye for the spectacular. Paris is captured via a mixture of CGI and practical sets, the picture oozing a European sensibility from each meticulously sculpted frame. It’s not entirely impossible that the film’s greatest redeeming feature is its impressive visual aesthetic, the picture providing viewers with a beautiful world almost richer than any of its protagonists.

The screenplay is clumsy at times, although it can’t be faulted in terms of imbuing the piece with a notable emotional core. Thanks to a selection of mature performances and an attention to some unusually complex character arcs for a children’s flick, “Hugo” successfully manages to make the audience care about its lead and the various other figures that inhabit his world, allowing the finale to register with pleasant depth and clarity. However the opening two acts are much patchier, the tale unfolding at a lethargic pace, Scorsese infuriatingly keeping too many of the story’s secrets for far too long. There are some enjoyable set-pieces (several of the foot chases through the station are wonderfully shot) and Cohen’s over the top turn as Gustav helps provide a dollop of firm and skilled comic relief, but ultimately the picture lulls too often. It’s never offensively dull or unbearably boring, yet the opening hour is unquestionably uneven in its ability to entertain.

As is often the case with the filmmaker, Scorsese turns “Hugo” into a blunt love letter to cinema, tying the history of the art form and the fate of the film’s characters inextricably together. This portion of the movie feels extremely reminiscent of last year’s “Shutter Island”, another venture that operated largely as a celebration of bygone B-movie classics. However whilst “Shutter Island” was subtle about its admiration for schlocky psychological yarns, “Hugo” quickly feels like an academic lecture, Scorsese working in the basic history of cinema rather uncomfortably. I can appreciate where he’s coming from, and indeed some warmth emanates from this addition to the feature, but at times it feels like more unnecessary baggage in an already overcooked fantasy.

“Hugo” is worth a look on the basis that it affords cineastes the chance to see a master of the camera move outside of his comfort zone, and indeed the results are more often good than bad. However, it’s hard to imagine this being remembered as one of Marty’s crowing achievements, instead “Hugo” feels destined to be labelled a watchable yet flawed curio.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

28 October 2011

Gilette's stories of greatness!

Everyone knows Gillette is an extraordinary brand that yields extraordinary results for those wise enough to use it. As a result Gillette have opted to compose a selection of videos looking at some people who have achieved extraordinary things, and overcome adversity to achieve their dreams and leave their mark on the world.
All the promotional videos are included on this post, and we want to know who you think is the most extraordinary? Just sit back and enjoy hearing from these remarkable individuals, and then when you’ve decided which you like best, vote at si.com/greatness.
So what are you waiting for? Check out the clips, be blown away by some amazing tales and then tell us your favourite! Watch  at the videos below.

21 October 2011

Movie Review: Take Me Home Tonight



Take Me Home Tonight
2011, 97mins, 15
Director: Michael Dowse
Writer (s): Jackie Filgo, Jeff Filgo
Cast includes: Topher Grace, Anna Faris, Teresa Palmer, Dan Fogler
UK Release Date: 13th May 2011

“Take Me Home Tonight” was shot in 2007, but ominously only found distribution earlier this year. The film is a celebration of the eighties, aiming to slot efficiently into the coming of age and “one crazy night” genres that have become essentials of teen cinema. Whilst rarely crass or offensively broad, “Take Me Home Tonight” is regrettably low on solid laughs, an issue that can obviously be traced back to its lukewarm screenplay. The performances are fine and the direction by Michael Dowse is energetic, but the writing never clicks, the characterization and gags presented falling short of the mark on most occasions.

A struggling MIT graduate stuck in a rut, Matt Franklin (Topher Grace) is left stunned when his High School crush Tori (Teresa Palmer, attractive but dull) meanders into the video store he works at. Ashamed of his post-college career trajectory, Matt tells Tori he works at Goldman Sachs, using the lie to construct a second meeting at a party occurring later the same night. Teaming up with his depressed and recently fired buddy Barry (Dan Fogler, in better form than usual), Matt heads to the fiesta with the aim of winning his dream girl, but what he gets is an evening of substance abuse, wacky antics and illuminating self-discovery.

“Take Me Home Tonight” is set in 1988, the filmmakers capturing the era impressively. Everything from the VHS stacked shop fronts to the questionable fashion trends afford the movie a sense of authenticity, lending the picture at the very least some genuine nostalgic value. Unfortunately the lack of notable laughs and the pedestrian plotline scupper the joy almost fully, undercutting the talented cast and the best efforts of Dowse. The script doesn’t have any zing or momentum; it’s a drab piece of writing, too preoccupied with tepid banter and stock characters to engage.

Topher Grace is likable but his role is bland, none of the conflicts he has to endure are particularly worthwhile. It all just feels like a case of nerd chasing hot chick, hardly the most innovative staple on which to hang a movie of this nature. Dan Fogler is entertaining as Barry, using his physicality to try and stimulate the material, His success rate is patchy, but given lacklustre calibre of the humour, the fact he makes it work at all is commendable. The adorable and extremely capable Anna Faris also feels wasted, relegated to the fringes as Matt’s conflicted sibling. Her arc is much more three dimensional than Topher Grace’s (Faris struggles with choice between education and marriage), but the story overlooks her in favour of the more generic central romance. It’s pretty indicative of the poor writing on display here.

“Take Me Home Tonight” isn’t misogynistic or soulless, which in the current mainstream comedy climate counts for something. It boasts a cool retro aesthetic and is despite the vast amount of cocaine usage, quite an innocent and well intentioned endeavour at heart. The problem is that it’s uninventive and almost never funny, which given its apparent placement as a comedy is a tough fault to forgive.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

17 October 2011

Capsule Review: The Debt



The Debt
2011, 113mins, 15
Director: John Madden
Writer (S): Matthew Vaughn, Jane Goldman, Peter Straughan
Cast includes: Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson, Sam Worthington, Jessica Chastain, Jesper Christiansen
UK Release Date: 30th Sepotember 2011

“The Debt” is two thirds of a brilliant film, John Madden’s intriguing espionage yarn only falling apart during its bloated and limping conclusion. A brilliantly acted piece of work, the movie manages some hugely suspenseful sequences, the filmmakers orchestrating a skilfully plotted and tautly handled maze of potboiler theatrics. However despite some decent characterization, “The Debt” doesn’t remain engaging for its full duration, Madden fumbling the finale through a preposterously generic and bloated wrap-up. It’s a genuine pity.

The intricate plot cuts efficiently between two different timeframes, the first seeing a young group of Mossad agents attempting to bring justice upon a Nazi war criminal, the second set in 1997 a study of the repercussions the mission has had on them in later life. “The Debt” assumes a twisty narrative style, which along with a few punchy action sequences and a consistent aura of tension keep the opening two acts extremely watchable. Unfortunately the baggy finale lets too much gas out of the bag, the picture flaccidly stumbling toward a climax, rather than making good on the promise indicated by earlier segments. A solid thriller then, but perhaps not the genre gem it could have been.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

16 October 2011

Movie Review: The Three Musketeers



The Three Musketeers
2011, 110mins, 12
Director: Paul W.S. Anderson
Writer (s): Andrew Davies, Alex Litvak
Cast includes: Logan Lerman, Matthew Macfadyen, Christoph Waltz, Milla Jovovich, Orlando Bloom, Ray Stevenson, Freddie Fox
UK Release Date: 12th October 2011

Adapted from a certified literary classic by Alexandre Dumas, it’s peculiar to find Paul W.S. Anderson at the helm of “The Three Musketeers”. A filmmaker not renowned for his subtly (or even much in the way of fundamental skill), Anderson and the material feel like a crude fit, the director only ever really gelling with the story’s swashbuckling elements, leaving such afterthoughts as satisfactory plotting and credible emotional arcs by the wayside. “The Three Musketeers” has a respectable amount of blockbusting scope and a few fun instances of swordplay, but ultimately works out to be a remarkably insubstantial product. Maybe in the hands of a more interesting director or with a finer tuned script this could have been a good exercise in old school adventuring. As it stands it’s just disposable bunkum.

Young D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman) has dreams of being a musketeer, leaving his homestead to try and find glory in Paris. On arrival he quickly makes friends (after a brief misunderstanding) with the King’s Musketeers, Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans), a group of once great warriors now rendered obsolete thanks to the sly input of Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz), a man who craftily bends the will of France’s immature and naïve King Louis (Freddie Fox). Together D’Artagnan and the Musketeers discover a plot to throw France into a vicious war, a development that would allow the devious Richelieu to take control of the state. Banding together, the Musketeers must combat not only Richelieu’s soldiers but also a tricky double agent (Milla Jovovich) who has a mysterious connection with their past.

The screenplay is an overlong and stodgily penned mess, boasting some of the worst dialogue you’ll hear in a multiplex this year. It’s a wonder that the seasoned likes of Macfadyen, Waltz and Mads Mikkelsen (underused as Richelieu’s right-hand man) signed onto the project at all; even they struggle to make the lines provided by screenwriters Andrew Davies and Alex Litvak sound remotely acceptable. The storytelling isn’t much crisper and at nearly two hours the film outstays its welcome notably. The tone is so dumb and silly that it’s shocking to imagine anybody thought the picture should go on for longer than 80 minutes, yet Anderson stretches “The Three Musketeers” to breaking point, injecting far too many subplots and dull supporting characters into the mire, killing his film’s sense of pace in the process. Ultimately the screenplay is bad, but Anderson must be held accountable for the lack of intelligent editing evident, the filmmaker undercutting some of the movie’s more entertaining set-pieces with his commitment to tedium.

The mix of cast members here is bizarre, ranging from Oscar winners (Waltz) all the way to slovenly TV stars (James Cordon appears in the capacity of irritating comic relief). The Musketeers themselves aren’t outstanding, but they get the job done, Macfadyen and Luke Evans leaving the most amiable impression. The chemistry feels a little wanting in some segments, but each of the leading men showcase a commendable degree of physicality, a welcome touch during Anderson’s admittedly slick action beats. Lerman tries too hard to nail D’Artagnan’s roughish charisma, his turn coming over as smug and aggressively forced. Then there’s Orlando Bloom. Depicting the wormy Duke of Buckingham, Bloom hams it up ridiculously, delivering a performance comprised largely of misguided flamboyance. It’s not a decent piece of acting in the traditional sense, but it is oddly watchable, certainly he leaves more of an impression than the uncharacteristically ordinary Christoph Waltz on display here.

Anderson keeps the set-pieces chaotic and grand, although several of the combat sequences deserve props for ace choreography. “The Three Musketeers” certainly has the aesthetic of a major league blockbuster, Anderson utilizing majestic sets and vast amounts of CGI to accurately realise his own vision of the legendary world previously presented by Dumas. There’s a definite sense that the filmmakers want the picture to follow in the footsteps of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” saga, everything from the derivative musical score to the overall tone begging comparison with that aforementioned 21st Century cinematic juggernaut. Unfortunately thanks to several clumsy artistic touches “The Three Musketeers” has nothing on 2003’s epic “The Curse of the Black Pearl”, but it is a less offensive feature than this year’s nauseatingly awful fourth entry in the Pirates series “On Stranger Tides”. I guess for Anderson and company that’s a genuine plus to take away from the experience.

The script leaves things open for a franchise (although the conclusion feels too blunt), meaning that if the box-office goes smoothly this won’t be the last we see of the Musketeers. There’s potential here, but it’s probably going to take a sharper director than Paul W.S. Anderson to fully do the work off Dumas justice. Under his creative leadership it just reeks of mediocrity.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

9 October 2011

A quick note

This is just a note intended to apologise for the lack of substantive content on the blog over the last fortnight. Life has been extremely busy, my time and opportunities with which to indulge in film journalism having been notably limited over the past 14 days. I’m hoping that some sort of normal service might resume by November, but for the upcoming weeks updates and reviews will probably be sketchy and irregular. Your readership is always appreciated, and whilst the blog may be somewhat barren over the coming timeframe, I urge you to continue checking it out. I’m going nowhere on the long run.

P.S – A review of “The Debt” (released in UK cinemas last weekend) should be up shortly

26 September 2011

"Albatross" in cinemas October 14th!


“Albatross” is a coming of age story with sting. Featuring prime acting talent like Sebastian Koch (“The Lives of Others”), Julia Ormond (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”), Felicity Jones (“Cemetery Junction”) and Jessica Brown Findlay (TV’s “Misfits”), “Albatross” promises to be a powerful and amusing watch, strong early reviews indicating that this slice of British cinema is a winner.

The picture played at the Edinburgh Film Festival in June 2011, where it was warmly received, and will hit cinemas in the UK and Ireland on the 14th October 2011. “Albatross” is the story of Emelia (Jessica Brown Findlay) a rebellious teen and aspiring novelist. She befriends bookish and reserved Beth (Felicity Jones”), whilst also starting an affair with Beth’s father over their passionate and shared love of literature and writing. The plotline suggests that “Albatross” will be funny yet complex, a film with more on its mind than the usual generic coming of age trials and tribulations. Find out for yourself this October 14th when the feature hits cinemas nationwide. A US release has yet to be announced.

Sponsored Post

25 September 2011

Capsule Review: Blitz



2011, 97mins, 18
Director: Elliott Lester
Writer: Nathan Parker
Cast includes: Aidan Gillen, Jason Statham, Paddy Considine, Zawe Ashton, David Morrissey
UK Release Date: 20th May 2011

Jason Statham heads up this Brit thriller, which does just enough to outdo the majority of its dreary genre competition. Statham plays a cop with a hot head and some questionable methods, who is tasked with tracking down a serial killer called Blitz, a psychopath who specializes in murdering cops. Teamed with his homosexual partner Porter (Paddy Considine), he seeks to bring justice back to London’s streets.

“Blitz” isn’t a massively striking picture, and the screenplay by Nathan Parker probably tries to do too much in its moderate 97 minute frame, but the movie definitely deserves props for trying harder than most. The central narrative is engaging, whilst performances from Statham, Considine and Aidan Gillen (as the manic Blitz) are all well suited to their respective roles. The picture has an admirable energy, director Elliot Lester trying to infuse added human depth through the prejudice Considine suffers in the work environment and the Statham character enduring the onset of depression. A subplot involving a colleague of Statham’s fighting the battle against addiction never feels strictly necessary, but leaving that aside “Blitz” is a polished and enjoyable piece of work. It’s at least worth checking out on DVD or Blu-Ray.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

22 September 2011

Movie Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love



Crazy, Stupid, Love
2011, 118mins, 12
Director (s): Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Writer: Dan Fogelman
Cast includes: Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Analeigh Tipton, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Marisa Tomei, Kevin Bacon
UK Release Date: 23rd September 2011

There’s an honesty about the romantic comedy “Crazy, Stupid, Love” that makes it absolutely irresistible. Directed by John Requa and Glenn Ficarra (last year’s excellent “I Love You Phillip Morris”), the film is a bubbling pot of endearing screenwriting, detailed performances and comedic gold. With a plot that involves over half a dozen key characters and which runs at 118 minutes, one could be forgiven for assuming that “Crazy, Stupid, Love” is an overcooked, schmaltzy and drab effort, or more accurately the US equivalent of the painfully overrated Richard Curtis snoozer “Love Actually”. However whilst permissible, such presumptions would be wrong. “Crazy, Stupid, Love” is a phenomenally affecting and beautifully designed slice of Hollywood fantasy, a brave picture that understands heartbreak just as astutely as it does love.

After his wife Emily (Julianne Moore) confesses to infidelities and asks for a divorce, Cal Weaver (Steve Carell) is left hopelessly adrift in a world he doesn’t understand. Whilst rambling incoherently at a bar one evening, he draws the attention of Jacob (Ryan Gosling), a handsome lounge lizard with a gift for seducing women. Jacob takes pity on Cal and begins to teach him the tricks of the trade, helping the middle-aged loser to update his wardrobe and understand the fundamentals of scoring with attractive girls. Eventually Cal gets the knack of it, a parade of meaningless flings (including one with a lively Marisa Tomei) ensuing. Yet no matter how passionate the sex is Cal can’t seem to fill the void that Emily once so effortlessly occupied. Meanwhile Jacob is after feisty redhead Hannah (Emma Stone), his usual moves not having much of an effect on the spirited young woman. As he falls slowly in love and Cal pines for his old life, their two worlds become intertwined, leading to some interesting domestic dynamics.

The screenplay by Dan Fogelman is a gem, which in honesty is quite surprising. Fogelman has cut his teeth mostly on family fare in the past, none of it very good, his run of rancid hits including “Fred Claus” and “Cars 2”. However with “Crazy, Stupid, Love” the writer has transitioned into the world of adult cinema marvelously, crafting a deftly plotted and deeply engaging dramedy. Every character in this superlative movie is exquisitely rendered, Fogelman’s strong writing and a series of flawless performances contributing to concoct something truly special. “Crazy, Stupid, Love” is just as interested in exploring the downsides of romance as it is the highs, depicting its protagonists as vulnerable and often sad, each individual struggling with the load endowed upon them by Cupid. The picture is fiercely committed to having believable personalities at the fore, their actions fraught with mistakes and quirks. Of course “Crazy, Stupid, Love” has some degree of formula to adhere to (it is after all a mass market studio release), but the filmmakers unravel the story in the most charming and lovable fashion possible. It’s simply a joy.

Requa and Ficarra do superb work from behind the camera, turning “Crazy, Stupid, Love” into an attractively filmed, amusing and thematically rich affair. The duo’s sense of comedic timing is terrific, even if with “Crazy, Stupid, Love” they demonstrate a slightly less audacious style of humour than was present in “I Love You Phillip Morris”. In regards to joking, “Crazy, Stupid, Love” sticks more rigidly to standard Hollywood expectation than some of Requa and Ficarra’s other works, but that’s not to say it doesn’t inspire plenty of laughs. The picture may not be raunchy or politically incorrect, but it definitely delivers a plethora of witty dialogue and even some uproarious set-pieces. One such sequence takes place in Cal’s backyard, the directors utilizing shock value and coincidence to hysterical effect. “Crazy, Stupid, Love” is also a pleasantly edited and creatively shot feature, but it’s the filmmakers appreciation of funny business and truthful human connection that allows the movie to impact so heavily upon its audience.

The performances are uniformly outstanding. Steve Carell is sympathetic and subtly distraught as Cal, the actor sidelining his sharp comedy intuition for most of the film, only breaking it out when the script demands a moment of stellar delivery. Julianne Moore starts the film as a villain of sorts, but the actress quickly turns Emily into a complex victim of mundane living, deeply regretful concerning her actions and protective of her family. Gosling nails the hollowed out charmer routine, displaying both confidence and a nagging emptiness. The thespian also adjusts perfectly to the picture’s comic sensibilities when required, something I haven’t really seen him do in the past. Emma Stone rounds out the preliminaries, the actress once again showcasing why she’s a surefire bet to be the next big thing. She’s a true sweetheart, her ability to handle both silly and dramatic material once again leaving a stunning mark.

On the fringes of “Crazy, Stupid, Love” is a subplot concerning Cal’s son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) becoming infatuated with his older baby-sitter Jessica (Analeigh Tipton), who has in turn developed a confused crush on Cal. It’s a slightly less meaningful strain of storytelling than is evidenced in the rest of the movie, but it still entertains in a brisk fashion, before aiding the film’s soulful and immensely satisfying conclusion. Both Bobo and Tipton are tremendous (especially given their relative inexperience), further bolstering this masterful piece of work as a result.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” is an adorable motion picture. It’s mature, nuanced yet incredibly accessible, boasting a roster of characters and arcs that most viewers should have no trouble identifying with. After this and “I Love You Phillip Morris”, Requa and Ficarra have become filmmakers to watch and hopefully cherish; even in this early stage of their careers they are creating breathtakingly good cinema. I would recommend “Crazy, Stupid, Love” in a heartbeat, and can only hope that future generations come to respect it as the genre masterpiece it so clearly is.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

20 September 2011

Movie Review: Drive



2011, 100mins, 18
Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
Writer: Hossein Amini
Cast includes: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Ron Perlman, Albert Brooks, Christina Hendricks, Oscar Isaac
UK Release Date: 23rd September 2011

“Drive” premiered several months ago at the Cannes film festival, and has been picking up steam ever since. Director Nicolas Winding Refn (“Valhalla Rising”) was awarded the coveted “best director” gong at the event, whilst the film itself just narrowly missed out on the Palme d’Or. After viewing “Drive” it becomes easy to understand why the picture made such a fierce impression. A delicate merging of arty silence and Hollywood noir, “Drive” is a subtle and supremely tense endeavour. Beautifully filmed by Winding Refn (who thoroughly deserved his big moment at Cannes), the movie is a pleasure to behold, thanks in no small part to a restrained yet incredible central turn from Ryan Gosling.

Driver (Ryan Gosling) is a stuntman by day and a getaway maestro by night. Driver excels at aiding criminals in their petty jobs, his cool head and skill behind the wheel making him the ideal accomplice. It transpires that his boss Shannon (Bryan Cranston) has managed to broker a deal with some gangsters that will allow Driver to race cars for a living, but instead the sullen motorist is more interested in his neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her young son Benicio (Kaden Leos), forming a unique connection with this fragmented family unit. When Benicio’s father Standard (Oscar Isaac) returns from prison, he is initially suspicious of Driver, but soon turns to him for help. Standard owes a hefty amount of protection money, and has been ordered to rob a pawn shop so he can square his debts. Driver agrees to partake in the raid, chiefly to ensure Irene and Benicio’s safety, but things don’t go to plan. Standard and Driver are double crossed, leaving the latter in a web of violence and reckless evil.

Refn opens “Drive” with a phenomenally suspenseful yet refreshingly quiet chase sequence, detailing wonderfully the precision and intensity that define the feature’s central character. It’s an immersive scene from start to finish, setting up the required tone beautifully. “Drive” may involve shootouts and fast cars, but it remains a very restrained film, more reliant on its oddball soundtrack than chaotic sound design or ear shredding explosions. Refn cultivates a mood of intrigue and uncertainty, rifling through Hossein Amini’s screenplay stylishly and economically. “Drive” is a tight and highly atmospheric watch, primed with far more personality than the usual faceless multiplex fodder.

The performances are solid, with the exception being Gosling’s standout contribution. Even whilst doing very little, the actor expresses a lot, forming Driver into a monosyllabic yet complex screen entity. The film envisions Driver as an antihero from the beginning, contrasting his participation in criminal deeds with the ever warming dynamic he shares alongside Irene and Benicio. It’s a superb bit of work, understated but unquestionably meaty. Don’t be surprised if Gosling’s name echoes around Hollywood during the forthcoming Oscar season. Carey Mulligan is nearly as removed as Gosling, but still manages to permeate a lovable and sympathetic essence. Oscar Isaac and Christina Hendricks (portraying an associate of Standard’s) barely grace the picture, unfortunate given that both performers have respectable reputations. On the other hand screen veterans Brooks, Cranston and Ron Perlman (Brooks' partner in indecent behaviour) all deliver strong and memorable turns. “Drive” generally utilizes its eclectic cast well, adding extra vibrancy to Refn’s already stunningly photographed version of Los Angeles.

“Drive” doesn’t actually offer a vast amount of traditional motorway carnage, but what’s on show is still very cool. Refn shoots the action slickly and coherently, focusing on the fantastic stunts instead of soulless digital insertions. During its opening act “Drive” doesn’t offer much to offend beyond some fruity language, but the second half is a veritable bloodbath. Heads are blown apart, throats are slit and hammers are wielded in a worrisome fashion, lending “Drive” some serious edge beyond its sporadic instances of road rage. The sensitive are to be advised that Refn doesn’t hold back on the viscera and gore, in fact, by the end he aggressively revels in it. Of course it’s all just surface level coating for this moody noir, but potential audience members should be made aware of it before committing to the movie. “Drive” gets pretty brutal in parts.

Compared to Refn’s previous directorial venture “Valhalla Rising”, “Drive” is a breath of fresh air."Valhalla Rising”, whilst nobly assembled and picturesque, was a slog to get through, something that “Drive” could never be accused of during its skillfully structured 100 minutes. “Drive” is a brilliant film and a must-see for those in support of thrilling yet meditative cinematic product.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

18 September 2011

Movie Review: 30 Minutes or Less



30 Minutes or Less
2011, 83mins, 15
Director: Ruben Fleischer
Writer (s): Michael Diliberti, Matthew Sullivan
Cast includes: Jesse Eisenberg, Danny McBride, Aziz Ansari, Nick Swardson, Dilshad Vadsaria, Michael Pena
UK Release Date: 16th September 2011

In 2009 Ruben Fleischer made his feature directorial debut with “Zombieland”, an amusing farce that showcased a surprising degree of ambition from the novice filmmaker. It is peculiar then to observe him play it so safe with his sophomore effort “30 Minutes or Less”, the picture rarely striving to break convention. Sure the film has a vulgar potty mouth and a solid helping of raunchiness, but realistically it’s just a fluffy diversion, built to deliver a few laughs and entertain audiences over its wonderfully brief 83 minute runtime. So whilst it’s disappointing to watch Fleischer lower his aim here, there’s no denying that “30 Minutes or Less” actually makes good on its severely limited expectations. It’s a moderately fun flick, played gamely by an alert cast; but do you know what’s best of all? It gets the job done in under an hour and a half.

Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) is well into his twenties, yet still spends his days smoking weed and delivering pizzas for a living. His buddy Chet (Aziz Ansari) and crush Kate (Dilshad Vadsaria) are moving on with their lives, but Nick remains stuck in his adolescent ways. Whilst on the job one evening, Nick is taken hostage by Dwayne (Danny McBride) and Travis (Nick Swardson), a pair of nincompoops who need Nick in order to enact a convoluted inheritance scam. They require a professional assassin to kill Dwayne’s wealthy father (Fred Ward), but before that they need $100,000 to pay him. Strapping a bomb to Nick’s chest, the goons order him to rob a bank and attain their loot, giving the frightened slacker 10 hours to complete the mission. Nick cajoles Chet into helping him, together planning out a robbery far beyond their skill or intelligence. Things turn from bad to worse when the disillusioned professional killer Chango (Michael Pena) rolls into town, keen to dispatch of everyone involved with Dwayne’s ludicrous scheming.

There’s really not that much to be said about “30 Minutes or Less”. It’s an efficient, slightly above average studio comedy, which offers some good jokes, but is unlikely to linger long in the memory. Both doubles acts featured in the movie are appealing; Eisenberg and Ansari making for a particularly unusual but well matched team. Ansari is the shining star, the comedian making the most out of his material with a frenzied and jocose turn. After his excellent but stern performance in “The Social Network” last year, it’s refreshing to see Eisenberg taking himself less seriously again, although his relaxed performance here isn’t as strong as his neurotic rambling from “Zombieland”. Fleischer never gives viewers any real insight into these characters, thus robbing “30 Minutes or Less” of any true weight, but I doubt that was ever really on his directorial agenda. Instead he probably just wanted the movie to have two entertaining and vibrant protagonists, with some solid chemistry thrown into the mix. If that’s the case then he has succeeded.

Swardson and McBride are good fun, although their various improvisations feel less consistently inventive than those shared between Eisenberg and Ansari. McBride also still appears determined to play the same character in every movie; something I had hoped might’ve changed after the deservedly uninspired response to his last film “Your Highness”. Still, for the purposes of this simple tale his idiot routine is ample, and he shares a respectable onscreen bond with Swardson. “30 Minutes or Less” is enthusiastically helmed by Fleischer, who stages several well handled car chases and continues to demonstrate an admirable understanding of comic timing. The bank robbery set-piece delivers in the giggle department, as do several other sequences in the movie. I would never describe “30 Minutes or Less” as being hysterical, but it is frequently merry.

The romantic angle shoved into the screenplay doesn’t really work (although it provides Eisenberg to flex his dramatic muscles a bit), but given the picture’s already brief length it’s not a major concern. “30 Minutes or Less” is well intentioned nonsense, a watchable and serviceable comedic endeavour. If in 6 months time you’re struggling to elect something to rent on a Friday night, this minor caper should fill the hole adequately.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

17 September 2011

Movie Review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy



Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
2011, 127mins, 15
Director: Tomas Alfredson
Writer (s): Peter Straughan, Bridget O’Connor, John le Carré (novel)
Cast includes: Gary Oldman, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, Toby Jones, Tom Hardy
UK Release Date: 16th September 2011

“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” oozes class from every frame, but that’s hardly surprising when you consider the personnel behind it. The director is Tomas Alfredson, who was last seen helming the universally acclaimed vampire chiller “Let the Right One In”. It’s based on a novel by John le Carré. The cast features some of the finest actors currently inhabiting the British film industry, including Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch and Mark Strong. So yeah, the pedigree on this one is high. “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is a satisfying and hugely intelligent movie, perhaps a little overstuffed with subplots and vital narrative details, but audiences with a decent concentration span and a desire to be impressed will feel rewarded by the time it concludes.

With the Cold War raging, the upper echelons of MI6 have become convinced that a mole is lurking amongst their ranks. George Smiley (Gary Oldman) is quietly recruited to try and ascertain the identity of the double agent, returning to the world of espionage for the first time since his dismissal several years prior. Using his right-hand man Peter (Benedict Cumberbatch) as a link to the Secret Service, Smiley begins to examine all the possibilities, quickly realizing that the traitor is one of five men, all of whom are highly regarded officials within MI6. Using various contacts and his own impressive methods of deduction, Smiley and Peter scramble to uncover the Russian contact before it’s too late.

Gary Oldman is terrific in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”, delivering a nuanced and phenomenally thoughtful turn as George Smiley. Oldman, a performer regularly in favour of cartoonish excess, dials it down to zero here, providing a quiet yet powerful dosage of high calibre acting. Smiley is the critical character within le Carré’s labyrinth of espionage, Oldman evoking both a steely professionalism and an unsettled emotional core with only the most minimal of acting tics. It’s a strong piece of work, fully rounded and complex, without ever slipping into the realms of nothingness. The supporting cast also happen to be excellent, albeit several of them have to contend with considerably less interesting roles. As some of Smiley’s suspects, Firth and Strong are impeccable, the former concocting a particularly enjoyable yet oddly silent relationship with Smiley, the two men jousting over romance and affairs of the heart. “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is actually a relatively cold picture, fixated on the intricacies of its clever plot rather than the discontentment of its characters. For that reason the Firth/Oldman dynamic becomes invaluable, as does an arc involving a supposed deserter portrayed by the ever watchable Tom Hardy. These decidedly more humanized components provide critical relief from Alfredson’s otherwise meticulously focused yet emotionally hollow interpretation of this tale. Thankfully the director has assembled a cast good enough to make mountains out of what little character development gets thrown their way.

The screenplay by Peter Straughan (“How to Lose Friends and Alienate People”) and Bridget O’Connor ( Straughan’s recently deceased writing partner) condenses the story effectively, although audiences should be warned a lot goes on within its 127 minutes. “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is a slow moving beast, filled with subtle twists and fringe players, meaning that switching your brain off before viewing isn’t an option. It’s a complex and serious slice of intrigue, and perhaps in sections somewhat overcooked. Audiences should be thankful that “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” treats them with respect and delivers a generally gripping spy story, but there’s no denying it can be difficult to keep pace with all the film’s clever little flourishes. In that respect it’s oddly reminiscent of last year’s “Inception”, another crowd-pleasing effort which blessed its viewership with so much, but at times possibly seemed too smart for its own good. I feel like an idiot for criticizing a movie for being clever (lord knows more Hollywood product needs to be), but within the 127 minute timeframe some of the feature’s cunning feels a little trapped. The script remains a treat, but “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” might have been slicker had it evened out its load over a beefier runtime.

The cinematography and musical score are both of the utmost quality, Alfredson going to great lengths in order to secure a believable sense of place and gloomy paranoia. Much like with “Let the Right One In” the filmmaker displays a commendable range of creatively structured shots, helping to distance “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” from more formulaic entries within its genre. There’s a nicely framed segment that encompasses a range of rooms in an apartment, whilst the central room in MI6 headquarters is basked in a surreal and distinctive golden glow. Alfredson also opts for many close-up shots, helping to eke out every contour on his talented casts’ faces to maximize their already startling performances.

“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is a lengthy and tiring sit, but it does offer an absorbing way to spend two hours. When measured against “Let the Right One In” (and I’m the first to admit that’s a crude comparison) it probably falls just short. However when more directly assessed against its current multiplex competition the film is a safe bet, Alfredson and his talented cast having assembled a compelling and substantive cinematic buffet.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

16 September 2011

Movie Review: The Change-Up



The Change-Up
2011, 112mins, 15
Director: David Dobkin
Writer (s): Jon Lucas, Scott Moore
Cast includes: Jason Bateman, Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Mann, Olivia Wilde, Alan Arkin
UK Release Date: 16th September 2011

“The Change-Up” is an incredibly disposable comedy, elevated slightly thanks to two amusing central performances. Written by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore (the dynamic duo behind “The Hangover”), “The Change-Up” utilizes one of the stalest comedic formulas around, the body swap. Fortunately the picture has Jason Bateman and Ryan Reynolds heading things up, two different yet equally talented performers, both willing to give their all in an attempt to make the so-so script work. The concept is ultimately too creaky to totally overcome, but thanks to the sharp (albeit rarely likable) leads, the film is at least mildly tolerable in spots.

Dave (Jason Bateman) is a hardworking family man with job obligations that never cease. Mitch (Ryan Reynolds) is an out of work actor who lives like a child, shunning all of his responsibilities, including a relationship with his lonely father (Alan Arkin). Despite their differing lifestyles, Mitch and Dave happen to be longtime best friends. After a night of drinking, the pair blabber identical confessions whilst urinating in a fountain, each wishing they had the others life. The next morning Mitch wakes up beside Dave’s wife Jamie (Leslie Mann), whilst Dave finds himself shacked up in Mitch’s unkempt apartment. It transpires the fountain from the night before possessed mystical powers, granting their wishes by instigating a good old fashioned body swap. Desperate to reverse the predicament, the boys find the fountain missing, forcing them to live as each other until it can be located. For Mitch that means tackling Dave’s demanding job and enduring the more challenging elements of family life. Dave on the other hand is granted freedom for the first time in years, rediscovering his thirst for thrills through sexy co-worker Sabrina (Olivia Wilde).

The screenplay does a pretty poor job of making the characters engaging, one of them happens to be a loathsomely selfish womanizer, the other a stern and work obsessed goober. However through their inherent charms and combined comedic prowess Reynolds and Bateman render these fools digestible, both men bringing energy and neat improvisational touches to the picture. It’s also enjoyable to watch both actors play slightly against type, Bateman tearing into the manic and inconsiderate persona with relish for the first two thirds of the movie, whilst Reynolds looks to be having fun portraying a quieter and more socially adjusted character for a change. Any problems that exist within “The Change-Up” (and believe me there are quite a few) can’t be traced back to either of these talents. Bateman and Reynolds give the material a good old college try here, a respectable feat given that the script is clearly well below both their abilities.

The gags are moderately ticklish at best, and excruciatingly unfunny at their worst. Some of the interplay between Dave and Mitch makes for quality entertainment, but the larger comic set-pieces tend to underwhelm. There are moments that reek of desperation, namely a porno sequence, which basically plays out as one long, vulgar and slightly homophobic character reaction. Director David Dobkin isn’t really setting the strongest of tones when he opens the picture with a baby projectile pooping into Jason Bateman’s mouth, lazy humour like this killing the feature’s buzz pretty fast. “The Change-Up” is an astoundingly broad piece of work, more reliant on boobs, F-bombs and masturbation cracks than any truly decent comedy should be. There are laughs to be had, but they’re mostly to do with the ace Bateman/Reynolds pairing at the picture’s core, and less to do with Lucas and Moore’s uninspired written contribution.

David Dobkin has proven himself a problematic filmmaker in the past, after all his most recent offering prior to this was the foul festive stinker “Fred Claus”. His timing with punch lines is definitely more alert here (say what you will about the “Change-Up”, but its script is far superior to that of “Fred Claus”), yet his overall pacing of the product leaves much to be desired. At 112 minutes “The Change-Up” is profoundly overcooked, Dobkin drawing the picture out aggressively to try and lend some naturalism to the sentimental conclusion. Again Reynolds and Bateman have no trouble competing with the story’s syrupy finale (in fact they’re each quite affecting), but the movie as a whole has no justification to go grappling for a meaningful emotional core. It’s simply too vulgar and silly for the majority of its runtime, the paper thin characterization on show not helping much either. “The Change-Up” strives to be taken seriously during its climax, but sadly no audience is going to buy it as a tale of redemption or spiritual awakening.

Visually the film feels like a sitcom (ditto for Dobkin’s other directorial fumbles), although I suppose that’s not entirely inappropriate given the movie’s forgettable nature. “The Change-Up” provides a few chortles and promises further reasons to back Bateman and Reynolds in the future, but ultimately leaves virtually no discernible impression. A word should probably be spared for the film’s amiable supporting cast (Mann, Wilde and Arkin are all competent), but even they’re not enough to push the picture beyond its obvious limitations as a raunchy helping of DVD fodder. It’s not entirely unpleasant, but I can’t in good conscience recommend that you actively seek out “The Change-Up”.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011

DVD Review: Stake Land



Review Link:

Blu-Ray Review: Sleepers



Review Link:

12 September 2011

"The Holding" on DVD now!


“The Holding” arrives on DVD today, moving on from the short theatrical release it enjoyed this weekend past. Crafted on a tight £3,000,000 budget, the picture is suspenseful affair, with a motley crew of local British thespians propping proceedings up. “The Holding” marks the feature length debut of helmer Susan Jacobson, a filmmaker with plenty of hands on technical experience in the British film industry. This expertise and the picture’s tightly wound premise should result in a rewardingly gripping viewing experience.

“The Holding” is a chilling thriller set on a farm in the Peak District, the movie managing its budgetary constraints by shooting in beautiful and authentic locations. On DVD the scenery is sure to look sprightly, adding to the calibre of the production at large. “The Holding “is currently available to buy on amazon.co.uk for £9.99, where as of this date, it boasts a perfect 5-star user rating. The film stars Terry Stone (“Rise of the Foot Soldier”), Georgia Groome (Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging”), David Bradley (the “Harry Potter” franchise) and Vincent Regan (“Clash of the Titans”).

sponsored post, 2011

11 September 2011

Movie Review: Friends with Benefits



Friends with Benefits
2011, 109mins, 15
Director: Will Gluck
Writer (s): Will Gluck, David A. Newman, Keith Merryman, Harley Peyton
Cast includes: Mila Kunis, Justin Timberlake, Richard Jenkins, Woody Harrelson, Jenna Elfman, Emma Stone, Patricia Clarkson
UK Release Date: 9th September 2011

When one of a comedy’s biggest laughs comes from an obvious reference to its director’s previous film, it’s probably safe to say things haven’t gone exactly to plan. In the opening few minutes of “Friends with Benefits” we are gifted a brief callback to Will Gluck’s last feature, more specifically 2010’s refreshing “Easy A”. On the surface “Friends with Benefits” does have several things in common with Gluck’s well regarded sophomore venture. Firstly the best performance clearly comes from the female lead, in “Easy A” that was the delightful Emma Stone (who incidentally cameos in “Friends with Benefits”); here it’s the equally illuminating Mila Kunis. Secondly the movie looks sharper than your average Hollywood product. During “Easy A” Gluck demonstrated inventive flourishes to showcase the spread of gossip in a school environment; in “Friends with Benefits” he uses similar touches to capture the hubbub and craziness of New York. Thirdly both films are overstuffed and excessively long. However thanks to a spicy and amusing script, the editorial problems with “Easy A” were forgivable. “Friends with Benefits” on the other hand is a very different story. The screenplay is a disappointingly witless and static endeavour, lacking both the charm and insight which allowed “Easy A” to so readily impress. Instead “Friends with Benefits” is plagued by an infuriating tone of superiority; the picture’s soft mocking of rom-com clichés somehow making it appear cleverer than it actually is.

Dylan (Justin Timberlake) is brought to New York by headhunter Jamie (Mila Kunis), the latter hoping the LA based art director can fill a vital position at GQ. Dylan gets the job, but soon finds life lonesome in NYC, turning to Jamie for friendship in his strange new home. The pair click, a plutonic bond forming with comfortable ease, but it isn’t long before Jamie and Dylan start to view each other in sexual terms. Both have endured a string of shoddy relationships, and are thusly determined to keep their arrangement purely physical, using each other exclusively for the purposes of friendly banter and carnal pleasure. Predictably however, emotions start entering into the equation, bringing an unwelcome yet unavoidable sense of intimacy to the pair’s romping.

“Friends with Benefits” has its heart in the right place, which I suppose is something. The picture is neither vile nor offensive in execution (unlike some other recent bawdy rom-coms), instead aiming to represent its protagonists’ relationship in a natural and engaging light. However the largely laugh free screenplay and trite storytelling undermine such ambitions, leaving “Friends with Benefits” as little more than an overwrought bore. Kunis and Timberlake connect adequately (the former actually applying an excellent genre performance), but there’s no overcoming such a blandly derivative script. The film goes exactly where you expect, and takes an age to do it. At 109 minutes “Friends with Benefits” is stretched far beyond reason, the filmmakers finding bizarre editorial detours to enable the film’s bloated runtime.

Despite his disappointing refusal to enforce any form of obvious cutting, Gluck does at least frame “Friends with Benefits” professionally. The picture has a slick and attractive palette, the filmmaker exploiting both his photogenic stars and bustling locations to pleasant effect. Jamie and Dylan’s bedroom dalliances are also nicely presented, Gluck finding an otherwise absent aura of energy and comedic rhythm during the sex scenes. Kunis and Timberlake aren’t afraid to get stuck in, embracing both the picture’s naughtiness and underlying sweetness. Leaving these more physical set-pieces aside, “Friends with Benefits” is actually an incredibly cumbersome comedy, lacking in spark or innovative comedic intuition. For example the film features Woody Harrelson (whom I’m usually fond of) hamming it up as a homosexual caricature. Harrelson in fairness attacks the part with gusto, but the very idea of his role is simply too moldy and unadventurous to work. It’s this sort of misstep that reoccurs again and again in “Friends with Benefits”, robbing the picture of respectability in the humour department.

“Friends with Benefits” adopts a very snarky attitude when it comes to referencing its own genre, poking fun at numerous rom-com conventions which are simply beyond the realms of expectation in the real world. At the start this isn’t much of a problem (indeed it even allows for a dig at 2009’s rancid “The Ugly Truth”) but as the movie meanders on, it becomes a point of frustration. The observations noted aren’t particularly erudite to begin with, but watching “Friends with Benefits” adopt such a self-righteous personality before devolving into exactly the sort of mush it seeks to lampoon is pretty annoying. The movie’s lack of imagination or kick renders it just as sterile as the mounds of drivel it targets, leaving it stranded in a swamp of unwelcome hypocrisy. I welcome the attempt, but next time the filmmakers had better pay more attention to the calibre of their own art before they start degrading somebody else’s.

Mila Kunis is fabulous. The cinematography is better than average. It’s not overrun by sickening chauvinism or a devotion to piggish ideals (basically it’s not “The Ugly Truth”). However “Friends with Benefits” is infected by limp gags, formulaic plotting, poor pacing and a nasty strain of piety. You could definitely do worse, but you could also just revisit “Easy A”. Better luck next time Mr. Gluck.

A Review by Daniel Kelly, 2011