Cold In July

Jim Mickle's three films so far (Mulberry Street, Stake Land and We Are What We Are) have all been competent well directed efforts that no-one has bothered to see (though Stake Land has since been picked up on the cult circuit). Cold In July should raise his profile considerably, though it's clear he's had a battle to make a coherent film out of Joe R. Lansdale's novel. To say too much about the plot in this crime-thriller would be to spoil many of the twists, but the film begins with Richard Dane (Michael C. Hall) accidentally taking out an intruder in his home. Though no charges are bought against Dane, the intruder's father (a recently paroled convict played by Sam Shepard) begins to menacingly stalk Dane and his family. This though is just a jumping off point for a story that goes off in all sorts of unexpected directions, from a touch of comic relief with the excellent Don Johnson as a Southern P. I. (Billy Bob Luke, of course) to a moment where the plot diverts into highly disturbing snuff film territory. Six Feet Under and Dexter veteran Hall is believable as the average Joe, helping to banish the memories of most of his big screen career thus far (hello Gamer). However, this is all about Mickle's direction and a film that has more genre and tone shifts in any production you'll see outside of the South Korean market. Whether he succeeds or not depends on how well you can cope with the ever changing tempo's and rhythms as the film unfolds. Overall this is highly entertaining, though a couple of things do stick in the craw. First is that the film concludes with a cinematic standard which, though thrilling in parts (and artistic - look for the moment the screen becomes red filtered following the splashing of a lone light bulb in human claret) it seems too easy a wrapping up for the complexities that have informed the characters up until that point. Plus, comment must be made about the overbearing 1980's style synth score. Though faithful to the period the film is set, it's completely out of context with the content of the film itself and an unwelcome distraction throughout. Rating: 7/10.

Bad Neighbours

Nicholas Stoller's last three films as director have been Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him To The Greek and The Five Year Engagement, so you'll be unsurprised to hear that Bad Neighbours doesn't venture far from the formula inherent in those movies, i.e. bawdy humour, physical pratfalls, with a touch of human emotion thrown in. The set up is simple: A couple (Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne) with a young baby have their lives (well, their sleep patterns) turned upside down when the neighbours from hell move in next door to them. In this case said tormentors take the form of a college fraternity (led by Zac Efron) well known for their outrageous behaviour and parties. What starts off as mutual friendship between the houses, soon spills into all out war. As the poster aptly puts it: It's Family v Frat. The film is basically an assortment of, mainly funny, set pieces as the protagonists do their best to antagonise each other. Scripters Andrew J. Cohen and Brendan O'Brien's attempts to add a dramatic touch by showing the strain that the situation is having on Rogan and Byrne's relationship doesn't really work (it hardly needs some party boys next door to exacerbate the pressure a young couple with their first child go through), plus Rogan as an actor just can't garner sympathy unlike, say, Stoller's old mucker Jason Segel can. This was a calculated approach by the writers as they felt things would have got too repetitive, but it's clear they would have got by on the gags alone, from some nice one-liners ("The old people have the upper hand!") to a Simpsons-esque scene where a doctor informs the couple that their baby may have HIV. On the acting front Byrne takes the plaudits, continuing to show she has great comic chops and even the usually painful Lisa Kudrow adds some laughs as a non-plussed college dean. If this is your type of comedy you'll come away happy, but Rogan's standard shtick is starting to outstay it's welcome and though this delivers exactly what you'd expect, Stoller's latest can't shake the feeling that we've done this dance many times already over the past few years. Rating: 7/10.

Godzilla / The Fault In Our Stars / Chef / As Above So Below

An eclectic mix of films here to briefly go over, all falling within the solid if like that sort of thing bracket, but unlikely to elicit second viewings. First up is Gareth Edwards new take on Godzilla - a genre in itself. You'll be aware of the irony of Edwards taking this on as his sophomore effort as his debut feature, the slightly over praised Monsters, featured very little in the way of creature action. Edwards sticks to that blue-print here, giving us a slow and lengthy build up to the main engagements of the film. This isn't a problem and it's well marshalled by Edwards, and the main twist of the film has been nicely disguised pre-release. The drawbacks begin with the analysis of the script, which treatments from numerous writers (Frank Darabont and David S. Goyer amongst them). Edwards has said that Jaws has been an influence on this film, which is clearly covered by the drip-drip build up, but, whereas Jaws had fully developed protagonists we cared about whilst we were waiting for the mayhem to occur, not much effort has been made in Godzilla to flesh out the characters. There's just the standard Hollywood family tragedy back story applied and this is one of those films were anyone could have taken on the main roles and the film would have been exactly the same. Overall it looks and sounds great, and though it can't be denied that Edwards has honoured the legacy of Godzilla, it's just a shame he didn't do it via a more entertaining film. Moving on from monsters we tackle a genre that many people find monstrous - that of the dramedy concerning serious illness. The Fault In Our Stars (based on the book by John Green) stars up and comer Shailene Woodley as a teenage cancer sufferer who meets and falls in love with fellow afflicted teenager Ansel Elgort. Teenagers (or the easily manipulated emotionally) will lap this up and it will certainly do the trick for its intended audience. Director Josh Boone doesn't rock the boat and just simply joins the dots from scene to scene and Woodley and Elgort certainly click as the main couple, though Elgort does come across as unbearably smug at times. That's down to the script though, which touches on pretentiousness and is also a little cold in it's engineering of the tears. Plus, as an examination of cancer it's laughably trite - these are the healthiest looking people you'll ever see suffering from the dreaded illness. Moving on, it's food time in Chef as Jon Favreau stars as professional cook Carl who, following an altercation with a restaurant critic, quits his high profile job in order to start over again on the culinary front in the form of his own food truck. As you'd expect the nosh on show looks amazing and this is well acted (Hello John Leguizamo!), with a number of decent comic moments. The script is a bit muddled though (at times it could be a documentary about an examination of how modern social media can make or break a person / business), with the family dynamic as clichéd as it comes and the sticky feel good ending is just plain daft. Faverau's cronyism also means we have Robert Downey Jr. stinking the place out with a conceited cameo. Director Favreau  has stepped back from the glare of blockbuster territory with this low budget effort and whilst it's a passable film, Favreau himself has stated he pretty much made it for himself. No doubt he's earned the right to do that, but whether the general public will indulge is a different matter. Finally, time for a few silly thrills in John Erick Dowdle's As Above, So Below. This is Dowdle's first film since 2010's Devil and he continues the theme of supernatural shenanigans directing from a script penned with his brother as we follow a team of young explorers as they venture into the catacombs below the streets of Paris. Yep, you've guessed it, before long strange things begin to occur. This wasn't screened in advance for critics, but it's not that bad an effort. With it's eye catching poster, this also employs the current dynamic for horror films: Low budget, no name stars (though look for the chap that bears an uncanny resemblance to a young Ruud van Nistelrooy) and healthy box office returns. It also has an authentic touch, as the film was actually shot within the real catacombs of France's capital. That trivia aside, plot wise its eye-rollingly stupid at times (look for the moment when the characters stumble upon some handily placed cleaning products!), but at least it avoids the dark and ambiguous endings that have somewhat blighted recent horror productions. Rating for all films: 6/10.

Edge Of Tomorrow

Doug Liman is supposedly a massive pain in the arse, which would go some way to explaining his hardly prolific output since his 1994 debut Getting In. The excellent Swingers and Go followed soon after, but he hasn't really made a memorable film since then (Bourne only really got going when Paul Greengrass arrived on the scene) with 2010's poor Fair Game suggesting Liman's early promise had been lost for good. Time for a surprise though as his new film Edge Of Tomorrow (though its somewhat confusingly been pushed as Live. Die. Repeat. on the marketing front) is big screen entertainment and Liman's best since that mid to late 90's heyday. Based on Hiroshi Sakurazaka's novel All You Need Is Kill, the film is based in the near future where aliens have had their standard fun following an invasion but, hurrah(!), the humans are staging a fight back. However, some are more reluctant than others to get their hands dirty and when Major William Cage (Tom Cruise), an army PR man with no combat experience, attempts to blackmail his way our of fighting for the cause he is forced into battle, soon becoming brown bread. So that's the "Live" and "Die" bits covered then. Soon comes the "Repeat" as Cage is resurrected and starts his mission over again before croaking it once more. We're in time loop territory here and on each of his life cycles, with the help of real soldier Vrataski (Emily Brunt), his knowledge of fighting the aliens improves with the aim of finally defeating the imposters. You can take your pick of film mash ups here (Independence Day v Groundhog Day et al), but Liman brings a freshness to the film and, for a subject matter that revolves around repeated killing, it's surprisingly funny. That freshness comes from the way the story is crafted. Initially the audience's knowledge is on a par with Cage's, but a sudden piece of sleight of hand in the middle (slowly revealed by Cruise and Blunt's excellent acting - both using body language to intimate unsaid things) reveals that we're now possibly hundreds or thousands of "repeats" into the future. From then on we have only snippets of conversation that hint at what's happened over the "repeats" with a nod to Cage's and Vrataski's back stories. It's surprising that the script has turned out so nicely balanced as there were problems with the screenplay before and during the shoot (Liman actually started filming before an ending was even penned in), but everything has turned out for the best. On the acting front Cruise is genuinely convincing as a coward thrown into a terrifying situation, plus the smart narrative solves the usual credibility stretching problem of the man on the street becoming a gun-toting hero within two hours of the running time. Blunt is great as the kick-ass soldier and what a joy to finally see a kosher strong female character in a film like this. You also get a fun cameo from Bill Paxton as a no-nonsense army Sergeant (somewhat amazingly the first film starring Paxton and Cruise together, so a new link for fans of the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game). On the down side, the alien creatures are portrayed as such vicious speedy killers when any of them are killed its somewhat unbelievable and the film goes off the rails slightly right at the end (it's painfully apparent that some of the final "outdoor" scenes are being shot internally), but overall this is great fun, keeping you on the edge of your seat throughout and it has the greatest moment involving a hand grenade pin since Leon. Rating: 8/10.

Sabotage / Fury

I've linked these reviews together for a purpose, that being to highlight what an odd choice David Ayer was to direct Fury, a film supposedly showing the bleakness of war and it's human side at the same time. Ayer doesn't do subtlety, so why, especially when you consider his back catalogue, was he chosen for Hollywood's latest stab at humanising the horror's of war? Let's start with Sabotage though, Ayer's previous film to Fury and Arnold Schwarzenegger's next film in his (not really cheered by anyone) return to mainstream films. It tells the story of an elite (aren't they all?) drugs task force led by Arnie who, following some pilfering of a cartels moolah, find themselves being bumped off one by one by unknown forces. It's basically Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None with added swearing, violence and gore. What's frustrating is that there's a good film in here somewhere, but Ayer doesn't have the subtlety or patience to explore it further, though Ayer himself claims that the studio cut the film to make it resemble an action film as opposed to a mystery thriller. Whatever the truth, no-one comes out shining from this, but one prize the film does win though is an entry into the worst line of the year category. Brace yourselves: "Some of us are getting paid, the rest of us are just getting dead". Try and say that with a straight face at your next audition. To be fair, this isn't actually a really terrible film and if you like Arnie and this kind of thing you should get by. Leaving Sabotage behind, let's move on to Fury and return to my original question. Is the man behind Harsh Times, Street Kings, End Of Watch and, yes, Sabotage, really the person you'd hand the reigns to for a mature consideration of some of the world's darkest years? I think the end result speaks for itself. A quick summation is that we follow a US tank crew (lead by Brad Pitt) as it rumbles into the heart of Nazi Germany during the latter months of the war. Much has already been written about Ayer and Pitt's research into tank warfare and the conflict in general, but they appear to have jettisoned it all in favour of producing a movie that more often than not resembles a video game and appears to be designed for the Marvel crowd. What veterans of the conflict would make of this fantasy rubbish I dread to think. Before you go off on one with the old "..but it's a film" defence (I myself use that all the time), the main reason for my annoyance is that Ayer and Pitt have promoted the film as being the complete opposite of what they've actually constructed. The claim is that Fury isn't really concerned with action or any event in particular, but more a portrayal of the people involved in the conflict, concentrating particularly on Pitt's tank crew. If that's the case, why then is there virtually no examination of the characters or, and this is something Ayer and Pitt really pushed in interviews, life inside the tank itself? If that is the kind of film you do want to see, then check out Samuel Maoz's vastly superior Lebanon instead. What you have here is the "war is hell" mantra shoved down your throat by one of the most unsubtle directors working today. Faces are blown off, heads disintegrate, children are found hanged and people cut open fresh horse carcases for meat. Shame that such carnage isn't equalised out by a script that addresses the lives of the protagonists, as there is little characterisation regarding the Allies and the Germans are just embarrassing "Hun" standard stereotypes. Laziness permeates throughout, from the majority of the tanks crew (Shia LaBeouf, Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal) mumbling their lines so much it resembles a Bane convention at times to a scene at the end that flicks from daylight to night time in about five seconds of screen time with no logical explanation. This is light years away from Saving Private Ryan (arguably it's most comparable challenger for the balance of horror, action and appraisal of character) and, judging by the reports of how much the cast loved being directed by hard task master Ayer, comes across as no more than jobs for the boys. Sabotage Rating: 5/10. Fury Rating: 4/10.

Blue Ruin

Jeremy Saulnier's debut film was the love it or hate it Murder Party back in 2007. The good news for Saulnier was that enough people must have enjoyed it for him to get a second crack at the big screen (albeit a number of years later). It's also good news for the cinema going public as Blue Ruin is one of the thrillers of the year. A slow moving story of revenge punctuated with scenes of tension and high violence, Saulnier's film has struggled to get a mainstream release and returned only average box office. I would say that's a travesty, but hardly surprising given that (political comment alert!) film audiences are becoming less cerebral year on year. Though the producers do have themselves somewhat to blame as well, what with the awkward film title and marketing campaign that at times just seemed to centre around a bearded hobo in a vest. Said vagrant is Dwight Evans (Macon Blair) who, on hearing that the man who murdered his parents is to be released from prison, returns to his home town in order to gain brutal revenge. However, when things don't go quite to plan Evans finds himself in a desperate battle against the local hoodlums who want to bump him off and his estranged family. To say more would be to spoil what is a cracking film, told with economy and efficiency by Saulnier. Where the film really works is that Saulnier's script is the inverse to the perfectly planned "hit". Everything's a struggle for Dwight, from the moment he steals a gun, swiftly followed by the realisation he won't be able to use it, to a hilarious moment at one of the film's key points where he's interrupted by someone asking him to pass the Ketchup. It's nice touches like this from Saulnier's writing that give this a real-life feel as opposed to watching fiction. Overall there's comparison with the Coen Brothers (and I'm taking good Coen Brothers here) what with the moments of black comedy and fierceness (brace yourself for one of the most gruesome head shots since John Hillcoat's The Proposition) mixed in with the straightforward narrative. Blair is great in the lead role, his everyday man looks (think Nathan Lane meets Kermit The Frog) just adding to the feel that this could be a tangible tale you'd read in the paper one day. No doubt this is destined to become a cult favourite, with a number of quotable on-liners, not least when Dwight, showing that this is a tragedy at heart, utters "You know what's awful? Just 'cause my Dad loved your Mum, we all end up dead....and he was right". This is film making for adults at its best. Rating: 8/10.

How To Train Your Dragon 2

Unless it's a blatant standalone story (a la Pixar's Up) the one guaranteed thing that a money spinning animated film will bring is the inevitable follow up a few years later down the line. So Dreamworks' 2010 success How To Train Your Dragon begats 2014's How To Train Your Dragon 2: Train Harder. I've made that strap-line up by the way, but the fact Dreamworks couldn't be bothered with a sub-heading just shows that they already know they have the audience in the palm of their hands following the first film's success. The good news is they haven't been complacent with the final production though. Dean DeBlois, co-director of the first film, takes the reigns all on his own this time out whilst also penning the screenplay as well. He can be pleased with his efforts. A simple summation of the plot has a now older Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) meeting his long lost mother and the villagers under attack from a big bad who can control dragons at whim. The film is a success as it builds on the first outing, developing the overall story and doesn't revert to rehashing the same jokes. Despite a number of great laughs (including arguably the most adult (and funniest) gag regarding homosexuality in an animated film for quite some time) the tone here is also a lot darker, with a third act that has an emotional and hard edge that comes as quite a shock. Visuals wise this is the first Dreamworks film made using "scalable multi-core processing", so there's one for you if you're ever struggling for a chat up line. Joking aside, such is the quality of virtually all animated films these days I think you'd have to watch the two films back to back to see if your peepers can spot the difference. Something that isn't quality is the bete noire of modern day cinema: 3D. I hate it at the best of times, but its calibre here is very suspect, affecting the (visual) focus of the film on numerous occasions, particularly during the first 10 minutes. Other downers are the surprising (considering the rest of the film) lack of thought that has gone into Djimon Hounsou's villainous Drago (he looks like he was drawn up over a sandwich at lunchtime and bears a resemblance to a Gene Simmons / Al Pacino love child) and some members of the audience might find the script a bit too heavy on the family dynamic when there's battles that could be fought instead (on that note, look for a neat twist on the fire from the nostrils standard). Whether this leaves you yearning for more or not, you'll be unsurprised to hear that How To Train Your Dragon 3: Train Hard With A Vengeance is already in the pipeline. Rating: 7/10.