Sleepers * * * 1/2

Director: Barry Levinson.
Screenplay: Barry Levinson.
Starring: Jason Patric, Robert DeNiro, Brad Pitt, Dustin Hoffman, Kevin Bacon, Minnie Driver, Ron Eldard, Billy Crudup, Brad Renfro, Joe Perrino, Geoffrey Wigdor, Jonathan Tucker, Bruno Kirby, Vittorio Gassman, Terry Kinney, Frank Medrano, Aida Turturro, Dash Mihok.

After the massive box-office flop of “Toys” in 1992 and the overlooked, straight to dvd, “Jimmy Hollywood“, director Barry Levinson seemed to be in need of some stronger material. As a result, he decided on a couple of adaptations; the first was Michael Crichton’s “Disclosure” followed by “Sleepers“, the controversial novel by Lorenzo Carcaterra, which served as a reminder that Levinson still had something to offer.

Growing up in Hell’s Kitchen, four close friends, Shakes (Joe Perinno), Michael (Brad Renfro), John (Geoffrey Wigdor) and Tommy (Jonathan Tucker) fill their days playing pranks and making their own entertainment. However, one of their pranks lead to a man getting seriously injured and they are sentenced to time in the Wilkenson Detention Centre in upstate New York. In the centre they are subjected to beatings and sexual abuse by the guards. Over ten years later, two of the boys take revenge on one of them (Kevin Bacon), which drags up the past and involves everyone they know.

What we have with “Sleepers” is a stellar cast, a more than capable director and a story that’s purportedly based on fact. There’s really not that far you can wrong in these instances but, unfortunately, it’s the “based on fact” angle that let’s this film down. Everything else is handled with skill, but no matter how well it’s delivered, it leaves an aroma that smells vaguely of garbage. It’s too far fetched and under closer scrutiny and investigation, the events that writer Lorenzo Carcaterra claims to be true, are unfounded. There simply isn’t any evidence of them. Now, if this film just played out as a piece of storytelling then that issue wouldn’t exist and you’d be able to sit back and enjoy what this film has to offer. And what it has to offer is plentiful. The cinematography by (Scorsese regular) Michael Ballhaus, captures the look and feel for the times that reflect, in some ways, an urban version of “Stand By Me” in the earlier part of the film and Levinson does a very professional job on his direction duties. Where his strength lies is in drawing out brilliant performances from his impressively assembled cast: Throughout an abundance of familiar names, it’s Patric (playing writer, Carcaterra) that get’s the most focus but the rest still get enough to work with; Bacon verges on the stereotypical side but still channels an effective sadistic presence; Pitt, in a lesser role (when he was still on the rise) captures the cocksure arrogance required and the always reliable and masterful Hoffman brings a lot of depth and humour with his subtle mannerisms. At the risk of sounding biased, though, it’s DeNiro that impresses most as the avuncular priest, Father Bobby. He delivers one of the most endearing and charismatic performances of his career and happens to have a moment in the film where his expression is solely focussed on, as he hears about the tragic and abusive events that took place. He doesn’t utter a word, but his pain, anguish and compassion is expressed entirely and powerfully within his eyes. The only drawback amongst the performances is that the greats of DeNiro and Hoffman don’t get a chance to share much screen time together. (In fairness, Levinson rectified this in his later movie “Wag The Dog” and subsequently they have shared the screen in the “Meet The Parents” sequels). These two fantastic actors have never really went toe-to-toe on dramatic terms, though, and this film seems like a missed opportunity on that level. As for the structure itself, it’s a film of two halves; the first concentrating on the boys’ high jinks (again, with great performances from it’s young actors – Joe Perrino and Brad Renfro being the standouts) while the latter half descends into a formulaic courtroom drama which stretches credulity and eschews any form of logic in order to further the plot. It’s during this, that the “true” nature of the story becomes seriously questionable and we’re also left with an overhanging, dubious message on justice. Despite these issues, though, there are many highlights to be found and at nearly two and half hours long, it’s never dull. Whether or not it’s true is another matter, but at the very least, Carcaterra has written an emotional and involving tale.

Flawed and uneven, with a conclusion that simply doesn’t convince, but if you’re able to sidestep these faults then there’s still a very good film at it’s core.

Mark Walker

Gangster Squad * * *

Director: Ruben Fleischer.
Screenplay: Will Beall.
Starring: Josh Brolin, Ryan Gosling, Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, Emma Stone, Giovanni Ribisi, Robert Patrick, Anthony Mackie, Michael Peña, Jack McGee, Jon Polito, Josh Pence, Mireille Enos, Sullivan Stapleton, John Aylward, James Carpinello, Don Harvey, Ambyr Childers, Frank Grillo, James Landry Hébert.

Although I’ve yet to see director Ruben Fleischer’s previous comedy film “30 Minutes Or Less“, I did manage to catch his debut “Zombieland” which injected a lot of humour and style in the zombie sub-genre. For his third film, he assembles one of the year’s most impressive casts and decides to drop the comedy and focus on a real-life crime story. His stylish approach is, once again, on show but unfortunately, his film suffers from a dreadfully threadbare script that fails to utilise his very talented ensemble or elaborate on a story with massive potential.

Los Angeles, 1949. Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) is determined to take hold of the city and muscle out any competition. Police Chief William Parker (Nick Nolte) has other ideas, though. He forms a squad of no-nonsense cops to fight back and puts World War II veteran John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) in charge of the operation. O’Mara assembles his crew and tackles Cohen’s organisation with the same brute force that the criminal acquired it with.

From the off-set, Fleischer doesn’t waste time in getting down to business. The brutality of Mickey Cohen is captured within the first few minutes by a scenery-chewing Sean Penn, on menacing form. Following suit, we are then introduced to Brolin’s strong arm of the law, charged with bringing this notorious gangster to justice. Straight away, Dion Beebe’s gorgeous cinematography and production designer Mather Ahmad manage to capture the glitz and grime of late 1940′s L.A. and it looks like we could be treated to something akin to Curtis Hanson’s sublime “L.A. Confidential“. Unfortunately, the look and feel is where the comparison ends. This isn’t anywhere near as tightly constructed as James Ellroy’s labyrinthine thriller and that’s the most frustrating part; it could have been. The elements are in place but the all-important script seems to have it’s concrete shoes on. The writing is repetitious and lazily strung together and for a film that’s seemingly focused on it’s characters, it ultimately fails to deliver anything that resembles a three-dimensional role for any of the impressive cast on show. Brolin, Gosling and Penn get most of the screen time but this is a role that’s completely beneath the abilities of Gosling as he takes a back seat to the other two and the talented likes of Ribisi, Mackie and especially Peña needn’t have turned up at all. It all but completely abandons the good work it sets out to do and resorts to stylistic action scenes that are drawn out and devour the latter half of the movie – eventually leading to nothing more than a shoot-em-up and an obligatory toe-to-toe thrown in for good bad measure. Quite simply, the whole thing comes across as a poor case of cut-and-paste and squanders what little powerful scenes and performances it does possess.

It’s a real shame that this ended up so superficial when it had so much potential. Instead of being a passable piece of pulp with too much reliance on it’s star wattage, it could have been a solid addition to the gangster genre. I’m sure Fleischer believed in the material at one point but my Tommy-Gun’s not convinced.

Mark Walker

Things To Do In Denver When You’re Dead * * * *

Director: Gary Fleder.
Screenplay: Scott Rosenberg.
Starring: Andy Garcia, Christopher Walken, Treat Williams, Christopher Lloyd, William Forsythe, Bill Nunn, Steve Buscemi, Gabrielle Anwar, Fairuza Balk, Jack Warden, Bill Cobbs, Michael Nicolosi, Marshall Bell, Glenn Plummer, Josh Charles, Sarah Trigger, Don Stark, Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister, Don Cheadle.

Post Quentin Tarantino and “Reservoir Dogs” there was an influx of stylish and fast-talking crime movies. It became the fad during the 90′s and beyond. “True Romance“, “Pulp Fiction” and “The Usual Suspects” were another few. Some fell by the way side while others genuinely succeeded and “Things To Do In Denver…” is one of those films that creates a positive, lasting memory. Crime escapades and colourful characters are what this film has in abundance.

In order to fund his small business, Jimmy the Saint (Andy Garcia) is in debt to lone sharks. However, his debt is bought over by an old venomous cohort from the past (Christopher Walken) who drags Jimmy back into a life of crime and orders him to scare off the new boyfriend of the ex-fiancée of the boss’s simple-minded son and heir. Jimmy assembles a tight-knit crew to keep the job simple but things don’t go to plan, leaving him and his friends with contracts on their heads.

As the lively and spirited Tom Waits song “Jockey Full of Bourbon” is played overhead we are introduced to our suave, confident, wheeler/dealer protagonist ‘Jimmy the Saint‘ and given an almost instant idea of this films stylish intentions. Like Jimmy, this film moves fast and talks fast. However, this isn’t strictly down to him. Where this film succeeds is not just in one particular character or it’s particularly cool demeanour. Where it succeeds, is in it’s plethora of interesting and delicately written supporting roles and a whole hot of quality actors to embody them. A lot of them get limited screen time but it’s still a testament to the writing qualities of Scott Rosenberg who manages to give them enough of a backstory to make them stand out and the actors bring the right amount of presence required for us to invest in them. The real standouts from Jimmy’s crew are: Christopher Lloyd’s leper – nicknamed ‘Pieces’ on account of his fingers and toes falling off from a circulatory disease and a completely on-edge Treat Williams as ‘Critical Bill’ – a psychopath, who can’t seem to stop harming people. He even uses funeral parlour corpses as punchbags to relieve his tension. There is also excellent support in Christopher Walken’s crippled mob leader ‘The Man With The Plan’, who’s so ruthless, he even threatens to have his henchmen pull out his “dead dick” for Jimmy to suck on. He’s a lamentable nasty but one that Walken excels at, and all the more, because he acts only from the neck up. On the sidelines – but no less memorable – is Steve Buscemi’s clinical hitman ‘Mr. Shhh’, who’s brought in to despatch of Jimmy and his crew. Buscemi gets the least amount of dialogue and screen time but anyone familiar his role in “The Big Lebowski” will know that this is never a problem for him to still make a lasting impression.
At times, there is an elusive nature to the sharply written dialogue and the characters’ use of a distinctive vocabulary but it only helps to convey a strong bond and understanding between them. On closer inspection, their patois is explained and the camaraderie and altercations throughout the film are driven by paying as much as attention as it does, to such a vernacular approach.

Fast talking dialogue with fast and colourful characters in the fast and dangerous Denver underbelly. This film has the goods to satisfy fans of the crime genre and manages just the right amount of cool that Quentin Tarantino made his name on. An overlooked and thoroughly entertaining addition to the genus.

Mark Walker

Casino * * * * 1/2

Director: Martin Scorsese.
Screenplay: Nicholas Pileggi.
Starring: Robert DeNiro, Sharon Stone, Joe Pesci, James Woods, Frank Vincent, Don Rickles, Alan King, Kevin Pollak, L. Q. Jones, Dick Smothers, Melissa Prophet, John Bloom, Pasquale Cajano, Vinny Vella, Frankie Avalon.

Five years after delivering one the mob genre’s finest films in “GoodFellas“, director Martin Scorsese reunited with screenwriter Nicholas Pileggi and several of the same actors – mainly Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci – to focus on another true-life crime story. This time he takes it away from the mean streets of New York and focuses on the deserts of Las Vegas. The results may be highly similar but they’re just as impressive.

Sam “Ace” Rothstein (Robert DeNiro) is a smooth and ambitious type that moves out to Las Vegas to become the operator of the Tangiers Casino. Things go well for him until his volatile childhood friend Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) arrives to get in on the action and Sam falls in love with conniving, unbalanced and untrustworthy, showgirl Ginger McKenna (Sharon Stone). Before long, a cycle of drugs and violence ensues while Sam struggles to hold onto his casino license and the mob back home are less than happy with the results.

The hallmarks of Scorsese’s style and structure – that were so prevalent in “GoodFellas” – are all on show again here. He has his usual reliable cast, delivering voiceover narrations that take us through the events and there is regular use of classic tracks from The Rolling Stones. His directorial techniques and are also on show; from flash-cuts to freeze-frames, crash zooms and montages. In other words, Scorsese is doing it all over again and it’s these very techniques and stylistic flourishes that have drawn some criticism Casino’s way for being too similar to his aforementioned crime classic. To some extent, I can understand these gripes. There is definitely a feeling of repetition and lack of originality in it’s approach. The most obvious comparison being the casting of Joe Pesci. As good as Pesci is (and he is very good) it may have served Scorsese better to cast someone else in that role. The character is too similar to Pesci’s Oscar winning Tommy DeVito. I’d liked to have seen (another Scorsese regular) Harvey Keitel, for example, just to mix things up a bit and he’s proven beforehand that he’s an actor that plays off DeNiro very well. That being said, there is an argument of ‘if it ain’t broke, dont fix it’. It does tread old ground and doesn’t really bring anything fresh to the table but it’s old ground that’s worth treading again. Where Scorsese does succeed, is in his casting of DeNiro. In “GoodFellas“, DeNiro was underused but here he delivers some solid work. He has a less showy role than those around him, making it easy to overlook just how effortless he is. He’s rarely offscreen for the entire 3 hours of the film and shows an absolutely commanding reservation. Other great inclusions in the cast are a weasel like James Woods and a surprisingly outstanding Sharon Stone. She takes a back seat in the early stages but when she properly enters the fray, she delivers a very powerful and layered performance and the convincing catalyst for the unravelling of the characters’ indulgent lifestyles. She was rightfully Oscar nominated for her work here and very unlucky not to win. It’s a testament to these committed performances and Scorsese’s expertise that this film still manages to stand alone as a very fine piece of cinema in it’s own right. Added to which, the lavish production design by Dante Ferretti and Robert Richardson’s sublime cinematography bring the whole glitz, glamour and corruption of Las Vegas to fruition.

An enthralling and intimate portrayal of the decline of the mob in the 1970′s. It may not be as tightly constructed as “GoodFellas” but how many film’s are or ever will be? If this is the only criticism that can be appointed to Casino then there’s no point criticising at all. Another superb addition to Scorsese’s canon.

Mark Walker

The Paperboy * * * 1/2

Director: Lee Daniels.
Screenplay: Pete Dexter, Lee Daniels.
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Zac Efron, Nicole Kidman, John Cusack, Macy Gray, David Oyelowo, Scott Glenn, Ned Bellamy, Nealla Gordon, Gary Clarke, Faison Love, Grace Hightower.

After his Oscar winning film “Precious“, which was an adaptation of Sapphire’s novel “Push“, director Lee Daniels decides to follow that up with another adaptation. This time it’s the 1995 novel “The Paperboy” by Pete Dexter and another exploration of highly dysfunctional personalities.

Naive reporter Ward Jansen (Matthew McConaughey) heads back to his home town of Lately, where he’s determined to exonerate convict Hillary Van Wetter (John Cusack), who awaits execution on death row for the supposed murder of a local Sheriff. Ward is accompanied by his brother Jack (Zac Efron), ambitious colleague Yardley Acheman (David Oyelowo) and flashy seductress Charlotte Bless (Nicole Kidman) – who has a fetish for incarcerated men and Van Wetter is her latest obsession. The murky details of the investigation soon uncover truths about everyone involved and truths that were better left alone.

This is a film that’s very much a mixed bag and it’s easy to see why some people just didn’t take to it. First off, the narrative is disjointed. At times, it doesn’t seem know to which direction it’s going in and the tacked-on, voiceover narration, doesn’t really help matters. In the earlier part there’s humour and it gives the impression that it’s got it’s tongue stuck firmly in it’s cheek. As the film and characters grow, though, it becomes progressively darker. So much so, that it will having you wincing in both disgust and horror. These shifts in tone are less than effortless and also threaten to undo the film as a whole. However, even though the tone is uneven it’s throws up many memorable moments; Kidman urinating on Efron’s face, Cusack and Kidman engaging in masturbation while 10 feet apart and other brutal and shocking revelations, which I’ll allow you to find out for yourself. It’s in these memorable moments that you realise where the film’s strengths lie; the characters are all three dimensional and the brave cast are uniformly brilliant. Efron has come a long way since his “High School Musical” days and looks like proper leading actor material; McConaughey continues his recent run of seedy and risqué roles; Cusack captures the intensity of a loutish psychopath and Kidman is a revelation as an oversexed floozie. Fine support is also delivered by a surprisingly talented Macy Gray and the enigmatic David Olywewo. It’s the very commitment from these actors that has you believing in the material even when their characters’ motivations are not always clear or convincing. Another big player in the proceedings is cinematographer Roberto Schaefer. He captures the searing heat and uncomfortableness of backwoods Florida to perfection while balancing the class divide and racial tension that drips from every pore.
Daniels’ direction may be a little hyperstylised at times and his grasp on the film’s structure is less than convincing. Incoherence does creep in and the film sags around the midriff, becoming in danger of losing itself entirely. At one point, when it should be wrapping up, it throws in further complications and character developments but to give the director his due, he knows how to drop subtle hints without revealing too much, leaving the story’s denouement more satisfying than first thought. There’s no doubt that this is a flawed endeavour but the scathing opinions of it are a little unwarranted – all-be-it, understandable. There is much to admire here. Yes, it’s trashy, tawdry and most certainly deranged but it’s also edgy and unpredictable, which is more than you can say for a lot of studio releases these days.

Sexploitation, exploitation and telekinetic masturbation. What more can you can ask from a film that doesn’t pretend to be anything more than a deranged venture into the American south with a committed cast that are game for anything?
This might have been booed at the Cannes film festival but for it’s trashy audacity alone, it deserves applause.

Mark Walker

Lawless * * * 1/2

Director: John Hillcoat.
Screenplay: Nick Cave.
Starring: Tom Hardy, Shia LaBeouf, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Mia Wasikowska, Dane DeHaan, Noah Taylor, Chris McGarry, Tim Tolin, Lew Temple.

The last film that director John Hillcoat and screenwriter/musician Nick Cave collaborated on was the 2005 neo-western “The Proposition“. Four years later, Hillcoat went on to make his adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” (on which Cave supplied the music) but now they are together again with Cave back on screenwriting duties. If you’re familiar with the aforementioned films then you’ll also be familiar with the sark sense of realism that they bring. This is no different and just as good as anything they’ve produced so far.

In Franklin County, Virginia, in 1931, the Bondurant brothers: Forrest (Tom Hardy), Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) run a distillery and bootlegging business in Moonshine. However, the District Attorney decides to clamp down on the bootleggers as Prohibition is introduced. To enforce the law, crooked and unscrupulous, Special Deputy Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) is brought in to bring the brothers down but the Bondurant’s refuse to yield.

When the reviews of this film started flooding in, the opinions were less than favourable, leading me to lower my expectations. In many ways, I’m glad this happened as I found plenty to enjoy here and feel that the film may be a little harshly criticised. For a start – as mentioned earlier – Hillcoat has completely captured the gritty realism required. His feel for the time and place and eye for detail is highly impressive and it’s accompanied by an excellently evocative score by Cave and Warren Ellis. From the offset, it establishes it’s methodical and deliberate pace. It builds slowly but assuredly and spends quite a bit of time on character development; LaBeouf impresses with his, runt of the litter, leading role but the standout’s among the cast are a brooding Hardy and an extremely corrupt and unsavoury Pearce. However, this particular path that it treads so well, is also the films undoing. Too much time is spent on some characters and not enough on others; Chastain has little to do but still manages to do well, with what she’s got. The third member of the Bondurant brothers (Jason Clarke) is underwritten but again squeezes enough from the material he’s given and still manages to make an impact amongst a high calibre cast. The most criminally underused is Gary Oldman, though. It builds his character up and then doesn’t let him loose. Oldman is an actor that excels in these type of roles, yet it would seem that most of his scenes were left on the cutting room floor. Regardless of their screen time, everyone manages to pitch in here, though, and if this wasn’t a talented collection of performers, then some would have faded into the background. The fault with this has to lie in the hands of Nick Cave and his patchy, underwritten script. The conclusion is rushed and unsatisfactory and despite promising an enticing confrontation between it’s central characters, it fails to deliver. Maybe this would have led it down the formulaic path but I still would rather have that, than the ending we are provided. That being said, I still found this to be an engrossing, atmospheric and vivid depiction of depression-era times. It definitely does have it’s flaws and if you scratch the surface you’ll find a generic crime film but it’s so richly textured that it’s flaws are, mostly, forgivable.

Much like the old Jalopy’s that they drive, this doesn’t quite have the mileage to see it comfortably to it’s destination but it still a thoroughly involving, if occasionally bumpy, ride.

Mark Walker

Seven Psychopaths * *

Director: Martin McDonagh.
Screenplay: Martin McDonagh.
Starring: Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, Tom Waits, Abbie Cornish, Olga Kurylenko, Zeljko Ivanek, Harry Dean Stanton, Gabourey Sidibe, Kevin Corrigan, Long Nguyen, Brendan Sexton III, Linda Bright Clay, Michael Stuhlbarg, Michael Pitt.

When “In Bruges” was released in 2008 it marked the emergence of Martin McDonagh, a filmmaker that was able to combine a dark crime drama with a real sense for the off-beat and provide unabashed politically incorrect humour. I wasn’t exactly convinced in it’s entirety but it offered something fresh and exciting. The same could be said for McDonagh’s second feature, only this time it’s sense for the off-beat is way off course and it’s elaborate crime yarn, lacks coherence.

Marty (Colin Farrell), has been working for while on a Hollywood screenplay called ‘Seven Psychopaths‘ but he hasn’t got past the first page and has developed a reliance on alcohol to see him through it. His friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) is eager to help, so gives him anecdotes on real psychopaths that he’s aware of. Some of which, include crazed gangster Charlie (Woody Harrelson) who loves his little Shih-Tzu dog, Bonny. It’s only when Billy and his dognapper friend Hans (Christopher Walken) decide to steal Bonny, that Marty finds himself in all sorts of trouble – and inspiration.

The film sets it’s stall up well, as we are introduced to Martin, a struggling, Irish, alcoholic writer with absolutely no creative spark whatsoever. It’s a self-referential premise that has been done before – most notably by the Coen brothers when they wrote “Barton Fink” as a result of writer’s block in trying to finish “Miller’s Crossing“. Only, McDonagh is not a Coen, nor is he a Quentin Tarantino – who he obviously fancies himself as. Those filmmakers have made strong career’s from combining crime and comedy but after this sophomore effort, McDonagh doesn’t match those aforementioned auteur’s of cinema. “In Bruges” was so well received that this film gathered a lot of anticipation and it even allowed McDonagh to assemble a very impressive cast. It had all the ingredients for being another darkly humorous endeavour. Dark it may be, but it’s seriously lacking in the humour department. While I was watching this, I had the feeling that something was just around the corner but when that corner was turned, there was still a vacantness. The jokes were forced and most dialogue and scenes were shoehorned in such a way that it was forcing laughs rather than earning them.
On the positive side, it had plenty of style and the performances, for the most part, were great; Farrell, Harrelson and especially, Rockwell and Walken, all seem to be having fun. There’s also fine support by Tom Waits but the belief that this ensemble have in the material is squandered as McDonagh has no idea what he’s doing. The story-within-a-story concept is nothing original but if tackled properly, it can be a very fulfilling journey and Charlie Kaufman’s “Adaptation” is a prime example of how it should be done. This, however, is an example of how it shouldn’t.

This is a wasted opportunity to create something really good. It’s a clever idea and it could be said that the movie is one big in-joke. Although I’m aware of this, it’s still the very incoherent and lazily written crime yarn that it proclaims to be against.
It thinks it’s smarter and funnier than it actually is and goes down as the biggest disappointment of the year.

Mark Walker

Killing Them Softly * * * *

Director: Andrew Dominik.
Screenplay: Andrew Dominik.
Starring: Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Richard Jenkins, Ray Liotta, Scoot McNairy, Ben Mendelsohn, Vincent Curatola, Sam Shepard, Trevor Long, Max Casella, Slaine, Garret Dillahunt, Linara Washington.

Back in 2007, Brad Pitt and director Andrew Dominik collaborated, for the first time, on the ethereal western “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford“. Five years later, they’re back together again and this time they attempt a crime movie. Now, this runs over an hour less than their previous effort but in some ways it feels just as drawn out. That’s not to say that’s it’s unsuccessful, though. It has received criticism from many corners but personally I think expectations and preconceived ideas have led to a misunderstanding with this one.

Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a couple of smalltime crooks for hire. They get a job to hold up a high-stakes, mafia run, card game that’s overseen by middle-man Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta). As Markie has openly admitted to holding up a game in the past, he becomes the obvious suspect but something doesn’t quite add up. To clear up the mess, outside enforcer Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) is brought in the get to the bottom of it.

Films that fall into the crime genre will always have a certain level of expectation about them. It must be difficult for a director to try and establish a new format when there is a demand that they follow a particular formula. This adaptation of the George V. Higgins novel “Cogan’s Trade” is exactly the type of film that has been criticised for it’s lack of urgency and has suffered in it’s comparison with previous genre classics. Personally, I admire Dominik’s attempt at crafting something different here, and despite a glacial pace, I still found it gripping. This is a film that focuses less on action and more on talking and it’s entirely understandable why some didn’t appreciate it, but for me, the talking was the action and that’s thanks to solid performances from everyone involved. Every actor is as good as the other and it’s through their strong, and lengthy, exchanges of dialogue that each of them are able to shine; McNairy and Mendelsohn carry the weight of the first part of the story with two very different but equally unlikable low-life’s; Liotta plays a perfect, desperate middle-man; Jenkins epitomises the business side of things and Gandolfini is a perfect display of regret and melancholia from a hit-man who’s lost his touch. Ultimately, though, it’s the reserved central performance from Pitt who commands. Arguably, he’s got less to work with but his subtlety is key in expressing the coldness and stark reality of the business that these people operate in.
Of course – as is now expected of Dominik – he doesn’t just deliver a formulaic gangster story. Instead, he infuses it with allegory and makes a social commentary on the financial state of America. Throughout the film there are, ironic, radio and television broadcasts of political speeches and discussions about the economy and reminders of how America is the land of opportunity. It’s a, less than subtle, device but one that worked quite well. On slightly closer inspection, the criminals that roam this underbelly of modern America are no less disingenuous or manipulative than the politicians in office. They just happen to be conducting their business on a lesser scale. At one point Pitt’s Jackie Cogan even describes his cohorts as “Corporate mentality gangsters“. That aside, this is still a crime film and as a result, it’s not adverse to rolling up it’s sleeves and getting it’s hands dirty. There may be only sporadic moments of action but when they do appear they are brutally delivered and some of the violence displayed on-screen is wince inducing.

Much like the aforementioned western collaboration between Dominik and Pitt this film dares to incorporate a sociopolitical commentary throughout it’s genre. It’s unconventional but very effective nonetheless and the last line of the film sums up it’s theme perfectly… “America is not a country, it’s just a business. Now fucking pay me.”

Mark Walker

End Of Watch * * * *

Director: David Ayer.
Screenplay: David Ayer.
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Peña, Anna Kendrick, Natalie Martinez, Frank Grillo, America Ferrera, David Harbour, Cody Horn, Maurice Compte, Diamonique.

David Ayer certainly seems to know his way around South Central Los Angeles: He delivered the screenplay to the Oscar winning “Training Day” in 2001 before making his directorial debut, four years later, with “Harsh Times“. The James Ellroy adaptation “Street Kings” followed, and with his latest being yet another foray into those crime-ridden L.A. ghettos this is confirmation of Ayer’s comfort zone.

L.A. cops Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Peña) routinely patrol the streets and neighbourhoods of South Central. These guys aren’t just partners but good friends and they both take their jobs very seriously. It’s the strong bond between them that allow them to effectively deal with life threatening situations every day. But through their absolute commitment to their work, they discover a violent drugs cartel that puts both their lives in danger.

Anyone familiar with the aforementioned films that Ayer has been involved in, will know that he has a propensity to focus a lot on the interplay of his characters; mainly this is done in the car, allowing the audience to get a closer proximity to the back and forth banter and camaraderie. Where this film differs though, is in the use of a found footage/steady-cam approach. This particular style may be wearing thin with a lot of people (myself included) but for the most part, it works here. Following a couple of cops on the beat adds another angle to the sub-genre that’s not been explored yet and taps into the voyeuristic nature of the reality tv shows that we’re bombarded with these days. I’ve never really been a fan of these neo-fascist, propaganda shows that depict the police carrying out their duties but sometimes they can be intriguing and many find them very appealing. However, Ayer is smart enough not to rely solely on this ‘reality’ approach; he intercuts it with wide-angles whenever the documentary vibe is unsuitable, which gives a good overall balance to the action. That being said, the film does suffer periodic lulls and falls prey to cliche with underwritten and stereotypical gangsters but it’s the rapport between Gyllenhaal and Peña that keep the film interesting and involving. Both deliver solid performances and their exchanges of dialogue are entirely believable and, at times, genuinely humorous.

The steady-cam now makes it’s way into the mainstream with some financial backing and familiar faces involved. It may irritate some but ultimately adds a sense of realism that’s required for the material. Once you accept the conceit, the rest is an intense, visceral and action filled movie.

Mark Walker

The Angels’ Share * * * *

Director: Ken Loach.
Screenplay: Paul Laverty.
Starring: Paul Brannigan, John Henshaw, William Ruane, Gary Maitland, Jasmin Riggins, Roger Allam, Siobhan Reilly, David Goodall, James Casey, Joy McAvoy.

After “One More Kiss” and “Dear Frankie“, the film that concludes my little Scottish trilogy of reviews is the 12th collaboration between director Ken Loach and writer Paul Laverty. Their previous efforts have been mostly very successful films and have largely dealt with the hardships of Scottish working class lifestyles. This is another slice of that life and yet another little treasure.

Young Glaswegian Robbie (Paul Brannigan) is sentenced to community service for repeatedly offending. He has a baby on the way and finds himself in a continual circle of violence with his girlfriend’s father but he’s desperate for a way out of his life of crime. He is taken under the wing of social worker Harry (John Henshaw) who teaches him the appreciation of fine malt Whiskies. It’s only then, Robbie discovers a distillery that’s home to a rare Scotch Whisky worth thousands of pounds and involves his friends to take some for themselves.

There is a Scots Gaelic way of referring to the alcoholic beverage Whisky and that is “Uisge Beatha“, literally translating as ‘Water of Life‘. This name, in itself, could be a perfect title for this film (and it’s themes) but Loach has gone and conjured up another one: When Whisky is matured over the years there’s some that escapes from the casket and evaporates into thin air, never to be tasted or seen again. This is referred to as “The Angels’ Share” and, on reflection, is a fitting title for the story.
Loach is one of those directors that has a perfect sense of realism. It just courses right through his films; from the storyline, through the setting to the authentic dialogue and untrained actors. This is no different and it shares a similar theme to two of his and Paul Laverty’s earlier collaborations: “My Name Is Joe” and “Sweet Sixteen“, in terms of a struggling protagonist trying to break free from his brutal environment and make a life for himself. What this has, that those two didn’t, is a sense of humour and a delicate, lightness of touch. It doesn’t get bogged down in the kitchen-sink mentality that you’d expect but breaks free from that mould to become a lighthearted caper movie. Don’t get me wrong, Loach still has the power of gritty authenticity and on a few occasions he displays that but like the beverage they are concerned about in the film, it has a nice balance; it manages to be both rough and smooth. Glasgow is depicted as a brutal environment with damaged disillusioned youths and Loach’s eye for locations and mostly untrained actors is ever present. All the performers deliver admirable and, in some cases, excellent work. A talent that Loach has shown over the years is his ability in finding these quality young actors. In a lot of ways he’s become somewhat of a pioneer for Scottish cinema – the city of Glasgow in particular. No film set in Scotland’s largest city would be complete without the humour though and in this case Loach and Laverty capture the idiom perfectly, delivering regular and balanced humour.

A slight change of pace from Ken Loach and more upbeat than fans of his will be accustomed to but he manages the understatement very well and delivers one of his most feel-good films to date.

Mark Walker