The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Stieg Larssons book ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ uses the story of a millionaire’s murdered niece to introduce us to the characters that are to become the foundation of his best-selling trilogy. In my own humble opinion ‘Dragon Tattoo’ is the weakest of the three books but is essential in setting the foundations. Whereas book two and three fully get under the skin of Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander and also introduce some other great characters, Dragon Tattoo, bar a few character setting scenes, is primarily plot driven, unravelling the mystery clue by clue, scene by scene, and as such to anyone who has read the books or seen the original Swedish film this might be entertaining enough but not overly exciting stuff, but if you haven’t you’re likely to have a fine time at the cinema.

As you’ve probably picked up from the above yes I’ve read the books, and I’ve seen the original Swedish film (twice) so this cannot be a fair review. As much as I’d like not to, the books and original film are new enough releases so David Finchers version is going to have to deal with my mind making constant comparisons. When they announced the English language remake I found it too soon, and had little interest, but I’m a huge Fincher fan so was always going to be curious about anything he makes. The Swedish version of Dragon Tattoo was excellent but they made a mess of the sequels, so my hope would be that Fincher would eventually do justice to the second and third books. Given the films box office performance we’ll have to wait and see if Fincher will return to this franchise.

Daniel Craig plays Bloomkvist, a Swedish (apparently despite the London accent) journalist who’s just been sued for libel by a corporate giant. Feeling beaten and without much cash flow he reluctantly takes a job with ageing tycoon Henrik Vagner (Christopher Plummer) investigating the unsolved murder of his niece fourty years ago. Isolated on the Vanger Island in the depth of a Swedish winter Bloomkvist finds himself at odds with all members of the family, all suspects in the case. He soon enlists the assistance of private investigator Lisbeth Salander, girl genius and computer hacker, who has a hell of a lot of problems of her own, including her new guardian Nils Bjurman (Yorick Van Wageningem) and his sadistic side.

Director Fincher has toned down his once kinetic energy style of filmmaking, and although Dragon Tattoo is a great looking film it is subtle in its style (bar an over the top title sequence). Every musical cue and edit is timed perfectly creating an excellent pace and the two and a half hour running time flies by. He makes great use of the cold Swedish setting; in several scenes the audience can almost feel the chill. The script by Steve Zaillian nicely gets most elements of the book in, improving on the Swedish version of the Wennerstorm affair and the characters love interests. There are a whole lot of characters going on, it could easily have lost the audience with the sheer volume, but the script somehow portrays them all in a way the audience find distinguishable.

The star of the book trilogy is the Salander character, and the great challenge with Salander is a director and actress establishing how to portray her. She’s a unique character that is very hard to derive from any other. As such full credit for this will always go to Naomi Rapace for her portrayal in the Swedish version, as there was no blueprint established. Rooney Mara does a great job (although I’m a bit puzzled by the Oscar nomination) capturing the character as we’d imagine, and showing full trust in Fincher. Her careless approach to friendship and its slight change nicely conveyed by the actress. Craig is great too, convincing as a journalist sharing Salanders similarly careless view of people, albeit one more professional.

The film might not lack anywhere, but for someone like me with a prior knowledge of the story you’ll notice certain things. The scenes with Salander being abused by her guardian don’t feel as claustrophobic as they did in the Swedish version, particularly the first mentioned scene I questioned why she didn’t just get up and walk away. Also you will be a bit disappointed by the similarity in tone, at some stages the lighting and costume seems identical, although the books do describe everything in detail so it’s hard to differ greatly without straying from them. And for both people who have and have not seen the original, seeing American actors pretending to be Swedish (talking English but with a ‘foreign’ accent) can just seem silly sometimes.

I’m giving this three out of five as it’s impossible for me to be overly excited by a film I know every plot turn to and seen the characters established already, but if you have nothing to compare this to you’ll probably find this a four or even five star film.

3 out of 5

Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol – damn good cinema!!

The first Mission Impossble film was an expert demonstration of tension and suspense tied together loosely with action and mystery. The second let the series down by bringing on board action helmer John Woo and going balls to the walls with gun fights, silly explosions, and even siller slow motion. The third got the series back on track with JJ Abrams bringing much needed style and charisma to the series. A good film but instantly forgettable. When I first saw the trailers for the fourth installment, Ghost Protocol, I admit I thought the series was washed up and would be a disspointment, teamed with Tom Cruises unpopularity keeping the crowds away. What I forgot was that it’s been nearly three years since the last Bond film, and a gap has been left in the market for intelligent yet fun action thrillers (preferably not with Vin Diesel or Dwayne Johnson starring) and as such audiences have eaten up Ghost Protocol making it one of the most successful films of the year, and in a December where all other major releases have seen poor box office takings, that’s quite an achievement. Luckily Ghost Protocol is well worth your the price of your ticket, and is as much fun as your likely to have in the cinema all year.

Cruise is back as Ethan Hunt, a man so taken over by his job as an international spy he has no time to develop any personality or characteristics, but that’s ok because his sole purpose is to get caught up in a plot of international importance that we can quite happily follow him from exotic location to exotic location and hold our breath at another amazing stunt. This time we find him locked up in a Russian prison for reasons unknown, but soon his expert team break him out and quickly their involved in a mission to infiltrate the Kremlin. This all goes horribly wrong and before they know it their being framed for an act of war and are on the run from the authorities whilst also trying to prevent bad guy Kurt Hendricks (Dragon Tattoos Michael Nyqvist) from kicking off a nuclear war. With such an elaborate plot you can bet there’ll be stunts galore and a lot of tense action scenes. And hey they even throw in a sandstorm, let’s get mother nature in on this too.

The set pieces really are excellent. The infiltration of the Kremlin and the much publicised tower climbing in Dubai really are brilliant. The whole Dubai chapter, with the tower climb instantly followed by the sabotaging of two meetings is the stand out section of the film and is extremely promising from Director Brad Bird given this is his first live action film. Although post production digitial wire removal and effects galore are used Cruise is never shy from these stunts, always letting us know it’s him hanging there hundreds of feet up in the air. Say what you want about the man but no one does stunts like him.

Out of all the Mission Impossible films this is the first one where the team have actually felt like a team. Hopefully the filmakers keep with these actors for any future installments in the series. There’s a lot of buzz around Hurt Lockers Jeremy Renner at the moment, with him being touted as the next big thing. I fail to see what the buzz is about but playing second fiddle to Cruise here he proves a good supporting man. There’s a good chemistry between the four leads and their relation is believeable. Even Simon Pegg isn’t that annoying for once.

It’s not without it’s flaws though. Great actor that he is Michael Nyqvist finds his first major Hollywood role criminally underdeveloped. The last fourty minutes while not bad find it hard to live up to the set pieces that preceeded it. A seduction scene is just silly and for some reason the filmakers insist on a clumsy scene in which character development and plot are tied together awkwardly with chunky speeches. All in all though these are very minor complaints for a film which easily outdoes most of the years other releases.

Love him or hate him Cruise is here to stay, and if he keeps making films as good as this I won’t complain. Go see. Enjoy.

4 out of 5

Take Shelter – Shannons great, films bad

Michael Shannons a great actor. Anyone who’s seen Boardwalk Empire will know he stole the entire thing from under Steve Buscemis nose. Already with an Oscar nod for his part in Revolutionary Road and with him taking on the role of General Zod in next years Superman reboot it looks like he’s going nowhere too fast. There’s a peculiarity to him that makes you tense just watching him and always unpredictable. In Take Shelter he capitalises on this, one second loving father to his deaf daughter the next he’s shouting insane prophecies at a bewildered crowd. He’s a joy to watch but unfortunately it’s not enough to save a film that never really feels too sure of itself.

Shannon plays Curtis, a simple rural Ohio resident, spending his days in construction and his evenings with his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and their child, in what appears to be a perfect family life. Soon Curtis is plagued by nightmares, and given his mothers mental illness problems he starts to get concerned when his nightmares start appearing in his waking life as hallucinations. Paranoia and fear ensue and his family and friends can do nothing to help Curtis, convinced he’s the one who’s right.

Director Nichols takes his time, building up the mood gradually. Unfortunately this sometimes comes off as repetitive. Too many scenes of Curtis in work don’t add to the plot, just procrastinate it. There just isn’t enough going on to warrant such a dragged out narrative. Fringe characters like Curtis brother Kyle or his wifes friend Nat could have been trimmed. The story here should have been of Curtis and his family. These fringe characters appear for a scene then dissappear, only serving as a convenient catch up for those in the audience not paying attention. There are two threads going through the film, one with Curtis and his dread of a storm, and one with Curtis uncovering his familys mental illness. The two never really combine in the way they should and when the ending comes their pulled as far away from each other as possible, leaving us to dismiss half of the film we’ve just sat through.

Despite all this it is always watchable thanks to Shannon. He is excellent as always and hopefully this is demonstration enough of his ability to warrant him some exposure to larger productions and more interesting scripts.Chastain is excellent as always in what has been a huge year for her, already getting huge praise for her performance in Malicks Tree of Life, but hopefully soon we get to see her depart from playing the loving mother (which she’s got down to a tee) and throw herself into something completely different.

Dissappointing given the talent of the two leads, only they keep this from being unwatchable. Give it a miss.

2 out of 5

Sherlock Holmes A Game of Shadows – more of the same but better

The first Holmes film was simple fun. Weak on story and characters the two leads compensated for this by injecting as much fun as possible into their dynamic and the unseen third member of their gang, director Guy Ritchie, threw in some nice visual flourishes. It was a failure in that it broke no rules in storytelling and was as formulaic as they come but a success in that it created two leads who the audience took as much joy from watching them bicker as they did from watching them dodge bullets and fight the bad guys. The sequel manages to trim some of the fat, gain some new fat, and again is two hours of complete fun.

Still wandering around nineteenth century London, threading the line between genius and madman, Downey Jr plays Holmes, detective, scientist and combat expert extrordinnaire. Holmes claims to have found a link between the respected and mysterious Professor Moriarity (Jared Harris) and a recent series of supposedly anarchist influenced bombings throughout Europe. His partner in crime Watson (Jude Law) dismisses all this as he’s due to be married shortly and wants to see his wedding through without incident. Before we know it Holmes has stepped over the line with Moriarity and unravelled evil plans on a global scale, much to the annoyance of Watson who finds his honeymoon rudely interrupted in order to help Holmes save the world.

The script is sharper than the first with some nice dialogue for all the characters, not just the two leads. New addition Naomi Rapace as gypsy girl Simza is largely ignored but bad guy Moriarity get’s some of the films best lines and is given enough sinister moments to play with. The story is business as usual but manages to be a decent catalyst to move Sherlock and Watson from location to location, set piece to set piece, and these transitions happen a lot smoother than the first film. Guy Ritchie is at his visual best, particularly a waterfall dive in slow motion that is the films stand out shot. Every frame looks fantastic and every effect flawless. A chase sequence through the woods is dragged out but allows for some nice visuals.

Where things start to weaken is in Holmes. First time out Downey Jr brought a surprising angle to a character we thought we already knew. He continues this in the sequel but there’s no development of Holmes personality. He starts and ends the film without us learning anymore about him. The persona Downey Jr has brought to Holmes may be somewhat limited to exploring the character deeper. Before he fights we’re giving an explanation in slow motion of how he anticipates each move. In the first film this was fresh and clever, in this film it’s overused and too familiar to be as clever as it once was. Holmes game is one up manship. By the end of the film tension is lost as we know that Holmes is always one step ahead and will get out of any situation. Whenever the camera lingers on an object for a second too long or if something needless happens and is quickly forgotten, we know this will prove part of his plan later on. The cleverness in the script starts to become transparent when this is repeated time and time again.

Lukcily Holmes is never alone for too long and whenever Watson is on screen the film is fantastic. Everything about Watson is a joy. His style of fighting much more believable and everyman than Holmes structured martial arts, his weakness for gambling, and his eternal frustration and friendship for Holmes all portrayed brilliantly by Jude Law.

A three star film but I’m throwing in an extra point as given how dark and bleak January can be this is a perfect fun film to cheer you up.

4 out of 5

Hugo – great Scorcese bad kids

He may be getting on in years but Scorcese is far from a beaten man. After a lull in the late nineties recently he’s managed to pick up his game with several acclaimed films and with his last, Shutter Island, his biggest financial success to date. Scorcese for the most part continues his good run with Hugo, but disappointingly some major flaws which could have been avoided drag the film down from the masterpiece it could have been.

Set in the 1930s, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) lives parentless in the walls of a Parisian train station, spending his days keeping the clocks running and avoiding the clutches of station Inspector Gustav (an excellent Sacha Baron Cohen). After getting on the wrong side of toy shop owner Georges (Ben Kingsley) Hugo finds himself mingled up with his goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) and an adventure begines to uncover a message Hugos dead father left behind and how it may be linked to Georges secretive past.

Employing 3D in a way that even this 3D hater took a liking to, Scorcese gives us his trademark continuous takes with a twist, the opening segment being a particular delight. His signature is all over this film, lightly disguised as a childrens adventure, and here is where the flaws begin. The childrens aspect of the film let’s the whole thing down. Hugo is nothing more than a plot device to unravel the story of George Melies, one of the first legends of cinema, but yet Hugo with all lack of peronality and charm is pushed to the forefront of the film and turned into it’s star. Supposedly Hugo has been living parentless for sometime surviving as a petty thief but there is not an ounce of credibility to this aspect of the character, at no point does he appear in any way ‘streetwise’. Maybe is was a bad casting call or maybe it’s just down to his awful dialogue but Asa Butterfield plays Hugo as plain and boring, and very hard to get behind. Why the much older and taller Isabelle takes any interest in him is hard to see. The film may have worked better had their roles been reversed, as Chloe Grace Moretz is able to instill some bit of character and fascination into her otherwise one dimensional character. Scenes seem forced to fit into the childrens narrative, and several speeches are just confusing as to why this underdeveloped character has affected their emotions so deeply. And don’t get me started on the automaton, it’s add nothing to the film besides the prospect of a toy they can sell to kids if the films enough of a success.

Other than this the film is a delight. Ben Kingsley has a lot of fun and even get’s to be young again thanks to some impressive effects. Scorceses love of cinema is all over this film, a flashback segment to the early days of cinema is done with such love it’s impossible not to feel a new appreciation for cinema. The frustrating thing is that these scenes are such a delight that this really could have been a great great film. Had Scorcese left the story at George Melies and omitted the awkward childrens plot this really could have been the film of the year.

Another visual success from Scorcese, and proof he’s going nowhere, but unfortunately not consistent enough in story to be the classic it should have been. One for die hard Scorcese fans and lovers of classic cinema.

3 out of 5

Moneyball – not so money

Pitts on a role, producing and starring in the films he wants to. Lately he’s been seeking out scripts of a certain quality he wants to put his name to (Tree Of Life, Inglorious Bastards) and bar a few glitches (Troy, The Devils Own) he’s managed to sculpt quite an accomplished career out of it. Moneyball is his vehicle. Yes the Director does a great job, yes the script shines at moments, but it is all caught in Brad Pitts centre of gravity, all the elements revolving around but never overshadowing him.

Based on a true story Pitt plays Billy Beane, general manager of a baseball team desperate to have them compete with the best despite huge budget restraints. After door after door gets slammed shut Beane takes a gamble on Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) the anti-athlete but whiz at maths with an insight into some of the most undervalued players in the league. Together they assemble a team that all others would dismiss but their formulas say otherwise.

It’s a slow burner, the pace kept at ease for the majority of the running time, with the camera sometimes dwindling too long on certain elements (mainly Pitt) when a cut a few seconds earlier would not have detracted from the mood and not seemed as self-indulgent, whilst also trimming some much needed running time off the film. The filmmakers have tried to make a sports film not about sports, with very little time dedicated to the actual on the field action. This works great in giving us an insight into what goes on behind the scenes, players trading, recruiting, money quarrels, all shown in an involving and exciting way, but when the team enters it’s winning streak there’s no pay off, with the audience never really being allowed to get caught up in their success. This part of the film, which would have been expected to have been one of the focal points, is quickly dealt with in a brief fifteen minutes of game commentary cut with some on the field action and even more shots of Pitt staring blankly. The filmmakers intended to not let us enjoy it, similiar to how Beane is not enjoying it as as he says ‘you lose the last game of the season all else is dismissed’ but it works negatively as for the first time in the film we find ourselves in the thick of the action but not involved with these characters or the teams fans, and from then on my connection to the film dwindled, and the final half hour felt dragged out.

There are some great elements here, Jonah Hill is at his subtle best and always fun to have on screen, his shyness and awkward moments providing a well needed contrast to Pitts portrayal of Beane as overly confident and smooth talking. Philip Seymore Hoffman is great in every scene as the teams confused coach wary of his contract end date, but could have done with more screentime.

This is all about Pitt though. Whilst I prefer his Tree Of Life Performance this year, this one may be more accessible to the general film going public and get him the Oscar nod he deserves. He delivers every aspect of his character to a tee, always feeling confident and relaxed on the outside when inside he knows the risk he is taking and that all other opinion is against him. Despite the showmanship and charisma of his character, Pitt delivers subtle hints thoroughout to the true nature of this man.

A bit like baseball itself, too long and not enough happening, but worth seeing for Pitt alone.

3 out of 5

The Rum Diary – Cheers to this film!!

Panned by critics and abandoned by audiences in America The Rum Diary arrives with the promise that Johnny Depp believes European audiences will have the ‘intelligence’ lacked by the cinema-going public across the Atlantic to truely appreciate this piece of work. Vanity projects rarely work. Aronofskys The Fountain and Travoltas Battlefield Earth both heavily criticised and box office fails, but Depp can hold his chin up high as The Rum Diary is one of the most enjoyable films of the year.

I suspect Depps belief that Europeans will take to his new film is true, as the packed out cinema laughed out loud more times than any recent comedy i’ve seen. This is a film that will grow with word of mouth and will stay on long in film fans collections while ‘successful’ films such as Transformers and anything with Kevin James in it will have been long forgotten.

Revisitng his Fear and Loathing disposition Depp plays Paul Kemp, an American journalist taking a writing job in 1960s Puerto Rico to keep cash flowing until his novels finally get published. Armed with his pen and endless amounts of rum Depp soon discovers who the ‘basterds’ are and how America is damaging Puerto Ricos landscape and it’s locals. Teaming up with fellow drunk Bob Sala (Michael Rispoli) and Moberg (Giovanni Ribisi) Kemp staggers through the island befriending the enemy (property developer Sanderson played by Aaron Eckhart) and developing an interest in his trophy girlfriend Chenault (Amber Heard).

The setting is colorful, the dialogue amusing, and the characters interesting, all making this a gem of a film. Some have criticised Depp for being too good looking to play a variation on Hunter S Thompson (writer of the novel the film is based on) and while the sight of Depp being an alcoholic may take a while to get used to, is there anyone this man can play without being criticised for being too good looking? Playing a toned down variation of his similiar portrayal in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Depp is hilarious but can also balance comedy and drama allowing the story to move even during the hilarious parts. The sight of Depp spraying fire from his mouth during a brief drunken car chase is hilarious and just as engaging as the realisation Depp has when he falls victim to ‘the man’. He’s matched brilliantly by the rest of the cast and they work off each other excellently.

The setting of Puerto Rico also deserves praise, with the place and era portrayed excellently. Director Robinson does a great job showing us a paradise locked away from the locals and driven by American money. Every scene whether indoor or ourdoor has an amazing look. Beaches look pristine, rooms look like they’ve been lived in, smoke and music fill the air.

Towards the end it does lose the run of itself a bit, with the pace chopping and changing too often, and it could have done with twenty minutes cut from the running time, but overall this is well worth your cinema money.

Depp should be proud, he’s done a great job getting his friend Hunter S Thompsons novel to the screen. Cheers to them both.

4 out of 5

Immortals – Epic Fail

Tarsem Singh likes his visuals. His previous directorial efforts The Cell (2000) and The Fall (2006) both made great trailers with impressive visuals and slick style but the final films fell flat, lacking the same talent in storytelling. Again this is the same with Immortals, proof that Tarsem is a great man to make a music video but over the length of a full film there’s just not enough there on the storytelling side.

Set in ancient Greece future Superman Henry Cavill plays Theseus, a young man caught up in a war between Mickey Rourkes Hyperion and the Gods who failed to answer his prayers. Hyperion is set on finding the mysterious Epirus Bow which will allow him to release the Titans and destroy the Gods. Although never really seeming to care too much, Theseus with the aid of Pintos Oracle stir up complications and Hyperion becomes hellbent on destroying them too.

Somewhere in production the money must have ran out all of a sudden. The costumes are amazing, decorating the bad guys in amazing looking masks and armour. Unfortunately the same dazzle cannot be said for the sets. Using mainly green screen the locations are dull and stench of artificialness. There is no sense of proper space or atmosphere in the locations, always feeling like the cast are inside on a stage instead of outside in an epic outdoor setting. The script is just as dull too. Rourkes Hyperion gets some fun lines but everyone else loses out, with wooden dialouge delivered in an even more wooden style.

With a film like Immortals all can be forgiven if the action delivers. Yes, at times the action is quite impressive, with some nice visual flourishes, but overall it is mostly over choreographed and dull, with no real urgency to it. Simpler action moments, like Theseus defending his mother from a slur, or Theseus fighting the warrior with the bull head, work well, while the money shots like the Gods battling the Titans or a giant Tsunami are uninvolving and repetitive.

Advertised as being in Epic 3D Immortals is instead an Epic fail. Hopefully with the right script and a story he’s passionate about telling director Tarsem can deliver the goods, but for now he remains firmly in the ad and music video directing league.

2 out of 5

Drive – slick, violent and fantastic

We don’t get over eighteen rated films too often anymore. Kids have money these days and their a huge market for our cinemas. Setting a barrier between them and a film will not be to the films financial benefit. It’s a relief then that a film arrives that ignores this fact. Drive is very cool, very stylish and extremely violent. All of these elements necessary in making it a damn fine film.

Ryan Gosling plays an unnamed man known simply as Driver. A quiet man of few words Driver is a stunt driver by day and a get away driver by night. Blending into the streets of LA unoticed Driver appears to have no real friends and only one aquaintance in Shannon (Bryan Cranston), his mechanic. He soon becomes involed with mother next door Irene (Carey Mulligan) and all seems to be on track for a happy ending, with Driver slowly emerging from his shell. All changes when Irenes husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) returns home from prison and Driver finds himself at the heart of a heist gone wrong.

Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn making his first English language film will see his stock rise after this. Expect his next directorial outing to have several times the budget and half of Hollywood beating down his door to star in it. He makes everything look and sound extremely cool. Expect the always present eighties soundtrack to quickly become the new soundtrack to own. Everything is slick and polished, with precise camera work, design and lighting.

Slickness is all for nothing though if there’s nothing behind it, fortunately there’s plenty. The script has some great dialogue and gives every character distinct personalitys enticing them each in the story in very different ways. Some of the gangsters could have done with some more attention to flesh out their motives and the racecar plot needed more to make it necessary but for the most part the script is every bit as smooth and perfect as the direction.

Gosling will be top of the Hollywood ladder after this. He’s impossible to take your eyes off as he fills the screen with such intensity. When he is present anything is possible, and he conveys that with as little dialogue as possible. When his violent outbursts eventually come we believe it. Delivered with such menace he manages to be both terrifying and warm when required.

The kind of film cinemas needed. A good reason to get off your couch, not wait for the DVD and get down to your cinema. Expect great things from the director, this marks the start of his hopefully very long and sucessful career in Hollywood.

4 out of 5

Warrior – a lot of lame

If Warrior is anything to go by all one needs to do to be a champion is make sure you get up early and go for a jog. Forget about technique, discipline and mind training all you need is that all important morning run. We see fighters exercise, we don’t see them actually train or sit down and think things through with their coach and work out strategys. In one line of the film the moviemakers state ‘these guys aren’t real fighters these guys just saw too much UFC on the internet and think they know what their doing’ which is hugely insulting to all the hard working athletes who dedicate their mind and body to a sport they love. Two blow ins just off the street appear and in a matter of weeks manage to become two of the best fighters in the world, dismissing the years of training all the other fighters have put in. Yes it’s only a movie but this is hugely disrespectful to UFC athletes.

Tommy (Hardy) and Brendan (Edgerton) play estranged brothers seperated due to their hate for their once alcoholic and abusive father (Nolte). Both were once great fighters and both have money issues. Tommy, fresh from fighting in Iraq needs cash to help a fallen soldiers wife and Brendan needs it to keep his house. Cue a free for all fighting tournament with a huge cash prize and the countdown to their meeting begins.

There are so many problems with the plot it goes beyind ridiculous. Brendans house is way too nice no wonder he can’t afford it. Stop being selfish and downgrade. His wife appears to have three kids but you won’t see any stretch marks. A bizzare scene appears where kids in the high school where Brendan teaches approach the principal to show the tournament fights in the schools gym. Nothing comes of the scene (they show the fight in a local fast food joint instead) and the choice of music in the scene can only be described as weird. It’s the kind of scene you see in the deleted scenes section of a DVD and once viewed you realise exactly why it wasn’t included, but Warrior keeps this needless scene and others in the final cut.

Much has been made of Hardys performance and while he does look great fighting and we believe he’s an animal in the ring unfortunately out of the ring he’s no more than doing his best Ronnie from Jersey Shore impression and sulking constantly to all the characters. As much as I tried I couldn’t believe his ignorance to the obvious good in the people around him.

Edgerton is likeable and does his best but unlike Hardy it’s very hard to believe his progress in the tournament. The ‘bad guy’ (Russian no doubt) would eat Edgerton alive if the film was anyway realistic. He also has the misfortune of having to participate in the same domestic scenes we’ve seen played out countless times before. The scenes with his wife are agonising to watch. We know her displease at his fighting will soon pass once he starts winning and she’ll appear ringside in support towards the end. Please filmakers have some originality. The public gets furious at remakes of films why dont we get furious at remaking the same scenes in different films?

The final nail in the coffin is the use of lazy plot fillers in. There is an overuse of sports commentators analysis and news updates to fill in the audience on plot developments and also to remind us of what’s going on. This shows the obvious fact that the script writers couldn’t think of anything better so cue YouTube, CNN etc.

This is firmly a one star movie but i’m adding an extra star for the final fight which manages to do what a lot of action scenes can’t do and convey both excitment and storytelling instead of just a choreographed set piece that works seperately to the main plot. Unfortunately it’s too little too late. Avoid.

2 out of 5