REVIEW: Life of Pi

Some Directors simply take the job that's given to them. Some like to think they have a choice and select jobs that they like the look of. And then there is the rare breed that like to be called auteurs.

Like him or not, Ang Lee can be said to be an auteur of some kind. The Taiwanese Director has long since established his visually driven storytelling through such films as Hulk and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and it's safe to say that Life of Pi is no different, really.

Life of Pi follows the older Pi Patel (Irrfan Khan) who is retelling the story of when he survived the sinking of a cargo ship when he and his family were moving to Canada to a writer (Rafe Spall). While his early life is quickly skimmed over (largely showing us his love for India, a young girl who he has fallen in love with and a tiger who he has a fascination with called Richard Parker. It is then that we follow the teenager Pi Patel (Suraj Sharma) who is the lone survivor on a lifeboat with an injured zebra, a monkey, a hyena and Richard Parker. Safe to say, the survivors on the boat are quickly whittled down and Pi is left to share his only chance of survival with the aggressive Richard Parker. It's a story of faith and belief as Pi tells a story that is difficult to believe, especially when he stumbles across a carnivorous island in the shape of a Hindu diety, Vishnu. Pi challenges the writer to believe in him and have faith that his story is true, or whether he wants to accept the more straight-forward and believable story where something much more straight-forward happened.

Life of Pi, while heavily reliant on the original source material, has Ang Lee written all over it. The film is visually stunning to look at, although I was confused as to why Lee chose to film it in 1.33:1 aspect ratio, rather than a wider screen. There's some beautiful aerial shots of Pi and Richard Parker as they lie in the lifeboat in the middle of the still ocean. There's some beautiful night shots, where the edge of the ocean and the start of the starry night merge together to form as one. And the boat sinking itself was also brilliantly tense as Pi desperately climbed and swam his way to safety, while backdropped against the brightly lit ship under the water. It's some really beautiful stuff.

And then, Ang Lee decides to cross the line of visually stunning storytelling, into a fantasy, whimsical dream like state when Pi and Richard Parker start to become some starved and drained and especially when they come across the carnivorous island. I know the whole film is about belief and getting the audience to have faith that Pi's story is the truth, but it almost felt like it was too much. I didn't want to have a repeat of Hulk where the visuals took over the storytelling and resulted in a boring story, I wanted to have a visually stunning story being told. It's just a shame that it seems Lee let's himself get too lost in the metaphor behind the story rather than actually telling the story.

Having said that, the most intense and interesting part of the film definitely comes within the first hour, where we learn of the young Pi's obsession with taming Richard Parker, the sinking of the cargo ship and then the initial struggle for dominance on the lifeboat between Pi and Richard Parker. It's just a shame that the second half starts to run out of steam - the carnivorous island sub-plot feels very rushed, yet it should have been a major plot point in establishing that when a person gives up hope, that's when they die (as seen when Pi tells the story of another man who gave up hope and was consumed by the island.) Also, when Pi needs to start telling the Chinese insurance company a more 'believable' story, again it feels very rushed and largely skipped over, when it was a story that relied on a lack of faith and should of had equal emphasis as the story with the animals and carnivorous island that required faith (almost as if to give them an equal balance.)

The way in which Life of Pi is told was always going to be the major hook to the story. It's like The Hole, where Thora Birch's character is left telling three different variations of the same story and leaves the audience wondering which is the truth. It's just a shame that we never truly get that sense of doubt in Life of Pi. The story which relies on faith, belief and religion is so shoved down our throats, that I felt it was quite preachy.

On another note, I have no idea why Ang Lee decided to agree to the dilm being in 3D. It literally added nothing to the storytelling. Unless my eyes were doubting me, there was no depth added. The stuff that "flew" out of the screen felt a little bit gimmicky and also quite flat (Li of Pi committed the same sin as Wrath of the Titans and suddenly shifted the aspect ratio of the film so stuff could "fly out" over the black screen space.) I almost felt like the 3D glasses were dimming the visuals on screen, so for the first time I felt that the 3D was a detriment to the film, rather than helping the storytelling.

So, overall Life of Pi is a bit of a mixed bag. While the story started off strong with the establishing of Pi's character and the predicament he faces when stranded on a lifeboat with a ferocious tiger, it fell completely flat in the second half when the visual-vomit from Ang Lee flew across the screen and the idea of faith was shoved down our throats.

**/*****

2012: A Year To Look Back On...

OK, so 2012 was when I first starting blogging my film reviews of everything that I saw at the cinema (and sometimes what I saw on DVD.) One of the first blogs of 2012 I did was what films I was looking forward to seeing and likewise, those that I wasn't looking forward to seeing. Let's have a look and see if I was right to be excited?



The Amazing Spiderman - ***/*****

As I said in the original blog post, I was a massive fan of Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy, so I was naturally looking forward to The Amazing Spiderman. While Andrew Garfield did a stand-up job taking over the red and blue suit and Emma Stone was great as his love interest, Gwen Stacey, the whole film felt a little boring and been-there-done-that. Basically, it wasn't that much different to the Raimi films.



Prometheus - ****/*****

I loved Prometheus. I don't care what you all think, I absolutely loved it. Sure, it wasn't a great prequel to Alien, and the stupid tacked on ending of the alien being born bugged me, but I loved how it raised so many questions. So what if it didn't answer all of them, it was a beautiful, beautiful film.



The Woman in Black - ****/*****

I loved the stage play. I then read the book and thought it was very chilling. The film? It was a bit reliant on heavy jump scares and sure, Daniel Radcliffe looked a little young to be playing Arthur Kipps, but it just felt like a well made tight little British horror film, something we have been missing since Hammer's heydays (minus the campiness of Christopher Lee).



Wrath of the Titans - ***½/*****

Clash of the Titans was pretty tame, had too much Hollywood gloss to it and had really flat 3D, but I was entertained on the most basic level. I was expecting more of the same from Wrath of the Titans, even though it had a new director, and I was unfortunately spot on. It suffered the same flaws in its look and plot, with even more monsters being abruptly killed off in this one. Looking back on it, I think my 3½ star writing might be a bit generous.



The Cabin in the Woods - ****/*****

I loved Cabin in the Woods. It was just what the horror genre needed to give it a bit of a boost - much like what Scream did in the 1990s. I'm just a little disappointed looking back on it that the film didn't get the mainstream advertising that it deserved. I can even overlook that ridiculous closing scene...



The Hunger Games - ***/*****

I don't like to admit it, but I was right with this one. It's a film that should have been a more extreme version than what it was. I don't understand why the filmmakers went for a light film which dealt with young people hunting and killing each other?!



The Avengers Assemble - **½/*****

One of my biggest disappointments of the year. I love superhero films and a film which had some of the big titans altogether should have been great. Instead, the 3D was flat and it just felt like it was the Thor show rather than a joint effort.



And films I wasn't looking so forward to...

American Pie: Reunion - ***/*****

I don't know how it did it, but American Pie: Reunion wasn't terrible. Sure, it wasn't an amazing feat of cinema, but it also didn't pretend to be anything else. Instead of finding the older actors weird and creepy doing the same stuff they did over 10 years ago, I felt a weird sense of nostalgia and remembering when I went to the cinema for the first films.



The Dictator - ½/*****

I was right - it was terrible. Sasha Baron Cohen needs to move on from his brand of "outrageous" humour, because it's not funny.



Titanic 3D - N/A

It was... nice to see this film in cinemas again and felt a lot more epic than watching it on the small screen. The 3D wasn't too shabby either, but not the best film of 2012 (or even 1997).



The Expendables 2 - ***/*****

I actually enjoyed The Expendables 2 a lot more than I thought I would. Even though Nan Yu nearly brought down the entire film with her appalling attempt at acting, it was great to see so many cameos by actions biggest stars.



Now on to 2013!

REVIEW: Pitch Perfect

Glee has a lot to answer for.

Not only does it ruin countless songs from popular culture by having 30-somethings sing them acting as teenagers and then having their voices auto-tuned to death but it has also restored the faith that tired high-school clichés and characters are back in.

Fortunately, Pitch Perfect shares very little with Glee, despite the obvious connection that they are both about singing groups.

Pitch Perfect follows Beca (Anna Kendrick) who is starting at Barden University, but doesn't really want to be there because she is being forced into a College education by her Father, Dr. Mitchell (John Benjamin Hickley). She starts working at the College radio station with Jesse (Skylar Astin), but her Father still doesn't approve because he wants her to join a proper College group so she can really feel what College is all about and make new friends. So, she joins the Barden Bellas, led by Aubrey (Anna Camp) and her right-hand woman, Chloe (Brittani Snow), who are trying to get the Bellas back to their former glory after a disastrous attempt at the a cappella finals last year. Unfortunately for them, they end up having to recruit a bunch of misfits in the form of Beca, slutty Stacie (Alexis Knapp), urban Cynthia Rose (Ester Dean), deathly quiet Lilly (Hana Mae Lee) and the fat Fat Amy (Rebel Wilson). Beca soon spots their shortfalls - they keep performing the same old tired routine - but Aubrey is so power hungry that she doesn't want to listen to anyone else's input. It's a case of falling out and making up again as the Barden Bellas make their way to the a cappella finals and try to win the 1st place title again. Will they make it? Who knows... well, that would be a lie.

The film itself feels like it's been dragged kicking and screaming out of the 1990s from films like Bring It On, The Waterboy and any other sports team/College group who are seen as underdogs and work their way to victory. In fact, in Pitch Perfect's defence, it never strays away from the tight cliché story that it follows and uses it to it's advantage most of the time in the sense that we know where the story is going, so we re here for the comedy and to laugh.

However, I have to get this out the way from the beginning; Pitch Perfect would be a very mediocre film at best and probably quite tame if it wasn't for Rebel Wilson and her character of Fat Amy. She literally steals every single scene that she is in and provides 90% of the laughs and punchlines in the film. The fact that the film has to rely on a character so much would be a little bit tiresome, but I personally find Rebel Wilson hilarious, so I didn't mind so much. But a word of warning, if you didn't like her style of comedy in Bridesmaids or What To Expect When You're Expecting (the little roles that she did have in them), then Pitch Perfect is like an extended version of those roles that she's already played - a socially awkward fat girl who says exactly what she is thinking.

But Pitch Perfect isn't all about Fat Amy, it's actually about Beca and her budding relationship with Jesse who has joined the rival all-male a cappella group, The Treblemakers lead by the 'douchebag' Bumper (Adam DeVine). However, because inter-a cappella group relations are not allowed and the fact that Beca is a moody little teenage girl full of angst, it doesn't make Jesse's advances to her very easy. Having said all that, despite the tension that is built that blocks their budding relationship, it's hardly Romeo and Juliet. I didn't really feel like I wanted them to get together and the kiss at the end felt a little bit forced. I guess I just wanted the scriptwriter, Kay Cannon to do something a bit more that would have really thrown their budding relationship into jeopardy. For example, the radio DJ shows some initial interest in Beca when he starts playing her mash-up remixes on the radio station, but that goes no where. Beca is explicitly told by Aubrey that relationships are not allowed in-between a cappella groups (and Beca needs to make The Barden Bellas work, because her Father has promised her funding to move to New York to become a Radio DJ if she does well at College) but Beca just invites Jesse around to her dorm room with no problems. It just felt a little bit... tame.

Secondly, the road to the finals seems a little bit easy for The Barden Bellas. I know the plot of this film was never going to be the reason to see it and that it's all down to the singing/comedy (depending on your preference), but there was prime opportunity to add more into it. Like when the Bellas' coach breaks down (due to Fat Amy not actually putting any petrol in it) there could have been a comedic struggle for them to actually get to finals. Instead, what do we get? A quick phone call to The Treblemakers and boom... they are back on the road again. The theatrical trailer also hinted at a bikini car wash to raise money, but it was mysteriously absent from the film. Who wouldn't have wanted to see Fat Amy in a bikini...? OK then.

And for those of you who have came for the singing? Well, for a film that runs on for about two hours, there really didn't feel like there was that much "organised nerd singing" and when it is there, it's auto-tund to hell and back (like on Glee). It's alright for people who aren't really into Glee or that type of singing - put it this way, characters suddenly don't burst into song when they are in trouble/annoyed/happy. The only singing comes when they are in their practice room or performing for the regionals. But the whole film is pitched as an a cappella singing comedy film, so the lack of singing in the two hour running time felt odd.

So, while Pitch Perfect isn't perfect, it certainly packs a few punches, courtesy of Fat Amy aka. Rebel Wilson. For those of you who were expecting a Glee film with different characters, it's almost there, but not quite - thank goodness! For those of you who aren't really into your singing teenage dramas, Pitch Perfect does feel a it cheesy in parts, but luckily there's not too much singing to turn you off.

*** / *****

REVIEW: Jack Reacher

Ah, another book series that has been snapped up by Hollywood. If I've said it once, I'll say it again - a book series, if successful can equal big monies for Hollywood. That's why they can be such hot property.

Now I must admit, I'm not too familiar with the Jack Reacher books (I guess I need to do some more reading!) So I'm going into this film blind to it's source material, which hopefully means I might be able to appreciate the filmmaking?!

Jack Reacher opens with a brutal and methodical sniper attack on five seemingly innocent civilians. The sniper, Barr (Joseph Sikora) is quickly apprehended by the Police and taken into custody. It is here that Barr simply says, "Get Jack Reacher." Reacher (Tom Cruise) is a military man who has decided to keep himself on the down low after his military service and almost take himself off the radar. He soon joins Helen (Rosamund Pike), Barr's Attorney who is convinced that he is innocent and wants to bring justice to the innocent victims. It's a tough line to walk though, as Helen soon starts to insult the victims' families and her father, Rodin (Richard Jenkins) is soon telling her that she needs to step down and just let Barr take the rap for what he's seemingly done. Meanwhile, Reacher is on the run from Emerson (David Oyelowo) and the rest of the Police force as they think that he is involved with even more murders taking place. However, the web of deceit is soon looking very tangled as Reacher and Helen soon realise that someone who is on their side is actually on the enemy's side.

To give it credit, Jack Reacher is a film that is fully developed into it's own tight-knit thriller that never really lets it's pace slow down and doesn't feel part of a 'larger picture' where the film studio and/or Director (Christopher McQuarrie) have held stuff back for the sequel. Sure, the character of Jack Reacher is quite mysterious and we don't learn too much about him, but I think it just adds to his mystery because he was someone who chose to take himself off the map and live a quiet life. It would have been a lot of heavy exposition if we were to learn his entire backstory.

However, on the other hand, while Jack Reacher is a mysterious character, Helen feels underdeveloped and completely overacted by Rosamund Pike. While I feel like I should be bigging-up a British actress who is making it 'big' across the pond, I couldn't get past her hammy facial expressions she was pulling when she was supposed to be shocked or her big wide-eyed face she kept pulling. It's a shame, because obviously there was supposed to be some kind of sexual tension between her and Jack Reacher, but it was just completely lost with Pike's B-movie acting.

It's funny, because when I first saw the trailer for Jack Reacher, I immediately thought this was going to be a film inspired by the excellent Drive, when in fact the two films have very little in common. To be honest, Jack Reacher is actually more like the recent dud, Alex Cross, but the two films couldn't be anymore different in how they were executed. While Alex Cross felt more like a cheap TV production with lots of slow down-time, Jack Reacher had well-timed action, a compelling crime conspiracy plot and some well executed comedy (keep an eye out for the scene where Reacher is searching the house of one of the suspects and he has to dispatch of two or three henchmen.)

But enough of the comparisons, because in all fairness Jack Reacher shouldn't be compared to an inferior film. While on the whole it is well-paced, the two hour plus run-time did feel a little bit excessive at times. I think the main problems with that came with the third act battle when Reacher needs to save Helen from the clutches of the evil villain, The Zec (Werner Herzog) who was the mastermind behind the whole sniper plot. There's a twist which is quite obvious from the start that was drawn out for a very long time and then a final fight scene between Reacher and one of Zec's right-hand men, Charlie (Jai Courtney) which felt a little underwhelming.

Even though Jack Reacher has it's flaws, it is definitely one of the better crime thrillers of the year. I can't wait for any further Reacher adaptations that needs to have Tom Cruise back and the 'bigger, faster, bloodier' mindset of many sequels.

****/*****

REVIEW: Great Expectations

Another retelling of the classic by Charles Dickens.

The thing is, you have to ask yourself, how many times can you be told the exact same story and be entertained? It seems like one more time isn't a complete waste of time.

Great Expectations sticks very rigidly to the original Charles Dickens story, so if you are familiar with the novel then the film isn't anything radically different. It starts with a young Pip (Toby Irvine) who helps an escaped prisoner, Magwitch (Ralph Fiennes). Magwitch is soon caught and sent back to the prisoner ship from which he escaped. Pip is then sought out by Mr Jaggers (Robbie Coltrane) as the local Miss Havisham (Helena Bonham Carter) wants a new playmate for her adopted daughter, young Estella (Helena Barlow). Pip grows up loving Estella and dreams of becoming a true gentleman. His prayers are answered when he grows up, and Pip (now played by Jeremy Irvine) receives and inheritance from an unknown benefactor. He moves to London to live his dream of being a gentleman. However, something is missing from his life, and that is his love for Estella (now played by Holliday Grainger) who has been brought up by Miss Havisham to be cold-hearted and to hate all men, as Havisham herself was jilted at the alter. As Pip starts to find out who his mysterious benefactor is, his life of luxury starts to unravel around him.

Now, I will admit straight away that I haven't seen any of the other versions of Great Expectations, except the 1946 classic version directed by David Lean. I guess you could argue then that I haven't been desensitised to the story by Charles Dickens because I've seen it so many times. However, the charm with this retelling of the story isn't with the story itself, but the way in which it is told.

The first thing that stands out by a mile is the direction by Mike Newell and the cinematography by John Mathieson. The Kentish countryside is beautifully shot through the thick mists and creaking ironwork at Joe's (Jason Flemying) blacksmith shop. The tension was just oozing from the screen when Pip was having to go behind Joe and Mrs. Joe's backs (Sally Hawkins) to try and feed Magwitch. While the London sets didn't hit anywhere near the beauty and tense Kentish countryside, it certainly felt authentic and claustrophobic as Pip is pushed and shoved when he finds his way to his new lodgings.

Then there's Miss Havisham, arguably the film's biggest attraction beyond the budding relatioship between Pip and Estella. Helena Bonham Carter seems like the perfect person to bring the jilted and bitter character to the screen, because let's face it, she's pretty good at playing unhinged characters. And Bonham Carter doesn't disappoint as she grabs the role with both hands and really gives it everything. She's creepy as she tells the young children to come close to her, so she can tell them a secret, only to cover them in her rotten vail to bring them in even closer. She then turns it to childlike shock and innocence when the fire catches her decaying wedding dress and she is engulfed in flames.

However, while Bonham Carter is excellent within the role, it is Pip and Estella and their love/hate for each other that keeps the film rolling. While others may disagree, I thought that Grainger's portrayal as the twisted and manipulated Estella was almost spot-on. The inner turmoil she faces when confronted with her own feelings for Pip when she has been promised to another man by Miss Havisham is heart-wrenching. The only thing that let's the side down is Irvine's portrayal of Pip, as he seems a bit wooden and emotionless in comparison. While he does a standard job, it just doesn't seem enough in comparison to Grainger.

So, if you are a fan of the traditional Dickens' tale, then this version of Great Expectations is pretty solid in what you should be expecting. The cinematography is pretty top-notch in comparison to how some other previous versions look and most of the acting is spot on. The only thing that arguably lets it down is that the third act becomes a little confusing as it tries to cram in every single one of Dickens' plot twists and turns from the original novel.

**** / *****

REVIEW: Alex Cross

Literature to film adaptions have always been hot property. It's pretty much a given that the film will have a built in fan base from the books, but will also hopefully bring in more fans, with the potential for merchandise being quite high (an easy one being to rebrand the book as a "movie tie-in edition").

However, it's never going to be an easy ride to please existing fans and new ones. The old fans want to see a film version of the book they have read, whereas the new fans want action, violence and romance (aka. the basics). Just have a look at One For The Money for an example of how to get it drastically wrong.

Alex Cross is a a film based on a series of books by James Patterson. A series of books - KERCHING! The film follows a homicide detective, Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) who lives a happy life in Detroit with his wife, Maria (Carmen Ejogo), their children and thier Grandmother, Nana Mama (Cicely Tyson). Lead by Richard Brookwell (John C. McGinley), his long standing partner since school, Tommy Kane (Edward Burns) and their colleague, Monica Ashe (Rachel Nichols), the team soon start investigating some terrible torture murders. The murderer is soon nicknamed Picasso (Matthew Fox), because he keeps leaving drawings of his victims behind with clues as to who is going to be next. They soon make a link that the murders are revolving around German Businessman, Erich Nunmacher (Werner Daehn) and billionaire CEO, Leon Mercier (Jean Reno) and plans to attack them at a public conference. When the Picasso murders turn personal against Cross and his partner Kane, they vow to hunt down and kill the Picasso killer, even if it means putting their own lives on the line.

Alex Cross is a film that barely makes any kind of impact. I haven't read the original source material, but doing a slight bit of research online reveals how loosely the film is actually related to the book series and how many changes the filmmakers actually made makes me think that this is a film version in name only. If you have to change character names and motives for their actions, then why not make your own film? Having said that, the plot for this film felt more like an idea for a TV pilot rather than a film. There was hardly any big set pieces that set this film out from small screen adaptations (such as 24 or Dexter) and most of the conflict came from the characters.

Which brings me onto my next point, the casting for this film was completely off. Tyler Perry felt like he was being forced to do this film and had zero chemistry with his on-screen wife, Carmen Ejogo or his life-long partner, Edward Burns. It was like they barely knew each other, yet Perry's character was supposed to be having his third child with his wife and had known his work partner since they were at school together. When Perry and Burns were exchanging lifelong memories in the many downtime moments in the film, it felt like they were just going through the motions of the words written in the script rather than having any emotional investment. I guess it just made it so obvious after seeing End of Watch, a film which has many flaws of its own but got the on-screen chemistry of its leads spot on.

Which brings me onto my next point, for an action/thriller film there were certainly plenty of boring moments. It felt like every single scene was entered too early, providing the audience with too much bogged down dialogue which didn't push the plot or characters forward. Banter in the car between Perry and Burns in the car before they got to the first Picasso crime scene was boring and dull. Any date nights and dialogue between Perry and Ejogo were boring and lacked any spark. The woman was pregnant for crying out loud, yet Perry didn't seem to have much of a reaction (I know it was going to be his third child with her, but still!)

Finally, the worst point of Alex Cross was the fact that when the film finally did pick up in the third act, the camera work was so damn shaky that you could literally see nothing that was happening. I'm all for shaky, hand-held camera work when necessary - heck, I could even stand a bit of the Bourne Identity's most shaky moments - but Alex Cross was so shaky that it was almost like it was trying to hide some bad production values or direction. With an ending reminiscent of Beyonce's so-bad-its-good thriller Obsessed, where the villain is left hanging from a damaged ceiling, not even then could it rack up the tension. Which is strange, because at the mid-point of the film, two successive events happen so quickly that it was easy for the film to create an atmosphere of "anything could literally happen" and "anyone could die at any minute". However, the third act is so paint-by-numbers that this is quickly diminished.

So, Alex Cross is a film that lies to its audience in the first instance by promising them an adaption of a book series, but actually delivers something else. It then disappoints its audience by being a lacklustre action film and a boring thriller film. It just fails on all accounts.

* / *****

REVIEW: End of Watch

Found footage. It's everywhere. It's infecting cinemas and the films that are being shown in them.

It was revolutionary back in the 1990s, (namely with The Blair Witch Project) but now it seriously comes off as "old hat" and a hinderance to the story being told.

Who seriously records that much? How many different people carry cameras at the same time? And more importantly, who edits this 'found footage' into a coherent film?

End of Watch doesn't dodge these problems, but hits them head-on. Unfortunately, it only poses a problem for the opening of the film as the story being told and the characters being presented to us are engaging enough to forget that we are watching a found footage film.

End of Watch follows two buddy cops, Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Peña) who are back patrolling Los Angeles' mean streets after a blip involving a shooting and their names having to be cleared. The two cops are pretty much the stereotype cut-outs that we expect - Taylor being the cocky joker with the new budding relationship with Janet (Anna Kendrick), whereas Zavala is the settled married man, who has a baby on the way with his wife, Gabby (Natalie Martinez). It's when Taylor and Zavala carry out a random money/guns bust, they are targeted to be killed by the largely unseen cartel leader.

That's largely it, because the film largely focuses on Taylor and Zavala's relationship as the buddy around together on every day routine call-outs, including missing children, drugs busts and house fires. Oh, if the stereotypes of Taylor and Zavala weren't enough, there is also the mean, controlling Sarge (Frank Grillo), the annoying cop who plays by the book, Van Hauser (David Harbour), the tough female buddy duo Orozco (America Ferrera) and Davis (Cody Horn) and finally the rookie cop who really isn't cut-out for the job, Sook (Kristy Wu). Fortunately though, the film decides to largely gloss over the supporting characters as the film gives plenty of screen time to Gyllenhaal and Peña to truly blossom as characters and make us care for them as 'brothers', much like they see each other.

Pre-screen press material has hinted at the amount of time that Gyllenhaal and Peña spent with the real LAPD and in each others company to build a relationship and it's certainly paid off. Their friendship is effortless on screen - when they laugh and joke about each others relationships, it's like they actually have been friends for years and when they go through pain/heartache, they are there for each other like true brothers.

Unfortunately, for everything the film and the filmmakers get right with Gyllenhaal and Peña's on-screen relationship, they completely mess up with the cartel gang that are set to kill our protagonists. Demon (Richard Cabral), Wicked (Diamonique), Big Evil (Maurice Compte), La La (Yahira Garcia) and Peanut (Alvin Norman) are completely underdeveloped. They are introduced strongly enough, by gunning down and completely destroying a rival gangs barbecue and then hinted at some long standing ties with the LAPD, but then they practically disappear for the entire second act of the film. The threat to Taylor and Zavala is largely unseen and just hinted at through clues from other members of the LAPD and a weird night-vision sight on the Cartel boss who gives the order to kill Taylor and Zavala. Then, when the Cartel cronies are brought back into the film for the third act, they are caricatures of the characters that they were introduced as - shouting each other down with inane dialogue about having to come up with a 'plan' to kill the cops, calling each other and other people "Puta" a lot and then finally throwing in enough swearing, that frankly, a person who suffers with tourettes would be ashamed of. When the gang deliver the final blow of the third act, it frankly falls a little bit flat as they just aren't the strong antagonists that the film needs them to be.

Secondly, the direction and filming style from David Ayer was nauseating at times. I get the hand-held style of the film was meant to be hand-held, but it's established that there are three cameras (two that are attached to Taylor and Zavala's uniforms and then one hand-held one), but the editing of the film suggests that they were surrounded by about 10 cameras. It made the whole point of the film being found-footage to be redundant. If Ayer had decided to keep the three gritty hand-held cameras but then juxtapose them against some beautifully shot cinematography, it would have arguably been more effective. Instead, we get shaky camera work that brings on bouts of motion sickness, because Ayer obviously thought that the hand-held style would bring a real sense to the film. But, it didn't.

So, for everything that End of Watch gets right, it arguably has something that equally brings it down. It's like Ayer focussed so much on getting the budding relationship between Gyllenhaal and Peña right, that he overlooked other aspects of the film.

*** / *****