Kong: Skull Island

                          

This could have worked as either a more serious film or as a sillier one, but it walks the line between the two, and walks it awkwardly. I could see where they were going with the silly B movie elements, but they contrasted jarringly with the violent deaths and Vietnam scenes, and the characters themselves often didn't seem to be taking the situation seriously enough. 

The human characters were boring and simple. They usually had some bland background that's gotten out of the way quickly and really just lets us know if they're going to end up dying rather than making us care about them. It's a shame, because where are several great actors here, and they've gone to waste for the most part. There were too many characters too - especially the endless soldier guys, but also the confusing multiplicity of main characters. There were also a few dull exposition scenes that I feel could have been worked into the story a little better.

               

                 

Don't worry though, everything else I've going to say will be positive. The action was pretty great. It was well staged with good effects, and the camera didn't jump around or wobble as much as it could have. There were some really nice shots actually, mostly of the island or Kong wading through water or the Vietnam style helicopter/explosions/shades imagery. 

Unlike all other King Kong movies (that I can think of at present) this one actually stayed on the island the whole time - always my favourite part of the story. This is clearly a set up for a sequel (possibly fighting Godzilla? Kong gon' get his ass beat), but I forgive it as the film still works as a sort of Jurassic park style get off the island story.

               

            

Fun and flashy, with imaginative monsters and interesting well shot action, 'Kong: Skull Island' lacks much depth, but this likely doesn't matter for true big monster fans.

                          

Kong: Skull Island: 41.1

Looper

                

Well that was better than I was expecting. Bruce Willis stars as something other than the usual action movie guy (well, kinda). And we get to watch a neo-noir sci-fi with an original story that came out of Hollywood (something I don't think can be said about any other film from the past decade).

I say original, but what I really mean is "not based off a book or a French movie" (to the best of my knowledge). I don't want to hype this film too much - it's not perfect - but it was head and shoulders above anything since... 'Moon'? 

              

                    

Well 'Moon' was SO much better, but this one was pretty good. The plot is complex enough to be thought provoking without being too difficult or walking the viewer through it. It slows down a little one we get to the farm, and I got a bit bored before the finale came around (also, they couldn't help but wedge in a Willis-killing-hundreds-of-baddies scene). It almost felt like two different movies, and I liked the first one much more.

The characterisation of the hero was the biggest upside for me. He's a great character, with plenty of inner turmoil, and I liked the differences between his older and younger self (also, I appreciated how they didn't go out of their way to make lots of jokes about it when the two meet).

The kid and his mum I cared less for, but they were fine. The whole concept was quite nice, and the world felt pretty real, though they didn't go into detail beyond the whole mob-come-time travel concept.

                   

Looper: 68.1

Miami Connection

               
An absurd and achingly of its time American martial arts action movie set in Miami and featuring the members of the band 'Dragon Sound' on their quest to rid the Floridan city of its thugs and biker-ninjas.
                 

               

You're probably making a few assumptions about what this movie is like now, huh? Well to be honest, you're pretty much right, but I liked it anyway.
The guy who wrote and directed it also played the lead, and apparently had to sell off a bunch of his tae-kwon-do places after the movie bombed on his own money. Ah well, at least it's picking up some speed in a niche "remember the 80's" sort of a way now.

The writing is terrible, the acting is impressively terrible, and the plot is pretty much as silly as a plot can be without trying to be. Twice the film actually just turns into a 'Top of the Pops' episode as we watch the band literally just perform a whole four minute song. It would be a total flop, if it wasn't for the damned enthusiasm that these lousy actors positively exude throughout. They are so obviously having fun, and putting their all into every scene, that I couldn't help but cheer them on as they beat up biker ninjas or whatever dumb thing it was that they were doing. It's all so quaint and fun that it feels like something modern made to be 80s - but it's not! That's why I like it - that and the laughs one has at the movie and how dumb the whole thing is.

I feel like the poster deserves its own paragraph: what the fuck?! I mean, I guess his face kinda looks like that but... Seriously? Why is his skin as folded as the creases in a fashionable dog, or his jacket? Why is there simultaniously a smaller version of himself near his crotch air-kicking a guy firing a sub-machine gun? Talking of his crotch, why do his jeans go so high up? Why are his arms so short - is that... is that meant to be forced perspective? And why, oh, WHY is that dumb scene with a guy taking a letter out of a mail box IN THE POSTER?!
Ok done - if that poster doesn't make you want to watch this bastard nothing will.
              

Miami Connection: 36.3

Pulp Fiction

                 

Implicitly dialogue driven, with a host of characters who delight in talking shit, and roll their eyes at the earlier introspective personalities popularised by films like 'Taxi Driver'. While 'Reservoir Dogs' was a very "first movie" kind of first movie for Tarantino, he hits his stride with 'Pulp Fiction' in a way that I don't believe he has matched since (though he has come close a few times).
          

       

Like his earlier work, the timeline of 'Pulp Fiction is all over the place, and we learn of our character's personalities through a jumble of their deeds rather than a linear story line. While 'Reservoir Dogs' presents us with a series of flash backs though, this movie is set up as a series of stand alone little stories, the characters of which just happen to have been woven throughout each one. The name 'Pulp Fiction' is, of course, perfect for this movie, as is the poster (on the right) which ties in with the theme. It's one of the most accurately and imaginatively named films of all time, and the poster for it is probably my favourite movie poster of all time too (the only one that I've ever included in a review, so far).

The script is also fantastic, and such joy has clearly been taken in its creation that reading it is almost as much fun as watching the movie. To date it's the only script that I've ever bought - an original copy that I found in a second hand furniture place, complete with a ticket for an original showing of 'The Exorcist' used as a bookmark (which I also kept, of course) - and it's a very cool little book. The characters of many crime movies have very limited dialogue, and their personalities lean more heavily on their decisions and actions for development. Here though Tarantino's characters delight in their dialogue, telling long rambling stories to one another and chatting mindlessly as they drive around. In the case of Jules and Vincent in particular, this connotes a sense of innocence. They live easily and fairly free, in a way that many aspire to.
I really like Vincent, and he is one of the reasons why I like John Travolta so much. This was one of the high points of his characteristically up and down career, and I like seeing him here even more than I did in his earlier classics like 'Greece' and 'Saturday Night Fever'. His character is inept where Jules (Samuel L Jackson) is more to the point, and most of the his drama stems from trying to fix problems that he's accidentally caused. He's also always going to the loo, spitting in the face of movie tradition (apart from Japanese movies, where they often seem oddly obsessed with the flushing of toilets) as he announces "I've got to take a piss" and buggers off every few minutes. He's also hugely unlucky, as every time he does pop to the john he misses out on something. This all stems from his passing off of what Jules took to be a miracle (the pair were shot at many times, but all the bullets missed, seemingly passing through him). After this point the two characters split apart with Jules (in a state of spiritual enlightenment) starts having all the luck.

        

      

Now Jules is somewhat more of a loose cannon, who likes to quote bible passages as he kills people and has "Bad Motherfucker" on his wallet. Despite this, he's also more competent than his partner, who has a habit of making rookie mistakes (leaving your gun on a counter while you go into the bathroom of a mark, shooting one of your guys in the face, etc.). He's far more open to the idea of being saved by a miracle, and this is ultimately what saves him from meeting the untimely end of his friend. Side note: did you know that the actor credited literally as "the fourth man" in 'Pulp Fiction' has since had a sex change? Funny, huh? She looks good now anyway, though I've never seen her in anything else.
         

                
Both men work for Marsellus Wallace, who's a crime lord in the LA area. We don't get a good look at him for a while, seeing only the big plaster on the back of his head. There are a few interesting theories about why he has this plaster, by the way. My favourite is that it's covering the hole through which his soul was removed (by the devil?), which is the mystery glowing thing in the suitcase (a MacGuffin that Vince and Jules are stealing back for Marsellus, which interestingly has the combination code of 666). Marsellus doesn't appear in many scenes, and when he does he spends most of his time being scary or being raped. Despite this he's a huge influence on the film, as everyone is ultimately either working for or against him. He also manages to make Bruce Willis (as Butch Coolidge) look wimpy; quite a feat.
Butch is a boxer who is getting over the hill, and is looking to retire in luxury. Rather than take the bribe from Marsellus to throw a game though, he bets heavily on himself and wins. The rest of his story consists of trying to get away with it and leave the country with his useless French girlfriend. I'm harsh on Fabienne, and she is annoying, but it's an excellent example of great Tarantino dialogue. The apparently trivial conversations she has with her boyfriend do in fact have hidden meanings that relate to the themes rest of the movie. There's a lot of dialogue, but it's very well delivered, and it's a real workhorse of hidden meanings. So much of Tarantino's best characters are revealed to use through their mindless chatter rather than when they're shooting each other, and I love that.
The sequence with the gimp and the hillbillies is an odd mix of difficult to watch, hilarious, and exciting. I loved the bit where Butch was going through possible weapons, referencing just about every action and horror movie with the cliche of each one. As he reaches the chainsaw anyone who doesn't know Tarantino may be thinking "oh, OK, here we go" but no, he hasn't made 'Kill Bill' yet but he is of course already in love with samurai movies, so Butch finally settles on a kick-ass katana.
                    

                   
Also that watch scene was legitimately hilarious, and Christopher Walken delivers his monologue to the young Butch perfectly.        
Of course I have to mention Mia Wallace and her story with Vincent. The scene in the 50s diner is excellent, as is the pair's car ride up to it. We reference the movie's name here, as we do just about everything 50s. The green screens on the car windows are badly done, and the world outside looks rather noir (this is also somewhat the case with the scene with Butch in the taxi, but here it's more referencing 'Taxi Driver'). This theme is continued once they are inside the restaurant when the world outside of the windows doesn't look quite right, as if it's partially colourless and doesn't quite fit with the real-life view from the windows. The theme continues into the diner, obviously, and we even get to briefly see Steve Buscemi playing a Buddy Holly waiter.
Mia is a stark contrast to her husband, and interestingly in the only scene that we see them together, she's just sitting on a sunbed in the background with a completely blank expression on her face, not really looking herself. She's an interesting character: opinionated and judgmental, but in quite an irritating and childish way. She also takes pleasure in control, yet occasionally lapses back into acting like a little girl. A good example of this is when she playfully tries to roll her own cigarette while Vincent is in the bathroom. It's a very funny scene as Vince talks to himself in the toilet while Mia fucks around, and the mood switches with a jolt as she finds Vincint's heroin and ODs. As is a common theme in this movie, the rest of the story is taken up with Vincint trying to clean up a mess that he has inadvertently created.
And talking of cleaning up messes, have I mentioned Winston "The Wolf" Wolfe? He's the man to call when you accidentally shoot a guy in the face, and you can be sure that he'll turn up in nine minutes thirty-seven seconds. His quick quips and sharp humour are a good match for Jules, and thoroughly put Vincent in his place.
           

                
He disappears as quickly as he arrives, though. While things would be a lot easier if he was around more often, that's just not how it is. He's a bit of a miracle figure, an extension of Jule's newfound faith.
The film opens with a pair of small time thieves who call one another Honey Bunny and Pumpkin. They area  couple of only briefly introduced yet intriguing characters: Pumpkin sounds English, and Honey Bunny is a weird mix of adorable and mental. They discuss robbing a diner instead of the usual liquor stores, kiss, and then she pulls out two pistols and starts shrieking. We don't see them again until the closing scene of the movie, when I've all but forgotten about the dynamic duo. There hasn't been any obvious way that they've linked into the story so far - but wait! Jules and Vince are at the diner too! (Fresh from their clean-up story at the start of the film, and still looking dorky in their surfing t-shirts). It's so nice to see Vincent again, and I was just so pleased to get to see them do another scene together. Especially as said scene is so brilliant. Vincent of course missed some of it because he's gone to the loo, but Jules handles the gunman and lady beautifully, and if I ever do get around to getting a wallet (and then maybe some money to put in it) it will almost definitely say "Bad Motherfucker" on it.
What a perfect movie; I can't imagine it getting much better than this. The acting is excellent and the script is perfect. Whenever I have a crack at fiction I try to give people something of the effortless yet meaningful banter that they all have here. Favourite American movie, hands down.
          

Pulp Fiction: 95.8

Seven Psychopaths

  

An awesome cast (including Christopher Walken and Colin Farrell - and while I haven't particularly noticed him as being good before, Sam Rockwell was great in this too) and a plot that wouldn't look out of place in a Tarantino movie (one of the earlier, better ones), 'Seven Psychopaths' is an interesting mixture of a classic American mobby thriller and a British crime comedy.

It's an interesting blend of styles, and a very engaging plot. It moves in ways that few Hollywood films do (which is arguably because, other than the setting, it is effectively a British film, but oh well). Though the meaning of the title seems clear, and a basic Tarantino style premise appears to be set up in the first half hour, the film begins to branch out as the psychopathic condition itself is explored.
   

  

The central character is called Marty, and is an unemployed writer. The script he is trying to write is a shadow of the plot of the movie itself. So does he represent the real-life writers of 'Seven Psychopaths', and their struggles to create the plot, or does he represent the viewers? A bit of both, I think. He is the writers while he is asking his friends about his script. In these scenes Billy and Hans are different aspects of the audience, with Billy wanting to end it all in a final showdown with explosions and gun fights, and Hans wanting more intelligent female characters. These two embody stark contrasts in personalities, and each sits on Marty's shoulder like a little angel and devil. But which is which? Well, they're both psychopaths, and this is what lends the movie an intriguing surrealist twist. At other times, though, Marty is us, as he watches mighty actors clash and events unfold around him in a state of frightened disbelief.
Colin Farrell does an amazing job as Marty, and the director, Martin McDonagh (who also directed the brilliant 'In Bruges') handles him perfectly, letting him sit back and let the likes of Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, and Sam Rockwell do their thing, while having him show his own style (which is so refreshing that I'm honestly surprised that he's in a movie set in Hollywood). Like 'In Bruges', the movie makes fun of the absurdity of guns, and violence in general. My favourite example of this was the scene where Hans is threatened by an armed mobster, who says "Put you're hands up!" to which he replies "no." "But... I've got a gun!" And Hans snorts slightly "I don't care." The whole cast do very well, with Walken creeping towards the edge of self parody before expertly saving himself with some quality acting.
   

  
It's filled with self-parody, and it definitely knows that it's a movie. There's the movie-within-a-movie aspect, but the subtle way that this is expressed negates any cliche that this could create. It's also both not afraid to kill off it's characters, and able to kill them off in meaningful ways before the climax of the movie, which I appreciate. The death of Myra I found particularly sad, at which point I realised that this film had somehow got me to care for it's characters - a rather rare trait these days.
The ending was exceptionally delicate, and while I imagine some to get annoyed about the slight trick that was played on them, I loved it. The first end, with the burnt flag, the view, and the upbeat music, was too perfect. That was the ending to The Movie, not the end of the story. We still had to see how Marty had grown, and we are the bunny man at the end. That last scene was really touching, and I'd go so far as to say that it was one of my favourite endings of any film.

I'm not going to say that you're stupid if you don't like this movie, but you definitely aren't not stupid if you didn't.
   

Seven Psychopaths: 89.9

Killing Them Softly

  

A mob flick that draws parallels between the US economy of the late naughties and the declining Italian based mafia. I really quite enjoyed it, but I was surprised to see average (for popular reviewers) ratings from other reviewers. Robert Ebert especially surprised me, giving it just two out of five stars. After reading his one I soon found out why, though: he doesn't seem to have seen it. The plot he described was vaguely similar, but several of the characters were completely different (Gandolfini as a mob boss? Were you just watching 'The Sopranos', or do you not know what the actor looks like?). Apart from that, he didn't seem to like the plot at all (though to be fair the plot he described was pretty shit). He also had a problem with the economy references, and I do agree that many were a little on the nose. It may have been because of the whole dying thing, in which case I'll feel a little guilty about my harshness, but that shouldn't be... relevant, right?

The parallels are clunky, but I enjoy it when the mob economy is being explored, so I mostly forgive it that. I think it was much more than your basic guys killing each other movie. It's like a small town falling apart, where everyone knows each other. Only it's the mob, and it's depressing, and nobody seems to know what to do about it. Not once does the film go into detail about how they are making money, other than stealing or winning off one another, and that's the point. Their all too greedy for their own good. They aren't poor immigrants who look out for each other any more - it's a dog-eat-dog world. "we're all just on our own" as Frankie said.
I could go on about what I imagine the mob economy to be like plenty, but I'd get bored of that soon after you would (unless you have already) so I'll move on to mention what made the movie really stand out to me.

There were several really beautifully shot scenes. Seriously - world class, some of the best I've ever seen type shots. My favourite was probably when Markie was hit in his car. Jackie pulled up alongside him and shot him repeatedly through the side window. It was raining, and the whole scene went into slow motion, so there were particles of glass and blood and water flying everywhere. It was awesome, and Markie fell sideways as the window wipers swept across the windscreen. Then his car rolled out into the road, and the impacts as it was T-boned were muted, as if they were taking place in space or under water. It was just an awesome series of shots, and I was left in awe even as the next scene started. Another great shot (though more fun, than great) was the camera that was mounted on a car door, so that as Jackie gets out and into the car the camera arcs with his movement, and wobbles as the door slams closed. The wobble goes well with Frankie's feelings of intense nervousness and insecurity, as he is left alone in the passenger seat without the keys.

There were also many brilliant cuts in sound (I love me some jarring music cuts), especially right at the start with the speech as Frankie walks out into the street. As he comes out into the light I was almost expecting a crowd, like when football players come out of the tunnel (this expectation was helped along by the sounds of the speech and the cheering). In reality, though, he comes out into a barren, litter strewn landscape.
The movie's use of effects is limited, and I liked that they often used fairly basic ones in order to convey stuff and thangs. The jarring cuts between music and silence, or music and loud note, or silence and loud note, are a great example of this. A solid, brick wall cut from anything to anything else has to be one of my favourite machinations of cinema.
     

  
Almost done. James Gandolfini did brilliantly. He can talk and talk, and I'm captivated. His presence is as great as ever here, and I loved the way that after moping about his cheating wife and his cheating self and his guns and prison and his depressing life, he leaned in like a kid with a secret when Jackie starts telling him about the job.
There's a bleak inevitability to all of it. Those two doofs had to die, the only question is how and when. Far from being bad writing, though, I think this was intentional; it's a microcosm of why everything else is failing, why everything has to end badly. We can see it coming, so much so that it's barely a surprise. The only question is how and when. In the end though, it's an enjoyable mob romp with a few clunky capitalism metaphors mixed in - pertinent that the last spoken line should be "fucking pay me". A must see if you enjoy the genre.

Killing Them Softly: 78.5

The Raid: Redemption

   

Roger Ebert sure did hate this one. He didn't like how there was no character development or storyline. I do get that this is bad, but I do think the effects were seamless and the action was some of the best choreographed that I've ever seen.

Like I said, no character development. The main character believes in god, and has a fat wife (fat with child). That's about it. Oh yeah, and he had a brother, but that's a spoiler. He's part of a swat team, and they all try to take over a building, at the top of which lives the head of a gang. All the residents attack them, and, uh, yeah. Fighty fighting ensues.

  

 

Said fighty fighting really is excellently done though. The unending barrage of gore and violence kind of depresses you, an experience I've rarely had. 'Thirst' springs to mind, though. The hand to hand fights were especially well done, and the use of sound, camera shake, and sweeping shots throughout were effective.

This movie obviously borrows for endless others, but it is suspiciously similar to the 2012 'Judge Dredd' remake: 'Dredd' which came out less than 12 months after it. I mean, it's effectively the same movie, just set in the present. To be honest, that earns it points from me. I do like an underdog, especially an underdog that's being screwed over by Hollywood without anyone noticing.

  

The Raid: Redemption: 39.5

The American

 

I like how this starts, with very few words spoken, and little more than sudden violence in an isolated snowy area to introduce us to our guy.

"Jack" (possibly not his real name) customises guns for assassins. It's a dangerous job, and means he can't really be close to anyone. This doesn't stop him trying, though, and he ends up having to kill a women that likes him. He isn't very American, either, as he has a passport and has left the country and can speak some Italian - not even the Sopranos could do that. As the movie progresses his need for a personal life and the conflict this encourages cause him some major problems (Major Problems) and he has to choose between his loyalty to his job (and the protection that it affords) and an Italian girl who likes butterflies.
Shocker - he goes for the girl, and from there the action escalates pretty quickly into the movie's climactic scenes.

  

 

It starts in Norway, and I was hoping he'd stay in there, as I like Norway as a setting, but he quickly moves to Rome. As he drives through a tunnel, and comes out into a burst of brightness from the daylight beyond, i am reminded of 'O'Horten' that had this exact scene but in a train. 'O'Horten' did it better.
He ends up going to the Castel del Monte, which I think MC Escher did a very nice stylised wood prints of early in his career (I could be wrong, but they do look similar in any case. Kind of like Minas Tirith from 'The Lord of the Rings'.

The action sequences are well choreagraphed and exciting, without Jack having super powers, or even skills that far outmatch those of his rivals. The film is full of nicely framed shots, and the camera rarely moves (it's always nice to see an overarching style in cinematography, even if I don't like it personally - not that I don't like this one). From what I hear of the novel that this movie was based on, Cloony stays fairly loyal to the protagonists original character. Oh yeah, and everyone else's acting was fair throughout. I got a bit bored of the relationship side of the film though, for no reason other than the amount of time spent on it. We get it - he's lonely.

'Tu Vuò Fà L'Americano' is playing in the background as he sits in a cafe. I like that song

 

The American: 41.2

No Country for Old Men

It's no country for old men, as Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is taught during the course of this movie. And that's what it feels like is happening, to me. Llewelyn and Chigurh represent two kinds of people in the new world; one he can't help, and one he can't catch.

The Coen brothers always make an interesting product, and this one is no different. Unexpected deaths can be done by any bland action movie or 'Game of Thrones' episode, but that we didn't see it (trying hard not to let spoilers seep in here, but you know the ones I'm talking about) and that it was barely acknowledged in the traditional sense pleased me no end, for some reason. What I enjoyed even more than watching it alone, was with someone else, and seeing their indignation. I guess I like it when the movie basically gives the audience the finger. Not when it tries it just to be edgy, but when it does it and succeeds, and it adds to the story. As it does in this case, I think.

I've always loved chasey-type movies. Not necessarily one one character actively chasing another (though this was the case here) but a set of characters meeting repeatedly in different variations. Coming together and moving apart, escaping one another and then regrouping in some kind of final showdown. The difference here was that we were cheated our showdown, and I like that. The movie petered out, and I was left feeling depressed, but I'm not a moron (well maybe I am) so I don't need to be made happy to enjoy a movie. I just need to feel. And I did.

Bell isn't really the central character for much of the film, but it's his voice you hear at the start, and the end wraps up his thoughts at the beginning. As I said up there somewhere, I think this is all about him. Him being somewhat forced into retirement by the world (and kind of his wife).

Then there's Chirgurh, a classic Coen brothers villain. I'd like to see him fight Gaear from 'Fargo'. In his first scene he is shown violently strangling a police officer, and his wide-eyed manic expression is a chillingly accurate introduction to his character. He follows Lkewelyn, promoting his deadly coin-tossing philosophy along the way. This makes for some awesomely tense scenes, and by the end we don't even need to see him pop the man's brain out to know what's happened. I particularly liked the scene where he enters a shop and demands the keeper call a coin toss. The tension builds perfectly, as Chirgurh scrunches up and places an empty packet on the counter and it slowly unravels, crinkling and scraping on the table top. It's like someone scratching down a chalk board; it screams 'something's wrong!".

Finally there is Llewelyn, who discovers a big bag of cash at a drug deal gone wrong, and spends the rest of the movie trying to keep it. He's an alright guy. Smart, especially when sleeping, and his wife is cool. While I found Llewelyn likable, I wasn't hugely taken with his character, but I get the impression that that's just me. He has a kind of cool and in control air of confidence, but as the movie progresses and his wounds mount up this persona begins to crack.

The long landscape shots are beautiful, and are equaled by few other movies (2001 springs to mind). These shots linger for just the right amount of time on the scenery, before cutting to a brutal murder or a flaming car. There's not much music, and this works well. The lighting is mostly warm, conveying the temperature, and the oppressive feeling of heat runs throughout the film (or maybe that's just my own dislike of hot weather).

The last scene is one of my favourites from any film, as Bell tells his wife about his dreams. He gets it all just right. The simplicity of his language and his clear, yet understated, emotion all makes it feel so real.

No Country for Old Men: 89.8

In Bruges

                  
'In Bruges' isn't too complex (not that complexity is necessary, I just don't want to be writing for more than a few hours - it is already 3:10) but it is close to my heart. To be honest, I think I'm a little biased towards it for some reason, though I can't put my finger on exactly what I love so much, but that will probably be reflected in my score.
             

              
If nothing else the movie is a great advert for Bruges. I haven't been, but after seeing the host of old buildings (especially, for me, the fortified medieval ones and the pointy colourful wooden ones that were giving me deja vu of Bergen), the lovely Flemish art, and the comparatively (when compared to, say, Venice) waste-free canals (sorry Venice, you're really great but your canals do smell) I'm already packing my bag. And not the small backpack from school, the big blue one that smells of sheep. Because I'll be hanging around. "It's like a fucking fairytale".

The setting is perfect. Not too intrusive, but helps to develop our characters as they sight see, and fills in the emotional silences between the excellently written dialogue. The first section of the movie is all about the set up. We learn about Ray and Ken, why they're there, who they are. Both characters are likeable in their own way, and both are believable. This is where the setting really helps develop the duo, as a trip to a church shows how Rays ignorance and childishness contrasts with Kens thoughtful stillness, and the local art gallery prompts Ray to ask Ken about mortality, morality, and the afterlife. We discover that the pair are assassins, and that they have been moved to Bruges after Ray accidentally killed a kid during his first job, with Ken as his instructor (and the one who recommended him to their boss in the first place).

The other characters do their job too, and are mostly engaging. The villain is the kind of mobby London guy that we've seen before named Harry (Ralph Fiennes) who does what he does best here ("You're a fucking inanimate object!"). Harry is introduced over the phone in a deliciously chilling scene that turns from comedy to dread in the blink of an eye, and I kind of assumed we wouldn't be seeing him in person, but I was glad that we did, as he's a lot of fun later on. An interesting twist on Harry is how he lives his life by his own twisted morals, and I found myself thinking of the Sopranos and the similarities in morals between Tony and our cockney Voldemort.

There is also a droning gun salesman, a racist dwarf, a Canadian, a one-eyed pussy, a pregnant hotelier, and a girl. Of all these characters, the girl is my least favourite. She is Ray's drug dealing love interest and her acting falls a little flat, but she does OK and it doesn't really tarnish the movie.
             

He looks like a brilliant Irish shoulder toad.

All these characters come together and move apart repeatedly, in a very satisfying and self-aware kind of a way. There's even a movie within the movie. The self-awareness is by no means a bad thing, as it is done very subtly. While you may be thinking 'ah I see what they're doing here' as you watch 'In Bruges', it won't take you out of the story. At several points the plot at the beginning is mirrored with that of the end (I don't want to ruin it for you by going into detail, but my favourite example of this is the scenes with Ken in the bell tower, and the 'we can see something coming' feeling the viewer gets with the kids, the dwarf, and suicide), and you are carried through these devices with no more than a gentle nudge to get you to notice them.
While the serious aspects really provide the backbone of this movie, comedy flows throughout it, and this is what really fleshes the piece out. Some of the scenes really had me lolling. Lolling my tongue out the side of my mouth as I panted, because I had been laughing so much. Some of my favourites were Ray telling a herd of average sized American tourists that they were too fat to go up some spiral stairs (and I didn't notice this on the first viewing, but later on it is mentioned that "an American" has had a heart attack whilst climbing them), a dwarfs drug - fueled racist rant that ended in karate, and a onetwothree go! playground race between Ray and Harry.
The shots are all well done, with lots of cool lighting used for exterior, and warm for interior scenes. This isn't super imaginative, but works as it fits in with the mood of the plot at the time. cuts tent to be long, especially in establishing shots, and while I feel the drag of this in some movies, in 'In Bruges' the setting practically calls out for it. These long still takes are contrasted sharply towards the end, when there are far more frequent cuts and shaking cameras, which highlights the action nicely.

              
I understand that not everyone will like this one, and that those who do may well be watching different movies. 'Oh no don't let Ray die, I hope he lives and marries the girl and they have lots of babies' cried a friend as she watched the final stages of the movie. I cared more for Ken than Ray, personally, but I think their combination widens the audience, and they were both great characters who worked fantastically with one another. Very well done to Colin Farrell (Ray), for whom as far as I know this was the first lead in a feature-length, and to Brendan Gleeson (Ken) who is brilliant in everything, and who is possibly my favourite Irish actor. Overall, one of my favourite movies.
              

In Bruges: 82.6