Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

It is a sign of my delayed reviewing schedule for this year that I am only just getting round to one of the summers biggest blockbusters, long after all who wanted to see it will have already done so, but nonetheless I find the film worthy of discussion, exemplifying as it does the very best and worse that Michael Bay and large scale Hollywood productions have to offer at this rather strange time for the industry.
.

The third in Bay’s trilogy of Transformers films (though he may be done, the film’s $1bn at the global box office ensures there will be more films to come, of that we can be sure) Dark of the Moon has the definite feel of someone making a grand statement. It is a colossal film, in scale and technical accomplishment that dwarfs nearly all its blockbuster competition in terms of ambition and scale of action. However it also suffers from many of the issues that plague Bays films and his Transformers ones in particular, proof that not all the necessary lessons were learned from Revenge of the Fallen, though Moon is a distinct improvement on that bloated and excessive sequel.

.

Set a few years after the events of the first two films Dark of the Moon once again concerns itself with the daily life of Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBouf), this time as he struggles to find a job and make his way out in the world. We also discover that in the time between films he has been ditched by his girlfriend (Megan Fox who was ousted from this outing) and is now seeing the new piece of eye candy Carly Spencer (played by model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), as such it is difficult to build up much sympathy for Sam’s initial frustration in the film at being unappreciated for his part in saving the world and unable to find employment. I generally like LaBeouf as an actor, even when others don’t, but at the start of the film he indulges in all his bad habits, turning the motor-mouthed smart alec dial well up towards unlikeable. 

.

In fact this trait seems to have been inherited by the entire human cast in the film, John Malkovich, Ken Jeong, Alan Tudyk; the list of actors who I like and who end up just grating in this film is disturbingly long. Some of this obviously comes from Bay’s goofy sense of humour and insistence on everyone in the film acting as comic relief, but it also stems from the fact that none of them are playing real characters, they are all a bunch of ticks and quirks and it soon frustrates. Remarkably John Turturro’s returning Agent Simmons is one of the least bothersome characters, along with Frances McDormand’s uptight FBI agent who seems to rise above the silliness that surrounds her. Still it seems that aside from Sam, who is given something of a character arc in the film and some decisions to make, there is very little offered by way of character in the film which is a real shame.

.

Plot wise the film is more straightforward then the second film, if just as nonsensical, the discovery of a crashed Decepticon ship on the moon leads to the revival of the war, culminating in the last half of the film which solely focuses on the battle for Chicago. There is at least a clearer focus on objectives and purpose here and whilst the film is still overlong it moves at a decent pace and once it gets going is an easy watch, despite the aforementioned issues with its characters. In fact once the Chicago scenes start the film barely stops for breathe, delivering set piece after set piece in some of the best sustained and constructed action of Bay’s career. The trouble is that whilst the central objective is at least clear, there is little pacing or rhythm to the action, it works in sections but doesn’t always gel. In some scenes characters will be glimpsed and then vanish, part way through Bumblebee is seen fighting alongside Sam, however in the next scene he has been captured and is about to be executed. It’s a shame really as there are lots of great moments that don’t quite work together as well as they should. It doesn’t help that the logic of what the decepticons are trying to do at this stage is not only unclear, but seemingly illogical that leaves the film without clear stakes. 

.

The lack of this personal touch is a theme of much of Bay’s work and is one of the reasons why he is a frustrating director for me personally. Unlike some I don’t regard him as the devil incarnate (take a bow Mark Kermode) I think he is very talented as an action filmmaker, and who has a good eye for a well staged and ridiculous sequence, but lately more than ever he seems less and less interested in the actual people that populate his films. This is a real problem as you merely end up with the shell of a film, one that might seem fun and entertaining, and contain lots of pretty visuals and explosions, but that lacks (for want of a better word) soul. This summer I also watched Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life, which seems the very antithesis of the Transformers movies, in that it is nothing but soul, focused as it is on character and emotion, things these films could really do with, even in the smallest amount.

.

As it is Dark of the Moon does contain some stunning sequences (one set in a collapsing skyscraper being the stand out) along with some of the best CGI yet committed to film, as well as a very impressive 3D presentation (the first since Avatar that has really wowed me in relation to enhancing the action on screen) but it feels all for nought. Our investment in this world, in these people just isn’t there. Even the Transformers themselves (which I have thus far neglected to mention, mainly because they aren’t especially interesting either) whilst given more prominence than in the other films, don’t come across as particularly likeable or nice. Bumblebee has always been the sympathetic character, and so he remains, but Optimus Prime here merely comes across as something of an arrogant and violent dictator, gleefully slicing through his enemies in ways that struggle to reconcile with his supposed commitment to peace. Though I did appreciate Leonard Nimoy’s addition to the cast as Sentinel Prime for a period, adding some much needed gravitas to the proceedings.

.

Dark of the Moon is a pure sugar rush of a film, and ultimately as unfulfilling as you find the now-empty pack of chocolate to be moments after finishing. Looking back to the first Transformers film (which I still like as the best of the three) there is a heart, an underlying theme of growing up and getting your first car that still rings true. It’s hardly Malick but it’s enough, and it’s what has been missed in the ever escalating spectacle ever since.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010)

Zack Snyder's first foray into the world of animated films is a bit of a left field choice for the director who has thus far displayed a knack for gloriously over the top violence; a fantasy story focusing almost exclusively on Owls based on a series of children's books. As well as being lumped with that unfortunate subtitle, the film struggles throughout to really create an identity for itself, its hooting protagonists aside, the story is unfortunately generic, but Snyder's artful direction and the film's gorgeous animation help it entertain more than it perhaps should.
.
Jim Sturgess lends his voice to Soren, a young owl who, along with his siblings, is captured from his family home one day and brought to St Aggies, an orphanage that fronts a more sinister purpose, brainwashing kids and stray owls into forming an army at the behest of Joel Edgerton's Metal Beak. After managing to escape Soren seeks out the legendary Owls of Ga'Hoole to help combat the rising darkness. Needless to say originality isn't the film's strong suit and beat for beat much of the film can be easily predicted. Now this isn't necessarily a problem, if the characters are interesting and engaging enough, unfortunately this isn't the case. There's nothing wrong per-se with any of the cast, voice wise they are all fine, but enough isn't really done to make us root for them in the story. This isn't helped by the fact that there are a lot of quite similar looking characters in the film, a limitation of having just one primary species of animal to choose from. 
.
That said the owl's themselves, whatever you may think about them inhabiting a fantasy world and spouting dialogue about honour and courage, do look incredible. Snyder deliberately chose a realistic style for the film and as such it is remarkable that the animators were able to make the characters work as well as they do. There is limited space to emote but the differing varieties of Owl's are well used and painstakingly rendered. In fact everything about the film is truly stunning to look at, from the subtle animation of the individual features to Snyder's stunningly framed shots of the scenery. Whatever the failing of the story, Snyder never stops impressing visually, however without the real emotional engagement it becomes a bit of a hollow experience in the end.
.
Not that I found the film to be expressly bad, one slightly cloying and badly judged musical montage late-on excluded, but neither did it truly engage me. Truthfully I was sceptical of the entire premise so that fact that the sheer strangeness of what you are watching (Owls remaking Star Wars essentially) doesn't detract from the experience was enough of a surprise. Obviously the film is skewed at a younger audience, though with this in mind some sections remain quite violent thanks to the realistic look of the characters and Snyder's fondness for action. 
.
Overall there are few surprises in the film, aside from the fact that it works at all, and truthfully as a spectacle with some decent action and a familiar story it works perfectly well. Synder definitely has a knack for the animated medium and his presence certainly elevates the film from what it might have been. So it remains a solid animated adventure but one that's biggest problem is a lack of identity, you get the feeling that having the character's be Owls was the only big idea, and no more followed. This fact being true does nothing to influence the story or characters, and so it seems arbitrary, which unfortunately is something of a fitting metaphor for the film as a whole.

Predators (2010)

Neither a sequel, not real remake of the original Predator film, Predators stands as a new entry in the series, designed to return to the simple premise at the heart of that initial films success, pitting a team of marines in a hostile environment against the titular predators. On the whole this was the right approach for the series, whose only real action in the last decade or so has been in the increasingly disappointing Alien vs. Predator format, films that haven’t done either franchise many favours.

.

The film opens with Adrien Brody’s Royce waking up, mid parachute jump, heading for the ground with no recollection of how he got there. Upon landing he happens across a disparate group of people in the same situation, from all corners of the planet. As they group up and explore it becomes clear that they are not on Earth, and worse, they are being hunted. It’s a neat initial twist on the original premise, rather than having the Predator’s come to Earth, they bring the prey to them. One of the problems with the film though is that it is a bit slow to get started, especially as the audience has a big head start of the characters. They, naturally, are unaware of the Predator, its hunting techniques and capabilities, but at this stage of the franchise those who watch are already overly familiar with these tropes. As such the strung out introduction of the creatures, which takes a good chunk of the film, and re-use of the gimmicky ‘predator vision’ feels unnecessary and pointless, we already know ahead of time what awaits the characters on the surface and a smarter thing to do would have been to establish this right from the start rather than tease the reveal of the creature that everyone knows for a good 40 minutes or so.

.

As such we are lumbered with a fair amount of exposition and traipsing through unremarkable jungles early on (it may be by design, but there is very little ‘alien’ regarding the design of the locations and geography of the planet, which somewhat makes the decision to set the film there a bit moot). The cast is game enough, Brody is a highly unusual action star, he growls his lines and does an alright job of playing the mercenary but never quite convinces. The rest of the group, who we discover are all taken from the most dangerous and highly trained organisations in the world (Yakuza, Special Forces etc.) are generally fine but mostly forgettable. Topher Grace, as the odd one out (a doctor) provides some comic relief but the script doesn’t give many people a reason to stand out. But then again this is not the sort of film that requires that, the structure is very familiar, gradually the group are picked off as they try and find a way to escape. For this the film-makers do introduce some new creatures, some ferocious dog like beasts are a neat addition to the universe, but the storyline involving two differing species of Predator (who both looked virtually identical to my eyes) feels unnecessary and underdeveloped, existing only to fulfil a rather belaboured plot point towards the end of the film.

.

Setting the film away from Earth, and featuring characters with no prior knowledge of the Predators does lead to some narrative issues that are largely explained away by the inclusion of Lawrence Fishburne’s Noland, a previous captive who has holed himself up in an abandoned spacecraft. Fishburne gives a distinctly batty performance, possibly so as to distract from all the exposition he is lumbered with, but the whole sequence again feels like the solution to a narrative problem.

.

I am perhaps being critical of a film whose primary focus is to entertain, but then it often fails at this also. It is technically competent and does feature some engaging action sequences, but largely feels devoid of interesting and original ideas. Shoot outs in the jungle are so familiar at this stage that sometimes it mightn’t even be Predators they are facing. So devoid of ideas is the film that it even manages to take one of the best ones from the original (covering a character in mud to avoid detection) for its own. The film is by no means terrible, its ambitions to return to the originals pared back narrative are noble and the Predators remain an interesting and effective creature, it’s just a shame that the film feels like a wasted opportunity on the whole, bringing little new of value to the franchise and existing as largely forgettable spectacle. A few more over the top sequences, or ideas, might have elevated it but it largely just exists, not offending but not engaging either, which really is its biggest crime.

Deconstructing Harry (1997)

Released at the time when Woody Allen’s personal life was getting much more attention than his actual work Deconstructing Harry is an unusually abrasive, dark hearted and self-critical entry into his cannon. However it is also very funny in places mixing more serious themes with wonderful sketches that hark back to his early slapstick days.

.

In it Allen plays Harry, a successful bit unfulfilled writer who is struggling with writers block. Acclaimed by those who know his work he nonetheless has made a mess of his personal life. What separates Harry from many other Allen protagonists of a similar ilk (seeking therapy, neurotic) is the sense of self-loathing that permeates his behaviour. Harry is not such a nice guy underneath it all, the film often involves his re-telling stories from his life, or his written works which is where the sketch-type format fits in. These are frequently very funny and creative, a sequence with Robin Williams as an out-of-focus actor is especially memorable, and the way these scenes are woven into the overarching narrative is very satisfying. What is surprising about the film is its unapologetic nature, it seems a very direct response to the criticisms Allen was getting at the time and its somewhat belligerent tone can be off-putting, especially as it is uncommon in the rest of his work.

.

As usual Allen is aided by a strong supporting cast from Kirsty Allen, Elizabeth Shue to Billy Crystal (another memorable cameo). He also mixes things up in terms of his usual editing and filmic rhythms, here the film jumps around, utilising cuts mid-scene to give a sense of disorientation, echoing Harry’s mental state. As the film progresses he embarks upon a highly unusual (and unsuccessful) road trip across the country as he looks to attend an honour ceremony in his name as his old College, the nature of which gives Allen ample reason to dip into Harry’s past as he reminisces on all he has achieved. 

.

Hidden deep within the typically smart and funny dialogue are deeper themes as well, about those who struggle to function outside of their work, and who find to deal with a world which they did not create, and are not in charge of. Allen may be unapologetic in the film but he doesn’t strain for pity or sympathy either, if we are to read Harry as a somewhat exaggerated version of Woody himself then he is merely offering himself up, as if to say ‘this is who I am’, in a way only he can. Deconstructing Harry is a complex film for all these reasons and more, but if you can get past its distasteful streak it is a compelling, and fascinating character study as well as a reminder of how biting and funny Allen can still be when he puts his mind to it.

Easy A (2010)

Recently there has been a relatively successful trend in repackaging classic stories as teen comedies, from Ten Things I Hate About You and Get Over It’s repurposed Shakespeare to the Jane Austin inspired Clueless. Here it is a rough re-telling of The Scarlett Letter that forms the basis around the latest in this series of smart and enjoyable adaptations. What separates all of these films from their less distinguished brethren is the awareness they seem to have for the genre, and the way they are happy to subvert expectations.

.

Here Emma Stone plays Olive, a smart and quick witted girl who struggles to gain any social footing at her high school (if I had any problem with the story of the film, it’s that the gorgeous and charming Emma Stone would have any such issues). However when an innocent white lie about her dating habits gets out of control she uses it to manipulate her image, but what starts as a bit of fun quickly descends into more than she expected. By using thjis premise as a kicking off point it allows the film to make some salient points about the value of gossip, opinion and teenage promiscuity, but in a way that remains entertaining and very tongue in cheek. Director Tim Gluck and writer Bert Royal knowingly nod to a whole host of teen-movie cliché’s throughout the film and largely the film does a good job of keeping you guessing as to where it is heading.

.

This though is really Emma Stone’s show, and she is a revelation. She has impressed before with bit parts in Superbad and Zombieland but here she takes centre stage and relishes the chance to flex her comedy muscles. She is a natural comedienne with pitch perfect timing and a wonderful knack for more physical comedy as well. She makes Olive a fascinating and enjoyable character and I particularly enjoyed the oddball relationship she has with her laid back parents, Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson clearly enjoying themselves immensely. Whilst the film is enjoyable its success is largely down to the knowing script and Stone's performance. Outside of that there are some other good supporting turns from Lisa Kudrow, Amanda Byrnes and Thomas Hayden-Church but some of the subplots fell a little flat for me. Similarly the knowing tone of the film sometimes works against it, removing you from the reality of the film, which in turn dampens some of the deeper emotional impact that might otherwise have existed.

.

Logic problems aside, and a few dropped characters that I would have liked to see more of (Dan Byrd’s Brandon is a prime example) there is a lot to like and recommend from Easy A. It is a fresh and funny teen comedy and one that relies of genuine laughs and knowing characters rather than gross out cheap gags.

Zelig (1983)

Another day, another Woodly Allen film, this time one of his lesser knows, more experimental films. Like Sweet and Lowdown Zelig uses the framing of a supposedly real fictional character for its narrative, unlike that film however it chooses to present the whole film as a documentary, mixing faux-interviews and historical footage, never breaking the illusion.

.

The film concerns itself with Leonard Zelig (played by Allen), an unremarkable man living in the 1920’s who becomes an overnight celebrity thanks to a very unusual skills he has, in being able to mimic the people he is surrounded by. Rather than focus on impersonations though Allen takes this idea of a ‘human chameleon’ to it’s full extent, having Zelig gain weight when around fat people for example, his typical knack for absurdity sitting well alongside the deliberately realistic look of the piece. What this premise does is allow Allen to use it as a springboard not only for comedy, the film is frequently very knowing and funny not only in terms of the documentary format but of the character as well, but he also has more on his mind. He uses Zelig as a metaphor for shyness and low confidence; he is literally a shell of a man who, as a coping mechanism, latches onto whatever group of people he is around.

.

The focus of the film is on the documented study of Zelig once he becomes renowned, Mia Farrow plays a lonely and shy psychiatrist who takes him on as a patient. Naturally when she does so Zelig believes himself to be a psychiatrist as well leading to a less than productive session. The heart of the story is the relationship between these characters over the years and how she is able to draw Zelig out if his shell, and whilst the performances are strong it is here I feel that the documentary format holds the film back. By its very nature this distanced view of events, glimpsed through impressively fakes newsreel footage mixed with actual archive material, has less immediacy than a straight drama would have done and we never get an opportunity to spend enough time with these characters as themselves. That being said the construction of the film itself can’t be faulted; it is arguably Allen’s most impressive film from a visual and technical point of view, especially considering when it was made. The film even manages some funny Forrest Gump style overlaying of Zelig with real people from history and does so effectively.

.

As a mixture of Allen’s more serious dramatic fare and his slapstick comedies Zelig fits somewhat uncomfortably in the middle. It is entertaining and doesn’t outstay its welcome, but the artifice of its framing can wear a little thin. A documentary that you know is not real, and is being constructed deliberately, has a lot of its power removed and I didn’t feel the satirical points were necessarily made with enough force.

.

That said the film is sweet and funny and well worth checking out, it feels like an experiment and a labour of love, combining many of Allen’s pet passions and themes. It may not completely work, or remain memorable enough to count as one of Allen’s best works, however it is nonetheless a fascinating, and relatively unique entry in his back catalogue.

Another Year (2010)

Mike Leigh has, at this stage of his career, such a recognisable style and voice that it makes his films feel truly unique and special. For wherever he has ventured he has always kept character, and pathos close to the heart of all he does, of all the current British directors he is the one with the innerving eye for celebrating the ordinary and the mundane. In his latest he follows a year in the life of a middle aged, married couple, Tom and Gerri, played superbly by Leigh regulars Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen. They are an almost unusually happy and contented couple, enjoying their quiet days together at the local allotment or inviting their friends over for dinner parties. Kind, understanding and good natured they embody goodness but in a very real and relatable way. The well worm rhythms of a marriage are carefully observed, the two performances are so good in fact that they may pass you by. Sheen is motherly yet understanding; Broadbent with his Droopy eyes is one of my favourite actors and here manages another impressive twist on his laid back, and well meaning everyman.

.

Though there is no great focus on plot in the film, what little there is, is sparked by the introduction of Mary, one of Gerri’s work friends who calls on the couple for support. Played by Leslie Manville Mary is a heartbreaking trainwreck of a character. Bubbly and outgoing she is also deeply insecure and on edge. Struggling with the basic tasks of keeping her life in order she enters and exits the film like a force of nature, acting as both occasional comic relief but also as a source of great sadness and sympathy as well. It is an incredible performance of a richly detailed character, one that could so easily have fallen into parody or annoyance but who remains oh-so human throughout.

.

The film is split into the four seasons of one year through which we see these characters grow and change, come and go. As per many of Leigh’s films it is very deliberately paced and painfully observant. Peter Wight makes a memorable appearance of another of Tom and Gerri’s old friends, Ken, as he visits for a weekend. As much a wreck as Mary, he instead has given up on improving things and the scenes with him are tragic and haunting. One of the big questions the film seems to ask is; why do some people seem to get all the happiness? Tom and Gerri seem to have more than their fair share, whereas others just can’t seem to grasp it. It’s a poignant and interesting idea that is subtly played out and explored, rather than answered.

.

The improvised nature of the dialogue and scenes give the film a very organic feel and Leigh’s patient and observed direction gives the film time to breathe. It is a measured and understated film wonderfully aided by Gary Yershon’s score which underpins the drama perfectly. Mike Leigh’s films can often be tough going but I found Another Year charming and truthful as well as frequently bittersweet and sad. Its emotional impact feels light but packs a punch you might not see coming, earned from true emotion and a compassionate eye.

Another Woman (1988)

One of the great pleasures I’ve had over the last few years has been discovering a range of directors and filmmakers whose work I enjoy, and then digging into their back catalogues of work. Unlike up and coming directors, with whom you may have to wait a few years in between projects, you can find yourself with an entire career just waiting to be discovered, ready to go.

.

Woody Allen is one of the most prolific directors working currently and so has a seemingly endless supply of films for me to dive into at various times. Even with his weakest films I find elements to enjoy and the pleasure of discovering a new creation of his hasn’t worn off. Another Woman is, deliberately so, a minor but interesting work. A far cry from his early slapstick days it is instead a thoughtful and low-key drama in the vein of Ingrid Bergman, who Allen has frequently cited a major influence on his work.

.

The film stars Gena Rowlands as Marion Post as a relatively successful academic author who rents a small apartment to work on her latest book. Whilst there she discovers she can overhear the conversations coming from the psychiatrists office next door, and she slowly begins to becoming involved in the plight of a sad young woman, played by Mia Farrow. Alongside this she begins a process of self analysis with regards to her own life, and discovers it isn’t as she had always thought. By using these two opposing characters, Allen skilfully explores the notion of self-deception, for good or bad, and how the way our actions and bahviours affect others. Marion has always considered herself sensible and logical, distancing herself from emotions. As such her marriage to Ian Holm has long been a side show of dinner parties and routine, likewise her relationship with her brother, whom she has always looked down on and criticised, is strained in ways she had never realised. Throughout the film we are shown flashbacks to episodes from Marion’s past, including a former romantic interest in Gene Hackman’s Larry Lewis, with whom she had genuine feelings but was unable to follow her heart. Despite the film sounding quite dry, and being ostensibly dramatic in nature its well drawn characters and brief running time alleviate much of the potential for psychological meanderings. In fact the story is very restrained and compact, Gena Rowlings is great in the lead role, Marion is a woman who gives very little away and she managed to say a lot with looks and gestures. Farrow impresses as usual in her small, but key role, as do most of the supporting cast.

.

This is still a relatively minor film, as I have mentioned. There is little in the way of huge dramatic scenes, or direct conflict with even the ending feeling satisfying, but resonating more as an emotional choice rather than large scale declaration or confrontation. Another Woman is a good insight into a different Woody Allen, stripped of his usual schtick he has always been a strong dramatist at heart and it was nice to see that wrought large. Whilst I wouldn’t say the film stood out at the top of favourites of his, it is a thoughtful and interesting film that is a worthy addition to his body of work.

Waiting (2005)

Workplace comedies have long been an established genre unto themselves, from Mike Judge’s seminal Office Space even going back to Broadcast News or (you might argue) Tootsie. More recently I enjoyed the more dramatic and quirky Waitress, though what stands out amongst all of these is an authenticity that makes them feel genuine, even when they are obviously pushing for laughs. Waiting is not only a workplace comedy, but a ‘day in the life of’ film as well, which is often a separate gene itself (Spike Lee’s 25^th Hour for example), by combining the two, and keeping the comedy and drama relatively low-key the film succeeds in painting a realistic, if not particularly endearing, portrait of life working for a small chain restaurant, as well as dealing with that period in everyone’s life when they have to decide what it is they really want to do with themselves.

.

Justin Long has often impressed in the periphery of other film, he has a laid back charm and everyman quality that makes him a likeable presence. With Waiting (and last years Going the Distance) he makes the transition to lead role effortlessly. Here he plays Dean, a smart but unmotivated twenty-something who since leaving school has found himself stuck working at his local Shenaniganz restaurant, where he has seen his school friends’ move on to college and careers leaving him behind. As the film starts the possibility of a management position within the restaurant comes up and the overarching narrative deals with how he and his colleagues react to this. Cleverly the film uses a new employee Mitch (John Francis Daily, who himself has a pretty funny and well earned character arc throughout the film) to act as the audience surrogate, as such we get introduced to the way things work in a typical shift without the need for awkward exposition. Ryan Reynolds plays Monty, Dean’s best friend and wannabe ladies man. Reynolds mixture of charm and sarcasm plays well off of Long’s laid back goofiness and they are ably supported by a strong supporting cast. In fact the film plays best as an ensemble with each element of the workforce given enough personality and reality to stand out, amongst them Dane Cook and Anna Faris, who adds here to her solid list of strong supporting roles of recent years.

.

What surprised me about the film was the more low key and unattractive spin it puts on the job in question. Whilst funny in places and seemingly light-hearted the film also functions as a worryingly accurate mirror of what goes on in such workplaces. It is crude, rude and not afraid to exhibit the grimy, dirty practices bored and aimless staff will resort to, to get through the days. The grounded tone and look of the film help give a lot of the stories a sense that they are likely built off of real life events in one form or another, writer / director Rob McKittrick definitely seems like he has some demons to exhume with the making of the film.

.

It is this slightly nihilistic tone that keep the film from being like every other teen comedy of recent years, it deals with the machinations of daily life without glamorising it and yet retaining likeable enough characters and situations throughout. It is not especially deep or often laugh out loud funny, but it is relatively short and moves briskly with a somewhat understated and fitting finale. If you’ve ever worked in a low pay dead-end job then there will probably be a lot to identify with here, and it’s observed with a keen enough eye to be worth your time.