Review: Submarine

"Refreshing", "quirky" and "funny" are not words I would use to describe this laborious trip into mediocrity.

Okay, so several of you will be shaking their heads in disgust, but honestly Submarine did not grab me... at all. Not as a drama and certainly not as a quirky comedic drama.
So we follow a youth in Wales called Oliver who is a socially weird, intelligent but reclusive school boy seeking to lose his virginity and gain some respect at school. The girl he has his eyes on is a serious girl who enjoys tormenting other kids. A match made in Heaven, for sure. In the meantime, the boy's parents face their own troubles as his mother could be having an affair with their neighbour.
All of this is relentlessly monologued over by Oliver, from his downright weird mindset.

So, if anything, Submarine does have great acting and directing talent, I can give it that much. The young actors are great and  there are some subtle comedy and quirkiness coming through in the camerawork and direction... 
But my god do I not relate to this kid, at all. He seems to me like an obnoxious know-it-all who thinks he is the centre of the universe! Okay, maybe a lot of kids think that at that age but I know that's why the kids are obnoxious! They don't know any better. Why would I want to watch a film from their perspective? Especially when I wasn't like that in High School! At all!

The film is dull too. I imagined perhaps that I might get a British answer to Amelie (one of my favourite quirky dramatic comedies) but nope, Submarine wallows in the depths of British boring-as-sin reality, and runs with it with sincerity and seriousness like we want to subject ourselves to more of it!

I think it is a stylistic thing; you will love it or hate it, and unfortunately I am more with the latter. It does have great acting (for what little they are given) and great direction (for what little it has to work with) but I found myself completely alienated by the characters, I neither laughed or even cried... not even a lump in my throat for any of them! Surely a drama should get at least one of those out of me??

Additional Marshmallows: This is the director's only film currently, asides television and features. Richard Ayoade, and if you think that name is somehow familiar, that's because he was acting beside Ben Stiller in The Watch this year. Huh...

Review: Arthur Christmas

This festive animation is somewhat hit-and-miss, but having found a lot of Aardman's recent CGI endevours very lackluster, Arthur Christmas proves to be at least good fun to watch!

The film sets about showing quite how Santa Claus delivers all the presents to children across the world and the different generations of Santa. Today, presents are delivered by a highly trained army of elves with high-tech gadgets from a gigantic space ship, everything is methodical, systematic and calculated. But meet Arthur, the bumbling idiot son of Santa who (pfft) believes more about the kindness and love that goes into giving a gift, rather than the requirement to give them. When just one child is accidentally missed, Arthur must prove the others wrong and deliver the single present before it is too late.

I tip my hat to the animators who worked on this film; upon seeing the first characters on screen I was immediately giving the film my attention. The designs involved are marvelous, from the covert, espionage elves, the super high-tech command centre, to the rickety old sleigh. The side characters are great too, from Grandsanta to Bryony, the elf who has top level skills in present wrapping!

It is great to watch, but a little hard to listen to. Arthur himself verges on unbearable (yet he is voiced by James McAvoy, weird eh?) so insanely enthusiastic about Christmas he is, its like the constantly yapping puppy you want to clobber. His unbridled joy is balanced by an overcompensating reluctance/ignorance from the other Santas. Yes, there are three generations of Santas in this film who have completely forgotten what it means to be Santa. Three! (Surely that is statistically impossible?)
This makes the film very predictable. Does Arthur regain dignity at the North Pole, does he provide what the other Santas lack with joy and whimsy? What do you think. Arthur is such a methodically uninteresting character that he needs his novelty slippers to save the day, and/or be more pivotal to the plot than he can! His slippers play a crucial role at least four times!

The rest of the film is a lot of festive fun and distraction with numerous one-time laugh-out-loud dialogue quips. I sure didn't dislike it, it is entertaining and will keep young children occupied without fail! For the rest of us, we may find a few flaws but the animation is pretty spectacular.

Additional Marshmallows: Did the film mention "Google Maps" within the first 90 seconds? That's... impressive product placement.

Banter: The Eagle Taxi

A very brief post here about the famed argument against J.R.R Tolkien's stories, about the Eagles and why they cannot simply fly our heroes across the huge tracks of land and end the adventure immediately.

Firstly, the Eagles are aloof, perhaps even more so than Elves and only help when they feel like it. But secondly I have a passage from The Hobbit itself:

"As Bilbo listened to the talk of Gandalf he realised that at last they were going to escape really and truly from the dreadful mountains. He was discussing plans with the Great Eagle for carrying the dwarves and himself and Bilbo far away and setting them down well on their journey across the plains below.
"The Lord of the Eagles would not take them anywhere near where men lived. 'They would shoot at us with their great bows of yew,' he said, 'for they would think we were after their sheep. And at other times they would be right. No! We are glad to cheat the Goblins of their sport, and glad to repay our thanks to you, but we will not risk ourselves for dwarves in the southward plains.' "

So there you go, the Eagle argument simply explained away. I am not sure if in Lord of the Rings this is given explanation, I cannot recall, but I am sure there this something.

Just for all you smarty-pants out there!

Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (HFR 3D)

The first entry of the Lord of the Rings' prequel trilogy based off Tolkien's children's book proves to be greatly embellished (for better and sometimes worse) but provides excellent spectacle and detailed fantasy adventure.

Oh lord, this will be a big review. First, some history. The Hobbit was the original book that Tolkien wrote for children while he was a teacher marking school papers back in the 1930s, and he offhandedly wrote the immortal opening line: "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit". The book was short, forgiving and easy to read (by Tolkien's infamous standards!) and all together innocent. Afterwards, publishers asked him to write a follow-up story and to make it more adult driven. The Lord of the Rings was born.
I loved reading The Hobbit story as a child, so much so that I remember starting Lord of the Rings and despising Frodo initially because he wasn't Bilbo! Imagine that. I'm re-reading The Hobbit now and I can say that I remember it beat for beat, and the news of Peter Jackson's trilogy gave me a lot of room for trepidation... The Hobbit simply isn't as epic or trilogy-worthy as Rings.
The film therefore strikes on a knife edge of over embellishment and fine detailing; playing a dangerous balancing act of several audiences' expectations at once!

Set sixty years before the Rings trilogy, we see Bilbo as a sheltered, ignorant and contented Hobbit, who is set on an adventure by Gandalf the Grey. In a party of thirteen dwarves led by the mighty Thorin Oakenshield in a quest to retake their kingdom from the dragon Smaug, Bilbo must first come to terms with his destiny and the wider, exciting world beyond his home comforts.

Where to begin. The film is a marvel to watch. It is visually astounding and each frame is crammed with beautiful details and compositions that relay book illustrations; we have been here before, Jackson, his crew and WETA special effects people have never made something more fantastical and wonderfully rendered. The casting and acting are great; they are doing what comes naturally to them now, but the newcomers (especially Richard Armitage as Thorin) are bringing their A-games also.

As I re-read The Hobbit, I saw the obvious desire from Jackson to exaggerate. Tolkien himself writes huge events very casually... almost absurdly so... The Mountain Giants for example. Huge rock giants who are (in the book) casually lobbing massive rocks around while our waddling heroes pass by completely unhindered. Read it, it happens. In the film, this mere sentence is given a full action sequence! Is that wrong? No... it makes more sense in the way the film portrays it, it is danger and it is happening nearby, and makes for very creative sequences. But did it need to be in the film at all? That is a harder question to answer... and Jackson's (wayward?) desire for a trilogy may answer it for some cynics...
This example can be said about nearly all of the scenes in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, except for those that people remember fondly, and these are naturally given the most attention! From the three trolls who attempt to cook our heroes to of course The Riddles in the Dark, which is frankly amazing to see on the big screen as one of my favourite pieces of fictional writing (Gollum himself looks jaw-droppingly real here, even more than in Rings!)

But it is not all about Bilbo (much to my inner-child's slight disappointment) as the story is given direct ties to the Rings trilogy. This isn't as bad as one may theorise. Tolkien himself edited The Hobbit after publishing Rings to accommodate. The appendices of the Rings books are carefully added and suggest greater things to come in The Hobbit trilogy. This does give the otherwise simple story more subplots than traditionalists would ask for; you can say that the filmmakers wanted to make The Hobbit somehow bigger than Rings, even make it as serious as Rings, which it simply isn't! These grand sequences and serious subplots can be seen as huge deviations from what the book was about, and that perhaps there is a nicer version of the story yet unmade. But when considered fully, you can appreciate the choice. It aids consistency for cinema goers and adds lore that Tolkien readers will happily devour.

I could go on and on, but there are two more films after all!

Wow, this review has gone on hasn't it.
- Should you go and see The Hobbit in the cinema, you ask? Yes, absolutely, definitely yes.
- Is it a faithful adaptation of the original book? Yes and no, it is embellished to accommodate the massive cinematic event that was the Rings trilogy, and if you expected anything other... you may want to re-address your expectations.
- Should you see it in 3D and/or HFR? The 3D doesn't feel necessary, so you don't need to splash out to experience more. The HFR is a new experience and takes some getting used to. If you suffer from motion sickness or similar you may want to reconsider as you may feel uncomfortable... But if you are keen to see developments in film-making I would highly recommend it. It is unique to say the least, and you will have an opinion on it afterwards (see above!)


I was happy to dive back into Middle Earth once again, and I love consistency within films. Learning more about the world (through added details I've not read up on) I can safely say I want to see the next films and conclude the tale! Some may find it too ponderous, biding time before things really kick off, but I came out of this film with a smile on my face.

I should flesh-out my thoughts on Peter Jackson's HFR (Higher Frame Rate) 3D. Most films are shot in 24 frames a second, as a rule, since the human eye can only see so many still images in one second to convey motion. However here we have 48 frames per second (since in actuality the human eye can perceive more) and the effect is... curious. Initially I feared I would hate it; characters appeared to move too quickly, from the simplest nod of the head to walking appeared rapid, as if a fast-forward button had been pushed. I wouldn't handle three hours of that!
However as my eyes adjusted, it settled into regular motion, and details (especially in motion) became alarmingly precise and crystal clear. Similar to comparing Standard Definition to High Definition, only more so. The only issue I had was (curiously) during "tracking shots", when the camera moves laterally through a set or room, my eyes knew they were seeing more than usual, and would try to take it all in only to see an almost shuddering motion while doing so. This was however only during long tracking shots.
The 3D effect therefore did not hinder the film; there was no strain on my eyes or blur present, everything snapped and popped out. Maybe a little... too much. At times characters appeared as though they were in front of a flat background, like they were before a matte painting or theatre backdrop. Again, curious. I couldn't tell if this was the HFR adjustment, poor 3D use or both! I actually took my 3D glasses off at times, and I could see the 3D was only slightly used...

I can see HFR becoming the norm, or at least with 3D films; the motion is incredibly fluid and you feel immersed even further and details strike out more. I will say that The Hobbit does not use 3D nearly as well as it could have, we are not watching the same quality as Avatar (speaking of which, James Cameron should look into HFR for his future Avatar sequels) but that said, it means the 2D version will not suffer! I think I counted one 3D "gimmick" moment.

Review: A Christmas Carol

So I don't need to explain the story of A Christmas Carol, because surely everybody knows the immortal Charles Dickens tale by now? It is the definitive story to be adapted into film for Christmas time, and as such it has been given many iterations over the decades, so many in fact that people have their own favourites. Often the one they grew up with. I have mine, and it is in this review!

What makes the story timeless is that everybody, everybody can relate and sympathise with the characters involved in greater or lesser degrees. Whether you take Christmas with all of its religious significance, or as a holiday with tonnes of shopping and being given stuff, everyone ultimately appreciates it as a coming together of friends and family. At least I would hope they still do, and the story of A Christmas Carol always reminds me of what's important (in almost all the appearances it takes) and leaves me with a warm feeling inside. 
I also enjoy A Christmas Carol stories because of its surprisingly dark and psychological twists and turns it throws at its main character. It isn't burdened with a deliberate twee or gaudy Christmassy feel, but it always ends with happy, joyful relief.

Now I have probably said everything that needs to be said about the films already! But I find myself with three celluloid apparitions: one from the past, one not exactly from the present but I love it, and one that represents some of cinemas futuristic endevours! 

A Christmas Carol (1984)

(Oh ho, I happen to get a film from the year I was born too!)

I have been duped for the second time in renting a film that was actually a television production (the last one was Snow White: A Tale of Terror) and so this will not feature in my final year summary. But I feel inclined to include it as I found this rendition surprisingly well made for television.

George C. Scott gives a powerful performance as Ebenezer Scrooge, set in the classic Victorian settings, as he is set upon by three spirits that are intent on changing his foul, cold and uncompromising nature.

I should have guessed this was a television production upon the reveal of Marley's spirit, Scrooge's late business partner, whose face is merely transposed on top of a door knocker. However the film's spirits provide to be effective and exciting to watch, especially the Spirits of Present and Future (mind you, I always like the Spirits of Christmas Yet to Come)

The soundtrack is a little too obvious for my liking and things can feel a little twee at times, this could be me being uncompromising about Christmas myself! It does make it have a definitive Christmas feel, and really Scott's performance is the thing to watch, especially in the more subtle moments.

I found it a nice watch, and the dialogue and treatment felt accurate to the story. I would recommend it as an all-rounder Christmas movie.

Additional Marshmallows: I was amused to see David Warner as Bob Cratchit. I knew I recognised him... as Ed Dillinger / Sark from TRON! Ah, fun facts.

Scrooged (1988)

Yep, Scrooged is surely my favourite Christmas film, despite how it may be finally dating now.
From the man who directed, deep breath: The Goonies, Superman, Superman 2, The Omen (1976), Ladyhawke and the Lethal Weapon series, this film is a riot of good cheer, black comedy and an completely energized Bill Murray.

Murray plays Frank Cross in this modern take on the Christmas Carol story. Frank is a television executive whose cynical and selfishness summons three spirits of Christmas to show him the errors of his ways and make him a better person.
The modern adaptation has levered in a romantic plot for the younger Cross character, but it is a warm and well played relationship and only adds to his losses and his redemption. In fact, the character of Claire is one of the strongest here.

The supporting cast are all energetic and manic with humour. From the unfortunate subordinate that Frank fires, who loses everything and proceeds to hunt Frank down with a shotgun, to the spirits themselves, a train-smoking New York cabby, a bruising, punching fairy and a goblin infested specter of Death, are all incredibly imaginative. The film barrels along with heaps of humour, sincere moments and just enough bleak reality to tie it all together.

Scrooged has to have one of the silliest, wildest and happiest finales I have seen, and it always makes me feel good. All of this energy pours off Bill Murray in waves, while the script and direction is so snappy and quick that it all becomes infectiously fun. If you haven't seen Scrooged, I highly recommend it.
(you just have to forgive those funny people in the late 80s who become super-excited over the "state of the art VCR".)

A Christmas Carol 2D (2011)

This appears to be the definition of what I can love and what I can hate.
So Disney tries its hand on adapting A Christmas Carol, with Robert Zemeckis directing another of his 3D "photo realistic" animated films. I say "photo realistic"... because it isn't. Zemeckis, what happened to your brain?

Yes, I am going to bang on about the animation because it slams into your face with the full force of the uncanny valley. The quality of animation varies: Scrooge is finely detailed, yet side-characters look positively cartoonish. This uncanny feeling is exaggerated with Jim Carrey voicing Scrooge and all of the Spirits of Christmas, throwing voices and crazy accents for each of them. I had to adapt to Scrooge sounding like The Emperor from Star Wars...
The 3D... is hideous. It is that blatant 3D that ruins watching a film like a normal person (in 2D) Scrooge's lesson in humanity is punctuated with over the top transitional scenes where the Spirits show off 3D effects by flying him over towns and countrysides. They even throw poor Scrooge into the upper atmosphere! Now... that's unique, granted, but when I see Scrooge wailing through the clouds in his night clothes, I just wonder what Charles Dickens would have said!
It sounds like I hated it. But that's because everything I dislike is in my face all the time. However, I was impressed by the dedication to the original material; the language is virtually unchanged and traditional, many of the stories visual cues are exaggerated lovingly, the Marley knocker, and some of the Spirit of Christmas Future for example. The soundtrack is also really nice as it is almost exclusively classic Christmas Carols, making the film very festive indeed. The Spirit of Christmas Future has some great use of light and shadow, and the climax is hauntingly grim (the transition from Present to Future was amazing).

However the film's climax was shot to pieces when it has to follow a ghastly... ghastly action sequence where the Spirit of Future miniaturizes Scrooge and chases him through London. Clearly designed by Disney to wake up the restless children of modern society. Ugh.

So yeah, it is mostly a miss. What will people say about these 3D films in ten years? This already looks old and it was released last year! I will say it has plenty of redeeming features, but it would have been great to see this in live action. Less Christmas Spirit and more... Dated 3D Tech Demo.

Additional Marshmallows: And... someone please tell me how that fat woman spun around so fast in midair during a dance that her head was blurring? I understand the Spirits causing otherworldly things to happen... but... that was "real life", and nothing that zany happens again. WHY was it in there?? Why was there a fat-lady-spinning-top sequence?? What did I just witness!?

Review: Red Lights

With three excellent actors seemingly bringing their A-game, the only trinity found while watching Red Lights is a confusing, messy and poorly written tedium.

A team of paranormal investigators who study mediums to debunk them as frauds take on a renowned psychic who appears to channel real supernatural powers. Cillian Murphy, Sigourney Weaver and Robert De Niro star.

I'm sad to say that I had wanted to see this in the cinema, in fact I only missed it by a few days, but thankfully I never did. While the stars involved are excellent (I may be biased, they are three of my favourites all in one place!) the script and screenplay is phenomenally poor.
Immediately we are accosted by some of the laziest exposition writing I've heard in a long while, to the degree that actors arrive into a scene and dump a huge pile of inhuman dialogue (this is my belief system, these are my failings, etc). The film continues from here without a real sense of identity; is this an investigative thriller, is this a paranormal and supernatural horror? When it appears to settle on one, its script becomes impenetrable jargon... perhaps I was nodding off, but I barely knew what was going on due to the existential crisis that was happening before my eyes.

Its ending reminded me of the other disappointing film The Number 23; with the film so unrelentingly nebulous and unexplained the so-called "twist" doesn't come off as surprising at all! Such utter uncontrolled madness means only a mad resolution would do. 

The only mystery that holds in the viewers mind while watching Red Lights is how the director (Rodrigo Cortes - director of the remarkable Buried) convinced these three talented actors to sign up with such a script!
Like I say, the actors give it their best shot, I didn't feel unconvinced by any of them except for the fact I had no idea what was happening to them. Unless you really, really, really like any or all three of them, I'd probably tell you to give Red Lights a miss.

"You only see what you want to believe"? I guess I only want to believe that you have no idea what you are doing.

Review: Rise of the Guardians (2D)

The Avengers Assemble with Santa Claus? It is a ridiculous concept, yet Rise of the Guardians is so nice to look at and has enough smart dialogue to rise from mediocrity.

Our story follows Jack Frost, a newly awoken "Guardian", a Guardian is one of the many mythical characters from fairy tales who do indeed exist, and protect the children of Earth from evil. The young Jack must discover his true potential to help Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Sandman battle the Boogeyman known as Pitch Black.

The film is a straight up action movie; it barely stops for breath! Since we follow Jack and his impish antics merge with the quirky otherworld of the Guardians (rather than following a human child's perspective, for example) and the story becomes a mash of dazzling visuals and quite excellent animation. The frost effects are exceptionally well done.

The characters are all instantly enjoyable and very unique. Frost himself is young and impressionable, Huge Jackman plays the unlikely role of the Australian Easter Bunny (!!) while the Tooth Fairy proves to be most compelling. However, special mention has to be given to Santa, a Russian Santa! He's a jolly bruiser. The Guardians relationship with the human world is interesting too and how, like the Greek gods of Olympus have been depicted, rely on human belief to sustain their very existence. This is balanced well with the happy-go-lucky antics the Guardians have with children! There are genuinely funny moments and quips throughout the film.

So what's wrong with Rise of the Guardians? It really is a frantic overflow of visuals, beautiful visuals, but there isn't much meat to the characters' dilemmas, at least these aren't played out as fully as they could have been. Jack Frost is regarded as a "neutral party" only... he is clearly one of the good guys. The villain Pitch Black felt pushed aside, and while he was threatening (at least when compared to the fleshed-out, adorable heroes and their sidekicks) I felt genuinely sorry for him by the end.
Another thing that was a little pestering was some lack of consistency with the fictional "lore". Guardians have no power when no one believes in them (to the point where humans cannot see them) our heroes are seen severely weakened and unable to fight later on. Yet Jack Frost as a new Guardian (no belief; cannot be seen by humans) has the power to repel Pitch Black immediately. No explanation.

But, it is a good fun romp! Don't be put off by the laughable concept, Guardians is a fun ride with a ton of creative visuals and loads of excellent designs. Its no How to Train Your Dragon, but with snappy dialogue and the chance to show loved characters in a new light, it is harmless entertainment.

Additional Marshmallows: While I did not see this in 3D, I can say that it didn't suffer from "gimmick" shots in 2D; I wasn't punished for seeing this film normally! That said, I could imagine it looking good in 3D, there are a lot of sweeping aerial shots that allow for depth-of-field, and plenty of particle effects that can be pushed forward nicely.

Review: Argo

In 1980 a top secret operation was carried out by the CIA to rescue civilians from a revolutionary movement in Iran. The story was declassified only recently, and Argo tells the principle story of how one man's unlikely plan was the only option.

The film's title Argo, is the title of a science fiction film script that was never put into production yet was the linchpin of the CIA operation. Tony Mendez (Ben Afleck) would go to Iran, find the six American Embassy workers in hiding, and give them safe passage out of the country under the guise of the film's production executives.

Putting aside the film's obvious credibility as an eye-opening true story, it is a solid piece of film making to boot! I can't say I've been bothered about Afleck's struggling career as director and actor (The Town was sorely lacking) but with Argo he appears to be maturing and gives this serious historical account an honest telling. It isn't Hollywood or glamorous; it is shot extremely well, using a lot of retro set design and costume design, as well as - presumably - television footage from the original News coverage.

Bonus points for Afleck's rather silent protagonist. If you don't like his acting, he has given himself the least to do. While Tony Mendez has family and he is risking his life, Afleck's mood throughout the film is delivered with stony stares and control (he has to though; the character is leading six paranoid strangers on a wild, dangerous mission). It is clear they did a precise job casting each of the characters involved, very good doppelgangers... except for Afleck. 

It is a grim affair to be sure, we see Iran in a state of conflicted identity and merciless prejudice, yet the film does have moments of relaxation, after all, they are pretending to shoot a fake science fiction movie! Enter John Goodman as John Chambers (real life film make-up artist legend, who had worked on Planet of the Apes and Star Trek, and before that making prosthetics for war veterans) who gives some great tasteful comedy relief.

It is an intense ride towards the end; the last twenty minutes are fraught with paranoia and fearful glances as the group try to escape. (The film made me think of a contemporary The Great Escape) It has great pacing, its two hour run time flies by.

It is an insightful and intense thriller, and isn't just Afleck's best effort but also an excellent film in general.

Review: End of Watch

A slice of life from the perspective of two American police officers on patrol as they encounter increasing dangers, proves to be a hard edged reality tale but has some irksome direction.

Ex-Marine police officer Brian Taylor (Jake Gylhenhaal) dreams of having a family, while his squad partner Mike Zavala teases him with the easy life he has with his own. They are cocky, self-assured officers whose frequency of success has made them extremely efficient if a little unorthodox. But when a drug cartel moves in on their neighborhood unseen, they could find the ground opening beneath their feet.

End of Watch is from Training Day director David Ayer, and both films rely upon seeing our character talk and exchange banter within a squad car. Brian and Mike have great chemistry, and you quickly appreciate their friendship and police "brothers-in-arms" relationship. There are a lot of American police films out there, and most of them fall into cliche and pitfalls (see Brooklyn's Finest for examples of all the cliches in one place!) but the honest and glamour-less nature of End of Watch makes it insightful rather than painful. It paints a picture of the human beings behind the guns and badges, and the dangers they are constantly in.

Unfortunately, the filmmakers decided on using a "found footage", "recorded footage" shaky camera style... Sigh... It is quite alarming how I'm sick of this now. Brian, for little reason other than "I'm making a movie", fits himself and Mike with cameras on their uniforms and carries around a camcorder. While this does make it a unique police film, it is either used too much or ineffectively. The number of times the film does shaky-cam when it isn't from a character's camera, or is from a direction that could be... but actually isn't, since we see a subsequent shot showing no camera being held. It constantly bothered me as I was asking "Who's holding the camera now?"
I had myself a quiet giggle as even the drug cartel guys were filming themselves all the time too. Really? Is everyone out and about with camcorders these days?

If the film hadn't been in this format (and the fact that they were recording had little to no significance means it didn't need to be) it would have been a solid police drama. One really worth recommending! The characters are involved, the action is intense when it happens (and it happens suddenly) and the ending is so un-Hollywood its great!

It was an okay watch, it did feel a little bit like "TV Cops" due to the stupid shaky camera. If you want to see something new from American police dramas, you could do worse.