Film Review | Lawless (2012)

Based on the real lives of the bootlegging Bondurant brothers during prohibition era America, Lawless feels throughout as though it wants to reach the heights of cinema's most revered gangster tales. But despite an impressive cast of acting talent, it never manages to achieve anywhere near the greatness it so desperately and ambitiously strives for.

Lawless' main cast is arguably its strongest asset. Tom Hardy does well as middle brother Forrest, growling his way through a part which, whilst certainly not the most challenging he has taken on in his career so far, allows the actor to create an interesting character through a mix of understatement and intensity. Opposite Hardy as youngest Bondurant brother Jack, Shia LaBoeuf gives the best performance of his career so far but one that still lacks consistency. At times LaBeouf delivers some pleasingly strong emotional moments, but at others feels out of his depth; whilst certainly not an awful turn, it's easy to think of several other acting talents of a similar age who could have delivered a lot more in the role. Rounding off the trio of brothers is Jason Clarke as Howard, the oldest but unfortunately also the sibling most underwritten and underdeveloped, feeling too one-note for the actor to create anything genuinely memorable.

The supporting cast elsewhere delivers mixed results. Guy Pearce delivers with an unsettling and intense performance as Special Deputy Charley Rakes, stealing the show in the film's opening act; it's a shame that both the character and Pearce's performance descends into over-theatrical ludicrousness by the film's climax.  Gary Oldman does reliably well in a role more akin to the maniacal characters of earlier in his career than the more restrained parts the actor has been seen in recently, but is also vastly underutilized throughout. Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain are both fine, but are given very little of interest to do other than be accessories to the men.

The screenplay from Nick Cave is at times strong, but lacks the narrative thread needed to tie all its different elements together. The slow-burning feud between the Bondurants and Rakes is compelling throughout, but both of the film's attempts at romantic subplots fail to do anything genuinely meaningful: Hardy and Chastain's chemistry props up their love affair, but the scenes between LaBeouf and Wasikowska continually fall flat.

Lawless is regularly at its best when delivering brutal violence, with John Hillcoat's direction feeling most effective when focused upon the grittier and more unforgiving elements of prohibition era society. Elsewhere, the director's artistic choices feel perfunctory at best. There are moments of impressive cinematography but these are far too seldom to leave any lasting impact. Hillcoat's execution by and large feels too clean cut and lacking in stylistic mastery to deliver an authentic mise-en-scène.

Lawless ends up as an enjoyable period crime drama, but also one that wavers far too much between successful and ineffective elements. There's certainly a fair amount here to like, but there's also too much that falls significantly short of what it needs to be to create something genuinely memorable. Hillcoat's film manages to entertain for most of its running time, but with several big talents involved and a time period undeniably compelling in itself, to deliver a film that manages to entertain without offering much else ultimately feels like a wasted opportunity.

6/10

Film Review | A Christmas Carol (2009)

Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol has received countless big screen adaptations, becoming just as much a cinematic staple as a literary one during the festive season. But with so many versions already out there, the challenge for any director bringing us a new take on the story of Scrooge is to bring something fresh and original to proceedings. Robert Zemeckis' choice to make Dickens' Christmas ghost story his third venture into CGI motion capture cinema, following 2004's The Polar Express and 2007's Beowulf, had the potential to be the perfect way to bring the supernatural elements of the tale to life. Unfortunately, it's a potential which the film only manages to partially fulfill.

If you don't know the story (and where have you been if you don't?), A Christmas Carol takes place one Christmas Eve, as miserable miser Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is haunted first by the spirit of his deceased business partner Jacob Marley (Gary Oldman), then by three ghosts representing Christmas Past (Carrey again), Present (and again) and Yet To Come (yep, Carrey too), in order to convince him to change his ways.

Zemeckis' A Christmas Carol really is a mixed bag; when it get things right, it gets them very right, but it also misses the mark by a considerable margin in several ways. It's often the most chilling and scary elements of the story which benefit the most from the motion capture treatment. The scene in which Oldman's Marley torments Carrey's Scrooge is one of the strongest and most memorable of the whole film. The inclusion of some of the often overlooked elements,such as the personification of Ignorance and Want as creepy children accompanying Christmas Present, are also welcome and inspired touches.

The casting decisions too run the gamut of success. Carrey as Scrooge is strong, but as the three Christmas Ghosts is less successful, distractingly adopting a strange and unconvincing Irish accent as Christmas Past and another which meanders around the north of England as Christmas Present. The same can be said for Oldman in his multiple roles: he is superb as Marley and good as Bob Cratchit, but the idea to use Oldman's face for Tiny Tim is both odd and unsettling - initially not all that noticeable, but once it hits you ironically it's more haunting than some of the ghosts.

It's in some of its more spectacular set pieces that the film feels least successful. Sequences such as Scrooge being shot up into the air on a giant candle snuffer by Christmas Past, or being chased through the streets of Victorian London by a demonic horse and carriage driven by Christmas Future, may showcase the film's technical mastery - as well as undoubtedly giving the immersive element in the 3D version (which I wasn't watching) some mileage. But they ultimately come across as soulless and a little overlong, as well as adding nothing to the story. A tale as ingeniously simple and effective in its concept and message as this doesn't need to have the lily gilded with overblown spectacle.

It's this that ultimately holds this version of A Christmas Carol back from being anything more than just good. There are elements here to enjoy a great deal in isolation, but as a whole the film fails to capture the spirit of Dickens' tale, preferring glossy surface level sheen to anything deeper or more heartfelt underneath. An ultimately ironic verdict for a story all about shunning the material side of life and embracing humanity.

6/10

Film Review | The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

It's difficult to comprehend, after the runaway success of The Dark Knight and Heath Ledger's iconic performance within that film, that Christopher Nolan originally intended for Batman Begins to be a standalone film. The Joker card tease at the end of Begins was put in as a nod to Batman's most infamous foe, not as the perfect lead into the second film it turned out to be. After The Dark Knight, it was difficult to imagine that Nolan and Warner Bros. wouldn't want to follow things up and make Nolan's Batman franchise into a trilogy. A third film would allow Nolan to tie up thematic and emotional threads, and would allow Warner Bros. to again make a ridiculously large amount of money as they had done with the first sequel. But after creating two of the most important comic book adaptations in cinematic history, the hype for The Dark Knight Rises was through the roof, and the question of how Nolan could possibly better - or even match - the acclaim of the first two installments was on the lips of many.

Set eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has become a recluse, shying away from both his business life at Wayne Enterprises and the vigilante life of his alter-ego, Batman. However, after a powerful terrorist known as Bane (Tom Hardy) makes his presence known in Gotham, Wayne is lured out to help protect the city once more as the caped crusader.

There's an awful lot to like about The Dark Knight Rises. Nolan feels at home bringing Gotham back to the big screen, producing some of the most impressive cinematography seen in any part of the trilogy. Evoking images of Soviet Russia, a barbaric and mystical Asia, and a bleakly paranoid post-9/11 Western society, Nolan sets a captivating backdrop for both his crisp dialogue and charged action sequences in which to take place. There are set pieces contained within, such as Bane's breathtaking hijacking of an American football match, that are contenders for the best action sequence in any Nolan Batman film.

There is also a strong returning cast, led by Christian Bale's protagonist. Bale, now the actor who has donned the Dark Knight's costume more times on the big screen than any other, is once again a strong presence. Bale feels comfortable and reliable in the dual role, whilst at the same time bringing new dimensions and development to both Wayne and his crime-fighting persona. Michael Caine puts in possibly his strongest performance of the entire trilogy as Alfred Pennyworth; it's just a shame that the plot dictates he be absent from a significant proportion of the film. The same can be said for Gary Oldman's Commissioner Jim Gordon: a strong performance, but necessarily sidelined for much of the first half of the film. It's a truth that can again be applied to Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, always a welcome presence but whose role here is reduced from that in the first two films.

Filling the gaps left by the reduced roles of Caine, Oldman and Freeman, as well as non-returners from The Dark Knight Maggie Gyllenhaal, Aaron Eckhart and, of course, Heath Ledger, is a wealth of new talent. Hardy as Bane is a domineering presence throughout; his performance, although not comparable to Ledger's enigmatic Joker, is strong and provides a satisfying physical threat to oppose Batman not seen previously in Nolan's films. That's not to say Bane is all brawn and no brain; his plans for Gotham are meticulous and Machiavellian, and he is arguably the most successful of all the enemies Nolan's Batman has had to face. Anne Hathaway, at least initially a controversial casting decision, is also strong as the ambiguously aligned Selina Kyle, her performance entertaining throughout and fitting superbly into the universe Nolan has created. The character feels slightly underdeveloped in the script at times, but thanks to Hathaway's confidence in the role this can largely be forgiven.

Perhaps the strongest of the new cast members is Joseph Gordon-Levitt as police officer John Blake. Gordon-Levitt continues to carve out a reputation as a strong and reliable presence on screen, here bringing both toughness, emotion and depth to the role, making Blake a welcome addition to the franchise. Less convincing is Marion Cotillard's Miranda Tate. Cotillard does well with what she is given, but the character unfortunately receives too little development and screen time to believe or invest in, a problem exacerbated by her elevated role in the film's final act.

The biggest problem for The Dark Knight Rises is, ultimately, the two films that precede it. It's an excellent action film and a confident and assured comic book adaptation. But by following Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, the most significant franchise reboot made so far and one of the most acclaimed action films ever made respectively behind it, The Dark Knight Rises possibly appears more flawed than it actually is. There are flaws: a couple of underdeveloped characters, stemming from Nolan possibly trying to pack in too many characters altogether, being the main issue. The reduced roles of three of the franchise's key players in Caine, Freeman and Oldman is ultimately a weakness too. The film is also a little too long, causing the pace to slow on a few too many occasions. But although this is the weakest overall of Nolan's Batman trilogy, it's still a mesmerising and thoroughly entertaining piece of cinema, and provides a strong and incredibly pleasing conclusion to what is sure to be remembered as one of the best cinematic comic book adaptation series ever made.

9/10

Film Review | The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight is both a continuation of, and a reaction to, the perfect reboot of the Batman franchise that Christopher Nolan created in 2005's Batman Begins. Whilst furthering the realistic edge of the first film, Nolan goes in an almost entirely different direction in his choice of Batman's enemies. Whilst Batman Begins is notable for featuring some of the Caped Crusader's least theatrical villains who had limited mainstream recognition before their appearance in the film, The Dark Knight features two of Batman's adversaries who are not only amongst his most well-known and extraordinary, but who have also featured prominently on the big screen in the past. Casting the late Heath Ledger as The Joker also appeared to many as a risky decision when first announced considering the acclaimed performance given in the role by Hollywood heavyweight Jack Nicholson in 1989's Batman, not to mention the character being undoubtedly Batman's most notorious and well-loved nemesis.

The film takes place some six months after the events of Batman Begins, as Batman, the crime-fighting alter-ego of Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), works with Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and other members of the Gotham Police Department against bizarre criminal mastermind The Joker (Ledger). Joining the fight is newly appointed district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), determined to rid Gotham of crime however he can; whilst Bruce sees Harvey as holding the potential to lead Gotham into a brighter future, matters are complicated by Harvey's relationship with assistant district attorney, and Bruce's childhood friend and love interest, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal).

The Dark Knight is just as successful as its precursor, partly because many of the things that worked so well in Batman Begins are retained. The returning cast again put in superb performances: Bale is given the opportunity to flesh out both Bruce Wayne and Batman further, building on his strong performance in the first film; Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth is predictably excellent, the chemistry between his character and Bale's even more palpable and authentic; Oldman as Gordon is again a genuine highlight, continuing the character's development arc with subtlety and humility; and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox is, unsurprisingly, a joy. All of these performances tied together by Nolan's captivating direction, adrenaline-charged action sequences and polished script (again crafted with brother Jonathan) gives The Dark Knight a strong foundation upon which to build the film's new elements.

The new cast members are comprehensively excellent, their characters fitting perfectly into Nolan's Gotham. Gyllenhaal takes on the role of Rachel Dawes capably, developing the character and making it her own, to the extent that when recalling the character it is Gyllenhaal who comes to mind first, despite Katie Holmes originating the character in Batman Begins. Eckhart's turn as Harvey Dent is flawless, delivering the many shades of Dent's character effortlessly, and playing out his tragic story arc with such class and pathos that it can't fail to impress on the highest level.

Of course, the film's biggest and most successful addition is that of Ledger's Joker. It's hard to say anything that hasn't already been said about Ledger in The Dark Knight. The character's introduction in the film's opening sequence lets you know that what you are witnessing in the combination of Ledger's performance and Nolan's script is something very special, and once The Joker lays his intentions bare to Gotham's gangland leaders (opening with a simple "magic trick" you'll never forget) neither Nolan nor Ledger let up until the closing scenes. It's a performance which captivates, redefining one of the most iconic antagonists ever created, striking the perfect balance between The Joker's overtly comic book foundations and Nolan's real world aesthetic.

The Dark Knight may be less epic and more episodic in its structure when compared to Batman Begins, but this never counts against it. In salvaging the Batman franchise, Nolan pulled off what many thought impossible and struck gold. Through The Dark Knight, Nolan manages to produce a film against which all comic book adaptations are likely, nay deserve, to be measured. It soars as an action film, broods with psychological drama, and reaches heights neither this comic book franchise nor any other has achieved before or since.

10/10

Film Review | Batman Begins (2005)

Batman Begins is arguably the most important reboot of a franchise made so far. Only Casino Royale, 2006's restart of the Bond series, contests it for that title. But in hindsight, with twenty Bond films in the can, 007 was merely hitting a stale patch, something which had happened before and the secret agent had managed to come through. Bat-fans will be well aware that Bruce Wayne and his crime-fighting alter-ego were firmly in the doldrums at the turn of the 21st Century thanks to Joel Schumacher's so-bad-it's-painful 1997 effort Batman And Robin. Batman was seen by many as an untouchable, irreparable commodity. Neither was Christopher Nolan likely to be at the top of anyone's list in 2005 to helm the reinvigoration of the character; after his breakout feature Memento, Nolan's most recent work had been 2002's Insomnia, a skillful remake of a 1997 Norwegian psychological thriller with Al Pacino and Robin Williams. The risk factor seemed through the roof to many; they may have been right, but the risk was well worth it, and the payoff was phenomenal.

Batman Begins takes us right back to the hero's roots. Witnessing the murder of his parents at the hands of a petty criminal, a young Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) exiles himself from Gotham City and travels the world, cutting himself off from all who know and care for him including butler to his parents Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine and childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes). After being rescued from a prison in the Himalayas by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), Wayne is trained as a member of the League Of Shadows, a mysterious organisation utilising ninjitsu and advanced martial arts techniques. It is this training which Wayne uses to develop his vigilante persona, Batman, upon his return to Gotham, a city now swathed in fear and corruption.

Batman Begins is successful in pretty much everything it attempts. Nolan's script, written with brother Jonathan, brings depth to the story of Batman, something which hasn't really been seen before in the franchise, even in Tim Burton's acclaimed efforts in the late '80s and early '90s. In fact, this isn't really the story of Batman at all; this is Bruce Wayne's story told with notes that are epic and extravagant as well as intimate and personal and in which Batman is one aspect of the character. Wayne's masked alter-ego isn't actually seen until around halfway through the film, and it makes his entrance all the more thrilling.

Nolan's choices for the film's antagonists are spot on, shying away from the caped crusader's most notorious and flamboyant enemies in favour of a rogues' gallery more grounded in reality. Carmine Falcone, portrayed by an excellent Tom Wilkinson, is a superb choice as the first genuine criminal threat to Gotham seen in the film bringing a largely real world, mafioso flavour to proceedings. Cillian Murphy as slimy, corrupt criminal psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane is also fantastic, marrying the more flamboyant comic-book style of the character perfectly with Nolan's more realistic take on the franchise. And, without revealing too much about the plot's twists and turns, Neeson's character provides a fantastic counterpoint to both Bruce Wayne and Batman, underpinned by the actor's strong performance.

With so many bad guys in attendance, it would be easy for a lesser film to fall into the trap of losing focus and denying any of them enough development or screen time; Nolan however interlinks the antagonists brilliantly, fitting them together in such a way that each feels genuine and worthwhile on their own, but also allows the creation of a criminal hierarchy within Gotham that adds depth to the city not seen on screen before.

Things are just as impressive on the side of good. Bale is excellent as both Bruce Wayne and Batman, bringing a complex cocktail of emotions and facade to the former, and palpable power and ingenuity to the latter, finding the right balance of drama and humour in both personas. The supporting good guys are also strong, with Caine and Morgan Freeman reliably excellent and Holmes doing well as Wayne's estranged love interest. The strongest support however, and arguably the performance of the film, comes from Gary Oldman as police officer Jim Gordon, rising through the ranks to lieutenant as the film progresses. Understated, sympathetic, and charged with an incredibly strong sense of right and wrong, Oldman's Gordon is perfect, and will surely go down as one of the actor's most memorable performances.

The ensemble cast tied together with Nolan's script, balancing heroic gravitas with comedic quips, gripping action set pieces with intimate character interaction, makes Batman Begins pretty hard to fault. It is often the sequel, The Dark Knight, which receives greater critical acclaim than this film, unfairly overshadowing one of the most important action blockbusters and comic book adaptations of all time. Without Batman Begins, The Dark Knight would not exist. More importantly, the action landscape now would look quite different, and Batman as a franchise might still be mouldering in a dank corner of Hollywood. In Batman Begins, Nolan not only saved an untouchable commodity, but brought new life into it in a way that many never thought possible.

10/10

Film Review | Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Boasting an impressive "who's who" of British acting talent (the only thing missing is a recent incarnation of Doctor Who), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is Tomas Alfredson's first feature following his international breakout picture, 2008's atmospheric and inventive Let The Right One In. It's also the first and (currently) only film to earn veteran Gary Oldman a Best Actor Oscar nod. With such talent loaded within it, Tinker Tailor... has a lot of expectation to live up to.

Set in the 1970s in the midst of the Cold War, the film focuses on an investigation into the existence of a Soviet mole at the top of the British secret service, known by those who work there as "The Circus". The operation is led by retired MI6 agent George Smiley (Oldman), brought back to work outside of the agency specifically to handle the investigation. Smiley's inquiries leads to him crossing several former colleagues, including recently appointed Chief of MI6 Percy Alleline (Toby Jones) and his right hand man Bill Haydon (Colin Firth), as well as Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds) and Toby Esterhase (David Dencik). One by one, Smiley narrows down his suspects, penetrating further into The Circus and its intricate web of secrets and relationships.

Moving from contemporary horror to Cold War espionage drama may not seem like the most obvious of moves for Alfredson, but it is clear from Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy's opening frames that Alfredson is a capable and talented director. He ably creates a tangible atmosphere of tension and paranoia, whilst giving his film a highly polished and authentic feel. Alfredson's Circus is claustrophobic yet imposing, with both gloomy hallways and lurid meeting rooms making it the perfect place for such a complex and cerebral story to unfold. Alfredson's choice of cinematography is just as impressive away from the halls of MI6: Smiley's house is a labyrinth of shadows, a mortuary adorned with mementos of a life given over to the secret service; an early sequence taking place in Hungary is also beautifully shot, giving the locale a sense of both grandeur and menace.

The performances throughout the film are also comprehensively excellent. Oldman superbly inhabits the character of Smiley, bringing to mind the quiet servitude of his portrayal of James Gordon in Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy whilst at the same time giving Smiley an ethereal, almost ghostly quality, generating a performance both sympathetic and subtly unsettling. The supporting cast are also incredibly strong, with impressive performances from both more established names such as John Hurt and Colin Firth as well as younger talents such as Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy. Alfredson is blessed in the talent he has to hand, but also deserves credit for weaving the performances together expertly, whilst ensuring Oldman's Smiley is never overshadowed.

Despite the high quality performances and stellar direction from Alfredson, I finished Tinker Tailor... feeling somewhat unsatisfied. Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan's script is immensely complex and cabalistic, regularly to the point of being incomprehensible. Whilst I relish films which challenge on a cerebral and intellectual level, and applaud writers and directors who refuse to saturate their films with unnecessary exposition, Tinker Tailor... unfortunately goes too far in the other direction and too often becomes frustratingly obtuse.

The key issue behind the confusing nature of the plot appears to be in O'Connor and Straughan's adaptation of the source material, John Le Carré's 1974 novel. Essentially, the film attempts to fit too much into its two hour running time. Unless you are already familiar with Le Carré's book (which I'm not) you're likely to be somewhat bewildered, unable to mentally elaborate upon some plot details yourself. The abbreviated nature of the film also means that several characters are never given more than a handful of scenes, and some who wind up as key players in the story by the film's conclusion feel lacking in characterisation leading to a somewhat anticlimactic feel as the film reaches its end.

I really wanted to enjoy Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy more than I did. I also genuinely feel that it is a film that will entertain me more the second time round as the plot will already be familiar. There's no doubting the acting and directorial excellence on display throughout the film, but this ultimately feels like a film made for those who already know Le Carré's novel. If you don't, then the complex and purposely disjointed nature of the plot's relation is quite likely to mar your enjoyment of the film as a whole during at least your initial viewing.

7/10

Film Review | Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

Generally speaking, it's a good time to be a fan of computer animated films. With such superb quality output from the likes of Pixar, the bar being raised so high also means other studios have to up their game more and more to be able to compete. This means even more great offerings for cinema-goers; but the flipside, of course, is that even if a computer animated film hits the mark in many ways, it can quickly go from being a resounding success to falling into the chasm of good-but-not-great oblivion by slipping up in only one or two areas. Unfortunately, this is the tale for Kung Fu Panda 2.

The film picks up a short while after the end of the first film, with the eponymous black and white bear Po (Jack Black) now established as the Dragon Warrior and continuing to fight and train alongside the Furious Five and Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman). However, a new threat is posed by Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) who harnesses the power of fireworks to create a weapon so powerful it could bring an end to kung fu.

Kung Fu Panda 2 does a lot of things right. In terms of animation, it's almost certainly the most technically proficient and visually impressive film DreamWorks have produced so far. The style of animation is carried over well from the first film, giving the world created a pleasingly authentic Chinese mythological feel. There are also more hand drawn segments included throughout the film than in the first, which fit in well with the aesthetic of the story. The way in which Po's back story is fleshed out in the film is commendable, as it would have been very easy for the studio to simply churn out a brightly-coloured fight fest with no heart that kids would have still lapped up.

With all of this going for it, and being a fan of the original movie, I really wanted to like Kung Fu Panda 2 a lot. But the problems are too big to ignore. The story feels very rushed at the start, then stretched out too much over the middle acts, making things feel pretty uneven overall. The script too feels pedestrian, with much less personality and humour than in the first film. And whilst there are some impressive action and fight sequences throughout, there are also some which feel too busy and confused to enjoy, a la Transformers.

The only vocal performance worthy of praise is that of Oldman, who hams it up a treat as the maleficent peacock Shen and steals every scene he's in. Black's performance is uninspired with the comedian going through the motions from start to finish. The Furious Five are wasted almost entirely, with only Angelina Jolie as Tigress receiving any notable role. What's the point of having Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu back again to voice characters, only to give them merely a handful of forgettable lines throughout?

The biggest flaw, however, is in the vast reduction of Hoffman's role as Shifu. Hoffman's participation can pretty much be considered a cameo here. One of the key reasons for the first film's success was the vocal performance of Hoffman and his brilliant interplay with Black. His absence from a huge portion of the sequel removes that element without successfully replacing it, and the film really suffers from the loss of Shifu as a character and Hoffman as a vocal presence.

All of this means Kung Fu Panda 2 never fulfils the potential it holds. The most disappointing fact of all is it's clear from what is here that the potential held was huge. It's not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a prime example of a film that should have been a champion quickly becoming an also-ran through a few key mistakes. Taking into account the cinematic masterpieces being produces by Pixar, now is the time that DreamWorks simply have to take their animated output to the next level not only in animation but in every other way too if they want to be considered contenders to Pixar's throne. We've yet to see DreamWorks' answer to a Toy Story 3 or a WALL-E, and, unfortunately, Kung Fu Panda 2 doesn't bring them any closer to achieving it.

6/10