movie reviews by PvtCaboose91

"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or from the air, and I plan on doing both before the war is over."

John Sturges' The Great Escape is debatably the greatest World War II adventure film in cinematic history. Multitudes of film buffs will collectively agree that Sturges' classic action/adventure masterpiece is highly deserving of its reputation, everlasting acclaim and endless accolades. Through my eyes, The Great Escape is a rare film that undoubtedly justifies a score exceeding 5/5, 10/10 or 100%.

In the 21st century, blockbuster action films are characterised as cinematic creations flaunting masses of CGI and an abundance of action. Back in the 1960s, films such as this were the paradigmatic definition of an epic blockbuster. It's also a definitive blueprint of an action/adventure movie. Although many may not realise it, this production certainly is an action film. It's just gruelling to categorise it as such in light of recent action films like Rambo and Face/Off where things are blown to pieces and bullets are frequently dispatched. With The Great Escape it isn't the quantity or regularity of the action, it's the quality. Motorcycle chases, tense escapes and nail-biting foot pursuits are among the film's highlights.

How does one ascertain that they're watching a great film? Personally, there are two factors that typify a great movie. Firstly, you never get sick of it regardless of how many times you watch it. Secondly, the running time never feels as long as it actually is. The Great Escape clocks as a whopping 170 minutes yet it never feels that long. It's a lengthy saga for sure, but the excellence of the filmmaking and the brisk pacing never permits the audience to feel bored. Although made in 1963 (45 years ago at the time of writing this review), John Sturges' war epic has stood the test of time. While watching the movie, the transfer indicates that it's an old movie. However, the filmmaking is top-notch and every frame is lovingly crafted. Not to mention the high level of authenticity in the period depiction. These factors are rare occurrences in contemporary filmmaking. To be sure, some things have dated and there are a few anachronisms. These insignificant imperfections simply do not matter and can be easily ignored. Why? The filmmaking is masterful, to the point that everything else stands up during close scrutiny. This cinema master class is virtually impossible to match these days, not to mention effectively impossible to top.

The Great Escape is based on a true story of a truly remarkable and inspiring war tale. It's based on an escape that occurred in March 1944 during which 76 POWs escaped from a German POW camp, Stalag Luft III in Poland. The elaborate preparation and extraordinary implementation of this escape is truly mind-boggling and unbelievable...it must be seen to be believed. The film is primarily based on a novel by a former Australian prison of war, Paul Brickhill. Brickhill helped plan the escape, but due to claustrophobia he did not go through the tunnel. Instead Brickhill recorded detailed accounts of the event, later penning his novel that was then transferred into this engrossing movie.

The film is introduced with this prerequisite:

"This is a true story. Although the characters are composites of real men, and time and place have been compressed, every detail of the escape is the way it really happened."

The film's central characters are an assortment of nationalities. Australian, American, British, etc. The true story didn't include Americans as they were moved to another prison camp. However the filmmakers felt obliged to provide American characters as it would boost the film's popularity with an American audience.
Basically the Nazis opt to move all their worst prisoners to a single POW camp. In essence, the POWs that have a notorious history of escape attempts are bunched together.

"We have in effect put all our rotten eggs in one basket. And we intend to watch this basket carefully."

To the Germans it's the perfect plan, but they don't realise that they've effectively assembled the most efficient and talented escape crew in history. Hence all the POWs spend over a year planning an escape that results in 76 prisoners disappearing into the night. All the prisoners are allocated a job to complete, such as people to build the tunnel, people to forge documents, and even people to assemble outfits for the prisoners to don after their escape.
The film chronicles the POW camp's inauguration until the eventual execution of the escape, then the following manhunt and subsequent recapture of a majority of the POWs (during the real event, only 3 out of 76 remained at large).

The events depicted in The Great Escape are significant as it portrays the biggest and most famous escape from a POW camp in history. It also must be noted that the POWs weren't conducting the escape just to get back to their families, as they also aimed to create a diversion for the German army who would utilise their resources during the manhunt while invasions took place.

The Great Escape is a masterpiece for several reasons. I stated before of its entertainment value, but there are additional features that elevate this into the competition for a perfect movie, primarily the film's authenticity. All costumes and props mirror the period in staggering realism. The film was also lensed in German locations. The extensive POW camp recreation is another thing. It's intricately designed, with credible characters inhabiting it. More importantly, the Nazis are actually humanised. To be sure, no-one ever took Hogan's Heroes seriously with the humour and down-to-earth soldiers. Remove the bumbling antics as well as the humour, and what remains is what we see on the big screen here. Surprisingly, there's a faint camaraderie shared by the Germans and specific POWs. The proceedings are therefore more engrossing and charming.

Director John Sturges apparently tried to get this film off the ground for 13 years. It was only after he directed The Magnificent Seven that the film finally received the green light. Sturges' determination is obvious as each scene is crafted amazingly. His lens delicately tracks his actors through the convincing sets. There are only very minor technical glitches to be found amongst the otherwise faultless filmmaking. Sturges has the drama balanced with a great blend of subtle humour. Character interactions are filled with witty and fascinating dialogue. The final act of The Great Escape is a masterfully sustained quantity of action and tension as the assorted escapees strive for freedom via train, bicycle, motorbike, row boat and hitchhiking. Sturges brilliantly edits between all their activities and leads us to an inevitable tragedy. This tragic happening sets a new, more foreboding tone before returning to light-hearted humour for the concluding shot.

"Colonel Von Luger, it is the sworn duty of all officers to try to escape. If they cannot escape, then it is their sworn duty to cause the enemy to use an inordinate number of troops to guard them, and their sworn duty to harass the enemy to the best of their ability."

Sturges' World War II extravaganza is also blessed with an ideal cast. These actors are of such high calibre that they could never be replaced in a modern age of filmmaking. Steve McQueen is both cool and tough as the suitably cocky and brash American prisoner.
Richard Attenborough is in an early performance as the co-ordinator of the escape. If one is familiar with Attenborough's subsequent performances, such as Jurassic Park, it's almost impossible to recognise him. Here his acting is absolutely top-notch.
Charles Bronson is also worth noting for his portrayal of a rugged Polish tunnel king.
Donald Pleasence is most likely recognised for his performance as Blofeld in the James Bond film You Only Live Twice. Here, Pleasence puts forth a magnificent performance as a forgery expert.
Beyond these names, the entire supporting cast is sensational. Director Sturges scarcely lets a faulty performance slip through the cracks in spite of a few embarrassingly phoney accents (James Coburn's Aussie number takes a bow).

Eventually the definitive final element was added during post-production: the music. Composer Elmer Bernstein's famous theme music is instantly recognisable. The Great Escape is perhaps most commonly known for its wonderful theme. It always sets the proper atmosphere. Even during the opening sequence depicting the arrival of POWs, Bernstein's theme hits a defiant note. Bernstein is even dexterous with every other note of music. There are endless segments of music that you'll be humming for days due to how memorable and cheery it is.

Overall, The Great Escape is a sublime masterpiece of almost unrivalled quality. It's unbelievable that it took me so long to finally watch this movie. Its influence on cinema is profound and obvious. Films such as the animated Chicken Run shamelessly borrow the formula. This is yet another testament to the superiority of this masterpiece. It's a textbook example of a great film: even after numerous decades, almost everything holds up. Additionally, repeated screenings will only further increase your respect for this classic. The great cast, sharp storyline, astute directing, and humour manage to pervade an ultimately tragic tale, simply making this an unmissable film. It's not solely for war movie buffs, but for anyone that appreciates a story depicting the strength and triumph of the human spirit.

"They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me, then they will have my dead body. NOT MY OBEDIENCE!"

For decades, Richard Attenborough's sweeping epic biographical film Gandhi has been incessantly subjected to critical acclaim and abject disparaging. The film won no less than 8 Oscars in 1983, including the holy three (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor) in addition to Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing and several others. On top of these exalted awards, Attenborough's biopic collected five BAFTAs (including the holy trinity of Best Film, Director and Actor) and five Golden Globes. Even after acquiring these, Gandhi garnered countless other prestigious awards. With this impressively long list of credentials, it's inevitable that critics and audiences would search for reasons to hate it. Granted, there is some to criticise. However this largely depends on what you expect.

Richard Attenborough developed the film over the course of about 20 years and was so enamoured by the man that he wanted the film to be a relentless tribute that focuses less on his weaker facets. In accepting the award for Best Picture, director Attenborough remarked that it was neither the film nor the creative team being honoured by the Academy that evening, but Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi himself. The little man with a loincloth and a walking stick made a profound impact on his home country. So profound, in fact, that the film holds the record for most amount of extras ever used in a single scene. For the scene depicting Gandhi's funeral, roughly 300,000 extras were used to fill the frame. Approximately two thirds of these extras were volunteers working for no money. They were in attendance for the filming to help Attenborough honour a man who materialised as a prominent representative of India. Attenborough's Gandhi is epic in scope and scale, and these extras further solidify Gandhi's popularity and influence. His thousands (perhaps millions) of followers were prepared to go to the end of the Earth in supporting Gandhi's cause. The people of India would ultimately acknowledge Gandhi with the title of "Mahatma" (meaning great soul) because of his revolutionary method of non-violent civil disobedience, which he initially employed as a young attorney in South Africa to challenge British laws that unjustly made Indians second-class citizens.

Gandhi is an epic creation that chronicles the life and death of Mohandas K. Gandhi: a remarkable man who refused to turn a blind eye to discrimination, yet firmly stood against violence in his methods. The man refused to resort to violence even after the tragic Amritsar massacre during which thousands of Indian men, women and young children were shot mercilessly in cold blood.

"An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind"

Altogether the film covers roughly 50 years of history, from Gandhi as a young Indian lawyer to an elderly man eventually assassinated by a Hindu extremist. The opening sequence depicts Gandhi's death by an assassin's bullet before telling the story through flashback. Initially we follow Gandhi as a young attorney in 1893, when the unlawful injustice and prejudice is brought to his attention when he is thrown from a train after refusing to move from the first-class seat that he booked. This young Indian man staged a revolution, breaking down the prejudice against him and his coloured followers. His successes proved an inspiration for the entire world: Gandhi was a towering little man, and a motivating figure. Amid the most tumultuous, horror-filled years of war and bloodshed in history, he taught the world an alternative, non-violent method of combating oppression.

The film's beginning is prefaced with a disclaimer:
"No man's life can be encompassed in one telling. There is no way to give each year its allotted weight, to include each event, each person who helped to shape a lifetime. What can be done is to be faithful in spirit to the record and try to find one's way to the heart of the man"

The film truly pushes the envelope with its running time of about 3 hours. Attenborough chooses to focus on the man and the way his spirit shaped world history - not just the UK, but world history. The film is a tribute and a portrait of the man, showing his origins to his full-scale protests. We see Gandhi being imprisoned several times while his faithful supporters continued protests in his honour. We also watch in awe as Gandhi fasts...he refuses to eat until his wishes are accomplished. Attenborough imbues his film with the true spirit of Gandhi.

Ben Kingsley has been endlessly lauded and acclaimed for his unforgettable portrayal as Mahatma Gandhi. Although most audiences only know the historical Gandhi from history books and stories, Kingsley's masterful performance personifies everything we visualise about the man himself. He prepared for his role comprehensively by scrutinising newsreel footage of Gandhi, reading books on (and by) the subject, dieting, losing weight, practicing Yoga, and learning to spin thread. As a result this thorough research is very palpable. He masters the nature of the real man: humble and contrite. Better yet, Kingsley looks the part to stunning effect. His transformation from young man to frail old man is subtle yet effective. You will genuinely believe you're watching real footage of the man. Apparently Indian people believed Kingsley's performance was a reincarnation.
Kingsley is surrounded by a capable supporting cast. Many well-known actors appear throughout the film's duration. Martin Sheen appears as a reporter, and an extremely youthful Daniel Day-Lewis plays a boy who confronts Charlie in the street. There are countless other cast members that evince acting brilliance.

The amazing locations are captured with mind-blowing cinematography. Gandhi borrows techniques from celebrated epics such as Lawrence of Arabia. This exquisite photography was crucial as the entire film is essentially dialogue. The intriguing visuals are marvellous to behold. The pacing is deliberately slow and unhurried as there is much ground to cover.
However, there are criticisms to be pointed out. The politics that fuel the proceedings are confusing. Additional explication is sorely needed in this area. In tradition with most epics, the storytelling is at its best. In spite of this, the second half is marginally less riveting than the first. The running time is occasionally very irritating, but at the same time it's impossible to remove a frame. It's also worth noting that the film frequently canonises Gandhi's philosophies rather than exploring them. His preaching is therefore trivialised and occasionally distorted.

Despite its shortcomings and countless haters, Gandhi is an important film about a great man. In short, this is a film everyone must see at least once. It's an absorbing history lesson as well as deep food for the soul: it gives us inspiration and hope while illustrating the capabilities of a single man. Attenborough tells an amazingly powerful story in this film, with incredible cinematography and an extraordinary period atmosphere that makes it a memorable epic deserving to stand beside Lawrence of Arabia. Gandhi is simply unforgettable and remarkable...watch it without hesitation.

8.85/10

King Konreid: "Gallian is raising armies... Vast armies"
Farmer: "I'll kill him."

Uwe Boll's In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale is an overproduced, nonsensical, pale aping of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.
It's impossible to start a review of a Boll product without mentioning the man's abominable career. Boll, the purveyor of such "efforts" as BloodRayne, appears to genuinely enjoy vandalising modern cinema. Boll possesses a truly repulsive ego as evident in recent video interviews, and believes he is a great filmmaker. He also dismisses negative reviews as the products of small, jealous minds. He frequently directs video game adaptations with absolutely detestable consequences.

Uwe Boll appears to have no soul, nor does he possess any filmmaking skill or artistic acumen. Yet his company never fails to release endless amounts of appalling films helmed by the German hack director. Renowned filmmakers like Terry Gilliam and David Lynch are suffering in the industry while this German joke persists in the nonstop creation of new projects that yield terrible results. Millions of dollars have been utilised by Boll to create these movies...with embarrassing box office earnings (BloodRayne was his biggest flop - its budget was roughly $20 million, and worldwide it didn't even break $4 million). Uwe Boll's personality and "talent" in filmmaking is so detestable that words fail me. Just to think that out of the trillions of unborn sperm, Boll was granted the gift of life. What a senseless waste!

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale evokes ideas from several fantasy epics rather than producing something original. In a nutshell: Boll's latest film to stain global TV screens is an everything-must-go yard sale of clichés and proverbial formulas. I have no idea how to recount the plot of In the Name of the King as Boll's storytelling faculties are awful. There are too many inept occurrences during the 2-hour running time that I'd be wasting cyberspace just to list them. Essentially the central character is a labouring chump known as Farmer (Statham). Apparently his name is Farmer because, as his wife quotes, he believes we "become what we do". What a peculiar philosophy, Mr. Talentless-Hack Boll.
Anyway, Farmer's family is torn apart when the Uruk Hai - sorry, I mean Krugs - desecrate his village. Farmer vows revenge on the Krugs and sets out with two companions. Meanwhile, King Konreid (played by Burt Reynolds...yes, you read that right) is amassing an army to attack a powerful sorcerer (played by Ray Liotta...yes, you also read that right) who controls the Krugs.

I honestly haven't a clue how to further elaborate on the plot. The best I can do is list all the films it steals ideas from: the aforementioned Lord of the Rings series (basically all the battle scenes are situations taken straight from these films), Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Princess Bride (hero's wife is taken hostage, hero must rescue her), Gladiator, Friday the 13th (yes, it appears to steal from here as well) and many others. Heck, for good measure we have the inevitable "twist" of a long lost father and son. Better yet, they're reluctant to believe the long lost family tie until one of them is on their death bed.

As for the rest, In the Name of the King is a mind-boggling accumulation of random events and non sequiturs. 90% of the film makes little sense. Like why do the Krug warriors - fundamentally pale imitations of Uruk-Hai from LOTR (except less dexterous) - set themselves on fire and get launched out of catapults? Furthermore, why do the flaming Krugs get launched into trees? And how does Ray Liotta's character plan to kill Farmer with a few magically placed books attached to his wrists and ankles? More importantly, where the hell to the ninjas come from? All questions without answers. Uwe Boll's intention is to give his audience mindless action. He forgets that action sequences are futile if the audience has no reason to believe (or care) what's happening. The stupidity increases as Statham's Farmer becomes capable of acrobatic jumps that could never be achieved by a regular human unless a trampoline was in place. The ninjas have no reason to be there either, yet they are...and they descend from the trees halfway through a battle.

Qualitatively, this medieval mess establishes Boll as being in the same league with folks who produce porn. But Boll is unbelievably worse. You see, porn films still give the audience what they want - nudity and sex - while Boll isn't capable of giving an audience the action they yearn for. Boll's films retain a few similarities to the porn universe though...such as the terrible storyline and appalling acting.

There are an abundance of secrets behind the sub-par quality of Boll's movies. Virtually everything is wrong with them and it's a waste of space to list them all! There is one solid logical reason that could provide reasoning for the retarded nature of Boll's filmmaking. This reason is up there on the screen for everyone to see...the man cannot cast a movie properly! It's amazing that despite Boll's horrendous reputation, he can still attract a few decent names. The only true A-List performer is Jason Statham. Statham had delivered solid performances in films such as Crank. Mix him with a bad director and the results aren't anything to write home about.
The rest of the cast are has-beens and never-really-weres. Ray Liotta and Matthew Lillard appear to be vying for the Ham and Cheese Award in each scene they share. Lillard's accent is dismal, to the point that not even Boll was responsible for his awfulness. Liotta is some creepy sorcerer who appears to spend his time in a magical bubble controlling his warriors. These scenes don't make a lick of sense!
Burt Reynolds hasn't done anything good for years. As a medieval king he fails hopelessly. The armour never seems to suit him (the helmet even looks crooked) and he's given embarrassing dialogue.
John Rhys-Davis is further proof of Boll's ambition to place this film in the league of Lord of the Rings. Rhys-Davis hasn't been given much work lately, but surely he has sufficient funds to keep his life going. So why on earth did he agree to defile his career?! At one stage his dialogue grows incredibly clichéd and embarrassing: he's wounded and says "How could I have been so stupid? Forgive me!" Frankly I think his agent was sitting beside him, and Rhys-Davis was talking about his career being ruined by agreeing to appear in the film.
Additionally there are a few females tossed into the mix. Leelee Sobieski, Claire Forlani and Kristanna Loken are as useless as everyone else. Leelee in particular is a vain, emotionless wreck who appears useless.
Then there's Ron Perlman in a career-worst performance! In all fairness, it wasn't his fault. It was the fault of the screenwriter.

This brings me onto my next point: Boll keeps failing due to the poorly written screenplays. Doug Taylor's terrible screenwriting skills are brought to the fore when it comes to criticising this awful production. Taylor appears to be striving for lyrical dialogue similar to Lord of the Rings. The primary difference is that the screenwriting committee for LOTR also had an outstanding creative team to breathe life into the script. Peter Jackson's transcendent direction totally immersed us into a beautiful universe...instead of achieving this, Taylor reels out endless clichés and archetypes in addition to countless ideas completely stolen from the LOTR trilogy.

During most of the battles it's possible to evoke memories of LOTR. Occasionally shots look like they've been lifted from the trilogy. The only difference is...Uwe Boll has no sense of style! The mayhem is poorly orchestrated due to disjointed editing and shoddy over-the-top conceptions. You will have no idea what is actually going on. Boll's camera zigzagging around the action is comparable to a drunken hobbit with ADD! Just like BloodRayne, Boll's camera movements are as stylish as a monkey with a paint brush...however this probably offers questionable degradation to monkeys.

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale is simply Boll's late entry into the Lord of the Rings rip-off competition. If you're longing for another woeful copy of every sword-and-sorcery epic ever made, this film is definitely it. Throughout the time between the film's opening to its conclusion, we're dropped into the middle of this unconvincing world and asked to buy every moment of it. Even worse, it's overflowing with pseudo-spectacle swordplay and dull special effects. The pacing is schizophrenic, the editing is clearly from the "meanwhile, in an alternative section of the film" school of cutting, and the stupefyingly stilted dialogue bestows more inadvertent laughs than the actual moments of forced funny business. The violence is also diluted to attain a certain rating in a bid to score big at the box office. This is the kind of crap that makes Eragon seem like the second coming of Tolkien! At the end of the day, the film runs at 2 hours and it's too exhausting to be fun. It's still superior to Boll's usual output, but even that's the furthest thing from praise.

1.9/10

"I'm just a little boy who plays with his penis when he's nervous."

Tropic Thunder was Ben Stiller's most ambitious project yet. The actor/director/writer's career abruptly plummeted after starring in a number of disappointing films such as the tepid Night at the Museum and the lacklustre recent remake of The Heartbreak Kid. The last time Stiller accepted the obligations as a director was for 2001's successful comedy Zoolander (he also directed the 1996 Jim Carrey movie The Cable Guy). Put quite blatantly, Tropic Thunder is bona fide redemption for Stiller. He's returned to form with this zany, wild comedy that's an absolute blast from start to finish!

As many have noted from reviews thus far and from the hyperbolic marketing, Tropic Thunder is a straightforward spoof of the war genre. From Platoon to Apocalypse Now, from Saving Private Ryan to Rambo - no war movie is safe. But additionally, the film is far more than a mere brainless genre parody (we've had enough of Epic Movie, Date Movie, etc) as it's also a thorough satire of Hollywood. The characters in the film represent the clichéd Hollywood actors, cleverly satirising their demented egos and pretensions. In the incredibly over-the-top characterisations and imaginative set-ups, the filmmakers seriously cross the line. In fact, they don't simply just cross the line...they rape the line, kill it, burn it, then urinate on the ashes. It's a full-frontal, no-holds-barred comedy assault capable of making one laugh so hard that you'll have trouble breathing.

In order for the film to work, the script had to be clever. Stiller dons three hats for this film - he serves as director, writer and lead actor. He shares a screenwriting credit with Etan Cohen and Justin Theroux (who's been hired to write the script for Iron Man 2) in the construction of an ingenious composition of unbelievably hilarious moments. Granted the script unnecessarily lulls and occasionally the situations appear irretrievably lost; however it does its job of moving from point A to B, C to D while stocking a high supply of laughs.

Tropic Thunder opens with an intriguing boom. The film's opening is tagged with three fake trailers and a fake TV advertisement. These four segments are indubitable comedy gold. These are included to establish the four protagonists. Without a doubt the best trailer on offer here is Robert Downey Jr. as Oscar-enshrined Australian actor Kirk Lazarus: the mock teaser is a narrative of illicit gay love between two Middle Ages priests (the other cameoed by a famous Hollywood actor whom I won't name)...and it's hysterically evident by meaningful gazes and exaggerated apprehension.

Following these four opening segments, the film kicks into action.
Tropic Thunder is fundamentally the story of making a war movie. After a prolonged (hilariously embellished) Michael Bay-esque series of explosions and gun battles set in the Vietnam War, it's established that the focus of the story is actually on a film set. A bunch of over-demanding actors are in the middle of making a film rendering of a novel penned by grizzled Vietnam veteran Four Leaf Tayback (Nolte). However the film is millions of dollars over-budget and a month behind schedule...just four days into filming! Four Leaf is afraid that his story will be ruined by incompetent first-time director Damien Cockburn (Coogan) behind the camera and the cluster of prima donnas in front of the camera. Four Leaf suggests they shoot the movie guerrilla style: by placing the actors in the middle of an actual war zone. This goes ahead, and these actors suddenly find themselves attacked by a dangerous group of drug dealers. Worse yet, some of the actors are still convinced that it's all part of the moviemaking process and they aren't in any actual danger.

The fiery controversy that casts a dark cloud over Tropic Thunder completely misses the point. It's not racist and its intention was not to offend the mentally challenged. Writer/director/actor Stiller spoke in various interviews regarding the controversy. Never was it his intention to offend anyone...he's pointing his insults towards Hollywood and the demented attitudes that dominate today's industry. In the form of an outrageously entertaining action/comedy hybrid, Tropic Thunder merely offers a contemptuous satire. Those groups boycotting the movie and launching protests are embarrassingly narrow-minded.

The highlight of this ambitious production is the impeccable casting. Ben Stiller is easily in his most satisfying role since Meet the Fockers. He's still playing himself to an extent, but it works in the context as the film required the overzealous, egotistical and overconfident character that Stiller provides. Stiller acclimates himself well enough.
Robert Downey Jr.'s performance has been the talk of the town for months. Downey Jr. portrays an Oscar-winning Australian actor who undergoes a pigmentation alteration procedure in order to portray an African-American sergeant. Downey Jr.'s character is a thorough method actor who doesn't get out of character "until after the DVD commentary". In essence, the significance of Downey Jr.'s portrayal is to show what lengths people will go to in order to play a role. The "blackface" routine just never gets old. It's also interesting that Downey Jr. nails the character perhaps too perfectly, to the point that much of his dialogue is almost incomprehensible. Many will also complain about the profanity levels as well. To me it makes the character more realistic by employing stereotypes to convey the point. Unless you know it's Robert Downey Jr. in the role you won't be able to notice. Downey Jr.'s strongest moment, though, is when he goes from African-American to Australian in a matter of seconds. His Aussie accent is laudable. Apparently Stiller allowed Downey Jr. to frequently ad-lib, and this makes the brilliance of his dialogue far more naturalistic. Downey Jr.'s performance in Iron Man was a highlight of 2008; however Tropic Thunder is by far his best performance ever. He steals the show. Golden Globe worthy? Heck yes! Oscar worthy? That's pushing it, but it'd be great to see Downey Jr. earn an Oscar.

Jack Black's performance is terrific, however he's slightly one-dimensional as well as hollow. The drug addiction grows old pretty quickly. If you're a fan of Jack Black you may be disappointed, but there are multiple lines of Black's that are absolutely hilarious.
Brandon T. Jackson is brilliant as rapper Alpa Chino who's annoyed that the role of the African-American sergeant wasn't given to another brother. Much of the film's hilarity is derived from the obvious rivalry between Jackson's Alpa Chino and Downey Jr.'s Kirk Lazarus.
Jay Baruchel is given the most down-to-earth role as an inexperienced actor seemingly baffled by the surrounding big-name actors.
Steve Coogan plays the incompetent director annoyed by his self-centred actors, and he's fantastic.
Nick Nolte is remarkable as the gruff Vietnam veteran.
There's also Danny McBride as the eager pyrotechnics expert. He has fun blowing stuff up.
A surprisingly fully-clothed Matthew McConaughey nails the role as Stiller's agent determined to get his client the TiVo promised in his contract. Owen Wilson was scheduled to take the role, but was forced to back out after the much-publicised suicide attempt.
There are cameos aplenty to find here. The most memorable and funny cameo depicts a well-known actor (not mentioning any names because it's better as a surprise) as a balding, foul-mouthed studio executive. Said actor offers his best performance for years!

Behind the camera Stiller appears resolute and determined. 2001's Zoolander was a textbook example of a zany comedy, and he retains the same formula here. Both movies essentially follow a one-time superstar whose career is on the wane.

The problem with most contemporary comedies is that there are two standards: one that's hilarious and entertaining in order to overshadow the script flaws and lack of creativity, or there's the clever comedy with stifled gags that's boring as a result. Tropic Thunder is a superior version of the former. There are laughs aplenty but it's also clever. Be that as it may, the problem in the script is that it sometimes tosses the characters into a situation and trails off. Essentially the script throws these characters into the air and lets them land where they may. It needed to be far more succinct and to the point. Additionally, there's a large chunk in the middle section that just doesn't work. It acts as a way to get to the final action scene and climax, but it's far too dragged out and it's a lame excuse for a succession of gags. Worse yet, these gags don't work for the most part. Instead things get boring. Once this section is over, though, the film is redeemed by the highly entertaining final showdown.

Overall, Tropic Thunder is possibly the most creative comedy for years. This is also Stiller's most satisfying comedy for a long time. It provides moments for an audience to laugh HARD as they indulge in an extraordinarily entertaining experience. Despite a few minor flaws, the film delivers the laughs and action it promised. Recommended!

8.1/10

"Wilma, I promise you; whatever scum did this, not one man on this force will rest one minute until he's behind bars. Now, let's grab a bite to eat."

By the late 1980s, the ZAZ trio (consisting of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker) were officially the new gurus of the film spoof genre. Previously this crown was donned by Mel Brooks. After witnessing the ZAZ trio first flexing their ingenious comedic muscle in Airplane! (known in Australia as Flying High!), Brooks went on to make films like Spaceballs and Robin Hood: Men in Tights before retiring at long last. Well...it's a good thing he retired as he visibly became desperate for getting laughs and retaining his title. In the long run, his classic comedy cannot compare to the virtuosity of the ZAZ trio.

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (known more commonly as just The Naked Gun) arrived subsequent to the ZAZ trio reaching fame with Airplane! as well as Top Secret!. These two aforementioned films followed one straightforward philosophy: spoof a genre, screw the plot, cram the frame with endless laughs, and voila - comedy masterpiece!

The Naked Gun is fundamentally a spin-off of the criminally short-lived TV show Police Squad! that was cancelled after four episodes. The small but loyal cult following ensured a feature length movie would eventually be conceived. This film is everything one would expect from a ZAZ product...it's a guilty pleasure loaded with endless moments of comedic genius. Whether it be sight gags, witty lines, Leslie Nielsen's deadpan performance or random madness, this stuff will have you laughing until you cry. Heck, it's impossible not to laugh out loud at least 20-30 times. You're even guaranteed several occasions of falling out of your seat...rolling around on the floor howling with uncontrollable laughter. Better yet, it never gets old. It holds up after all these decades and after repeated viewings. The LPM (laughs per minute) meter is so high that it's impossible to pick up everything in one screening. You always notice something new. Why? It's simply genius! We're not talking about comedy as in Jim Carrey overacting, or Adam Sandler saying stupid things, or mindless sexual references...The Naked Gun encompasses clever parodying of the highest order.

I doubt a plot synopsis is overly necessary, as everyone has either seen the movie or heard everything about it via word of mouth. Nevertheless for the sake of my reviewing traditions, I will provide a short one. Frank Drebin (Nielsen) is on the case of...ah, screw it. If you settle in to watch The Naked Gun for a solid plot then you're watching it for all the wrong reasons. Here's an ultra quick summary: the film opens as Frank Drebin thwarts an evil scheme conceived by the world leaders who represent enemies of America (Gorbachev, Arafat...they're all there). Then Frank is on the case of a possible plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II of England who's coming to visit Los Angeles. Frank is the dumbest lawman since Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau. During his investigation into the Queen's imminent assassination, Frank runs into every oddball situation possible.

The Naked Gun successfully spoofs the cop thriller genre. They have all the clichés such as an elaborate conspiracy, the hero being right all along, and even an interior narration as the hero expresses his feelings while close-ups of his feet reveal him walking through the streets at night ("The attempt on Nordberg's life left me shaken and disturbed, and all the questions kept coming up over and over again, like bubbles in a case of club soda. Who was this character in the hospital? And why was he trying to kill Nordberg? And for whom? Did Ludwig lie to me? I didn't have any proof, but, somehow, I didn't entirely trust him, either. Why was the I Luv You not listed in Ludwig's records? And if it was, did he know about it? And if he didn't, who did? [walks onto grass] And where the hell was I?").

The ZAZ trio possess an impeccable talent for this style of comedy. In essence this film is a facsimile of Airplane! with different situations and different characters. It's the same variety of humour that permeates both films. Naturally, it is considerably welcome. Many contemporary comedies are overflowing with ludicrous penis or fart jokes, but The Naked Gun has no time for these stupid gags as it's too busy progressing to the next adroit joke or pun (most of which are absolutely hilarious). For example, a violent crime is being investigated after an officer is found wounded in LA harbour. The police, of course, place a chalk outline of where they found the fellow officer on top of the water.

The film also plays on words very effectively. Like when Frank's date explains "I practise safe sex". This is followed by the two of them rolling around on a bed together wearing gigantic condoms over themselves. Or there's Frank's date proposing a nightcap to him, to which he declines with "No thanks, I don't wear them". There's also a montage of hilarious baseball game bloopers, such as a man catching a ball before getting mauled by a tiger. Does this make sense to anybody? It isn't supposed to...if it makes sense then the filmmakers have done something gravely wrong.

If not any of these gags, there's always the decimation of America's national anthem. Leslie Nielsen's rendition of the national anthem is hilarious beyond words.
Granted, some of the film's jokes have lost their potency. There are a few that hit and miss, but there are too many successful jokes in between that we don't notice and don't care. You'll still be laughing 'til you cry, so why would there be cause for complaints?

It's hard to believe that Leslie Nielsen's career started when he was a serious performer. The ZAZ trio had him cast in their 1980 film Airplane!, and from that point forward Nielsen would never be taken seriously ever again. He was surrounded by performers who had their moments of comedy genius, but the film lived and died by Nielsen. The same policy applies here. Nielsen's deadpan performance is hilarious! No-one else could possibly undertake the role.
Priscilla Presley is wonderful as Nielsen's love interest. Not much acting required as she needs to just look beautiful for the male audience.
There are also a few cameos scattered around the movie, like a short appearance of "Weird Al" Yankovic and O.J. Simpson (yes, that O.J. Simpson).

At its core, The Naked Gun is one of the most enduring spoofs to emerge during the 1980s. The ZAZ trio deliver nothing but non-stop hilarity and genius comedy from start to finish. The LPM meter may not be as high as Airplane! (which literally had 5 gags running simultaneously sometimes), but The Naked Gun is exceptionally funny on its own merits. It's not perfect by any means - in fact the lack of plot is irritating - however the fact remains that this film was produced to provide laughs aplenty and it succeeds. The film is your only opportunity to witness: the Queen with her legs wrapped around Leslie Nielsen's back, Gorby minus his birthmark, The Ayatollah's secret Mohican haircut, and a person dangling off a building holding onto a rather intimate statue figure. All in all, it's a balloon-sized laugh riot!

For fans of these classic 1980s spoofs, this film is a must. It will sit nicely in your DVD collection (or Blu-Ray collection...whatever is applicable) alongside Top Secret! and Airplane! as well as this film's two sequels. Followed by The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear.

8.3/10

"They said I'd lost what it meant to be human, maybe never had it in the first place, but wasn't this about protecting the ones I loved? The ones who gave me food, and shelter, even the clothes on me back? And therefore wasn't it now a war?"

Australian history fondly remembers the renowned outlaw bushranger known as Ned Kelly. Gregor Jordan's 2003 Australian movie Ned Kelly is based on the 1999 novel, Our Sunshine, written by author Robert Drewe. The story of Ned Kelly has been repeatedly told in several films, including the 1906 Australian film The Story of the Kelly Gang (according to most sources, this was the first feature film in cinematic history). Over the years, Ned Kelly has proved to be a durable Australian cultural icon. With his distinguishing helmet and armour, Ned is an instantly identifiable image. In addition to the various films regarding Ned and his illustrious gang, there have been paintings, poems, stories, books and even operas and ballets! This is a testament to the high esteem in which Ned is held. Conflicting opinions exist regarding the man. Was he really a villain and a dangerous outlaw? Or was he a victimised Irish immigrant whose gang was simply retaliating against the corrupt Victorian police force? Regardless of the opinion, one fact is undeniable: he's a crucial part of Aussie history and his Robin-Hood-come-Jesse-James persona made him an icon.

It was sheer destiny that in a modern age of cinema, someone would create a mainstream movie based on the Ned Kelly legend. Gregor Jordan's Ned Kelly features a predominantly big-name cast and flaunts fantastic authenticity in its depiction of the period. Made on a modest budget of $30 million (approximately), the filmmakers made sure the scope was epic. Plenty of extras, extensive gun battles, extraordinarily detailed costumes and faultless illustrations of rural outback Australian in the 19th century. Unfortunately, Jordan's film is unmistakably a mainstream creation. Essentially the story is romanticised and insultingly altered to suit its target audience. Even worse, there's a horrible love story that slows the pacing and feels out of place. As a history of the Kelly gang the film is atrocious: it leaves out vital information and never allows an audience to get engaged in the characters' motivations. In the long run it never provides a much-desired history...this is aimed at a commercial audience for money. But is it entertaining? To an extent, yes.

Edward "Ned" Kelly (Ledger) was born in Beveridge, Victoria in 1855. By the time Ned reached the age of 15 he was already a wanted man. Throughout his teenage years he was in and out of jail for assault and horse stealing. The story of Ned Kelly becoming an illustrious outlaw commences when a police officer named Constable Fitzpatrick (Paramore) takes a liking for Ned's younger sister Kate Kelly (Condon). However, Fitzpatrick's fondness for Kate is not a shared gesture. One night, when Ned is out womanising, Fitzpatrick pays a visit to the Kelly family. Drunk and irresponsible, he makes his move on Kate. The family resort to physical blows and violence to force Fitzpatrick from their property. However, rejection leaves Fitzpatrick humiliated and hungry for revenge. He scurries to the local police and claims that Ned tried to kill him (which is a total fib). Consequently, Ned becomes a wanted man: he unites with his brother Dan (Kinlan) as well as his mates Steve Hart (Barantini) and Joe Byrne (Bloom) to inaugurate the infamous Kelly gang. Wanted men with a sizeable bounty on their heads, the Kelly gang begin robbing banks and killing police offers (in "kill or be killed" firefights). Ned's gang begin giving money to the people, and he subsequently becomes a hero to the immigrants who dislike the treatment of the corrupt police.
The gang meet their downfall in a battle with Victorian police at the Glenrowan Inn in 1880. The rest is history: Ned is the only man to survive the battle and faces the hangman's noose at Melbourne Gaol at the age of 25.

To an extent, the presence of a large cast of well-known actors elevates the stale screenplay. Heath Ledger's posture as Ned Kelly cannot be faulted. Apparently Ledger (R.I.P.) could fit into Ned Kelly's armour perfectly. They were approximately the same height and weight. Ledger does wonders with the role, despite slipping in and out of a moderately convincing Irish accent.
The film is undeniably marred by the presence of Orlando "women thief" Bloom. Naturally, his character is allowed opportunities to make out and sleep with married women. It's his stereotype. Personally, through my eyes Bloom has always been among today's worst actors. He simply cannot succeed in most of his roles (The Lord of the Rings remains his only respectable performance). His Irish accent here is decent at best, but his facial expressions are never adequate. His inability to display any profoundly powerful emotions is worrying as well.
Naomi Watts' role was included not to provide further historical accuracy, but to please its target commercial viewers by providing a ridiculous romantic sub-plot. Watts is unnecessary as well as being underused. If you can get someone of Watts' stature and beauty, why give her a small role?
Geoffrey Rush is allotted a criminally small role as well. It's so small, in fact, that it could qualify as a cameo. Rush does everything he can with his character.

Overall, Ned Kelly is a weak retelling of the legend of Ned Kelly. It does no justice to the man due to the erroneous additions and failure to include important elements. This truncated version of Kelly's life elides key episodes, hurries others and fails to elucidate the precise relationships of the Kelly gang. The film does score big in its atmosphere. The evocative sound effects capture rural outback Australia to compliment the amazing production design. The film is extremely well directed too. The action scenes are very exciting, particularly the final stand at the Glenrowan Inn. But why strive for such authenticity when the story is romanticised for a mainstream audience? The bottom line is that the film is a dismal history lesson and an underwhelming Western wannabe, but it's entertaining and the technical merits are wondrous to behold. The definitive Ned Kelly film is yet to be made...

6.2/10

[rapping] "My name's Shafiq Rasul, and I'm from Tipton, I tell them I ain't Taliban, but they don't wanna listen. You won't believe I just came out here, for my mate's wedding, do you? I never thought my ass, would be heading for Cuba."

The Road to Guantánamo combines fact and fiction to create a staggering and riveting docu-drama that potently illustrates horrifying events currently transpiring in our present-day world. Its relevance to today's existing society is overwhelming. The film's directors won an award at the Berlin Film Festival of 2006 for their powerful illumination of the little-known happenings in that tiny corner of Cuba known as Guantánamo Bay. Presently the United States government has refused to shed light on their activities in Guantánamo Bay camps that contain hundreds of suspected terrorists still held without charge. On that note, the filmmakers must be commended for undertaking this subject matter and even presenting it from the perspective of the victims enduring the inhumane torture.

Personally I feel that the world has witnessed enough American propaganda, and The Road to Guantánamo must be held in high admiration for depicting the American army as more brutal, unfair and callous. Even after this film's global release the United States government still refuses to tell their version of the story. Their pride means that they will never admit to being wrong, and will persist in accusing imprisoned detainees of crimes they didn't commit using forged evidence and faux testimonies. Furthermore, as the torture is carried out on the hopeless victims it appears that the soldiers enjoy their jobs...they take pleasure in verbally and physically abusing the prisoners. Their superiors as well commit atrocious actions, such as threatening a prisoner's entire family. Even when a prisoner's alibi clears them of all charges, they're still incarcerated unless they admit to being part of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Too long have we seen Muslims as the stereotyped villains in such American creations as TV's 24.

Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross' The Road to Guantánamo opens our eyes and demonstrates that Muslims aren't the evil terrorists we’ve been lead to believe that they are.
Inspired by true events of British Muslims known as the Tipton Three, the directors create a dramatisation of the horrifying experiences of these young men inadvertently caught in the heart of the 'war on terror'. These aforementioned British Muslims travelled to Pakistan for a wedding and to visit their families. In the urge of idealism motivated by massive rallies, they travel into Afghanistan with intentions of assisting the war-torn country. They are eventually captured by the Northern Alliance who ultimately hand the prisoners over to the Americans. Before long they're shipped to the harsh camps of Guantánamo Bay. We follow their experiences as prisoners when they are forced to endure dreadful conditions. For two years they're held captive under false charges.

For a moderately low-budget and low-key production, the creative team responsible for The Road to Guantánamo effectively complete their objective. The documentary-style approach is gritty and realistic. The scenes of torture and terrible conditions are relentless and profoundly effective. The editing, though, is what makes the film work so well. The re-enactments are edited together with actual news footage and interviews with the survivors. It lends the film a significant degree of credibility. The gritty camera techniques also place us in the action. Unfortunately the interviews occasionally remove us from the emotionally-straining happenings and the effect is weakened.

It's also worth mentioning that the story of the young men until their capture is extraordinarily difficult to believe. All credibility is thrown to the wind when the protagonists continue travelling into the devastated country of Afghanistan despite looking like befuddled tourists constantly concerned about expenses. It's even less believable that they move closer to the fighting and combat even when they feel uncomfortable about it...I mean why don't they just turn around? They're putting their lives in significant danger for the sake of an adventure and because they believe they should help the Afghani people. Not good enough, because the character motivations aren't explored adequately. The events leading up to their capture move at too much of a brisk pace, for the most part leaving us confused and disorientated...wondering how they've moved from A to B. Things only settle down when they're incarcerated and we're compelled to empathise with them. Still, the terrific work behind the camera is almost enough to keep us believing the proceedings.

On top of these production values, the acting is standard. Considering the low-budget origins the acting is quite impressive, however there always seemed to be something missing. With such wonderfully primed locations and filming techniques, it had the potential to be far more powerful. Even after saying that, the depictions of torture and the horrible conditions will haunt you due to the realism.

Overall, The Road to Guantánamo is an important, confronting contemporary film that relentlessly depicts the horrible happenings in Guantánamo Bay. It's undeniable that the film was initially fairly controversial and it will continue to spark controversy. It's still unclear as to whether these events are actually true or if it was actually all a work of fiction. Nevertheless the brutal treatment of prisoners is convincing and staggering. If the filmmakers didn't injure the film's integrity in the opening 20 minutes, and if the acting was a little better, this could have been a superior film.

7.7/10

"As a species we're fundamentally insane. Put more than two of us in a room, we pick sides and start dreaming up ways to kill one another. Why do you think we invented politics and religion?"

Who needs pseudo-horror movies like Hostel or the endless Saw sequels, with their cheap gore and a complete misunderstanding of the essence of the genre? Torture porn enthusiasts can enjoy them, but genuine horror connoisseurs can enjoy the likes of 2007's The Mist, a return to form for Frank Darabont and a brilliant reminder of what the horror genre can offer. The Mist is based on Stephen King's novella of the same name, denoting the third time that Darabont has adapted the man's works for the screen after the immense success of The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Taking on his first horror-oriented project adapted from a King story, Darabont has hit it out of the park, creating an intensely unsettling old-fashioned tale of survival, using forgotten devices like tension, suspense and restraint to fashion one of the best mainstream horrors in years. It's a B-movie on the surface, yet there's sophistication and boldness underneath.

After a violent thunderstorm that downs power lines and trees, David Drayton (Thomas Jane) takes his son Billy (Nathan Gamble) and morose neighbour Brent (Andre Braugher) to the grocery store for supplies. While the trio are shopping, a mysterious thick mist envelops the area, trapping everyone inside the store. Too afraid to go outside, the shoppers soon become fractured, with the group breaking off into factions. David and a number of others (including Toby Jones and Laurie Holden) try to use logic and reason to figure out a survival plan, but religious zealot Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden) leads her own group, who view the mist as an embodiment of God's wrath on the sinners of the planet.

Some may perceive the characters within the grocery store as clichéd, but Darabont executes them in a credible fashion, essentially showing us the types of people that we deal with in everyday life. They are fundamentally you and me; average, everyday folks who are as scared, lost, dubious, and even stupid as regular humans might be in a similar scenario. Miraculously, The Mist rarely feels contrived or forced - the drama is executed in a believable fashion, exuding an organic disposition that allows the proceedings to feel wholly real. What Darabont has created here is far more than a B-grade horror - it's smart, and there's an element of social commentary. Moreover, Darabont uses psychological horror to a large degree, focusing on the mental torture of the mist about as much as the violence. Indeed, the portrayal of mob hysteria is one of the reasons why The Mist is so damn scary. Darabont structures the feature with a sure hand, portioning out the terrifying moments and gradually building alarm. While it runs a solid two hours, the film's runtime flies by effortlessly. Even the small dialogue scenes are wholly engaging.

In order to shoot as quickly as possible and make the most of the limited budget, Darabont brought in a television camera crew, most notably cinematographer Ronn Schmidt (The Shield). Darabont is known for stately, elegant and slow-moving pictures, but The Mist is all handheld, and Schmidt had two cameramen filming simultaneously to maximise coverage. Fortunately, this doesn't result in the movie feeling cheap or rushed, though - it augments the realism, making the proceedings all the more frightening. It instils the picture with energy, too, making this Darabont's most fast-paced movie to date. Admittedly, the tiny $18 million budget did not permit lavish digital effects, hence several of the CGI creatures look phoney, but the movie does not live and die by its monsters. In fact, creatures are only occasionally glimpsed, with a "less is more" approach doing wonders for the material. Darabont stages the bloodshed and attacks with a sure hand, resulting in several harrowing moments.

It's the bone-chilling sense of atmosphere that genuinely elevates The Mist. With the exception of the final act, no musical score is used at all; instead, Darabont relies on the eerie ambience of this setting to remarkable effect. This endows the picture with more immediacy, and one feels like they are actually inside the grocery store with the characters. Darabont originally wanted to make a black and white movie, but studio interference apparently forbade that. A black and white version is available on home media, though, and it's this reviewer's preferred way to watch the movie. It's exactly the same film as the theatrical cut, but with a desaturated colour palette, and the result is remarkable. The lack of colour amplifies the atmosphere further and gives the production a more old-fashioned disposition, evoking the classic horrors of yesteryear. Furthermore, the monsters look less hokey in black and white, and it gives the movie a timeless feel.

The Mist is filled with solid character actors. Leading them is Jane, who's a revelation as David Drayton. Although Jane has the charisma and body of an action hero (he was the Punisher), he plays an ordinary man here, and it's an excellent performance. He makes us believe that he's just a regular guy who's ill-equipped to deal with the terrifying circumstances that he finds himself in. Moreover, a number of moments in the final third ask for the kind of acting that most veteran stars would baulk at, but Jane pulls it off. Harden is top-notch as well, turning a villainous stereotype into a credible character. Special mention must also go to veteran players like William Sadler, Toby Jones, Jeffrey DeMunn, Andre Braugher, and Frances Sternhagen, who make their background characters seem both believable and worthy of emotional investment. The Mist is very much an ensemble movie, and this ensemble really deliver the goods.

The ending of The Mist diverts from King's novella, resulting in a conclusion far darker and more harrowing than anticipated. Darabont had the opportunity to make the movie on a bigger budget if he agreed to change the ending, but he refused, and it's for the best. Eschewing heroics, The Mist closes on a brave, disturbing note, and you may be left questioning both your self-worth and your crisis management skills. It's a haunting gut-churner, turning The Mist into a truly great horror movie. You may not want to watch this sobering descent into hell very often, but it will linger on your mind, and that's more than what can be said for the glossy, shallow Hollywood horrors of recent years.

8.8/10

"Let me tell you about my day so far. Coffee in Paris, surfed the Maldives, took a little nap on Kilimanjaro. Oh, yeah, I got digits from this Polish chick in Rio. And then I jumped back for the final quarter of the N.B.A. finals--courtside of course. And all that was before lunch. I could go on, but all I'm saying is, I'm standing on top of the world."

During the 85 minutes (approximately) that occupy the running time of Jumper, director Doug Liman degrades his once promising career. Liman earned his chops when he helmed the successful first instalment of the Bourne series, The Bourne Identity. You may also remember Liman behind the camera of other films such as Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
Liman's Jumper is pure science fiction action tosh that borders on the superhero genre. In early 2008, the film crept out and died due to the appallingly negative feedback from both critics and audiences alike. Not to mention the meagre box office earnage. This film is a lesson on how to create a disaster from a fairly promising premise. It fails to reach its lofty objectives due to the shoddy screenplay, gross miscasting and the lack of brains. Consequently the film is a mound of senseless garbage with fancy polishing.

David Rice (Christensen) discovers as a child that he possesses an incredibly unique ability: he can teleport. David learns of the special gift as a teenager when he nearly drowned. Following this occurrence he disappeared and let even his closest buddies believe that he was dead, including his father. David moves to the city where he makes his fortune by utilising his ability to rob banks. He begins living in desolation, using his teleporting abilities and stolen funds to create a luxurious existence for himself and live life to the fullest. David is soon entangled in a war that has raged for centuries between the jumpers and the Paladins that have sworn to kill them.

Jumper is an irretrievably flawed, stupid sci-fi action movie. Why is the film so flawed, I hear you think? Well, it's difficult to decide where to start, really. First of all, the plot is extremely thin. It's difficult to outline the plot because it's hard to establish the difference between a plot and a concept when it comes to this film. There's no sense of direction...it's a disjointed succession of worthless dialogue with action attached. It also never explains anything. Obviously the filmmakers were relying on a sequel being a definite thing, because here there's little explication to be found.

The character of David Rice is an awful protagonist. He's self-indulgent, arrogant, narcissistic and selfish. He cares only for himself and wants to dispatch the Paladins in order to continue living life to the fullest. He even breaks laws to impress his female friend! David always remains an arrogant, selfish prick. By the end he doesn't learn anything and never develops an ounce of human compassion. David's hedonistic personality makes him therefore a hero we don't want to root for. This is further exemplified when David is watching the news near the beginning of the movie. He sees people trapped in a flood who will surely die. Does he do anything to prevent people suffering horrible deaths in a watery grave? No, instead he continues being egotistical. The "hero" approach is probably too clichéd anyway, but it again begs the question of why should we empathise with David and hope he survives? Besides, the filmmakers take a different, far more clichéd approach...the cringe-worthy love story.

Driving the film is a dreadfully constructed screenplay. One would expect more from this trio of writers (one of which worked on Fight Club!). The central problem is the mounds of plot holes (of the "Why don't they just?" category) and inconsistencies. For plot holes, there are things like Jamie Bell's Griffin continually doing brainless things. If he didn't want David to pursue him, why search for David in the first place? To warn him of the Paladins? Due to David's stifled knowledge of the Paladins, it's quite commonsensical that David would want to seek his help which Griffin is not prepared to offer. Griffin also never tells David of several things (like the machines that the Paladins use to open the wormholes the jumpers leave), yet David's lack of knowledge infuriates Griffin when David's wormhole leads the Paladins straight to their secret lair. There are countless opportunities for the Paladins to use this machine of theirs as well, but they only decide to use it as the film nears its conclusion as one more surprise is necessary.

Furthermore, there are too many loose ends. Like we see David bring his wounded father into the hospital...after a five second display of emotionality, the scene ends and David leaves. We never hear anything further regarding David's father. Other loose ends include David's old school friend whom he leaves rotting in prison. Inconsistencies continually plague the frame as well. For example the craters the jumpers ostensibly leave that only rarely occur. When they do, the damage appears to repair itself quite quickly as well. Alrighty...

Then there's also the lack of brains in the script as well. The several different locations around the world are there for the sake of being there. David pursues Griffin to various global locations in one sequence. Firstly, if David can easily trace him then what's the point in fleeing anyway? Secondly, why not transport to a certain location on the planet and actually hide?! Instead of obeying logic, the filmmakers continually travel around the world. Worse yet, there is precious little variety. We see them in Egypt and Japan quite frequently and almost no-where else...even when David had a wall full of jump sites.

The acting is terribly below par as well. Hayden Christensen is most familiar as Anakin Skywalker in two of the Star Wars prequels. Once again he demonstrates his inability to portray a leading character. His monotonous accent and contrived facial expressions are truly atrocious. Everything about his performance is dull and dreary.
Samuel L. Jackson turns in his worst performance to date. Back in the days of Die Hard - With a Vengeance his foul-mouthed attitude and snappy lines made him a household name. Now he's tame, has no reason for what he's doing, and that white hair is just creepy.
Rachel Bilson is there solely for her looks. She brings no intensity to her character at all. Worse yet, there is zero chemistry between her and Christensen. Their love story is boring, trite and clichéd.
Jamie Bell appears to be the only actor who's trying. He offers an energetic portrayal of a character who's granted some clever dialogue to work with. He provides the film with its only moments of solid acting and quality script lines. Bell is among the film's redeeming features. If only his character of Griffin was the film's central hero. It's a shame that he's so underused. Another underused actress who shows potential is Kristen Stewart. Blink and you'll miss her!

The special effects are at least top notch. There's no denying that the teleporting and the various global locations looks spectacular despite not much reasoning behind them. Jumper also mildly succeeds in showing the jumpers teleporting from place to place. On that note, the subtle bank robberies are clever despite the further illogical facets behind them (why would there be a bathroom right next to the bank's central vault for customers to see?). The action is in tragically short supply unfortunately. The first half of the roughly 85-minute duration is dedicated to establishing David's selfish persona. Things then become terribly rushed. Instituting David's character is also fairly disappointing. The film opens with an embarrassingly bad narration courtesy of Christensen. This narration points out the bleeding obvious and Christensen's voice is like nails against a chalkboard.

Apparently director Doug Liman wanted Jumper to be the first entry in a new franchise that was to be the Bourne series of the superhero genre. With the film being only marginally successful, a sequel is probably never going to happen. And if it does, people will be far less inclined to watch it (however it must be noted that at the time of this review being written, a sequel has been announced but nothing much has happened in the film's development thus far). Jumper had a wonderfully hopeful concept and showed great potential behind the camera. Even with that in mind they still managed to screw it up. Apart from the impressive special effects there isn't a single remarkable thing to be noted about this movie. It's a mindless glossy science fiction action/adventure film. It's also so incredibly dumb, stupid, ridiculous and vapid that it numbs your brain.

3.6/10

"I am your number one fan. There is nothing to worry about. You are going to be just fine. I am your number one fan."

Rob Reiner's Misery is a remarkably gripping, edge-of-your-seat thriller from the pages of Stephen King's novel of the same name. Several of prolific author Stephen King's novels have been adapted for the screen, yielding mixed results. Misery can be undoubtedly considered among the greatest film adaptations based on a Stephen King novel.
Director Rob Reiner is continually capable of tackling diverse genres with magnificent results. With this film, Reiner is coupled with one of the industry's greatest screenwriters: William Goldman. Goldman is admirably recognised for penning such films as Heat, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and several others. On top of this, the stunning locations have been captured wonderfully by the overwhelmingly talented cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld. Misery was indeed Sonnenfeld's final film as a Director of Photography - he then went on to direct Men in Black and Get Shorty among others.

Misery is a white-knuckle horror movie that follows trashy, successful novelist Paul Sheldon (Caan). Paul is responsible for the lucrative series of eight books exploring the escapades of character Misery Chastain. Paul realises that the novels are pure pulp that will stereotype his writing. With his latest Misery adventure, he decides to simply kill the character and move on to writing more adult material. Up in the snowy terrain of Silver Creek, Paul completes his latest manuscript (one that doesn't feature the character of Misery Chastain). En route to his publisher's office, Paul is caught in a terrible blizzard and is involved in a dangerous car accident. Broken, bruised and injured, Paul is rescued by an fanatical fan named Annie Wilkes (Bates). She's obsessed with Paul's writing and moreover idolises the character of Misery as if she were a real person. Annie's obsession grows dangerous...and as Paul recovers he must rely on his wits and imagination to survive.
I've been intentionally vague in outlining the story as the film is far more confronting if you don't have a clue what will happen next.

In a nutshell: Misery is a Stephen King horror creation of a different kind. It never relies on supernatural forces, action or over-the-top spiritual nonsense...this is a frightening cautionary tale of fame, dangerous obsession and precarious hyperbolic idolisation. The ideal creative team have transformed King's stunning literary masterpiece into a mainstream tour de force of escalating tension and impeccable atmosphere.

Director Reiner is probably best known for his work behind the camera on Stand By Me (another adaptation of a Stephen King novel), The Princess Bride, This Is Spinal Tap, A Few Good Men, When Harry Met Sally and numerous others. Reiner frequently tries different genres and continues to master them as additionally exemplified with Misery. The locations are absolutely remarkable, with immaculately constructed sets that are wonderfully filmed with Reiner's lens. The feeling of claustrophobia grows uncontrollably intense throughout.

Kathy Bates rightfully earned an Academy Award for her top-notch portrayal of a thorough psychopath. The beauty of Bates' performance is that she masters the character's duality: competently alternating between charming and evil. At times her screen presence is petrifying due to her facial expressions or the wonderful use of lighting employed by those behind the camera. Although evil, one must feel sorry for her. An Oscar well deserved!
James Caan is another brilliant addition to the cast. His screen persona perfectly captures that of a dedicated novelist. He possesses the correct charm and charisma for such a role.
Richard Farnsworth is exceptional as the cynical, wise-cracking sheriff, and the brief appearance of the wonderful Lauren Bacall is very welcome.

Overall, Misery ranks with the greatest Stephen King film adaptations. In my opinion it's almost in the league of The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption. Granted the film has its weak spots, like plot holes (of the "Why didn't he just?" variety) and unbelievable situations, as well as a few technical faults that haven't dated well (the obvious dummy during the finale is embarrassing). Misery is nevertheless a gripping, haunting, tense and entertaining thriller that's capable of sending chills up your spine.

8.2/10