movie reviews by PvtCaboose91

"More cars, more cars... more death!"

Death Race: Inferno is the third instalment in producer Paul W.S. Anderson's contemporary Death Race franchise, and it's set right after Death Race 2 which was in fact a prequel to the original 2008 movie. Confused yet? While nobody will ever accuse Death Race or its prequel of being good movies, both were at least fun, maintaining a playful spirit and delivering all the carnage, cars, hot babes and big action scenes that a film called fucking Death Race should contain. But the charms of the franchise have utterly dried up with Death Race: Inferno, a follow-up so tedious and dull that it can't even reach the level of basic guilty pleasure. Even though the crew behind Death Race 2 made their return here, Inferno is a total clunker, with below-par technical credits and horrendous writing showing the movie for what it is: a cheap straight-to-video diversion.

Set sometime after the events of Death Race 2, Carl Lucas (Luke Goss) is only one more win away from earning his freedom on the Death Race circuit. Better known to the public as Frankenstein, Lucas is a fan favourite with viewers, and his popularity makes the Death Race broadcasts all the more profitable. The empire is soon taken over by Niles York (Dougray Scott), who seeks to up the ante by taking Death Race to the deserts of South Africa. Along with navigator Katrina (Tanit Phoenix) and his pit crew (Danny Trejo, Fred Koehler), Frankenstein hits the South African race tracks, versing an array of opponents in heavily armed vehicles. Making matters worse, Niles is not about to let his popular star player win another race and simply walk free.

One of the most bothersome aspects of Inferno emerges early into the story: Carl's deformities are "cured" via a medical procedure, leaving him with a mildly scarred but otherwise perfectly pretty face. Budget constraints likely forbade an entire movie featuring Goss in extensive make-up, or maybe the idea was influenced by other factors, but it's a huge leap in logic from which the picture never recovers. Worse, Inferno runs a considerable 105 minutes as opposed to something more easily digestible, leading to leaden pacing. Unfortunately, the length isn't earned through compelling drama or meticulous character development. The story is just unnecessarily convoluted, lingering on details that don't matter in the long run, and neglecting details that actually matter in the grand scheme of things (it's unclear how Niles got control of the operation since Ving Rhames' Weyland seems unwilling to let him get involved). Inferno also lacks the satire and goofy charm of its predecessors. Compounding all of this awfulness is the movie's disappointing cop-out of an ending, which more or less ruins the franchise.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the dialogue in Tony Giglio's screenplay is tin-eared to extremes, with basically every line lifted out of The Action Genre Writer's Handbook. The actors don't help matters, clearly phoning in their performances for an easy paycheque. Goss is a total cardboard cut-out, while Trejo seems completely disinterested in the project and Rhames is barely awake. Scott is the only one who makes an effort, going for broke in an over-the-top, cheesy villainous role, and nailing the proper tone for this enterprise. Everyone else may as well be reading off cue cards - in fact, they probably were. It's particularly heartbreaking to see someone like Trejo being utterly wasted.

Death Race: Inferno walks and talks like a straight-to-video production; the score is intrusive and chintzy, the photography looks cheap (even though it was filmed with RED cameras), and the acting is rigid. Director Roel Reiné (12 Rounds: Reloaded, The Marine 2, The Scorpion King 3) was apparently working with a smaller budget than the sum allotted to the second movie, and Inferno's slipshod construction consequently reeks of cheap. The racing sequences are the bread and butter of this series, but Inferno fails to adequately deliver. While the cars themselves look nifty, the set-pieces are spoiled by rapid quick-cutting and herky-jerky cinematography, to the extent that it's impossible to tell what's happening at any given moment, and it may give some viewers a seizure. We are not given the chance to properly watch the carnage, as the footage is cut to shreds, lessening the intensity of the action sequences. Due to this, it's actually hard to figure out which driver is in which car at any given time, completely taking you out of the movie. Composer Paul Haslinger handled both the previous movies, but he was replaced here by the far less skilful Trevor Morris, who apparently does not understand subtlety. It sounds like the music was sourced from a bunch of royalty-free sites and haphazardly applied to any given scene.

It should not be difficult to produce a successful Death Race movie, but Inferno founders anyway, making its forerunners look positively immaculate in comparison. These films are made to provide exciting thrills and a fun time, but Inferno is marred by dull storytelling and an almost total lack of coherent action sequences. It's a shame, too, as the past two movies were great companion pieces, and a home run of a trilogy capper could've made this franchise a keeper.

3.8/10

"I don't know what's worse, your grief or your antiquated sense of morality."

Superhero movies are not often perceived as sophisticated or thematically dense, particularly not low-budget productions which are usually seen as disposable entertainment. Batman: Under the Red Hood is a rare type of superhero outing, however, with an immense sense of style that's matched by a smart screenplay that offers more than just colourful action sequences. The eighth in the DCU Animated Original Movies line by Warner Premiere, Under the Red Hood is an adaptation of two comic book story arcs, denoting the first time that these storylines have been told on the screen in any form. Guided with a sure hand by director Brandon Vietti, the real strength of this production is the way it caters to all viewers, making this an enjoyable experience for both die-hard fans and DC newcomers. Even those with just a fleeting knowledge of Batman should be enraptured with Under the Red Hood, as it's easy to be caught up in the pacing, style, dialogue and narrative, making this one of the strongest additions to the DCU animated canon.

In Gotham City, a new threat has emerged in the form of the Red Hood (Jensen Ackles), a masked vigilante working to bring the city's crime lords to their knees. Not surprisingly, his antics attract the attention of Batman/Bruce Wayne (Bruce Greenwood), who sets out to discover the identity of the Red Hood. Occasionally aided by former Robin, Dick Grayson (Neil Patrick Harris), who now calls himself Nightwing, Batman also has to deal with the Joker (John DiMaggio), who has resurfaced with new plans to wreak havoc around Gotham. During his investigation, the Caped Crusader is forced to confront old demons, contemplating a failure in his past which resulted in the death of Jason Todd, who took up the Robin mantle after Grayson.

Most of Under the Red Hood is an adaptation of Judd Winick's comic Under the Hood, but it also contains pieces of A Death in the Family, which tells the complete story of Jason Todd's killing at the hands of the Joker. Winick actually wrote the screenplay here, tweaking his own comic for this adult-oriented animated feature which introduces a lot of fresh material in the Batman cinematic universe. Under the Red Hood thankfully does not get bogged down in the convoluted moralising of Christopher Nolan's Batman flicks, but it does introduce sizzling psychological complexity and thematic resonance. The tale dissects Batman, the Joker and several other characters, delving into the dissonant philosophies of these people and bestowing them with genuine depth. This all comes to a head in the unforgettable climax, which is one of the most riveting sequences in the entire Batman canon, animated or otherwise. Under the Red Hood does not waste a single frame, efficiently using its 75-minute runtime and never losing momentum. Added to this, it manages to fit so much into its short duration without giving us the feeling that the film is rushing through its plot points, which is a huge accomplishment. However, Nightwing inexplicably disappears in the second act, and as a result he feels like a wasted opportunity. Fortunately, this is about the only aspect of the narrative that fails to gel; for the rest, Under the Red Hood is a home run.

Even though Under the Red Hood concerns itself with inner conflict and character drama, it's first and foremost an action movie, and it most definitely delivers in this respect. Visually, this movie is a beauty, with superb battle sequences involving Batman, Nightwing and the Red Hood. The animators have outdone themselves, delivering fluid, unflinching fights that look spectacular. Vietti should take charge of more of these projects, as Under the Red Hood is perhaps the most stylish of all the DCU Animated Original Movies. The attention to pacing and rhythm is above average, not to mention the PG-13 rating allows for some dark content. Parents should take note of the rating - there are several on-screen deaths and a fair amount of violence, but it all fits in the context of this story. Admittedly, the animation still remains fairly basic, with impressive broad strokes but only minor detail, but it's not a big deal - the use of shadows as well as the brilliant framing and fluidity of the animation compensates for this, even if a higher budget might have facilitated a stronger motion picture.

As Batman, Bruce Greenwood is no Kevin Conroy, but he's definitely one of the best stars to have taken the role in recent years. He's a firm and charismatic Bruce Wayne, and a gruff (but not incomprehensibly gravelly) Batman. Moreover, Greenwood is committed to the role, delivering a performance that doesn't sound like he's simply reading off cue cards. But it's the casting of Jensen Ackles and Neil Patrick Harris that allows Under the Red Hood to soar. Ackles is excellent, bringing pathos and smarm to the role of the Red Hood. Likewise, Harris is an exceptional Nightwing, light-hearted and charismatic. Meanwhile, John DiMaggio also makes a positive impression as the Joker, coming close to reaching Mark Hamill levels of brilliance. Rounding out the main players is Jason Isaacs, who is strong despite limited screen-time as Ra's Al Ghul. It's a sublime cast all-round, with not a single weak performer among them.

Batman: Under the Red Hood stands as one of the best DC animated releases to date, second only to the epic two-part Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. It's an exceptional story that deserves to be told, and it's hard to imagine a better adaptation being produced anytime soon. And considering the restraints of the low-budget straight-to-video format, Under the Red Hood is a goddamn miracle.

8.5/10

"The other victors. Because of her, they all pose a threat. Because of her, they all think they are invincible."

For those unfamiliar with Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games novels, 2012's The Hunger Games was a tough sell, cursed with nauseating shaky-cam cinematography, too much sluggish exposition and many similarities to the superior Battle Royale. But with a fresh creative team and a bigger budget, 2013's The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a superior sequel, more refined and better realised in practically every aspect. More or less all the flaws of the original flick are eliminated here, and the narrative is far more fascinating and engaging, making this an easier sell for the uninitiated. With the groundwork laid, Catching Fire builds on the original film's foundation, expounding on relationships and taking the story to its next logical step, sparking to life what has the potential to become a truly remarkable series. It's simply a fine motion picture all-round, to the extent that it makes the original movie look worse than it actually is.

Catching Fire picks up where the previous movie left off, finding Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) attempting to return to normality after becoming the first dual victors in Hunger Games history. But the win has serious repercussions, as it's perceived by some as an act of defiance, leading to rumblings of a rebellion developing in the Districts. Under orders from President Snow (Donald Sutherland), Katniss and Peeta are sent on a victory tour, forced to keep up the romantic façade that may or may not be false. With Snow worried that an uprising is imminent, newly appointed game-maker Plutarch (Philip Seymour Hoffman) spearheads a plan to bring about Katniss' demise: he organises another Hunger Games involving previous winners. With Katniss and Peeta chosen as tributes for the next competition, they are sent into another intense test of survival, battling against such opponents as the borderline psychotic Johanna (Jena Malone) and the pompous Finnick (Sam Claflin). The games quickly intensify, with Katniss forced to make alliances as Plutarch and Snow use every trick at their disposal in a bid to kill off the young revolutionary.

The first picture was spoiled by a strictly mediocre translation of the source novel, excluding some crucial details while adding too much leaden exposition in other areas. Catching Fire, on the other hand, was written by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt, both of whom have won Oscars for their efforts on acclaimed motion pictures (Beaufoy wrote Slumdog Millionaire, Arndt wrote Little Miss Sunshine and Toy Story 3). Thus, part deux is more polished in the script department, with a better attention to detail. (Hovercrafts are used to pick up the bodies of the fallen during the games, a fact that the original movie ignored but Catching Fire makes clear.) It helps that the narrative is better-structured as well. There's more going on in Catching Fire than just the games, concentrating on the repercussions of Katniss' dual win with Peeta, and detailing the uprising. It's riveting stuff, and it all comes to a head for a finale that had me on the edge of my seat. It closes on a cliffhanger of sorts, building anticipation for the next movie that I am honestly looking forward to. The narrative goes in unexpected directions, subverting expectations with clever twists and turns (providing you haven't read the books). Moreover, the material gains full traction on-screen; Catching Fire is often gripping viewing.

Since the first movie was such a gamble, the filmmakers clearly did not have the proper money or resources at their disposal to fully realise the project's potential. But Catching Fire was produced for a more generous sum, and it shows, making for a far smoother experience. Gary Ross is not a bad director, but he struggled with the 2012 picture, creating an overlong, messy experience marred by some of the worst cinematography this side of Transformers. With no more shaky-cam, new director Francis Lawrence achieves an aesthetic that the franchise has needed since the beginning, devising a steady routine of smooth wide and medium shots, resulting in action set-pieces that are both coherent and exciting. Lawrence additionally creates a grittier experience, showing that games combatants are dehydrated and exhausted, and introducing new threats (including a poisonous mist) that are truly nail-biting. Admittedly, Catching Fire does lose steam a few times, but the games are more captivating here than before, and the movie goes down surprisingly easily in spite of its gargantuan 140-minute runtime.

Catching Fire is further bolstered by the ensemble cast. It's the supporting players who truly shine here, with new additions adding a great deal of colour to the proceedings. Out of the newcomers, the most notable is Jena Malone, who's introduced while taking her clothes off and goes on to steal every single scene in which she appears. Malone's character of Johanna has the most spunk of all the characters, and the actress ran with it, delivering the most memorable performance in the cast. Also notable is Sam Claflin, who's ostensibly established as the trademark arrogant asshole but is soon bestowed with genuine depth, developing into one of the real heroes of the movie. It's a great surprise, and Claflin sells it like a champ. But perhaps the most significant new addition is Hoffman, a superlative performer who nails the role of Plutarch, providing suitable gravitas. Contributing further flavour are returning actors Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones, who host the titular games with enjoyable panache and flamboyance.

The other returning actors are for the most part solid as well, the standout being Woody Harrelson who continues to have a total ball in the role of Haymitch, while Elizabeth Banks remains an energetic chaperone. It's such a large and impressive cast that the main players look somewhat uninteresting in comparison. Jennifer Lawrence is again great as the passionate Katniss, but Hutcherson and Hemsworth make little impact as Peeta and Gale (respectively). In fairness, the roles are very standard-order and flat, but the actors do very little to bring them to life, coming across as proverbial pretty-boys. Rounding out the cast is a frightening Sutherland, and Lenny Kravitz who's eminently appealing as Katniss' fashion designer.

The best compliment which can be awarded to The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is that it made a convert out of this reviewer. It's not just good but great, displaying cinematic maturity and far more respect for its audience than most of this year's summer blockbusters, and it can be enjoyed by casual movie-goers as much as the established fans. Indeed, even those who aren't interested in the saga as a whole will be enthralled due to the competent filmmaking and top-flight storytelling, achieving the type of greatness that Twilight can only dream of. It's an action-adventure with heart and intelligence, and it's easy to overlook the picture's minor flaws.

8.2/10

"We're recreating a trip in which nine people died..."

Renny Harlin's filmography varies wildly in quality, ranging from fantastic action films (Die Hard 2, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Deep Blue Sea) to borderline unbearable dreck (Driven, 12 Rounds). After showing a slight glimmer of hope with the mildly competent 5 Days of War, Harlin is back in the doldrums with Devil's Pass (also known as The Dyatlov Pass Incident). Bewilderingly, this is actually a found footage horror picture, looking to cash in on the Blair Witch Project phenomena about five years too late. Harlin and first-time screenwriter Vikram Weet were clearly enamoured with Blair Witch, as Devil's Pass rehashes every single narrative beat of the 1999 picture. While some aspects of the film do work, it's ultimately the script that kneecaps Devil's Pass early into its runtime.

In February 1959, ten Russian hikers journeyed into the snowy, freezing-cold Ural Mountains. One of them turned back early into the expedition, while the other nine were found dead a few weeks later, some of whom had bones seemingly crushed from the inside while another apparently tested positive for radiation. To this day, there is still no definitive answer about what happened to them. In Devil's Pass, psychology student Holly (Holly Goss) becomes fascinated with the incident, and sets out to make a documentary movie with friend Jensen (Matt Stokoe) and audio engineer Denise (Gemma Atkinson). Travelling to Russia with expert climbers Andy (Ryan Hawley) and JP (Luke Albright), the young filmmakers aim to recreate the footsteps of the doomed hikers, hoping to find some sort of answer to the questions that have baffled investigators for decades. Suffice it to say, the group are unprepared for what's waiting for them in the Ural Mountains.

Devil's Pass shoots itself in the foot very early by showing an after-the-fact news report before the ten-minute mark. It makes the ending a foregone conclusion, rendering the following 90 minutes a long-winded drag towards a spoiled climax. One supposes that Harlin and Weet chose to include it to heighten intrigue, but it does the exact opposite. Unfortunately, the found footage approach scarcely works. The question of “Why don't they just put the camera down?” pops up consistently, with characters continuing to film for no reason other than contrivance. In an ideal world, Harlin would've mixed found footage with a traditional cinematic approach, something akin to End of Watch, which would have made more sense due to the news report. Plus, due to something that happens at the end of the feature, it suddenly makes no sense that the footage was even found, and that's a huge problem. Logic is perhaps the script's biggest enemy.

Admittedly, the craftsmanship isn't bad, with lavish locations and a strong sense of atmosphere. Devil's Pass does work in fits and starts during its first half when the movie is locked in investigation mode. Early into the expedition, the students encounter strange footprints, and the mystery of what made the footprints is truly unsettling. There are other discoveries, too, not to mention the students interview a witness who believes she saw eleven dead bodies back in 1959. But Devil's Pass soon goes off the rails completely, and not in a good way. Weet's script elects the most far-fetched answers to simple questions, pushing the movie into the realm of sci-fi fantasy with ties to the Philadelphia Experiment. It's possible that nobody will ever know what happened to the hikers in 1959, but the explanation here doesn't fit the film, especially when Harlin begins to orchestrate silly sequences of mayhem. Worst, the digital effects are truly dreadful. When CGI creatures begin to appear, they look phoney and obvious, killing the found footage illusion. The performances are strangely inert as well, lacking the naturalistic spark of all the best found footage productions.

At this stage, it's hard to deny that the found footage genre has worn out its welcome. There are the occasional found footage gems ([Rec], Grave Encounters), but for the most part, these efforts are perfunctory and unsatisfying. We are now too cynical to take such productions seriously, as we know that the footage isn't real. We cannot be tricked anymore. Devil's Pass had potential, but the end result is underwhelming. It's destined to be forgotten.

4.7/10

"I've flown thousands and thousands of miles, and have never gone anywhere."

At its inception, Planes was designed to be a straight-to-video picture, with Disney seeking to cash in on the merchandising success of Cars 2 with minimal effort. A theatrical release was eventually spearheaded, but it's unclear exactly why. Impressive (and expensive) voice cast notwithstanding, Planes is a straight-to-video feature from top to bottom, with underwhelming animation and awful writing. It literally feels as if the screenplay was regurgitated by a computer, as the dialogue is tin-eared and plot points are so by-the-book that no amount of slick visuals can compensate for it. It's utter wank, a thoroughly disposable kiddie flick aimed at the simplest audience possible, and it contains none of the storytelling sophistication or emotional resonance of Pixar's usual output. All the goodwill that Disney instilled with last year's animation gem Wreck-It Ralph has evaporated.

In the sleepy town of Propwash Junction, Dusty Crophopper (Dane Cook) is a plane who dreams of bigger things, aspiring to become an ace air racer despite the obvious limitation of being a crop duster. But Dusty gets help from his friends, bringing in fuel truck Chug (Brad Garrett), forklift mechanic Dottie (Teri Hatcher) and warplane vet Skipper (Stacy Keach) to train and nourish him. Accepted into the Wings Around the Globe Rally, Dusty looks positively ill-equipped to take on his fierce opponents, including the arrogant Ripslinger (Roger Craig Smith), Indian champ Ishanti (Priyanka Chopra), and Mexican flyer El Chupacabra (Carlos Alazraqui). Dusty becomes the subject of ridicule and jokes, but he begins to realise his potential, emerging as a major competitor as the race around the world takes shape.

The screenplay is credited to Jeffrey M. Howard, but if he was paid anything for his efforts on this malarkey, Disney was too generous. There's not a modicum of wit or heart to be seen here; the movie is a mishmash of cultural stereotypes, lazy plane-centric wordplay and bathroom humour, rendering it a special kind of awful. Planes is a victim of awkward structuring, as well. With the story closing at around the 85-minute mark, the movie ploughs through its narrative with tone-deaf rhythm and little cohesion. It takes all of half an hour to reach the major race, whereas a more skilful movie would spend at least an hour building up to the climactic event. Thus, none of Dusty's achievements feel earned. He manages to make the qualifying race without any practice or skill-honing, and his "training" for the race literally amounts to a five-minute montage before he's deemed to be ready. As a result, the movie is completely flat throughout, and there's no connective tissue to allow Planes to soar in any meaningful way. It's also just not funny at all.

With the climactic world race commencing before the halfway mark, it grows very tedious very quickly. Of course, the fact that the planes are going around the world inherently means it will be a long race, but Planes fails to do anything interesting to justify its length. Thus, we get random detours like Dusty helping El Chupacabra find love, and a very strange scene in which Dusty is rescued by the Air Force in the middle of the ocean. Unfortunately, the movie neglects the most important aspect of its story: making Dusty a likeable, sympathetic character. Because Planes treats its set-up as homework, we're never given a compelling reason to care. The fact that Dusty is extremely underdeveloped is most obvious in the character's fear of heights - in a better movie, Dusty's personal demons would be handled in a profound way, but here it's only brought up in three scenes: when it's introduced (and Skipper doesn't even think he needs to overcome it before the race), when he gets scared and fails to overcome it, and later when he finally does overcome it out of nowhere. It's jarring, and as a result, this ostensibly major character arc gains no traction. It doesn't help that Dane Cook is completely ineffective in the role, failing to give Dusty any personality or spunk. John Cleese is also on hand here to voice a plane...but he's given nothing to do. Planes is so bad that even Cleese can't salvage it.

Even Pixar's harshest critics must admit that the Cars pictures are easily the studio's weakest, with Cars 2 in particular an outright disaster. But despite lukewarm box office for both movies, Disney made a killing from toy sales. Indeed, thanks to toys, the Cars movies grossed not just millions but billions, and Disney visibly hoped to recreate this immense success with Planes. Thus, the decision to create this quickie spinoff was motivated purely by money rather than artistry (if it was about artistry, we'd have The Incredibles 2 by now). It's hardly surprisingly, then, that Planes walks and talks like a toy commercial, aiming to fill the frame with as many colourfully designed characters as possible. For fuck's sake, even cinemas were selling Planes toys while it was being screened.

The only positive thing that can be said about Planes is that it's marginally better than Cars 2, which is a rotten-to-the-core sequel without any redeeming qualities. It's also fortunate that Planes is so short. After all, judging by how awful every frame of this movie is, if this particular creative team attempted proper character development, it might've resulted in an even more agonising creation. With underwhelming animation, no laughs to be had, and nothing interesting for adults, Planes is a total washout.

2.8/10

"I'm Cecil Gaines. I'm the new butler."

The official title of The Butler is in fact Lee Daniels' The Butler, as The Weinstein Company were forced to make a slight alteration due to peculiar studio politics. It may seem like a trivial change, but it's actually very appropriate, reinforcing that this is not so much a sweeping historical drama but rather a Lee Daniels movie slathered with all of his directorial trademarks. As evidenced in films like Precious and The Paperboy, Daniels is not one for subtlety, opting for a manipulative, heavy-handed approach as opposed to something more dignified. Making matters worse, The Butler is an extremely overstuffed picture, hoping to cover far too much in a 130-minute runtime. With that said, however, it's miraculous to report that The Butler is not too bad on the whole. It's a hugely flawed endeavour, but there's undeniable passion to Daniels' efforts, and there are enough isolated moments of greatness to make this recommended viewing for the demographic who enjoy low-key dramas over big blockbusters.

As a little boy working in the cotton fields of Georgia in the 1920s, Cecil Gaines (Forest Whitaker) witnesses the death of his father who dared to speak up about the brutal rape of his wife. Brought into the house by matriarch Annabeth Westfall (Vanessa Redgrave), Cecil is trained to be a server, gaining experience that bodes well into adulthood. Moving from job to job, Cecil makes his way to Washington, D.C., where he is given the chance to work as a butler in the White House under President Eisenhower (Robin Williams) with fellow servers Carter (Cuba Gooding Jr.) and James (Lenny Kravitz). Becoming a family man, Cecil marries alcoholic Gloria (Oprah Winfrey), with whom he has two sons, including hothead Louis (David Oyelowo) who takes part in protests and marches to fight for civil rights. Cecil serves at the White House for decades, becoming a spectator of great political and social turmoil from the late 1950s up until his retirement in 1986.

Written by Danny Strong (who, funnily enough, played geek Jonathan in Buffy the Vampire Slayer), The Butler is based on the real-life story of Eugene Allen, a black man who served as a butler under eight Presidents during his many decades at the White House. But for reasons most likely related to manipulating viewers, Strong and Daniels fictionalise Allen's story, renaming him Cecil Gaines and changing a lot of the details about his life. Biopics must alter various things for dramatic purposes, but to this extent is borderline offensive, as Strong and Daniels are basically saying that Allen's actual life is not worthy of being depicted in a motion picture. Worse, The Butler is clearly a Lee Daniels movie from its earliest stages, opening with a shot of two dead African-Americans hanging in the moonlight, with an American flag behind them. Cecil's father is murdered very early into the movie, in an act of violence that's not justified beyond the fact that the shooter is an "evil" white man. It's too much.

The narrative of The Butler splits its focus between Cecil and Louis. The movie observes Cecil as he immerses himself into White House regality, becoming a passive Forrest Gump-esque observer to a number of major historical events during which he is forced to be politically disconnected and surrender his individuality. Meanwhile, Louis submerges himself into the civil rights movement, changing radically as he participates in protests and is regularly sent to prison. As long as you're able to accept the contrivance of Cecil's son being a major player in the quest for equality, this arc is one of the aspects of The Butler that succeeds the most, giving us a welcome glimpse of the civil rights movement involving characters we grow to care about. While Daniels does go overboard with histrionics in some scenes, various moments are staged extraordinarily well, including a bus being attacked. For a $30 million movie, production values all-round are competent, with convincing period detail and attractive cinematography. Admittedly, this is a PG-13 endeavour, and a bit of R-rated flavour might've increased the authenticity of several scenes (there's no blood when Cecil's father is shot), but it's not too much of an issue.

The Butler is beset with stunt casting, but the heart of the picture is Whitaker, who's wonderful as the film's namesake. Whitaker plays Cecil across numerous decades, from early adulthood all the way through to old age, and the actor never misses a beat, selling the character's age at any given time through spot-on body language and delivery. Cecil is a conduit of sorts, but with Whitaker we believe him as more than a symbol; he emerges as a flesh-and-blood human. Also superb is Oyelowo, submitting passionate work as Cecil's son Louis. The film observes several changes in Louis, and Oyelowo manages to sell them with seemingly little effort. Meanwhile, Oprah (yes, Oprah is an actress, too) displays unexpected maturity and depth as Cecil's wife, and the likes of Gooding Jr. and Kravitz provide solid support. Also in the film are a string of well-known actors as various presidents; a stern Williams as Eisenhower, a chirpy James Marsden as Kennedy, Liev Schreiber as Johnson, John Cusack as Nixon (yes, it's true), and Alan Rickman as Reagan. The standout is Marsden, who embodies Kennedy nicely; as for the rest, we mostly see the actors rather than the historical figure they're playing.

While watching The Butler, one gets the sense that the film is excluding a lot of detail; Kennedy's assassination is glossed over, Nixon's Watergate scandal isn't dealt with at all, the Vietnam War ends without the audience, and so on. There is too much American history for a single 130-minute flick to cover, but then again Daniels is more interested in African-American struggles, eventually fast-forwarding to Barack Obama's Presidential election win in 2008. Indeed, it's hard to deny that the movie's premise would be better served as a miniseries on HBO, as The Butler feels unfinished in its current state. Nevertheless, Daniels' movie still has merit due to its more powerful scenes, and one has to admire what he was trying to do here. Personally, I'll take an almost-great drama over most of the other dreck that frequently pollutes multiplexes. It will not deserve all of the inevitable Oscar chatter, but its heart is definitely in the right place.

6.7/10

"In my line of work, things tend to happen when it gets dark."

Disclaimer: This review will not spoil Insidious: Chapter 2, but it's recommended that you do not read ahead unless you've seen the first Insidious, as the surprising ending of the first film leads directly into Chapter 2 and will be discussed.

It is doubtful that director James Wan or screenwriter Leigh Whannell designed 2011's Insidious with a franchise in mind, but the micro-budgeted horror picture was a rousing success, grossing almost $100 million from a $1.5 million budget and receiving surprising critical acclaim. Because it is easy to get filthy rich from such shrewd investments, we now have 2013's Insidious: Chapter 2, a direct sequel that brings back practically all of the original cast and crew, including - most importantly - Wan and Whannell. Whereas the first Insidious was fundamentally a fresh take on the Poltergeist storyline, Chapter 2 pays affectionate tribute to The Shining and Psycho. With a change in focus, this sequel feels less like a continuation of Insidious and more like a follow-up to the original movie's third act that unexpectedly switched gears by incorporating astral projection and The Further. Luckily, Wan and Whannell assemble a solid film in Insidious: Chapter 2 that delivers thrills and effectively contributes to the franchise's mythology, even if this sequel is slightly overwritten.

With paranormal medium Elise (Lin Shaye) dead after being strangled by the malevolent spirit that now inhabits the body of Josh Lambert (Patrick Wilson), the police begin an investigation, discounting all claims that something supernatural is involved. To allow for things to calm down, the family move in with Josh's mother, Lorraine Lambert (Barbara Hershey), who's hospitable towards Josh, his wife Renai (Rose Byrne), and their children Dalton (Ty Simpkins), Foster (Andrew Astor), and Kali. However, Renai is wary of the situation, with sudden changes in her husband triggering her curiosity and supernatural occurrences around the house terrifying her. Lorraine brings back paranormal investigators Specs (Leigh Whannell) and Tucker (Angus Sampson), who team up with Elise's friend and former colleague, Carl (Steve Coulter), to investigate. Meanwhile, the real soul of Josh is stuck in the purgatory realm of The Further, a place full of tortured souls who are desperate to possess a body.

Insidious was a relatively simple picture, with screenwriter Leigh Whannell (Saw, Dead Silence) putting a fresh spin on the haunted house genre, purposely avoiding the hoariest horror clichés to create something distinctive. It paid off, but Whannell and Wan only scratched the surface of the movie's lore, leaving ample baggage for a sequel to work through. Unfortunately, Insidious: Chapter 2 attempts to do too much, working to reveal Elise and Lorraine's past, build a backstory for the old woman ghost from the first flick, and spend more time in The Further. The material is interesting, but it only occasionally translates to a chilling viewing experience, often neglecting the type of primal thrills that worked so well in the original film. It's not a deal-breaker, but the result pales compared to its predecessor, with expository dialogue rendering the storytelling oddly leaden. Fortunately, however, the proceedings eventually click into gear, and Wan settles into a satisfying groove, leading to plenty of momentum and a finale that raises the pulse, silly moments notwithstanding. It is also admirable that Chapter 2 is not a glorified remake of the first film.

Even though Insidious: Chapter 2's $5 million budget is marginally higher than its predecessor, the amount remains minuscule by Hollywood standards. It's incredible how much Wan can do with so little, as the Insidious movies do not feel cheap or nasty. There is no denying that Wan is a master at building a sense of unease and staging creative scares, and his talents are on full display throughout this sequel. Despite the uneven pacing, this is a highly atmospheric horror movie, and it is easy for viewers to fall under Wan's cinematic spell. The director's use of careful camera angles, shadows, eerie images and, above all, the spine-chilling sound design gives Insidious: Chapter 2 a great deal of power. Achieving true cinematic terror in 2013's cynical movie-going climate is nigh on impossible, yet Wan continues to demonstrate his ability to do so, seemingly with little effort. Luckily, Wan retains several key members of his creative team here, with John R. Leonetti's digital cinematography giving the picture a distinctive look, while Joseph Bishara's original score remains eminently creepy and brings back memorable motifs from the first film.

Patrick Wilson faced an ostensibly impossible task here: playing the role of a demon within a human body. It would be easy to overplay the character, but Wilson strikes a perfect balance, being subtle in his body language that's just a little bit off and being suitably scary when the material calls for it. Furthermore, Wilson also has to play Josh, and he admirably pulls that off, although we do not see much of the real Josh during the movie. Meanwhile, Byrne is expectedly strong as Renai, but veteran actress Barbara Hershey (Black Swan, The Last Temptation of Christ) fundamentally becomes the movie's heroine, with Whannell's script considerably beefing up her role. Fortunately, Hershey does a fine job, and she's served well by the other returning players. Whannell and Sampson are delightful as Specs and Tucker, remaining one of the franchise's notable highlights. Wan lightened the original film's pervasive sense of dread with a campy final third that turned the experience into a fun, old-fashioned fright flick, but Insidious: Chapter 2 shows minimal interest in this type of material, only providing a smattering of gallows humour courtesy of Tucker and Specs. However, this point is not necessarily a criticism as this sequel delves into different territory. 

Wan scored another mega-hit earlier in 2013, with The Conjuring attracting the type of acclaim, hype and box office dollars that most horror movies can only dream of achieving. It is a shame that Insidious: Chapter 2 is a noticeable step down in quality compared to Insidious and The Conjuring, but it is still more creative and compelling than the glossy, PG-13 spook films from less skilful filmmakers. When it works, it's an intriguing and chilling continuation of the outstanding first movie with some creative ideas. Additionally, it makes the prospect of further sequels seem enticing, especially since Insidious is more of a traditional horror series instead of found footage (Paranormal Activity, which shares Insidious producer Oren Peli) or torture porn (Saw, which Wan ironically spearheaded). Insidious: Chapter 2 is also far better than the Poltergeist sequels. The Insidious franchise moved away from the Lambert family for Insidious: Chapter 3 and Insidious: The Last Key, but 2023's Insidious: The Red Door directly continues the storyline of Josh, Renai and Dalton.

6.8/10

"I'm taking you to your dad's so he can take care of you."

2013's Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa is very much a Jackass movie, but it's not the type of film that long-time fans might be anticipating. It's a fresh direction for the ageing brand name, replacing the haphazard structure of the previous movies with a scripted story, though there are still plenty of mischievous shenanigans and pranks involving (supposedly) unsuspecting members of the general public. It takes its structural cues from Borat in this sense, though Bad Grandpa plays as an actual movie rather than a mockumentary. Opinions will no doubt be divided on the film; some will be outright repulsed, while other folks might be let down by the lack of genuine Jackass-style stunts. But it's difficult to imagine a better movie being carved out of this premise - for what it is, Bad Grandpa is a home run, representing one of 2013's comedic high points. It's silly and rude, yet also hilarious, maintaining an agreeable pace as it goes about its goofy business.

When 86-year-old Irving Zisman (Johnny Knoxville) loses his wife after decades of marriage, he's overjoyed, looking forward to the prospect of hitting on as many women as possible. However, the funeral attracts Irving's drug-addicted daughter (Georgina Cates), who informs the old man that she's going to prison and he must take care of his grandson Billy (Jackson Nicoll). Afraid that the kid might ruin his newfound sexual liberation, Irving desperately searches for somewhere to offload Billy, asking the boy's estranged deadbeat father, Chuck (Greg Harris), to accept parental responsibilities. Chuck agrees, but only because it will mean he'll receive a $600 government payment per month, and Irving must travel across the country to deliver the boy. Hitting the road with Billy in the passenger seat and his dead wife in the trunk, Irving gets himself mixed up in all sorts of shenanigans, all the while developing somewhat of an unexpected bond with his grandson.

Suffice it to say, the story is completely flimsy and has been done to death, but the movie doesn't require an intricate narrative. People watch Bad Grandpa for the jokes and the mischief, and the thin set-up thankfully succeeds well enough to give the skits some purpose (as opposed to the completely plotless disposition of the other Jackass flicks). With that said, however, veteran director Jeff Tremaine and his crew do deserve credit for actually paying attention to the plot, threading together an intelligible narrative and never breaking the illusion that this is a movie. Indeed, the movie never "winks" at us, and nobody ever acknowledges the cameras.

Naturally, Bad Grandpa can be hit-and-miss, but misses are rare, and when the flick hits...it really hits. Tremaine is careful to include the types of moments that the Jackass fanbase demand, leading to a few disgusting scenes and a handful of dangerous stunts. But many of the laughs are generated by seeing the candid reactions of the victims, who seem to be oblivious to the fact that Knoxville is actually fucking with them beneath a heavy layer of make-up (the make-up artists deserve a lot of credit for their convincing efforts). Since candid camera antics rely on hidden lenses, there is a noticeable difference in image quality at times, with many shots looking grainy and unfocused while others look positively immaculate. Miraculously, a lot of the funnier moments were kept out of the promotional materials, even though the trailer does, unfortunately, spoil the movie's climactic set-piece. This can't be held against the picture, of course, as the studio handled all the marketing, but it is disappointing that the experience might not be as satisfying to those who know what to expect when Irving and Billy crash a beauty pageant.

The heart of Bad Grandpa is the relationship between Irving and Billy, with Knoxville and Nicoll sharing great chemistry and playing off each other beautifully. Nicoll is game for anything, saying and doing the most inappropriate things while relishing the chance to be so mischievous. They're a really fun pair to watch, and there are scenes between the shenanigans that are somewhat heartfelt. None of the dramatic stuff is overly profound, but it's convincing enough in the context of this movie, with Knoxville delivering his most credible acting performance to date (though that's not saying much).

To be sure, Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa is a kinder, gentler Jackass, but it remains crude and R-rated nevertheless, and it's just as fun as the Jackass creations which came before it. It's often extremely funny, delivering a number of belly-laughs and maintaining a playful spirit, making it a solid movie to watch with friends and pizza on a lazy evening. Whether or not any of the candid camera moments are staged remains up to the viewer, but it doesn't diminish the experience. Capping the movie off is an extended end-credits montage containing the usual outtakes and behind-the-scenes craziness while also showing how pranks were pulled off and revealing the reactions of the victims after being informed that they're in a movie. Bad Grandpa is dedicated to Ryan Dunn, one of the Jackass performers who died in 2011.

8.2/10

"The truth has no temperature."

A number of Cormac McCarthy's novels have been adapted as motion pictures in the past decade or so, most notably by the Coen Brothers for 2007's Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men. But 2013's The Counselor finds McCarthy as a screenwriter, producing his first original work written directly for the big screen. Suffice it to say, the resulting film is full of the author's idiosyncrasies; The Counselor is a dark story inhabited by unpleasant, duplicitous characters. It was appropriate material for director Ridley Scott to sink his teeth into, giving vivid life to the unsettling situations dreamed up by McCarthy. It's a fairly solid effort with moments of greatness, but it's somewhat dead around the eyes, in need of a spark to generate a truly riveting viewing experience.

A lawyer who's fallen on hard financial times, the Counselor (Michael Fassbender) seeks to join a drug deal alongside Reiner (Javier Bardem) and Westray (Brad Pitt). However, the deal goes south when the shipment is hijacked by unknown armed enforcers, and suspicion falls on the Counselor. Concerned for both himself and his loving fiancée Laura (Penelope Cruz), the Counselor becomes overwhelmed with panic, hoping to negotiate a deal with the men who are trying to kill him.

The story of The Counselor is dense and intricate, eventually devolving into a convoluted mess of half-explanations, vague motives and double-crosses. It's simply hard to discern who's doing what – the Counselor's actual role in the drug deal remains vague, for instance. Consequently, it feels as if fragments of the narrative are missing (especially at the beginning of the story), and it doesn't help that some character actions stick out as odd. For example, the Counselor uses a stranger's phone to call his fiancée in fear of his mobile being traced. But later, he uses a known associate's phone to set up a meeting with Laura, which seems careless since he knows that people are watching him and might be listening to the call. Nevertheless, McCarthy's screenplay benefits from some real positives, most notably in the borderline poetic dialogue. The conversations between characters sizzle with intelligence, and there's more sophistication on hand here than in usual blockbusters. There are a number of scenes that stand out, especially a strange vignette in which Reiner casually describes an incident involving Malkina (Cameron Diaz) literally having sex with his car.

Scott brings to the project his usual proclivity for solid visuals and deliberate pacing. This is a handsome picture that excels in terms of composition and all-round production values, and Scott doesn't baulk from staging viciously violent sequences from time to time. Indeed, there is gunplay and decapitations, accentuating the ruthlessness of this story. Furthermore, the acting is solid from top to bottom, amplifying the production's sense of professionalism. Fassbender plays it straight, making for a stable lead as the titular Counselor. There are times when Fassbender truly soars, too, including an unforgettable scene towards the film's end when he breaks down in a hugely realistic fashion. He shares terrific chemistry with Cruz, too, whose believability is a huge asset. More colourful is Bardem, with his spiky hair and spray tan, while Pitt seems to be enjoying himself as a cowboy type. Less successful is Diaz, who simply fails to make much of an impact. Angelina Jolie was initially cast in Diaz's role, which would've been more on target. The rest of the actors more or less receive single-scene cameos, including Rosie Perez, Bruno Ganz, John Leguizamo and Dean Norris.

Unfortunately, The Counselor seems stuck in first gear for most of its runtime, packing very little in the way of thrills or suspense. It looks visually interesting as it unfolds on the screen, but it only occasionally comes to life. And when the climax approaches and deaths mount, the movie still stays pretty sedate, becoming more elusive to emotional grasp. Ironically, the story would've probably been better served in novel form, as it's underwhelming as a motion picture, with its clinical, aloof nature making it difficult to become genuinely invested in. Perhaps McCarthy always needs someone else to adapt his works for the screen. The movie is dedicated to Ridley's sibling director Tony, who committed suicide in the middle of shooting.

5.6/10

"I've come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum."

Although director John Carpenter masterminded a number of cinematic gems during the 1980s, They Live is arguably his coolest and most enjoyable effort from the decade. Written by Carpenter himself, it's a delightful sci-fi action romp, bolstered by an astute screenplay that mixes social commentary, exciting action and terrific one-liners, approaching RoboCop levels of greatness. And despite being made in 1988, They Live has aged remarkably well, remaining every bit as sharp and entertaining as it has always been. They Live has to be one of the most underrated and overlooked pictures in Carpenter's filmography, too, which is a shame because it's absolutely worthy of a large audience.

At the centre of the story is a nameless, unemployed drifter referred to as "Nada" (Roddy Piper) - the Spanish word for "nothing." Arriving in Los Angeles, Nada is soon hired at a construction site and takes shelter at a local shantytown with the company of co-worker Frank (Keith David). Nada begins noticing strange activities at a church across the street, and his interest piques all the more after it's raided by a SWAT team. He soon happens upon a box of strange sunglasses inside the church, which essentially allow the wearer to see "the truth." Putting on a pair, Nada realises that the world around him is populated with extraterrestrials who have assimilated themselves into human society, transmitting secret messages through signs and billboards. Taking up a firearm, Nada sets out to fight back against the invaders, enlisting the assistance of Frank in his quest.

As with most of Carpenter's filmmaking oeuvre, They Live is packaged with societal commentary and political satire, endowing the production with more class than a typical shoot-'em-up. To be sure, the satire is not exactly subtle, with the sunglasses revealing that billboards and magazines actually say simple words like "Obey," but it's effectual nevertheless, and it has only grown more pertinent with each passing year. In this sense, They Live is perhaps the ultimate conspiracy theory movie. Even though it's fiction (at least we hope this stuff isn't real), there is a sense of truth to the proceedings, playing out as a warning sign to those who blindly follow the lead, unwilling to be open-minded enough to accept that the world around us may not be as cut-and-dried as we're led to believe by the powers above us. They Live is nuanced in this sense, but it's not heavy-handed - the movie still plays as a fun actioner, rather than a dour exploration of big ideas. And while the satire plays out in the context of a simplistic action movie, the core ideas linger and the film is open-ended, making it a rousing example of entertaining, thought-provoking cinema.

They Live again demonstrates that Carpenter knows his way around a set-piece. The action is slow to start, but once Nada discovers the glasses, They Live almost never relents, delivering in a big way. Perhaps the highlight of the entire production is an achingly funny alley fight between Piper and David, which is exceedingly brutal and beset with some of the best, funniest tough guy dialogue in the history of cinema. The sequence was meant to be short, but Piper and David went for broke, and Carpenter allowed the behemoths to do their thing. It's great stuff. They Live also comes alive in several other scenes, with awesome gun battles spotlighting Piper in ass-kicking mode. Admittedly, the film does seem to end a bit too quickly, with budget constraints visible during the rather slight climax, but this is nit-picking. What matters is that They Live plays beautifully and is scarcely boring, thanks to Carpenter's skilful pacing.

For a WWE wrestler, Piper is not that bad of an actor, playing his role of Nada with assurance and flair. He understands the art of one-liners, spouting several witty zingers that had this reviewer in fits of laughter. He's a hell of a lot better than the wrestler-turned-actors of more recent years. Piper also shares wonderful chemistry with Keith David, who's every bit as good as his co-star. David is a charismatic presence, and he's really on top of his game here, proving to be another reason why They Live is so damn enjoyable.

They Live deserves more credit than it receives. It's not Carpenter's best movie, but it's definitely one of his definitive masterworks, an excellent demonstration of his trademark idiosyncrasies and quirks as a filmmaker. Plus, the focused direction, clever writing and top-flight acting allow They Live to date gracefully - in 2023, it has lost practically none of its charm or impact. In fact, it probably plays better today than it ever did, as the thematic undercurrents continue to become more relevant, and the movie possesses a special brand of goofy '80s charm that today's blockbusters just cannot replicate. Better, it finishes on a high note - the final scene closes the door with a huge laugh, reminding us that Carpenter has always had a good sense of humour.

8.1/10