movie reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Machete don't tweet."

Although Robert Rodriguez has demonstrated the ability to produce sophisticated motion pictures (Sin City), he predominantly partakes in moviemaking for the sheer fun of it, essentially making goofy backyard productions for millions of dollars with his actor friends. As a result, there's a unique brand of zeal and enthusiasm to Rodriguez's action movies, as they feel like the work of a non-cynical director who's out to provide a fun time and push the boundaries of ridiculousness with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Luckily, all of these idiosyncrasies are present in 2013's Machete Kills, another affectionate throwback to the sleazy grindhouse exploitation pictures worshipped by Rodriguez. Retaining its predecessor's proclivity for ultraviolence and over-the-top action, and amplifying the insanity, it's a total blast, showing yet again that nobody does cheesy grindhouse-style cinema like Rodriguez.

Recruited by the President of the United States (Charlie Sheen), Machete Cortez (Danny Trejo) is sent to Mexico on a mission to assassinate Mexican drug lord Mendez (Demian Bichir). Mendez is determined to destroy Washington with a hijacked missile, but Machete cannot kill the madman, as the missile's countdown clock is connected to Mendez's heartbeat. Machete is therefore forced to transport Mendez back into America alive to defuse the bomb, but a bounty is soon offered for the heads of both men, forcing Machete to fight for his life. Upon realising that Mendez is only a patsy, Machete turns his attention to Luther Voz (Mel Gibson), a crazy weapons manufacturer who hopes to destroy the world and repopulate it with his race of superior beings.

To state the obvious, the Machete flicks are not built for Academy Awards consideration; instead, Rodriguez aspires to deliver dumb fun filled with action, gore and nudity for viewers who like this brand of cartoonish escapism. Once again, Rodriguez displays a magnificent sense of invention throughout the action set-pieces, with moments that often go beyond outright preposterous, but it's all pitched at the right tone. For crying out loud, on top of limbs being chopped up by boat engines and helicopter blades, there's even a "Swiss Army" machete and a bra worn by Sofía Vergara that shoots knives and bullets. Thankfully, the pacing is so brisk, and the material is so affectionately goofy that it's hard to hold any of this outlandishness against the flick since Rodriguez is just following through with what was promised on the tin.

Surprisingly, for what was ostensibly just another fun Robert Rodriguez action flick, the original Machete was instilled with a certain degree of depth and heart, making it feel more substantial than Rodriguez's typical output. Machete Kills is a bit more on the slight side, however, backgrounding the political grandstanding to allow Rodriguez to just cut loose and have fun. There are still messages, sure, but it's minor subtext; as a result, this is more of a dumb action film with a few things on its mind. The story of Machete Kills is completely scattershot, and it literally feels like the script was written on the fly, with Rodriguez and credited writer Kyle Ward likely coming up with goofy bits and pieces mere minutes before shooting. A considerable chunk of time is actually devoted to setting up the planned third movie in the series (Machete Kills Again...In Space), transitioning from a regular B-grade actioner into a campy Moonraker-inflected sci-fi adventure.

Machete Kills is frequently amusing, with Machete's blunt one-liners ("Machete don't smoke," "Machete don't fail"), the cornball characters (Mendez has multiple personality disorder, regularly switching between evil, good and neutral), in-jokes (Charlie Sheen is the President?!) and hilarious quirks to show how badass Machete truly is (while hanging from a noose, he just nonchalantly stares at his would-be killers, completely unaffected). Voz is even a self-proclaimed Star Wars fan, and the proposed third picture promises scenes of Trejo hacking up goons with a machete-shaped lightsaber. (Rodriguez, if you're reading, please follow through and complete the trilogy!) If there's anything to criticise about Machete Kills, it's that the narrative is perhaps a bit too dense, leading to a few dry spots during which momentum flags, and we've left yearning for the next big action scene. Added to this, Rodriguez leans a bit too heavily on obvious digital blood effects when practical squibs would be far more suitable for this type of throwback effort.

Machete is vehemently a joke character, an opportunity for Rodriguez to position aging character actor (and long-time friend) Danny Trejo as a lady-attracting, super-human action hero despite his wrinkled face and stony demeanour. Trejo does not let us know he's in on the joke, committing to the ludicrous material with utter sincerity, which is what makes the film work. But he's shown up by Gibson, a perfect pick for the role of Voz. Gibson is clearly loving it, relishing the chance to play his first real villain role. He hams it up to extremes, playing Voz in the most deliriously over-the-top manner imaginable. He's the movie's secret weapon, lightening up the mood and keeping Machete Kills compelling for every second of his screen-time. Gibson is so good, in fact, that it's a shame he's only relegated to the final third. Like the first film, there's a lot of stunt casting here, with the likes of Cuba Gooding Jr., Antonio Banderas, William Sadler and Vanessa Hudgens showing up, while Lady Gaga has such a small cameo appearance that it's possible she was just hastily written in so Rodriguez could advertise the fact that Lady Gaga is in the fucking movie. Sheen is also fantastic, nailing the requisite demeanour for this type of endeavour, while Vergara wholly commits to her colourful supporting role.

Machete Kills is undeniably messy and, at times, pretty sloppy, with haphazard plot points and an astonishingly incoherent narrative, but it's all watchable and fun, even if it cannot be defended from a serious critical standpoint. Those who enjoyed 2010's Machete should enjoy this follow-up as well, as it offers more of the same in terms of cheesy casting and insane action set-pieces, and the presence of Mel Gibson is a stroke of genius.

7.1/10

With DVD and Blu-ray discs being perceived as the norm for physical media in this day and age, and with media distribution gradually moving towards an all-digital delivery model, video cassettes have faded into obscurity, replaced with superior formats that have led to VHS being discontinued. But Rewind This! is not quite as dismissive towards the original home video format. Masterminded by Josh Johnson, this documentary concentrates on the collectors who take pride in their collection of VHS cassettes, hunting for obscure titles at flea markets and keeping their sense of nostalgia alive. But Rewind This! also offers far more than this, tracing the origins of VHS and examining both its cultural and historical impact, showing us how the media industry was changed forever with the ability to watch motion pictures at home.

Rewind This! introduces a number of eccentric VHS collectors who maintain an extensive library of video cassettes despite the advent of streaming, downloading and disc-based media. They treat their purchases like collectible baseball cards, treasuring obscure titles that will probably never be transferred to a more stable medium. A segment of the documentary even reveals some of the most cherished possessions of the collectors, from the ridiculous (Corey Haim's self-aggrandising video Me, Myself and I), the downright obscure (a Windows instructional video, starring Matthew Perry and Jennifer Aniston who play their Friends roles), the eccentric (Leslie Nielsen's Bad Golf Made Easier), and the fucking weird (Bubba Smith's workout video Until it Hurts, in which the hulking Smith says that he loves the viewer...). And to heighten the charm of the documentary, notable clips from some of these videos are shown.

While Johnson does not explain the mechanics behind VCRs, Rewind This! has a segment devoted to the genesis of VHS, recalling both its creation as well as its war against Betamax to become the dominant home video format. The overview of VHS's history is also interspersed with ancient ads for VHS and Betamax, including a very amusing commercial featuring John Cleese interacting with a cat. Other topics include pan and scan, introduced because consumers felt duped if they saw black bars on the top and bottom of the screen, oblivious that they were actually seeing the most visual detail possible because of it. Rewind This! also reminds us of a time before the internet, when consumers could only choose to watch films based on cover art, unable to check reviews on their smartphones. And because there was such a huge demand for VHS tapes in rental stores who wanted as many videos as possible, shelves were filled with the cheapest, most Z-grade titles imaginable (oftentimes shot on video), but said features still made bank thanks to their inventive box art. Indeed, these days we never see such ridiculously exciting video covers anymore.

Johnson additionally gauges opinions on the current state of media distribution. The documentary doesn't ignore the fact that a lot of people are simply not interested in a physical media collection, opting instead for streaming and downloading. One of the interviewees discusses the fact that the death of physical media will change the meaning of ownership forever because companies will wind up controlling a consumer's access to media. After all, even if one purchases a digital copy, it's possible for film companies to remotely lock access to it.

The biggest success of Rewind This! is the way it affectionately reminds us of the VHS era. While we can be thankful for modern advances in home media technology that allow us to watch movies in perfect quality in our own living rooms, one is forced to ponder a simpler time. Rewind This! shows that there is still a market for VHS tapes today, mirroring the fact that vinyl records are still a hot cult item. Quality is not important to the collectors, but rather the nostalgic factor, as well as the fact that hundreds of movies will only exist on VHS as they cannot be transferred to a superior format. Many casual movie-watchers completely neglect these facets, but Rewind This! provides fascinating food for thought, and the uninformed should find it completely enthralling.

Rewind This! is an energetic documentary, briskly delivered and full of information. Momentum does flag from time to time, but otherwise, there are very few missteps, and it manages to give each topic its due attention. It's a delightful piece of work that educates and evokes nostalgia, and it deserves to be seen by a wide audience.

8.2/10

"I don't steal from anyone who can't afford it, and I don't hurt anyone who doesn't deserve it."

To the untrained eye, 2013's Parker looks like just another Jason Statham vehicle; a completely unremarkable action fiesta that may as well have gone straight to video. In actuality, while the film delivers all the requisite elements associated with Statham's typical output, Parker is more of a revenge thriller - it's grittier and more grounded than the cartoonish Crank pictures, and more intense and gruffer than the Transporter trilogy. The plot trudges through familiar territory, but it benefits from the fine directorial touch of Taylor Hackford, who creates a smooth, slick ride; vehemently R-rated and frequently enjoyable. Parker is a bit of a mess that falls short of its potential, but it's never a deflating disappointment, as it moves at a decent pace and maintains an agreeable sense of cinematic escapism to make it a fun sit.

The titular Parker (Statham) is a career criminal who adheres to a strict moral code, choosing to rob only those who can afford it and never hurting innocent people in the process. Pulling off a heist at the Ohio State Fair with a group of thieves, Parker is screwed over for his cut of the money after refusing to take part in an impending jewel heist worth tens of millions of dollars. Parker is shot and left for dead by the no-good Melander (Michael Chiklis) and the rest of his gang, but, of course, Parker is not quite dead. Recovering from his wounds, he sets out to get revenge simply for the principal of it. Learning of Melander's next heist in West Palm Beach, Florida, Parker heads to the area hoping to thwart the plan, disguising himself as a wealthy Texan to avoid suspicion. Parker soon meets Leslie (Jennifer Lopez), a financially destitute real estate agent who manages to sniff out his game and demands to be cut in on the deal for a small slice of the take.

Written by John J. McLaughlin, Parker is an adaptation of Donald E. Westlake's book Flashfire, a constituent of the long-running series of Parker novels. Parker has appeared in films before, most notably in 1967's Point Blank and in the 1998 Mel Gibson actioner Payback. But while the same character appears in those films, he is not named Parker - indeed, this movie denotes the first time that the character has been properly named in cinema. McLaughlin's script briskly establishes the type of man that Parker is, with the introductory heist highlighting the titular character's desire to keep things peaceful (he even personally comforts a hysterical witness and reassures everyone that he's not interested in killing). The real essence of the Parker character is nailed here, which is a huge asset, and leaves us hoping for sequels (that will probably never happen). However, a few aspects of the narrative are short-changed. Most confusing is the character of Hurley (Nick Nolte), who ostensibly set up the initial fair heist but seems ignorant of the outcome. Narrative momentum also takes a nose dive once Leslie enters the film, as her character feels better suited for a romantic comedy than a hardboiled action-thriller.

Regardless of the storytelling flaws, Hackford's visual treatment of the material is close to perfect. An Oscar-nominated director, Hackford executes the picture with energy, finesse and mood, not to mention he embraces the R rating with open arms. Parker is the furthest thing from a sanitised PG-13 endeavour - rather, it's a viciously violent actioner with gory gunshot wounds and a handful of brutal hand-to-hand combat sequences. The centrepiece involves Parker brawling with a goon in a high-rise hotel room; the ensuing sequence is stunningly choreographed and technically flawless, especially the blood effects, which will make you cringe when a knife is impaled through Parker's hand. Parker was produced on a modest budget, and occasionally this is obvious, but for the most part, the movie looks attractive and skilfully-assembled, especially the heroically violent action set-pieces that genre fanatics will adore.

Like Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger before him, Statham is the kind of action hero who makes any movie better with his distinct screen presence. Given a meaty role to chew on for once, Statham is a cool, deadly Parker, and he also seems to have a firm grasp on the character. It's a solid performance from the star whose brand of machismo and charm kept this reviewer engaged in his plight. Unfortunately, Lopez is less successful. She's not dreadful, but she doesn't shine as Leslie either, and one must wonder if a more competent actress could've done a better job and improved the overall quality of the movie as a result. The rest of the actors are solid, though. Nolte is his usual badass self, while Chiklis gives a believably menacing edge to his villainous role.

Parker had the potential to be an extremely interesting film noir masterpiece, but somewhere along the line, it transformed into more of a fun action flick with a few strokes of unique personality. It's definitely serviceable in this way thanks to some stunning set-pieces and competent craftsmanship, but more sophistication could have improved the finished product.

6.3/10

"Pray for the best, but prepare for the worst."

A refreshing change of pace following 2013's summer blockbuster season, Prisoners is an intense morality tale that plays out as a twisty police procedural thriller, exhibiting more sophistication and artistry than one would expect from a story like this. Helmed by Denis Villeneuve (making his Hollywood debut) and written by Aaron Guzikowski (Contraband), the film is multilayered and smart, proving to be an emotionally, mentally and philosophically fatiguing experience. While it seems like a straightforward whodunit on the surface, Prisoners is more concerned with the effects that a kidnapping case has on the picture's main players. The movie does clock in at almost two-and-a-half hours, but it earns every captivating frame.

To celebrate Thanksgiving, Keller (Hugh Jackman) and his wife Grace (Maria Bello) visit friends Franklin (Terrence Howard) and Nancy (Viola Davis), letting their respective children interact and play with one another. But not much attention is given to the youngest daughters of each of the families, who suddenly go missing after venturing outside without parental supervision. The case is assigned to Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), a seasoned, focused police investigator who has solved every crime that he has investigated. Arresting the mentally handicapped Alex Jones (Paul Dano) as a suspect, Loki unfortunately has no concrete evidence to keep the boy locked up. When Alex is released, Keller goes crazy, abducting the suspect to torture him for information in secret. As Loki persists with his investigation, Keller sees Alex as his only hope of getting the girls back, yet he might be wrong and time is fast running out.

There is not a trace of Hollywood artifice within any of the characters, as they all feel like realistic, fallible human beings. If another team of filmmakers told this story, Keller would unquestionably be the hero - a strong, smart, muscular presence who kicks ass and saves the girls. But Prisoners isn't like that, and this is no ego trip for Jackman. Deconstructing the invincible father figure seen in Taken and 24, Jackman's Keller is initially depicted in a sympathetic light but gradually transforms into a monstrous brute, and it's a huge achievement on the part of both Jackman and the screenplay that his voyage to the dark side is gripping and plausible. This is arguably Jackman's best performance to date, a nuanced and focused portrait of a broken man struggling to deal with his emotional grief. Likewise, Gyllenhaal rediscovers the gravitas and maturity we witnessed in End of Watch, turning in a credible performance that lets you forget that you're even looking at the actor. It's an immersive turn from Gyllenhaal, and he looks in tune with the material and his character at all times. Fortunately, the supporting cast could not be any better. Dano is especially chameleonic, disappearing into the role of Alex and effortlessly selling his character's mental disabilities. Melissa Leo, Maria Bello and Viola Davis provide solid support as well, while Terrence Howard submits his best work in years.

The pairing of director Villeneuve and cinematographer Roger Deakins (Skyfall, True Grit) was truly a match made in cinematic heaven, making for a visually striking thriller thick in atmosphere. Prisoners is set beneath the perpetually chilly, gloomy, often rainy skies of Pennsylvania, and the sense of place is immaculately established through Deakins' meticulous photography. He captures the texture of both the season-specific atmosphere and small-town milieu, and the composition and framing are genuinely breathtaking throughout. Furthermore, Villeneuve clearly knew that pacing is a major factor in the effectiveness of a mystery like this, and he acts appropriately - Prisoners lingers when it's suitable, and moves onto the next scene or plot point when the time feels right. The director excels at tension as well, assembling a handful of incredibly nail-biting scenes during which this reviewer felt wholly invested in the on-screen proceedings. The initial realisation that the girls are missing is heart-wrenching stuff, and it's hard to tear your eyes away from the screen during pivotal scenes later in the story. In lesser hands, Prisoners would be a low-rent, made-for-television affair, but it's a visual and aural masterpiece in the hands of this filmmaking team.

Astonishingly, the trailers for Prisoners held out on us, as they only shed light on the first third of the picture, establishing the basic set-up but refusing to show much more. It's wonderful to report that the full movie is darker and denser than expected, balancing the stories of the entire ensemble as the screenplay examines how the various characters deal with their grief. Although some viewers may solve the mystery before the big reveal happens, Prisoners doesn't live and die by its ability to surprise you. What matters the most here is the journey, and Villeneuve puts together an involving, emotionally gruelling thriller that never loses momentum despite its intimidating length. Unfortunately, the story's conclusion is not entirely successful, jettisoning the intelligence of the rest of the picture in favour of theatrics right out of an episode of a standard police procedural drama. It's not a deal-breaker, but a darker, tauter climax might've made for an overall superior product.

While aspects of the picture's climax are silly, the film's final scene cannot be criticised. It may be angering or disappointing to those expecting an ending that ties everything up neatly, but it's the perfect conclusion for those who enjoy having something to chew on and ponder once a film ends. Prisoners does commit a few sins, and it's probably not revolutionary enough to attract attention at the Oscars, but its flaws can be overlooked due to the impeccable filmmaking and the otherwise smart scripting. It's haunting and gripping viewing, with its thematic density and top-flight acting ensuring that it will not be easily forgotten.

8.3/10

"There are no real monsters."

One of three Stephen King adaptations to be released in 1983 (The Dead Zone and Christine being the other two), Cujo is a moderately thrilling though never outright terrifying horror about a man's best friend gone rabid. Most of King's stories concern supernatural threats, but Cujo is more grounded, boiling down to a simple story that could occur in the real world. It does work in the film's favour since it's stripped-down and intense, but it is a tad underwhelming on the whole; it doesn't have a great deal of staying power, and certain aspects of the production are certainly dated. Nevertheless, Cujo still has teeth and packs a punch, making for an entertaining enough '80s monster movie that has its moments.

The titular Cujo is a Saint Bernard dog who's bitten by a bat, which causes him to turn feral and develop into a bloodthirsty killer. Enter Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace), the wife of an advertising executive and the mother of precocious young boy Tad (Danny Pintauro). With her husband out of town for a few days on business, Donna's car begins sputtering, prompting her to take it to a local mechanic. Problem is, the mechanic is Cujo's owner, and when Donna shows up with Tad, the vicious dog is on patrol. Trapped in their broken-down car with nobody around except for the killer canine, Donna and Tad begin to realise that other dangers exist, with hunger, exhaustion and dehydration gradually setting in.

King wrote Cujo at the height of his alcoholism, and he reportedly cannot even remember writing the novel due to his severe drinking problem. Published in 1981, the book is often perceived as one of the author's darkest works due to its bleak ending that even King himself wishes he could change. Hence, the script for this adaptation (by Don Carlos Dunaway and Lauren Currier) concludes on a brighter note, a decision fully endorsed by King. The thrills of Cujo are slow to start - the first forty-five minutes are dedicated to build-up, developing the characters and laying the narrative foundation that will lead to Donna and Tad venturing into Cujo's hunting ground. The dramatic stuff is only moderately successful, making for a passable if unremarkable sit. Indeed, the characters have pretty perfunctory issues, with marriage infidelity even thrown into the mix, and you could be forgiven for just wanting the dog carnage to commence. To its credit, Cujo does have some interesting thematic undercurrents, with thoughtful allegories that some may not pick up on. However, none of this makes much impact, and it doesn't feel especially profound.

Veteran filmmaker Lewis Teague was personally selected by King to helm Cujo, as the author was impressed with the director's previous picture, Alligator. Teague's contributions are mostly fine, demonstrating a firm grasp of the art of cinematic tension, and the film benefits from sound cinematography courtesy of future director Jan de Bont. Cujo's reveal is especially terrific, as the scene is drenched in thick fog that sets an ominous mood. However, Cujo's special effects do not entirely hold up in the 21st century. The attack scenes are shot and edited in an effectively intense fashion, but Teague cannot quite sell the menace of this otherwise adorable Saint Bernard dog. Even though the effort is valiant, the attacks are never quite believable enough because the mutt never looks particularly vicious or dangerous when supposedly killing people.

Horror movies do not often give thespians the opportunity to prove themselves, but the acting here is rock-solid. Wallace and young Pintauro create a believable mother-son dynamic and manage to sell the terror with utmost skill. Once Wallace is trapped in her car, she really shows her range, showing realistic outbursts of emotion, horror and desperation. Meanwhile, Pintauro belies his age here, delivering an impressively natural performance. His reactions to Cujo's attacks are stomach-churning and rattling.

Cujo is a low-budget B-movie at its core, but it does show a degree of innovation in its technical construction and script, even if it does lack the substance of superior monster movies like Jaws and The Birds. The family drama is pedestrian, and some of the effects are dated, but a few thrilling sequences are peppered throughout, making Cujo a fun diversion. It's nothing spectacular, but it's a decent adaptation that does no disservice to King's novel.

6.2/10

"A wise man can learn more from his enemies than a fool from his friends."

Rush is arguably 2013's first genuinely great film. A gorgeously-mounted and compelling drama, it represents another winner from director Ron Howard, who's back in fine form here after 2011's The Dilemma. Howard's most distinguished movies are based on true stories, with Apollo 13 and Frost/Nixon showcasing the filmmaker's significant talents in terms of technical proficiency, bravura visuals and taut storytelling, and Rush further exemplifies this. Reuniting with Frost/Nixon screenwriter Peter Morgan, the picture turns its attention to the sport of Formula One racing in the 1970s, yet its appeal is not restricted to sports fans. Indeed, while fervent car fanatics and Formula One devotees will love the behind-the-scenes examination of this dangerous sport, newcomers are not left out in the cold. On the contrary, anyone who simply appreciates good filmmaking will enjoy Rush, as it offers far more than just racing action.

Set predominantly during the 1976 Formula One season, Rush concentrates on the rivalry between British racer James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Austrian Niki Lauda (Daniel Brühl). The pair are complete polar opposites - Hunt is a hedonistic playboy who indulges in women and booze, while Lauda is a consummate professional who's 100% focused on the track, the epitome of all work and no play. As they enter the Formula One season of 1976, a heated contest breaks out between Hunt and Lauda, with Niki taking the lead early into the competition. Following a horrifying crash, Lauda is hospitalised with severe burns and injuries, allowing Hunt to gain some ground. But Lauda is unwilling to let his rival win the title so easily, charging through his rehabilitation and risking his well-being to return to the racetrack before the end of the season.

A less skilful motion picture would mould the story into a brainless racing fiesta, using Hunt as a hero and Lauda as a one-dimensional villain. But Morgan's screenplay is balanced, functioning as a character study of both men, observing their tempestuous relationship as they hesitantly develop a mutual, unspoken respect for one another. As a matter of fact, neither man is painted as a 'good' or 'bad' guy - both have appealing characteristics, but both have flaws that make them hard to like at times. It's a unique angle, and it luckily translates to captivating cinema in the hands of Howard and Morgan. You may find yourself rooting for one or the other, but you may also wind up rooting for both at the same time, leading to a nail-biting few minutes at the end when it's unclear if Hunt is the new World Champion or if Lauda will retain his title. Naturally, Morgan does alter or omit certain facets of the historical record for dramatic reasons (Lauda and Hunt were actually friends off the track in real life), but his script works, and that's what matters since this is a dramatisation rather than a documentary. If there's anything to criticise, it's that a few aspects of the narrative feel underdone - the first race of the 1976 Formula One season is summed up with a brief title card that feels jarring, and Hunt's marriage isn't given much attention.

Even Howard's lesser movies are well-made, and the filmmaker's talents are on full display here, with the director flawlessly realising Morgan's superlative script. Howard's astonishing command of the pacing and storytelling is commendable, as there's nary a dull moment throughout the feature's lengthy two-hour running time. Rush is an energetic film, but this is not to say that Howard skims through character development - on the contrary, large portions of time are devoted to dialogue and drama, but the scenes benefit from fine craftsmanship right down the line. Rush also springs to life during the racing sequences. The races were gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (Dredd), the editing is faultless, and the use of sound is fantastic, making for immersive, atmospheric viewing. Plus, Howard doesn't baulk from showing the gruesome reality of Formula One racing, with Lauda's crash shown in unsettling detail. The make-up effects are seamless, and the production design exquisitely evokes the '70s without showing off.

Hemsworth is not an actor that one would expect to see in a role like this, as he's untested as a true thespian. But Hemsworth nails it, espousing an impressively consistent accent and embodying the essence of James Hunt. Believable as a booze-guzzling ladies' man, Hemsworth is ideal as the arrogant playboy, locating Hunt's humanity and even displaying the racer's emerging humility from time to time. Added to this, Hemsworth suitably resembles his real-life counterpart, which is underscored in a moving montage towards the film's end containing genuine documentary footage of the deceased Hunt. Meanwhile, Brühl was given the difficult task of playing Lauda, yet the resulting performance is extraordinary. Niki is a cold, determined man with unlikeable tendencies, yet Brühl humanises him, letting us believe his motivations and giving us the chance to sympathise with him. Rush is predominantly the Hemsworth and Brühl show, yet Howard assembles a top-flight supporting cast, too, including Olivia Wilde and Alexandra Maria Lara as the wives of the two racers.

Despite its Oscar pedigree, Rush is a mainstream-friendly flick, as Howard's touch is engaging, and the enormously stimulating racing sequences will keep casual movie-goers interested. Howard also deserves kudos for making this an R-rated adult fare, peppering the movie with realistic language and effective portrayals of racetrack harm. Rush could've gone the PG-13 route for maximum box office, but Howard sticks to his guns, and the result is a motion picture that feels like the work of a genuine auteur. While the film may prove somewhat entertaining for teenagers, this is vehemently a movie for adults who will appreciate the fine craftsmanship and the sense of cinematic maturity. And it's great to see this type of adult moviemaking sneaking its way into multiplexes after many months of fun but often brainless blockbusters.

9.0/10

"Try and fit in. I'm sick of finding you a new place to live every 90 days."

Although French super-producer Luc Besson has scripted a number of action films over the past decade and helmed a few oddball motion pictures, he hasn't directed an idiosyncratic movie since The Fifth Element back in 1997. However, that all changed with the release of 2013's The Family. Written by Besson and Michael Caleo, it's not a patch on the director's best efforts (1994's Léon: The Professional is his crowning achievement), and it can be criticised for its bizarre storytelling, jarring tonal shifts and lack of sophistication, but it's nevertheless a lot of fun. While it's nothing memorable, and it won't be a contender in this year's Oscar race, it has the potential to leave movie-goers with a smile on their faces. And considering all of 2013's misfires and disappointments, the fact that The Family is genuinely entertaining and watchable makes it worth at least a minor recommendation.

A former mob boss who's been marked for death after ratting out his friends, Giovanni (Robert De Niro) is placed in the Witness Protection Program, which irks his wife Maggie (Michelle Pfeiffer), son Warren (John D'Leo) and daughter Belle (Dianna Argon). The family are consistently moving from place to place under the direction of an agitated CIA agent (Tommy Lee Jones), and now find themselves in a small town near Normandy in France. Taking on the new identity of Fred Blake, Giovanni decides to sit back and pen his memoirs while his family use their various talents to cause mischief around the local area. But as the family deals with their respective problems, a greater threat emerges, as the men looking for Giovanni are on the verge of uncovering his new location.

The Family derives its humour from the cultural conflict that arises as a result of these American mobsters trying to fit into quaint, provincial French culture. From this, Besson creates a collection of amusing vignettes and moments hung onto the narrative framework, resulting in an admittedly interesting comedy that nevertheless lacks a proper through-line. It feels like a tremendously disorganised experience - De Niro delivers voiceovers on occasion, none of the characters are given the rich development they need, the pacing is strange, and even bad dreams and flashbacks are used, not to mention Besson unsuccessfully veers between the comedic and the outright mean-spirited. It's problematic that the film opens with the gruesome massacre of a family that's borderline uncomfortable to watch, and a few scenes later, we're watching funny dialogue between Giovanni and his family.

Keeping The Family afloat are the competent technical contributions across the board, as well as the fact that the humour is actually very funny. There are some darkly comic moments that made this reviewer laugh out loud, and there's even a meta gag that will please Martin Scorsese fans. Being a Luc Besson movie, it does contain its fair share of fisticuffs and violence too, which is primarily relegated to the picture's third act. Once Giovanni's enemies catch up to him, Besson has great fun staging action beats, which earns the picture's R rating due to the excessive violence. It's good fun, and although nobody will ever accuse the storytelling of being coherent or classy, The Family is always strangely watchable.

After years of coasting through his film roles for the money, De Niro seems to be awake here, and actually having fun in the role of Giovanni. It's not a vintage De Niro performance by any stretch, but there's genuine energy and substance to his character, which is miraculous considering most of his other recent work. Pfeiffer also handles the role of Maggie like a pro, with charm and comedic punch that's beneficial. Equally good are the kids, with D'Leo a nicely quirky presence, while Agron actually gives the production a few welcome moments of gravitas. Tommy Lee Jones is not the best that we've ever seen him, but he manages to be funny from time to time, and he suits his role nicely.

It's hard to predict anyone's reaction to The Family, as it's not great cinema and it's certainly no classic, but it's goofy and watchable, and it made this reviewer laugh on several occasions. As long as you're not seeking another rich drama like Léon: The Professional, this movie should fulfil your post-summer viewing needs.

6.2/10

"No parents, no-one telling us what to do. We make the rules!"

The debut feature film for Funny or Die veteran Jordan Vogt-Roberts, The Kings of Summer is a hodgepodge of indie cinema clichés. After all, it's a story about a boy's journey of self-discovery as he approaches manhood, the main character endures the death of his mother, and it's designed to be plotless and soulful, not to mention it was overhyped at the Sundance Film Festival. Unfortunately, none of this actually translates into an overly successful motion picture. The Kings of Summer is a wildly inconsistent feature, providing scenes that approach brilliance before slipping back into utter mediocrity. While it's clear that Vogt-Roberts aspired to create something profound and transformative, it falls short of the mark. It's nice to see something that's not a remake, reboot or sequel, but a defter touch would be appreciated.

An average teenage boy, Joe (Nick Robinson) is doing it tough due to the death of his mother and locks horns with his dad Frank (Nick Offerman) on a consistent basis. Fed up with his father and wanting to escape, Joe hatches a plan to build a house in the middle of a nearby forest, away from all adult supervision. Joining Joe is his best friend Patrick (Gabriel Basso), who also runs out of patience for his parents, while weird outsider Biaggio (Moisés Arias) tags along as well. Making a new home for themselves, the boys enjoy the sense of liberation while their guardians frantically spearhead a search to find their missing offspring. Joe eventually brings his long-time crush Kelly (Erin Moriarty) into the picture, which challenges friendships as she begins to express interest in Patrick.

The Kings of Summer concerns itself with emotional character arcs and coming-of-age dramatics, but none of this material comes across as overly weighty or affecting. In fact, the film packs no emotional punch at all, lacking the power that Stand by Me delivered back in 1986. Moreover, the script by Chris Galletta is about as subtle as a shotgun, dutifully spelling out and underlining every thought that crosses a character's mind. On more than one occasion, the characters point out that living in the woods is like their rite of passage into adulthood as if we didn't figure that out for ourselves. One also gets the sense that the movie doesn't exploit its full potential - the creation of the house takes up the length of a montage, yet it would've been fascinating to watch the trials and tribulations of the construction in detail. On that note, Vogt-Roberts is too enamoured with the power of montage, embracing his inner Terrence Malick as he observes characters running around and staring into the distance.

Other script issues abound, with Biaggio's presence never given a suitable motivation (the boys themselves even question why he's around), and with a love triangle emerging that will ultimately tear Joe and Patrick's friendship apart. Said love triangle is relevant considering the themes, but it appears to come from nowhere, and the film fails to really get into the psyches of the characters. Didn't Patrick know about Joe's affections for Kelly? And was Kelly really that oblivious to Joe's crush? Speaking of shallow characters, the film has to tell us that Joe and Patrick are lifelong best buddies - we never really feel that the two are actually that close, as they seem more like casual acquaintances.

At times, The Kings of Summer positively springs to life, delivering skilful vignettes that instil the sense of outdoor adventure and boyhood spirit that Vogt-Roberts was palpably aiming for. But too often, the picture feels oddly flat and muted, and, more critically, comes off as manufactured. Vogt-Roberts' style is a bit confused; The Kings of Summer feels like a try-hard attempt to come off as uniquely quirky, like Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom (which tackled similar themes far more effectively), but it's not quite successful. Furthermore, one gets the sense that the material might have worked better if it was given a more dramatic treatment like Stand by Me, which didn't baulk from outright tragedy. It's a big problem that the comedic moments of The Kings of Summer aren't very funny, and the dramatic moments are strangely ineffectual. Nevertheless, the movie does look good, with lavish forest locations and an ideally-designed DIY house for the boys to inhabit. The editing and photography are a bit skewiff at times, but the production values are still competent enough to maintain interest throughout.

The acting across the board is a strange mixed bag. By far, the best performer here is Offerman as Joe's dad. The long-time Parks and Recreation star has a perfect grasp of comedy and drama, and he makes the most of his extensive talents here. Also worthwhile is Offerman's real-life wife Megan Mullally, who's eminently quirky as Patrick's mother. In terms of the young performers, the only real bright spot is the effortlessly charming Erin Moriarty, whose youth makes her wholly believable in the role of Kelly. Unfortunately, Robinson and Basso make little impact. It's not that they're terrible, but they lack screen presence, coming across as exceedingly vanilla. Moisés Arias, on the other hand, feels overly forced as the trademark quirky friend. He's not bad, but at no point does his character seem convincingly lived-in.

For a movie that wants to explore the transition from boyhood to manhood, The Kings of Summer is surprisingly low on honesty, relying on caricatures and rarely venturing beneath the surface. It's a fun and innocuous enough picture in the moment, which prevents one from actively hating it, but it falls far short of its potential. In between the moments of excellence, there is a lot of hooey and dead air, making this a missed opportunity, though a valiant one.

5.8/10

"The bank was a set-up. We gotta figure out whose money that was."

An adaptation of the little-known graphic novel series of the same name by Steven Grant, 2 Guns represents the second collaboration of star Mark Wahlberg and Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur. Whereas their last movie, 2012's Contraband, was a deadly serious thriller, 2 Guns is more of a fun-loving buddy action film in the vein of Lethal Weapon, with colourful bantering and one-liners amid the violent shootouts. It very much recaptures the spirit of classic action movies from decades ago, to the extent that Bill Paxton even appears here, in what must be his first theatrical appearance since the 1990s. 2 Guns is ordinary in terms of narrative, but it roars to life on-screen, which is mainly thanks to Wahlberg and Denzel Washington who carry the feature with their effortless charisma and chemistry.

Ostensibly two criminals on the hunt for a big score, Stig (Wahlberg) and Bobby (Washington) are actually undercover agents, but neither are aware of the other's true identity. After unsuccessfully trying to score a major cocaine deal with Mexican drug lord Papi (Edward James Olmos), Stig and Bobby look to rob a local bank that holds a portion of Papi's fortune. The pair expect a $3 million score, but wind up leaving the bank with in excess of $43 million, clueless about who the cash actually belongs to. Stig and Bobby soon find out about one another's undercover status, but although they're hesitant to trust each other, they realise that both of their agencies are crooked, and form a tentative alliance to get to the bottom of the situation. Meanwhile, shadowy figure Earl (Bill Paxton) pursues the duo, looking to retrieve the stolen money.

For reasons unknown, 2 Guns actually begins in a non-linear fashion, hopping around the timeline for a little while before the bank robbery occurs. The device makes no sense in this context, as it's not effective in building a sense of intrigue or interest; instead, we're just left thinking that a linear approach would've rendered the experience far smoother. Blake Masters' screenplay is also overly convoluted, with Kormákur left struggling to keep the picture light on its feet as he dedicates huge chunks of time to the ancillary characters out of necessity. Thankfully, none of this is too crippling; the pacing is successful more often than not, as the bulkier scenes are interspersed with enjoyable moments of Stig and Bobby bantering. 2 Guns is a gritty film, but it's pitched with a good-humoured tone, giving it a great deal of replay value.

Lethal Weapon spent a large portion of its runtime exploring the protagonists, delving into their personal lives to raise the stakes. 2 Guns is less interested in this type of material, placing most of its focus on sharp-tongued bantering and the developments of this crime plot. We do meet one of Bobby's colleagues (Paula Patton) with whom he has some sort of a romantic bond, but she winds up coming off as a shallow plot pawn. Fortunately, the lack of character depth is not particularly problematic in the moment since 2 Guns is so much damn fun. One has to credit Kormákur for making the most of the meagre $61 million budget at his disposal, traversing several locales and pulling off a number of competent set-pieces that give the production an expensive look and feel. Most exceptional is the climax, which closes the story with rousing violence and a smidgen of well-judged humour. 2 Guns actually feels a bit like a Tony Scott movie due to its grittiness and technical proficiency, though Kormákur jettisons shaky-cam and rapid-fire editing in favour of something smoother. The R rating is also a huge asset to the film since it gives the production more flavour, and, thankfully, it would seem that practical blood squibs were used as opposed to CGI viscera.

Without a doubt, it's the on-screen pairing of Wahlberg and Washington that keeps the film afloat more than anything else. Wahlberg is especially enjoyable, embracing his inherent comic talents to play Stig as a charming, sarcastic badass, as opposed to his more dramatic/brooding performances of late. He has all of the funniest lines, and he disperses them with gusto. Washington, on the other hand, is more mature and level-headed, making him a brilliant straight man to Wahlberg's insanity. But it's Paxton who perhaps steals the show. It's rare to see Paxton on the big screen these days, and he relished the chance to play a bad guy here, infusing his performance with patient menace. You almost want him to survive.

Without breaking new ground or functioning as Oscar bait, 2 Guns is a success on its own terms; a late-summer surprise that represents one of the year's old-school action highlights. It's a messy, overly complicated movie that could've benefitted from tighter scripting, but it has a brilliant spark of personality thanks to the quality cast and the slick directorial efforts of Kormákur. If you're in the right mood, 2 Guns delivers enough engaging action and playful comedy to ensure that it's a worthwhile member of the R-rated mismatched buddy cop genre.

7.2/10

"Everton is the dominant species. I am Everton."

Despite the presence of James Cameron's long-time producing partner Gale Anne Hurd, Virus is a far cry from the likes of The Terminator and The Abyss. Whereas those movies were cerebral sci-fi with a hint of action, this 1999 blockbuster is just a dumb action film, using a nifty concept to craft a straight-ahead action fiesta without even a hint of nuance, subtlety or complexity. It's also more or less a mishmash of plot ideas and action scenes from other superior motion pictures, from The Terminator to Aliens. Add to this the fact that the film was directed by a special effects technician, John Bruno, and that nobody in the cast seems to care about anything other than their paycheque, and the result is a movie that's easy to hate from a serious critical standpoint. Despite this, Virus is surprisingly entertaining thanks to its top-flight special effects. It's ninety minutes of brainless fun - nothing more, nothing less. If this sounds appealing, have at it. If not, your loss.

Following a vicious storm in the middle of the ocean, the crew aboard the tugboat "Sea Star" find themselves in trouble, as their vessel is in need of repairs. Led by the borderline psychotic captain, Everton (Donald Sutherland), the crew happen upon a vast Russian vessel adrift in the high seas which is completely deserted, as if everyone suddenly abandoned ship. Sensing the opportunity for riches, Everton seeks to bring the ship back into port, where they can claim a salvage fee and become supremely wealthy. As the crew - which also includes navigator Kit Foster (Jamie Lee Curtis) and engineer Steve Baker (William Baldwin) - explore the ship, they find a sole survivor in the form of scientist Nadia (Joanna Pacula). Nadia warns Everton to shut off the power and leave the ship post-haste, explaining that an alien life form has inhabited the vessel. The aliens see the human race as a virus and look to extinguish it from the universe.

Narratively, Virus is similar to 1998's Deep Rising, another movie that involved a group of unsuspecting characters boarding an ostensibly abandoned vessel in the middle of the ocean to find that the crew were killed by something sinister that cannot be allowed to escape the ship and reach civilisation. But whereas Deep Rising was boosted by colourful writing and great casting, Virus is not as successful; the script is a cacophony of tin-eared, clichéd dialogue, and it takes itself far too seriously considering its preposterous nature. The film is actually based on a series of Dark Horse graphic novels that were initially written as a screenplay by Chuck Pfarrer before being turned into a comic book due to the limitations of cinema at the time.

A special effects technician, Bruno directs Virus in a workmanlike fashion, opting very much for a simplistic "point and shoot" approach as opposed to something more sophisticated or artistic. As a result, this is a watchable blockbuster with decent production values, but it's not the blast of pure adrenaline that it might've been in defter hands. Certainly, the film is no Speed in terms of pacing or tension. Nevertheless, Virus does boast some spectacular special effects, as to be expected since Bruno also worked on the likes of Titanic and Ghostbusters. Mixing animatronics and CGI, the alien robots are convincingly brought to life here, with the reported $75 million budget being put to good use. The action sequences are fluid, too. However, acting across the board is extraordinarily flat. Curtis admits in interviews that she thinks the movie is dreadful, and her lack of enthusiasm shows in a very mundane performance. However, Sutherland does seem to be having a fun time here, hamming it up to extremes. It's unintentionally hilarious to see Sutherland transformed into an alien cyborg.

Virus is a B-movie at heart, but it was given A-grade production values, reminding us of a bygone era when studios still put time and money into R-rated blockbusters. If this same script was produced in 2013, it would be a micro-budget SyFy/Asylum movie with unconvincing CGI and a horde of terrible actors. But Virus was made in 1999, and one gets the sense that the crew actually put in an effort to make an entertaining flick. If you enjoyed the likes of Deep Rising, Event Horizon and Deep Blue Sea, then there's a good chance you'll enjoy Virus, but it's by no means an essential watch.

5.2/10