movie reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Tonight, I am going to maintain order in Gotham City."

Successfully adapting Frank Miller's groundbreaking comic book series The Dark Knight Returns for the screen represented a daunting challenge for any moviemaking team, as it's often perceived as unfilmable. But executive producer Bruce Timm and his team at Warner Bros. Animation rose to the challenge nevertheless, creating a two-part epic for the fifteenth and sixteenth instalments of their series of DC Universe animated original movies. 2012's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 proved to be a successful endeavour, but Part 2 is even better, an amazing conclusion that satisfies on practically every level. It's a lavishly produced animated movie that confidently stands on its own, drawing interpretations from the source material to create a smart, thematically dense and ultraviolent Batman story that belies its modest straight-to-video origins.

Picking up from where Part 1 ended, Part 2 finds Two-Face and the Mutant Leader defeated, with the Mutant Gang becoming fractured as a result. When Commissioner Gordon (David Selby) retires, the new police commissioner, Ellen Yindel (Maria Canals-Barrera), declares Batman to be an outlaw and begins aggressively working to arrest the Caped Crusader. Bruce Wayne (Peter Weller) is sparked back into action when the Joker (Michael Emerson) stages an escape and mass murder on live television, hitting the streets to plot his next elaborate killing spree. With an apocalyptic nuclear crisis looming that involves Russia, the President recruits Superman (Mark Valley) to deal with both the Dark Knight and the Russians.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2 features a host of familiar faces for anyone immersed in Batman lore; not only Commissioner Gordon and Alfred, but also Selina Kyle, who has an integral role in the film. What's interesting about The Dark Knight Returns is the sheer brutality and intelligence that it introduces, retaining a lot of the facets that made Miller's comic book such a standout back in the 1980s. The source material is fundamentally R-rated, and the makers here did as much as they could within the restraints of a PG-13 rating, even including a faithful representation of Bruno, a topless muscular female with Nazi swastikas covering her nipples. The story also reimagines several characters; Batman's age is factored into the tale, as he's not as fast or as strong as he used to be. Likewise, Selina Kyle is not what she used to be, and you're in for a shock if you expect her to be as slim and sexy as she once was. Unfortunately, like its predecessor, Part 2 lacks the voiceover narration of Miller's books. The exclusion is not as glaring as it was in Part 1, but the occasional window into Batman's inner psyche would've made for a more complete experience, especially since voiceover was used for 2011's Batman: Year One.

For a straight-to-video production, The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2 features extraordinary visuals, with fluid, detailed animation evoking the pages of Miller's miniseries. The action set-pieces are particularly impressive; you feel every brutal punch, kick and takedown. Plus, director Jay Oliva does not baulk from showing violence, orchestrating some exceedingly bloody images that render this adaptation inappropriate for young fans of the Caped Crusader. Some scenes are especially visceral and dark, most notably when the Joker wanders through an amusement park with a Batarang jutting out of his eye, casually shooting all the innocents in his path. It's chilling to see such a massacre, and the Joker's last laugh is disturbing. Added to this, the score by Christopher Drake is stunning. To witness such technical accomplishments in a straight-to-video project like this is nothing short of a miracle.

Without a doubt, the crowning achievement of The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2 is the showdown between Batman and Superman, a sequence that many nerds have dreamed about seeing for years. It's incredible to see the Dark Knight in an armoured suit standing his ground against Superman, putting both his skills and smarts to use as he goes toe-to-toe with the invincible Kryptonian. Each iconic moment from Miller's story is thankfully given its due attention, rendered with gorgeously detailed animation. And it's not just a battle of punches and kicks, but a confrontation of ideologies, too; Superman maintains that Bruce has crossed a line, while Batman highlights that the Man of Steel has sold out and forgotten what he stands for. Furthermore, the voice acting is superb. Weller's voice as Bruce Wayne/Batman was a bit weary in Part 1, but he becomes gruffer here, transitioning from worn-out geriatric to hardened crime fighter. Ariel Winter, meanwhile, continues to give the production some spirit, and Mark Valley makes for a perfectly good Clark Kent/Superman. Fortunately, Michael Emerson ably steps into the role of the Joker; he's no Mark Hamill, but he is creepy and menacing.

Even though the combined running time of the two parts of The Dark Knight Returns is less than Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises, the production "out-epics" Nolan's trilogy capper in every way. Whereas Nolan insists on moralistic discussions that unreasonably prolong the lengths of his films, The Dark Knight Returns is lean and smart, and its muscular action scenes absolutely shit on Nolan's set-pieces. On the whole, The Dark Knight Returns takes the breath away. Part 1 was great, but Part 2 is the real meat and potatoes, going for the jugular and never letting up. This may not be the live-action Dark Knight Returns adaptation that fans have wanted since 1986, but it's about the best that we can expect from a straight-to-video animated production. And if this is the only adaptation we ever get, that's perfectly fine.

8.5/10

"Now Prisoner 24601, your time is up and your parole's begun."

Starting life as a novel by Victor Hugo in 1862, Les Misérables was subsequently transformed into a lavish stage musical in 1980, and, in the decades to follow, it has been performed countless times, even picking up eight Tony Awards following its Broadway debut in 1987. It's a theatre mainstay, and its reputation speaks for itself. But as a movie - or, more specifically, as this movie directed by Tom Hooper - Les Misérables is awful. It shouldn't be hard to make a great film out of the source material, yet Hooper and the cavalcade of screenwriters managed to fuck it up, and the product is a wasted opportunity considering the talent and budget. It's a through-and-through slog, a borderline unwatchable piece of shit that stands as one of 2012's worst movies. Even Paranormal Activity 4 was better than this.

Set in the 19th century, Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) has endured years of hard labour as punishment for a loaf of bread he once stole. At long last released from prison on parole, Valjean sets out to make a new life for himself but is pursued by police inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), who's determined to once more imprison the ex-con. Reinventing himself under the new identity of Monsieur Madeleine, Valjean encounters lowly prostitute Fantine (Anne Hathaway), who's on the verge of death and has an illegitimate daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen). Following Fantine's demise, Valjean rescues Cosette from the clutches of her wicked guardians (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter) and raises her as his own. Years later, Cosette (now played by Amanda Seyfried) falls in love with student revolutionary Marius (Eddie Redmayne), who plans to take part in an uprising against the British monarchy.

To say the least, the narrative of Les Misérables is labyrinthine and convoluted, requiring a skilful touch in order for it to work. Unfortunately, this picture is stuck with Hooper, who's not cut out for the project. None of the characters rise above one-dimensional throughout the punishing 160-minute runtime, which is a huge problem since there are so many of them and our investment in the story is reliant upon our desire to watch them succeed. Character relationships are particularly unformed and superficial, most notably the love between Cosette and Marius that comes out of nowhere and makes no impact. Meanwhile, Javert's efforts to recapture Valjean simply make him look like a lonely man with nothing else to live for. It might work on stage, but in a motion picture it seems silly, and a late scene involving Javert comes off in hugely bad taste because Hooper seems to judge the character, telling us that he's a cardboard villain who deserves to die a horrific death. The problem is that there's no downtime between the songs; it's on all the time, denying us the little character moments necessary to properly develop these people. If the intention was to develop them through the songs, Hooper failed. With absolutely no depth to anything that happens, Les Misérables is a strained, meandering watch devoid of emotional oomph.

The big gimmick of Les Misérables is the well-promoted fact that the performers actually sing the tunes live on-set, rather than lip-syncing to pre-recorded tunes. Reportedly, the creative decision was to strip theatricality out of the production, rendering this musical raw and realistic. But musicals aren't realistic in the slightest, as nobody in real life spontaneously sings while backed by a sweeping orchestra. Without the sense of well-rehearsed theatricality, Les Misérables feels utterly lackadaisical and drab, ironically keeping us more at arm's length. It's a problem that 99% of the spoken words in the movie are sung, because none of the tunes are memorable. You will not come away from the movie humming any tunes or singing any lyrics; in fact, barely any of the songs actually register as songs. Hooper's approach in itself is not flawed in theory, but the execution is outright catastrophic, without so much as a modicum of visual flair or style.

It would seem that a lot of the big issues with Les Misérables stem from the ugly cinematography. Indeed, the compositions here are either woefully pedestrian or downright wrong-headed. The art of cinema facilitates close-ups that aren't possible on stage, allowing us to get closer to the actors and see their nuanced performances. Hooper clearly knew that fact, because that's literally all he does, for more or less every single song that's performed. The effect is disastrous, making for an oddly claustrophobic experience despite the ostensibly large scope. Worse, Hooper and director of photography Danny Cohen display little understanding of such basic principles as headroom and looking room, making this a definitive masterclass in how not to shoot a movie. Bafflingly, too, there's no sense of grandeur or majesty to the movie. Whereas musicals like Sweeney Todd feature brilliant dolly and crane shots that keep us under the filmmaker's thoughtful spell, Hooper's handheld compositions look rushed and half-hearted, with actors even going out of focus on a constant basis. The fact that the actors performed the songs live meant that the best musical take had to be used, technical merits of the take notwithstanding. At one stage, Jackman actually bumps into the camera, which destroys the illusion. With the picture being shot digitally, Les Misérables looks like a cheap BBC production, though there are several made-for-TV period movies that look more majestic than this (see 1984's A Christmas Carol).

The actors, bless their hearts, give it their all but are ultimately let down by the painfully mediocre filmmaking surrounding them. Hathaway is in a league of her own, generating the movie's sole moments of genuine emotional pathos with her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream. The actress received a lot of attention and acclaim, and she deserves it, making it all the more unfortunate that Hooper keeps the camera so close the entire time, failing to do anything visually interesting with her performance. Jackman similarly commits to the film as Valjean; his singing is marvellous, and he conveys emotion extraordinarily well. On the other hand, Russell Crowe has a tough time with Javert - his voice is better suited for rock music (he is in a rock band, after all). As a result, a lot of Crowe's singing is noticeably flat. The only other actors who make an impression are Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, providing some outstanding comical relief.

A $60 million Les Misérables movie has no business being this cold and detached, but that's exactly what Tom Hooper manages to do. His understated style worked for The King's Speech, but he's positively lost here. Les Misérables alternates between tediously boring, ludicrously amateurish, and halfway interesting, the latter of which is mainly thanks to Anne Hathaway, who's gone after the first half-hour.

2.9/10

"You see, if you slip through the cracks, and stay on Earth after you die, your soul rots. They rot, the world rots. Global warming, black plague, bad cell reception, get it?"

In a nutshell, 2013's R.I.P.D. is two parts Men in Black and one part Ghostbusters, bringing about a summertime blockbuster that's entertaining but astonishingly unoriginal. Adapted from the Dark Horse comic of the same name, bad press has enveloped R.I.P.D. from its earliest stages, with prognosticators making it out to be an unmitigated disaster. Though it turned out to be a box office failure, the movie itself is far better than anticipated, a well-made action-comedy that does an admirable job of making its premise work despite being a blatant MIB clone. It's not a great movie by any stretch - it's not even essential viewing - but it is an enjoyable romp in the moment, thanks mainly to the smooth filmmaking as well as the exceedingly entertaining performance courtesy of Jeff Bridges.

A Boston police officer, Nick Walker (Ryan Reynolds) is in a tough financial bind, stealing a stash of gold during a drug raid to help create a secure future with his wife Julia (Stephanie Szostak). In a shootout, Nick is double-crossed by his long-time partner Bobby Hayes (Kevin Bacon), resulting in his death. Whisked up into the sky, Nick lands in the office of Mildred Proctor (Mary-Louise Parker), who offers the overwhelmed corpse a chance to join the R.I.P.D. (the Rest in Peace Department). An afterlife police force, the R.I.P.D. are charged with apprehending "Deados" - the evil spirits who have found their way back to Earth. Paired up with old-school lawman Roy Pulsipher (Bridges), Nick seeks to reconnect with Julia and continue his life. Problem is, he can only access the real world via an avatar; Nick resembles an old Chinese guy (James Hong), while Roy looks like an attractive supermodel (Marisa Miller). While prowling the streets for Deados, Nick and Roy begin to uncover a plot involving ancient artefacts that has the potential to cause all dead spirits to return to Earth.

Undertaking great pains to build a narrative that avoids further Men in Black comparisons, writers Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi instead pursue a painfully clichéd plot that fails to take full advantage of the admittedly promising set-up. From the very beginning, all of Nick and Roy's exploits are intrinsically tied to the central villainous plot, which just so happens to relate back to things that Nick did right before his death, and coincidentally involves Nick's murderer, who just so happens to want to sleep with Nick's widow, hence the story will give Nick a chance to complete his unfinished business and get closure with Julia. It's standard-order fluff, reducing the story's scope and scale, and making a sprawling world of possibilities feel really small and full of coincidences. Added to this, Proctor has a huge file on Nick and apparently knows everything about him...except for the stuff that's relevant to the case. How convenient.

Against all odds, R.I.P.D. does manage to stay afloat and entertain, predominantly due to the sharp dialogue that facilitates a steady stream of laughs throughout. Also beneficial is director Robert Schwentke, finally demonstrating a strong grasp on the art of fun blockbuster filmmaking after the 2010 dud Red. The action sequences are satisfying here as well, though Schwentke is not quite as skilled at action-comedy as Men in Black director Barry Sonnenfeld. R.I.P.D. runs a slender 90 minutes, which works in its favour since it doesn't outstay its welcome. Schwentke keeps the film chugging along at an agreeably brisk pace, with colourful photography and attractive technical specs keeping the proceedings very watchable. However, the Deados were implemented with unconvincing CGI, detracting a sense of urgency from the action scenes. MIB used puppets, make-up and animatronics, which look a whole lot better than the ugly computer creations here. All of the Deados here could've easily been achieved practically to superior effect.

Schwentke's secret weapon is Jeff Bridges, who clearly relished the opportunity to play this role. Bridges is the lifeblood of R.I.P.D., speaking in a cartoonish western twang and delivering one-liners with utmost confidence and spot-on comedic timing. Bridges is broad, loud and showy, but he's very charismatic, adding plenty of flavour and comic spark. It's difficult to imagine what the movie would have been like if Bridges wasn't in it. Alongside him, Reynolds is fairly good too, essentially playing the straight-man role but also finding time for quips and comedy. The pairing of Reynolds and Bridges is clearly inspired by Men in Black, but the two share a terrific dynamic. Kevin Bacon looks to be on autopilot here, but he provides solid support nonetheless, while Mary-Louise Parker (looking especially sexy) is colourful as Nick and Roy's superior.

Perhaps walking into R.I.P.D. with low expectations is precisely why I enjoyed it so much. It's disposable blockbuster cinema at its core, but it's very watchable and oftentimes entertaining, with a high level of energy and an attractive visual style (shoddy CGI notwithstanding) facilitating a smooth ride. And it ends on a high note, with a great final joke that left this reviewer satisfied. It does set up a sequel, but it seems very unlikely that one will ever come to pass, judging by the film's catastrophic box office performance.

6.3/10

"We all know what we're dealing with here. Jimmy Conway rides into this town, he'll be bringing hell with him. Shoot to kill."

A badass Australian Neo-Western thriller, 2010's Red Hill further demonstrates that Aussie filmmakers are capable of producing top-tier films on low budgets that put more expensive Hollywood productions to shame. It's on the same level as other acclaimed Aussie gems like The Proposition and Animal Kingdom, with writer-director Patrick Hughes fashioning a hard-noised, suspenseful old-fashioned thriller that pays loving tribute to such old masters as John Carpenter and Sergio Leone while also developing a unique identity of its own using rural Australia instead of the vast deserts of the United States. Red Hill never reinvents the wheel, but Hughes trots out the clichés with a sure filmmaking hand, confidently pulling together a gritty, proficient B-movie that's viciously violent and consistently entertaining.

A city boy, young police constable Shane Cooper (Ryan Kwanten) relocates to the tiny rural town of Red Hill in order to reduce the stress of his wife's pregnancy. Cooper optimistically approaches his first day on the job, but the local sheriff, Old Bill (Steve Bisley), has no patience for the young man, giving him a tough time. Word soon spreads to the precinct that disfigured Aboriginal outlaw Jimmy Conway (Tommy Lewis) has broken out of prison, and his first port of call will no doubt be Red Hill to visit the police officers who put him behind bars. Pulling in armed civilians and his entire police force, Old Bill scrambles to protect the town from the bloodthirsty killer headed their way. Cooper soon comes face to face with the vengeful brute, who spares his life but is not so kind to the other police officers, killing them off one by one.

Red Hill plays out as a modern-day western, with Hughes transplanting the oft-seen genre tropes into a rural Australian setting. It's a simple idea, but it has plenty of mileage, particularly because Hughes takes the story in unexpected directions. As a matter of fact, the film looks to be losing steam at around the 60-minute mark, only for Hughes to drop a few revelations that reignite momentum and pave the way for a stunning ending. Moreover, Red Hill is an emotionally charged story, displaying interest in character development that doesn't merely come off as perfunctory. Cooper's wife seems like a shallow device to give him depth, but it actually feeds into the story in a profound way. Although none of the characters here are original, Hughes imbues them with complexity; even the ostensible villains of the tale are not as cut-and-dried as they seem. Red Hill does stumble at times (there's a subplot involving a panther that gets a little goofy, some of the firearm accuracies are skewiff, and at times people hesitate to shoot for no reason other than convenience), but Hughes keeps the picture afloat nevertheless, getting a lot more right than wrong.

Making his feature film debut after a string of short movies, Hughes assembles Red Hill with care and patience, telling this ostensibly simple story with plenty of thought towards mood and pacing. There is an overriding sense of tension to the movie that's suffocating at times, with a number of gut-wrenchingly intense scenes that kept this reviewer squirming on the edge of his seat. This is a testament not just to Hughes' abilities as a craftsman (he edited the film as well) but also to his skills as a storyteller; it's possible to become invested in this atmospheric tale and feel attached to the characters, breathlessly watching to see what will happen to them next. Tim Hudson's lavish cinematography is impressive, as well, making great use of the sprawling Australian landscapes and the small-town locales that provide Red Hill with flavour and atmosphere. And while Hughes gives the flick a serious, gritty tone, there is also a sense of playfulness underneath, preventing the film from devolving into a dour drag. The tiny budget is evident at times, but Red Hill is a stylish movie for the most part, benefitting from a strong sense of vision.

Ryan Kwanten is not the first name that one thinks of to play an action hero, as his work in television shows like True Blood and Home & Away portray him as more of a pretty boy than anything substantive. But Kwanten is perfect as Shane Cooper, showing genuine range as he creates a protagonist who's instantly worthy of our empathy. He's smart, sensitive, mature and nuanced, and never feels the need to take off his shirt. Moreover, Kwanten effortlessly sells Cooper's transition from clueless to heroic. Equally excellent is support work from Mad Max actor Steve Bisley, who makes for an entirely believable old police chief with more to his character than what meets the eye. Most of the other roles are pretty one-note, but Tommy Lewis deserves major plaudits for his mute portrayal of Jimmy Conway.

To be sure, Red Hill packs a fair amount of clichés, but this is a rare type of film that makes the clichés work, resulting in a surprisingly rich, emotional experience that deserves a wide audience. Hughes is definitely a talent to watch, as the film benefits from its smart pacing and an array of action sequences that are more viscerally exciting than the majority of Hollywood's output.

8.3/10

"You're not afraid of the dark, are you?"

A passion project for star Vin Diesel and writer-director David Twohy, 2013's Riddick is the third big-screen outing of the titular character, scrubbing away the soulless PG-13 extravagance of The Chronicles of Riddick to get back to the spirit of the original movie, Pitch Black. Produced on a petite $38 million budget and armed with an R rating, Riddick is vehemently a back-to-basics endeavour, foregrounding horror elements and once again portraying the franchise's namesake as a morally ambiguous badass with a penchant for brutal violence. The resultant picture is not exactly a masterpiece, but it is enjoyable B-movie nonsense, with strong craftsmanship rendering it a fun time-killer for both fans of the series as well as the uninitiated, even if it fails to introduce much innovation.

Unfulfilled in his new position as Lord Marshal of the Necromongers, Richard B. Riddick (Diesel) renounces his throne, hoping to set out in search of his fellow Furyans. Instead, he is betrayed and left for dead on a remote desert planet, where the wounded warrior learns to survive despite harsh conditions. With a monsoon approaching that will bring along scores of deadly creatures, Riddick feels he has outstayed his welcome, subsequently hatching a plan to escape the planet. With an enormous bounty on the killer's head, Riddick triggers a distress signal in a nearby supply bunker to lead ships to him, planning to steal a ship from whoever responds. The signal attracts a team of bounty hunters, but they are not willing to play ball with Riddick, who on the other hand is perfectly happy to pick them off one by one. Crashing the party soon afterwards is another group of bounty hunters who want Riddick for more personal reasons.

In seeking to recapture the spirit of Pitch Black, Twohy and Diesel essentially just rehash the film, as Riddick adheres to a similar narrative: an alien planet, a group of people stuck with Riddick, and a bunch of vicious creatures hunting them. In fact, Twohy abandons all the developments found in Chronicles to return the series to square one. The plot is very thin, more of a succession of set pieces without a cohesive through-line beyond the need to escape the planet. As a result, while entertaining, Riddick does feel a bit pointless in the long run, with Twohy doing little to progress the series in any substantial fashion. Of course, over-ambition rendered Chronicles a convoluted, overdeveloped bore, but a bit more ambition would nevertheless be appreciated here. Strangely, Twohy's screenplay seems insistent on hammering home the message that Riddick is a badass and characters should fear him, with repetitive dialogue that serves no purpose since this is the third film in the series and viewers should know who they're dealing with by now. Even for those who are new to the series, such dialogue is too heavy-handed. Also odd is the fact that Katee Sackhoff's character is a lesbian, but Riddick seems intent on changing that. This malarkey comes out of nowhere and feels astonishingly out of place.

2004's The Chronicles of Riddick imagined new worlds, with its vast $100 million budget facilitating a large-scale science fiction epic. Here, Twohy had a minimal budget to work with, and the financing was so meagre that Diesel actually mortgaged his house at one stage to keep production going until a bank loan came through. Riddick is visually ambitious for a $38 million production, with vast digitally-created otherworldly vistas, CGI creatures, and a smattering of futuristic technology. Twohy creates a compelling look for the movie, with cinematographer David Eggby displaying a real talent for composition and lighting, creating an impressive sense of atmosphere. The effects of the creatures are not completely convincing (the canines look particularly cheap), but they are good enough to allow us to feel invested in the story's occurrences.

The first act of Riddick is almost entirely bereft of dialogue, with Twohy observing Riddick's day-to-day exploits on the alien planet as he deals with a broken leg, gathers food and raises a young alien pup. It's often absorbing to watch due to the skill of Twohy's visual filmmaking, but Diesel has limited range, and therefore has trouble effectively conveying whatever thought or emotion he's feeling at any given time. Nevertheless, Diesel makes for a compelling enough antihero, with cold glares and a gruff line delivery working in his favour. He looks especially at home during the action stuff, when Riddick unleashes his brutal inner warrior in increasingly awesome ways. The supporting players here are fine for the most part, with Sackhoff the most notable simply because she's more or less the only female in the picture (thankless extras notwithstanding).

If you liked Pitch Black and have been yearning for a proper sequel that maintains the same spirit, then Riddick will likely satisfy you. Even the five people in the world who like The Chronicles of Riddick should also enjoy this third entry in the series. On the other hand, if you were not a fan of the prior flicks, then there's no talking to you. Even though it's disappointing that Riddick's plotting is far too slight, it is refreshingly stripped down after the overblown first sequel, with Twohy happy to merely let us revel in watching Riddick unchained. It's R-rated matinee-style silliness that proficiently fulfils its promise of delivering hardcore action and dark sci-fi thrills.

6.8/10

"Master Bruce. You set off the alarm, sir. This somnambulism is becoming a problem especially for those of us with a penchant for sleeping at night."

For over twenty years, comic fans have yearned for a film adaptation of Frank Miller's 1986 four-issue miniseries The Dark Knight Returns, which has long been considered a vital, iconic part of comic book history. Although a live-action adaptation is yet to be produced, it's hard to complain about the quality of 2012's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1, a straight-to-video animated production from Warner Bros. Animation. A constituent of the long-running DC Comics animated universe, this is an impressive, lavishly-produced feature that manages to do the groundbreaking comic book justice. While there are a few issues here and there, Part 1 is a satisfying rendering of Miller's celebrated work, with impressively stylised animation, a superb voice cast, brutal fight scenes, and an enthrallingly dark atmosphere.

As opposed to a typical tale about Batman in his prime, The Dark Knight Returns is the story of an aging Bruce Wayne (Peter Weller) who retired his masked vigilante alter ego ten years ago. It's a dark time for Gotham City, as a gang who call themselves The Mutants are causing turmoil on the streets, committing random acts of violence and causing unrest. Fed up with the injustice, Wayne opts to once again don the cape and cowl, heading out as Batman to clean up the streets of Gotham one last time with help from the soon-to-retire Commissioner Gordon (David Selby). Meanwhile, Harvey Dent (Wade Williams) is released from prison, soon returning to his old psychotic ways as Two-Face. Due to his age, Wayne is in need of assistance and is soon approached by the young, plucky Carrie Kelley (Ariel Winter), who dons the Robin outfit.

Those unfamiliar with Miller's work may find The Dark Knight Returns to be a departure from the ordinary. Miller depicts the Caped Crusader as an unrelentingly dark, Clint Eastwood-esque figure who's physically intimidating and brutal. In fact, the brutality of this movie cannot be understated; it's more or less an R-rated take on the character. While Part 1 carries a PG-13 rating, director Jay Oliva does not baulk from sequences of intense violence. Also worth noting about this story is the way it explores the Dark Knight's twisted psychology, as Wayne has a primal need to be Batman. For the most part, the script by Bob Goodman stays faithful to Miller's work, even devoting large portions of time to news reports, showing the media's perception of Batman and his enemies. This material works wonderfully, as we are given an overview of the bigger picture in Gotham and see the moral debates over the need for the Caped Crusader. However, the film excludes Batman's inner monologues from Miller's comic. While a voiceover-heavy presentation might have been too overbearing, snippets of inner monologues could've made for a richer and more complete experience.

Minor script flaws notwithstanding, Part 1 soars in every other department. For a direct-to-video production, the animation is stunning, with stylised character designs and creative compositions evoking the pages of Miller's comic book and possessing a cinematic flair that belies its modest origins. In fact, this is one of the most visually interesting DC animated features so far, with an eye towards noir-ish lighting and clever use of colours. The Dark Knight Returns is a dark movie, but it's not unrelentingly dour or dull like Christopher Nolan's movies, which is an enormous benefit. The various battle scenes are extremely impressive, most notably the hand-to-hand combat scenes involving Batman that are better than anything Nolan staged in his trilogy. Fluid, hard-hitting and altogether thrilling, Part 1 is an amazing action film, superior to most of the live-action interpretations of the Dark Knight. Plus, the pacing is spot-on and the music clicks beautifully, not to mention the voice acting adds finesse to the production. Peter Weller nails it as an older, world-weary Batman, while Ariel Winter adds spunk and energy playing the new female Robin.

Like its iconic source material, this animated version of The Dark Knight Returns is an engrossing, mature take on one of pop culture's most beloved icons. It's not perfect, but it's a promising start, benefitting from slick visuals, a strong screenplay and a wonderful sense of atmosphere. Dark and layered, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 easily places itself in the upper echelon of DC animated movies, and anyone who's even mildly fond of the Batman character needs to watch this film (and Part 2) at the earliest opportunity.

8.2/10

"Everything you've heard... about monsters, about nightmares, legends whispered around campfires. All the stories are true."

2013's The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones is another attempt to kick-start a cinematic franchise of young adult novel adaptations, emerging in the shadow of Twilight, Harry Potter and The Hunger Games. It's actually the third movie of 2013 to attempt to spark such a franchise after both The Host and Beautiful Creatures failed. Even though The Mortal Instruments seems like a blatant Twilight rip-off due to its focus on young love within a story involving werewolves and vampires, it's actually more tolerable than this reviewer had anticipated - it's a well-made fantasy action-adventure that's suitably entertaining, even for casual viewers without any knowledge of the novel series on which it's based. It's more or less what Twilight could have been like if it wasn't so morose and dull.

A typical teenager living in New York City, Clary (Lily Collins) begins seeing and subconsciously drawing a strange symbol, which alarms her single mother, Jocelyn (Lena Headey). While out with her best pal Simon (Robert Sheehan), Clary is approached by the mysterious Jace (Jamie Campbell Bower), a half-human/half-angel warrior known as a "Shadowhunter" who slaughters demons that have entered the Earthly realm. With Jocelyn abducted, Jace informs Clary that she's not an ordinary girl, and her mother possesses powers she has passed on. Wanting to rescue her mother, Clary travels to a secret hideout called The Institute, accompanied by Jace and Simon. Powerful former Shadowhunter Valentine (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is out to retrieve a mortal instrument known as the Mortal Cup, which he seeks to use for his own devious purposes. Problem is, the cup is hidden, and only Clary's mother knows where it is, sparking a race against time to retrieve the cup before it falls into Valentine's hands.

Adapted from the popular novel series by Cassandra Clare, City of Bones was saddled with a lot of mythology to deal with and exposition to convey, necessitating a lot of chatter before the battles can kick in. Unfortunately, Jessica Postigo's screenplay is not exactly light on its feet, leading to pacing issues as the film gets bogged down in overly verbose blocks of dialogue. And even with all the endless talking, City of Bones leaves a number of questions unanswered, particularly about the specifics of the evil machinations at play and the exact significance of the Mortal Cup. As a result, the narrative does feel a little disjointed. City of Bones often feels like an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but that show benefitted from the witty writing of Joss Whedon. Here, the dialogue is pretty standard order.

Regardless of its script and pacing problems, City of Bones is a skilfully-assembled motion picture, with director Harald Zwart making the most of the $60 million budget at his disposal. The mythological beasts in this story actually have bite - the werewolves, vampires and demons are given free rein to, well, be werewolves, vampires and demons. Zwart delivers in a big way when the action arrives, impressively showcasing the badass abilities of the various combatants, executed with solid digital effects. Unfortunately, the romantic elements of the story are relatively unsuccessful. Simon is hopelessly in love with Clary, but she's ignorant of his feelings, and the melodrama stemming from this situation is on the same level as a television soap opera. Romance is essential for the movie's target demographic, but it needed a defter, more sophisticated touch. Here, the material is too corny. With that said, though, it's commendable that City of Bones never gets too bogged down in the romantic stuff, a trap that Twilight fell into. The flick is more concerned with the bigger picture, which is why it works for the most part.

Whereas Twilight was positively suffocated by lousy acting, City of Bones features a fine ensemble of actors who commit to the material and deliver believable performances. Collins is a confessed fan of the source material who passionately sought the role of Clary upon learning of the planned film adaptation. Thank goodness she got the part, as Collins is a beautiful presence who comes off as a credible young lady and embodies the role's intelligence and bravery. She even looks like a teenager despite being in her twenties. Meanwhile, Jamie Campbell Bower is decent as Jace, if not exactly remarkable, and Robert Sheehan is pretty good in the role of Simon. Luckily, the adult cast also provides solid support. Game of Thrones star Lena Headey is in fine form as Jocelyn, while Jared Harris is suitably strange and charming as Hodge. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is also good, sinking his teeth into this villainous role.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones is not overly memorable or brilliant, but it's a smoother ride than any Twilight film. It provides enough material to keep girls interested and prevent the male demographic from falling asleep. It's hardly required viewing, but it is watchable and often enjoyable, which is a ringing endorsement from a reviewer who normally hates this type of dreck. The film's failure at the box office is disappointing, as further instalments would be an enticing prospect. After all, the groundwork has been laid now, and sequels can have more fun with this cinematic universe. City of Bones has its flaws, but it's kept afloat thanks to solid performances, a decent story, and the fact that it doesn't treat its audience as complete morons.

6.1/10

"We will never stop innovating..."

By most accounts, Apple founder Steve Jobs was a cruel person; a narcissist who acted callously towards his family, friends and subordinates. However, according to Joshua Michael Stern's Jobs, all of the innovator's undeniable shortcomings are forgivable because he was a saint who simply used severe means in his quest for perfection. Even though this movie was not endorsed by Apple, it plays out like a safe commercial for the tech giant, with the screenplay by Matt Whiteley demonstrating no interest in exploring the psychological or behavioural complexity of its titular character. Jobs feels like a surface-level made-for-television movie, never transforming into anything substantive. It's a serviceable experience, but it lacks the ingenuity, execution, thematic heft and lasting impact of David Fincher's The Social Network, the film that Jobs clearly wants to emulate.

Dropping out of college due to boredom, Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) begins sitting in on design classes on-campus, studying calligraphy which stimulates his imagination. Jobs eventually lands a job at Atari, where he recruits his tech-savvy pal Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad) to assist in developing hardware. Finding that Wozniak has developed a device that could revolutionise home computing, Jobs pairs up with his friend, going into business together and founding Apple Computers, hoping to sell their technology to anyone brave enough to buy it. Getting his big break thanks to investor Mike Markkula (Dermot Mulroney), Jobs develops Apple into an industry force to be reckoned with, developing innovative products to remain ahead of their competition. However, power plays and financial demands force Jobs out of his own company, though he eventually returns years later with a vision to re-energise the fading Apple brand.

Jobs follows the standard biopic template, providing a "greatest hits" compilation of major events in Steve Jobs' life and Apple's tumultuous development. Since Stern and Whiteley strive to cover as much ground as possible, they fail to give any one subplot the dramatic development that it deserves, leading to story threads that lead absolutely nowhere. For instance, Jobs has a very heated phone call with Bill Gates regarding Microsoft and threatens to sue, but nothing more stems from this. Likewise, Jobs throws out his girlfriend due to an unwanted pregnancy, and refuses to accept that the child is his. In the third act, suddenly, the disowned daughter is in Steve's custody without any explanation as to why he finally embraced his little girl. At the very least, however, the film is fairly successful in its early stages, providing an absorbing glimpse at the early development of Apple in the 1970s. A two-hour film could have been produced which zeroed in on the early days alone, but the film wants to chronicle a lot more, resulting in a disjointed mishmash of dramatic skits without a proper through-line. Jobs is ambitious, but it fails to sufficiently delve into who Steve Jobs is and what makes him tick.

One of the fatal flaws of Jobs is that it decides for us that being a technological innovator is a good excuse for being a repellent human. It's the adulation that Stern and Whiteley display towards Jobs that renders the movie infinitely less interesting than it had the potential to be. Whereas The Social Network had the intelligence to present an honest, insightful, morally ambiguous portrayal of its subject matter and let us draw our own conclusions, Jobs is much less sophisticated. Worse, the ending is a total dud; it closes on an empty, underwhelming note, destined to induce murmurs of "Is that it?" Rather than a meaningful conclusion that effectively wraps everything up, the flick just seems to cut itself off right after Jobs gets back the reigns to his company which ultimately leads them to where they are today. A detailed segment about Apple's rise to prominence in the 21st Century would have been interesting, or the film could have even closed with a short, poignant montage depicting Jobs' more recent innovations leading up to his death. If such material was tagged onto the end, movie-goers would leave the cinema with interesting material to ponder. In its current form, you'll just shrug.

If nothing else, Jobs can be admired for its technical credits. Putting the tiny $12 million budget to good use, Stern convincingly recreates the '70s, '80s and '90s, with period-specific costumes and make-up, supplemented with a pleasant soundtrack of recognisable songs. With that said, though, Stern is not much of a visual stylist. Fincher's The Social Network was much more involving, and its pace was brisker, but Jobs is extremely middle-of-the-road all the way through, only rarely gaining much traction. Luckily, the acting all-round is strong for the most part. Kutcher is a fine, if not exactly memorable, Steve Jobs. He even emulates his distinctive walk, a fact that Stern is all too happy to exploit - maybe 10% of the film consists of shots of Kutcher just walking.

Ultimately, the story of Jobs and Apple is wasted in this distilled two-hour motion picture; there is easily enough fodder for a television miniseries that could provide the definitive overview of this subject and incisively explore more than just the surface of this complex man. Watching Jobs is akin to reading a Wikipedia entry due to its lack of depth and detail. For those curious about the life of Steve Jobs or the growth of Apple, the movie may be serviceable enough. By no means is this a terrible movie; it's just a missed opportunity, playing out like a Lifetime Original production as opposed to an audacious theatrical feature.

5.2/10

"I can't think of a more important job than protecting the President."

Blockbuster extraordinaire Roland Emmerich was last seen provoking yawns with his monotonous Shakespeare drama Anonymous in 2011, and received zero box office interest in return. Looking to get back to his old tricks, 2013's White House Down is a grand, big-budget offering of explosions and general spectacle, with the screenplay by James Vanderbilt (The Amazing Spider-Man) giving the director ample space to perpetrate scene after scene of wanton destruction, accompanied with a side order of American patriotism. White House Down is actually the second 2013 action movie to abide by the "Die Hard in the White House" premise after the deliriously enjoyable Olympus Has Fallen. While the earlier flick was a dark, adult R-rated thriller, Emmerich's take on the set-up yields a safe, generic PG-13 extravaganza, which is admittedly fun but flawed in ways that are difficult to ignore. Overblown, preposterous and often cloying, it elicits eye rolls and unwanted laughs, even if the production values make this a relatively passable sit.

A former soldier stuck in a middling job, John Cale (Channing Tatum) lands himself an interview for a Secret Service position. Also struggling to patch up the broken relationship he shares with his daughter Emily (Joey King), John takes his little girl to the interview, as she's interested in politics and cherishes the chance to visit the White House. Though John is shut down at the interview, he soon gets the opportunity to prove his worth. Following an explosion in the Capitol building, a team of domestic terrorists work from the inside to take over the White House and kidnap the President, James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx). Separated from Emily, John works to find his daughter but soon winds up protecting the President, teaming up with Sawyer to navigate the building and disrupt the terrorists' plan.

White House Down runs a completely unnecessary 130 minutes, as Vanderbilt overcomplicates the narrative to unnecessary extremes, in the process disrupting the pace and lessening the sense of fun. Most egregious is the added B-story concerning the Vice President (Michael Murphy) high in the air on-board Air Force One, and the Speaker of the House (Richard Jenkins) who takes refuge in a bunker. Such material is treated as decorative in pictures like Olympus Has Fallen and Air Force One, but the subplot here is actually integrated into the terrorism scenario, adding another ten minutes to the already much too-long runtime. Moreover, the film disregards logic and realism; Vanderbilt demonstrates minimal knowledge regarding how civilians, the American government or the Secret Service would handle such a crisis, and the White House takeover is so easy that it will induce groans. Plus, at one stage, John warns the military about the dangers of an air rescue due to the terrorists' equipment, but the suits in charge decide to discount his eyewitness testimony for no good reason. This is a Roland Emmerich movie, after all, hence it's a shallow popcorn actioner built on contrivances. White House Down is corny, as well - the material that involves John's daughter (who hates her father but winds up bonding with him through the experience) is obvious and trite, while a moment involving flag waving during the climax is ridiculous.

On the surface, White House Down is at least serviceable enough. Emmerich directs films with the same level of intelligence as a Michael Bay production but displays a better cinematic eye. Rather than using shaky-cam, Emmerich relies on steady, tripod-heavy set pieces, making for smooth viewing and allowing us to bask in the picture's destructive glory without suffering migraines. The $150 million budget was put to good use here, resulting in an attractive motion picture with impressive special effects (though some of the CGI is occasionally obvious). Emmerich raises the pulse at times, too, especially during an entertaining set piece spotlighting a prolonged chase on the White House lawn. However, as with most American action films, it would seem that the firearm accuracy of a henchman depends on how important their target is: no-name agents are gunned down effortlessly, but John can never be hit despite the thousands of bullets that are fired in his direction. There's also a huge contrivance towards the end involving the accuracy of a bullet that's destined to provoke derisive chortles.

As to be expected on account of its mammoth budget, White House Down is a PG-13 blockbuster, and the watering-down to achieve this docile rating is some of the most awkward and distracting in recent memory. Olympus Has Fallen never baulked from graphic violence, but White House Down's refusal to show any blood makes for astonishing incoherence, with strange cutaways and awkward framing to avoid capturing viscera. PG-13 films can work, but Emmerich's film contains R-rated content executed with a PG-13 sensibility. It's distracting.

There isn't much to criticise in terms of acting; the performers are serviceable without being overly brilliant. Tatum is a reasonably flat action hero, but he does make good use of the light, comedic side of his screen persona that we saw in 21 Jump Street. Nevertheless, Tatum is not memorable enough for these types of roles; Gerard Butler was much more successful. As President Sawyer, Foxx acquits himself agreeably, creating a charismatic leader reminiscent of Barack Obama. There are a few other big names in the cast here, including Maggie Gyllenhaal, Richard Jenkins and James Woods, but their work is merely okay, with the script clearly below their abilities. However, Jimmi Simpson looks to be having a good time as one of the bad guys, and Jason Clarke is a fun antagonist.

White House Down sticks by the formula that worked for Roland Emmerich in the 1990s, when he basically invented the dumb popcorn blockbuster. It's simplistic and dumbed-down, produced to play for the broadest demographic possible, and it needs a tauter screenplay. After all, it's not like the movie is worried about careful character development, and it lacks the class and sophistication of Die Hard. Action junkies may be pleased by White House Down, but it's hard to imagine serious cinema-goers finding much value here.

5.7/10

"We'll be alright, Joey. We're the lucky ones, you and me. Lucky since the day I met you."

War Horse brings a whole new meaning to the term "old-fashioned filmmaking." Though it carries a contemporary polish, it feels like the movie was written and meticulously storyboarded over half a century ago, intended to be directed by John Ford in the 1940s or '50s, but was eventually made in 2011 without any alterations to the original blueprints. It's a grand, sweeping 150-minute saga, infused with a level of schmaltz and corniness that no director has tried to get away with for a long time. Yet, it works under the careful control of veteran director Steven Spielberg, who brilliantly commits to the material, selling it with the right amount of conviction to render the enterprise sufficiently effective. Nevertheless, War Horse is not quite the masterpiece many had anticipated, as it's too long in the tooth and needs a sharper pace.

At an auction, hard-drinking family man Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan) buys a spirited horse named Joey despite his poor financial situation. Ted's son Albert (Jeremy Irvine) instantly bonds with the animal, training his pal to plough fields and ride. However, Ted is forced to sell Joey to make ends meet, upsetting Albert as his equestrian companion is sent to the front lines of World War I. In the war, Joey changes hands constantly, encountering the sympathetic Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston), a rural Frenchman (Niels Arestrup) and his granddaughter (Celine Buckens), as well as several members of the German military. Albert remains optimistic that he will someday reunite with Joey, enlisting in the army and enduring his own harsh wartime odyssey for the sake of his beloved horse.

Based on the young reader's novel of the same name by Michael Morpurgo (later made into a play for the London stage), War Horse is a charming story steeped in pertinent themes and ideally suited to Spielberg's storytelling sensibilities. Joey is completely neutral in the war with no care for allegiances or politics, rendering him an ideal vehicle for crossing the lines in a WWI saga to explore both sides of the conflict. Even though the British and German soldiers battle one another, Spielberg casts both sides in a sympathetic light, using Joey as a device to highlight the human commonalities of the opposing forces. A number of powerful moments stem from this, including a beautiful scene in which a German and a British soldier leave their ranks to rescue Joey when he's tangled in barbed wires. As they work together towards a shared goal, the soldiers treat each other as regular human beings, briefly breaking from the doom and gloom of the war and realising that they could even be friends if it wasn't for their governments. To be sure, however, there are a handful of saccharine-coated scenes in the film, and the story's conclusion is overly optimistic and unsurprising. More problematic is the prolonged running time, leading to a somewhat sluggish pace. Sure, a lot of ground needed to be covered, but the film is often a bit distant, only successfully striking emotional chords on occasion.

From a technical perspective, War Horse is old-fashioned to extremes, stylistically similar to films like The Searchers and Gone with the Wind. It's a gorgeous war epic, with Spielberg's regular cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, turning the picture into a masterclass of beautiful compositions. The lighting is exquisite, and the framing is sturdy and patient, taking full advantage of the competent production values bursting with authentic period detail. When Spielberg's camera heads to the battlefield, War Horse goes dark, depicting a substantial amount of wartime casualties. Nevertheless, the deaths are tastefully handled. This doesn't feel like an R-rated film that was cut down to a PG-13, but rather a product of Hollywood's golden age, creatively suggesting violence without showing a great deal, and the results are often harrowing. Spielberg's sense of pacing is a bit off, but his contributions are otherwise admirable. Also effective is John William's characteristically majestic score; not one of the seasoned composer's finest works, but nevertheless a flavoursome accompaniment that enhances the film's visual elements.

If the Academy Awards had a category for best animal performer, no doubt the eleven horses used to portray Joey would be collective shoo-ins. Even though Joey is just a horse, he has a remarkable sense of humanity and expressiveness, an extraordinary feat on the part of the filmmakers. As for the human actors, none of them appear for long, save for Irvine who receives a considerable amount of screen-time as Albert. Irvine is a fine performer despite his unknown status, ably handling the emotional requirements of the role and selling his love for Joey. A barely-present Emily Watson also makes a big impression as Albert's mother, while recognisable actors like Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch heighten the production's sense of class and gravitas.

Sentimental motion pictures are incredibly divisive, as some people are driven to tears while others find themselves unaffected. War Horse is a polarising melodrama all the way through to its core - it is powerful at times, but for the most part, it held this reviewer at arm's length, and it's far too long. Nevertheless, Spielberg has created a sweeping ode to Hollywood's golden age, beautifully shot and assembled with proficiency, and although it's not an instant classic or one of the bearded maestro's best works, it is welcome to witness such a production in this day and age.

6.9/10