movie reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Catch you at a bad time?"

One in the Chamber is just okay. It's not great or even overly good, but it's not dreadful; it's in the unremarkable province between those two extremes. The action sequences on offer here are not the best or the worst you'll ever see, the acting is middle-of-the-road, the story is standard-order, and production values are decent. It works as a serviceable time-killer on a slow day to an extent, but it's doubtful that you will remember the film a few weeks down the track - or, indeed, a few hours after watching. Pretty much the only thing distinguishing One in the Chamber from other direct-to-DVD action films is the presence of Dolph Lundgren, who's extremely colourful and flamboyant here.

In Prague, assassin Ray Carver (Gooding Jr.) is hired by a mafia family to kill several members of a rival gang. However, this sparks an all-out war between the two gangs, leading to bloodshed and carnage. Carver's employers soon call in Soviet badass Aleksey Andreev (Lundgren), an assassin more commonly known as "The Wolf," to finish what Carver failed to achieve. Meanwhile, Ray is employed by the same people he was previously hired to assassinate. As an all-out mob war breaks out, Carver also begins a flirtatious relationship with Janice (Bassols), a woman he's been besotted with for years.

Clichés run rampant throughout One in the Chamber. In a painfully contrived sequence, Janice is snooping around Carver's apartment and finds a bible which belonged to her late father, and deduces that Ray was involved in her father's death. Janice storms off upset, but is soon targeted by the bad guys, so Carver has to save her and redeem himself. Additionally, storytelling throughout the film is often messy and garbled. At times it's hard to discern what's happening, and a handful of plot developments are too vague. Whether this is due to the writing, the directing or the editing, I cannot be certain, but it is problematic, especially for what's advertised as a straight-ahead B-grade action fiesta. Added to this, we get internal narration courtesy of Carver, but it's too melodramatic. It's laudable that the screenwriters tried to infuse the killer with humanity, but the material winds up sounding corny. There is simply not enough depth to Ray's character in the first place, and the stream-of-conscious narration does nothing to help this.

To his credit, William Kaufman is not a bad director - in fact One in the Chamber is an attractive-looking action movie which miraculously makes its Eastern European locations look appealing. He is, however, very workmanlike; the action set-pieces here are somewhat decent, but they are by no means memorable or outstanding. Kaufman dishes up the usual assortment of shoot-'em-up and beat-'em-up elements that we've seen done better before...and oftentimes done significantly better before. Unfortunately, quality of the action drastically varies. While there are a few badass action beats, some scenes employ far-too-obvious CGI blood. Furthermore, Kaufman's pacing is a mixed bag. Especially throughout the midsection, the film plays out at an uneven pace.

Cuba Gooding Jr. is an Oscar winner, but he has fallen quite far in the years since Jerry Maguire; now he's a direct-to-DVD action hero, on a par with Steven Seagal. Gooding tries to play the role of Ray Carver as a stoic, emotionless assassin, and does an okay job, but he lacks energy. And it is very problematic for an action hero to have almost no personality. On the flipside, however, is Dolph Lundgren, who clearly had an absolute ball with this role. Lundgren looks suave and assured, killing his targets with precision whilst donning Hawaiian shirts and fedoras. As shown in the recent Expendables 2, Lundgren has terrific comedic timing and deadpan delivery, and One in the Chamber makes good use of this. This is a classic case of wanting to root for the bad guy, because Lundgren is the only one in the film with any energy. Thus, the film focuses on the wrong character; I found myself wanting to know more about Dolph's Aleksey Andreev than Carver, and was disappointed that the film concentrates so much on the latter. The rest of the cast is decent enough, but by no means memorable.

At the end of the day, One in the Chamber is a passable effort, but it looks pretty unremarkable amongst the dozens of other direct-to-DVD action flicks on the market. The only real reason to see the film is Dolph Lundgren, who's extremely enjoyable and in remarkable shape for a man in his 50s. One can't help but wonder how much better the film would've been if it focused on Dolph's slick assassin rather than Cuba Gooding Jr.'s conflicted character.

5.1/10

"There's a 12-foot great white shark in here..."

On paper, 2012's Bait 3D sounds like a hoot and a half. After all, B-movie extraordinaire Russell Mulcahy co-wrote and produced the movie, which is about a supermarket that gets flooded during a tsunami before hungry, man-eating sharks invade the store to feast on the survivors. Unfortunately, however, this Australian shark thriller is underwhelming and sorely lacking bite. Only occasionally showing signs of goodness, the picture predominantly sits there on the screen, dull and limp, with its amateur-hour presentation frequently yielding pure boredom. Although it is a notable step up compared to the irredeemable Shark Night 3D since Bait at least contains R-rated levels of gore and language, the film nevertheless fails to provide the joyful sense of B-movie lunacy that Piranha 3D nailed back in 2010.

After losing his soon-to-be brother-in-law in a traumatic shark attack, lifeguard Josh (Xavier Samuel) also loses his fiancée Tina (Sharni Vinson) in a break-up and regresses into a state of depression. Leaving his lifeguard job, Josh takes a lowly position stocking shelves at a local supermarket, with his life now entirely devoid of ambition. Unfortunately, on a day when Josh is working, Tina enters the supermarket with her new boyfriend. Unfortunately, too, on the very same day, two men attempt to rob the store. And just to top off Josh's wave of bad luck, an earthquake hits, resulting in a devastating tsunami washing ashore. The tsunami moves through the area, flooding the store and trapping a small group of survivors inside the building. As the group seeks a means of escape, a more immediate threat emerges in the form of two man-eating great white sharks that swim through the flood waters and into the supermarket.

The fact that Bait has six credited screenwriters and that Mulcahy was replaced as director at the last minute (by Cut director Kimble Rendall) seems to suggest that the film had a somewhat troubled production. Additionally, filming took place back in 2010, the movie's release date was delayed several times, and the original synopsis suggested an assortment of sharks in the water. There are just two great whites in the finished movie, even though there are still indicators that this may have been a last-minute change. (Josh watches a news report near the film's beginning about a surplus of sharks in local waters.) The eventual shark set-up here does not exactly work - there are two main areas in the supermarket and one great white shark in each area, which is too convenient. Plus, great whites are not usually this fierce; tiger or bull sharks would be far more appropriate for this premise. It may seem foolhardy to ask for realism since that is the least of Bait's problems, but the flick takes itself a bit too seriously at times, asking us to actually accept this malarkey with a straight face.

Bait should have been something like 1999's Deep Blue Sea, which was cheesy fun in all the right ways. Instead, the endeavour is bland and in desperate need of a schlocky touch to make the experience more enjoyable. The dialogue is one primary downfall. Although it would be unreasonable to expect robust, witty dialogue, the chatter is not even enjoyable in a cheesy sense - it's just fucking boring, guaranteed to make you cringe, wince, or want to yell out smartass remarks. Worse, the film concerns itself with many clichéd squabbles and scenarios that fail to give the characters much weight. For instance, one of the robbers survives the tsunami, leading to a great deal of tension between the characters. Plus there's the awkwardness of Josh being around Tina and her new boyfriend. And so on and so forth. One of the most awkward moments spotlights a character trying to make sense of the tragedy by believing it to be some kind of karmic justice to punish immature selfishness.

As a horror movie, Bait is often sleep-inducing, as Rendall merely fills the flick with predictable jump scares without achieving much in the way of honest-to-goodness tension. The special effects are often ridiculously slipshod, as well. This is 2012, and realistic shark effects should be achievable right now. Hell, Deep Blue Sea showed signs that filmmakers were getting extremely close in the late 1990s, especially with mechanical sharks, but things have somehow only gotten worse over a decade later. Bait's shark effects are underwhelming - the mechanical sharks look okay, but the computer-generated fishes never look believable, which harms Rendall's half-hearted attempts at suspense. Jaws features a fake-looking shark, yet Steven Spielberg mostly kept the monster concealed. On the other hand, Rendall insists on keeping the fake sharks in full view all the time during Bait despite their unconvincing disposition, and as a result, it is hard to feel involved in anything that happens. Heck, the first sighting of a shark in the opening sequence is hilarious, and not in a good way. The phoniness of the sharks is odd since the production values are otherwise solid - the tsunami looks terrific, and the interior supermarket sets are impressively intricate.

On a positive note, dark humour occasionally lightens the movie, which is mainly provided by Lincoln Lewis's hilarious turn as sleazebag surfer Kyle. Lewis is easily the best thing in the flick. Whereas the rest of the characters are utterly bland, Lewis keeps firing off hilarious one-liners, and his over-the-top douchebag routine is side-splitting. Alas, Lewis aside, the acting is seriously woeful - it looks as if the filmmakers recruited a bunch of high school drama dropouts. The actors sound stiff, dull and boring, and they seem to regurgitate dialogue without any conviction or intensity. It's a huge problem.

Perhaps the fundamental problem with Bait 3D is that the filmmakers were unsure where to take it. On the one hand, its premise and a few moments seem to suggest that the film is meant to be taken as cheesy B-movie fun. On the other hand, most of the movie is alarmingly self-serious, making the rest of its problems (stiff acting, lousy dialogue) appear all the more glaring. Rendall is not especially adept at building tension, rendering Bait an unremarkable, poorly-written horror movie. It's somewhat entertaining if you have nothing better to do on a rainy afternoon, but the film should have been so much more.

4.8/10

"Pulling a trigger is like ordering takeout."

Directed by the Welsh-born Gareth Evans, The Raid is an elegantly simple, pared-down, back-to-basics action movie. And it's awesome. A vicious showcase of shootouts and severe bodily trauma from Indonesia, The Raid is a pure adrenaline rush destined to become a manly action classic with its insane battles and jaw-dropping moments of violence. The movie has received a lot of hype and attention since hitting film festivals in 2011, and it's easy to see why - it's one of the most insane and inventive action flicks in years, with its straightforward storyline providing an effective excuse for an ultraviolent joyride the likes of which we rarely see.

The plot is simple, like an arcade fighting game: a SWAT team led by Lieutenant Wahyu (Pierre Gruno) set out to infiltrate the drug den of criminal kingdom Tama (Ray Sahetapy). Unfortunately, Tama lives in a massive apartment complex inhabited by drug takers, thugs, scumbags and lowlifes, who will all die in Tama's name. The team hope to remain concealed throughout the mission, but lookouts quickly alert their boss, who orders the dangerous residents to eliminate the officers. This triggers wave upon wave of armed thugs, with the law enforcement officials finding themselves in for the fight of their lives. Amid the officers is Rama (Iko Uwais), a dutiful husband to a pregnant wife who just wants to do his duty and escape the building alive. Fortunately, Rama is skilled in the field of ass-kickery.

Evans, who also wrote the script, avoids bogging the film down in unnecessary details. The action is interspersed with well-judged scenes of character interaction, with Evans at no point clinging onto moments of character development or drama for too long. When The Raid gets down to business, it blossoms with its displays of competent stuntwork, stunning choreography, and awesome pyrotechnics. The bold fights are so raw, brutal and adrenaline-pumping, in fact, that one can't help but wonder how the fuck the actors pulled it off. Uwais is a true force of nature; the crazy Indonesian obliterates his way through a rogue's gallery of opponents, and Evans permits us to watch the chaos unfold in unflinching full shots highlighting the choreography and the physical skills of everyone involved. Some of these guys must have landed in hospital during filming! The Raid is excessively violent as well, with bloody bullet-holes and graphic knife wounds. Evans doesn't linger on the gore or bloodshed, though, instead keeping the pace consistently frenetic. For action fans, The Raid is a freaking godsend. If you're wondering what people mean when they say that Hollywood has forgotten how to produce action movies, compare 2012's Battleship or Total Recall with The Raid. The difference in quality is day and night.

From top to bottom, the picture's technical specs are top-flight. Evans and cinematographers Matt Flannery and Dimas Imam Subhono exhibit gorgeous panache in their framing and movements. Miraculously, the cameras follow the action without reducing each set-piece to an indecipherable blur of shaky-cam. Though framing is admittedly somewhat on the shaky side, it's never too distracting. On top of this, the apartment block itself is a superb supporting player. It looks like a dangerous, dank environment, making it ideal for the action and premise. Furthermore, The Raid features a strong ensemble of actors. As Rama, Uwais is sublime - he's a breathtaking fighter and a capable thespian. Joe Taslim is equally good as Jaka, one of Rama's fellow officers. It's a bit of a shame, though, that Taslim is pretty underused - he has great charisma and acting chops, and should have been allotted a bigger role. As Tama, Ray Sahetapy is colourful and sadistic, while Yayan Ruhian makes a huge impression as a crazy fighter known as Mad Dog.

In spite of its strengths, The Raid is not perfect. By the end, the picture does admittedly get a bit exhausting and repetitive. There are a few hair-brained script flaws, too. For instance, why is it that, after the first half, the building's residents suddenly become averse to using firearms? They round up tonnes of assault rifles from deceased officers, yet wander around using machetes and fists for some reason. (Only the character Mad Dog has a legitimate excuse since he prefers the exhilaration of fighting over guns.) Also, it seems really difficult to hurt people during a number of the brawls. People get the shit knocked out of them, yet still stand and continue fighting as if they aren't injured? A character towards the end is even beaten and stabbed within an inch of his life, yet has the energy and tolerance to engage in a massive brawl. Huh? Oh well, you probably won't end up minding too much about this stuff anyway, since The Raid is such an enjoyable experience for most of its runtime.

Action fans owe it to themselves to check out The Raid, as they will undoubtedly delight in the violent carnage. But the film is not for every taste; those who aren't fond of relentless action will probably be better off watching something softer. For the rest of us, the film is a glorious home run. Sure, it's not quite as skilful as something like John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13, and it lacks the chutzpah to truly catapult it to being a masterful survival action-thriller, but it's hard to be unsatisfied with the film in its current form.

7.9/10

"We've gotta find some proof that Madeline O'Malley really exists before this place closes down..."

Ti West made a splash on the horror scene with the release of his 2009 shocker House of the Devil; a retro throwback to '80s horror pictures. West is recognised for his "slow burn" approach to the genre, though the style did not work so well for The House of the Devil, which ultimately ended up being uneventful and forgettable. Thankfully, West has improved tremendously since his earlier effort, and The Innkeepers is one of the most chilling and memorable horror movies of the year. Whereas The House of the Devil was an '80s horror movie homage, The Innkeepers harkens back to films like The Shining and Rosemary's Baby, though the film feels fresh and unique rather than derivative. A spooky ghost story, West's picture is engrossing and insanely atmospheric, mixing old-fashioned slow-burning horror cues with thrills that grow more intense as time goes by. Add to this a few likeable protagonists, and The Innkeepers is a home run.

An ancient hotel, The Yankee Pedlar Inn is having its last weekend of business, and staff members Claire (Sara Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy) are left to maintain the hotel for its last few days. Only a few guests remain, including irritable actress-come-psychic Leanne Rease-Jones (Kelly McGillis). Trying to occupy themselves during their monotonous twelve-hour shifts, Claire and Luke turn to ghost-hunting, seeking to capture evidence that a spirit dwells inside the hotel. Legend has it that a jilted bride hung herself within the hotel many decades ago, and her ghost still lurks the hallways. With assistance from Leanne, Claire begins going deep into her exploration, gradually uncovering evidence that a malevolent spirit indeed haunts the Inn.

Forgoing the constant jump scares and gross-out moments of most contemporary fright films, Ti West instead concentrates on measured pacing. As a matter of fact, the first half of The Innkeepers is more about the inner workings of the Inn than any supernatural phenomena. If you were none the wiser, the first act could fool you into thinking the film is going to be a quirky comedy about ghost-hunting nerds. And the thing is, The Innkeepers would have been a remarkable film even if there were no ghosts; Claire and Luke are such an interesting, endearing pair that I could spend all day watching these two banter. They feel like real people, just a couple of nerds who have worked together for years, and who share a palpable camaraderie. West gives us the chance to really get to know these people and care about them, which raises the stakes and tension when things begin to go downhill for them.

In its final half-hour or so, The Innkeepers definitely picks up, reminding us that this is, in fact, a horror movie after all. Ti West cleverly abstains from jump scares, and even snidely makes fun of the idea of jump scares. In an early scene, for instance, Luke shows Claire a typical "jump scare" video as a prank. West is too skilful to play the same tricks on his audience - The Innkeepers employs old-fashioned scare tactics to great effect, with its eerie score and reliance on disturbing imagery. Thanks to West's decision to shoot within the confines of a real hotel, the film has an incredible sense of atmosphere and geography, not to mention a lived-in temperament. It feels like this rundown establishment is full of stories, and West and cinematographer Eliot Rockett take full advantage of this. The film is even broken into a series of chapters using ancient-looking title cards, helping to establish the "ghost story told around the campfire" mood.

West really lucked out in the casting department. As Claire, Sara Paxton is appealingly quirky and goofy, presenting the character as a dorky, sweet and incredibly cute young lady. She's perfectly paired with Pat Healy as Luke, a man-child who harbours a secret crush on Claire. Both actors deliver incredibly naturalistic performances, and deserve credit for making their characters seem both entertaining and fundamentally real. Meanwhile, the now ageing Kelly McGillis (Top Gun) is excellent as washed-up actress Leanne Rease-Jones. McGillis brings maturity and world-weariness that's appropriate for the role, and she's generally convincing. Also, George Riddle is exceedingly creepy as an old man who checks into the hotel during the weekend. The cast is pretty small, but everyone hits their mark, and the interplay is so good that the movie is a breeze to watch.

If you're seeking gore-soaked murder scenes or bucket-loads of cheap thrills, The Innkeepers is not a movie for you. Rather, the movie is made for horror fans who appreciate movies that are deliberately paced and carefully calculated. You have to wait a good hour for the intense stuff to truly kick in, but boy is the wait worth it. And in the lead-up, it's easy to be entertained by the charming pair of central characters. Sure, the film could probably have been tauter, but give me this atmospheric gem over the type of horror rubbish that Hollywood so often force-feeds us.

8.2/10

"Have you heard of extreme tourism?"

The idea of a horror film set in the radiation zone surrounding the Chernobyl reactor is bursting with potential, so it's a shame that Chernobyl Diaries is such a dismal failure. Rather than a competent bone-chiller, the film steals wholesale from Wes Craven's 1977 shocker The Hills Have Eyes and at least a dozen other horror pictures. The film was masterminded by Paranormal Activity creator Oren Peli, who co-wrote the screenplay with Shane Van Dyke and Carey Van Dyke. For those unaware, Shane wrote, directed and starred in The Asylum's Titanic II, and Carey is another Asylum regular. It's hardly surprising, then, that the picture is so vehemently C-grade, dull and uneventful.

While holidaying around Europe, Chris (Jesse McCartney), his long-time girlfriend Natalie (Olivia Taylor Dudley), and their recently-dumped best friend Amanda (Devin Kelly) visit Chris' older brother Paul (Jonathan Sadowski) in Kyiv. Wanting Chris and his buddies to have a good time, Paul organises for them to embark on an "extreme tour" hosted by Russian hulk Uri (Dimitri Diatchenko) to the ghost town of Prypiat, which was abandoned back in 1986 following the catastrophic Chernobyl disaster. Joined by Norwegian Zoe (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal) and her Australian boyfriend Michael (Nathan Phillips), the group soon becomes stranded in the desolate area when their ride breaks down. It isn't long before night falls, and circumstances rapidly spiral downwards as the tourists find themselves up against cannibalistic mutants as well as the vicious local wildlife.

At the very least, Chernobyl Diaries is not yet another "found footage" flick. It opens in the found footage style but soon shifts into conventional writing and directing, which is a godsend. But this is one of the only things the film does right. The pedestrian script calls upon countless clichés and doesn't bother to do something interesting with them. For instance, we learn early in the movie that Chris plans to propose to Natalie. Additionally, as soon as Michael and Zoe show up and ask to join the tour, we immediately realise they exist just to be killed. Couldn't the script be just a tiny bit more subtle? Perhaps most distressingly, the film cheats several times in a lazy attempt to amplify the scares. For instance, a good six or seven hours of daylight suddenly vanishes on the group's second day, a period long enough for the protagonists to hike 20km to the closest checkpoint to get help or do any number of things to help their cause before night falls. It's jarring, creating a threat without earning it and demonstrating little regard for viewer intelligence. And why is it that Paul speaks fluent Ukrainian throughout the film but pleads for his life in English when faced with Ukrainian soldiers?

The ghost town of Prypiat is an ideal setting for a horror film, and the depiction is impressively spot-on. As the protagonists walk around, looking at ancient buildings and playgrounds, director Bradley Parker generates a creepy atmosphere, but it's all for naught. The idea that radioactive mutants inhabit the town is so head-smackingly obvious and boring, squandering the potential for a genuinely unsettling horror story. Admittedly, the concept initially shows promise, with unseen foes and aggressive wildlife generating some degree of intensity. Parker fails to sustain this, however, instead leaning on tired horror tropes. As a result, the film has very little replay value. Chernobyl Diaries is not necessarily awful, but its lack of innovation renders it much too drab. You won't feel compelled to watch this one again anytime soon or ever again.

To be fair, Chernobyl Diaries has a few isolated set pieces that effectively evoke a sense of dread, and the Prypiat setting is always insanely creepy in daylight. If horror fanatics simply want to watch a new backdrop for a clichéd mutant-killer film, then they might find that it delivers the goods if they squint hard enough. Overall, though, the film is a missed opportunity, a leaden exercise in stock characters, clichés and lacklustre scares.

4.0/10

"Legend says that a crystal skull was stolen from a mythical lost city in the Amazon, supposedly built out of solid gold, guarded by the living dead. Whoever returns the skull to the city temple will be given control over its power."

It took nineteen years, at least a dozen screenwriters and several false starts and stops, but it finally happened: the iconic professor-come-adventurer Indiana Jones made his long-awaited return to the silver screen. However, in the years since its release, 2008's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has become the franchise's black sheep, receiving a distinctly mixed reception from critics and moviegoers. But in this reviewer's eyes, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is far from the abject failure of the Star Wars prequels, and it's not far behind the quality of the previous Indiana Jones sequels. While the original trilogy homages old adventure serials of the 1930s, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull embodies the spirit of 1950s B-movies, resulting in a different type of Indiana Jones adventure that still retains familiar franchise elements. It's Indy 2.0 for the 21st Century, delivering a welcome amount of joyful action-adventure fun coordinated by one of the industry's finest filmmakers.

The year is 1957, and tensions between the United States and Russia are high. Still working as a professor of archaeology as he progresses into his autumnal years, Dr. Jones (Harrison Ford) is rustled out of his everyday routine by a group of Russian soldiers led by the ruthless Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who are seeking to uncover the location of an enigmatic crystal skull. Working to obtain the skull before the Commies get their hands on it, Indy is joined by young greaser Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) as they globe-trot to South America, following the clues left behind by Indy's old colleague Harold Oxley (John Hurt).

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is structured like a classic Indiana Jones picture, opening with a large action set-piece before shifting into expositional territory as the relic hunt begins. Hell, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas even dust off the old Paramount Pictures logo and the trademark title font to match the mood left hanging in 1989, and they resurrect the traditional travel montages, with a map displaying the characters' journey. Furthermore, the film retains a warm, orangey colour palette reminiscent of the previous films, and each punch still sounds as thunderous as ever. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is eager to provide light-hearted fun, a quality often lacking in modern action cinema. We get too many grim and ominous action pictures like the Bourne series or The Dark Knight, so it's refreshing to witness a buoyant action-adventure that is straight-up entertaining from start to finish. Personally, I'll take Spielberg's marvellously orchestrated action scenes - which eschew rapid-fire cutting and shaky-cam - over most of today's "grim and dark" action films. The film's playful sense of humour is welcome, too. Composer John Williams also deserves credit for his contributions. It has been decades since we first heard it, but the Indiana Jones theme remains as exhilarating as ever, and each action beat is all the more enjoyable when accompanied by those iconic trumpeted notes.

Screenwriter David Koepp takes full advantage of the picture's 1950s setting. On top of containing a handful of classic rock 'n' roll tunes, it's wonderful to watch the interactions between Mutt and Indy: the rebellious young rock 'n' roll type versus the more traditional sort of American. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is goofy, but Indiana Jones has been goofy since its inception. (Seriously, re-watch Raiders of the Lost Ark - nostalgia may cloud your judgement, but the film is goofy as hell.) The only problem is that Crystal Skull is not quite as gritty as its predecessors - it's a bit too "clean," whereas the original trilogy possessed a veneer of '80s grit. This is due to the use of digital effects over the primitive but endearing special effects of yesteryear and the fact that Crystal Skull is not as violent as its forerunners. (Indy seems reluctant to kill people here, and he never fires his gun.) Admittedly, the CGI glaze is not a bother for the most part, but the film becomes far too cartoonish once it shifts to the jungles of Peru. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull fares better in its smaller set-pieces, including a giddily amusing brawl in a restaurant and an exciting motorcycle chase. When it goes bigger, it lacks the punch of the earlier pictures simply because it looks too much like the product of sets, green screens and computers, rather than the result of expansive location shooting and risky stuntwork. A handful of moments are much too ridiculous, as well, including Mutt swinging on vines like Tarzan. It also feels as if none of the heroes are actually at risk of being hurt.

Ford looks bored in many of his recent roles, but here, he seems to have that glimmer of delight back in his eyes. Ford plays the aging Indy with a low-key charm and never pushes the old man routine too hard, instead just playing a ripened version of the role with a sense of humour. Thankfully, Ford is joined by his old Raiders of the Lost Ark co-star Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood. Allen hasn't been in many films of late, so it's a thrill to see her onscreen again, and it's even better that she's as wonderful as ever. Inviting Allen back to the franchise was an ingenious idea, and it's great that she and Ford still have sizzling chemistry. Meanwhile, LeBeouf is surprisingly likable as Mutt, dialling down his irritating acting habits to portray a credible greaser and an effective side-kick. Blanchett is also deliciously villainous as Irina Spalko, and John Hurt is agreeably colourful as Oxley. Less successful, though, is Ray Winstone - he does what he can as Mac, but his character is ill-defined and pointless, a lazy conflict catalyst who could have been excised without any detriment to the narrative.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is definitely at its strongest during its first and second acts, with its dynamite character interactions, exciting globe-trotting, light-hearted spelunking, and gripping action scenes. Beyond that, the film is distinctly hit-and-miss, alternating between the shonky and the exciting. (The rainforest chase is too cartoonish, though a brawl between Indy and a Russian hulk is a true white-knuckle sequence.) Nevertheless, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does not deserve the negative press it receives. Even in its silliest moments (FRIDGE!), the film is hugely entertaining, delivering an irresistible amount of matinee-style action that we rarely see these days. It's not on the same level as Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade, but it's at least as good as - if not better than - The Temple of Doom.

7.7/10

"You can't build cover stories around a movie that doesn't exist. You need a script, you need a producer. "

Gone Baby Gone and The Town were enough to establish Ben Affleck as a superlative director, but Argo verifies that he's a filmmaking force to be reckoned with. What we have here is a godsend of a motion picture; a smart, riveting old-fashioned thriller which conveys a fascinating true story in a spellbinding fashion. Maintaining a remarkable tonal balance, Argo is a relevant history lesson, a nail-biting suspense movie, a knowing satirical send-up of the Hollywood movie business, and a celebration of what's possible in the unlikely event of incredible governmental cooperation. While Argo may ostensibly look to be a boring, talky political drama, it's far more skilful. The movie's biggest success is that it's never boring; Affleck tells this tale in an undeniably engrossing fashion, through great screenwriting and filmmaking, and with great actors.

In 1979, a group of rioting Tehran locals arrive at the gates of the U.S. Embassy and take control of the building with violent force. Amid the chaos, six American employees decide to make a break for it, and wind up hiding out in the Canadian Embassy under the care of Ken Taylor (Victor Garber). Thus begins a long, arduous wait for rescue, with the Americans growing unsure if they will ever leave Iran alive. Enter CIA operative Tony Mendez (Affleck), who dismisses all conventional extraction ideas in favour of another idea so crazy it just might work: set up a faux Hollywood movie company, fly to Iran under the ruse of being on a location scout for their upcoming sci-fi blockbuster "Argo," and fly the Americans out of the country disguised as the film crew. To make the ruse look as genuine as possible, Tony recruits Oscar-winning make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and veteran film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), who set up a faux production company and con the Hollywood press into believing that "Argo" is an authentic production. With a full script written, a cast in place, storyboards and posters drawn up, and a lot of media buzz, Mendez travels to Iran hoping the ruse is strong enough to successfully fool the Iranian government.

Truth, they say, is often stranger than fiction - and this story about a fake movie being set up for a daring rescue operation is so outlandish that it just has to be true. Dramatic license was taken, but for the most part Argo is a pretty accurate retelling of this incredible operation, which remained secret for nearly twenty years until President Clinton declassified the files in the 1990s. Argo is not equipped with any sort of political statement, nor does it have any sort of sociological agenda - instead, this is a straight-ahead film which allows us to experience this situation in a visceral fashion. The film is not exactly light, but Affleck does liven the proceedings with a smattering of humour here and there, mostly provided by John Goodman and Alan Arkin. But the comic relief is by no means in bad taste; the tonal changes are remarkably well-negotiated and the film never devolves into dumb slapstick. It's frankly miraculous that Affleck manages to smoothly guide the film between deadly serious and light-hearted.

The opening sequence depicting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy is nothing short of mesmerising - the sense of sheer immediacy and peril is overwhelming, and authenticity is elevated by the use of genuine archival footage intermingled with Affleck's stunning recreation of the scene. Added to this, the film does a tremendous job of establishing Tehran's many dangers, from the hot-headed Iranian guards to the Canadian Embassy's maid who's under pressure to sell out the Americans. Every step of Mendez's plan is a minefield, leading to an unbearable amount of tension. Indeed, the final forty minutes of Argo are a perfect storm of spot-on editing, thespian brilliance and engaging camerawork, leading to a climax which will quite literally have you on the edge of your seat. Seriously, forget about biting your fingernails - you'll munch right through them and chew your fingers down to the knuckles.

In terms of technical achievements, Argo is Affleck's most impressive film to date. This is not a stylised, glossy recreation of the '70s - it's astonishingly authentic, with sets and costumes effortlessly making us believe we're looking through a time portal. The film even begins with the retro Warner Bros. logo which hasn't been used for decades. Affleck and his director of photography Rodrigo Prieto experimented with film processing in post-production, shooting on regular film before cutting the frames in half and blowing up the image to 200% in order to increase graininess. As a result, Argo looks like a genuine film from the 1970s, especially with its retro colour palette. What has been achieved here is frankly phenomenal.

Keeping us interested at all times is the sensational cast. It may seem like an egocentric move for Affleck to cast himself as Tony Mendez, but he's an ideal central anchor, and his performance is engagingly understated. Alongside him, Breaking Bad star Bryan Cranston easily convinces as Mendez's superior, bringing a world-weary professionalism to the role. The standouts, though, are Goodman and Arkin, who are hugely enjoyable as the Hollywood insiders. Both actors deliver hilarious one-liners with real finesse. Meanwhile, the six Americans were played by a terrific bunch of performers. This is a rare case where actors were chosen not for their star-power, but for their ability to be convincing, not to mention they all look remarkably like their real-life counterparts. Titanic actor Victor Garber is equally impressive as the Canadian Ambassador. It's a huge cast, and there are absolutely no weak links among them.

History buffs can sick back and nit-pick Argo's historical inaccuracies, of which there are a few. And there has been controversy about the dramatic license taken by Affleck and his team. But this is a motion picture, and what matters is whether or not the interpretation of this series of events actually works. In this case, Argo works brilliantly, and, if you experience the movie with no knowledge of its inaccuracies, you simply will not care that it took a few liberties with history. Argo is the film of the year; an excellently constructed thriller which reinforces that Affleck is a director to watch. What other filmmaker can say that their first three movies are masterpieces?

10/10

"Ma-Ma is not the law... I am the law."

Created in 1977 by John Wagner and Carlos Ezquerra, Brit cult comic book character Judge Dredd was last seen on the big screen in 1995 for the Disney-produced, campy Sylvester Stallone vehicle simply titled Judge Dredd. Although the Stallone picture is fun in a "so bad it's good" way, it was a total misfire, flopping at the box office and earning disdain from Dredd's comic book creators. It took a while, but a group of filmmakers have finally endeavoured to try again, and it's a different beast entirely. Written by Alex Garland (28 Days Later, Sunshine), 2012's Dredd sticks closer to its source material, aiming for a grittier, darker depiction of Mega-City One and its most infamous Judge. Dredd is supremely entertaining and skilful, a kinetic action fiesta that properly introduces Judge Dredd and his world in cinematic terms. This is 2012's premiere action film - without fear of hyperbole, it is easily on the same level as classic sci-fi masterpieces like The Terminator and RoboCop.

Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) lives in a dystopian future where catastrophic wars transform Earth into a devastated wasteland. On the East Coast lies Mega-City One, a metropolis overrun by crime. Keeping crime under control are the judges: law enforcement officials with the power to sentence and punish lawbreakers on the spot. One of the fiercest judges on the force, Dredd is assigned to assess the inexperienced Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a mutant with psychic abilities. Dredd takes the rookie into the field, investigating a routine triple homicide at a towering city block known as Peach Trees. Unfortunately, the block is essentially run by brutal crime lord and drug kingpin Ma-Ma (Lena Headey), and she is not willing to let the judges escape with their suspect. Locked inside the hostile tower, Dredd and Anderson are left at the mercy of Ma-Ma, who manufactures the city's supply of a new drug, Slo-Mo. Ma-Ma calls upon the armed residents to kill the judges, stacking the deck against the pair who are in for the fight of their lives.

Working on a modest budget (reportedly $50 million), Garland and director Pete Travis (Vantage Point) lack the resources to create an expansive adventure that truly explores Mega-City One. Instead, Dredd is a small-scale introductory escapade. Outside of an opening chase scene and the sequences set within the Grand Hall of Justice, the film confines itself within the concrete interiors of Peach Trees. It is a surprisingly effective way to re-introduce Dredd on the big screen, with the clean, simple storytelling allowing us to properly acquaint ourselves with Dredd and Anderson amid the action-oriented conflicts. We do not get to know Dredd on any profound level, but that's fundamentally the point; he's a gruff judge with a steely work ethic, thus armchair psychology would betray the character (Anderson's psychic reading of Dredd is cut off before she goes too deep). Fortunately, Garland manages to construct a film that is rich in Judge Dredd lore and can be easily enjoyed by the uninitiated. It's also rich in detail and nuance, leaving plenty of things to explore in the unlikely event of a sequel.

Comic book adaptations are often soft in terms of violence, but Judge Dredd is a character aimed more at adults. Thus, Dredd is a vehemently R-rated action film - director Travis never baulks from portraying the realities of this visceral, blood-soaked world. Dredd and Anderson are faced with scores of armed gangs, prompting the judges to spray the walls with the blood of their opponents. Holy shit, it is awesome. The violence is necessary, too, because the film needs to convey the extreme brutality of this world to allow us to understand why law enforcers like Judge Dredd are necessary. This also renders the 3D photography thematically appropriate, as it thrusts the violence into our faces. The trailers for Dredd are admittedly underwhelming, but the reason for this becomes clear while watching the movie: all the best moments are too R-rated for green-band trailers. Most action films only contain a handful of short, sharp action beats that provoke a sense of giddy exhilaration, but Dredd delivers at least 10 or 15 of those moments. The film also displays a dark but welcome sense of humour. Travis does employ slow motion during various action beats, but this is because Dredd's opponents are high on the Slo-Mo drug that makes their brain believe that time is passing at 1% of its usual rate. This ingenious stylistic choice both serves the narrative and provides the chance for creative moments of slow-motion awesomeness.

Let's get this straight: Karl Urban IS Judge Dredd. Period. Espousing a raspy voice, Urban inhabits the role with convincing abandon, washing away the bad memories of Sylvester Stallone's attempt. Urban has the right look for the role, and he effectively conveys the manly brute force and the intimidating brutality of Dredd. This is the performance that Urban will be most remembered for, easily. Thankfully, the other performers are strong as well. Olivia Thirlby is both endearing and believable as Anderson, showing terrific nuance as she displays her uncertainty towards the violent force required to be a judge. Meanwhile, Lena Headey is a compelling villain; scarred, vicious and ugly as whore-turned-drug-kingpin Ma-Ma.

Comparing Dredd with its '90s counterpart, the difference is day and night. Dredd absolutely nails it, making the Stallone version look like a woeful kiddie film. To be sure, the film is as deep as a street puddle, but it does not need to be profound. Likewise, it's a shame the film is so confined, but it nevertheless works - a quality, small-scale film is better than a wishy-washy larger-scale picture that lacks the budget to be believable. Dredd was created by a writer who knows his source and a director who knows his art. It's a badass action film and an excellent start for a potential new Dredd franchise (which, unfortunately, may never materialise).

9.4/10

"The same person who set me up then has just set me up again, so I'm going after him."

The James Bond franchise celebrated its 40th birthday with the release of 2002's Die Another Day, which is also the 20th motion picture in the long-running series. Unfortunately, a lot has changed since 1962; whereas Dr. No and Goldfinger were edgy spy thrillers, Die Another Day is an absurd cartoon which, ironically, feels more like a lifeless Bond imitator. Artistically bankrupt and often strangely incompetent, the movie tries to bring Bond into the 21st Century digital realm, with CGI and colour correction replacing grit and old-school special effects. Admittedly, the picture's first half contains a handful of entertaining set-pieces, but it eventually devolves into a joyless CGI demo reel with a script bordering dangerously close to self-parody. It's the worst 007 adventure since Moonraker.

When a dangerous mission into North Korea goes wrong, James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) is captured and held prisoner, condemned to be tortured on a daily basis for over a year. MI6 eventually negotiate Bond's release, but M (Judi Dench) immediately strips him of his Double-O status and detains him. On a vendetta to find who set him up in Korea, Bond escapes captivity and goes on the run from His Majesty's Secret Service. Bond soon crosses paths with Korean anarchist Zao (Rick Yune) and rich industrialist Gustav Graves (Toby Stephens), who plan to take the nations hostage using a powerful space-based weapon capable of emitting a devastating laser. On his mission, Bond also meets NSA agent Jinx (Halle Berry), and undercover British agent Miranda Frost (Rosamund Pike) who has infiltrated Graves' villainous organisation.

To its credit, Die Another Day does try to shake up the formula a bit, with 007 being disowned by the British government under suspicion that he spilled national secrets under interrogation. We thus get a renegade James Bond in the vein of Licence to Kill, but the concept was far edgier and more engaging in the 1989 picture. Die Another Day just fails to do anything worthwhile with the idea, and Bond actually winds up returning to MI6 halfway through the film anyway. The script here was written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who had a hand in writing The World Is Not Enough with Bruce Feirstein (who wrote GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies). But Feirstein was unfortunately jettisoned for Die Another Day, and it's noticeable. Dialogue is often unremarkable, and the one-liners and humorous moments do not possess the usual 007 wit. Even John Cleese struggles to be funny.

Die Another Day asks for an unreasonable suspension of disbelief. Bond films are always silly, to be sure, but the ludicrousness of Die Another Day leaves Moonraker looking positively realistic. Following the silly opening hover-craft chase, things only grow worse, with the infamous invisible car and a woeful scene spotlighting Bond as he kite surfs a large wave in icy waters. Bond movies often overcome their preposterous nature by selling the stupidity through dangerous stunt-work, impressively-detailed models and vast sets that afford a veneer of grit, making it actually look real. Die Another Day, on the other hand, leans heavily on incredibly shoddy digital effects which do the script no favours - everything looks too phoney. We never feel that Bond is in any real danger inside this CGI-heavy world, detracting thrills and the sense of pure excitement that the best Bond films delivered in spades. The result is closer to xXx than Ian Fleming. (Ironically, director Lee Tamahori went on to helm the sequel to xXx.) The 007 franchise was never meant to be a CGI-heavy spectacle, period. Even Roger Moore hated the film, exclaiming "I thought it just went too far - and that's from me, the first Bond in space! Invisible cars and dodgy CGI footage? Please!"

There's no denying the skill of Lee Tamahori's Once Were Warriors from back in the early '90s, but his direction is pedestrian at best here. Die Another Day is a sloppily-constructed action film; mise-en-scène is slipshod and editing is astonishingly harsh. It's often leaden when it should be fluid and involving, and the action scenes are somewhat sluggish. Although the film looks attractive as one would expect considering the $140 million budget, Tamahori was way out of his league in charge of a film of such scope, displaying an inability to generate much in the way of tension, suspense or excitement. The only real saving grace is David Arnold's superlative score. Rousing and well-judged, Arnold's music is the only thing keeping Die Another Day afloat during its action scenes. On the other hand, however, Madonna's title song is just...awful; a mindless, grating pop tune which gets on one's nerves very easily.

One has to feel sorry for Pierce Brosnan. The star loved the notion of playing Bond, and his debut, GoldenEye, was one of the franchise's strongest entries. Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough confirmed Brosnan's status as the best 007 since Sean Connery, and he was on his way to becoming the definitive Bond, yet his final film as the iconic superspy had to be this tragic clusterfuck. Unsurprisingly, Brosnan is still a solid Bond here, suitably charming and physically capable. But he's simply not given enough to do. In prior films, he had the chance to show his range and play Bond with emotional depth, but he's one-note here. As the proverbial villains, Toby Stephens and Rick Yune are admittedly quite good, and Rosamund Pike is one of the most beautiful Bond girls the series. On the other hand, Oscar winner Halle Berry is disappointing as Jinx. Berry is sassy and beautiful, but her performance seems half-hearted here.

As bad as it is, Die Another Day is not a complete bust. At its best, the film is an entertaining diversion with fun to be had from time to time. At worst, it's a cringe-worthy embarrassment to the James Bond franchise, tarnishing the brand name and reinforcing that the series needed a fresh new start. It's a shame, too, because GoldenEye was terrific series revivification, and it only took three films for the producers to fuck it up. And although it was the script which let him down, Pierce Brosnan ended up being fired in the film's aftermath. I guess the only fortunate thing about the film is that it led to the exceptional Casino Royale.

4.2/10

"I like you."

V/H/S is an ingenious amalgam of two horror staples: the "found footage" subgenre, and the horror anthology structure. Containing a total of six short stories, the film provided the opportunity for a handful of up-and-coming horror directors to experiment with herky-jerky POV horror. Eschewing the polish and sheen of recent films like Cloverfield and Project X, V/H/S aspires to emulate the style of The Blair Witch Project: low-budget, raw and often fuzzy footage that may induce motion sickness due to its shaky cinematography. For this reviewer's money, V/H/S undeniably works; it's an insanely atmospheric, often thrilling selection of short movies, and there's no shortage of blood, boobs, twists or dark humour.

Providing a wrap-around framework for the shorts, V/H/S introduces us to a gang of young thieves who film themselves breaking into a house, endeavouring to retrieve a VHS tape that they've been hired to find. With stacks of video cassettes lying around, the gang begin taking time to watch the unlabelled tapes. In the first tale they watch, Amateur Night (directed by Adam Wingard), a trio of horny young men aim to film a night of drunken sex using a pair of spy glasses. However, they pick up a creepy, quiet girl, and things quickly deteriorate from there. The second story, Ti West's Second Honeymoon, features a young couple filming their tourist exploits as they road trip through the American Southwest, but find themselves stalked by a hooded figure. Next up is Tuesday the 17th (directed by Glenn McQuaid), a Friday the 13th-inspired story about four friends who travel to a remote wooded area for a weekend of lakeside fun. But a vicious apparition rules the area, and is not going to let the intruders leave. The fourth story, Joe Swanberg's The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger, is told through a series of video chats between two long-distance lovers. Emily believes that her apartment is haunted, and tries to convince her boyfriend of the paranormal presence. Last but not least is 10/31/98, directed by a four-man collective who call themselves Radio Silence. This last segment observes a few boys heading out to attend a Halloween party who find themselves in a haunted house.

Perhaps the most common complaint of found footage movies is that they're boring. After all, it's hard to sustain a movie purportedly told through home video footage, and there's often more build-up than payoff. V/H/S works so well because it jettisons the need to stretch out ideas to feature-length, and thus each story has the freedom to be short and brisk, essentially cutting most of the bullshit to skip straight to the payoff. Furthermore, there's a welcome element of surprise - you don't know how long each story will go for, and you don't know what each story will hold. It provides variety and disorientates us, compelling us to bite our nails in uncertainty of what's about to happen. Unfortunately, the primary story about the burglars who find the tapes is too repellent, silly and dull. Added to this, the idea that these guys film their exploits is difficult to accept, and the fact that they keep filming strains believability to breaking point. V/H/S would have benefitted from either losing this narrative thread entirely, or portraying the story through conventional writing and filming, rather than forcing the found footage conceit.

Fortunately, the directors of the rest of the five shorts each found ingenious ways to avoid the recurring "Why do those idiots keep filming?" question. In one segment, a character is wearing a pair of eyeglasses fitted with a small camera. Another segment consists entirely of webcam chats. In other stories, the camera plays an important role. And in the last segment, a camera is embedded in a characters' Halloween costume.

The best story, by far, is 10/31/98. Perhaps because the segment was masterminded by four people, it's the most inventive and resourceful short film, employing some seamless CGI mixed with old-school special effects trickery to sell the dread of this haunted house. Across the board, the actors all deliver naturalistic performances, without the usual stiffness associated with the subgenre. Perhaps the biggest victory of V/H/S is that it looks and sounds genuine. Paranormal Activity 3 was meant to be told through video cassettes from the 1980s, but it was too crisp and sharp. V/H/S, on the other hand, looks grungy and fuzzy, making us believe we're watching old home movies on an old VHS. Mise-en-scène is spot-on, too. But several stories would have benefitted from more judicious editing. If two or three minutes was excised from each story, the picture would have run a more serviceable 100 minutes, rather than the excessive 115 minutes it ended up being. Furthermore, there are a few logistical issues with V/H/S. For instance, why would the thieves sit inside a creepy house watching the tapes, rather than taking them home to watch? And why would a selection of computer chats end up on a VHS tape?

Packing the grungy menace of the early pictures of directors like Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper, V/H/S is a clever grab-bag of frights and intoxicating tension, all filtered through the found footage aesthetic. It feels dangerous and often real, and it puts a lot of glossy Hollywood pictures to shame. Each of the film's components would make for fine, memorable horror shorts. Therefore, with the segments all pieced together, the finished product is a terrific slice of independent horror filmmaking. It's an ideal movie to watch in a dark room on a Friday or Saturday night. And it's required viewing for horror buffs.

7.2/10