movie reviews by PvtCaboose91

Every once in a while, a movie comes along which successfully encapsulates the teen life of its respective era. Take, for instance, such films as Clueless and Mean Girls. 2010's Easy A is a continuation of this tradition, exploring high school life in an age of online social networking. Like Clueless, Easy A's screenwriter Bert V. Royal and director Will Gluck have taken a classic piece of literature (in this case The Scarlett Letter) and placed the story in a modern context, complete with biting satire, pop culture percipience and witty comedy, turning an age-old narrative into something fresh-feeling. On top of being fun to watch, Easy A is multi-layered, making it an ideal movie to represent teen life circa 2010. Also, just as Clueless introduced Alicia Silverstone as a leading lady, Easy A might be Emma Stone's star-making role (let's just hope Stone's career turns out better...).

Essentially an invisible social ghost, brainy high school student Olive Penderghast (Stone) is despondent about the lack of male interest in her life. In order to avoid a weekend camping trip with best friend Rhiannon (Michalka) and her creepy family, Olive lies and says she that has a date with a college boy. The following week, Rhiannon immediately jumps to the conclusion that Olive lost her virginity to her fictional date; an assumption that fuels the rumour mills and rapidly spreads around the school, suddenly making Olive an object of interest. Enjoying the resultant sense of power, Olive allows rumours of further sexual trysts to spread, as she accepts money from male peers to say that they had sex. But Olive's unexpected popularity brings about a troubled reputation, and things go from controversy to chaos.

Easy A does for teen comedies what Scream did for slashers, as the film slyly satirises the genre's clichés while at the same time having no choice but to adhere to them. Bert V. Royal's script also incisively explores aspects of contemporary teenage culture, including the struggle to be your true self in the face of social pressure, the heady price of popularity, and the way that privacy has diminished in today's era of Facebook and Twitter when intimate personal information can become common knowledge. Added to this, Easy A is an affectionate love letter to the late, great John Hughes and his movies that remain esteemed to this day. Olive discusses Hughes' output at times, iconic songs from his movies are included (including Simple Minds' Don't You Forget About Me), and there's even a montage of scenes from such Hughes films as Ferris Bueller's Day Off, The Breakfast Club, Say Anything and Sixteen Candles. But it's not that screenwriter Royal lazily leaned on them to eschew the need for creativity - Hughes' works are simply used to show the difference between reality and an '80s movie.

Of course, all of this material could have resulted in a cringe-inducing, "hip" self-aware drag, but Easy A is the exact opposite. Although Will Gluck's filmmaking debut, 2009's Fired Up!, was an unwatchable piece of shit, the director has matured for his sophomore effort, pulling together a predominantly fast-paced, energetic teen comedy that would make John Hughes proud. Gluck's sense of comic timing is spot-on, doing justice to the screenplay's one-liners which will have you howling with laughter. Easy A also benefits from attractive photography and genuinely skilful shot construction, including several tracking shots (most notably for the opening and closing credits) that impress mightily. But with that said, the film isn't perfect. Most glaringly, it's confusing that Olive gets the reputation of a slut even though the school's male population seem to be aware that they can pay her for pretend sex. And the film's acerbic wit deteriorates from time to time, leaving slow patches which give the impression that everyone was on autopilot. Perhaps this comes as a result of too many subplots being crammed into this simple story.

Emma Stone has proven herself to be a strong supporting performer over the past few years (see Zombieland and Superbad), but Easy A denotes her first solo leading role, and the terrific results show that she deserves to be in the upper echelon of young acting talent. Stone's performance is so amiable and funny, but she seems effortlessly natural and real whenever she's on-screen as well. Also brilliant are Stone's interactions with Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson, who play Olive's parents. They share a terrific family dynamic, and their scenes together are some of the brightest and most enjoyable segments in the flick. Thankfully, Tucci and Clarkson were not bound by the usual strict, mean, clueless parental stereotype - rather, they come across as smart, non-judgemental, respectful human beings who know that their daughter needs her own personal space and privacy. The rest of the cast is surprisingly star-studded, with Thomas Haden Church who's ideal as Olive's cool English teacher, Lisa Kudrow who steals the show as a guidance counsellor, and even Malcolm McDowell who shows up from time to time as the principal of Olive's school.

Hollywood churns out tonnes of truly awful movies about teens, so it's a joy to witness a teen comedy that's as witty and intelligent as Easy A. Heck, it's so well-written and well-made that it should become the new essential sex comedy. Rather than something like American Pie which relied on gross jokes and sex references, Easy A is a more honest examination of the consequences of sex (real or made up) and society's idea of what sex really means.

7.2/10

It's always exciting to witness the birth of a new martial arts action star. Bruce Lee stunned movie-goers in Fists of Fury, Jackie Chan's early Hong Kong flicks wowed all who watched them, Jean-Claude Van Damme showcased his awesome fighting abilities in 1988's Bloodsport, and Steven Seagal made a promise he failed to live up to with Above the Law. 2003's Ong-bak continues this tradition, heralding the arrival of Thai superstar Tony Jaa whose phenomenal fighting and physical prowess is unparalleled. Like the films that introduced Jaa's martial arts predecessors, Ong-bak is low on story and originality - the feature's aim is to showcase the unbelievable skills of the lead performer and his audacious team of stuntmen, leaving viewers breathless at the sheer boldness of the on-screen physical feats. This Thai import is not a high quality flick by any critical standard, but it has enough visceral fighting to ensures that it's a lot of fun.

Like most actioners, the story of Ong-bak is the definition of simplicity. In a peaceful, rural Thai village, the head of a sacred Buddha statue - known as the Ong-bak - is stolen by a group of conventional bad guys looking to sell it on the black market. Enter Ting (Jaa), the village's most skilled martial artist who's awaiting his chance to be ordained as a monk. Ting volunteers to retrieve the head, and sets off to Bangkok in order to find those responsible for the blasphemous thievery. He meets con-artist Hum Lae - also known as Dirty Balls or George (Wongkamlao) - who claims to know the location of the man who stole the Ong-bak's head. Unfortunately, Ting also comes to realise that competing in illegal underground fighting will be the only way to get him closer to his goal.

From a script and narrative standpoint, Ong-bak is highly conventional, as it concerns a quest and a courageous warrior who's forced to conquer some of society's worst elements in order to make things right in the world again. The script is riddled with dumb clichés as well. For instance, at one stage Hum Lae and his young female friend Muay (Yodkamol) are being beaten up in the street just as Ting shows up. Later, the Main Bad Guy(TM) decides to have his men eliminate Ting and Hum, but asks them to carry out the executions after he has left with all the important people. And they don't even bother to tie up Ting or Hum, despite knowing about Ting's incredible fighting capabilities. The antagonistic crime boss' motives are also vague and confusing; he seems to dismiss the Ong-bak's head as garbage throughout the film, but it becomes a main part of his devious plan. This stuff is dishearteningly Hollywood-esque.

The only aspect of Ong-bak that's original is the action sequences, which boast some of the best fights you will ever see. Most martial arts films feature bloodless, over-choreographed brawls, but the fights here are incredibly vicious, utilising Jaa's favoured Muay Thai fighting style that mixes balletic movements with blunt brutality. The main selling point of Ong-bak is that the action is real, with no wirework, filmmaking trickery or digital effects to enhance the ability of the fighters. It's not that wire work is necessarily bad, but it's more breathtaking to see Jaa actually jumping over people and dangerous objects. For the most part it also looks like the performers kicked and punched each other for real! These moments will have you wincing, but they're nothing compared to Jaa blocking a razor-sharp saw with his arms or elbowing the top of an opponent's head. Ouch! Thankfully, the action was shot well, too; director Prachya Pinkaew eschewed the typical ultra-fast cuts that have become the standard in Hollywood.

The only drawback about the fights here is that Pinkaew repeated many of Jaa's moves in slow motion from multiple angles. It at times ruins the flow of the action, and it's particularly unnecessary in an era of home video when people can just rewind and re-watch whichever part they wish. Additionally, while Jaa is an excellent stuntman, he lacks the charisma of someone like Jackie Chan. To his credit, though, Jaa's performance is not necessarily bad; it's just that his screen presence is underwhelming. Thankfully, the rest of the cast are perfectly serviceable in their roles. The only problem is that Pumwaree Yodkamol - while extremely cute - has an irritating voice that quickly gets on one's nerves.

Ong-bak is not a thinking man's action movie - it's an action man's action movie. It's not perfect, but it should be atop any martial arts fan's list of flicks to watch. This is a lean, no-nonsense actioner which competently showcases Jaa's physical expertise without descending into tedium or being overly talky. Still, one can't help but wonder how amazing a Tony Jaa vehicle with a great script could be...

6.8/10

Following 2009's The Princess and the Frog with another tale of romance and princesses, Tangled is Disney's 50th animated feature film. And for this prestigious occasion, the studio turned to the story of Rapunzel, which was one of few fairytales that hadn't been given a trademark overhaul by the House of Mouse. In order to appeal to as many demographics as possible, Tangled has romance, action, adventure and musical numbers...in other words, it slavishly adheres to the exact same formula that was applied to the 49 feature-length animations that Disney produced prior to it. But while this computer-generated fantasy is generic, it's nevertheless charming, amusing and adventurous.

As an infant, young Rapunzel (voiced by Moore) was stolen away from her parents by the wicked Mother Gothel (Murphy), planning to use the girl's long magical hair to retain her youthful looks. Thus, Gothel houses Rapunzel in a tower and forbids her to leave, teaching the child to fear the outside world and convincing her that she can only be safe at home. From afar she watches the nearby kingdom and is enraptured by their festivities, and yearns for nothing more than to free herself from Mother Gothel's forceful grasp to explore the outside world. Into her life soon comes local thief Flynn Rider (Levi), who stumbles upon Rapunzel's tower while on the run from both the kingdom guards and the criminal partners he double-crossed. Rapunzel is shocked by the intrusion, and only agrees to let Flynn (and his stolen treasure) go if he escorts her to the kingdom so she can witness the beautiful annual lantern show.

The big problem with Tangled is its devotion to the Disney formula. Screenwriter Dan Fogelman (Cars, Bolt) stuck to the studio's well-worn staples: a feisty princess, a dashing hero, a villainous witch, wacky animal sidekicks and jaunty musical numbers. Heck, the music was even written by Alan Menken, whose contributions to The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas and other titles have made him a Disney favourite. The songs, unfortunately, do not gel as well as they should have. They're enjoyable in the moment but forgettable, and their inclusion feels forced at the demand of the formula. There's a bit of tonal schizophrenia too, as directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard tried their hardest to broaden appeal for maximum profits. The tonal juggling is not entirely slipshod, but some moments are too saccharine-coated for adult audiences while others are probably too intense for infants. The other flaw with Tangled is pacing issues; Flynn and Rapunzel's journey is admittedly lax from time to time.

But the above are the only drawbacks of what is otherwise a wholly enjoyable Disney production. The laughs are constant and satisfying, with a handful of sly one-liners (for the most part courtesy of Flynn), and some hilarious Looney Tunes-style antics featuring a stubborn white horse. Despite the formulaic structuring of Fogelman's screenplay, dialogue is surprisingly strong - the banter between Flynn and Rapunzel is sharp and witty, and the characters share good chemistry. Flynn is one of the most likeable Disney heroes in years, while Rapunzel is a genuine stunner of a princess (who knew cartoon females could look so beautiful?). Best of all, while the feature is generic and calculated, it works - the tragic moments tug on the heart, the upbeat moments make us smile, and the film leaves us with a warm and fuzzy feeling. Tangled successfully replicates that old Disney magic, allowing us to overlook any minor scripting faults.

Best of all, Tangled features some of Disney's most elegant visual craftsmanship to date. Directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard elected a style of animation which replicates the traditional hand-drawn animation aesthetic in computer-animated 3-D, resulting in an impeccable hybrid of the old and the new. The filmmakers struck the perfect balance between realism and caricature; the CGI approach permitted a level of phenomenal detail that would be impossible to achieve with the former pen-and-ink style, while the movie's cartoonish look is also reminiscent of something like Pinocchio or The Little Mermaid. The colour palette is often lush as well, bringing about several instantly iconic images (the lantern scene is stunning), and the action beats were staged with immaculate finesse. This was Disney's most expensive movie yet, but the ridiculous $260 million price-tag has paid off.

As the young Rapunzel, Mandy Moore's vocal performance is chipper and amiable. The general aura that Moore brings to the role makes Rapunzel a truly pleasant character. Zachary Levi is also excellent as Flynn, with a completely charming line delivery befitting of the character. But it's Broadway veteran Donna Murphy who steals the show as Mother Gothel with brilliant menace and a wicked demeanour. Meanwhile, great characters actors filled out supporting roles (even the likes of Ron Perlman, Jeffrey Tambor, Richard Kiel and Brad Garrett feature here), and they all placed forth competent work. However, none of the characters are anywhere near as funny as Maximus, the silent royal horse who's rather hostile towards Flynn (and vice versa). The horse is easily the best character in the film, but it's good that his screen-time is so limited because it makes his fleeting appearances all the funnier.

Tangled may be business as usual in terms of Disney storytelling procedures, but it's surprisingly refreshing because it's not some postmodern, "hip" Shrek-style fairytale reinvention, and the comedy is free of pop culture references. With humour, heart, songs, and typical Disney-esque themes, Tangled is worthy of being Disney's 50th animated feature, and it's baffling that the movie was not even nominated for the Best Animated Movie Oscar.

7.5/10

While Sylvester Stallone has Rocky & Rambo, and Arnold Schwarzenegger has Terminator, Jean-Claude Van Damme does not have an iconic franchise to his name. The closest thing he has to this is Universal Soldier, but that series is too minor and scattershot. Thus, rather than being renowned for a sole character, Van Damme just has a number of cheesy action movies (of varying quality) to his name, and his most iconic character is up for debate. 1989's Kickboxer is one such Van Damme action movie that many will argue is his best. The very definition of unpretentious, cheesy '80s filmmaking, Kickboxer can best be summarised as Rocky IV with kickboxing, or The Karate Kid for the testosterone crowd (The Karate Rocky?). Never mind that the film is predictable, clichéd and often unintentionally funny in its sheer ludicrousness, because it has raw, exciting action and Van Damme in his prime kicking ass, which is what counts in the long run.

After defeating all of America's best fighters, World Champion Kickboxer Eric Sloane (Alexio) and his brother Kurt (Van Damme) look to expand their horizons, and fly to the home of kickboxing: Thailand. Eric promptly challenges the local champion, "Tiger" Tong Po (Qissi), but the match goes horribly wrong. Kurt looks to save his brother by throwing in the towel during the humiliating fight, but Tony Po takes one last cheap shot which leaves Eric paralysed. Angered, Kurt vows revenge, but is not a good enough fighter to challenge the champion...yet. Hearing of Kurt's vendetta, sympathetic ex-soldier Taylor (Anderson) offers to take the eager young man to Xian Chow (Chan), a local master of the Muay Thai fighting style.

Kickboxer is, essentially, nothing more than your standard "out for vengeance" B-movie. It has all the '80s clichés, too: revenge motives, underdog heroics, training montages, and tournament-style fighting. As perhaps to be expected, Tony Po is not depicted as a moral man, but instead a cheap stock villain, triggering memories of Rocky IV's Ivan Drago. Also mixed into the plot is a narrative thread concerning organised crime (of sorts), with shady bad guys who want to make sure that Kurt will lose. And did I mention theres a romance, too? In other words, you'll be ecstatic if cheese is your thing, because you'll have gleeful fun with all the constituents that everyone else will abhor. The only unfortunate thing about Kickboxer from an entertainment-seeking perspective is that it's admittedly too talky, and it does have more exposition than a movie of this nature should have. C'mon, we want more action... And we want some tits on the side...

The good news is that once the film gets down to business, it satisfies. Jean-Claude Van Damme is a wooden thespian, but he's an awesome fighter. The martial arts set-pieces are competently choreographed (Van Damme himself directed them) and entertaining. Directors Mark DiSalle and David Worth realised that the fights required no unnecessary visual flourishes, so their filmmaking techniques are welcomely basic, letting the choreography speak for itself. It's great to watch such material in an age where action scenes are so often incomprehensibly shot and edited. Kickboxer entertains in terms of unintentional hilarity, as well - Van Damme even dances to a jukebox at one stage, and in another scene he kicks down a goddamn tree. Classic stuff. Cheesy '80s music also features prominently, such as the song Fight for Love which is coated in more cheese than a pizza. And just to sweeten the deal, Taylor even goes Rambo on a bunch of goons while smoking a cigar. Awesome.

From top to bottom, Kickboxer is a predictable actioner, but it delivers exactly what it promises on the tin. This is not a critically fertile feature, so there's not much more to analyse here. It's an entertaining popcorn film and an enjoyable time-waster if you can lighten up and turn off your brain for 90 minutes. If that sounds appealing, have at it. If not, then you need not apply.

6.0/10

Returning to the railroad for another train-in-peril movie after 2009's The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 remake, director Tony Scott's Unstoppable is not an action-thriller in a typical sense. Instead of a brain-dead Michael Bay-esque blockbuster, this is a man-against-nature disaster movie more in the vein of something like Dante's Peak, though its story concerns characters trying to prevent an impending disaster rather than struggling to survive an unfolding one. It's a welcome change of pace for Scott, who took to the challenge with the highest confidence, crafting a marvellous white-knuckle popcorn thriller which moves at such a breakneck speed that its undernourished script barely matters. Inspired by true events, Unstoppable is one of the 2010's most satisfying surprises and one of the most technically accomplished blockbusters of the year.

It's the first day on the job for young train conductor Will Colson (Pine), who finds himself in a workplace of grizzled old veterans. Given a partner in the form of aging engineer Frank Barnes (Washington), the pair steadily cruise along the Pennsylvania rails as they get to know each other. But their day is interrupted when they learn that an unmanned freight train carrying toxic chemicals is out of control, zooming through the state towards the heavily-populated town of Stanton where a sharp curve could send it flying off the tracks. With the looming possibility of a huge disaster and thousands of innocent deaths, Frank and Will conceive of a plan to slow down the speeding death trap, though they face opposition from the company's corporate businessman who are more concerned about preserving stock prices.

Being that this is a mainstream Hollywood effort, screenwriter Mark Bomback (Live Free or Die Hard) altered parts of the historical record for dramatic reasons. (The true-life runaway train had a top speed of only 47 miles per hour, whereas Unstoppable's beast runs in excess of 70mph.) Additionally, Bomback heavily ladled on the clichés. Will, for instance, has an estranged wife and kid in the train's potential impact zone, while Frank is a grizzled veteran with a chance to prove his character, and (just for good measure) school kids on a field trip are momentarily included as a cheap device to build suspense. The narrative's outcome is highly predictable from the outset as well, though it feels wrong to begrudge the movie of this particular aspect because it is based on a true story and there's at least enough nail-biting intensity to make the ride a tad uncertain in the moment. What doesn't work, though, is the way the film constantly returns to thankless side characters and onlookers watching the events unfold on television. Too much of the on-screen happenings are shown through the lens of local news broadcasters who just state the bloody obvious. Perhaps this time would've been better spent building more heart or further exploring the characters.

Unstoppable's biggest asset is Tony Scott's filmmaking touch, as the picture carries the slick, professional look which has come to define the director's career. With Scott at the helm, the film is effortlessly exciting and incredibly intense. It's also nice to see that Scott dialled down his overblown visual style, though Unstoppable still carries his visual signature - there's a lot of sweeping dolly movement, the cinematography is zoom-happy, and the editing is at times hyperactive, but these techniques are not distracting. In fact, the style serves to permeate humdrum scenes with a sense of urgency and energy, while the ferocity of several set-pieces is amplified by such hysterics. Harry Gregson-Williams' rah-rah score also helps to strengthen the sense of intensity during crucial sequences, not to mention the dynamic Oscar-nominated sound mix makes as feel as if we're truly in the thick of the action. Thankfully, digital effects were kept to an absolute minimum too, as Scott accomplished as much as he could with practical effects and death-defying stunt-work. It allows the film to feel more real, which automatically heightens excitement and tension.

The characters of Will and Frank are thorough archetypes, but there are genuine attempts at heart (however minor) that make their roles work in spite of clichés. The dialogue is notably (and surprisingly) well-written in this respect, and the lead actors share a believable, easygoing chemistry. As Frank, Denzel Washington is highly engaging, and his charisma makes him easy to care about. Pine, on the other hand, goes through the motions well enough as Will, but he does not genuinely own the role. He lacks personality, and one gets the sense that anyone could have played the role with the same impact. Meanwhile, Rosario Dawson is extremely amiable as Connie, a yardmaster who communicates with Will and Frank over the radio. On a less positive note, though, Unstoppable introduces another glaring archetype in the form of a corporate asshole whose sole purpose is just to be an asshole. Kevin Dunn's performance as said asshole is solid, but the role is an unnecessarily addition who only serves to highlight snobbish corporate mentality in an extremely obvious fashion.

Despite its flaws, Unstoppable is an above average popcorn picture on the whole - it's not patently stupid, it has a strong enough cast, its production values are excellent, and the maddening pace allows you to overlook the lack of surprises and innovation. It's well worth checking out on a lazy afternoon.

6.9/10

Tagged as a loose remake of Howard Hawks' 1951 flick The Thing from Another World (itself an adaptation of a John W. Campbell novella), John Carpenter's The Thing is a seminal horror picture that hooks you in from the outset and never lets go. Although the production is now considered a cult classic and one of Carpenter's finest efforts, The Thing was not exactly well-received upon release back in 1982 - critics lambasted it, while other summer films like E.T., Poltergeist and Conan the Barbarian were also vying for box office dollars, thus restricting The Thing's gross revenue. Luckily, it was given new life on home video, resulting in the kind of attention it deserved in the first place. Carpenter has crafted one hell of a white-knuckle thriller here; an engrossing examination of paranoia and the repugnant nature of mankind's dark survival instinct. On top of being an impressively gory creature feature, The Thing dabbles in psychological terror, and is heavily imbued with the brand of tension that Carpenter is renowned for.

Set at an American scientific outpost in the middle of the icy Antarctic desert, the film opens as a mysterious helicopter approaches carrying a Norwegian gunman who's apparently trying to shoot a runaway husky. Believing the Norwegian to be a threat, the Americans promptly kill the gunman before learning of his motivations. Fearing that more violence is imminent, the crew travel to the Norwegian camp but find it destroyed and isolated. Also lying nearby is a mangled humanoid. Not long afterwards, the husky reveals that it's not a dog at all, but an alien organism capable of perfectly mimicking any other life-form. With the alien creature on the loose, the possibility becomes very real that one of the American crew may have been taken over, but it's unclear just who it is...

Rather than simply remaking The Thing from Another World, John Carpenter and screenwriter Bill Lancaster produced a fresh adaptation of the original novella, using the era's updated special effects to create something closer to John W. Campbell's original vision. Narratively, The Thing can probably be described as a science fiction spin on Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (a.k.a. Ten Little Indians), as characters are being mysteriously killed but the alien murderer is able to change its identity at the drop of a hat. It's touches like this which makes the film so riveting. One could call the film derivative due to its similarities to films like Alien and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (not to mention The Thing from Another World and the aforementioned Agatha Christie story), but all horror movies are unoriginal to some extent. What matters is the technique, and The Thing is a home run in this respect. The thought that any one of the central characters can be the alien at any time becomes a source of nail-biting tension, and several set-pieces (see the blood test) are enthralling in their unpredictability.

Even though this was director John Carpenter's first feature made inside the Hollywood system, The Thing was not weakened by studio interference. There's no sappy Hollywood romance or forced happy endings here - Carpenter was allowed to stick to his hallmarks (masterful widescreen photography, extreme violence, anti-heroes), but the studio backing gave him the added benefit of a generous budget. And my word, every penny of the $15 million budget was well-spent. The creature effects are still for the most part convincing and the gore is still repellent decades on, which is a testament to both the skill of FX technician Rob Bottin and the fact that prosthetics are superior to CGI. On top of this, the atmosphere is convincing, with a combination of sets and location filming allowing us to believe that these Americans are truly trapped in the middle of nowhere. Also effective is Ennio Morricone's minimalist score, which competently builds suspense. The music was clearly inspired by Carpenter's composing style, and those unaware of Morricone's involvement may be fooled into thinking that the director was responsible for the score (as he frequently is on his movies).

Kurt Russell (who had worked with John Carpenter a year prior on Escape From New York) is top-notch as helicopter pilot R.J. MacReady; one of the most involved crewmembers in finding out who the creature is. A badass, competent character actor, Russell owns the role, and his low-key performance is utterly convincing. The Thing is very much an ensemble picture though, with strong work all-round from the likes of Keith David, Wilford Brimley, T.K. Carter, David Clennon, Richard Dysart, Charles Hallahan, Joel Polis and Donald Moffat, just to name a few. There are no weak links in this cast. Only one female is in the movie, and it's strictly a vocal role: that of a computer. It's amazing to watch a horror movie which isn't marred by some bimbo of a love interest whose sole purpose is to look beautiful and attract more viewers.

Watching The Thing in the 21st Century, it's amazing how well the film has aged. It was produced long before polished, contemporary cinema ruled by digital effects, but it remains ageless, which just proves how accomplished Carpenter and his team truly are. Its agelessness is derived from the state-of-the-art (practical) special effects, and the fact that Carpenter relies more on tension and psychological terror than outright gore. This is a B-movie through and through, but B-movies do not come much better or more proficient than this.

8.8/10

2005's low-budget, halfway-charming Hoodwinked! developed into a minor hit despite its humble origins, but does anyone out there honestly remember it? More pertinently, who genuinely wanted to see a sequel? Limping into cinemas almost six years after its predecessor, Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil is easily one of the worst animated movies ever made to date. Without any of the humble charms that made the first movie so enjoyable, Hoodwinked Too! falls completely flat on its face, with flaccid animation, no laughs and no worthwhile moments, all wrapped up in a sluggishly-paced package which will fail to satisfy even the most unfussy of movie-goers. It's for the best that this snooze-fest was an utter box office flop, failing to reach the $20 million mark worldwide even despite the 3-D surcharge.

Following the events of the first film, Red (Panettiere) has left her home to be trained in a desolate dojo in the art of baking and fighting. However, her friends at the Happily Ever After Agency are not as peachy, with Granny Puckett (Close) having been kidnapped by Verushka the Witch (Cusack) after a botched operation to rescue the kidnapped Hansel (Hader) and Gretel (Poehler). HEA head Nicky Flippers (Stiers) calls Red into the fray, sending her on a rescue mission with the Big Bad Wolf (Warburton) and his partner Twitchy (Edwards). As the trio set out to save the portly stolen kids and their beloved elderly colleague, a far more devious plan is put into effect that's bigger than any of them could have imagined.

While the original Hoodwinked! subverted the tale of Red Riding Hood by filtering it through a Rashômon lens, this lazy follow-up elects it own path, turning the potential franchise into a hyperactive action-adventure tale. Hoodwinked Too! has no shortage of fairytale elements, but they've been mashed together in a soulless stew of excess. Hoodwinked!'s original team (Todd Edwards, Cory Edwards, Tony Leech) returned to help write this sequel's script, but they clearly lost sight of what made their picture such an unexpected hit in the first place. Then again, the script is also credited to director Mike Disa, an occasional visual effects technician overseeing his first theatrical feature here. Perhaps Disa is to be blamed for the shortcomings, or perhaps the first film's masterminds were simply blinded by the promise of money. Speaking of the obvious cash grab, Hoodwinked Too! reeks of gimmick, with unnecessary stunt casting (including Cheech and Chong) and the decision to present the flick in 3-D. The camera movements, therefore, are incredibly over-caffeinated to give cinema-goers their gimmick-guided money's worth. Also awful is the animation, which looks dreary and dull (mouth movements are especially poor). Though it's somewhat of an improvement over the original film, there's no getting around the fact that this animation is completely inadequate for a theatrical presentation.

Absolutely nothing works here in terms of humour - Hoodwinked Too! relies on tired puns, unfunny in-jokes and juvenile slapstick. The first film was by no means a comedic masterpiece, but this follow-up is unable to even meet this modest standard. For God's sake, this supposed "kid's movie" even goes so far as to unsubtly reference The Silence of the Lambs, Deliverance, Scarface, Starsky and Hutch, and even Gone with the Wind. And then there are the cheap, recycled jokes, such as a cringe-worthy Star Wars reference which reeks of desperation. Speaking of unoriginality, the notion of Red being trained in a dojo but finally learning lessons in the heat of battle was borrowed from better films, while the overzealous Twitchy seems like a Scrat rip-off. With absolutely no screenwriting genius and no accomplished visuals, Hoodwinked Too! is a chore to get through. Its runtime is rather compact at 85 minutes, but the picture is such a miserable experience that it feels twice as long.

The voice work is patchy, with vocal performances ranging from decent to dismal. Both Anne Hathaway and Jim Belushi refused to reprise their roles here (as Red and the Woodsman, respectively), so, while both are missed, at least they were smart enough to pass up such dreadfully uninspired material. Unfortunately, Hathaway's replacement - Hayden Panettiere - has such a different sound and feeling that one can't help but wonder why she was chosen for the role of Red. Meanwhile, Belushi's replacement (Martin Short) is equally insipid. Aside from Bill Hader and Amy Poehler who are pretty enjoyable as Hansel and Gretel, the voice work is almost uniformly awful here; Glenn Close sounds asleep as Granny, while Patrick Warburton displays no evidence of comic timing as Wolf. And while some of the other actors seem to be trying, the material completely squanders their efforts.

Without any charm, heart or wit, Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil is an all-round bad movie suffering from bad writing and terrible execution. The novelty of fairytale characters being 21st Century spies wears off instantaneously, leaving nothing but a clichéd plot, witless dialogue and disappointing animation which was brought together by a director completely clueless about such concepts as pacing and heart. 2005's Hoodwinked! was pretty enjoyable, but this sequel reeks of money-grubbing mentality.

0.8/10

The Change-Up is an apparent attempt on the part of screenwriters Jon Lucas and Scott Moore to reinvent body-switching movies for today's audiences. While 2009's 17 Again used a similar type of concept to make a generic contemporary family flick, The Change-Up was crafted with R-rated sensibilities in mind, meaning profanity, un-PC humour and gross-out gags. In other words, The Change-Up is geared towards the Hangover crowd, which is hardly surprising since writers Lucas and Moore were also responsible for writing 2009's The Hangover. It's a shame, though, that the writers didn't shake up the formula while they were at it, as the film adheres to the same old tired template we've seen hundreds of times before. But credit where credit is due - The Change-Up is pretty damn funny if crass humour is your thing.

Married, career-minded lawyer Dave Lockwood (Bateman) is on the brink of making partner at the firm where he works. But Dave's family life is less promising, with a new set of twins driving him positively insane. To let off some steam, Dave agrees to a drunk night out with his stoner pal Mitch (Reynolds), a struggling actor who's out of work more often than not. While taking a piss in a mysterious park fountain together, Dave and Mitch simultaneously verbalise that they wish they had each other's life. Waking up the following morning, the men find that their wish has been granted: they've switched bodies. This compels the boys to search for a fast solution, but, unfortunately, the fountain is out of commission because the city plans to relocate it. Consequently, Dave and Mitch have no choice but to pose as each other until they find out the fountain's new location.

Summer 2011 also saw the release of such R-rated comedies as Bridesmaids and Horrible Bosses, the former of which benefitted from immense emotional maturity while the latter was surprisingly original. The Change-Up, on the other hand, is a different specimen (though it shares Horrible Bosses cast member Jason Bateman). The premise, as previously stated, is incredibly hackneyed, while the attempts at maturity and all of the blatant character revelations seem eye-rollingly forced and perfunctory, not to mention obvious. (Gee, do you think Dave will learn the value of marriage and realise he should be happy with what he has? And that Mitch will realise the futility of his immoral womanising lifestyle?) One imagines that a darker treatment of the same premise could have gone further and been more satisfying. After all, it is R-rated and moderately low budget, so would some boldness be too much to ask for? Additionally, in a baffling creative decision, The Change-Up's nudity is computer-generated. Indeed, you don't see the breasts of either Leslie Mann or (the scorching hot) Olivia Wilde - you just see digitally-created boobs on each actress. Now smutty comedies are denying us the authentic nudity that we crave? I miss the '80s...

While its plotting is stiff, the first half of The Change-Up is beset with hilarity - character hijinks are often uproarious, and hilarious dialogue abounds. The humour is not of the smart or witty variety, but there's a good chance you'll get at least a few satisfying belly-laughs out of the movie if you're a fan of comedies of this ilk. Director David Dobkin (Wedding Crashers) appears to have a good sense of comedic timing, resulting in a handful of perfectly-executed humorous sequences that had this reviewer in fits of laughter. Unfortunately, however, the film does slow down in its second half, and the final act is interminably long as every aspect of Mitch and Dave's epiphanies is pointlessly underlined. The Change-Up clocks in at a bewildering two hours, but comedies of this nature should be shorter and brisker.

Jason Bateman has never been looser than he is in this film. While the role of Dave is just a simple variation of Bateman's habitual screen persona, his overzealous antics and constant swearing are side-splitting when he becomes Mitch. It's also a testament to Bateman's skill as a performer that he manages to keep both roles likeable no matter what he does. Ryan Reynolds, meanwhile, is similarly terrific, showing that his dismal work in Green Lantern was just a one-off tragedy. The greatest measure of the success of stars in a body-swap comedy is how believably each actor embodies the persona of the other. Bateman and Reynolds are not perfect in this respect, but their work is nevertheless strong. Meanwhile, the remainder of the cast is pretty standard stuff; easily passable for this sort of comedy, but nothing to write home about.

The Change-Up's script leaves a bit to be desired since it unnecessarily drags out the thin premise and contains too much filler, though it's laudable that writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore at least tried to imbue the characters with some depth. But analysis like this is probably superfluous for what's just a lightweight mainstream comedy for the masses. The fact remains that if you like R-rated romps (like The Hangover), you will probably have a good time with this movie.

6.0/10

A bit more than a year before Shark Night 3D's delayed release, 2010's gleefully enjoyable Piranha 3D swam its way into cinemas to surprising critical and commercial success. Piranha is a bad movie from a cynical perspective, but the filmmakers "got it," choosing to lather on the R-rated details (boobs, bikinis, gore, hot babes) with infectious joy and a devilish sense of humour. Unfortunately, Shark Night is not nearly as fun as its 3D fish-based predecessor. Neutered by its commercially viable PG-13 rating (though it flopped anyway), it strips away the pleasures commonly associated with B-grade monster movies, instead offering up lousy acting and bad dialogue without any R-rated compensation. Exhaustively stupid and joyless, Shark Night is a catastrophe in every conceivable way that is devastatingly short on shark thrills.

With exams coming to an end and a long weekend looming, a group of fit young students head to a secluded Louisiana vacation island home owned by the attractive Sara (Sara Paxton). Before they settle in, the group are suddenly attacked by an array of blood-thirsty sharks that have somehow made their way into the saltwater lake. Making matters worse, one of the teens loses his arm in an attack, leaving the group racing against the clock to get him back to civilisation for urgent medical assistance. As the night persists, it becomes clear that a pair of shady locals are looking to make big bucks by filming genuine shark attacks. See, as if the "young friends going to a cabin for the weekend" premise wasn't clichéd enough, Shark Night also apparently needs redneck villains. Adding human antagonists to the story is completely misguided.

Shark Night had tremendous potential to be a campy delight, especially with Snakes on a Plane and Final Destination 2director David R. Ellis at the helm. However, the docile rating, a selection of awful actors, and a genuinely terrible script spell doom for the production from the beginning. The script is credited to two individuals (Will Hayes and Jesse Studenberg), but it's baffling to consider that it took two people to write this soulless rubbish. Shark Night is monumentally stupid, with jumping sharks (and no explanation for the ability), wild tonal shifts, moronic plot developments and imbecilic characters. (After getting his arm bitten off, one character insists he must head into the water to kill the shark!) Predictably, the dialogue is dreadful, too, and the tone-deaf chatter is far too plentiful. See, the writers erroneously assume that we want to see these tired archetypes deal with their personal problems, but none of this drama is skilful enough to develop the characters beyond the clichéd shark bait that they truly are. Thus, instead of frequent shark carnage, we mostly get naff drama and tedious character interaction that is only made worse by inept actors, rendering Shark Night, for the most part, intolerable. Interestingly, Avatar star Joel David Moore is in the cast, meaning he has officially betrayed James Cameron by starring in precisely the type of 3D horror movie that the Avatar director abhors...

In the lead-up to its release, Shark Night's optimistic supporters claimed that a PG-13 rating was okay because Steven Spielberg's Jaws is PG. But nobody behind Shark Night can hold a candle to Spielberg in terms of tension and suspense - the film fails as a serious horror movie. To ensure the PG-13 rating, the picture is full of careless shark cam and jarringly abrupt editing, leaving the kill sequences unclear and unsatisfying. There is more blood here than expected, but blood tends to suddenly and awkwardly disappear. For instance, during the climax, a shark is blown apart in CGI fashion, after which the water is clear, and no gory particles are visible. It's not that extra gore, tits, and profanity would automatically make the film better, but there's nothing worse than seeing R-rated material uneasily (and unsatisfyingly) being cut down for the sake of extra box office. Ellis is not in sync with the material, evidently striving to make a "serious" thriller (and failing) while the premise screamed for him to lighten up and provide a fun ride. The movie is too goofy to be a serious horror movie, and it is not ridiculous enough to succeed as a guilty pleasure. It is stuck in a strange middle ground.

Ellis occasionally plays into the 3D gimmick, but the movie fails to take full advantage of the potential for a 3D shark attack movie. Furthermore, to make matters worse, the shark effects are dreadful. Deep Blue Sea was released 14 years before Shark Night, yet the inconsistent shark effects in Renny Harlin's fun-as-hell shark movie remain far more convincing than anything glimpsed in this cinematic turd. The animatronic sharks are barely seen in Shark Night, while their computer-generated counterparts look embarrassingly phoney. The movie does its highlights, particularly an amusing and preposterous scene depicting a jumping shark devouring someone on a jet ski, but these moments can be watched on YouTube without suffering through the rest of the tedious picture. Indeed, the lulls between the shark attacks grow increasingly intolerable with each passing minute.

Shark Night even commences by blatantly ripping off Spielberg's Jaws. The opening sequence features an attractive beach babe doing her best Susan Backlinie impression while director Ellis tries his hardest to emulate the decades-old classic's intense opener. There is even a boat skiing attack scene that's eerily similar to a set piece from Jaws 2. But if Spielberg's handling of Jaws was as inept as Ellis's efforts here, then Spielberg would not have developed into the iconic filmmaker he is now. There's no reason to waste your time on this vile picture. If you must watch it, though, stay through the credits for an admittedly hilarious music video. It's the only thing worth seeing in the entire production.

2.1/10

Popularised by 1999's The Blair Witch Project, the "found footage" subgenre has to date covered a wide array of areas, including exorcisms, ghosts, monsters, zombies, and more. Apollo 18 blasts the subgenre into outer space, mixing thrills, claustrophobia, conspiracy theories and altered history to generate this rather unique attempt at manufactured realism. The movie is also note-worthy due to how aggressive the "authenticity" claims are; producer Bob Weinstein was quoted as saying "We didn't shoot anything, we found it. Found, baby", and Apollo 18's marketing asserts that it presents "the truth" about why NASA abruptly stopped travelling to the moon. Conspiracy freaks are likely to have a fucking field day with the faux facts presented here, but the film is destined to be polarising for average movie-goers - it may satisfy admirers of found footage pictures, but it probably won't impress many others.

It's a well-noted historical fact that NASA cancelled all moon-bound space missions after Apollo 17, and this has fuelled conspiracy theories for years. Apollo 18 posits the possibility that this may have been part of a huge government cover-up. Claiming to have been edited from 84 hours of raw footage long hidden from the public, the film concerns the secret launch of Apollo 18, which was manned by a trio of astronauts: Ben Anderson (Christie), Nate Walker (Owen), and John Grey (Robbins). With John stationed in orbit, Ben and Nate begin studying the moon's surface and collecting rock samples. However, the pair soon discover that there may be more to the mission than originally thought. After finding an abandoned Russian proton lander and a blooded corpse nearby, Ben and Nate realise that something strange is happening, and that the moon may not be as desolate as initially assumed.

With movie-goers now quite knowledgeable about the found footage gimmick after having been duped by The Blair Witch Project, it's impossible to craft another such flick that will actually fool anyone. Therefore, the success of any found footage film is measured by how believably the material is sold. Thankfully, director Gonzalo López-Gallego for the most part gets it right in this respect. The performances here seem remarkably natural, the sets are completely convincing, and the visual scheme competently sells the gimmick. Apollo 18 looks like it was genuinely shot in space back in the 1970s, with a grainy, dated-looking film aesthetic that's free of Hollywood artifice. Better still, the various visual imperfections work extremely well, with scratches, specks of dirt and camera glitches that feel completely organic and further help to sell the illusion. Patrick Lussier's editing, meanwhile, is equally impressive, with multiple-camera set-ups having been cut to ensure maximum coherency. The final touch is the evocative sound mix which further allows us to believe we're watching genuine footage rather than actors on a set.

Like every found footage movie, Apollo 18 is a slow-burn of a thriller, so one's enjoyment of the picture is very dependant on your liking of the gimmick. If you found Paranormal Activity boring, you're destined to lose patience rapidly, but this reviewer found the material to be intensely watchable (even engrossing) as it subtly raises anxiety and tension levels the more the narrative progresses. It also seems that writers Cory Goodman and Brian Miller conducted a lot of research, as the dialogue is full of credible-sounding technical mumbo-jumbo. But Apollo 18 does stumble in its scripting department, as Ben, Nate and John are given merely a job title and a few family references before being thrown into horrific circumstances. The film does not provide much of a chance for us to truly care about these characters, hence the picture's dramatic stronghold is not as powerful as it should have been. And, of course, it takes until the movie's final act before any sort of powerful extraterrestrial threat kicks in, but the payoff is underwhelming. It feels like the filmmakers could have gone further and designed a more terrifying space-based horror film.

At the end of the day, Apollo 18 is a competent enough effort, with top-notch technical contributions and a cast capable of naturalistic acting. However, it fails to leave a lasting impact due to the forgettable, generic characters and the lingering sense that more could have been done with this bone-chilling premise.

6.1/10