movie reviews by PvtCaboose91

At long last, after wasting numerous years demeaning himself in trite family films, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has returned to R-rated territory for 2010's Faster; the star's first true action flick since Doom back in 2005. A rock-solid revenge film harkening back to 1970s action flicks, this is a vehemently R-rated feature which delivers on its promise of gritty, bloody violence and shootouts. However, Faster aspires to be more than a fun but ultimately unfulfilling slice of action entertainment - with a roster of intricate characters and a thematic density that's rare in the genre, Faster is more thoughtful than anticipated. And indeed, viewers expecting a mindless action showcase may be somewhat disappointed.

Driver (Johnson) has just finished serving a decade-long prison sentence after participating in a botched bank robbery which resulted in the murder of his beloved brother. Armed with a revolver, an American muscle car and a list, Driver determinedly sets out to slaughter the men responsible for his brother's killing. As bullets continue to fly, a junkie detective known as Cop (Thornton) and his colleague Cicero (Gugino) begin to investigate the killings. The situation becomes complicated, though, when professional assassin Killer (Jackson-Cohen) is hired to eliminate Driver; an assignment that he becomes determined to complete at all costs.

The trailers fooled you into thinking that Faster is a pure action fiesta, but the finished film is a different specimen. It does deliver bloodshed, sure, but the film primarily functions as a powerful mediation on the way that vengeance affects your soul. The film's real strength is the fact that the characters are interesting and multifaceted; an asset truly surprising in a film like this. Granted, the characters are more or less archetypes in the service of a pretty clichéd story, but they feel like real human beings with lives, loves and histories which extend beyond the boundaries of the film's proceedings. Indeed, Faster functions as a character study of the protagonist of each story thread: Driver, Cop, and Killer. However, with the film running at a brisk 95 minutes, it feels like more could have been done with the characters of Cop and Killer. In fact, they could have been the subject of their own movies. They're adequately developed for the production's intentions, granted, but a lengthier, more patient treatment of the premise could've yielded an overall superior, more complete movie.

From a stylistic standpoint, Faster is very much a throwback movie. Director George Tillman Jr. and cinematographer Michael Grady (who worked together on 2009's Notorious) infused the film with a very gritty, cinematic look reminiscent of revenge flicks from the 1970s (think Death Wish or The French Connection), and they captured the action beats using old-school cinematic techniques reminiscent of the '80s. From top to bottom, this is a well-crafted motion picture, and its dark, no-nonsense tone makes for a riveting experience. Despite the film mainly consisting of dialogue, the pace never grinds to a halt. Tillman also excels as a visual director; the three protagonists are introduced in visual terms within skilful, wordless montages. Driver's introduction is especially effective, as so much is conveyed about the character without a great deal of dialogue at all.

It's terrific to see Dwayne Johnson doing hardcore actioners like this instead of tosh like Tooth Fairy or The Game Plan. With his imposing physique, Johnson has an immense screen presence, and his performance here is tough, focused, intense and no-nonsense. Faster is an ideal transitional movie for the former wrestler, as it highlights the star's physical capacity for action movies as well as his acting prowess. This was a complex role for Johnson, but he pulled it off - in spite of minimal dialogue, one can sense both the emotion he feels at any given moment and everything going through the character's mind. This is especially evident during a poignant scene when he comes face-to-face with Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje; one of his intended victims. But Johnson is not the only strong performer here. Playing Cop, Billy Bob Thornton is every bit as sublime and nuanced as Johnson, and he afforded much-needed emotional depth to his role. Meanwhile, the charismatic Oliver Jackson-Cohen shows great promise as Killer.

Faster may have problems with its undernourished script and dumb tendencies (in the real world, Driver would've been apprehended long before the climax), but it remains an enthralling little action flick with a lot on its mind. It delivers enough bang for your buck in terms of gritty action and violence, but it also offers sincerity and powerful, provocative themes without becoming a pretentious arthouse bore.

8.2/10

It's not often that a summer blockbuster spawns a large number of sequels. And considering how awful 2001's The Fast and the Furious was, who would have imagined it'd launch a franchise still kicking a decade later? Moreover, who the hell would've thought that the film's fourth sequel would actually be good? 2011's Fast Five is easily the best, most satisfying Fast and the Furious picture so far, on top of being the franchise's first genuinely good film. It's a pretty dopey, clichéd slice of summertime entertainment, but it's also a lot of skilful fun. Added to this, Fast Five is not hindered by all the usual issues - against all odds, the dialogue is actually involving, the dramatic elements are perfectly tolerable, and the formula has been altered, thus introducing much-needed innovation into a franchise long past its expiration date.

Fast Five picks up after Fast & Furious ended, with Dominic Toretto (Diesel) being freed from an in-transit prison bus by his sister Mia (Brewster) and former FBI Agent Brian O'Conner (Walker). Now fugitives being actively pursued by the authorities, the trio head to the streets of Rio de Janeiro whereupon they fall into the bad graces of powerful drug kingpin Hernan Reyes (de Almeida). Hoping to buy their freedom and give up life as fugitives, Dom, Brian and Mia start planning a heist to rob Reyes of $100 million. It's a daring mission, so the trio pull together a team of friendly faces, including such former partners as Roman (Gibson), Tej (Ludacris) and Han (Kang). However, a hulking federal agent named Hobbs (Johnson) is on their trail, working as fast as possible to bring down the fugitives by any means necessary.

It's doubtful that Fast Five can be considered positive for Rio's tourism industry. After all, the plot concerns the city's seedy underside of corrupt police, drug dealers and armed teenagers. Indeed, the depiction of the city is very different to that which was seen in the 2011 animated film Rio.

Screenwriter Chris Morgan might have been responsible for the appalling Tokyo Drift and 2009's average Fast & Furious, but his script for Fast Five is superlative. Astonishingly, the dialogue is not bland or awful; the repartee is actually witty, with engaging character interaction and a few notably amusing exchanges between Roman and Tej. The flick isn't Harold Pinter or anything, but it is robust and awesome. And mercifully, the street racing aspect takes a backseat for this story - Fast Five is more concerned with a heist in the vein of The Italian Job and Ocean's Eleven. Long-time fans of the series may be disappointed with the lack of street racing, but the change is good - it denotes progress in the franchise, and, after all, the racing angle ran out of steam a few movies ago. To maintain fidelity to the series, a random street race does happen for the sake of having a street race, but it's the most uninspired set-piece in the film.

Returning to the franchise, director Justin Lin and his team set out to achieve the majority of Fast Five's action sequences with practical effects. Fortunately, the results are spectacular - the stunts are phenomenal and the vehicular carnage feels real, making the action scenes all the more exhilarating. (If CGI was used at all, it's seldom obvious.) The extended climax - a car chase through the streets of Rio - is especially rewarding; cars are smashed and buildings are decimated, making Fast Five worth a hearty recommendation on the basis of this sequence alone. Of course, a suspension of disbelief is often required for this franchise, and Fast Five is no exception. Patently ridiculous stuff does happen, but it's easy to suspend your disbelief thanks to the old-fashioned filmmaking techniques. Also thrown into the mix are a few exciting shootouts, and even an awesome showdown between Vin Diesel and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, the latter of whom looks buff enough to wrestle a fucking T-Rex and come out victorious.

Another contributing factor to Fast Five's success is the actors, all of whom are better than they had any right to be. The real surprise is Paul Walker, whose acting has drastically improved since the first Fast and the Furious. No longer wooden, Walker's performance is solid and believable, and he always looks in the moment. Even Vin Diesel's work is strong here, and Jordana Brewster doesn't get on the nerves anymore. To make the reunion a bit more complete, Matt Schulze is also seen here as Vince for the first time since the 2001 original. And Walker's 2 Fast 2 Furious co-star Tyrese Gibson returned for this film as well, delivering an amiable, funny performance as Roman. Meanwhile, rapper-turned-actor Ludacris (another cast member from 2 Fast 2 Furious) is equally entertaining as Tej. Heck, even Sung Kang is good here - this is his most tolerable performance in the series to date. The best of the bunch, though, is without a doubt Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson playing the tough-as-nails Hobbs. An intimidating badass, Johnson is at long last proving that he still has what it takes to be the next Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he's inarguably the strongest antagonist the series has seen to date.

Fast Five runs a mammoth 130 minutes (making it the longest entry in the series by a good 20 minutes), but it's never boring; the pacing is strong and there's always something interesting going on. Put alongside its subpar predecessors, this is an excellent offering of action entertainment; slickly-directed, well-paced and irresistibly entertaining. And be sure to watch until the end of the credits for an exciting set-up for the inevitable sixth film that this reviewer is actually looking forward to it. (I cannot believe I actually just wrote that...)

8.1/10

2009's Fast & Furious is officially the fourth instalment of the Fast and the Furious series, but it seems more like a direct sequel to the 2001 original than a continuation of 2 Fast 2 Furious or Tokyo Drift. On top of Paul Walker's return to the series, Fast & Furious also brings back Vin Diesel, Jordana Brewster and Michelle Rodriguez, making it a true reunion. And surprisingly, in spite of palpable sequel fatigue and the unshakable question of "Why the hell do we need yet another one of these films?", Fast & Furious is the strongest entry in the franchise so far. It's a routine follow-up, but it surpasses its predecessors in terms of technical proficiency and pacing, which compensates for dumb scripting.

Still hijacking trucks many years after the original film, Dominic Toretto (Diesel) cuts ties with his gang and flees to Panama after a job goes awry. However, when tragedy strikes and someone close to him is murdered, Dom returns to his old stomping ground of Los Angeles where he reunites with sister Mia (Brewster). Vowing to exact vengeance, Dom looks to infiltrate a gang of drug traffickers who were responsible for the murder of his loved one. However, his investigation soon leads him to cross paths with old friend Brian O'Conner (Walker), now an FBI agent working undercover to catch the same drug kingpin. Due to their shared goals, Dom and Brian reluctantly team up, infiltrating the gang of traffickers and acting as drivers for them for a drug smuggling operation.

Perhaps the most glaring things about this picture is how fucking inept the title is - the makers merely removed two uses of the word "the" from the first film's title and called it a day. What's wrong with The Fast and the Furious 4? Then again, it'd probably be erroneous to expect any sort of intelligence or rational thought in this series...

Fast & Furious' story is reminiscent of 2003's 2 Fast 2 Furious to an unmistakable extent. As a matter of fact, if Vin Diesel returned for the second entry then it most likely would've played out exactly like this fourth film. Nevertheless, Fast & Furious is surprisingly well-designed despite the (expected) familiarity. The film is more dramatically solid than its predecessors - it's a leaner, more well-paced film which cuts out as much melodramatic nonsense as possible. And let's face it, this type of approach is more preferable for such a B-grade actioner. However, leaner introduces problems of its own. The story is paper-thin, but the mechanics are frustratingly hard to decipher. Events suddenly occur without sufficient explanation, and the film confusingly jumps between locations (when and how did the gang get into Mexico?). Perhaps the filmmakers should've excised the superfluous romantic angle (which is undernourished as it is) and left more room for requisite plot exposition or development.

But we never expected a Fast and the Furious film to be backed by impeccable scripting, let's face it. What matters is the action and the direction, and in this sense the movie succeeds. Directed by Justin Lin, the film kicks off on a high note with a marvellous assault on a tanker truck across a perilous mountain road. Well-shot, well-edited, and extremely intense and exciting, it's indeed a riveting way to begin the film; immediately signifying that Lin has improved his filmmaking technique since the disastrous Tokyo Drift. Mercifully, it's also for the most part easy to follow the action scenes thanks to the skilful filmmaking (the shaky-cam/quick cutting nonsense is not as pronounced here). If you come to Fast & Furious seeking thrills, you will be rewarded with a thoroughly enjoyable actioner. The only technical downfall is that there are a few obvious uses of cartoonish CGI, which detracts from the appeal of old-school mayhem that the franchise is more or less built on.

The biggest surprise of this film is that Paul Walker doesn't suck. Walker was awful in the previous Fast and the Furious movies, so one would logically expect a repeat performance here. Fortunately, Walker has improved as an actor in his six-year absence from the series - his performance as Brian is grittier and more believable. He's not brilliant, but he's easily passable for this type of action film. Likewise, Vin Diesel was dismal in the original picture, but has returned to the series with style - he looks legitimately tough, and his acting is strong. The other performers fare worse, however, with John Ortiz making for a weak villain and with a wooden Sung Kang making a brief appearance. Meanwhile, Jordana Brewster and a very underused Michelle Rodriguez were recruited to fulfil the purpose of being pure sex objects, and they succeeded; delivering watchable but unmemorable performances.

Fast & Furious is a case of getting what you pay for. The film delivers fast cars, furious action set-pieces and a thin plot, and it doesn't have as many of the drawbacks that weakened its predecessors. This is easily the best instalment in the franchise so far, and fans of the series will no doubt walk away pleased. But while it seems unfair to criticise the expected shortcomings, it would've been nice if more effort went into the screenplay in order to deliver a more substantive production. Unsurprisingly, after this film's box office success, the executives over at Universal ordered another sequel: Fast Five in 2011.

6.1/10

Without star Paul Walker and with a whole new group of protagonists, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift is not so much the third Fast and the Furious film but a spin-off. Tokyo Drift provided a golden opportunity for the filmmakers to reinvent the franchise with more grit, brains and better actors. Alas, the producers instead took the lazy way out; hiring a wooden Walker-esque lead actor and merely sticking with the awful series formula. The only twist is that, instead of an undercover police officer infiltrating a gang, this story concerns a bunch of high school teens who look closer to 30 than 18. And to adopt a new angle, the filmmakers amped up the racing scenes by building them around a new, popular style called "drifting". Apart from that, this sequel is by-the-book in both its construction and its all-round awfulness.

After participating in an irresponsible race which resulted in injuries and property damage, Sean Boswell (Black) is given the chance to avoid juvenile detention by being sent to live with his career-Navy father (Goodman) in Tokyo, Japan. While the move was intended for Sean to stay out of vehicular mischief, he immediately befriends classmate Twinkie (Bow Wow) who introduces Sean to a gang of illegal street racers specialising in drifting. Behind his father's back, Sean begins to study the art of drifting with help from veteran racer Han (Kang). Sean gets a lot more than be bargained for, though, when he falls into the bad graces of the self-proclaimed "Drift King", or DK (Tee). Added to this, Sean has eyes for DK's babe of a girlfriend Neela (Kelley), which puts his life in even more danger.

Perhaps the stupidest thing which sticks out in this moronic film is the erroneous suggestion that an American teenager can avoid facing time in juvenile hall if he moves to another country. At least the filmmakers didn't rehash 2 Fast 2 Furious by turning Sean into an undercover snitch for the cops, but come on - is this really the only thing they could come up with instead?! More mind-numbering stupidity arises throughout the film, especially in relation to Sean's father. When Sean initially arrives in Tokyo, his dad immediately lays down the "my way or the highway" law, but nevertheless the young lad manages to stay out late, party with friends and associate with criminals as much as he wants without his father questioning him or doing anything about it. Instead, Sean's dad temporarily disappears from the film, only to re-emerge towards the end to have a change of heart, support his son's racing proclivities, and even come to accept dangerous street racing as a perfectly viable way to solve problems. What the fuck is this shit?

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift is additionally plagued with clichés. It's as if screenwriter Chris Morgan wrote a list of clichés and tried to incorporate as many as he possibly could. Clichés covered include: underdog looking to prove himself, outsider in a new school, girl with a heart of gold who needs to be saved, wise-cracking (African American) best friend, and even underworld gangsters. Plus, there are tonnes of beautiful women (the casting call for extras must've specified "no fat or ugly chicks") and the soundtrack is full of loud rock and hip-hop. Indeed, everything outside of the racing scenes was lifted from dozens of other, superior motion pictures. Of course, since the Fast and the Furious movies are car porn pictures, what matters is the racing and the hot cars, but we still have to endure all the in-between stuff to get to the meat and potatoes, so would a little bit of effort be too much to ask for?

At the helm of the film was Justin Lin, marking the franchise's third director after Rob Cohen and John Singleton. Bad scripting can be overshadowed by solid directing, but alas Lin was not up to the task, as he depicts the subculture of drifting and fast driving with rapid-fire editing and frenetic cinematography. The sequences are more coherent than something like Quantum of Solace, but a lot of details are lost amidst the disorientating filmmaking. Perhaps Lin was trying to amplify the intensity as much as possible, or maybe he was trying to disguise his directing incompetence. Even despite a huge budget and a modern Hollywood sheen, the film's racing sequences simply cannot hold a candle to more old-fashioned films like Bullitt or The French Connection. Lin's work here is somewhat enjoyable, sure, but too "clean" compared to the grittier action films of yesteryear. The only thing that works here is the catchy soundtrack. Buying the soundtrack CD would be a better investment than buying the film on home video.

All-round, the characters are cardboard cut-outs. In fact it's surprising that none of them blew over as a result of the breeze from the speeding cars. Plus it's difficult to care about the characters since they are all immature jerks - and none of them grow, mature or undergo any sort of arc during the picture. With Paul Walker not returning, Tokyo Drift was an excellent chance for the series to finally get a lead actor who can actually act. Alas, Lucas Black is even worse than Walker; his performance is unbearable, with a grating American drawl and irritating dialogue delivery. On top of being hopeless with the material, Black also looks far too old to be the high schooler he plays. Nathalie Kelley had minimal acting experience before starring here as Neela, and this is frequently obvious - she's the dullest love interest of the series. Meanwhile, as Han, Sung Kang comes off as a nice enough guy, but he has all the screen presence and charm of a cactus. Bow Wow and Brian Tee fare even worse. Perhaps the only acting bright spot is Sonny Chiba (a legendary martial arts star), who's fun to watch as a cartoonish Yakuza stereotype. It's a shame, then, that Chiba's role is so small.

Without any of the franchise's recognisable stars, it's a surprise Tokyo Drift didn't go straight to home video. But although it received a theatrical release, it's no better than a direct-to-DVD film. While there are a few fleeting moments of intensity, there's not enough to recommend here - most of the picture consists of empty, ineffective character moments and borderline indecipherable action. Plus, with the intolerable Lucas Black in the lead role, the film is an agonising chore to get through. And unfortunately for us, the Fast and the Furious franchise is lucrative enough for Universal that there's no end in sight for the series - the film was followed by the oddly-titled Fast & Furious in 2009.

2.6/10

No-one asked for it, but after 2001's The Fast and the Furious racked up an impressive sum at the box office, Universal ordered a sequel to their awful cash-cow. Jettisoning director Rob Cohen and actor Vin Diesel (thank God), 2 Fast 2 Furious is precisely what you'd expect: a brainless actioner with street racing and crime scenes reminiscent of Miami Vice. On account of terrible scripting and wooden acting, by no stretch is this a good movie, but at least it's efficient enough at fulfilling its promise of fast cars and action aplenty. With a better director in John Singleton (Boyz n the Hood), the picture actually delivers the goods with stylish flair. Against all odds, the filmmakers behind 2 Fast 2 Furious have managed to create a moderately serviceable time-waster out of an unnecessary sequel, though it's still heavily flawed.

Kicked off the LAPD for his moronic behaviour in the original film, Brian O'Conner (Walker) has relocated to Miami where he earns his keep winning illegal street races. After being arrested following one such successful race, the authorities offer Brian a proverbial "we'll wipe your criminal record clean if you do a job for us" deal. Brian's target is crime boss Carter Verone (Hauser), whose crew has already been infiltrated by a U.S. Customs agent (Mendes). To act as a second driver, Brian recruits old friend Roman Pearce (Gibson), who had gone to prison several years beforehand thanks to Brian's undercover work.

2 Fast 2 Furious was written by Michael Brandt and Derek Haas, neither of whom had a hand in writing 2001's The Fast and the Furious. While it was a promising move to discard the talentless hacks responsible for the first film, 2 Fast 2 Furious' screenplay is unintentionally laughable in both its ridiculousness and its dialogue. Clichés abound, and the film has a tendency to be mind-numbingly stupid (see the finale, wherein Brian manages to perfectly land a car on top of a moving boat and escape without serious injury). The dialogue, meanwhile, alternates between bland and flat-out awful, not to mention the picture contains enough uses of "bro" and its derivatives ("bruh", "breh") to surely set a new cinema record. With drab, one-dimensional characters, there's no heart or soul to this picture, nor is there any way to justify its existence beyond the business aspect. The awful soundtrack of hip-hop and generic action music doesn't help matters.

However, the action scenes - i.e. the film's bread and butter, and the only reason outside of greed for the feature to exist - are admittedly impressive thanks to slick production values and competent direction. They are indeed entertaining and well-crafted, and almost make the trite dialogue scenes worth enduring... Almost, but not quite. The problem is that the film is just too "sanitised" - an R rating rather than a studio-friendly PG-13 rating would've helped 2 Fast 2 Furious tremendously. After all, it feels iffy for African American characters to talk in such a stereotypical fashion, but not use the f-word liberally. (Humorous dialogue is especially neutered in this sense). Also, B movies just sit better with unrestrained violence; PG-13 injuries and gunshot wounds feel too unrealistically compromised, thus weakening the sense of fun.

With Vin Diesel having stepped away from the franchise for part deux, it's a mighty shame that Paul Walker wasn't ejected as well. An exceedingly wooden performer, Walker shows no degree of acting talent in his performance here; instead, he merely regurgitates dialogue in an awkward fashion as if he's forgotten his next line. However, as Roman, musician-turned-actor Tyrese Gibson is surprisingly decent. Gibson has charisma, and it looks as if he had fun in the role even though it's obvious his character was written into the script to replace Dominic Toretto after Vin Diesel refused to return. Since this is a PG-13 action movie, Cole Hauser did not have the freedom to be a genuinely sinister villain, which renders his performance unremarkable. Meanwhile, as the token hot females, Eva Mendes is attractive but forgettable and generic, and Devon Aoki is completely interchangeable. The only other cast member worth mentioning is James Remar, who's strong and authoritative as one of the police officers overseeing Brian and Roman's assignment.

You're an idiot if you expect fully-rounded characters and smart writing from 2 Fast 2 Furious. It's an action movie for the masses which delivers superficialities and action scenes within a sleek packaging, and nothing but vacuous dead air surrounds the sporadic thrills. Nevertheless, at least there are thrills here and there, which is more than what can be said for its unredeemably bad predecessor. So, no, 2 Fast 2 Furious is not exactly awful since it's pretty entertaining, but there are plenty of superior action movies out there, rendering this middling effort entirely disposable. But if you loved the original movie, you'll probably love this one too. Sequel: The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.

5.2/10

After his work in the audacious sleeper I Love You Phillip Morris, 2011's Mr. Popper's Penguins finds legendary funny man Jim Carrey back in pure paycheque territory. Instead of a worthwhile vehicle for Carrey's dramatic and/or comedic chops, Mr. Popper's Penguins has Carrey playing second fiddle to CGI penguins and working from a completely formulaic script based on the 1938 children's book of the same name. Admittedly, though, while this is definitely a commercial adaptation of a beloved classic, it's not exactly an abomination. By no stretch is this a good movie, but it's not awful to an insulting extent either. On the contrary, it looks like director Mark Waters (Mean Girls) actually tried to do something worthy with the trite screenplay, resulting in a fluffy, nimbly-paced movie that kids may enjoy. Still, it holds limited appeal for anyone above the age of, say, 10.

Thriving Manhattan business Tom Popper (Carrey) is facing a massive promotion. The last thing separating Popper from a more prestigious position is the defiant owner of a restaurant (Lansbury), who refuses to sell to Popper's employers. While preparing to go in for the kill, he receives the gift of six penguins which were willed to him by his late father who always regretted not spending enough time with his family. Popper looks to get rid of the birds as quickly as possible, but his estranged children unexpectedly grow attached to them. Sensing that his troubled relationship with his kids and ex-wife may be mended through the penguins, Popper decides to keep them, and struggles to learn how to care for the flightless guests. Meanwhile, a New York Zoo official (Gregg) is keen to take possession of the birds, thus threatening the future of Popper's budding domestic equilibrium.

Unfortunately, the penguins' presence was not utilised for any substantive purpose - rather, writers Sean Anders, John Morris and Jared Stern treated the birds as an opportunity to create a typical, paint-by-numbers family film that's predictable from start to finish and coated in a thick, sickening layer of family-friendly saccharine. It faithfully adheres to the well-worn formula to the letter - workaholic divorcee Popper has trouble bonding with his estranged kids and ex-wife, then the penguins renew their relationship, and before the films ends Popper learns lessons about the importance of family (and the evils of being career-minded) through some type of conflict. It's possible to safely predict what the conflict will be, when it will happen, and how it will be resolved. Additionally, the portrayal of the zoo official is ill-conceived - he's not a wise advice-giver but rather a moustache-twirling villain called upon to trigger cheap conflict. The zoo official spouts pure truths throughout the movie in relation to the treatment of the penguins, yet we're led to believe that the birds can live in a high-rise NYC apartment out of their natural habit as long as they have love. Mr. Popper's Penguins is nothing but conventional family fluff; unrealistic, shallow and rudimentary.

Mr. Popper's Penguins is constantly on the prowl for easy laughs, resulting in plenty of fart and defecation gags scattered throughout (one of the penguins is even named "Stinky" due to constant flatulence), on top of a scene of testicular trauma. Expectedly, all of this cheap, well-worn comedy is subpar. The film only scores laughs whenever Jim Carrey was evidently given the leeway to cut loose and improvise. On account of these moments of improvised Carrey hilarity, Mr. Popper's Penguins does get at least a tentative recommendation. Not to mention, director Mark Waters afforded an attractive visual zest to the project, and there are a number of moments of inspired filmmaking to save the film from tedium. For instance there's a lovely moment when it's revealed that the penguins love watching Charlie Chaplin movies. Additionally, the digital effects giving life to the titular birds are impressive - not perfect, but good enough to that you won't constantly think about their computer-generated nature.

In portraying Tom Popper, Jim Carrey more or less just revived the role he played many years ago in Liar, Liar. While Carrey is clearly aging and some sections of the movie suggest that he was on autopilot, it looks as if the performer had a fairly fun time here, and his sporadic enthusiasm helps to sell jokes here and there. Playing Popper's ex-wife, Carla Gugino is strictly okay, fulfilling her required duties well enough but never standing out. Ophelia Lovibond, meanwhile, is terrific fun as Popper's assistant Pippi, who's fond of alliteration with the letter "p".

At the end of the day, Mr. Popper's Penguins is what it is - commercial family-friendly entertainment for the masses. Fans of Jim Carrey are likely to be disappointed with the lack of laughs, and adults will mourn the absence of thematic depth that's present in superior family movies. Kids, however, will probably find this to be an easy, fun sitting, and at least adults won't be bored out of their mind by the picture. So if your children want to see it, you could do far worse. That's pretty much the best recommendation I can offer you.

5.2/10

If you come to The Fast and the Furious seeking thrilling racing sequences, spectacular stunts and fast cars, disappointment is imminent. Likewise, viewers in search of quality writing, plotting or acting won't find anything here to their liking. A typical brain-dead blockbuster from Hollywood's tired mills, The Fast and the Furious is junk food of the most low-rent variety. How the hell could it be possible to screw up a pure action movie about illegal street racing and heists that only needed to raise your adrenaline? Somehow, director Rob Cohen and the trio of writers managed to fuck it up big time, resulting not in a lively action extravaganza but rather a lethargic, joyless, pedestrian actioner unable to provide the most basic of summer movie pleasures.

Set in the seedy world of illegal underground street racing, rookie undercover cop Brian (Walker) is assigned to investigate a series a truck hijackings occurring in Los Angeles. He infiltrates a gang led by ex-con Dominic Toretto (Diesel), who's rapidly rising to the top of the street-racing circuit. Dominic is initially apprehensive about letting Brian into his life, but soon takes him under his wing. As he continues to bond with Dominic, Brian becomes reluctant about working to put his newfound friend behind bars. The situation becomes more complicated when Brian falls for Dominic's sister Mia (Brewster), not to mention Brian's superiors are constantly on his back and Dominic's best friend (Schulze) is starting to grow suspicious of the new addition to their crew.

The Fast and the Furious is essentially Point Break for douchebags, with fast cars and street racing instead of surf boards. But while Point Break had some great action set-pieces and the benefit of a few great actors (Patrick Swayze and Gary Busey included), the action sequences in The Fast and the Furious lack style, are drab and repetitious, and are simply are not as thrilling as they want to be. Not even the boisterous soundtrack can raise the pulse during the strictly humdrum, paint-by-numbers racing scenes. The slipshod script, meanwhile, resembles a daytime soap opera with its awful dialogue and conventional romantic subplot. The Fast and the Furious is absolutely riddled with clichés, resulting in a completely predictable film from beginning to end. It's bewildering (and frankly a tad amusing) to consider that it took three writers to pen such a shoddy screenplay.

Rob Cohen was clearly lost when it came to the action scenes, but evidently he was even less at ease with dialogue-heavy moments involving the actors. It'd be erroneous to expect Oscar-calibre performances from the cast, sure, but is a little bit of personality too much to ask? Vin Diesel has the right physique for the role of Dominic, but his line delivery is tragically vanilla, and he lacks the presence of all the best muscle-clad action stars. Paul Walker fares even worse, giving a bland performance of forced intensity and contrived line readings. Walker has proven to be a solid actor on a number of occasions (see Running Scared), so it's a shame that he's so weak here. Even Keanu Reeves was stronger in Point Break. The supporting cast is no better, with a forgettable Michelle Rodriguez and an even worse Jordana Brewster who makes no impact at all as Walker's love interest.

All Rob Cohen needed to do was keep the action coming, the adrenaline levels high, and the cars zooming past. But The Fast and the Furious fails to fulfil these requirements, and only shows signs of coming out of its filmic coma for the climax (or at least the first climax); an admittedly serviceable botched truck hijacking. It's not as thrilling, perilous or exciting as it would've been in defter hands, but it's still an entertaining enough sequence, showing a shred of evidence of what the film had the potential to be. Such a set-piece in such an awful movie is akin to stumbling upon a puddle of muddy water in the middle of the desert - not entirely satisfying, but beggars can't be choosers. Too bad, then, that the sequence is followed by more trite melodramatic nonsense, concluding on an eye-rolling note which leaves room wide open for countless sequels. The Fast and the Furious was just meant to be a trashy, fun B movie, but even a typical low-rent direct-to-DVD action flick with Van Damme or Dolph Lundgren has more thrills than this...

2.2/10

On paper, Bad Teacher must have sounded like a promising idea for a gleeful black comedy, as it was designed in the mould of 2003's Bad Santa and it concerns the behind-the-scenes behaviour of school teachers. The title's similarity to Bad Santa is surely not a coincidence - Bad Teacher is very reminiscent of the earlier picture in spirit, and the protagonist of both movies is a cruel, mean-spirited, foul-mouthed alcoholic. (One can almost imagine a ragtag franchise of Bad movies being spearheaded...) However, in its finished form, 2011's Bad Teacher is a complete misfire. The film was written by the duo responsible for 2009's abominable Year One, which perhaps makes the material's awfulness less surprising. Heck, just by mentioning the screenwriters' prior works, this review could be concluded right here...

Upon completing her first year as a school teacher, slutty gold digger Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz) quits her job, looking to marry her sugar daddy and settle down for life. When her fiancé promptly breaks off the engagement, though, Elizabeth begrudgingly returns to teaching where she keeps her students busy with movies while spending school hours hungover, asleep or high. A rival soon emerges for Elizabeth in form of chirpy, academic overachiever Amy Squirrel (Punch), who resents Elizabeth's behaviour. Hoping to get breast implants to help her land a rich hubbie, Elizabeth begins scheming to scrape together thousands of dollars through embezzling and even rigging an exam. Catching onto Elizabeth's plan, Amy begins working to expose her co-worker's misdeeds. Meanwhile, earnest gym teacher Russell (Segel) watches from the sidelines and makes continual passes at Elizabeth, but she's far more interested in wealthy substitute teacher Scott (Timberlake) who's heir to a lucrative watch-making dynasty.

Chief among Bad Teacher's biggest faults is that Elizabeth makes little sense as a person. For instance, she often shows up to work hungover but we do not see her actually drinking or partying. In fact her outside life is barely glimpsed save for a couple of ineffective scenes in her apartment, where she's just slouching on her living room lounge. And when Elizabeth begins to actually teach her students, the habitual slacker seems to be extremely knowledgeable about books like Animal Farm and To Kill a Mockingbird. Since when is she so intelligent? Rather than a fully-rounded individual like Billy Bob Thornton in Bad Santa, Elizabeth remains a thinly-sketched caricature who mysteriously changes at the script's convenience. Worse, the ending hints that Elizabeth has turned a new leaf and changed her ways, but the transformation is too sudden to feel like a cohesive, logical arc. The narrative is too shambolic, jumping from set-piece to set-piece without providing necessary bridge scenes or adequate material to give weight to Elizabeth's character. The filmmakers clearly imagined we'd overlook these lapses in logic in order to have a few laughs and enjoy the ride. Unfortunately, while the film is well-paced, there are too few laughs to be had - you may laugh four or five times, but the next day you'll be hard-pressed to remember what you found so amusing.

Ultimately, screenwriters Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky were unable to conceive of enough comedy that's worth a damn. Instead, they chose to dish up lazy, half-hearted, unfunny humour akin to their dismal Year One. Compounding the awfulness is the lethargic delivery of the jokes, giving the impression that director Jake Kasdan (Walk Hard) was fast asleep at the helm. The notion of Bad Teacher being the work of a truly invested, passionate filmmaker is ridiculous. And despite its R rating, Bad Teacher is simultaneously neither soft nor dark enough. If the language was tweaked and a few raunchy scenes were removed, this could've been rated PG-13. An R-rated picture was definitely preferable and it's good that the filmmakers stuck to their guns, but the jokes are too sophomoric and the plot is so uncreative and drab that mature-aged audience members won't find much of interest here. Perhaps the studio forbade Kasdan from going as far as he wanted in terms of bad taste. Again, give me Bad Santa any day.

If nothing else, Cameron Diaz's performance as Elizabeth is somewhat amusing, and it looks as if she had a ball playing the role. To the actress' credit, she managed to maintain a bit of amiability despite her character's reprehensible nature. Then there's Lucy Punch (Hot Fuzz), who went as over-the-top as possible playing Amy Squirrel. She gets a few laughs, but her performance is more awkwardly overzealous than flat-out amusing. Justin Timberlake (The Social Network) is the cast's weakest link as Scott - he did well enough with the material he was given, but he failed to own the role and he's ultimately interchangeable. Meanwhile, Jason Segel (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) is genial and sweet, as he always is.

The occasional laugh aside, there's not much to recommend about the generic, trite Bad Teacher. Of course, humour is subjective and some may find the film to be a total laugh riot, but for this reviewer's taste the film is just flat-out not funny enough. It's a great idea that's been committed to film, and that's about all there is to Bad Teacher. Perhaps the production started life as something greater than the subpar finished movie.

3.2/10

Based on the nonfiction book To Kill the Irishman: The War That Crippled the Mafia by Rick Porrello, Kill the Irishman is a compelling walk through Cleveland's criminal underbelly during the 1970s and an informative look at a man who brought down the hammer on the mafia's golden age. To seasoned consumers of gangster movies, Kill the Irishman will likely trigger bouts of déjà vu due to its conventional construction, but it's hard to begrudge the film of this since it's a mostly accurate retelling of a true untold story (and it concerns the Cleveland mafia, thus giving Las Vegas and New York a well-deserved break). Sure, the film is no Goodfellas or Godfather, but it's a solid motion picture on its own terms thanks to astute direction, engaging performances and impressive production values (even despite the low budget).

Danny Greene (Stevenson), a proud Irishman and a self-proclaimed descendant of Celtic warriors, started his adult years as a salt of the earth working man before moving his way up the ranks to a union boss. Throughout the late 1960s and '70s, Greene also made a name for himself in organised crime, forming a gang of enforcers, climbing into bed with the Italian mafia, and making enemies at every turn. Greene developed into somewhat of an icon around his local neighbourhood, becoming known as the "Robin Hood of Collinwood". The title of Kill the Irishman refers to the years-long struggle for his enemies to eliminate Greene, who managed to elude multiple assassination attempts and was notoriously difficult to kill.

The script (written by director Jonathan Hensleigh and Jeremy Walters) adheres pretty faithfully to the historical record for the most part, though composite characters were created and some things were excluded (for instance Greene's military service). Indeed, this is a case of the true story being so fascinating that not a lot of tampering was necessary for its translation to the screen. Hensleigh and his co-writer aimed to cover as much as possible with Kill the Irishman, hence they packed a lot of material into a slim 105-minute runtime. Alas, this denotes the production's major shortcoming: the details of Greene's life are too compressed and poorly fleshed-out. As a result, the disjointed, messy narrative jumps from one time period to another without permitting sufficient room to explore the incidents in any great depth. And due to the nimble pacing, it's difficult to get a complete grasp of the life and exploits of Danny Greene. A story like this demands a Scarface-sized runtime.

Nevertheless, Kill the Irishman is a home run from a technical standpoint. Hensleigh (who directed the 2004 Punisher movie; the one without Ray Stevenson) is a strong action director, and therefore the film contains a number of exciting confrontations pervaded with energy and a refreshing brutality suitable for the material. But the production's biggest asset is the immaculate recreation of 1970s Cleveland - classic American cars fill the streets, and the frame constantly bursts with '70s-style clothing, hairstyles, and interior décor. The filming locations afford the material a very authentic look and feel, not to mention the colour palette is retro and '70s-looking. Further amplifying the magic is the inclusion of several snippets of authentic news footage from the era, and a soundtrack packed to the gills with retro '70s rock and funk tunes.

Ray Stevenson (star of Punisher: War Zone and TV's Rome) was a magnificent pick for Danny Greene. Stevenson's performance is charismatic, authoritative, convincing and brimming with intensity - he sounds like he genuinely means each line he delivers. The end of the film even contains a fleeting glimpse of the real-life Danny Greene via archive footage, but viewers might not notice because of how spot-on Stevenson's portrayal is. The supporting cast, meanwhile, is filled with talent - there's Christopher Walken, Vincent D'Onofrio, Val Kilmer, Robert Davi, Vinnie Jones (sporting an embarrassing Irish accent), Paul Sorvino, and Tony Darrow, just to name a few. All of the actors look, talk and feel like real gangsters and mafiosos, once more augmenting the production's sense of authenticity. Some viewers may be disappointed that many of the actors were essentially given glorified cameos, but their presence is nonetheless appreciated and the performances are strong right down the line.

Covering a period of about 15 years in the life of Danny Greene, Kill the Irishman is more or less an episodic, streamlined highlight reel of the life of this colourful historical figure. Nevertheless, the cast is A-list (led by an engrossing Ray Stevenson) and the technical contributions are solid, making the film a worthy addition to the oversaturated gangster genre that's well worth checking out.

7.2/10

Joel and Ethan Coen often utilise western conventions for their movies, but 2010's True Grit is the brothers' first attempt at crafting a true, old-fashioned western. While based on a novel by Charles Portis, True Grit is most likely best known as a John Wayne western vehicle from 1969; the film which earned The Duke his one and only Academy Award. However, the Coens Brothers' True Grit is touted as less of a remake and more of a closer adaptation of the source material, though both films are still the same story with the same basic story beats and a lot of the same dialogue. True Grit is definitely a well-made, compelling motion picture at surface level, but it nonetheless remains somewhat of a disappointment. The Coens are renowned for slyly expanding upon and subverting each genre they tackle, but True Grit is merely a rote western that lacks the touches we've come to expect from the talented brothers.

Set in the 19th Century, 14-year-old Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) learns of the cold-blooded murder of her father at the hands of outlaw Tom Chaney (Brolin) and vows to seek retribution. Upon hearing that Chaney has fled into Indian territory and is low priority for the understaffed U.S. Marshalls, the determined young Mattie offers payment to the grizzled Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Bridges) - who is said to have "true grit" - if he helps her to bring her father's killer to justice. An aging, fat one-eyed alcoholic of dubious morals, Rooster hesitantly agrees to Mattie's proposal, and they set off to hunt Chaney. Accompanying the pair is Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Damon), who's equally determined to catch Chaney as he wants to fetch the massive Texan reward on the outlaw's head.

Unless you had prior knowledge of the Coens' involvement, you would not have guessed that they wrote and directed True Grit. The brothers' best movies are intelligent, multifaceted works, skilfully mixing an array of genres and engaging the brain. But 2010's True Grit is too linear and basic. One would expect the Coens to do something new and exciting with the source material, and rework it in their trademark way. Instead, the Coens just went mainstream, which is further exemplified in the tame PG-13 rating, the fact that the brothers considered it to be a family movie, and the fact that the movie was a tremendous box office hit (it became the first Coen Brothers flick to gross over $100 million domestically). Curiously, the film is not entirely faithful to the source, as they streamlined Portis' novel. For instance, there's no sign of Rooster's cat, and a scene of Rooster shooting a rat has been excised (wouldn't that have appealed to the Coens' brand of dark humour?). This begs the question: why promote the film as a faithful cinematic rendering of the book if things have been changed? And if the Coens were going to change a few things anyway, why didn't they go the whole hog and put a new creative spin on the story?

Still, from a visual and entertainment standpoint, True Grit is close to perfection. Roger Deakins' Oscar-nominated cinematography is masterful and evocative, Carter Burwell's music is hauntingly beautiful, and the production values are faultless. The locations and towns do not feel like sets - they feel lived-in and authentic. And while the pacing is not always spot-on, the film has plenty of truly memorable moments, including a hilarious early scene in which Mattie negotiates money for her father's horse, and a rather amusing scene of Rooster being questioned in court. And that's not counting the electrifying shootouts, though at times these sequences appear to be pulling punches to secure a PG-13 rating. One gets the sense that a more full-blooded R-rated picture like 3:10 to Yuma or The Proposition would've been more suitable for the Coens' gritty approach.

Perhaps the film's biggest hindrance is that its emotional punch is too subdued. One can sense the peril that the characters face, but it's hard to feel it emotionally, thus sapping power from the story. True Grit is therefore a film in which we appreciate the journey but cannot feel as if we are on the lam alongside the protagonists. And the ending is a bit weak - true to the book, sure, but the 1969 version had a more satisfying ending, solidifying the fact that changing things for a film adaptation is sometimes better than sticking to the source. Additionally, the Coens are often able to generate black comedy through grim situations (which is ideally suited to the western genre), but this talent eluded the brothers here.

Another hole in the "faithful adaptation of the novel" angle is the casting of Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn. Rooster was in his 40s in the novel, but Bridges was 60 when the picture was lensed. (For the record, John Wayne was 62 when he portrayed the role.) Nevertheless, Bridges' interpretation of the role is terrific. Wisely, he did not try to ape The Duke - instead, Bridges made the role his own, bringing Cogburn Revisited to life with a solid, gritty performance that earned him an Oscar nomination. Meanwhile, newcomer Hailee Steinfeld is a great find as Mattie Ross. The young actress - who was a tender 13 years of age during filming - received an Oscar nomination for her performance, and it is not hard to see why. Matt Damon is equally strong as LaBoeuf, one-upping Glen Campbell's portrayal of the role from 40 years ago with an excellently nuanced piece of acting. Rounding out the main players is Josh Brolin as Tom Chaney, and a sinister, effective Barry Pepper playing Ned Pepper (no, that's not a typo...).

True Grit remains an entertaining remake of a John Wayne classic that didn't really need to be remade in the first place, but one gets the sense that two highly talented filmmakers have wasted their time to make a film that's below their gifts. Okay, so the Coens set out to make a straightforward western, and they've done well in this respect. But in this reviewer's eyes, it's just not enough considering what the brothers are normally capable of.

6.5/10