Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Filmmaker Oliver Stone's name has become synonymous with the word "controversial". Love or hate his movies, though, there is no denying the allure to his projects, not to mention the superior craftsmanship and the keen sense of storytelling that ensures each film he creates is worth seeing. 1987's Wall Street is among Stone's most famous works of the '80s, and it endures so strongly in the minds of movie-goers primarily due to the legendary "Greed is good" speech that's delivered by Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko in the film. It's easy to understand why people have held onto this specific sound-bite for so long, as it symbolised the American financial community during the '80s and remains relevant more than 20 years later. In addition to this speech, Wall Street benefits from razor-sharp dialogue, top-notch performances, and an interesting story.

The protagonist here is young, low-level stockbroker Bud Fox (Sheen) who works at a trading firm but aspires to make it to the big time and be more than an invisible office drone. When Bud happens upon some insider information gleaned through a conversation with his father, he passes it onto his powerful idol Gordon Gekko (Douglas) during a once-in-a-lifetime meeting. Impressed, Gekko accepts Bud into his private circle, and Bud finds himself in the fast lane with the possibility of real wealth and power dangling in front of him. He begins to see Gekko's world from the inside, and decides to plunge ahead despite knowing that Gekko has built his empire on illegal insider trading and scare tactics. Interestingly, Bud Fox is not unlike the role Charlie Sheen played in Oliver Stone's Platoon; a determined, fresh-faced, inexperienced, unsure individual who's sucked into a devastating world that wrestles his soul and torments his spirit.

Wall Street is a classic tale of evil manipulating good. In a nutshell, it's a dramatised fictional tale of an era where money was king and everyone was scrambling to get to the top; a time where morals, hard work, integrity, honesty and any semblance of right and wrong was often surrendered to the power of wealth and the appeal of stature. It's not that Wall Street scolds the system - it functions as more of a criticism of the people who would manipulate the system and cheat their way to the top. Oliver Stone's script revels in the unforgiving examination of the high life and the look at the countless hours of work and manipulation behind it. This is balanced, however, by the picture's final act in which the choice between right and wrong is shown to have severe and lasting consequences on both sides of the ledger.

In preparation for Wall Street, Oliver Stone did everything he could to ensure he got all of the details right. Due to growing up around his father's Wall Street office, he was already knowledgeable about the world of buying and selling stock. He additionally conducted lots of research through spending time with brokers from all areas of the business. During shooting, Stone elected to film in real office buildings rather than sets, and he hired former Salomon Brothers partner Kenneth Lipper as technical advisor. The final product is an accurate, penetrating portrayal of Wall Street. Unfortunately, this also means that it's easy to feel lost if you are unfamiliar with the language and rules of the business. Wall Street is a thoroughly verbose picture, and the pacing is consequently uneven, leading to dead spots. Nevertheless, Stone's handling of the material is fairly top-notch, resulting in a technically sound and thematically engaging picture aimed at audiences who have the patience to appreciate fine craftsmanship such as this.

Additionally, what Wall Street lacks in flow (it is somewhat stiff at times) it makes up for in the performances courtesy of the exemplary ensemble cast. Gekko, as portrayed by Michael Douglas in the defining role of his acting career, is a brilliant antagonist. He is the very embodiment of amorality; a man who acquires wealth because it's how he keeps score, not because he needs it. He is driven to win at all costs, and his charisma shields his unethical disposition. Gekko even quotes Sun Tzu, and has made The Art of War his mantra by which he navigates life and the financial markets. Douglas is expectedly brilliant in the part; his performance is a powerhouse of controlled aggression and vindictive cunning, and Douglas executed the role with absolute conviction. As a result of his performance, Douglas earned the Best Actor Oscar. However, despite Douglas walking away with all the accolades, Gekko is more of a supporting character - Wall Street is the story of Bud Fox. Fortunately, Charlie Sheen performed admirably here.

The supporting cast, meanwhile, is comprised of a cornucopia of top-notch actors. There's Martin Sheen who's brilliant in the role of Bud's father (thus, Martin Sheen was playing opposite his real son), John C. McGinley who's equally impressive as Bud's co-worker, and an excellent Terence Stamp as Gekko's rival. Darryl Hannah is the only weak spot - she suffocates the film with an uninspired, dreary performance. Ironically, everyone told Stone to fire Hannah from the movie, but he didn't listen and subsequently regretted his decision.

The most remarkable accomplishment of Wall Street was that it achieved theatrical distribution at an ideal time. Stone wrote the screenplay in 1986, and filming occurred from late '86 to early '87. Meanwhile, there was a massive run-up of the stock market. By the time the stock market crashed and Black Monday arrived, the film was in the can and awaiting its December delivery. While the mechanics of stock trading depicted in Wall Street are outdated, the essence of what goes on is the same, and the frantic nature of trading is no less fascinating. Although best known for the "Greed is good" speech or as another feather in Olive Stone's cap, Wall Street is an absorbing movie about the plight of the soul in the unforgiving atmosphere of big business and bigger money. Eventually Oliver Stone produced a sequel in the form of 2010's Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.

8.2/10

At first glance, Tomorrow, When the War Began - the filmic adaptation of the hugely popular teen fiction novel by John Marsden - appears to be a cheap Australian amalgam of Red Dawn and The Breakfast Club. Despite these superficial observations, this directorial debut for Stuart Beattie is a thrilling character-driven action-adventure film, and a top-notch home-grown Aussie blockbuster. It additionally marks the commencement of a film franchise which could easily rival the Twilight series in terms of quality and launch a number of international acting careers. Tomorrow, When the War Began is essentially Australia's answer to the Hollywood blockbuster, as it boasts an attractive young cast, exhilarating action set-pieces, impressive special effects, and - just in case you begin to think that this is a Hollywood film - a scene in which Vegemite is consumed straight from the jar.

Like in Marsden's novel, the film is narrated by one of the protagonists, Ellie Linton (Stasey). She is one of seven teenagers who head off for a weekend camping trip in an isolated spot known as Hell (which, ironically, turns out to be more like the Garden of Eden). Along for the trip is her best friend Corrie (Hurd-Wood), Corrie's male interest Kevin (Lewis), Greek troublemaker Homer (Akdeniz), the prim & proper Fiona (Tonkin), the religious conservative Robyn (Cummings), and the shy but sweet Lee (Pang). Following the weekend, they return to their hometown of Wirrawee which has been mysteriously deserted. The group soon realise that Australia has been invaded by an indeterminate force, and the town has been conquered by soldiers. Faced with little options for survival, the teenagers band together and begin to wage a war of their own against the foreign invaders.

In the series of novels, Marsden never revealed the ethnicity or nationality of the foreign invaders, but in the film version they are seen to be Asian. The issue of nationality barely matters, though, as the point of the story is to observe the teens reacting to the foreign invasion. The soldiers are there, and it does not matter who they are. When the characters discuss the subject, one of them chimes in with "What difference does a flag make?", which serves to underline this notion. In addition, one of the protagonists is Asian, yet he is treated as an equal among the group. It would be ludicrous to read too far into the implications of Asian soldiers invading Australia.

Comparisons between Tomorrow, When the War Began and 1984's Red Dawn are inevitable, as both films adhere to a basic premise of a group of teens using guerrilla-style tactics to overthrow an invading force. The similarities begin and end with this premise, however, as there is a massive difference in execution. While Red Dawn explicitly revealed that the Russians were invading and was nothing more than an over-the-top macho male fantasy, Tomorrow, When the War Began is a gritty actioner primarily concerned with characters and tension-building. Plus, the story of Tomorrow, When the War Began is reminiscent of deep aspects of Australian social mythology: the ANZAC legend of good-natured locals who are willing to step up and fearlessly commit to war when the time calls for it. For his novel, Marsden retrofitted this legend in order to facilitate a gallery of new-age ideals, with boys and girls of diverse backgrounds and ethnicities constituting the new ANZAC force.

While adapting Marsden's novel, writer-director Stuart Beattie was faced with challenge of attaining a delicate balance between character development and action, which is no easy task. Fortunately, Beattie did a sterling job of keeping a taut pace and developing the characters without dumbing down the material or including inconsequential action sequences. The story is engaging, and the characters are all fleshed-out well enough, which is a true achievement considering the number of protagonists. Each role was given a distinct personality, and it's easy to grow to care about who lives and dies. Additionally, the young cast of actors are almost uniformly terrific. In particular, former Neighbours regular Caitlin Stasey executed her role of Ellie Linton with charismatic conviction. Another standout is Deniz Akdeniz, who is a naturally likeable screen presence as the loud-mouthed Homer. The only disappointment is newcomer Chris Pang as Lee - his dialogue delivery is often unconvincing, and his screen presence is borderline awkward. Also problematic is the clunky nature of the dialogue at times, and the fact that characters adhere to pretty standard, clichéd stereotypes. There is also a moment towards the film's end involving Robyn that feels out-of-character, contrived and unmotivated.

Beattie cut his teeth as a Hollywood screenwriter, as his past credits include Collateral, 30 Days of Night, and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. 2010's Tomorrow, When the War Began is his debut as a director, and his inexperience is unnoticeable in the construction of the electrifying action scenes. Tension-building is terrific as well, with several nail-biting sequences throughout. The cinematography by Ben Nott (Daybreakers) is also phenomenal, and affords the film a look which belies its status as a low-budget $25 million Australian production. Tomorrow, When the War Began is definitely far more satisfying than most recent American blockbusters, including (but not limited to) Clash of the Titans, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and The A-Team. Despite all the talent behind the camera, though, the film is not perfect - despite being trained soldiers, the enemies cannot shoot straight. While this could be forgiven if the film was designed as a big dumb actioner, it was intended to be more of a character-driven piece than an action fiesta.

As a whole, Tomorrow, When the War Began is a terrific motion picture, and a far more satisfying blockbuster than most films produced by Hollywood of late. The film's well-executed action set-pieces are well-balanced with character building moments and potent themes about morality in wartime and loss of innocence (including a passing reference to the white invasion of Aboriginal Australia). There's even a bit of welcome humour. No doubt fans of the book will perpetually look for things to complain about, but the film is solid and highly enjoyable as a standalone feature. As expected, room is left wide open for a sequel, yet this is one of those rare films which will leave audiences desiring a sequel. In a year of strong Aussie movies (including Beneath Hill 60 and Animal Kingdom), Tomorrow, When the War Began is up there with the best.

8.4/10

Director Juzo Itami's culinary comedy Tampopo proved to be an important movie for the Japanese due to the way it introduced Western movie-goers to contemporary Japan and its agreeable sense of humour. Up until the 1987 American release of Tampopo, Westerners generally thought of Japanese cinema in terms of samurai pictures, even though Japanese filmmakers produced more comedies than films of any other genre. Tampopo altered this perception; demonstrating to Western audiences that the Japanese had an obsession with food and a delightful sense of humour. Despite a formulistic plot and some occasionally uneven pacing, this is an engaging cinematic hybrid which brilliantly mixes Japanese food and culture with a Western-style narrative. In fact, this quirky comedy is frequently described as a "Noodle Western".

At the centre of the film is middle-aged widow Tampopo (Nobuko Miyamoto), who's struggling to make a living in order to support her son and cling onto her humble homestead. On a dark, stormy night, two strangers named Gorô (Tsutomu Yamazaki) and Gun (Ken Watanabe) visit Tampopo's home seeking food and shelter. They soon realise the widow lacks survival skills, and decide to stay to set things right; fighting off evil and restoring order before heading into the sunset. This may sound like the classic Western form, but that's not exactly true. The narrative is set in the industrial wasteland of contemporary Tokyo, and Tampopo's threatened property is a ramen (noodle soup) restaurant. Similarly, Gun and Gorô are truck drivers rather than cowboys. Meanwhile, the task facing Gorô and Gun is helping Tampopo to perfect her cooking and build the best ramen restaurant in town.

Writer-director Juzo Itami's movie is a genuine oddity. A Western-style story reminiscent of Shane lies at the core of the film, but said story is surrounded by a series of offbeat supplemental stories (side courses, so to speak), some of which last only a few minutes. A lot of these short vignettes may seem random, but they all revolve around the central theme of food, and they demonstrate how food can affect many different aspects of our lives. For instance, one side story concerns a gangster (Kôji Yakusho) and his girlfriend (Fukumi Kuroda) who use food to enhance their sexual activity and passion in hilarious ways. In another short vignette, an old man almost chokes to death while eating, and a panic-stricken restaurant owner uses a vacuum cleaner to dislodge the obstruction from the man's throat. This particular vignette is apparently rooted in reality - a handful of senior citizens do in fact die each year while eating types of Japanese cuisine, and the vacuum-extraction method is not unheard of. Yet, while some of the film's vignettes are amusing, others are inexplicably and unnecessarily lengthy. The long-winded nature of the film causes pacing problems, leading to a number of dead spots.

Aside from the plot being structured like a Western, Itami crams Tampopo with allusions and homages to Western movies of old. For instance, Gorô wears a cowboy hat at all times, except for when he takes a bath. In another scene, Tampopo dreams that a gang of ramen chefs from another restaurant visit to challenge her skills, and they stride down the street like the gunmen out of The Magnificent Seven. Additionally, Tampopo's final noodle exam is filmed like a shootout; it's Gunfight at the OK Ramen Restaurant. Gorô is a comical character as well, and he functions as a combination of Shane (the mythical hero who comes to town to set everything right before moving on) and the Man-With-No-Name role that Clint Eastwood played in Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. Comedy is additionally derived from simple parodying. When a gangster is dying from gunshot wounds in the pouring rain with his girlfriend wailing over him, he can only think about food - and his final words are about food.

In the cast, there are a number of recognisable faces. Gun is played by Ken Watanabe, whose more recent movies include Batman Begins, The Last Samurai and Letters From Iwo Jima. The kinky gangster, meanwhile, is played by Kôji Yakusho, who went on to star in Band of Brothers, Babel and Memoirs of a Geisha. The entire cast deliver strong performances, and Itami reportedly selected these specific actors in order for Westerners to be able to distinguish between them (thus, he was fully aware that it can be difficult for a lot of Westerners to tell Japanese people apart). Fortunately, the entire cast have an amiable nature to them as well, and it's easy to warm to each of the characters during their first few minutes of screen-time.

With the pointed satire, the at times inspired comedy, the appealingly oddball characters, the subtle flashes of pathos, the agreeable cast, and the orgasmic visual feast of food cinematography, Tampopo is a wonderful little gem of a Japanese movie. It's probably one of the greatest movies you've never heard of, as well. Granted, the picture contains a good 15-20 minutes of unnecessary flab, but, like a great bowl of ramen, it's highly satisfying. On that note, do not watch Tampopo on an empty stomach - you'll begin to crave food.

7.9/10

Over the decades, the buddy-cop action subgenre has been exploited and parodied countless times, leaving the distinct impression that there's little left to do with it. Additionally, if you had the misfortune of witnessing Kevin Smith's Cop Out earlier in 2010, you could be forgiven for believing there's nothing left to do with the subgenre. And alas, 2010's The Other Guys - despite being the fourth Adam McKay/Will Ferrell collaboration (after Anchorman, Talladega Nights and Step Brothers) - is further evidence of this. Credit where credit is due, though: The Other Guys is far more tolerable than Cop Out, as it’s actually funny from time to time and it does not suffer from Kevin Smith's pedestrian directorial style. Still, there are not enough laughs here to sustain the movie for its full 105-minute runtime. Over-plotted and longwinded, The Other Guys begins with promise before gradually wearing out its welcome.

At the centre of the picture is Will Ferrell as Allen Gamble; a buttoned-up, detective version of the star's proverbial man-child persona who's perfectly happy handling paperwork at the NYPD. He's partnered with disgraced hothead Terry Hoitz (Wahlberg) who's dying for some action, but Allen is too cautious to place himself in danger. Meanwhile, the two hotshot stars of the NYPD - P.K. Highsmith (Jackson) and Christopher Danson (Johnson) - are killed, and Terry perceives this as a chance to prove he has what it takes to be out on the streets again. After forcing Allen to join him, the two become entangled in a complex case of financial fraud. They look to a shady moneyman David Ershon (Coogan) for answers, only to find a wall of bruisers and criminals determined to end their investigation. And, in true buddy cop film fashion, the mismatched partners reluctantly begin to bond.

The Other Guys is unsurprisingly riddled with clichés. It would not be a buddy-cop movie unless the protagonists are reprimanded by their captain and are compelled to investigate on their own. It also would not be a buddy cop movie without rival detectives on the force. If writers McKay and Chris Henchy did something interesting or creative with the formula (like 2007's Hot Fuzz) there would not be a problem. But alas, The Other Guys is deficient in wit and creativity. It's merely a formulaic buddy-cop actioner with an insane bunch of characters. Sure, it's funny in the moment if everyone is insane and random, but the material is too forgettable. See, the movie seems oddly restrained and has an eye towards realism in the way it half-heartedly explores the relationships of the protagonists. It therefore never feels safe enough to run carefree and be monumentally stupid, and thus it's never even close to reaching the dizzying comic heights of Anchorman. Arguably, the material would have been far superior with an R-rating and the freedom to be edgy.

For its first 40 or 50 minutes, The Other Guys is one of the funniest releases of 2010. Admittedly, this is not saying much considering other "comedies" which have come down the pipeline during the year (Tooth Fairy, The Spy Next Door, Cop Out), but the first half of The Other Guys is truly hilarious, with a rapid-fire stream of jokes and amusing plot detours. However, for the film's final half, plotting takes precedence over the comedy. Added to this, the ins & outs of Ershon's scheme - and the deeds of those hiding behind the curtain - are almost indecipherable. Either the screenplay was written poorly, or the plot is not interesting enough for a viewer to be bothered to follow it. At best, the plot is an interruption, and you'll only be willing to sit through the drab explanations of the evil schemes in order to get to the funny bits. Running at a bit over 100 minutes, the film is simply too long-winded and was not imbued with sufficient comic energy to maintain interest. As a consequence, the film becomes tedious by its climax. It does not help that McKay's handling of the shootouts and action scenes is quite subpar (one particular shootout in an office is incomprehensible).

Stars Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg certainly feel like an odd couple, and this is why they're perfect for the roles of Allen and Terry (respectively). Ferrell relied a lot on overacting and being a man-child as per usual, but this is a positive if you enjoy Ferrell's comedic instincts. Alongside him, Wahlberg slipped into his straight man role with ease. Sure, anyone could have played Terry since it's a generic, thankless role, yet Wahlberg did a solid job. Special note should additionally be given to the side-splitting Michael Keaton, who truly shines as the TLC-quoting police captain. Keaton is well-suited to the Ferrell/McKay sensibility, and is the film's comic highlight. Meanwhile, Eva Mendes is effective as Allen's gorgeous wife, and Damon Wayans Jr. and Rob Riggle are passable as the precinct rivals.

I understand why guys like Ferrell and McKay enjoy making these types of flicks. Wahlberg even spells it out for us at one stage: it was fun playing cops and robbers as kids, and now it's even more fun being paid to play with real guns and blow shit up. The problem is, that was the point of Hot Fuzz as well, which was among the greatest movies of the noughties. In comparison to Hot Fuzz, The Other Guys is subpar, lazy and simply lacking. Worse, you will probably forget about it a few hours after seeing it, as there are no crackling one-liners or interesting plot twists. The theatrical trailer for the movie showed 75% of the funny bits, and hence it's a more appropriate option to enjoy the trailer rather than endure the full 100 minutes. Look, the film has its moments, but there are not enough.

5.4/10

Despite their immense popularity, romantic comedies are a difficult genre to nail. Excellent rom-coms are few and far between, while the cinematic landscape is cluttered with rom-coms that are either mediocre or just plain bad. 2005's Monster-in-Law falls into the mediocre category. It's also a movie which marked Jane Fonda's return to the screen after a self-imposed 15-year absence. Her last movie was Stanley & Iris in 1990 opposite Robert De Niro, and hence this Jennifer Lopez vehicle is a bit of a step down. Yet, it's Fonda who manages to make this Meet the Parents clone watchable, and the film might have been superior if there was less of Lopez and more of Fonda.

The plot of the movie involves Charlie (Lopez), who is a workaholic single girl seeking her knight in shining armour. She eventually finds him in the form of a doctor named Kevin (Vartan), who is instantly smitten with Charlie. (No detectable chemistry exists between the leads, but this doesn't matter because we're dealing with the rom-com genre.) Once the romance becomes serious, Kevin decides to introduce Charlie to his mother; ex-TV talk show personality Viola Fields (Fonda). For reasons only known to those who wrote the script, Viola is horrified that Kevin has fallen for Charlie, and immediately takes an intense dislike to her. (Supposedly, Viola's reasons relate to a recent nervous breakdown coupled with her belief that no girl is good enough for her son. To put it another way, it's a plot device we should not question). The remainder of the movie concerns Viola's attempts to break up the happy couple in a variety of ways.

Unfortunately, the opening segment depicting the beginning of Charlie & Kevin's relationship is dull and utterly predictable, and no chemistry is evident between the protagonists. Thankfully, the romance is placed on the backburner once the feud between Viola and Charlie takes centre stage. Due to the uninteresting romance, it probably would have been better if Monster-in-Law followed more closely in the footsteps of Meet the Parents and cut to the chase by having the couple already formed at the movie's beginning. The growingly malicious battle between Viola and Charlie fortunately supplies a few big laughs and a number of energetic moments, but the shining gags are interspersed with stale, hit-and-miss jokes. For example, Charlie has an allergy to nuts, and the predictable payoff will trigger eye-rolling. Even more discouraging is the fact that the plot could have been solved in a matter of minutes if only the characters were smart enough to say the necessary things to clear up all of the problems. If the characters were smart, however, there would not be enough material to fill a feature-length movie, which is perhaps a warning signal that the story was not ready to be green-lit.

Nevertheless, Monster-in-Law is more enjoyable and amusing than it has any right to be. The film may be loaded with endless clichés of the rom-com genre (including a quirky best friend and a feisty black assistant, just to name a couple), yet - against all odds - some of these elements are amusing rather than grating. Director Robert Luketic (Win a Date with Ted Hamilton, Legally Blonde) managed to make the most of the sitcom-minded screenplay from first-time screenwriter Anya Kochoff, but alas there are not enough memorable laughs or witty lines of dialogue to distinguish the film above other similar vehicles about disapproving parents. Also, due to the PG-13 rating, the laughs are not overly edge. Expectedly, the film eventually culminates with a predictable finish that wishes to pluck some heartstrings, but none of it is earned. The cop-out conclusion pushes the tone toward treacly, falsely uplifting mawkishness. Everyone loves each other and the attempted murder that was perpetrated earlier in the movie is swept under the rug.

Jane Fonda is a show-stealer as Viola. Despite this being her first film role in 15 years, she did a marvellous job with the character. Fonda gave the material her all; screaming, mugging and giggling through the entire performance like a crazed maniac. She's a hoot, and her energy levels are off the charts. Beside her, Jennifer Lopez could only pray to keep up. While there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Lopez's performance, it's not outstanding either - she's just there, and at no point comes across as either poor or excellent. Also in the cast is Wanda Sykes who's a scene-stealer as Viola's assistant. Since Sykes has a background in stand-up comedy, she was well aware of how to nail every one-liner perfectly (though the movie's PG-13 rating forbade her from going as far as she could have). Meanwhile, Adam Scott is highly amusing as Charlie's gay friend, and Michael Vartan is so bland and interchangeable that he barely registers.

If you enjoy romantic comedies that are breezy and at times amusing, then Monster-in-Law should satisfy you. It will pass 90 minutes quite pleasantly without rising to any great heights. It's just a shame that the weak script snaps back to mediocrity whenever there are flashes of brilliance. File it under "guilty pleasure" and move on.

5.1/10

To begin this review, let's get one thing straight: despite the misleading name, Titanic II is not an official sequel to James Cameron's big-budget retelling of the Titanic disaster. Nevertheless, a film entitled Titanic II is sure to seem like a bad joke, even after watching the official trailer or spying the DVD cover at a local shop. It's perhaps unsurprising, then, to learn that the film was funded by The Asylum; a studio renowned for such "mockbusters" as Snakes on a Train, The Day The Earth Stopped and Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus. To the credit of the folks over at The Asylum, though, they've come a long way since their early features which were seemingly produced on ten-dollar budgets. Titanic II is a noted improvement over prior efforts - it contains a few moments of genuine humour, a modicum of effective tension, a few special effects shots that are kind of convincing, and a few almost-decent actors. By Asylum standards, it's not too bad. By regular film standards, however, it's pretty lacklustre.

Set on the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the RMS Titanic (in 2012, in other words), the film begins with the launching of the USS Titanic II as it embarks on its maiden voyage to New York. Despite looking exactly like the original Titanic, it is equipped with state-of-the-art technology and an ultra-modern interior (including an area that looks remarkably like the inside of a mall). During the ship's travelling journey, a veteran Coast Guard captain (Davidson) and the world's hottest iceberg scientist (Burns) discover that glaciers in Greenland are breaking off at an alarming rate due to global warming, causing large tsunamis across the Atlantic Ocean. Problem is, the tsunamis are carrying icebergs with them. Soon enough, an iceberg is hurled at the Titanic II, causing history to repeat itself.

Titanic II is riddled with disaster movie clichés - there's an estranged couple who find each other again, a corporate tycoon who brags about the ship's invulnerability, the lone voice who expresses concern about the ship's rushed construction, an asshole minor character we're supposed to hate, and even a message regarding the consequences of global warming. The film is frequently predictable, too, and the dialogue is basic. With that said, though, the dialogue is at least easily serviceable rather than cringe-worthily terrible.

The Asylum's usual claim to fame is making quick, cheap answers to blockbusters, and the studio is a chief supplier of movies for the Sci-Fi Channel. The filmmakers at The Asylum trim all the expensive extravagances that drive up the cost of productions (like sets) and employ a great deal of substandard CGI. Titanic II is no exception. While the movie admittedly looks more professional than most Asylum productions, the filmmaking is nonetheless second-rate. Due to its low-budget origins, the scope of Titanic II is restricted, and thus the film is unable to convey the scale of the disaster. This is exemplified in the notable lack of extras. Plus, the extras playing the first class passengers look like random tourists recruited from the lines outside of Universal Studios or SeaWorld. The CGI, unsurprisingly, is usually slipshod (with a few exceptions) - some CGI sequences are badly-lit (see the iceberg collision), and no passengers are on the decks in full shots of the ship. Also laughable is that the CGI rendering of the Titanic II looks identical to its 1912 predecessor, whereas the Queen Mary - which was a filming location and doubles for the ship in a number of establishing shots - looks completely different to the CGI ship.

Case in point... And I wonder how many minutes it took on Microsoft Paint to make the CGI ship...

Since writer-director Shane Van Dyke (Dick Van Dyke's son) focused on the disaster aspects of the movie more than anything else, the characters are boring, leaving us with nobody to care about. Thus, Titanic II lacks an emotional punch. Also problematic in this respect is the scope of the project, as previously mentioned. We see barely any people in serious peril or being killed. Since no sets of the deck were constructed, there are just a few fleeting shots of people rolling around on the decks of the Queen Mary while the cameraman suffers a fucking epileptic attack. Loose ends abound, too. For instance, after the lifeboats are dispatched, a character states that the lifeboats are death traps. Yet, the lifeboats are never seen again and it remains a mystery as to whether those onboard the lifeboats died or were rescued. More crucially, the tsunamis would have devastating implications for the Eastern seaboard of the United States, yet the film is only concerned with the passengers onboard the Titanic II.

After all the criticisms heaped onto Titanic II, it's important to point out that the movie is not that bad. A main strength is the cast, some of whom are actually decent. Without being Oscar-worthy, writer-director Shane Van Dyke is surprisingly convincing as rich playboy Hayden Walsh who designed the ship. Also worth mentioning is Bruce Davison who seems very comfortable in his role as the worried father and veteran Coast Guard captain. Davison possesses genuine charisma, and his line delivery is frequently spot-on. Cast aside, the soundtrack is pretty decent as well, and at times the movie is somewhat compelling. That said, there are boring patches as well. All things considered, Titanic II is a mixed bag - it's better than one might expect, but not as good as one might hope.

4.4/10

Over the years, Chris Morris has established himself as the enfant terrible of radio and television in Britain. Following a period of announcing the fake deaths of leading politicians and celebrities on radio, he went on to create the satirical television programs The Day Today and Brass Eye. Since the end of Brass Eye, Morris kept comparatively quiet for a few years. That is, until he opted to co-write and direct 2010's Four Lions; his first feature film. In essence, Four Lions is a terrorism comedy and a sharp, pitch-black satire with the balls of films like Network and Dr. Strangelove. Adjectives like 'edgy', 'audacious', 'provocative' and 'shocking' immediately leap to mind. Additionally, this is a balloon-sized laugh riot from beginning to end - one of the funniest motion pictures in years. Yet, those who are accustomed to Morris' proverbial wit may be surprised to find that the filmmaker also added plenty of heart to complement the belly-laughs.

As the film begins, we are introduced to a group of London-based Muslins who desperately want to blow something up in a suicide bombing attack. They are unsure of what they should destroy, or even why, but they are nonetheless convinced that strapping explosives to themselves is the appropriate thing for a bunch of young Muslims to do. The bad news is that they're planning an attack, but the good news is that the group are clueless and inept beyond belief. The film tracks the Muslim men as they record mission tapes, train in Pakistan and try to formulate a coherent plan.

Chris Morris - who wrote the script with Jesse Armstrong, Sam Bain and Simon Blackwell (In the Loop) - was reportedly interested in using Four Lions to emphasise the notion that terrorists are in fact normal everyday men who are integrated within our culture. Fortunately, he hit the nail on the head. On top of this, it's doubtful that Morris' film would prove offensive to anyone. It does not mock the characters for being Muslim, nor is the movie anti-Islamic - instead, Morris had a simpler aim: to exploit male stupidity. The point is not that these guys are Muslims - the point is that the group are so incompetent that they couldn't organise a piss-up in a pub, let alone a terrorist attack to bring England to its knees. Morris clearly took great delight in puncturing the objectives of the group over and over again, with each ludicrous development taking the film to new comedic heights. Four Lions is also a biting satire of the imbecility of fanaticism that benefits from dagger-sharp dialogue laced with droll comedy. The comedy within Four Lions is genuine, grade-A DARK humour as well. Comedies this ballsy, hilarious and black are few and far between.

Yet, just when you think Four Lions offers nothing but rapid-fire comedy, Morris and his writers throw out something unexpectedly warm or insightful. For instance, the film's sobering final five minutes manage to simultaneously be blackly comic, intellectually stimulating and curiously respectful. Added to this, it's possible to grow to sympathise with the central characters while at the same time finding their ineptitude laughable and their ruthlessness appalling. This is a testament to the skills of the major players, all of whom are superb in their respective roles. Riz Ahmed is particularly terrific as Omar - he kept a straight face whilst detonating the comedy, and brought commendable pathos to the role as well. Meanwhile, Chris Morris' directorial handling of the material is excellent. The mise-en-scène is effective, while the shaky-cam cinemagraphic techniques heighten the authentic edge of the material. The only problem with Four Lions is the slight feeling that it's a single joke stretched to its limits. Sure, it's a brilliantly-written comedy, yet there are a few patches during which the energy relents and the film consequently begins to drag.

With Chris Morris' Four Lions, a human face has at long last been painted onto previously dread-inspiring terrorist caricatures - it provides insight into the minds of a bunch of human Muslim men who happen to have stumbled on the wrong path to paradise. Added to this, if it's true that we stop being scared of something once we can laugh at it...then Four Lions has made this reviewer feel a bit better about the war on terror. In fact, according to Morris, the movie is loosely based on actual blunders made by terrorist cells. Some movie-goers may find that Four Lions hits a little too close to home (people reportedly called for theatres to boycott the film), but those who are able to let their inhibitions go will find this to be a perfectly-pitched, hilarious ride.

8.4/10

An amalgamation of the Bourne series, the Bond series and the Mission: Impossible films, 2010's Salt is exactly the type of action-thriller you'd expect to witness during summertime - it's loaded with clichéd characters, a patently silly story, and lots of ridiculous action set-pieces which defy all known limitations of physics and pain tolerance. And due to the fact that the film takes itself with the poker-face seriousness of the Bourne pictures, there are several serious problems hampering Salt. Yet, unlike a lot of recent blockbusters, this film is almost saved by two things: competent craftsmanship and terrific star power. While the film does not possess much replay value since a lot of interest is hinged on not knowing character intentions, the initial experience is still a lot of fun.

Angelina Jolie stars as the titular Evelyn Salt; a CIA agent who's first seen being tortured in North Korea before being traded back to America at the insistence of her boyfriend Mike (Diehl). Two years later, Salt is happily married and has settled into a life of domesticity. But when a Russian defector (Olbrychski) fingers Salt as a deep-cover Russian agent planted in American to participate in an uprising, Salt goes on the run in order to clear her name. According to the Russian defector, Salt's objective is to assassinate the Russian President (Krupa), who is in the United States to attend the funeral of the U.S. Vice President.

Before Angelina Jolie was attached to the project, the film was originally designed as a vehicle for Tom Cruise (who reportedly decided to star in Knight and Day instead). Yet, Jolie's involvement is a true benefit, and she managed to believably bring Evelyn Salt to life. Granted, it would have been interesting to see Cruise in the lead role, but Jolie is perfectly acceptable as Salt. Added to this, she's a welcome and refreshing change of scenery after so many male action heroes over recent years. Also of note in the cast is Liev Schreiber as a CIA agent who claims Salt is innocent, and Chiwetel Ejiofor as the counter-intelligence official whose duty is to investigate the claims against Salt. Jolie, Schreiber and Ejiofor are all well-suited for their respective roles.

The key mystery element of the narrative - is Salt a double-agent or a triple-agent? - keeps the film compelling and interesting. Alas, the answer is revealed before the midpoint is reached. From here on in, Salt falls into the category of pure eye candy, with the spy aspects being pushed aside in favour of spectacular stunts and lengthy chases. Phillip Noyce directed Patriot Games back in the early '90s, so one would think he'd be knowledgeable about building suspense, yet no suspense is present here - the film is just a series of bombastically-soundtracked crashes and bangs. As the focus was on pace, exposition is kept to a minimum, though this can be considered a positive since the dialogue usually consists of clichéd action movie speak. Eventually, the movie wraps up with a perfunctory and somewhat unsatisfying conclusion. Salt frankly feels like a pilot episode for a mini-series rather than a self-contained feature-length movie, since 95 minutes was not enough time to explore all the narrative possibilities. For instance, the relationship between Evelyn and her husband should have real resonance, but it comes across as an afterthought and a pace-killer.

Salt may be a Jason Bourne clone from a conceptual standpoint, but, to the credit of director Noyce, it's not a stylistic clone. Eschewing the almost incomprehensible hyper-kineticism of a lot of contemporary action films (a trend made popular by Paul Greengrass), the action is often crisp and clear. There is plenty of action throughout the film and it rarely relents, but all the set-pieces laugh furiously in the face of reason and physics as the material progressively grows more preposterous and cartoonish until every ounce of interior logic is destroyed. In the climax Salt resembles Spider-Man as she manages to break into the bunker beneath the White House by jumping and sliding down an elevator shaft (the wirework is painfully obvious) before knocking out a few guards and slipping through a door before it shuts. Salt also manages to make the assassination of the Russian President look insanely simple. It becomes difficult to take the film seriously at all. This would be fine if it was an intentional parody of spy-thrillers or if it had a camp sensibility, yet the tone argues that it wants to be taken seriously. There's no humour. It's a huge problem.

Another key problem which hinders Salt is the PG-13 rating. This is perhaps the most violent PG-13 in recent memory, but the kills are all much too "clean". Thus, this is another unfortunate instance of Hollywood taking inherently adult material and, by toning down the blood and swearing, transforming it into teen-friendly fodder. Still, Salt is an enjoyable blockbuster. Make no mistake, this is nothing more than cinematic junk food, but at least it's not the type of cheapo shit that leaves you wishing you had never indulged in the first place.

6.2/10

Judd Apatow is a powerful name in the realm of contemporary comedy, and any film he's merely associated with is automatically something of interest. Apatow's sole 2010 offering, Get Him to the Greek, is a spin-off of 2008's Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and it foregrounds one of the earlier film's supporting characters: the womanising rock star Aldous Snow, played by Russell Brand. The director of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Nicholas Stoller, even returned as writer-director here. While Get Him to the Greek provides a few big laughs from time to time, the gags are uneven, and the film (similar to its main character) ultimately begins to wear out its welcome as the end draws near. In spite of this, a few memorable set-pieces and instances of sharp satirising makes the film an occasionally amusing commentary on the foibles of rock stardom.

A lackey working for a record company, Aaron Green (Hill) dreams up a grand idea to return rock star Aldous Snow (Brand) to the stage for a special ten-year anniversary concert after the rocker's legacy has been tarnished by a tumultuous relationship, the spectacular failure of a self-important, exploitative single, and years of partying. For his idea, Aaron's boss Sergio Roma (Combs, a.k.a. P. Diddy) gives Aaron the impossible assignment of flying to London and chaperoning Snow to both New York for a talk-show appearance and Los Angeles for the big show. Yet, Snow is notoriously unstable, and he is more interested in partying, drinking, sex and drugs.

With the exception of a fleeting, hilarious cameo for Kristen Bell as Sarah Marshall, Aldous Snow is the only returning character from 2008's Forgetting Sarah Marshall (Jonah Hill also starred in the earlier movie, but as a different character than the one he plays here). The decision to construct an entire feature around Snow was inspired - he stole every scene of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and demanded more screen time. Thus, chief among the challenges that writer-director Nicholas Stoller faced for Get Him to the Greek was to make Snow feel like more than just a scene-stealing misfit. Fortunately, he mostly succeeded. Snow's fundamental outlandishness was retained, yet the character has been developed into a three-dimensional human here with an emotional arc and a vulnerability barely masked by his trademark exuberance. There is also a poignant aspect to the story that affords an element of human drama, which, like most Apatow efforts, allows Get Him to the Greek to emerge as more than just a brainless laugh-fest.

The trouble with Get Him to the Greek, though, is that the movie grows tiresome, and it feels long in the tooth. No doubt, the movie fares best at its early stages; benefitting from a rapid-fire pace, several compelling performances, and an often hilarious script. Yet, especially once the midway point has passed, the film begins to seriously run out of steam, and it suffers from the same lack of craftsmanship that has plagued a lot of films produced by Apatow's company (see Funny People). Throughout the film, it's evident that Stoller was working with a bare-bones screenplay on the assumption that he and the cast would improvise large chunks, and the film would come together in the editing room (adding credence to this theory is the amount of material seen in trailers that is nowhere to be seen in the final product). The trouble with this approach is that a strong, clear foundation and focus is needed in order to generate an effective pace. It's forgivable when the skits are inspired, but there are too many flat skits that become long, repetitive, and at times utterly awkward. Simply put, the gags become far too scattershot, and the pacing is much too uneven.

In terms of acting, Russell Brand is Russell Brand. As Aldous Snow, he fails to break new ground as he's merely an off-the-wall lunatic. His performance is notably focused, though, and he inhabited the role with terrific abandon. Mention should be made of Snow's music, as well, which is well-crafted and catchy enough for the rocker's fame to be believable. Brand is a terrific singer, too. Meanwhile, Jonah Hill doesn't break much new ground either, but, to his credit, he's not his usual foul-mouthed self from Superbad or Knocked Up - instead, he's somewhat restrained as the straight man in over his head. The biggest surprise here is Sean 'P. Diddy' Combs, who's well-suited to comedy. In fact, he's the comedic highlight of the entire movie. Be sure to stay until the end of the credits, as Diddy gets one last laugh.

Jam-packed with cameos and offering sporadic bursts of inspired hilarity, Get Him to the Greek is better in spurts than as a whole. It's difficult to recommend spending your hard-earned money to see the movie, as it's unable to live up to the promise of its opening half hour and it ultimately becomes a bit of a drag. It's nonetheless enjoyable and at times creative, but, considering the brilliance of other contemporary comedies (such as The Hangover), Get Him to the Greek is lacking.

6.2/10

1974's Mr. Majestyk arrived during the most lucrative period of actor Charles Bronson's career; a time when movie-goers attended cinemas to see actioners like Red Sun, Chato's Land, Death Wish and The Mechanic. 1974 was most likely the best season of all for Bronson, as Mr. Majestyk and Death Wish were running in theatres simultaneously. While Mr. Majestyk lacks the social commentary of the vigilante actioner Death Wish, the film nonetheless packs a wallop and remains an enjoyable, competent showcase for Charles Bronson's superhero cool. Most interesting about the movie is the fact that screenwriter Elmore Leonard managed to transform the subject of the mistreatment of migrant workers into a vehicle for Bronson's violent heroics.

Bronson's character here is the titular Mr. Majestyk; a solemn watermelon farmer in Colorado who does not take kindly to anyone messing around in his watermelon patch. With harvesting time upon him, Majestyk hires a crew of migrant workers to pick the watermelons, but a local weasel named Bobby Kopas (Koslo) shows up demanding that Majestyk hire his men. After opening a can of whoop-ass on Kopas, Majestyk ends up in the local prison where he runs afoul with mafia hitman Frank Renda (Lettieri). Predictably, Renda is furious, and vows revenge on Majestyk. Of course, the enjoyment from here on in is watching Renda and Kopas bullying Majestyk, but them being unaware of the danger they're wandering into by doing so.

Elmore Leonard penned the script for Mr. Majestyk, and the usual rhythms of his hard-bitten prose are evident throughout. No revenge/vigilante cliché was left unused here, too, with Majestyk's best friend being mortally wounded, the love interest being placed in danger, the police being wholly incompetent, etc. The list goes on. Fortunately, there's a welcome amount of tongue-in-cheek humour within the film, and plenty of opportunities for Bronson to showcase the capabilities of his usual "don't fuck with me" screen persona. It's enough to trigger a few big dumb grins from time to time. Thankfully, too, the filmmaking is of a high standard here; director Richard Fleischer proved competent at handling moments of tension in particular. Coming from the heyday of the 1970s, the action is low-tech by contemporary standards but the violence packs a realistic punch. The climactic shootout is a humdinger, and there are some impressive chase scenes as well. Old school truly is the best school.

Mr. Majestyk additionally proves that a Charles Bronson revenge movie can be made about practically anything. In the Death Wish movies, Bronson avenged the death of loved ones. In Mr. Majestyk, Bronson avenges the death of his watermelon crop. There is even a scene depicting a bunch of gunmen callously blowing holes in a massive watermelon pile. When Bronson sees that his melons have been blown to smithereens, he emotes more than he did in all of the Death Wish movies combined. Sure, he merely lowers his head in anger and clenches his fist, but, considering Bronson's usual acting standard, this moment represents Laurence Olivier-type shit. As for the rest of his performance, Bronson played Majestyk with his usual quiet, stoic toughness, and his line delivery is frequently contrived. Like John Wayne, however, Bronson's fans attended his movies to enjoy his badass screen presence, and Mr. Majestyk delivers in this respect. However, it's Al Lettieri as Frank Renda who truly stands out here. Renda is a vicious brute, and it's easy to root against him.

The only real problem with Mr. Majestyk is that the set-up is too sluggish and laborious. If the movie was solely about Majestyk fending people off of his land, it would have been far simpler, more focused and all-round superior. Additionally, aside from pacing issues, Mr. Majestyk never truly stands out in any aspect; it's just an enjoyable, by-the-numbers action movie you will likely forget about a few days after watching. Nevertheless, it's a fun watch, and fans of Charles Bronson cannot afford to miss it.

6.2/10