Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Clash of the Titans is the latest demonstration of Hollywood's erroneous belief that any appalling work of screenwriting can be made palatable if enough money, CGI and British accents are thrown at it. An update of the 1981 cult classic of the same name, the movie is a rowdy heroes & villains video-game-style extravaganza direly lacking in personality and character. On the one hand it's a marvellous visual experience featuring a handful of magnificent widescreen images, but on the other it's shallow, underwhelming, underdone, frustratingly cold at its core, and marred by a grim self-serious tone unsuitable for the material. In other words, there's lots of sound and fury, but it comes at the expense of...well, everything else.

In essence, Clash of the Titans is a re-telling of the legend of Perseus, with Zeus (Neeson) growing irritated that the humans are no longer showing the Gods proper respect. Zeus' brother Hades (Fiennes) wishes for the inhabitants of Argos to pay for their insolence, and offers the mortals a short period of time to sacrifice Princess Andromeda (Davalos). If Andromeda remains alive after 10 days, a colossal beast known as the Kraken will be released from the depths of the sea to destroy the city of Argos. Into this conflict enters Perseus (Worthington), the demigod son of Zeus who only recently learned of his lineage and holds a grudge against Hades for the death of his adopted family. Backed by a squad of Argos soldiers (including Mads Mikkelsen, Nicholas Hoult, and Liam Cunningham) and a cursed priestess (Arterton), Perseus sallies forth to uncover a way to defeat the Kraken.

A lot of fuss has been made as to whether or not this film deserves to be viewed in 3-D. See, Clash of the Titans was originally created in 2-D, but, in the shadow of Avatar and its $2.6 billion box office earning, the studio ordered a hasty 3-D conversion a mere month before the film's release to milk it for as much money as possible (Cash of the Titans, anyone?). For those interested in seeing this movie, see it in 2-D - Clash of the Titans is not worth the extra few bucks. The 3-D effects are bad. For the most part, it's just 2D in different planes, which looks utterly unconvincing and functions as a strong, pertinent argument against this type of "quickie" conversion. If Avatar was one step forward for proving the merit of 3-D movies, Clash of the Titans is a trembling step backwards.

Filmmaking techniques have changed tenfold since 1981. The original Clash of the Titans featured the specialised stop-motion animation of Ray Harryhausen which characterised the picture, but this 2010 remake is a determined blockbuster overloaded with state-of-the-art digital effects and bursting with large-scale action beats. While director Louis Leterrier clung to shameful shaky-cam techniques to "enhance" the battles, the action sequences are at least comprehensible. At the very least, Clash of the Titans is a fun actioner. However, the CGI effects are very in-your-face obvious; a fault only augmented by the terrible 3-D conversion. In particular, the sequence with Medusa looks phoney and cartoonish. Even Pixar has achieved images closer to photorealism. Meanwhile, the PG-13 rating represents another critical problem. From the outset, it was clear the filmmakers were transforming the 1981 cult classic into an epic, stylised 300-style action film resembling a graphic novel. While 300 (an R-rated film) offered reams of violence and gore, Clash of the Titans is far too sanitised to be satisfying. This isn't to say that relentless, R-rated violence automatically makes the movie good... It just makes a movie much more fun, and sometimes that's just enough to warrant a solid recommendation as opposed to a hesitant one.

Had this Clash of the Titans possessed a sense of humour, audiences might've been given their first 3-D camp classic. All the male characters here have skirts, iconic beards, and sometimes dreadlocks. The gods of Olympus glow while standing on glowing spheres speaking in a variety of accents (Hades is English, Zeus is Irish, etc). Add a bunch of giant, mythical beasts to the mix, and this could have - and should have - been a total hoot. But instead, everything is played with a straight face. How boring.

A lack of characters denotes yet another major flaw. Sure, there are plenty of empty ciphers who deliver dialogue, but none of them attain even a semblance of three-dimensionality or deserve to be called characters. Would a protagonist with a personality be too much to ask? Worst of all, a viewer never really cares if Perseus wins, mainly because we sense the script will keep victory on his side anyway, and there's little tension to suggest otherwise. The film pushes to the fore Australian actor Sam Worthington (last seen in last year's Terminator Salvation and Avatar), who looks the part but whose clenched delivery, inconsistent accent and lack of charisma results in a drab hero. While Worthington is indeed a superior action star, he wasn't right for this part. Meanwhile, Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson are terrific in their respective roles, but as for the rest of the actors? Who cares - they barely warrant a mention, let alone screen-time.

Honestly, all of these little problems could be forgiven if only the proceedings were building up to a knock-'em-dead final showdown, but alas the climax is underwhelming. In fact, for an epic movie, Clash of the Titans is desperately underwhelming. The "hero's journey" feels like a quick scuttle from plot point to plot point, and the ending feels rushed - it's as if the budget ran out or the imagination of the screenwriters ran dry.

In spite of its failings (and boy are there many), there's at least a little fun to be had during Clash of the Titans. It certainly knows that it's a big, dumb actioner, and there's an entertainment value that arises from this self-awareness when the action is done right. Problem is, the film too often gets it all wrong, and it's to date the best example of the abominable consequences of misusing the 3-D process.

4.9/10

Set your mind back to the year 2003 for a moment, when the invasion of Iraq commenced. Highest levels of American government offered assurances the invasion was a necessity in order to remove the clear and present danger presented by Sadaam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (or WMDs, as they're more commonly referred to). In 2010, seven years after the initial invasion, the full truth remains murky, but it's indisputable that there were no WMDs, and the intelligence that implicated their existence was faulty. Whether this intelligence failure was the consequence of lies or deliberately manipulated information has been subject to much speculation, and Paul Greengrass' latest motion picture, Green Zone, revisits the question of why America went to war in the form of a high-energy political action-thriller. In the past, Greengrass has helmed two "issue" movies (Bloody Sunday, United 93) and two popcorn actioners (The Bourne Supremacy, The Bourne Ultimatum), and Green Zone represents a merger of these two styles which reunites the director with Bourne star Matt Damon.

Damon plays U.S. Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, whose job is to track down the WMDs in the newly liberated Iraq. Frustration is setting in, however, because Miller's team are being sent to empty and worthless sites of little worth, and casualties have been absorbed in the process. Bureaucrat Clark Poundstone (Kinnear), who represents the Bush administration in Iraq, asserts that the WMD intelligence is correct, but Miller thinks otherwise. Smelling a rat, he begins asking questions and gradually starts to unravel an elaborate conspiracy involving every layer of government. With help from sympathetic CIA chief Gordon Brown (Gleeson), Miller goes rogue in an attempt to uncover the elusive, uncomfortable truth behind the WMD mystery.

Slowly but surely, director Greengrass amplifies the tension as the tangled web of sinister Pentagon agents, CIA bureaucrats, Iraqi security forces, and Miller himself converge on a shadowy source known only as "Magellan". This is not black-and-white politics; Miller is wading in murky waters during the proceedings, where heroes and villains aren't as easily defined or identified as they once were. Formerly, Miller was a soldier who took orders and carried out the duties assigned to him, but he becomes faced with shifting sands and tough choices. At one stage he asks Gordon "I thought we were all on the same side?" to which Gordon replies with "Don't be naïve". Green Zone is perhaps the most anti-American portrayal of the Iraq War so far.

Although Rajiv Chandrasekaran's novel Imperial Life in the Emerald City is attached to the film, Green Zone is not a straight-up adaptation of it. Greengrass and scenarist Brian Helgeland (Payback, L.A. Confidential) employed background information from the book, but the bones of the plot are almost entirely fictitious. In this way, Helgeland has crafted a fictional story using non-fictional elements, and it manages to interweave fact and fiction into an engaging whole. A key factor in distinguishing Chandrasekaran's novel from Greengrass' film is that the book was unafraid to name names and point fingers, whereas the film opts for fictionalised alter-egos.

Without a doubt, Green Zone is an energetic thriller crafted with impressive zeal by Greengrass. The tension levels start out high, and seldom relent throughout the picture's gripping two-hour running time. Greengrass' career began in journalism, for which he filmed war zones like those within this film, and there's no doubt his signature in-your-face style is a tremendous asset. Barry Ackroyd, who also worked as cinematographer on the Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker, provides the same brand of hand-held immediacy here. The shaky cinematography ratchets up the urgency and amplifies the sense of chaos during the intense action sequences, while John Powell's score further augments the atmosphere and sustains the suspense. Much of the film is about the tense, hair-raising dangers of war, but the climax is a spectacular action set-piece - an exhilarating, thoroughly nail-biting night-time chase through the dark streets of Baghdad. Stuff is blown up and people are shot, and Greengrass places viewers in the thick of it. The photography, which is so often called ugly, is so crucial for instilling a sense of realism, especially the graininess of the visuals. It's possibly to truly feel like you're part of the scene, rather than an innocent bystander tucked safely away in an isolated theatre.

What Green Zone fails to offer, however, is characterisation. Miller is never developed as a flesh-and-blood human - he's instead an underdeveloped protagonist used to progress the plot from point to point. Ditto for the roles allotted to Gleeson and Kinnear - we know what they're up to, but not the why of their actions. The film is merely a slice of life portrayal without flashbacks or deep discussions, but it's not enough. Also, it's undeniable that the narrative of Green Zone is very surface-level, and simplifies the politics of the Iraq War into a very basic narrative structure. Sure, it works, but it could've been superior with more depth.

Anyone who has previously seen a Matt Damon performance should not be surprised at how perfect he is for the role of Roy Miller. Possessing a similar moral fortitude as Jason Bourne (a character no doubt Miller will be compared to) but lacking the physical strength and fighting abilities, the superhero element is removed here, leaving a very human and relatable character. Greg Kinnear and Brendan Gleeson are equally terrific in their respective roles. Khalid Abdalla, who played one of the hijackers in Greengrass' United 93, also features as Miller's reluctant translator who struggles with divided loyalties. One of the most intriguing aspects of Green Zone is that, rather than using extras dressed in battle fatigues, a lot of the men surrounding Damon are apparently soldiers who have spent time fighting in the Iraq War. These men aren't given particularly large roles, but where it counts is in the details - the tactics and movements of the team all feel real.

Every once in a while, a smart, rousing, mature film for adults is released that audiences decide to bypass, and Green Zone is the current example. It's a shame such movies as this aren't well received at the box office, because the cinematic climate would be a better place with more of this kind. On Michael Moore's Twitter, he said of the movie: "I can't believe this film got made. It's been stupidly marketed as action film. It is the most HONEST film about Iraq War made by Hollywood."

7.8/10

A stylised, excessively violent slice of martial arts pulp, Ninja Assassin reunites director James McTeigue with producers Joel Silver and Andy & Larry Wachowski for the first time since 2005's V for Vendetta. It nothing else, Ninja Assassin can be commended for staying true to its title. There are ninjas in the movie, and they indeed assassinate people in action set-pieces that highlight director McTeigue's trademark flair for slick, highly choreographed action. If this is all that matters to you, then the film delivers. However, those looking for anything resembling an actual movie - with character arcs, a plot, nuances, etc - will likely be disappointed once the blood begins to dry. Still, when you're dealing with a movie entitled Ninja Assassin, the quality of the ninja-ing rules all.

The protagonist of the story, Raizo (Rain), was raised by a secret underworld of ninjas, and has been trained to become an unflinching killing machine. During the many years of his training, Raizo managed to retain enough humanity to want to rebel against his future as a heartless killer, and eventually turns rogue. He decides to help Interpol researcher Mika (Harris), who is attempting to convince her superior (Miles) that ninja clans still exist and carry out international assassinations for a high price. It's lucky for Mika that Raizo is around, as Mika's investigating has made her a target. What follows is a fairly rudimentary exercise in run-from-the-bad-guys-until-it's-time-to-kill-them action cinema.

First-time screenwriter Matthew Sand and TV veteran J. Michael Straczynski have concocted a narrative for the film that's strangely reminiscent of Batman Begins, with story beats as predictable and generic as Raizo's gradually-revealed motivations for becoming a rogue assassin out for revenge. It's a crying shame the Wachowski Brothers neglected to hire a writer who could have at least developed an interesting story to accompany the mayhem, but what Ninja Assassin offers is a flimsy, thin plot that struggles to hold the movie together in between the action sequences. Unfortunately, whenever the badass action halts, the dialogue is usually howlingly bad and comes off as merely perfunctory. What's more heartbreaking is that glimpses of a much smarter movie are present from time to time, but are ultimately wasted. All the talk of international intrigue suggests a Bourne-style action-thriller which could've resulted in a far more engaging cinematic experience. Instead, we're left with a ninja seeking revenge who's trying to protect an attractive stranger. Alas, this alone is simply not enough.

Decades ago, ninja movies were almost entirely reliant on the physical capabilities of the picture's stars, with a bit of clever editing to enhance these abilities. But in the 21st Century - in the world of post-Matrix digital effects - any actor can be made to look like they can do anything. Thus, as McTeigue pulled off for 2005's V for Vendetta, a combination of traditional fight choreography and CGI is utilised to pull off the action sequences. In fact, a number of the set-pieces within Ninja Assassin feel like video game cut-scenes, and it's surprising that no-one suggested the film be in 3-D. At times, the frantic editing/shaky-cam techniques do become pronounced to the point of distraction, unfortunately, and it's difficult to fully appreciate the graceful athleticism of the choreography. Also, unlike the masterful use of digital effects in V for Vendetta, the violence is occasionally far too cartoonish to be effective. While some of the violence was done practically, most of the maiming is CGI, which allows the filmmakers the freedom to be mega bloody, but it also mars their work because it's less visceral. Thank goodness the action still remains eminently watchable.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ninja Assassin is thoroughly absurd. For instance, heavily armed SWAT teams have no chance against a few well-trained ninjas, yet 800 well-trained ninjas have no chance against Raizo? How come one ninja on his own is unstoppable, but ninjas within an army suddenly lose their invincibility? While killing ninjas as if he's merely swatting flies on a hot day, Raizo is even critically injured every few minutes, but it never seems to bother him. Maybe Raizo is using that miraculous healing power that was demonstrated earlier in the film? If he is, it's poorly delineated. Meanwhile, the acting in the movie is generally subpar. Playing Raizo, Rain acquits himself well in the action sequences, but he's bland, and lacks the requisite charisma to create an indelible screen anti-hero. Ben Miles is the only other cast member worth mentioning. The actor - who earned his stripes featuring in the highly acclaimed British TV series Coupling - submits a perfectly adequate performance.

While V for Vendetta was a wonderfully intelligent, well-performed and provocative action film, James McTeigue focuses squarely on the action in the case of Ninja Assassin. Heck, the film's producers, the Wachowski Brothers, also showed an ability to mix action and intelligence in The Matrix, but intelligence and solid acting are nowhere to be seen in Ninja Assassin. To its credit, this is still a well-paced actioner which delivers if all you want is some kinetically exciting, blood-soaked ninja fighting, but given the talents involved, we have to mourn what the film could've been. In this sense, the film only works in pieces, and five minutes after watching it you'll probably forget you ever saw the flick.

5.9/10

In supernatural end-of-the-world films, it's typically the Devil who brings about an Armageddon, but in 2010's Legion it's God who chooses to destroy mankind. That's the plot of this apocalyptic thriller, which should've been an irresistibly daft blast of B-Grade fun, but is instead a deadly dull, poorly-paced, uninvolving, pedestrian hodgepodge of familiar genre ideas and downright appalling connect-the-dots screenwriting. Legion also serves as evidence that Dennis Quaid, who is a perfectly decent actor when working with the right material, is truly on a never-ending quest to feature in as many bad movies as possible. Who knew the end of the world could be such a bore...

The premise is simple: God is fed up with "man's bullshit" and triggers a global apocalypse, in which a swarm of warrior angels are sent to Earth to destroy humankind. Michael (Bettany) is a rogue angel who throws off his heavenly shackles to do what he believes is best, and save the life of an unborn infant who is somehow important to the salvation of the human race. The final battle for the survival of humanity involves automatic weapons and takes place at an isolated diner in the Mojave Desert. Of course, why God chose such an ineffective, unusual way to destroy the world is never explained or touched upon (are floods and pestilence not good enough anymore?).

Legion is loaded with familiar scenes and scenarios, including scenes depicting characters falling for obvious traps that lead to their predictable demise. But the storyline itself is also familiar - it's essentially a clueless combination of The Terminator, Assault on Precinct 13, End of Days, and numerous living dead efforts. Unfortunately, Charlie (Palicki) - the character carrying the important infant - is easy to hate throughout the film. She's sweet, but also smokes when pregnant, constantly talks about her desire to give the baby away, and is pretty much useless. If an audience is unable to care about her, how are we supposed to invest in her protection, which is what most of the film focuses on?

The film marks the directorial debut of ILM veteran Scott Stewart, and his inexperience is obvious all the way through the movie. Most disappointing is the climax, which is virtually impossible to decode due to terribly misjudged cinematography and editing. Legion does show promise at certain points during its first half hour, as it showcases a few interesting shots and is imbued with a degree of tension. But this potential is destroyed by the rest of the film, which collapses under the weight of how seriously the subject is taken. The premise is ridiculous and promises a campy, enjoyable time, but the movie never runs carefree and enjoys the premise. As a result, there's precious little angel-on-angel action. Instead, God has chosen to deploy a great deal of slow, shuffling zombie-like creations that make for easy cannon fodder. It also doesn't help that the narrative momentum is frequently undermined by long spells of total inactivity and moments depicting the characters delivering yawn-inducing exposition about their past. Literally everyone stops to make a long, boring speech, each with the same sombre delivery. Perhaps God is fed up with all the moody yammering, and has decided to wipe out mankind for that reason? Without a hint of humour and with very few enjoyable moments, Legion is an utter bore, bluntly performed by a limited cast visibly unable to compute if the material was high camp or Shakespeare.

The main crime perpetuated by Legion is the total lack of brains. The script is a mess of plot holes, illogicalities and inconsistencies. In the very first scene, Michael breaks into an armoury, and, instead of using the front door to walk out, he blows up a wall and draws attention to himself. It's a moment included to amplify the "cool factor", but just comes off as silly. Several questions come to mind during this movie as well. For instance, why can't the creator of the universe strike down Charlie or trigger a miscarriage? Why would God send a bunch of incompetent, possessed humans to kill humankind, rather than a shower of asteroids or a flow of lava? Another thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is the lack of rules when it comes to possession. At the beginning, a police officer is possessed in order for God to converse with Michael. So why doesn't God or one of his minions possess Charlie or any of those in the diner? Why not possess the entire human race and force them all to commit suicide? Did the filmmakers ever stop to think these things through? Eventually, Gabriel is sent in to kill the pregnant woman. But again, Gabriel is as unsuccessful as every other option tried so far, and God still refuses to make a giant boulder appear out of thin air to crush the diner. But here's the most glaring thing: when an angel possesses a human, why do they turn into hellish demon creatures?

While Legion has its moments from time to time, it remains a dopey horror-action mishmash marred by lack of action, an aggressive, intrusive score, mediocre acting, inherent cheesiness, bland characters, long-winded dialogue, misjudged filmmaking, unremarkable CGI and a very confused take on the Almighty. The film never seems to understand its own potential, too - it could have been a fun, action-packed grindhouse-style actioner, but it instead commits the ultimate sin of tedium.

3.8/10

With a budget reportedly exceeding $200 million, James Cameron's Titanic was the most expensive motion picture in history upon its release in 1997. During production, the cards were heavily stacked against the movie; it starred commercially unproven actors, online commentators derided the story as a Romeo and Juliet rip-off, and costs continued to climb, forcing a nervous Twentieth Century Fox to sell the domestic distribution rights to Paramount Pictures. Yet, nothing but phenomenal success welcomed Titanic - it eclipsed expectations, dominated the Academy Awards by winning eleven categories, and earned a whopping $1.8 billion at the worldwide box office, making it the highest-grossing film of all time until Cameron's follow-up project, Avatar, dethroned it. Grand in scope and emotion, Titanic proves that epic sagas in the tradition of Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur are not a thing of the past and can still be successful and profitable, especially when in the hands of passionate and talented filmmakers.

Short of discovering time travel, James Cameron's Titanic is the closest that any film-goer will get to exploring the Titanic's decks. The recreations of the ship's interiors burst with authenticity, as nothing feels like a mere set due to the attention to detail, including accurate dinner plates and silverware that feature the White Star Line emblem. The picture's production designer, Peter Lamont (a Bond regular), consulted the ship's original blueprints, and the production even used the manufacturer of the Titanic's original carpet. In each of his previous movies, the hands-on Cameron has continued to push the special effects envelope in groundbreaking and inspiring ways. Each film for Cameron is not just another day at the office but another revolutionary breakthrough for cinema, and Titanic continues this tradition.

Many online commentators understandably chortled at the prospect of a $200 million feature film with a foregone ending. However, Cameron's movie is about far more than the sinking of an ocean liner in the Atlantic Ocean. While the film does cover the disaster in appreciable detail, Titanic is primarily a love story. Most blockbuster directors like Michael Bay prefer to use a thin story as an excuse for mindless special effects self-indulgence, but Cameron uses special effects to serve his storytelling. Cameron also has a knack for generating emotional power amidst the spectacle, and Titanic reinforces this, as it is challenging not to be genuinely invested in Jack and Rose's relationship by the time the iceberg appears. Given that 2,200 souls were on board the Titanic as she sank, it would have been easy to cram the film with lots of characters within lots of stories. However, Cameron keeps the story of Jack and Rose at the fore, and the camera only occasionally leaves their side for scenes of historical clarification. The director knows when to dial back the scope to focus on intimate character moments, from the scene where Jack sketches Rose in her stateroom to the heartbreaking moment when a freezing Jack convinces Rose that she will survive the disaster, despite the disconcerting odds.

As the grand ship sinks into the ocean, Cameron crafts some of the most impactful and emotionally devastating images of his career. Despite the rising water levels, Titanic's band continues to play on her decks, and the band's final tune - "Nearer, My God, to Thee" - gives way to a heart-wrenching montage. Also heartbreaking are the images of the harsh ocean obliterating this beautiful ship, such as the flooding of the Grand Staircase and the breaking of the luxurious dome. Whereas previous Titanic films seemingly show the ship gracefully sliding underwater, Titanic is the first cinematic portrayal of the disaster to emphasise the violence, terror, and chaos of the sinking, with the ship splitting in half and a terrifying final plunge in almost complete darkness. Most affecting of all, though, are the shots of hundreds of people thrashing around in the freezing sea, giving way to a field of floating, frozen corpses. Perfectly accompanying the astonishing visuals is James Horner's Oscar-winning score. This epic tale required an epic score, and Horner was up to the task, providing intimate music for the quieter scenes, grandiose music to match the sweeping imagery, pulse-pounding music to amplify the sinking's intensity, and emotionally affecting music to underscore the tragedy of the fateful night. Anyone who watches this movie without getting a tear in their eye is a stronger man than this reviewer.

Critics often deride Titanic for not focusing enough on historical detail. Admittedly, there are a few inaccuracies (the collapsible boats are inaccurate here, for instance), while the film omits the stories of both the Californian (a ship in eyesight of the Titanic as she sank) and the Carpathia (a liner which answered the Titanic's distress call but did not arrive in time). But the aim of Cameron's movie was not to provide the definitive retelling of the disaster, but to tell an account of the Titanic's sinking from a specific vantage point. The camera never leaves the decks of the doomed ocean liner as she sinks, which is beneficial for both pacing and building intoxicating tension. Titanic is an exciting and compelling disaster movie, maintaining a robust pace as panic builds and the ship's fate becomes clearer to her passengers. Once the water reaches the boat deck, the last stages of the sinking occur in real time as Titanic's officers desperately try to launch the collapsible boats, the funnels fall, and passengers flee to the stern. Cameron called upon several experts to serve as consultants on the project, including Titanic historians Don Lynch and the aforementioned Ken Marschall.

Although Titanic runs a gargantuan 195 minutes, Cameron bestows the picture with a storytelling economy and an astonishing sense of pace. Even the most critically acclaimed cinematic epics in history, from Lawrence of Arabia to The Bridge on the River Kwai, have their drab moments, but not a single frame of Titanic feels inessential or tedious. Unfortunately, Titanic still receives a lot of criticism and is often belittled as a cheesy chick flick. The hate is entirely unfounded and unfair, as this is an excellent motion picture that deserves its success and acclaim. However, despite its strengths, the film is not perfect. There are illogicalities (Rose knows of Sigmund Freud's work, yet it was not translated into English until several years after the disaster) and some blatant technical faults (apparently, this is the most goof-ridden film of all time). As a Titanic enthusiast, I also wish the film were longer, but that's a matter of personal preference.

A disappointing ending could have sunk Titanic, and the odds were against Cameron in this regard. After all, how could the filmmaker possibly give satisfying closure to the story of a tragic disaster wrapped around such an affecting romance fable? Fortunately, the proceedings conclude with a beautiful, emotionally resonant scene that does the film justice and resonates with the events of the past three hours. James Cameron's Titanic is a dazzling work of cinematic art that mixes style and substance with staggering confidence. It runs for a daunting three hours, yet the time flies by with immaculate brevity. Most may not regard this as the best cinematic portrayal of the Titanic disaster, but it's inarguably the most memorable and spectacular, with its tremendous emotional power, compelling human drama, and groundbreaking special effects.

9.0/10

While the title of From Paris with Love may imply that it's a romantic comedy featuring the Eiffel Tower, the title is in fact a James Bond homage, and the production is a hardcore, no-holds-barred action flick which arrives courtesy of Luc Besson's production factory. For those unaware, Besson is the French filmmaker who produces American action films with far more verve than American filmmakers themselves. Not long ago, Besson and director Pierre Morel teamed up for the surprise hit Taken, and From Paris with Love marks another Besson/Morel collaboration. But while Taken was a gritty, hard-hitting actioner, From Paris with Love is a straight-up cartoon; an exaggerated cocktail of two-dimensional villainy, verbal bluster, mayhem, John Woo-esque action set-pieces and an over-the-top John Travolta as a cocky government operative tracking down an array of terrorists in the heart of France. Intellectually, the movie is flat as a pancake, but on a visceral level it's extremely involving. The film knows precisely what it is, and does a damn good job of being it.

The story is at once incomprehensible and expendable, but it's sufficient to drive the characters from Point A to Point B, which is all that matters in an action flick. In the film, Travolta's character of Charlie Wax is a profane American killing machine who's paired up with James Reece (Myers); a mild-mannered aid to the U.S. Ambassador in Paris with large aspirations. By the time Wax and Reece have known each other for a mere hour, the body count has already started to mount considerably. At first, Wax claims he's taking down a bunch of drug dealers responsible for the death of the Secretary of Defence's daughter, but his real mission is soon revealed: to eliminate a terrorist cell before the members launch an attack.

After 2004's District B13 and the recent Taken, director Pierre Morel has positioned himself as a superior action director. He has a masterful touch when it comes to pace, and From Paris with Love benefits greatly from such exhilarating acceleration. After a slow opening, the film takes off like a champion racehorse once Wax enters the film, as the screenplay by Adi Hasak (Shadow Conspiracy) lines up a series of unsavoury characters - all of whom are one-dimensional stereotypes, of course - for Wax and Reese to ice during their fast-paced trip around the city. However, the problem is that it takes a little too long for the film to hits its stride. The first 20 minutes are genuinely lousy, even by the admittedly low standards to which the movie was aspiring. In action flicks, the segues bridging the action tend to suck, and From Paris with Love is no exception. As the film establishes James Reece, it's frankly boring, and the tone is out-of-place when compared to the light-hearted action which pervades the film's final hour.

Thankfully, after the 20-minute point, the movement of Morel's direction is enthralling; leaping from location to location, staging shootouts and action set-pieces with a cartoonish quality to match Travolta's performance. Even if Morel appears to be on autopilot, he nonetheless delivers in each and every set-piece, sending bullets flying all over the place like it's nobody's business. As a matter of fact, the action evokes the spirit of John Woo movies. It's such a relief to watch a modern action flick containing action that has been edited to ensure an audience knows what's going on at any given time, as opposed to set-pieces that have been cut to incomprehensible ribbons. More pertinently, it's fantastic to see a contemporary actioner in which bad guys get popped in violent, bloody ways, without the cleanliness of the Hollywood-favourite PG-13 rating. As the action intensifies and the explosions keep getting bigger, one gets the feeling that it's building to a big climax. However, From Paris with Love fails in its finale - cheesy character interaction and impassioned speeches have no place in such a film as this.

Luc Besson's films usually feature recognisable Hollywood names, and the A-lister of From Paris with Love is John Travolta who absolutely steals the motherfucking show. Dispersing first-rate one-liners, shooting the hell out of the bad guys and beating the snot out of anyone who challenges him, Travolta truly chews up the scenery with the gusto of a hungry dog attacking a meal. Travolta simply owns the role. He was born to play this role. He's the hook - without him, the movie would be ordinary, but with him, there's always something to enjoy during the film's slowest moments. As legendary YouTube reviewer Jeremy Jahns said, if Jack Bauer (from 24) and Samuel L. Jackson had a child, it would be Travolta's character here. Meanwhile, Jonathan Rhys Meyers was given the unenviable task of playing the straight man to Travolta. Anyone could play this role, and Meyers never stands out as anything but interchangeable. Still, he's watchable at least.

From Paris with Love is one of those movies that consists almost entirely of over-the-top action sequences tenuously linked together by a painfully formulaic, by-the-numbers plotline and two-dimensional characters. From this description, it may sound like a brain-dead blockbuster that doesn't care about how lazy or graceless it is as long as there's sound and fury to temporarily distract the audience. But what prevents From Paris with Love from hopelessly falling into this trap is a great deal of style, energy and personality. It's an enjoyable, lively old-school bullet ballet that's low on CGI, and this separates it from the abominable films of such directors as Michael Bay and McG. It's nonsensical cinematic junk food at its core, but, like the best junk food, it goes down so well and tastes so good that those with a taste for such things should find it absolutely irresistible.

7.1/10

The story takes place in the year 2019, when a viral outbreak has transformed most of the planet's population into vampires. Humans have become an endangered species, and are hunted as a food source. Unfortunately, the human blood supply is running low, and a major blood bank is hastily seeking an emergency blood substitute. Morally conflicted vampire Edward Dalton (Hawke) is charged with developing this blood substitute, but is soon compelled to join forces with a group of renegade humans - led by a woman named Audrey (Karvan) and a man who calls himself Elvis (Dafoe) - who are working on a cure for vampirism. Elvis is an ex-vampire who inadvertently found a cure but has no idea about the specifics or how to scientifically replicate it. This task falls to Edward, who in turn becomes the largest threat to vampire dominance.

And yes, before you feel clever for pointing it out, the lead vampire character of Daybreakers is named Edward. But this Edward does not sparkle and mope. Instead, he doubts and smokes.

For Daybreakers, the Australian filmmaking duo of Michael and Peter Spierig grasped vampires and have made them feel real. The best parts of this film relate to exploring the society that may emerge in the scenario of vampires dominating the planet, including the potential economic, political, technological and military implications. An enthralling world has been constructed here that's loaded with brilliantly nuanced touches. Consider, for instance, the fact that coffee establishments substitute blood for cream, or the technological advancements that protect vampires from the sun (cars are outfitted with camera navigation and retractable sun shields for daytime driving, and soldiers are equipped with metal outfits so they can walk around outside during daylight). As it turns out, vampirism is big business, and the businessmen are less than pleased by the notion of a cure. Daybreakers is primarily an action-thriller, and the Spierig Brothers have filled the movie with traditional elements, but more thought and attention went into mapping out the scenario than one usually uncovers in this type of flick.

Thankfully, the Spierig Brothers are not only talented writers but talented directors as well. When the politics and allegories take a nap, Daybreakers is an effective, atmospheric, entertaining genre romp with top-drawer suspense and gallons of blood. For its shockingly modest budget, this is a sleek and attractive motion picture that captures the noir spirit exceptionally well. Granted, the filmmakers end up leaning heavily on rote clichés for the film's closing third, but at least the writer-directors provide a satisfying offering of tension and twists during this period, and - above all - it's extraordinarily well executed. In essence, everything Daybreakers had to do right is done right, though there are some occasionally distracting visual effects which look tragically cartoonish. There are occasional lags in the pace too, yet it's easy to overlook the draggy moments because of the solidity of the rest of the movie.

(Look! Hawke is dressed like Han Solo!)

Since Daybreakers is a 90-minute package, the characters are cardboard cut-outs. However, they adhere to enjoyable archetypes, and this prevents them from feeling as flat as they may otherwise appear. Unfortunately, Ethan Hawke is rather lacklustre as Edward Dalton, and never truly feels like he's genuinely committed to the material. (Oh, and as YouTube reviewer Jeremy Jahns noted, about two thirds into the movie, Hawke is dressed like Han Solo. It's pretty cool.) Willem Dafoe's performance, however, is an absolute delight; conveying tremendous energy and charm for his borderline over-the-top interpretation of vampire hunter Elvis. Another impressive addition to the acting roster is Australian actress Claudia Karvan, who has appeared in films since childhood but who's a relative unknown outside of her native country. Rounding out the cast is Sam Neill, who's terrific in his role as a corporate scumbag who's paranoid about the financial drawbacks of a cure for vampirism.

Like RoboCop and the recent District 9, Daybreakers is a sharp social satire dressed up as a badass genre flick. It will satisfy the thinkers of the audiences as well as those seeking entertainment, as it has both style and smarts. In short, it's extremely satisfying.

7.7/10

With the departure of virtually everyone involved with the first two Jaws movies, it was up to a new creative team to conceive of something new to attract audiences to the cinema for another sequel to Steven Spielberg's 1975 masterpiece. During the early 1980s, 3D horror films were revived, leading to the likes of Amityville 3-D and Friday the 13th Part III. Thus, the gimmick was applied to Jaws 3, which was, in turn, entitled Jaws 3-D. The final result is one of the most legendarily bad movies of all time, serving as a prime example of everything wrong with sequels. It fits the "bad sequel" bill on every count - it's unnecessary (yet another film about a killer great white shark that involves the same family?), gimmicky (3D...), and looks noticeably cheaper than its predecessors. Gone are the competent production values, taut editing, believable acting and astute screenwriting. What remains is an empty carcass.

Since both Steven Spielberg and Richard Dreyfuss bolted after the first film, and Roy Scheider had the good sense to call it quits after the sequel, Jaws 3-D introduces a new cast, though there are returning characters, because contrivance. There's also a new locale - Sea World in an undisclosed Florida location. Taking centre stage here are the Brody offspring, Michael (Dennis Quaid) and Sean (John Putch), who have moved away from their Amity home after the first two movies. Michael works at Sea World with his girlfriend (Bess Armstrong), but - shock horror - a thirty-five-foot man-eating great white shark shows up and begins eating people. Personally, I'd have given the shark a knife and fork.

The original Jaws worked due to its primal simplicity. A shark entered a populated island community and began munching on the population, and a trio of men set out to kill it. In the first sequel, the incredible coincidence of another shark in the same location terrorising the same community is hard to swallow. For Jaws 3, the coincidence that the Brody boys are still terrorised by a monster-sized killer shark - even after relocating to another state - is impossible to accept. Astonishingly, the screenplay was penned by original Jaws scribe Carl Gottlieb and respected novelist Richard Matheson, but apparently, the script was heavily altered by uncredited script doctors and the production was rushed.

Another critical factor in the success of the original Jaws was the vision and talent of director Steven Spielberg. Jaws 2 director Jeannot Szwarc did not prove as talented as Spielberg, but at least he could construct a workable film and conjure up a certain degree of tension. When Jaws 3 rolled around, the producers made the baffling decision to hand the reigns to Joe Alves, who served as production designer and second unit director for the first two films. Having no real directorial experience before (or since), Alves was clearly in over his head when attempting to master the subtleties of building tension, as there is zero suspense. The attack scenes are more uncomfortable than anything else. Jaws 3 also severely lacks style, as scenes lumber by without visual panache or genuinely exciting moments. The only unique developments in the visual style come from how some shots are presented since it was designed as a 3D movie, so there are several instances of things shooting towards the camera. But clearly, nobody could be bothered enough to actually finish any special effects shots, as there are thick black lines around 3D objects, and some of the digital compositing is possibly the worst ever seen in a studio movie.

The special effects are a constant source of amusement, with incredibly fake mechanical sharks and awful computer representations of them. It's baffling, but with each subsequent film, the shark looks faker than ever before. Shouldn't the effects be increasing rather than declining? Shouldn't the always-improving cinematic technology result in more believable-looking sharks, especially since almost ten years had elapsed since the first film? The thirty-five-foot great white in this film never looks real - it looks stiffer than concrete, it's incredibly slow, and it even appears to have a fucking tongue for whatever reason. As a matter of fact, the shark never seems to actually catch its prey - said prey literally swims into its mouth. In addition, the shark growls at times. But even more hysterical is the shark's miraculous ability to swim in reverse or swim on the spot!

As with the first two Jaws movies, Jaws 3 does feature real footage of sharks, but the technique is enormously ineffective here. The footage is very obviously sped up most of the time, and it often doesn't fit (daytime footage of a shark is used during a night-time sequence, which looks baffling). Also, the filmmakers seemingly ran out of great white shark footage, so random catfish footage is used instead. Compounding all of this awfulness, John Williams didn't score the film, though bits and pieces of the classic theme are used. Williams' replacement was a television veteran named Alan Parker, whose inexperience with feature films is painfully obvious, as the music never evokes a sense of terror, dread, excitement or suspense. The entire enterprise looks, feels and sounds like a cheap TV movie.

Somehow, though, Jaws 3-D manages to be strangely compelling in its terribleness. Even though it's unmistakably bad, at least you can laugh at it along the way. Cheesy acting, risible dialogue, terrible special effects, skewiff pacing... Jaws 3 represents the whole "so bad it's good" package. It will never be mistaken for a decent (or even a half-decent) film, but it's fun to watch with your friends after having a few beers. It's even more fun to ridicule. At least it's a fun bad movie...it gets points for that.

3.9/10