Reviews by PvtCaboose91

If one glances at the cover for 7 Seconds, surely they'd notice the presence of Wesley Snipes and figure that with a veteran actor of that calibre, the film should be pretty good. However, if one erases the name of "Wesley Snipes" and replaced it with Steven Seagal, Van Damme or Chuck Norris there would be barely any difference at all. Just like Wesley Snipes' preceding low-budget films (he's probably bordering on 5-10 by now) this is merely another direct-to-DVD action vehicle featuring standard filmmaking in every aspect. The plot is dumb, the script is dumb, the action is dumb, the dialogue is dumb, and the film makes very little sense. Snipes' character is an interchangeable face holding a gun. There are no interesting character traits that Snipes is able to bring to the table. It seems these days, the formerly talented actor is spending his time in Romania getting fairly well paid to churn out generic, routine action films that exist to provide action geeks with something to chuckle over while wandering through the video store, searching for something to watch.

7 Seconds is shot on a cheap budget and is entirely overloaded with confusion: it's ostensibly a movie about one great thief, numerous dim-witted villains, and a very sexy British babe. Basically the director has no problem with displaying pointless action and violence throughout. When the movie isn't whooshing down a Romanian street or showcasing Wesley Snipes kickboxing feebly, we're strained to suffer through incessant reams of screenplay jabber that's not even dreadful enough to be amusing. You won't care who successfully escapes with what and/or who finishes up double-crossing whom. Ergo the chases, getaways, and butt-kickings never seem to matter very much. It brings me no pleasure to announce that this is another nail in the coffin containing Snipes' career: 7 Seconds feels like nothing more than a project featuring Snipes merely because Van Damme was feeling too lazy one week.

The film's almost non-existent plot appears to concern an allegedly hard-nosed-yet-charming master thief named Jack Tuliver (Snipes). Of course he was formally in the army and, in the typical clichéd manner, was honourably discharged. Jack is leading a supposedly foolproof, precisely timed armoured car heist. Instead he ends up stealing a case that (I think) contains a missing Van Gogh painting. Then another gang turns up and briskly eliminates Jack's men. Then Jack's girl is kidnapped and he has to rescue her. Somewhere in here, a British army Sergeant (Outhwaite) gets mixed up and decides to help Jack.

Okay, so 7 Seconds is a pretty appalling film. Its only redeeming feature is the action. The car chases and shoot-outs are competently made and don't look too low-budget. Still, director Simon Fellows appears to stick close to the fast-cutting Michael Bay style. The story doesn't make a lick of sense and is full of incredible coincidences. The film offers a few twists and turns, but most of them are seemingly superfluous.

Another thing that will stick out about 7 Seconds is the enormous amount of flashbacks. I wouldn't by lying if I said the film would have been an hour long (or less) if the flashbacks were cut. We're endlessly spoon fed flashbacks to remind us of faces and things people have done. Surprisingly, even they cannot add more coherence to the flick. 90% of the time I didn't even know what the flashbacks were pertaining to (they constantly replay a clip of some random guy delivering a Wizard of Oz reference and then getting shot). The acting is very standard throughout the film. The script attempts to insert running gags, but they will never have you laughing. The biggest insult is the villain with Parkinson's disease that is obviously making himself shake. It all looks contrived. Also, the sound foley during the action is generally appalling!

Overflowing with mountains of corny dialogue, pointless acts of violence, futile flashbacks, senseless editing and a poor directorial style - one can only describe 7 Seconds as pure crap. It's disappointing to see Wesley Snipes transforming into a direct-to-video king like Seagal and Van Damme before him.

2.8/10

American Psycho is a frequently misapprehended adaptation of the controversial novel by author Bret Easton Ellis. This is a remarkably faithful adaptation of Ellis' outstanding literary novel that is habitually hailed as a grotesque, disturbing and unnerving piece of writing that promotes misogynistic themes. Several directors, from David Cronenberg to Oliver Stone, expressed interest in directing this adaptation. However, the directing duties were handed to small-time director Mary Harron whose film debut was the 1996 film I Shot Andy Warhol. Similar to the novel, this disconcerting film is marked as a horror or a thriller, when in fact it's a dark comedy and a subtle satire of society in the 1980s. This was a time when businessmen cared solely about their appearance: an attractive business card, a striking suit and reservations at the most trendy restaurant.

Whilst admittedly various audience members may regard it as a horror film, upon closer scrutiny it reveals itself to be something unreservedly different: it's a social satire. Mary Harron's American Psycho is a dark glimpse at society gone awry. It depicts a society so extremely infatuated with possessions and one-upmanship that even murder is unsuccessful to fulfil people's desires. The central protagonists solidly drive this message into the mind of the viewer. Similar to the novel, the film also contains almost no plot. This is probably the film's key flaw: there's no plot to fuel the film's events, and hence nothing overly interesting actually occurs. To hide this fact, the film is instead infused with incredible performances, mesmeric imagery and a dark but irresistible atmosphere.

Patrick Bateman (Bale) is a successful 27-year-old businessman who holds a superb job at a Wall Street firm and is being consumed by the superficiality of his colleagues and his life. His spacious apartment is luxurious but barren, which is essentially a manifestation of his character. Patrick is an unscrupulous, sexist misogynist. On top of which, Patrick is terribly egocentric and narcissistic. His contaminated mentality has been growing progressively, similar to a tumour, and is nourished by the bland, superficial appurtenances of life as a New York yuppie. To power his anaesthetised synapses, Patrick resorts to doing hard drugs, watching the 1974 horror film The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, listening to gormless musicians such as Phil Collins, indulging in wild group sex, feasting on expensive boutique cuisine, dropping serial killer details into daily discussions, and pandering to his egotism among other twisted activities. Patrick's dormant psychopathic impulses steadily pull back the curtain of his sanity, revealing an outrageous allegory that no-one is capable of distinguishing. Soon, Patrick's uncontrollable lust for murder only grows more compelling.

Welsh-born actor Christian Bale completely immerses himself into the character of Patrick Bateman. This is an extremely impressive performance: Bale adds the right amount of charm to pull off both sides of the emotionless character. He's a smiling killer that employs a manner of power tools to ruthlessly slay women after he has sex with them. It's disturbing to see Bale's face...clad in blood while delivering an ambiguous smile. His voice is always soothing, particularly during lines of narration. The correct tone is immediately set with his impeccable dialogue delivery. In some ways he mirrors Norman Bates in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Here's some food for thought: Bates, Bateman, Bale, Batman. Hmmm.

Willem Dafoe is a minor addition to the cast, but he makes an everlasting impression. Dafoe's performance allows you to draw conclusions regarding his state of mind. Does he suspect Bateman of murder, allowing an oblivious side to shine through? Chloë Sevigny is another great addition to the cast. She's perhaps a little underused, but she's very memorable as the love-torn secretary.

The technical merits of American Psycho are marvellous to behold. The atmosphere is enthralling from start to finish. Director Harron's visuals directly allude to the bloodshed and sadism that Bateman unleashes on his victims in the novel. Although the gore that gets past the censors in the current cinematic era makes this film look quite tame, the murders are still a punch to the gut. The screenwriters faithfully transfer Ellis' novel to the screen. Although critics aren't fond of it, the author spoke up about his appreciation of the way in which the film communicates the tones and messages of the novel. Ellis writes: "Like the novel, the movie is essentially plotless, a horror-comedy with a thin narrative built up of satirical riffs about greed, status and the business values of the 1980s culture."

I must mention that despite this film being called "hilarious" by some, I couldn't find much comedy in it. For the most part the film works as an ambiguous horror film that's hard to categorise. The twists in the film are sometimes poorly distinguished...but this just means repeated viewings are wholly necessary. Another chief flaw in the film is that the power of the social satire has run dry past the first 20-30 minutes. After that point, things are on autopilot. Some of Bateman's characteristics don't surface again unfortunately. Still, it's hard to maintain a set standard for a film's running time. The spellbinding visuals are always a treat, though, with perfect visuals: great lighting, commendable cinematography and well thought out camera shots.

Despite its flaws, shortcomings and mountains of negative reviews, director Mary Harron has achieved a great film with American Psycho. Mainstream audiences may find things hard to devour, but if you watch with close scrutiny you'll pick up the masterful filmmaking on show. The film is thoroughly thought-provoking and interesting. It's a dark, deterrent tale regarding the ills of superficiality and the dehumanising effects of using too much moisturiser. This is a great reflection about an 80s society controlled by material possessions and appearances. Some will love it, some will hate it. Draw your own conclusions.

8.1/10

Key Largo marks another spellbinding on-screen collaboration of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. However, this film also marks a reunion of Bogey with famed director John Huston: a man who directed Bogey in such classic films as The Maltese Falcon and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Combine the screen partnership of Bogey and Bacall with director John Huston...then further boast the acting talents of Edward G. Robinson among many others, and it's impossible to go wrong. Previously, Howard Hawks directed Bogey and Bacall in The Big Sleep as well as To Have and Have Not. With John Huston's Key Largo, this is a film much less sexy than Hawks' forerunners. Instead we have a heady thriller built around a crackling conflict. Despite the restricted setting, this film is stylish and impressive: sizzling tension, exhilarating dialogue, perfectly tense atmosphere and an amazing slate of characters.

Major Frank McCloud (Bogart) has recently returned from the war. Frank is travelling through Florida with the desired destination of Key West. However, Frank decides to make a brief stop at the tropical locale of Key Largo. While serving in the war, a young soldier named George Temple served under his command and was tragically killed in action. Frank's intention in Key Largo is to visit George's family: father James Temple (Barrymore) and wife Nora (Bacall). The two manage a run-down hotel, and Frank is very warmly received. But Frank's visit was badly timed. While a howling tropical hurricane thunders outside, gangster Johnny Rocco (Robinson) takes control of the hotel with his cronies. The current hotel residents discover that they are now the prisoners of Rocco until the fierce storm passes. While a hurricane rages outside, emotions flare inside as Frank endeavours to keep everything calm in order to guarantee that everyone not only survives the hurricane but also survives the callous attitude of Johnny Rocco.

Regardless of the reasonably constrained scope of the setting in a hotel, Key Largo offers an opportunity for dexterous character development that rarely surfaces in films these days. Whereas the characters get slightly clichéd at times, the film is still a very nice character-driven effort that doesn't drag. The pace keeps the film taut and enthralling. It works due to the remarkable dialogue that never sounds contrived.

Top honours for director John Huston who appears to be at home with the material. He easily masters the tension and conflicts between the characters that frequently surface. This is another tight piece of direction from Huston, perfectly using the great talent at his disposal. More than that, the film is extremely atmospheric. The locations are shown with class, and are depicted with filmmaking of the highest regard. Uppermost credit also goes to Huston for his masterful management of the tropical storm. The storm motif is reappearing and classy...essentially representing the vicious events unfolding inside the hotel. With a great sound mix and stylish visuals, the hotel never feels artificial.

The film is held together by the terrific characters executed competently by a stellar cast. We've never seen Humphrey Bogart like this before. Instead of a tough guy ready for anything, he's deeper and more vulnerable. The sub-plot concerning a love interest is kept to a minimum. Lauren Bacall is a dazzling actress and the camera does marvels for her. Edward G. Robinson is a convincing gangster. His character may be slightly clichéd, but Robinson plays it to perfection. However, the star of the show is the Claire Trevor as the drunk, washed up singer. Claire walked away with an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. Who's to quibble? She's incredible! Lionel Barrymore also does a tremendous job as the crippled old man running the hotel.

Overall, Key Largo is another classic film featuring the terrific Humphrey Bogart in fine form. Flawed only for a few too many clichés, this is a commendable effort that any film buff simply needs to view. There are sparkles between the protagonists who interact in a perfectly set atmosphere by a man who is always a master at his craft.

9.4/10

Mindhunters is one of Renny Harlin's newest films. The director is perhaps comprehensively acknowledged for his action movies: in the 1990s, audiences witnessed such films as The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cliffhanger and Die Hard 2 (debatably his best film). Unfortunately, the director has seen better days. The director has seen some real stinkers, for example Deep Blue Sea and Cutthroat Island. The remaining fans of the director probably had their hopes set pretty high for this film. In traditional Renny Harlin style the film is exceedingly entertaining, but contains a fairly preposterous set of events.

Mindhunters achieved poor results at the box office despite a solid cast and its renowned director. This film is a substantially flawed, but reasonably entertaining modern take on Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (a.k.a. Ten Little Indians). In addition to borrowing elements from Christie's story, there is further evidence of unoriginality: first of all, the film's trite plot is something one would expect to see every night on CSI or something. Secondly, there are also chief elements borrowed from typical slasher films such as Friday the 13th. In other words, this film borrows from everything.

In any case, the film's story concerns a group of seven FBI agents-in-training. These seven people have potential to reach the status of an FBI psychological profiler, and are being trained by hard-nosed FBI instructor Jake Harris (Kilmer). For their final test, the seven FBI students are transported to an isolated island where they will spend the weekend tracking a mock serial killer: performing as part of a team to solve the simulated murder. Those who manage things capably go onto FBI postings. Those who flunk will be cut from the FBI. For this weekend, an additional "observer" is brought along to report on Harris' training methods (this observer is played by LL Cool J, who's billed as his real name - James Todd Smith - probably to show that he's serious about acting). Once on the island, real murders begin unfolding. It grows obvious that among these agents-in-training there's a serial killer using precise timing techniques to execute each person one by one. The idea is that these FBI students are allegedly learning to profile killers...but the tables are reversed, and it appears the killer is profiling each student according to their psychological profiles. That's the cleverest plot twist in a story that is otherwise fairly mundane.

There are several key flaws in Mindhunters that unfortunately destroy its major potential. First of all, character development is non-existent. Very soon into the movie we're already on the island and the killer is on the loose. We're expected to attempt to solve things ourselves and sympathise with the characters. But do we care? No! We are never given a reason to care about these characters apart from their looks and absurd behaviour. We're never introduced to the characters sufficiently, and we've never given adequate background on them for us to be interested in their safety. They are purely exchangeable faces.

The cast are a mixed bag. Val Kilmer is in good form, as are a few other people. Jonny Lee Miller, on the other hand, is embarrassingly bad. His accents change frequently...from American to British to various incoherent accents. Another flaw is the high levels of improbability. These agents are supposedly smart, yet their behaviour is preposterous and laughable. Also, the killer somehow manages to set elaborate traps in just a few minutes. The precise timing of these traps is impossibly accurate and would take hours to set! Are we supposed to believe someone formulates these ideas incredibly quickly? Gimme a break!

Overall, Mindhunters is a reasonable thriller from Renny Harlin. The murders are usually grisly, gory and violent, with the film containing a few interesting plot twists. Of course the film is competently made with an impressive atmosphere and a moderate entertainment value. However things are just so stupid and it's impossible to suspend your disbelief. Not to mention some shocking acting at times, and zero character development.

5.3/10

Beverly Hills Cop III is the weakest link in the Beverly Hills Cop series thus far. The wait between the second and third films is amazing...as this film hit cinemas 7 years after the second film was released. Apparently they just had trouble getting a story together. Amazingly, after all that heavy development, the plot doesn't make a lick of sense. They seemingly decided on a story which is more convoluted than that of the second film. Even more tragically, the film succumbs to far more clichés and a formulaic plot structure.

It's also obvious that there was trouble getting a cast together. Unfortunately, John Ashton is missing from the cast! His seminal interactions with Judge Reinhold were utterly priceless. Ashton must have read how appalling the script turned out to be...and opted to give this one a miss. What a smart move on his part! John Landis now tackles the duties as director. The director of Trading Places and The Blues Brothers seems very out of place in a Beverly Hills Cop instalment. The laughs are made subordinate to the action. Considering the general quality of the gags, this isn't a bad move. But the action scenes are far too violent it seems. It just doesn't fit in with the light-hearted comedy tone that was established in the first movie released a decade prior. Also in the film you'll find a love interest (*sigh*) and a stupid plot. In short - this is utter tosh!

The thin story once again follows the continuing adventures of Detroit police detective Axel Foley (Murphy). After the tragic death of one of his good friends, Axel vows revenge and begins his own investigation into the murder. Does anyone else get a sense of déjà vu in relation to the first movie? This third film is nothing more than a rehash of the plot of the original with a few new characters and plot twists. Anyway, Axel uncovers evidence that relates back to the Wonderland amusement park in California (an obvious satire of Disneyland, of course). Axel teams up with Rosewood (Reinhold) and another cop that is essentially the replacement for John Ashton's memorable character. While solving the crime, some convoluted plot unfolds in relation to counterfeiting money or something. I have no idea how that could warrant an all-out gun battle with the security guards at the theme parks! I mean, if it was a drama then it'd be sorted out with a legal battle. If it was an actual Beverly Hills Cop movie I'd expect some sneaky investigating similar like Axel's investigating in the first movie. But the genre is now all-out action like some pointless Stallone vehicle (in case you weren't aware, Sylvester Stallone was originally cast as Axel Foley)...so problems are solved using violence and gun battles. There never seems to be much point at all for any of it. Once again, just a thin plot created for the action.

New director John Landis makes this instalment more of a sequel to The Blues Brothers rather than a Beverly Hills Cop movie. The car chases are impressive and exciting; however there is never any point! Like I stated before, the humour is extremely thin. However some of the film's strongest moments lie in surprise return of the beloved Bronson Pinchot as Serge. Once again this character is criminally underutilised. His scenes are simply hysterical. Eddie Murphy is in top form: shooting, wise-cracking and grinning. It's obvious that all the returning cast members have aged...and they haven't aged gracefully. Judge Reinhold is now a Rambo wannabe as he blasts away villains without a second thought. What happened to his initial tactics of instead attempting an arrest?

Beverly Hills Cop III is loud, noisy, incoherent and pointless. The script forgets to include credibility and class...instead there are plenty of corny situations, pathetically written dialogue and a non-existent plot. On a positive note, the soundtrack is still impressive and adds something exciting to the otherwise incompetently-directed action scenes. The film rehashes pretty much every idea that featured during Foley's first two outings (avenging the death of a friend, two up-tight sidekicks, etc)...and manages to be boring as well as making no sense whatsoever.

4.2/10

In Hollywood, if a film establishes a commendable paradigm for its desired genre then it's a common option to "go back and rehash it". Following the success of the first Beverly Hills Cop the producers spent some time endeavouring to turn the prize-winning concept into a TV series. When confronted with an unfortunately unenthusiastic reception from key cast members, the decision was finally made to just create another film. Hence, Beverly Hills Cop II was reeled out only 3 years after its predecessor's wild box office success. Luckily for the filmmakers, all of the crucial cast members were available to reprise their roles.

Eddie Murphy returns as the foul-mouthed Detroit cop Axel Foley. Who else could portray this role? Also featuring in the cast are John Ashton and Judge Reinhold as Beverly Hills policemen Taggart and Rosewood. Once again the interaction between these two is a delight to watch, although the two are less delineated in comparison to the first film. Director Martin Brest forfeited the director's chair, so the duties fell into the lap of Tony Scott - the man who helmed Crimson Tide and Top Gun among others. However, new director Tony Scott is more comfortable with action and less comfortable with dialogue and humour. Martin Brest was completely the opposite. Hence, Beverly Hills Cop II is a disappointing action puff piece with precious little comedy. Scott places the emphasis on a darker shade of violence, which is positioned awkwardly with the witty dialogue and localised satire.

The plot of the movie is confusing and convoluted. The team of screenwriters (including Murphy himself) create a wafer-thin plot that in the long run is just an excuse for violence and laughs. Basically, the film finds Axel Foley (Murphy) investigating a string of unsolved robberies that could be connected to the attempted murder of a Beverly Hills policeman. Although ill-advised, Axel enlists the aid of his good pals Taggart (Ashton) and Rosewood (Reinhold) and the three begin to bend a few rules to solve the case which leads to some confusing mumbo jumbo regarding gun smuggling that is somehow connected to a race track. As a reaction to the protagonists bending the rules, the script appears to be excessively fond of the customary melodramatic 'end of career' threats. It's merely a dumb action vehicle, but surely policemen are not threatened with the sack every single time they get something wrong. In this film we have suspensions, demotions, sackings and threats seemingly every few minutes. The story is as tortuously long-winded as it sounds, and then some!

The central flaw of Beverly Hills Cop II is its treatment of characters. All credibility is thrown to the wind at the beginning when there's discussion of a fishing trip. Are these the same guys we saw in the first movie?! Murphy's Axel Foley is almost his same old foul-mouthed, fast-talking self but there are a few odd alterations. Aside from that, both Reinhold and Ashton suffer from unnecessary changes. Tony Scott opts for style over substance, but his visual flair cannot overshadow the dreadful plot building. It's extremely hard to follow as well. With each new lead, the audience are left oblivious as to what is actually occurring! This film is just noisy action fluff, flaunting Eddie Murphy in fine form and some impressive ideas. The action is well-crafted despite not much point to most of it.

Overall, Beverly Hills Cop II is never close to matching its predecessor. The main star, Eddie Murphy, is just as charming but there isn't much for him to work with. New director Tony Scott is allowed the opportunity to have some fun with the set pieces: concocting invigorating chases shot with the copious sheen that was the trademark of uber-producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer. With more laughs and less unnecessary action there could have been something far more satisfying in the can. It's also annoying that this is an hour of nostalgia...characters from the first film are granted some minor screen time. This film will be devoured by action fans; however, it won't be taken kindly to those who loved the appeal of the original. Followed by Beverly Hills Cop III.

5.6/10

Beverly Hills Cop is possibly Eddie Murphy's most popular flick - a deft, witty combination of hilarious laughs and violent action. The film admirably stands out for its excessive energy, clever repartee, and sharp-tongued wit (compliments of star Murphy, who was originally a successful live comedian). For most of its pre-production period, the film was scheduled to be a dead straight, all-out action film with Sylvester Stallone as the title character (everyone from Al Pacino to Arnie had been circling the project, eying the lead role). However, the studio heads were concerned about the rising budget costs as additional action sequences were added to the script. Eventually the plug was pulled, and Stallone stepped away gracefully.

With a few weeks left until production was scheduled to commence, Eddie Murphy stepped into the title role and the film underwent massive script re-writes as the genre was altered to comedy/action. The action scenes were toned down, instead replaced with comedy and clever character interaction. Everything came together perfectly, mainly to the credit of its title star who brought fantastically witty humour to the production. Director Martin Brest once described his fondness for improvisation on the set. Due to Murphy's outstanding skill in stand-up comedy, heavy improvisation resulted in far more laughs. Interestingly, the heavy script re-writes can be easily spotted - but not as flaws, in fact the film's charm derives from the lack of clichés: no love interest despite the presence of a female lead (in the Stallone script version it was a typical love story that develops in two days), no pointless racial jokes (Axel Foley was initially a white man), etc.

Beverly Hills Cop has a thin revenge plot that seems to be an excuse for foul-mouthed Eddie Murphy humour and some entertaining action. Detective Axel Foley (Murphy) works for the Detroit police department and is in big trouble following unauthorised undercover work (and consequently being severely berated by his boss). One night, Axel unexpectedly runs into an old friend - Mikey Tandino (Russo), who was his partner in crime many years ago. However, Mikey is in possession of suspicious German bearer bonds that are the cause of his imminent murder. Axel seeks revenge, but his boss won't let him touch the case. Instead he opts for an early vacation...to Beverly Hills where Mikey formerly lived. As Axel begins his investigation, he's arrested by the Beverly Hills police who find his foul-mouthed attitude rather offensive. We soon meet another trio of supporting characters: Detective Billy Rosewood (Judge Reinhold), Sgt. Taggert (John Ashton), and Lt. Bogomil (Ronny Cox). After much scepticism and hesitation, they unite with Axel to solve the case.

The thin plot soon disappears in the gags and action; however Beverly Hills Cop is extremely entertaining viewing. The film became a terrific box-office accomplishment and is considered by many as the defining moment in Eddie Murphy's career. While his career has seen its ups and downs over the years, he is stunning in this film; from his winningly mischievous smile as Axel to his superbly over-the-top gay male hustler "Ramone". Murphy is the film's driving force and he's impeccable with each line delivery. Never is a false note struck. His character of Axel Foley is tough, cool, quick-witted, sarcastic, and likable - one of cinema's most enduring characters and certainly one of the best law enforcers in cinematic history. There is also a remarkable supporting cast to boot; featuring the marvellous duo of Judge Reinhold and John Ashton as Beverly Hills cops. Together the three have great chemistry. They're easily likeable, credible and their interactions are frequently side-splitting. Also watch out for Bronson Pinchot as the memorable Serge - he is only on the screen for a criminally small time, but he will make an impression that will last far longer.

Beverly Hills Cop is perhaps best known for its amazing music! It's a faultless blend of techno-pop and electronic rock - the movie's renowned theme is energetic, rambunctious and fun. For a genre-defining buddy comedy/action, it's simply incredible at the low amount of clichés and conventions that would later emerge frequently in films to follow. Even so, there are a number of full-on action movie clichés that remain in place: the enemies can't shoot to save their life, the heroes can shoot with perfect accuracy, really dumb cops are abundant (with the exception of the title character), overbearing police rules, Axel Foley's dumb methods of investigating (breaking and entering illegally) and heroes survive getting shot while their enemies are easily dispatched with a single bullet. Oh well, it's easy to overlook these flaws for entertainment.

Overall, Beverly Hills Cop provides great, brutal, entertaining action with plenty of laughs to boot! The film moves at an amazing pace, and it leaves you wanting much more. You will learn to love the characters and their snappy dialogue. The film exceeds beyond anyone's expectations. With current filmmakers producing watered-down comedy/action flicks, it's fantastic to revisit these old gems that defined the genre and proved to be an example of the genre done correctly. The film is one of the best action/comedy films you will ever see, with star Eddie Murphy in his prime backed up by a brilliant supporting cast, droll dialogue, lively soundtrack and crisp editing. You cannot afford to miss this one! Followed by Beverly Hills Cop II.

8.3/10

It's an unfortunate fact that remakes have been commissioned for decades. Back in 1979 Werner Herzog set out to remake the unauthorised 1922 Dracula adaptation Nosferatu, which was directed by F.W. Murnau. The original 1922 silent movie will forever remain an essentially flawless horror classic. When Herzog decided to remake Murnau's masterpiece, it's obvious that he made a creative decision to stay more faithful to the source material written by Bram Stoker in the late 19th century. Originally, Murnau desired to make a cinematic version of Stoker's novel. However, due to copyright reasons, he was unable to fulfil this desire. Instead he made "cosmetic" changes to the novel (mainly changing the title from Dracula to Nosferatu) while keeping the original concept and essential series of events identical to the source material.

Herzog's remake is a courteous re-imagining of Murnau's early silent picture. This remake is neither scary nor brutal as most vampire-oriented horror pictures tended to be in later years. Herzog's movie is instead moody, mesmeric, and entrancing: it's inexorably sinister and spellbinding as the vampiric Transylvanian fiend spreads corruption and pestilence, fundamentally generating a pervading atmosphere of malevolence as opposed to outright horror thrills. Imagery of the town devastated by an unknown plague town is particularly memorable. However, Herzog's filmmaking techniques strictly fall into the category of "art house" and certainly won't be liked by all.

The film's plot remains faithful to its film forerunner as well as the original novel. Jonathan Harker (Ganz) works for a local real estate agency. Harker's employer sends him on an errand to stitch up a property deal with the enigmatically frightening Count Dracula (Kinski) who resides in the mysterious Transylvanian mountains. During Harker's expedition to Transylvania he discovers that the locals hearing the name Dracula is enough to build up anxiety, fear and trepidation. The locals are so terrified of Dracula's castle that no-one agrees to help him reach his desired destination. However, due to the promise of a substantial pay-check, Harker doesn't give up as he travels through the baffling, mesmerising landscape. Count Dracula transpires to be a bald man with a perplexingly disturbing personality underneath. Dracula is a man who perks up at the sight of blood...and at the sight of a photograph depicting Harker's striking wife Lucy (Adjani). Harker is left weakened and sapped of a lot of blood while Dracula sets forth for his new residence in search of Lucy. Dracula brings with him plague and death.

Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre is slow-paced and a seemingly cumbersome film. This rendering of the classic vampire tale is simply one of the most stylish in existence. Herzog filmed his version across dazzling, extraordinary landscapes throughout Europe. The visuals also benefit from superb production design and excellent cinematography...everything is quite a treat to view. However there are countless flaws to also point out. Dramatically the film is exceedingly boring, as the slow pace is accompanied by mannered acting all-round. Perhaps this was intended to provide a dream-like quality to the proceedings, and in some ways it is quite successful. The stilted, unimaginative dialogue also drags the production down.

Klaus Kinski is an interesting embodiment of the Dracula character. Kinski portrays Dracula quite similarly to the Max Schreck depiction in 1922. His appearance is cadaverous, ghastly and almost rodent-like. His features are extremely distinguished, especially during dialogue or horror scene. Kinski is duly creepy and endows his portrayal with additional sympathy. He is what he is and can't help it, and it's palpable that he feels sorry for himself. He is a melancholy creature, discontented with his perpetually despondent condition yet unable to do anything about it. Nosferatu the Vampyre is a competent, atmospheric remake that has been regarded as one of the most faithful Dracula adaptations of all time. But, considering the quality of Murnau's masterwork, it isn't overly necessary.

6.2/10

In a contemporary cinematic age dominated by animated films such as Ratatouille, Shrek, Surf's Up and Finding Nemo among countless others, Bee Movie is unfortunately a tremendous disappointment. Even more tragic is that it marks the first major project since Jerry Seinfeld's long-running TV show came to an inevitable conclusion. No-one would have expected Seinfeld to make his return to the screen with an animated children's film, but regrettably that's how things transpired. Jerry Seinfeld has pretty much flown beneath the radar until Bee Movie which was written and produced by Seinfeld, as well as featuring the actor as the chief voice talent. Standard for an animated production, the film achieved an admirable box office sum and earned well over $100 million. Considering the main person involved in Bee Movie, it's pretty safe to assume that much of its success was due to the return of Seinfeld to the screen and his fans that desired more Seinfeld humour in their system.

The central character of the piece is a small bee named Barry B. Benson (voiced by Seinfeld): a college graduate whose about to join the workforce where he will remain until death. After a tour of the local honey factory, Barry reaches the conclusion that he doesn't wish to conform to the usual bee tradition of choosing the customary job of a position in the Honex industry that manufactures honey. Instead Barry opts to join the 'pollen jocks' who venture out of the hive and into the human world in search of pollen and nectar. However this journey into the outside world proves to be far more dangerous when he inadvertently gets involved in a tennis match, and meets quirky young florist Vanessa (voiced by Zellweger). Barry breaks the cardinal rule of beeing a bee (excuse the obvious pun/spelling error): don't talk to a human. He begins rebelling against the customary bee laws, but this rebellion takes an unlikely turn when he realises humans are exploiting bees for their honey for the worldwide market. Barry takes it upon himself to take legal action against the humans and free his fellow bees from oppression.

Bee Movie comes from the same studio that brought the world the amazing animated film Shrek. At times, it's hard to evoke this thought. On the one hand the film looks very cute: the animation is solid, the production design is creative and the laughs are cute. Unfortunately, despite all this the film suffers from a weak storyline that is so quintessentially Seinfeld that it's a wonder why it never surfaced in his TV show. There are also dreadful problems with the script. Seinfeld launched his career with a TV show that earned his masses of adult fans. Understandably, adults are going to want to see the triumphant return of the man. However the film cannot find its audience. The script is too watered down for the adults (to attain a G rating for maximum box office profits), while the jokes are generally too adult-ish for the kids to comprehend! After the kids have a giggle at the novelty of bees talking, they'll be lost in their search for something else they may find slightly amusing. The best animated films stock quality laughs for different audiences. With Bee Movie, the laughs are aimed squarely at adults who will be bored at the watered down language and the pretty routine situations customary for an animated film.

Admittedly, there are a number of quality laughs that slightly overshadow the weak storyline. Many of these laughs are attributed to the amazing actors in the cast. Chris Rock, Renée Zellweger, Matthew Broderick, Patrick Warburton, John Goodman, Kathy Bates, Barry Levinson and several others are part of the film's voice cast. However many of these actors are criminally underused. Chris Rock, for example, is featured twice. His scenes are absolutely side-splitting...and yet he's allocated about 4-5 minutes of screen time. John Goodman's quirky lawyer is another underused character. Basically everyone except for Jerry Seinfeld is underused. Hardly surprising though, because Seinfeld did write the script himself. With so many big names and minimal screen time for all of them, there doesn't appear to be much of a point, does there? Even worse, the movie probably won't appeal much to adults who would recognise the voices, because the film is reasonably customary and predictable. If you're a fan of Jerry Seinfeld's unique deadpan humour, that's precisely the humour we get. Yet it isn't the same in a cartoon, where the characters appear to lack any expression or animation (excuse the intended pun). Only Chris Rock and John Goodman seem to deliver any expression at all. The other voices are virtually interchangeable. You could place a different actor in each role and the film would be about as funny.

In defence of the film, there are a few commendable messages pertaining to being one's self, being tolerant of others, being accepting of other people's ideas, and seeking personal independence. And I did smile on multiple occasions. The humour is watered down, but there are a number of memorable laughs that are extremely easy to quote. The appearance of Winnie the Pooh is a key scene that I'm referring to. Also Chris Rock's line regarding lawyers...that's all very funny; however this quality is never sustained enough to conceal a disappointing plot branched off a superb concept. Bee Movie simply cannot hold its desired audience because its desired audience is never clear! Both the kids and adults may find a few laughs, but in between these laughs they'll be staring at their watch, wondering when it will be over. That's a bad sign when we're talking about a brisk 90-minute animated film!

5.3/10