Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Due to the blatant inconsistency of the quality of his motion pictures, director Joel Schumacher has an undoubtedly interesting résumé. For every Tigerland, there's a Batman & Robin or a Number 23. When Schumacher is working with a solid screenplay, he can weave an engaging tale, guide actors to brilliance, and challenge audiences with complicated themes and multifaceted narratives. 1993's Falling Down is an effective demonstration of these skills. A nuanced masterwork, Falling Down is bursting with relevant questions, in addition to offering an intriguing exploration of the human condition and a look at the decay of modern society. The film is so provocative, in fact, that the script was rejected by countless studios before Michael Douglas gave it his seal of approval and began to get involved.

Falling Down is the tragic tale of William "D-Fens" Foster (Douglas) who becomes fed up with what society is force-feeding him, and simply snaps. The ultra-patriotic man is recently divorced, out of work, and stuck living with his mother whom he resents. Added to this, his former wife has taken a restraining order against him. Stuck in a traffic jam on his daughter's birthday with flies buzzing around him, Foster decides to abandon his car and go see his daughter...and woe unto anyone who gets in his way. Following a few violent encounters, he begins to wander around the city with a bad attitude, a bag full of guns, and a desire to put society to the test. Meanwhile, a soon-to-be-retired detective named Martin Prendergast (Duvall) instigates an investigation into the ostensibly random swath of devastation left in Foster's wake. Hoping to stop the maniac before anyone gets seriously hurt, Prendergast and his partner work to identify Foster's destination and troubled past.

To the untrained eye, Falling Down appears to be just another escapist vigilante affair. Yet, while there are a number of memorable action-oriented confrontations, the primary focus of the movie is examining the dying soul of William Foster. The character represents a manifestation of our own daily frustrations at life, but is also a potent reminder as to why we should learn to deal with these stresses without losing our sanity. After all, who has not dreamed of mass destruction while stuck in a traffic jam? Who has not been frustrated by road works when nothing is truly wrong with the road? Who has not been bothered by high prices at a local store? Who has not wondered why fast food never looks as appealing on the tray as it does in advertisements? If we lost control during any of these scenarios, would we really exhibit unwavering moral fortitude? Screenwriter Ebbe Roe Smith suggests that the answer is no - most of us would resort to aggression, assault or violence to apply our own brand of justice to a given situation. Thus, Falling Down is far more challenging and thoughtful than most other vigilante pictures.

As previously discussed, Joel Schumacher's filmography is very mixed. While watching Falling Down, it's difficult to believe that this is the work of the same man whose name is attached to the worst Batman film in history. Falling Down is definitely Schumacher's most intellectually advanced feature, and there's fine craftsmanship to exhibit from start to finish. For instance, the beginning sequence is a clear tribute to Fellini, with Foster's pain and frustration being conveyed through images instead of mere words. We can feel the heat, the tension, and the building rage. When Foster gets out of his car, it's a relief for both the audience and the character. There's only one big flaw with Falling Down: the depiction of the police. The captain is stupid, a lot of the cops are dumb and egocentric, and Duvall's character adheres to the "final day before retirement" cliché. There are other clichés, such as Foster and his ex-wife being on bad terms, but, fortunately, the narrative clicks wonderfully for the most part.

Playing the unstable William Foster, an electrifying Michael Douglas injects a startling intensity into every line, expression and command. This is also a change of scenery for the star - Foster is an unremarkable, plain-looking man that is the opposite of Gordon Gekko or any other character that Douglas has portrayed before. He is the type of bloke you would expect to find in any office building, and this is what makes the film so chilling. Meanwhile, Robert Duvall's masterfully understated performance should not be overlooked. Duvall truly inhabited the role, and serves as a welcome counterbalance for every mad move that Foster makes. He also contrasts Foster in every way: he moves slowly and deliberately, his words meander out of his unclenched mouth, and his demeanour is unflinchingly calm. In the film's supporting cast, Barbara Hershey is excellent as Foster's former wife, while Rachel Ticotin (Total Recall) is solid as Duvall's partner, and Frederic Forrest (Apocalypse Now) is terrifying as the homophobic neo-Nazi shop owner whom Foster has a run-in with.

More than a depiction of rage, helplessness and mental instability, Falling Down is a mesmerising reminder of the fragility of the human mind as well as an engrossing dissection of tolerance, empowerment and inadequacy. Indeed, the issues confronted by this extremely underrated movie confidently elevate it above the run-of-the-mill action film. While a viewer wanting gun-play will probably not walk away disappointed, there is more on offer here than pure escapism.

8.5/10

Up until its release, there had never been - and, since its release, there never has been - a film quite like The Rocky Horror Picture Show. In terms of the mixture of horror, camp, rock n' roll, sci-fi and sexual transgression, as well as the cheesy B-movie dialogue and the behaviour it continues to inspire during midnight theatre screenings, this classic film is absolutely unique in the annals of cinema. Added to this, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is the ultimate cult movie and the queen of all midnight flicks. It was a box office bomb when first released back in 1975, but the film soon attracted a large number of devoted fans and gradually developed into a bona fide cult phenomenon. In short, The Rocky Horror Picture Show provides the right combination of corny fright-flick parody, comedy, outrageous vulgarity and musical numbers to entertain any viewer with an open mind.

The protagonists of the story are Brad Majors (Bostwick) and Janet Weiss (Sarandon); a virginal, recently-engaged couple whose car breaks down on an isolated road late at night during a thunderstorm (is that not always the case in horror movies?). Seeking a phone, Brad and Janet venture up to a mysterious castle which, as it turns out, belongs to a transvestite scientist named Dr. Frank-N-Furter (Curry). Unbeknownst to the couple, Frank-N-Furter is holding the annual convention of visitors from the planet Transsexual (in the universe Transylvania), and he is about to bring to life his first creation: the blonde, muscular Rocky Horror (Hinwood). The night that ensues can only be described as weird in ways that must be seen to be believed. A barely coherent plot eventually begins to emerge concerning Rocky escaping and a UFO scientist showing up to investigate the Transylvanians, but it barely matters. All of the narrative threads merely serve to string together the unstoppably infectious songs.

Really, the plot is just incidental to the movie's outrageous tone. At its heart, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a '50s rock musical that's been pumped up with a camp sensibility and a delicious sense of humour. Admittedly, there are little technical glitches here and there, but rarely has there been a more creatively shot and edited motion picture than this. Practically every single angle, cut, zoom and optical transition was employed to effectively maximise each respective scene. The musical numbers are solid evidence of this - in particular, The Time Warp and Sweet Transvestite are models of brilliant filmmaking which capture the rhythm of both the tunes and the characters. The songs themselves, too, add to the pervasive sense of fun. The majority of the songs will likely remain in your head for days after watching the film (The Time Warp is going through this reviewer's head right now). The sign of a good musical is how memorable the songs are, so it's fortunate that the songs are so good here. They are the major driving force behind the flick, after all, as the plot is a decidedly secondary concern to the musical set-pieces.

Originally written as a stage music by Richard O'Brien - who stars here as the hunchbacked, Igor-esque butler Riff Raff - The Rocky Horror Picture Show is essentially a send-up of B-grade sci-fi and horror clichés as well as a satire of mainstream America's reaction to the depravities of the sexual revolution. In addition, there was one factor which allowed The Rocky Horror Picture Show to emerge as something more than just another quirky film: audience participation. In fact, the film brought a new meaning to the term "audience participation" - devoted fans put on their own shows during screenings that are as entertaining as the film itself. Fans typically don transvestite costumes, sing along, dance in the theatre aisles, add their own "calling back lines" (to respond to lines of dialogue or take the plot in a new direction), and bring props to use at certain moments. No film before or since has managed to engage audiences to this extent. If there's a fault with The Rocky Horror Picture Show, it's that, with the film charging forward from set-piece to set-piece at a furious pace, things get a tad tiresome towards the end.

Constantly driving the film forward are a number of extremely enjoyable performances. The film's androgynous powerhouse front-man is Tim Curry as Frank-N-Furter; essentially the Willy Wonka of this pleasure factory. On screen, the star struts and purrs like the most self-confident burlesque queen in history. In both the musical numbers and scenes of pure dialogue, Curry's performance is delightfully dynamic and makes the film even more enjoyable. Outside of Curry, the film also features great performances by Barry Bostwick as Brad Majors, and a very youthful Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a constantly exhilarating experience, and the level of fun will undoubtedly be elevated if you see it in a cinema full of people who know all the song lyrics and dance moves.

An interesting story exists regarding this movie's elevation to cult phenomenon. After initially flopping at the box office, it was quickly pulled from general release. Once it left theatres, a curious turn of events took place in New York City. Groups of devoted fans started demanding repeat showings of the movie, and a theatre agreed to screen it at midnight once regular showings for the day had ceased. This trend eventually caught on, and fans began attending regular midnight showings. The rest is history. As of its 35th anniversary (2010), The Rocky Horror Picture Show is still playing certain in cinemas across the globe; a mind-boggling fact considering that modern big-budget movies remain in cinemas for a couple of months at most. The uniqueness of The Rocky Horror Picture Show is essentially lightning in a bottle, which is emphasised by the fact that the same creative team were unable to replicate the film's success with the follow-up feature; 1981's Shock Treatment.

Essentially, The Rocky Horror Picture Show has ceased being just a movie - it has instead become the centre of a ritualistic celebration of popular culture in all of its twisted forms. To be complete, The Rocky Horror Picture Show requires a two-way exchange between the movie and its audience, making it an engaging communal experience. It should be noted, however, that the film is not necessarily for everyone - the reckless abandon with which the characters "give themselves over to absolute pleasure" and "swim the warm waters of sins of the flesh" may turn off those with somewhat puritanical viewers. Those capable of adapting to the film's anything-goes attitude, though, should enjoy themselves. But one thing is inarguable: love it or hate it, this is a hard film to forget.

8.8/10

It is possible to amass a star-studded ensemble cast and pull off a great movie. Richard Curtis did it back in 2003 with Love Actually, for instance. Alas, 2010's Valentine's Day will most likely be remembered as one of the worst ensemble films in history. The strengths of Love Actually - telling interesting stories and generating appealing characters despite limited screen-time - are completely absent in the case of Valentine's Day, which feels more like a useless parade of famous faces than a motion picture. Essentially the Americanised version of Love Actually, Valentine's Day suffers from too many cooks in the kitchen, producing not a prime, hot chef's stew but a cold dish of mixed mash. Exceedingly mechanical and woefully uninspired, Valentine's Day does not contain a single truly romantic moment in its gruelling 120-minute runtime. After watching the movie, you won't be left with the sense that you enjoyed it...you'll be left feeling like you survived it.

In a nutshell, Valentine's Day is a collection of vignettes and short stories connected by a common place (Los Angeles) and a date (February 14). Some of the characters know each other or are connected in some way, paths occasionally intersect, and some stories cross. The closest thing the film has to a main character is a florist named Reed (Kutcher), who wakes up on Valentine's Day and proposes to his girlfriend (Alba) before spending the day bantering with his assistant (Lopez). Reed's best friend is a school teacher (Garner) who is dating a doctor (Dempsey) but is unaware that he's actually married. Also in the film is a man (Cooper) who bonds with a returning U.S. Army Captain (Roberts) over a long plane trip. And there's Liz (Hathaway), who's a phone sex worker in a new relationship... Wait, are you still reading? Do you care? Writing anymore about the "story" would be a waste of my time.

Nobody will mistake this dreck for a Robert Altman or a Paul Haggis flick, that's for sure. At the helm of Valentine's Day is Garry Marshall, who previously directed Pretty Woman but went on to direct more recent movies such as Raising Helen and Georgia Rule. Clearly, Marshall likes romantic fluff, and this would be okay if only he was able to generate charm or an emotional component. In this case, all of the characters are one-dimensional, and are composed of whatever character traits that are needed to propel their hackneyed subplots. There's no-one to relate to, leading to a creeping sense of boredom. The main crime perpetrated by the film is that the stories are far too superficial. As presented here, each of the vignettes are full-length films in themselves that are cut down to a few key scenes. It's possible to keep tabs on the characters, but impossible to care about them. The film simply snaps from one couple to the next, with no crackle or pop. Worse, a lot of the problems the characters are facing could be fixed with one sensible conversation.

Stale, cheesy and schmaltzy, Valentine's Day is a romantic comedy that's tediously low on authentic emotional and comedic elements. No ambition is present in director Marshall's work; no drama to pull on the heartstrings, barely any humour to keep us entertained, and no relationships that go beyond obvious or one-dimensional. See, the film deals with infidelity and broken hearts, but all of the exploration is surface-level stuff, with the characters falling prey to loathsome stereotypes. Seldom have so many likeable performers been so inherently unlikeable, too. Marshall evidently tried to spice up the movie with travelogue cinematography and a few pop songs, but it's hard to care about the characters when most of them act like irredeemable idiots. There are a few moments which shine, and some comedy worth smiling at, but this is hardly enough to make up for two hours of painful banality.

It's tough to either complain about or praise the acting, since not many of the stars have enough screen-time to make an impression, be it positive or negative. One of the only possible exceptions is Ashton Kutcher, who at least appears dedicated to the material. Jennifer Garner also impresses, while other actors like Jessica Alba, Kathy Bates, Jessica Biel, Bradley Cooper, Eric Dane, Patrick Dempsey, Hector Elizondo, Jamie Foxx, Topher Grace, Queen Latifah and Julia Roberts carried out their duties well enough. On the other hand, the two Taylors of the cast - Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner - are unbelievably atrocious. Even though she was playing an airheaded bimbo, Swift delivered a performance that the Razzie committee will remember for years to come. Only Anne Hathaway manages to redeem the movie in some capacity, as her phone sex calls are at times laugh-out-loud funny.

With the right handling, Valentine's Day could have been the cinematic be-all-and-end-all for hopeless romantics across the world. Instead, the film is a bland, tedious, by-the-numbers Hollywood invention. It's unable to rise above a turgid crawl, and completely lacks a spark of sweetness or charm. If you wish to see a bunch of famous people falling in love, watch Love Actually. Unlike Valentine's Day, Richard Curtis' British rom-com does not just talk about hearts; it has one.

3.2/10

Saturday Night Live features are distinctly hit-and-miss, as shoddy SNL films greatly outnumber the decent ones. The challenge of SNL features is taking vaguely-drawn, one-joke characters and not only expanding their worlds but also building a cohesive narrative around them. 2010's MacGruber marks the first SNL feature in ten years, and the odds were heavily stacked against it. In addition to this being an SNL feature, MacGruber was birthed out of brief comedy segments (spoofing MacGyver) that were aired between actual skits, and each segment rarely lasted more than a couple of minutes. This is hardly a solid foundation on which to construct a feature-length satire of action movies. Yet, the final product is satisfying and surprisingly assured thanks to a game cast and an often hilarious screenplay. In all likelihood, movie-goers would have breathed a sigh of relief if the film merely wasn't awful. The fact that it's pretty damn good and downright hilarious is the icing on the cake.

At the beginning of the story, super-villain Dieter Von Cunth (Kilmer) steals a nuclear missile from the Russians with plans to sell the destruction of America to the highest bidder. Washington is in a panic, and come to the conclusion that the nation's only hope is MacGruber (Forte), a man with more military honours than brain cells. Convinced to emerge from retirement in order to exact revenge on Cunth who killed his fiancée ten years ago, MacGruber assembles a crack squad for the assignment. Unfortunately, his squad of tough guys are killed in an accidental explosion, so MacGruber is left with his former colleague-turned-popstar Vicki St Elmo (Wiig) and nerdy military stiff Lt. Piper (Phillippe) to form his elite team. Predictably, the path to foiling Cunth's evil plan is fraught with setbacks, leaving the hero to doubt his abilities at a time when American needs him the most.

Director Jorma Taccone and writers Forte and Jason Solomon essentially dropped the titular character into a standard '80s action flick, offering up the type of plot you'd expect to see in a Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal flick. The story is exceedingly elementary, of course, but that's all the better for a film that primarily aims to spoof the clichés of the brawn-over-brains action flicks of the '80s. Thus, beyond the obvious MacGuyver spoof, MacGruber takes shots at pretty much every action movie of yesteryear, from Die Hard to Rambo III to Lethal Weapon. The genre mickey-taking is not always as effective as Airplane! or the Austin Powers movies, but the nods are sly and mostly amusing - there's a proverbial team-assembling montage, a requisite back-story connecting Cunth and MacGruber, and a familiar-feeling climactic action scene. To his credit, director Taccone effectively managed to replicate the look and feel of an '80s action movie on a slim $10 million budget. The film even contains a so-bad-it's-good soundtrack of '80s radio hits.

The makers of MacGruber were clearing willing to do anything to earn a laugh. The disturbing positioning of a stick of celery, references to "upperdecking", and two spectacularly loud sex scenes indeed highlight that the film is not powered by cerebral wit. Rather, it's a comedy tailored for the part of the brain that appreciates immaturity and smutty humour. The R-rating is a huge asset in this respect, as the filmmakers had the freedom to be as gleefully politically incorrect as they wanted. If this type of humour appeals to you, MacGruber is the motherlode. The stupid gags are somehow balanced with a bit of intelligence, though, as some of the comedy is so quick and subtle that it may take a few viewings to catch everything. Huge laughs are not always scored, but the film remains fun and well-paced all the way through, and this is more than what can be said for most contemporary comedies. And just when you think the laughs are over, a hilarious photo montage plays over the end credits.

Will Forte is terrific as the title character - his enthusiasm and conviction never falters. Forte is also rather fearless, as he had no issue forgoing every morsel of dignity for the sake of getting a laugh. Plus, Forte - and, by extension, MacGruber - takes everything with a straight face, and this makes him all the funnier. Ryan Phillippe, meanwhile, is an affable straight man to MacGruber's blithe idiocy, while Kristen Wiig again proves here what a lovely talent she is both in comedy and acting in general. Another standout is Val Kilmer as Cunth, who clearly had a ball with the ridiculous material and was not afraid to embrace the ham that his role offered. Kilmer is only around for a limited time, but whenever he's on the screen he provides a serious comedic spark that brings up the movie several notches. Rounding out the main players of the cast is Power Boothe (who actually featured in action movies of the '80s and '90s), and he's spot on. The entire ensemble managed to do a superb job of selling the absurdity, and there are no weak spots.

MacGruber is not the type of movie which begs for a deep critical analysis - it wears everything on its sleeve, and never aspired to please the cynical critics. It's funny - that's what counts. Plus, to the credit of everyone involved, the film does not merely feel like an ill-considered exercise in dragging out a five-minute skit to feature-length proportions. It's definitely the funniest and best Saturday Night Live movie since Wayne's World (though the competition is not exactly stiff). Leaving your brain at the door is a requirement, though, as this is a monumentally stupid guilty pleasure. MacGruber is, in short, destined to become one of those movies that guys will love to watch in droves with a large supply of alcohol, pizza, and confectionery.

7.7/10

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