Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Christopher Nolan's 1998 feature-film debut Following failed to earn much worldwide recognition for the director, but his follow-up project Memento certainly managed to compensate for this. Initially, Memento was shrouded in relative obscurity until it made its rounds at film festivals and people began discovering it, after which momentum steadily built to the point where it's considered a true cult classic. Adapted from the short story Memento Mori (by Christopher's younger brother Jonathan), the film offers a fresh take on the psychological thriller genre. Equipped with a routine plot that unfolds in a brilliantly-conceived manner, writer-director Chris Nolan managed to pull off a stylish, intelligent and taut masterpiece with Memento.

Having witnessed the violent death of his wife in their apartment, Leonard Shelby (Pierce) has one thing on his mind: tracking down his wife's murderer (or murderers) and reaping bloody revenge. Leonard's problem, though, is that he was badly hurt during the attack and has developed a rare form of brain damage known as anterograde amnesia that prevents him from forming new memories. He can remember events preceding the incident, but nothing after it. Unperturbed by this disability, Leonard relies on a system of note-taking to get him through - he carries a series of Polaroids wherever he goes, and he tattoos important facts about the murderer on his body. Essentially, the film tracks Leonard as his investigation intensifies. Along the way, he is aided - or perhaps hindered - by the enigmatic Teddy (Pantoliano) who's always on hand to help, as well as the equally mysterious Natalie (Moss) whose motives may not be as straightforward as they appear to be.

The premise behind Memento is nothing special, to be sure. But the film is such a standout because of the brilliant, innovative structure that conveys the narrative in reverse chronological order. You see, the movie begins with the story's end as Leonard completes his quest, and from there the plot is conveyed in reverse. The film is made up of short vignettes, each of which start at an unspecified time and finish at the point where the previous vignette began. If this confuses you, that's the point, and once you grow accustomed to the structure you'll realise it perfectly complements the premise. See, the unconventional progression of the narrative allows us to get into the mindset of the main character and evoke the feelings of confusion and displacement that's suffered by Leonard. Where is he? What was he just doing? Like Leonard, we know things from the past, but not the recent past, and we are presented with cryptic clues to decipher. If told in a linear fashion, Memento would have been an ordinary mystery/thriller, though still interesting enough to warrant attention. With the gimmick in place, the movie is a potent, twist-laden flick with infinite replay value. This is a potent mind-fuck as well, with various narrative elements left open for endless different interpretations.

Director Nolan is renowned for being a master of his craft, and Memento is further evidence of his skilled cinematic eye. Nolan's direction is immaculate, while David Julyan's score is subtle yet mesmerising. Unfathomably, the film gets progressively better as time elapses, and it's almost impossible not to inch closer and closer to the edge of your seat with each new scene. Of course, technical excellence is half the battle - the actors needed to sell their characters as well. Thankfully, the incredible assemblage of talent managed to pull off their roles with spellbinding acting ability. At the centre of Memento is Guy Pearce, who delivered an incredibly convincing performance as Leonard. Pearce (once seen as a drag queen in the classic The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert) managed to convey the character's loneliness, acute vulnerability and all-consuming conviction with aplomb. The other key actors in the film, most notably Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano, are exceptional too.

Of course, a film like Memento will be hindered by a few easily-spotted plot holes. For instance, how does Leonard know about his short-term memory condition if he's unable to remember anything after the accident? By the same token, how does he keep remembering to check the photographs he has taken? These script holes aside, Memento is a rare cinematic gem that simultaneously stimulates the brain and entertains; it's an immaculately constructed picture that builds suspense and intrigue until the very last frame. Chances are you'll be glued to the screen and hanging on every word.

9.2/10

The critical mind boggles when confronted with the challenge of reviewing Inception. It is not that this is a particularly difficult movie to review, but it is tough to pen a critique of the film due to the subjective nature of reviews. So far, die-hard loyalists have expressed severe hostility towards any critic who has dared to write anything negative about writer-director Christopher Nolan's 2010 project, and therefore, it is hard to remain impartial and fair. Certainly, there is a lot to admire about Inception, as it is a lavish, intricate mindfuck exhibiting the filmmaking excellence that Nolan is renowned for, and it is a must-see for moviegoers who enjoy solid, intelligent, original blockbusters. Despite the technical virtuosity, the commendable conceptual scope and the phenomenal visuals, Inception is as emotionally stimulating as an early-morning University lecture, as it lacks humanity and ethereal imagination.

Here's the premise of Inception at a basic level: what if Freddy Krueger was James Bond? The narrative unfolds in a near-future setting where devices allow agents to enter the dreams of others and extract their secrets. Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an ace extractor who makes a living by stealing deep-seated thoughts and secrets from his clients' corporate competitors. Corporate magnate Saito (Ken Watanabe) hires Cobb to implant an idea into the mind of evasive businessman Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy), who is the heir to a financial kingdom. However, the process of inception is far more complex than mere extraction, and Cobb recruits a crackerjack team to back him up: information and research specialist Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), dreamscape architect Ariadne (Ellen Page), identity theft expert Eames (Tom Hardy), and advanced pharmacologist Yusuf (Dileep Rao).

Technically speaking, Inception is flawless. With the benefit of a vast $160 million budget, the special effects are practically photorealistic, and the visuals, in general, are breathtaking. A scene depicting Ariadne testing her architectural skills results in her folding a cityscape onto itself, and the moment does not look blatantly digital; instead, it looks convincingly lifelike. Several impressive action sequences also inject adrenaline into the film, including a car chase and an exhilarating scene of gravity-free hand-to-hand combat. As a matter of fact, Inception's second half more or less amounts to a massive, riveting extended action sequence of escalating suspense and excitement as dangerous circumstances unfold across numerous levels of dreamscape. Hans Zimmer's accompanying score affords a suitably epic feel, while Wally Pfister's cinematography is crisp and slick.

To ensure that viewers will not get lost, Nolan goes to great lengths to explain the plot complexities and, in doing so, neglects a vital human element. Of all the characters, only Cobb receives adequate development, and that is only through him grieving the loss of his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard). Meanwhile, the rest of the characters are one-dimensional plot fodder without backgrounds, arcs, and more than a couple of character traits; they are merely names with faces. In a movie like Inception, characters must have personality. All of cinema's greatest action heroes (John McClane, Rocky Balboa, Luke Skywalker, etc.) are interesting and compelling. Inception, however, features bland, forgettable and generic empty ciphers that never evoke a modicum of emotion. Furthermore, the film is unbelievably verbose, as the script explains all aspects of the plot in laborious detail. The chatter is unnecessarily long-winded and, at times, uninteresting, which disrupts the pacing. Nolan devotes most of the first hour to exposition, keeping the film disappointingly dull as the dialogue unfolds in a clunky fashion that betrays the breathtaking visuals. Without a strong sense of pace or any characters worth legitimately caring about, Inception falls short of its potential.

Additionally, Inception is not as clever as it wants to be. Case in point: the characters can dream up a weapon of their choosing at any given time, as evidenced on several occasions. Thus, when Cobb's team is under attack, why don't they dream up a bazooka or a powerful machine gun turret? Additionally, how often have you woken up from a dream to realise that the dream makes no sense? Landscapes constantly shift in ways that make sense in a dream but are not coherent when you ponder them after awakening. Dreams feature constant abstractions and surrealistic touches, but Inception barely acknowledges this, as every dreamscape is too vivid and literal in terms of set design and lighting. The dreamscapes are also devoid of surrealism, etherealism and, most importantly, daring creativity, all of which are essential for visualising dreams.

As for the acting, there is little to complain about. Leonardo DiCaprio is excellent as Cobb - his acting is effortless and utterly convincing despite his shallow role allowing him to do little more than look morose and conflicted. The acting is uniformly strong across the board, making it all the more disappointing that the characters are undernourished. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, (500) Days of Summer) is excellent as Arthur, and Ellen Page (Juno, Whip It) is both focused and endearing as Ariadne. Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe and Dileep Rao also shine as other members of the team, while Cillian Murphy is wonderfully nuanced as the team's target, and Marion Cotillard is terrific as Cobb's deceased wife.

Inception's deliberate ambiguity continues to provoke online discussions as Nolan ambitiously explores what reality is, and he leaves the ending open to interpretation. In this sense, the picture is somewhat reminiscent of the brilliant Memento. Although this reviewer humbly disagrees with the majority who sing endless praise for Inception and crown it the movie of the decade, it is difficult to overly dislike Nolan's latest visual tour de force. As a piece of technical wizardry, it's hard not to get swept up in the exhilaration of what is happening, but at the same time, Inception is cold at its core, with all the razzle-dazzle denying a vital human element.

7.2/10

Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula was first translated to the screen in director F.W. Murnau's unauthorised German rendering Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922). Nine years later, Universal Studios produced 1931's Dracula - the first official filmic adaptation of Stoker's novel, with the inimitable Bela Lugosi portraying the titular vampire. The golden era of Universal monster movies commenced with this 1931 production, and, although it was eclipsed by Frankenstein (released later in the same year), this film's importance in the annals of motion picture history is overwhelming. In fact, Dracula is a solid example of a film's reputation surpassing its content - as a standalone movie it's flawed, but as a phenomenon it's profoundly and eternally influential on our culture.

Despite being known as the first official film adaptation of Stoker's novel, Dracula is not directly based on this source material - instead, due to legal and financial mumbo jumbo, the movie is directly descended from a British stage production by Hamilton Deane that was in circulation during the mid-1920s. The story kicks off as a British real estate agent named Renfield (Frye) is travelling through the mountains of Transylvania to the decrepit and decaying Castle Dracula. His business is to organise the lease of a London abbey for the mysterious Count Dracula (Lugosi). During this visit, however, Renfield falls under the Count's spell. Meanwhile, once Dracula sets up residence in England, he begins to prey upon his neighbours - more specifically young woman. Enter Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Van Sloan) who believes in ancient legends of the living dead, and knows how to protect oneself from an involuntary blood donation.

To date, F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu remains the most artistic, chilling and atmospheric take on the Dracula story. Tod Browning's 1931 edition cannot equal the earlier movie in terms of effect or chills, but it does have its fair share of memorable moments. In retrospect, however, Browning was a subpar choice to helm the film. Though he developed a solid reputation as a director of silent pictures, Browning was clearly out of his element here - with a few exceptions, he lacked the basic skill required to craft a compelling horror movie. Later in 1931, James Whale's Frankenstein illuminated the weaknesses of Dracula - shots are at times too long, pacing is quite clumsy, editing is clunky, and dialogue is unconvincing. The special effects are cheesy as well - you can practically see the strings holding the bats in the air. Some of these flaws can be attributed to Browning's on-set demeanour: he was sullen due to the death of Lon Chaney, and reportedly acted unprofessionally throughout the shoot. In fact, Browning reportedly left the set on several occasions, leaving cinematographer Karl Freund to direct scenes. The most heartbreaking thing is the lack of chills, as the vampire attack scenes are simply not very effective.

Nevertheless, Browning did achieve a creepy atmosphere at times, with long periods of silence and stylised movement. Dracula's biggest asset, though, is the lighting and set design. The vast sets, particularly Dracula's castle, are spectacular, and convey a sense of size almost unequalled by set-work in more contemporary filmmaking. At times Dracula does play out like a silent film, with extended periods sans dialogue. No musical soundtrack was included for the film's theatrical release, as it was believed that (with sound being such a recent innovation in films) viewers would not accept hearing music in a scene unless there is a real source (like an orchestra that plays off-camera when Dracula is at the theatre). Interestingly, despite this being such a renowned vampire film, Dracula at no point displays his fangs. No vampire bite marks on the neck are ever visible, as well. It's also interesting to note that Universal Studios simultaneously produced a Spanish version of Dracula with a Spanish cast and crew - they used the same script and sets, and filmed at night after Browning's crew were done for the day.

Bela Lugosi's performance is another primary strength of Dracula. In fact, Lugosi's portrayal has become so famous and ingrained in popular culture that kids may quote him without knowing the origin of what they're saying (what kid hasn't said "I vant to suck your blood"?). While not as terrifying as Max Schreck (who portrayed the Dracula character in Nosferatu), Lugosi is excellent here, and this is by far his most famous role. In fact, when Lugosi died in 1956 he was buried wearing the silk cape he wore for this movie. Interestingly, before Lugosi got the part, the role was meant for Lon Chaney, but he died before filming.
Alongside Lugosi, Dwight Frye is chilling and engaging as Renfield. But outside of Frye and Lugosi, the acting is almost uniformly drab, with performances which would be better suited for a silent picture. David Manners is wooden as John Harker, and often appears to be standing around waiting for someone to direct him. Helen Chandler is bland as well, though Edward Van Sloan did a commendable job as Van Helsing.

Measured by contemporary standards, this 1931 rendering of Dracula is dated, hokey and at times monotonous, yet it still provides a few shivers. The film is never scary, mind you - it's just eerie, moody and filled with despair. It is ragged around the edges and suffers from serious technical problems, but these are not enough to prevent it from being appreciated. Essentially, Dracula is a self-recommending classic that must be seen by lovers of cinema.

6.9/10

Essentially, Law Abiding Citizen is Death Wish meets Saw by way of John Grisham, except not as brilliant as this description would imply. Though the central concept for this motion picture is far-fetched and borderline absurd on paper, director F. Gary Gray (The Negotiator) afforded the film a slick, well-produced look and an excellent pace. In fact, this is one of the most enjoyable vigilante thrillers since 1974's Death Wish, in which Charles Bronson took a Wild West approach to avenge the rape of his daughter and the rape-murder of his wife. Still, the ethics at the core of Law Abiding Citizen are questionable, and a suspension of disbelief is required to enjoy the ride. Whether or not you'll enjoy the film depends on your tolerance and taste for cinematic violence.

At the beginning of the movie, well-off engineer and family man Clyde Shelton (Butler) survives a violent home invasion, but his wife and young daughter weren't as fortunate. Several months later, the criminals are awaiting trial. However, up-and-coming district attorney Nick Rice (Foxx) is committed to preserving his impressive conviction rate and believes there's a lack of conclusive evidence. Unwilling to gamble on the legal system, Nick strikes up a deal that sees only one of the criminals sent to death row. Shelton, however, views this as a betrayal of the justice system. Disappearing for a decade, Shelton spends years devising a meticulous plot to murder everyone involved in the case ten years ago, including the perpetrators, the judge, and Nick. Though arrested for murdering the criminals in heinous ways, his incarceration turns out to be the beginning of his vengeance. From his prison cell, he continues killing people in the aim of bringing down a system he perceives as broken beyond repair.

Law Abiding Citizen is by no means a masterpiece, but it nevertheless succeeds as a form of sheer entertainment that's armed with an intriguing, unique and engaging premise. It's a competently-woven story constructed using layer upon layer of mystery and fear as a viewer witnesses the city being thrown into utter turmoil by a mastermind who succeeds at every turn from behind prison walls. Among the film's strengths is the ability to surprise with new angles and revelations, with an air of unpredictability pervading each step of Shelton's plan. Though Shelton's scrupulous plot may seem preposterous to some (countless critics have complained about this), one must keep in mind he spent ten years preparing it, and the character's intelligence is revealed to be quite tremendous. Nevertheless, there are a few aspects of the story which are admittedly difficult to swallow.

The primary problem with Law Abiding Citizen is a critical one: the filmmakers depicted Shelton, who is the villain of the picture, in a sympathetic light. Worse, Nick, who we're supposed to root for, is portrayed negatively. The opening crime against Shelton and his family is so heinous, and the ensuing perversion of justice so repulsive that you'll want Shelton to win and get away with all of his planned murders. Meanwhile, it's easy to perceive Nick as a villain - he refused to take both criminals to court because of his ego, after all. Added to this, Shelton's plan is so whip-smart that the film fails when it tries to shift our sympathies towards Nick. Who cares if Nick finally sees the light? Shelton deserves his vengeance. It's doubtful that the intention was to make viewers root for Shelton. This leads to a disappointing, abrupt ending which wraps up the storyline in a preposterous, purely Hollywood fashion. It's a shame - if Shelton was in fact the hero of the piece, the film would have been far superior. In this sense, the film is about 80 minutes of awesomeness and 20 minutes of tosh.

Obvious flaws aside, there is not much else about Law Abiding Citizen to complain about. Director F. Gary Gray handled the action and dialogue scenes with competence, while Kurt Wimmer's screenplay serves up flashes of greatness from time to time. This is an R-rated action-thriller as well, which is rare in this cinematic climate. It's refreshing to witness a film such as this that's uncompromising in its depiction of violence. Meanwhile, two fine performances constitute the core of Law Abiding Citizen. Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler demonstrate good chemistry, and are a terrific protagonist/antagonist pairing. The other members of the cast carried out their duties to a high standard, too, especially Colm Meaney as Nick's partner.

There is not a great deal more to be said about Law Abiding Citizen. The visual effects and action scenes are impressive, while the cat-and-mouse game between Shelton and Nick is engaging. The film is not Oscar fodder, but instead a violent, enjoyably slick thriller that's unable to entirely capitalise on its potential.

6.2/10

Romance sells at the box office. Stephanie Meyer (the Twilight saga) knows this, Nicholas Sparks (The Notebook) knows it, and all of Hollywood knows it. 2010's Dear John is exactly the type of romantic tearjerker to be expected from an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel, and it's awful. Look, I admit that this film was not made with me in mind - it's doubtful that the filmmakers told themselves "Let's make this film for a young bloke with a proclivity for hardcore action films". On the other hand, though, I'm not immune to the pleasures of a terrific romance - Titanic is among my favourites, and I'm one of the five people on the Earth who'll defend Meet Joe Black and Australia. But pulling off a successful romance requires a deft touch, and such skill eluded the filmmakers responsible for Dear John.

On leave from military service, Special Forces Sergeant John Tyree (Tatum) returns home to visit his distant father (Jenkins) while also spending time riding the ocean waves. In typical meet cute fashion, John meets college student Savannah (Seyfried), and over the course of a fortnight their relationship rapidly blossoms. Following their initial two weeks together, John returns to active duty and Savannah returns to school. Swearing to one another that their relationship will continue through letters, John and Savannah pour their hearts into their correspondence in the hope that a year apart will seem like weeks instead of months. The romance is again threatened, though, when the 9/11 terrorist attacks unfold and John chooses duty over Savannah in order to re-enlist for further military service.

In the past, director Lasse Hallström has proved to be a superior purveyor of weepy dramas, with What's Eating Gilbert Grape and Chocolat being two esteemed inclusions on his filmography. Dear John, however, is hindered by an overwhelming sense of obviousness. In the hands of Hallström, the film yanks on the heartstrings in practically every scene (Kleenex likely financed the production), yet it's seldom effective - most people may prefer a barf bag instead of a tissue. The writing is atrocious and unfocused as well - once John is back in the Special Forces, the film merely becomes a succession of voiceovers snippets which vocalise the characters' letter-writing while cheesy music frequently intrudes. There are visual accompaniments too, including a montage illustrating the workings of the mail system. Once this formula is exhausted, 9/11 occurs. After John re-enlists, Dear John is further sapped of focus. The screenwriters were clearly unsure of where to take the story - the romance degenerates into a bittersweet afterthought as the emphasis is placed on John's military experiences and his relationship with his father.

Lack of talent aside, the primary problem with Dear John is its clichéd framework and the "been there, done that" vibe that pervades the material. We've seen it all before: the 'kissing in the rain' courtship, the careful, tasteful sex scene, the strain of a long-distance relationship, and so on. Of course, conventions are inevitable and there's nothing wrong with using them per se, but the film is utterly flavourless, hence the conventional nature is hard to forgive. And, while no major spoilers will be divulged, the manipulative nature of Dear John becomes increasingly irritating as well. At one point, a viewer is basically asked not to sympathise with a nice man with cancer; in fact the film expects us to hope for his death. We're expected to buy all of these ludicrous developments and to follow the convenient narrative path, but there's nothing worthwhile to latch onto. The film is a groaning bore.

In terms of acting, none of the performers are worth writing home about. Channing Tatum further demonstrated his limited acting abilities here with this below-par performance: he's stiff as a board, and he recited all his lines as if reading them off a cue card for the first time. Girls may make a case about Tatum being pleasing eye candy (God knows Twilight fans use the argument of "hot boys" in the defence of those putrid films), yet the star has all the acting talent of a fire hydrant. Featuring as Savannah, Amanda Seyfried neither disappoints nor exceeds expectations; she's just there, and at no time does she make an impact or come across as a poor actress. There are a few specific performances that shine, however - Henry Thomas is quite impressive, and Richard Jenkins is excellent as John's father. Then again, Richard Jenkins is always excellent.

While Dear John is not entirely bad from a technical perspective, it does not excel in any area. If you enjoy these kinds of formulaic romance tragedies, you may find something to enjoy here, but there's little of interest for a wider audience. That's the best summary I can offer you.

3.2/10

What do you get when you merge Paul Verhoeven's proclivity for ultraviolent cinema with the characteristics of an Arnold Schwarzenegger action vehicle? The answer is 1990's Total Recall, an exciting, thought-provoking, violent and delightfully entertaining science fiction action classic. With a screenplay credited to Ronald Shusett (Dead & Buried), Dan O'Bannon (Alien), and Gary Goldman (Big Trouble in Little China), Total Recall is an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's 1966 short story We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, and the project's decades-long journey from page to screen was arduous and uncertain. After falling through the hands of David Cronenberg, Bruce Beresford, Russell Mulcahy, Walt Disney, and a bankrupt Dino De Laurentiis, Schwarzenegger convinced Carolco Pictures to purchase the rights and make the movie with him in the lead role. Additionally, after Verhoeven's work on 1987's RoboCop (for which Schwarzenegger was considered in the lead role), the filmmaker was Arnie's top pick to helm the project. Fortunately, Total Recall successfully came to fruition in this form, and the resulting movie is a thrilling futuristic action blockbuster with imaginative production design and philosophical underpinnings to supplement the spectacle.

A mild-mannered construction worker, Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger) experiences recurring dreams about another life on Mars with a mysterious woman, much to the chagrin of his wife, Lori (Sharon Stone). Against the advice of his colleagues, Quaid visits Rekall, a company that implants artificial memories of perfect holidays tailored to each client's desires. Intrigued, Quaid chooses a holiday package set on Mars, where he is a secret agent. However, Quaid wakes up during the procedure and lashes out, believing he truly is a secret agent. Upon leaving Rekall, Quaid learns that his life is a false memory implanted by the "Agency," and Mars' tyrannical ruler, Vilos Cohaagen (Ronny Cox), fears that his visit to Rekall will unlock his old memories. Seeking to reach Mars to help stop Cohaagen and find the mysterious woman of his dreams (Rachel Ticotin), Quaid is relentlessly pursued by armed government agents led by Richter (Michael Ironside).

There are twists and turns throughout Total Recall, with the story's scope consistently expanding as the action shifts to Mars and introduces a team of freedom fighters working to bring down Cohaagen. Luckily, Verhoeven smoothly guides the narrative with maximum coherency despite the political machinations, and the movie is scarcely boring. Total Recall is an extraordinary action movie with a tongue-in-cheek sense of humour (Arnie's one-liners are neverending), but there is surprising depth and thoughtfulness to the picture's construction. The satirical script lampoons everything from commercialism to the perils of excessive government control, and Verhoeven plays shrewd mental games, challenging our perception of reality. Are the events actually happening, or are they part of an elaborate fantasy concocted by Rekall? Verhoeven is unwilling to answer this question definitively, but there is enough evidence to make a strong case for either scenario, and you could potentially draw a different conclusion with every rewatch. This aspect elevates the movie above the ordinary, making it more than just a brainless action fiesta. Total Recall set the benchmark for contemporary sci-fi action movies with a touch of ambiguity, though the picture remains unequalled over thirty years later.

Total Recall is one of the last big-budget action spectacles to feature classical special effects methods: miniatures, location shooting, make-up, puppetry and elaborately constructed sets. Although movie-goers accustomed to crisp, modern CGI-laden films may perceive Total Recall as dated, the elaborate effects here are arguably more convincing than digital imagery, as they carry a tangible aesthetic. The prosthetics and puppets are especially impressive, with the story featuring eccentric mutants that Cronenberg originally conceived during his time on the project. Additionally, Verhoeven is renowned for the explicit content of his movies, be it nudity or violence, and Total Recall is no different, even gaining notoriety for its record-setting body count at the time. Much like RoboCop, many cuts were made at the MPAA's behest to avoid an X rating. The deaths are gruesome, with over-the-top bloodshed, but the humorous tone prevents the movie from feeling sadistic or mean-spirited. Also beneficial is Jerry Goldsmith's note-perfect original score, embodied by the main theme played during the opening credits. Every note of Goldsmith's work exudes outer space, sci-fi and action, amplifying the movie's sense of danger, suspense and intergalactic adventure. One of Goldsmith's best scores, the soundtrack deserves to stand alongside other seminal cinematic scores, such as John Williams' Star Wars music and James Horner's work on Aliens.

Another of Total Recall's biggest assets is Schwarzenegger. Sure, the Austrian Oak is not an accomplished actor, but Arnie's commanding screen presence is why he is such a fantastic action star. The muscular behemoth is right at home cracking one-liners, shooting guns, running, grunting, making love, and shooting more guns - and, luckily, this role plays to those strengths. Additionally, Arnie ably conveys Quaid's anger, confusion and frustration throughout the story with each new plot development, showing that he can actually act. In the supporting cast, the badass Ironside (Extreme Prejudice, Top Gun) is a fantastic villain, exuding authority and giving Richter a chilling edge. Sticking with Verhoeven after RoboCop, Cox shows once again he can play shady corporate types with ease, and he is terrific as Cohaagen, bringing much-needed gravitas to the production. Sharon Stone also submits a fun performance here, playing into the picture's goofy tone. It's interesting to note that Stone has played a love interest for both Arnie and Sylvester Stallone during her career, as she was Sly's love interest in 1994's The Specialist.

With the budget ballooning to $80 million during shooting, Total Recall is a proficient and visually intriguing production that mostly stands the test of time, especially with its intelligence and clever plotting. Although it is sometimes slightly cheesy, this only contributes to the picture's goofy late-'80s charm. There is something exhilarating about revisiting a film like Total Recall in an era of toned-down violence and rampant political correctness. With Verhoeven at the helm, the film is enjoyably over-the-top in every aspect, from the violence to the sparkling one-liners and the garish special effects. Additionally, with tight editing by the Oscar-nominated Frank J. Urioste (Die Hard), it moves forward with sensational momentum. Much like the director's other action films (RoboCop, Starship Troopers), Verhoeven packs Total Recall with more awesome than most people can handle in two hours, including memorable deaths and devilish ultraviolence. Regrettably, the film was remade in 2012, but the remake is an abomination and does not merit further discussion.

10/10

Mention the name James Cameron during a conversation and one will immediately evoke thoughts of The Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens, The Abyss, Titanic, Avatar and True Lies. That's one hell of an impressive run of movies. Over the course of his career, James Cameron (with his infamous trait of perfectionism) has single-handedly created some of the greatest action and science fiction movies of recent times, and 1994's True Lies is without doubt one of the greatest actioners to emerge from Hollywood during the 1990s. In addition to this being a James Cameron film, it's an Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle, and their respective styles work extremely well together.

When speculation was rampant in the early '90s about who the new James Bond should be, Arnold Schwarzenegger was considered to be one of the long shots. Pierce Brosnan eventually got the gig instead of Arnold, but those of you wanting to see how Arnold would've fared as Bond should look no further than True Lies, as the Austrian Oak portrays a very Bond-esque secret agent. With tongue firmly in cheek, the film commences with a Goldfinger parody as Schwarzenegger's character of Harry Tasker swims up to an elegant mansion to infiltrate a high-class party. When he dumps his wet suit, it's revealed that Harry is wearing a full tuxedo underneath. Very Bond.

Harry Tasker is a secret agent living a double life. At home with his wife Helen (Curtis) and daughter Dana (Dushku), he's a loving, meek husband and father. Harry's family has no clue about his actual line of work, since they believe his cover story of being a dull sales representative for a computer company. The main narrative thread concerns Harry's latest mission: he's on the trail of the leader of a dangerous Middle-Eastern terrorist syndicate who have acquired nuclear warheads with plans to blow up Miami (yes, but can they dance?). This, however, is perceived as a secondary problem to Harry because he's convinced that his long-neglected wife is having an affair.

A Hollywood remake of the 1991 French film La Totale (though an uncredited remake), True Lies is essentially a fast-moving satire of every action-adventure movie in history (most significantly taking cues from James Bond). Interestingly, Schwarzenegger was the one who convinced James Cameron to commandeer this movie. Once Arnie learned that a remake of La Totale had been sanctioned, he wanted the lead role. When he passed the script onto James Cameron, Arnold said he wanted to do the film because he found the protagonist to be interesting. Cameron was shocked, because it was very rare for Schwarzenegger to pick a script based on his interest in a character. Once Cameron entered the equation, he fired the original screenwriters and went about re-writing the script himself. Remember, this is the same guy who carries out his directorial duties while wearing a hat that reads "Head Motherfucker In Charge".

Cameron may spend more money than any other filmmaker (True Lies costed in excess of $100 million), but nobody delivers more bang for your buck. The director's action sequences are gargantuan objects of beauty handled with a phenomenal dexterity that's rarely seen. In addition to the utilisation of mind-blowing CGI for this movie (the special effects are practically seamless), a large portion of the action was pulled off with practical effects and stuntmen. The results are spectacular. True Lies may require a suspension of disbelief, but it's not difficult to overlook logic for the sake of sheer entertainment. Added to this, while True Lies reaffirmed Cameron's ability to keep viewers on the edge of their seats, the film also showed he was capable of making an audience laugh. One of the best things about True Lies is that it's utterly hilarious, with hysterical one-liners and a number of comedic situations. In comparison to the James Bond franchise, True Lies is far funnier. It's more violent, too, as this is an R-rated action film as opposed to a tame PG Bond flick.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is in top form here as Harry Tasker. Arnie has always possessed a gift for comedy, and True Lies provided ample opportunities for the star to put this gift to good use. It is a tribute to Schwarzenegger's burgeoning maturity as an actor that he pulled off one of his best and most appealing performances in this film without being shirtless at any point. Alongside Ah-nold, Jamie Lee Curtis is terrific as Helen. One particular exchange between Arnie and Curtis sums up the tone of the film quite well: when she finds out his identity as a spy, she asks if he's ever killed anyone, and Arnie replies "Yeah but they were all bad". Other highlights of the film include a wonderful comic turn by Tom Arnold as Schwarzenegger's right-hand man, in addition to Tia Carrere as a sexy femme fatale, the side-splitting Bill Paxton as a car salesman, Art Malik as an effective villain, and Charlton Heston who clearly had fun playing the one-eyed head spy honcho.

Granted, True Lies is too long at almost 140 minutes, and the relationship between Harry and Helen drags from time to time. Sure, the film is over-the-top and ridiculous as well. But I can live with that, because this is also a funny, action-packed blockbuster that's easy to recommend. It's Arnie's best work outside of being a prop for Cameron's Terminator movies.

8.8/10

2008's Street Kings is basically Training Day mixed with the television series The Shield, and it's yet another in the never-ending string of films concerning corrupt police officers. In the past, a number of filmmakers have attempted this type of material, resulting in movies ranging from underrated gems like Cop Land to Oscar-recognised films such as The Departed and L.A. Confidential. Speaking strictly from a technical perspective, Street Kings is a proficient effort, but it's also stale. Half the problem with the flick is that this stuff has been done before (usually done better), and is incapable of bringing anything new to the genre. The other half of the problem is the stilted dialogue, the questionable casting choices, a lot of contrived character action and an appalling ending. It's never boring per se, but at no point is Street Kings truly captivating either.

The film's protagonist is police officer Tom Ludlow (Reeves) who's reeling from the death of his adulterous wife (oh, that old cliché?) and whose specialty is bending the law to suit his crime-solving desires. In true Dirty Harry fashion, he has a blatant disregard for any law that prevents him from gunning down criminals. Following one heroic bust (during which Tom started shooting first), the watchful eye of Internal Affairs begins scrutinising Tom's unit. Tom soon learns that a former partner of his, Detective Washington (Crews), has been informing Internal Affairs regarding Tom's methods. When Tom pursues Washington with plans to retaliate, he witnesses the detective getting brutally gunned down by a couple of thugs. To avoid difficulties, the department removes any evidence that Tom was present at the time of the shooting. While the unit's captain (Whitaker) tells Tom to move on, he persists with an investigation to capture Washington's killers. As is often the case with movies like this, the trail leads to a web of police corruption.

Tom ends up pairing with Detective Diskant (Evans). The relationship between the two men makes no sense - initially they're hesitant to trust one another, but then they suddenly relate on a first-name basis and happily collaborate without any explanation of their newfound mutual respect. Meanwhile, the constant discussions of Tom's late wife grow heavy-handed and hinder the pace. Crucially, Street Kings was saddled with a conclusion that's both insulting and improbable. Clearly, nobody knew how to wrap up the story, so the intricate plot was reduced to the simplest solution: Tom shooting everyone. It feels out-of-synch with the rest of the movie. While a bad ending cannot completely wreck an otherwise good flick, Street Kings was a middling effort up until the end. Consequently, the conclusion is detrimental.

While several problems mar the screenplay (which is credited to three writers, including the great James Ellroy), the trite plot is the worst offender. As soon as Washington is killed, it's obvious what's happening and who's behind it. For most of the film, Tom is unable to see what the audience can, which becomes increasingly irritating. Sure, there are twists, but they're never startling. The story is amazingly contrived as well, with characters that feel like automatons in the service of the narrative as opposed to actual flesh & blood humans. Tom's behaviour is ridiculous, and his choices are poorly motivated. Street Kings is director David Ayer's second feature as a director (he previously earned his chops as a screenwriter, having written Training Day and a few other crime films), and his handling of the material is generally impressive. He afforded the film a gritty edge, and the action sequences are of a good standard. Problem is, he's still no Martin Scorsese, Curtis Hanson or even James Mangold.

Keanu Reeves' role of Tom Ludlow is that of a detached, depressed and despondent detective. This is a good fit for Reeves' limited acting range, but his performance is strictly regular. He is unable to bring as much as a modicum of grit or intensity to the character. Even Sylvester Stallone did a better job in Cop Land (in which he played a cop who takes a stand against corruption). Meanwhile Forest Whitaker's performance as the police captain is solid, and Chris Evans is believable as Diskant. Hugh Laurie (a fine actor) also does what he can with his small role. In the supporting cast, Cedric the Entertainer, Terry Crews (utterly wasted), Jay Mohr, Common and Naomie Harris feature in a variety of roles to varying degrees of success, but few make an impact.

On top of the hackneyed dialogue and the generic plotline, Street Kings never offers an exploration of the issues it raises. For instance, Tom is supposed to be a dirty, racist cop, yet this angle is soon abandoned rather than explored in a meaningful way. Street Kings is basically a movie in search of an identity. It features enough recognisable actors, yet there's practically no difference between this film and the slew of other similarly-themed projects which preceded it (some even associated with David Ayer). It's just not audacious enough.

4.9/10

Old School is an early noughties take on an old genre - the college/fraternity flick, which was most memorably embodied in the classic 1978 feature National Lampoon's Animal House. It's perhaps unsurprising that the producer of the defining Animal House, Ivan Reitman, also served as executive producer on Old School. Reitman's involvement is a good omen, as this is a highly amusing comedy as well as an effective take on an ailing genre. This is not the greatest comedy of all time, but it's one of the funniest comedies of 2003 - a satisfying mixture of terrific humour, well-developed characters, and a refusal to go for the cheapest and most predictable gag. In an era burdened by countless below-par "comedies", Old School delivers with surprising effectiveness.

As the story begins, average middle-class guy Mitch Martin (Wilson) returns from a business trip to find his wife (Lewis) about to engage in a gang bang. Fleeing from his broken relationship, Mitch ends up moving into a low-rent house on the outskirts of a nearby University. Following a rather epic housewarming party, the University begin taking steps to repossess the property. But Mitch and his best friends Frank (Ferrell) and Beanie (Vaughn) discover a loophole which would allow them to keep the house: transform it into a fraternity house for anyone wanting to pledge (be it student, non-student, young or old). This idea is a tremendous success, and the house is soon the most popular location on campus. This irks the local University's vindictive dean (Piven), who in turn spearheads a campaign to bring the fraternity down.

To be sure, Old School does not so much tell a story as it simply exploits a funny premise. There's not a great deal to supplement the laughs since the focus is on staging gags, most of which are side-splitting. First things first - this is not a highbrow comedy. Virtually every single gag involves sex, nudity, heavy drinking, stupidity, underage sex, or a combination of the above. Plus, one scene features an unforgettable rendition of Total Eclipse of the Heart with "alternative" lyrics. Director Todd Phillips and his crew of screenwriters managed to keep the laughs and comedic set-pieces coming at a good pace, too. However, a comparison to National Lampoon's Animal House would not be flattering for Old School, as it's not as clever, innovative or as memorable as its '70s predecessor.

A great deal of the comic fodder is derived from the fact that the trio of protagonists are much older than college students yet still adore partying and drinking. There's a bit of appeal to this idea as well - which 35-year-old would not want to party hard with little or no consequences? Additionally, it's amusing watching the characters becoming reacquainted with their bygone lifestyles, most notably the recently-married Frank who reawakens his drinking habits and reclaims his former label of "Frank the Tank". The fact that Old School is painfully by-the-numbers and hampered by predictability matters not in the grand scheme of things, as it feels mean-spirited to point out the foibles of an otherwise enjoyable flick.

This movie also presented a unique opportunity for Will Ferrell, Luke Wilson and Vince Vaughn to do what they do best: create hilarious personalities which we will come to know and love. Ferrell's character easily steals the spotlight as the newly regenerated alcoholic who gets naked and fumbles around a lot. While Ferrell is responsible for many of Old School's best and most memorable moments, Wilson and Vaughn definitely hold their own. Wilson is a master of droopy-eyed normal guy shtick, and he played his role convincingly here. Meanwhile, the film afforded ample opportunities for Vaughn to utilise his hilarious motor-mouth comedy skills that nobody in Hollywood can equal or top. Jeremy Piven also submitted an enjoyably snark performance as the villain for us to root against, though he's not a patch on John Vernon's Dean Wormer from Animal House. Also in the cast is Seann William Scott who's utterly wasted in a side-splitting cameo, Ellen Pompeo as Wilson's love interest, and even young Elisha Cuthbert (Jack Bauer's daughter in 24) as a schoolgirl who is mistaken for a college-aged girl. None of the actors turned in anything of Oscar calibre, but it's easy to believe everyone in their respective roles. Each did a fine job with the material.

The filmmakers who contributed to the creation of Old School cared only about providing a fun time, and in this regard they succeeded tremendously. Elements like plot are inconsequential devices used to move the film from one joke to the next. If you're seeking a good time, the film gets a passing grade. It provides nothing more substantial, however. Make sure to continue watching the movie as the credits roll, as even more laughs lie in wait once the film is over.

7.2/10

Similar to Sylvester Stallone's glorious resurrection of the Rambo franchise, 2010's Predators is a sequel that eschews post-modernist filmmaking in favour of a back-to-basics, '80s-style approach. As a result, this Robert Rodriguez-produced exhumation of the Predator series is a solid, highly satisfying action picture and a worthy sequel to 1987's Predator, surpassing the weak Predator 2 and the even weaker Alien vs. Predator movies. Chief among the strengths of Predators is that it returns the franchise to its natural habitat, with the film observing an anxious group within a jungle setting who gradually come to grips with the alien hunters stalking the area. Predators also carries a unique spin: the titular monsters are not only stalking humans but aliens from other planets as well.

As the film opens, it cleverly places us in the same bewildered mindset as the eight humans who wake up to find themselves falling through the sky equipped with a parachute but without an explanation as to what's going on. Amid the soldiers and criminals from around the world, a tentative leader emerges in Royce (Adrian Brody). Among the group is a sniper (Alice Braga), a Russian (Oleg Taktarov), a civilian doctor (Topher Grace), a member of the Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), a Mexican (Danny Trejo) and a condemned murderer (Walton Goggins). Studying their surroundings, Royce surmises that the squad have been dropped on a game reserve planet and are the intended targets for a mysterious pack of alien creatures who hunt for sport. As the group navigates through treacherous terrain, they deal with trust and leadership issues, and Royce struggles to find a way to defeat the unseen foes and escape the deadly planet.

The straightforward narrative unfolds at a sturdy pace, with no location or scene outstaying their welcome. Predators excels because of the decision to pitch it as a horror/thriller first and an action picture second, much like the original Predator (and unlike the follow-ups). Hence, the film is not in a hurry to introduce a Predator-centric action scene - instead, the movie spends adequate time developing the brutes, observing them as they apprehensively bond and search for a way to gain the upper hand. Writers Michael Finch and Alex Litvak (working from a screenplay that Rodriguez wrote in the early 1990s) clearly understand that less is more, as the lack of Predator appearances throughout the film's first half is essential for building requisite tension. Unfortunately, there is a lack of machismo and tough guy one-liners (the original Predator is legendary for its one-liners), and the third act is noticeably formulaic. Several cringe-worthy moments impact the experience, including a betrayal that is poorly motivated and inadequately explained. And what of the new Predator designs, I hear you think? It's hard to distinguish the Berserkers from the Classics, to be honest.

Working with a respectable $40 million budget, director Nimród Antal (Vacancy, Armoured) knows how to stage an action set piece. At times, the use of shaky cam and rapid-fire editing is distracting, but for the most part, the action is exciting and satisfying. Thankfully, the Predators come to life through old-fashioned rubber body suits and practical creature effects whenever possible. The gore also appears to be practical, with old-school blood squibs instead of phoney digital bloodshed. Wisely, Antal uses CGI sparingly and only when necessary. In addition, the script brilliantly expands the Predator mythology, as one character explains that the creatures hunt for sport to learn and improve their tactics. This begs the question (that further instalments might address): why are the Predators attempting to emerge as a superior race? Are they planning an invasion of another planet? It is also worth noting that Predators pays homage to the original Predator through music cues (it feels as if the film simply re-uses Alan Silvestri's original score at times) and a few set pieces (most notably the final showdown). Shit, characters even discuss the events of the original film, and the end credits feature Little Richard's Long Tall Sally, a song from the legendary helicopter scene in the original.

Good acting is a rarity in the realm of action cinema, but Predators actually benefits from sturdy performances across the board. Although the actors lack the sheer manliness and testosterone of the original Predator cast, every actor is nonetheless credible in their respective roles. Brody imbues his role of Royce with menace and intensity, and the actor evidently spent many hours in the gym to build muscle for the role. Against all odds, the Oscar-winning performer is an excellent action hero. The only drawback is that Brody lacks Arnie's memorable presence. Perhaps a larger, bulkier actor could have done this role more justice. (Maybe they should've waited for Arnold Schwarzenegger to finish his term as Governor, and hired him instead.) Alongside Brody is an array of strong performers, such as Danny Trejo, Topher Grace and Oleg Taktarov, all of whom confidently hit their marks. Alice Braga is engaging and credible as Isabelle, while Laurence Fishburne also pops up briefly with a memorable cameo that recalls Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now.

Fans of the original Predator should find 2010's Predators more than satisfying after the bad taste left by other instalments. Rodriguez, Antal and the writers know what made the original film such a great ride and work to reproduce a similar brand of visceral thrills. Let's be honest: you want to see a Predator movie for bone-crunching battles and violence, and Predators delivers in this respect. Despite its flaws, this is solid summertime entertainment.

7.6/10