Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"You know what I hate about the Americans? Everything. Especially cowboys."

When it comes to the Die Hard franchise, the soup has already been pissed in. The original trilogy is close to perfect, yet 2007's Live Free or Die Hard tarnished the brand name, with new helmer Len Wiseman mounting an abominable PG-13 distraction that doesn't walk or talk like a Die Hard movie at all. And now we have the fifth film, 2013's A Good Day to Die Hard, which is back in R-rated territory for another round of pandemonium. Written by Skip Woods (Wolverine, The A-Team), this Die Hard outing is not on the same level as the original trilogy, but it's a step in the right direction for the ailing series. It's fun but ultimately inconsequential, too slight at 97 minutes and tremendously silly. Nevertheless, it administers a good-natured string of mayhem and violence that should keep you entertained, even if it doesn't feel like a true Die Hard movie.

Upon learning that his mostly estranged son Jack (Jai Courtney) has been arrested in Moscow for murder, NYPD cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) flies to Russia hoping to collect his boy. Instead, he becomes entangled in a dangerous assassination plot involving political prisoner Yuri Komarov (Sebastian Koch). Jack has worked as an undercover CIA operative for years, and his mission is to bring Komarov to safety so he can provide a file that could take down corrupt Russian politician Chagarin (Sergei Kolesnikov). Problem is, Chagarin is unwilling to let his existence be threatened by Komarov, and he sends a team led by his top enforcer, Alik (Rasha Bukvic), to assassinate him. With Jack acting as Komarov's protector, John gets swept along for the ride to help his son confront the increasing hostility.

A Good Day to Die Hard gets into the action reasonably early, with an extensive car chase not long after McClane arrives in Moscow. Intended to be the film's centrepiece, the crew apparently spent 77 days shooting the thing, but it's all for naught. While the sequence looks handsome enough, it's a black hole of awkwardness from which no joy can escape; hundreds of innocent civilians appear to be injured and killed during the rampage, and an enormous amount of damage is perpetrated. Not to mention, John clues himself into the whole situation too quickly and easily. Things eventually improve, but the storytelling is shockingly underdone and character development is virtually non-existent. The film lacks sufficient build-up to the carnage, begging for Jack and John to be further developed. It doesn't help that large chunks of the film seem to be missing, with the McClane duo driving from Moscow all the way to Chernobyl (about 400 miles) in the blink of an eye. The structure is choppy, and the pacing feels uneven. A Good Day to Die Hard clearly had a torpedo taken to it in the editing room; it's telling that this Die Hard clocks in at around 90 minutes, whereas the other instalments had a more comfortable two hours to work through their narrative. The extended edition restores a bit more dramatic material, but one must still wonder how much was cut either during the scripting stage or the editing stage.

In the director's chair of A Good Day to Die Hard is John Moore, a terrible choice considering his history with low-grade filmmaking (The Omen remake, Max Payne). If there's an area where Live Free or Die Hard betters this fifth film, it's in the filmmaking. The fourth film was at least pretty smooth, but the camera here is too shaky, and the editing is too shonky. It is doubtful that tripods were used at any point throughout filming. However, the grittier filmic look of A Good Day to Die Hard is welcome. Live Free or Die Hard was sanitised and glossy, with tiny amounts of blood and a detrimentally "clean" look. By contrast, A Good Day is darker in tone, with more blood and a grittier edge. Plus, the action scenes are frequently enjoyable, including a handful of nice shootouts and some entertaining fisticuffs. A few action beats are admittedly too over-the-top, especially the climax, but they don't entirely take you out of the movie. Nevertheless, McClane is too much of an unstoppable superhero here, in dire need of the more vulnerable edge that characterised him in the first place. Although the shaky cam is not as prevalent or distracting as it could've been, the action should've been more coherently shot and edited. Plus, Moore leans on ridiculous slo-mo on a few occasions, which is a dreadful misstep.

Willis is getting older, and it's clear that he mostly features in motion pictures for the money rather than the thrill of it. To his credit, he looks awake a few times throughout A Good Day, and there are a few glimpses of the John McClane we know and love (whereas McClane was positively MIA in Live Free). It's good to hear the detective swearing up a storm once again. However, he still looks asleep a lot of the time, and there are a few instances when it sounds as if Willis was dubbed by someone who doesn't sound like him at all. Surprisingly, Courtney fares rather well. The Australian native has bounced around the sidelines for years, occasionally showing up in TV shows and playing minor roles in films like Jack Reacher. His role of Jack McClane was briefly glimpsed in the original Die Hard but hasn't been seen since, so it's an interesting choice to finally introduce him properly. Courtney is solid in the role; he has the right attitude and looks at home in the middle of the action. The film also finds time for a few pleasant moments in which Jack and John bond, which gives the film a welcome smattering of heart. In the supporting cast, Rasha Bukvic excels as Alik. It's a colourful role, and the actor runs with it; he's good fun. Koch is also solid as the grizzled Komarov, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead pops in for two short scenes (and a voice cameo) as John's daughter, Lucy, reprising her role from the previous film.

A Good Day is a relatively soft R, with only a few blood sprays and around 15 f-bombs. It doesn't feel like it's pulling punches, however, as bullet hits are visible, and no awkward cutaways are used. It would be nice to see a more full-blooded R-rated Die Hard sequel, but at least Fox allowed the film to be released with an R rating (though it was censored in the UK, earning a 12A certificate). All in all, A Good Day to Die Hard is not the worst of the bunch, but it's not close to reaching the dizzying heights of the first three films, and it does not exactly close the franchise on the highest note. The script is too slipshod, the plotting too underdone, and the direction too frenzied. Nevertheless, if it's taken as the 90-minute action ride that it is, the movie delivers. It's not exactly Die Hard, but it is a good fun actioner, ridiculously enjoyable and with a few good laughs here and there. It's definitely not the disaster that the critics have made it out to be.

6.5/10

"Everyone has a different nightmare in Silent Hill; I am theirs."

For all of the flack it copped from critics, 2006's Silent Hill remains one of the most successful game-to-film translations to date. That may not be saying much, but it is a solid effort, a visually arresting horror flick supported by slick production values, believable acting, a bone-chilling sense of atmosphere, and competent direction by French director Christophe Gans. It left room for a sequel, which arrives six years after its predecessor. Considering that four Paranormal Activity movies and five Saw movies were released in the interim, such a gap is an eternity in the horror franchise world, making a Silent Hill sequel feel instantly outdated. It does not help that 2012's Silent Hill: Revelation is flaccid and forgettable, with a reduced budget and less directorial skill squandering the potential for a chilling exercise in terror.

Following the events of the original film, Rose (Radha Mitchell) manages to temporarily break the curse of Silent Hill, allowing her to return her daughter, Sharon (Adelaide Clemens), to the land of the living. To escape the demonic cult that rules the ghost town, Sharon's father, Christopher (Sean Bean), frequently moves the pair from state to state, never remaining in one place for very long and never retaining the same name. Now eighteen, Sharon is continually haunted by horrific nightmares of Silent Hill, which eventually begin to invade her waking hours. When Christopher is abducted, a note in blood is left on the wall asking for Sharon to return to the doomed township. Finding a friend in classmate Vincent (Kit Harington), Sharon makes her way back to Silent Hill to save her father, compelling the pair to brave the terrors within and hopefully neutralise the power of sinister witch Alessa.

Once Sharon and Vincent reach Silent Hill, the picture begins throwing out ridiculous videogame elements, including big boss fights, helpful bystanders, and the need to collect the other piece of an amulet. It's absurd stuff, and it struggles to frighten or even function on any effective level. The plot is complete nonsense, with writer-director M.J. Bassett simply incorporating pieces of gaming detail and familiar supporting characters for the fans. Furthermore, the mythology remains half-hearted and muddled, to the extent that one must wonder if anyone actually read the script before the cameras rolled. The characters attempt to explain everything through laborious passages of exposition that rely on telling rather than showing, but certain things still fail to make sense, and everything sounds exceedingly pedestrian. The biggest flaw of the first Silent Hill was its risible dialogue, even though it was penned by Roger Avary (who contributed to True Romance and Pulp Fiction). Revelation's script is worse, however, with the script containing goofball passages of dialogue and clichéd faux-intense horror movie speak ("You okay?", "Let's go!", and so on).

Revelation looks disappointingly cheap, even despite the polish of the 3D photography. Gans was working on a much more generous $50 million for the original picture, whereas Bassett has $20 million to play with, and the results are pale. A few set pieces here and there admittedly work, including a creepy sequence involving a spider-like creature and most of the scenes with Pyramid Head. Outside of this, Bassett does very little right, and the digital effects are too obvious. Budget constraints clearly forbid Bassett from mounting an intense, cohesive two-hour picture like its predecessor. Instead, the ride is ninety minutes, hence it feels somewhat disjointed and choppy despite the straightforward narrative, not to mention dramatically underdeveloped. The budget cuts may be understandable considering the first film's average box office performance, but no sequel at all is preferable to a sequel made on the cheap, which tarnishes the franchise name.

A few old faces return for duty here, with Bean reprising his role as Christopher and Mitchell popping in to play Rose in a tiny cameo. Bafflingly, Bean's performance is terrible here; he appears to be attempting an American accent, but it's appalling and inconsistent, and it honestly sounds as if the Brit native has been dubbed. Furthering the reunion are Roberto Campanella as Pyramid Head, and Deborah Kara Unger, who achieves precisely nothing as Alessa's mother. For whatever reason, Jodelle Ferland was jettisoned for the sequel, with Clemens stepping in to replace her as Sharon. An Australian native, Clemens is a dead ringer for Michelle Williams, and she's strictly okay in her role. The same cannot be said for Harington, a stiff actor who's never quite convincing enough. Also showing up is Carrie-Anne Moss, who honestly looks as if she doesn't know what's going on (join the club), as well as Malcolm McDowell, who must've been blackmailed into doing this thankless role.

If nothing else, one must credit both Silent Hill pictures for remaining true to their source. The first film does an impeccable job of capturing the game's eerie, hallucinogenic world, and this sequel at least tries to achieve something similar. That's more than can be said for Paul W.S. Anderson's Resident Evil film franchise, which ignores the horror-oriented games to showcase random slow-motion gunfire and bloodshed. However, this will probably just cause gamers to lament this missed opportunity of a sequel. It seems too late to salvage the film series at this point in time, with Revelation a total bust and with so many years having passed since Gans' extraordinary original effort. Revelation leaves room open for another sequel, but it's doubtful it will ever happen.

3.2/10

"I'm not your enemy, Ming is! And you know it yourself. Ming is the enemy of every creature of Mongo! Let's all team up and fight him."

Let's get this straight from the beginning: Flash Gordon is awesome. Rich in distinctive '80s campiness, it's a cheesy blockbuster extravaganza full of hammy acting, side-splitting special effects, glorious non-sequiturs, fantastic music and some of the most unintentionally hilarious dialogue ever written for a motion picture. Debates will rage for centuries as to whether the filmmakers set out to make a serious movie or an intentionally campy flick, but, regardless of the conclusion, Flash Gordon is a bona fide classic - it's a lavish '80s fantasy swashbuckler that's effortlessly entertaining from start to end. Based on the comic strip of the same name, the picture was produced by Dino de Laurentiis, who had deep pockets at the time and was keen to cash in on the sudden resurgence of the sci-fi adventure genre. Though Flash Gordon failed at the box office and the planned trilogy never materialised (one of the most heartbreaking injustices in cinema history), we must be thankful that we have this gem.

While on a flight, all-star Jets quarterback Flash Gordon (Sam J. Jones) meets fellow traveller Dale Arden (Melody Anderson), who works as a journalist. But catastrophe strikes as meteors begin to fall, causing the plane to crash into a greenhouse owned by mad scientist Dr. Zarkov (Topol). Subsequently, the trio launch themselves into space, causing them to get sucked into a black hole and hurled through the vortex of space. They wind up on the planet Mongo, home to Emperor Ming the Merciless (Max Von Sydow), who rules the universe and causes a lot of destruction. Ming wants to destroy Earth and make Dale his wife, compelling Flash into action. With the fate of the human race on the line, Flash sets out to defeat Ming and save his home planet from destruction.

Flash Gordon was released in 1980, the same year as The Empire Strikes Back. George Lucas won the day, of course, raking in massive box office dollars, while Flash simply foundered. This is most likely because movie-goers were unprepared for the experience of Flash Gordon and had no idea what to make of the film. Director Mike Hodges and his crew avoid creating a gritty, serious-minded sci-fi movie like Star Trek or Star Wars, instead producing a gaudy, colourful, farcical rock opera with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Indeed, the film's purpose was to replicate the tone and look of the original comic book and simply provide a good, fun time instead of anything more lofty. Fortunately, home video often provides the chance for misunderstood projects to have a second life, and Flash Gordon amassed a cult audience over time who have given into the production's countless charms (2012's Ted also helped this cause). While Hodges occasionally has trouble maintaining the furious pacing over the picture's overlong 110-minute running time, the movie has more going for it than not.

The ornate visual construction of Flash Gordon is a genuine marvel. Bright and vibrant, the movie literally explodes with a carnival of colours through its set design, matte paintings and elaborate costumes. The result is incredibly and unmistakably unique, as if we are looking through the eyes of a madman tripping on LSD, exhibiting a phenomenal level of creativity that even George Lucas could never match in his wildest dreams. The set pieces are equally trippy and over-the-top, with hilariously campy sound effects and half-hearted fight scenes guaranteed to have you in fits of laughter. Flash Gordon is a space opera, thus everything is pumped up to hyperbolic proportions. It's a cheeseball film bursting with swirling colours, questionable plotting and clumsy dialogue. The icing on top is Queen's iconic score. The rock gods were at the top of their game in the '80s, and they bestow the film with an insanely addictive, gung-ho sonic aura. The rhythms are psychedelic and atmospheric, adding excitement and flavour. The memorable opening tune is a highlight; you'll end up humming it for days.

Apparently, Kurt Russell and Dennis Hopper were initially in talks for Flash and Dr. Zarkov, but the roles were ultimately given to blonde newcomer Sam J. Jones and screen legend Topol. Jones has the right physique for Flash, but he's a stilted actor, and his lines were apparently dubbed by another actor. Nevertheless, Jones is great fun in the role, and his lack of acting talent is all part of his charm. Topol, meanwhile, is good fun as Zarkov, chewing scenery and spouting the cheesy dialogue with gusto. Accomplished thespian Max Von Sydow is also present here, hamming it up with delicious glee as Ming the Merciless. Sydow is great fun to watch, especially as he lumbers around in elaborate outfits. Meanwhile, Melody Anderson achieves precisely what you would expect as the token love interest, and Timothy Dalton is likeable in his Errol Flynn-esque role.

Objectively speaking, Flash Gordon is a pretty awful movie. But if you strip away critical thinking and watch the picture in good company, there are not many experiences as fun as watching this colourful cast of characters within such an overwrought sci-fi fantasy adventure backed by the rocking tunes of Queen. Its goofy charm is impossible to resist - this is a B-movie cult classic for good reason. I love this movie and have a lot of fun every time I watch it. It's the perfect Friday night escapist romp. And if you watch it drunk or stoned, it enhances the viewing experience.

8.2/10

Bates Motel takes place many years before the events of 1960's Psycho, exploring the early teenage years of Norman Bates (Freddie Highmore), who lives with his mother Norma (Vera Farmiga) before ultimately sliding into madness. The first episode of the show picks up as Norman loses his father, moving to another town where his mother has purchased an old house and a motel. It observes Norman and his mother as they settle into their new lifestyle.

It should be noted that this isn't the first attempt at Bates Motel. A show was pitched in 1987 with the same title, but got no further than the pilot. But now the show has gotten off the ground at last, for better or for worse. As one can imagine considering the source material, Bates Motel is not light-hearted television for easy consumption. Psycho deals with murder and transvestism, after all, hence we have to expect the same type of content here. Added to this, there's a disconcerting theme running throughout the show that Norman shares an almost romantic relationship with his mother. After all, we know that Norman and his mother become jealous whenever any of them are interested in a member of the opposite sex, thus the pair seem to interact like a couple at times. In the pilot, we also get a brutal rape and murder to keep us from getting too comfortable. Bates Motel is going to be a fucked up show for the mature crowd weaned on Dexter and The Walking Dead, make no mistake.

The problem with Bates Motel is its contemporary setting. Executive producer Carlton Cuse (Lost) has described the show as a “contemporary prequel” to Psycho, meaning they want us to believe that these events will lead to the Norman we all know from Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, but the setting is modernised in order to appeal to a wider demographic. But the problem is that the show borrows era-specific elements from Hitchcock's film as well, incorporating them into this modern setting with little regard for logic. For instance, Norman still dresses like a teenager from the '40s or '50s, and the teachers are dressed like conservative school marms. Plus, murders are a primary element of this show, but police investigation and forensics have improved a hundredfold over the last fifty years, hence it looks unrealistic and ridiculous for Norma and Norman to get away with murder in this day and age. The result feels slightly awkward, as if the show is in fact a reboot of Psycho but the creators are just too scared to embrace that label in fear of the implications (we all saw what happened with Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake). Some viewers may be able to overlook this aspect, but it's a niggling flaw. It would have been far more interesting if the show was actually set in the '40s or '50s.

Beyond the confused sense of time and place, there are a number of other questionable elements which harm Bates Motel. Bafflingly, Norman is instantly adopted by the cool crowd, developing into a total chick magnet with no effort at all. On top of the group of hot girls who surround him (and stalk him, coming to his house in the evening at one stage), even his teacher seems to take a shining to him. It makes no sense and feels entirely unmotivated. The dialogue is often amateurish as well, with characters constantly calling Norman by his full name for no apparent reason other than name recognition for our sake.

Bates Motel's biggest assets are Highmore and Farmiga, who are excellent in the roles of Norman and Norma. Highmore has grown up since the days of Finding Neverland and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and he's now a fine young adult actor. Playing Norman as shy, tongue-tied and humble, his performance actually evokes memories of the late Anthony Perkins. Equally good, if not more impressive, is Farmiga, a terrific screen actress who affords the show a bit more class and gravitas. Vera gives Norma multiple layers; she's a loving and even sexy mother, yet she's also brutally manipulative, using twisted logic to convince Norman to be obedient.

The first episode of Bates Motel definitely shows promise in its set-up of what's to come. It hones in on a critical moment in Norman's life, and he already begins his journey down the inevitable path in the premiere. The writing, directing and production values are strong for the most part, and the show definitely carries a cinematic gloss. It just remains to be seen where the show leads. If it ends up running for a few seasons, the creators may end up remaking Psycho in an episode, and no fan wants that. By the same token, if it suddenly gets cancelled before Norma's infamous lover is introduced and the writers only get the chance to create one more episode, he may be awkwardly shoehorned in. At this point in time, though, Bates Motel has potential. It's skilfully assembled for the most part and suitably shocking when it needs to be.

6.5/10

"You're all that's left of us. Good luck, God bless, and God's speed."

Pandorum limped into cinemas in late 2009, where it sank like a rock at the box office and became a punching bag for critics. A science fiction horror picture, it's equipped with a few nice ideas and the technical execution is sound, yet it's incredibly derivative, marred by a "been there, done that" feeling that prevents it from becoming a genre classic. Indeed, Pandorum feels like a compilation film, comprised of bits and pieces taken directly from Event Horizon, Alien, Pitch Black, Sunshine, Cube, Predator and even The Descent, and there are some traces of Mad Max 2 as well, resulting in an admittedly stylish picture that nevertheless lacks originality and purpose.

Forcefully awoken from deep hyper-sleep, Corporal Bower (Ben Foster) and Lieutenant Payton (Dennis Quaid) find themselves aboard a huge spaceship with no memory as to their identities or their mission. The rest of the crew are nowhere to be seen and the reactor is fading, compelling Bower to begin crawling through the dark bowels of the ship towards the main control room. But it fast becomes clear that things are not as they should be, with thousands of bloodthirsty mutants hiding in the spacecraft's gloomy shadows. Bower eventually discovers more survivors as he works to piece together what has happened. As for Payton, he finds himself dealing with paranoid crew member Gallo (Cam Gigandet) who could be suffering from "Pandorum," a special type of insanity which may render him a threat to everyone on-board.

Narratively, Pandorum resembles Paul W.S. Anderson's '90s chiller Event Horizon, though this is somewhat unsurprising considering that Anderson is billed as a producer here. To the credit of writer Travis Milloy, the film's opening segment is extremely strong, skilfully developing the central mysteries and letting us become familiar with the characters before things begin to unravel. The fact that Bower and Payton are suffering from amnesia is a terrific device, as viewers will be just as confused and disorientated as they are. As they hunt for clues and begin putting together the pieces, we're right alongside them. However, the extended midsection is too saggy, with too many chase scenes and too many characters. Luckily, the film ends strongly. The last ten minutes or so are superb, introducing a few nice revelations and closing on a surprisingly unpredictable and satisfying note.

The English-language debut for German filmmaker Christian Alvart (Antibodies), Pandorum does benefit from handsome production values that are better than expected considering the modest $33 million budget. Alvart does a great job capturing the tight confines and dark hallways of the ship, with superbly controlled lighting adding menace and tension to the picture. It was done better in Alien, but the sense of restraint is commendable. Problem is, at no point does Pandorum actually terrify. The film shows its cards too early by letting us see the creatures that pose a threat to the characters, and it doesn't help that the design is laughably generic. In fact, it looks like the costume department just raided Weta Workshop for all of their goblin outfits from The Lord of the Rings. The sound design is often effective, but the creatures themselves are never menacing, which lessens the tension and horror. And whenever there's a set-piece involving the mutants, the camera begins moving around in an annoying, herky-jerky fashion, while the editing is abrupt and jarring.

Foster and Quaid are convincing as the leads here, doing a great job at handling the fear, shock and uncertainty that the script calls for. They seem immersed in the material, and they're exceedingly watchable. Mildly less successful is Gigandet, who tries to do interesting things with his role but is ultimately too stiff and reluctant to come out of his shell. It was slim pickings for Norman Reedus at this point in his career; he featured here before participating in AMC's The Walking Dead and subsequently becoming a fan favourite. Thus, newfound Reedus fans should not watch Pandorum just because the actor features in it - Reedus has what amounts to a five-minute cameo. There are a few other actors here too, but they don't really warrant a mention; they're just okay.

Thanks to the director's proclivity for stylish visuals, Pandorum probably has enough to keep the sci-fi nerds entertained, but anyone expecting something more substantial should stay clear. It's too unoriginal and middle-of-the-road, lacking a spark of brilliance to place it alongside the genre's best works.

6.2/10

"Bugs are a fairly common delusion among paranoids... Bugs, spiders, snakes... spiders."

Bug is one hell of a motion picture experience, a nail-bitingly intense and thematically heavy piece of work guaranteed to polarise audiences. Based on the acclaimed play by Tracy Letts, who also provided the screenplay, this is not some cheap fright-fest about extra-terrestrial bugs; instead, it's a claustrophobic psychological thriller that delivers a dismal look at mental instability, hyperbolic paranoia and abusive relationships. Throughout the film's 100-minute duration, director William Friedkin meticulously peels away all layers of normality, with the primary location of a low-rent motel room turning into a nightmarish vision of Americana gone wrong. Bug will not work for everyone since its tone is bleak, its script is talky, and the pacing is unhurried and deliberate, but this reviewer found the experience uniquely enthralling.

A desperate woman working as a waitress in a lesbian bar, Agnes White (Ashley Judd) is on edge after her abusive ex-husband Jerry (Harry Connick Jr.) is released from prison. Indulging in booze and drugs, Agnes is introduced to the shy and quirky Peter Evans (Michael Shannon), and the pair immediately hit it off. Agnes lets him stay the night in her seedy motel room, which leads to the two striking up a sexual relationship. While in bed together one night, Peter discovers microscopic bugs that are biting him. He becomes convinced that a bug infestation has broken out and believes that the invisible insects, planted by the government when he was involved in scientific experiments, are coming from his bloodstream.

Although a few short story beats occur in other locations, Bug mostly retains the play's single setting of Agnes' motel room. The idea of a single setting is a troubling proposition for a feature, but Letts and Friedkin keep the pace brisk and the events interesting. Bug cannot be simply labelled as a horror film, as it's more of an exercise in psychological terror and dark comedy, though it has some genuinely horrific moments. It's perhaps best described as a character study of the relationship between a lonely, abused woman and a delusional paranoid with schizophrenic tendencies. We get to observe the two as they gradually grow insane, with Agnes making excuses for being with Peter no matter how delusional he grows, and with Peter developing into a danger for himself and others.

Bug runs the risk of feeling like a filmed stage play, but Friedkin and cinematographer Michael Grady embrace the medium's possibilities. A lot of close-ups are used during the more intense character-based moments, allowing us to absorb the nuances of all of the performances and get more invested in the action. What's extraordinary about the film is how it gradually and methodically builds its characters before all hell breaks loose. In fact, Bug starts as an offbeat story about two strangers who develop somewhat of a romance, while a side conflict presents itself in the form of Agnes' ex-husband. It then essentially transforms into another film entirely. However, the sudden descent into madness doesn't feel choppy or awkward thanks to Friedkin's strong filmmaking sleight of hand; if anything, it makes the picture more shocking. The final scene is particularly gripping as tension levels continue to rise to almost unbearable levels. It's hard to so much as take a breath until the end credits begin to roll.

With the entire film unfolding in a small space and with Friedkin's direction being predominantly unfussy, the real power of the picture emanates from the performances, all of which are excellent. Judd sheds every trace of movie star glamour in playing Agnes; it's a bare-all role in terms of both the nudity and the character's raw emotional state. It's not an attractive performance, but it is compelling and powerful. But it's Shannon who walks away with the entire picture. Shannon had already played Peter in the original play and was only a small-time cinema actor at the time. With Shannon's subsequent rise to fame, it's fascinating to go back and see the actor here in perhaps his greatest performance to date. Slightly odd-looking and creepy yet strangely endearing, Shannon is top-notch here, presenting an astonishing portrait of a radical mental meltdown. It's hard to overstate just how great Judd and Shannon are, and it's difficult to believe they were both overlooked at the Academy Awards.

Bug is not strictly about bugs, but Letts and Friedkin milk the title for everything it's worth. In the beginning, Agnes is constantly bugged by telephone calls, and the story is about Agnes and Peter trying to get rid of the bugs that are apparently infesting their residence and body. Peter even grows to believe that the government implanted electronic bugs into him. This is a very strange and unique film all in all, and it's hard to recommend outright. Yes, it's superb, and it deserves to be seen, but those unprepared to experience what Friedkin offers may ultimately walk away disappointed. Anyone prepared to approach Bug with an open mind should give it a whirl, especially if they like original, experimental movies.

8.5/10

"Hang loose, stay cool, and don't forget your psychic humor."

A more apt title for 1986's Witchboard would be Witchbored, as this low-budget horror distraction from the 1980s promises a lot more than it delivers. The flick was written and directed by Kevin Tenney, who was fresh out of film school at the time and who lacked the abilities to create a genuinely effective chiller. Hence, while the idea of evil spirits communicating through a Ouija board holds potential for a top-flight genre offering, Witchboard flat-lines all the way through, with its wooden acting, dull chatter, laughable special effects and sloppy storytelling. Even the most avid horror enthusiast will struggle to enjoy this one.

At a party one night, suave law student Brandon (Stephen Nichols) introduces his peers to a Ouija board that he often uses to communicate with spirits. Using the board with former girlfriend Linda (Tawny Kitaen), Brandon contacts the spirit of a 10-year-old boy named David who was killed in an unfortunate accident three decades years prior. Brandon inadvertently forgets to take his Ouija with him, and Linda begins using the board on a frequent basis, growing increasingly obsessed. As she continues to communicate with David, Linda's behaviour drastically changes, which alarms her live-in boyfriend Jim (Todd Allen). Linda uses the board alone, which makes her susceptible to being used by an evil spirit as a portal into the real world. It soon becomes clear to Brandon that Linda is falling into "progressive entrapment," meaning her body is being used as a door between worlds and she may end up becoming possessed.

Tenney visibly strived to focus on character development and slow-burning suspense, spending the majority of the picture observing the main characters and their interactions. Problem is, all of the build-up lacks fizz; it's overall too flat, and there's not much in the way of skilful tension building. The script is also fairly sloppy. For instance, Brandon and Jim set out to find David's parents at one stage. The phone book does not list them, but they soon discover that that the pair actually died a fortnight prior. How were the parents eliminated from the phone book so quickly? Does the community publish a new directory every few days? The acting is a mixed bag, as well. Nichols is suitably charismatic and watchable as Brandon, but Allen is average at best. And about 40 minutes in, we're introduced to Kathleen Wilhoite who's embarrassingly over-the-top as a psychic named Zarabeth. It's an interesting postmodern depiction of a medium, but Wilhoite takes it way too far. There's also a detective played by Burke Byrnes, who achieves precisely nothing.

It may be unreasonable to expect top-flight special effects in a cheap '80s horror, but Tenney tried too many things that he lacked the budget to properly accomplish. For the most part, the film is low-key and relies on a fear of the unknown, but the climax crumbles hopelessly, culminating in an unintentionally hilarious sequence involving the Ouija board flying through the air and someone falling backwards out of a window (some of the most obvious green screening in history). Plus, the Ouija board antics never look entirely believable - the planchette takes many unnecessary gyrations, and it never looks creepy or believable enough, especially since it takes all of two milliseconds for the spirit to arrive and start making contact when there should be tense build-up. The score by Dennis Michael Tenney is extremely chintzy and seldom effective, too. The music is distinctly '80s-esque, but not in a good way; it sounds more cheap than chilling. Furthermore, Roy H. Wagner's cinematography is basic at best. There are a few POV shots in the vein of Evil Dead, but they do not amount to much, and the shadow of the cameraman is visible a number of times.

A few mildly effective set-pieces notwithstanding, Witchboard is pretty much a bust, an amateur-hour horror outing which squanders its limitless potential. It even closes with the proverbial "one last jump-scare," a moment that's horribly cheesy and predictable. A more skilful set of filmmakers could have done something outstanding and horrifying with the same premise, which makes the final product here all the more disheartening. Witchboard has become a bit of a home video cult favourite, but for this reviewer's money it deserves to remain obscure.

4.1/10

"I'm Garth Marenghi. Author. Dreamweaver. Visionary. Plus actor. You're about to enter the world of my imagination. You are entering my Darkplace."

Back in the 1980s, hubristic horror author Garth Marenghi (Matthew Holness) wrote, directed and starred in the television show Garth Marenghi's Darkplace with the assistance of his publisher Dean Learner (Richard Ayoade). Set in a hospital located over the gates of Hell, the show features Marenghi as the charismatic Dr. Rick Dagless M.D., and Learner as the hospital's administrator, Thornton Reed. Their colleagues are Dr. Lucien Sanchez, played by egotistical actor Todd Rivers (Matt Berry), and the ditzy Dr. Liz Asher, played by Madeline Wool (Alice Lowe). Together, they battle supernatural occurrences, ranging from cosmic broccoli to sinister Scotsmen. Fifty episodes of the show were produced, but the series was ultimately rejected by Channel 4, reportedly because it was "too radical… too goddamned crazy." It did enjoy a brief run in Peru, though. Two decades later, Channel 4 exhumed the show, dusting off a selection of six episodes for broadcast.

That's the conceit behind Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, an elaborate and brilliantly executed hoax that lampoons low-budget '80s television, horror, science fiction and the wild arrogance of authors who genuinely believe themselves to be geniuses. Written by Ayoade and Holness, Darkplace is instantly addictive and uproariously hilarious on top of being devilishly creative and witty. It's one of the most refreshing and original shows in years, as well, so it's a shame that the series was so overlooked during its original run. Thankfully, it developed into a critically acclaimed cult favourite, leading to an eventual DVD release and the spin-off Man to Man with Dean Learner. Darkplace's failure is a tremendous injustice, as the parody of low-budget '80s TV is pitch-perfect and anyone with real memories of such material will find the series to be side-splitting.

Darkplace would have been hilarious if the episodes were merely aired in their standalone form, but Ayoade and Holness go one step further, inserting straight-faced interviews with the cast who reminisce about the making of the show. It's truly priceless stuff. Marenghi features prominently, presented as a misunderstood genius who still believes the show is a masterpiece, aggressively defending the material and explaining the clumsy subtext behind each episode. Learner, seen with an oddly angled beret and a cigar, is full of hilarious production anecdotes that are too uproarious to spoil. Then there's Todd Rivers, the eccentric has-been theatre actor whose memory has grown hazy after years of heavy drinking. At times, Rivers even claims to have no recollection of having starred in the episodes.

From every technical aspect, Darkplace is a home run - the recreation of low-budget telly schlock here is perfection. The show carries a rough, dated appearance, with grainy film stock, hilarious fashion choices, an old-fashioned colour palette, and spot-on lighting which makes everything look like a phoney set. The framing is awkward, the editing is clumsy and the writing is terrible, but deliberately so. Augmenting the illusion is the soundtrack, which sounds similarly dated and carries a distinct synthesiser score that would make any '80s composer smile. And rather than relying on state-of-the-art digital effects, director Ayoade leans on old-school techniques, with hilariously obvious green-screening and visible wires. The attention to detail goes deeper as well; it kicks off with a retro Channel 4 logo, and the analogue music track is distorted at times as if the film elements have deteriorated. Luckily, the whole show is sold with a brilliant poker face. You see, Darkplace's incompetence does not feel manufactured; it feels as if everyone involved tried to do the best that they could, but were unaware of their shortcomings. It's a fine line to walk, but Ayoade and his crew nailed it. As a result, if you were none the wiser, you would genuinely believe at a glance that this show was produced in the 1980s.

The actors are staggeringly wooden and inept, but again this is deliberate, mirroring the type of stuff we see in low-budget television shows. Ayoade, in particular, is sensational, with emotionless line readings, deadpan expressions, stilted movements, and a tendency to forget what to do and look at the camera. Holness is equally brilliant, presenting Marenghi as a man consumed with ego whose every line delivery oozes confidence. Berry, meanwhile, delivers his dialogue in an ostentatious, theatre-like fashion, as if he's spouting Shakespeare. It's great stuff. Rounding out the primary cast is blonde bombshell Lowe playing the now-missing actress (presumed dead), who portrayed the token ditzy girl in the show. There are various other guest stars throughout the season as well, including Stephen Merchant and Noel Fielding, who are totally at ease with the so-bad-it's-funny style of acting.

Perhaps it's for the greater good that Garth Marenghi's Darkplace only lasted for six episodes. Like Fawlty Towers, further episodes is an enticing prospect in theory, but there's always the possibility that another series may fail to recapture the lightning in a bottle, and tarnish the show's legacy as a result. The new car smell of Darkplace was beginning to wane by the final episodes anyway, so let's be thankful that Ayoade and Holness stopped while they were ahead. As a result, we have six excellent episodes, all of which are thorough gems. This show is perfection.

10/10

"Everyone loves a magician..."

A humorous satire in the vein of Zoolander, 2013's The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is a creative send-up of modern magic as well as a celebration of old-school sleight-of-hand tricks. Featuring a delightful range of performers, including Steve Carell, Jim Carrey and Alan Arkin, it's a formulaic but warm and enjoyable studio comedy, skilfully assembled and brimming with creativity. Helmed by 30 Rock veteran Don Scardino, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is one of the first real crowd-pleasers of 2013.

Enthusiastic about magic from an early age, Burt Wonderstone (Carell) grows up to become a popular magician, performing with childhood friend Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi) at a prestigious Las Vegas casino. However, the wealthy duo begin to decline in popularity, with ticket sales falling following the rise of anarchic street magician Steve Gray (Carrey) who introduces a new brand of illusionist. Burt's act is too tired and dated in comparison, leading to him losing his gig at the casino on top of falling out with both Anton and his attractive assistant Jane (Olivia Wilde). Washed up and broke, Burt desperately searches for a new gig, ending up as an entertainer at a retirement village. It's here he meets his childhood hero Rance Holloway (Arkin), who reignites Burt's love for magic.

Written by Horrible Bosses scribes John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (with rewrites by Jason Reitman), the flick initially spends its time observing the childhood lives of Burt and Anton as they become fast friends and develop a passion for magic. Before long, however, the screenplay kicks into gear, assuming a routine of funny bantering, amusing set-pieces and inspired silliness. It admittedly transforms into a predictable tale of redemption and rehabilitation, with the egocentric, preening Burt setting out to rediscover his humanity. But it's clear that everyone is having a lot of fun with the material, which becomes contagious. The characters are so much fun and there's good-natured humour aplenty, and the tone is perpetually agreeable. The Incredible Burt Wonderstone has a degree of heart as well, embodied in a beautiful scene in which Rance explains to Burt why magic is important. Sure, attempts at cinematic maturity are perfunctory in comedies, but it works here.

Director Scardino is a fleet-footed filmmaker, hence The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is a briskly-paced distraction that doesn't outstay its welcome at just over ninety minutes. Scardino aspired to do several of the tricks for real on-screen, recruiting the iconic David Copperfield (who cameos here as himself) to devise a handful of illusions which could be done with practical effects. Some were pulled off with digital effects trickery, but there's a certain charm in seeing good tricks being performed for real. There are a number of amusing moments throughout, and the satirical aspect is spot-on. One of the best moments comes right at the end, when the filmmakers give us a glimpse at how exactly Wonderstone pulls off his climactic deception. It's a clever, darkly comic moment that allows the curtain to fall on a high note. It's just a shame that the film did not go further with its content. This is a PG-13 comedy, and, though it does work in its finished state, one must wonder if the film could've been superior if it was more abrasive and dark.

Carell is a perfect fit for the role of Burt. He nails the character's less savoury characteristics, yet he's never unlikeable thanks to his charisma and inherent quirkiness. The actor is getting older, but he still has a delightful comic touch. Buscemi, meanwhile, is an absolute winner here, funny and eccentric as Burt's on-stage partner. However, it's Carrey who expectedly steals the show. The 51-year-old does not rely on his usual manic, rubber-faced persona, instead going for something a bit more restrained but no less funny. He's hilariously committed to the material, and he's used sparingly, which was a well-judged creative choice. One of the highlights of the picture is a child's birthday party in which Carell and Carrey engage in a "magic-off." The supporting performances are just as good, with Arkin wonderfully cantankerous and hilariously dry as the cynical Rance, while Wilde is amusing and beautiful as the token love interest. Also of note is James Gandolfini as a casino owner.

To be sure, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is forgettable comedy entertainment; it won't linger in the mind for too long, and it doesn't reinvent the wheel. But it is tremendously enjoyable and a fun way to spend to an evening at the movies that will probably develop into something of a cult film. Although it could've been funnier and wittier, it's hard to walk away dissatisfied with this appealing comedy.

7.1/10

"We are Australian cricketers on tour!"

Despite the involvement of a quality cast, 2013's Save Your Legs! is a strictly ordinary Australian dramedy that falls short of fulfilling its potential. Scripted by Aussie all-rounder Brendan Cowell, who also stars, the film is based on the exploits of a lowly ranked cricket club who toured India in 2001. The tour was actually the subject of a 2005 documentary also called Save Your Legs, directed by Boyd Hicklin who returned to helm this feature-length cinematic adaptation. The resultant picture is more or less a mix-up of Dodgeball and The Hangover, with traces of Bollywood flavour and midlife crisis angst for good measure. It's a watchable tale of mateship that works from time to time, but for the most part it proceeds at an uneven pace, and the narrative is not quite as satisfying as it wants to be.

A 30-something cricket enthusiast, Edward "Teddy" Brown (Stephen Curry) is something of a no-hoper, living in his best friend's garage in the suburbs of Melbourne whilst nursing an obsession with legendary cricketer Sachin Tendulkar. On weekends, Teddy is president of the Abbotsfield Anglers Cricket Club, playing the game with close friend Rick (Brendan Cowell) and the arrogant Stavros (Damon Gameau). But things are changing, and Teddy wants the opportunity for his team to go big. An opportunity presents itself when local sponsor Sanjeet (Darshan Jariwala) agrees to send the Anglers overseas to compete in a tournament in India. Teddy jumps at the chance, but the team of misfits need to raise their game.

The narrative is not quite as cut-and-dried as it seems. In Hollywood, the Anglers would rise to the occasion at the right time and win the tournament, but Save Your Legs! avoids that type of ending. It's a clever twist on the part of screenwriter Cowell, but alas it does not quite work, and never quite snowballs into a completely satisfying film in spite of the rousing climax. Perhaps this is because Save Your Legs! is established as a light-hearted dramedy, hence it feels a tad uncomfortable when things start to go south for the squad; the tonal change is jarring. Moreover, the depressing stuff is too saggy and heavy-handed, begging for a zippier touch. Most glaringly, while Cowell does avoid many of the more predictable staples of the underdog genre, he does succumb to a number of other clichés that are a lot less fun and satisfying. It also ends with a tacky last-minute Bollywood dance number, because India.

Despite the attempts at maturity, the film spotlights a fairly clichéd roster of sports film characters, including a love interest for Teddy that feels forced and useless. Out of the characters, the best is Colin (Darren Gilshenan), the superbly nerdy cricketer obsessed with statistics. Gilshenan is extremely amusing in the role, albeit a bit underused. In spite of the clichéd characters, the rest of the ensemble do place forth good work, led by Curry who's nicely charismatic as the club's president. Cowell (Beneath Hill 60) is also good as the boozy team captain, but he's shown up by Gameau as the preening master batsman.

Save Your Legs! was lensed on location in India, hence it's permeated with an exotic flavour and there's gorgeous scenery aplenty, captured with proficiency by Hicklin and cinematographer Mark Wareham. The cricket action looks nice for the most part, though Hicklin immediately leans on montages whenever a match kicks off, eliminating all sense of tension. See, the matches are meant to feel substantial because we're waiting for the pivotal moment in which the Anglers get their shit together, but montages treat everything too lightly. It's not that montages are necessarily bad, it's that Hicklin should ease into them more; it would be more effective to set the tone by showing the first few overs in real-time before getting into the montage. This aside, Save Your Legs! packs a few nice laughs, though the picture is nowhere near as funny as one would probably hope.

Certainly, Save Your Legs! is marred by multiple flaws, but it's not an entirely unappealing motion picture. Tonal inconsistencies and ham-fisted dramatic scenes aside, the movie comes alive from time to time, with handsome production values and a variety of strong performances that almost compensate for the otherwise flat pacing. It's definitely worth a watch, especially for avid cricket fans and consumers of Australian cinema.

5.9/10