Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"I'm knee-deep in the single most important case of my career."

Even though it competed against Avatar during its theatrical run, 2009's Sherlock Holmes grossed in excess of $500 million at the worldwide box office, making a sequel a high priority for Warner Brothers. Arriving two years after its predecessor, 2011's Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a well-realised follow-up that does an admirable job of ironing out the original film's creases while both retaining and building upon its strengths. It's perhaps not quite as good as it could have been, but A Game of Shadows remains meticulously crafted and fiendishly clever.

As Dr. Watson (Law) prepares to marry his fiancée Mary (Reilly), Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr.) is hot on the trail of his greatest adversary: Oxford professor James Moriarty (Harris). A series of anarchist bombings are taking place around London, and Holmes suspects that Moriarty is involved. Following his nuptials, Watson finds himself a target in Moriarty's evil machinations, and reluctantly teams up with Holmes once again to investigate the evil mastermind. As they work their way around Europe, Holmes and Watson happen upon mysterious gypsy fortune teller Sim (Rapace), whose brother has been kidnapped by Moriarty. Holmes' older brother Mycroft (Fry) also lends his expertise to the case as they grow closer to unravelling Moriarty's wicked plot of assassinations, bombings and the potential beginning of a world war.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows may shock viewers who haven't yet acquainted themselves with Guy Ritchie's reinvention of the gentleman detective. Ritchie has spectacularly re-invigorated the ancient hero, retaining the character's unparalleled cerebral talents while adding 21st Century action-adventure sensibilities. Rather than a reserved pipe-smoker, this Sherlock Holmes is both physically and mentally lethal; he uses his gifts of analysis to engage in fighting and death-defying acts, and Ritchie employs engaging filmmaking techniques to highlight Holmes' bustling mind. It was a creative choice that worked in 2009's Sherlock Holmes, and it makes a welcome return here. Ritchie, of course, also retained his proclivity for stylish camera movements and kinetic energy, stuffing A Game of Shadows with a large number of thrilling action set-pieces and infusing the film with drive and momentum. Furthermore, the action set-pieces do not seem dumb or forced; they flow organically out of the structure of the narrative, and Holmes is such a crafty bastard that they never seem stupid. However, a few of the fights were shot too close, too fast and too dark, and Ritchie went overboard with his use of slow motion (the forest chase in particular is borderline disgusting in its overuse of slo-mo and "bullet time").

While it has lots of action, A Game of Shadows also relies on the complex relationship that Holmes and Dr. Watson share. There's time for their relationship to grow, and their bantering is often witty and amusing. Speaking of character interaction, the film is gripping when it pits Holmes against Moriarty. The exhilarating finale involves the two going head-to-head in an intense game of chess which tests both their mental and physical strength. It's the best sequence in the film; far more effective than any of the gunfights or brawls, and it's a shame that Ritchie and his writers didn't permit more time for the pair to engage in verbal combat.

Produced on a lavish budget, the picture looks expectedly fantastic. The somewhat rickety CGI of the 2009 original has been drastically improved, and the digital effects have been combined with lavish sets and costumes which exemplify careful attention to period detail. Hans Zimmer also returned to compose the score (his standout efforts on the first film earned an Oscar), and his flavoursome musical accompaniment is a huge asset.

Robert Downey Jr. is visibly more comfortable in the role of Sherlock Holmes here, and it's clear that he has found his groove. Downey's accent feels astonishingly lived-in, he oozes charisma, and he generally suits this vision of the character to the ground. Jude Law, meanwhile, is back here as Dr. Watson. Law's contributions should not be overlooked, as he's a sturdy and focused sidekick for Downey. Also terrific is Jared Harris, whose performance as Professor Moriarty is exceptional. Harris' biggest strength is the way that he can deliver menacing dialogue with chilling restraint while simultaneously convincing us that he's capable of committing heinous acts of crime. Another newcomer is Stephen Fry, whose performance as Mycroft is well-judged, charming and amusing. Noomi Rapace is not quite as good, but she's serviceable as the gypsy fortune teller who helps Holmes and Watson in their investigation. Rounding out the main players is Kelly Reilly and Rachel McAdams who briefly show up to reprise their roles of Mary Watson and Irene Adler (respectively).

While Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is an exciting, funny and intelligent action-adventure, it's not exactly the most soulful or substance-laden blockbuster you'll see. Ritchie's storytelling is admittedly still a bit garbled as well, though his abilities have markedly improved since the original movie. Even with its flaws considered, though, this is a strong sequel. With it having been infused with the same flavour as 2009's Sherlock Holmes, 2011's A Game of Shadows is a cosy companion piece for its predecessor. Further instalments are practically inevitable, and that's fine, because this new Sherlock Holmes franchise is shaping up to be something special.

7.5/10

"My trouble is Christmas. I just don't understand it. Instead of feeling happy, I feel sort of let down."

When A Charlie Brown Christmas first premiered back in December 1965, neither the network nor the filmmakers had high expectations. After all, the Christmas special was deliberately-paced, had a jazz score, contained adult humour, and was equipped with an anti-commercialism message that wouldn't like be well-received during the holiday shopping season. Added to this, the story does not involve Santa visiting the protagonists - it climaxes with Bible verses being recited. But lo and behold, in spite of concerns, A Charlie Brown Christmas played during primetime to much critical acclaim, becoming one of the most beloved Christmas specials of all time.

As Christmas is approaching, Charlie Brown (Robbins) feels depressed and disillusioned. He knows he should be excited by the festivities and the prospect of presents, but Charlie nonetheless feels down in the dumps and isn't sure whether the festive season is worth much enthusiasm. He seeks to find a deeper meaning to Christmas, but his friends only ridicule him for the effort. After seeking advice from Lucy (Stratford) and Linus (Shea), Charlie agrees to direct his school's annual Christmas play which might cheer him up.

Charles M. Schulz's Peanuts characters first debuted in comic strips back in 1950, and the gang held appeal for children and adults alike due to Schulz's insightful commentary on human nature. For A Charlie Brown Christmas, Schulz chose to explore the commercialisation of the Christmas season and the true meaning of the holiday. In this day and age, the holiday spirit seems to be more about receiving gifts and putting up gaudy decorations; about greediness rather than anything more meaningful. Thus, unlike most Christmas specials (or Christmas flicks in general), A Charlie Brown Christmas seeks to answer the question of why Christmas is so special, rather than just reaffirming it. And considering how much of a sad sack Charlie Brown is, the character was an ideal candidate to question blind good cheer.

A Charlie Brown Christmas is blessed with simplistic but expressive animation. While it may look primitive in terms of detail compared to contemporary animation, it's smooth and assured, and it carries an old-world charm that's hard to replicate. Another asset is the score by jazz artist Vince Guaraldi, which adds a unique flavour to this special. Jazz was an odd choice which paid off, and the music went on to become a best-selling album that's still played annually in households across the world. Furthermore, Bill Melendez's decision to cast actual children was a masterstroke. Thus, the kids voicing the Peanuts gang actually sound like kids rather than adults trying to sound youthful. As a result, every word is adorable, and the dialogue is delivered with convincing conviction which allows the characters to come alive.

From its humorous opening to its touching ending, A Charlie Brown Christmas is a sweet, good-hearted 25 minutes of holiday magic which hammers home a terrific message about the spirit of the Christmas season. Even if it is a bit too lax, you'd have to be a cold-hearted Scrooge to not be won over by A Charlie Brown Christmas.

7.8/10

"Legend tells of a band of noble warriors... known as the Guardians of Ga'hoole. Whenever trouble is at hand, seek them out. For they are sworn to protect the innocent, and vanquish evil."

Who would've thought that director Zack Snyder would undertake such a project as Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole? Snyder first burst onto the scene with his exceedingly violent Dawn of the Dead remake before moving onto the blood-soaked 300 and the thoroughly adult Watchmen. 2010's PG-rated Legend of the Guardians is Snyder's fourth directorial undertaking, and it's a surprising career move which has unexpectedly paid off. Despite its ridiculously long-winded title and the rote nature of its coming-of-age narrative (reminiscent of Bambi), this is an aesthetically stunning 3-D experience steeped in visual majesty that's a great fit for Snyder's dark moviemaking instincts.

Living with his family high among the treetops, impressionable young owl Soren (Sturgess) loves to hear tales about warrior owls known as the guardians of Ga'Hoole. When Soren and his cynical brother Kludd (Kwanten) sneak out of home one night to practise flying without adult supervision, the two owls are promptly kidnapped and taken to the lair of the wicked "Pure Ones" led by Nyra (Mirren) and Metalbeak (Edgerton). Soren and Kludd find themselves amongst several kidnapped owls and owlets, who are being hypnotised to engage in slave labour to help construct a doomsday device with harvested metal flecks. While Kludd chooses to join the Pure Ones army, Soren and newfound young friend Gylfie (Barclay) stage an escape, and head off in search of the guardians to warn them of the Pure One's evil plans.

Written by John Orloff (Band of Brothers) and Emil Stern, Legend of the Guardians compresses the first three books of Kathryn Lasky's Guardians of Ga'Hoole series into one 90-minute feature. A lot of ground needed to be covered, causing the script to falter as it struggles to introduce the franchise's mythology and characters on top of covering all of the important plot points. The result feels fairly underdone, with director Snyder rushing through so many events without giving us a chance to digest them all. Legend of the Guardians is also a breeding ground for clichés - its story is very much a traditional hero's journey, and it contains such elements as a prophecy and a brother who turns evil. Unfortunately, too, Snyder clearly had a bit of trouble adapting to the animation medium, as his storytelling is somewhat on the bland side. Snyder has never been the most competent storyteller, and his flaws are only exacerbated by the transition to animation. Added to this, the owls are a bit hard to distinguish from one another due to underwhelming characterisations.

In spite of its flaws, Legend of the Guardians is visually stunning. Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon are 2010's best all-round animated movies, but Legend of the Guardians possesses the best animation; it's one of the most visually intricate movies in history. The details and nuances of the animals are jaw-dropping; every feather on every owl looks real, and the textured backgrounds are remarkably close to photorealism. The characters seem truly alive, and in 3-D you truly feel as if you can reach out and touch the featured creatures. Snyder has always excelled as an action director, and these talents are visible throughout Legend of the Guardians - he's done a sensational job of staging owl combat. One could be fooled into believing Snyder has gone soft on us by undertaking this picture, but he did not abandon his darker side. This is a family film in which owls wear battle armour and attack one another with stomach-churning ferocity. Indeed, the PG rating should be noted, as this is not a suitable picture for anyone under the age of 10 or 12. The only catastrophic misstep from a technical standpoint is a cringe-worthy training montage set to a pop tune from the band Owl City.

The voice cast contains a lot of recognisable Australian talent, including Geoffrey Rush, Anthony LaPaglia, David Wenham, Hugo Weaving (playing two roles), Barry Otto, Joel Edgerton, Richard Roxburgh, Bill Hunter, Angus Sampson and Leigh Whannell. In terms of international talent, we have Sam Neill, Helen Mirren and Miriam Margolyes. Even if a lot of these names seem like stunt casting, the acting is nevertheless uniformly strong. Rush is the biggest standout; he's extremely authoritative and believable as Ezylryb.

Ultimately, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole is a bit of a mixed bag. One cannot deny its visually stunning nature, yet it needed more soul and stronger storytelling. It's hard to hold too much against the movie, though, as its 3-D animation is game-changing and it contains several outstanding action set-pieces.

7.1/10

"How do you feel about the suicide of your best friend in the world?"

The Chumscrubber is armed with an A-list ensemble cast, but such a luxury is not enough to save this overwrought, uninspired satirisation of contemporary life in the American suburbs. Although a handful of performances work extremely well, this hybrid of American Beauty and Donnie Darko is hindered by the sense of amateurism which shrouds the production. Not to mention, the film's observations about suburban banality are no longer original. Unoriginality is a given in this day and age, but The Chumscrubber seems to be entirely reliant on its messages to see it through, with writers Arie Posin (who also directed) and Zac Stanford apparently calling it a day after throwing their derivative observations in the script. Thus, the dialogue is drab and the pacing is stiff, making The Chumscrubber far less engaging than the films it set out to emulate.

One afternoon in an idyllically average suburban neighbourhood, Dean (Bell) finds that his best - and only - friend Troy (Janowicz) has committed suicide by hanging himself in his bedroom. Troy was the local school's drug supplier, and the students are yearning for another delivery of happy pills. Three of Dean's classmates - Billy (Chatwin), Crystal (Belle) and Lee (Pucci) - demand for him to deliver Troy's drug stash to them, and look to kidnap Dean's brother Charlie to hold him for ransom. But the hapless trio kidnap the wrong Charlie; they accidentally snatch the son of a local cop (Heard) whose divorced wife (Wilson) is about to marry the mayor (Fiennes).

All of the actors, while talented, were saddled with stereotypes of suppressed middle-class America. Posin and Stanford would probably have us believe that they employed stereotypes for the sake of satire, yet the characters lack required depth for proper satire; they're all surface-level and none of them seem to act like actual human beings. For instance, the mayor's sudden airy dolphin obsession merely results in a number of "what the fuck?" moments, the kidnapped Charlie never screams for help or tries to escape or even realises he's in danger, Dean for some reason agrees to take pills at his father's behest despite being so adamant that he's fine... The whole ensemble are poorly fleshed-out plot pawns whose motivations never go beyond "because the script demands it". This is probably because Posin and Stanford bit off more than they could chew - there are far too many characters in too many stories, denying the chance for proper character development.

The titular Chumscrubber is a headless video game hero who walks the desolate planet battling the forces of evil. This is, of course, a metaphor for Dean who tries to battle the superficialities of his neighbourhood. How trite and obvious can you get? The Chumscrubber is Arie Posin's first feature film, and his inexperience is obvious in the banal, pedestrian filmmaking and the unsubtle way that he tries to deliver his satire. The flick has its moments from time to time, but Posin has a terrible grasp on pacing, storytelling and subtlety.

The topic of suburban banality is not new to anybody who's seen the likes of American Beauty and Blue Velvet, or even Desperate Housewives and Edward Scissorhands. Yet, indie filmmakers seem to find the subject irresistible, and are overeager to explore what happens behind the innocent-looking white picket fences. Posin had big ambitions for his first feature, but he had no idea what to do with them.

3.7/10

"Weapons are the tangible form of power. Anyone who can fuse his body and soul with them shall possess the greatest power in the land."

Ong Bak 3 picks up exactly where its immediate predecessor ended. But can anyone actually recall the events of 2008's disappointing Ong Bak 2? It was a dour mess; a confused jumble of leaden action scenes, montages and flashbacks without a modicum of comprehensible storytelling. Ong Bak 3 continues the decline in quality of Jaa's output. Rather than cutting loose and providing an opportunity for Jaa to showcase his fighting abilities (like the original Ong-bak), the film concerns itself with overwrought myth-making nonsense and egregiously straight-faced ridiculousness. The film is made up of about 15% action (if that) and 84% pseudo-spiritual mumbo jumbo. That leaves about 1% for the story, though that term is probably too flattering.

After being captured by the wicked Lord Rajasena (Wongkrachang), villager Tien (Jaa) is battered and beaten within an inch of his life, but is spared when another random king chooses to interfere. From there, Tien is reincarnated, and the broken warrior is forced to retrain his body and soul through teachings of spiritual stability and focus. Meanwhile, Rajasena has his own hands full, as he's being pursued by some mystical crow warrior (Chupong) who seeks to claim the throne. That's about all I got from the movie...

Ong Bak 3's production values are admittedly solid and the recreation of medieval Thailand easily impresses, but the script is incomprehensible nonsense. As exemplified by the vague plot summary above, the story amounts to a few haphazardly-connected elements without any worthwhile character development. The "drama" of the story is restricted to characters staring at one another and only occasionally talking, leaving us confused about what's happening and why. We hear stuff about a curse, we see a puff of black smoke floating around, we assume there's some form of black magic at hand and we watch men squabble, but there's no motivation to any of this material. We also witness Tien learning to be a pacifist during his rehabilitation (I think) but abandoning these teachings to go kick some ass... Wait, what's happening in this movie?

With more dancing than fighting, and too many vain attempts at thoughtful spirituality, not enough time in Ong Bak 3 is spent on what we sought from this movie: ass kicking. The movie carries the subtitle The Final Battle, implying a kick-ass finale and suggesting that there will be a rewarding payoff after slogging through the tedious midsection of praying and meditation... But no such miracle arrives. There's a good 10 minutes of butt-kicking, but it's mostly in irritating slow motion. The original Ong-bak's action worked due to its brutal frankness, whereas Ong Bak 3's action is simply a lot of balletic movements in slo-mo. Adding insult to injury, most of the climax happens in Tien's head. (Or maybe he turned back time...fucked if I know anything conclusive about what happens in this film.) I get that Jaa set out to make an epic, dramatic, spiritual period piece rife with symbolism and meaning. The problem is that it's done badly; directors Jaa and Panna Rittikrai were visibly out of their comfort zone when it came to storytelling and assembling a cohesive narrative.

Perhaps the most perplexing thing about Ong Bak 3 is that it's a Tony Jaa vehicle, yet Jaa is easily outshined by Dan Chupong. From top to bottom, this film is ill-conceived and disappointing. It's hardly surprising that Ong Bak 2 and 3 were intended to be one movie, but there were a lot of behind-the-scenes troubles. Unfortunately, both films carry the earmarks of a troubled production, as they're messy and slapdash. For crying out loud, Jaa even decided to quit films and go become a fucking Buddhist monk after the trauma of the Ong Bak sequels. I don't blame him. Even if you're a die-hard Jaa completist, Ong Bak 3 just isn't worth it. Bad story and atrocious dialogue can be forgiven in action movies, but Ong Bak 3 spends too much time revelling in these elements rather than letting Jaa do his thing. How can Jaa and Rittikrai not understand the selling point of this movie?

3.5/10

"There's a clue to another treasure. How's your thirst for adventure, Captain?"

Created in 1929 by Belgian cartoonist Hergé, Tintin is an internationally beloved literary character in virtually every part of the world except America. Enter Steven Spielberg (back in the director's chair for the first time since 2008's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and Peter Jackson, who've collaborated to give Hergé's creation new life in a glossy, mainstream Hollywood extravaganza hoping to appeal to both newcomers (Americans included) and established fans. The result is difficult to dislike, with the pair of filmmaking heavyweights using phenomenal state-of-the-art motion capture technology to vividly bring to life this world of danger, adventure and sleuthing.

An intrepid journalist who enjoys investigating mysteries, Tintin (Bell) finds himself inadvertently thrust into a perilous adventure when he purchases an ornate model of a 17th Century pirate ship known as "The Unicorn". To Tintin's puzzlement, the item becomes hotly pursued by other interested buyers, and is stolen when his flat is subsequently ransacked. With help from his loyal dog Snowy, Tintin starts looking into the ship's significance, and finds that his model held one of three scrolls which could help lead to the Unicorn's hidden treasure. The owner of the second scroll, the sinister Ivan Sakharine (Craig), begins resorting to violence and kidnapping to get all three scrolls, sweeping Tintin along on a sea voyage to the Moroccan city of Bagghar where the final scroll allegedly lurks. Along the way, Tintin teams up with Captain Haddock (Serkis), the final descendant of the Unicorn's original captain.

Tagged with the subtitle The Secret of the Unicorn, the film is based on three of Hergé's comics and was written by a trio of superlative British writers: Steven Moffat (Coupling, BBC's Sherlock, Doctor Who), Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block). It's one hell of a dream team, and their energetic screenplay does not disappoint. It's full of fun character interactions and sly jokes, which have been translated to the screen with Indiana Jones-style zest by Spielberg. However, while there are a number of good laughs, a few moments of slapstick do feel overly cheap. More pertinently, Tintin remains an enigma throughout the film. He gets involved in so much action and danger, yet we're never permitted the chance to genuinely get to know him. Most of the dialogue is plot-related, as the picture refuses to slows its pace to let the Tintin grow as a three-dimensional human being. It's odd that he's such an empty cipher considering that Tintin's instantly-endearing dog Snowy is effectively developed just through his mannerisms.

The Adventures of Tintin marks Steven Spielberg's first directorial foray into both animation and mo-cap, and it's clear that the veteran filmmaker was right at home handling the action-adventure elements (it's obvious why Raiders of the Lost Ark was compared to Tintin). Spielberg was effortlessly able to transfer the energy, strong pacing, engaging mise-en-scène and artistic framing of his habitual live-action output to this new medium with added fluidity. It's also clear that Spielberg embraced the freedom to achieve what would be impossible when working in live-action. The Adventures of Tintin contains several amazing tracking shots (the single-shot chase through Morocco is phenomenal) and creative transitions, making the most of animation's boundless possibilities. However, at times Spielberg got too carried away, resulting in action scenes that are too silly and Hollywood-ised. This is vehemently a cartoon, yes, but one can't help but facepalm when a plane is fuelled by a Haddock belch. And set-pieces such as the climax are so over-the-top that you're instantly taken out of the movie. Not to mention, a few narrative developments feel distinctly forced (the way Haddock "remembers" his family history doesn't quite gel).

On a more positive note, the visuals absolutely take the breath away. The Adventures of Tintin grabs you from the very outset, beginning with a stylish Saul Bass-esque opening credits sequence featuring silhouetted characters acting out vignettes set to John Williams' marvellous, toe-tapping jazz score. The picture's lush CGI is not quite photo-real, but gorgeous isolated moments could be mistaken for live-action. Fortunately, too, the characters are not plagued with the creepy "dead-eye" syndrome of most mo-cap pictures - the likes of Tintin, Haddock and especially Snowy have a soul behind their artificially-rendered eyes. However, some body movements look a bit too smooth. This issue only arises from time to time, though - for the most part, the motions look stunning.

One of the benefits of animation over live-action is the possibility of digital manipulation. Thus, all of the actors here look like their comic book counterparts (though the digital avatars are far more detailed than Hergé's more cartoonish illustrations). Furthermore, the performances are solid right across the board. As the titular Tintin, Jamie Bell is ideal; he has a youthful naivety about him, and his line readings are suitably low-key. Alongside him, Andy Serkis is the star of the show as Captain Haddock, who has a drinking problem and a strong supply of one-liners. Also in the cast is the duo of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as incompetent detectives Thompson and Thomson (respectively). The two do not have an overly important part in the adventure, but it's always a pleasure to see Pegg and Frost in a motion picture. Rounding out the main players is Daniel Craig, who positively disappears into the role of Ivan Sakharine with terrific results.

The Adventures of Tintin is not a flawless adaptation, and it's somewhat disappointing that the picture isn't better considering the perfect storm of talent which was assembled to bring it to fruition. Nevertheless, this is a very entertaining, well-made movie that's well worth seeing. With its cliffhanger ending ensuring that a sequel is inevitable, further movies may rectify the flaws of this introductory flick.

7.0/10

"Your life depends on you."

For Tony Jaa, 2003's Ong-bak was essentially his debutante ball, as it introduced the nimble performer and his phenomenal fighting skills to worldwide movie-goers. Wirework and digital effects are the norm in this day and age, but Jaa is the real deal: he actually performs death-defying stunts and leaps, and actually lands brutal aerial blows without any trickery. But Ong-bak was more of a demo reel for Jaa than a cohesive motion picture, and it left us wanting a vehicle for the young martial arts mastermind with strong storytelling. What a shame that 2008's Ong Bak 2: The Beginning is not the Tony Jaa vehicle we wanted; it suffers from leaden pacing and a self-serious tone which denies us the kind of pleasures we derived from the original picture. Plus, this "sequel" does not have anything to do with the 2003 film - instead, it's set in Thailand's medieval past and concerns new characters.

Ong Bak 2's story does not make much coherent sense, so bear with me. Hundreds of years ago, a young prince named Tien (played in adulthood by Jaa) becomes an orphan after his royal parents are killed during some type of violent political upheaval. Subsequently, slave traders capture the boy. After displaying real talent as a fighter during a struggle with a crocodile, Tien is taken under the wing of a moustachioed outlaw who raises him like a son. Thus, Tien is transformed from a primitive young boy into a highly-skilled warrior looking to exact vengeance on those responsible for his family's killing. I think...

It's recommended that you don't bother trying to piece together who's who, what their motivations are or what they're doing at any specified moment. Most of the time it's difficult to figure out where the narrative is heading beyond the obvious revenge quest, with what should be a simple action film becoming unnecessarily complicated. Perhaps the problem is that there's not enough exposition; the whole picture amounts to a handful of action scenes connected by borderline unintelligible montages and flashbacks accompanied by pretentious voiceover narration. The flashbacks are supposed to shed light on Tien's childhood, but they don't really explore his character or explain a great deal. A little girl is introduced in a flashback who reappears as an adult, but her relevance isn't clear. Fuck it, nothing's clear. Ong Bak 2 was notorious for its troubled production: filming went over budget and over schedule, Jaa (who directed the film) went MIA from the set, and extra help had to be pulled in to try and salvage the picture. And after all that, apparently they didn't even manage to tell the whole story they wanted to tell. Oh boy, do these dilemmas show in the finished product.

Ong Bak 2 is an admittedly lavish-looking production - the replication of ancient Thailand is very impressive, with period-specific costumes and sets. But while it's better-looking than its grungy predecessor, this follow-up is a lot less fun due to it being so dour and convoluted. It has a fair share of action, sure, yet the picture lacks momentum, and consequently the gaps between the set-pieces are appallingly tedious. Another key flaw is that we don't see Tony Jaa until about 20 minutes into the movie. We watch Tony Jaa movies to see the crazy little bastard kick ass and pull off crazy physical feats, but the extended opening sans Jaa plus the additional flashbacks means that Jaa is absent for a good one third of the film. Another problem is that Jaa predominantly opted against using the no-nonsense Muay Thai fighting style which made him stand out in the first place. It's understandable that he tried to introduce variety, but the replacement martial art is not as exciting as Muay Thai. Furthermore, there's not enough reason to care about Tien. Couple this with the picture's frequent dullness, and there's not a great deal of excitement to be had during this sluggish disappointment.

A few of Tony Jaa's physical feats here do impress (the elephant stampede jumping sequence is stunning), but Ong Bak 2 remains a jumbled, incoherent mess weighed down by its stoic, pretentious sense of self-importance that exacerbates the bad dialogue and hackneyed plotting. Jaa is a strong physical performer, but he's no filmmaker. He seriously needs to take acting lessons, learn the proper ropes of directing, and take part in a movie which mixes frenetic action with nuanced characters and textured storytelling.

3.5/10

"His wealth is quite useless to him, really. He doesn't do any good with it or even make HIMSELF comfortable with it."

Hundreds of film adaptations of Charles Dickens's 1843 novella A Christmas Carol have been produced over the decades in both live-action and animation, with many distinguished actors taking on the role of pop culture icon Ebenezer Scrooge. Of these adaptations, most critics consider 1951's Scrooge (starring Alastair Sim) the best and most definitive retelling. However, in this reviewer's oh-so-humble opinion, director Clive Donner's 1984 made-for-television rendering of the classic holiday tale surpasses the 1951 version in almost every aspect. Benefitting from sharp screenwriting and top-notch performances right down the line, not to mention surprisingly strong filmmaking technique for an '80s TV movie, 1984's A Christmas Carol is a masterpiece of Christmastime cinema.

The embittered old Ebenezer Scrooge (George C. Scott) is one of the cruellest men in London, and Christmas is his least favourite time of year. With Christmastime upon him yet again, Scrooge could not care less; he's far more concerned with running his business and torturing assistant Bob Cratchit (David Warner). Scrooge's nephew Fred (Roger Rees) invites the curmudgeon to Christmas dinner, but Scrooge looks forward to spending the festive season alone instead. Upon his arrival home on the evening of Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his late business partner, Jacob Marley (Frank Finlay), who warns the old man that his miserly ways may lead to his soul being tormented for eternity. As the night wears on, Scrooge is visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past (Angela Pleasance), the Ghost of Christmas Present (Edward Woodward) and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come (Michael Carter), who take the bitter man on a grim time-travelling journey.

Roger O. Hirson's screenplay for this A Christmas Carol is a remarkable piece of work, remaining faithful to the source material while incorporating various effective alterations. In this day and age, Dickens' original dialogue is dry and vague, and it's sometimes difficult to grasp what the characters are saying. Hirson clearly took this into consideration, and altered the original dialogue accordingly to improve flow and comprehensibility, giving it his own distinctive, poetic spin. Couple this with the outstanding acting, and A Christmas Carol is reliably engaging despite its overly verbose disposition. Additionally, this retelling contains more of the novella's emotional nuances and backstory, bringing about a fleshed-out version that never feels excessively dragged out. Director Clive Donner takes his time during the visions of the past, present and future, giving us a chance to see Scrooge's life journeys and transformations, on top of feeling the warmth of Fred's family and the austere poverty of the Cratchit household. Another effective scene here (which I've not seen in any other adaptation) focuses on a poor family on the street, starving and homeless. They consider workhouses (an option Scrooge supports in the film's early scenes), but the ramifications would be tragic for the family. It's a heart-wrenching scene, and it's terrific food for thought for Scrooge.

A Christmas Carol was made for television, yet it mostly feels like a theatrical feature due to its lush recreation of London in the 1800s. On top of the authentic-looking sets and costumes, director Donner conducts extensive location filming rather than relying on obvious, stagy studio back-lots. The makers chose the English town of Shrewsbury to stand in for Victorian London, and its lived-in nature further contributes to the production's aura of authenticity. The special effects, too, are impressive by today's standards, most notably the effects that bring Jacob Marley's ghost to life. If there's a fault with A Christmas Carol, it's that its television origins are obvious from time to time, as there's not a great deal of cinematographic flair, and some scenes could have benefitted from additional visual flourishes. With that said, though, the horror aspects of the story were handled flawlessly. This is, after all, a ghost story. Thus, key scenes such as Marley's visit and Scrooge in the graveyard with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come are truly dark and scary.

Alastair Sim's portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge is widely regarded as the best, but George C. Scott gives Sim a run for his money. Scott does not seem to merely play Scrooge - he is Scrooge; he disappears into the character to bring the old miser to vivid life. In Scott's hands, Ebenezer Scrooge is a fully-realised three-dimensional human being, and at no point does his portrayal go overboard (whereas Sim's acting was at times too histrionic). One of the most notably brilliant things about the depiction of Scrooge here is that he continually resists repenting and keeps dismissing both the spirits and their visions. That is, until the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come forces him to view his own name on a laid tombstone. It's not the notion of his death that's upsetting - it's the fact that nobody cares or grieves his passing. At this point, Scrooge realises that his lifelong pursuit of wealth has been worthless. What's also masterful is how Scott conveys that Scrooge is terrified but is trying to hide it.

Fortunately, a magnificent supporting cast surrounds Scott. In fact, the acting from top to bottom is faultless. As Bob Cratchit, David Warner is never anything short of convincing. Warner does a terrific job of shaping the character of Cratchit, a poor man in a humiliating situation who struggles to keep his dignity intact. And when Bob breaks down over Tiny Tim's death, Warner's acting strikes an emotional chord. Frank Finlay, meanwhile, is genuinely frightening as Jacob Marley, skillfully displaying sadness and humanity throughout his critical scene. Finlay is, quite convincingly, the best cinematic incarnation of Jacob Marley to date. Also worth mentioning is a charismatic and believable Roger Rees as Fred, the story's narrator and Scrooge's nephew. The performances from all three spirits are strong, too. What's especially good about Pleasence and Woodward is that they openly mock and poke fun at Scrooge with a sarcastic tone. Rounding out the leading players is Anthony Walters, who's the most authentic and credible Tiny Tim that this reviewer has seen. Tim looked too healthy in the 1951 version, but Walters is both tiny and sickly-looking here.

If you're unfamiliar with the story of A Christmas Carol and have never seen a filmic adaptation of Dickens' novella, this 1984 version is the one to watch. It's cohesive, easy to follow, and at times, quite affecting. Sure, it's not as fun as something like The Muppet Christmas Carol, but it delivers its humanistic message in an earnest, effective, and at times utterly heart-warming way. This is a marvellous film.

8.9/10

"When a Cimmerian feels thirst, it is a thirst for blood. When he feels cold, it is the cold edge of steel. For the courage of a Cimmerian is tempered: he neither fears death... nor rushes foolishly to meet it. To be a Cimmerian warrior, you must have both cunning and balance as well as speed and strength."

It would be erroneous for you to approach 2011's Conan the Barbarian believing it to be a remake of the 1982 Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle of the same name. The 1982 picture was pure camp; a cheesy, not-to-be-taken-seriously fantasy romp with Arnie playing his usual screen persona rather than the character of Conan as originally envisioned. Disposing of campy '80s instincts, director Marcus Nispel and writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Sean Hood went back to the source for this 2011 flick to produce something closer to Robert E. Howard's original Conan stories. Lavish, violent and vicious, this Conan the Barbarian is the movie that Howard's followers have been waiting for.

Born in the middle of a battle and raised by his Cimmerian warrior father Corin (Perlman), Conan (Momoa) grows up to be the fiercest, most skilled fighter in his tribe. During Conan's childhood, an evil overlord known as Khalar Zym (Lang) and his sorceress daughter (McGowan) raid Conan's village seeking the final piece of an enchanted headdress. In the process, Zym kills Conan's father and destroys everything the boy knows and loves. Years later, Conan still looks to exact revenge on Zym, and traverses the lands developing his skills as a barbarian. During his travels, he winds up defending a young female monk of pure blood named Tamara (Nichols), who's being pursued by Zym.

With its standard-issue revenge plotline and no twists or surprises, there's nothing much in Conan the Barbarian that you haven't seen before. In fairness, though, Howard's first Conan stories were released in 1932, so it would be virtually impossible to be original when dealing with such ancient source material. Plus, the character of Conan has never been associated with complex stories; he's known as a barbarian, after all, and thus he spends his time slaughtering people. To the credit of the writers, 2011's Conan the Barbarian does a great job of for the most part keeping Conan Conan. Admittedly, however, some of the dialogue is pretty terrible and at least a bit of innovation would have been nice.

At the helm of Conan the Barbarian was Marcus Nispel, who directed the unforgivably bad 2007 Viking film Pathfinder. Nispel's presence behind the camera here did not inspire a great deal of confidence, but it seems that the director is improving in the art of creating cinematic junk food. Conan the Barbarian has tonnes of action, most of which was handled well by Nispel. There's a lot of gloriously violent carnage to behold, on top of epic battles involving sand creatures and sea serpents. The picture was produced on a bold budget of around $90 million, and therefore it's aesthetically pleasing - solid CGI permeates the film, bringing this swords-and-sorcery world to vivid life with extravagant results. On the other hand, though, Nispel still has a bit to learn. A number of action beats are marred by shaky-cam, close-ups and rapid-fire editing, while pacing issues do arise from time to time. Most critically, the tone is uneven - some battles are delightfully violent and satisfying, but other instances of violence feel sadistic and uncomfortable.

At least in this reviewer's mind, a lot of scepticism surrounded the choice of Jason Momoa as the titular badass. However, against all odds, Momoa is an excellent Conan; intense, convincing and always in-the-moment. He matches the role physically, and he has that gleam in his eye whenever the character is in his barbaric element. While his screen presence is not quite as strong as Schwarzenegger's, Momoa is a better actor than the Austrian Oak ever was. Leo Howard also deserves a mention for playing baby Conan; he inhabits a good 20 minutes of screen-time, and makes a good impression. Meanwhile, Avatar's Stephen Lang is effectively sinister and scene-stealing as Khalar Zym. Indeed, Lang demonstrates here yet again that he's a reliably badass antagonist. Alongside Lang is Rose McGowan, who's at her scenery-chewing best playing Zym's sorceress daughter. Rounding out the cast is a strong Ron Perlman as Conan's father, and Rachel Nichols who's rather forgettable as the token love interest. Morgan Freeman is also on-hand as the narrator; a job he fulfilled magnificently.

Those who've based their affection for Conan on Arnie's linguistically-challenged version probably shouldn't bother with 2011's Conan the Barbarian. And those without a taste for action who enjoy something subtler should not go anywhere near this production. However, if you're seeking an enjoyable action romp, this picture will serve your needs nicely in spite of its flaws. It has been criticised for being overly violent, but hey - it has the word "barbarian" in its fucking title, so tasteless barbarianism comes with the territory and toning this shit down would be stupid. Considering its strengths, it's a true shame that this Conan the Barbarian failed at the box office; it could've been the start of a new big-budget Conan franchise. Instead, what we have is just a strong origins tale that's unlikely to lead anywhere.

Note: This reviewer did not view the film in 3-D, but by all accounts the extra-dimensional effects are utter bollocks.

6.5/10

"The president has initiated Ghost Protocol. The entire IMF has been disavowed..."

The Mission: Impossible film franchise may be fifteen years old now, and 2011's Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol may be the fourth instalment in this series, but no trace of exhaustion or lethargy is showing through just yet. What began as a merely good action brand has now become something genuinely special, with 2006's wildly underrated Mission: Impossible III and now Ghost Protocol bringing the franchise to an all-time high. Well-written and stunningly well-made, this fourth Mission: Impossible is a sleek and enjoyable treat. It also denotes the live-action debut for animation specialist Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles), who easily puts veterans like Michael Bay to shame in his construction of some of the most breathtaking, armrest-clenching, thrilling action sequences of the year.

After being broken out of a Moscow prison, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is united with fellow IMF agents June Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), and offered his newest assignment to retrieve valuable information from within the Kremlin. The mission is abruptly cut short, though, when the site is bombed, leaving the relationship between Russia and America in absolute tatters. With the IMF shouldering the blame for the bombing, a contingency plan known as the "Ghost Protocol" is put into effect, disavowing the IMF. In the event of Hunt or his fellow agents being captured, they would be branded as terrorists and prosecuted accordingly. To clear their names and hopefully prevent World War III, Hunt and his team - who are soon joined by analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) - begin to pursue extremist Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), who's working to obtain Russian nuclear launch codes.

Minus the more logical title of Mission: Impossible IV, and with only two returning actors, rumours surfaced that Ghost Protocol was going to be a series reboot of sorts. Luckily, writers Josh Appelbaum and André Nemec do not take such unnecessary measures. While the first two M:I instalments are never explicitly referenced, one critical subplot is intrinsically tied to Mission: Impossible III and a couple of surprise cameos reinforce series continuity.

Like its immediate predecessor, Ghost Protocol moves at the speed of a bullet. The picture clocks in at a massive 130 minutes, yet the pacing is extraordinarily quick. The film is adrenalized from the very outset - the pitch-perfect opening involves an exciting shootout followed by a brilliant prison riot-come-escape (accompanied by Dean Martin's song "Ain't That a Kick in the Head") and an exhilarating title sequence set to the classic series theme. From there, it moves fast and never lags. However, the protagonists should have been better developed, and it's a shame that we don't get to know them better (Benji, in particular, could use more development). Mission: Impossible III was afforded a human touch by focusing on Ethan's personal life and relationship with Julia, but such nuances are lacking here. On the other hand, there are enough small character moments and clever humour beats to allow us to at least like the people being caught up in the hail of bullets and bombs.

The Mission: Impossible films have undergone a change in director with each new outing, leading to a welcome shift in aesthetic approaches. In theory, Brad Bird was an odd choice to helm this new adventure, but he easily surpasses his predecessors in terms of technique and excitement. Bird clearly strived to achieve most of the action practically with stunt work, and such an approach is a huge benefit. It's easier to become immersed in Ghost Protocol's action when it genuinely looks like Ethan is perilously scaling the world's tallest buildings with flawed gizmos. Indeed, the much-publicised Burj Khalifa climbing sequence is perhaps the most heart-stopping action set-piece of 2011. (It was filmed with IMAX cameras, too, and the results are phenomenal.) Bird and cinematographer Robert Elswit also predominantly eschew an irritating shaky-cam approach in favour of something smoother, steadier and crisper. Coupled with the precise editing and Michael Giacchino's intense score, the action is coherent, fluid, exhilarating and nail-biting. It's unlikely that these characters will ever find themselves in fatalistic danger, but Bird constantly teases such possibilities to keep us on the edge of our seats as he keeps upping the stakes (Ethan's showdown with Hendricks is a humdinger).

Admittedly, though, some of the action sequences are a bit too over-the-top, and a few scenes are hindered by rocky digital effects (the missile launch looks rather phoney). Not to mention, Ethan should have broken several bones (and his fucking skull) during his adventures here, making a suspension of disbelief a requirement to fully enjoy the action. Such Hollywood touches somewhat weaken the intensity, yet this is only a minor complaint since the flick's fun factor is consistently off the charts.

Tom Cruise may be getting old (he was forty-nine during filming), but the star is in great shape and looks to be aging gracefully. On top of this, Cruise still throws himself into every scene, every line and every action, believably delivering dialogue and performing various daredevil stunts without a double. Hate Cruise for his tabloid-fodder personal life, if you will, but you cannot deny that this guy is a terrific movie star. Fortunately, Cruise is surrounded by a stellar supporting cast here. The role of Brandt was apparently shoehorned into the script to give Ethan an equal since the studio was weary of Cruise's profitability after Knight & Day flopped, yet Brandt feels like an organic part of the narrative with a pivotal role in the mission. It helps that Jeremy Renner is so good here, too, oozing charisma and assuredly handling the action elements. Meanwhile, Simon Pegg shows up here to reprise his role from the third film. Pegg is essentially the comic relief, and he handled such duties skilfully. Unfortunately, however, Ghost Protocol is without a proper villain. Mission: Impossible III boasted a magnificently monstrous Philip Seymour Hoffman, but Ghost Protocol is less successful in this respect.

As opposed to most blockbusters, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol's action sequences do not feel forced; they unfold organically within the fabric of the narrative. Additionally, this is a PG-13 action movie, yet it never feels like Bird is pulling any punches. When people are shot, wounds are visible, and there is blood. As a result, Ghost Protocol doesn't feel unrealistically sanitised. Indeed, it's surprising how solid this movie is. It's not Oscar bait (though it deserves recognition in various technical categories), but it is an exceptionally-crafted, balls-to-the-wall popcorn actioner that's far better than anything Michael Bay has done in the last 5 years. Alongside Fast Five, Ghost Protocol is one of the big-budget studio-produced highlights of 2011.

7.8/10