Reviews by PvtCaboose91

After headlining a string of entertaining, B-grade action spectacles, Dolph Lundgren (Showdown in Little Tokyo, Universal Soldier, Rocky IV) swiftly established himself as one of the industry's most reliable stars for testosterone-soaked actioners. Among his littler-known efforts is the 1996 action-thriller Silent Trigger, which paired the star with Australian director (and B-grade movie extraordinaire) Russell Mulcahy (Highlander). While not exactly the worst creation to feature on the Dolphster's filmography, Silent Trigger is distinctly mediocre. It's a badass, moderately enjoyable 90-minute ride, but Dolph Lundgren is a surprisingly bland protagonist, the whole thing is forgettable, and the script feels regurgitated by a computer.

There is not a great deal to be said regarding the plot of Silent Trigger, as it's more of a series of vignettes than anything resembling a solid storyline. Essentially, Dolph's character here is a covert assassin named Waxman who's an expert marksman with a sniper rifle. He suddenly and inexplicably gains a conscience during an assignment, and in doing so condemns himself to death at the hands of his rookie spotter Clegg (Bellman). Years later, Waxman has been tasked with another assignment to be carried out in the upper floors of a half-built high-rise building. To Waxman's surprise, the spotter he has been assigned is Clegg, which leads to a number of battles over trust. The two are also forced to deal with a couple of pesky nightwatchmen, one of whom is an obnoxious, seedy man keen to rape Clegg.

Although Sergio Altieri's screenplay appears to be more concerned with rumination than balls-to-the-wall action, Silent Trigger is not a thoughtful blockbuster which successfully provokes ethical or existential questions. It touches upon the moralistic side of being a sniper, granted, but these issues are handled in a naff, inadequate manner. Plus, the flashbacks revealing the morals of an assassin life provide nothing more than an excuse for director Russell Mulcahy to do what he does best: marshal a number of impressive action sequences. On that note, if anyone deserves credit for making Silent Trigger watchable, it's Mulcahy. The stylishly dark tones generate a fair amount of suspense, and the director made the most of the unfinished building where most of the action unfolds. There are technical goofs here and there (in particular some shoddy visual effects work) as well as pacing issues (there are too many dead spots), yet the action is still violent and satisfying enough.

Unsurprisingly, characterisation and plot are feeble in this film. High Shakespeare was not expected, but would a little personality in the characters be too much to ask? In addition, there are plot points which simply do not make sense. For instance, why is Waxman still working for the agency after they issued a kill order on him? Why would Waxman agree to another assignment? Why does Waxman show up to the high-rise a full 5 or 6 hours before his target is due to show up? Why engage the nightwatchmen at all? Meanwhile, Dolph Lundgren is predominantly forgettable as Waxman (though his screen presence is tolerable), and Gina Bellman (of Coupling fame) is not overly good in her role as Clegg - she's only memorable due to her good looks rather than the sincerity of her performance. From top to bottom, everything about Silent Trigger reveals its origins as a low-budget straight-to-video action vehicle - especially the cheesy score courtesy of Stefano Mainetti.

As far as these kinds of action films go, you could do far worse than Silent Trigger. At the very least, it provides an easy viewing experience with a few worthwhile moments. However, you could also do a whole lot better than Silent Trigger. It's worth watching, but only for Lundgren purists or action enthusiasts who've exhausted their supply of quality actioners. In other words, it pampers to its niche audience, but it's nevertheless very pedestrian. Trust me; you will forget you ever saw the movie about 10 minutes after you finish watching it.

5.0/10

Boiled down to its basic narrative constituents, Men of War is The Dirty Dozen meets Dances with Wolves - or, for a more contemporary audience, Avatar meets Rambo. One has to admit, it seems almost superfluous to review action flicks featuring such stars as Dolph Lundgren due to how bad and distinctly unremarkable they usually are, but Men of War is a different specimen. Against all odds, this entry to the mercenary-on-a-mission subgenre delivers exceptional action attached to a well-written script and an interesting story that's not half-bad by generic action flick standards. This is not high art, nor is it Best Picture material, but that matters not - this is a badass, technically sound and infinitely enjoyable instance of action cinema.

Dolph Lundgren's role here is burnt-out, jaded former mercenary Nick Gunar who's encountering difficulties adjusting to civilian life. Not long into the film, Nick is hired by the Nitro Mine Corporation to persuade the natives of a South China Sea island to give up their home in order for the corporation to mine the island's valuable resources. Nick reluctantly accepts, and heads to the island with a team of mercenaries. However, the natives prove to be more tenacious than the team presumed, and, over time, Nick and a few of his friends become charmed by the natives and their way of life. The group is soon fractured, as each man is forced to choose sides. Needless to say, it isn't long before the utopia is transformed into an all-out war zone.

Men of War is in many ways a throwback movie, as it recalls older mercenary flicks such as The Dogs of War and The Wild Geese which possessed a strong moral centre that prevented them from being simple bloodbaths. The screenplay for Men of War does not rush through the characters' change of heart like some action vehicles do; Nick's seduction by the island takes time, and the action is sidelined until the explosive climax. This alone raises Men of War above something like The Delta Force (a Chuck Norris vehicle). Perhaps the successful fusion of action and drama can be attributed to highly respected scribe John Sayles (Sunshine State, Eight Men Out, The Howling) who had a hand in writing the script. Men of War is not exactly Sayles-lite, as there is a satisfying amount of sardonic wit and amusing asides. The cinematography by Ronn Schmidt is easy to admire as well; the stunning vistas afford the film a sheen that belies its status as a straight-to-video action vehicle.

Yet, do not get the wrong impression: Men of War also delivers in the action department with a wallop. There are sporadic bursts of action throughout the film, with the first third featuring a great Muay Thai boxing match as well as a fun barroom brawl sequence. Granted, there are pacing and tonal problems during the middle third when the team are shown bonding with the natives, but the movie gets back on track with a rousing climactic battle in which people are dispatched with bullets, grenades and bazookas. It all culminates with an exceptional one-on-one scuffle between Dolph as Nick and Trevor Goddard as Nick's rival Keefer (who appears to recall Vernon Wells' Bennett from Commando). Director Perry Lang did an impressive job with the action; it's gritty, hard-hitting, violent and coherent, despite a few technical goofs (a man shot with a bazooka literally explodes into paper confetti). A lot of blood is spilt during the climax, which should satiate action enthusiasts and gore hounds.

In the acting department, Dolph delivered an amiable performance that provides the picture with a solid core and a protagonist you can care about. This is not Oscar-worthy stuff, but it's above the usual standard for the genre. The cast is loaded with several other badass performers, including Kevin Tighe (Road House), Tiny "Zeus" Lister, Tom Wright and Don Harvey among others. Trevor Goddard is suitably hammy and over-the-top as the villain, while B.D. Wong is impressive as the native who helps Dolph and his men kick some ass. Also worth mentioning is Catherine Bell - she's terrific eye candy, and her acting is sound. For a straight-to-video motion picture, the acting is highly impressive - in fact, it's difficult to believe that this is a STV movie. On the other hand, for all this praise, Men of War is not perfect. It's a perfectly acceptable diversion which rises above the ordinary, but it's nothing too substantial, and the storyline is both clichéd and predictable no matter where you turn. The characters lack depth, as well.

In spite of its shortcomings, Men of War is far better than expected. I'm positive that most, if not all people will write off the film as a cheap and nasty time waster, but it's more skilful than you may initially think, and it's a shame the film was buried by Miramax at the time of its release (reportedly, the film was not initially intended to go straight-to-video). If you can get your hands on a copy of this movie, it's definitely worth it.

7.2/10

From the outset, it's clear that there's something a tad skewiff about 2010's Youth in Revolt. It's not that the movie is excruciating or fatally flawed, but it suffers from an uneven tone, blunt satire, comedy which rarely provokes more than feeble giggles, and shallow, unrealistic lead characters. Adapted from the 1993 novel of the same name by C.D. Payne, the filmmakers clearly attempted to craft a remarkable black comedy, but the result is a disposable, consciously hip, forgettable film that's sometimes amusing, frequently boring, and "Michael Cera" through and through. After all, Michael Cera always portrays the same dweeb in all of his movies, and this vibe pervades Youth in Revolt - it feels like a star vehicle specifically tailored for Cera's image.

Teenager Nick Twisp (Cera) is shy virgin who watches foreign movies and listens to Frank Sinatra music. Needless to say, he tends to repel girls. This all changes when he's taken on an impromptu vacation with his mum and her slob of a new boyfriend. In a stroke of fate (or contrivance), Nick meets the gorgeous, equally quirky Sheeni Saunders (Doubleday) and the two strike up some form of relationship. Suffice it to say, Nick is saddened when he and his family return home days later. In order to build something with Sheeni outside of a summer fling, Nick begins implementing an intricate plot that will hopefully pave the way for Sheeni to run away with him. To do this, Nick develops a bad boy alter-ego named Francois Dillinger who's everything Nick isn't: confident, strong, quick to retort, unafraid to speak his mind, and naughty.

Youth in Revolt is a mishmash of two old concepts (it's like Fight Club meets American Pie), yet the results are only occasionally successful. Since it's based on a novel, the screenwriters needed to pack a plethora of locations and characters into the brisk 85-minute runtime, and thus as a whole the film never really builds; it merely ambles along from episode to episode, resulting in a baffling jumble of diverse tones. Even worse are the situations that Nick finds himself entangled in - they're designed to be amusing, but they're uncomfortable. In fact, the film breaks down severely towards the end as Nick's actions become more desperate and less justifiable, and he finds himself in situations that are sure to provoke face-palms. It's even difficult to watch, much less to actually care. Furthermore, as these narrative obstacles unfold, it's an inopportune time for new characters to be introduced. Unfortunately, the filmmakers failed to realise this, with Sheeni's stoner brother (Long) showing up for the sake of fidelity to the novel, and Nick's arch nemesis Trent (Wright) being introduced far too late into the proceedings.

Perhaps the biggest downfall of Youth in Revolt lies in the lack of likable, relatable or complexly-woven characters - like the film itself, the characters seem like mere amalgamations assembled from the quirky-movie spare parts bin. Nick is a 16-year-old who adores Frank Sinatra music and Fellini movies. Really? Sheeni, meanwhile, loves everything French, has a passion for Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless, and names her dog Albert (with a silent "t"). Are you serious? These characters are not in the least bit realistic, endearing or clever - rather, they're pretentious and irritating. Moreover, director Michael Arteta's decision to present Francois as a distinctly separate individual from Nick has its major drawbacks. There are instances when it simply does not work, as Francois' implausible interferences with real life seems like a lazy way to continue the narrative progression.

Naturally, Cera leaned on his usual image for this film: a socially awkward dweeb with brains but no brawn or backbone. Here, Cera exhibits the same mannerisms, vibes and speech patterns that pervade all of his prior performances. Meanwhile, the Francois Dillinger alter-ego is nothing more than a pale imitation of a juvenile delinquent. Perhaps Cera merely lacks the talent to pull off a badass, or the actor is so typecast that the director would only allow him to go so far. In the role of Sheeni, on the other hand, Portia Doubleday is a standout - she's easily the greatest thing about the movie. Cera and Doubleday share a moderate amount of chemistry, but not the scintillating type that's so crucial in these types of movies. Meanwhile, the rest of the cast are fairly standard-order. Steve Buscemi (looking mighty old) is adequate as Nick's estranged father, while Justin Long (Live Free or Die Hard) fails to make much of an impact as Sheeni's stoner brother.

One senses that the unachieved intention behind Youth in Revolt was to craft a hip, comedic love story (with echoes of 2007's Juno) that takes audiences to a familiar place via a new road. Alas, a lot of the quirky elements are flat, there are a lot of misjudged script choices, and the comedy is rarely good for more than a half-hearted chuckle. It has its moments from time to time, and there's a decent amount of energy, but there's little to care about in Youth in Revolt and even less to laugh about.

5.1/10

In the same vein as 2010's Predators, Sylvester Stallone's ambition with The Expendables was to transport modern audiences back to the action cinema zenith of the 1980s, when enormous muscle-bound movie stars utilised equally enormous firearms to slaughter thousands of bad guys with ease. After resurrecting the '80s aesthetic with 2008's Rambo, Stallone gives the ailing style a new lease on life to deliver an old-school, action-packed wallop of a blockbuster. Armed with a charismatic ensemble of badasses along with enough testosterone and adrenaline to float a small island full of elephants, The Expendables is a blast; an epic old-fashioned manly movie with infinite replay value.

Led by the cigar-chomping Barney Ross (Stallone), the titular Expendables are an elite team of professional mercenaries. Following a violent scuffle with a bunch of pirates which results in the firing of team member Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), Barney is offered a job by the enigmatic Mr. Church (Bruce Willis) to travel to the island of Vilena to overthrow dictator General Garza (David Zayas), whose strings are being pulled by former C.I.A. operative Munroe (Eric Roberts). Upon arriving at Vilena, however, Ross and his second-in-command Lee Christmas (Jason Statham) discover that there's more to the assignment than meets the eye. Thus, Ross, Christmas and the rest of the team - including token black guy Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), the pint-sized Yin Yang (Jet Li), and the somewhat unremarkable Toll Road (Randy Couture) - suit up for battle, and sneak onto the island to kill as many bad guys and blow up as many things as possible.

In line with expectations, the story (credited to Dave Callaham) is pedestrian and cliché-ridden. Added to this, the script (by Stallone) fails to provide much in the way of intricate character development or interesting plot twists. Then again, these flaws also apply to dozens of '80s action films, and we love those movies nevertheless. Granted, it does seem hypocritical to criticise other blockbusters for bad plotting and give The Expendables a pass in this respect. However, The Expendables succeeds because what little story there is to be found actually succeeds in sustaining interest, whereas other action films tend to concern themselves with utterly boring story fragments. Indeed, for such a harshly-received action film, The Expendables actually has a degree of heart and humanity behind it. The film is imbued with a theme of redemption, exemplified in Gunner's recurring subplot and Barney's motivation for returning to Vilena. In the case of the latter, money no longer holds any value for Barney and he would prefer to die fighting for something meaningful and redeem his soul rather than dying five years down the line on some run-of-the-mill mission. This notion is underscored by Mickey Rourke's character, Tool, who regales Barney with his personal philosophies and memories. As a result, The Expendables has genuine weight and dramatic intensity when the team march off to battle.

With Stallone rounding up such a large group of badasses, it's disappointing that none of them are adequately developed. Stallone and Statham take centre stage here for the most part, leaving the rest of the team with little or no character development (Crews and Couture suffer the worst in this respect). Fortunately, the extended director's cut works to rectify these faults - the team shares a wonderful dynamic in their scenes together, and an excellent opening credits sequence (set to the song Sinner's Prayer) wordlessly develops each of the characters in a surprisingly effective fashion. While Stallone and Callaham's dialogue isn't the strongest (it's no Predator), isolated moments of bantering are highly amusing, and the script contains a judicious smattering of one-liners. What's also notable about The Expendables is its soundtrack. Brian Tyler's score is pulse-pounding and flavoursome, and several classic rock songs are scattered throughout the picture, further establishing the protagonists as guys cut from the vintage action hero mould.

Stallone's penchant for violent combat scenarios and visceral action is thankfully retained for The Expendables, as it contains a handful of exciting set-pieces culminating in a climax capable of shaking theatre walls. There's carnage aplenty throughout the battles; some men are riddled with bullets, others are blown apart, necks are broken, bones are shattered, and there are massive explosions. The fights are old-school, too, with both Statham and Li permitted an opportunity to showcase their martial arts prowess. Hell, Stallone even almost broke his neck filming one fight scene. Admittedly, though, the action scenes are somewhat marred by shaky-cam, frenetic editing (the car chase is especially hard to follow), and multiple instances of phoney CGI blood. It's indeed tragic to witness an '80s throwback giving into the same lazy 21st Century filmmaking techniques that the movie was intended to be a break from. Furthermore, Stallone's direction is occasionally slipshod, including a bizarrely staged expositional scene composed almost entirely of dark extreme close-ups. The Expendables is a fun experience, to be sure, but one must wonder how much better the flick might've been with a defter director and cinematographer.

The biggest selling point of the enterprise is, of course, the cast list, which reads like a collection of everyone's favourite action heroes. Thankfully, the actors are solid here for the most part - not Oscar-calibre, but well-suited for this type of action film. Stallone and Statham are an ideal pairing of lead performers; their bantering is funny, and their camaraderie feels genuine. Alongside this duo, Terry Crews is hugely likeable, though Randy Couture has an underwhelming screen presence and Jet Li lacks enthusiasm. Dolph Lundgren is the film's biggest surprise - he's a hilarious, scenery-chewing standout as Gunner, delivering his most nuanced work in years. Also present here is Rourke who's an outright show-stealer as the Expendables' handler. Rourke's tearful monologue is gut-wrenchingly powerful, affording unexpected gravitas to the proceedings. In terms of villains, Roberts oozes evil as Munroe and WWE wrestler Steve Austin is menacing as henchman Dan Paine, though Gary Daniels and David Zayas barely register.

Another huge selling point of The Expendables is the much-hyped scene featuring Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis. It's over too quickly, to be sure, but it's a hilarious and well-written scene. The punch-line is a humdinger.

Blessed with numerous amazing shootouts and some bone-crunching fisticuffs, The Expendables is an irresistibly entertaining action bonanza. It's flawed to be sure, coming across as somewhat of a cinematic experiment that suffers from budgetary constraints and studio interference (the CGI blood indicates that a PG-13 rating was on the table), but it's not without merit. Yes, The Expendables is dumb at times, as it features enemies who are slow to respond and can't shoot straight. Yes, The Expendables is clichéd and largely predictable, too, but the movie should not have been any other way. Sometimes, you have to put aside your instincts as a film critic and enjoy the ride.

7.8/10

Throughout the noughties and beyond, washed-up action stars have earned their paycheques by starring in low-budget direct-to-DVD action films, the majority of which are of a low standard. Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme are a couple of DTD stars that immediately spring to mind, and in addition to these names is Dolph Lundgren (Universal Soldier, Showdown in Little Tokyo). Despite his period in DTD prison, Dolph appears to have the potential to rise to star status once again. After demonstrating his directorial abilities with 2004's The Defender, Dolph capitalised on his strengths behind the camera for 2005's The Mechanik (also known by the generic and lousy title The Russian Specialist). Just by glancing at the DVD cover, it's easy to discern the sort of movie that The Mechanik is: an intense, fun, old-fashioned shoot-'em-up revenge flick, wherein a thin story gives way to a copious amount of action. With The Mechanik, Dolph has dived into his second directorial gig with guns fully loaded to deliver a thrilling, hardcore ride into conventional territory.

In the film, Dolph Lundgren stars as retired Russian Special Forces hitman Nikolai Cherenko who witnesses his family being slaughtered by Russian gangsters after a drug deal goes wrong. Subsequently, he illegally immigrates to the United States in order to commence a new life as a car mechanic that's free of violence and war. However, Nick is soon approached by a woman knowledgeable about his past who offers him a large sum of money to rescue her kidnapped daughter. Nick is initially reluctant to accept the job until he learns of the identity of the kidnapper: the same Russian crime boss who murdered his family years earlier. Nick wakes up the cold-blooded soldier inside him in order to settle the score.

From this point onwards, The Mechanik is merely a simple revenge saga. Dolph's Nikolai Cherenko - a stoic, wordless threat - is pitted against a cabal of unsavoury Russian gangsters, and several action sequences flow from this. The fact that Nick's objective is to rescue some hapless girl is beside the point - in actual fact, beyond a handful of brief dialogue exchanges, this relationship is fairly subdued. Like most similar action films, the girl's kidnapping is a means to an end - and in this case, that end is a surplus of dead Russian gangsters. Nothing deep is at play here; basically, it's just Dolph with a shotgun declaring "It's on". Needless to say, Cherenko is cut from the same cloth as the cold-blooded action heroes of the '80s such as Dutch Schaeffer, John Matrix, John Rambo, and Marion "Cobra" Cobretti. If you want a deep character study of a tortured hero reluctant to use firearms, watch Batman Begins. For a nourishing dose of über-macho shot-gunning, watch The Mechanik.

While action is the order of the day here, there are scenes within The Mechanik which focus on developing the characters, and this is a quality rarely seen in the genre. Meanwhile, Dolph's skill as an action director is palpable throughout; his direction is refreshingly blunt and hardcore during the exciting set-pieces. There are awesome, gory shootouts galore here, culminating with a satisfying, blood-soaked Western-style climax. Elia Cmiral's accompanying score is suitably intense and riveting, too; occasionally reminiscent of the composer's work on 1998's Ronin. However, Dolph's over-reliance on flashy cinematic techniques (most notably during the first half) is at times detrimental, with a bit too much slow motion and wacky colour saturation. It ultimately comes off as gimmicky (think Tony Scott meets John Woo). The Mechanik is flawed in other areas too. The characters are predominantly just shallow bullet fodder, the minuscule $5 million budget is relatively obvious from time to time, and the gaps between the action scenes occasionally suffer from sluggish pacing. The climax is too long, as well - it isn't chaotic enough and it outstays its welcome.

In spite of its flaws, The Mechanik is far better than one would expect. As far as I'm concerned, Dolph can continue churning out these types of action films if he wishes. With its decent script, stylish directing, above-average performances and unrestrained violence, The Mechanik supplies the best macho "you killed my family, now I kill you" experience in years. The movie may not entirely circumvent the action movie clichés, but Dolph is savvy enough to realise that nothing satisfies like a blood-soaked dosage of served-cold revenge yarn. It's baffling that Sony Pictures dumped this serviceable film into the direct-to-DVD realm while allowing horrific dirge like Are We Done Yet? and Crossover to pollute theatres across the globe. The Mechanik isn't a perfect movie or even a masterpiece of its genre, but this could have been Dolph's much-awaited theatrical comeback if it was given a bigger budget and a bit more attention.

7.2/10

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

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

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

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

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

9.2/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.2/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.9/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.2/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2/10