Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Somehow history has been rewritten. There has to be a reason this is happening, and K seems to be in the centre of it..."

For all intents and purposes, Men in Black III should have been an utter catastrophe. Compounding the law of diminishing returns and the fact that it has been a decade since the poorly-received Men in Black II, production on the flick was troubled: cameras began rolling without a finished script, and filming started and stopped. Hell, Sony apparently considered just killing the movie on account of all the rewrites and filming breaks. It's therefore phenomenal how cohesive the finished movie is. If you were none the wiser, you would never assume that Men in Black III's journey from page to screen was so problematic, as its storytelling is astonishingly fluid. Surprisingly, too, MIB III is far better and more energetic than we had any right to expect. While it lacks the original film's spark of witty brilliance, this fun threequel does come close to matching the exuberance of the first Men in Black.

The last survivor of a planet-destroying race of aliens, Boris The Terrible (Jemaine Clement) is incarcerated in a high security prison on the moon. When Boris escapes, he returns to Earth determined to exact revenge on Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) for shooting off one of his arms and arresting him years earlier. To prevent the removal of his limb, Boris travels back in time to 1969 to murder K, successfully erasing him from the present and causing a time ripple. In the present, only Agent J (Will Smith) can remember his now long-deceased partner, and he takes it upon himself to prevent K's death. With an alien attack threatening to destroy present-day Earth, J follows Boris back to 1969 where he meets young Agent K (Josh Brolin). Forced to become reluctant partners, K and J set out to stop Boris' master plan.

The Men in Black series started out as a goofy take on alien invasion films, but, for some reason, Men in Black III is more of a straight action flick with not as much emphasis on laughs. The budget was ridiculously high (reports place the final price tag at $375 million, including marketing), essentially forcing director Barry Sonnenfeld and the writers to focus on large-scale action set-pieces to effectively compete for summer box office dollars. To be sure, though, there is still a smattering of humour, and it's of a better standard than anticipated. Whenever the script mines for comedy, there are laughs to be had (J's one-liners are often amusing, although they may have been improvised by Smith). But what's disappointing is how few and far between the best laughs are, not to mention there are no genuine belly-laughs here on the same level as 1997's Men in Black.

As to be expected from a big-budget 2012 blockbuster, Men in Black III is an attractive film. With such an enormous budget, Sonnenfeld and his team have created some truly eye-popping action set-pieces which were brought to life with borderline photorealistic digital effects and animatronics. Fortunately, the legendary Rick Baker returned here to design and create the new set of aliens. Baker's efforts are predictably brilliant, stuffing Sonnenfeld's frame with imaginative extraterrestrials and further blurring the line between what's animatronic and what's digital. Then there's composer Danny Elfman, a series veteran whose music gives the picture further energy and zest. (For the record, the franchise's trademark theme is present and accounted for.) The climax is a bit on the clunky side, though - most troublesome is a fight between Boris and Agent J which yields an especially confusing moment that looks to be the result of frantic re-editing. Plus, the final minute or so introduces a cheap gag designed to close the door with a smile, but the moment feels forced and redundant.

It has been four years since Will Smith last starred in a film, but the actor has not lost his charisma or magnetism. Back as Agent J for the first time in a decade, Smith is as charming as ever, scoring laughs through top-notch comic timing and spot-on line delivery. But the show-stealer here is Josh Brolin as young Agent K, presenting a note-perfect imitation of Tommy Lee Jones. He nails Jones' mannerisms, steely facial expressions and deadpan line deliveries, not to mention Brolin actually resembles the actor. It's more than mere mimicry too, as Brolin embodies young K to effectively present an early version of the iconic character. It's impressive stuff. Best of all, Brolin has honest-to-goodness chemistry with Will Smith, and his inclusion makes the pairing of Agent K and Agent J feel fresh again. In fact, some of Men in Black III's finest moments involve the two men casually bantering rather than battling aliens. Meanwhile, Jemaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords) is a solid villain who makes a menacing impression whenever he's on-screen. Also in the cast is the underrated Michael Stuhlbarg who plays a fifth-dimensional being with the ability to see all versions of the future. His quick-paced talking is outstanding, and Stuhlbarg always remains eminently watchable. However, Tommy Lee Jones is unfortunately relegated to an extended cameo appearance, showing up for 20 minutes tops over the entire movie. Jones is great in his limited scenes, so it's a shame that there isn't more of them.

This reviewer is one of the three people on the planet who enjoys Men in Black II, but MIB III is definitely a marked improvement over its immediate predecessor. Still, it's not as good as the original MIB. The partnership of Smith and Brolin gives the series back its spark, yet the endeavour does seem a bit routine. Oh, and there's no Frank the Pug, which is worsened by the fact that Sonnenfeld apparently wanted to rub this in - Agent J has a large poster of Frank on his wall, and in the background at one stage there's a poster advertising "The Amazing Speaking Pug". Seriously, what gives? This aside, Men in Black III is a fun time. It even closes with a poignant twist that strengthens K and J's relationship and will make you watch the entire series in a new light. Room is left wide open for a fourth instalment, too, which this reviewer is actually looking forward to.

6.8/10

"What the hell did you do, kid?"

2012's Safe is a Jason Statham action vehicle in the truest sense, and in no way is that a bad thing. It delivers all the elements we have come to expect from The Stath's movies - including shootouts, fisticuffs, and cheesy one-liners - but what's surprising about Safe is how genuinely skilful it is. It falls short of revolutionising the genre, yet this material fits Statham's limited acting range like a glove, resulting in a proficient blast of thrilling action mayhem that deftly energises its standard-order plot constituents. It's a barebones B-movie, but writer-director Boaz Yakin refuses to fall victim to the pitfalls of similar efforts, showing a clear understanding of how to excel in the art of cinematic junk food without denying his target audience the simple pleasures that they demand. For action connoisseurs seeking something to satiate their desire for brutal beatdowns and exhilarating gun battles, Safe is the cup of manic machismo they will go gaga for.

After unintentionally losing a fixed fight, former cop-turned-cage-fighter Luke (Jason Statham) is sentenced to a miserable existence by Russian gangsters. They kill Luke's pregnant wife and promise to kill anybody he befriends in the future, forcing the broken man to live on the streets without purpose. While on the verge of suicide, Luke witnesses a young Chinese girl, Mei (Catherine Chan), being hunted by the same Russians who ruined his life, and he decides to rescue her. A little genius with a photographic memory, Mei was kidnapped by Chinese gangsters to memorise numbers and thus eliminate paper trails. As it turns out, the Chinese, the Russians, corrupt New York cops, and even the Mayor want to gain a secret code that Mei has memorised. Determined to protect Mei, Luke goes on the run with a newfound reason to live, killing pursuers at every turn.

One of Safe's biggest assets is that the story unfolds at an agreeable clip. While the narrative is a tad more dense than its superficial set-up, the explanations of the story's ins and outs are brisk enough to ensure that the pace never slows to a crawl yet detailed enough to ensure viewers will not feel lost or confused. Thankfully, character development is equally effective and efficient. Thus, Safe is stripped down to a satisfying extent without feeling underdone. Furthermore, although this is not the most intelligent action movie in existence, it's not in-your-face stupid either, and that's a huge deal in a world where Michael Bay exists. Boaz Yakin may have spent his career on peaceful movies of varying quality (including Uptown Girls), but his handling of this material is astonishingly competent. Yakin achieves what most action directors yearn for: a level of energy so engaging that you will not want to stop and overthink things. Best of all, Yakin displays no interest in corny melodrama.

Action connoisseurs - especially those who have grown weary of generic, watered-down PG-13 tosh - owe it to themselves to check out Safe since it's more or less a personal valentine to them. Trust me, the shootouts, car chases, and fights here are all of the highest order. Each set piece is intense and frenetic, and Yakin and cinematographer Stefan Czapsky manage to achieve this effect while capturing the action in an entirely comprehensible fashion. Best of all, the action scenes are brutal. The fight choreography here is some of the best in recent memory, and Yakin takes advantage of every opportunity to orchestrate violent gun battles in a deliriously brazen way. The editing may be somewhat frenetic at times, but there is no distracting shaky cam. Safe looks damn good as well, with attractive production values, slick cinematography and Mark Mothersbaugh's pulse-pounding score, all of which were achieved on the meagre $30 million budget. In terms of visuals and technical competency, this is a home run. It's rare to find an action film this well-made.

Jason Statham's participation in the Expendables series has ostensibly set him up as a successor to the likes of Sly and Arnie, and Safe further proves that he's one of this generation's last true action heroes. In the tradition of '80s action icons, Statham is a star who's content to play the same character repeatedly...and that's fine: he has found a niche that suits him, and he's just playing to this strength. Statham's badass screen presence makes him an agreeable action hero, and it's somewhat soothing to see him doing what he does best. Fortunately, Statham works really well with co-star Catherine Chan as Mei. Meanwhile, the rest of the actors are just fine - they suit their roles perfectly and always seem immersed in the material.

A vicious and visceral actioner, Safe is an enjoyable ride. It's nothing you'll remember a few days after viewing, but it's nothing you'll regret spending your time on, either. One could criticise the film since it fails to break new ground, but that is what makes it so refreshing: it energetically retreads familiar ground without any boring pretensions. It is best likened to a hot fudge sundae: a not-exactly-fancy concoction that nevertheless delivers plenty of delicious ice cream and irresistible chocolate chutzpah.

7.8/10

"America! The birthplace of AIDS!"

Who would've thought that Sacha Baron Cohen had another new character in him? The talented performer fooled the world using the personas of Ali G, Borat and Bruno, and now Cohen has re-teamed with director Larry Charles to introduce another comic creation for another hard-R comedy destined to be both controversial and polarising. Like Cohen and Charles' prior collaborations, The Dictator is a character-based comedy more concerned with vignettes than storytelling, but this is a scripted movie with slick production values instead of a mockumentary. Fortunately, though, the controversial punch of Borat and Bruno remains - The Dictator is gleefully un-PC, to the extent that it even kicks off with a title card announcing itself to be dedicated to the memory of Kim Jong Il. But what's disappointing is that Cohen's brilliant new caricature has been situated within a paint-by-numbers plot.

A flagrant dictator, Admiral General Aladeen (Cohen) rules the North African Republic of Wadiya with an iron fist and zero tolerance. Suspected of war crimes and a secret nuclear arms program, Aladeen agrees to travel to New York City to address the charges against him in front of the UN. Upon arrival, a government official (Reilly) kidnaps Aladeen and strips him of his iconic beard. Stranded on the streets of NYC where nobody will recognise him, Aladeen is taken in by a feminist, activist and grocery store manager named Zoey (Faris) who believes Aladeen is actually a political refugee named Allison Burgers. Meanwhile, Aladeen's backstabbing confidant Tamir (Kingsley) begins to use an idiotic Aladeen body double to represent Wadiya in front of the UN and announce that the nation will become a democracy. Appalled by the notion of equality and peace, Aladeen teams up with former nuclear scientist Nadal (Mantzoukas) as he sets out to reclaim his power.

The Dictator is welcomely brisk. Charles keeps the flick taut and disciplined, charging ahead with maximum momentum and brevity to ensure the film never outstays its welcome. On the downside, the story is too standard-order - its twists and turns are pure formula, leading to an ending which introduces generic character arcs. Sure, Cohen and Charles likely felt that Aladeen needed to change his ways since it's challenging to sympathise or care about a murdering terrorist, but is such an arc really necessary in what's meant to be a dark, politically incorrect comedy? And did the pair really have to opt for a story as overdone and thin as this? The romantic subplot with Zoey, meanwhile, is clichéd hogwash. The Dictator should have merely served as a playground for Cohen to go nuts with his new role (the notion of him trolling the UN is a feature-length film premise in itself), but Aladeen's shenanigans are less fun and even somewhat restricted when everything is so written and doctored.

Fortunately, The Dictator is an utter hoot whenever Sacha Baron Cohen does what he does best. The picture is littered with great gags and one-liners, most of which are in appalling taste. Cohen is an equal opportunity comedian - he sucker punches everyone and every taste here. Consequently, at any time half the audience will be offended while the other half will be laughing uproariously. And my word, the best jokes here are almost on the same level as Borat. On top of offensive dialogue (including rape jokes, sexist jokes and racist jokes), a few sight gags are destined to be controversial (including a terrorist Wii game that allows Aladeen to behead people and re-enact the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre). Cohen's humour occasionally has bite, too - he attacks China, satirises America's current political state in a very ballsy way, and generally pokes holes in widespread ideologies. Due to its extreme content, though, The Dictator is not for every taste. This is a picture designed for those who enjoy Cohen's typical brand of provocative humour and/or R-rated comedies in general. If you felt that Borat and Bruno crossed the line, this is not a movie for you.

Sacha Baron Cohen is an utterly fearless performer. He's a fine cinematic troll who'll go to great lengths - no matter the cost - to sell his characters' personas and make people laugh. Not every joke is gold here, but you cannot fault Cohen's sheer eagerness in the role of Admiral General Aladeen. Another standout in the cast is Jason Mantzoukas as Nadal. Mantzoukas scores a number of huge laughs, and his chemistry with Cohen is marvellous; it's pure gold to watch the bantering between the two. As for Anna Faris, the actress does a fine job as Zoey. There are also numerous celebrity cameos scattered throughout the picture which are too amusing to spoil.

The end of Cohen's hidden camera productions was inevitable, as Borat and Bruno stirred up such a ruckus that people are bound to recognise Cohen no matter how much make-up he wears. This is all well and good, but The Dictator does feel too calculated. The charm of Borat was how raw and spontaneous it felt (no matter how scripted some sections might have been), whereas this flick is polished to an almost detrimental degree. Still, The Dictator is frequently hilarious to such an extent that it's worth seeing. Fans of Sacha Baron Cohen will most likely enjoy it.

6.8/10

"You don't expect your family to understand what you're doing. You just hope they understand you're doing it for them, and when you get home you hope you can pick-up right where you left off."

Gritty realism is the name of the game for 2012's Act of Valor. For the production, directors Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh set out to create the most true-to-life cinematic depiction of war combat to date as well as paint a realistic portrait of America's Navy SEALs. To achieve this, the directors recruited real-life, active SEALs to play the protagonists, who brought to the project all of their collective knowledge about operating procedures and battles that ordinary writers would have to spend years researching. Shy of enlisting, Act of Valor is the closest that movie-goers will come to experiencing what it's like to be on the lam alongside Navy SEALs, but the film unfortunately lacks humanity and substance. Its narrative is drab and borderline incomprehensible, and the SEALs themselves are stilted performers.

When a CIA agent (Sanchez) is kidnapped by drug smuggler-come-arms dealer Chriso (Veadov), an elite team of Navy SEALs are dispatched on a rescue mission. Upon moving in and recovering the hostage, though, the SEALs begin to unravel a devastating terrorist plot involving an army of suicide bombers carrying undetectable explosives who plan to take down iconic U.S. landmarks. This compels the SEAL squad into action, setting out on a worldwide tour to apprehend the terrorists before it's too late.

Comparisons between Act of Valor and the likes of Call of Duty are not unwarranted - the movie's narrative logic is akin to that of a video game, and, whenever the squad are engaged in combat, there are several shots from the points of view of various SEALs which resemble something from a first-person shooter. Reportedly, the filmmakers largely used live ammunition while filming the action scenes. This may seem like a silly risk, but it effectively augments the sense of immediacy since it genuinely looks as if guns are being discharged. The film earns its R rating, too, as it pulls no punches when it comes to portraying the realities of a fire-fight. This is one of the most realistic and breathtaking depictions of combat in a film to date, alongside Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down. The fact that this technical magnificence was accomplished for a scant $12 million is nothing short of a miracle. Apparently, too, pretty much nothing in the film is CGI - most everything in the frame (aside from a handful of blood splatters) was executed with old-fashioned practical effects, and this works in the film's favour. Indeed, Act of Valor is a true '80s picture in spirit, though the at times distractingly frenetic camerawork is a bit too much on the modern side.

Unfortunately, Act of Valor offers very little to grasp onto between the action sequences, as it lacks humanity. Dialogue is often stale, and the SEALs perpetually remain empty ciphers devoid of personality traits. The attempts to give these guys dimension seem half-hearted, too, and as a result none of them ever come across as flesh-and-blood humans. Since the characters are so underdeveloped, the action scenes do not possess the feeling of jeopardy and nail-biting tension that could have catapulted the film to excellence. Furthermore, the story's progressions don't entirely mesh - the script plays out more in line with Mission: Impossible or 24. Navy SEALs only handle individual missions in real-life, yet Act of Valor shows them to be a squad of determined Ethan Hunts and Jack Bauers who foil super-villains as they trot across the globe.

You have got to hand it to Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh: their decision to cast actual Navy SEALs was a great idea in theory. The depiction of the way that they operate is spot-on, and it's fascinating to watch this stuff and absorb all of the tiny nuances of modern military operations. At the end of the day, though, Navy SEAL operatives are not actors, and this fact is really obvious. Their terse dialogue in action sounds pitch-perfect, but only because they're meant to sound so wooden in such instances. The intimate, dialogue-heavy scenes, on the other hand, are incredibly boring. The effort to make the protagonists interesting is appreciated, but the result is tedious.

A lot of critics have dismissed Act of Valor as a jingoistic affair that just feels like an army recruitment tool, but, to the film's credit, it doesn't contain the cheesy bravado or the over-the-top patriotism of more commercial Hollywood blockbusters (see The Delta Force). Still, Act of Valor is not perfect. It has a handful of must-see action scenes, yet interest wanes whenever it trudges through expositional patches. It's a somewhat unsuccessful cinematic experiment, though it's not entirely without merit.

6.1/10

"Two centuries ago, I made Collinwood my home... until a jealous witch cursed me, condemning me to the shadows, for all time."

Dark Shadows is one strange flick. It's Burton-esque in the truest sense, yet it's a far cry from the genius usually associated with this descriptor. The eighth collaboration of director Tim Burton and star Johnny Depp, Dark Shadows is an utter mess; narrative strands are all over the shop, character relationships are skimmed over, mythology is confused, and the tone veers wildly from pure horror to campy comedy. As a result, the picture never comes together in any cohesive or satisfying way. To its credit, the film is most certainly not the boisterous comedy its terrible marketing implied, as it seems to be more of a serious gothic horror movie. Nevertheless, this big-budget adaptation of the old TV soap opera of the same name is an utter disappointment, only occasionally displaying the hints of brilliance which should have pervaded its entire 110-minute runtime.

In the 1700s, the Collins Family travel to the New World where they set down permanent roots and establish a successful fishing enterprise. When Barnabas Collins (Depp) falls in love with the beautiful Josette (Heathcote), jealous witch Angelique (Green) enacts a curse which leaves Josette dead and turns Barnabas into an unwitting bloodsucker who's buried alive by the pitchfork-waving community. When Barnabas is finally set loose from his coffin two centuries later in 1972, his beloved mansion and the Collins name is in disarray. Looking to restore the family name, Barnabas tries to motivate his dysfunctional descendants into action, all the while bonding with the family's new governess Victoria (Heathcote again) who bears a strong resemblance to his long-lost love Josette. Meanwhile, Angelique hears that Barnabas is back above the ground. Having been infatuated with him for centuries, Angelique vows that she will either have him for herself once and for all, or destroy him for good.

Structurally, Dark Shadows is confused and jumbled, as screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith tried to squeeze as many character arcs, secrets and relationships as he could from 1,200 TV episodes into one self-contained feature. The problem is felt most glaringly in the subplot concerning Victoria. We're initially led to believe that Victoria has major significance in the story, yet she barely seems to exists once Barnabas arrives (despite her burgeoning romance with him). For that matter, all of the characters are short changed - this is The Johnny Depp Show, permitting little room for any other players to receive sufficient development. Thus, the film is mainly constituted of scenes which make fun of the fact that Barnabas is either out of place in the 20th Century or is a vampire who experiences life differently. The only actual story and character development happens through montage (including the Barnabas/Victoria romance, for Christ sake). Hell, in the space between two scenes, Barnabas even manages to mysteriously organise an enormous party out of nowhere, even securing Alice Cooper as the party's entertainment. Furthermore, as a result of so little character development, nothing ever seems to be at stake, rendering Dark Shadows hopelessly empty. And when characters suddenly reveal their powers/secrets during the climax, it only leads to several "What the fuck?!" moments.

The key issue with Dark Shadows is one of tone, since the comedic moments are far too broad. It's therefore jarring to see Barnabas mercilessly slaughtering people one moment, and in the next moment seeing a series of sight gags within musical montages. Even more bewildering is a bizarre love scene in which Barnabas and Angelique literally bounce off the walls together. Nothing quite meshes in the movie - imagine the broad comedy of Mars Attacks! playing out between the horrific scenes of Sleepy Hollow. Dark comedy is fine in a movie like this, but a murderous vampire talking about "birthing hips" is not. Burton usually excels at tone, yet he seems positively lost here.

Ironically, the problem may actually be Johnny Depp. The other performers seem to be aiming for a sombre tone, yet Depp is too quirky and broad when he should be dramatic and macabre. Barnabas is established to be a murderer, not a Beetlejuice-like creation better suited for The Addams Family. Out of the cast, the most notable standout is Bella Heathcote. The little-known Australian actress (previously seen in 2010's Beneath Hill 60) possesses a natural beauty and an inherent understanding of drama and romance. She's positively disarming whenever she shows up, so it's a shame that her talents are so underutilised. The rest of the actors are fine, though they, too, lack sufficient opportunities to distinguish themselves. To pay tribute to the television show and vampire movies in general, several original Dark Shadows cast members (including the original Barnabas Collins, Jonathan Frid, who died shortly before the film's release) and Christopher Lee show up for cameos which don't amount to much. Alice Cooper's brief cameo is a highlight, however.

To Tim Burton's credit, he can still orchestrate horror commendably well. When Dark Shadows is dark, it takes off marvellously. The first 20 minutes or so are particularly good - the prologue is spot-on, with sumptuous production values and Danny Elfman's atmospheric score promising that something moody and creepy is to come. Following this, the haunting melodies of the song Nights in White Satin play over the opening credits, which is a masterful touch. What a shame that things subsequently begin to decline. To be sure, Dark Shadows has enough isolated moments of brilliance to ensure that it's worth checking out for fans of Burton and/or Depp. Or perhaps these moments will just prove frustrating to said fans, as they'll only see hints of the limitless potential that the film fails to capitalise upon.

5.4/10

"Were we just as obnoxious as these kids back in the day?"

Does anyone honestly care about the American Pie series anymore? The franchise's glory days are long gone; 2003's lacklustre American Wedding and a string of abominable straight-to-video spin-offs (minus Jason Biggs and co) effectively sent the brand name to the morgue. Enter 2012's American Reunion, for which most all of the original cast members were rounded up for another theatrical outing of nudity and sexual gags. Rather than using this sequel as an opportunity to reinvent the series with fresh maturity, the film instead reheats old jokes, placing the aging protagonists in exactly the same type of situations that they endured a decade ago. Thus, the whole enterprise is nothing groundbreaking, but American Reunion is a fun and energetic comedy destined to please any fans of the series who still exist. It's better than its high franchise number would have you assume, and it's the best American Pie sequel yet.

It has been 13 years since the boys of East Great Falls graduated from high school. Since none of them were bothered enough to organise a 10-year class reunion, a 13-year reunion is decided upon, and the whole class is scheduled to attend. Jim (Biggs) is now in a troubled, sexless marriage with Michelle (Hannigan), Kevin (Nicholas) is facing an emasculating home life with his spouse, Oz (Klein) is an ESPN host, and Finch (Thomas) is full of stories about global adventure and travel. Looking to spend some quality drinking time together, Jim, Kevin, Oz and Finch decide to congregate in their hometown a few days before the reunion. Unfortunately, the infamous Stifler (Scott) manages to get himself involved in their shenanigans as well...

The original creator of American Pie, Adam Herz, assumed executive producing duties here - the writing and directing responsibilities were instead entrusted to Harold and Kumar creators Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg. They may not have taken part in the first film, but Hurwitz and Schlossberg's understanding of the franchise's appeal and respect for the characters is evident in every frame of American Reunion. The pair clearly knew exactly what made the series so popular in the first place, and they set out to replicate the same type of humour and create new vignettes reminiscent of key scenes from prior movies. The gags aren't always home runs, but it's surprising how many of them actually land. Furthermore, Hurwitz and Schlossberg didn't baulk from exploring the realities of adulthood; the feeling that our lives have not played out in line with our dreams, and the realisation that things will never be the same as they were in teenage-hood. It gives the film evidence of depth and thought.

While prowling for laughs, American Reunion is a complete hoot, and it consistently maintains a high level of energy to prevent boredom from setting in. The dramatic elements, on the other hand, are far less successful. As a matter of fact, it feels as if another writer was exclusively responsible for the drama. It doesn't help that the serious stuff is so clichéd: a troubled marriage, tension between former lovers, friendships falling apart, a girl throwing herself at Jim, and so on. All of the plot crises were ripped straight out of the "Faux Heart" chapter in the comedy handbook, and they aren't handled well enough to come across as anything but conventional distractions. At the very least, though, there is not a lot of drama. In fact, American Reunion is focused on laughs for a good 80% of its runtime, and it refuses to revel in the despondent periods. Unfortunately, however, the actual reunion is more of a minor footnote to the movie's comedic vignettes than a key set-piece. An extra 5 or 10 minutes of watching old characters reuniting (there are a few far-too-short cameos) could have made the film feel more complete.

It had been many years since the ensemble had adopted these iconic personas, but every single one of them effortlessly slipped back into their former roles as if no time had passed. The central group of boys - Jason Biggs, Chris Klein, Thomas Ian Nicholas, Eddie Kay Thomas and Seann William Scott - are especially good, delivering a lot of laughs and enjoyably bringing their characters back to life. Suffice it to say, the extraordinarily game Scott scores an enormous amount of laughs as Stifler. But the one who steals the show is Eugene Levy as Jim's Dad (who has somehow starred in all American Pie films, including all of the straight-to-video malarkey). Levy's comedic instincts are incredibly sharp and he has a soothing screen presence, not to mention it never looks as if Levy is merely present for the paycheque.

For long-time fans, it will prove to be a treat to catch up with the likes of Jim, Finch, Kevin and Oz (who was AWOL in American Wedding) once again, and to see how adulthood is treating them. American Reunion can be enjoyed by anybody who has a taste for these types of bawdy R-rated comedies, but the film is also a respectful love note to fans of the franchise who have been following the lives of these guys for so long. The film gives all of the protagonists the character arcs that they deserve, leaving us optimistic about what the future holds for them. Indeed, the movie does have heart underneath its sex comedy routine. It's pleasantly surprising that the film feels less like a shameless cash-grab and more like a creative way to bring closure to this series.

7.1/10

"You will learn someday that being half human, makes you stronger than a god."

Did you see 2010's Clash of the Titans remake? Judging from the film's box office gross of almost $500 million and the strong home video sales, there's a good chance you did. Now here's another question: did you like it? I'm guessing not... Clash of the Titans was a one-off anomaly which did strong business despite being badly-received, and then, a few months later, nobody cared about it any longer. Added to this, the film is notorious for being the poster child of terrible 3-D since it underwent a hasty conversion in post-production. Two years later, the quickie sequel Wrath of the Titans is now upon us, with the folks at Warner Bros. hoping to turn the profitable but unloved first instalment into a money-making franchise. While this is a better film than its rocky predecessor and while it improves the experience in a number of ways, the filmmakers nonetheless failed to take heed of all previous mistakes. Consequently, there's still no reason to care about this series.

Approximately a decade after he defeated the Kraken, demigod Perseus (Worthington) has settled into the peaceful life of a fisherman, raising young son Helius (Bell) following the premature death of his wife. The Age of Gods is coming to an end, though; people have stopped praying, and thus the immortality of the Gods is in danger. Perseus' father Zeus (Neeson) seeks to make peace with his brother Hades (Fiennes), but he's promptly captured by Hades and Ares (Ramírez), who have joined forces to release the leader of the titans, Kronos, and become immortal. Zeus' powers are being sapped in order to free Kronos, and Perseus is compelled back into action when news of this reaches his ears. With demigod Agenor (Kebble) and Queen Andromeda (Pike) by his side, Perseus assembles an army and sets out to both free Zeus and forge a super-weapon able to destroy Kronos.

Keen film-goers will recognise that this is pretty much the same plot as 2011's Immortals. Such familiarity is the least of Wrath of the Titans' problems, though. Dan Mazeau and David Johnson's script is a dangerously dry concoction, ignoring the importance of strong characters in favour of a stripped-down experience devoid of humanity. Critics often overuse the analogy "This movie feels like a video game", but Wrath of the Titans literally does progress like a typical video game - once the set-up is in place, the film follows a very simple, game-like formula: the characters travel to a new location, look around for a little while, and then have a boss battle. Rinse and repeat. In between, we get a further glimpse of what's at stake. This culminates with an ultimate boss battle. The characters remain blank slates throughout all of this, and we are never permitted a chance to get to know them or even understand their motivations. Due to how interchangeable all of the characters are, the ensemble cast is the equivalent of a pack of rice cakes. The dialogue is frequently tin-eared, as well. It's not that the dialogue sticks out as terrible; it's that it's too bland to stick out at all.

Clash of the Titans particularly faltered in its climax, as the Kraken was defeated too quickly and easily. Wrath of the Titans likewise fails on this front. While Kronos' eventual emergence from the bowels of the Earth makes for an awesome reveal, the intimidating monster doesn't do a great deal at all. Instead, he's defeated after barely a few minutes of screen combat. As a result, the ending feels too easy and there's no real tension. As a matter of fact, there's no suspense or tension to any of the proceedings. At the very least, though, the action sequences are often enjoyable and the film maintains a fun matinee vibe throughout. To the credit of director Jonathan Liebesman, the action elements are far more assured here than in Clash of the Titans. Devoid of irritating shaky-cam, the action beats are a highlight, especially with the impressive digital effects. Like its predecessor, Wrath of the Titans was also converted to 3-D in post-production. Surprisingly, the conversion is astonishingly good, generating a strong sense of three-dimensionality. In fact, if you were none the wiser, you could easily believe that it was filmed with 3-D cameras.

In Clash of the Titans, Sam Worthington had trouble settling on an accent for his role of Perseus, as he haphazardly alternated between faux American to mildly British to Australian. Here, the star completely embraced his native Australian accent and made no effort to change his voice. Such a thick Aussie accent sounds out of place in a movie concerned with Greek mythology, but at least he's consistent this time. Unfortunately, though, his performance here as a whole is underwhelming. Worthington displayed immense charisma in 2009's Avatar, but here he seems to be on autopilot. The same can be said for most everyone else in the cast, though Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes do admittedly ooze gravitas as Zeus and Hades (respectively). The only standout is Bill Nighy, but he's criminally underused. Nighy is a hammy delight as Hephaestus, sparking the picture to life with an injection of sorely-needed personality. Alas, he departs the picture after merely a few short scenes, completing wasting a golden opportunity.

It's a seriously flawed movie, but at least Wrath of the Titans is not excruciating. It's forgettable and superficial of course, but it won't make you lose the will to live. In essence, this is just one of those movies that's better seen than heard. In visual terms it's a home run, with luscious CGI and grand set design marvellously selling the illusion of this vast fantasyland. Whenever the characters stop to talk, though, your brain will likely lose interest and switch off, as the picture foregrounds weak actors while utterly wasting the good performers. Just imagine what a picture with eye candy of this magnitude would be like if viewers could become emotionally invested in the characters and their circumstances. Food for thought.

5.5/10

"There was an idea to bring together a group of remarkable people, so when we needed them, they could fight the battles that we never could..."

At long last, Marvel Studios has successfully pulled it off. Four years after Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk signalled the beginning of an interconnected cinematic superhero universe, 2012's The Avengers - Marvel's ultimate endpoint thus far - is finally here. Arriving with the intimidating burden of expectations following five interconnected Marvel superhero films, not to mention the decades of comic book history preceding it, The Avengers is in safe hands with self-professed geek Joss Whedon (2005's Serenity) serving as writer-director. Harnessing his unparalleled talent for witty dialogue and character dynamics, Whedon defies the odds to deliver the ultimate summer blockbuster spectacle. With more intelligence and dramatic heft than the Transformers franchise, and boasting many breathtaking action sequences, fanboys can rest assured that The Avengers is worth both the wait and the hype.

When Asgardian prince Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the mischievous brother of demigod Thor (Chris Hemsworth), arrives on Earth, he steals a powerful cosmic cube known as the Tesseract. Loki plans to put Earth under his submission and enslave humanity with the aid of the Chitauri. Faced with an unprecedented threat, S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) works to unite the only beings capable of saving the planet from total annihilation: genius billionaire Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), WWII super-soldier Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), brilliant scientist Bruce Banner/The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor, as well as master assassins Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). Although initially only recruited to find the Tesseract, it fast becomes apparent that large-scale combat is inevitable to defend the Earth.

Whedon had ample baggage to handle when going into The Avengers. On top of formulating a self-contained story, Whedon also needed to advance the individual stories of each character and balance the large congregation of iconic heroes...and all without making the flick seem bloated. Against all the odds, Whedon pulls it off. Indeed, The Avengers feels like a complete and cohesive motion picture, as opposed to a "greatest hits" montage of CGI-laden action sequences. Admittedly, the first half occasionally keeps us at arm's length due to the narrative's complex machinations, but the second half is pitch-perfect beat-by-beat. Everything works perfectly from the midpoint onwards - the drama, the one-liners, the ensemble dynamics, the narrative goings-on, and the action sequences are all spot-on. Furthermore, Whedon does not short-change any of Earth's Mightiest Heroes, as they all play meaningful roles in the story, and receive adequate screen-time for their respective arcs to grow and percolate. Additionally, Whedon leaves logical room for both another Avengers movie as well as solo adventures for the central characters. However, one should not watch The Avengers without viewing the previous films (though The Incredible Hulk is wholly optional and inessential). Whedon does briefly reintroduce each character to bring the audience back up to speed, but the experience is more richly rewarding and cathartic for established Marvel Cinematic Universe viewers.

Unlike less skilful blockbusters, no plot holes or bewildering story elements blemish The Avengers, and, despite a narrative involving intergalactic flights of fantasy and extraordinary advances in technology, the story's internal logic never collapses in on itself. Plus, unlike The Dark Knight, this is not a joyless superhero experience - instead, a fun atmosphere (similar to films like The Dirty Dozen) enlivens The Avengers, with fun derived from both snappy banter as well as the action set-pieces. Anyone familiar with Whedon's writing (Firefly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) should not find it surprising that the dialogue sparkles as vibrantly as the digital effects, with several genuine laugh-out-loud moments scattered throughout the picture. Luckily, though, the story's dramatic elements are still taken seriously, and there is always the sense that a lot is at stake. Although Whedon abides by the established formula of the heroes coming back together to save the Earth after utterly failing, this story development carries genuine weight after the events of the second act.

21st Century blockbuster filmmakers too often rely on disorientating rapid-fire editing and shaky cinematography to generate the faux illusion of excitement. On the other hand, Joss Whedon eschews lazy shortcuts like this, instead staging enthralling large-scale action sequences which benefit from elegant, sturdy cinematography. Most audacious is a single tracking shot which moves through the climactic devastation, shifting from one Avenger to the next, showing us awe-inspiring capabilities of Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Moreover, during the climax, Whedon focuses more on the interactions between the heroes as they banter and plan strategies, in addition to observing the innocents caught up in the mayhem. This approach generates a crucial sense of humanity, again elevating The Avengers above Michael Bay's regular output. Indeed, Whedon (working with editors Jeffrey Ford and Lisa Lassek) favours rhythm, suspense and dramatic payoffs as opposed to empty, frenetic bombast. Additionally, the special effects and production values consistently impress, thanks to the gargantuan $220 million budget. The Avengers delivers the goods time and time again, leaving you in utter awe. The definitive touch is Alan Silvestri's stimulating original score, which bursts with flavour and majesty, giving The Avengers a distinctive cinematic identity. In particular, the main Avengers theme is brilliantly memorable.

The Avengers boasts a cast of staggering enormity, yet the ensemble shares fantastic chemistry and works exceptionally well together. Leading the pack is Downey, who retains the razor-sharp comedic timing and irresistible charm which originally rendered him the perfect cinematic Tony Stark/Iron Man. Downey provides the lion's share of the comic relief, particularly while interacting with the supporting cast as personalities clash. Alongside him, Evans remains note-perfect as Captain America, once again showing an innate sense of boy scout goodness and morality while also advancing his character maturation. In addition, Hemsworth is still a fine Thor, and Renner makes a strong impression as Hawkeye despite limited screen-time (something he resentfully spoke about in interviews). Reprising her role from Iron Man 2, meanwhile, Johansson is a complete delight as Black Widow - she's sexy and believable, and kicks some serious butt. The last Avenger is the Hulk, who confidently steals the show. After two Hulk movies of mediocre quality, Whedon finally does the character justice. Taking over the role from Edward Norton, Ruffalo is an appealing Bruce Banner, while the digital effects that bring the Hulk to life are spectacular. Plus, yes, the Hulk smashes stuff real good and, yes, it's fucking awesome.

Luckily, the supporting players equally assured. Jackson was born to play Nick Fury, as he oozes cool and charisma, and looks intrinsically badass with an eye-patch. Similarly excellent is Hiddleston, who here reprises his role from 2011's Thor. Hiddleston is both charming and sinister as the Norse God of Mischief, making for one of the best villains in recent memory. Rounding out the cast are a few more robust carryovers from prior MCU films, including Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson, Stellan Skarsgård as Dr. Selvig, and Gwyneth Paltrow as Tony Stark's loyal companion, Pepper Potts.

An exhilarating victory lap for Marvel Studios, The Avengers is simultaneously a superlative Marvel blockbuster and an outstanding Joss Whedon film. It's refreshing to see a summer movie which provides popcorn-munching delights without insulting one's intelligence, and it's equally refreshing to see a superhero movie which avoids the "dark, gloomy and gritty" approach. The benefits of Whedon's involvement cannot be overstated; without his talent for handling ensembles or writing snappy dialogue, The Avengers could have been a messy letdown. Thus, let's be thankful that the end result is an extraordinary success with infinite replay value. It will inspire absolute ecstasy in comic book enthusiasts, and, thankfully, casual viewers should also find The Avengers to be a deliriously enjoyable, crowd-pleasing blockbuster. Be sure to stick around for additional scenes during and after the credits.

9.2/10

"And it was decreed that each year, the 12 districts of Panem should offer up a tribute of one young man and woman between the ages of 12 and 18 to be trained in the art of survival and to be prepared to fight to the death."

With Harry Potter's final instalment having come and gone, and with the Twilight franchise finally preparing to exeunt with its final entry (at least we fucking hope), The Hunger Games is primed to be the start of the next huge cinematic franchise. It's based on Suzanne Collins' novel of the same name; the first in series of books which are exceptionally popular with teenagers due to the story's focus on young love. The franchise is definitely far sturdier than the insufferable Twilight, yet this first Hunger Games instalment comes packaged with its own array of issues. While the picture will almost certainly satiate pre-established fans (who can miraculously keep a straight face when they read such names as Katniss, Haymitch and Peeta), The Hunger Games is merely a decent movie which had the potential to be great.

Set in a post-apocalyptic future, the story takes place in the nation of Panem which is divided into 12 districts of industry. Each year, an event called The Hunger Games takes place, wherein a male and female teenager are randomly selected from each district to be carted away to the Capitol for a week of intense media exposure and training...before they are set loose and forced to kill each other for the nation's entertainment. 24 contestants enter, and there can only be one victor. In District 12, Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) volunteers to compete in the games to keep her little sister (Shields) out of harm's way. Along with her district's male contestant Peeta (Hutcherson), Katniss heads off to the Capitol under the care of mentor Haymitch (Harrelson) and stylist Cinna (Kravitz) who see the young woman as a potential winner due to her superb hunting skills, knowledge of nature and sheer determination. As the slaughtering begins, Katniss finds herself battling tough odds to stay alive as she tussles with sensitive feelings for Peeta.

The entire first hour of The Hunger Games is dedicated to build up; it patiently develops the characters and delves into their problems while establishing this dystopian world and gleefully satirising global media. It's a promising beginning, but unfortunately the titular games fail to live up to this level of excellence. The games are supposed to be concerned with not only surviving against opponents but also battling the harsh elements and struggling for food and water. Unfortunately, the latter components are almost entirely ignored. The characters should be malnourished with cracked lips and pale skin, yet they always look 100% healthy. It lowers the stakes and thus weakens tension, stripping the film of gritty overtones which could have catapulted it to greatness.

Furthermore, even with a hefty 140-minute runtime, at times the script fails to adequately explain itself. For instance, according to the books, Panem is the state of post-war North America, yet the movie never reveals this. As a result, one may erroneously assume that it's part of an alternate country or even another planet entirely. Not to mention, the film never deals with what happens to fallen players. Hovercrafts collected bodies in the book, but the movie entirely omits this detail even though the hovercrafts are actually established in an early scene. Worse, the game's technicians unleash holograms of killer dogs and fireballs that are apparently lethal despite being hologrammatic, and there's no explanation about how they work. The script is quite a mess indeed, although the dialogue is admittedly well-written. And no, the "read the book, it'll make more sense" argument does not apply. That's bullshit. A movie should not require you to do extra homework; it should exist as its own entity, or else it has failed.

To the credit of director Gary Ross, the tone is spot-on; the material was treated with the gravity and seriousness that it needed. And despite ignoring the effects of malnutrition, The Hunger Games is skilfully grounded, eschewing excessive CGI and never going too over-the-top during the action beats (some of which are magnificent). However, the cinematography is unforgivably bad. On top of the camera always shaking for no rhyme or reason to a headache-inducing extent, framing is often slipshod, and the filmmakers consistently violate the 180 degree rule with jarring consequences. Whenever an action scene or a fight takes place, director Ross gives over to spastic camerawork that's meant to instil excitement but is more likely to make you dizzy. Rarely do action films have set-pieces so badly shot and edited that it's impossible to tell who's fighting who, who's winning, and even what sex the assailants are. It seems that this style was employed to avoid capturing graphic violence to secure a PG-13 rating, but simple cutaways are more than sufficient for this task. (Ironically, the shaking camera will make you more nauseous than any amount of violence could.)

If nothing else, the acting in The Hunger Games must be commended. As Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence is pitch-perfect. Katniss is often described as the "anti-Bella Swan" due to how strong and independent she is, and the actress was up to the task of portraying this character for the screen. Lawrence (who was nominated for an Oscar for Winter's Bone) nailed the emotional and dramatic requirements of the role, and she possesses a certain charm and beauty which make her believable as a love interest. Alongside her is Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, and he displays more skill as an actor here than any of the Twilight cast members. It's the supporting cast who steal the show, though. Woody Harrelson is superb fun as mentor Haymitch, while a plucky Elizabeth Banks shows up in bright-coloured wigs and garish make-up as District 12's lively chaperone. Also noteworthy is the immensely likeable Lenny Kravitz, and a scenery-chewing Stanley Tucci who plays the falsely sympathetic host of the Hunger Games telecast. In a smaller role is young Australian Liam Hemsworth, who's pretty forgettable as he has barely 15 minutes of screen-time.

Underneath the violence and romance, The Hunger Games possesses a hint of social commentary; it explores the ridiculous nature of reality television and comments on the exploitation of humans for the sake of entertainment. It additionally comments on the notion of a totalitarian government who use this televised slaughter of innocent kids to silently keep the common people in their place. Then again, such material has already been explored in far better pictures like The Running Man and Battle Royale, thus The Hunger Games really doesn't have anything new to say except that its predecessors were spot-on in their visions of the future. At the end of the day, The Hunger Games boils down to strong acting, reasonable screenwriting and handsome production values that are let down by shoddy camerawork. Plus, the emerging love triangle has Twilight written all over it. Do we have another "Team Edward/Team Jacob" situation on our hands? Dear God...

6.2/10

"Sometimes I wonder... will God ever forgive us for what we've done to each other? Then I look around and I realise... God left this place a long time ago."

Respectfully weaving a fictitious action-adventure narrative within a tumultuous nonfictional time and place is a daunting proposition for any filmmaker. 2006's Blood Diamond attempts such a premise, as its fictional story takes place during the real-life Sierra Leone Civil War. Fortunately, veteran filmmaker Edward Zwick (Glory, The Last Samurai) is more than capable of handling this material, skilfully breathing cinematic life into Charles Leavitt's ambitious, meticulously researched screenplay. More thoughtful than an average summer blockbuster, Blood Diamond is several things: an arresting action-adventure thriller, a searing indictment of corporate greed, and a history lesson that explores South Africa's unscrupulous diamond trade. Zwick nails all these things while maintaining interest through immaculate filmmaking and sublime performances.

In war-ravaged Sierra Leone, peaceful fisherman Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) lives with his family and hopes to keep them safe from the country's continuing conflicts. But when rebels tear Solomon's village apart, the father is forced away from his family and assigned to work in the diamond fields for a vicious warlord, Captain Poison (David Harewood). While mining a river, Solomon unearths an extremely valuable pink diamond and manages to bury it before government troops storm the area. Imprisoned in Freetown, Solomon gains the attention of Rhodesian ex-mercenary and gunrunner Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), who specialises in smuggling conflict diamonds. Hearing of Solomon's discovery, Archer bails the frightened father out of prison, hoping to use him to find the stone. With Danny promising to help Solomon find his family in exchange for the diamond, a hesitant partnership emerges. Into this mix soon steps American journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly), who is in the country conducting research for a story about the conflict diamond trade.

Blood Diamond clocks in at a hefty 135 minutes, but it doesn't feel too long, as there is enough momentum to maintain interest. As the story progresses and plot twists unfold, the movie draws us in deeper and deeper; we grow to care about Solomon and Archer and want to see the men succeed at their respective goals. Indeed, Blood Diamond is, at its core, a provocative human story. Miraculously, the film additionally explores the brutality of the conflict diamond trade with unflinching realism without the stench of exploitation, as such material serves to add compelling dramatic weight to the narrative. Plus, there's a level of complexity to the characters that make Blood Diamond more intelligent than your usual good guys vs. bad guys action flick. Once the end credits roll, it's virtually impossible to forget the harrowing images here, and viewers are left to think about the truth behind the shameful inner workings and secrets of the profitable diamond industry that are too often swept under the rug.

Produced for a sizable $100 million, Blood Diamond looks sublime. Zwick shot the film on location in Mozambique and other areas of Africa, affording a visceral, authentic atmosphere that is impossible to achieve on a sterile set or a crisp digital environment. Furthermore, Zwick is a superlative director, and his action sequences and shootouts are frequently exhilarating, such as a phenomenal large-scale battle at an R.U.F. camp involving a helicopter. Also worth noting is James Newton Howard's original score, which is full of flavoursome motifs that give compelling life to this story. It is also remarkable that a movie of such grand scope is bold enough to be R-rated, refusing to skimp on the harrowing details of the Sierra Leone Civil War. The violent depiction of everyday conflicts in Sierra Leone may seem exploitative, but the violence is never gratuitous; instead, Zwick merely avoids sugar-coating or sanitising the nasty details. The vivid sequences here of child soldiers being dehumanised through training and killing innocent people are not easy to forget. This type of stuff happens in reality, and Zwick seeks to highlight this fact, spreading awareness in the process.

With DiCaprio in his thirties here, his pretty-boy appearance is replaced with a face of ruggedness, wisdom and character, all traits that make him perfect for the role of Danny Archer. The role calls for DiCaprio to espouse a tricky area-specific Zimbabwean accent, and he nails it. You genuinely believe DiCaprio - he doesn't sound like an actor forcing an unnatural voice; he looks, sounds and feels like the real deal. Better yet, DiCaprio's intensity is spot-on. Indeed, he richly deserved the Oscar nomination he received for his performance. Alongside him, Djimon Hounsou (who also received an Oscar nomination) is earnest and convincing as Solomon Vandy. Hounsou brings his trademark intensity to the role, in addition to nobility and gravitas. Rounding out the leading players is Jennifer Connelly, who easily convinces as dedicated reporter Maddy Bowen, and a terrific Arnold Vosloo, who plays Archer's superior.

One of the best movies of 2006, Blood Diamond is enthralling and insightful big-budget action cinema. On top of its top-flight technical credits and magnificent acting, the film also possesses a sense of humanity. Indeed, it is hard to hold back tears during a late scene when Solomon is forced to confront his son, who was brainwashed by rebels, or when Archer tearfully calls Maddy to give her permission to finish her article. Blood Diamond is a film that successfully entertains as it educates, and it features one of Leonardo DiCaprio's greatest performances to date.

9.2/10