Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Jason Bourne was just the tip of the iceberg."

A Bourne adventure without Matt Damon or the title character, 2012's The Bourne Legacy has always been a questionable project since its inception. 2007's The Bourne Ultimatum provided a wholly satisfying conclusion to Jason Bourne's character arc, leaving little reason to continue the series, especially since Damon and director Paul Greengrass showed no interest in returning. But The Bourne Legacy entered production nevertheless, with the always-reliable Tony Gilroy serving as co-writer and director. Fortunately, while it's not up the original trilogy's standard of brilliance, the film is no bust either. It's an unnecessarily talky and at times meandering thriller, yet it's also a periodically exciting and engaging continuation of the formidable series.

With Bourne having exposed Operation Blackbriar and the Treadstone Project, the CIA falls under FBI scrutiny. Called in for help, military advisor Eric Byer (Norton) convinces his superiors to shut down their assorted clandestine programs and terminate all of their supersoldiers. One such operative is Aaron Cross (Renner), who's toiling away in the Alaskan wilderness but is running low on the special medication which gives him enhanced physical and mental abilities. Byer and his associates are led to believe that Cross has been terminated, allowing him to live off the grid as he travels back to Maryland in search of meds. He finds an ally in Dr. Marta Shearling (Weisz), a biochemist who narrowly survives a mysterious murder-suicide in her lab. Dropping in before Marta can be finished off, Cross teams up with the anxious woman.

Tony Gilroy had a hand in scripting The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, making him an obvious choice to direct this continuation. Having all but nothing to do with the novel by Robert Ludlum, Legacy (written by Gilroy and his brother Dan) is not so much a reboot but a spin-off; a parallel track to Bourne's story. It takes place somewhere during the events of Ultimatum, and is built on a simple premise: Bourne caused a ripple effect throughout the intelligence community, and he was not the only Treadstone agent. Unfortunately, sizeable portions of the picture are precariously verbose, fruitlessly devoting an inordinate amount of time observing flustered CIA officials in dimly-lit rooms. While it may seem important to get a glimpse of the machinations within CIA headquarters and thus comprehend why they choose to shut down Treadstone, there's too much filler here and the material is ultimately less interesting than Aaron's more engaging story. One must wonder how effective the film might've been if the material was brisker. As it is, Legacy is often lethargic, and you'll be left glancing at your watch whenever Gilroy returns to CIA HQ.

Rather than retaining Greengrass' proverbial shaky-cam approach, Gilroy put his on aesthetic stamp on the franchise, opting for a more classical, sturdier filming style somewhat in the vein of Doug Liman's Bourne Identity. Gilroy's cinematographer was none other than Robert Elswit (The Town, Michael Clayton, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol), so the movie looks predictably handsome. And when it comes to the action scenes, Gilroy never treads a foot wrong; each action beat is sharp and muscular. Especially impressive is a set-piece in an old house during which Cross dispatches bad guys with exhilarating finesse, and there's a chase through Manila which is as exciting as anything from the prior Bourne movies. Plus, there's a tense and chilling lab shooting that's destined to leave you speechless (especially in the wake of the infamous Aurora shootings). Gilroy gets massive plaudits for his skilful grasp of mise-en-scène.

Renner is a top-flight substitute for Matt Damon, as he's a charismatic star who can handle physical action scenes and command attention. Renner has bounced around the cinematic sidelines for years (most recently in Ghost Protocol and The Avengers), so it's satisfying to see the actor getting a lead role. Meanwhile, Weisz (who, impossibly, is even hotter here than she was in The Mummy thirteen years ago) is believable and watchable as Marta. Most of the movie called for her to just be confused and harried, but Weisz handled these requirements with aplomb, remaining eminently charming in the process. The rest of the actors, however, are completely forgettable. The likes of Norton and the returning Albert Finney had very little to work with, and as a result come across as empty, interchangeable cardboard cut-outs.

Perhaps The Bourne Legacy might have worked better with a revised structure. The tedious CIA material could have been entirely excised from the picture, allowing us to stay focused on Aaron at all times and therefore experience everything from his perspective. The "hook" of the Bourne trilogy was Jason's search for answers, and the films left us as clueless as the protagonist. As a result, viewers can feel personally involved in Bourne's adventures. But there are no mysteries in Legacy, and thus no hook. Instead, it's just a very routine action-thriller without many twists or turns. This is easily the weakest entry in the Bourne franchise, as it lacks the jittery momentum of its predecessors. Nevertheless, it's not a bad way to spend a few hours.

6.1/10

"Do you really think for one second those wimps at the Pentagon... would allow the regeneration of dead soldiers, American soldiers?"

A masculine action staple from 1992, Universal Soldier represents the perfect recipe for a big, dumb action spectacle. After all, it features genre titans Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren in their prime, it is R-rated, it's vehemently old-fashioned, and it was overseen by action filmmaker extraordinaire Roland Emmerich (Stargate). Although it might be challenging to defend Universal Soldier from a serious critical standpoint, it's a near-masterpiece on its own terms: a kick-ass red-meat action film with ample explosions and bloodletting, all played with tongue firmly planted in cheek. The film delivers in this sense, and it does so effectively, with competent production values, memorable one-liners, and entertaining set pieces.

In 1969, while fighting in the Vietnam War, Pvt. Luc Devereux (Jean-Claude Van Damme) and the insane Sgt. Andrew Scott (Dolph Lundgren) kill each other during a confrontation over the murder of innocent civilians. In the early 1990s, the preserved corpses of the two men are reanimated and placed in the top-secret "Universal Soldier" program, which aims to create a counterterrorism unit comprised of elite, super-powered, emotionless warriors. However, Devereux begins recalling his traumatic Vietnam experiences, which snaps him out of his medical trance. When curious news reporter Veronica (Ally Walker) trespasses on a military base and stumbles upon evidence of the UniSol program, the soldiers violently intervene, and Devereux escapes with the young journalist. Meanwhile, Scott likewise regains consciousness and returns to his war zone insanity as he hunts Devereux through the American Southwest.

The premise of Universal Soldier is patently ridiculous, supported by flimsy, high-school-level science. Yet, this should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Emmerich's filmography, as blockbusters like The Day After Tomorrow and 2012 likewise laugh in the face of believable science. Fortunately, Emmerich and the three credited screenwriters embrace the ridiculousness, and Universal Soldier is, therefore, exceedingly tongue-in-cheek and goofy, never taking itself too seriously or pretending to be a serious science fiction production. Unsurprisingly, the film adheres to a standard narrative template, with little in the way of intriguing twists or turns, and there's even a trace of romance that is incredibly forced. This flat romantic subplot, coupled with a few patches of poor pacing, denote the movie's only genuine flaws (beyond its stupidity and cheesiness).

More than anything else, Universal Soldier is an excuse for Van Damme and Lundgren to beat the snot out of one another, and, heavens me, it succeeds in this respect. The two behemoths are trained martial artists, and the resulting fights are exhilarating to watch. Additionally, outside of the fisticuffs, Universal Soldier contains various shootouts and car chases, all featuring real stuntmen and practical effects, making this a refreshing movie to revisit in the 21st Century. Indeed, stuntmen actually repelled down Hoover Dam, while the pyrotechnics crew set off real explosions and destroyed real vehicles. All of this material is delivered with R-rated action sensibilities, allowing for plenty of brutal violence. And, of course, as with any action film from this period, Universal Soldier has some terrific one-liners. Altogether, it's a lot of fun. Say what you will about the slipshod scripting, but Emmerich is a competent craftsman capable of orchestrating exciting action scenes. This was Emmerich's first big movie, following up the low-budget sci-fi thriller Moon 44 with this $20 million production, which also marked his first collaboration with producing partner Dean Devlin. Afterwards, Emmerich and Devlin collaborated on Stargate, Independence Day, Godzilla and The Patriot, with mixed results.

Emmerich and Devlin are acutely aware of their leads' strengths and weaknesses, designing the film to use Van Damme and Lundgren in the most effective way. Thus, Van Damme's dialogue is kept to a minimum, and his lines were even reportedly further shortened during filming. Plus, with the Mussels from Brussels playing an emotionless warrior, he fits the role like a glove, and his martial arts expertise compensates for any perceived lack of acting talent. Alongside him, Lundgren steals the show as the psychotic antagonist, relishing the opportunity to ham it up and generally taunt everybody while wearing a necklace of severed ears. Meanwhile, Walker is merely adequate as the token female/love interest, showing some welcome spunk but making no lasting impression.

Some may find it hard to forgive Emmerich for certain movies (1998's Godzilla being the most controversial), but Universal Soldier is one of the filmmaker's best. Sure, it's a goofy, illogical action blockbuster, but it's also entertaining escapism, and its ridiculousness is all part of the charm. This movie is the very definition of big, dumb, macho fun, and it is the perfect choice for viewers who enjoy this brand of entertainment. Unsurprisingly, the movie spawned numerous sequels, including two cheap TV movies, an awful theatrical sequel, and two surprisingly robust straight-to-video follow-ups in 2009 and 2012.

6.9/10

"You want a holy war, little man?"

As with any comedy, The Campaign is destined to draw mixed reactions since humour is so highly subjective. To be sure, this Will Ferrell/Zach Galifianakis pair-up is not a game-changing comedy like it had the potential to be in sharper hands, but I cannot deny that the film worked for me. Often hilarious and rarely boring thanks to the boundless energy afforded by reliable comedic director Jay Roach, The Campaign is a welcome offering of R-rated comedy glee. It’s forgettable mainstream fluff, but it’s always satisfying to behold a comedy which succeeds in making you laugh on a consistent basis.

For years, Democratic moron Cam Brady (Ferrell) has run unopposed as the congressman of North Carolina’s 14th District. Cam is set to retain his seat yet again without any opposing candidate, but rich industrialists The Motch Brothers (Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow) want to find an easily manipulated alternative. Enter town idiot Marty Huggins (Galifianakis), a shy and none-too-bright slob with an obese family. When shady campaign manager Tim Wattley (Dylan McDermott) shows up to whip Marty into shape, the election race really begins to heats up as a more confident candidate emerges. With Cam facing stiff competition and declining popularity, war is declared, with both sides resorting to dirty tactics to taint the other’s name.

Written by Shawn Harwell and Chris Henchy, The Campaign gets credit for satirising the current state of American politics in an amusing way. The satire is obvious and not especially sharp, but it nonetheless works, as the film hilariously critiques dishonesty during political debates and ridiculous attack ads, not to mention Dick Cheney’s infamous “hunting incident,” which is slyly referenced as well. Basically, the whole film boils down to an episodic succession of comedic vignettes, but this type of structuring works for these kinds of comedies, as they merely aim to spotlight their primary talent doing what they do best. And heavens me, the film works when it goes for the jugular. Ferrell and Galifianakis banter, trade insults and constantly attempt to one-up each other, generating a dependable string of big laughs as the story unfolds. Moreover, the film takes full advantage of the stupidity of each respective character, and huge belly laughs flow from this (a moment involving a police car and a cow had this reviewer sobbing with laughter).

It helps that director Roach has such a deft touch with comedy. Whereas his 2010 endeavour Dinner for Schmucks was definitely marred by its overlong runtime, The Campaign runs a brisk 85 minutes and moves at a furious pace. With a few exceptions, Roach wisely avoids dwelling for too long on certain jokes, and hence sluggish patches are rare.

First-rate technical specs aside, The Campaign's biggest asset is easily the cast, whose go-for-broke sensibilities are a perfect fit for the demands of the script. Ferrell’s childlike idiot persona is ideal for the realm of politics, and it’s a mystery why it’s taken so long for such a proposition to come to fruition. This isn’t a performance to win over the Ferrell haters, but fans of the actor are destined to love his work here. Meanwhile, Galifianakis has created another quirky, childish weirdo here for his role of Marty Huggins. Like Ferrell, Galifianakis’ work is not Oscar-worthy, but he’s pitch-perfect for this type of comedy, and that’s what matters. Digging into the supporting cast, there’s a surprisingly large array of talent to behold. Of particular note is Jason Sudeikis who’s hilarious as Cam’s political aid, while Dylan McDermott consistently chews the scenery and steals the spotlight as Tim Wattley. John Lithgow, Dan Aykroyd and Brian Cox are also terrific.

The Campaign is clichéd and silly to be sure, but undeniably works in fits and starts, and the laugh ratio is strong enough to warrant a recommendation. Plus, the best moments weren’t spoiled in the trailers, which is absolutely miraculous. In terms of entertainment, this flick delivers, and then some. It has some huge belly laugh moments which had this reviewer rolling on the cinema floor with laughter.

6.9/10

"Snow White. She is the reason your powers wane."

2012's second Snow White project (after Tarsem's Mirror Mirror), Snow White and the Huntsman represents an attempt to use the age-old Snow White story as the basis for a medieval Hollywood blockbuster. Electing a dark, grim approach, the movie takes its stylistic cues from the likes of The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia - it's a large-scale revisionist adaptation featuring elaborate battles and lavish visual effects. And due to its gritty portrayal of the Middle Ages, the movie also resembles Ridley Scott's mildly successful attempt at revivifying Robin Hood a couple of years ago. It's an idea ripe with potential, but Snow White and the Huntsman is troubled in its execution, with flawed scripting and pacing, not to mention a lack of substance, almost lethally injuring what could have been an audacious masterpiece.

Heir to her parents' royal throne, Snow White (Stewart) is shaken as a child when her mother dies of a tragic illness. Snow's father, King Magnus (Huntley), soon rescues a gorgeous woman named Ravenna (Theron) from the battlefield, and the two eventually wed. As it turns out, however, the scheming Ravenna is in fact a sorceress who uses her beauty to conquer kingdoms. Upon murdering her new husband, Ravenna steals the throne for herself and locks her stepdaughter away. Ravenna continues her reign for years with assistance from her brother Finn (Spruell), preventing herself from growing old by stealing the youth of young women. When Ravenna learns that Snow White is a threat to her immortality, she calls for her stepdaughter to be executed, but Snow manages to escape the castle grounds before Ravenna has the chance to kill her. Called upon to recapture Snow is a boozing widower known as The Huntsman (Hemsworth), who hesitantly agrees to the assignment. But when he learns of Snow White's royal bloodline, The Huntsman has a change of heart, and the two begin looking to stop the treacherous Ravenna and allow Snow to assume her rightful position on the throne.

Visually, Snow White and the Huntsman is an extraordinary effort indeed, with the widescreen frame capturing director Rupert Sanders' finicky attention to detail in terms of sets, costumes, CGI and locales. Sanders cut his teeth with television commercials, which prepared him for the movie's technical aspects quite well. Isolated sequences are considerably impressive (especially the battles) and James Newton Howard's score is engaging. All of these positives are merely surface-level attributes, though; Snow White and Huntsman has very little else going for it beyond the superficial. While the first 40 minutes or so are pretty good, the film begins to drag interminably from that point onwards. There's one especially egregious scene with the dwarves over a campfire, and from there the picture moves at a snail's pace. By the time we get to the token climactic battle sequence, the film already feels too long in the tooth, and you'll be forgiven for wanting the narrative's complex machinations to be sorted out as quickly as possible. Snow White and the Huntsman begins with promise, yet it devolves into a glacial flick unable to generate much momentum; a mortal flaw since momentum is critical for a summer blockbuster.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems is that screenwriters Evan Daugherty, John Lee Hancock and Hossein Amini endeavoured to retain as much of the source material as possible, extending to that goddamn "mirror, mirror" dialogue, the comical dwarves, and cheesy interludes (Snow "dying" due to the poisoned apple is a key offender, as her revivification makes no sense here). Such material feels out of place in what's established as a grim, dark tale of medieval combat and murder. Yes, it was included out of reverence, but the fight between wanting to do something unique and wanting to retain nods to the original story ultimately yields a messy finished movie that's unsure of what it wants to be. For instance, it's suggested that Snow White cannot be touched by Queen Ravenna when away from the castle, but, because the third act needed a dilemma, Ravenna randomly shows up in disguise carrying the iconic poisoned apple. If Ravenna couldn't touch Snow outside the castle, how could she do this? And if she could touch Snow, why did she wait so long to do so? Worse, the quest to include all the narrative beats from the Disney movie is probably the cause of Snow White and the Huntsman's meandering disposition, as the writers wanted to use the same structure regardless of whether or not it fitted into their revisionist take (the dwarves, for instance, do nothing useful here).

As Snow, Kristen Stewart is bad. Clearly chosen for her appeal to the Twilight crowd, she brings no sense of life or vitality to the role, instead reducing Snow to an emotionless automaton with one facial expression of pained peevishness. Stewart literally just plays Bella here, relying on all of the same "acting" characteristics that saw her through in the Twilight series. Worse, Stewart appears to attempt some form of English accent, yet never settles on anything consistent. One minute her accent is noticeable, the next she just sounds like Bella again. Her horrible performance threatens to cause the entire feature to crumble, especially since she fails to sell Snow's transformation from helpless victim to warrior princess. Chris Hemsworth, on the other hand, fares a lot better, delivering a charismatic, dynamic performance as the titular Huntsman. Espousing an impressively consistent accent, the Australian continues to show why he deserves genuine stardom. Also of note is Charlize Theron, who absolutely sunk her teeth into the role of Queen Ravenna. Theron chews the scenery with gusto, coming across as a convincingly sinister villain. Meanwhile, the dwarves were played by a bunch of talented British thespians - including Nick Frost, Ray Winstone, Toby Jones, Ian McShane and Bob Hoskins - who were digitally shrunken.

From the outset, it's clear that Snow White and the Huntsman has nothing in common with Mirror Mirror - while the earlier movie was cartoonish and light-hearted, this Snow White iteration is a darker affair. What a shame that it doesn't quite work. With a tighter pace and snappier structuring (not to mention a better actress than Kristen Stewart), Snow White and the Huntsman could have been a home run. Instead, it's a mostly unsuccessful experiment which reeks of Twilight and promises that a franchise is imminent. Oh boy.

5.2/10

"When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die."

One can best describe 2012's The Dark Knight Rises as an exercise in self-indulgence. Christopher Nolan fans have worshipped the man for years, exalting his modus operandi of gritty self-seriousness and faux gravitas without providing Nolan with the constructive criticism he needs to grow and mature as a filmmaker. Due to the overzealous praise, Nolan's movies have been growing increasingly overlong and ponderous, and his ego reaches critical mass with this third Batman adventure. Thus, instead of working to improve his directorial technique, Nolan sticks by his usual filmmaking idiosyncracies here, hoping to get away with lousy pacing and pedestrian action scenes by smothering everything in relentless dramatic music and overcomplicating a straightforward narrative to make people believe they're smart for following it. This is not to imply that The Dark Knight Rises is a terrible movie, however - it's just a severely flawed, tediously long-winded effort that needs further editorial discipline. Although polished enough to satiate devoted fans, The Dark Knight Rises suffers from significant narrative and pacing issues.

It has been eight years since Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) allowed Gotham City to believe that his Batman alter-ego murdered District Attorney Harvey Dent. The events led to Bruce retiring as Batman and resigning himself to a life of solitude spurred on by his despair over Rachel's death. Although organised crime largely dissolved in the aftermath of Dent's death, Gotham soon faces a new threat: the super-strong, masked mercenary known as Bane (Tom Hardy). Also entering the picture is a cat burglar, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), who is hired by a millionaire socialite named John Daggett (Ben Mendelsohn) to help in his plan to take control of Wayne Enterprises. Circumstances soon compel Bruce to bring Batman out of retirement, turning to friend and inventor Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) for assistance while also receiving support from a devoted young Gotham police officer, John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).

The problem with The Dark Knight Rises is that it's a structural and storytelling mess. The picture feels like two movies awkwardly mashed together, resulting in two underdone stories leading to a singular payoff. See, the film initially concentrates on Bruce Wayne battling cheesy inner demons as he weighs up whether or not to don the Batman cape yet again. Once Batman finally rises, though, Nolan hits the reset button and returns us to square one, with Bruce needing to work his way up to becoming Batman again. It feels clunky, destroying what could have been an interesting narrative flow and causing all sense of momentum to founder. It makes the initial rising - and, in turn, the entire first hour - feel like a waste of time. The Dark Knight Rises runs a colossal 160 minutes, yet the plotting is not necessarily complicated. Plot and character development are essential, but the movie is loaded with filler, not to mention Nolan stretches out the simplest developments to make them FEEL complex. If the plot is intricate and multilayered, why can it be summed up so simply? If the characters are well-developed, why is it difficult to feel anything for them?

Directly because of the picture's clumsy structuring, Batman receives a woefully short amount of screen time, as Bruce mostly appears without the cape and cowl. This point does not imply that the movie should have been full of mindless Caped Crusader action, but Batman adventures should use the character properly rather than diminish him to the point that he feels like any other generic hero. Furthermore, the treatment of the protagonists is maddening. For instance, Bruce retires Batman and essentially gives up on life due to Rachel's death, but this notion is ridiculous. Losing loved ones is the defining force that has driven Batman since the beginning - it created him and sustains him. If anything, losing a beloved childhood friend should make Bruce more determined to fight crime. Meanwhile, Alfred (Michael Caine) loses faith in Bruce and abandons his master. This development admittedly raises the stakes, but it betrays the character of Alfred to his very core. Furthermore, Bruce should learn meaningful lessons as part of his character arc, but he never learns anything significant or profound. The Dark Knight Rises carries a self-serious tone, yet for such a pretentious movie, it's not actually about anything. Sure, Nolan uses Harvey Dent's death as the film's "9/11 moment", and Bane's reign calls to mind the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, but such material is heavy-handed and silly, ladled on with the subtlety and sophistication of a shotgun.

The script (by Nolan and his brother Jonathan) is equally troubled in terms of dialogue; the "telling rather than showing" aspect is off the charts, with the characters spending a lot of time laboriously over-explaining every motivation and relationship. This is felt most glaringly in a late plot twist reveal when a silly monologue dutifully spells out every background detail of a specific character's past. It's lazy spoon-feeding in what's intended to be a sophisticated action-thriller, halting the climax for much too long. Furthermore, Nolan's approach to his Batman movies hinges on "gritty realism", but the picture nevertheless contains unforgivably idiotic moments. The opening scene involves Bane's men faking someone's death by transferring a dose of his blood into another person, apparently changing their DNA profile. Additionally, without spoiling too much, an atomic bomb detonates in the ocean near Gotham City, yet no neighbouring cities suffer from radiation poisoning, and there's no tidal wave as a result of the explosion. Plus, the kid-friendly PG-13 rating forbids Nolan from being genuinely dark in terms of violence - whenever Bane promises to do something badass, the camera awkwardly shies away from capturing it.

Another hugely problematic aspect of The Dark Knight Rises is the character of Bane. The comics paint Bane as the ultimate supervillain, an immaculate mix of brains and brawn. While the film addresses his intelligence, Bane's physique is severely underwhelming here, which significantly betrays the character. Tom Hardy stands under six feet in the role and looks more pudgy than muscular. It's a substantial problem that Batman and fucking Alfred are taller than what's supposed to be the most physically intimidating threat in the Batman universe. Hardy just looks like an ordinary dude - in fact, random henchmen from previous Batman movies are more physically remarkable than Hardy. As a result, various narrative machinations are hard to swallow, especially since Bane is apparently able to hurt Batman despite his bulletproof armour. How can such a regular-built individual achieve this? It's impossible to believe Hardy as Bane, and it doesn't help that his dialogue is, at times, utterly indecipherable. Liam Neeson's Ra's Al Ghoul easily remains the most badass villain of Nolan's trilogy.

For years, Christopher Nolan has received flack for his poor construction of action sequences, and such criticisms remain justified for The Dark Knight Rises. The big set pieces are often startlingly incoherent here, as the geography of certain locations is hazy, and it's genuinely difficult to discern where everyone is at any given moment. This is felt most glaringly in the opening aerial action sequence, which is full of close-ups and shaky cam, and is consequently hard to follow. Additionally, the hand-to-hand combat remains as underwhelming as ever, often marred by frenetic camerawork and humdrum choreography.

The Dark Knight Rises is not irredeemably bad, but the film's positive aspects are not as interesting to note as its numerous shortcomings. Certainly, Hans Zimmer's score is suitably engaging, Wally Pfister's cinematography is slick and eye-catching (action scenes notwithstanding), and the production values do impress (it was made for $250 million), but the slipshod writing is more noticeable than these strong surface-level attributes. At the very least, the acting is predominantly excellent. In particular, Gary Oldman and Joseph Gordon-Levitt bring their A-game to the film. Oldman's Commissioner Gordon is articulate and smart, while Gordon-Levitt affords genuine charisma and believability to his role of the young cop. Easily, these two are the best things in the movie, and the scenes they share are better than any of the action sequences. It's also hard to dislike Morgan Freeman or Michael Caine; the two veterans are predictably great here. Meanwhile, Anne Hathaway is reasonably good as Selena Kyle, a.k.a. Catwoman (though she's never referred to as Catwoman at any point). Hathaway is colourful and sensual in the role, although she and Christian Bale fail to sell the love interest angle that is awkwardly shoehorned into the script. Speaking of Bale, he's still just okay as Bruce/Batman. Rounding out the notable players is the Oscar-winning Marion Cotillard, who performs potentially the most laughable death scene in cinema history.

To be fair, the things that work about The Dark Knight Rises do work; it takes bold risks, and there are a few moments of badass Batman combat. At the end of the day, however, The Dark Knight Rises is merely okay - it's not great, not flawless, and by no means is it a masterpiece. Ultimately, Christopher Nolan's trilogy capper is brought down by its long-winded nature and poor script construction. Due to this, and due to the lack of Batman screen time, the movie feels like a mediocre Christopher Nolan action-thriller that happens to feature Batman. It seems that Nolan has grown bored with the series and no longer cares. Nolan was reluctant to return to the franchise directly because of this, and he only took up the director's seat due to fan pressure and the promise of a huge paycheque. The film's ending reflects this attitude, as it leaves room for further adventures but announces that Nolan has no interest in helming any.

5.9/10

"I believe the most rational mind can play tricks in the dark."

Based on the 1980s novel of the same name by Susan Hill, The Woman in Black is one of the most old-fashioned horror movies in recent memory. Horror filmmakers have grown distinctly lazier in the past decade or so, relying more on cheap jump scares and/or gratuitous gore in lieu of mood, atmosphere, scares and story. Thus, a movie like The Woman in Black is particularly welcome, as it focuses on these old-fashioned characteristics. Though it does have its flaws, it reminds us that, when done well, retro-style horror can effectively raise the hairs on the back of your neck. It may be a remake (the story was previously adapted into both a long-running stage play and an ITV-produced telemovie), but screenwriter Jane Goldman (Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class) and director James Watkins (Eden Lake) executed the picture with genuine style and flair, two things often missing in contemporary horror.

With bills mounting and his job dangling in the balance, widowed lawyer Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is compelled to leave his young son Joseph (Handley) to travel to an isolated village to finalise the estate of a recently-deceased woman. Travelling to the dilapidated Eel Marsh House, Arthur soon encounters a malevolent spirit known as The Woman in Black, who haunts the enormous mansion and has the local townsfolk gripped in fear. Despite the apparitions - and despite constant hostility from the villagers - Arthur continues to work towards completing his assignment with help from the sympathetic Samuel Daily (Hinds). But local children begin to die in horrific ways, and Arthur is continually tormented by ghostly sights and sounds within Eel Marsh, forcing the young lawyer to search for a way to appease the ghost and break the curse before his own son travels to visit him in a matter of days.

Produced by the iconic Hammer Films (a British company renowned for their classic chillers), The Woman in Black is a throwback horror experience in many respects. With its 1800s setting, foggy locations and creepy set design, the filmmakers visibly looked to recapture the lost art of the ghost story. It's not entirely successful, though, as the picture gets off to a rocky start. For the first half or so, there are no genuine scares; only cheap, lazy jump scares underscored by loud noises and music. As the second half kicks in, though, The Woman in Black truly takes off - it builds momentum, it becomes genuinely terrifying, and the story develops into something satisfying and even somewhat touching, culminating with a memorable final scene.

Even at its worst, The Woman in Black is insanely atmospheric. As time goes by, you get the sense that Eel Marsh House is genuinely haunted and that ghosts are everywhere. As a result, you don't feel safe, and that's a huge achievement in the realm of PG-13 horror. The camerawork must also be commended. Most horror films are simplistic in their cinematography, but the shot composition and editing here is artistic and skilful. The haunted house is a marvel of production design due to its intricacies, with scary-looking dolls, creepy wind-up toys, old-fashioned furniture and kitschy wallpaper, all of which are coated in dust and cobwebs. Thankfully, none of these details are wasted, as cinematographer Tim Maurice-Jones and director Watkins use magnificent wide shots and well-judged cutaways to give us an atmospheric sense of time and place. Scenes at night are lit only by flickering candlelight, which instils a sense of trepidation due to the frame's dimness and abundance of shadows. Furthermore, Watkins' crew clearly understood the importance of sound in a horror film, as the sound design is skilfully multilayered and Marco Beltrami's superlative score is incredibly intense.

Throughout his decade-long tenure as the titular boy wizard in the Harry Potter franchise, Daniel Radcliffe rarely featured in movies outside of the series, instead spending most of his spare time doing live theatre. The Woman in Black is Radcliffe's first film since the final Harry Potter movie, and his engaging performance here demonstrates that the actor may have a big-screen career ahead of him post-Hogwarts. His acting is strong across the board; Radcliffe sells Arthur's love for his son, determination to be successful at his job, and terror when the titular ghost taunts him. The other main player here is Ciarán Hinds as Samuel Daily. A strong character actor, Hinds is terrific in the role, both engaging and amiable.

Remake or not, The Woman in Black is a mostly successful supernatural thriller which achieves what it set out to accomplish. It's not a masterpiece, nor is it the best ghost story ever made, but it's one of the purest, most immersive and most effective old-fashioned thrillers in years (right alongside Insidious). Furthermore, it will likely stay with you after the credits have rolled, as the bone-chilling images here are not easily forgettable and there are numerous harrowing moments.

7.3/10

"No matter how long it takes, I will find you!"

Considering that 2009's Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs soared at the box office to become one of the highest grossing animated films in history, Ice Age 4 was inevitable. But the question looms: is there anything more that this franchise can offer with a fourth entry, a decade after the first Ice Age was released? The answer, alas, is no. Fox's Blue Sky genuinely tried to make a good movie with the first Ice Age since they needed to compete with Pixar and DreamWorks. Now that the Ice Age brand has been established and quality is no longer a concern, it seems nobody was committed to making a great movie with Continental Drift. As a result, it's not as bright, bubbly or witty as the movie which spawned it. It's an uninspiring continuation of a series sputtering on life support which hasn't been genuinely good in 10 years. It should be energetic and vibrant, yet it's almost completely flat, feeling more like a rote straight-to-DVD effort than a majestic theatrical movie.

As the film opens, ubiquitous sabre-toothed squirrel Scrat (Wedge) is still in pursuit of his beloved acorn, and his antics directly contribute to the titular tectonic event. With land being torn apart and the continents being formed, Manny (Romano), Diego (Leary) and Sid (Leguizamo) are separated from their herd, stranded in the ocean on a small iceberg. As they try to navigate a path home, the trio wind up battling the forces of mother nature on top of encountering a pirate ship captained by the malevolent Captain Gutt (Dinklage).

Written by newcomer Jason Fuchs and franchise veteran Michael Berg, Ice Age: Continental Drift slavishly follows the same formula of its predecessors: an event tears the characters apart and they face great adversity while trying to get home. Along the way, the characters learn a thing or two, and broken bonds are fixed. It's lazy, by-the-numbers filmmaking, and the script lacks the energy and wit to compensate for its narrative conventionality. Naturally, the story proper is sporadically interrupted by small segments spotlighting Scrat as he engages in his trademark acorn-related slapstick. Though Scrat's antics were spoiled in the trailers, they display the most amount of visual wit and inventiveness, serving to highlight just how unimaginative everything else is. The only other saving grace of Continental Drift is a pack of chipmunks who show up all-too-briefly. Aside from this, the flick is a lifeless slog which rarely emerges from its cinematic coma. The jokes are mostly flat and unremarkable, the banter is merely perfunctory, and the plot runs out of steam way before the climax. Worse, the "family is important" messages are hackneyed, and the problems of Manny's daughter Peaches (Palmer) seem to have been lifted from an after-school special.

At the very least, Continental Drift is impressive from a technical perspective. When Ice Age first hit cinemas in 2002, its CGI animation looked second-rate compared to Pixar and DreamWorks. But not anymore; the animation here is superb, resulting in the most visually satisfying instalment of the series. The water effects look especially photorealistic, and every hair is astonishingly rendered to make the characters look alive. (For the record, the incredible detail is more palpable in 3-D, but the 3-D presentation as a whole is overly unremarkable.) But while Continental Drift is a somewhat easy watch thanks to its visually succulent nature, there's no getting around the lack of intelligence and momentum. Ironically, last year's Ice Age Christmas special carried equally sumptuous animation, but its visual opulence was supplemented with genuine laughs and creativity; stuff that's lacking in Continental Drift. Ironically, too, the Simpsons short attached to this movie is endearing, smart, subtle and witty - precisely the things that Continental Drift is not.

It doesn't help that the protagonists have become stale and boring. Everyone was clearly operating on autopilot here, as it seems that none of the voice actors put much heart or effort into their performances. The only interesting characters here are the pirates. Led by the refreshingly sinister Captain Gutt (voiced with relish by the reliable Peter Dinklage), the ragtag team of elephant seals, kangaroos and prehistoric rabbits (Nick Frost even lends his voice here) are far more interesting than Manny, Sid and Diego. An entire movie centring on these colourful sea rats would be more enticing than an Ice Age 5. Considering all the terrific names in the cast - including Wanda Sykes, Patrick Stewart, Seann William Scott, Josh Peck and Jennifer Lopez - it's heartbreaking that all of this talent wasn't matched to something wittier or more heartfelt.

With its disheartening belly-laugh deficiency, it seems like nobody except the animators put much effort into Ice Age: Continental Drift. As a result, it has the feel of an arbitrary sequel that, given the last film's $900 million box office gross, it absolutely is. Kids with low standards may get a bit of a laugh, and it's harmless enough with lots of vivid colours, but adults have come to expect better from their family entertainment. Even the fourth Shrek film was more fun that this. Ice Age started as something original and creative, but it's time for this series to become extinct.

5.1/10

"We all have secrets: the ones we keep... and the ones that are kept from us."

Arriving only five years after Spider-Man 3, 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man represents a reboot of the Spider-Man film series, starting again from scratch a mere decade after Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy kicked off. It's important to note, though, that The Amazing Spider-Man was not produced because the filmmakers had a fresh new story that needed to be told - instead, the Sony Corporation hastily rushed it into production because their film rights to Spider-Man would elapse if they didn't have another movie in the can by 2012. Thus, after cancelling Spider-Man 4, Sony decided to simply reboot the franchise with cheaper actors and a more obedient director. In other words, from its very inception, The Amazing Spider-Man was about business, not passion, and every frame of the film's torturously extended running time feels like the worst kind of soulless, passionless, mechanical, assembly-line, commercially-focused, corporate filmmaking. Worst of all, the movie actually feels like a remake of 2002's Spider-Man since it treads the same narrative ground, failing to justify itself for hitting the reset button.

As a young boy, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) was left in the care of his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) after his parents disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Growing into a reserved teen interested in photography, Peter begins looking to learn more about his father's work with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). While Peter sneaks around Connors' workplace, a genetically engineered spider bites him, giving the teenager superhuman abilities and heightened senses. Peter's beloved Uncle Ben is soon murdered by a street criminal, leaving the newfound superhero hungry for revenge. Peter begins to prowl the night-time streets of Manhattan in search of the culprit, eventually developing into an enigmatic, web-slinging vigilante known to the public as Spider-Man. As Spider-Man's reputation grows and Peter's relationship with classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) burgeons, the one-armed Dr. Connors tests his latest serum on himself. Connors experiments with lizard DNA to stimulate limb regrowth, but the experiment goes awry, transforming the scientist into a giant, psychopathic lizard.

Rather than conceiving of a whole new origin tale, writers James Vanderbilt, Steve Kloves and Alvin Sargent (who actually co-wrote Spider-Man 2 and 3) lazily stick by the narrative beats of Sam Raimi's movie: Uncle Ben's murder, Flash Thompson bullying Peter, Peter getting bitten by a radioactive spider, Peter creating a suit and going vigilante, Peter falling for a young woman, a mentally fractured villain showing up whose experiment makes him go haywire, and so on. Plus, it's executed here with far less gusto than a decade ago. Furthermore, the second half of The Amazing Spider-Man is a rhythmic remake of 2002's Spider-Man, following the same beats but substituting a different villain. It might be faithful to the comics, but it only triggers déjà vu, feeling like reheated script leftovers rather than an audacious new adventure.

To its credit, while the broad narrative strokes are the same, The Amazing Spider-Man does introduce a few new elements to Peter's background. The problem is that the new stuff is awful, alternating between the outright wrongheaded and the laughably coincidental. See, Peter's father's science partner just so happens to have been the future The Lizard, and they just so happen to have worked for Norman Osborn, and their experiments just so happen to be tied to the genetically engineered spider that turns Peter into Spider-Man. And Gwen Stacy just so happens to work for Dr. Connors. Wow! Writers may think that they're being clever by making everything interconnected, but they're only serving to make a sprawling world of possibilities feel small, in the process removing the "accidental everyman hero" aspect of Peter's personality. Another problem with the script is that it's, for lack of a better word, lame. At one stage, the writers start to care about where Spidey's webs are attaching, leading to a moment during the climax that's meant to be moving and uplifting but is instead the stupidest thing ever witnessed in a Spider-Man movie (even worse than Spider-Man 3's emo dance). Such malarkey constantly shows up throughout the film, extending to a horrible showdown with Flash Thompson on a basketball court and a groan-worthy moment on a football field. Oh, and for unknown reasons, Flash becomes a sensitive soul off-screen and befriends Peter...right after Peter humiliates him.

Worse, the film cannot quite figure out who Peter Parker is (other than not Tobey Maguire and not the comic character). Depending on what happens in a given scene, Parker alternates between a slacker, an emo kid, a wiseass, a hipster, a loner, a skater, and a mumbling Michael Cera type. Plus, there's no arc to Peter's character: he starts as an adolescent dick obsessed with his own problems, and he is exactly the same at the end of the film. A lazy Uncle Ben voiceover at the end tries to establish that Peter has changed, but the next scene completely undoes this intention. Little care goes into establishing Spider-Man and his reputation, too. Raimi's film examined Spider-Man's portrayal in the media, establishing that the public perceives him as a hero. Here, director Marc Webb dedicates all of two minutes to Spider-Man's public introduction. Not to mention, Parker's transformation into Spider-Man feels equally rushed. But it's Dr. Connors/The Lizard who fares the worst. There's literally no justification for his transformation into the story's villain - he's just a guy who's pissed about having one arm and whose scientific experiments turn him into a lizard. There is nothing at the root of his evil beyond his boss wanting to shut him down. From there, he turns into a reptilian fascist who wants to turn all residents of the city into lizards because... Errr... Fuck, I don't know. We're never told. The film has no idea who this character is or what his motivations are. And in the space between a couple of scenes, Connors single-handedly manages to haul heaps of laboratory equipment from Oscorp to the underground sewer system. Okay...

Raimi's Spider-Man movies are colourful creations that feel like true comic book movies, but The Amazing Spider-Man is grittier and more morose in tone. As a result, it often feels self-serious, stripping light-hearted fun out of the equation. And, occasionally, the film looks surprisingly cheap despite its large budget, with strictly workmanlike technical contributions across the board. And the CGI Lizard looks horrifically inept. Seriously, The Lizard looks like the result of bad '90s CGI rather than the digital effects of a big-budget 2012 blockbuster (even The Asylum would be embarrassed to have this shit in their films). To his credit, Webb does show promise in his handling of the smaller scenes. Webb cut his teeth with 2009's fantastic (500) Days of Summer, so it's unsurprising that isolated dramatic moments do work here and there. For example, Peter's verbal stuttering is spot-on, and the death of Uncle Ben is emotionally affecting. On the other hand, Webb's handling of the action is less exciting and, for a summer blockbuster, there is a distinct lack of thrills and exhilaration. Furthermore, the film cheats by having Parker be instinctively good at everything from the get-go. Raimi's Spider-Man shows Peter feeling out his powers, developing strategies and doing a lot of trial and error. Here, Peter masters his skills without even trying, illustrated by an awful subway sequence that devolves into silly slapstick.

I must also mention the 3D. Even though The Amazing Spider-Man was shot natively in 3D, this is the worst 3D presentation I've seen in years. It's not eye-gauging; it's just obnoxiously underwhelming and flat. It looks 2D more often than not, as there's no sense of space between objects or, indeed, any sense of depth. I constantly removed my glasses, and the screen looked exactly the same (except brighter). Save yourself the ridiculous cost of a 3D ticket, and see it in 2D...if you have to see the movie at all.

It almost goes without saying, but Andrew Garfield cannot pass for a 17-year-old Peter Parker - instead, he looks his actual age (28). Garfield shows some promise as Parker, but his acting is overblown for the most part, and the Brit has trouble masking his natural accent, which is troublesome. Not to mention, his performance is reminiscent of Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen. Emma Stone makes the best impression here; she's a pitch-perfect Gwen Stacy with immense spirit, quirk and likeability. Her chemistry with Garfield is also better than expected, and Stone's innate charm helps make the leaden dialogue sound better. Meanwhile, Denis Leary makes for a terrific Captain Stacy (Gwen's father), and Martin Sheen is wonderful in the role of Uncle Ben. Sheen is easily the best thing in this movie; his Uncle Ben is kind, well-articulated, responsible and level-headed, and his performance resonates in a hugely effective manner. On the other hand, Sally Field is a tragically vanilla Aunt May who lacks everything that made Rosemary Harris such a standout in the role. Rhys Ifans is also wasted here as Dr. Connors.

Not only is The Amazing Spider-Man a lousy movie, but it's also one of the summer's most despicable and deflating motion pictures. In the right hands, a Spider-Man reboot could've yielded a refreshing new take on the character, similar to Matthew Vaughn's exceptional X-Men: First Class. Instead, it's a riskless, artless, unimaginative, pointless, lackadaisical endeavour that only exists because Sony believed that even the laziest Spider-Man feature would turn a profit. In other words, the makers had nothing but contempt for their audience. Even the film's okay parts - the fights, web-slinging, etc - have been done better within superior movies.

4.2/10

"Thunder buddies for life, right, Johnny?"

Ted is the feature film debut of writer/director/star Seth MacFarlane, who's best known for his hit television show Family Guy. It's hardly surprising, then, that the film bears a notable resemblance to the long-running cartoon series, as MacFarlane retains his proclivity for toilet humour, non-sequiturs, one-liners, obscure movie references and pop culture shout-outs. Luckily, Ted is also sharper and wittier than most recent Family Guy episodes, resulting in a comedy that is, for lack of a better word, fucking hilarious. Furthermore, the film is based around an inventive central premise. Calling upon his incisive writing instincts, MacFarlane here deconstructs one of the most tiresome comedy plots of recent years - the "decent young guy held back from maturity by a churlish best friend or a cherished toy from his childhood" plot - by taking it to its logical symbolic extreme: the boorish best friend is actually the beloved childhood toy. By doing this, MacFarlane snarkily addresses the "what happens next?" question of every "boy and his magical buddy" movie ranging from E.T. to Pete's Dragon.

A shy 8-year-old social outcast, John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) makes a Christmas wish that his teddy bear would come alive so they can be real friends forever. Sure enough, the magic of the cosmos pulls through, and John awakens the following morning to find that his bear, Ted (MacFarlane), has become a living, speaking being. The talking teddy bear becomes a short-lived celebrity, but through it all, John and Ted vow to remain best friends forever. Fast forward to the present day, however, and the pair are going nowhere fast, spending their days smoking pot and watching TV. While Ted is scraping by just fine, John desperately needs to get his life in order and grow up, as his long-term girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis) is getting fed up with his crap. Faced with an ultimatum from Lori, John urges Ted to move out and start living his own life, but the friendship is hard to break, and John is left choosing between his beloved teddy bear and the woman he loves.

Beneath Ted's routine of lowbrow gags, there's unexpected intelligence and thoughtfulness which places this above less skilful comedies. The story predominantly concerns John's maturation, and the commentary on the realities of growing up is surprisingly poignant. Admittedly, though, Ted does contain a few narrative elements that feel too standard-order. The script is formulaic to extremes, and you will probably be able to guess everything that happens throughout the film. Yet, the film actually gels far better than it had any right to because it's so genuinely side-splitting. Likewise, the film has a tendency to be cheesy (especially the ending), and there's a running subplot about a creepy fan who wants to kidnap Ted which seems to have been shoehorned into the script to allow for a big finale. But in MacFarlane's hands, everything comes together beautifully. It's the execution that matters when it comes to this type of film, and, thankfully, with the original device of an alive teddy bear combined with the witty writing and energetic direction, Ted just plain works. Better yet, there's genuine sweetness here to supplement the laughs.

Those who hate Family Guy, or Seth MacFarlane's humour in general, will probably hate Ted just as much since the comedic styles are similar. But fans of MacFarlane's humour will have an utter ball with this picture. And commendably, the laughs go beyond the one-note gag of seeing a foul-mouthed teddy bear doing things that he just shouldn't be doing. As a matter of fact, the script (by MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild) is very witty, with obscure pop culture references, blue-collar bar-room humour, and even a party spotlighting a surprise cameo (from a laudably game actor) that should have viewers absolutely wetting their pants. It's also important to note that the jokes work so well not just because they're vulgar but also because of the immaculate timing and delivery. There are a lot of lowbrow laughs here, sure, and thus your liking of Ted is definitely dependent on your taste for comedy, but the film undoubtedly worked for this reviewer.

It helps that Ted is such a terrific character. Seriously, he's one of the greatest movie characters of 2012. Played by MacFarlane through motion capture, the special effects are solid here; not exactly photorealistic, but nevertheless expressionistic and believable. Ted also fully interacts with various environments in different types of lighting to amazing effect. Ted never looks cheap or phoney, nor does he ever stand out as anything other than part of this world. Like last year's Paul, you soon accept and believe the character as real rather than just a digital creation. Injecting personality into a CGI teddy bear is no mean feat, yet MacFarlane pulled it off. Furthermore, you can believe Ted's friendship with John. Ted is a fantasy, but MacFarlane makes us believe this fantastical story, which makes the characters more relatable and the story more engaging.

At first glance, it may seem like Seth MacFarlane just recycled his Peter Griffin voice for Ted, but the talented voice actor actually created a new voice with a Boston tinge (whereas Peter was distinctly New England). It's an engaging vocal performance with spot-on comedic delivery, and it's hard to imagine anyone else playing this role. Alongside him, Mark Wahlberg is extremely well-used as straight man John. He's completely believable and likeable, and, crucially, whenever he shares scenes with Ted, it never seems like he's interacting with something that's not actually there. (A punch-up between Ted and John is a particular success in this respect.) Meanwhile, Mila Kunis was saddled with the clichéd role of a frustrated girlfriend, yet she transcends the material due to the level-headedness she displays, not to mention her inherent likeability as an actress. There are a range of colourful supporting performances here, not to mention several celebrity cameos that this reviewer simply cannot spoil, and suffice it to say everyone hit their marks beautifully. Patrick Stewart even narrates the whole thing, which lends a bit of gravitas to the proceedings.

While cynical filmgoers may mark Ted down for being predictable and generic, the fact is that this is a comedy that aspires to make you laugh, and it is funny as hell. That's no small achievement. It won't change your life, but it's a wonderful, well-told comedy that wholly satisfied this reviewer, not to mention it's more heartfelt than Family Guy has ever been. And, like all of the best comedies in history, it contains countless insanely quotable lines of dialogue. Ted is an instant classic, pure and simple.

8.3/10

"If you had a chance to change your fate, would you?"

Though a definite improvement over the bitterly disappointing Cars 2, 2012's Brave is destined to be a polarising movie. While visually majestic and fun, it lacks the innovation and sophistication that Pixar is renowned for, leaving us with an enjoyable but formulaic effort that fails to linger or resonate. It's perfectly fine at surface level, but Brave is seldom remarkable, as the filmmakers were clearly more concerned with energy and fantasy than mature thematic density or humanity. This is the cruel paradox of Pixar: because they set the bar so high and established themselves as the pinnacle of animation excellence, a merely decent movie from the studio feels like a letdown. Brave isn't terrible - it's just not as good as one might want it to be. Call it the peril of high expectations.

In the highlands of 10th Century Scotland, ginger-haired princess Merida (Macdonald) is next in line for the throne of Clan DunBroch, but yearns for the freedom to do whatever she wants with her life. While King Fergus (Connolly) and Queen Elinor (Thompson) push for Merida to get married as soon as possible, the adventurous young princess prefers to spend time roaming the forest alone practising her archery skills. When members of nearby clans begin to compete for Merida's hand, the rebellious girl ends up having a shouting match with her mother, ending with Merida fleeing into the woods to escape her destiny. Led deep into the forest by ghostly blue lights, Merida happens upon an old cottage where she meets a witch (Walters). Sensing the chance to change her fate, Merida asks for a spell to make her mother back off. But the spell ends up backfiring, and Merida is left struggling to undo her reckless mistake before the consequences become permanent.

With a princess in the lead, Brave is the closest thing to a typical Disney movie that Pixar has ever produced. Wisely, the writers abstained from conventions like the proverbial wicked stepmother and a prince/princess relationship, instead exploring the complicated bond between a headstrong but loving mother and her stubborn daughter. But Brave's storytelling and structure is wobbly and rote, which is baffling since Pixar is so revered for its commitment to quality storytelling. The film simply does not traverse enough new ground, and this is all the more disappointing considering that other Pixar veterans might have been able to do something more audacious with this premise. The biggest missed opportunity is the witch. Here was Pixar's chance to create a truly unforgettable Disney villain, but the witch is never heard from again after she casts the spell. (As a matter of fact, there is no villain.) Basically, Brave reeks of "committee screenwriting" - there was no singular vision, as three writers were involved in penning the film. So while one writer might have aimed for a mature relationship between Merida and her mother, another writer insisted upon a fluffy montage set to upbeat music to lazily convey the characters' growing bond.

Brave's midsection flirts dangerously with DreamWorks sensibilities, ditching sophisticated Pixar humour and creativity in favour of goofy slapstick and derivative gags. Make no mistake, there are a few strokes of Pixar genius here (everything involving Merida's cheeky little brothers is utterly brilliant), but they are in short supply. Also, the usual zing of Pixar's dialogue is missing. Brave features a cast of lovely, sparkling Scottish accents, yet the dialogue they regurgitate is painfully perfunctory.

On a more positive note, however, the picture looks expectedly excellent. Medieval Scotland was meticulously created by the Pixar team, who rendered all of the gorgeous landscapes in stunning detail. The picture is populated with colourfully-designed characters as well. The most notable character from a design standpoint is Merida, whose blazing red hair must've been a nightmare to animate. Somehow, too, the animators managed to make bears seem cute. Indeed, Brave posed a number of unique visual challenges for the Pixar team, who conquered them all with utmost confidence. Fortunately, there are a number of great moments scattered throughout the film, including a few scenes involving a ferocious bear that are nail-bitingly tense (note the PG rating, parents). But less impressive are the 3-D effects, which are utter rubbish. Brave is dark in terms of lighting and colour palette, and thus the glasses only serve to make the picture even dimmer. It does a disservice to the Pixar animators whose work will not be fully seen or appreciated in 3-D.

The biggest positive of Brave is its voice cast. As Merida, Kelly Macdonald is sublime. Her vocal performance is strong and energetic, giving life to this heroine who's brash, stubborn and sweet. Macdonald is a home-grown Scottish lass (she was in Trainspotting), so her natural accent gives Merida an endearing flavour. As Pixar's first lead female character, Merida needed to stand out and make an impression, and, fortunately, she does. Another masterstroke was the casting of Billy Connolly as King Fergus. With the comedian's touch, Fergus has genuine personality; another essential element of any Pixar production. Digging into the supporting cast, Emma Thompson is expectedly great as Queen Elinor, while Scottish actors Robbie Coltrane, Kevin McKidd and Craig Ferguson all give position impressions as various Scottish lords.

Brave feels like a production that was drastically retooled several times, resulting in a disorganised finished product. Reportedly, original director/writer Brenda Chapman imagined the picture to be dark and mature, but departed the project in 2010 over creative disagreements. One must wonder if Chapman's vision would have resulted in another sophisticated Pixar classic rather than the light-hearted piece of entertainment we've ended up with. Brave's thematic undercurrents show promise, yet the execution is nothing special. Nevertheless, it's easy to appreciate the film's artistry, and it does entertain easily enough throughout its runtime. This will be just fine for some, but others will be left longing for the transcendent Pixar that they fell in love with.

6.8/10