Reviews by PvtCaboose91

O how the mighty have fallen. Throughout the 1990s, Arnold Schwarzenegger could hardly stop the hits from coming, as he featured in masterpieces like Terminator 2, Total Recall and True Lies. Director Andrew Davis, meanwhile, garnered critical and commercial success with The Fugitive, and went on to pursue other projects. It's a shame, then, that Collateral Damage - an Arnie/Davis collaboration - is a failure from practically every angle. Collateral Damage was originally scheduled to hit theatres in October 2001, but was delayed several months following the September 11 terrorist attacks. See, Hollywood had a sudden crisis of conscience regarding the depiction of violence in films, specifically terrorist-related violence. Too bad the movie wasn't scrapped entirely instead, as this is a second-rate, unremarkable and frankly dull revenge flick.

The term "collateral damage" is a military expression which refers to the innocent bystanders who are accidentally killed during military actions. The Schwarzenegger role here is heroic fireman Gordy Brewer, whose wife and daughter are killed in a terrorist bombing (the collateral damage of the title). The man responsible is a Columbian terrorist known as El Lobo, or "The Wolf" (Cliff Curtis). Upon discovering that the U.S. government are unable and unwilling to bring El Lobo to justice, Gordy sets off to Columbia to track down the nutcase and distribute justice himself. That's literally it.

Apparently, this lone, completely untrained fireman can effortlessly track down El Lobo, fight for survival against soldiers, and pull off what billions of dollars and hundreds of armed military men were unable to do. Meanwhile, Gordy also survives a leap off a waterfall, and pretends to fix a generator while secretly rigging an entire cocaine factory with explosives (don't the guards have eyes?). Of course, any Arnold Schwarzenegger movie requires a certain degree of suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy the ride, but Collateral Damage is not a fun ride. It takes itself far too seriously, and in the process denies viewers the pleasures associated with Arnie vehicles. The pace is far too sluggish as well. The first hour is devoted to repetitious set-up and exposition, and when the action at long last arrives it's not as energetic or as satisfyingly violent to justify the wait. Heck, Arnold never even picks up a gun - it's basically him pounding on the enemies he encounters until they are subdued. This stuff is hardly exciting. It would be a monumental effort for someone to survive this film without stifling at least one yawn.

Clearly, Collateral Damage was intended and designed to function as a type of treatise on terrorist violence, as questions are raised regarding the definition of "terrorist". By and large, this type of stuff is interesting in a post-9/11 climate. Problem is, the rote narrative is of the straight-to-video variety, and the movie tries to appeal to the action buffs through the presence of Arnie. It's a glorified B-movie with big aspirations, and it tries so hard at its aspirations that it forgets its purpose: to entertain. The dialogue is constantly flat, and the film plays out in such an obvious manner that a predictable twist towards the film's end only highlights how dull the movie had been up to that point.

One of Arnold Schwarzenegger's best attributes during his Commando era was that he never took himself too seriously. In Collateral Damage, unfortunately, he's never allowed such levity. His charisma is muted and the tone is downbeat and serious, with absolutely no opportunities for witty one-liners or sly winks. This is a grim, humourless affair, and Schwarzenegger is a lifeless automaton going through the motions. Arnie has a formidable screen presence, but he is unable to act. Attempts to portray Arnie as a different kind of action hero with dark motives and deep internal conflicts are doomed to failure. After all, the sole reason viewers will happily tolerate Arnie's bad acting is to enjoy the ride. What's there to like without the fun? A more solid actor in the leading role could have improved this film.
The supporting cast, meanwhile, is comprised of good actors who aren't given a great deal to do. The two Johns - John Leguizamo and John Turturro - are given thankless cameos with no more than 10 minutes each of screen-time. Why did these guys even bother to star in the film? Also, the casting of New Zealand actor Cliff Curtis as El Lobo is problematic, because Curtis doesn't look even remotely Columbian. The rest of the cast submit unremarkable work, and seem to be here just to make Arnie look good.

Judged purely as a piece of popcorn cinema, Collateral Damage only barely passes muster despite a few skilful moments. None of the action scenes are particularly exciting, the storyline is dull, and the overall impression you'll be left with is "blah". The movie takes itself far too seriously, as if it were making a statement about the realities of terrorism, instead of playing out like the fantastical comic-book adventure that it is. With no Arnie one-liners or memorable Arnie action, Collateral Damage is utterly drab. Would Collateral Damage have been considerably superior if it featured more of the Austrian Oak kicking ass? Probably not, but it wouldn't have hurt.

3.7/10

Warning: It's impossible to fully evaluate The Book of Eli in a review without divulging what some may consider to be spoilers, even though the film and the trailers make no effort to hide this 'spoiler'. A spoiler warning is therefore in effect, but only for the paranoid spoiler Nazis.

In essence, The Book of Eli marries the violent, gritty feel of a spaghetti western with elements of The Road, and places this concoction in the indeterminate future with a spiritual twist. The Book of Eli additionally marks the return to the directorial chair for the Hughes Brothers (Allen and Albert), who were last seen at the helm of the underrated Jack the Ripper thriller From Hell almost a decade ago. Right from the opening titles, it's clear the Hughes Brothers have matured during their absence from the director's chair - The Book of Eli is a more meditative and competent effort from the duo. That said, this movie is far from perfect, as it suffers from a self-righteous tone, overbearing religious connotations, and some risible screenwriting.

The story takes place roughly thirty years after a devastating nuclear war which destroyed most of civilisation and transformed a majority of the survivors into filthy, illiterate scavengers reduced to murder and cannibalism. The titular Eli (Washington) is a modern-day prophet who wanders the remnants of the interstate highway systems heading West, with the last known copy of the Holy Bible in his backpack. God informed Eli to proceed to a place where the Good Book can take root in the new world, and those who get in his way must be violently dealt with. Thus, when Eli is interrupted by roving biker gangs or hijackers interested in the contents of Eli's pack, he unleashes superhero-like skills. Trouble arises when Eli comes across a decrepit town ruled by the tyrannical Carnegie (Oldman), who is able to maintain his dictatorial reign because he knows of a location for clean water, and commands a horde of armed punks.

To make a long story short, Carnegie wants to get his hands on Eli's Bible, because he plans to use it as a weapon to enhance and consolidate his power. With Eli harbouring honourable intentions for the Good Book, The Book of Eli can be considered an interesting metaphor for the dual-edged nature of religion: when used with good intentions, it can lead to salvation for humanity, but when abused the results are apocalyptic.

For those not paying much attention, the big spoiler warning at the beginning was because of this review revealing the fact that Eli is carrying a Holy Bible. That's right - the twist is that Eli is carrying the Bible and it will bring hope to humanity. It's not used in any symbolic way, like if it was hollowed out and contains some ultimate weapon or a helpful map... It's literally just the Bible. How hopelessly trite and obvious can you get?! This, along with the usually clunky pacing, the introduction of the useless Salara (Kunis), and the aforementioned self-righteous tone prove most detrimental to The Book of Eli. It runs for two hours, but most of this running time is filler rather than character development. Since you know Eli is carrying the Bible and is consequently on a mission from God (if you will), the story's victor is predictable from the outset, and the script should therefore have been tighter rather than meandering.

Yet, in spite of its faults, there is much to appreciate about The Book of Eli. The Hughes Brothers and veteran cinematographer Don Burgess have crafted a painterly motion picture crafted with style and nuance. If the Mad Max films were executed with a much more generous budget, the apocalyptic wastelands would resemble those within The Book of Eli. Additionally, stylish shots and camera set-ups are frequent, such as the way the camera at times moves as if it's a bird trying to avoid all the airborne bullets. The direction of the action scenes is crisp and kinetic, and the directorial duo never relied on fast cuts or editing-room assembly to make the fights seem fast or furious (the best fight occurs early into the film, and is presented almost entirely in silhouette). The film culminates with a riveting shootout which would make Sam Peckinpah smile. An extra ribbon for the excellent sound design and the moody score by first-timer Atticus Ross, too.

The eternally-reliable Denzel Washington is credible and engaging as Eli, and it's refreshing to see a kickass action hero like him - he's not a wise-cracker, an impossibly muscular force of nature, some type of misfit, or any other stale, popular Hollywood troupe.
Gary Oldman, meanwhile, is in full bad-guy mode here, with his performance reminding us of the villains he used to portray in such movies as Leon: The Professional. If you've seen any post-apocalyptic action movie before, however, you've seen this type of one-note villain before, making Oldman's work solid but unremarkable. The attractive Mila Kunis is also on hand as Solara, yet she looks too comely and clean to be living in such a harsh world (usually the case with movies of this ilk featuring a female protagonist). The role does prove to be within Kunis' range, though, which is unsurprising considering how little she was given to work with. Ray Stevenson, meanwhile, (who you may or may not remember from the awesome Punisher: War Zone which nobody saw) is solid in his performance as Carnegie's right-hand man.

The Book of Eli is not a great movie or even a classic of the genre, but there's a great deal to admire, particularly in the visual style and the action sequences. Additionally, it's a treat to see a big-budget actioner which doesn't sacrifice intelligence for the sake of special effects. The Book of Eli contains one of the best truck explosions in cinema of recent years, yet a viewer is not asked to lower their I.Q. to enjoy the pyrotechnics. While a flawed cinematic experience, it's still worth checking out.

6.2/10

Superficially, there's nothing about Showdown in Little Tokyo to get excited about. It comes across as a typical, silly, by-the-numbers action picture. Dig deeper, though, and you will find Showdown in Little Tokyo to be one of the best actioners of the 1990s - and, indeed, one of the best buddy cop action pictures in history (right behind Lethal Weapon). When it comes to action films, most are pretty disposable and undistinguished, yet Showdown in Little Tokyo is distinctly separated from its unremarkable brethren due to a number of things: an ideal pairing of actors, a top-notch script bursting with hilarious one-liners, technical competency, and absolutely no pretentions. It had modest ambitions of being a goofily watchable pure action film, and it surpassed them with aplomb.

The plot (or rather the excuse for this movie to exist) concerns the Japanese Yakuza organisation, which has moved into Little Tokyo, Los Angeles. Leading them is vicious gangster Yoshida (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa), who's manufacturing drugs and utilising a brewery as the distribution centre. LAPD detective Chris Kenner (Dolph Lundgren) has a personal score to settle with Yoshida, as the gangster slaughtered Chris' parents when Chris was just a small child. Meanwhile, Chris is given a youthful partner in the form of Jimmy Murata (Brandan Lee). In keeping with buddy cop action pictures of the 1980s, these two are an "odd couple" pairing due to their differing ideologies and backgrounds. They do have one thing in common, however: outstanding fighting ability. Thus, with excellent fighting skills and an arsenal of weapons on their side, the stage is set for an action-packed showdown between hundreds of armed Yakuza thugs (who are unable to shoot straight) and the two heroes. Oh, and Chris & Jimmy also endeavour to protect a girl named Minako (Tia Carrere).

Within the first 20 minutes of Showdown in Little Tokyo, shootouts unfold, Dolph Lundgren kicks serious butt, the comedic lines literally never stop, a big-breasted blonde shows up, and there are bare titties. Director Mark L. Lester (the genius behind Commando) refuses to allow this raucous energy and breakneck pace to relent for a single frame as the narrative continually throttles forward at full speed, leading to non-stop action sequences, sex scenes, and priceless interactions between Lundgren and Lee. A hackneyed revenge plot may lie at the film's core, but you'll be enjoying the fast-paced ride too much to care about the script flaws (of which there are a number). After all, action movies will always be marred by contrivances, wooden acting and clichés, so the film's quality depends on the ride. Fortunately, Showdown in Little Tokyo provides a pulse-pounding ride accentuated by an excellently intense score, and the film is inhabited by two heroes so likeable that you will never want the movie to end. Hell, there's even an '80s-style training montage thrown in for good measure!

The engaging Brandon Lee - son of martial arts legend Bruce Lee - made his American film debut with Showdown in Little Tokyo. Brandon, who died in a tragic accident on the set of The Crow, was an exceptional action star, and he's in top form here. He emanates charisma, and he managed to give his character a tremendous degree of personality. It's an added bonus that Lee is so talented during the fight scenes, all of which are outstanding. Thankfully, Dolph Lundgren is also great. His performance as Chris Kenner could be his finest work to date (it's inarguably his best role to date as well). Dolph's acting skills are usually ridiculed, and usually for good reason, but the Dolphster displays impressive acting skills in this movie. He delivers one-liners with the confidence and charisma of any '80s action icon at the pinnacle of their career. Placing Lundgren and Lee alongside each other was an excellent decision, as the two share genuine chemistry, exchange hilarious banter, and playfully bounce off one another. I defy you to find a better buddy cop pair-up outside of the Lethal Weapon movies.

If you approach Showdown in Little Tokyo with a critical mind, you're viewing it for all the wrong reasons. Even so, the film is not bad at all from a critical standpoint as it only rarely asks us to suspend our disbelief, and the dialogue is clever (there are at least 10 or 15 laugh-out-loud zingers here). All things considered, Showdown in Little Tokyo is an easy film to love. Mark L. Lester has crafted the movie with impressive zeal, and the action sequences as the result of his labours are exhilarating. Everything from the comedy to the fisticuffs, and the shootouts to the nudity hit all the right buttons. As an actioner, this movie fulfils its purpose...and then some. Action buffs owe it to themselves to check out this film, while casual movie-watchers seeking 75 minutes of easy entertainment should find this movie equally as satisfying.

8.5/10

Someone had better get in touch with Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson and Vin Diesel, because Jackie Chan is stealing their work!
2010's The Spy Next Door denotes the latest attempt by a hardcore action star to launch a new sub-career by performing in dumbed-down family films. Not unlike other fluff pieces starring tough guys, Chan's PG-rated flick is a by-the-numbers slog comprised of unfunny scenarios and merely passable action. Any way you cut it, The Spy Next Door is a fucking awful film. Whether you view it strictly as a critic or try to see it through the eyes of a little kid with no concern about the quality of cinema, this flick is a total dud. It's not funny, charming or particularly exciting, and it certainly is not well-made. Directed by Brian Levant (also responsible for Jingle All the Way, Are We There Yet? and Snow Dogs), this is a hackneyed, mindless waste of time and money.

Luckily, The Spy Next Door opens with terrific footage of Chan's past hits. Watching all that great stunt work and comic mugging of yesteryear reminds us of why we love the guy. Unfortunately, the movie begins proper after that, with Chan tossed haphazardly into the sort of comedy where a family has a pet pig. Chan plays Bob Ho; an undercover secret agent on loan to the Americans from the Chinese government. During his assignment of chasing down a nefarious Russian, Bob falls for the single mother living next door, Gillian (Valletta). But before marriage plans can be considered between the two, Bob has to earn the respect of Gillian's three children: a precocious boy (Shadley), a sweet little girl (Foley), and an attitude-heavy teen (Carroll). Bob soon captures the Russian bad guy and retires just as Gillian has to leave town on a medical emergency, leaving Bob to babysit the three kids. The Russian escapes from prison, of course, and he's out to get Bob and execute his plans to manipulate the world's oil supply.

Yes, it's a standard set-up not unlike other family movies (it's very reminiscent of The Pacifier, to name one). Yes, sweet moments are incorporated as each kid warms up to Bob. Yes, Bob's martial arts skills and spy gadgets prove beneficial. If you didn't predict these things, you desperately need to see more films. The Spy Next Door represents the tough-guy-as-a-nanny routine that's been amended especially for Chan's special skills, with notoriously robotic family filmmaker Brian Levant overseeing the silliness. Levant's direction is as predictable as the film itself. As forced family films go, The Spy Next Door is painful, and it embodies everything that's wrong about what studios believe to be good, clean, wholesome entertainment.

The Spy Next Door does manage to provide the trademark wide-enhanced action choreography that Chan is renowned for. Now in his '50s, the actor is unable to pull off the same gravity-defying wizardry as he once could, but Chan does engage in agreeable mayhem when the moment calls for it. Once the action does arrive, The Spy Next Door thankfully livens up, but only slightly. Problem is, 70% of the movie is devoted to either unfunny comedy or forced, cloying sentiment, which limits the dynamic action. Another problem is the tone which keeps the film safe for children, but less invigorating for Chan purists or, God help them, parents forced into enduring the film with their kids. This, combined with the predictable narrative beats and the perpetually unsuccessful comedy, renders the experience almost unwatchable.

Jackie Chan is, logically, the force of the movie, but the star's performance is visibly phoned-in. His broken English doesn't help matters. Whereas in the Rush Hour films, Chan's broken English and confused delivery factor into the comedy, The Spy Next Door expects viewers to believe that this awkward secret agent - who's barely able to utter an intelligible sentence - can maintain a loving relationship with an attractive American mother. Alas, Chan never exhibits sufficient acting range to make any of the character's relationships believable. Interestingly, the customary gag reel at the end features less "stunts gone bad" and more "Jackie messes up his line". Thankfully, Amber Valletta is tolerable as Gillian, while the kids - Madeline Carroll, Will Shadley and Alina Foley - are all passable. Carroll in particular handles the dreadful material like a champ.

While we can begrudgingly credit Levant and the writers for avoiding bodily function humour that seems to soil PG family flicks, this is faint praise. Pretty much everything else is awful. The tots might - keyword might - enjoy the Daddy Day Care-style mayhem, but even that stuff is in short supply. There is an ample supply of is sugar, however - there's enough of it to cover the next few Christmases. For crying out loud, the film contains lines such as "I want Bob to be my daddy". Rest assured the film won't give the kiddies nightmares, but parents will be longing for a double or triple-feature of Chan's greatest hits after they endure it. If you're still reading this review, you've spent more time mulling over The Spy Next Door than the filmmakers did - and more time than it deserves. (I spent so much time reviewing it for the sake of the hobby, and to warn you. I did not enjoy thinking about it for so long.)

2.8/10

If the movie title Titanic is used during a conversation, one of two particular motion pictures will usually spring to mind: James Cameron's 1997 blockbuster, or Jean Negulesco's 1953 drama. However, this review concerns none of the aforementioned movies - this is a review of the 1943 Nazi propaganda movie entitled Titanic; a feature which suggests that the sinking of the famous 'unsinkable' ocean liner could have been avoided if the powers that be had listened to the only German officer on the ship. As an instance of moviemaking, 1943's Titanic is nothing to get excited about, but as a historical artefact which demonstrates how demented the Nazi party was, Titanic is something of great interest.

If you're not familiar with the story of the RMS Titanic, here it is in short: it was the largest ship ever made at the time, and was touted as "unsinkable". During her maiden voyage in 1912 across the North Atlantic Ocean, she struck and iceberg and sunk. With not enough lifeboats to save all the passengers, the disaster led to the deaths of over 1,500 people.

Front and centre in this particular motion picture is the propagandistic message of British greed, ignorance and arrogance. The film's first section reveals that White Star Line president Bruce Ismay (Fürbringer) is anxious to improve his company's stock performance. In bringing this plan to fruition, Ismay bribes the Titanic's captain with a substantial cash bonus for an early arrival in New York, thus endangering everyone on-board. Among the Titanic's crew is German officer Herr Peterson (Nielsen), who urges that heed be paid to the constant ice warnings and dropping temperature. He is ignored and reprimanded by his superiors, of course, and when the ship collides with an iceberg Peterson is the only one to behave nobly.

Titanic was green-lit because Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels perceived the real-life disaster as a great example of British incompetency. It was the most expensive German movie up until that time, and endured countless production difficulties. Before shooting had been completed, the film's director, Herbert Selpin, was overheard making disparaging remarks about the German navy. His remarks were relayed onto the Gestapo, who arrested him and threw him in prison. The following day, Selpin was found hanging in his cell. Production continued nevertheless, and the movie was eventually completed by new director Werner Klingler. The night before Titanic's debut in Germany, however, the building which housed the premiere print was destroyed in an air raid. Goebbels - who had already endured protests over the treatment of Selpin - subsequently sensed the sequences depicting shipboard panic in the movie too closely echoed the actual panic of the German population (who were subjected to nightly bombings), and decided to ban the film. It was only seen after extensive cutting in occupied Paris. Hitler's Germany never saw the movie.

Most of principal photography for Titanic took place on-board the SS Cap Arcona; a passenger cruise ship which itself sank in the last weeks of World War II, resulting in a loss of life far heavier than that of the actual Titanic. The sets in general are impressive and expansive, and the flooding sequences were pulled off competently. That said, none of the locations look anything like the actual Titanic. This extends to...pretty much all the action which doesn't feature the detailed model. Watch as the officers on the ship see the iceberg, and order a searchlight be shone upon it. Never mind that searchlights were never installed on the Titanic, and the model for the wide shots does not include said searchlight... As a consequence of such carelessness, it's difficult to accept this as a Titanic picture. It's also difficult to accept the Titanic passengers as British, because each speaks fluent German with a perfect German accent.

The real concern with films of this nature is how effectively they work as a spectacle, and Titanic is simply not much of a spectacle at all. It runs at a brisk 85 minutes, but the ship hits the iceberg about halfway through the movie, which just leads to some merely passable model work, some "I told you so" posturing by the stoic officer Peterson, and a number of perilously naff moments. Consider, for instance, that the Titanic's final 90 minutes unfolds in 5 minutes. The model of the ship sinks impossibly quickly, and it's more amusing than moving. The character drama is at times compelling, but Titanic is never thoroughly engrossing. There isn't a great deal of worthwhile character development, and thus everyone is fairly two-dimensional.

Taken as a standalone movie, Titanic is too laughable and not overly effective, though it's still an interesting and recommended watch. Those intrigued by the Titanic disaster should make a particular effort to watch this movie, as it's a fascinating glimpse into a chapter of history we rarely see. Of course, too, it's recommended to those who are merely curious to see how demented the Nazis were. Most interesting is the blatant piece of propaganda at the very end when a title card is displayed that reads: "The deaths of 1,500 people remain unatoned for, an eternal condemnation on the English quest for profit".

5.4/10

Cop Out is indie filmmaker Kevin Smith's first attempt at working within Hollywood's big studio system. However, by all accounts, the studio granted Smith the requisite freedom to make Cop Out his way (like an independent film) as if it was all his own creation. Problem is, this movie is not all Smith's own creation - the script was penned by television writers Robb and Mark Cullen before Smith got involved, making Cop Out the first movie Kevin Smith has directed but not written. This results in a bland, mostly disastrous motion picture. Typical airplane food has more flavour.

The movie, which originally bore the far superior working title of A Couple of Dicks, concerns two veteran NYPD officers Jimmy (Willis) and Paul (Morgan), who are unable to make it 20 minutes into the film without getting suspended for a failed drug bust. Of course, this suspension doesn't prevent the duo from continuing their own investigation on their own time. Jimmy and Paul begin attempting to track down a stolen baseball card collectible that will help Jimmy pay for his daughter's wedding. By either coincidence or contrivance (take your pick), this search leads them to a kidnapped Mexican hottie (Reguera) and an on-the-rise drug kingpin (Díaz) who's wanted by the NYPD.

Unlike the central characters of Cop Out, the entire movie is strictly by-the-book. The screenplay contains all the conventions of the well-worn cop action-comedy genre (it wouldn't be a cop action-comedy without: an irate police captain suspending the protagonists, a pair of rival detectives in the squad, and the heroes doing something right by the end of the film to get reinstated), but the writers never bothered to colour outside the lines. Kevin Smith would consider this stuff as paying homage to all the great '80s action-comedies (Beverly Hills Cop and 48 Hrs. being the best examples), but there's more to a homage than using every cliché in the book. A good homage, or an affectionate parody, is a combination of genuine love and respect for the films being referenced, a keen awareness of the genre, and an ability to pull off something fresh. Scream, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are the best examples of this. While it's clear Smith loves '80s cop films (let's face it, who doesn't?), he failed to do anything innovative with the expression of that love.

The laughs to be experienced in Cop Out are occasional and generally not of the belly variety. The dialogue falls far short of the level of wit we normally expect from a Kevin Smith production, too, because writers Robb and Mark Cullen are simply not as talented as Smith. Sure, there are a few zingers (the Die Hard reference is a laugh-out-loud moment), but not enough. Smith is merely a gun for hire here, and by a studio hiring him as a director but not a writer, they are playing to his weakness. On top of the lukewarm comedy, the action is not especially exciting, and the dramatic elements (Jimmy's relationship with his daughter, Paul's concern about his wife possibly cheating on him) are flat. The big bad guy is more cartoonish than threatening, and the production values are generally substandard. Since this is Smith's first foray into action cinema, one wouldn't expect first-rate shootouts, so it'd be unfair to judge him too harshly in that respect. But letting Smith edit the picture - whether it was a matter of cost control or a creative decision - was a big mistake. The pacing and flow of the picture is appalling.

With only a handful of action sequences throughout the flick's running time, Cop Out was almost entirely reliant on the below par dialogue to see it through, most of which takes place between Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan. Needless to say, it doesn't get the job done. Actually, most of the dialogue is between Morgan and the wall. Willis' talents are shockingly underexploited, which is especially disappointing considering he's Bruce fucking Willis, a.k.a. John McClane! In Cop Out, Willis is a thankless straight man given barely any clever one-liners or moments of comedy. At least there are a few humorous moments when Seann William Scott shows up. It's a shame, then, that Scott is only in the movie for 15 minutes tops. Scott steals every scene he's in, and Cop Out would've been worthwhile if he was a main player.

Admittedly, one has to grant Cop Out this much: it tries. Smith tried to inject some life into the proceedings by hiring an ideal cast, hiring the guy who scored Beverly Hills Cop to crank out a catchy score (one of the best things about the flick), and filming it like it's straight out of the '80s. While Cop Out is entertaining and amusing from time to time, a handful of laughs and a bunch of unspectacular action sequences are simply not enough to justify an entire motion picture. Someone can get free laughs by surfing the web, and can experience awesome action sequences by watching their favourite '80s movies again. To paraphrase another critic, it's easy to recognise why Smith attached himself to Cop Out: he got to work with Bruce Willis, achieve some mainstream recognition, and receive a healthy paycheck. Yet, the final result works out better for Smith than it does for anyone experiencing the fruit of his labours.

4.2/10

Date Night can best be described as a late descendant of the "one crazy night" sub-genre of movies which became popular back in the '80s. Such titles as Sixteen Candles, After Hours, Adventures in Babysitting and even Die Hard all spring to mind as examples of this sub-genre. There are distant echoes of other flicks within Date Night as well; particularly Hitchcock's various explorations of innocent people who are suddenly embroiled in danger not of their making. It's easy to deduce from this that Date Night is nothing original or ambitious in the script department, and it isn't, but it nevertheless works. It's a tremendously funny film which boasts the comic duo of Steve Carell and Tina Fey, who are as perfect as an on-screen pairing can get. While the mediocre script feels regurgitated by a computer program, the uniformly excellent cast combined with big laughs and winning chemistry make this a perfectly pleasant, often uproarious action-comedy. Even with Shawn Levy at the helm, the movie is a consistent delight.

Carell and Fey star as Phil and Claire Foster; a nice, boring New Jersey couple whose marriage has settled into a monotonous rut of exhaustion and routine, and whose marital intimacy is reduced to the occasional "date nights". Upon hearing news of the impending divorce of a seemingly happy couple the two are acquainted with, Phil and Claire decide to spice up their date night by heading into Manhattan and attempting to get a table at the trendiest of trendy new restaurants without a reservation. After they're denied a table, Phil impulsively claims they are a no-show couple in order to steal a reservation. Unfortunately for the Fosters, this leads to them being mistakenly identified by a pair of gun-toting thugs (Simpson and Common), turning their date night into an action-packed nightmare.

Date Night's central problem is that the filmmakers seemed to have decided that their work was over once the basic premise is established. They should've just been getting started, instead. A more ambitious bunch of filmmakers would've given the premise a few new twists, and spun it off in new and intriguing directions. This creative team, however, eschew these ideas in favour of an easy Level One approach, with clichés, pedestrian plot points, and a conclusion that's obvious from the outset. These are problems that would sink any ordinary movie, but, miraculously, Date Night stays afloat thanks to the cast. Suspension of disbelief is called for at times too (the identity mix-up could quite easily have been rectified), but, as the momentum builds, you'll be having too good a time to care. After all, how can one think ill of a movie with serious belly-laughs and action that at one stage reinvents the car chase?

Despite a myriad of fun action set-pieces and a lot of laughs, Date Night works best during the smaller moments between Carell and Fey. Moments of drama unfold between them from time to time which are played with the right amount of sincerity to maintain realism amidst the increasingly over-the-top proceedings. It's precisely because the Fosters are so mundane and relatable that a viewer will care about them. Naturally, the casting of Carell and Fey was integral to this, and the two are the best screen pair of recent memory. They're both competent at selling a gag or a one-liner, and they both know how to develop and flesh-out their roles as authentic human beings rather than thin caricatures going through the motions.
Filling out the supporting cast is a cornucopia of talented performers. Mark Wahlberg willingly pokes fun at his meatball image by playing a security guy who's perpetually topless, while Mila Kunis and James Franco (in their one-scene cameo) threaten to upstage Carell and Fey as the volatile couple who the Fosters were mistaken for. Jimmi Simpson and rapper-turned-actor Common are also on hand playing the menacing thugs, while seasoned pros William Fichtner and Ray Liotta excel as corrupt overlords.

During and after the end credits, a reel of bloopers and alternate takes of Carell and Fey's ad-libbing is shown. It reinforces the notion that practically all of the funniest moments in the film were likely improvised by the cast, but it also makes us more thankful for the actors that were assembled. Since comedy is subjective, it feels pointless to simply say the film is funny since some may disagree, but it's worth at least giving this film a shot. The only unfortunate thing about the laughs in Date Night is that there are a few comedic possibilities which are never capitalised upon. This extends to hanging threads (the Fosters coming home to the babysitter would've been amusing) and scenes that feel as if a bigger comic punch could've been added (the Fosters escaping the police station).

There's not a great deal else which can be said about Date Night, other than to reiterate that Carell and Fey lend a degree of panache to the unremarkable script, allowing Date Night to be a fun slice of entertainment. When it comes to comedies, a lousy narrative can be excused as long as you can enjoy the ride, and this is the case here. It won't be remembered when the summer movie season commences, or even a few days after seeing it, but if you want 85 minutes of laughs and action, this will provide.

7.2/10

In the tradition of films like Peter Weir's Gallipoli, 2010's Beneath Hill 60 is an Australian war movie that portrays Australian soldiers' heroism and nobility, illustrating their crucial role and tremendous sacrifice during World War I under the command of callous British officers. With a screenplay by David Roach, Beneath Hill 60 immortalises a little-known true story from the Western Front about Australia's involvement in the Great War that emphasises courage, loyalty, camaraderie, and sacrifice while depicting the ingenuity of Australian wartime engineers. Instead of an action-packed war picture, director Jeremy Sims (Last Train to Freo) mounts a compelling, claustrophobic experience that primarily takes place in unstable tunnels and muddy trenches, with battlefield carnage occasionally breaking up the tense interactions and tunnel construction. Additionally, instead of another war movie about infantry soldiers, Beneath Hill 60 focuses on the 1st Australian Tunnelling Company - a unit of skilled engineers who dug deep tunnels underneath enemy lines and, in 1916, set off one of the largest explosions in history, a blast killing thousands of German soldiers that was audible in other countries.

An Australian miner, Oliver Woodward (Brendan Cowell) helps the war effort at home by supplying copper, and he falls in love with teenager Marjorie Waddell (Bella Heathcote), a girl who is ten years his junior. With the Great War raging on overseas, Woodward receives constant pressure to enlist and serve his country, and an ideal opportunity presents itself with the formation of the 1st Australian Tunnelling Company. With the Australian Army trusting Woodward to lead the unit, he leaves for the Western Front as a commissioned officer. After Woodward successfully leads a mission to destroy a fortified German position using powerful explosives, his superiors promote him to captain and send him to the trenches at Hill 60 in Belgium. Inspecting the lines upon his arrival, Woodward learns that Canadian and British engineers have been tunnelling and planting thousands of kilograms of ammonium nitrate explosives below the Messines Ridge. Woodward takes over the operation, overseeing the construction of a massive shaft to keep water away from the explosives while also digging diversion tunnels to confuse the German soldiers and keep their operation a secret.

Roach conducted extensive research during the screenwriting process, consulting Woodward's war diaries and sourcing material from Canberra's Australian War Memorial Archives to facilitate a high level of authenticity. Consequently, Beneath Hill 60 rarely sacrifices facts for entertainment, and the film ably captures the attitudes and sensibilities of the era instead of giving the story a contemporary spin. The dialogue carries an engaging lyricism that effortlessly evokes the 1910s, and the script embraces the Australian soldiers' buoyant camaraderie and dry humour. Admirably, the movie does not depict the German soldiers as faceless monsters; instead, Sims portrays their perspective in an unbiased light and highlights how much both sides have in common. However, the film's structure is slightly flawed, as Sims frequently cuts back to scenes of Woodward in Australia before his enlistment to explore his relationship with Marjorie. Although the flashbacks add dimension to Woodward and make it easier to care about him, the scenes are overused and sometimes clunky. Eventually, the flashbacks interrupt the movie's pace and intensity; they feel like homework while we wait for the film to return to the battlefield.

Despite a reported production budget of $6 million, Beneath Hill 60 impresses with its slick and authentic look, boasting the production values of Hollywood films with significantly higher budgets. Everything from the sets to the period-specific props and costumes generates a seamless illusion, and the layered, meticulous sound design further makes us believe we are in the trenches alongside these soldiers during WWI. Sims and the crew pulled off a minor miracle in effectively recreating the trench-laden battlefields of WWI outside of Townsville in Queensland, and the picture's scale never feels compromised by the meagre budget. Hugh Jackman even assisted the production by allowing the team to shoot on a WWI set from 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Sims marvellously captures the mud, blood, and sweat of trench warfare, while cinematographer Toby Oliver uses claustrophobic, low-light photography to emphasise the feeling of being inside a cramped tunnel.

Additionally, Sims stages several exciting and tense set pieces, particularly when the Australian soldiers cross into No Man's Land at the mercy of enemy machine guns. Beneath Hill 60 is also successful during more light-hearted scenes, such as the Australian soldiers playing a friendly game of rugby against the British in the muddy terrain, and an amusing scene of the soldiers singing after the game concludes. Townsville's Brothers Rugby Union even supplied players to participate in the scene. Meanwhile, the original score by composer Cezary Skubiszewski (Two Hands) is poignant and moving, adding another dimension to the first-rate sound design. However, when the music swells and becomes more emotional, it implies something tragic is about to occur, which renders several moments fairly predictable. (The death of Billy Bacon, played by Mark Coles Smith, is a key example.) Another slight imperfection is the digital effects for the final explosion, which look a tad cartoonish. However, these faults are minor compared to the film's myriad strengths.

Brendan Cowell (2007's Noise) delivers a strong and engaging performance as Captain Oliver Woodward, portraying the soldier as a man of stoic loyalty and awkward emotion. Cowell confidently handles the tricky material, ensuring every line and action is wholly believable. Fortunately, Sims surrounds Cowell with a capable supporting cast of recognisable actors and unknowns. Gyton Grantley, who rose to prominence in TV's Underbelly, is thoroughly convincing as Norman Morris, a sapper under Woodward's command. Newcomer Harrison Gilbertson is also impressive in the role of the young, shellshocked Frank Tiffin, while Steve Le Marquand (2006's Kokoda) makes a terrific impression as Corporal Bill Fraser, the battalion's resident hard-nut. Also joining the cast is Australian comedian Bob Franklin, who shows up in a minor role as an Aussie soldier. The camaraderie among the actors is infectious, with the spirit of these Aussie larrikins adding texture to the senseless death and bloodshed. Rounding out the main cast is Bella Heathcote, who would later become a recognisable international star with several prominent film and television credits. Beneath Hill 60 was Heathcote's second film role, and she's endearing and credible as young Marjorie.

Beneath Hill 60 is a top-notch Australian war picture that effectively delivers traditional genre elements as powerfully as a Hollywood offering. With its strong writing and impressive production values, Beneath Hill 60 has a fighting chance of joining the ranks of Gallipoli and Breaker Morant. It is arguably the best Aussie war film of this generation, and it may contribute to future generations' understanding of the Australian experience in the Great War thanks to the striking attention to historical accuracy.

8.4/10

Remember Judd Apatow's 2009 project, Funny People? While a lousy and flat film, it at one stage cleverly poked fun at actors who have long renounced their dignity for the sake of a paycheck. Tooth Fairy is exactly the type of noxious family entertainment parodied in Apatow's flick. It mixes a few recognisable faces with a nauseating amount of schmaltz, a one-joke premise, and pedestrian filmmaking, resulting in an excruciating flick which is so unbelievably cheesy that one could mistake it for a cheese emporium. Added to this, its target audience appears to be strangely specific - those in the first grade. Second graders are far too old for this tosh, and would easily see through the shitty script. Anyone younger is just too young, as the intricacies of fairy politics would be too complex for their little minds. First graders will enjoy this, however. I just hope they keep it away from the rest of us.

Former WWE Wrestler Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson displayed at least some charisma in his action hero roles in the past, but his decision to pursue family-friendly entertainment has only dented the star's once-promising career. Johnson's character here, Derek Thompson, is a hockey player with a fierce reputation, which has earned him the nickname "Tooth Fairy" due to his ability to smash the holy hell out of anyone on the ice. He's also a loudmouth cynic whose dreams were crushed by injury. One night, Derek explains to his girlfriend's daughter (Whitlock) that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, which absolutely horrifies his girlfriend Carly (Judd). As a consequence, Derek is summoned to the land of fairies for the crime of disbelief, and is forced to serve as an actual tooth fairy for a couple of weeks.

The screenplay (credited to a whopping five writers) peddles the same tiresome themes that all family comedies are concerned about these days, and is structured like every other family flick of the past decade. At first Derek is mean, but he learns lessons, rekindles his passion for life, bonds with his girlfriend's son (who, of course, initially resents Derek), and in the process gets caught up in slapstick shenanigans. Tooth Fairy follows this tedious road map without fail, hitting comedic beats any intelligent person can predict a mile away. As a matter of fact, the film revisits the mythology of the Tooth Fairy in a fashion that mixes Fred Claus, Elf and The Santa Clause, in which a non-believer of a children's fantasy learns that said fantasy is in fact real. He also finds out the fantasy is a funded operation, and lack of believers is threatening the future. Why couldn't the movie have mirrored Bad Santa instead? At least that would've been funny... Imagine Derek walking into a child's room, and telling the kid "Give me your fucking tooth, you little brat. I've had too much to drink and I'm in a bad fucking mood". Hey, that's funnier than anything in the actual movie.

Every single inch of Tooth Fairy is unbelievably formulaic, to the extent that watching it becomes a process of waiting for the obvious set-ups to inevitably play out. For instance, Derek is told he will be handed a Tooth Fairy assignment at any random time, and, to force him to do it, his wings will sprout out and his clothes will be replaced with a fairy outfit. Thus, when Derek is getting intimate with Carly, WA-HEY - Derek is paged and an assignment is handed down, necessitating an awkward escape. During an important hockey match, WA-HEY - Derek has to leave on an assignment, hence another awkward exit. Anyone with half a brain will foresee such things happening. Director Lembeck is a terrible filmmaker, and was unable to imbue neither the fantasy world nor his routine shot construction with any flair or professionalism. Considering the $48 million budget, the ugly-looking film is very disappointing indeed; lacking energy and visual audacity. These things are truly irksome, but not as groan-inducing as the broad humour. Despite the five credited writers, Tooth Fairy hasn't got a single clever comic beat in its body.

Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson visibly struggles to retain his charisma here, resulting in a tragically flat performance. Stephen Merchant (whose work is decent) and the uncredited Billy Crystal are the only good things within Tooth Fairy. Crystal's one-scene cameo as a fairy inventor provides the film's only remotely amusing moments, and merely exists to highlight how fucking awful the rest of the movie is. Rubbing salt in the wound is Julie Andrews who's woeful as the magisterial head of the fairies, and Ashley Judd who's terrible as Derek's confused girlfriend. Johnson and Judd have the coldest and most contrived chemistry of recent memory.

Back in the 1990s, muscular action star Arnold Schwarzenegger put his career in danger by starring in awful family films such as Jingle All the Way. The difference between Arnie and The Rock, however, is that Schwarzenegger earned his family film slot by first starring in a number of awesome action films. Johnson, like Vin Diesel, too quickly ditched the action hero career in favour of kiddie movies before featuring in any awesome action flicks. Forgettable from the very minute it begins, and played without even a hint of such concepts as wit and originality, Tooth Fairy only finds time to feed the public's appetite for watching brawny, self-serious men wearing pink tutus, making animal noises and using shiny objects. This movie is awful...and that's the tooth!

1.8/10

A lot has been made regarding family films like Where the Wild Things Are, which are perceived as too mature for little kids. The exact inverse applies to Old Dogs; a film too stupid and infantile for anyone able to speak in full sentences. A strong cast may be attached to the flick, but the script is laboured, stale, obvious and unable to serve the actors. The humour is forced and obvious, while the attempts at dramatic moments are as well-executed as Will Ferrell doing Shakespeare. The side effects of enduring the mawkish melodrama of the film include retching and uncontrollable eyeball-rolling. Imagine a season's worth of plot devices from a generic television sitcom crammed into 85 excruciating minutes served with a side-order of clichés, and you have Old Dogs. Filmed in 2007, it has the feel of a movie that's been reworked and reordered a dozen times until only a pure goof-and-sentiment experience remains...which fails at both goals.

The two titular "old dogs" are lifelong friends and business partners Charlie (Travolta) and Dan (Williams), who are on the verge of closing the deal of their careers with a Japanese firm. Things change for the duo, however, when Dan's old flame Vicki (Preston) resurfaces. Nearly nine years prior, Dan married Vicki on a drunken impulse, and the marriage was annulled the next day. The reason for Vicki showing up all these years later is to reveal that Dan is the father of her twins, and that she's facing a two-week stint in gaol for a political protest. While Vicki is doing time, Dan volunteers to look after the two kids, even though he's incompetent when it comes to handling kids, and he's more concerned with his job. Of course, this just sets up the real crux of the story - the part teaching us that family is everything, not business. Every narrative beat from here on in is so formulaic and by-the-numbers that the screenwriters should be ashamed.

A pall hangs over Old Dogs. It's officially Bernie Mac's final film, and his death resulted in the film's opening being delayed. This film is also the last film John Travolta starred in before his son, Jett, tragically died; further delaying the film's release. As a matter of fact, Jett is the only member of the Travolta clan not to have a role in Old Dogs. John's wife, Kelly Preston, plays Vicki, while their daughter, Ella Bleu, is one of the kids.

For the entire duration of Old Dogs, the objective is merely to put the hapless leads in humiliating situations and beat them senseless with their own cluelessness. This is terrible episodic filmmaking which expires immediately, and it's glumly orchestrated by Becker who is unable to add any sense of personality to the flick. Instead, he leans on colourful cameos (Matt Dillon, Justin Long, Luis Guzman, Amy Sedaris, Dax Shepard and Rita Wilson all appear for no good reason), unfunny pratfalls and obvious jokes. The situations are always awkward and predictable, accentuated with an expected procession of flatulence and urine humour, topped off with some genital trauma and stale jokes which re-emerge far too many times (Dan and Charlie are continuously mistaken as grandparents). A soul is the last thing the film should be concerned about, as unfunny jokes and comedic situations demand top priority.

The convoluted plot set-up is derivative and contrived, the characters are barely tolerable, and the film's main gags (heeeelarious set-pieces involving dying pups, hands getting caught in a car boot, drug trips, Asian stereotyping, homosexual innuendo, and other stuff) are stranded in a PG-rated wasteland in which laughs and good taste are a rarity. As an example of how predictable the set-pieces are: Dan enters a tanning booth, an operational mishap occurs (which cannot be rectified until too late, as Charlie is flirting with the attendant) and Dan ends up browner than an M&M. Funny? No. Predictable? Definitely. Also, when Charlie and Dan discuss their complicated regime of pills and the respective side-effects, one can be sure that within minutes they'll swallow the wrong pills, leading to an assortment of unfunny hijinks. Everyone involved in the film seemed to believe only the broadest, most overt sense of humour will get laughs, and they'll be damned if you want anything else. Strangely, some of these moments were funny in the trailer (at least in this reviewer's humble opinion), but in the personality-less full movie, there's no longer a comedic punch to them.

Chief among the most tragic things about Old Dogs is the way it provokes us to reflect upon how far Robin Williams has fallen. Once one of the funniest actors in Hollywood (who also showed strong dramatic chops, particularly in Good Will Hunting for which he earned an Oscar), Williams has been reduced to overplaying obvious jokes. Both Williams and John Travolta are talented, but here they simply push and pull their performances so hard that they nearly pass out from exhaustion. They leer and grimace on cue, do bad physical comedy at a moment's notice, and burst out into exaggerated laughter when required. They're never given the chance to present Dan and Charlie as anything more than caricatures. It's easy to see why Travolta was attracted to the movie, since the involvement of his wife and daughter allowed him to spend time with the family, but an unreleased home movie would've been a better, cheaper and less harmful alternative.

Although there are a few gags worth a smile or a giggle, Old Dogs, taken as a whole, is a lousy mess of a motion picture. It's unfortunate, too, as there's something more intelligent beneath the surface. The take, however, is the wrong one; one that opts for the easiest way out. Instead of a sweet, affecting comedy about the growing disconnect between parents and their kids, Old Dogs is an exercise in rote life lessons and obvious moral conjecture. It's also pretty drab and boring.

1.7/10