Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Now, then, ladies and gentlemen, do you see this gun? It fires 750 rounds of 9-millimeter ammunition per minute. In other words, if all of you simultaneously were to rush me, not a single one of you would get any closer than you are right now. I do hope I've made myself understood."

The type of gritty, ruthless thriller that could only emerge during the '70s, Joseph Sargent's classic subway suspenser The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a total hardboiled treat! This culturally influential production (Quentin Tarantino used the concept of colours as codenames for Reservoir Dogs) mixes tense action, cat & mouse mind-games, sly political satire and New York atmosphere, spawning a competent genre movie that never forgoes respect for the intelligence of its viewers. Screenwriter Peter Stone (basing his script on John Godey's novel of the same name) has penned a terrific gem of an action movie - it's intelligent, credible and exciting, and (best of all) it gets right down to business. When the movie opens we're thrust directly into the intense hostage-taking situation without a great deal of explication preceding it. The true genius of this riveting picture is that the characters are developed adequately as the story quickly progresses.

Pelham 123 - a New York City subway train - becomes the focal point of an audacious terrorist attack. A tense situation unfolds when four armed men step aboard this train and hijack it, taking hostage the eighteen passengers from the first carriage (plonking said carriage halfway between stations). The established leader of the group - an ex-mercenary known only as Mr. Blue (Shaw) - demands a million dollars for the release of the hostages, allowing precisely one hour for the money to be delivered...and a hostage will be shot for each minute the money is late. The Transit Authority, the NYC Police Department, as well as the Mayor and his colleagues are sent into a frenzied but coordinated action, rushing to meet the rapidly-approaching deadline...
Lieutenant Zachary Garber (Matthau) undertakes negotiations with the cold, calculating Mr. Blue.

"Please inform the mayor that we demand one million dollars cash for the release of the car and all the hostages, right?
The time is now 2:13. The money must be in our hands not later than 3:13 - one hour from now. Now, if the money is not in our hands, we'll kill one hostage for every minute you're late."

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three wastes no time at all. Rather than expending two reels detailing the heist, the film commences the instant the caper is executed. The swift, brisk pacing is the pinnacle of perfection for this genre - it never plods and never hurries too much. It engages a viewer from the very first minute, riveting through a stack of twists and lots of nail-biting tension. Furthermore, there's hardly an implausible step in the entire picture. Peter Stone's screenplay is infused with realism as well as being laden with witty, clever dialogue and a subtle sense of humour. It triggers a great deal more laughs than one would anticipate. A lot of Noo Yawkese talk is also present in the script (lots of curse words), with main star Matthau delivering lines with a heavy NYC accent.

Most action movies have an unfortunate tendency to waste time and have its length extended by filling the screen with unnecessary car chases, explosions, and general mayhem. Joseph Sargent's masterpiece contains none of this. What needs to be spoken is articulated... No flab is appended during the hasty, heart-pounding journey towards an exhilarating climax (a conclusion some will hate, but I adored). The Taking of Pelham One Two Three features honest storytelling and compelling drama fuelled by sublime acting. No gimmicky special effects, no big explosions...just a straightforward story supported by Sargent's top-notch direction and David Shire's spellbinding score, not to mention great editing and terrific cinematography.

If there is one blunder, it's that the passengers of the train are too thinly drawn and stereotypical - ranging from a mother with two bratty children to a streetwise pimp and a wise old man. They're too clichéd to be an accurate depiction of the general public, and far too one-dimensional for us to genuinely care about them. Also, inevitably, there are some technical imperfections. These slight faults, however, hardly injure this incredible exercise in thriller-making.

"The guy who's talking's got a heavy English accent. He could be a fruitcake."

Walter Matthau's best caustic energies are discharged as the Transit Authority lieutenant, and the script is loaded with dialogue just right for the star's benign bad temper. No-one can play this role as perfectly as Matthau, whose comedic instincts are as delightful as his tense negotiating. The very last shot of the film (featuring the actor) is utterly precious, concluding the film on a fitting comedic tone. Robert Shaw and Martin Balsam - one endowed with calm brutality, the other glazed with obvious regret - are credible as train hijackers. Shaw (R.I.P) is particularly excellent as the cold-blooded central villain... his steely performance simultaneously fascinating and frightening. This is another in the actor's gallery of memorable antagonists, coolly flicking through the pages of a puzzle book whilst bargaining with people's lives. The core relationship of the picture - between Shaw's intimidating English killer and Matthau's wisecracking cop - is terrifically etched even though the two communicate solely via radio. The editing back and forth during their conversations is sharp, accentuating the two strong performances and adding to the suspense.

On top of this, the supporting cast is great! Lee Wallace makes a pleasing, indecisive slob of a mayor. Tom Pedi is particularly good as an outraged official who is unable to tolerate a mess in the subway. Hector Elizondo and Earl Hindman are great as members of the gang of hijackers, and Jerry Stiller has a minor role as a Transit Authority official.

Interestingly, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three reportedly did terrific box office in New York, Toronto, Paris and London (all cities with subways) but flopped in other parts of the world. This timeless action picture presents a skilful combination of hilarious black comedy, nail-biting tension, gripping drama and gritty action. On top of this, the underlying premise is a perfectly plausible event. In fact, the only element of fantasy is the implication the city's departments could function so smoothly together. Director Joseph Sargent may have helmed some turkeys in his career (Jaws: The Revenge, anybody?), but he at least was responsible for The Taking of Pelham One Two Three - this remarkable, exciting '70s crime-thriller, and one of the only action pictures in cinematic history to be endowed with a rousing plot.

The film was remade for TV in 1998, and again in 2009 (this time a theatrical summer picture, directed by Tony Scott and starring Denzel Washington).

9.1/10

I am not under any orders to make the world a better place.

Written by Helen Childress and helmed by Ben Stiller (his directorial debut), Reality Bites focuses on Generation X and effectively encapsulates the era of the early nineties. From the word go it was clear this nostalgic romp would cart a viewer down a dull river of Gen-X blues, concentrating on the depressing career and lifestyle choices confronted by these specific youths. Stiller's first effort as a director is a straightforward, independent-style movie about a love triangle that seems keen to impart a strong message: life is dismal and tough when you're young. The picture emphasises this message, but with such a bleak tenor it doesn't even offer a glimmer of hope. Time has been surprisingly good to Reality Bites; its themes still potent and music still beguiling (at least in my eyes). At the end of the day, however, stripped away of its hyped relevance the film possesses little to make it superior to your average, generic rom-com. Interestingly, the title of Reality Bites is irritatingly ambiguous: does it imply that life bites or does it purport that small bites of reality are presented within?

Reality Bites primarily concentrates on four Gen-X youths fresh out of college (three graduating, one not). Lelaina (Ryder), more or less the main character, is a disillusioned young girl in the process of making a pseudo-documentary on the lives of her friends that focuses on post-college life. She acts as an intern for the insufferable host of a Good Morning programme, but her aspirations are far higher. Troy (Hawke), a grungy, unemployed slacker who failed to graduate from college, is her best friend who moves into her apartment after being fired from his latest job. Also living with Lelaina is Vickie (Garofalo); a woman who has disregarded her morals and has become manager of The Gap, but who's also paranoid she might have AIDS. Then there's Sammy (Zahn) who's confused about his sexuality.
Lelaina meets a tense young studio executive named Michael (Stiller) who takes an immediate shine to her. But Troy doesn't approve of this relationship as he harbours unspoken feelings for Lelaina underneath his slacker veneer. As a love triangle forms, Lelaina must choose which she values the most - an affluent life of materialism with Michael, or a possibly unstable life of philosophical musings with Troy.

By its conclusion, Reality Bites is unsuccessful in demonstrating any positive outcome one can experience in life, even if it means one has to place their ego aside momentarily. Michael offers Lelaina a wonderful opportunity, and I personally feel she should have accepted it. But no - the ending is instead a big dud.

Director Stiller and screenwriter Helen Childress (who was 19 when she completed the script) endeavoured to capture the lives of Gen-X youths with brutal honesty in this film, and they succeed. The lives of these young people are actually quite mundane, however. Granted, Gen-X youths lived mundane lives, but these characters are feebly written. The four friends living together speak in confusing, poetic riddles. Some lines are quotable ("There's no point to any of this. It's all just a random lottery of meaningless tragedy and a series of near escapes"), other instances are unnecessary and ultimately seem forced ("You've reached the winter of our discontent"). In addition, the characters are very poorly delineated. The heroine comes across as whiney and full of contradictions (she's valedictorian of her college class, yet isn't able to continue her speech with palm-cards missing, not to mention she's curiously inarticulate and embarrassingly coy on dates). Troy is the ultimate definition of a lay-about loser (he didn't even graduate from college!), but he spouts wisdom incessantly. Despite a charismatic portrayal courtesy of Ethan Hawke, he appears to be the character we're supposed to hate. On the other hand, the guy we're supposed to hate (Ben Stiller as Michael) is the only likable guy in the film! By the film's end, Steve Zahn's Sammy and Janeane Garofalo's Vickie also seem merely perfunctory and redundant.

"You can't navigate me. I may do mean things, and I may hurt you, and I may run away without your permission, and you may hate me forever, and I know that scares the living shit outta you 'cause you know I'm the only real thing you got."

Various critics found the characters inhabiting Reality Bites to be predominantly cookie-cutter and therefore boring. But to me this seems deliberate in order to capture the era faithfully. Gen-X youths were cookie-cutters. In Roger Ebert's review for this production, he discussed the poor filmmaking skill of Lelaina whose footage is frequently nauseating. However, again, this seems deliberate to me, and at no stage does the film attempt to make us believe that Lelaina is a genius of verité cinema. After all, her footage is frequently rejected by professionals, and ultimately made commercial by Michael's company in order for their target audience to enjoy it. On that note, Reality Bites is an insightful picture...it offers an extraordinary glimpse of the cultural mentality of Gen-X and how it plays out in practise.

In his directorial debut, Stiller appears to go to great lengths to satirise MTV Programming (In Your Face TV!) as well as other culture points, slyly nodding at everything from the Big Gulp to The Gap. Thrown in the mix are also the spectres of AIDS, homosexuality and parental divorce (at an early age), not to mention there's a lot of on-screen smoking. On top of this, Reality Bites is infused with a satisfying cocktail of classic songs. It has everything from Peter Frampton to Alice Cooper to Crowded House to U2 to The Knack (My Sharona). Perhaps one can look upon this movie as horribly dated as everything is essentially eighties and nineties, but it can also be perceived as an authentic window into an era which is long behind us. Reality Bites is, however, much more than this. It's a genuinely enjoyable and engaging slice of cinematic entertainment. It provides a few great laughs (Lelaina goes out with a side-splitting bang from her job) as well as poignant, absorbing drama.

Before Winona Ryder hit the media on account of her kleptomania, she was a stunning actress. Reality Bites features one of the finest performances of her career. All those years ago she was beautiful and possessed fine acting skills. In this movie she's impeccable - cute, funny, exasperated and tortured in all the right ways. The standout of the cast, however, is Ethan Hawke as the overplayed Gen-X character that's smart yet down on the world and against conformity. Hawke inhabits his character with eye-opening realism, and is perfect for the role (some predicaments with the writing of his character notwithstanding). Director-star Ben Stiller has offered a few fascinating comments in relation to his onscreen antagonism with Hawke mirroring their offscreen relationship. Stiller delivers a heartfelt, sincere performance as Michael, sometimes raising questions as to whether this yuppie is a better choice for Lelaina. It's a shame, though, that Stiller's great comedic talents have gone to waste here.
In the supporting cast, Steve Zahn and Janeane Garofalo turn in terrific early performances. Also look out for Renée Zellweger in her feature film debut. Members of director Stiller's family also make appearances - his sister Amy voicing a psychic phone friend, and mother Anne playing the character who asks Winona's Lelaina to define "irony".

All things considered, Reality Bites is a movie not for all tastes. For me, Ben Stiller's feature film debut as a director can be labelled as perfectly acceptable entertainment. It's a fresh, unique comedy-drama (with an awesome soundtrack) and an incisive examination of Generation X that depicts these youths as intricate human beings. It may not be the definitive document of Gen-X, but Reality Bites is a touchstone for anyone fresh out of college and stuck with more ideals than job prospects. It's worth 95 minutes of your time.

7.6/10

You messed with the wrong country and you fucked the wrong President!

In an era of political unrest and global chaos, it's a small comfort - but a comfort nonetheless - that superstar Dolph Lundgren is still around to keep the world safe. For The Defender, Lundgren not only stars but also directs... And you know what? Despite the odds stacked against him, this flick doesn't suck, nor does Dolph's surprisingly decent direction. Certainly, The Defender is brainless, unrealistic and riddled with clichés...but it doesn't suck. In fact, this is an endlessly entertaining, straightforward shoot-'em-up action movie. It's overflowing with violence, shootouts and blood; reminding its target audience as to why we loved the brainless action films of the 1980s. Perhaps it comes as no shock that Lundgren's directorial debut is a low-budget direct-to-DVD affair, but - even for a picture inhabiting the suicidal DTD realm - The Defender looks surprisingly self-assured. With its top-notch action sequences and satisfactory acting, Lundgren's first effort as a director has a lot going for it. But alas, it's ultimately hamstrung by preposterous plotting.

As for the storyline: it's a tense time for the United States and its allies as they wage the War on Terror. The President of the United States (played by Jerry Springer...yes, that Jerry Springer is the President) has launched a new Peace Initiative. Unbeknownst to the general public, the National Security Advisor (Lee-Johnson) is making a secret trip to Romania to negotiate a peace agreement. To ensure this meeting runs smoothly, Gulf War veteran Lance Rockford (Ludgren) is employed as head of security, leading a few disposable agents. As the enigmatic meeting plays out, a group of armed militants attack Rockford and his team. The assault is relentless and never-ending (a little reminiscent of Assault on Precinct 13, actually), putting Rockford to the test as he works to protect both himself and the National Security Advisor.

Sidney J. Furie (the man behind 2003's Detention) was originally attached to direct The Defender, but fell ill during the pre-production period. Since Dolph Lundgren had worked closely with Furie beforehand (as well as a handful of other directors, ranging from John Woo to Roland Emmerich), and because the actor had worked with the screenwriter during development, the producers asked Dolph to step up and direct the picture. A few too many gimmicky shots and too much slow motion notwithstanding, Dolph has proved an excellent director with his first effort. The Defender is easily one of the most action-saturated shoot-'em-up action flicks of late. It's also leaps and bounds above anything Van Damme or Steven Seagal has featured in recently. After about twenty minutes of admittedly slow exposition, the flick goes balls-to-the-wall. Once the enemies fire their first shot, respite is infrequent as the movie propels through action sequence after action sequence.

This is hard R material as well. Massive kudos to Dolph for being unafraid to craft gritty, brutal, very violent shootouts! Bullets hit their targets, blood flows in torrents, necks are snapped and squibs detonate like crazy. The final hour is more or less an extended action sequence, and the action is simply sublime. Maxime Alexandre's wonderfully crisp and intense cinematography places a viewer in the action. There's also tight editing and great pacing as the kinetic energy barely lulls. The sound effects are also outstanding; easily one of the flick's biggest assets. However, one downfall is the dreadful music courtesy of Adam Nordén. The music reminds the audience they are watching a DTD affair. It's occasionally tense but at other times the music is grating for the ears.

Bolstering the exhilarating on-screen happenings is an unfortunately (yet quite unsurprisingly) trite story. Lots of questions go unanswered in the first hour; pretty much leaver a viewer in the dark. We have no idea what the meeting is for and who the National Security Advisor is meeting. For the first hour, a viewer can't help but be riveted as they await all the answers. However, when the revelations are finally unveiled they almost entirely nullify the prior plot developments. The whole point of the operation is absurd and on the verge of anticlimactic.
There are also a few too many overly dramatic moments scattered throughout the 90-minute duration. In addition, the film doesn't allow an audience to become attached to the characters. The protagonist is uninteresting and we simply don't care about him, nor do we care when a minor character is killed. The Defender is ultimately an action story that's solid on the action, but unrewarding on the story.

Cast-wise, things are fairly standard. Dolph Lundgren places forth a solid performance, although the part never calls for any overwhelming acting skills. Dolph enjoys wading through the scenarios, barking commands ("Open fire!" for instance) and saying clichéd things. Of course, in this particular production Dolph isn't the only big star. Jerry Springer stars as the President of the United States. Mercifully, Jerry is given less than 10 minutes of screen time (still enough to garner second billing, though). Surprisingly, Jerry makes for a moderately convincing presidential figure, although he hardly seems like a popular candidate. There's also Caroline Lee-Johnson as the National Security Advisor. Not a bad actress per se, but nothing special.
The rest of the cast are pretty much just the constituents of Dolph's team. Shakara Ledard, Thomas Lockyer, Gerald Kyd, Ian Porter, Howard Antony, etc. As a team they share adequate chemistry, exchanging occasionally witty banter.

As a shoot-'em-up actioner, The Defender is an enjoyable time waster. While nothing groundbreaking for action cinema, Dolph's first directorial outing is a success! If the plotting was a little less absurd and more substance was present, I'd be recommending this film to no end. As it stands, though, The Defender contains a lot of fun mayhem with the absurdity meter shooting up to 11 (like when a sniper is shot from afar with a Beretta pistol despite being, you know, a fucking sniper). It's painful to admit, but I really enjoyed this film despite its shortcomings. As long as Dolph continues to direct new movies I'll continue to watch them.

It was truly great to witness Dolph Lundgren and Jerry Springer featuring in a movie together...up next is Steven Seagal and Dr. Phil.

5.9/10

"Sometimes you find your destiny on the road you took to avoid it."

A dubious international bank with unethical practises lies at the centre of this cracking action-thriller that draws evident inspiration from such films as Michael Clayton and the Jason Bourne series. Helmed by German director Tom Tykwer (to date probably best known as the man behind the acclaimed high-voltage thriller Run Lola Run), The International commences as an intriguing slow-burn thriller before deflating in its closing act, and ultimately not quite delivering on its potential. Despite the reshoots that brought about a major release date shift (from August 2008 to February 2009), Tykwer's crisp thriller is too flabby; fundamentally playing out as a string of well-shot but usually uninvolving dialogue scenes interspersed with an occasional exhilarating action set-piece. First-time screenwriter Eric Singer is unable to suitably handle the fantastic premise, discarding imaginative ideas in favour of lazy, generic plotting. This "relevant" picture possesses the look and feel of a thriller, but not the heart or soul of one. The excellent trailers implied a product considerably superior to the disappointing final result. Viewers seeking an intelligent break from Bourne-style action-oriented thrillers will have to search elsewhere.

In The International, dedicated Interpol agent Louis Salinger (Owen) suspects deadly dealings at a high-profile Luxembourg-based financial institution known as the IBBC (International Bank of Business and Credit - a ficticious creation, of course). Louis collaborates with Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Eleanor Whitman (Watts) following the murder of their mutual colleague. The two become determined to bring the IBBC to justice as they uncover illegal activities including money laundering, arms trading and the destabilisation of governments. However, the bank is prone to assassinating those who get too close to exposing its profitable warmongering. As the investigation intensifies, the protagonists quickly become the next target of the IBBC which is additionally taking steps to dead-end the search.

The International should have been an intelligent, timely thriller that entertains as much as it rivets. However, requisite character development is absent and it consequently isn't alluring enough. On a positive note, Tykwer is a competent director. Tykwer's camera angles perfectly capture the intricate sets, and Frank Griebe's exquisite cinematography additionally takes advantage of the atmospheric European locales. Virtually every scene has a lively visual quality, and the director's stylistic touch is this film's greatest asset. Tykwer has a terrific eye for framing, but unfortunately he has a tin ear for dialogue. The characters inhabiting the well-composed shots speak in lumps of banal exposition, their faces unflatteringly set in frowns. As a cerebral thriller (something this production evidently aspires to be for the most part), The International lacks appeal.

The film's centrepiece is undoubtedly the elaborate shootout in Manhattan's Guggenheim Museum. This lies at the heart of the film's marketing campaign, and for good reason. This sequence was added after-the-fact on account of poor test screenings in order to increase the action quotient. While it's the action highlight of the movie, don't let the trailers fool you into watching the movie on the promise of gunplay alone.

For the spectacular Guggenheim Museum shootout, a convincing full-size replica of the building was constructed on a German soundstage. This sequence transforms the modern architectural wonder into a large-scale shooting gallery, leaving the place riddled with bullet-holes, broken glass, blood, dead bodies and expended shell casings. Preposterous, yes, but it's a masterpiece of contemporary action cinema. The cinematography is outstanding, as is the music, sound effects, special effects and acting. The International is a rare animal in this age of cinema - an R-rated picture. The blood spilt during the Guggenheim sequence is frankly astounding, resulting in an action scene that's about as breathtaking as it is dramatically unnecessary. Its inclusion indicates the filmmakers' tacit acceptance that the predominantly cerebral thriller is a dying breed. With this in mind, it's probably no surprise that Tykwer's effort is struggling to earn back its $50 million budget at the box office.

In addition to the Guggenheim shootout, The International is infused with suspenseful chases and a thrilling execution. But a few scenes subsequent to the Guggenheim shootout, the film hits a speed bump and clearly has no idea where to go. For such an intricate plot, the conclusion is anticlimactic. The flick fails in its resolution because it reduces all the subplots and developments to the simplest of equations: one man pointing a gun at another. For a production that wishes to be more than an ordinary thriller, The International finishes on an all-too-familiar note. The ending is also too frustratingly perplexing and ambiguous. It merely satisfying the audience's desire for bloodlust, and solves nothing. Perhaps most disappointing is that it probably could've been fixed. With snappier editing and a stronger sense of finality, The International could have been tagged with a far more satisfying conclusion.

Green screenwriter Eric Singer is simply the wrong man for the job. His script fails to offer insight into the bank's unethical practises, instead wasting its duration generating subplots concerning the investigation behind the bank's latest assassination and the pursuit for said assassin. For 90 minutes, The International is a great thriller despite some lengthy, draggy sections. But Singer has no idea where to go past these first 90 minutes; clueless as to how he should appropriately end this thing.

Jonas Skarssen: "What do you want?"
Louis Salinger: "I want some fucking justice."

As for the cast, the always-reliable Clive Owen displays great acting skills, reminding us that he'd be a terrific James Bond. Owen seems right at home as the hot-headed, passionate Interpol agent Louis Salinger. He ably delivers as both an action man and as a smart operator with a patent sense of right and wrong. Owen is nicely countered by Naomi Watts as the pragmatic Eleanor Whitman. Watts is criminally underused, however. Her character is not only underdeveloped...she's entirely undeveloped. The actress is far too good for this underwritten supporting role, as she stands around and functions as a liability.
The extraordinary Armin Mueller-Stahl is the most memorable performer for his stillness in a role of great intensity, depth and resonance. Mueller-Stahl is a truly inspired piece of casting. There's also the adequate Ulrich Thomsen as cold and callous bank chief Jonas Skarssen.

For all its serious intent, Tom Tykwer's The International proves to be a perilously naff thriller. It's an exquisitely-filmed and crafted flick, but the script is problematic. The screenplay is filled with clunky dialogue and ludicrous plotting, not to mention it also lacks the vital wit and depth which would allow it to be a topflight thinking-man's thriller. Tykwer's flick additionally contains characters too dull, not to mention most of the suspense falls flat. This could have been 2009's Michael Clayton, but inexperienced scripter Singer is no Tony Gilroy. I really wanted to love this movie, but the final quarter is far too detrimental. Mark this one as a missed opportunity.

6.2/10

Jamal Malik is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. How did he do it?

A: He cheated
B: He's lucky
C: He's a genius
D: It was written

Slumdog Millionaire is Danny Boyle's magnificent, elating cinematic adaptation of Vikas Swarup's prize-winning 2005 novel Q and A. Boyle's masterwork is simply the essential motion picture of 2008; an exquisite and engrossing filmic experience, infused with a searing portrait of the resilience of human spirit. It's a timeless, Capra-esque tale of adversity and rags-to-riches, told with dazzling passion and stunning visual agility. While housed in a bleak setting inhabited by a congregation of truly vile characters, Boyle's film is almost guaranteed to appease any viewer with a soft spot for beautifully sculpted contrivances. Slumdog Millionaire is a charming, uplifting tale about hope, destiny and love, and it will enrapture those who are willing to venture into its expressively-crafted world. For the record, a majority of the dialogue is articulated in English; however, some large segments are delivered in Hindi. But Boyle - in an utter masterstroke - has handled the subtitles colourfully and playfully, unlike the drab subtitles we're accustomed to reading. Slumdog Millionaire is a feverishly-paced, subtitled picture created with subtitle-phobes in mind. This is a visual and emotional journey that's brash, lively and compulsively enjoyable.

Uneducated 18-year-old Jamal Malik (Patel), a poor orphan from the slums of Mumbai, is poised to win a fortune (a staggering 20 million rupees) on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. Defying all odds and expectations, Jamal has managed to answer every question so far correctly, rapidly approaching the top prize (an unprecedented feat in Indian television history). However, some grow suspicious of how a slumdog could be so knowledgeable, and capable of answering the extremely tough questions. Accused of cheating, Jamal is arrested and brutally interrogated by the police. Proving that life experience is far more valuable than education, Jamal is forced to relive his tumultuous early years for the authorities. The result is a flashback-rich tour into the horrors of Jamal's childhood; his episodic memories relating to each seemingly impossible question put to him on the show. A recurring individual in his memories is a certain Latika (Pinto), whom Jamal is in love with but frequently torn apart from.

"A few hours ago, you were giving chai for the phone walahs. And now you're richer than they will ever be. What a player!"

The structure of Slumdog Millionaire - as scripted by Simon Beaufoy (who also wrote The Full Monty) - may be borderline contrived, but the frenetically-told story amazingly submerges a viewer into its universe and produces suspense despite the outcome being quite obvious from the onset. The point of the story isn't whether Jamal will win the money...it's if he'll get his girl. Make no mistake, there's nothing special about the fairly conventional plot, nor the way it's played out. In this sense, Slumdog Millionaire shouldn't be a great film... But it is a great film. Boyle's direction oozes passion at every turn, offering an energy which keeps the film constantly in motion. The setting in Mumbai is another stroke of genius. To the untrained eye, the location is merely window dressing. But with this dressing comes a unique exotic flavour and an open window into a fascinating culture. The story works on multiple levels - it can be perceived as a romance, a thriller, and a glimpse at the ways in which a fast-developing economy is convulsing the fabric of Indian society.

Fresh from a picture which spent almost a year in post-production in order to get the special effects right, the post-Sunshine Danny Boyle was eager to race onto a project which could be shot fast and furiously. Employing his trademark visual frenzy, Boyle ensnares the viewer in the chaotic motion of Indian street life. Filmed predominantly on bustling locations, Slumdog Millionaire whips along with unguarded authenticity and an understanding of those struggling to survive at the impoverished base of a restrictive caste system. The engaging, agile camera turns the narrow corners of the slums and flies at the high speed of a train on which Jamal and his brother hitchhike. Boyle's collaboration with director of photography Anthony Dod Mantle thrusts a viewer headfirst into the chaotic and despairing world of its three youthful protagonists, wonderfully encapsulating both the excitement of children running amok and the relentless terror they experience on the street that's triggered by authority figures on both sides of the law. Production design is absolutely top-notch, emanating authenticity at every turn. On top of the terrific location work, the set for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? could be easily mistaken for the real deal. Not just the set design and cinematography, but the sound effects as well as the traits of the host are also spot on. Slumdog Millionaire simply looks and sounds flawless.

"When somebody asks me a question, I tell them the answer."

Movies that tend to get the Oscar community talking are usually thoughtful, introspective films with a heavy dosage of tragedy. Million Dollar Baby, Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Babel, Munich, and Mystic River are examples of Oscar contenders that refuse to leave you smiling once the credits begin to roll. Slumdog Millionaire stands out due to this. It is a movie that draws you in, makes you smile, and ends on an uplifting note. In a way, it's tough to believe a film that commences with such a brutal edge would eventually become so enriching and deliriously joyful. The opening sequence is pervaded with an ominous undertone, featuring scenes of torture taking place in the bowels of a drab police station. But Boyle's continuing sense of humour and decency buoys the moments of darkness and the eventual fairy-tale ending. Scotsman Boyle hasn't travelled to India with the intention of exposing the horrors of the slums at all... He headed to India to shoot an interesting story; one that could only take place in the ever-changing, ever-alive India. The conventional plot may not have succeeded in a more familiar setting. With Boyle's kinetic cinematic energy generating breakneck pace, and the true wonders of an exciting new culture, not to mention the stimulating and vivacious soundtrack, Slumdog Millionaire suddenly becomes sparky and vibrant. It ends predictably, but the journey to its conclusion is consistently extraordinary.

The entire cast shines. From the inexperienced Dev Patel to the veteran Bollywood star Anil Kapoor, talent is omnipresent. Patel is extremely appealing and likable as the protagonist. He's shy and soft-spoken, and we root for the poor little guy from the outset. Ayush Mahesh Khedekar and Tanay Hemant Chheda also excel as Jamal at different stages in his life. Freida Pinto is simply beguiling as Latika. Her chemistry with Dev Patel is extraordinary. Their emotionally-charged performances allow a viewer to become completely invested in their relationship...longing for them to be reunited, and becoming heartbroken when they're torn apart.
Anil Kapoor is remarkable as the smarmy, cunning game show host who patronises Jamal every chance he gets, and whose motives are ruled by his desire for ratings.
Madhur Mittal, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala are uniformly excellent as Salim at different points in his life.

Slumdog Millionaire contains all the necessary elements to ensure it's a winner in general release (although one of the studios set to distribute the film was unsure of its commercial worth and was considering a DTD release) as well as a major Oscar contender. It's superbly acted by an able cast, it's wonderfully photographed, and it's overflowing with rich, unconventional location work. This groundbreaking tour de force has as much heart as it does energy, and it ultimately avoids becoming as formulaic as its premise might have allowed in the hands of a lesser filmmaker. The actors' enthusiasm, coupled with Boyle's passionate exertions behind the scenes, generates pure magic out of Slumdog Millionaire. A story of coincidences, luck and eventually destiny, this is a classic, if slightly clichéd tale, and one that has rarely felt or looked so alive with such astonishing visual flair. Laden with satisfying doses of humour, romance and suspense, Slumdog Millionaire is one of the best and most crowd-pleasing films of 2008, and it thoroughly deserved the honour of receiving the Best Picture Oscar.

"Maybe it's written..."

9.5/10

"When I was 16 years old, I fell in love..."

The directorial sibling duo of Bobby and Peter Farrelly earned themselves a revered place among the gurus of the comedy genre after unleashing There's Something About Mary upon the unsuspecting movie-going public of 1998. There's Something About Mary can best be described as an unalloyed exercise in gross-out humour and plain bad taste, punctuated by a surprisingly heartfelt screenplay and an intriguing plot designed to steer its characters from one gag to the next.

Without a doubt, There's Something About Mary is the best film the Farrelly Brothers have created thus far in their filmic careers. This is a gigantic step up from prior Farrelly Brothers titterfests wherein a string of extraneous gags were supplied to conceal the lack of depth (and variety, for that matter). Perhaps the brothers had just grown up by this stage, or perhaps this was the consequence of the brothers collaborating with Ed Decter and John J. Strauss to pen the screenplay. Whatever the case, There's Something About Mary is endowed with a delightful wide appeal. For sure, it's gross-out comedy to extremes, but there is a heart and a believable, grounded storyline. A plethora of explosively hilarious set-pieces such as the prom night saga have taken their place in contemporary comic history. Yet, this sequence isn't a mere succession of unrelated gags. The building ridiculousness serves as a suitable introduction to the film's central premise: a well-meaning person inadvertently inviting chaos at every turn.

"Franks and Beans! Franks and Beans!"

Ted Stroehmann (Stiller) is a metal-mouth geek in his high school days in Rhode Island. It's the lead up to his Senior Prom, and Ted is seeking a date. Enter the beautiful Mary Jensen (Diaz) who asks the bewildered Ted to be her date for the prom. Ted is amazed and overjoyed, to say the least. But the prom night ends in tears when an unfortunate zipper accident leaves Ted in hospital. Thirteen years following this episode, Ted still pines for his lost Mary, whom he considers the love of his life. Ever since the end of school, though, Ted hasn't seen Mary at all - she's disappeared off the grid. With some encouragement from a friend, Ted opts to hire sleazy private eye Pat Healy (Dillon) to track down his old flame. However, after Pat takes one look at the radiant Mary, he decides he wants her for himself. Much conniving, back-stabbing and lying ensues in order to steal Mary's affections.

The story is episodic, to be sure. It exists as a vehicle to convey masses of uproarious gags. Also, characterisation is at a minimum. However, some of the characters are satisfactorily developed through the gags. The aforementioned prom night saga establishes Ted's character, for instance. The jokes are frequently hilarious (rarely, if ever, hit and miss) and the characters are extremely endearing, and at the end of the day that's what counts in this genre. There's Something About Mary also offers something to offend almost everyone - it's politically incorrect (usage of the word "retard" is an example), outrageous, uncouth, bawdy and unapologetically lowbrow...truly nothing is out of bounds here. The true allure of the flick, however, is its sweet core - a quality the Farrelly Brothers have yet to replicate to the same effect. Some viewers may dismiss this flick as a simple gross-out comedy unworthy of a second glance, but the film's genuine charms extend beyond the repulsive jokes. Of course, it does rely on this humour heavily to entertain...nevertheless, There's Something About Mary remains an appealing romantic comedy that delivers a sweet payoff.

"Is that... is that hair gel?"

In all fairness, the Farrelly Brothers don't entirely depend on genitals, breasts, bodily fluids, or an assortment of other tasteless subjects to manufacture each joke. A group of travelling minstrels who follow Ted around, singing about his exploits in Greek chorus fashion, for instance, is a wonderful withdrawal from the lowbrow moments. This may not be subtle or intellectual humour (these two words simply don't apply to any Farrelly Brothers production), but it is less bawdy than their usual material. Similarly, the entire cast sing along to Build Me Up, Buttercup during the closing credits. There's Something About Mary additionally manages to be fairly light on emotion, yet distinctly memorable, which is a tribute to the strength of its brilliant comic structure. It wears its influences (from the Marx Brothers to Porky's) clearly on its sleeve, but is able to wrap them in a tight, original story where each joke serves a purpose.

One reason why There's Something About Mary succeeds is on account of all the actors being utterly perfect for their chosen roles. With different casting, half the jokes would most certainly have fallen flat. Ben Stiller appears to understand comedy. His lines are delivered with impeccable comic timing, and he allows a viewer to sympathise with Ted while concurrently laughing at him. Getting one's dangly bits excruciatingly snared in a zipper is a fear faced by every male on the planet, but due to Stiller's fine acting we don't feel bad as we laugh at his agonising situation.
The actors surrounding Stiller are top-notch. The vivacious and gorgeous Cameron Diaz is perfect as Mary. Not Oscar material, but she immerses herself into the character suitably and gives her character the required charm. This is proof that Cameron Diaz used to be hot. The Farrellys were so keen to cast Cameron that they delayed the filming start date in order to accommodate the film in her schedule. "Cameron is Mary," asserts Peter Farrelly. "Like Mary, Cameron seems like the ultimate woman. Every guy on the set was crazy about her."
Matt Dillon is equally excellent. He manages to build great charm, but at the same time be contemptible in his methods. Dillon is perfect in tacky clothes and a seedy moustache.
In the supporting cast there's Lin Shaye as the extremely tanned Magda, and Lee Evans as yet another man in love with Mary. Other performers, such as Chris Elliot and W. Earl Brown, are terrific. In a comedy flick such as this, actors of this calibre are required in order for the gags to work to their full potential. Thank God for this delightful bunch!

"Have you seen my weiner?"

There's no doubt about it, There's Something About Mary is one of the funniest comedies you'll ever encounter - a harmonious cocktail of over-the-top physical gags and raunchy humour. To be fair, though, the film is far from perfect. It runs a tad long at almost two hours, and (to be expected) a few of the characters aren't developed past the second dimension. This isn't Academy Award material, but it certainly achieves its evident goal: to entertain and deliver laughs aplenty. The fact that the geeky loser gets the girl - Mary predictably choosing Ted over the supposedly perfect Brett (real-life pro quarterback Brett Favre, a typical Farrelly casting) - makes this a curiously bloke-friendly rom-com. Adding to its unisex appeal (and therefore justifying its box-office success), There's Something About Mary is simultaneously one of the most romantic gross-out comedies, and one of the most gross romantic comedies. Laughter is such a blessed relief when one is in a bad mood, and this film is guaranteed to work as well as anti-depressants. After watching this hysterical gem, you'll never look at hair gel the same ever again.

"His friends would say stop whining
They've had an enough of that
His friends would say stop pining
There is other girls to look at
They've tried to set'em up with Tiffany and Indigo

But there's something about Mary that they don't know.

Mary, there's just something about Mary."

8.2/10

Soldier. Fighter. Seeker. Legend.

Diamond Dogs delivers exactly what it promises - Dolph Lundgren kicking some ass! This is your standard direct-to-DVD action claptrap that strides through familiar territory. It could more or less be branded as a poor man's version of a modern-day Indiana Jones. On that note, it's endowed with a plot regarding an ancient Buddhist artefact (and the quest to find it), which adds further credence to the statement that Diamond Dogs aspires to be the next National Treasure or Raiders of the Lost Ark. It never quite reaches the level of these films it desires to emulate (not even close), but who cares? Once you learn to accept the below-par acting and the laughable plot contrivances, you can enjoy watching the Dolphster casually slaughtering bad guys. If you watch the film on its own terms, there's fun to be had - a substantial amount of it.

For this particular outing, the Dolphster is Xander Ronson; a former soldier now living in Inner Mongolia who has fallen on hard times. Ronson offers a security service, but hasn't had a client in two years and has been reduced to making money from fighting illegally in an underground fighting circuit (collaborating with a friend who bets on him to win, which he always does). Unfortunately, Ronson is heavily in debt and will be sent to prison if his debts aren't paid within a few weeks. Fortuitously for our brooding hero, he's approached by the wealthy Chambers (Shriver) - a fortune-seeking scumbag in search of an ancient (and extremely valuable) Buddhist artefact known as the Tangka. Chambers offers Ronson the job as head of security and guide for the trip, for which he will be paid extraordinarily well. Unfortunately for the whole group, not only is this bejewelled artefact supposedly cursed but a group of dastardly Russian mercenaries are also on a quest seeking the Tangka.

Diamond Dogs is primarily marred by its script, which is bereft of originality and overflowing with predictability. However, to be fair, these are no real biggies - after all, if you're in the mood for a Dolph Lundgren actioner you're obviously not seeking anything that will engage on a cerebral level. Therefore, the script is deeply flawed but considering its nature this is no surprise. However, Diamond Dogs does fail in the pacing department. The script contains usually tedious dialogue, and the gaps between action scenes are occasionally unforgivable. The lack of action is evidently due to the film's ambitions: to be considered in the same league as the Indiana Jones films, wherein exposition plays a crucial role. The story here, however, isn't interesting enough; in truth it's devoid of any possibilities for intellectual discussions or grandiose scenarios. The story also seems incomplete, as if missing a monologue concerning the background of the Tangka. This is why Indiana Jones always does it right - the protagonist knows what he's doing, and can reveal interesting trivia pertaining to the artefact in question in small bits scattered generously throughout each adventure. Diamond Dogs adheres strictly to B-movie conventions that dictate films of this disposition. In the film's defence, though, it does manage to circumvent various proverbial clichés of the genre. A young girl enters the picture, for instance, but she's no love interest.

Production for Diamond Dogs took place in Inner Mongolia, lending a strange otherworldliness to the movie. Beautiful vistas are on display as the treasure hunt transpires, and the action occurs on ideal terrain. It has also been bestowed with a certain grittiness not usually present in run of the mill DTD flicks. Unfortunately, when Ronson & company enter the ancient crypt said to contain the Tangka it lacks marvel and awe. It looks cheap, as if an old cellar populated by lawn ornaments. Elaborate booby-traps are non-existent...the only traps present are nothing special and barely threatening. The Tangka is merely glanced at, and what we see resembles cheap plastic beads glued to construction paper. Where's the shiny gold that catches our attention whenever it enters the frame? This was definitely made on the cheap!

Action sequences are somewhat competent, and are infused with Dolph's glorious directorial talents. They're very noisy and very violent. Bare-knuckle fights at the beginning are gritty, bloody and quite enthralling. The occasional shootouts are also something special. The low budget is only semi-obvious. There's enough blood being spilt and folks being violently dispatched to distract us from the evident budget problems. The body count is tremendously high, each death is exceedingly bloody, and only Xander steps out of the flames in one piece in a final scene that appears to pay homage to The Searchers. Perhaps most commendable is the lack of diabolical slow motion. I enjoyed indulging in this little guilty pleasure as the bloodshed satisfies and the action is exhilarating.

Dolph Lundgren is no stranger to this type of film as he also serves as executive producer and, to a minor extent, director (uncredited). It's difficult not to like the Dolphster as he wades through various battlefields and protects himself with an endless amount of bullets. Predictably, though, he's quite invincible and bullets magically skirt around him (even when his cover is poor).
The cast is filled with mainly disposable actors, with few exceptions (Dolph being one of them). Perhaps the biggest shock to me was how much I came to like the slightly effeminate William Shriver as Chambers. He's wholly believable in his role; coming across as a character from an 80's action flick (you know you love them). Every other member of the cast is quite talent deficient, however, especially Nan Yu as Chambers' step-daughter.

All in all, Diamond Dogs is among the better additions to Dolph Lundgren's résumé. Not as good as The Mechanik, but not as poor as Missionary Man. This is a fairly enjoyable, albeit clichéd action-adventure film. There are too many sluggish points with an inadequate amount of quality action to compensate, but this is still sufficient for wasting time while enjoying pizza and beer. Diamond Dogs was reportedly intended to be the first movie in a trilogy of films chronicling the escapades of Dolph Lundgren's Xander Ronson. The second film even entered the planning stages with Dolph attached to direct and star...however, the production of Diamond Dogs was beset with a huge manner of dilemmas, resulting in the script being retooled and Dolph Lundgren stepping in to direct (relieving credited director Shimon Dotan) after only a few days of filming! This ultimately prevented the trilogy from materialising.
While Diamond Dogs has its lethal flaws (including the fact the word "assistant" is consistently misspelled as "asstistant" throughout the end credits), it's still an entertaining diversion.

5.7/10

Soldier...teacher...hero!

Detention is simply a straightforward throwback to the ridiculously enjoyable '80s action pictures of old - a generic compound of action flick clichés that gleans various ingredients from Die Hard and The Breakfast Club (an odd amalgam, I know), minus the extravagant special effects of the former and the deep characterisations of the latter. This is the epitome of absurdity; a brisk 95-minute excursion into over-the-top theatrics, conventional scenarios, gaping plot holes and teenage pregnancy. Dolph Lundgren is growing old, but in an action arena he's commendably self-assured. Detention isn't a masterpiece by any means, nor does it redefine the majestic art of bullet ballet. It's brainless to extremes, but (like all action films should) it entertains to no end. This is exactly the type of action flick that would emerge during the '80s; therefore witnessing this style of old-school action is frankly revitalising a bit over a decade since the 1980s concluded.

Sam Decker (Lundgren) is a former Special Forces operative who's haunted following a tour of duty in Bosnia. Ten years following this fateful tour of duty, Sam has become a school teacher at a tough high school. He had aimed to make a difference, but he becomes frustrated and angered by a system that doesn't appear to work. Sam submits his letter of resignation, as he's been offered a better position elsewhere. Unfortunately, on his final day (Friday) he gets coerced into staying after school to manage a detention class. Unfortunately, too, a well-organised group of gunmen invade the supposedly deserted school to use it as a base of operations for an armed car robbery. These gunmen, however, didn't expect Sam and his detention class to still be on school grounds... Cue violence and carnage.

Detention adheres to the Die Hard formula, but it isn't loaded with any intelligence. Plot holes flourish, and the silliness of the entire affair is guaranteed to trigger bucket-loads of derisive sniggers. Guns fire an unlimited supply of ammunition (pistols sometimes fire off roughly 30 rounds at a time without reloading), bad guys can never shoot straight, the hero endures a few gunshots (to the arm, of course, as bullets can never hit anywhere else) but shrugs them off, and (naturally) the cops are a bit on the corrupt side. Also, how can a criminal mastermind not anticipate any after school activities? Why would the high school have a total lockdown mode, which locks even the emergency exits (which is illegal)? What if the security guard controlling the lockdown fell asleep or was killed and was unable to switch off the lockdown? If the school is locked down, how can the characters reach the roof during the climax? But hey - who needs logic and brains when you have shell casings continually being expended and large-scale shootouts?

On a positive note, Detention is extremely enjoyable on account of the competent filmmaking on display. Director Sidney J. Furie has been in the industry for many decades, and his direction is first-rate here. The action is filmed in an old-school fashion, using wide shots and pans as opposed to shaky cam and shots lasting a nanosecond. Detention is infused with everything 80s - an 80's-style formula, 80's-style characters, and 80's-style filmmaking techniques. This is great entertainment...you just need to leave your brain at the door and suspend your disbelief, and you'll be fine. In other words, it's a guilty pleasure. And a damn enjoyable one!

Dolph Lundgren plays the typical trigger happy one-man army type very well, although he does appear to be operating on autopilot most of the time. There are a few notable moments for Dolph, especially his semi-amusing one-liners (after killing a corrupt cop, he exclaims "Now you're a deadbeat cop!")
Beside Dolph there's Alex Krazis as Chester Lamb; the mastermind behind the whole operation. The actor places forth an acceptable performance, harkening back to the golden age of the 80s. His character is poorly written, granted, but he's sinister when the occasion calls for it.
The cast is rounded out by various actors portraying the students who fight back against the troupe of gunmen. The bad guys, of course, are easy to despise.

All in all, Detention is simply a good old-fashioned, clichéd, 80's-style action flick, coated in a thick layer of cheese and silliness. From a critical standpoint this is an awful movie; however, every so often even a critic should just sit back and enjoy the ride. There's a lot of fun to be had in amongst the plethora of proficient action sequences and amusing one-liners. I enjoyed it from start to finish. If you're into bad action films, Detention is one to rent and/or perhaps add to your collection.

4.8/10

Jarfe: "That's impossible, it can't be you..."
Ryde: "It's me."

As washed-up '80s action stars churn out an endless selection of below-par, low-budget, direct-to-DVD action flicks, you can at least admire them for their persistence. In recent years, Dolph Lundgren has demonstrated his competence as not only an actor but also a director. Following the astonishingly positive reception of his second directorial outing, The Mechanik (also known as The Russian Specialist), in 2005, Dolph went on to helm Missionary Man - this stylish, albeit unoriginal and mundane contemporary Western that pays tribute to such classics as High Plains Drifter and Pale Rider. It's your conventional "tough guy rides in to clean up a corrupt town" story, primarily following the DTD formula to the letter. On the cover/poster for Missionary Man Dolph Lundgren is heavily armed, there's an explosion in the background, and the tagline reads "No sin shall go unpunished" - judge the book by its cover, as what you see is pretty much what you get.

The story is set on a Native American Indian reservation where a gang of sadistic palefaces rule through violence and corruption. An enigmatic stranger known only as Ryder (Lundgren), rolls into town with a Bible and a score to settle. Ryder's character is unmistakably established as being some sort of enigmatic badass after he drinks straight tequila (no salt, no lime) and reads various verses of the Bible. His business in town is to attend the funeral of an old acquaintance known as J.J., who had recently drowned. However, J.J.'s family refuse to believe his death was an accident, and blame malicious local oppressor John Reno (Tompkins) for the murder. Ryder - the tall, blonde-haired stranger - begins befriending members of the local Indian community, and causes problems for Reno when he defeats hired hands and interferes with his underhanded practises. Tensions rise between Reno and Ryder, and the possibilities for a violent showdown continue to elevate.

Missionary Man is just a forgettable shoot-'em-up action romp, featuring an aging Dolph Lundgren taking on countless enemies (sometimes simultaneously) with unwavering efficiency. Dolph (who also co-wrote the script) unfortunately takes things far too seriously. The film aspires to be an incisive character study, but Dolph lacks the requisite skill as a writer, director and star to pull this off successfully. Dialogue is fairly humdrum, and clichés proliferate, not to mention the air of unreserved seriousness is never (purposely) breached. Silly events and corny dialogue unfortunately prompt derisory chortles. Some scenes do work, especially when the hulking Ryder (remaining nameless, in an ostensible homage to Clint Eastwood) demonstrates his ability as a fighter. The photography is also endlessly stylish (due to an error during the DVD mastering, the colours are washed-out, giving the film an almost mythical look). Nevertheless, the overall lack of unique action scenes (not to mention action scenes in general are in short supply, instead opting to develop a dreary congregation of characters) as well as noteworthy storytelling prevent Missionary Man from rising above the usual low standard for DTD action flicks.

The cinematography is of a satisfactory standard. Adhering to the widespread plague of contemporary action flicks, the camera suffers an epileptic attack whenever an action scene takes place. Shaky cam syndrome does no wonders on the cinematography front, ultimately coming across as cheap and disorientating. However, cinematographer Bing Rao's work isn't a total dud. The first ten minutes in particular is intriguingly shot, using clever camera angles and (thanks to nice lighting) usually clouding Ryder in darkness. Elia Cmiral's music to complement the photography is, of course, atmospheric and effective.

Even at 50 years old, Dolph Lundgren never fails as a badass. He certainly looks the part, donning an outfit extremely appropriate for his character. Ryder is a one-dimensional hero - i.e. he lacks a weighty back-story. What's missing is acceptable motivation and reasoning for his return to the town. Conveniently, Ryder had an altercation in the past with a few members of this quiet town and returns purely for vengeance-related reasons. But no explanation is offered regarding events that had previously transpired. An air of mystery surrounding the protagonist is usually a great decision, but at least a little motivation would've proved advantageous.
The supporting cast is generally populated by little-known actors. There's a bunch of performances of questionable quality, but they're uniformly watchable at least. Matthew Tompkins appears to give it his all as the despicable John Reno. He's the proverbial genre villain - outwardly appealing, but shady and corrupt, and has plenty of hired guns on standby to unleash upon the hero.

Missionary Man is a clear homage to the Westerns of old, communicating a contemporary version of a story wherein a stranger rides into town to save the day. Instead of horses, they ride motorcycles (at one stage Reno even tells Ryder to leave town on his "iron horse"). This isn't a necessarily bad movie...it's just a familiar DTD movie. Innovative this is not. However Dolph's religious one man army shtick is eye-catching, pairing a mainly silent performance with a charismatic swagger (the kind you generally don't witness in a mindless production like this). The only true flaws are a handful of shaky performances, the indiscriminate use of slow motion, and the fact it's bereft of anything truly worthwhile or memorable. For your basic DTD film, this isn't a total waste. The display of blood and guts is occasionally quite graphic (therefore enjoyable), and it offers Dolph Lundgren drinking tequila, riding a motorcycle and kicking ass. Let's face it: it's why you paid the money to see it in the first place.

5.2/10

"Hitler is dead. Operation Valkyrie is in effect."

Valkyrie is a solid World War II espionage thriller, conveying one of the most staggering true stories in modern history. This is a motion picture infused with a rare story regarding the German Resistance that primarily concentrates on the overlooked heroism of officers and soldiers who actively fought against Adolf Hitler and his regime from within ranks of power. Directed by Bryan Singer (a man blessed with a virtually unbroken run of impressive work; his previous films including The Usual Suspects, X-Men and Superman Returns), Valkyrie manages to thrill and entertain the mass market, but it seems hardly worth the wait and effort. Singer's film is coated in an inevitable layer of thick Hollywood gloss, and is also lacking in vital depth. Screenwriters Christopher McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander employ the historical facts of this remarkable true story (told rather faithfully) to construct the flick, but it comes across as well-oiled Hollywood entertainment rather than a sensationalist chapter of WWII. While not a bad film by any means, Valkyrie would've carried far more clout if it had emerged from the confident German film industry (with home-grown actors and a director to match) as opposed to the tired mills of Hollywood.

Sour industry buzz intensely enveloped Valkyrie as it was slammed unjustly since production commenced in 2007, facing augmented hostility that greeted the shifting release dates as well as the trailers that underlined the bewildering cocktail of British and American accents meant to represent the resistance movement inside the Third Reich. It turns out this bad press was merely conjecture; battling the odds and winning, Singer has handsomely directed this engaging, intense World War II thriller. It's not as bad as the negative pre-hype suggested, but Valkyrie still had the potential to be a superior flick.

The film covers a span of roughly 18 months, from early 1943 until the fateful final day. Valkyrie provides an examination of the workings of the German Resistance movement, wherein high-ranking officials with various levels of access to Hitler collaborate to bring to fruition a plot to assassinate their Fuhrer.
With Germany's loss in the war a predetermined conclusion to nearly everyone except for Hitler himself, these high-ranking German officers valiantly conspire to murder their leader, replace the government as peacefully as possible and implement a new regime during which they'd negotiate a peace. Consequently, a peace would spare the loss of more German soldiers and repair what's left of their country's legacy. The cunning idea is to use the German government's own emergency plan (dubbed Operation Valkyrie) against it. With each officer in the group assigned a different role, they propose to plant a bomb inside the Wolf's Lair (an enclosed bunker where high security meetings were held), killing Hitler and his staff before overthrowing the Nazi government from the inside. However, paranoia grips the schemers as success grows nearer. As anyone with a basic knowledge of World War II knows, Hitler would later die by his own hand.

"The point of replacing Hitler is to negotiate the truce with the Allies. The Allies, I suspect would be more amenable to a truce if we offer it to them before they get to fucking Berlin!"

The protagonist of the story, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise), initially suffers serious wounds in Africa. Despite (or perhaps owing to) his injuries, Stauffenberg is recruited into the resistance, being introduced to the secret circle of conscientious objectors. The plan itself is complicated and never clearly explained by the characters (dialogue is fairly stilted), but the basic details are straightforward enough. This is a fascinating story to preserve on film as it's all-too-often neglected. It's curious to note, however, that the film eschews the details of the most famous casualty of the July 20 assassination attempt - Field Marshal Rommel, who was mistakenly implicated and committed suicide as a result. This oversight is likely owing to time constraints, but it's an unfortunate exclusion as it would have shown how far and wide the net was spread to obliterate resistance within the military.

"We have to show the world that not all of us are like him. Otherwise, this will always be Hitler's Germany."

The extremely obvious (and well-known) outcome of the story barely affects our immersion. Director Singer competently brews a substantial amount of suspense. A chain of near misses and tense decisions pinch a viewer with anxiety. Following a fairly sluggish opening act, Valkyrie transforms into a taut assassination game, and the suspense levels continue to elevate throughout the second half when the implementation of Operation Valkyrie develops into a battle of bluff between Stauffenberg's rebels and Hitler's media machine. The performances are especially strong here; each man conflicted as they witness the monster they believe they've killed sprout another head and pursue them. The outcomes of such biographical or historical films as JFK, World Trade Center and Malcolm X are also well known but it doesn't detract from the brilliance of those films. Therefore, why should Valkyrie be held to a different and stricter standard?

One of the most widespread criticisms is perhaps the most valid; the cast never speak in German accents, nor do they speak German. Nazi officials articulate faultless English while writing in German. The problem is addressed during the opening few minutes, during which German titles transform into English titles, and Tom Cruise begins talking in German before beginning to speak English. The implication is that the characters do speak German, but for the sake of being a slice of Westernised entertainment a viewer hears them speaking English (a tactic first employed in The Hunt for Red October). Nevertheless, this is a fault too blatant and baffling, and it's consequently difficult to overlook. Once again, German filmmakers should've committed this ignored piece of history to celluloid.

"I'm a soldier, but in serving my country, I have betrayed my conscience."

In different hands, Valkyrie would've been a deep examination of the people involved, their motives and fears, and maybe even their personal lives. If Valkyrie provided further insight into the lives of these fascinating historical figures, it'd be a more thoughtful and therefore better film. Stauffenberg may have been maimed in the war, but his disenchantment with Hitler predated his injuries, and the film hardly explores this. Instead the film spends lots of time trying to prove that he's a great man. However, whether he was nice or mean is beside the point in the long view. Screenwriters McQuarrie and Alexander needed to dig into Stauffenberg's character and explore the reason why he decided to take such risks. They instead give Cruise the WWII equivalent of his character from Mission: Impossible.
Also, were the co-conspirators simply patriotic Germans, or did they have a deeper motivation for committing treason? With a few exceptions, we never really know. Valkyrie simply feels too underdone, as if heavily cut in the editing room. It seems to have been re-cut to be less of an Oscar-bait drama and more of a popcorn thriller; while serviceable as the latter, it might have been a better film as the former.

Singer dives into the material with plenty of zeal, moulding the assassination plot into an eye-catching, jaw-clenching movement of urgency, utilising the characters as chess pawns on the board game of Germany's future. Singer's work has generated a well-directed chronicle of misbegotten patriotism, with emphasis on sharply angled Nazi ornamentation, beautifully photographed by Newton Thomas Sigel. Several scenes were filmed on location in Berlin (using many locations where actual events occurred, including the Benderblock). In some instances where a certain location no longer existed, it was meticulously recreated. However, what's missing here (but effortlessly captured in films like Black Book) is any sense of the horrors of war, the maniacal evil of the Nazi regime, and the corrosive effect on civilians. The Berlin depicted here is too pristine and glossy...it's unmistakably a Hollywood production. The grittiness and brilliance of 2004's Der Undertang (Downfall) should have pervaded a film covering this source material.

David Bamber's physical resemblance to Adolf Hitler is effective enough for the few scenes in which he features, but it almost goes without saying that he doesn't come close to Bruno Ganz's astonishing portrayal of the dictator in Downfall (which was a far more gripping and riveting flick, in no small part because of Ganz).
Tom Cruise is adequate as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Much controversy was sparked about Cruise taking on such a role, to the point that the German government forbade filming in their country due to his scientology cult (eventually permission was granted). Cruise is surprisingly strong, infusing his performance with a crucial level of emotionality. The actor never entirely immerses himself into the character, but his appearance is ideal. If only Cruise delivered dialogue in a more German fashion...
Once you accept English Nazis, you can easily accept the great cast - including Bill Nighy, Terence Stamp and Kenneth Branagh who play old-school soldiers with stiff upper lips. Tom Wilkinson is a slimy delight as a Nazi official who turns a blind eye to the operation as opposed to actually helping. Eddie Izzard, Kevin McNally and Christian Berkel also appear (among others), and all hit their marks delightfully.
Carice van Houten, who was so remarkable in the WWII drama Black Book, is given minor screen-time as Stauffenberg's wife. (It's worth noting that another Black Book cast member, Waldemar Kobus, also appears in Valkyrie. In the former film he played a piggish Nazi officer, and here he's a police chief who collaborates with the resistance.)

"Long live sacred Germany!"

Taken merely as a genre piece, Valkyrie is an engaging but incomplete thriller. Its illustrious cast do their jobs adequately, but the story could have benefitted from further insight into the men who tried to kill Hitler. At the end of the day it's a tense, competently-crafted thriller that accurately communicates a story of bravery and betrayal. But when Hollywood has the last word, something dies. It ultimately feels like the story has been taken advantage of, and skilfully repackaged as entertainment for money purposes.

6.7/10