Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"People should love you. They really should, okay? And I want to deliver that for you. It's the least that I can do. You're a superhero. Kids should be running up to you, asking for your autograph, people should be cheering you on the streets..."

Stale. Vapid. Hollow. Offensive. Inconsistent. Illogical. Lame. Fluffy. These are the words that popped into my head while watching Hancock; a nonsense hodgepodge of intriguing ideas attempting to offer a unique twist on the conventional superhero movie.

2008 appears to be the ideal year for disappointing superhero movies to crawl out and subsequently die. This film was released in the shadow of Doug Liman's second-rate Jumper. Both lethally suffer from awful screenplays and a contemptible, self-indulgent, selfish hero. Hancock works from a banal and standard script, seemingly borrowing various facets from other superheroes. There's a shoestring plot on which to hang the action sequences and the (failed) humour. Hancock is also excruciating, dull, unimaginative and unengaging. Forget about this being as emotionally gripping as The Pursuit of Happyness, as delightfully entertaining as Bad Boys, or as funny and appealing as Men in Black - this is pure preposterous tosh!

John Hancock (Smith) is a bitter, disillusioned superhero. He can fly, he's impervious to any sort of damage, he has super strength...well, I'm sure you get the idea. Hancock has one major problem: his public image. Every time he saves someone's life or catches a criminal he inadvertently causes a great deal of damage to the city of Los Angeles. When Hancock isn't angering the general public, he's a drunken bum. Enter public relations professional Ray Embrey (Bateman) who, after being saved by Hancock, takes it upon himself to reinvent and improve Hancock's public image in order to make him more of a crowd pleaser. A warrant is issued for the arrest of Hancock (as his latest stunt caused $9 million of damage), and Ray persuades the superhero to turn himself in willingly. This begins Hancock's inner journey from public nuisance to public idol.

Hancock is an abundantly flawed superhero escapade. I honesty have no idea where I should begin...
For starters, Hancock isn't a sufficiently developed character nor is he anyone we wish to root for. His origin story isn't told until the second half. His back-story comes far too late to make a difference to the character (who's established as selfish and contemptible). Ideally, the film should allow its audience to understand Hancock's motivations, as well as the reasons for his bad attitude and callousness from the very first frame. When is the origin story introduced in Superman: The Movie or Tim Burton's original Batman? It's the first thing we need to see in order to flesh out a character and provide detail into this character's life. Flashback, montage...the script needs to allow us to identify with him before he opens his mouth.
In I Am Legend, we empathise with Will Smith's character from the very beginning because we're given a reason to care about him. In The Pursuit of Happyness he played a poor man trying to raise his son. We pity him and want to see him succeed. In Hancock he calls bystanders pricks, drinks himself to oblivion, doesn't care about anyone but himself, and his social skills are putrid. The heroics he occasionally displays just aren't good enough.

The dialogue is also quite offensive. In the opening sequence he rips the roof off a getaway vehicle, revealing three men. Hancock proceeds to joke about the lack of girls in the car. The insinuation is that they are gay (even when most criminals we see arrested on TV are men anyway!). This further manifests itself later on in the film. Ray holds up a series of comic books, all featuring white men in standard superhero outfits. First words that escape Hancock's mouth? "Homo. Homo in red. Norwegian homo". The gay community would probably have something to say about this... I wonder what Hancock would've said if he was shown comic books featuring African American superheros. Would he call them niggers? I'd guess not, as this would alienate Smith's race. "Homo" is the only slur said by Hancock throughout the entire film. When he's approached by African Americans, he doesn't use a slur at all. He doesn't even use a slur when he fights Latinos at the beginning. To the writers it's a crime to use a slur for African Americans or Latinos, yet it's perfectly acceptable to do so for gays. How insensitive!

This point brings us onto the rest of the script issues... The film's structure is unbelievably weak. It's as if the screenwriters had brainstormed ideas for the major plot points but could only come up with pulp to connect them. These plot points are just mashed together, creating an extraordinarily messy final product. The screenwriters seemingly expect us to fill in the blanks.
Even though this is a summer blockbuster, Hancock offers barely any action. Okay, so they wanted this to be more of a drama. But why did they market this as an action film? Why did they release it during the summer season when action films are all the rage? The script also never manages to offer a clear-cut villain until the dreadful final third. This villain is weak and his entrance is far too late.

Logic appears to be an enemy of the screenplay as well. At one stage Hancock tosses a child up into the air. On the child's way back down to the ground he's caught by Hancock. This should have caused incredible internal damage, yet the kid is just fine. Another illogical instance: Hancock flies out of prison temporarily. The alarm is immediately raised. Seriously, bullets bounce off this guy. Why in hell would the police even bother wasting manpower and bullets trying to recapture him? An alarm would do absolutely no good. During the film's climax Hancock is hurt pretty badly after being shot and stabbed. He falls out of a high window (third or fourth storey) onto the roof of a bus and he's just fine? There's also another character with powers identical to Hancock's, and they don't want their powers revealed (they even threaten Hancock with penalty of death if he spills the beans). Yet this character engages Hancock in combat in broad daylight with hundreds of witnesses. In addition to logic frequently being defied, inconsistencies are abundant. The entire story about the other character with Hancock's powers is muddled up! I'd be wasting time (and spoiling things) by going any further.

Then there's the matter of product placement...oh how Hancock appears to adore product placement! There are Ray Ban sunglasses (mentioned by name!), a store with all product labels facing the camera (with close-ups of the products), an ad for the Showtime series Dexter, gratuitous YouTube plugs, and there are even FedEx boxes being displayed!

For a modern movie, the special effects are somewhat dull as well. Peter Berg directed 2007's The Kingdom...and again brings his trademark shaky camera technique to the table. He attempts to give the CGI sequences a grittier, more realistic edge. This fails in the first scene - an inebriated Hancock flying towards a highway police pursuit exhibits embarrassing phoniness. However, the only thing I can say in the film's favour is in regards to its entertainment value. There are sporadic instances of good action scenes and funny moments. But these all happen within the first 30 minutes. Beyond that, everyone is on autopilot. The enjoyably frenetic opening sequence is of the standard we expected to pervade the rest of the film. Sadly, it's a one-off instance. A character also watches a few clips of Hancock's most infamous misdemeanours on YouTube. A few amusing clips are played and Will Smith's reactions are priceless.
On the whole, though, the performances are uniformly mediocre. Smith doesn't bring an ounce of emotion to the table and Charlize Theron is wooden. Bateman is at least watchable. He disperses a few amusing lines of dialogue. The rest of the cast aren't even worth mentioning.

Hancock is a massive disappointment no matter where you turn. It seems like the film is actually two films rolled into one. The first is the tale of the anti-hero learning to be a defender of truth, justice, and the American Way. It's the more interesting of the two. The second piece is muddled and disjointed as the screenplay provides revelations about Hancock's origin. This aspect has the scope of a Shakespearean tragedy and cannot effectively be addressed in the 45 minutes allotted to it. Both halves had potential, and should have been properly expanded into separate movies. By compressing them into a single unit, the story suffers as a whole. Hancock is stupid and hollow, yet it does at least offer a moderately entertaining experience.

" I gotta wonder what a kind of a bastard I must have been, that nobody was there to claim me. I mean, I am not the most charming guy in the world, so I've been told, but...nobody?"

3.6/10

"You know Steve, you're not very hard to figure, only at times. Sometimes I know exactly what you're going to say. Most of the time. The other times... the other times, you're just a stinker."

Director Howard Hawks once bet Ernest Hemingway he could make a good film using one of the author's worst books as the source material. Needless to say, Hawks won the bet after creating this exquisite, classy, stylish, slick piece of screen entertainment. The legacy of Bogey and Bacall (i.e. Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall) was established in director Howard Hawks' To Have and Have Not.
By the early 1940s, Humphrey Bogart had become a firmly established screen star and a near icon thanks to a string of major movies, including genuine classics such as High Sierra and the unforgettable Casablanca. Betty Perske was a fresh-faced, 19-year-old model from New York who managed to convince Warner Bros. executives to give her a shot at acting. Betty Perske later had her name changed to Lauren Bacall...and the rest is history.

In order to capitalise on the success of Casablanca, Warner Bros. demanded Bogart be returned to his café setting, or something similar. Original script drafts for To Have and Have Not bore many resemblances to Hemingway's novel. But as more drafts were turned in, the script was steadily transformed into an essential Casablanca facsimile. A magnifying glass would be needed to find the crumbs of the novel that remain. Considering the panning taken by Hemingway's novel (even the author reportedly described it as a piece of junk), these changes were wise.

Even with the names of Howard Hawks and Ernest Hemingway slapped onto the film, no-one really cares about that anymore. Now the film is recognised for being the first filmic pairing of Bogey and Bacall. The twosome have become such an iconic and legendary screen couple over the decades. Their chemistry is sizzling. In the original screenplay for To Have and Have Not, Bacall was assigned a reasonably minor role. However, once it was apparent that Bacall and Bogart were burning up the screen together, Hawks re-wrote the script himself to bolster the screen-time of Bacall's character. Following the success of this movie, Howard Hawks went on to direct The Big Sleep featuring the impeccable duo of Bogey and Bacall once again. Hawks decided to emphasise the Bogey and Bacall element in The Big Sleep. Fans of that delicious film noir have often noted that the plot frequently doesn't make sense, but the interaction between Bogart and Bacall is compelling enough to keep even the most inattentive viewer from losing interest.
While filming To Have and Have Not, the two commenced their mutual liking for each other. After production of The Big Sleep wrapped up, Bogey & Bacall married. Bacall was Bogart's fourth wife, and the two remained married until Bogart's death in 1957. The legacy of Bogey & Bacall was preserved in four movies: To Have and Have Not, The Big Sleep, Dark Passage and Key Largo.

Harry Morgan (Bogart) is an adventurous fishing boat captain operating out of Martinique. He offers his boat for rental, making his living by taking usually tourists out for fishing expeditions. With World War II transpiring around them, Harry and his alcoholic partner Eddie (Brennan) are forced to violate their preferred neutrality when a group of French resistance fighters enter the picture. At first he doesn't want a scrap of it - Harry is not wanting into the politics. However circumstances change when Harry's latest client fails to pay a hefty sum he was looking forward to receiving. (Unfortunately, an unexpected case of death prevented any further dealings between Harry and said client.) Harry also meets French sympathiser and nightclub singer Marie Browning (Bacall), who influences Harry's decision on getting involved with French resistance. When local Gestapo-like officer Captain Renard (Seymour) offers Harry a handsome reward for turning over the French resistance fighters he decided to harbour, Harry must choose between money and principals.

To Have and Have Not is essentially Howard Hawks' answer to Casablanca. There are striking similarities between the two, such as the setting and the nature of a number of the characters. Humphrey Bogart is of course Humphrey Bogart: he's gruff and heroic, and only a female can influence his decisions. Surprisingly, Hawks' film actually stands up when compared to Casablanca. By no means does Hawks even get close to rivalling the 1942 masterpiece, but he's crafted an extremely entertaining and classy film with To Have and Have Not. That said, the film isn't without faults. For its duration the film is fairly uneventful. Where Casablanca moved from one fascinating scene to the next as characters spouted memorable dialogue, To Have and Have Not encompasses a thin premise that is seldom extended. At times the story is fairly feeble. Be that as it may, Howard Hawks' touch is a valuable one. The director knows how to keep an audience riveted. Even with exciting happenings being so few and far between, the dialogue is well-written and the actors are sublime. The black and white photography still looks fantastic. Hawks also keeps things slick and fast-paced, with the infrequent action quite entertaining.

The script combines serious dialogue with subtle comic inclusions and witty lines. Where Casablanca had the piano-playing Sam responsible for the immortal As Time Goes By, Hawks includes American song-writing legend Hoagy Carmichael. Where the actor playing Sam only pretended to play the piano, this is the real deal! We get plenty of his catchy, enjoyable music and have the opportunity to listen to his delightfully laconic, laid-back style.

Humphrey Bogart places forth a trademark performance. He had this style of character down pat by now. The actor was in his 40s at the time, but he still possessed an irresistible charm.
Lauren Bacall was a teenager when the cameras started rolling. At times she appears to have trouble acting. She looks delightful and youthful, but she's occasionally contrived. Bogart appears to take a backseat position as the young Lauren Bacall shines here. It takes no imagination to determine why she so captivated the older Bogart. Only very few actors have had the pleasure of such a memorable screen debut. Her immortal image in the first scene was just a mere hint of the presence that she was to exert in the rest of this film.
Hawks' rewrite of the script was to boost Bacall's role and diminish that of Dolores Moran (at the time apparently the lover of Howard Hawks). Bacall couldn't actually sing, so her singing scenes were dubbed; using the voice as Andy Williams as a replacement.
Bogart's Harry and Bacall's Marie never call each other by their proper names. Instead, they are known as "Slim" and "Steve" - the endearments by which Hawks and his wife addressed each other in real life.
Walter Brennan is suitably irritating as the drunken mate. There are other additions to the cast worth mentioning, but it goes without saying that they are all overtaken by Bogey and Bacall's scorching chemistry.

To Have and Have Not is a generally underappreciated and overlooked entry to Humphrey Bogart's filmography. It's noted mostly for conceiving the legacy of the Bogey and Bacall partnership, but remembered for little else. The film bears little resemblance to the novel that spawned it; however it doesn't matter. This is a highly entertaining movie and an enduring classic. Not quite the calibre of The Big Sleep or Key Largo (the other Bogey/Bacall flicks), but it's of adequate quality. It might be fairly similar to a raft of other Bogart films - most notably Casablanca with which it does have some obvious superficial elements and similarities - yet this one is superior to most. The sheer chemical overload between the leads just adds that additional level of "stuff" that makes the film very memorable and entertaining indeed. A film worth seeing!

8.2/10

"It takes a certain kind of person to do what I do. No-one's ever impressed; no-one's ever fascinated. If you're a fireman, all the kids will want to jump on the back of the truck and follow you to a fire. There's going to be no kids willing to do that with me. So, I don't do it to impress people - it's a job, it's my trade, and I actually think I'm pretty good at it."

There is one undeniable, inescapable bona fide fact regarding humans that we rarely like to discuss or even mention: everybody poos. Generally speaking, mainstream movies exercise this fact for brainless comedy. Modern comedies usually toss in a fart gag or a diarrhoeic outburst in a desperate attempt for a laugh. From such scenes in Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle or Dumb and Dumber, to dramatic shit smearing in North Country...even to German hack director Uwe Boll whose films are pure cinematic semi-liquid nuggets of week-old vindaloo proportions.

Kenny serves a potent yet valuable reminder regarding everybody's need to poo. At first it most likely seems like a daft single-joke comedy overflowing with scatological humour. During its marketing campaign and preliminary hype, there wasn't much to convince anyone otherwise. But Kenny is something radically different. This is a hysterical, enormously entertaining mockumentary featuring an impeccable blend of humour, pathos and heart-warming moments. It delivers a poignant and effective snapshot of a forgotten cog in society who's frowned upon due to the nature of his trade. The character of Kenny (played by little-known actor Shane Jacobson, who won an AFI award for his performance) is commonly alienated from family and friends due to his job. But with this mockumentary we're reminded that he performs an essential public service: if the "Kennys" of the world didn't exist, where would we take a dump at a big festival? It's a trade no-one wants to think about, yet someone needs to do it.

The Jacobson brothers themselves were sceptical as to whether this concept would actually work as a film. Kenny was originally a short that debuted at a major Aussie film festival. Astonishingly, the audience reaction was enormously positive. Due to massive demand, Splashdown (the toilet company which the character of Kenny works for) persuaded the Jacobson brothers to develop the concept into a feature-length movie...and Kenny was eventually born.

Kenny Smyth is a typical Everyman trying to make a living. He works at a Corporate Bathroom Rental company known as Splashdown. Kenny is a knight in shining overalls, taking care of business with his faithful Splashdown crew by his side. The film follows Kenny as he tackles all troubles great and small...from the biggest festival to smallest social gatherings; Kenny confronts every septic challenge that comes his way. He also battles his way through personal problems, dealing with his bitter divorce during which he lost custody of son Jesse (played by Shane Jacobson's real-life son), and he also must tend to the blossoming romance between himself and an airline hostess (Bibra). Every challenge in Kenny's life he faces with charm, humour and unflinching dignity.

I'd love to be able to say "I plumb toilets" and have someone say "Now that is something I've always wanted to do".

Kenny lifts the lid on the very real issues in contemporary society. No-one is ever impressed or fascinated with what Kenny does. Kenny even expounds on the glories of his craft. It isn't as glamorous as being a fireman but it's also more secure than a desk job. ("It's not like my business is ever going to dry up overnight!") In addition, he's treated badly by the members of the general public he's forced to interact with. Barely anyone will shake his hand, his own father (played by Shane and director Clayton Jacobson's actual father) orders him to remove his work overalls before sitting down, and people shun him at social gatherings. When Kenny's son assists in cleaning the port-a-loos, members of the public complain indignantly and inquire "What kind of diseases could he get?". This film presents us with disillusionments and misunderstandings in relation to Kenny's trade. For its brutal honesty and realism, the filmmakers deserve to be lauded.

Director Clayton Jacobson (who gets a very small role as well) lensed the movie using suitable digital photography. It feels like a home movie at times, which is the desired effect. Lots of people (myself included) were under the false impression that Kenny was a real person, and that the events were real. Make no mistake: 95% of the film is staged and rehearsed, with the fantastic naturalistic acting generating the ingenious illusion that we're watching genuine documentary footage. The cinematography is extremely accomplished with its fly-on-the-wall style.

"There's another classic example of someone having a two inch arsehole and us having installed only one inch piping."

Shane Jacobson earned an AFI award for Best Actor. His acting can only be described as faultless. In real life, Shane doesn't have a lisp. I, like many others, was under the impression that the lisp was genuine. This is a testament to the masterclass of acting offered by Jacobson. Kenny Smyth is the best Aussie character to hit screens since Michael Caton's Darryl Kerrigan in The Castle and Paul Hogan's Mick Dundee in Crocodile Dundee. He presents the essential Australian: simple, hard-working and looking forward to having a beer at the end of the day. Kenny's naivety is emphasised by his family's simplicity. He's the first person in his family to fly out of Australia, and he's utterly curious about the workings of an aeroplane. When he arrives at Nashville, Tennessee in America for the International Plumper and Cleaner Expo - i.e. "Poo HQ" as Kenny affectionately calls it - he's bewildered by the size of the expo. Kenny is also your typical Aussie using ockerisms and slang that may appear pretty peculiar to an international audience. His similes are particularly amusing. "Sillier than a bum full of smarties", "Mad as a clown's cock", and so on. Kenny is irresistible and charming, humorous and kind-natured. He's part philosopher, part comedian and all heart. Shane Jacobson gives the film the gusto and momentum it needs.
The other actors deserve a brief mention. It was a family and friend affair, with Shane Jacobson's real father playing Kenny Smyth's father, and Shane's real son played Kenny's son. Ronald Jacobson was nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the AFI awards. He's brilliant, witty and quotable.

The Jacobson brothers may have built the film's premise around toilets and poo, yet a brown log is never actually shown at all throughout the entire film. They never cross the line...the "mud biscuits and apple juice" are merely referenced instead of being shown. The humour of the film is in Kenny's delightful matter-of-factness in his observations. He cleverly describes his trade and things going on around him...and it's hilarious. Better yet, it's all done with a straight face. At the beginning of the film Kenny is interviewing a potential client via phone. As he asks whether this client will be serving food or drink at the event, the implications of his questions are hilarious. "Are there any Indonesian foods or curries?" The opening 30 minutes are probably the strongest part of the movie. We are offered a very intimate insight into the life of Kenny Smyth. Kenny is developed as a three-dimensional human, and in his personality fragments we see ourselves. From start to finish, it's a mosaic of hilarious and quotable lines with an adequate dosage of pathos and heart. The concoction works incredibly effectively!

"There's a smell in here that is gonna outlast religion."

When all's said and done, Kenny simply reminds everyone that in the age of big-budget adventures and CGI spectacles, engaging characters and a good story are all that matter. Kenny has both. This is a little-known film that scored big at the box office. It remained in cinemas for roughly a year. Even after the DVD was released, selected Australian cinemas were still showing it. As a character study so singularly focused on its central character, a film like this relies on its central character for its success. Shane Jacobson delivers a delightful performance. Kenny is a man with good intentions, and this comes across very powerfully. Shane has impeccable comedic timing as he deadpans a series of hilarious lines in expert fashion. Aside from being consistently laugh-out-loud funny, the terrific script generates real affection for Kenny in order that we desperately root for him to succeed. The character makes several valid observations about family, work and the value of human dignity.

Kenny is a masterpiece for its expert amalgamation of great comedy, pathos and terrific touching moments. This is a hysterical movie that holds up admirably no matter how many times you watch it. I still laugh at every joke after 50 viewings. It's a very entertaining movie, and I absolutely love it. At first I had no interest in seeing this picture. But on a firm recommendation I attended a screening (which required a lot of searching to determine which local cinemas were showing it), and it was the best cinematic experience in my entire life. It was a full house, and every single person in the cinema was crying with laughter. It was the most entertaining two hours of my entire life, and now I constantly revisit the movie. This is the greatest mockumentary in history! Yes, it's better than This is Spinal Tap!!

Followed by a spin-off TV series entitled Kenny's World.

10/10

"I wish, for just one day, Dad couldn't tell a lie."

We're all aware of the cliché that all lawyers are perpetual liars, but what if a lawyer was only capable of telling the truth? Would this put an end to their career? Would this prevent them from winning a case altogether? Taking this concept a tad further, could any of us survive a day without telling a single porky? These are the pertinent issues explored in the zany Jim Carrey vehicle Liar Liar.

Okay - let's take a step back here for a moment. I know how this sounds...a Jim Carrey comedy vehicle exploring certain issues and hoping to deliver a valuable message? Allow me to provide some further explication: this is a succession of over-the-top Jim Carrey comedy vignettes with a shoestring plotline that attempts to be mildly provocative and it works to a certain extent. If you're looking for gut-busting gags of the belly variety, or if you're a Jim Carrey fan, or if you're just in a bad mood and you require some light-hearted entertainment to put a smile on your dial...Liar Liar will prove quite satisfying.

Fletcher Reede (Carrey) is a fast-talking attorney working for a prestigious law firm. He has steadily climbed his way up the corporate ladder by embellishing the truth (isn't it a known job requirement for a lawyer to be a liar?), but such a commitment to his job allows little time for his family. To his family, Fletcher is a promise-breaker and a habitual liar. His entire career was built out of lying. He lies to everyone: his colleagues, his secretary, his mother, his ex-wife Audrey (Tierney) and, worst of all, he lies to he young son Max (Cooper). Audrey and Max become increasingly disappointed in Fletcher's unreliability, to the point that Audrey begins considering a move to Boston with current boyfriend Jerry (Elwes). When Fletcher fails to show up for his son's birthday party, however, Max makes a fateful birthday wish while blowing out his candles: that for a full day his father cannot tell a lie. Miraculously, this wish comes true - for 24 hours, porkies are prohibited, and Fletcher's fluent fibbery is substituted with an entirely truth-telling tongue. During his incurable and unwanted bout of pure honesty, Fletcher realises how much of a poor father he has truly become. He begins to see himself in a different light and realises that a world dominated by lies and deceit isn't the life he wishes to lead.

The central plot device of Liar Liar can only be described as both preposterous and laughable. It's physically impossible for a man to be cursed in such a way by a child's birthday wish. On the contrary, though, the film wouldn't be as fun nor as effective or plausible if the plot was grounded in reality. If Carrey's Fletcher Reede merely promised his son he wouldn't tell a lie, he wouldn't be forced to endure all the hysterical scenarios that make this film so much damn fun! Liar Liar isn't your stereotypical Jim Carrey outing. Sure, it appears as if it's just a mosaic of Jim Carrey skits...but the script places him on a leash. He has to move from point A to B, and simply has his own creative method of doing so.

Liar Liar avoids becoming a single-note movie by keeping the running time taut and allotting the first quarter of the movie to character development. The characterisations at least slightly cross over into the third dimension when it's time for Carrey to break out into his wild antics. The laughs are occasionally varied as well. There's Carrey overacting and Carrey accidentally spitting out the truth. A decent assortment of comedy is what makes this so enjoyable. However when the film is reduced to showcasing nothing but Carrey's silly antics the story unfolds in a formulaic fashion.

At the end of the day, Liar Liar doesn't break any new barriers and it falls flat in delivering a story about redemption. Unfortunately, there's also one major problem amidst all the fun and games transpiring during Liar Liar. Carrey does an exceptional job at comedy...but when it comes to serious acting...uh...where should I begin? The dramatic aspect is where Carrey fails. One moment he's an idiot; his facial contortions, over-reaching physical movements and overacting are all in glorious full display. The next moment he's conducting a deep and meaningful session with his son. We're unsure whether we're supposed to take him seriously. Moronic physical explosions and mushy pathos doesn't mesh well. The trite final scene at the airport is evidence to support this claim. Jim Carrey was made for the comedy arena, and it's the selling point of his entire career. In the years following this film's release, he suddenly went more sombre and serious with films such as The Majestic, The Truman Show and the contemptible The Number 23. Jim Carrey was born to be laughed at, and he should continue to capitalise on this talent.

If you're not a fan of Jim Carrey's overacting then there is no hope that you'll even survive the duration of Liar Liar. There isn't much variety in terms of genres. The film simply provides comedy, a thin story and ineffective drama. The film relies solely on Jim Carrey being funny to see it through. Carrey fans will enjoy (although they'll probably dislike the occasional seriousness), Carrey haters will probably be more joyed by a Paris Hilton concert.

In final analysis, Liar Liar comes across as a string of very funny moments connected by pulp. It's great fun, it's entertaining and it doesn't outstay its welcome at a tight 80 minutes. I'll be frank: from Ace Ventura to The Mask to Me, Myself & Irene, I always enjoy watching Jim Carrey's overacting. His acting abilities are limited, but in the realm of comedies he's certainly in the royal family. What's most impressive about Liar Liar is director Shadyac's capacity to realise when enough is enough. When the audience has been fed the correct dosage of Jim Carrey silliness, the film gracefully comes to a saccharine landing. Instead of sticking around too long, this little slice of comedic delight briskly winds down, leaving a grin on your face once the 80 minutes have concluded. You care only lightly about the story, but the comedic delivery alone makes this utterly wonderful viewing. Hang around for the obligatory blooper reel during the end credits to perfectly round off this entertaining nonsense.

7.5/10

"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present."

By now it's a given that animated features must appeal to adults as much as they do to kids in order to be both a critical and commercial success. 2008's Kung Fu Panda is the latest entry into the DreamWorks pantheon. This marks the first true family feature of the 2008 summer season. Armed with an A-list voice cast and a clever premise - this is the type of stuff we expect to see getting nominated for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars. For a while, Kung Fu Panda held the honour of being the best animated film of 2008 simply because there weren't any additional titles to mention. Later on in the summer, Pixar released their latest masterwork unto the world: WALL-E. Following the release of Pixar's WALL-E, DreamWorks' Kung Fu Panda became a mere afterthought. This isn't because of the inadequate, uneven script or even the obtuse messages. The underwhelming result of Kung Fu Panda boils down to the fact that this is a DreamWorks film and not a Pixar film.

The panda of the title is Po (voiced by Black); a tubby animal who dreams of becoming a martial artist. He's the (supposed) son of a noodle shop owner (Hong) and Po's destiny is to inherit the family business. Meanwhile, in the temple on the hill, a handful of trained warriors wait anxiously as one of them will soon be bestowed with the title of the prophesised Dragon Warrior. The community is invited to watch the selection process. Much to the chagrin and surprise of the characters (but not the audience), Po is picked as the Dragon Warrior. Soon following this peculiar selection, a disgruntled snow leopard and former martial arts student (McShane) escapes from prison, causing a potential threat to everyone at the temple. Their only hope is the Dragon Warrior...and Po is apparently the only one for the job.

Kung Fu Panda benefits from spectacular animation and mind-blowing visuals. The opening sequence is reminiscent of modern Manga. DreamWorks also manage to fill the screen with gorgeous backdrops of mountain vistas and fluttering leaves that give Zhang Yimou a run for his money. These wonderful images are made slightly funnier with the chubby Po the Panda huffing and wheezing his way through the landscapes like a relative of Hurley from Lost. This is a fun little romp with adequate charm to keep any audience entertained. At a brisk 90 minutes in length, Kung Fu Panda relies on its action sequences and brisk slapstick gags to see it through.

The directors (Mark Osborne and John Stevenson) rediscover how gut-bustingly funny and rip-roaringly entertaining cartoon violence can be. One of the film's primary action sequences depicts animals of all stripes battling on a bridge resembling Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. We even watch as animals fall from great heights onto land completely unharmed, ala Wile E. Coyote. Yesssssss...the spirit of the Looney Tunes lives on. However, the action is somewhat undermined as the combatants appear unable to succumb to injury even after falling from a dizzying height onto solid cement. In addition, the laws of physics are disregarded. It brings back the Looney Tunes spirit for sure, yet such overuse of this technique grows too dreary and unexciting.

While Kung Fu Panda is fun, it feels as if it's missing something (not just the Pixar logo...although that may be relevant in final analysis). Characterisations are flat, its formula is too unoriginal, laughs are surprisingly limited, and predictability abounds. There's extensive build-up to Po's status as the Dragon Warrior, yet the script focuses too heavily on this build-up and Po suddenly becoming the warrior without this status being sufficient earned. Po's training is restricted to a few straightforward montages showcasing fights that are too cartoonish and unnecessary. There's no sense of achievement. One minute Po is a bumbling fat old oaf. Next minute he's well-trained in kung fu and is able to do some spectacular shit. What's missing is at least a handful of scenes that should delve deep into the training and what exactly Po is put through to become so much better. The emotional progressions also feel unearned. Shifu (Hoffman) initially resists training Po for reasons which are suitably supported. When he eventually gives in and agrees to train Po, as we know he must eventually do, the about-face seems inadequately abrupt. It seems as if the film's all-too-familiar formula is all the justification the audience should require.

The characters surrounding Po and Master Shifu are far too underused and underdeveloped. They're just stock characters dropped into the movie to create the illusion of depth. Granted, this is a children's flick and to expect meaningful characterisation may be foolhardy. However, Pixar manages to do it properly. WALL-E was about robots with a three-word vocabulary, yet we come to love each and every character in the entire film. Even the fat, useless human characters in WALL-E we grew a slight attachment to. Even Ratatouille was able to introduce an adult plotline and a myriad of well-developed characters without ever dragging. For this reason, Pixar continually comes out on top.

Humour is another aspect that denotes this film's greatest failing. Kung Fu Panda is just too insatiably cute in its humour and messages. I wanted some adult comedy, of which there is none. Lack of wit proves detrimental. Kids may not get bored with the great visual feast, but adults will be glancing at their watch frequently. Shark Tale and Madagascar are decent films from DreamWorks that managed to make its audience laugh a lot despite their formulaic structures. Even the three Shrek films, while of increasingly mediocre quality, were appealing enough. Same goes for every single Pixar film. Kung Fu Panda is too dull.

Following the usual tradition of mainstream animated movies, the voice cast is stocked with major Hollywood stars. Jack Black is in fine form as Po the Panda. He's perfect for the role. Black disperses a few good lines ("Oooo, my tenders!" he exclaims when bashed in the crotch), however he doesn't make full use of his wild side - the eager, crazy glee he has previously shown in films like School of Rock. Black instead gives Po a slightly abashed suburban-couch-potato sweetness. When Po gobbles down every ounce of food in sight, he's too cute for words. It's scenes like these that give Kung Fu Panda some much-needed highlights.
With the exception of Jack Black and a suitably embittered Dustin Hoffman, the cast seems like overkill. This overkill syndrome I also picked up in 2007's dreary Bee Movie. The actors are there for the sake of being there. Casting Jackie Chan as a kung fu monkey is good in theory considering his reputation, but what does it accomplish, really? He isn't the central character...in fact he doesn't get many lines! The same goes for Jolie. And in her case, it ain't her voice that attracts the adolescent males to their local theatre complex (it's those enormous mountains threatening to snap her spine that attracts the guy audience). I didn't even know Seth Rogen was involved until I read the cast list. He never gives his character any distinguishable persona. Note to DreamWorks: save your money on big names for supporting roles and let the characters and premise speak for themselves.

At the end of the day, it's the DreamWorks logo that doomed Kung Fu Panda to its mediocre existence. By all means it's an enjoyable little romp: it's fun, inoffensive, is straight to the point, and deserves its box office earnings...but it isn't one of the greatest animated films of recent years. Pixar yet again comes out on top with WALL-E as they did with last year's Ratatouille. To be honest, I was looking forward to Kung Fu Panda immensely. After missing its theatrical run I was keen to view it as soon as possible. But it wasn't what I expected at all, and that's a shame. Too few laughs and a non-serviceable script prove utterly lethal. Kung Fu Panda feels too rushed and too underdone, as if designed for optimal play times per day at the cinema (story be damned). It's fun with spectacular animation, but it's ultimately hollow and it feels like something's missing.

Make sure you say until after the credits. Followed by a sequel.

6.2/10

"I love robbing the English, they're so polite."

How does one distinguish the difference between a masterpiece and just another ordinary comedy? For starters, an ordinary comedy is commonly clichéd beyond all comprehension - i.e. characters are standard, events are glaringly foreseeable and the structure is far too formulaic. In addition, an ordinary comedy usually features well-known actors who are so desperate for laughs that they overact (like Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey, and so on) rather than dispersing clever, witty, cerebral dialogue. In an ordinary comedy the laughs are also predominantly forgettable. And finally, an ordinary comedy is funny but nothing further. It doesn't break new boundaries...it's just another comedy that'll be long forgotten and relegated to the $5 bargain bin at your local shops. But when we're talking about Hollywood movie studios, the executives just want a quick buck to raise their annual profits. Ordinary comedies are easy to make, cheap, and quality is never the concern. Genuine masterpieces of the comedy genre are close to non-existent. Only John Cleese of the Monty Python fame could've been capable of developing the perfect comedy...and he succeeds!

A Fish Called Wanda ticks all the boxes to pull it out of the "ordinary comedy" territory. The film isn't clichéd at all; characters are extraordinarily well-written, the film isn't predictable, and the structure is original. The script is peppered with dynamite dialogue, in-jokes and memorable lines (that I continually quote almost daily) as it moves from one hilarious, creative scenario to the one succeeding it. It even breaks new boundaries with its prize-winning combination of laughs and creativity. It's purely one of the most entertaining films of all time! Best of all, despite countless viewing it always seems fresh and never fails to entertain me. And I’m not alone in my sentiments. The film pulled in $60 million in the USA, making it the highest grossing British picture in America at that time. All these ingredients ensure that A Fish Called Wanda is anything but ordinary.

On the surface, it probably seems difficult to imagine this film being even considered funny. After all, this is a flick concerning diamond robbers double and triple crossing each other, not to mention it's also somewhat mean-spirited at times and cruel to animals. But by golly the package works! The result will bring tears of laughter to your eyes and side-splitting pains to your stomach as you roll all over the floor laughing uncontrollably.
A Fish Called Wanda is reminiscent of the days of Fawlty Towers and Monty Python. This is Cleese in his element: finding himself in awkward situations and having to worm his way out of them. If you're a fan of Fawlty Towers (or is it Flowery Twats or Flay Otters or Watery Fowls?), like I am, you'll have a good grasp of the laugh-out-loud comedy I'm referring to. Considering John Cleese's mostly awful recent work, it's terrific to revisit those winners he scored back in his glory days. Seriously, not many comedies get nominated for Oscars! Let alone a comedy of British origins up for Oscar noms, ultimately walking away with one win. If you want the short version, here it is: if you haven't yet seen A Fish Called Wanda then you're missing out and should immediately visit your local shop to secure a copy.

A Fish Called Wanda is a simple tail...erm, tale about betrayal, love, lust, greed and seafood. Wanda (Curtis) and Otto (Kline) are a duo of American thieves who visit Britain to pull off a diamond heist. They team up with George (Georgeson) and the animal-loving Ken (Palin) to commit an armed robbery, walking away with a loot worth $20 million US. Trouble is...Wanda and Otto are lovers posing as brother and sister who plan to double-cross their collaborators, taking off with the loot themselves. But it also seems George and Ken are mistrusting of Wanda and Otto (despite George and Wanda commencing a relationship, which Wanda faked of course). George double-crosses Wanda and Otto by secretly moving the loot before Wanda and Otto have the opportunity to finalise their double-crossing of George! Anyway, George is dobbed into the police and is arrested. When Wanda and Otto realise they'll need to figure out the new location of the loot, a somewhat complex plan to find it becomes necessitous. This involves Wanda inveigling her way into the life of jaded Etonian Archie Leach (Cleese), George's barrister. However...what begins as a simple spot of using somebody to further her own means becomes more complicated as Wanda's attraction to this somewhat repressed and cute ("in a pompous sort of way") barrister grows. Oh, and then there's Ken's little project to dispose of the only witness to their diamond heist. Utter anarchic hilarity ensues.

The plotline is fun to be sure, but it's the characters that are at the heart of the film. The central appeal is the characters' faults and peculiarities - George is your typical evil mastermind, Wanda will sleep with anybody if the occasion calls for it, Ken prefers animals to humans, and Archie is a snobbish and repressed Englishman hen-pecked by wife (Aitken) and daughter (Cynthia Cleese, who's John's real-life daughter). Then there's Otto. He's...well...Otto. Kevin Kline plays the malicious and cruel but incompetent Otto with such wild abandon.

John Cleese is in his element as writer and an actor for the film. In addition to conceiving such rich characterisations and providing a tradition Cleese-esque performance, he also sprinkles the film with the kind of devilish humour he's revered for. His character of Archie Leach is a variation of Basil Fawlty from his popular TV series. He's a stiff-upper-lipped English barrister not above a little avarice and hanky panky. Cleese said he chose the name Archie Leach because it's Cary Grant's real name, and this was about as close as he'd ever get to being Cary Grant in a film. However, the film doesn't rely solely on John Cleese for the laughs as the rest of the actors are total knockouts.

Kevin Kline won an Oscar for his eccentric performance as Otto: an ex-CIA operative who reads the philosophies of Nietzche to make him look smart. But in reality he's so stupid! ("Don't call me stupid") He thinks Aristotle was Belgian, the central message of Buddhism is every man for himself, and that the London underground is a political movement. When Wanda calls him an ape, Otto replies with "Apes don't read philosophy". "Yes, they do, Otto," Wanda then replies. "They just don't understand it."
Otto's character is so well-written that there's always something new to pick up on. Kline never strikes an incorrect note, and definitely deserved the Oscar he received.

Playing Wanda, Jamie Lee Curtis is an absolute delight. She's as smart as she is sexy. From the deadly serious Halloween to a light-hearted comedy...Jamie Lee Curtis demonstrates her talents as a versatile performer. She even does a fine job of making Wanda curiously nefarious but intriguingly beguiling at the same time - when she's not snogging everyone that moves, that is.

Then there's Michael Palin (from the golden days of Monty Python) as the hapless K-K-K-K-Ken. He spends most of his time stuttering hopelessly (this is absolutely side-splitting at times) or tending to his animals. Kevin Kline is given a batch of hilarious lines in relation to Ken's stutter: "Are you thinking, Ken? Or are you in mid-stutter?", "...those phoney accents! Not you Ken, you've got a beautiful speaking voice...when it works" and so on. In Ken's assignment to kill a witness before George's trial commences, he instead accidentally targets the old woman's dogs in gruesome ways. This is all the more ironic because Ken is such an animal lover who wouldn't hurt a fly. Seeing him at each funeral for the dogs is just hilarious.
For Tom Georgeson's character, Cleese decided to do a clever name switch...calling the character George Thomason.

Despite its runaway success, A Fish Called Wanda wasn't all good news from the start. It was helmed by a director who hadn't worked for 25 years, it featured a male actor on the wrong side of 40, and it also featured a sexy female with a great body who refused to do any nudity. But those that gave the film a chance walked away raving. It established a template for the future of British comedy exports. Even Richard Curtis was taking notes at this time. The film walked away with a basket of awards. In order to reach such perfection, the script went through 13 drafts. Director Charlie Crichton and John Cleese got together three times a month for two-and-a-half years to give the script touch-ups.

When production finally started, they managed to wrap up filming in a mere four weeks. Crichton's economic direction meant not a day was wasted. This also gave the film its glorious fast pace. Before you realise it, the film is over and you're howling for more. Thankfully, though, none of the gags have dated and they seem fresh even after constant viewings. The snappy dialogue, the subtle images...even John Cleese's striptease are wonderful no matter how many times you watch the film. And finally, the film was given its definitive touch in post-production: the music. John Du Prez's music is catchy and atmospheric, and you'll be humming the theme for weeks.

Mixing Python-esque humour with a sweet touch of rom-com, A Fish Called Wanda is the greatest hour for any former Python. Originally known as the working title of A Wish Called Fonda, Cleese then reworked his original ideas and the result was this masterpiece of cinematic comedy. It even has a universal appeal, with characters being featured of different nationalities. This film is totally faultless. It's a solid movie that holds up surprisingly well after a number of decades. If the words uproarious, hilarious, or side-splitting mean anything to you, this is your film for sure! It improves with each new screening as a matter of fact.
This film doesn't rely on swearing for its laughs, nor does it rely on overacting either. It relies on its clever script and an impeccable bunch of actors instead. The same crew tried again about a decade later with Fierce Creature. A good attempt, but it wasn't the same. A Fish Called Wanda is one of a kind...and that kind is very, very funny and just plain FUN! Fans of John Cleese or Kevin Kline will not be disappointed. Come on, how can you resist the prospect of seeing Michael Palin running over Kevin Kline with a steamroller after Kline eats Palin's tropic fish?!

Highly recommended!

"Wanda, do you have any idea what it's like being English? Being so correct all the time, being so stifled by this dread of, of doing the wrong thing, of saying to someone "Are you married?" and hearing "My wife left me this morning," or saying, uh, "Do you have children?" and being told they all burned to death on Wednesday. You see, Wanda, we'll all terrified of embarrassment. That's why we're so... dead. Most of my friends are dead, you know, we have these piles of corpses to dinner."

10/10

"It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's SURE. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us."

Based on a teleplay by Reginald Rose, 12 Angry Men marks Sidney Lumet's magnificent film debut. This masterpiece is a dynamic, intense, searing, spellbinding morality study and a brilliant portrayal of our justice system at work. 12 Angry Men was first released decades ago in 1957, yet this potent social microcosm still feels as relevant as ever.

On paper this straightforward courtroom drama probably wasn't much to get excited about - a single room setting (with little to no exceptions), a dozen old-timers arguing, and a first-time feature film director. But when preserved on the medium of film, 12 Angry Men is transformed into a consummate fermentation of acting prowess and dynamite direction. This is a movie that could stand as a screenwriting masterclass in the development of character and plot without resorting to big stunts, grandiose locations or special effects. From start to finish the film is just the story of twelve men on a hot, stuffy afternoon in a single room debating the guilt of a teenager on the wrong side of the tracks. The fact the film kept me riveted and entertained for its entire length is a gratifying testament to everyone involved. In an age dominated by summer blockbusters and teenagers merrily chatting about the latest action fest, 12 Angry Men serves a simple yet powerful reminder that a solid script, a good story and vividly-drawn characters are all that matter at the end of the day.

To the untrained eye, the plot of 12 Angry Men probably appears pretty straightforward and quite boring. Do not be fooled by the apparent simplicity of the plot. Instead of being single-note, it's a multi-faceted and deeply provocative examination of the flawed nature of the justice system. There are twelve main characters altogether (this is usually a recipe for cinematic suicide); however the complex story and dynamite dialogue allows an audience to get to know each and every main character in the picture. Even more amazingly, the characters are never given names (until the very end when two men introduce each other). As an audience member, you will never realise that the characters are nameless. The proceedings are so mesmerising to the point that character names don't even matter.

The central narrative of 12 Angry Men focuses on a jury's intimate deliberations on a capital murder case. The case concerns a teenage Latino accused in the stabbing murder of his father. The defence and prosecution have rested, leaving only the jury to contemplate the facts and reach a verdict. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. To the inexpert eye, it seems like a straightforward open-and-shut case: the defendant has a weak alibi, the key body of evidence points to the defendant's guilt and eyewitnesses have come forward, claiming to have seen the murder taking place.

Rather than chronicling the happenings of the trial and the pomposity of the attorneys, the film commences as the jurors are being released into the deliberation room. This sole location is where the film will remain for almost its entire length. As the twelve-man jury file into the cramped jury room of a hot afternoon, the men seem willing to take the case at face value and lock in the "guilty" verdict. The men are more concerned with getting to a ball game on time, and aren't even prepared to spend five minutes discussing the matter. However, the guilty verdict can only be reached if all twelve men agree on it. During the initial vote, eleven vote "guilty" whereas one member of the jury (Fonda) opts for the "not guilty" verdict. After the customary disparaging "there's always one!" comments are elicited, this juror begins to defend his decision: the boy may be guilty of murder, and probably is, but there is a sufficient amount of reasonable doubt to consider the "not guilty" verdict as the more appropriate decision. The rest of the film follows the escalating apprehension in the room, and the conflict between the jurors as they endeavour to reconcile their divergent beliefs concerning the guilt of the defendant.

In this day and age, 12 Angry Men is a forgotten gem overlooked by the current generation of movie-goers who tend to view the latest action/adventure flick in lieu of the classics. This is also a film with a fairly unexciting premise. It's also fairly offputting to set an entire film in the confines of a single room! Only three minutes in the film's 96-minute running time transpire outside the jury room. Needless to say, it'd take a filmmaking team of remarkable skill to achieve the desired result. Director Sidney Lumet was up to the task. He managed to have this film in the can after only 21 days of shooting! The director employed a number of subtle cinematic techniques to enhance the claustrophobic atmosphere of the jury room. As the film progressed, the camera levels kept descending. At first moderately higher than eye level, the camera steadily moves downwards to below eye level. In addition, the initial stages of the movie were achieved using wide shots. The shots progressively move further inwards as the film draws closer to its enthralling conclusion. Different lenses were also applied to elevate the claustrophobia levels. This approach serves the film well. One can almost feel the heat of the non air-conditioned room and the intensifying emotions of the jurors.

"Well, I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin' man. My boss does all the supposin' - but I'll try one. Supposin' you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father?"

Lumet does a commendable job of building tension. The director also manages to deal effectively with the social issues (including racial bigotry) which arise in the course of the heated discussions in the jury room. Lumet accomplishes a dreadfully gruelling task here; by sticking to the format of the play and allowing almost all the events to transpire within one room, while still managing to keep things fresh and rattling along at a brisk pace.

The film's script explodes like twelve sticks of dynamite. Snappy dialogue and realistic human depictions are the highlights of the screenplay. It's also a multi-faceted tale, unfolding on various different levels. On the first level it's a mystery. The interplay between the jurors throws up several feasible scenarios for the crime. Although differing theories as well as inconsistencies in the official statement are raised, we're left to draw our own conclusions. On another level the film is a deep scrutinisation of human character as revealed by the actions of the twelve grouchy men in dealing with their dilemma. On top of this, 12 Angry Men is a study of the failings of the justice system which relies on imperfect human beings to determine its outcome. These small-minded humans are left to judge who should live and who should die. The film acts as a worthwhile reminder that our justice system is based upon the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" and that all have the right to a fair trial. The suitably idealistic message of 12 Angry Men is pure and simple, yet it offers so much more. We witness our own personalities as fragments in the twelve jurors, often times letting personal biases and impatience cloud our judgment.

One of the most stirring parts of the film is when the provocative question is asked: "What if it were you that were on trial?" If my life was in the balance I'd hope a juror like Henry Fonda would be sitting in the jury box. It's disturbing to contemplate the fact that so many men are willing to dismiss the case within five minutes because of other priorities on their mind. What about the poor boy whose life is in question? What if he isn't guilty and is consequently executed on false charges? It's easy to put oneself into the place of both defendant and juror, which demonstrates the potency of both the story and the performances.

Henry Fonda leads the cast as the juror who reminds us that we shouldn't be afraid to go against the herd. His character opposes the opinions of eleven others! The cast is a powerhouse. All twelve members of the cast (there are a few other minor cast members, but they aren't on screen for any more than a minute each) are impeccable. They bounce off each other's lines naturally and credibly. Each actor is brilliant and serves a purpose. The cast is a mosaic of the typical Average Joes compelled to do jury duty. There are the younger ones, the elderly ones, the impatient ones, the foreigner, the old crone, and the smart one. Just simply sit back and enjoy the scorching performances of Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, John Fleder, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Joseph Sweeney, George Voskovec and Robert Webber.

"Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution."

12 Angry Men has been classified as a "legal thriller". It's also known as a courtroom drama. Sidney Lumet's directorial debut is a sizzling courtroom drama done right: easy on the courtroom, heavy on the drama. Lumet went on to make such films as Dog Day Afternoon, Network and The Verdict. Not many of the world's greatest directors can boast a debut of this quality. Not even Alfred Hitchcock got it right the first time...neither did Steven Spielberg or George Lucas or Martin Scorsese. Even M. Night Shyamalan tried unsuccessfully before receiving critical acclaim with The Sixth Sense. 12 Angry Men is a lesson on the perfect film debut. No first-time director has ever done it better. 12 Angry Men is a masterpiece. It's an engrossing film that consumes you in its happenings. Filmed in less than a month on a measly budget, this shining example of efficiency has held up amazingly well for more than 50 years. I consider this an absolute must-see movie that's being overlooked far too often.

10/10

"Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again."

Bobby is a heartfelt, upbeat and ambitious attempt to remind audiences of the vision of harmony promulgated by Senator Robert F. Kennedy in the 1960s amid the divisiveness of the Vietnam War and racial issues. Emilio Estevez (that guy from The Breakfast Club) carried out the duties of a writer and a director for Bobby. Estevez's heart is in the right place: he aimed to make a patriotic and poignant tribute to RFK, and highlight the relevance of the issues of the 60s in contemporary society. In a very tactful way, Estevez shows that in the lives of the American people, even if things were seemingly crashing down around them with racial tension and the war in Vietnam, there was still hope. The heart of the film is the Robert F. Kennedy tragedy, but the arteries and veins feeding this heart are pure trite fiction. Estevez has lofty intentions with his film, but doesn't have the skill as a writer to do these intentions justice.

Those familiar with the RFK assassination are probably just as familiar with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy which occurred a few years beforehand. Logically enough, these two individuals were brothers. The Kennedy family have a nasty history with unnatural deaths, hence the eventual formation of the Kennedy family curse theory. In 1991, the Oliver Stone movie JFK was released. To me, Stone's movie is a masterpiece of the highest order. With a solid script and terrific actors, JFK was a movie that explored the multiple-year investigation into the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It's a fascinating tale, and although the theories do seem somewhat preposterous one must admit that Stone makes a number of both shocking and interesting points. Bobby avoids taking this route. Instead of examining the death of RFK, it's a deeply fictionalised fare: a mosaic of fabricated characters that are present at Los Angeles' Ambassador Hotel on the fateful day. Estevez tosses together twenty-two protagonists (with their supporting storylines), and mixes the conjured events with footage of RFK campaigning against racism, America's poverty and unlawful McCarthy tactics.

The cast can only be described as star-studded. There are so many actors making brief cameos throughout the entire flick. Naturally, in Robert Altman style, the lives of a bunch of these characters interweave during the tragedy. If I was to mention each character, actor, and storyline then I'd be typing this review until the next ice age. Here's an assortment of actors who make appearance in the film: Emilio Estevez, Laurence Fishburne, Heather Graham, Anthony Hopkins, Freddy Rodriguez, Helen Hunt, Joshua Jackson, Ashton Kutcher, Shia LaBeouf, Lindsay Lohan, William H. Macy, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Elijah Wood, Svetlana Metkina, Henry Belafonte and Christian Slater.

Needless to say, the film has too many characters and far too many stories to tell. As a result the drama falls flat. With so much going on in such a short duration it becomes nearly impossible to give a flip about any particular storyline. Furthermore, the characters never seem like individual and deep characters. They're all quite one-dimensional, and only a selected amount reaches the second dimension. The storylines are just ideas, not stories, being played out by symbols as opposed to characters. Vietnam, racial unrest, hallucinogens, the Prague Spring and several incarnations of the dissolution of the American family all crop up in these vignettes. As a result the film feels really vacuous and insipid. This premise should have been employed for an extensive mini-series that upped the ante more courageously. Like if a mini-series told the events in real time, or if the story of a different character is told during one episode. Screenwriter Estevez should've also done further research to perhaps find real characters to explore. As it is, these characters are 100% fictional and this is worn on the film's sleeve.

Unfortunately, as well, there aren't many interesting characters. Instead of casting every Hollywood actor in sight, Estevez's script should've focused on perhaps four or five characters. Twenty-two characters is just too exhausting and too daring. There's too much to absorb and this is an insufficient platform to absorb it from. Several stories are also quite appallingly written. The preachy ravings of Laurence Fishburne are a key example. When he begins spouting rubbish about King Arthur in the kitchen while canonising Freddy Rodriguez, the results are embarrassing. And Lindsay Lohan can't be taken seriously by any means. I've had enough of Lohan over the years. There's also Sharon Stone as a hairdresser for crying out loud!
There's also a serious lack of atmosphere in the way the Ambassador Hotel is depicted. There's no use of space to convey the stature of the hotel, which becomes integral to Anthony Hopkins' ramblings as a retired employee of the Ambassador.

Despite these flaws, the film's strengths pay off in spades. The soundtrack is truly stunning. Stirring and poignant original music is mixed with songs of the 60s. These songs achieve their desired effect.
Bobby also skilfully breaks for lighter moments of comic relief with a hysterical sub-plot about two aides who ditch their duties to "get closer to God" with some LSD purchased from a hippie played by Ashton Kutcher. Surprisingly, Kutcher fails at his usual game of ruining a movie by overdoing it. The director should be commended for this fact alone. Some may feel that the drug interlude doesn't fit in among the drama, but drugs were an essential part of the 60s and this comic relief heightens the film's entertainment value. There's almost nothing funnier than seeing two stoners trying to play tennis.
The editing is also marvellous. Throughout the film there's archive footage that's expertly mixed with the footage Estevez directed. Especially towards the ending when RFK arrives at the hotel. Estevez opts to never show an actor portraying RFK. As an alternative there's archive footage and ingeniously framed shots to give the impression that RFK is addressing the crowd. This is a great creative decision of Estevez's.

It's also worth pointing out that Estevez is quite talented behind the camera. There are a number of riveting moments thanks to his directing. For the final 25 minutes, the film never treads a foot wrong. There's ample momentum to fuel the proceedings. There are a number of particularly excellent montages as well. Simon and Garfunkel's The Sound of Silence is played during a montage showing clips of Robert F. Kennedy's life. The film is almost entirely redeemed in its final moments by placing one of RFK's most moving speeches against the tragic aftermath of his assassination. It is a magnificent scene - a searing, expressive condemnation of American violence that is accompanied by a stirring speech Kennedy delivered following the death of Martin Luther King. It's a very powerful ending, encapsulating the lost ideals and devastated dreams that emerged from the social tumult of the 60s. The touching music also plays a crucial role here. This ending will leave you glued to your seat even after the credits being to roll.

6.0/10

"A boy's best friend is his mother."
It's impossible to discuss the narrative and storytelling brilliance of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho without divulging spoilers. The movie's twists and secrets are almost common knowledge over five decades after its release, but fair warning all the same. If you have not seen Psycho and are oblivious to its surprises, stop reading this review right now and watch the movie. It is a masterpiece, and that's all you need to know.
Released in 1960, Psycho has become synonymous with the late great Alfred Hitchcock, standing proudly alongside the likes of Rear Window, North By Northwest and Vertigo. An adaptation of Robert Bloch's 1959 novel of the same name, Psycho was actually an attempt by Hitchcock to reinvent himself at the time and try something different. A trend had broken out in Hollywood during the 1950s, with low-risk, low-budget horrors crowding theatres and effortlessly generating a large profit. However, said movies were not often particularly good, and Hitchcock was eager to see what would happen if somebody talented helmed a comparable production. Despite being able to command lavish budgets, Hitchcock wanted to create a horror movie on the cheap with the crew of his television show Alfred Hitchcock Presents, and was even compelled to go outside the studio system to fund the movie himself. It's a gamble that paid off, and the film still holds up today. Indeed, Psycho is not just groundbreaking, influential and oft-imitated - it's also a highly engaging, albeit disturbing horror movie.


A clerk in a real estate office earning an average wage, Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) is engaged in a romantic relationship with Sam Loomis (John Gavin), but they cannot get married because of Sam's debts. When Marion's boss closes a lucrative real estate deal, Marion is entrusted to deposit $40,000 in cash into the bank, but the large sum of money is simply too tempting. Seeing a way out of her situation, she impulsively decides to keep it and sets off to visit Sam, but a powerful storm one night compels Marion to seek accommodation. Happening across the eerily quiet Bates Motel, which has "12 cabins, 12 vacancies," Marion meets owner Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), a shy but well-meaning young man who's excited by the prospect of a female visitor. However, Norman's jealous mother, who lives in a creepy old house overlooking the establishment, does not take kindly to Norman's attraction to Marion...
Many factors can be attributed to the success of Psycho, but the creative marketing campaign most certainly helped. Indeed, Hitchcock's name alone was enough to sell plenty of tickets, but the maestro took it one step further. Cinema staff were not permitted to let patrons enter a screening after the movie had started, and advertisements encouraged audiences not to spoil any of the twists, on top of the fact that Hitchcock purchased every copy of Bloch's novel he could find to limit the book's availability and thus keep the story's secrets under wraps. The virtuoso filmmaker truly wanted audiences to see the film with fresh, unaware eyes, which gave Psycho the power to shock, terrify and amaze in a way that's nearly impossible to accomplish in this age of internet gossip and spoilers. Even though the movie was almost unanimously panned by critics at the time of its initial release, hundreds of people queued up outside cinemas for hours, and Hitchcock's masterpiece fast became a nationwide phenomenon, grossing an estimated $32 million in America alone against its meagre $800,000 production budget. (Adjusted for inflation, Psycho's gross is equal to approximately $350 million in 2015.)


Despite being one of the motion pictures most associated with Hitchcock, Psycho is something of an anomaly for the filmmaker, as it's removed from the low-key mysteries, elegant romances and grand-scale espionage thrillers that constitute the majority of his filmography. And that was, of course, Hitchcock's intention. What's particularly ingenious about Psycho is its narrative edifice, with Hitchcock and screenwriter Joseph Stefano creating a horror that defies expectations with utter glee. The shocking final revelation has lost none of its power, but it's also the repercussions of the iconic shower scene that stunned audiences back in 1960. Hitchcock deliberately lulls you into thinking that an entirely different story will unfold, only to pull the rug out from underneath you with the early exit of Marion Crane and the sudden shift in narrative focus. It's all pulled off so eloquently by Hitchcock, who favours twists over out-and-out violence. 
Despite the advancing popularity of colour film, Hitchcock deliberately chose to lens Psycho in black and white, feeling that the movie would simply be too gory in colour. The monochrome photography is a masterstroke, enhancing the movie's shocking impact and sense of horror. But it's the sense of atmosphere which really makes Psycho unforgettable, with John L. Russell's eye-catching cinematography making superlative use of shadows, creating unease during scenes set at the ominous Bates Motel. Furthermore, Hitchcock was something of a cinematic magician, with violence being implied rather than simply shown, using trick shots and montage. Especially during the shower scene, you believe you've witnessed more than what's actually on the screen - the knife is never actually seen penetrating skin, with creative angles, expert editing and realistic sound design prompting our minds to fill in the blanks. It's simply superb craftsmanship, turning the scene into a cinematic masterclass that continues to be studied. But Psycho would not be as memorable as it is without Bernard Herrmann's riveting original music. The screaming strings still send a chill down the spine, with the film's intensity and horror confidently amplified by the accompanying soundtrack.


Say what you will about Psycho's content in this day and age, but audiences back in 1960 were not prepared for such a disturbing motion picture. Even in 2015, the movie has bite, which is all the more impressive considering the restrictions of the period. Psycho was released before films were actually rated; in 1960, motion pictures simply had to be approved for release. Hitchcock was therefore treading on eggshells, pushing the censorship envelope to see exactly how much he could get away with as he dabbled in cinematic taboos. On top of the obvious violence, Psycho also features a toilet being flushed, denoting the first time in cinematic history that a toilet was visible in a motion picture. Furthermore, the film shows unmarried people engaging in a sexual affair, as well as voyeurism, schizophrenia and transvestism, not to mention Marion is a thief, and Janet Leigh is glimpsed in her underwear on more than one occasion. Psycho really was a breakthrough at the time.
Leigh earned an Oscar nomination for her portrayal of Marion Crane, which was well deserved, but Perkins was inexplicably overlooked by the Academy. Bates is one of the greatest all-time horror icons, and Perkins' portrayal is note-perfect. In Bloch's novel, Bates was a bald, middle-aged fat man, but Stefano felt that such a character would be hard to sympathise with, choosing to write the role for a younger performer. Perkins nails it, exhibiting plenty of boyish charm and coming across as hugely sympathetic. You feel sorry for Norman, who's the furthest thing from a vindictive horror villain imaginable, and it's impossible to imagine anybody else embodying the role as skilfully as the late Perkins. The remainder of the actors hit their marks respectably, with the likes of John Gavin, Vera Miles and Martin Balsam making a good impression in their respective roles, but Psycho is Perkins' show.


It took a lot of effort in post-production to truly bring Psycho to life, with Hitchcock's beloved wife Alma (a former editor) reportedly assisting in the cutting process. Even though some have complained about an extensive psychiatric explanation in the final scene, I personally have no issue with it, especially with the haunting note that the movie closes on. Slasher flicks released since Psycho may be gorier and more graphic, but Hitchcock's film remains untouchable precisely because of what the master director was able to accomplish in a stricter era of film censorship. In 2015, the movie succeeds thanks to its fine performances, nuanced characters, brilliant narrative and superlative technical presentation. It is a must-see.
10/10

The sleaze-filled saga of an exploitation double feature.

Robert Rodriguez's and Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse is a crazily funny, campy, exciting tribute to the grimy glory days of 1970s exploitation cinema. The concept is simply a stroke of pure genius - merge two intentionally shitty 1970s-style horror B-movies into one double feature, and then add a reel of hysterical fake trailers for added authenticity.

In the 70s, the local "grindhouse" was the place one headed to see flicks you couldn't see anywhere else. Most of the time this was because they were so awful no-one else wanted to play them. It was also because they existed on the border of respectable society as they showcased overzealous violence, sex, explicit nudity, as well as berserk experimental ideas and themes. With Grindhouse, Rodriguez and Tarantino endeavour to capture the essence of that experience and resurrect it in one great event with two movies (one from each director) played back to back. This is an event, not just a movie, so Grindhouse comes complete with suitably over-the-top fake trailers and cheesy old-fashioned bumpers prior to each film.

In order to get the thorough sleaze effect, Grindhouse emulates the look of a 1970's double feature. In post-production the filmmakers opted to manually age the film: there are deliberate scratches, muted colours and imperfections all throughout the two films and the fake trailers. In fact there are also a few occasions when a "MISSING REEL" card flashes on the screen briefly, and the story jumps ahead. Trust me, it's great stuff! The result is a delightfully faithful recreation of 1970s exploitation movies. Those who experienced the real grindhouse era have testified to the film's faithfulness (this became apparent after reading online reviews and IMDb user comments). The fact that this peculiar concept is able to successfully engage a 21st century audience is due to the uncanny ability of Tarantino and Rodriguez in figuring out what moviegoers don't know they're dying to see.

Grindhouse commences with a fake trailer to get the ball rolling. Machete is the film the trailer is advertising, and it's the perfect way to begin the film. It's simply hysterical: a priest wielding a shotgun, extreme violence, and badass lines such as "They fucked with the wrong Mexican!" are among the inclusions.

This terrifically atmospheric trailer is followed by Robert Rodriguez's feature film contribution: Planet Terror. Rodriguez was born to be a grindhouse director. Planet Terror explodes onto the screen with little respite. It slathers on layer after layer of absurdity, action, repulsive gore and manic wit. When the film reaches the point where movies usually pause to allow a breather, Rodriguez fakes a missing reel in order to skip over the boring parts and get right back down to business: zombies getting shot to bits in explosions of exaggerated blood, and shit getting blown up.
There's no need for a solid plot at all, so Rodriguez simply employs the weak premise of a military chemical experiment going wrong, causing an outbreak of some B-movie zombie virus. Oh, and there's a bunch of survivors who shoot as many zombies as possible. And then there's the lovely Rose McGowan. Her leg is eaten by zombies, so the leg stump is fitted with a machine gun.

Planet Terror is loads of fun. It's the feature highlight of the three-hour experience. This is the flick that represents the outrageous spirit of the B-movie. It's an action-packed, extremely gory zombie flick that moves at lightning pace. Nothing fancy to find here...just a whole lot of blood and guts to keep the fans happy.

Following this, we're treated to three additional faux trailers: a trailer by Rob Zombie for the ridiculously action-packed Werewolf Women of the SS (featuring a cameo by a famous actor who never seems ashamed to be wacky), a trailer by Edgar Wright (the guy who did Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Both Nick Frost and Simon Pegg appear in this trailer) for a standard horror fare entitled Don't, and finally there's an Eli Roth splatterfest slapped with the title of Thanksgiving. There are typical restaurant adverts thrown in for good measure, and some titles to mark what we're up to ("Our Feature Presentation", etc).

Finally the second half of Grindhouse is revealed: Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof. Personally, I prefer Rodriguez' Planet Terror. Tarantino's half unfortunately spoils the experience. It's talkie, repetitive, and self-indulgent. The essence of campy B-movie horror isn't captured adequately here. There are some payoffs (a number of awesome car crashes are included), but the wait getting there really tested my patience. After merrily bathing in Rodriguez' violent guilty pleasure of Planet Terror and having a great time watching heads explode in all their gruesome glory, Tarantino's dialogue-heavy Death Proof is like being rudely awoken by means of a bucket of icy cold water being thrown onto your face. Dialogue is Tarantino's greatest strength. In this case, it's also his greatest weakness. It's his weakness because he loves to hear lots of banter...every time a character speaks gives him yet another chance to reference a movie or a TV show, or vaguely reference pop culture, or it merely gives him the opportunity to have a character babble on about nothing. Some may call this characterisation. On the other hand, I call it filler. Tarantino's gift of gab isn't as effective with women. These women are developed so thoroughly, but they're boring characters and the dialogue leads no-where. There's so much empty space that one could visit the toilet for 20 minutes and not miss anything essential.

Tarantino's film is decent at best. The long car chase at the end is pretty good, and there's a great car crash in the middle, but it's just boring and drawn-out compared to Rodriguez's frenetically paced Planet Terror. I howled with laughter at the exaggerated gore during Rodriguez's segment, but there are scarce jokes or amusing moments to find in Death Proof. There are also too many sub-plots that go no-where. Like one character texting her boyfriend. And the point of that was...?

For once, I think Tarantino missed the point. Grindhouse as a whole could have been far more effective had Tarantino developed something more exhilarating or something better suited to a grindhouse atmosphere.

It's impossible to write a review of Grindhouse without mentioning the controversy surrounding the film. Upon initial release in the early months of 2007, Grindhouse opened to an unfortunate reception. Critics certainly enjoyed the experience, as did a majority of audience members...however there were a number of people who just didn't "get it". After Planet Terror concluded they left the cinema thinking it was over. The film's distributors therefore became somewhat concerned. Adding to this, foreign audiences never would have experienced the grindhouse era and wouldn't understand the gimmick. Thus the decision was made to split Grindhouse - individually screening Planet Terror and Death Proof as separate movies without the fake trailers. Naturally, audiences were outraged. Personally, I had looked forward to seeing the double feature and was devastated as the film was split before reaching Australian shores. Thus I boycotted the individual films, waiting for an opportunity to witness the entire experience in its three-hour glory. Now that I've finally seen Grindhouse in its entirety, I can recommend you do the same. The magic of Grindhouse is in the experience instead of the individual movies. Planet Terror without Death Proof (or visa versa) is like pizza without cheese - they complete each other. Grindhouse needs to be experienced in its theatrical glory, and I implore you to see it given the opportunity.

As a whole experience, Grindhouse ranks a solid 4.5/5. Taking all the factors into consideration, the score is only let down by Tarantino's predominantly boring movie. Planet Terror earns a solid five stars (in the context of the movie), with the four faux trailers also earning five stars apiece (again, only in the context of the movie), and Death Proof earning a disappointing three stars. Thus this average is roughly 4.5/5. (In a mathematical brain it averages to 4.67...but seriously, fuck that!) Maybe the flaw isn't just with Death Proof, but with the order in which these two films are screened. There's so much happening in Planet Terror (so much in every single moment of the film) and it's so explosive and action-packed that it's an impossible act to follow, let alone with a dialogue-heavy, action-late flick like Death Proof. If shown first, Death Proof could have been the ideal ramp up to the truly out of control experience Rodriguez delivers. Ultimately though, the hiccups in Death Proof are a minor problem as everything else is so perfect, thus Grindhouse works as intended. I wanted B-movie thrills, and I got 'em. With its missing reels, warped look, changes in tone, colour variations, exaggerated violence (the gunshot wounds in Planet Terror are hysterical) and some deliberately horrible acting at times, Grindhouse does its job of making those who can remember spending hot summer nights at drive-ins or real grindhouses (only occasionally paying attention to what was on the screen as they were usually too busy making out with partners, eating food, etc) nostalgic for those long-gone days of horribly bad fun films. The best part is that for the batch of contemporary movie-goers that haven't a clue about double features or the old cheap campy horror movies of the 70s, Grindhouse provides a genuine look at what they missed out on. It's a very long movie at 191 minutes, but there is a lot of fun to be had.

If by some miracle you can get a copy of this theatrical version, then I suggest you take the opportunity without delay. It provides thrills and laughs, it provides an atmospheric experience, and it puts the 'bad' back in 'badass'. Even with Tarantino's slow-paced Death Proof, the whole movie is so much bloody fun. Until such time as the distributors get the good sense to release this theatrical cut on DVD, I suggest you boycott the individual versions.

9.0/10