Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"It's always good to have someone who I can trust, to do simple tasks. In this business, sometimes the biggest danger comes from the most stupid things."

Eastern Promises denotes the second of consecutive films featuring the creative partnership of director David Cronenberg and actor Viggo Mortensen. Cronenberg is no stranger to controversy due to his unique filmography. Crash, The Fly, Videodrome and the recent A History of Violence are just a few entries on Cronenberg's résumé. Each new film further demonstrates the director's willingness to display graphic violence and/or nudity. Following the critical and commercial success of A History of Violence, Cronenberg returns with Eastern Promises: this dark, gripping, powerful crime thriller. This film tackles the subject of the Russian mob and their presence in London. Mainstream films seldom explore this territory. Filmmaker Martin Scorsese has explored the Italian mafia in films such as GoodFellas, and the Irish mob in the acclaimed The Departed. Movies addressing the Russian mob are few and far between. Therefore, this is an amazing entry to Cronenberg's oeuvre.

British screenwriter Steven Knight previously penned the script for Stephen Frears' Dirty Pretty Things; a similar film that deeply delved into the underbelly of modern multicultural London. His screenplay for Cronenberg's Eastern Promises lifts the curtain on different sects and subcultures of society. This film depicts a number of contemporary social issues such as human trafficking, teenage prostitution (and teenage pregnancy, for that matter) and loss of cultural identity. The script conveys a powerfully affecting tale that relentlessly illustrates the depressing nature of its subject matter and the disconsolate atmosphere of its key location.

A 14-year-old Russian girl named Tatiana (Labrosse) stumbles into a pharmacy, heavily pregnant and haemorrhaging blood. She's brought into a hospital where midwife Anna Khitrova (Watts) steps into the equation. She delivers a healthy baby girl, but is unable to save the teenage mother who dies during childbirth. Anna discovers Tatiana's personal diary and believes it could provide answers to Tatiana's past. Anna lifts the diary from Tatiana's handbag and commences her investigation. The diary is in Russian; ergo she is unable to decipher it. The issue of losing cultural identity is evident here: Anna's parents are Russian, yet she was born and raised in the United Kingdom.
Anna takes the diary to a local eatery where she meets Semyon (Mueller-Stahl), a seemingly kind old man. Little does Anna realise that Semyon is the head of a powerful Russian crime family who utilise the eatery as a cover-up for their true intentions. As soon as Semyon hears of the diary, he realises that it incriminates his whole family and organisation as it chronicles the troubled life of a teenage girl who became inadvertently mixed up in the unsavoury world of enforced prostitution, drugs and murder. Anna's investigation leads her to Nikolai Luzhin (Mortensen) who works as a driver for the Russian mob organisation. Nikolai is eventually hired as a henchman for the Russian mob, and puts in motion a harrowing chain of murder, deceit and retribution.

Eastern Promises is permeated with competent filmmaking in several aspects. Cronenberg is right at home handling material that includes graphic throat-slitting, a haunting sex scene and even one of the greatest fight scenes in recent memory. This fight scene depicts a completely nude Viggo Mortensen (yes...we see all of it!) being attacked by two assailants in a steam room. The action is fast and it is very violent, featuring plenty of blood and gore. The sequence is visceral, violent and realistic, but above all engaging and serves a purpose. If someone such as Eli Roth was responsible for the scene it would've been far less poetic as it'd be a useless slice of gore porn. With Cronenberg at the helm, he meticulously frames his shots and ensures the scene is an imperative part of the story. The scene is significant as it shows Nikolai in a vulnerable position, forced to employ his skills as a ruthless assassin. Despite Nikolai being developed as a strong and almost indestructible character, this scene demonstrates that he's a regular human who can bleed and succumb to injury.

The script commendably handles the story. Dialogue is ponderous but fascinating, and violence is fairly frequent but concise. However, occasionally the script is somewhat formulaic and plays it safe. There's also an unfortunate failure to tell multiple storylines effectively. In a compact running time of 100 minutes, the script jumps from one story to the other. There's too much going on. Yet despite this, there are enough shocking plot twists and revelations to transcend its weaker trappings. The only other script flaw that can't be forgiven is the ending: it's too sudden and the intricately-developed characters are abruptly plonked into an unsatisfying, rushed conclusion that contrasts the carefully-paced events preceding it. This terrible ending encompasses countless loose ends and hasty jumps that don't make a lick of sense.

Viggo Mortensen was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Nikolai Luzhin. This nomination was thoroughly deserved. Viggo underwent extensive preparation for the role: studied the culture, learned his lines in different languages, etc. This work pays off wonderfully. He will allow you to genuinely believe he's Russian due to the convincing accent. He immerses himself into the role with marvellous consequences. However the film's greatest asset (as in Viggo) is also its greatest curse: whenever Viggo isn't present in the frame, the film seems to lack momentum. The rest of the cast is good, but vastly overshadowed by Viggo's faultless performance.
Naomi Watts is undoubtedly among the finest actresses working today. Watts further verifies her amazing ability to bring something substantial to the table. Whether it's a comedy (I Heart Huckabees), a blockbuster (King Kong), or a gritty film like or 21 Grams or the film in question (Eastern Promises), Watts rarely strikes a false note. Her character here is an interesting one: she feels compelled to find the newborn baby's true home as she recently suffered a miscarriage and a failed relationship. The internal pain and anguish is perfectly conveyed by Watts.
It's worth noting that the film's three Russian protagonists aren't played by Russian actors. The impeccable Armin Mueller-Stahl is German, the menacing Vincent Cassel is French, and the absolutely incredible Viggo Mortensen is of Danish descent. While watching the film I had no idea of this fact. While I knew Mortensen wasn't Russian due to my familiarity with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I had no idea of the respective nationalities of Mueller-Stahl and Cassel.

David Cronenberg's previous film, A History of Violence, was one of my favourite films of 2005. With that single film the director demonstrated that, despite having aged, he was still capable of producing terrific results. A History of Violence was a deep character study and an exhilarating thriller.
Eastern Promises has its problems in the script department, yet it's definitely among the greatest films of 2007. Those searching for a coherent or satisfying conclusion will be soundly disappointed, but that's merely a minor drawback that doesn't severely affect the terrific filmmaking before it. On the whole the film is competently directed by Cronenberg, with admirable photography and an amazing bunch of actors, that's topped off wonderfully with Howard Shore's remarkable music. Artistic, masterful, provocative and audacious, Eastern Promises is a captivating and fascinating examination of a sinister and dark world.

8.3/10

"It's alright to be afraid, David, because this part won't be like a comic book. Real life doesn't fit into little boxes that were drawn for it."

Unbreakable is an eerie, thoroughly thought-provoking comic book suspense thriller capable of leaving an audience completely stunned. The film comes from writer/director M. Night Shyamalan; a director brought into the spotlight after delivering the critically acclaimed 1999 thriller The Sixth Sense. The young filmmaker scored a surprise masterpiece with The Sixth Sense. The critics adored it, audiences loved it, the Oscar committee recognised the film with several nominations, and (as of late 2008) it convincingly ranks at #32 on the all-time worldwide box office. Subsequent to Shyamalan's success, it's probably safe to assume that he was a tad nervous about making another film. Expectations were probably unfairly high when Unbreakable rolled into cinemas. Although a decent movie, by no means does it threaten The Sixth Sense in terms of quality or box office earnings.

Shyamalan's Unbreakable could most likely be referred to as a contemporary interpretation of the classic comic book superhero formula. To an extent the film is a modern-day Superman story transplanted into a plausible world with realistic characters. Although the film may seem insipid on the surface, Shyamalan's script creates a fascinating character study that very much derives from the Superman good vs. evil mentality.

Unbreakable is a film of self-discovery and origins. Where typical superhero films spend barely half their duration developing the heroes and villains, Shyamalan decided it'd be more interesting to create an entire film covering the origins of his protagonist and antagonist. Originally the film was to be the initiation of a superhero trilogy, but a poor box office reception left the idea dead in the water. The concept of a trilogy still languishes with both Shyamalan and Samuel L. Jackson; however the outlook isn't flattering. As a standalone movie, Unbreakable is decent but ultimately a tad unsatisfactory due to the abrupt conclusion. As the first instalment in a trilogy, the film would have been an absolutely excellent origins tale that cleverly addresses the fragility and delicateness of mind under duress.

The "superhero" (so to speak) of the picture is an Average Joe named David Dunn (Willis). He's an aging man suffering a mid-life crisis: his marriage is ending, he's at a dead-end job, and he never achieved his dream of playing professional football. David's life is given new meaning when he's involved in a train derailment outside Philadelphia. Over a hundred passengers are killed in the burning wreckage...but David emerges as the sole survivor of the disaster without a single scratch on his body, nor a broken bone. Unnerved, confused and disorientated about his miraculous survival, David is soon approached by the enigmatic Elijah Price (Jackson). Elijah is a man suffering from a rare genetic disorder: his bones break extremely easily. Elijah, who runs a gallery specifically devoted to comic book art, theorises that comic books are an ancient method of passing down history. He believes comic book heroes are in fact real-life people who have been made more exaggerated and fascinating for the target audience. Elijah additionally developed a theory that, with his severe bone fragility, there is a man completely the opposite of him on the other end of the spectrum who's completely invulnerable to injury...and that David Dunn is this "indestructible" man.

Told with admirable precision and imaginative camera shots revealing intricate details frequently overlooked by mainstream Hollywood films, Unbreakable bears a remarkable resemblance to a comic book. Shyamalan's unusual angles are framed to give the impression that the film is a motion comic book strip. He even employs ponderously lengthy shots that track characters for a few minutes at a time. For instance, near the beginning when David converses with a woman on the train: the multiple-minute shot looks between the seats like a voyeuristic child peering behind themselves to see what people are doing.
There are also clever metaphors, allusions and allegories; particularly in relation the nickname given to Elijah Price - Mr. Glass. In fact, glass is frequently used as a metaphor for Elijah's disastrous life. We see reflections of the character on TV screens, framed artworks, etc. Elijah even carries around a glass cane to help him walk, marking a brilliant allusion to the frailty of bones. This is especially noticeable in a scene that depicts Elijah tumbling down a set of stairs. His glass cane shatters as his interior bones suffer similarly.

Shyamalan is skilled at setting a masterful atmosphere. His action is well-choreographed while his lens perfectly captures it. The film is ponderously paced and some may find it boring. Shyamalan is a director who never likes to rush the proceedings. His actors usually appear zoned-out and with not much emotion to display. Also, by the end of the film you'll realise that it didn't have much to say. Be that as it may, I like the way he says it. The film's conclusion can be classified as a twist ending, but it's nothing as mind-blowing as The Sixth Sense. Nevertheless, it's a pretty shocking and unexpected revelation.

Shyamalan competently and appropriately blends his formulaic superhero origins tale into the real world. It's easy to believe that David Dunn is just an ordinary guy before his genetic abilities are uncovered. Unbreakable is about deep characterisation as opposed to unbelievable action and CGI effects. Absurd plots and cardboard characters are the opposite of a Shyamalan flick...the director takes good, thoughtful time to ensnare audiences in his dark web.
James Newton Howard's gorgeous music highlights the frequently changing atmosphere to great effect.

Bruce Willis presents a grim, emotionless performance as David Dunn. The veteran actor has a distinct look about him that makes him absolutely ideal for the role. Willis also previously starred in Shyamalan's The Sixth Sense. The last time Samuel L. Jackson shared the frame with Bruce Willis was in 1995's Die Hard - With a Vengeance. If fans of said Die Hard entry are expecting similarly outstanding results, they'll be disappointed. The two are ideal for their respective roles, although the script isn't as witty as that of the Die Hard film. Fans should instead expect something with a slower pace that asks more questions than it answers. In fact it was pleasant to witness these two actors expanding their acting faculties by tackling such roles.

Filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan ascended to stardom with the surprise hit The Sixth Sense. Since then his output has progressively decreased. The Village, for example, contained a promising premise but quickly disintegrated into silliness. Lady in the Water was next in the canon. Instead of creating an atmospheric horror tale, he attempted to create a vanity project for his children...and failed at just about every level. 2008's The Happening was a slight disappointment but an improvement over his last two films. Other than that, I found Signs to be a terrific alien flick that unfortunately became somewhat inadequate towards its conclusion. And I found the film in question - Unbreakable - to be an interesting depiction of a pragmatic superhero universe. It won't appeal to everybody, but I personally found the film quite rewarding. Perhaps it took too long to say so little for a straightforward origins tale; nevertheless I admire the creative touches added by the talented writer/director. Haunting yet droll and provocative without being pretentious, this is an involving expedition into the human psyche and the enormous price of being different. However the ending is quite abrupt and, frustratingly, the ending also seems as if it should have been the beginning. If only Unbreakable did mark the commencement of a superhero trilogy, because if it did the film's shortcomings could be further overlooked.

7.3/10

"If your Uncle Jack helped you off an elephant, would you help your Uncle jack off an elephant?"

Mike Myers has never been one to baulk at penis jokes, juvenile potty humour, boyish smut, fart gags or scatological comedy. The actor produced a lucrative career by featuring in Saturday Night Live skits as well as the Austin Powers trilogy, and he lent his voice to the animated Shrek film series. The Love Guru is his latest comedy (I use the term "comedy" very loosely) and it was supposed to be a return to form for the successful actor who had spent the last 5 years hitting the big screen with Shrek sequels (there were many TV specials and direct-to-DVD spin-offs that he was involved in as well). His last live-action outing was 2003's Cat in the Hat...I doubt a comment is necessary.

For months preceding the release of The Love Guru, Hindu groups were protesting and urging for a boycott. The Hindus saw the film as being in bad taste and it offended them. After watching the film I can see their point. Perhaps it didn't offend me in the way it offends Hindus, but it certainly offends anyone with good taste in comedy. I'd urge a global boycott to be enforced as The Love Guru is a criminal waste of time and talent. Life is too short for filmmakers to spend months working on rubbish like this. Life is also too short for audience to spend 90 minutes watching this awful movie. With so many delayed projects (with great potential) waiting for cameras to roll, it's a mystery why celluloid is wasted on films like this. It's also a mystery how this film ever got funding. A straightforward donation to charity would have made everyone a lot happier. Only true 100% dedicated Mike Myers fans will find the film hilarious. Everyone else with good taste in comedy will watch the film stoney-faced and annoyed at the film's general dullness as well as the lack of any creativity. This is quite simply a shockingly appalling, self-indulgent, shallow, repetitive, juvenile piece of rubbish.

It feels like Mike Myers and co-writer Graham Gordy used leftovers from the Austin Powers trilogy in an attempt to generate most of the flimsy plot for The Love Guru. The film is a single-note succession of extended skits that never spawn a moment of hilarity. Never is it even a guilty pleasure! A clever situation involving an apple, a midget, an adult man and a bottle of water behind a white screen from Goldmember is funny...two elephants having sex on ice in the middle of a hockey game is not! Once two elephants commence an orgy, we realise how low the script has truly sunk and how desperate Myers was for a laugh.
All the gags revolve around conventional funny names (that stopped being funny years ago), burps, farts, diarrhoea sounds, peeing, defecating, testicles, and penises. One of the film's key scenes includes a mop fight with mops soaked in urine. The film starts with little-boy potty humour, and it stays that way throughout its duration.

The Love Guru denotes the lowest point in Myers' career. I used to like him...believe me I still laugh incessantly during the Austin Powers movies. But, with very little exceptions, I never want to see Mike Myers work in the film industry ever again!

The story tracks a "neo-Eastern, self-help spiritualist" known as Guru Pitka (Myers). As a child he was abandoned outside an ashram and subsequently raised by gurus. Now he's a celebrity guru, endlessly writing books and developing acronyms. He's hired to sort out romantic troubles between hockey player Darren (Malco) and his wife Prudence (Good). If Pitka can get the two back together, Darren's hockey team could finally win the Stanley Cup.
The problem with the film's story is its central character. Guru Pitka is a clichéd creation, but never is he bestowed with the fun clichés. There are numerous clichés one could employ to actually make this character funny - Pitka could be a successful fraud (who knows he's a fraud) who decides to drop the act to truly help someone, or perhaps Pitka could be an utter failure who still manages to offer knowledge and wisdom to people in need. Either of these would be really clichéd, but at least it'd be fun. It could also add some tension or possibility into this cold and lifeless film. As it is, watching Pitka deliver horribly written dialogue (and laughing at himself every time) while he frets about how he can go from the number two guru spot to number one (through the blessings of Oprah) makes him a total bore.

One must wonder how so many actors were attracted to this mess. Many cameos permeate a majority of the proceedings. Val Kilmer, Jessica Simpson, etc. In the more major supporting roles there's Jessica Alba, Justin Timberlake, Ben Kingsley (this guy still wants to be respected and still wants his title of "sir" after starring in Uwe Boll's BloodRayne and this cinematic abomination?!) and Verne Troyer among others.
I have no idea how he did it, but Myers makes Alba look quite unattractive. In fact the whole cast look bored and listless. After the first 5 minutes, each actor looks as if they've regretted the decision to appear in the film. The material is notoriously unfunny, and this is reflected in the awfully weak performances.
Mike Myers must get a bit of credit for giving Pitka some energy. After the first few minutes, though, the accent is just plain annoying. There are a few moments during which the film shows promise and potential for what it could have been. The Bollywood-style musical numbers of The Joker and 9 To 5 are among them. But these are punctuated with Myers' self-indulgent eagerness to wallow in his obsessions - poor accents, innuendo, sexual talk and farting. Myers is so self-deluded that he actually believes he's creating comedy gold. In reality he's creating pure unadulterated shit!

Overall, The Love Guru is genuine hit-and-miss comedy. The jokes are repetitive and the entire film feels as if it could have been written by adolescent boys on the wall of a public toilet. Throughout the flick you'll feel embarrassed that you endured the labour to get your hands on this film - be it from a video store, at a cinema or catching a screening on TV. The only laughs to find are pity laughs at how dreadfully weak the gags are, or an amusing outtake at the end while credits are rolling. You'll certainly get the sense that you've seen it all before. If Myers wants to satisfy his obsessions of all things childish with a camera tracking him, that's his problem. If an audience is paying to watch the appalling result, suddenly it becomes ours.

1.4/10

"Robert better not get in my face... 'cause I'll drop that motherfucker!"

If you're accustomed to actor Will Ferrell's previous movies, or if you've viewed the trailer/s for Step Brothers, you should unquestionably be aware of what you're walking into if you make the decision to watch this film.

Audiences may remember Will Ferrell hitting the big screen in 2004 with the memorably hilarious Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. It wasn't long before teenagers started spouting quotes for hours at a time, and Anchorman became a cult phenomenon. The charm of the film was in the impeccable team of actors with terrific chemistry and the endless string of memorable quotes. In 2006, Will Ferrell teamed up with Anchorman director Adam McKay (who was a former Saturday Night Live writer) for the disappointing Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. That film supplied some laughs, but in the long run it lacked the charm of the Ferrell comedy vehicle preceding it. Not everything that Ferrell touches turns to gold. Semi-Pro, released earlier in 2008, was an example of this. The mediocre screenwriter for Semi-Pro ultimately gave Ferrell very little to work with, relied on his talents in the art of overacting, and left him to flounder on-screen. Step Brothers marks another collaboration of Will Ferrell and the forever-dependable Adam McKay. Actor John C. Reilly, who united with Ferrell in the aforementioned Talladega Nights, also joined the team. Reilly, Ferrell and McKay were all active contributors in conceiving the story and penning the screenplay. Although a few notches below Ron Burgundy and his memorable chums, Step Brothers is a return to form and a more relieving leap in the right direction.

Brennan (Ferrell) is a single, spoiled, repeatedly unemployed 39-year-old man still living at home with divorced mother Nancy (Steenburgen). Dale (Reilly) is 40 years old, single, usually unemployed and he's still mooching off his widowed affluent father Robert. At a business lecture, Robert meets Nancy and it's love at first sight. The two decide to get married and move in together. This decision unites Brennan and Dale who become step brothers. It's passionate loathing at first site. The antics of Dale and Brennan give new meaning to the words "sibling rivalry". Needless to say, what ensues is a hugely entertaining exercise in the art of randomness: improvised non-sequiturs, hysterical one-liners ("Your voice is a combination of Fergie and Jesus! I can't even look at you right now!") and an extremely repugnant situation during which Ferrell's (prosthetic) testicles rub against a drum set.

Step Brothers places itself in the very rare realm of R-rated comedies (as in an R rating from the MPAA). In recent years, PG-13 comedies have taken flight as it gives more money to the studio executives who endlessly keep a paranoid eye on the box office profits. Semi-Pro was another R-rated Ferrell comedy vehicle and it suffered due to misusing the rating. The profanity was kept to an absolute minimum when it could have permeated the dialogue far more for best effect. Step Brothers misuses the rating as it takes it as an opportunity to be vulgar to extremes. F-words are too frequent, and after a while it just isn't funny. This is to be expected, however, as Judd Apatow (does this guy ever sleep?!) was an executive producer. His previous efforts included Superbad, Knocked Up, Walk Hard, etc. This man single-handedly brought back the R-rated comedy craze. However, Apatow's movies are largely average. They outstay their welcome, and the excessive swearing spoils it. Step Brothers suffers a similar fate. Instead of gags regarding erections and sex that seem oddly innocent, we see Will Ferrell dragging his balls on a set of drums and licking a pile of white dog shit. No longer are McKay and Ferrell clever...now they're just employing vulgarities for a snigger.

The central problem of Step Brothers is dwelling on the laughs. The film is hysterical, and believe me I thoroughly enjoyed it, but there are virtually no other positives to be stated. During the middle section of the movie there are no attempts to advance an already thin plot. This section lives and dies by the amount of laughs. The trouble is that McKay and Ferrell also try to include serious moments. It dilutes the hilarity. Anchorman wanted to be nothing more than a succession of non-serious jokes. It was, and it succeeded because it's tremendously enjoyable. Step Brothers suffers the same fate as Talladega Nights: gags are funny but grow old, the film tries too many things, and there are too many serious scenarios. It's this that brings the film into the world of poor storytelling and pathetic clichés. We all know how the film will end no matter what transpires.

It must be said that Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly are a perfect screen couple. The overwhelming chemistry allows the actors to carry a majority of the film. Their close camaraderie in real life is obvious from the outset. They fumble around, they poke fun at each other and one-up on each other's outbursts. Some may complain that Ferrell plays the same character in each movie. That's a given, though. At least Ferrell is good at his trademark overacting. With Step Brothers he's given more crude language to deliver. "You're a big, fat, curly-headed fuck!", "I tea-bagged your drum set!", "Holy Fucking Santa Claus Shit!", and many more. Ferrell is a delight to watch. Not as charming as the characters of Ron Burgundy or Ricky Bobby, but still funny.
John C. Reilly is similar. Whenever he's on the screen with Ferrell, they're usually doing hilarious stuff. Step Brothers would not have worked without this duo.
As the parents, Mary Steenburgen and Richard Jenkins light up the screen. It's a tad difficult to believe that with all the shit Dale and Brennan respectively pull, they actually tolerate it (before the eventual marriage, that is). Steenburgen makes some of the vulgar lines sound like poetry. "What the fucking fuck?!" is an example of this.
Seth Rogen makes a brief but memorable cameo. You may remember him as Judd Apatow's go-to guy.

Overall, Step Brothers is everything I expected. I paid the price of cinema admission to be entertained and have a good laugh. The film succeeds in those objectives. I laughed until my stomach hurt. I was also entertained and had a great time. As a film, it ain't a masterpiece - nor was it ever meant to be. This could have worked better if it was a straightforward laugh riot like Anchorman; however the excess of seriousness slows things down. Also, with so much crude language there is little variety. All in all the film is a few levels above Talladega Nights, but far below the standard of Anchorman. If Adam McKay and Will Ferrell team up again, they should try something more subversive instead of playing it safe. If the rumoured Anchorman sequel goes ahead they may be able to more confidently remind us why we loved the partnership in the first place.

6.3/10

"I've always believed that a portrait captures a person far better than a photograph. It truly takes a human being to really see a human being."

Simply put, Monster's Ball is one hell of an outstanding movie. Marc Forster's direction is first-rate, the script is meticulous, and there's superb acting right down the line. The story conveyed by this hauntingly compelling masterpiece cannot be easily swallowed. This is a powerful and poignant movie not merely about racism and redemption (as one might initially presume), but about one of the most urgent and unanimous of human desires - that of finding solace for anguish and solitude. Brutal, riveting and brilliant - Monster's Ball daringly strides into territory seldom explored by usual contemporary motion pictures. The film is emotive and provocative, and relentlessly delivers a message about life in the American South.

The title of Monster's Ball is a term that was used in 19th century Europe to describe a night of feasting traditionally had for a condemned prisoner the night before he or she was to be executed. The title may seem confusing, but if one understands what the term means in the context of the film's plot, it makes sense.

Hank Grotowski (Thornton) is a soft-spoken, embittered Georgian prison guard in charge of the Monster's Ball: he organises a condemned prisoner's last rites and final evening. Hank lives with his openly racist redneck father Buck (Boyle). His offspring Sonny (Ledger) also works at the local prison and has been caught in his family's passionate racism, which he tries to stand against. Sonny's job at the prison is purely due to the expectancy to carry on family tradition. Hank's final execution is that of prisoner Lawrence Musgrove (Combs). Following this, a family tragedy occurs and Hank feels mentally unfit to continue working at the prison. By chance he meets young African-America woman Leticia (Berry) and they form and unpredictably intimate bond. Leticia was the wife of the last man Hank executed, but both of them are initially none the wiser.

Monster's Ball is artful and solemn, magnanimous and atmospheric. It's inlaid with wordless scenes accumulated to produce a mosaic of meaningfulness about life in the American South and the possibility of redemption through love. Its message is conveyed effectively and relentlessly. There is never any reluctance to display gratuitous racism or sex. The controversial sex scene in particular between Billy Bob Thornton and Halle Berry is graphic and explicit...almost pornographic material. It's these scenes, along with several others, that create an engaging hook to compellingly reel in a viewer for the (approximately) 110-minute duration.

The film is supported by a stellar screenplay. The film's sole negatives are in the script, though. Most of the character behaviour seems forced and ludicrous. The sex scene, although tastefully done, never seems to have much of a purpose. An emotionally vulnerable black woman would not seek comfort in a man she barely knows. Probably a feature to reveal her character, but it seems very sudden and difficult to buy. Despite this, the film is an incredible experience. There are admirably unconventional and unsentimental moments included in the script. Leticia and Hank never profess undying love for each other. In fact, there never seems to be any love included: it's all lust. "Make me feel good!" Leticia pleads Hank before forcing him into the nitty gritty. The characters never feel good per se, but they do feel better. The film does not end with any clichés. The love interests don't ride off into the sunset together or live happily ever after. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest the two will be together very long. As an alternative the film concludes on a beautiful note of ambiguity...and perhaps a glimmer of hope.

With each film, Billy Bob Thornton continues to convince me that he's one of the finest actors working today. He's a true filmic chameleon who brings life and adequate realism into every single role he portrays. It's impossible to overlook his amazing performances. Be it A Simple Plan, Bad Santa, Sling Blade or Bandits - Thornton's acting skills are sensational. His character of Hank Grotowski is a quintessential Thorntonian. Never does he put a foot wrong.
Halle Berry's acceptance speech at the Oscars forever sits badly in my stomach. She pretty much embarrassed herself in front of the millions of viewers. Despite this opinion, Halle deserved her Oscar for portraying a character with such emotional depth. It's a shame her character was cheapened by the unnecessary sex scene, but nevertheless her acting is incredible. No matter what situation she's been placed into, Halle can do wonders with her character.
Heath Ledger (R.I.P.) is used for an unfortunately short duration. In spite of this, Ledger gives his character depth and motivation. He abhors the racism ripening in those he usually looks up to. His character feels horrible about being forced to dish out capital punishment, and this is palpable in Ledger's emotions. His character is also reduced to "relieving" himself with a prostitute to escape his awful life. It's a shame the actor died so young. A promising career would have been ahead of him.
Peter Boyle takes a shocking career turn as the racist grandfather. For years I've seen Boyle as the hysterically witty grandpa in Everybody Loves Raymond. Surprisingly, Boyle pulls off this serious role admirably.

Overall, Monster's Ball is a challenging, stimulating and confronting drama that shows the ugly side of humanity with stark realism. Suicide, capital punishment, graphic sex and racist slurs are among the contents of this unforgettable production. Said contents are not sugar-coated in any way. The gripping screenplay and Marc Forster's transcendent direction "tells it like it is". As a result the film is an intense, emotionally-wrenching and powerfully affecting experience that requires dedication and attention. Superb performances permeate the proceedings, adding density, depth and feeling to the hard-nosed drama. It may seem dour on the surface and some features of the script are ridiculous...however the film conveys an unsentimental, expressive, achingly eloquent and affirming story of transformation and hope.

8.2/10

"When you've been in prison as long as I have, you remember every story about pussy you ever heard."

It took eight years, a bundle of writers, endless rewrites and a few Beverly Hills Cop movies before the classic 48 Hrs. screen duo of Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte re-teamed for the highly anticipated sequel. Unfortunately, Another 48 Hrs. materialised into an enormous disappointment. Considering all the effort that went into the script, the film is even more disappointing. Eddie Murphy was also among the screenwriting committee (under a fake name), making this rubbish sequel a further disappointment. In addition to this, all the other elements were right: Nolte and Murphy back in action, as well as director Walter Hill taking the helm once again. Another 48 Hrs. crawled out with steadfast potential, but tragically died on arrival. The problem was not with director Hill, or the impeccable duo...the problem stems from the material they were given to work with.

The script suffers from a bout of committee writing - that is, several screenwriters begging to have their ideas incorporated. This is worn on the film's sleeves: there is action aplenty, violence and foul-mouthed characters...with zero laughs, zero charm, zero wit, zero laughs (yes, I know I mentioned 'laughs' twice, but it's such a criminal exclusion that it deserves to be mentioned twice) and a bunch of unenergetic actors desperately searching for their next pay-check. Nolte and Hill hadn't seen a hit since the original film, whereas Murphy obtained fame in abundance. Perhaps convincing Murphy to star in Another 48 Hrs. was a cheap attempt by Hill and Nolte to score another hit without having to work too hard. This is palpable as well. It seems like a substandard rehash of 48 Hrs. with the negatives of said predecessor inflated and the positives deflated.

Set several years after the events of the first film, the story follows officer Jack Cates (Nolte) who's working to catch a drug lord only known as the Iceman. For years Jack has investigated, only for extraordinary coincidences to continually occur that leave his investigation dead in the water. Jack soon discovers that his old buddy Reggie Hammond (Murphy) is on the Iceman's hit list. At the end of the first film, Reggie had 6 months left of his prison sentence. Apparently another 5 years were added and now he's about to be released. The addition of these extra 5 years are touched upon, but not greatly explored. It's an irritating red herring, included merely as an excuse to place Reggie in prison again for him to sing his trademark rendition of 'Roxanne'. Worse yet, the strong camaraderie established between Reggie and Jack is gone because they haven't seen each other for so long. Once again, this is an unrealistic inclusion purely to introduce a heated rivalry again. It makes little sense.

So anyway, Reggie and Jack work to track down the Iceman. Oh, and Jack's career is in trouble and he's been suspended. This marks yet another pathetic cliché. There are already tonnes of clichés, so another one is like another duck in a heavily populated pond. One would think someone held a cliché convention and the screenwriting team acquired a 3-day pass!

As one has probably also noticed, Another 48 Hrs. is a mindless "everything must go" sale of clichés. Also, it's probably obvious that the script is a mess. It was rewritten many times, and there were so many writers brought in, but it's a clunky piece of trash. The palpability of a group of writers penning the script is further cemented by a few other elements. One such instance is the police composite drawing kit, used early in the film. It's used to create an image of a suspect they're searching for. Later we find out that Reggie knew what the Iceman looked like all along. When Jack learns this information he drags Reggie across the city, asking him to point out the Iceman. Why couldn't he just use the drawing kit again?! On paper the film would have sounded worse than the eventual product. At least the visuals have the stylish touch of Walter Hill, marking one of the only positive things about the movie. The action is exciting, even if it doesn't make much sense.

Poor villains are another drawback. Instead of being memorable and menacing, the dumb baddies don't do anything but kill people for the hell of it. Their motivation doesn't exist, especially with the convoluted plot being so excessively dragged out.
The relationship between Reggie and Jack is appalling. No witty lines, no interesting twists, and worst of all no friendship under pressure. They yell at each other and punch each other in every second scene! To make matters worse, there are many scenarios used here that were also used in the original film. It's probably some feeble attempt at nostalgia. The acting is just absurd. Eddie Murphy has aged and his changed Reggie character is just boring. I expected to be laughing occasionally...but I wasn't. I wondered whether the screenwriters ever even saw the first film. Nolte is grouchy, cranky and looks bored. The horribly written villains are the furthest thing from realistic. The rest of the cast appear to say their lines rather than meaning them. Director Hill let too many faulty moments get included, it seems.

Another 48 Hrs. should be in the running for "Most Disappointing Movie Sequel of All Time". As a standalone motion picture, the film is still a pile of shit. It may be watchable during the action sequences, but everything else is frequently boring. As a sequel to the classic original action/comedy, Another 48 Hrs. is dire beyond words. It's a crime for a supposed action/comedy to spend its duration without a single funny gag or witty line. If someone pulled in a few decent screenwriters as opposed to useless hacks, something interesting could have transpired. As it is, this is just another damned sequel that never should have happened. This is a purposeless waste of the talents of everyone involved. If you're an enormous fan of the first movie, this sequel just isn't worth it.

3.9/10

"You know, for years now I've listened to all these idiots on barstools, with their pet theories on Dallas. How it was the Cubans, or the CIA, or the white supremacists, or the Mob. About whether there was one weapon, or whether there was five. None of that's meant much to me. But Leary... he questioned whether I had the guts to take that fatal bullet."

In the Line of Fire still remains the indomitable king in the realm of political action-thrillers. It may seem that a majority of the basic plot elements appear somewhat proverbial to a mainstream audience (i.e. an aging law enforcement officer who's passed his prime, a bureau reluctant to trust the aging officer, a psycho killer who establishes communication with the hero, the psycho killer endeavouring to get into the head of the aging protagonist, etc), but with the impeccable Clint Eastwood in front of the camera and acclaimed director Wolfgang Peterson at the helm...In the Line of Fire is far from ordinary.

The movie is a supremely crackling political thriller featuring intricate and artistic direction, an intriguing screenplay, and it moves at a feverish pace from one fascinating plot point to the one succeeding it. Clint Eastwood may have been in his early 60s when the cameras rolled for this film, but it's the greatest modern Eastwood actioner since the original Dirty Harry. In fact, In the Line of Fire confidently positions itself in the league of Unforgiven as well as other classic Eastwood westerns. The film benefits mostly from the meticulous script by Jeff Maguire that contains intelligent scenarios and witty dialogue. Every shot in itself is a work of art, created by a director who excels at his craft.

Veteran Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan (Eastwood) has passed his golden years. Back in the 1960s, he was personally picked by John F. Kennedy and was his favourite Secret Service agent. But on November 22 1963, Frank failed to react to the bullets that blew Kennedy's head apart. His failure to protect the president has haunted him for decades. 30 years later Frank is doing undercover work to bust counterfeiters for the Treasury Department. Frank and his new young partner Al (McDermott) are assigned to investigate what appears to be a routine, commonplace threat to the current president's life. But the man behind the threat begins calling Frank at his home. He shares his thoughts with Frank and boasts of his intentions to kill the President of the United States. The alleged assassin calls himself "Booth" (Malkovich) in honour of John Wilkes Booth (who killed President Lincoln...just in case you didn't know). As communication between the two intensifies, Booth begins to torment Frank in relation to his failure to take a bullet for the president back in the 1960s. Driven by his determination not to let another president die, Frank quickly finds himself having to confront his inner demons to catch Booth and prevent the proposed assassination from coming to fruition.

The theatrical release date for In the Line of Fire was between The Firm and The Fugitive, not to mention that the film was also sandwiched between the two significant Eastwood tentpoles of Unforgiven and A Perfect World. Out of these aforementioned films, In the Line of Fire and Unforgiven are the best of show: each film respectively marking a return to form for Eastwood, with a western (like his breakthrough performance in the western A Fistful of Dollars) and an intense action-thriller (similar to the original Dirty Harry).

Jeff Maguire's remarkable screenplay earned an Oscar nomination, and rightfully so. The intelligent script tracks an extraordinary game of cat-and-mouse of superlative quality. This thriller is certainly a cut above the pack, due mainly to Maguire's outstanding script. There's a high amount of realism and detail in the storytelling. The depiction of the Secret Service is thoroughly accurate. The methods shown are apparently quite precise. Most impressive are the surprising plot twists of which there are plenty. The characters are realistic as well. What could have been a two-dimensional slate of characters are instead given astounding depth. The psycho villain in particular is bequeathed with comprehendible motives and a fascinating personality. Probably the only drawback would be a number of clichés. It's mostly forgivable though, because a majority of these clichés were invented by this film.

German director Wolfgang Peterson is probably most recognised for the critically acclaimed Das Boot. Following In the Line of Fire, Peterson went on to direct such films as Air Force One, The Perfect Storm, Outbreak, and several others. He crafts his movies with wonderful filmic merits present in each shot. The final showdown is probably the strongest 15 minutes in the flick. It's suitably intense, nail-biting and clever. You will be kept on the edge of your seat until we're allowed to breathe again.
Probably the main highlight of the film is its terrific score courtesy of composer Ennio Morricone. Morricone's music constantly sets the tone to great effect. With a great editor handling great material shot by a great cinematographer, the only touch making it better is the tingling sound of Morricone's music.

The remarkable characters are performed by an above average cast. Clint Eastwood hasn't lost his touch. Some compare this film to the original Dirty Harry, and with good reason. If the name of Frank Horrigan was changed to Harry Callahan, it could have worked as a fitting farewell to the trademark action hero. The only thing missing would be the wisecracks and badass attitude. Despite that, there are a lot of Eastwoodisms to be found. One of the most interesting Eastwood moments is when he's making love to Secret Service agent Lilly Raines (Russo). They attempt to remove each other's clothes and the irritatingly excessive hi-tech equipment...and then Lilly is called away. "Damn!" Eastwood finally says, looking disappointed and annoyed. "I've got to put all that shit back on, damn it!"
John Malkovich was nominated for an Oscar for his electrifying, career-best performance as the villain. He does a sneeringly terrific job, pulling off multiple appearances as his character creates new disguises for himself. Malkovich has the look of a cool, calm killer as he relentlessly murders people without hesitation and only rarely losing his temper. When on the phone to Eastwood's character, he's menacing and chilling. Apparently to add further credibility to the frequent phone conversations between Eastwood and Malkovich, they were filmed for real.

The rest of the cast are given the unfortunate task of working in the shadow of two tremendously talented actors. Rene Russo is likeable as always in her performance as the committed female Secret Service agent. The only real drawback of the film is in Russo's character. Not that her performance was faulty, but the way she was written is slightly disappointing. Being a love interest for Eastwood doesn't fit. In addition to the baffling age gap, it appears to weaken and cheapen the supposedly solid character. All other cast members do their job effectively.

Overall, In the Line of Fire is a fantastic political action-thriller that moves at an invigorating pace and provides solid entertainment for its 125-minute duration. The film benefits from top-notch moviemaking in every aspect. From directing to cinematography, editing to scoring, sound effects to visual effects...the faults are too scarce to notice. It's been a number of years since the film's initial release, yet it has hardly dated. Perhaps the digital insertion of Eastwood into old JFK footage is a little obvious, however little else is flawed. The film may not encompass the outlandish action of Con Air or Peterson's later Air Force One, but nevertheless the film stands confidently on its own merits.

9.2/10

"There's no hope for us here, there is only death."

Darren Aronofsky is a director primarily recognised for being at the helm of such films as Pi and Requiem for a Dream. The Fountain is an ambitious personal project of Aronofsky's that the director had been striving to accomplish for several years. Nuisances behind the scenes caused various complications that resulted in many delays. One would assume that a production of such exertion would generate impressive results. However, The Fountain is a vapid and confusing mess that isn't even remotely close to the masterpiece that we've been lead to believe it is. While the director passionately worked to achieve a serious and profoundly deep visionary film, Aronofsky instead delivered an ultimately pretentious and self-indulgent slice of cinema that lacks any emotional resonance.

The film may have gathered a congregation of ardent fans that defend the film incessantly, but there are many who generally loathe the film (myself included). The debate has been stated that those who don't like the film just don't "get it" and aren't "mature enough" to understand the underlying themes and alleged brilliance of The Fountain. That statement, however, can also be debated. It all boils down to a matter of opinion. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many respected critics (even the Rotten Tomatoes meter is shockingly low), The Fountain is an awfully conceited and hollow movie that recurrently formulates futile attempts to belie this fact.

In essence, The Fountain is a story concerning the search for the Fountain of Youth (here represented by the Tree of Life). The narrative is broken into three separate chunks, each taking place in a different timeframe.
The crux of the story unfolds in present day. Tommy (Jackman) is a scientist working day and night to cure the cancer afflicting his wife Izzi (Weisz). His behaviour during experiments and surgery lead his colleagues to believe he's becoming reckless and obsessive.
In a parallel storyline, Tomás (also Jackman) is a 16th century conquistador sent by Queen Isabel (Weisz again) to venture into the jungles of South America to find the Tree of Life mentioned in the Bible. Mayan mythology plays a crucial role in these proceedings. Many interpretations exist regarding this portion of the storyline. One popular interpretation is that these characters are featured in the novel written by present-day Izzi. Another version states that the present-day characters could be remembering past lives. Like everything in this movie, there is little explication. Aronofsky wants his audience to think and draw their own conclusions.
The final piece of the story involves a futuristic version of Tom (still Jackman) and the ghost of Izzi (Weisz...as usual) floating through deep space in a bubble encompassing the tree.

The film is a deep philosophical journey, and a spiritual mediation on mankind's mortality. So what is writer/director Aronofsky aiming to say with The Fountain? "Death is a disease," Tom says at one stage. "It's like any other. And there is a cure." This prospect reverberates through contemporary society; a society that desires to cheat age, sickness, and death. As a counteraction to Tom's view, Izzi begs the question, "What if death were an act of creation?" Aronofsky appears to be suggesting that death should be accepted and embraced, and everybody can achieve immortality through the circle of life - we die, we are buried, we become part of the Earth, and perhaps we then become a component of something else...a tree, a flower, a butterfly, etc.

My views on The Fountain are somewhat mixed. I might as well get the positives out of the way first. Hugh Jackman beautifully handles the material, as does Rachel Weisz. They share wonderful chemistry and light up the frame whenever they're together. In addition, the beautiful melancholy soundtrack provokes some emotion and thought. Aronofsky also presents us with arresting visuals achieved through incredible methods. The director felt using CGI would date the film in later years, and he desired to bestow The Fountain with timelessness. He used micro-photography to capture chemical reactions in petri dishes. The effect works extraordinarily well. It also gives the film a more "organic" feel. The atmosphere always strikes the right notes.

But the negatives overpower the film's strengths. The Fountain is a film that never lets you in, so to speak. The characters, despite being executed by able actors, lack depth. They never act like flesh-and-blood humans. They are mere symbols...and we therefore feel nothing for them. We just don't care about the characters! The love story between Tom and Izzi could have moved one to tears. But even with the great performances, the love story seems contrived and unrealistic.

The most lethal flaw, though, is that it seldom makes sense. Aronofsky is too focused on creating art in his visual presentation that there is little lying underneath. A majority of the film is without adequate explication. Too many things are so damn confusing! The popular thoughts floating around in my head during the film were: "What just happened?", "Why did that just happen?" and "I don't get it." If one examines ambiguous masterpieces such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Donnie Darko or 2001: A Space Odyssey, the interpretations surrounding the proceedings are thoroughly fascinating. All is forgiven because the aforementioned films are thoroughly provoking. The Fountain isn't provocative. It's pretentious and asks too much of its audience. Due to this, all the interpretations seem dreary instead of interesting.

The definitive insult is the unsatisfying ending. The film will leave you cold. It may seem clever to a screenwriter who knows what point he's making, but it's unfair to an audience. It's almost as if Aronofsky genuinely believed he was making another landmark film akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey. But Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece isn't even mildly threatened by the loathsome The Fountain. A comparison between 2001 and The Fountain isn't flattering to the latter. 2001 may seem like a succession of pretty pictures; however Kubrick had the good sense to do more - his shots are incredibly arresting, and are infused with some of the world's finest music. The perplexing nature of 2001 works so well that words fail me. This effect cannot be replicated by anyone. Not even Kubrick himself could equal or better his film.

The loyal fans who praise The Fountain have now used negative reviews of 2001: A Space Odyssey as evidence that The Fountain is a "misunderstood masterpiece" that will be bequeathed with the recognition it deserves in many years. The claim may seem relevant, but it's wholly misguided. One can find negative reviews of any canonised film. It doesn't make sense that a film that receives poor reviews will eventually be highly acclaimed. I mean, I certainly don't expect Uwe Boll films like BloodRayne or Alone in the Dark to replace Citizen Kane on the AFI Top 100 in a few years.

The production troubles that plagued The Fountain are widely known. Originally the budget was quite high, and production commenced in Australia in 2002. But original lead actor Brad Pitt (his co-star at that time was Cate Blanchett) left the project due to creative differences. Those funding the film pulled the plug, and the project was scrapped. Aronofsky worked to get the film off the ground again. Eventually the budget was cut in half and production was initiated with Jackman and Weisz portraying the central characters. The film's short length probably didn't give the director the opportunity to execute everything he wanted to do. Consequently, the film is a clunky mess. This was reflected in the poor box office takings.

Overall, The Fountain is a film that yielded very disappointing results. Believe me: I wanted to like the film. I had heard many things about it from the dedicated fans. Some claimed that the film bettered 2001: A Space Odyssey. (This is also a film courtesy of director Darren Aronofsky. I very much liked Requiem for a Dream.) I was therefore intrigued to see what the ruckus was about. Unfortunately, this is a tragic case of style over substance. Aronofsky is so committed to the images and nothing else. In fact, the film has "visual masterpiece" written all over it - which is exactly why it isn't one! Aronofsky was obviously so confident that this film would be praised endlessly, and his pomposity is reflected in the final product. The Fountain is confusing and baffling, with too many uninteresting diverse interpretations. This is the kind of stuff that works better as a novel.

5.2/10

"My name is Ash and I am a slave. As far as I can figure, the year is thirteen hundred A.D and I'm being dragged to my death."

Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead trilogy at long last concluded with Army of Darkness. When it came to sequels to his cult favourite low-budget horror/comedy hybrid, Raimi never imbued them with any solid chronological obligations. In fact, the second Evil Dead film (Dead by Dawn) is merely a bigger budget remake of the first film. Usually I loathe remakes as they can never capture the magic of the original film. Dead by Dawn, however, was a rare occurrence of a remake-come-sequel unquestionably outshining the original that spawned it. This remake-come-sequel was more definitive, more coherent, more fun and more humorous. Raimi had initially wanted it to be a straight-up sequel, and had wanted to tag a recap of the prior events of the first film, but there were legal problems and he was forced to just shoot some new footage instead.

Almost the same deal applies with Army of Darkness. There's mostly new footage tagged onto the beginning to set up the story so far, which helps people find their footing if they've never seen any previous Evil Dead movies. At its heart, Army of Darkness completely disregards the over-the-top violence and gore as well as the solid horror tone of its predecessors. Instead, Raimi and co aimed for a humorous action/adventure in a medieval setting. It immediately follows on from the events of the second film. The film's title deliberately didn't make any palpable references to the first two films. This was fundamentally The Evil Dead as a more commercialised and mainstream flick that could easily be devoured even if someone hadn't seen the first two movies. Instead of being influenced by horror movies, Army of Darkness is a tribute to the Three Stooges, Monty Python and Ray Harryhausen's stop motion animation. There's also a dash of Indiana Jones and some subtle Tolkien thrown in for good measure. The movie is undeniably silly beyond all comprehension, but it's proud to be as such.

There are countless dedicated fans who "get" what Raimi and co were aiming for, while others don't. Those who do "get" the movie understand that it's meant to be silly. From the outset, it was never meant to be anything more than B-Grade adventure schlock just as the previous films were merely B-Grade horror schlock. Army of Darkness isn't your customary B-Grade fare though...it's the finest example of a film designed to be a silly, humorous piece of fun that wears its cheese on its sleeve. If you want the short version, here it is: this is campy entertainment of the highest order and it demands to be seen.

"Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my boomstick! The twelve-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?"

Following the events of Dead by Dawn, Ash (Campbell) is sucked into a vortex that transports him back in time many hundred years to medieval England. Following Ash's abrupt arrival, he's believed to be a spy and is condemned to death. He survives the situation that is supposed to be his execution, therefore presenting himself as a saviour to the people. It has been prophesised that a "chosen one" will quest for the Necronomicon - a.k.a. "The Book of the Dead". Ash wants to be returned to his modern society, and is informed that only the Necronomicon has the power to accomplish that. Soon after this (rather unsuccessful) quest, he's called upon to defend the people against the Army of Darkness. And there's also a corny love story happening between Ash and a woman named Sheila (Davidtz).

Just like the preceding films, there's very little in the way of plot. It embraces a simple premise, and from there it's a succession of imaginative (though somewhat nonsensical) scenarios. In this case there are miniature versions of Ash attacking Ash in many different ways, a random sex scene and the very humorous final battle during which Ash must battle an army of Deadites lead by the evil version of himself. Just like its forerunners, Army of Darkness has its tongue firmly in its cheek. If you're looking for a tribute to classic horror like the two original Evil Dead flicks, you'll be very disappointed. In no way is this third part a horror movie. It may have obtained an R-rating from the MPAA, but the content is very light. The gore is never ballooned to hyperbolic proportions unfortunately. It's a straightforward tribute to the swords-and-sorcery epics that we've all come to know and love.

I witnessed a lot of moments that are seemingly inspired by Monty Python and the Holy Grail, especially in Ash's hysterical antics. No longer is Ash the snivelling, uninteresting coward from The Evil Dead, nor is he the slightly badass bloke from Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn. Now he's more sleazy and stupid. There's over-the-top slapstick and moments of absolute stupidity. The one-liners are side-splitting at times. As a result, Army of Darkness is definitely one of the most quoted films of all time...and rightfully so.

The film was made with a reasonably low budget, but it's overflowing with passion. Raimi competently combines moments of solid special effects with other moments that showcase some extraordinarily shitty special effects. The skeletal army towards the end is a classic example of this. That's the whole charm and appeal though: we're supposed to laugh at the generally poor effects on offer. It's this goofy appeal that keeps the film motoring along: it's a total balloon-sized laugh riot!

Army of Darkness is a film that clearly divides opinions. The hardcore Evil Dead fanatics generally detest it because they missed the comic horror tone and exaggerated gore. The film has almost as many detractors as it does supporters. Few people would stoop to call it their favourite Evil Dead movie, while others just don't appreciate what Raimi was trying to accomplish. While I did enjoy this film and admired Raimi's efforts, it's still the weakest in the trilogy by a long shot. Just like its predecessors, Army of Darkness soon joined the cult arena and many loyal fans still enjoy it to this day.

B-Movie king Bruce Campbell hits the ball out of the park with his portrayal of Ash. Campbell's charm perfectly suits the tone of his character. Although this is the weakest Evil Dead flick, this is by far the best version of Ash. He's snappy, witty, amusing and clever. The screenwriting duo of Sam and Ivan Raimi frequently give Campbell terrific quips that he fires off with overwhelming charisma. His catchphrases are hilarious and imitable. One can never forget the memorable "This is my boomstick!", "Shop smart. Shop S-Mart!", "Gimme some sugar, baby!", "Ooh, that's gotta hurt!", "Well, I've got news for you pal, you ain't leadin' but two things, right now: Jack and shit...and Jack just left town.", "Yo, she-bitch! Let's go!" and of course the immortal "Groovy!".
By this time in the trilogy, everyone wanted to get a laugh, and their committed attempts pay off nicely. Everyone else works in Campbell's influential shadow. No-one can equal or better him.

Overall, Army of Darkness is a fitting way to conclude Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy. As a whole, this series is almost unbeatable. "Essential" is a word I can confidently employ to describe this trilogy. All three films are campy, funny and great entertainment. Looking at the films, it's obvious that everyone had a ball making them. This fact is reflected in the performances, the terrific cinematography and the (purposely) mediocre special effects. This third instalment is overflowing with moments of comedy genius. Witness Campbell using a contemporary vehicle in the middle of a medieval battle to slice up a skeleton army (he yells "Say hello to the 21st century!!"), or even the final scene during which Campbell faces off with a hideous Deadite before getting his girl and delivering that quotable final line...

"Hail to the king, baby."

7.8/10

"There's something out there. That... that witch in the cellar is only part of it. It lives... out in those woods, in the dark... something... something that's come back from the dead."

In 1979, Sam Raimi collaborated with a young group of friends to instigate a multiple-year odyssey that ultimately became The Evil Dead. It was made on an extraordinarily low budget, but nevertheless it became an immediate hit and was rewarded with a steadfast cult following. It wasn't long before Raimi was commissioned to produce a sequel.

After The Evil Dead was released, acclaimed horror author Stephen King praised the film to the skies. He incessantly lauded it and admired the efforts of Raimi and company. Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis soon approached Raimi with a proposal to helm the cinematic adaptation of Stephen King's Thinner. The offer was eventually rejected. However, with a persuasive nudge from King, De Laurentiis agreed to fund a sequel to The Evil Dead as an alternative. As a result, Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn materialised into a highly commendable cult horror film.

Dead by Dawn is a common favourite when it comes to discussions regarding the greatest addition to the eventual Evil Dead trilogy. The film's primary strength is in its ability to generate an effective balance of comedy and horror; cleverly skating the line between the two with wonderful timing. It's a terrific combination of horror, comedy and pulp fun that manages to create a zany atmosphere that succeeds on many levels. Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and company deliver a flick that is an inspired piece of camp entertainment.

However, Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn is frankly more of a remake than a sequel. Scarce chronological obligations are established, the continuity appears pretty messed up, and Campbell's character would be extremely dumb to knowingly walk into the same demonic horrors again. Campbell, who plays the character Ash, goes to the same cabin with a girlfriend of the same name, in the same car, plays the same tape and fights the same kind of Evil Dead once again.

But I digress... Raimi had intended for Dead by Dawn to be a sequel and had wanted to include a form of recap of the events of the first movie. However, due to legal issues Raimi could not acquire permission to use footage from the first Evil Dead. Instead the first 10 minutes or so include an abridged retelling of the original film with less characters and less fleshing out. The original film concluded when Ash (Campbell) was rushed by a demonic Deadite. At about the 10-minute mark, this occurs and Ash is propelled back through the forest. It's essentially a sequel, but it effectively disregards any continuity between it and its predecessor.

I personally adore the first two Evil Dead movies, but my preference is this second instalment. Why? It's so much damn fun! The humour is considerably more over-the-top and therefore more enjoyable, Ash is a far more satisfying character, and the level of camp is upped for best effect.

Here's a more elaborate plot outline: Ash takes his girlfriend Linda (Bixler) to a secluded wooden cabin for a weekend getaway. Soon after their arrival, they discover a mysterious tape encompassing recordings by an aging professor. The professor had recorded translations of the "Book of the Dead" which awakens the demonic evil in the forest. Linda is soon possessed by the Evil Dead and is transformed into a white-faced zombie. This thrusts Ash into an intense battle for his life.
The plot is quite thin, to the point of essentially being transparent. Those familiar with the series will also realise that there isn't much plot for the original Evil Dead film either. It's a clichéd tale of friends being hunted by something, with an ensuing gore-fest soon commencing. However, unlike feeble horror crap such as Friday the 13th, this series is just so much damn fun. Genius humour is mixed with effective chills and terrifying moments.

Dead by Dawn is by far the best in the trilogy. A higher budget means better make-up and superior production vales. This sequel captures the horror elements of the first film really competently. The final instalment in the trilogy (so far), Army of Darkness, was all humour and campy action without the over-the-top gory horror. Therefore as an addition to The Evil Dead trilogy, Dead by Dawn cannot be beaten. Everything here is masterful: directing, editing, acting, make-up and script. Sam Raimi obviously wanted to get a laugh no matter how silly a situation is. He succeeds! When Ash's hand is possessed by a demon, you'll realise that this is purposely very campy and that's why we love it. One must also love the witty dialogue permeating a creative situation. Campbell delivers the one-liners with great comic timing. The highlights include the badass arming up followed by the random line "...Groovy". Or a demon who states "I'll swallow you soul!" just before Campbell sticks a shotgun in its mouth and replies "Swallow this!".

As I mentioned before, Dead by Dawn is fundamentally a sequel-come-remake. Raimi apparently opted to make this film the way he had wanted to make the original. For the original, the budget was too inadequate for his ideas. The funding for Dead by Dawn had been expanded to a few million dollars, allowing more of Raimi's ideas to be brought to fruition. Robert Rodriguez later used this technique with his trademark trilogy of action films. Rodriguez made El Mariachi on a shockingly low budget ($8,000!!!), then (when he was given an expanded budget) he reworked the film in the form of the remake/sequel Desperado. First-time directors ostensibly enjoy reworking their own ideas to suit their initial conceptions more faithfully. However, the $3.6 million given to Sam Raimi for Dead by Dawn didn't permit the director to make the ambitious medieval sequel he had envisioned - his 14th century vision was reduced to a single scene at the end (this idea was later executed in the form of Army of Darkness). Still, their modest budget allowed the filmmakers to create much more effective make-up, knock-out gore effects, bigger monsters and wackier camerawork. In a nutshell: this is the perfect campy horror/comedy hybrid.

Bruce Campbell apparently described Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn as "the mother of all sequels". It truly is! The perfect association of Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell with producer Robert Tapert has created an ideal sequel. The wonderful visual style of director Raimi is certainly present here. His camerawork is first-rate, with an effective use of shadows, darkness and hilarious amounts of realistic gore. The film's only misstep would probably be the abundance of clichés. We probably wouldn't love it as much if the clichés were removed, but it's not going to be a perfect film with them included.
Dead by Dawn could be my favourite horror movie of all time. It's essential viewing for horror buffs and fans of the original movie. Ash's hilarious catchphrases and the high amount of hysterical physical comedy mixed with very effective horror scenes just cannot be topped. Followed by Army of Darkness.

9.0/10