Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"My name is Domino Harvey. I am a bounty hunter."

Director Tony Scott is no stranger to the realm of action cinema. He's also no stranger to the plague of "style over substance". Scott frequently manages to spoil a good screenplay with his incomprehensible visual style. Man of Fire is a classic example. When it comes to action movies it's a shame that Tony Scott can't retain the solid visual elegance of his prior movies, such as Top Gun or The Last Boy Scout. Occasionally his contemporary visual style is quite impressive and works amazingly, but it's hopelessly overused and despondently perplexing. 2005's Domino marks yet another Tony Scott foray into action cinema. It's a jumbled, contrived and confusing biopic of bounty hunter Domino Harvey. It's a competently-made film that's unfortunately marred by a muddled script and the nauseating visual techniques that resemble the latest punk music video.

Domino was written by Richard Kelly of the Donnie Darko fame. Personally, I loved Donnie Darko and expected more great things from Kelly. Unfortunately his involvement with the amazing 2001 cult phenomenon makes Domino even more disappointing. The film is a disorderly fusion of action, comedy and irritating MTV cinematography that tells the story of real-life bounty hunter Domino Harvey (Knightley). However the film doesn't faithfully retell Domino's life at all. As a matter of fact, probably 60-70% of the film is fictitious (according to a number of sources). Domino is more of a fictional homage to its title character. This is reinforced by the opening disclaimer that states "Based on a true story...sort of."

Domino Harvey is the daughter of famous actor Laurence Harvey (best known for his performance in The Manchurian Candidate opposite Frank Sinatra) and Vogue model Paulene Stone (mysteriously renamed Sophie Wynn for the film, and played by Bisset). She's born into a life of wealth and privilege - a "90210" life as Domino describes it - which she abhors. After the death of her father, Domino's mother feels that boarding school could tame her wild child. Soon after being expelled (for punching a fellow sorority girl), Domino feels she's found her calling when she spots an advert for a bounty hunter seminar. From there she teams up with two professional bounty hunters (Rourke and Ramirez).

Domino is a cinematic pastiche full of kinetic energy that never lets up for a second. One of the only positives that can be said regarding the film is the competency behind the camera and the impressive visual style. I also had a great time watching the film. Despite being confusing and sometimes intolerably chaotic, it's a wickedly enjoyable guilty pleasure that's very much alive. Dialogue is somewhat witty, characters are intriguing, and the soundtrack is terrific.

However, instead of being a deep and emotionally satisfying biopic, the film offers little insight into the title character. Her motivations are never explored. Why did Domino rebel against her affluent life? We're lead to believe that she wanted more fun and danger into her life, but this is merely explored in a few lines of narration with Keira Knightley's voice filtered to make it sound as if she's reporting on the weather over a bad mobile phone connection. Instead of exploring Domino's incentives, the 2-hour running time is filled with dreary exposition and redundant scene fillers. Some scenes are played more than once for no reason at all other than to extend the running time. Apparently there's also some love occurring between Domino and Choco that's seldom explored. This love is hinted at through one line of narration before resurfacing towards the film's conclusion. From nowhere Domino loves Choco after yelling at him multiple times and never showing any interest in him at all.

Perhaps the worst insult is the deficiency of scenes depicting Domino kicking ass (Domino even famously said "My agenda is to kick ass!"). For at least the first 90 minutes we're subjected to completely unrelated side-trips into useless minutia. Some celluloid is even wasted for a situation on Jerry Springer. Granted, it's very funny, but it serves no purpose. The meaningful scenes are few and far between. This aforementioned Jerry Springer scene was obviously included as the screenwriter was determined to use it, plot be damned.

The story scurries around in time, jumping back and forth to events that never seem to come together coherently. Domino's story is punctuated with an awfully annoying narration and an interrogation being conducted between Domino and an FBI profiler (Lui). The crux of the story appears to be some form of elaborate and unintelligible heist that Domino is involved in. To be honest, a majority of Kelly's script is a hopeless mess of useless exposition that never develops any lucid narrative. The story is jumbled, confusing, convoluted and plainly incoherent. The whole thing is so complex and stupid, and at the end of the day I still have no idea what actually happens 70% of the time.

Keira Knightley plays Domino to absolute perfection. Her mannerisms are wonderful. Unfortunately, her voice-over narration becomes so repetitive and repulsively filtered that it feels like torture for the ears. Most annoying is the use of "My name is Domino Harvey". The endless droning of Keira's voice becomes quite excruciating, which is a real shame.
Mickey Rourke plays the archetypal tough guy with muscles and weapons. He appears to be doing something cool with his role, as does Edgar Ramirez.
Lucy Lui also makes an appearance as the FBI profiler. Unfortunately, Lui doesn't get much to work with. She appears to do nothing more than stare impassively at Domino and make empty threats.

The marketing campaign for Domino was imbued with great potential. Director Tony Scott has a number of fascinating films on his résumé, and screenwriter Richard Kelly will forever be remembered for the brilliant Donnie Darko. However, the film is predominantly damaged due to the work of both men. Kelly's script is obnoxious and horribly incoherent at times, whereas Scott fills the screen with colours that annoying bleed and emulsify. It's an intensely electric film about an enthralling individual, but it sometimes slips into frustratingly vapid monotony due to a story that never quite grips the viewer. It's plain style over substance material. Quite frankly, though, it's still one hell of a ride.
(Apparently Domino is superior to Richard Kelly's Southland Tales; a film that completely tanked at Cannes in 2006, scoring the lowest reviews of any film at the festival. Kelly described the negative reaction as a "very painful experience on a lot of levels".)

5.6/10

Charlie Chaplin's name has grown synonymous with classic comedy. Throughout the early 1900s, the extraordinary silent movie comedian featured in short films ranging from 10-30 minutes. These years denoted the birth of one of the most recognisable movie characters in existence: Chaplin's Little Tramp. There is little doubt that Chaplin knew how to put bums on seats. He also knew how to move his audience while making them laugh.

The Kid was Chaplin's first endeavour at directing a feature-length movie. What was initially slated as a two-reel short developed into the eventual "six reels of joy" (as advertised on the poster). As a result, the film was an enormous success - both critically and commercially.

Just days after Chaplin's newborn child died due to complications following birth, the passionate filmic comedian was back at work. While searching for a co-star for his latest movie (that ultimately became The Kid), Chaplin came across a juvenile vaudevillian named Jackie Coogan. Apparently during production the two stars shared such an intimate bond that they virtually acted like father and son, adding believability to their characters. The camaraderie is evident in their jovial performances and fabulous chemistry. While behind the camera, Chaplin was a comprehensive perfectionist. He shot everything countless times as he strived for perfection in every scene. Altogether approximately 50 hours of footage was shot for the 60-minute picture. Many years later Chaplin re-edited the film and re-released a 50th Anniversary Edition (this was primarily to maintain legal possession of the movie). For this re-release he removed 3 scenes (bringing the duration down to roughly 50 mins), added some new titles and added a wonderful score that he composed himself. The zeal and perseverance in Chaplin's work becomes obvious in every frame present in the final film.

The story begins with the introduction of an unwed mother (Purviance) whose "sin is motherhood". She leaves her newborn baby in the back of a limousine, hoping a wealthy family will take him in. But almost immediately, a chain of events leave the baby in a dark alley.
Enter the Little Tramp (Chaplin, of course) who finds the baby and, with little other choice, decides to raise him. Five years later the child has developed into a young man named John (Coogan). The Tramp and his unofficially adopted child have developed the perfect con artist scheme: John wanders the streets throwing rocks at windows, and then the Tramp gets paid to repair the smashed windows. When the authorities learn of the Tramp unofficially adopting the child, they instigate a chain of events that places the father-son bond in jeopardy.

Often cited as Chaplin's most personal and sentimental film, The Kid is an endearing combination of pathos and humour. Chaplin's earlier films concentrated on his balletic slapstick comedy. His main objective with this first feature-length movie was to create a more fully-rounded story incorporating elements of both sentiment and comedy. But the more emotional scenes are usually punctuated by an immediate gag. Even during the most heart-wrenching scenes, the film doesn't linger or get bogged down in seriousness. Instead it pushes on with a clever laugh. The gags aren't drawn out either; instead they are well-paced, well-placed and concise, never overstepping their welcome. In trademark Chaplin style, the gags are an indelible combination of sight gags and slapstick. Some of the film's highlights include a bully brawl, the Little Tramp emerging from bed, and the Tramp's angelic dream.

The Kid is such a personal movie because Chaplin evoked many childhood memories to permeate the proceedings. As shooting commenced only a few days after the death of Chaplin's first child, he wrings every ounce of his own emotions out during the most heart-rending scenes between the Tramp and the Kid. When the authorities threaten to tear the Kid away from the Tramp, the scene mirrors Chaplin's own experience when he was taken away from his mother at an early age. After his mother was taken away from him, Chaplin and his brother Sydney were assigned to an orphanage. The anguish in the separation scene feels so genuine that it practically feels like a documentary. Chaplin conveys brilliant emotions as he struggles to rescue Coogan whose outstretched arms, tears and silent wailings communicate total devastation (Charlie Chaplin stated in his autobiography that the young Jackie Coogan was made to cry by his father, who told him that if he would not cry in the scene then he'd be sent to an actual workhouse). The realism ensures the film a notable place in the highlights of Chaplin's career.

An additional element that guaranteed the film's success is young Jackie Coogan. Coogan is totally disarming, cute, and delightful. He is natural and unaffected, and presents a realistic performance that few child actors have matched. Even at a tender young age the actor could almost upstage Chaplin. Coogan went on to become the original Uncle Fester in The Addams Family.
Of course Chaplin himself proves outstanding as both a physical comedian and a director. The man has a talent for perfectly staging comedy. The timing in particular is brilliant.
While Chaplin and Coogan are the central core of The Kid, there are a few other cast members that are worth mentioning. Edna Purviance is particularly good as the Kid's mother. She doesn't have much to do in her role, which can probably be attributed to the bout of drinking that led Chaplin to consider removing her from the film altogether.

Overall, The Kid is solid entertainment for its brisk running time of about 60 minutes (depending on which version you watch). Sometimes old silent movies are difficult to watch, but there is never a dull moment in this outstanding flick. The film doesn't attempt much of a solid story, however Chaplin was the king of classic comedy and we watch this film to enjoy his mannerisms. It's hard not to like The Kid with its conservative yet charming amalgamation of pathos and humour. The film symbolises the quintessential Chaplin spirit, and during the film's short duration it does enough to convince us that the man is a genius. Perhaps the film lacks a certain spark that made Modern Times and The Gold Rush so excellent, but that's probably the only negative I can muster.

The Kid is still a great movie forever blessed with the power to bring "a smile--and perhaps a tear."

9.1/10

"Figure a man's only good for one oath at a time; I took mine to the Confederate States of America."

John Ford and John Wayne forged one of the greatest director-actor partnerships in cinematic history. Their collaborations are now frequently regarded as classic additions to the Western genre; from Stagecoach to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance to over 10 other titles...memorable celluloid can always be found within. The Searchers is classic filmmaking of the highest order. It's a multi-faceted and gratifying Western, marking one of the greatest products of the Ford/Wayne partnership. The two "Johns" reinvented the genre and invented a majority of the clichés. Ford was the first director to take Westerns outside studio back-lots to film on location. As a result, Ford's Westerns are classic in every sense of the word. Atmospheric, fun, humorous and memorable - this is the kind of stuff an eager audience would lap up as kids during Saturday afternoon matinees throughout the 1950s.

Out of all the films John Wayne made throughout his career, he stated that The Searchers is his personal favourite. It isn't hard to see why. The film is mainly blessed with wonderful photography. The locations are remarkable, and cinematographer Winton C. Hoch beautifully captures said locations. The opening and closing shots are both memorable and influential. It's the cinematography that ensures the film is anything but an ordinary Western.

In The Searchers, John Wayne plays John Wayne at his very best. He's embittered Civil War veteran Ethan Edwards. He returns rather belatedly from the Civil War to the Texas farmstead of his brother Aaron (Coy) and sister-in-law Martha (Jordan) whom he secretly loves. Ethan is an openly racist man who despises the Comanches (that is, Indians). He's idolised by Aaron's children who admire his status as a war veteran. But Ethan's return coincides with a visit from the Comanche Indians. The men are drawn away when cattle are stolen, only to find the cattle brutally slaughtered. In a primal scene (famously restaged in 1977's Star Wars), Ethan returns to his brother's farmstead to find it burning. The two girls are missing, all others have been massacred. Ethan puts in motion a search for his nieces with his "nephew" Martin Pawley (Hunter) by his side. Ethan refuses to surrender to hunger, thirst, or the elements. And in his five-year search, he encounters something unanticipated: his own humanity. As the years elapse and the search intensifies, Ethan begins to question his motivations: was he going to rescue his nieces or kill them?

John Wayne will always remain the quintessential Western image. His rugged face, deep voice and infamous posture have grown iconic over the decades. Never mind that he became hopelessly type-cast...these are the sorts of roles he was born to play. It's also a given that Wayne's acting skills aren't exactly amazing. However when he's a gruff Western hero he suits the part perfectly.
Jeffrey Hunter appears alongside Wayne. His performance is filled with intensity and passion. Although he occasionally comes across as slightly annoying, his performance is quite incredible here.
Vera Miles is another worthy addition to the cast. She plays a woman with feelings for the character of Martin Pawley. Her character suffers at home for five long years waiting for an indication from Martin that he does love her and that she should wait for him.
Also joining the cast is Natalie Wood. Her career may have been short, and her role in this film is rather insignificant, but she places forth a truly memorable performance.

The Searchers is a fine example of an essential Western. It remains a fascinatingly multi-layered film filled with memorable images and beautiful cinematography. The script is also extremely good: it's witty, filled with memorable quotes and contains some wonderful scenarios. John Wayne is particularly good when he delivers quotable dialogue such as "That'll be the day!" among others. He even shoots a dead Indian. "What good did that do you?" asks a friend, to which Wayne replies with "By what you preach, none".

Everyone familiar with the fun adventurous Saturday afternoon matinees will be aware of the typical stereotype of cowboys as the goodies and Indians as the baddies. While The Searchers predominantly shows Indians in a bad light, the film is quite special for showing both sides of the story: that white men were the invaders, that the Native Americans were defending their land, and that both sides had their good and bad individuals. The movie never flinches in its display of the savagery committed by both sides. It was a novel movie idea at the time...especially when it was John Wayne playing one of the "bad" people.

Now it's time to put together a very mild list of negatives: first of all, the love story concerning Jeffrey Hunter's Martin and Vera Miles' Laurie seems unnecessary. It slows down the feverish pace and the film's tension with the sappy dialogue and the "I love you / I hate you" situations. Secondly, there are too many red herrings that extend the film to a pretty excessive length. What could have been a brisk Western is married by over-length.

For the die-hard fans of The Duke (i.e. John Wayne) The Searchers is an absolute must. For those who adore the Western genre cannot afford to miss this one. And for those who appreciate fine filmmaking in general must see this film as soon as possible. The Searchers is a great in-depth character study of a racist, bitter war veteran and his questionable agenda. Wayne may be seldom taken seriously as an actor, but despite relentless parodying he proves here (and in countless other films) that his often-ridiculed speech mannerisms and walk could generate an unforgettable performance.

All in all, The Searchers is certainly worth a watch despite a few flaws. The imagery throughout is frequently eloquent and marvellous to behold. Even if Westerns aren't normally your thing, this movie is worth a viewing. The film is a popular choice when it comes to discussions regarding the greatest cinematic Westerns. There's also the fact that this has been voted into the National Film Registry in the United States, meaning it is one of the important cultural assets in the history of American cinema.

8.0/10

"Man is born crying. When he has cried enough, he dies."

To movie aficionados and cinema enthusiasts, Akira Kurosawa's name is synonymous with the title of 'cinematic god'. It's irrefutable that throughout Kurosawa's career (spanning over several decades) the director has created wonderful narratives and absolutely magnificent visual delights. To some people Kurosawa is the greatest thing to hit film since light. In this cynical and incredulous modern film-going society, neophyte students of film occasionally harbour doubts regarding the existence of this so-called cinematic god. Ran is an epic film capable of making believers out of anyone. The film is a remarkable visual spectacle composed of beautiful cinematography and gorgeous, oversaturated colours. Kurosawa is a filmic guru who situates his sombre narrative in a world full of opulent nature panoramas, all shimmering fields of vernal green grass and cerulean skies of deepest summer. Even after watching Ran, one can close their eyes and still see the kaleidoscope of colours...swirling and pulsing in a beautiful maelstrom. This is a testament to the masterful moviemaking of Akira Kurosawa.

The narrative conveyed in Ran is fundamentally an adaptation of William Shakespeare's King Lear. This brilliantly conceived re-telling of the classic tale magically mixes Japanese history with Shakespeare's timeless plot. The film is saturated with profound themes of faith, love, trust, deception, loyalty and humanity in an epic tour de force. Interestingly, the film is generally tagged as an adaptation of King Lear, but it didn't start out that way. There is a famous story of a 16th century warlord whose sons were revered for their loyalty. Kurosawa wanted to turn the story on its head, showing that ambitious sons cannot be trusted. He started writing the script in 1976, with the first draft completed in 1978. At some point in early development either Kurosawa or his collaborators realised the unmistakable parallels to Lear. The final version therefore drew more inspiration from Shakespeare's play, although Ran differs significantly from King Lear in terms of characters and some plot points.

Akira Kurosawa's Ran is set in the Sengoku period. Said period was an era of civil wars in Japan that preceded the Shogunate. The time was characterised by much turmoil and lack of stability, hence the title of the film which means "chaos". This grand tragedy centres on the aging warlord Hidetora Ichimonji (Nakadai). With his golden years behind him, Hidetora decides to abdicate and split his land evenly between his three sons. Each son is to be allocated a piece of land and a castle. Hidetora wishes to live his remaining years visiting each of his sons and staying in their castles. His two eldest sons are pleased with his decision and happily accept the portion of the empire allotted to them. However, Hidetora's third son Saburo (the film's Cordelia, so to speak) criticises his father's decision and calls him foolish (much to the delight of the two eldest sons). Saburo argues that three sons won't be willing to protect their father due to their individual ambitions. Despite Saburo's words being correct, Hidetora is furious and banishes Saburo from his empire. It soon becomes apparent that Hidetora is no longer welcome in the empire he fought so furiously to obtain. His two eldest sons begin to overthrow him and refuse to offer their father any protection. Hidetora slowly grows insane, eventually wandering the wilderness with only his loyalest companions by his side.

Ran is regarded as Akira Kurosawa's most personal film, even occasionally regarded as his absolute best. The film languished in development hell for years. The first version of the script was penned by 1978, yet didn't go before the cameras until over half a decade later. Kurosawa's latest movies hadn't made much of a profit, making studios less inclined to fund this expensive production. While waiting for his epic to receive funding, Kurosawa painted detailed storyboards and designed ornate costumes. By the time French producer Serge Silberman raised the required money, Kurosawa had virtually already pre-shot and pre-edited the entire movie. His vision was clear, and he worked passionately to achieve it.

By all accounts the production was fairly smooth, but Kurosawa suffered three consecutive tragedies in the first 6 weeks of 1985. His long-time swordplay choreographer Ryu Kuze and sound man Fumio Yanoguchi (who had worked with him since the 1940s) died within a few days of each other. Both had started on the production of Ran but were compelled to leave due to ill-health. Following this, Kurosawa's wife was diagnosed with a terminal illness, eventually dying in early February. Kurosawa responded by immersing himself further in the production of the film, and his passion is obvious.

At 2 hours and 40 minutes, Ran is gruellingly long and occasionally difficult to sit through. Yet the film is a triumph in global cinema, with competent direction, a vibrant Japanese score, strong emotionally-charged performances and incredible battles. It's an action epic containing no more than 2 spectacular battles. The rest of the running time is dedicated to dialogue and establishing deep characterisations. The battles haven't dated one iota. Instead of employing CGI to create a swarm of soldiers, hundreds of actual extras have been employed. The colour scheme is particularly amazing. Even better are the jaw-dropping costumes which received an Oscar. These costumes were created by hand, taking a total of two years to complete them. The costumes look thoroughly authentic, and present an amazingly convincing vision of the 16th century.

I won't lie...Ran may be found quite boring by some. For someone who adores the works of Michael Bay and who is searching for never-ending action will be vastly disappointed. But if you decide to watch Kurosawa's masterpiece seeking oodles of action, then you're watching it for all the wrong reasons.
In spite of my incessant appraisal of the outstanding visuals being displayed, there are several shortcomings. For starters, the film is undeniably difficult to follow. Stilted dialogue and poor distinguishing of plot points proves lethal. The acting is top notch, but much of the character behaviour appears random and incoherent. This is a problem I've found with all of Kurosawa's movies: there's a wonderful narrative that's blemished by a clunky and jumbled screenplay. For most of the running time, the visuals appear to be the product of Kurosawa's self-indulgence as the film moves from one random (albeit beautiful) visual image to the next. At least it's gripping and thoroughly involving, with a sufficient amount of interesting characters to keep one entertained.

Quite unsurprisingly, the film is extremely violent and filled with bloodshed. The evil bitch known as Kaede receives her comeuppance is a very violent fashion. It's interesting to note than while the film was stamped with a suitable R rating by the MPAA, in Australia the film has been slapped with a PG rating. Weird...

Ran is an expressive and deep reflection of the condition of human affairs. It's a transfixing tale of the perpetual balance between action and repercussion which transpires in the midst of those who kill and those who are killed. It is a narrative concerning two brothers and their machiavellian approach to their acquisition of supremacy. It's also about a rogue brother guided by truth and rejected for speaking that of which would eventually and paradoxically occur. The film is also about one woman and her desire for vengeance against all those who devastated her childhood. The film additionally concerns a lone father too blind to realise the truth, and who pays for the sins of his past with the blood of his sons (both the loyal and the treacherous). Finally, the film is a story about all those ensnared in the twisted web of "Ran"...which aptly translates as "chaos".
Despite the film being hard to follow at times, Ran is an absolute triumph in the career of Akira Kurosawa. It's an unforgettable and gripping tale of disloyalty and trust. The visuals are mind-blowing, the direction is beautiful, and the acting is simply superb. This is an astounding epic film, with exhilarating action and yet much subtlety that becomes apparent on repeated viewings.

8.1/10

"Directive?"

To the untrained eye, Disney-Pixar's WALL-E probably appears to be just another ordinary animated family film or just another commonplace Pixar escapade. But WALL-E should not be carelessly dismissed with these misleading labels. Director Andrew Stanton (who was behind 2003's Finding Nemo) has created a masterpiece on the same level as recent films like There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Pan's Labyrinth and even The Departed. Put very frankly, this is a marvellous film with infinite appeal.

Over the past few years, Pixar's annual line-up usually receives its fair share of acclaim (from critics and audiences alike). In 2007, it was Ratatouille that had the Oscar committee talking. Other memorable titles include 2004's The Incredibles and 2006's Cars. Further animated films (courtesy of DreamWorks) include Madagascar, Shrek and several others. But 2008's WALL-E is an unprecedented event in both animated feature films and contemporary filmmaking in general. Through my eyes, this masterpiece deserves an Oscar nomination for Best Picture at the very least. No, not Best Animated Picture...I'm talking about the daddy Oscar statuette of Best Picture. I'm not the only person discussing this possibility, so that must tell you something.
This is a movie that the critics are raving about, and audiences are warmly receiving. The box office numbers are enough to convince you of that fact. As of late 2008, the film still holds a resounding rank on IMDb's Top 250. As much as it pains me to admit, I thought the hype and acclaim was ridiculous, and I misleadingly labelled the film as childish rubbish. However I'm extremely glad that I took a chance and gave this film a shot.

In the future, humans have abandoned Earth. WALL-E (voiced by Burtt) is the last of his kind: a small robot manufactured by the Buy-N-Large Corporation, created with the objective of cleaning up the rubbish left by humans. WALL-E (an acronym for Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth class) lives a lonely life as he carries out the same routine everyday. He's a robot whose vocabulary never stretches past three words, and his sole friend is a mute cockroach. WALL-E spends his entire day rummaging through the rubbish. He compresses mounds of garbage into cubes (he also collects rubbish he finds fascinating - one man's garbage is another robot's treasure) by day, then spends his evenings watching Hello, Dolly! and longing for romance. Things drastically change for WALL-E when a robot known as EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, voiced by Knight) lands on his planet. It's love at first mechanised heart-beep. WALL-E and EVE are soon entangled in an outlandish space adventure with a host of fascinating robot characters.

So what makes WALL-E the masterpiece that has everyone talking? There are a number of reasons.
For starters, the animated is top drawer. All landscapes and locations are gorgeously rendered, to the extent that an audience will be stunned at the technological capabilities of modern computers.
Secondly, the kids will have an absolute ball. Even the adults will sit in awe. WALL-E will commendably keep both the kiddies and adults entertained for its entire running time. Thirdly, the film has great relevance to a modern society that's becoming increasingly reliant on technology. The film essentially acts as a social commentary. While the kids are greatly entertained, an adult will be able to comfortably absorb the film's underlying themes. It's a "green" theme that imbues the proceedings. Humans are depicted as obese, obsolete couch potatoes who rely on technology for their every whim. They no longer walk, and a transparent screen allows them to communicate with each other (even if they're sitting in arm's length). The human race aren't human anymore...in fact the robot characters are more humane. The implication is that this future isn't far off.

WALL-E is also a total blast: it's creative, clever, charming and comedic. You'll be laughing at the Chaplin-esque slapstick on offer, and you'll be sighing at the beautifully tender nature of the little robot. The film conveys a poignant and moving love story. It's an odd-couple romance tale that will strike a tone with its audience depending on generational reference points. There are traces of Charlie Chaplin and Virginia Cherrill in City Lights, Woody Allen and Diane Keaton in Annie Hall, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet in Titanic, with traces of Star Wars and E.T. thrown in for good measure (there's also a slight dash of Shrek and Princess Fiona). This may be a love story between mechanical robots, but it's incredibly heart-warming and appealing.

The final factor that ensures this film is an absolute masterpiece is that it will never grow outdated. DreamWorks animated movies are filled with pop culture references, whereas WALL-E is devoid of them. The character of WALL-E enjoys watching the musical Hello, Dolly! and at one stage we see him indulging in a game of Pong on an old monitor. Had this been a DreamWorks picture, WALL-E would be watching High School Musical and playing Halo 3 on an X-Box 360. This denotes the difference between the two animation studios: in fifty years WALL-E will play flawlessly to a new audience who will laugh at the timeless slapstick, whereas a DreamWorks film (after the pop culture references lose their potency) will play to almost complete silence. Yes, I do enjoy DreamWorks films such as Shrek (the first one...and the first one only!) and Over the Hedge, but it's doubtful that they'll hold up in later years.

Like Pixar's previous films, the meaning of WALL-E is deeper and more profound than the merchandising prospects found therein. The film is undoubtedly a love story, but it's also a story about staying true to your own heart in the insipidly malevolent face of authority. The film is a moving tale about saving the small things and treasuring the world you exist in, regardless of how imperfect its surface may seem.
Andrew Stanton won an Oscar in 2004 for his previous animation film Finding Nemo. Now the director has unquestionably earned his place in the pantheon of animation pioneers. With WALL-E, Stanton has taken not only the art of animation, but the art of storytelling to new and unimaginable heights. Previous landmark science fiction masterpieces include Star Wars and Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. To me, WALL-E is the next landmark sci-fi masterpiece in the form of a simple animated family feature.
Perhaps the only drawback would be a script that turns formulaic in its final quarter. The concluding few scenes had me riveted in my seat, but in the long run most of it wasn't overly necessary. And the customary happy ending is quite predictable. However 80% of the film cleverly circumvents the clichés.

For an animated movie aimed at an ordinary family audience, WALL-E is unbeatable. The visuals are masterful, the animation is absolutely beautiful, the storytelling is fairly original and there are laughs aplenty. This film has a right to take its place alongside Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille and the countless other additions to the Pixar canon. To this day, WALL-E is definitely the best animated family movie in existence!

9.5/10

"What do you know about it? Who are you anyway? Who are you? Criminals? Are you proud of yourselves? Proud of breaking safes or cheating at cards? Things you could just as well keep your fingers off. You wouldn't need to do all that if you'd learn a proper trade or if you'd work. If you weren't a bunch of lazy bastards. But I... I can't help myself! I have no control over this, this evil thing inside of me, the fire, the voices, the torment!"

In German, the word "Mörder" is translated as "murderer". Fritz Lang's M is a revolutionary classic of worldwide cinema (it made an especially influential impact on German filmmaking), and its eerily straightforward title is derived from the German word "Mörder". M is an expressive, supremely haunting venture into the workings of a serial killer that brilliantly raises questions on the nature of justice and who should deal out punishment. The film marked director Fritz Lang's first non-silent picture. Prior to making this conversion, the director was renowned for such films as Metropolis and Die Nibelungen among several others. For its time, M was a technically innovative movie which utilised the new "talkie" technology to great effect. M is also an influential movie that introduced two filmic genres: the serial killer genre and the police investigation genre. Needless to say, this is an important film and an archetypal blueprint responsible for spawning hundreds of facsimiles.

During the early years of the cinematic sound era, most films were given a static and theatrical look. The most prevalent film cameras were too noisy and were mostly anchored to one spot. Actors were required to lean in closely to speak into omni-directional microphones often hidden in vases or other objects (this was brilliantly parodied in the classic Singin' in the Rain). Fritz Lang's M was filmed in 1930. Most filmmakers were amazed by sound technology, and heavily employed it for their films. But M is nothing like most of its peers. Instead of a boring still camera, Lang's lens moved at will; soaring and craning through studio sets...producing an open, flowing, eloquent look for the movie. Lang, one of the supreme masters of silent cinema, wasn't interested in using the new technology merely to replicate reality. To Lang, sound was no carnival sideshow gimmick. He instead used sound for dramatic effect to create an expressionist sound design to augment the narrative and visuals. M actually contains a lot of silence, with the majority of the film being shot devoid of sound equipment. Without sound equipment, the camera was free to roam around the set. Instead of the drone and rattle of a bustling city, Lang gives us isolated sounds such as footsteps or the distant beeping of a car horn. These innovative decisions combine to bestow the film with a chilling, almost surreal soundtrack...at once hollow, brittle and haunting.

Fritz Lang's M closely parallels the case of serial killer Peter Kurten, the "Vampire of Dusseldorf". For months after Kurten's killing spree ended, the country was still held in a state of terror. The release date for M was subsequent to Kurten's much-publicised trial, and just before his execution. Serial killer trials were all the rage in 1920s Germany. At the time of its release, M addressed a very topical issue of serial killers. Today, M can be viewed as a timeless masterpiece that presents an effective snapshot of a 1920s society. Although the technical merits of M may be looked upon as somewhat dreary and ordinary, the film must be viewed on its own terms: the camera movements were innovative and the evocative sound mix was unprecedented.

As I stated before, the storyline of M was somewhat inspired by the killing spree of Peter Kurten. The original title of the film was The Murder Among Us, but changed to M to impart the film with a more eerie, timeless and creepy overtone. The single letter also has great relevance to a significant shot in the film: Peter Lorre, with great horror, notices the letter "M" on his back and realises that people are onto him. The film's basic story concerns Hans Beckert (Lorre): a serial killer who holds a small German city in a firm state of terror. Hans targets young children for his murder victims. He befriends them in the street, tempts them with gifts, and takes a long walk with them before eventually murdering them. During the opening scenes of the film, Hans claims his latest victim: young Elsie Beckman. The piercing, haunting cry of Elsie's mother echoes into the new millennium.
The police grow desperate in their search to apprehend the murderer. With no clues and little suspects, their desperation begins to affect the state of business in the city. As businesses begin to lose customers, the criminals team up in an attempt to catch the kindermörder (that is, child murderer). Pulling the murderer off the streets would put an end to the massive police presence that has effectively ended most criminal activity. In an act of gross desperation, they begin to use the homeless community. The killer frequently whistles Edvard Grieg's "Peer Gynt Suite", and it proves to be his sole identifying feature.

Peter Lorre turns in a haunting performance as the whistling paedophile. Throughout much of the film we never see his face. His shadow is instead used, accompanied by his voice or whistle. Lorre's panicky, jowly, bug-eyed killer seems ready to crawl out of his own flesh at any time. His character is hunted by police before being captured and taken to trial by the forces of the Berlin underworld. Lorre's final speech, featuring the anguished pleas of a madman, is absolutely unforgettable. While his character of Hans Beckert commits monstrous crimes, the film portrays him not as a monster but as a victim of his own infirmity. Lang doesn't ask us to forgive the kindermörder...he asks us merely to understand that he is just a complex, flawed human like the rest of us. As the city closes around this sad, lonely and helpless figure, it's difficult not to feel some semblance of pity for him.

Fritz Lang's M is a brutally atmospheric thriller with a dark and moody feel to it. There are countless shadowy rooms in which the action transpires. Lang's film is eerily prophetic, which gives the beautifully stark cinematography an aura of terror. This is a picture that should frighten us, yet we're uncertain why. Naturally the apparent villain is the murderer...however as the film proceeds it's the angry mob and its brand of snarling justice that makes the audience cower in fear. With meticulous pacing, the film slowly climbs the ladder...steadily building tension step-by-step...until the final, soul-wrenching scene where the ugliness of the human spirit is on full display.

In spite of all the positive aspects of M, the film occasionally has difficulty engaging a viewer. Its ponderous pace won't be liked by all. Regardless of some terrific shots, one may feel sleepy and occasionally bored. It's unfortunate that a few aspects have dated to the extent that it isn't flattering many decades on. It's also difficult to follow at times. Every so often a few things are gruelling to devour.
Despite a few shortcomings, M is a masterpiece that cannot be overlooked. It's a classic piece of cinema that demonstrates how a disturbing story and poignant themes can grab an audience and leave them with an entirely new perspective on such matters. Even though it has been many decades since the film was released, it still holds an immense impact. When compared to modern thrillers, Fritz Lang's M easily holds its own. Cinema enthusiasts and budding filmmakers of any stripe cannot afford to miss it.

8.5/10

"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