Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Wilma, I promise you; whatever scum did this, not one man on this force will rest one minute until he's behind bars. Now, let's grab a bite to eat."

By the late 1980s, the ZAZ trio (consisting of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker) were officially the new gurus of the film spoof genre. Previously this crown was donned by Mel Brooks. After witnessing the ZAZ trio first flexing their ingenious comedic muscle in Airplane! (known in Australia as Flying High!), Brooks went on to make films like Spaceballs and Robin Hood: Men in Tights before retiring at long last. Well...it's a good thing he retired as he visibly became desperate for getting laughs and retaining his title. In the long run, his classic comedy cannot compare to the virtuosity of the ZAZ trio.

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (known more commonly as just The Naked Gun) arrived subsequent to the ZAZ trio reaching fame with Airplane! as well as Top Secret!. These two aforementioned films followed one straightforward philosophy: spoof a genre, screw the plot, cram the frame with endless laughs, and voila - comedy masterpiece!

The Naked Gun is fundamentally a spin-off of the criminally short-lived TV show Police Squad! that was cancelled after four episodes. The small but loyal cult following ensured a feature length movie would eventually be conceived. This film is everything one would expect from a ZAZ product...it's a guilty pleasure loaded with endless moments of comedic genius. Whether it be sight gags, witty lines, Leslie Nielsen's deadpan performance or random madness, this stuff will have you laughing until you cry. Heck, it's impossible not to laugh out loud at least 20-30 times. You're even guaranteed several occasions of falling out of your seat...rolling around on the floor howling with uncontrollable laughter. Better yet, it never gets old. It holds up after all these decades and after repeated viewings. The LPM (laughs per minute) meter is so high that it's impossible to pick up everything in one screening. You always notice something new. Why? It's simply genius! We're not talking about comedy as in Jim Carrey overacting, or Adam Sandler saying stupid things, or mindless sexual references...The Naked Gun encompasses clever parodying of the highest order.

I doubt a plot synopsis is overly necessary, as everyone has either seen the movie or heard everything about it via word of mouth. Nevertheless for the sake of my reviewing traditions, I will provide a short one. Frank Drebin (Nielsen) is on the case of...ah, screw it. If you settle in to watch The Naked Gun for a solid plot then you're watching it for all the wrong reasons. Here's an ultra quick summary: the film opens as Frank Drebin thwarts an evil scheme conceived by the world leaders who represent enemies of America (Gorbachev, Arafat...they're all there). Then Frank is on the case of a possible plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II of England who's coming to visit Los Angeles. Frank is the dumbest lawman since Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau. During his investigation into the Queen's imminent assassination, Frank runs into every oddball situation possible.

The Naked Gun successfully spoofs the cop thriller genre. They have all the clichés such as an elaborate conspiracy, the hero being right all along, and even an interior narration as the hero expresses his feelings while close-ups of his feet reveal him walking through the streets at night ("The attempt on Nordberg's life left me shaken and disturbed, and all the questions kept coming up over and over again, like bubbles in a case of club soda. Who was this character in the hospital? And why was he trying to kill Nordberg? And for whom? Did Ludwig lie to me? I didn't have any proof, but, somehow, I didn't entirely trust him, either. Why was the I Luv You not listed in Ludwig's records? And if it was, did he know about it? And if he didn't, who did? [walks onto grass] And where the hell was I?").

The ZAZ trio possess an impeccable talent for this style of comedy. In essence this film is a facsimile of Airplane! with different situations and different characters. It's the same variety of humour that permeates both films. Naturally, it is considerably welcome. Many contemporary comedies are overflowing with ludicrous penis or fart jokes, but The Naked Gun has no time for these stupid gags as it's too busy progressing to the next adroit joke or pun (most of which are absolutely hilarious). For example, a violent crime is being investigated after an officer is found wounded in LA harbour. The police, of course, place a chalk outline of where they found the fellow officer on top of the water.

The film also plays on words very effectively. Like when Frank's date explains "I practise safe sex". This is followed by the two of them rolling around on a bed together wearing gigantic condoms over themselves. Or there's Frank's date proposing a nightcap to him, to which he declines with "No thanks, I don't wear them". There's also a montage of hilarious baseball game bloopers, such as a man catching a ball before getting mauled by a tiger. Does this make sense to anybody? It isn't supposed to...if it makes sense then the filmmakers have done something gravely wrong.

If not any of these gags, there's always the decimation of America's national anthem. Leslie Nielsen's rendition of the national anthem is hilarious beyond words.
Granted, some of the film's jokes have lost their potency. There are a few that hit and miss, but there are too many successful jokes in between that we don't notice and don't care. You'll still be laughing 'til you cry, so why would there be cause for complaints?

It's hard to believe that Leslie Nielsen's career started when he was a serious performer. The ZAZ trio had him cast in their 1980 film Airplane!, and from that point forward Nielsen would never be taken seriously ever again. He was surrounded by performers who had their moments of comedy genius, but the film lived and died by Nielsen. The same policy applies here. Nielsen's deadpan performance is hilarious! No-one else could possibly undertake the role.
Priscilla Presley is wonderful as Nielsen's love interest. Not much acting required as she needs to just look beautiful for the male audience.
There are also a few cameos scattered around the movie, like a short appearance of "Weird Al" Yankovic and O.J. Simpson (yes, that O.J. Simpson).

At its core, The Naked Gun is one of the most enduring spoofs to emerge during the 1980s. The ZAZ trio deliver nothing but non-stop hilarity and genius comedy from start to finish. The LPM meter may not be as high as Airplane! (which literally had 5 gags running simultaneously sometimes), but The Naked Gun is exceptionally funny on its own merits. It's not perfect by any means - in fact the lack of plot is irritating - however the fact remains that this film was produced to provide laughs aplenty and it succeeds. The film is your only opportunity to witness: the Queen with her legs wrapped around Leslie Nielsen's back, Gorby minus his birthmark, The Ayatollah's secret Mohican haircut, and a person dangling off a building holding onto a rather intimate statue figure. All in all, it's a balloon-sized laugh riot!

For fans of these classic 1980s spoofs, this film is a must. It will sit nicely in your DVD collection (or Blu-Ray collection...whatever is applicable) alongside Top Secret! and Airplane! as well as this film's two sequels. Followed by The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear.

8.3/10

"They said I'd lost what it meant to be human, maybe never had it in the first place, but wasn't this about protecting the ones I loved? The ones who gave me food, and shelter, even the clothes on me back? And therefore wasn't it now a war?"

Australian history fondly remembers the renowned outlaw bushranger known as Ned Kelly. Gregor Jordan's 2003 Australian movie Ned Kelly is based on the 1999 novel, Our Sunshine, written by author Robert Drewe. The story of Ned Kelly has been repeatedly told in several films, including the 1906 Australian film The Story of the Kelly Gang (according to most sources, this was the first feature film in cinematic history). Over the years, Ned Kelly has proved to be a durable Australian cultural icon. With his distinguishing helmet and armour, Ned is an instantly identifiable image. In addition to the various films regarding Ned and his illustrious gang, there have been paintings, poems, stories, books and even operas and ballets! This is a testament to the high esteem in which Ned is held. Conflicting opinions exist regarding the man. Was he really a villain and a dangerous outlaw? Or was he a victimised Irish immigrant whose gang was simply retaliating against the corrupt Victorian police force? Regardless of the opinion, one fact is undeniable: he's a crucial part of Aussie history and his Robin-Hood-come-Jesse-James persona made him an icon.

It was sheer destiny that in a modern age of cinema, someone would create a mainstream movie based on the Ned Kelly legend. Gregor Jordan's Ned Kelly features a predominantly big-name cast and flaunts fantastic authenticity in its depiction of the period. Made on a modest budget of $30 million (approximately), the filmmakers made sure the scope was epic. Plenty of extras, extensive gun battles, extraordinarily detailed costumes and faultless illustrations of rural outback Australian in the 19th century. Unfortunately, Jordan's film is unmistakably a mainstream creation. Essentially the story is romanticised and insultingly altered to suit its target audience. Even worse, there's a horrible love story that slows the pacing and feels out of place. As a history of the Kelly gang the film is atrocious: it leaves out vital information and never allows an audience to get engaged in the characters' motivations. In the long run it never provides a much-desired history...this is aimed at a commercial audience for money. But is it entertaining? To an extent, yes.

Edward "Ned" Kelly (Ledger) was born in Beveridge, Victoria in 1855. By the time Ned reached the age of 15 he was already a wanted man. Throughout his teenage years he was in and out of jail for assault and horse stealing. The story of Ned Kelly becoming an illustrious outlaw commences when a police officer named Constable Fitzpatrick (Paramore) takes a liking for Ned's younger sister Kate Kelly (Condon). However, Fitzpatrick's fondness for Kate is not a shared gesture. One night, when Ned is out womanising, Fitzpatrick pays a visit to the Kelly family. Drunk and irresponsible, he makes his move on Kate. The family resort to physical blows and violence to force Fitzpatrick from their property. However, rejection leaves Fitzpatrick humiliated and hungry for revenge. He scurries to the local police and claims that Ned tried to kill him (which is a total fib). Consequently, Ned becomes a wanted man: he unites with his brother Dan (Kinlan) as well as his mates Steve Hart (Barantini) and Joe Byrne (Bloom) to inaugurate the infamous Kelly gang. Wanted men with a sizeable bounty on their heads, the Kelly gang begin robbing banks and killing police offers (in "kill or be killed" firefights). Ned's gang begin giving money to the people, and he subsequently becomes a hero to the immigrants who dislike the treatment of the corrupt police.
The gang meet their downfall in a battle with Victorian police at the Glenrowan Inn in 1880. The rest is history: Ned is the only man to survive the battle and faces the hangman's noose at Melbourne Gaol at the age of 25.

To an extent, the presence of a large cast of well-known actors elevates the stale screenplay. Heath Ledger's posture as Ned Kelly cannot be faulted. Apparently Ledger (R.I.P.) could fit into Ned Kelly's armour perfectly. They were approximately the same height and weight. Ledger does wonders with the role, despite slipping in and out of a moderately convincing Irish accent.
The film is undeniably marred by the presence of Orlando "women thief" Bloom. Naturally, his character is allowed opportunities to make out and sleep with married women. It's his stereotype. Personally, through my eyes Bloom has always been among today's worst actors. He simply cannot succeed in most of his roles (The Lord of the Rings remains his only respectable performance). His Irish accent here is decent at best, but his facial expressions are never adequate. His inability to display any profoundly powerful emotions is worrying as well.
Naomi Watts' role was included not to provide further historical accuracy, but to please its target commercial viewers by providing a ridiculous romantic sub-plot. Watts is unnecessary as well as being underused. If you can get someone of Watts' stature and beauty, why give her a small role?
Geoffrey Rush is allotted a criminally small role as well. It's so small, in fact, that it could qualify as a cameo. Rush does everything he can with his character.

Overall, Ned Kelly is a weak retelling of the legend of Ned Kelly. It does no justice to the man due to the erroneous additions and failure to include important elements. This truncated version of Kelly's life elides key episodes, hurries others and fails to elucidate the precise relationships of the Kelly gang. The film does score big in its atmosphere. The evocative sound effects capture rural outback Australia to compliment the amazing production design. The film is extremely well directed too. The action scenes are very exciting, particularly the final stand at the Glenrowan Inn. But why strive for such authenticity when the story is romanticised for a mainstream audience? The bottom line is that the film is a dismal history lesson and an underwhelming Western wannabe, but it's entertaining and the technical merits are wondrous to behold. The definitive Ned Kelly film is yet to be made...

6.2/10

[rapping] "My name's Shafiq Rasul, and I'm from Tipton, I tell them I ain't Taliban, but they don't wanna listen. You won't believe I just came out here, for my mate's wedding, do you? I never thought my ass, would be heading for Cuba."

The Road to Guantánamo combines fact and fiction to create a staggering and riveting docu-drama that potently illustrates horrifying events currently transpiring in our present-day world. Its relevance to today's existing society is overwhelming. The film's directors won an award at the Berlin Film Festival of 2006 for their powerful illumination of the little-known happenings in that tiny corner of Cuba known as Guantánamo Bay. Presently the United States government has refused to shed light on their activities in Guantánamo Bay camps that contain hundreds of suspected terrorists still held without charge. On that note, the filmmakers must be commended for undertaking this subject matter and even presenting it from the perspective of the victims enduring the inhumane torture.

Personally I feel that the world has witnessed enough American propaganda, and The Road to Guantánamo must be held in high admiration for depicting the American army as more brutal, unfair and callous. Even after this film's global release the United States government still refuses to tell their version of the story. Their pride means that they will never admit to being wrong, and will persist in accusing imprisoned detainees of crimes they didn't commit using forged evidence and faux testimonies. Furthermore, as the torture is carried out on the hopeless victims it appears that the soldiers enjoy their jobs...they take pleasure in verbally and physically abusing the prisoners. Their superiors as well commit atrocious actions, such as threatening a prisoner's entire family. Even when a prisoner's alibi clears them of all charges, they're still incarcerated unless they admit to being part of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Too long have we seen Muslims as the stereotyped villains in such American creations as TV's 24.

Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross' The Road to Guantánamo opens our eyes and demonstrates that Muslims aren't the evil terrorists we’ve been lead to believe that they are.
Inspired by true events of British Muslims known as the Tipton Three, the directors create a dramatisation of the horrifying experiences of these young men inadvertently caught in the heart of the 'war on terror'. These aforementioned British Muslims travelled to Pakistan for a wedding and to visit their families. In the urge of idealism motivated by massive rallies, they travel into Afghanistan with intentions of assisting the war-torn country. They are eventually captured by the Northern Alliance who ultimately hand the prisoners over to the Americans. Before long they're shipped to the harsh camps of Guantánamo Bay. We follow their experiences as prisoners when they are forced to endure dreadful conditions. For two years they're held captive under false charges.

For a moderately low-budget and low-key production, the creative team responsible for The Road to Guantánamo effectively complete their objective. The documentary-style approach is gritty and realistic. The scenes of torture and terrible conditions are relentless and profoundly effective. The editing, though, is what makes the film work so well. The re-enactments are edited together with actual news footage and interviews with the survivors. It lends the film a significant degree of credibility. The gritty camera techniques also place us in the action. Unfortunately the interviews occasionally remove us from the emotionally-straining happenings and the effect is weakened.

It's also worth mentioning that the story of the young men until their capture is extraordinarily difficult to believe. All credibility is thrown to the wind when the protagonists continue travelling into the devastated country of Afghanistan despite looking like befuddled tourists constantly concerned about expenses. It's even less believable that they move closer to the fighting and combat even when they feel uncomfortable about it...I mean why don't they just turn around? They're putting their lives in significant danger for the sake of an adventure and because they believe they should help the Afghani people. Not good enough, because the character motivations aren't explored adequately. The events leading up to their capture move at too much of a brisk pace, for the most part leaving us confused and disorientated...wondering how they've moved from A to B. Things only settle down when they're incarcerated and we're compelled to empathise with them. Still, the terrific work behind the camera is almost enough to keep us believing the proceedings.

On top of these production values, the acting is standard. Considering the low-budget origins the acting is quite impressive, however there always seemed to be something missing. With such wonderfully primed locations and filming techniques, it had the potential to be far more powerful. Even after saying that, the depictions of torture and the horrible conditions will haunt you due to the realism.

Overall, The Road to Guantánamo is an important, confronting contemporary film that relentlessly depicts the horrible happenings in Guantánamo Bay. It's undeniable that the film was initially fairly controversial and it will continue to spark controversy. It's still unclear as to whether these events are actually true or if it was actually all a work of fiction. Nevertheless the brutal treatment of prisoners is convincing and staggering. If the filmmakers didn't injure the film's integrity in the opening 20 minutes, and if the acting was a little better, this could have been a superior film.

7.7/10

"As a species we're fundamentally insane. Put more than two of us in a room, we pick sides and start dreaming up ways to kill one another. Why do you think we invented politics and religion?"

Who needs pseudo-horror movies like Hostel or the endless Saw sequels, with their cheap gore and a complete misunderstanding of the essence of the genre? Torture porn enthusiasts can enjoy them, but genuine horror connoisseurs can enjoy the likes of 2007's The Mist, a return to form for Frank Darabont and a brilliant reminder of what the horror genre can offer. The Mist is based on Stephen King's novella of the same name, denoting the third time that Darabont has adapted the man's works for the screen after the immense success of The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Taking on his first horror-oriented project adapted from a King story, Darabont has hit it out of the park, creating an intensely unsettling old-fashioned tale of survival, using forgotten devices like tension, suspense and restraint to fashion one of the best mainstream horrors in years. It's a B-movie on the surface, yet there's sophistication and boldness underneath.

After a violent thunderstorm that downs power lines and trees, David Drayton (Thomas Jane) takes his son Billy (Nathan Gamble) and morose neighbour Brent (Andre Braugher) to the grocery store for supplies. While the trio are shopping, a mysterious thick mist envelops the area, trapping everyone inside the store. Too afraid to go outside, the shoppers soon become fractured, with the group breaking off into factions. David and a number of others (including Toby Jones and Laurie Holden) try to use logic and reason to figure out a survival plan, but religious zealot Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden) leads her own group, who view the mist as an embodiment of God's wrath on the sinners of the planet.

Some may perceive the characters within the grocery store as clichéd, but Darabont executes them in a credible fashion, essentially showing us the types of people that we deal with in everyday life. They are fundamentally you and me; average, everyday folks who are as scared, lost, dubious, and even stupid as regular humans might be in a similar scenario. Miraculously, The Mist rarely feels contrived or forced - the drama is executed in a believable fashion, exuding an organic disposition that allows the proceedings to feel wholly real. What Darabont has created here is far more than a B-grade horror - it's smart, and there's an element of social commentary. Moreover, Darabont uses psychological horror to a large degree, focusing on the mental torture of the mist about as much as the violence. Indeed, the portrayal of mob hysteria is one of the reasons why The Mist is so damn scary. Darabont structures the feature with a sure hand, portioning out the terrifying moments and gradually building alarm. While it runs a solid two hours, the film's runtime flies by effortlessly. Even the small dialogue scenes are wholly engaging.

In order to shoot as quickly as possible and make the most of the limited budget, Darabont brought in a television camera crew, most notably cinematographer Ronn Schmidt (The Shield). Darabont is known for stately, elegant and slow-moving pictures, but The Mist is all handheld, and Schmidt had two cameramen filming simultaneously to maximise coverage. Fortunately, this doesn't result in the movie feeling cheap or rushed, though - it augments the realism, making the proceedings all the more frightening. It instils the picture with energy, too, making this Darabont's most fast-paced movie to date. Admittedly, the tiny $18 million budget did not permit lavish digital effects, hence several of the CGI creatures look phoney, but the movie does not live and die by its monsters. In fact, creatures are only occasionally glimpsed, with a "less is more" approach doing wonders for the material. Darabont stages the bloodshed and attacks with a sure hand, resulting in several harrowing moments.

It's the bone-chilling sense of atmosphere that genuinely elevates The Mist. With the exception of the final act, no musical score is used at all; instead, Darabont relies on the eerie ambience of this setting to remarkable effect. This endows the picture with more immediacy, and one feels like they are actually inside the grocery store with the characters. Darabont originally wanted to make a black and white movie, but studio interference apparently forbade that. A black and white version is available on home media, though, and it's this reviewer's preferred way to watch the movie. It's exactly the same film as the theatrical cut, but with a desaturated colour palette, and the result is remarkable. The lack of colour amplifies the atmosphere further and gives the production a more old-fashioned disposition, evoking the classic horrors of yesteryear. Furthermore, the monsters look less hokey in black and white, and it gives the movie a timeless feel.

The Mist is filled with solid character actors. Leading them is Jane, who's a revelation as David Drayton. Although Jane has the charisma and body of an action hero (he was the Punisher), he plays an ordinary man here, and it's an excellent performance. He makes us believe that he's just a regular guy who's ill-equipped to deal with the terrifying circumstances that he finds himself in. Moreover, a number of moments in the final third ask for the kind of acting that most veteran stars would baulk at, but Jane pulls it off. Harden is top-notch as well, turning a villainous stereotype into a credible character. Special mention must also go to veteran players like William Sadler, Toby Jones, Jeffrey DeMunn, Andre Braugher, and Frances Sternhagen, who make their background characters seem both believable and worthy of emotional investment. The Mist is very much an ensemble movie, and this ensemble really deliver the goods.

The ending of The Mist diverts from King's novella, resulting in a conclusion far darker and more harrowing than anticipated. Darabont had the opportunity to make the movie on a bigger budget if he agreed to change the ending, but he refused, and it's for the best. Eschewing heroics, The Mist closes on a brave, disturbing note, and you may be left questioning both your self-worth and your crisis management skills. It's a haunting gut-churner, turning The Mist into a truly great horror movie. You may not want to watch this sobering descent into hell very often, but it will linger on your mind, and that's more than what can be said for the glossy, shallow Hollywood horrors of recent years.

8.8/10

"Let me tell you about my day so far. Coffee in Paris, surfed the Maldives, took a little nap on Kilimanjaro. Oh, yeah, I got digits from this Polish chick in Rio. And then I jumped back for the final quarter of the N.B.A. finals--courtside of course. And all that was before lunch. I could go on, but all I'm saying is, I'm standing on top of the world."

During the 85 minutes (approximately) that occupy the running time of Jumper, director Doug Liman degrades his once promising career. Liman earned his chops when he helmed the successful first instalment of the Bourne series, The Bourne Identity. You may also remember Liman behind the camera of other films such as Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
Liman's Jumper is pure science fiction action tosh that borders on the superhero genre. In early 2008, the film crept out and died due to the appallingly negative feedback from both critics and audiences alike. Not to mention the meagre box office earnage. This film is a lesson on how to create a disaster from a fairly promising premise. It fails to reach its lofty objectives due to the shoddy screenplay, gross miscasting and the lack of brains. Consequently the film is a mound of senseless garbage with fancy polishing.

David Rice (Christensen) discovers as a child that he possesses an incredibly unique ability: he can teleport. David learns of the special gift as a teenager when he nearly drowned. Following this occurrence he disappeared and let even his closest buddies believe that he was dead, including his father. David moves to the city where he makes his fortune by utilising his ability to rob banks. He begins living in desolation, using his teleporting abilities and stolen funds to create a luxurious existence for himself and live life to the fullest. David is soon entangled in a war that has raged for centuries between the jumpers and the Paladins that have sworn to kill them.

Jumper is an irretrievably flawed, stupid sci-fi action movie. Why is the film so flawed, I hear you think? Well, it's difficult to decide where to start, really. First of all, the plot is extremely thin. It's difficult to outline the plot because it's hard to establish the difference between a plot and a concept when it comes to this film. There's no sense of direction...it's a disjointed succession of worthless dialogue with action attached. It also never explains anything. Obviously the filmmakers were relying on a sequel being a definite thing, because here there's little explication to be found.

The character of David Rice is an awful protagonist. He's self-indulgent, arrogant, narcissistic and selfish. He cares only for himself and wants to dispatch the Paladins in order to continue living life to the fullest. He even breaks laws to impress his female friend! David always remains an arrogant, selfish prick. By the end he doesn't learn anything and never develops an ounce of human compassion. David's hedonistic personality makes him therefore a hero we don't want to root for. This is further exemplified when David is watching the news near the beginning of the movie. He sees people trapped in a flood who will surely die. Does he do anything to prevent people suffering horrible deaths in a watery grave? No, instead he continues being egotistical. The "hero" approach is probably too clichéd anyway, but it again begs the question of why should we empathise with David and hope he survives? Besides, the filmmakers take a different, far more clichéd approach...the cringe-worthy love story.

Driving the film is a dreadfully constructed screenplay. One would expect more from this trio of writers (one of which worked on Fight Club!). The central problem is the mounds of plot holes (of the "Why don't they just?" category) and inconsistencies. For plot holes, there are things like Jamie Bell's Griffin continually doing brainless things. If he didn't want David to pursue him, why search for David in the first place? To warn him of the Paladins? Due to David's stifled knowledge of the Paladins, it's quite commonsensical that David would want to seek his help which Griffin is not prepared to offer. Griffin also never tells David of several things (like the machines that the Paladins use to open the wormholes the jumpers leave), yet David's lack of knowledge infuriates Griffin when David's wormhole leads the Paladins straight to their secret lair. There are countless opportunities for the Paladins to use this machine of theirs as well, but they only decide to use it as the film nears its conclusion as one more surprise is necessary.

Furthermore, there are too many loose ends. Like we see David bring his wounded father into the hospital...after a five second display of emotionality, the scene ends and David leaves. We never hear anything further regarding David's father. Other loose ends include David's old school friend whom he leaves rotting in prison. Inconsistencies continually plague the frame as well. For example the craters the jumpers ostensibly leave that only rarely occur. When they do, the damage appears to repair itself quite quickly as well. Alrighty...

Then there's also the lack of brains in the script as well. The several different locations around the world are there for the sake of being there. David pursues Griffin to various global locations in one sequence. Firstly, if David can easily trace him then what's the point in fleeing anyway? Secondly, why not transport to a certain location on the planet and actually hide?! Instead of obeying logic, the filmmakers continually travel around the world. Worse yet, there is precious little variety. We see them in Egypt and Japan quite frequently and almost no-where else...even when David had a wall full of jump sites.

The acting is terribly below par as well. Hayden Christensen is most familiar as Anakin Skywalker in two of the Star Wars prequels. Once again he demonstrates his inability to portray a leading character. His monotonous accent and contrived facial expressions are truly atrocious. Everything about his performance is dull and dreary.
Samuel L. Jackson turns in his worst performance to date. Back in the days of Die Hard - With a Vengeance his foul-mouthed attitude and snappy lines made him a household name. Now he's tame, has no reason for what he's doing, and that white hair is just creepy.
Rachel Bilson is there solely for her looks. She brings no intensity to her character at all. Worse yet, there is zero chemistry between her and Christensen. Their love story is boring, trite and clichéd.
Jamie Bell appears to be the only actor who's trying. He offers an energetic portrayal of a character who's granted some clever dialogue to work with. He provides the film with its only moments of solid acting and quality script lines. Bell is among the film's redeeming features. If only his character of Griffin was the film's central hero. It's a shame that he's so underused. Another underused actress who shows potential is Kristen Stewart. Blink and you'll miss her!

The special effects are at least top notch. There's no denying that the teleporting and the various global locations looks spectacular despite not much reasoning behind them. Jumper also mildly succeeds in showing the jumpers teleporting from place to place. On that note, the subtle bank robberies are clever despite the further illogical facets behind them (why would there be a bathroom right next to the bank's central vault for customers to see?). The action is in tragically short supply unfortunately. The first half of the roughly 85-minute duration is dedicated to establishing David's selfish persona. Things then become terribly rushed. Instituting David's character is also fairly disappointing. The film opens with an embarrassingly bad narration courtesy of Christensen. This narration points out the bleeding obvious and Christensen's voice is like nails against a chalkboard.

Apparently director Doug Liman wanted Jumper to be the first entry in a new franchise that was to be the Bourne series of the superhero genre. With the film being only marginally successful, a sequel is probably never going to happen. And if it does, people will be far less inclined to watch it (however it must be noted that at the time of this review being written, a sequel has been announced but nothing much has happened in the film's development thus far). Jumper had a wonderfully hopeful concept and showed great potential behind the camera. Even with that in mind they still managed to screw it up. Apart from the impressive special effects there isn't a single remarkable thing to be noted about this movie. It's a mindless glossy science fiction action/adventure film. It's also so incredibly dumb, stupid, ridiculous and vapid that it numbs your brain.

3.6/10

"I am your number one fan. There is nothing to worry about. You are going to be just fine. I am your number one fan."

Rob Reiner's Misery is a remarkably gripping, edge-of-your-seat thriller from the pages of Stephen King's novel of the same name. Several of prolific author Stephen King's novels have been adapted for the screen, yielding mixed results. Misery can be undoubtedly considered among the greatest film adaptations based on a Stephen King novel.
Director Rob Reiner is continually capable of tackling diverse genres with magnificent results. With this film, Reiner is coupled with one of the industry's greatest screenwriters: William Goldman. Goldman is admirably recognised for penning such films as Heat, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and several others. On top of this, the stunning locations have been captured wonderfully by the overwhelmingly talented cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld. Misery was indeed Sonnenfeld's final film as a Director of Photography - he then went on to direct Men in Black and Get Shorty among others.

Misery is a white-knuckle horror movie that follows trashy, successful novelist Paul Sheldon (Caan). Paul is responsible for the lucrative series of eight books exploring the escapades of character Misery Chastain. Paul realises that the novels are pure pulp that will stereotype his writing. With his latest Misery adventure, he decides to simply kill the character and move on to writing more adult material. Up in the snowy terrain of Silver Creek, Paul completes his latest manuscript (one that doesn't feature the character of Misery Chastain). En route to his publisher's office, Paul is caught in a terrible blizzard and is involved in a dangerous car accident. Broken, bruised and injured, Paul is rescued by an fanatical fan named Annie Wilkes (Bates). She's obsessed with Paul's writing and moreover idolises the character of Misery as if she were a real person. Annie's obsession grows dangerous...and as Paul recovers he must rely on his wits and imagination to survive.
I've been intentionally vague in outlining the story as the film is far more confronting if you don't have a clue what will happen next.

In a nutshell: Misery is a Stephen King horror creation of a different kind. It never relies on supernatural forces, action or over-the-top spiritual nonsense...this is a frightening cautionary tale of fame, dangerous obsession and precarious hyperbolic idolisation. The ideal creative team have transformed King's stunning literary masterpiece into a mainstream tour de force of escalating tension and impeccable atmosphere.

Director Reiner is probably best known for his work behind the camera on Stand By Me (another adaptation of a Stephen King novel), The Princess Bride, This Is Spinal Tap, A Few Good Men, When Harry Met Sally and numerous others. Reiner frequently tries different genres and continues to master them as additionally exemplified with Misery. The locations are absolutely remarkable, with immaculately constructed sets that are wonderfully filmed with Reiner's lens. The feeling of claustrophobia grows uncontrollably intense throughout.

Kathy Bates rightfully earned an Academy Award for her top-notch portrayal of a thorough psychopath. The beauty of Bates' performance is that she masters the character's duality: competently alternating between charming and evil. At times her screen presence is petrifying due to her facial expressions or the wonderful use of lighting employed by those behind the camera. Although evil, one must feel sorry for her. An Oscar well deserved!
James Caan is another brilliant addition to the cast. His screen persona perfectly captures that of a dedicated novelist. He possesses the correct charm and charisma for such a role.
Richard Farnsworth is exceptional as the cynical, wise-cracking sheriff, and the brief appearance of the wonderful Lauren Bacall is very welcome.

Overall, Misery ranks with the greatest Stephen King film adaptations. In my opinion it's almost in the league of The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption. Granted the film has its weak spots, like plot holes (of the "Why didn't he just?" variety) and unbelievable situations, as well as a few technical faults that haven't dated well (the obvious dummy during the finale is embarrassing). Misery is nevertheless a gripping, haunting, tense and entertaining thriller that's capable of sending chills up your spine.

8.2/10

Kristen: "Why are you doing this to us?"
Dollface: "Because you were home."

In a nutshell, The Strangers is an innocuous addition to the modern horror genre. The film is a creepy, atmospheric thriller that opts for effective jolts and scares as an alternative for a mindless gore-fest. Films such as these thankfully assist in the dissipation of the gory torture porn genre. It's relieving and refreshing to witness an attempt to rebirth the golden days of horror like John Carpenter's original Halloween.

With The Strangers, writer/director Bryan Bertino employs a simple concept as a foundation for a bone-chilling thriller. Naturally the film is silly, clichéd, and we've probably seen it all before. Bertino nevertheless manages to present his audience with edge-of-your-seat thrills and a moderately convincing set of events. Even better, the taut scares get under your skin. Nothing is ever dwelled upon...when something happens, there's no repetition or extensive staring. This keeps the audience immersed and vulnerable to the next slab of scares.

Writer/director Bertino apparently pieced together a few details from actual violent crimes to use as a basis for the story. The film opens with the following disclaimer (with a voice-over narration):
"What you are about to see is inspired by true events.
According to the F.B.I. there are an estimated 1.4 million violent crimes in America each year.
On the night of February 11, 2005 Kristen McKay and James Hoyt went to a friend's wedding reception and then returned to the Hoyt family's summer home.
The brutal events that took place there are still not entirely known."

Kristen McKay (Tyler) and James Hoyt (Speedman) are a young couple who depart a wedding reception and head back to an isolated vacation house. Before long, Kristen and James are faced with a night of psychological terror. Three deranged psychopaths donning peculiar masks begin stalking the young couple and unleash their horrific agenda.

The Strangers generates an atmosphere of dread and complete isolation. At one stage a character points out the lack of typical suburban ambiance. Hence the initial character development is set to almost complete silence except for voices and the music they play. It's unexpected and unpredictable when the terror begins. Bryan Bertino shows potential as both a screenwriter and a director. The atmosphere is unflinching and undeniably terrifying at times. His script is just marred by the overuse of clichés and, of course, the film's conclusion is predictable due to the initial disclaimer (and the epilogue that's regrettably tagged onto the opening sequence). Things do get extremely silly as well when the film nears its conclusion. The final scene clearly screams "sequel!" (At the time of writing this review, a sequel has been announced but nothing further has developed). In addition to this, there are a few plot holes and illogical moments. The character development is also embarrassing in all aspects. We just don't feel for the characters when they're exposed to intense peril.

Driving the standard script is a solid cast. Liv Tyler does remarkable things with a customary stock character. At first glance she seems like the simple "horror babe" who cries frequently, isn't capable of fending for herself and does silly things. Be that as it may, Tyler brings depth to her role and the fear is palpable in her convincing facial expressions.
Scott Speedman is also believable as the standard horror hero of the piece. He yells conventional lines such as "Run!" and "It's okay" while being the clichéd hero on a mission to protect his beloved lady companion. Similar to Tyler's performance, Speedman can capably bring emotional depth and credible character traits to overshadow the abundance of clichés.
In the supporting cast we have three actors portraying the masked psychopaths. These three actors turn in fabulous performances. The psychotic nature of their characters is truly palpable.

Overall, The Strangers is flawed by all accounts but it delivers a decent dosage of thrills and chills. It's also overflowing with atmosphere. At the end of the day, The Strangers is concise and succinct: running at a brisk 80 minutes, the pacing is kept tight. You'll watch it, you'll get scared, you'll easily forget. It's relieving to witness an American horror film that does not rely on the gore in a disillusioned attempt to create suspense. If more talented screenwriters are given a shot at this genre, the torture porn phase will steadily die.

6.25/10

"...every situation God always has a plan. I guess I'm still trying to figure out what that plan was."

An American Crime recounts a dreadful event that occurred merely a few decades ago in a typical, unsuspecting American suburban community. Many will collectively concur that this film is an imperative modern tour de force that addresses its subject matter relentlessly and explicitly. This is a heart-wrenching film that chills its audience to the bone. By witnessing the happenings unfold, you will be gasping in horror. Personally, I was sick to the stomach and felt severely disturbed. By the film's conclusion I was crying, not solely due to the portrayed events but because it's all true.

Following the actual occurrence in the 1960s, the nation was irretrievably rocked and traumatised. Those who've studied the case (or simply conducted research on Wikipedia) will have anticipated this film version with baited breathe, and its limited release would have been eagerly devoured. An American Crime is a harrowing, haunting, compelling and powerful illustration based on actual court transcripts (as the film's opening disclaimer states). Its solitary flaw is that amongst the unnerving and profoundly disconcerting incidences, the filmmakers never told the whole story and altered a number of vital facts. Of course this is just a movie, so they probably couldn't tell the complete unadulterated story. Still, it isn't the definitive version of its subject matter hence the film is sadly quite flawed.

This bone-chilling, compelling drama retells a horrific piece of American history that shocked the nation. This occurrence is a shocking felony and the most devastating series of crimes ever committed against in single victim.
Set in the mid-1960s, the film introduces us to two travelling carnival workers: Betty Likens (Rosemont) and hubby Lester (Searcy). The two decide to leave their two daughters, Sylvia (Page) and Jennie (McFarland), with a complete stranger: single mother Gertrude Baniszewski (Keener). On the condition that she receives frequent payments, Gertrude agrees to take care of Sylvia and Jennie. However, the extensive Baniszewski clan do not kindly welcome their two newest additions. Times are tough, and the overload of children burden Gertrude's emotional state. What materialises are three terrifying months of riveting and horrific torture: Sylvia is kept in the basement...constantly tortured by the family or neighbourhood kids that had little hesitation in burning her or branding her using hot wire. These three months of escalating horror leaves one child dead and the other mentally scarred for life.

For a moderately low-key production, An American Crime adeptly tackles its subject matter. It's a period piece that accurately captures the atmosphere, look and panorama of a standard American community. The costumes, sets, props, character traits and music all reflect the 1960s with overwhelming authenticity. Furthermore, the scenes depicting Sylvia's torture are absolutely heart-wrenching. Not so much relying on explicit imagery, the director instead insinuates what's occurring. We hear Sylvia's piercing scream as a flaming cigarette butt is brushed against her tender skin, or we see a metal wire being heated with a lighter before being pressed into Sylvia's stomach. The images that are conjured up will haunt and disturb you for a very long time.

Director Tommy O'Haver (yes, that guy who directed Ella Enchanted) is also never afraid to adopt an artistic license. Towards the end, a straightforward dream sequence succeeds in conveying the director's view of a person's final moments when their mind is disorientated and they're close to death. Like I stated before, though, the film could have been far superior had the script stayed closer to the events.

Full credit must be given to the entire cast who offer superb performances. Catherine Keener was reluctant to accept the role of mentally unstable Gertrude Baniszewski. She eventually accepted the role...and produced impeccable results. Keener's screen presence is terrifying. Worse yet she's incredibly nonchalant while torturing Sylvia, and continually acts innocent. Keener's Gertrude ostensibly never realises the full impact of her disciplining as she encouraged neighbourhood children to torture Sylvia.
Ellen Page is best known for her break-out performances in Juno and Hard Candy. However, this could be Page's finest hour. She's in her early 20s, yet she always feels like a 16-year-old teenager. If one examines photos of the real Sylvia Likens, Page's portrayal seems even better.
Rounding out the cast are a few famous faces, such as an underused James Franco. All the supporting characters wonderfully embody the components of a 1960s suburban district.

Overall, An American Crime is an important film that puts forth a ruthless depiction of an astonishing occurrence. The entire creative team should be extolled for their courage in undertaking the subject matter. The film isn't for everyone. Due to the heavy material, it's extremely hard to stomach and will stick with you forever. The filmmakers made no attempt to dilute an innocent teenage girl being murdered in a cold, maniacal, calculated manner, although there are a few additional things that should have been included.

8.1/10

"Yeah, just ain't no peace with old Jesse around. You ought to pity my poor wife."

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is an eloquently artistic, poignant portrait and eulogy of the notorious 19th century American outlaw, Jesse James. The film bears an extraordinarily (and unnecessarily) long title, much like the picture it has been slapped on. This grandiose piece of filmmaking clocks at approximately 150 minutes. It's a grand achievement in contemporary filmmaking that merges visual artistry with historical storytelling.

Director Andrew Dominik is no foreigner to films that depict iconic thugs, as his previous directorial outing was the Australian film Chopper. Dominik adopts an expressive approach with this production, essentially mirroring the works of Terrence Malick who's recognised for films such as The New World and The Thin Red Line. Dominik (who adapted the screenplay from Ron Hansen's book) and his director of photography Roger Deakins have consciously striven to accentuate aesthetics, character relationships, atmosphere and tone over pure action. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford desires for its audience to witness and admire the mood, the panorama and the scenery, all whilst you cogitate on the vagaries of the dialogue.

If you're searching for a definitive classification of "post-production hell", then Dominik's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford wears it with aplomb. The movie wasn't finally released until roughly 2 years after filming concluded. No studio agreed to fund the film's worldwide release as they weren't confident it was going to generate much of a box office return. Studios feared the film's running time was not going to please a mainstream audience. Dominik's original cut wore a running time of almost 4 hours. Preceding the film's eventual release, years passed by as people were hired to trim the film down to a more serviceable length. The concerns, the reasoning behind delay and the decision to only grant the film a limited release is understandable. The studio pushed for more action as only one robbery was depicted; however it was Dominik's intention to explore the philosophy behind the characters with dialogue as opposed to action.

In the long run, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a magnificently filmed picture, and it articulates a meticulous and edifying story. The film works hard in bequeathing accurate insight into both the mindset and the multi-faceted existence of the legendary outlaw. The film illustrates the duality of Jesse James' character: he was a family man who used an alias around his family, but was a psychotic bandit who slaughtered without remorse and made his living by robbing trains and banks with his loyal gang. The timidity and paranoia that surrounded Jesse James is elucidated in a protracted and prolonged manner. A mainstream Hollywood audience would yearn for action and more robberies to unfold, but the majority of this 150-minute production delves into the psychological facets of Jesse James and his killer Robert Ford. That said, the film's highest point is the initial train robbery. It's an artistic achievement boasting expressive angles, crisp complexion and a fantastic use of lighting. Perhaps more of Jesse's robberies scattered throughout the film could have guaranteed stronger viewing.

The tale commences on September 7th, 1881, just before the James boys staged their final railroad hold-up. At this time Jesse James (Pitt) was 34 years of age, and it was one year before Robert Ford would gun him down in a famous act of cowardice. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford chronicles the final year of Jesse James as we deeply examine his increasing paranoia and reluctance to trust even his closest comrades in fear they would kill him for the reward money and the glory. Robert Ford (Affleck) idolised Jesse James in his early youth, and desires to join the James gang to become a somebody. As the months pass by and Jesse grows increasingly paranoid, Robert Ford becomes resentful of the Missouri outlaw. Moreover, Ford believes his days are limited and that Jesse would soon shoot him. These facts become the motivation for Ford to pull the trigger on a man he once revered.

The critical reception for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was a mixed bag. Only a selected few could recognise the sheer brilliance underneath a cloak of visually striking images. The film isn't anything further than a unique visual splendour: the exquisite photography impeccably captures the breathtaking locations and sets. Several particular shots continue to haunt me due to the framing. One such instance is Jesse James appearing out of a cloud of smoke. I remember seeing this shot in the trailer back in 2006. Two years on, and it stuck in my mind when I finally watched the film. This is a testament to the wonderful filmmaking being offered.
The music is also evocative and memorable. There are various particular segments of music (composed by Nick Cave) that are repeated at different times. The music is perfect...an intriguing creation to perfectly compliment the photography.

The film's title could easily have been trimmed down to half its length. Coincidentally, the same can be said about the film itself. This only provides the definitive history of Jesse James in his final year. However the narrative grows too convoluted and the dialogue too stilted. While the visuals are striking and the acting stellar, several scenes appear unnecessary and out of place. Much of this Jesse James saga never adds to the story being told. The film could have worked had it not been so long. At the end of the day, 95% of it is talk. Certainly, there are a few remarkable conversations, the landscape is elegant and the silences are telling. But ultimately, we're left with the feeling that the filmmakers have spent a dreadfully long time telling a straightforward and proverbial tale, offering few or no groundbreaking insights. And furthermore, the final 30 minutes appear to be milking the plot as Robert Ford boasts about the assassination. Most of this should have been removed as things grow tedious and boring.

The cast deserve lauding of the highest honour for their delicate portrayals. Brad Pitt is absolutely sensational as the title's namesake. Pitt gives the character everything he can, but could have been far better had the script allowed him something more to say. The script offers nothing but excessive character banter, and the narrative should have been far more succinct.
Casey Affleck is nothing short of amazing. With fantastic performances like this, it's a wonder why his brother Ben is more well-known. Casey Affleck's character is young, naïve and displays a clear-cut traitorous side where he is completely intent on becoming his own celebrity. Affleck demonstrates intelligence in his portrayal as Ford as well as a deep emotional side that was essential for the film's success.
Sam Shepard is amazing, as is Sam Rockwell and the rest of the supporting cast. If there's one compelling reason to view this film, it's for the performances from the entire cast.

Overall, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is an essential contemporary masterpiece. The film feels like a history lesson with magnificent paintings telling the tale. Jesse James was an inimitable personality and one of the legends of American history. This movie paints a faithful story of James' undoing, and final days. It also supplies the reasoning why he was assassinated by an individual whom he considered a friend. Both Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck put forth excellent performances that denote the high water mark of this film. The film is a leisurely paced, ponderous Western that occasionally transcends its gawky determinations to create memorable cinema. Perhaps with a more concise running time or reasoning for its length, this majestic film could have been further improved.

8.1/10

"I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let me daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you."

Taken is an invigorating, exciting, feverishly-paced action flick, and one of the most overlooked and underappreciated screen gems of 2008. It's thrilling, tightly-told, energetic, utterly relentless, and consummately entertaining. Adhering to the current trend of contemporary action movies (such as the Jason Bourne series), Taken is a film that employs gritty realism in its amazing action sequences. It also portrays a badass, greatly skilled protagonist distributing punishment to those who deserve it. This is unquestionably one of 2008's best action movies (alongside Rambo). It succeeds so admirably on account of its shameless stance as a pure actioner; ingeniously eschewing elaborate plot twists in favour of adrenaline-pumping action and fast-paced developments. It ensnares you in its (admittedly slender) plot following necessary character development...allowing little respite in its build-up to an incredible climax.

The plot is derived from the concept of human trafficking which has become a major issue in today's society. This issue is used as a foundation on which to construct a revenge-driven, fast-paced action thriller.
Bryan Mills (Neeson) is a former United States government operative. Now retired and separated from his estranged family, the desolate and emotionally sheepish divorced father is working towards a more solid relationship with daughter Kim (Grace) who now resides with her mother (Janssen) and rich step-father (Berkeley). Bryan has developed into a particularly overprotective father given that his career made him more vigilant, and he is hesitant when his daughter requests his permission to travel to Paris with a friend. Despite his initial scepticism, he eventually allows the trip to proceed. Soon following their arrival in Paris, Kim and her friend are kidnapped, and will most likely be sold into the slave trade. Bryan - who describes himself as "retired, not dead" - employs the skills he acquired in his former career as an assassin to rescue his daughter...leaving a shadow of carnage and corpses in his wake.

"It's a flesh wound. But if you don't get me what I need, the last thing you'll see before I make your children orphans is the bullet I put between her eyes."

Taken is an action movie that effectively draws inspiration from Death Wish and Man on Fire, with traces of the Bourne series as well. For the most part, the film is largely clichéd and formulaic. It doesn't matter that the thin story is painfully predictable and occasionally unoriginal (Commando, anyone?), because - as with any action flick - it's all about the execution. Taken delivers hard-hitting, bone-crunching action sequences. Exhilarating car chases and shootouts are the notable highlights, which satisfyingly compensate for the lack of originality. In terms of violence, the film is unflinching. Bryan's victims regularly meet with terrifying ends. Pierre Morel's intuitive and astute direction is spot-on. The violence is never over-the-top, and the bloodshed never exudes any trace of exploitation. Bad guys are dispatched, and Bryan immediately advances to his next victim. The action is drenched in realism - they're filled with impressively choreographed close combat conflicts and first-rate stunts. These sequences are always kept electrifying and concise. Director Morel utilises the dreaded plague of quick cuts and rapid editing; however he's graceful enough to ensure an audience always knows what's happening. The thunderous, dynamic sound mix also effectively conveys the viciousness of each punch and the sharp crack of every gunshot.

Driving the film is a sublime screenplay penned by Luc Besson with his Transporter collaborator Robert Mark Kamen. Besson is perhaps best known for his 1994 film Léon (also known as The Professional). Revenge movies are tricky beasts to master without deteriorating into bullshit territory. There are numerous clichés pervading the film. Nevertheless, the screenwriting duo commendably manages to circumvent the more obvious clichés. For instance: characters aren't ever treated with any sentimentality, and when the central villains enter the picture there are no absurdly lengthy speeches or special deaths...Neeson instead just pulls the trigger or cleverly improvises with surrounding objects. Even better, the action begins once a story has been established. There's effective character development before the descent into violence and carnage initiates. For its first 20 minutes, Taken is almost a family drama. The script delves into Bryan's private life, providing the audience with an emotional attachment to the characters. Bryan is also an excellently unconventional anti-hero. During his investigation he comes across several additional drugged-up teenage prostitutes. Instead of playing big hero and rescuing them all in a stroke of nobility, he sticks to his personal mission. The film couldn't afford to get bogged down, and it never does.

"That is what happens when you sit behind a desk. You forget things, like the weight in the hand of a gun that's loaded and one that's not."

For the most part, the acting is top notch. Liam Neeson has found his calling as an action hero. We've seen him in Star Wars and 2005's Batman Begins, but he quickly masters this particular character. The American accent is surprisingly believable as well. Even at 56, Neeson is an ass-kicking hero who can certainly dispatch his intended targets efficiently.
Famke Janssen is passable as Neeson's estranged wife, and Maggie Grace delivers a convincing performance as Neeson's kidnapped daughter. Her role called for depth, and the young actress pulls it off. The villains, though slightly stereotyped, are terrific as well. Even Holly Valance shows up in a supporting role, and she does a decent job.

It's worth noting that, while the film isn't a preachy social commentary, it capably spreads awareness of global happenings in relation to the human slave trade as young girls are sold into prostitution while the police let it happen. (In fact the film encouraged actress Famke Janssen to take action in the real battle against corruption. Janssen now serves as the Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Office against Drugs and Crime.) With this realistic edge the story is far easier to believe.

Regardless of the negative reviews it was compelled to endure, Taken is a thrilling film - one of 2008's greatest action movies. Saturated with intense action, credible characters and a realistic story, this is simply an essential movie for the action lovers. Many have classified the film as The Bourne Retirement, and that's understandable. Neeson's aging action hero persona is equally as skilled as Matt Damon's Jason Bourne. Taken is a stimulating, breathtaking action movie that deserves to be seen. Granted, there are dumb bad guys and cheesy dialogue...but the action is highly satisfying. Face it; that's why you wanted to see the film in the first place. You seek pure entertainment with action aplenty, you want to see villains getting their comeuppance, you want to be rooting for the hero and you want to be cheering when something badass occurs. On that note, Taken delivers. It's a shameless, enjoyable pure actioner and a powerhouse, roller-coaster action flick of enlivening proportions.

"You don't remember me? We spoke on the phone two days ago. I told you I would find you."

8.0/10