Reviews by PvtCaboose91

2003's The Order (known in the Australia as The Sin Eater) is an appalling attempt at a religious-themed horror movie. The days of The Exorcist and The Omen have come and vanished. While some consider them horror masterpieces, they have dated and are now unspeakably silly affairs. Considering the batch of religious horror movies that crept out and died in the past decade (like Arnie in End of Days and the mediocre Roman Polanski/Johnny Depp film The Ninth Gate) it's amazing that someone took another stab at the genre. This time it's writer/director Brian Helgeland who tries his luck. Considering his previous work on Mystic River, Blood Work and L.A. Confidential one would assume that he could produce a quality product. But Helgeland was also behind A Knight's Tale, and his dreadful screenwriting skills come out to play with this film as well. It seems the writer/director also brought along the cast for A Knight's Tale and plonked them into random roles...whether they suit their assigned role or not. On that note, virtually every performance is terrible.

The Order was subsequently greeted with a terrible critical reception upon release, and to me it seems for good reason. The Catholic Church was apparently extremely displeased with the outcome of this production. Perhaps the Catholics should have sued the filmmakers for defamation of religion. Even better, poor cinema-goers that endured this mess should have sued the studio for defamation of personal time or something.

Father Alex Bernier (Ledger) is a rogue priest. He receives word that the leader of his order has died in Rome under mysterious circumstances. Alex is encouraged to travel to Rome and investigate the death. Naturally, this handsome young priest is accompanied by an attractive young woman. In this case we have former mental patient Mara (Sossamon) who was institutionalised for trying to kill Alex. Now Mara is being sought after by the police...yet she has no problem obtaining a passport and flying to Rome, and of course Alex completely trusts Mara despite her trying to kill him. (Sorry if this explication isn't making any sense...the movie never makes an effort to account for this bullshit either)
Anyway, the clichéd story begins to unfold once the proceedings commence in Rome. Alex learns of a "Sin Eater" in the form of a man named William Eden (Furmann). Basically, a Sin Eater visits the bedsides of dying folk and absorbs their transgressions. Sin Eaters essentially provide a path to heaven outside religion. In return for his services, a Sin Eater becomes fabulously wealthy and is immortal. (This is never adequately addressed either...I mean how can one all of a sudden become wealthy and immortal? Would dead people just pay him?) After a Sin Eater carries out his duties for a few centuries, he needs to pass on the torch. Eden wants to give the task to Alex.

For lack of better word, The Order is pure horror tosh: it's excruciating, confusing, convoluted...and after a while it's just plain boring. There is an interesting premise for sure, but the script spoils the potential. Its cardinal sin as a horror movie is never actually scaring the audience, nor intriguing them. It's tagged as a thriller, but nothing is ever thrilling. It provides little exposition as everything seems to be a melodramatic murder mystery, trudging from one senseless half-baked scene to the next. It simply does not work. Even worse is that the film is never entertaining. By the time some "sin eating" actually occurs, we're already bored stiff and cannot feel exhilarated no matter how impressive it looks. The dialogue in particular is boring and contrived. You don't know whether to laugh or shake your head in incredulity.

The Order is dark, gloomy, absurd, and predictable. People speak in ambiguous riddles, the humour fails, and the sins themselves rise from people's bodies resembling jellyfish. Then finally the ending (which seems to go on forever) takes a completely conventional turn that's more silly than creepy or exciting. Worst of all there's Heath Ledger (R.I.P) mumbling through his tedious lines. He looks incredibly bored to be there, and I don't blame him. Since his career was already far too short, why did he waste his time on this rubbish? He could have developed a far more successful career before his unfortunate death if only he made the correct decisions. Life's too short to be involved in crappy movies. Shannyn Sossamon also falls flat, as does Mark Addy who never develops any charm or reason to like him at all. Peter Weller of the RoboCop fame should stick with the robotic police officer...he's derisorily awful in his role. There are no redeeming performances at all. The Order fails on practically all accounts...it only gets credit for trying.

3.8/10

At its core, Vantage Point is a hybrid creation: an amalgamation of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon and the hit television series 24. In fact the film could effortlessly be perceived as a sibling of 24 as it contains intense political drama, terrorism, the President of the United States in peril, and a fairly convoluted conspiracy to uncover. Mind you, what's missing is Jack Bauer (although, to be fair, it does star Matthew Fox who plays a Jack on TV's Lost).

Vantage Point is an imaginative, frantic, nail-biting, gripping political actioner that spends its 90-minute duration illuminating one series of events from different perspectives. Personally, I found the film extremely flawed but underrated. I was dubious to approach the film due to the largely mixed reviews. However, this is an above average attempt at a killer concept. While the film feels incomplete and occasionally thoroughly preposterous, it achieves its goal of providing entertainment. The opening few scenes will successfully reel in a viewer due to the intriguing and compelling nature of the story unfolding. The filmmakers cleverly adopt an effective approach to lensing the action that resembles such modern action films as The Bourne Ultimatum. While this exercising of quick cuts and shaky cam has grown tiring over the years, here it's actually fruitful in its engagement of the audience.

The fundamental story concerns an attempted assassination on the President of the United States, Henry Ashton (Hurt). This basic premise is enlightened with a series of differing perspectives, mirroring recent films like Crash with a slight drop of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon moulded into the story.
At a landmark summit on the global war on terror in Spain, President Ashton is gunned down. The film then concerns the chaotic ensuing events as the manhunt commences for the shooter. The film primarily involves the proceedings that initiate at midday and conclude 23 minutes later. Bits are replayed from various perspectives: this includes viewpoints of Secret Service agents (Fox, Quaid), President Ashton, an American tourist (Whitaker), journalists and even the terrorists themselves.

Vantage Point is approached with a high level of technical aptitude. Running at a brisk running time of about 90 minutes, the director keeps events taut and engaging. Most commendably, the director is skilled at keeping constant visual continuity. We witness events from multiple angles...sometimes up to even 10 viewpoints courtesy of the media, surrounding buildings, and the various civilians on the ground mixed in the chaos. The intensity and turmoil following bomb detonations and bullets fired is enough to echo the collapse of the World Trade Center on that fateful day in 2001. The final 20 minutes shift the film's tone from drama to action. There's a terrifically filmed car chase blended with various other action-packed happenings.

However, the film's primary faults are in its script. At times the dialogue sounds natural, but at other times contrived. At several times you'll be tempted to laugh at the dialogue. For example, Quaid's Agent Barnes finds the President heavily bleeding. Barnes inquires "Are you injured?" The multiple story-line approach does work to an extent, but only selected characters are delved into in any degree of depth. We're supposed to care about the various characters as we watch their stories; however it's impossible with insignificant time allocated for character development. As typical betrayals happen, we never understand why. Then there are the loose ends. We become so involved in all the excess supporting characters without a pay-off. Some characters appear to be established in the opening scenes...only to disappear entirely. Because these characters are slightly developed, we become curious about them. There are too many questions without answers.

I also briefly mentioned the stupidity of the film. Towards the final confrontation, things become extremely silly as characters are quick to draw guns on each other, and the stunt driving for the final car chase is too unbelievable. Another thing is the failure to give the story any level of credibility. We never believe the story for a single minute simply because the concept could never happen. And then of course the clichés are also in place, like the never-ending clips in firearms and a customary character betrayal. Yes, the film is entertaining...it's just too silly to live up to its full potential.

Dennis Quaid is no Kiefer Sutherland. Where Sutherland in TV's 24 has a deep voice and instils incredible intensity to a situation, Quaid usually falls flat. Matthew Fox found fame in the television series Lost. I never liked his acting in that show, and I still don't like his acting here. He simply takes himself too seriously and his eagerness always shines through in all of his acting. Forest Whitaker is an Oscar-winning actor who never appears to do much in the film. He has a video camera, yes, but the rest of the film he's endlessly pursuing people and trying to help. The screenwriter never grants him a moment to shine. Whitaker's relationship with a young girl also feels out of place and superfluous. Also in the supporting cast there's William Hurt, Edgar Ramirez and a cameo appearance of Sigourney Weaver. Many of these actors are underused.

Overall, Vantage Point has its flaws but it's an extremely entertaining movie. The competency behind the camera is palpable with solid direction and an ear-shattering sound mix. The action is frequent and exciting, even if there isn't much point to it. Maybe with more depth and a heightened intelligence level the film could have achieved its potential.
Vantage Point, which was initially dosed in realism, enigmatically shifts its mood in the concluding 15 minutes; staggering into clichéd action-thriller territory with a car chase that, while exhilarating, does not seem appropriate. Likewise, you'll undeniably snigger as Quaid belies the realism, becomes indestructible and, once the action has receded, conveys some of the cheesiest lines this on side of Top Gun. Sadly the film loses its grip and abandons the brutal tone. This film merely reminds us how fantastic the Jason Bourne franchise is for its virtually unequalled ability to have never crossed the line.

7.1/10

Vigilante action thrillers are common occurrences in contemporary Hollywood. Films such as The Punisher have utilised the concept of revenge for an interesting actioner. Jodie Foster in The Brave One toyed with the concept of an innocent civilian fulfilling the duties of a stereotypical vigilante hero. Hero Wanted is a creditably gritty, exciting revenge flick unlike any of its genre forerunners. This is a tragically overlooked and underrated film featuring several great actors and a realistic portrayal of man's darker side. It's rare indeed for a movie to probe that area of human nature with this level of established veracity and pragmatism in the tone. The filmmakers deeply delve into man's desire for their 15 minutes of fame, and the consequences of "being a hero". However, in spite of exploring these deep themes so effectively...the clichés sporadically break through. On the whole, things feel quite formulaic and occasionally predictable. But there is enough taut action and proficient filmmaking on exhibition to bestow a wholly entertaining experience.

Liam Case (Gooding Jr.) is a despondent garbage man who lost his wife several years ago in a tragic car accident. Now he's an alcoholic sincerely depressed with his insignificant existence. However his life finds further meaning when he witnesses a flaming car wreck unfold. Liam instinctively dives into the situation and rescues a little girl who was trapped in the flames. He subsequently becomes a hero and the city loves him. Following his short period in the spotlight, people move on and forget his heroic act. He therefore returns to his former depressive existence. His heroic instincts are kicked back into action again, however, when he's inside a bank during an armed robbery. The attendant, who he has a crush on, is shot by the robbers and she falls into a coma. Liam decides to search for the gang of robbers and dispense justice on them.

Hero Wanted bypassed a worldwide cinematical release...instead in most countries it went straight to DVD. In my opinion the film is a sleeper hit. The technical aspect of the film in particular never feels amateurish. The early action sequences are highly impressive: short, tight, explosive and exciting. Even better, the typical shaky cam and quick cutting isn't heavily utilised. The concluding action scene exercises clever dolly shots and wide angles to tell the story. For the most part, the editing is above average. On top of this, pulse-pounding music and a booming sound mix to keep an audience engaged. The action is also grounded in realism and credibility: guns are reloaded, people bleed, and no-one is invincible. The strong graphic violence packs an overwhelming wallop.

With such a competent team behind the camera, the colossal script failings are unfortunate. The script is repeatedly dragged back to traditional action movie hackneyed themes and theatrical devices. The final 30 minutes grow increasingly preposterous as well. Moreover, the out of place ending proves quite disappointing. It seems too happy and predictable. Characters are treated with too much sentimentality and it's clear the filmmakers were pushing for a "feel good" kind of ending with a smidgen of darkness to its tone. The plot frequently meanders as well with supporting characters introduced for the sake of a violent death. The film's twist proves quite shocking and effective...however it just isn't executed with any style. Much of the dialogue that occasionally sounds intelligent is marred by the contrived profanity.

Cuba Gooding Jr. is a convincing protagonist. He successfully nails the different facets of his character: from a raging alcoholic to a worried man trying to keep everything under control.
Ray Liotta seems quite underused, but he appears determined. The rest of the cast are all equally impressive. Thomas Flanagan's villain is particularly effective and sinister when it's called for.

Overall, Hero Wanted may not be the best vigilante movie ever made or a masterpiece either. Nevertheless, this flick really surprised me. It features a stellar cast, top notch production values and technical proficiency especially during the intense action sequences. It will keep you entertained.

6.9/10

Chan-wook Park's Oldboy is an intense, gut-wrenching Korean thriller. The film has received continuous accolades since its initial release in 2003 and its more global release in 2005.
Oldboy is perhaps best remembered due to its heavy content: the violence, torture and themes are unflinching and far more uncompromisingly pungent than any American thriller. Instead of the customary over-the-top martial arts, the filmmakers opt for far more brutality. Witness a five-minute shot depicting the central character confronting a gang of thugs in a corridor. This is a nasty, vicious conflict without any fancy Jackie Chan-style choreography: this is dirty street fighting as men assault each other, sometimes falling, sometimes missing. Objects are utilised as men are stabbed or beaten. People bleed and show vulnerability as well as weakness. The punches sound like actual punches...men get tired, men lose energy and collapse after growing out of breath. It's this impressive edge that elevates Oldboy higher than most Asian productions.

Personally, I've never had a fondness for Asian cinema. Films such as Hero come across as convoluted and confusing but with beauty in the visuals. These visuals, however, generally seem over-the-top and suspending disbelief is too difficult. Oldboy is far more down to earth and believable. The visuals are impeccably constructed: each shot engages an audience with its panache and elegance. The grimy streets, filthy characters and engrossing scenarios are more effective. Below its face value the film is a deep, thematic character study regarding a heart-stopping journey of one man's quest for vengeance.

Oldboy opens with a bang. As engaging music absorbs the viewer, the visuals depict a wild-haired man dangling another man off the edge of a building by his tie. This wild-haired man is Oh Dae-su (Min-sik). In a flashback his story is revealed: Dae-su is a regular man with a loving family. Under perplexing circumstances, he is kidnapped and incarcerated in a secure hotel room for a total of 15 years. Over the course of these 15 years, he has had nothing but dumplings to eat and his only window to the outside is a TV. He learns that his wife has died, and he has been framed for the murder. From this point forward he vows to escape and acquire his revenge. His captors eventually free Dae-su. He is given a wad of cash and a cell-phone. The mastermind behind his capture challenges Dae-su to find him within 5 days...if Dae-su does this, he will learn the reason why.

This is the mystery that drives Oldboy so effectively: it isn't long before the villain is revealed, but the ambiguity clouding the "why" is what fuels the proceedings. This builds to the film's shocking climax. This final confrontation presents an audience with a succession of astonishing twists.

The production values are first-rate considering the genre and origin. The torture scenes feel so realistic that one will be squirming in their seat. And the action scenes...are phenomenal! On top of this the director's style is enough to keep one engaged for the dialogue and the action. The cast competently tackle their characters as this established realism is further retained. The highlight of the film is undeniably its music. The main theme is haunting and evocative. This theme is repetitive and is used constantly. The music simply cannot be faulted. The tone is continually established with each new segment of music.
However, there is one lethal flaw: the film is very difficult to follow and keep up simply due to the appalling distinguishing of key plot points. From the film's beginning I struggled to find a coherent succession of scenes. Only with repeated viewings can one entirely understand the movie. This flaw is present in virtually every piece of Asian cinema I've seen so far. Oldboy is just superior because with its stylish visuals and brutal tone, we're compelled to be swept along with the proceedings.

Overall, Oldboy is a stunning Korean film that has earned an enormous fan base since its initial release. The film is a visceral cinematic experience created by a masterful group of filmmakers who excel at their art. It's hard to follow at times, but still mighty entertaining and extremely violent!

7.85/10

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a distinctively unique horror movie. The film's storyline is loosely based on the true story of a German woman named Anneliese Michel: in 1976, young Michel died following a series of unsuccessful exorcisms when it was believed that she was possessed by demonic forces. The film is essentially an "Americanised" version of these events that unfolded in the 1970s. Anneliese Michel has been replaced with the character of Emily Rose (Carpenter), and the events have been transplanted into a rural American setting.

To most audiences, the title probably implies a link to the 1970s horror classic The Exorcist. However, The Exorcism of Emily Rose does not follow the path of a mainstream horror movie. Instead of scenes showcasing gore-fests and geysers of blood that lacks suspense, the filmmakers have alternatively produced a drama/horror hybrid. The film mixes courtroom drama with a supernatural thriller. The audience is offered intelligent and insightful discussion that present scientific evidence in relation to religious phenomena.

The Rose family lives in an isolated farmhouse in pastoral America. The opening scene establishes the situation: 19-year-old teenage girl Emily Rose has died and her family are in mourning. Those investigating the death of Emily ultimately arrest the Rose family's priest, Father Moore (Wilkinson), for negligent homicide as a result of performing an unsuccessful exorcism. Father Moore begins denying any deals that fly in his direction, stating that he wishes to reveal the true story of Emily Rose. Agnostic lawyer Erin Bruner (Linney) is hired to defend Father Moore. As the trial against Father Moore commences, the story of Emily Rose is conveyed through flashback. While doctors insist Emily's condition appears like a severe case of psychosis or epilepsy, other views are uncovered as further testimonies are presented. The evidence revealed could prove that Emily was in fact possessed by several satanic demons.

The greatest aspect of The Exorcism of Emily Rose is that it never seems to jam a single perspective down the throat of the audience. Instead the film offers compelling arguments for numerous possibilities. Was Emily actually possessed or is it a bunch of religious superstition? This question is never explicitly addressed...allowing an audience to form their own interpretations.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a competently crafted supernatural horror film. The film doesn't conform to the typical formula for a horror movie. The formula is instead disregarded: this is courtroom drama melded with intense, suspenseful horror sequences. The occasionally cheesy melodramatic courtroom drama is balanced with several scenes that will send chills down your spine. The scene depicting the exorcism is particularly haunting and terrifying. When one considers that this is based on a true story, things become far scarier. Whether you believe in religion or not, it's virtually impossible not to find this film scary. It's simply one of the most effective chillers in recent memory. At times it scared the living daylights out of me. Director Scott Derrickson proves competent at the helm. The use of his sets and locations make things far more atmospheric and effectual. The music further reinforces the chilling tone.

Laura Linney handles her role capably. Cue the smart outfit and the typical lawyer persona, and it's almost like Linney was aiming for an Oscar nomination. The script provides her with a suitable character. Tom Wilkinson is remarkable as Father Moore. He gives his religious rambling far more credibility with his facial expressions and passion sizzling in his eyes. Personally I've never taken a liking for the actor, but now my respect has elevated enormously. Young Jennifer Carpenter steals the show as the young Emily Rose. She's convincing, deep and unforgettable.

Overall, The Exorcism of Emily Rose is criminally underrated. While genre aficionados may not find the drama to their liking, I found the film to be original, engrossing and entertaining. With plenty of suspense and a solid script, this movie is recommended viewing.

8.3/10

Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream is intense, uncompromising, disturbing and depressing. It is a rare film that is emotionally fatiguing due to the unremittingly powerful portrayal of its subject matter. Writer/director Aronofsky deserves to be lauded for his representation of drugs and the consequences of addiction on everyday people. Aronofsky cuts no corners, nor does he dilute the material. Requiem for a Dream offers its audience no optimism, no respite and no escape. In fact the director is admirably not afraid to give its audience no pay-off at all.

The film is an adaptation of the mid-1970s novel penned by author Hubert Selby. Aronofsky tailored the novel to suit an updated agenda: this is a more contemporary re-imagining of Selby's dim and despondent world of drugs and addiction. Not much of Selby's novel remains; nevertheless there is the sense of malaise and the illustration of the highs and lows experienced by the characters as well as the dreadful deterioration into darkness that permeated Selby's original work. Aronofsky exercises masses of cinematic techniques to portray this decline into oblivion. He additionally utilises a sense of isolation to distance his characters in order that their cravings, which leisurely plague their inner core, discover no sanctuary in the sincerity of relationships. The subsequent collapse of reality consequently leaves them devastated and ravaged...they become shattered and measly shadows of their former selves. By no means is this a beautiful picture: Aronofsky cuts no corners nor does he endeavour to leave the viewer with any skerrick of compassion for these characters, yet you are compelled to feel penitence for their situation which is testament to both the actors and the intricate script.

Requiem for a Dream is primarily a tale that delivers a powerful message about the consequences of drug addiction. The four central protagonists are vehicles for conveying a message regarding different varieties of drugs and how they can have equally tragic effects on individuals. There are three segments to the movie that occur in different seasons as the story progresses: the first third is Summer, then Fall, then Winter.

Harry Goldfarb (Leto) and his buddy Tyrone (Wayans) become dangerously addicted to drugs. In order to feed their growing addictions, and to satisfy their waning wallets, they purchase drugs and redistribute them. Harry's girlfriend Marion (Connelly) shares a perilous addiction to drugs, and her descent into personal deterioration is far more profound. As her story progresses, she eventually sells herself into prostitution to pay for drugs.
Harry's mother Sara (Burstyn, in an Oscar-nominated performance) has a life revolving around food and television programs. When Sara receives a phone call inviting her on TV, she feels the need to lose weight. Eventually she becomes obsessed with losing weight, and ultimately purchases diet pills. An ostensibly harmless diet develops into a life-threatening addiction.

The disturbing stories are enormously difficult to watch, to say the least. Never does Aronofsky offer a glimmer of hope for the tragic characters. Requiem for a Dream was continually hailed as a masterpiece by many critics and audiences alike, but this masterfully-crafted tale isn't without flaws. Everything is incredibly depressing and commendably uncompromising for sure, however it's dourly predictable. Halfway through the film we realise that the consequences will be dire on the characters. It becomes systematic from that point forward. There are no unforeseeable twists or turns unfortunately: it's just an endless montage of misery that steadily expands the predictability.

Ellen Burstyn received numerous accolades for her performance as the troubled Sara Goldfarb. The role would have been extremely challenging due to the emotional depth and the profound transformation the character undergoes. At first so bright, colourful and exuberant...eventually she becomes drab and lifeless.
Jared Leto is equally impressive. His performance is wholly credible and engaging. He feels like any young male whose life is irrevocably and tragically altered by his craving for drugs.
Jennifer Connelly is another outstanding addition. Remember young Jennifer from films such as Labyrinth when she was a teenager? This is Jennifer like we've never seen her before. As her character is forced into sex shows and prostitution, her performance is unflinching.
Marlon Wayans is brilliant in a serious role. He could have made a career in dramas as opposed to comedy.

Overall, Requiem for a Dream is not a film for the faint of heart. The director wants an audience to feel overwhelmed by his graphic images of drug usage and explicit sexual activities. Originally the MPAA gave the film an NC-17 rating due to the content. The film was also released in a more dilute version to suit commercial purposes. This more watered down version was disowned by Darren Aronofsky who felt it made a lighter impact.

8.0/10

Reindeer Games verifies that both actors and directors suffer their substandard career moments. Director Frankenheimer is perhaps largely known for films such as Ronin and The Manchurian Candidate. When it comes to the action/thriller hybrid, Frankenheimer's transcendent direction is largely unrivalled. However, even someone of Frankenheimer's immaculate artistic talent can be let down if a poor script is dropped into his lap. It appears that Reindeer Games inaugurates a new variation of the action/thriller genre: talking aplenty, unnecessarily excessive elucidation, and precious little action.

The script is preposterously stupid...simply a mindless assortment of words with no redeeming value at all. If a group of 12-year-olds penned a screenplay based on this premise we'd anticipate considerably more. At least we'd be comforted with a significant amount of additional action that would exalt the overall quality. The dialogue and the scenarios would remain derisorily poor, but in any case we'd be more entertained. The film contains no fast-paced edge, no scenes to palpably progress the story, and worse yet the story isn't believable for a minute.

Rudy Duncan (Affleck) is serving a five year stint in the Iron Mountain maximum security penitentiary and his prison term concludes in a few days. His cellmate Nick (Frain) has spent years writing to his pen pal girlfriend Ashley (Theron) whom he has never met. Nick is looking forward to spending his life with Ashley when he leaves prison, while Rudy desires to return home and spend Christmas with his family. However, Nick is killed in a lunchroom scuffle. When Rudy is released from prison he decides to assume Nick's identity and strike up a relationship with Ashley. Little does Rudy realise that Ashley's psychotic brother Gabriel (Sinise) and his gang of thugs had planned to use Nick's services to rob a casino. Rudy is therefore inadvertently entwined in the situation, and is forced to aid Gabriel in the upcoming robbery.

While Ehren Kruger's enormously ridiculous screenplay proves lethal, it must be noted that director Frankenheimer and cinematographer Alan Caso do terrific things with the faulty material. Frankenheimer is capable of infusing each shot with visual elegance and style. Caso's cinematography perfectly captures the locales and sets. Unfortunately, though, the technical proficiency behind the camera cannot overshadow the undeniable stupidity and unforgivable dialogue. There is also no intensity in the events that unfold. There is boring dialogue and copious amounts of exposition.

This film is also tagged as an addition to the action genre, but the action doesn't commence until the final 20 minutes. Despite the competent technical merits Frankenheimer and Caso, things become extraordinarily brainless! The worst part is the bountiful assortment of plot twists that continually unfold. The screenwriter is under the impression that plot twists create an interesting movie. That would commonly be true...but we don't care about the characters as we are never given a reason to. These twists also rely too heavily on coincidences. One character addresses this by saying "You think we don't know what a long shot is?" The funny thing is...another character says that several things could have gone wrong. Yet, absolutely everything happens as planned. Nothing goes wrong.

Ben Affleck is among Hollywood's worst actors. I was disinclined to view this film because of the presence of Affleck. But I'm a sucker for action movies. So there was Affleck's appalling performance, and to make things worse the action is scarce.
Charlize Theron appears to do her best.
Gary Sinise is just criminally misused. His character is so clichéd and standard. The rest of the supporting cast appear to be let down by that horrible script. Most of all, Affleck's sub-par performance lacks any intensity or credibility and it takes effect on everyone around him.

Overall, Reindeer Games is a silly, pretentious, dumb and primitive action/thriller that is incurably marred by the profoundly ludicrous script. Frankenheimer also edited a director's cut that added 20 minutes of footage. It does nothing but extend the already atrocious experience.

3.7/10

Never Say Never Again is the third "unofficial" entry in the James Bond film series. By using the term "unofficial", I refer to the fact that they weren't produced by the Broccoli family or EON productions, nor were they theatrically distributed by MGM/United Artists. Prior to this 1983 film, two other "unofficial" entries were produced - two renderings of Casino Royale (an early 1954 television production, and silly comic parody released in 1967).

The story behind Never Say Never Again is a fascinating tale. This film is essentially a reworking of Thunderball, featuring the one and only Sean Connery reprising the illustrious role for the first time since 1971's Diamonds Are Forever.
Back in the 1950s, screenwriter Kevin McClory collaborated with original Bond author Ian Fleming to adapt a Bond novel to the big screen. Eventually the two decided to instead compose a wholly original script. However, financing fell through and the project was abandoned. Unbeknownst to McClory, Fleming seized the ideas enclosed in their script and wrote the novel Thunderball. A furious legal battle ensued as McClory desired his share of the credit (which is why he's billed alongside Fleming in all current printings of the novel). From there, the rights to the novel were owned by McClory. He sold the film rights to Bond producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman. In return he asked for 20% of the film's box office profits, a producer's billing and the option to remake Thunderball ten years following the initial release. Ten years passed, and McClory wanted to green light his remake. Legal battles consequently burdened the project, as well as the studio's disinclination to fund it. Finally, the film was resurrected when McClory persuaded former Bond star Sean Connery to reprise the role.

Never Say Never Again was released in 1983, up against Roger Moore as Bond in Octopussy. It boiled down to a competition between the die-hard Connery fans and the mainstream audience that preferred Moore portraying the character. The rest is history...Never Say Never Again earned meagre profits while Octopussy proved triumphant and came out on top. It's obvious why Moore's Bond film proved more lucrative: Octopussy flaunted better stunts, a bigger concept, superior actors, and far more excitement.

The plotline of Never Say Never Again is wafer thin and frequently very pretentious. Basically, the idea of nuclear missiles being hijacked (as seen in 1965's Thunderball) is retained. Secret Agent James Bond 007 (Connery) becomes entangled in a SPECTRE plot to kidnap warheads and threaten key cities. SPECTRE basically holds the world hostage with plans to extort money from world leaders. The film's story creates a tediously overlong and disjointed 007 adventure. Things become dragged out to excess, with a shocking shortage on action and typical Bond moments. Not to mention the dreadfully formulaic structure in place. The script moves from one stupid situation to the next. Some of the worst Bond scenes in cinematic history are instigated here, for example Bond playing a video game with villain Largo (Brandauer). Credit must go to the screenwriter for developing some sophisticated dialogue though. There are a few typical charming Bond moments, one-liners and an assortment of impressive action. What's missing are the clever scenarios and the fast pace.

Director Kershner isn't capable of keeping the proceedings taut and exciting. Things quickly become boring, in addition to becoming difficult to follow. You'll be none the wiser about the meaning of the events until you watch the film a second time. It also must be noted that it's impossible to stop thinking about the original Bond adventures and how vastly superior they are in every aspect.

Sean Connery's reprisal of the role is what generated much of the film's marketing hype. The producers figured that audiences would love to see their traditional Bond return to action as opposed to Roger Moore. Many criticised Connery's performance due to his age, whereas Roger Moore is two years older than Connery and he was portraying the character until several years later! Here, Connery is 53 and still oozing his boyish charm. Kim Basinger is an average love interest. Still in her early acting days, she still needed a few more lessons. Klaus Maria Brandauer is an extremely weak and underwhelming villain. He isn't memorable, nor is he sinister or evil. It's very difficult to determine that he is the villain until halfway through the running time! Max von Sydow also appears as trademark Bond villain Blofeld. Rowan Atkinson, in his first screen performance, is the light comic relief. He has a minor role, but considering his current fame it's easy to notice him. (Atkinson later featured in a spoof of the Bond movies, entitled Johnny English)

Overall, Never Say Never Again is a disappointing reworking of a classic Bond adventure. While the dialogue is occasionally sophisticated, everything else is very below par. It's undeniable that the action scenes are sometimes highly entertaining, but the climax is overlong and sapped of any excitement. The underwater battles are far superior in Thunderball. The classic characters are present without the familiar face attached. "M" is no longer stern and authoritative, while "Q" is now a very Cockney character. At times the film is very entertaining of course, and the title song is really catchy. Additionally, the filmmakers could not afford the trademark Bond theme...and this theme is sorely missed. As a result, the action is less exciting. Bond adventures never succeed without the trademark theme. Consequently, Bond fans can afford to give it a miss. It's interesting to note that the film's title references Sean Connery's stance to "never again" play the character of James Bond.

5.9/10

Pineapple Express is another film from one of the most popular contemporary Hollywood mega producers: Judd Apatow. People may likely remember the sudden and abrupt emergence of Apatow when his name was slapped on such titles as The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and more recently Knocked Up as well as Superbad among others. Due to the astronomical cult following and the impressive box office profits courtesy of Judd Apatow's productions, there is no mystery behind his continuous stream of new movies.

With Pineapple Express, the creative team decide to take a different approach. The story was conceived by Apatow who partnered with multiple-time colleague Seth Rogen and relative newcomer Evan Goldberg. These three direct their red-rimmed eyes to the defunct genre that effectively dominated the 80s: violent action-comedy. Except this isn't Beverly Hills Cop - we have a stoner comedy mixed with satisfying quantities of action. While this doesn't reproduce the spirit of Knocked Up or the vulgar raunchiness of Superbad, the film succeeds on its individual merits. Apatow's decision to attempt new styles while he's on a roll is to be lauded.

Indolent pothead/stoner Dale Denton (Rogen) leads a tedious life: he's dating an 18-year-old high school girl (Heard), he's unreliable, he's recurrently high on drugs, and he holds down a lacklustre job. Dale frequently purchases weed from drug dealer Saul (Franco), who also often enjoys getting stoned off his own merchandise. On Dale's latest visit to Saul's apartment he's provided with the newest form of weed: a specially imported brand known as Pineapple Express. But when Dale witnesses a crooked cop (Perez) and the city's biggest drug dealer (Cole) committing a murder, he panics and flees for his own safety. Both Dale and Saul are forced to go on the run as their lives are endangered.

Cue oddball scenarios, excessive drug use, gun play and a host of supporting characters. Unlike most renowned action heroes, the protagonists are stoned throughout the duration of their adventure. Better yet, the central characters do exactly what any human would do in such a situation: paranoiacally destroy their phone calls in fear of being traced, they flee to the forest, try to leave town...and all while worrying about loved ones in the process.

Pineapple Express is a decent slice of entertainment, which is to be expected from the creative team involved. Director Green appears to possess a proficient understanding of the necessity to develop the characters while keeping his audience interested, as well as having his audience excited by the intense tone of the action scenes. The director demonstrates skill and aptitude behind the camera.
However...the screenplay is unfortunately marred by an abundance of problems. First of all, the screenwriting team never seem to discover the correct balance of comedy and action. Instead it's more of a stoner comedy featuring an excessive string of unnecessary drug scenes. The best laughs are few and far between. Even then, they are never overly memorable. You'll forget the laughs within a week. Also, there are far too many minor characters that appear briefly, and then are never heard of again. Cole and Perez appear as stock villains with never any real menace in their portrayals. The film needed to be more succinct as opposed to continually meandering and plodding.

Seth Rogen and James Franco have been great friends for years, and their chemistry is elevated due to this fact. The two bounce naturally off each other with scripted lines on top of obviously ad-libbed lines. There are various scenes pervaded with great dialogue between both Rogen and Franco. Both keep in their respective characters skilfully from start to finish. If one considers the flawed screenplay, it's possible to see the other game actors giving it 100%.

Overall, Pineapple Express is an entertaining, albeit flawed film that provides a steady supply of violent action, occasionally hilarious laughs, interesting scenarios and plenty of eccentric characters. Not as good as 2007's Hot Fuzz, but it will get its box office profits and the target audience will be pleased.

6.8/10