Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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

Following the success of The Dark Crystal, Jim Henson's production company had to raise the bar for their next ambitious feature. Keeping in tradition with Henson's prior film, the state-of-the-art puppetry would be heavily employed to create a captivating fantasy world. Henson's eye for detail remains unsurpassed regardless of contemporary CGI that beleaguers modern fantasy films. The world of Labyrinth depicts an extensive cast of Gothic Muppets with a number of humans hurled into the mix. Mind you, the image of David Bowie with those nightmarish pants is even more frightening and eccentric than any of the puppets!

Labyrinth is one of those movies that one absolutely adores as a child, however the magic allows for a high standard of enjoyment as an adult. Personally, I never viewed this film as a child as I wasn't fond of the particular fantasy style. Unfortunately that image stuck in my mind for several years...and I'm extremely glad to have finally visited this magical and imaginative spectacle. We have Henson's artistic ideas with George Lucas as executive producer. On top of that, former Monty Python member Terry Jones carrying out the scripting duties. What is the result? A charming, adorable and frequently amusing production that is guaranteed to entertain a wide range of audiences. In addition to being an entertaining fantasy adventure, the film is abundant in lessons about growing up.

A young teenage girl named Sarah (an adorably youthful Jennifer Connelly) feels neglected and misunderstood by her surrounding family. To escape from the teenage angst facing her, Sarah finds comfort in her own fantasy world. One night, Sarah is left alone to baby-sit her baby brother Toby (Froud). Sarah is fed up with Toby's endless crying, and wishes for the goblins from her favourite book to take him away. Her wish is granted...and Jareth the Goblin King (Bowie) takes Toby to his castle. Sarah immediately regrets her wish, and desires to rescue Toby. If she cannot reach Jareth's castle in 13 hours, Toby will be condemned to a lifetime of existing as a goblin. To reach the castle Sarah must navigate through an expansive labyrinth filled with mythical creatures, goblins and illusions.

The screenplay for Labyrinth is permeated with effectively conveyed messages: be careful what you wish for, in the heat of the moment we can never decide what's best for us, and to never take anything for granted. These lessons relate to the target audience of children, as well as relating to teenagers and adults alike. In addition the film contains principles and attitudes in relation to growing up: Sarah is trapped in the uncomfortable phase between child and womanhood, i.e. she has reached adolescence.
Screenwriter Terry Jones is capable of inserting subtle humour into the film. As a former part of the Monty Python troupe, he includes numerous hilarious one-liners. The screenplay is only flawed for frequently becoming corny and cheesy. At times it's so lame one will cringe with embarrassment. But hey - it's aimed at children, so we can overlook this.

Jennifer Connelly was still extremely young when she starred in the film. Despite her young age, her acting is impressive.
David Bowie pulls of the goblin king extremely well. His prime talent is singing, thus his role calls for songs as well. I'm surprised the film didn't receive an 'R' rating on the basis of David Bowie's terrifying pants! Those pants are the stuff of horror movies!
The rest of the cast are either puppetry or actors wearing an elaborate costume. These creatures look surprisingly realistic. They have a practical screen presence and seem far more convincing than creatures made entirely out of CGI that grew common in the decades following the release of this film.

Overall, Labyrinth is an above average fantasy flick from the mind of Jim Henson. The special effects and puppetry are top-notch, there are some creative ideas, the 80s music is terrific and it's easy viewing. Children will easily find themselves immersed in this high quality of filmmaking. There are a small amount of technical flaws, but audience will still find themselves transported somewhere else during this wonderful fantasy adventure.

7.5/10

Teeth is a contemporary low-budget horror movie featuring an unusual twist. Where Hostel, Saw and several other modern horror movies flaunt murders attributed to twisted serial killers, director Mitchell Lichtenstein manages to avoid the genre stereotypes, offering something different and innovative. On the surface it appears to be a horror film based on an ancient legend of the 'Vagina Dentata', but it's also a coming-of-age story and an insightful social commentary on contemporary perspectives of sex. Teeth has been much discussed since its premiere at the Sundance, gaining much notoriety. Since its initial premiere, the film has gathered a few loyal fans as well as the inevitable number of haters. By no means is this a terrible film...however in no way is this a horror masterpiece. Despite the elevated originality, it's hard to overlook the thin plot and the film's frequent descent into stupidity and silliness.

Dawn (Weixler) is an attractive high school virgin and a devoted component of her local chastity club. Similar to most modern teenage girls, Dawn strictly adheres to a vow of abstinence - i.e. she will remain a virgin until marriage. Dawn finds it difficult to remain focused on her vow with stepbrother Brad's (Hensley) inappropriate behaviour, not to mention the fact that Brad has sexual desires for Dawn. Little does Dawn realise that she's a living representation of the 'Vagina Dentata' - this literally means that she possesses a set of sharp, dangerous mutant teeth in her vagina. After her supposedly likeminded boyfriend forces himself upon her...the vagina begins chomping and her boyfriend's death is the outcome. This is just the beginning as this powerful tale of female empowerment only grows increasingly twisted and disturbing.

Teeth was marketed as a horror/comedy hybrid. The film could only work as a cross between horror and comedy, simply because no-one will ever take the concept seriously. And as a comedy...the horror scenes are too ghastly and difficult to stomach for someone searching for a straightforward comedy.

Director Mitchell Lichtenstein proves competent behind the camera with a limited budget. He is aware of how preposterous the concept is, so he inserts some subtle dark humour. Many of the "chomping" scenes are hilarious beyond all belief. Just the noise of a set of teeth between Dawn's legs... munching on a man's joy department...it will have you in fits of laughter. I must give kudos to Lichtenstein for not following the B-Grade horror path. If it was totally B-Grade, and he was proud of it, we probably would have seen a giant vagina monster with teeth...salivating and laughing in sinister ways. Who knows how cool that could have been, or how much of a travesty it could have been.

Considering the low-budget origins, the acting on offer isn't too bad. It's Jess Weixler's show as she's the one with the mutant vagina. Jess is well-nuanced as she conveys necessary humour, ambivalence and self-doubt in her portrayal. John Hensley isn't too bad as Dawn's brother from hell. On the other hand, acting from some of the other cast members is quite atrocious. The gynaecologist in particular sounds contrived and unrealistic. Not to mention a few school children extras who look as if they've just endured a monotonous multiple-day lecture on politics. For your typical low-budget Sundance feature, the sub-par acting is generally to be expected.

Teeth has a few jolts, jumps and unpredictable twists up its sleeve. It's a grave disservice to the filmmakers to dismiss the film based solely on its premise. If you're one of those people, then the movie probably isn't for you anyway. At no point is it difficult to believe the premise due to the realistic prosthetic effects and the haunting noises. For an indie feature, the acting is standard but the director should be proud of his efforts. It sometimes follows the horror template while also being a potent commentary on abstinence and the growing restrictions. The film is marred overwhelmingly by its temptation to become very silly and stupid, sometimes preposterous, as well as unconvincing acting playing its part.

5.5/10

Amy Heckerling single-handedly created the "chick flick" genre with Clueless: this hilarious, creative, original and delightful teen comedy that launched the career of actress Alicia Silverstone (who unfortunately never capitalised on her success and is now treacherously skirting on "Former Celebrities: Where Are They Now?" territory).

Heckerling's Clueless is a modern appropriation of Jane Austen's Emma, faithfully paralleling the story in terms of plot and characterisation. Both Austen's original novel and Heckerling's 1995 film are satires of their respective societies, using the most suitable medium as a vehicle to convey their social parodies. Although Emma is now considered a canonical text, at the time of the initial publication audiences would have perceived the novel the same way as audiences saw Clueless. The target audiences for both texts contrast enormously: Emma being aimed at the upper class and the aristocrats of the patriarchal society at the time, whereas Clueless appealed to the female teen audience. The audiences that have been enlightened by both texts acquire an insight into the morals and ethics created by the characters in their different societies that possess a certain degree of poignancy and realism.

The plot of Clueless closely follows the formula established with Austen's Emma. Director Heckerling, who wrote the screenplay, employs the Bildungsroman approach to storytelling. 16-year-old teenager Cher Horowitz (Silverstone) is your typical high school student living in Beverly Hills. She's extremely popular at school, and lives off her father's affluence. Her best friend is a teenager named Dionne (Dash). According to Cher, her and Dionne "were both named after great singers of the past that now do infomercials". Due to Cher's charm and social status she has a distinct penchant for meddling in the affairs of others and manipulating people to her advantage, which she justifies by thinking she's doing them a favour. After hooking up two lonely teachers to boost her grades, Cher then undertakes her next "project": to take the new "clueless" arrival at her school, Tai (Murphy), under her wing to give her a makeover and transform her into someone desirable.

The indubitable highlights of Clueless are the various one-liners and clever satire that permeate the dialogue and the voice-overs. Heckerling frequently employs hyperboles to provide a viewpoint of its female characters: their obsession with make-up, fashion, phones and the most expensive material goods possible. These character depictions are frequently hilarious. This film is extremely charming, bright and is of a pleasant nature. It moves at a fast pace and it's virtually impossible to feel bored. You will want more when the film is over.

Alicia Silverstone is ideal in the title role. Complete with pseudo-philosophical voice-overs and a chaotic lexicon of teenage vernacular, Silverstone possesses the correct amount of dizzy charisma to carry out her duties as the title female character. A spoiled brat Silverstone's character may be, but an endearing one all the same. The conclusion, obvious as it is, is gratifying. However, this film lives and dies by its supporting cast. Said supporting cast is nothing short of impeccable. Actors like Breckin Meyer, Stacey Dash, Brittany Murphy, Paul Rudd, and Wallace Shawn (among countless others) are of a high standard. The film may seem predictable and dumb on paper, but these actors carry Heckerling's screenplay stylishly. Due to the great cast all round, the film pays off in spades. It's a shame that Silverstone's career became so lacklustre after this film launched her to fame. (I think her prime problem was agreeing to star in Batman & Robin...)

Overall, Clueless is a film I never expected to like...but did. If you can get past the predictability and the clichés, you'll see a very decent film on offer. Pervaded with an endless supply of creative laughs and a sense of poignancy, even guys will find themselves having loads of fun. Essentially, the film is Beverly Hills 90210 meets Jane Austen's Emma: a union of modernised 19th century social expectations with contemporary teenage characters.

7.8/10

Ultraviolet is high-concept, visually spectacular science fiction movie...it is also a criminal waste of both time and talent. Audiences may remember director Kurt Wimmer's initial success with the film Equilibrium. That was a highly impressive, taut action movie with an underlying message regarding the cost of being human. The established fans of Wimmer probably aimed their expectations unfathomably high when Ultraviolet was announced. Could this be another massive cult hit like The Matrix? Unfortunately, the emphatic answer is NO! It's difficult to describe all things that went wrong, as the answer is pretty much everything. The film is so dreadful, in fact, that finding the positives would prove so hard and stating the negatives is virtually redundant.

Critics and audiences alike expressed their hatred for Ultraviolet and after watching the film with high hopes, I can see why. Practically everything on show here is below average - it features an incompetent script, terrible acting, bleak directing that never generates a moment of engagement, and the entire film doesn't make a lick of sense as the exposition is drowned out by the action.

The film's setting reflects that of 2005's Aeon Flux and the plot is essentially identical. Human society has been decimated by a holocaust caused by biological warfare gone wrong. The objective of the research was to create super-soldiers with superhuman abilities...instead this materialises into a destructive virus. Said virus infects humans and transforms them into Hemophages - a sub-species with enhanced physical aptitude and vampire characteristics. Violet (Jovovich) is an infected woman battling the totalitarian dictator who is determined to wipe out her species at any cost. She steals the recently developed secret weapon...and discovers that this weapon is in fact a young boy named Six (Bright) who encompasses valuable antigens. With Violet's species wanting to eliminate Six, and the government desiring for Six's return to their facilities...let the mayhem commence.

The Hemophages are not vampires as some have said, and Ultraviolet is not a vampire movie. The species possess a few characteristics of the vampires - like teeth and sensitivity to bright light - but they don't suck blood and sleep in coffins. It's a shame, though, because that'd be something far more interesting than this.

Ultraviolet is dumb, big, loud and overblown. The sometimes impressive and colourful visuals are never grounded in any degree of credibility. Worse yet, there's no heart behind anything. The action scenes are entertaining for sure; however never are they riveting, and never is there any point! Precious little exposition means we're travelling from one needless action scene to the next. By the film's conclusion you'll be scratching your head with confusion. There is no meaningful narrative - setting up the plot is restricted to a few minutes of an excruciating voiceover. Considering the bad dialogue we do have, maybe it was for the best that it's kept to a minimum.

Worse yet, the action is awkwardly shot and stultifyingly repetitive. The overabundance of corny visual effects makes the action inscrutable. Occasionally it is entertaining and fun to watch...but not past the first 5 minutes. The use of swords mirrors Kill Bill in a sense. But here the action is seriously lacking blood. It's sanitary to extremes, ergo growing tiresome very quickly. And when the characters begin talking, they're twisting their tongues around dialogue so unswervingly awful it sounds like a feebly translated dub track.

The CGI is sub-par as well. Apparently it was to give the impression of a comic book, but this fails badly. Sometimes I honestly thought the CGI was a joke. The characters are also atom-thin, with acting that makes the proceedings seem like a corny melodrama. So neither the action, visuals, nor dialogue redeem this putrid mess! I will admit that the first 10 minutes did have me mildly interested and it saved the film from complete disaster. Things only go downhill from there. Wimmer's lens contains as much style as a monkey with a paint brush...and most shots resemble a poor man's video game.

2.3/10

For lack of a better word, 10,000 BC is genuine crap: a primitive, braindead, overblown, boring, glaringly stupid, distractingly historically inaccurate production that proves to be an exorbitant waste of both time and money.

Director Roland Emmerich is not an unfamiliar face to movie audiences. He's remembered for his previous crowd-pleasing epics including Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow and several others. The man is unable to think small. In fact, I don't think the word is even in his vocabulary. Even worse, I don't think he's even heard of the word "quality" when it comes to filmmaking. He usually makes light-hearted features with the intention of basking in the glory of box office profits. To date, people frequently regard his worst movie as Godzilla. This is understandable considering the disastrous outcome of that blockbuster. 10,000 BC easily dethrones Godzilla as Emmerich's worst movie. Where Godzilla was at least mildly entertaining in its scope and scale of action, 10,000 BC has nothing to even remotely interest an audience.
We never expected a masterpiece, of course, but we at least expected a lavish spectacle featuring impressive visual effects and a sense of escapism. We never expected a mind-bendingly lacklustre effort that provokes more questions than answers, and forever appears to be reaching for a specific MPAA rating as opposed to crafting a complete movie experience.

The plot, if it can even be called as such, concerns some tribe of cavemen in the year 10,000 B.C. The opening narration sets up the story as being about "destiny, myth and legend". He probably should have introduced the story as being about science fiction and pure fantasy, because that's exactly what we're given. Anyway, the protagonist (I think he's the protagonist. Just like every other character in the film he's poorly distinguished and has no discernable personality. I think he's the main character because he's just given the most screen-time) is a guy named D'Leh (Strait). For some reason he's "destined" to marry some girl named Evolet (Belle). We're never told why they're in love, and why they're meant to be together...apparently it's just convoluted mumbo jumbo concerning fate. After D'Leh's tribe is attacked by a horde of so-called "demons", D'Leh now tries to accomplish two things: remove the strain of his father's so-called cowardice, and rescue Evolet from those who kidnapped her. Cue plenty of boring dialogue, remove the small evidence of a plot, introduce a few beasts, set up a few action scenes...and this is the result.

The script feels like it was written by a room of fourth-graders. Either that, or director Emmerich was desperate for ideas so he stole a few stories from local kids. The problem is, one wishes that the story was penned by children much younger...because then at least we'd have characters battling T-Rexes. It'd be preposterous, but no more absurd than what we already have.

We feel most cheated at the lack of ambition. The director's previous movies weren't masterpieces; however they were adequately entertaining at least. With this film, the action scenes fail to be eye-popping, the special effects look mediocre at best, and there's never any intensity to keep one on riveted. The concluding battle amidst pyramids is also far from captivating. It never serves any purpose...but apparently this is an action movie so a final action sequence just had to be necessary. Because the filmmakers were aiming for a watered down rating to attract the biggest box office gross possible, everything fails in this final battle. With lack of blood or gore, we're watching as people lightly hit someone else and they die. Or even worse, an arrow that has barely broken the skin proves lethal. The lack of blood acts a microcosm for everything that's wrong with this film. With the sanitised violence, everything else is dumbed down into horrific stereotypes. The climactic battle is perhaps the worst mass action scene in current film history. Not plainly due to its lunacy (that does play a rather large part), but because there's never a sense of conflict or even a build-up to it. Everything just...happens, hopeful to come off as an extravagant event. It's just blasé and unimaginative.

So all we have in terms of action apart from this pyramid battle and a mammoth battle is giant chickens and a sabre-toothed tiger. The giant chicken attacks could have been brutal and graphic, instead we see poorly orchestrated action and we cannot make out what's going on for the most part due to low light and poorly designed locations. And as for the tiger...nothing happens. It's a cameo where the main character becomes a feline whisperer. It doesn't attack the protagonist. Why? Become D'Leh saved the tiger's life, and the tiger remembers this event.

This big turkey also commits a cardinal sin of boring the audience. If they weren't going to introduce epic battles with rampaging dinosaurs, Emmerich could have at least thrown us a frickin' bone! It never happens. Also, the cast deliver deadpan performances. They remain solemn and serious...never any smile, never a sense of humour to be uncovered. But the worst has yet to come...the main characters speak perfect English the whole time while the enemies speak sinister gibberish with subtitles. Both the English dialogue and the grunting dialogue is poorly written and cheesy. Also, every character has perfect 21st century dental. Even some of the protagonists have dreadlocks. Maybe this unspecified land eventually became Jamaica...

Overall, 10,000 BC deserves all the panning it took. This is the worst big budget movie in recent memory. You'll be laughing at the funny climax where people lightly hit each other, resulting in immediate death. It looks so fake and staged, in fact, that in its already terrible context I can imagine a warrior hitting someone and saying "Sorry, old chap, was that a little too hard?" Hey, at least then the film could have had an intentionally comedic undertone to it.
The film never gives its audience any reward for the lead-up. It's not entertaining at all, to the point that every scene and every frame is excruciatingly boring. I had to pause the film multiple times to refill my coffee as I was falling asleep. Even then, the caffeine levels weren't sufficient. On the other hand the film doesn't have any historical insight either. What are we left with? Dull, monotonous, appalling and drastically un-entertaining epic fluff that proves to be as primitive as a cave painting. Everything is missing - an entertainment value, a sense of excitement, and even the punctuation for "B.C."

1.4/10

In Hollywood, it's an extraordinarily scarce occurrence to behold an action film that isn't afraid to push the boundaries in terms of violence and carnage. Wanted is an incredibly entertaining, hardcore action film submerged in an ocean dominated by lacklustre sequels and films that are hopelessly overhyped. With 2008's summer line-up featuring The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Get Smart, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull among several others, it's a breath of fresh air to witness a production such as this.

At its core, Wanted is an amalgamation of The Matrix and Shoot 'Em Up. It's a combination of jaw-droppingly awesome action with thrilling plot twists and complex characters. Timur Bekmambetov proves to be a foreign action director with a keen grasp of the action genre. This is his first American movie, and he proves that he's the most exciting action émigré since John Woo. Better yet, this isn't mindless action garbage. In a season featuring predictable action yarn, Wanted offers adequate twists, turns and revelations to even deceive viewers who believe they know the story.

The film is based on a series of comic books, but don't be fooled - this isn't Spider-Man, Batman or some other comic book adaptation for the kiddies...this is a graphic, hardcore, mature and adult adaptation not to be taken lightly. Instead of some costume-donning superhero, Wanted tells the tale of one lethargic nobody's transformation into a supreme enforcer of justice.
Wesley Gibson (McAvoy) is bored with his insignificant existence. By day he's dwelling in an office cubicle as an accountant while his boss chews his ear off constantly...by night his girlfriend is either ignoring him or whining constantly. He seems like an ordinary bloke until it's revealed that he's the son of a professional assassin. Following the death of his estranged father, Wesley is recruited into a secret society known as the Fraternity. Wesley is trained to follow in his father's footsteps and ascend to the rank of a first-rate, expert assassin.

Director Bekmambetov indulges in an abundance of carnage and destruction. Unlike various American action directors (such as Michael Bay), Bekmambetov appreciates pacing and intensification: action scenes escalate the film's intensity, and each sequence is overflowing with ingenious gags or gimmicks. This is one example of slow motion being employed more effectively. I commonly abhor the use of slo-mo, but here it's elegant, classy and valuable. Many of the director's distinguishing cinematic techniques are mind-blowing. Every action scene is pervaded with adrenaline and innovative filmmaking. Insert a score courtesy of Danny Elfman and you can't go wrong!
On top of that, the script is smart enough to stay away from clichés and preposterous dialogue. Granted the final 20 minutes become increasingly silly, but it's still a fun ride to take. The frequent plot twists are skilfully written and well-realised. The final half in particular is overflowing with shocking surprises.

James McAvoy proves an excellent casting choice to pull off a tricky role. Think Fight Club meets Office Space before tossing in some James Bond. McAvoy is charming and charismatic, while also being occasionally scary. He's given a great script to work with.
Angelina Jolie has never been much of an actress as her prime talent is that body of hers...but her character never calls for any Oscar moments. She is determined to do what she can.
Morgan Freeman is impeccable as the enigmatic leader of the Fraternity: Sloan. One of the film's highlights is Freeman exclaiming "Kill that motherf**ker!" I think he's taking his influences from Samuel L. Jackson.
For me, Thomas Kretschmann was the standout performer. Unfortunately he isn't utilised frequently enough, and is confined to a minor role. The actor still delivers one of the most memorable performances.

Overall, Wanted is stuck in a filmmaking age dominated by watered down action flicks. Films as hardcore as this are a rarity, so be sure not to miss this one! This is also a blueprint of a hardcore action film done right. Like Stallone's Rambo, films like these give action fans a glimmer of hope for the future.

7.9/10

The Long Kiss Goodnight is a substantially entertaining action romp in a similar vein to typical action vehicles such as Die Hard (director Harlin also helmed Die Hard 2), or films from the bona fide 80s action stars like Stallone and Arnie. The film is convincingly elevated above your typical action thriller, simply due to an assortment of fantastic actors and a fascinating plot.
Following the disastrous Cutthroat Island, director Harlin and star Geena Davis needed a film to resurrect their respective careers. This is an exceedingly effective tool for both of them, thanks mainly to the advantage of working from a sharp and playful script penned by Shane Black. Screenwriter Black possesses a penchant for action movies: he can generate comical one-liners, riveting stories and even better...leaves plenty of room for an abundance of violent action. Personally, I'm a sucker for a quality action movie and virtually seek out hardcore carnage. Being a massive fan of Shane Black's previous films (like Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout), I felt compelled to visit this film...and I thoroughly enjoyed the ride.

Samantha Caine (Davis) is a suburban mother who suffers from amnesia. For 8 years she has lived her new life with no knowledge of who she once was. Despite hiring endless private detectives to uncover information about her past life, there has been no success. Samantha now has loving husband Hal (Amandes) and young daughter Caitlin (Zima) to support her, so she elects to simply disregard her former identity. Samantha is a successful school teacher living an ideal suburban existence. But after a car accident, she receives a bump on the head and she starts evoking recollections of her past while recovering. The government recognises Samantha as an assassin named Charline Baltimore who was supposedly killed several years earlier. Following an attack on her life during which she was capable of defending herself skilfully, her curiosity about her past amplifies. A cheap private investigator named Mitch (Jackson) obtains a lucky break in illuminating the information of Samantha/Charline's past. While being hunted, Samantha/Charline partners with Mitch to finally expose the truth of her identity. As usual, some convoluted government conspiracy is uncovered.

Now that the slender plot has been established, the action rapidly commences. In tradition with routine 80s style action flicks, the violence and carnage is unbelievably ruthless at times. The Long Kiss Goodnight flaunts some remarkable action sequences. Stunts and special effects are first-rate, with a booming sound mix for a towering entertainment value. When it comes to the action, never is an erroneous foot trodden. Harlin's lens captures the action sequences with immense elegance and visual finesse. However, Shane Black's script suffers from a number of problems. Predictably, we're offered with an abundance of clichés. We can also safely predict the outcome of the events. Sometimes we're also given dialogue that serves no purpose other than to provide a cheap laugh (plenty of guilty pleasures, I admit). However, this build-up is worth it for the spectacular climax and final showdown. It's exaggerated, over-the-top and silly...but it's fun!

The cast certainly elevate the otherwise flawed screenplay. Geena Davis is granted the daunting task of undertaking dual roles: that of an innocent suburban house-wife, and a brutal assassin whose language is relentless. Davis pulls it off. Samuel L. Jackson is always a fantastic choice for a foul-mouthed, raving side-kick. I'm particularly fond of Jackson in Die Hard - With a Vengeance where he played opposite Bruce Willis. This is the same kind of character: very comical, very well written and dexterously realised. Craig Bierko is a stellar villain. Other great additions to the cast include Brian Cox, David Morse and a young Yvonne Zima.

Overall, The Long Kiss Goodnight will be gleefully devoured by action fans. Most of the film's fun is derived from the Davis/Jackson coupling and several frantic action scenes, though there are script flaws in place. Action masterpieces are rare, so just enjoy indulging in this entertaining action romp.

7.0/10

Rear Window is an undemanding lesson in accomplishing perfection from simplicity. This classic film was the creation of Alfred Hitchcock during one of his last grand creative spells. In the years to follow, the all-time master of suspense produced such classics as Vertigo and Psycho.
Rear Window is Hitchcock's supreme cinematic creation, his crowning triumph and the feather in his cap. With this particular production, the director influenced thrillers and their formulas still decades following its release. Rear Window is a film that invents the clichés. Preceding Hitchcock's masterpiece, said clichés didn't exist. The certain formula didn't exist either. Ergo, a modern audience labelling the film as "clichéd" or "predictable" is both unjust and unfair. Taking the film's age into account, this is a faultless production that unfortunately gave birth to millions of subsequent reproductions. The film is a multi-faceted production enriched and permeated with screenplay integrity, realism, credibility and originality. On top of this, Hitchcock's competently entrancing direction is capable of keeping an audience enthralled from start to finish.

Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, Rear Window, is a riveting thriller pervaded with tension and a spellbinding atmosphere. It's truly a gem and a half! Everyone has at least heard of this production. If one hasn't seen it, they're probably sick of the hype, praise and acclaim. Be that as it may, there is a reason why Rear Window is held in high regard over 50 years since its initial release. The crux of its perfection is within its straightforwardness. It's probable to argue that the film is supported by an exceedingly boring concept, as the film's events concern one person in one room. Mind you, that one person is actor James Stewart...and that one room is an intricate creation augmented with authenticity and absorbing panorama. Moreover, this is Alfred Hitchcock we're discussing. That director has forever been regarded as the master of suspense. Although countless have endeavoured, no other directors can competently tackle the genre like Mr. Hitchcock. His filmmaking allure lies in his ability to keep an audience captivated and interested. This is achieved by employing attention-grabbing camera movements and a succession of proceedings grounded in gripping realism.

This simple story is set in the apartment of successful, professional globe-trotting photographer L.B. "Jeff" Jefferies (James Stewart). After an unfortunate incident during an assignment, Jeff becomes confined to a wheelchair in his boring apartment. Jeff is faced with sheer boredom and, with nothing else to do, he begins spying on his neighbours. With the occasional visit of his nurse (Ritter) and beautiful girlfriend Carol (Kelly), there's plenty of time for Jeff to become consumed in the private dramas of his neighbours. One night his voyeuristic activities pay off when Jeff believes that he witnesses a murder. Salesman Lars Thorwald (Burr), living in the neighbouring apartment building, begins acting suspiciously after the unexplained disappearance of his nagging wife. Gradually, Jeff builds his investigation and he becomes increasingly convinced that the salesman is guilty of murder. While he steadily gathers evidence, Jeff draws others to his intrigue.

Witty, enthralling, poignant, comical and prudent - Rear Window challenges an audience with its connivance in the stories witnessed. Hitchcock also works up the film to one of cinema's greatest hero-and-killer confrontations. This confrontation is particularly memorable for Thorwald's acquiescent perplexity that a stranger would be interested in his certain life, let alone keen to expose his secrets. Flawless...essential.
Hitchcock's camera remains in one apartment, with very few exceptions. Despite sounding quite boring as we remain in one location for the film's entirety, Rear Window is an absorbing film crammed with limitless suspense. Hitchcock is of course the master of suspense, so you'll find many moments here when it's difficult to draw a breath. The director keeps his audience enthralled and engrossed until the unforgettable climax. The classic touches from a classic director are truly hard to beat. He can raise a clever grin occasionally while keeping an audience riveted and on the edge of their seat.

The single location is also an extremely fascinating one. Cleverly, the focus isn't directly on the murder plot. The characters are occasionally entangled in the dramas unfolding in other apartments. We are introduced to a cavalcade of people, and the short character development is effective despite being brief. The script is always taut and there is never a wasted frame. Hitchcock always uses his visuals to tell his story with further intrigue and suspense without relying solely on music. Silence, in fact, provides some of the film's most terrifying moments. Even better, the focus is on the protagonist and his story. The ending may seem rushed as the explanation is revealed very quickly, but this is one of the best decisions on Hitchcock's part in my opinion. It reminds the audience that we're following Jeff, and only a few moments of pure exposition were necessary. It also shows the build up of tension in Thorwald that eventually bursts open forcefully...he becomes ready to confess. This is a rare film that flaunts excellence and perfection in just about every aspect.

James Stewart's performance was absolutely essential. As we're spending the duration of the film in a single location with a chief protagonist, it was a necessity for Stewart to exude charm and charisma to keep the audience enthralled. Stewart has always been one of the screen's greatest performers. Partner him with Alfred Hitchcock and you simply cannot go wrong. For every shot...every frame...Stewart never strikes a false note. He's also fascinating and he possesses a particularly engaging voice. The eminence of his performance is demonstrated in the nuances, and none are superior to the expression of reprieve as he relieves the itches caused by the plaster cast. Stewart is simply so darned excellent in any role he tackles! Alongside Stewart, the beautiful Grace Kelly appears as the love interest that becomes entangled and obsessed with uncovering evidence to prove a man guilty of murder. At the time of release, Grace Kelly was one of the screen's greatest beauties and she abundantly reminds us of this. Thelma Ritter brings a delightful comedic sense to her role as Jeff's nurse. Across the entire film, there is an evident ring of excellence around the entire cast (no, not the cast on Jeff's leg).

Not only is Hitchcock a master of the thriller genre, he's also one of the greatest directors of all time. In his career he directed several memorable masterpieces such as North by Northwest, Psycho, Rebecca, Vertigo and several others. No-one then or now could match Hitchcock's large quantity of quality masterpieces. They say it's impossible for a director to helm more than 2 or 3 masterpieces in his career. Hitchcock transcends this expectation. Rear Window is his best film in my opinion. Everything about the film is pure perfection. If there was a rating higher than 5/5 or 10/10, then Rear Window would undoubtedly wear that rating with aplomb.

Several film buffs and cinema enthusiasts would concur that there's no such thing as a perfect movie. In my opinion, that statement is highly incorrect. This is a masterpiece of the highest order: a faultless marriage of tension, romance, drama and mystery with undertones of intrigue. Cunningly manipulative in optimum Hitchcock elegance, as well as managing to offer us with a complete gamut of human emotions and intrinsic idiosyncrasies all from the vantage point of just the one room: there is good reason why Rear Window is regarded as a classic masterpiece. With an impeccably selected cast, a virtuoso script courtesy of John Michael Hayes and a man who was probably the most creative director to ever draw breath...it simply lacks nothing. The best aspect is in its ability to build effectively until you abruptly realise that you're completely engrossed in this cinematic universe and you don't want the film to end. You cannot afford to miss this one.

10/10