Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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

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