Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Remember when Steven Spielberg's blockbuster adventure hit Raiders of the Lost Ark was released? Since that film got its theatrical release, filmmakers have incessantly endeavoured to achieve an adventure movie in the same vein as Indiana Jones' classic adventures.

The Goonies is also from the mind of Steven Spielberg (who produced) and it is essentially an Indiana Jones-style outing for the younger generation. Many kids will have fond memories of this one. Looking at reviews and the opinions of others, it's clear that The Goonies has always been held in high regard. It's destined to be a favourite when you're 5-10 years old and are seeking adventure with the protagonists instead being a bunch of kids. This film has everything that a kid could want - adventure, danger, treasure, cool gizmos, and bumbling bad guys. Revisiting this as an older individual you'll still find your nostalgic memories but unfortunately it also opens your eyes to the countless flaws that emerge frequently. Even with these flaws included, you'll pick up numerous gags and laughs that will keep you entertained.

The film follows a set of interesting child protagonists who call themselves 'The Goonies': Mikey (Astin), Brandon (Brolin), Mouth (Feldman), Chunk (Cohen), and Data (Ke Quan). The home that they have known and loved for years is set to be demolished to make room for a golf course. The only way the contractors will back off is if the suitable money is produced, which seems highly unlikely. Understandably, the five are pretty bummed and start wallowing in a state of depression. On a whim they decide to go rummaging through the (out-of-bounds) attic and subsequently stumble upon an ancient treasure map that apparently pin-points the location of a stash of buried treasure that formerly was the possession of pirate One-Eyed-Willie. Needless to say, the five members of The Goonies see this as a great adventure and a possible opportunity to raise the necessary funds to save their home. Driven by the thought of paying off the foreclosing banks, they embark on a quest to uncover the ancient treasure of One-Eyed-Willie. They soon get entangled with the Fratellis: a bunch of criminals currently being hunted by the police.

Throw in a perilous pursuit, booby traps, high adventure, an octopus (almost!), dazzling treasure, a one-eyed pirate skeleton, falling boulders, an amazing waterslide, a few skeletons, and a buccaneer fight aboard an ancient pirate ship...and voila - you have The Goonies!

The film is suitably and collectively entertaining for all age groups. However, the film plods tremendously and far too often! The script doesn't help - being a film for the kids you can certainly expect a bunch of clichés to surface...every adventure film cliché in the book as a matter of fact! Because all the troubles are set up in the first 20 minutes, we can predict how it will end. Yes, go by your impulses and suddenly the film is an unnecessarily long (110-minute) adventure. Indiana Jones remains on top in terms of high adventure as this is basically more for the kids, hence more room for clichés and less room for intense moments of peril. Still, despite this dash of predictability the film is loads of fun.

The cast are absolutely wonderful. It would take forever mentioning all of them, so I'll just say that as a whole they correctly fulfill their jobs. In a historical sense, it's terrific to see young versions of now successful actors. Yes, we have the likes of Sean Astin and Josh Brolin!

Overall, The Goonies is the best an adventure film can get for the kids. The production design is expansive and holds up well in modern days. I admire the old-school sets and effects that are generally missing from modern adventure movies. The film also mixes some strong directing and an exciting score that is suitably majestic. The film continually plods and is suitably clichéd, but at least it will entertain of an evening. Indiana Jones still cannot be topped...but this comes convincingly close.

6.5/10

It is far too inadequate and clichéd to award The Wizard of Oz the title of "classic". This is a film that essentially everyone holds in high regard. This is more than just a classic children's fantasy movie: this is a brilliant, groundbreaking family movie that encloses various poignant, relevant subconscious messages. Even today, this is a captivating fairy-tale that continues to educate younger audiences about life and the importance of learning lessons. We've all seen The Wizard of Oz during our early youthful years, and there is little wonder: this is a family fantasy film about growing up. Personally, I have extremely vague memories of watching this movie...I'm not even sure if I ever saw it in its entirety. Quite simply, this is a movie we have all seen at some point even if we don't remember it very well. Do you remember small bits and pieces, but overall can't remember an overwhelming amount? Do exactly what I did - head to the local video and hire it...you won't regret it as nostalgic and sentimental memories come flooding back.

It feels superfluous and fruitless to provide a plot synopsis...I mean it's The Wizard of Oz! Even if some people haven't seen it, everyone would have heard so many reviews and film discussions that it feels like they've seen it and know everything about it! Still, no matter how redundant and unessential...a brief plot synopsis is customary and probably appropriate.

Dorothy Gale (Garland) lost her parents many years earlier and is living with other relatives. Dorothy is devastated when her dog Toto (Terry...yes, I'm billing the dog that played the dog. Big deal) bites her neighbour and is going to be put to sleep. She tries to run away, but quickly returns as a gigantic cyclone begins ripping through her home town of Kansas. This cyclone sweeps away the family farm; transporting Dorothy and Toto to the magical Land of Oz. This colourful, exquisite land is far away from home, a home to which Dorothy so badly desires to return. The quest commences as she embarks on a journey along the yellow brick road to visit the Wizard of Oz (Morgan) who could help her get home. Along the way she meets a cavalcade of wonderful characters that becomes her 3 companions who also desire something from the wizard: Scarecrow (Bolger) who wishes for a brain, Tin Man (Haley) who wants a heart, and The Lion (Lahr) who yearns for courage. Meanwhile, the Wicked Witch of the West (Hamilton) is displeased because Dorothy's entry caused the demise of her sister, and aims to do everything she can to prevent Dorothy from reaching her destination.

Sometimes we look back on a classic film that stands the test of time, but was not successful upon initial release. The Wizard of Oz is a prime example of this: when first released in 1939, the critics fed it mixed reviews. Some critics even called it "dull" and "uncreative"...some saying that there is "nothing for the adults". It enjoyed a bit of money at the box office over a few re-releases, but it wasn't until a few decades later that audiences realised what a gem this movie truly is - and it finally gained its current status as a cultural icon. In 1939, those involved with the film would have scoffed at the thought of the film being such a phenomenon in the decades to follow...but lo and behold, now it's one of the most highly regarded films of all time!

What is the charm that so potently prevails? The sets are elegant, the special effects are groundbreaking, the concepts are mature, the characters are fascinating and the songs are energetic. This is a musical after all, so everything had to be eye-catching...especially during the songs! Okay, so I admit that for years I have detested everything about "Over the Rainbow". That is an awful melody and it pains my ears whenever they're exposed to it. The studio wanted to cut the song and I wish that they did. It went on to win an Oscar, but doesn't change my view of the song. The reasoning behind the studio desiring to cut it is spot on: it slows the action. Although many hold the song in really high regard, my opinion of this film (which is wonderful nonetheless) would have been elevated if this song was removed. I simply cover my ears or do something else whenever I reach the scene. Aside from this song, the rest of the singing is beautiful and a treat for the ears.

There are some amazing accomplishments in filmmaking to find in this movie. First of all, the clever colour schemes. When Dorothy is in Kansas the film is tinted in a sepia tone. When she moves into the Land of Oz (in a mind-blowing panning shot) everything in the frame is bright and colourful. You cannot flaw the expansive sets that look impressive even by today's standards. You will feel like you've been transported to another world when the camera first dives into the Land of Oz. It's a world of soundstages, matte paintings, backdrops, and even the celebrated tornado that is merely a wind sock hooked to an overhead scaffold...but does it matter? Certainly not as this is the magic of the movies!

Above all the visuals, The Wizard of Oz is a remarkable story that is extremely well told! Appealing to all ages, I think the reason it remains a seminal piece is that its themes are so universal. Some also believe that the original story of Oz has a slightly more hidden message from author L. Frank Baum; that of how powerful leaders (in this case, The Wizard) were controlling, manipulative and misleading. Contexts aside, this is a great story that is magically brought to life in a terrific movie!

Judy Garland was a tender age of 16 when she was cast in the role of Dorothy Gale. Sadly, in this day and age Judy only exists in the memories she preserved on film. In this film she is absolutely stunning: beautiful, angelic and wonderful. I think all men can admit that at some stage in their life they had a schoolboy crush on the actress. I don't blame them. Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr and Jack Haley are great as Dorothy's bizarre companions. Margaret Hamilton was feared by children ever since the release of this film. She's suitably eccentric and quirky as the Wicked Witch.

The Wizard of Oz is a prolific, legendary production. It wasn't an easy task to get this film in the can but it's all worth it. In the years to follow there have been imitators, spoofs, follow-ups, constant references (The Matrix, anyone?) and TV stations that never-endingly broadcast the film...but does it taint the original film? Nope. Not one iota! The rumours of the inexhaustible magic are all true. Everything you've heard, it's all true. This is an archetypal text that has been the subject of intertexuality for decades.

All this praise almost seems unnecessary, and I feel it appropriate to quote the film's opening dedication that sums everything up perfectly:

Many people will possess fond memories of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory being an essential component of their childhood due to the film's status as one of the greatest family films of all time. I will admit that as a child I did view this film a few times and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Of course, that was the time when pretty pictures were all that mattered. This is one of the first times that I've at long last revisited a film from my youth...and hated it! People will call me a "heretic" or say that I have "bad taste" but I frankly don't care - through my eyes, this is a putrid and dull creation that completely destroys the outstanding source material they had to work with.

Author of the original book, Roald Dahl, passionately hated this film. Those rumours are entirely true: in fact he was so dissatisfied that he bluntly refused to ever watch the film in its entirety. Although Dahl actually wrote the screenplay himself, his displeasure with the film is stemmed from the massive script rewrite by David Seltzer. It's a shame that Dahl's legendary source material generated such an appalling film. I'm glad that the author never watched the entire film because it probably would have shortened his life due to severe shock. Reportedly, Dahl was once staying in a hotel when he accidentally tuned into a television airing of the movie...but changed the channel immediately when he realised he was watching his great source material being raped by filmmakers.

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory contains a truly legendary story that I'm sure everyone knows. For the record, I will briefly outline the plot...if it's necessary for anyone. Willy Wonka (Wilder) is a mysterious chocolate maker whose products are the most celebrated on the market. Much to Wonka's discontent, unfaithful workers began stealing his unique recipes. Hence, Wonka's recipes that were once uniquely his were no longer one-and-only. In response, he fired all of his workers and closed the factory. After living in complete isolation for several years (during which the factory gates were closed and no-one ever caught a glimpse of Wonka), the chimneys begin producing smoke and new Wonka chocolates start hitting the market. For reasons unknown, Willy Wonka decides to hold a contest. Inside 5 chocolate bars he places a special Golden Ticket that will gain a winner entry to his chocolate factory for one day. On a specified day, the 5 lucky winners will participate in a special tour of the factory and one lucky child will receive a lifetime supply of chocolate. The race to find the Golden Tickets commences. Meanwhile, Charlie Bucket (Ostrum) is a poor boy living with his poor poverty-suffering family. He yearns for a Golden Ticket as he is obsessed with the chocolate factory. Let the predictability and clichés initiate...

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory is a generally appalling version of Roald Dahl's classic novel. I cannot bring myself to entirely hate this movie due to a limited number of redeeming features, but on the whole it's unfortunately a dreadful film.

Gene Wilder is an average Willy Wonka. At times he's flamboyant and funny; however the darker moments are an unfortunate pratfall that places a burden on the entertainment value. His performance is mainly very enthusiastic with a bit of warmth and a dash of eccentricity. Some moments are more solid than others. Peter Ostrum is a terrible, wimpish embodiment of Charlie Bucket. I never felt anything overwhelming from the actor. Thank God this was his only film! Jack Albertson appears to be exuberant. He was one of the best things to find in the cast. Overall, charm is lacking in many cast members.

So why is this version so dreadful? Its lavish production design is occasionally eye-popping, but feels really dull and no longer looks impressive. The atmosphere is never natural. I felt like the factory was...the inside of a factory. I thought Wonka's factory was supposed to be mind-blowing and otherworldly...unfortunately the special effects just don't hold up in this day and age. Never thought I'd say this, but give me modern visual effects in lieu of old-school effects any day when it comes to this particular story.

The Oompa Loompas look atrocious as well. Their make-up and costumes are exceedingly yucky! And of course the film is a musical that contains an immense quantity of bland musical numbers. These are long, unexciting and grow tedious extremely quickly. There are far too many songs. They may be well known, but the energy is sorely lacking. Even though I was watching the screen, nothing even really caught my attention and I grew bored very quickly. The hollow audio mix doesn't help matters. Frankly, the sound effects sound terribly artificial. So all in all, the film looks mediocre and sounds synthetic. Very little of Dahl's story can be found here, instead there are contemptible sets, cheap songs and some dreadful acting. I have no idea how some people can consider this being good quality as a musical! The musical side of this film is incredibly weak. The original story is completely butchered and hence understandable why Dahl disowned this version. There are also moments of sadism and darkness...in a children's movie?!

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory should never have been made. This is a total mess that has dated severely. Although Tim Burton's 2005 remake ended up being mildly disappointing, it is the version of choice and can safely let us forget this version ever existed.

3.6/10

The film industry has witnessed its fair share of low-budget independent movies that yielded embarrassingly bad results. Once is a blueprint example of an extraordinarily rare event when an independent filmmaker has created a product far superior to incalculable quantities of Hollywood blockbuster rubbish dominating the market that have too long been getting the green light. Writer/director John Carney proves that a straightforward concept can generate groundbreaking results if a clever script is at its core. He also proves that the requirements for a good movie do not include a big budget, a renowned group of actors and some lavish special effects - at the end of the day, it's the script that carries everything and a quality script fundamentally ensures a product to cherish.

Contemporary movie musicals are an interesting subject to explore. Audiences have observed the thriving individualism in musical cinema, from adaptations of successful Broadway musicals (The Producers, Sweeney Todd), cheesy teenage flicks (High School Musical) or even the unique biography of Dreamgirls: there is no single musical style that has dominated the box office. Once is from an entirely different spectrum; a unique Irish "modern musical" that has proved to be among the best date films of all time. This film is wonderful, touching, charming, sincere and very romantic. This is not your typical musical at all: the characters do not sing as a form of dialogue...the characters are musicians who write deeply poetic lyrics. In essence, the lyrics mirror the emotions of the characters: as the characters are developed and the story progresses, the fascinating lyrics increase in their poignancy and relevance.

Once is a mature musical aimed at a target audience of mostly adults who are mature and can fully comprehend the themes and potency. While adolescents predominantly prefer the blockbusters, it's comforting to know that the film industry also produces these magnificent magnum opuses. These great films are limited for sure, but wholly worth it no matter how rare they appear. Essentially, this masterpiece feels like a captured moment of life - a slice of kismet where you just happen to be in the right place at the right time to observe a spectacle of nature, a feat of compassion, or a stream of light bequeathing its benediction on a landscape you pass every day but otherwise fail to notice.

Once uncovers a soft, romantic side of Dublin. Most of the characters have not been named, and this is pivotal as the characters merely symbolise just another person off the street. Each character represents a facet of the culture, and the film explores the inner emotional journey that the respective characters undertake. Above all, it's also an examination of the human spirit and the determination to reach a desired ambition.

The film is a simple story about a struggling Irish musician only known as 'the Guy' (Hansard). He makes his money by helping his dad run a repair shop for vacuum cleaners, and in his free time he's on the streets participating in the strum trade by playing songs he wrote himself about the girlfriend that broke his heart. The Guy yearns for recognition and wishes for a lucrative contract in the music business. He lacks the drive to take his career to the next level as he has never dared to give it a shot. It seems like a simple day when the Guy is approached by the Girl (Irglova): a poverty-stricken Czechoslovakian immigrant with a small child. She is emotionally struck by the moving lyricism of the Guy's songs. The two are lost souls, and begin intimately bonding. This bond only becomes stronger when the Guy discovers that the Girl is also a musician specialising in playing classical piano, and he is equally as moved when he hears her music. Thus begins a clever and wholly unconventional love story.

Once was made on a meagre budget and shot over the course of 17 days. When one compares it to the blockbusters like Pirates of the Caribbean or Transformers you can tell which is going to come out on top at the Box Office. However the revenue does not reflect the quality, as Once only took in a modest amount of money but is superior to both aforementioned films. This is true art and an example of an incredible movie...and I would watch this film any day in lieu of clichéd big-budget action flicks.

The atmosphere truly captures realism in its depiction of the locations. Writer/director John Carney opted to shoot the film in a realistic fashion: almost to the point that it feels more like documentary footage than a staged movie! This obviously reflects the transcendent direction that is continually stunning. The script is solid. Some people have complained about the constant swearing. Yes, they swear a lot. This happens in real life! I've studied the background of Irish history, and after the way they were treated it's hardly surprising that they use such foul language. Don't let the watered-down, inaccurate Hollywood clichés taint your image of everyday Irish dialogue.

I doubt anyone had set any expectations for this movie as I hadn't - all I knew was that it's a musical love story. However after the first five minutes I was already under a powerful, transfixing spell. The exuberant performers also deserve loads of credit. As this is an independent film made on a small budget, the cast was filled by mainly non-actors. Glen Hansard is frequently stunning: while drama is filling the screen he's marvellous, and when he opens his mouth to project his riveting lyrics there are no faults in his determination. Hansard's character is your typical, lonely everyday Irishman trying to make a living. Marketa Irglova delivers a performance that really hits home. She is constantly extremely beautiful and is blessed with a charming screen presence. She was only 17 when this movie entered production. That is a reflection of her talent while she was a mere teenager.

The music throughout the movie is gorgeously written and brought to life faultlessly by the two talented protagonists. You will not forget the spellbinding songs that the filmmakers have produced. Quite simply, you will be absolutely mesmerised whenever a song is being performed.

Overall, Once is a little film that went a long way. No-one ever expected this film to score so wonderfully. In a nutshell this is a charming film that manages to avoid the conventions that too long have plagued the screenplays of Hollywood movies. This film is potent and poignant: a moving, realistic, unexaggerated portrait of characters. Upon theatrical release, this lovely independent movie captured the hearts of many. The enjoyment of this movie is not only dependent on the soulful music, but also the realistic portrayals of an array of un-stereotyped characters.

Once is a warm, tender and revealing journey that's 60% music and 40% slice-of-life. The small cast are wonderful despite no prior acting experience, and the director is intelligent enough to realise he's created a strong story that can practically tell itself. Alas, he stands back and allows the string of events to unfold. The product is a contemporary fairy tale that confronts our perception of happy endings.

9.2/10

In Hollywood, adapting graphic novels for the big screen will always yield some fascinating results. In recent years, filmmakers have achieved impressive success with films like Sin City and 300: graphic novels transferred into visually astounding films. The best part with most films using a graphic novel as its foundation is that even if you aren't familiar with the source material, there is room to help you find your footing. Not only that, they are great additions to the respective genre.

30 Days of Night is a visually astounding vampire horror flick. But only visually...in terms of script this is golden crap! This film cannot get close to matching the good preceding films based on graphic novels. Now, look, if you're expecting sheer brilliance like Nosferatu or the original Bela Lugosi Dracula then you've come to the wrong place. 30 Days of Night is not a groundbreaking portion of the horror genre by any stretch of the imagination: this is purely and simply a Hollywood blockbuster hack-job!

The film is set in an isolated Alaskan town that is plunged into darkness for an entire month each year. Most of the town's population vacate the area to escape the darkness: only the boldest remain to suffer through 30 days of night. We are soon introduced to the central character: Sheriff Eben Oleson (Hartnett). When the sun sinks below the horizon to signify the commencement of the 30 days of night, it seems like business as usual. However, a stranger (Foster) wanders into the town speaking crazy talk and begins frightening the locals. Before you know it, the small town is now under siege by a horde of blood-thirsty vampires who establish their new hunting ground. In a short period of time, most of the town's population has fallen prey to the vampires. In a manner quite similar to most zombie/vampire/creature flicks, a small group of survivors band together in the hope of escaping the malicious creatures.

The material that the filmmakers had to work with is simply killer - almost to the point that one must wonder why a film like this has never been tackled before. The originality of the graphic novel now preserved on film is something simply incredible.

Also, because the film is based on a graphic novel we must expect brilliance in the visuals. The filmmakers deliver in that department. The visual effects are nothing short of amazing! This is the sort of stuff we can expect when a movie is filmed in New Zealand, and then the post-production period is spent with Peter Jackson's crew! I also adored the blood effects. Loads of people are killed in explicit, creative ways with geysers of blood staining the surrounding area. Whenever a character wanders into a dark room and discovers puddles of blood, it looks outstanding. These blood and prosthetic effects cannot be faulted...and the visual style is a marvel to behold! On top of this, the design for the vampires is outstanding!

Okay, now that I've spent some time outlining the strengths...time to move onto the weaknesses. Take a seat folks, as this will take a while. With such killer material, I must wonder why the script is so appalling! All the characters are cardboard and one-dimensional. Each character is as conventional as the next! The characters as a whole are clichéd to death! There's the hero, the one that gives them away, the dumb characters who disagree with the group and get themselves killed, the diversions...it's giving me a headache just comprehending it all! I was embarrassed to see so many stereotypes emerging. Also, with a group of characters being bundled together for a month you'd expect it to bring out the best and worst in them and to flesh out back stories. If done right, this could equal some awesome results. Instead there is no character development and nothing to care about...no interesting dialogue apart from stating the blooming obvious, but the worst has yet to come: we don't even see the characters mentally coping with the situation. Instead we see the events of one day, then cut to about two weeks later and see more events...and quite frankly, from the stupidity exhibited by these characters I wonder how they even survived those days that the filmmakers didn't show. How did they manage to evade the vampires?!

30 Days of Night naturally succumbs to Hollywood's worst recent obsession: shaky cam. The choppy editing doesn't help this either. Instead of creating suspense and tension, there's gore and some poorly framed shots that seem like a monkey was actually holding the camera. The first "scare" of the movie is a blurred figure moving around in the distance while the audio flares. Then there's just a body count rise and frankly, there isn't any point! The vampires spew nonsensical gibberish with subtitles that confirm the vampire speech is approximately as dumb and contrived as the dialogue delivered in English.

30 Days of Night is thousands of examples of how not to make a movie all rolled into one. The only redeeming features are the visual style and the satisfying amount of blood and gore. This is the sole reason why someone would want to approach this movie: to see some blood being splattered around...and it looks spectacular! I truly wish that a better bunch of screen-writers were brought aboard to tackle the subject matter. As I said before, the source material and concept are utterly killer. There was lots of potential for this to be the best vampire flick since Nosferatu. Unfortunately, this is just another Hollywood hack-job that I would expect to see from Uwe Boll. If you're bored and need to get high on gore, go rent this. It's vastly disappointing but will keep the "gore instead of suspense" horror buffs happy for sure. A bona fide wasted opportunity!

4.0/10

Nick Love's Outlaw is a fair British crime film that packs one heck of a punch and sends its message home explicitly. Films exported from Britain are usually irresistibly atmospheric and of a high standard (I loved Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, for example). I watched this film purely because of the presence of Sean Bean. In my opinion, Sean is one of the greatest actors currently working in contemporary cinema. He is also a versatile performer with a knack for establishing an atmosphere of malice and dread. Outlaw is a provocative, thought-provoking contemporary thriller that explores the roots of people's shattered lives and reveals the consequences and outcomes when victims of crime seek revenge by taking the law into their own hands. This is an outstanding concept with a promising marketing campaign. The cover and poster were especially good and tempted me to eventually give it a shot (Sean Bean's named in the cast initially sparked my interest, though).

The central characters are mainly victims of a decaying society that has abandoned them. War veteran Danny Bryant (Bean) is court marshalled and sent home. After this incident he has lost all sense of purpose and is fed up with the current state of his home. The plot expands as we are introduced to a bunch of other characters that have had enough of suffering through present society. The law has failed them. This assortment of disconsolate individuals form a modern-day outlaw posse with the intention of enforcing their own brand of justice by punishing the criminal underworld.

One of the taglines for the film reads "when order fails violence prevails" and this essentially sums up the quest that the group undertakes. The group were once disregarded by all, but in their quest they gain notoriety and become public icons. The media are having a field day with the updated information they are constantly fed about the group and their latest escapades. It's only when their personage exceeds their success that the legacy of the group is threatened.

Outlaw was met with mainly a congregation of criticism, which was one factor to consider when I comprehended my urge to watch the film. Currently, I believe this film to be severely underrated. Its themes are powerful and its message is delivered unforgettably. This fact alone deserves recognition as opposed to criticism. The production not only shows that possibility of revenge but also the reluctance and hesitation to engage in vengeful acts. Director Nick Love presents an interesting view of British society: home life, office life and country life as well as displaying other facets we expect from the culture.

Outlaw does deliver a meaningful message, but there are a number of flaws to be pointed out. One of the film's major drawbacks is the blurred style of the film: it's both an intimate examination of the vulgar British underworld as well as a crude vigilante flick. The film has transitory moments of true power, but unfortunately there is not much substance, causing interest to steadily dissipate during the middle section. The brisk running time of about 100 minutes also seemed far too brief. Although the film bogged during the middle section, I felt that there was definitely room to get engaged in the characters more effectively. Instead we move from one event to the other without much of a chance to breathe...and with little character development, we don't care and thus grow bored. If Outlaw dedicated its running time to more absorbing drama to flesh out each character, the results would have been superior.

I must also mention the style of cinematography that the filmmakers utilised. From the first few shots, it looks like a low-budget picture. It looks like it was filmed using cameras you can purchase for less than a thousand dollars. Sure, it adds to the atmosphere; however it's very detracting. The shaky cam during the action and punch-ups is despicable. This has taken shaky cam way too far. It's not effective as we have no idea which characters have been killed, which are still standing...and why these events are actually occurring. The shaky cam is also grossly overused, not to mention that the audio quality was sometimes poor. The dialogue is frequently hard to make out simply because the actors aren't enunciating correctly. This also reflects the directing, which is pretty poor throughout.

Sean Bean's performance as the depressed war veteran is stunning. His emotions come through profoundly, with dialogue delivery always convincing. His facial expressions are overwhelmingly powerful as well. This is one of the roles that the actor was simply born to play. Bean is the only actor who seemingly put in an effort to make his lines understandable as well. The other actors are merely average. Some of the actors have great moments, but not so much in other instances.

Overall, Outlaw is a missed opportunity and a waste of potential. It's underrated for sure due to its poignant message; however the filmmakers had a concept that could have been executed a lot better. The film is quite flawed, although it does make for decent entertainment.

6.1/10

The success of the 1999 teen sex comedy American Pie confirmed that a sequel would be necessary. In this case, most of the original cast reteam for American Pie 2 that was made purely and genuinely for the money and the hope of more money. Hollywood sequels are an intriguing beast. There are some films that were made to have sequels (like the Lord of the Rings trilogy) and there are other films that require no sequel at all (The Matrix, The Mummy, etc). For the latter, Hollywood studios fund a sequel in the hope of another hit. In the case of American Pie, the original is a textbook example of a brainless teen sex comedy: nudity, heavy coarse language, sexual references...the works! So with the sequel the idea was simply to recycle the content present in its forerunner, reunite the original cast and voila - crowds will come and the money will flood in. Although the quality isn't outstanding, the studio achieved its goal.

Similar to its predecessor, I doubt anyone would start watching a film of this calibre expecting some sort of masterpiece. The series thus far has been nothing more but Box Office fluff: there are laughs, admittedly there are some clever characters, plus lots of sexual references and nothing further to move it out of the "brainless sex comedy" category. To its credit, the first film at least had some sort of a message. It's a coming-of-age comedy that also contained a relatable plot and some relevant characters. In all honesty, I think the humour encompassed in this series is more for an American audience. I thought the gags were sometimes funny and I certainly chuckled several times, but the filmmakers rely solely on creating comedy from the pratfalls and awkward situations. This really isn't my type of humour, I guess.

American Pie 2 reunites five of the main characters from the first film: Jim (Biggs), Chris (Klein), Kevin (Nicholas), Finch (Thomas) and Stifler (Scott). Their first year of college has ended and now it's the summer break. As usual, the guys have only one single thing on their minds: sex! The four guys move to Lake Michigan to spend their summer. However they can't afford the place on their own wallet, so they invite Stifler to stay with them as he will also contribute to the cost of the place. The typical, predictable series of events occur in the lead up to a massive party they plan to host. The guys also get a summer job as painters, but this is scarcely explored (or even touched on)...instead focusing primarily on the occupants that are presumed to be a pair of lesbians. Aside from that, Jim learns that foreign student Nadia (Elizabeth) will be visiting Jim...expecting a sexual experience. Jim is horrified that it will be a complete disaster like his last encounter with her (that was broadcast over the internet), so he seeks advice from his first time lover Michelle (Hannigan).

American Pie 2 is definitely worse than the film preceding it, although only marginally. Most of the gags are pretty sick and insensitive. I quickly got sick of the dialogue that was mainly profanity as opposed to witty remarks. The only witty dialogue is a rarity, to be honest. I didn't care for most of the moments that were supposed to make you laugh.

The cast are all pretty standard for the teen sex comedy genre. The five central protagonists are charming at times; however their lines leave a lot to be desired. I was especially fond of Eddie Kaye Thomas as Finch. I also adored Alyson Hannigan. She's very cute and has an appealing screen presence. She's my favourite. Seann William Scott's rude comments got tedious pretty quickly.

At the end of the day, American Pie 2 was made for the sole purpose of money. The guys return, but many of the girls from the original cast are limited to cameos and minor roles. This probably proves that the script wasn't good enough for the original female cast-members, instead only wanting a minor inclusion. The first American Pie is nothing groundbreaking and this statement is certainly true of the sequel.

6.3/10

The only reason someone would decide to view Fool's Gold is because it looks like a simple, bright, light-hearted romantic comedy with a sense of adventure. In a sense, this is the 2008 answer to films like Indiana Jones or Romancing the Stone...except this film never even gets close to matching its genre forerunners. This is a straightforward attempt to resurrect the good old-fashioned romantic-comedy adventures that were so successful during the 1980s. However the filmmakers never quite achieve their goal...Fool's Gold is more silly than romantic, more frantic than comedic, and more busy than adventurous. Nevertheless it's an admirable attempt at the genre that features an appealing cast and results in a flimsy slice of fun. You do want to be entertained, right? If you're prepared to overlook the sleazy elements, gaping plot holes and a few major illogical downfalls...you should enjoy watching this one.

Fool's Gold features Matthew McConaughey as Benjamin "Finn" Finnegan. In a nutshell, Finn is a good-natured man with a passion for treasure hunting. However Finn is also an irresponsible hoodlum who borrows money from investors to fund treasure hunts...then conveniently forgets to pay them back. Finn has more enemies than friends, and in the first 10 minutes it's established that his wife Tess (Hudson) is divorcing him. Although Finn appears to be unaware about why Tess is leaving him, it becomes pretty clear in the first few minutes: plain and simply, he's a complete moron! During their short-lived marriage (that was basically formed on great sex) they adopted an obsession for some exotic treasure lost in the 18th century by the Spaniards. In the lead up to the official divorce, Tess begins rebuilding her life by working for the wealthy Nigel Honeycutt (Sutherland) aboard his luxury yacht as a stewardess with plans to use the money to get back to the US and gain a Ph.D. However as Tess begins executing this plan, Finn discovers a vital clue that could lead to the discovery of the legendary treasure they are so obsessed with. After the divorce is finalised by default...Finn manoeuvres himself onto the yacht of Nigel Honeycutt who is currently in the company of his spoilt, ditzy daughter Gemma (Dziena). Using his good-natured charm, he convinces Nigel to fund his expedition in search of the treasure he has been so obsessed with.

So there you have it: Finn is passionately pursuing treasure and endeavouring to get his ex-wife back. Meanwhile, his ex-wife Tess is trying to get as far away from Finn as possible...obviously not succeeding or we wouldn't have a romance in this romantic comedy. The adventure also confounds Nigel, but he's such a good sport so he goes along with Finn's romantic dreams anyway. And then there's Gemma...she's frankly too much of an airhead for anything to perplex her. There's a garbage sub-plot about Nigel and his daughter that is far too superficial and superfluous, and supplies us with nothing to even remotely care about. Moe Fitch (Winstone) is Finn's rival in the story but never an enemy. Also, even though Bigg Bunny (Hart) is the film's principal bad guy, he's too much of a comic villain to be a genuine threat.

Fool's Gold at least has a decent entertainment value. This is not absolute, though, because from the outset we can predict how it will end. As a scene establishes itself, we can predict how things will pan out. It's what you expect from the genre, I suppose. The film's shortcomings are also in the script. I will admit that I chuckled a few times at the hysterical dialogue. There is a good supply of laughs to be found here: be it in the dialogue or in the over-the-top stunts. Unfortunately, the laughs are quite non-existent upon a second screening. The script is just typical genre fluff for the most part.

Even despite all these faults, the film is at least extremely attractive to look at. It was filmed in the beautiful locations of Australia and more marginally in the Bahamas (interestingly, the whole film is set in the Bahamas but prominently filmed in Queensland, Australia). The colour scheme is always bright and atmospheric. The mood of the beautiful waters of the Bahamas is perfectly captured here.

Matthew McConaughey is not exactly a great actor through my eyes. He has never done anything that's anywhere near Oscar-worthy. Here there is plenty of opportunity for McConaughey to display his new physique. He's been working out, and he wants people to be aware of it. Alas, about 800 times for McConaughey to take off the shirt and show the audience his muscles. Kate Hudson has some good chemistry with McConaughey. Both of them will never produce Oscar material of course. Despite this, there's a lovely romance sizzling here. Also in the cast there's a very funny Ewen Bremner, as well as an admirable supporting cast with names like Donald Sutherland, Ray Winstone and Kevin Hart. Alexis Dziena in particular is a stand out. Looking for someone to perfectly represent the ditsy, stupid young spoiled rich girl? You've come to the right place! Her dialogue is the most memorable.

Overall, the critics detested Fool's Gold but I have to be part of the minority that enjoyed it. In terms of production values, impressive stunts and dazzling locations...the film stocks an astronomical supply! The action is also high energy and enjoyable. It has its downfalls and major flaws, but by no means is this a terrible movie. Average at best...not terrible! The film puts forth a bundle of energy and it builds up to an interesting climax. At the end of the day it just tries too hard with too little; extending sequences that aren't very good to begin with before piling on more. Lord knows, it wants us to like it, and maybe that's enough.

Film's most notable moment: a group of zoned-out, bizarre young folk on a speed boat worshipping an unusual form of drink.

5.9/10

Rob Zombie's film directing debut, House of 1000 Corpses, was quite frankly nothing but inexorable torture porn with no heart holding everything together. That film received extremely mixed reviews and there is little wonder why. I can't stress this enough: Rob Zombie may be able to produce some decent music but his movies leave a lot to be desired. When Rob's House of 1000 Corpses finally got a distributor (the original distributor pulled out at the last second) it was a cult hit and of course inspired a sequel. Alas, ladies and gentlemen...lo and behold The Devil's Rejects. This sequel is essentially another slab of relentless torture porn. All the gory mutilations, killings, sex scenes and filthy dialogue are simply present to get a rise out of its audience. Everything has been inflated to almost hyperbolic proportions! Many of the same flaws that surfaced in the first movie make a customary return in the sequel.

The Devil's Rejects opens with news reports filled with information about a police raiding of the house that inhabited the psychotics that we were introduced to in House of 1000 Corpses. All the corpses they used to blemish the premises have been found rotting by the police. After a prolonged action scene to introduce the film, we find Baby Firefly (Zombie), Captain Spaulding (Haig) and Otis (Moseley) on the run subsequent to a manhunt being commenced by the police. While trying to evade the hordes of Texas policemen that are pursuing them, the troublesome trio of sadistic serial killers hit the road...leaving an enormous trail of corpses behind them. Because of the nature and callousness of the heinous crimes the trio have committed, Sheriff Wydell (Forsythe) aims to bring them to justice. But this quest slowly questions his sanity as he begins going above the law to bring what he feels is a necessary level of justice to the serial killing family that the media have labelled "The Devil's Rejects" (logically enough, therein lies the title).

Okay, I will admit that it's definitely an original and un-clichéd idea to follow the bad guys in a horror movie, in this case an unsavoury bunch of bastards. The key problem is that the heroes and the villains are blurred tremendously. We're supposed to empathise with some sick psychos who kill people for pleasure? On the other side of the law, we're expected to cheer for an unstable sheriff who turns out to be just as worse as the people he is pursuing?

Director Rob Zombie casually tosses away the subtle horror film homages that were a prominent element in House of 1000 Corpses. Now the film is nothing but violence and gore with a detestable bunch of characters. It's also really predictable as well as becoming increasingly boring. Essentially what you have here is a film that just wants to shock with violence and unlikable characters. Once you're desensitised to the violence or gratuity of it all, this isn't really enough to keep a film going. In the similar vein of gore-fests like Hostel, the film supplies nothing but mindless torture porn.

Another massive complaint about this movie is the despicable screenplay! Rob Zombie also penned the screenplay himself. There are no lines of dialogue that attempt to sound witty. This is typical Rob Zombie dialogue: swearing, swearing, swearing, heavy profanity and of course more swearing! The number of f-words that are constantly utilised can easily set a record! At the end of the day, Rob's aim was not to place the f-word here and there when it's most appropriate...instead he places the word in almost every sentence to the point that it sounds unrealistic and almost plain offensive! Rob also wants the film to dig down into the lives of these serial killers. Aside from the obvious motive of character development that horror films usually fail at, there doesn't seem to be much point at all. These people are disconcerting psychotics and they expect that fleshing out their story will help the movie?

This pathetic screenplay is not exactly assisted by the actors. Just like the first film, the actors are a bunch of losers. Sid Haig was very underused in the first film and this disappointed me. I was hoping that the second film would show more of the eccentric clown. I actually got that! But not what I was expecting...you see I wanted clever dialogue that he frequently delivered in the first film. Here we are just fed a bunch of profanity and a revolting background. Sheri Moon Zombie is only here because she is the wife of director Rob Zombie. Rob just wants to flaunt his wife and hopefully make people think that he's a lucky man. But his wife cannot act! She's an annoying jabber-jaw with a knack for making the dialogue sound even worse. I thought my ears were going to explode! Bill Moseley is more of the same.

The filmmaking is everything we've come to expect from director Rob Zombie: terrible editing and bad cinematography mixed with fast, jumpy edits and loud rock music. I could barely stand it. The only redeeming features include some of the satisfying gore, and there are a number of laughs. Aside from that it's also mildly entertaining for the first half an hour before trailing off into the universe of monotonous, pointless storytelling.

Overall, The Devil's Rejects may be marginally better than its predecessor, but that still isn't saying much. The horror scenes don't have much depth and aren't suspenseful. It seems the director wants to create gore, not horror scenes. The worst part is that the songs employed by the filmmakers may be good music, but are used inappropriately in my opinion. The script tries to shock with vulgarity in the dialogue that ultimately backfires completely.

This film strives to reference the horror films of the early days of the genre that were relentless and satisfying. Rob relies on people who like that sort of stuff. In a sense he found his target audiences because a lot of moviegoers liked it. Well, they are entitled to their own opinion I guess. The target audience must be too foolish to realise they are just watching a bunch of garbage. Most of the sequences in the film are stretched out and forced. The hotel hostage situation kept dragging on and on...there was never any freaking point! The biggest detractor and insult is luring the audiences into empathising with the murderous family that the film follows. The lines between good and bad are so blurred that you just don't really care and you are never given a reason to care!

5.1/10

In the 1980s and 90s, Rob Zombie emerged as a successful musician equally as a solo performer and as a component of his heavy metal band, White Zombie. The man was born Robert Cummings, later changed to Robert Straker. In Rob's early days he dwelled on a diet of comics, heavy metal music, low-budget horror and science fiction. Low-budget horror was observably his foremost influence when he completed his directorial debut.

House of 1000 Corpses is irrefutably the work of Rob Zombie as his prime inspirations are palpably noticeable while examining the film's style. Rob's extraordinary and unique visual style is instantaneously identifiable and this film indubitably exhibits a number of the elements he has employed in the past. Writer/director Rob Zombie aimed to return horror back to its low-budget roots: back to the glorious halcyon days.

The film opens on the date of October 30th (Halloween), 1977. Local news communiqués are dominated with reports in relation to five missing cheerleaders who are presumed dead. Their disappearance was under suspicious circumstances. Meanwhile, it's a dark, cold and rainy night as two young couples are travelling together: driving to random locations with the intention of noting and researching roadside attractions for a book they are determined to publish. Practically out of petrol (aren't we all used to that in this day and age...) the four stop at the bizarre, curious establishment of "Captain Spaulding's Museum of Monsters and Madmen". Upon arrival, they discover that it is extremely to their liking and style: the kind of peculiar roadside attractions that they are out searching for. They are openly greeted by the enthusiastic, quirky and eccentric Captain Spaulding (Haig). Much to the dismay of their female companions, the guys indulge themselves in the wacky attractions on offer. Spaulding then tells the group of the local legend of Doctor Satan, and the guys believe that it would be a splendid subject to cover in their book. As they continue their travels that are welcomed by an unusual family who turn out to be an insane horde of psychotics. The four are set upon by these psychotics, and are now forced to endure the horrors of the house of 1000 corpses and its dark secrets.

As a first-time director, Rob has succeeded in generating an authentic and credible comedy-thriller, with an undeniable 70s feel throughout the film's duration. To his credit, House of 1000 Corpses flaunts a virtuoso filmmaking debut for Rob that wears its influences on its sleeve and makes no secret of the fact that it is paying tribute to a genre that is in urgent need of resurrection.

Although there are a number of admirable traits on exhibition, there is also an abundance of unneeded elements. For example, Rob splices the footage he's shot with footage from old horror movies. There are also a lot of titles created in true 1970s style: the kind of thing you'd expect to see at the drive-in cinema. Even some of the footage Rob had filmed has been made to look dated and grainy to add to the established authenticity. Unfortunately, these edits are jumpy and fast; ultimately leaving the audience with a sense of gross disorientation. The editing is particularly abysmal as a whole. Rob could have achieved something much more if his cinematography techniques more closely followed its inspirations. Low-budget horror films of the 1970s contained steady and concentrated cinematography that allows the audience to understand what is going on.

Rob's cinematography is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre style (shaky cam) mixed into the MTV-quick-cut style of the contemporary horror genre. With this fatal trait in place, the film becomes nothing more than an excuse to showcase some appallingly gory scenes of torture and mutilation that have been filmed dreadfully! These gory scenes will have you closer to vomiting because the shaky cam and fast cutting will make you feel queasy, while the torture on display will make you violently hurl everything in your stomach. The prosthetic effects are disturbingly effective. The editing flaws could have been a lot worse, but with these implemented flaws the film cannot reach the standard that Rob was probably aiming for.

House of 1000 Corpses is also radically dissimilar to all other horror films due to the distinct lack of likable characters. It's impossible to empathise with any of the characters as they are all despicable. On that note, the script is a dismal piece of material. Rob Zombie also penned the screenplay himself. There is a short supply of witty dialogue; instead going for disgusting dialogue mainly consisting of profanity and people using embarrassing terms.

The performances are mainly quite hollow and sometimes the actors will actually hurt your ears! As this is a homage to the early low-budget horror movies, bad acting can be forgiven. But this is another thing that detracts from the overall film value. The only performance I found good was Sid Haig as the suitably quirky clown who owns the bizarre roadside attraction. Unfortunately, Haig is criminally underused. This is the single good actor in the whole film...and he receives roughly 20 minutes of screen-time! Most of the females are there to squeal and swear. Sometimes their feisty nature is a little disturbing.

As director Rob Zombie's early days were in the music industry, we must expect an interesting array of music on display. It's hard to describe the music. It's catchy but occasionally unsuitable. I guess it supplies the film with an almost laughable atmosphere at times. There are a few shootings that occur to typical redneck music while events unfold in slow motion...this is just one example of the peculiar music employed heavily by the filmmakers. Some of the music is moody enough to suit the film; however at other times...not so much.

Overall, House of 1000 Corpses is an interesting directing debut from one of the music industry's most popular names. Rob Zombie proves that with a modest budget he can create a slab of unique torture porn that will be happily devoured by horror fans. If you enjoy low-budget horror of the 1970s, this film is probably for you. The film is unsettling and atmospheric, and to be frank it's quite excruciating during the final act. The film sets up an interesting host of characters that are also very disconcerting. Rob Zombie is seemingly determined and creates a visually engaging production. Apart from being torture porn with a bit of catchy music and interesting characters, the film is nothing more. Currently this film balances comfortably on the fine line of "barely watchable". I'm happy I saw it, but I'm in no rush to revisit. Followed by The Devil's Rejects.

4.9/10