Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"I had this friend, who had this friend who shot documentaries, and he and his whole crew went down to the Amazon, and they were all eaten by snakes, and that's a true story!"

The first film, Anaconda, was probably the worst monster blockbuster to hit cinemas since...ever. I have no idea why, but the studio seemed to think that a sequel to a dreadful film would be a good idea. But this sequel only lies in the name as there is no link between the two other than the central monster being an anaconda.

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid is a film that doesn't even work as a guilty pleasure; like its predecessor, the film is B-Grade, appalling and just plain dreadful. Watching the film necessitates a comprehensive disconnection from reality; it's plagued with inconsistencies and factual errors that arrive by the bucket load. The snakes shown here are far from realistic. They are shown to have a fondness for biting, to be fast moving and the size of a Sydney monorail. Usually one could excuse these things for the sake of entertainment, but these ideas aren't sold in a way that's anywhere near believable. Examples include bad CGI, crummy acting, artificial atmosphere, and a predictable script.

The plot isn't terribly good here either - a plant called the blood orchid is discovered in a remote deep jungle in Borneo. Apparently this particular plant is the 'fountain of youth' and only pops up for a very limited amount of time. Predictably, a pharmaceutical company wants to send a team into Borneo on a scientific expedition to retrieve the orchid before it disappears. Upon arrival in the jungle, the anacondas start eating people.

All the characters are terribly, painfully clichéd - there's the serious one that knows how to avoid being eaten, the dumb (or joking) characters who get killed first and a few babes who wear singlet tops to please the men. The whole movie can pretty much be summed up by looking at the front cover. There are no intriguing plot twists and no attempt to remove this from the "B-Grade horror trash" category.

I couldn't believe how bad all the filmmaking was for this production. For one, the directing is tremendously weak. Because the actors deliver their lines in such a shockingly bad way, there is also no passion in the performances and therefore the scares are non-existent. The music is usually meant to assist in the filmmaking and the creation of first-rate scares. Instead the music makes the film even more predictable. Every time the music gets even mildly intense we know that an anaconda is about to pop up and eat someone. It's all so predictable.

Heck, I'll even go so far as to say that the cinematography and locations were bleak. For the most part it felt like it was being filmed on a sound stage. That's not the desired effect on the viewer. And I think the principal flaw is the CGI. It made the snakes look utterly horrible.

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid should never have been brought to fruition. The first film was bad enough, but it seems the studio figured they just hadn't tortured their viewers enough. This sequel is even worse than the first movie. And that's one heck of an insult. Interestingly enough, the monkey gets more close-ups than anyone else in the cast.

"This film was supposed to be my big break, and it turned out to be a big disaster!" (This is actually a quote from the movie. Little did they know they were actually predicting the future)

Before I finally watched Anaconda I was decisively aware of the pasting and criticisms surrounding the production. I don't think I heard even one good thing about the movie. I sometimes enjoy seeking out simple reasonably short (80 or 90-minute) films I know will be crappy. And so equipped with warnings and bad reviews to boot I decided to finally watch it.

Anaconda is a campy, appalling B-Grade horror fest that is every bit as bad as I heard it was. From start to finish, the film is plagued by a dismal script loaded with stereotypical conventions, predictability and despicable characters. The visual effects look embarrassing, with an anaconda that moves like a flimsy animatronic and isn't in the least bit convincing. While watching this "thriller" (I use the term loosely) I was closer to tears of laughter as opposed to shock.

Anaconda follows a documentary crew that head out on the Amazon River to make a documentary concerning a mythical Indian civilisation. While heading upriver, they pick up poacher Paul Sarone (Voight, in his worst performance to date) who surreptitiously plans to use the boat + crew to hunt a large anaconda. As predicted, instead of the original plan the crew become snake bait as they are terrorised by a forty foot anaconda lurking beneath the water.

If you're going to take this film seriously, turn your arse around and go rent something else. Anaconda is seemingly played out for laughs, and if the filmmakers intended to make it serious...they missed the mark completely. The antics of the snake we see in the film are absurd. Every time the snake turns up, there are more factually impossible things that continue adding to the already massive pile of criticisms about the film. These factually impossible snake mannerisms include the thing refusing to die after being blown up, burnt and shot in the head (without a mere scratch, that is).

Performances are all dreadful; following the standard characters clichés (including the most despicable characters dying first, there's someone who wants to catch the snake instead of killing it, the big-breasted girl who's there for show, etc) not to mention the costume design is even dull!

But wait, there's more - each character could be outsmarted by a 5-year-old, the visual effects get worse as time goes on, the "scares" aren't even effective, there's no intensity, when the snake attacks things it made me laugh, the snake is "voiced" by an actor, and the film is almost painful to watch. I could go into so much detail but I think I've pretty much hammered the point convincingly.

At the end of the day, I am aware that Anaconda was meant to be a bit of fun. But...it's not. Instead we're treated to something that is so painfully appalling it couldn't pass as a home movie.

"Mrs. Lutz, get you and your family out of that house. Right now!"

The original The Amityville Horror was one of the worst horror films I'd had the hardship of enduring. Hollywood is renowned for remaking horror films with the thought in mind of improving upon the original. Because the original film was so dreadful and ineffective I realised that it wouldn’t be too challenging to construct a superior film. And hence, this updated version of The Amityville Horror is one of the first Hollywood horror remakes that I found to be of genuinely decent quality.

This remake is superior to the original in terms of production values and quality of the filmmaking. The original concept was screaming for a remake...and it finally received what it was looking for.

George (Reynolds) and Kathy (George) Lutz move into a Long Island home that was the site of a grisly mass murder several years ago. Not long after moving in, the whole family begin seeing disturbing images of ghosts and horribly demented figures. After a priest discovers that the house is haunted with satanic spirits, he warns them to get out of the house before it's too late.

The original production was a laughably woeful film that was dumb and wasn't scary. The one thing I had hoped for was at least a higher scream rate with this remake. Thankfully, it delivered. Some of the ghastly images had me squirming in my seat. Not to mention a few genuinely spine-chilling moments that caused me to have goose-bumps running over my body. Due to this remake's terrifying nature your eyes will be glued to the screen.

Kudos to the director for his ability to keep the audience enthralled during the intense horror scenes that are kept very taut. And of course the music is another filmmaking aspect that had to be done correctly in order to inspire the appropriate atmosphere. The music here was great and set the tone capably.

Ryan Reynolds is an actor I usually see in comedic roles. Whenever I see the man I usually laugh at his mannerisms and witty dialogue. But here Reynolds displays his potential as a serious actor. Sure there's the odd occasional moment when it's suitable to have a laugh but when he begins to turn evil...Reynolds is quite something. I never would have imagined him doing such a good job in a horror movie. Melissa George is a little clichéd at times but delivers a very good performance from start to finish. I guess she did all she was able to do with a bit of an iffy screenplay.

One of the only shortcomings of the film is its screenplay. At times it's rather dumb. In spite of saying that, some of the dialogue was quite realistic and skilfully written.

The Amityville Horror was a complete surprise for me. Because of how appalling its source material was I had never expected such admirable results. Evidently the film is far from brilliant - but considering how bad the film could have been the effort is outstanding. The Amityville Horror is a rare event that proves there is at least a glimmer of hope for the future of horror remakes. Trust me, I take a strong stand against horror remakes and don't want any others to get the green light; however this particular production is highly enjoyable. For horror buffs, this is a must.

"What do you want from us? Goddamnit, this is MY house!"

Normally I enjoy classic horror movies because of their inventiveness and their predisposition to be quite terrifying at times. The Amityville Horror strives to be original and scary, but at every opportunity it fails quite astonishingly. The film contains none of the elements that make a good horror movie. Instead of being gripping and scary it's contrived and spurious.

A newly wedded couple named George (Brolin) and Kathy (Kidder) Lutz move into a spacious Long Island house that they believe to be their dream home. Many years ago a mass murder was committed within the walls of the house and as a result the house is haunted with satanic spirits. A local priest (Steiger) feels the presence of pure evil in the house but is powerless to drive it away. The satanic spirits eventually compel him to blindness as he tries to convince George and Kathy to leave the house before it is too late.

The Amityville Horror is a good concept that was loosely based on a true story (and a novel by Jay Anson). Prior to watching it I had anticipated something a lot more terrifying and exciting. However, I was instead left watching this lifeless excremental horror movie that couldn't be scary even when it tried to be. Not to mention the fact that the whole thing is highly farfetched, hence further annihilating every opportunity it had to shock the audience.

James Brolin at least brought some style to his role. Unfortunately he couldn't bring much intensity to his character, but it was obvious that he at least tried to bring some life into the picture. Margot Kidder was occasionally quite whiny and annoying. You could at least feel her character's motivations. She presented us with a very credible interpretation of a house wife. Rod Steiger plays a moderately minor role here. Notwithstanding small screen time he is still one of the only actors to actually inculcate a sense of tension during the scenes of horror that still failed nonetheless. He was perceptibly determined. He just couldn't accomplish much with such a dull screenplay.

The direction is unfortunately an aspect that is sorely deficient here. The director couldn't make the film at all scary, which could probably also be attributed to the screenwriter as well. The music built up some suspense, but was ultimately let down by the feeble visual images and dreadful ideas.

The Amityville Horror had a very good concept. Unfortunately that's one of the only compliments I can grant the film: it ultimately wrote a cheque it couldn't cash. I expected something much less than this austere, dull horror film with a flimsy script that was executed dreadfully. Honestly, the film is dated and ineffective not to mention stupid and contrived. The Amityville Horror scores as a horror film you can honestly afford to miss. Remade in 2005.

"There's a cure for everything except death."

I know I'm in the severe minority here, but The Bicycle Thief is a film I found to be just tolerable as opposed to great. The film is a poignant character study that was an intrepid move at the time of its release. Critics have hailed it as being an all-time classic and the film even won a special Oscar at the Academy Awards of 1949.

I thought The Bicycle Thief was an extraordinarily good drama that delivers a powerful message; however I felt that the whole film built up to an inadequate conclusion. People may say that this is missing the point of the movie. But if it has a point to convey I expected it to be delivered faster as opposed to stretching out the whole thing for 90 minutes. For this message I felt it could have come and gone in less than an hour. I mean we all know that bicycles are stolen constantly and are sometimes found. Anyone could tell you that. So why did the filmmakers have to interminably drag out the movie? I enjoy a good classic drama. This one just couldn't grasp my interest in amidst delivering its message.

The film's plot is fairly straightforward: set in Rome succeeding the conclusion of World War II, jobs are very scarce. It is every man's dream to find themselves a job and earn money to support their family. We follow a man named Antonio Ricci (Maggiorani) who lives with this wife and son. Antonio is given a job as someone who hangs posters around the city. But he needs a bicycle. Although out of funds, they are forced to sacrifice a few household items in order to possess the required cash to obtain a bicycle. As the title would suggest, Antonio's luck soon runs out when his bicycle is stolen. The film is then a tale of Antonio and his son Bruno (Staiola) as they search for the stolen bicycle.

I am in two states of mind about this film. On the one hand, The Bicycle Thief is an excellent movie that delivers an uncompromising, unconventional message. Despite this, I still found the movie to be far too dragged out considering it was just going to deliver this certain, simple message. I liked some of the drama throughout and thought its un-clichéd temperament was bold. Although bold, it was still abundantly unsatisfying.

Surprisingly, the movie was made with all the roles being filled with non-actors. This isn't very obvious because I thought all the performances were absolutely superb. Maggiorani displays a wide range of emotions and is very engaging in his role. The desperation in his eyes is obvious at times, with some scenes being truly unforgettable. The most memorable moment of the movie would have to be the scene in the restaurant that conveys desperation, happiness and the gulf between rich and poor in just a few minutes. Young Staiola is also very good as little Bruno. It's his performance that captures the heart of the movie. The film is not really about the bicycle. It was a portrait of father and son with the mutual concern of dignity and respect.

This film is a beautiful portrait of course. I just wish that it wasn't so stretched out and wasn't so depressing. I understand that it was a perfect way to portray reality, but I guess I just watch too many happy films. It was a nice change of scenery, though.

One important aspect that must be mentioned is the filmmakers have made the city of Rome an actual character in the film. They exhibit the city of Rome with its beautiful churches contrasted with the poverty and effects of the war in a way that would be impossible to replicate by any Hollywood studio.

The Bicycle Thief has been regarded as a classic film that will always be one of the greatest movies of all time. I bitterly disagree with that statement. Regardless of me strongly disagreeing I still found the movie to be a beautiful human portrait created by a director who excels at his craft.

"Joy Division, you cunt!"

The band Joy Division managed to generate an astronomical fan base when they helped change the face of music during the 1970s. Control is a poignant, moving, emotive accolade to the life of an ill-fated rock-star named Ian Curtis (Riley) who was the lead singer of Joy Division.

Control is a film that delves deep down into the profoundly troubled life of Ian; a man who died far too young. Ian had a sincere fondness for rock-stars like David Bowie and Iggy Pop. The film's hypnotic opening scene introduces us to a 17-year-old Ian Curtis who is on his way home from school. Control traces the circumstances that initiated his career. He felt that youthfulness meant that he could do whatever he wanted. In this case he married at a tender young age and gained a daughter. When Ian joins a band made up of his mates they call themselves Joy Division. The band quickly becomes increasingly more successful. Ian is soon distracted from family commitments by a new love and the growing expectations of his band. This severe strain manifests itself in his physical condition. With epilepsy adding to his guilt and dejection, despondency holds a firm grip. Conceding to the burden on his shoulders, Ian's tortured soul consumes him.

Control is the feature debut of director Anton Corbijn who was obviously very committed and passionate about making a wholly accurate film. The cinematography was especially effective. People who grew up during that period will tell you that life was black & white. This was the atmosphere director Anton wanted to create, hence shooting the film in evocative, hypnotic black & white photography. The film's ambiance is captivating and mesmerising. The directing in particular never made the film seem like a staged production.

The title itself refers to Ian's troubled existence. The film is absolutely heart-wrenching as Ian believes he failed his wife as his marriage draws to a close, failed his daughter because he was never a good father, failed his band because his health condition forbid him to perform well, but most of all failed himself for destroying his fragile spirit - Ian lost control.

Sam Riley is a little known actor who proved accomplished with his display of acting skills portraying the principal character. He let the audience believe that he is actually this tragic iconic singer whose life was plagued with piles of concerns. Riley was especially haunting during the more tragic scenes. When he collapses on stage the audience's heart also collapses at the catastrophic sight. Riley is amazing. Samantha Morton plays the part of Ian's young wife Debbie. She held a strong love for Ian despite the things he did to jeopardise their marriage. During scenes that required tears and a realistic break down, both Sam Riley and Samantha Morton are exhilarating.

The soundtrack is quite electrifying at times. I thought the music was used sparingly, and it was a very wise choice on the part of the filmmakers. When some of the more poignant scenes are without music it creates an even more devastating impact on the viewer.

Control is a depressingly beautiful production. Although far too short, it is a tribute to the talented, enigmatic Ian Curtis and a fitting portrait for such a man. Ian used so much of his extraordinary ability during his fairly short life. The filmmakers sensitively approached the source material. No-one ever strikes a false note in this stimulating, stunning, incredibly heart-breaking experience. Control cannot be missed at any cost.

"I wish somebody else had found that money."

Not only is A Simple Plan an absolutely brilliant, gripping psychological thriller but it is also an absorbing examination of human actions during times of desperation. The film is a thought-provoking and meaningful character study based on the popular novel by author Scott B. Smith (who also wrote the adapted screenplay).

I never expected A Simple Plan to be anything special, but decided to give it a shot after receiving a number of recommendations. As it turns out, this is a gripping thriller that you won't want to miss.

Hank Mitchell (Paxton) is just your average hard-working American male struggling to put food on the table. He is a man who obeys the law and wouldn't be capable of anything terrible. His wife (Fonda) is pregnant with their first child. In the film we follow Hank, his brother Jacob (Thornton) and a redneck named Lou (Briscoe). Their lives are suddenly changed when a walk through snow-covered terrain in a Nature Reserve results in them stumbling across a cache of money roughly adding up to $4.4 million. Questions are soon raised about whether to keep the money or just turn it into the police. In the end they come to a compromise: Hank will hold onto the money securely and safely until it is clear that it will be safe to split between them. If the authorities begin searching for the money, the men will immediately burn it to avoid suspicion. It would seem like the three men have developed a simple plan; however loyalties begin to blur as human nature and greed jeopardises their friendship. For the rest of the film's duration we examine the consequences of the actions of the characters; one seemingly simple plan that ends in tragedy and digs them in a lot deeper.

The film works on a basic premise that sounds like your average drama. A Simple Plan is far from your usual conventional thriller. Instead it steers away from the clichés and takes us for a drive into unfamiliar territory. The film isn't at all predictable, and it presents us with a compelling set of events.

Not only is the film extremely original and unpredictable, but the premise and the moral predicament of finding a sack of money is something we can all relate to. If you found a large stash of money, would you keep it? It helps the audience get into the mind of the characters. All of the three protagonists are in a financial struggle and hence are in desperate need of funds to keep them going. The film hits home because it is an accurate display of what human nature can cause one to do in times of despondency. The worst in humans is always brought out by voracity and greediness.

A Simple Plan is incredibly atmospheric. The opening few shots firmly establish the isolation and drab nature of the winter; a snow-covered landscape that hides many things. And of course recognition must go to composer Danny Elfman. His score was superb. The main theme especially sent a chill down my spine. With such great visuals and a fantastic score on top it was difficult to find yourself bored.

Raimi's direction for this film also gave the audience a sense of seclusion while surrounded by a landscape enclosed with snow.

Bill Paxton is fantastic in the lead role. At the beginning he helped us get engaged with his character - he's just your average mild-mannered family man who always tries to do what he thinks is best. Paxton is backed up by the equally superb Billy Bob Thornton. An Oscar nomination was thrown into Thornton's path for his superb character execution. He was always strong and emotional. It was easy for his poignant portrayal to bring a tear to your eye. His final few moments on screen are his highest point in the movie, though.

The script is well-written and surprisingly unconventional. The ending was something I certainly didn't expect. Unfortunately the film is sometimes quite stupid, which is the only drawback.

A Simple Plan cannot be missed at any cost. This thriller is effective, chilling and atmospheric. Do yourself a favour and rent it without hesitation.

""From Hell". Well at least they got the address right."

Jack the Ripper was a distinguished serial killer from the late 1800s. There are only a limited number of historians who haven't heard of his reputation and the iniquitous crimes he committed.

When I first heard of Jack the Ripper I was fascinated and wanted to learn more. Naturally, viewing a film about him was the best thing to do. I was therefore excited when I heard that a film was to be made about the crimes Ripper committed before the beginning of the 20th century.

Movies that are based around true events tread a difficult path. The choice is to either make a movie as authentic as possible, or to use the rough idea as the basis for an otherwise better story. The Hughes Brothers opted for the latter option; basing their film on the graphic novels created by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell. From Hell is one of the most visually striking films I've ever seen. In this day and age we see graphic novels transplanted onto film that create such films as Sin City and 300. I found From Hell to be a lot more realistic and enthralling than the two aforementioned films (based on graphic novels by Frank Miller).

From Hell is a film that does not concentrate on Jack the Ripper himself. Instead he takes a sideline position with the film taking the form of a whodunit murder mystery thriller with his identity kept a secret. In this film we focus on the man assigned to solve the murders - an inspector from London named Frederick Abberline (Depp). These murders are of course linked to Jack the Ripper who is called as such by the London public.

Abberline, who is still mourning the loss of his wife, begins investigating the murders of street-walking prostitutes found dead and butchered. A hooker named Mary Kelly (Graham) and her depressing group of girlfriend prostitutes appear to be the target as Jack the Ripper begins killing them one by one.

Overall I found the plot, the script and the characters to be quite pragmatic; however the main strength of From Hell is found in its visuals. The whole production seems like a genuine slice of life from the 19th century. The production design is elegant and accurate; using precise dexterity to replicate the grimy streets of Victorian-Era London. The classy atmosphere can be attributed to the production designer, the cinematographer and the directors. As a result of all these elements, the film is moody and quite terrifying at times. It was a shame that the film's pacing was slowed dramatically during its mid section. This is one of the film's very limited flaws.

The performances, with the exception of Heather Graham, are all brilliant. Johnny Depp was nothing short of outstanding. Because he plays an English inspector it's a perfect companion piece for Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow (I could feel a bit of Burton inspirational in the visuals). Depp nailed his role; he was exhilarating and wholly believable. That accent of Depp's in particular never felt contrived.

Heather Graham is a good actress...but as a street-walking whore she fails miserably. Her accent sounds fake and her posture is completely unsuitable. This is an example of gross miscasting. It was delightful to see someone like Ian Holm making an appearance. I am fond of his acting and was not disappointed. He delivers a stimulating performance during the darker, more foreboding scenes. Robbie Coltrane is yet another serviceable addition to an already stellar cast.

From Hell is a skilfully executed, brilliant addition to the horror genre. The film showcases a clever script and a wonderful cast; however it's the extravagant 19th century production design that makes this essential viewing. From Hell is a visually astounding film that really holds up and remains to be amazing after multiple viewings.

"Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference."

The American President is a memorable, sweet, charming romantic comedy/drama that is wonderfully appealing and entertaining. Because the film was never a massive hit it was vastly overlooked. This isn't the kind of movie that would receive a high status at the box office and become a record-breaking smash hit. Instead the film relies on the appeal of the talent involved; in this case we have director Rob Reiner (most famous for films like Stand by Me, A Few Good Men, When Harry Met Sally and The Princess Bride) in addition to a host of delightful cast members.

It's a shame that the film was so overlooked because honestly, The American President is a whole lot better than the blockbuster twaddle produced quite persistently of late.

The President of the United States, Andrew Shepherd (Douglas), is a widower concerned with his popularity levels as an election approaches. The environmentalists are concerned with changes in emissions of green house gases. But the environmentalist group doesn't have adequate experience to efficiently battle the issue politically, instead hiring a smart political lobbyist named Sydney Ellen Wade (Bening) to make a mark on the White House. After Sydney first meets the President during a meeting, the two grow increasingly fond of each other. This results in a relationship that subsequently forms scandals that jeopardise Andrew's popularity level with an election that is growing closer by the days.

More than anything else, I was incredibly impressed with the actors that are featured in this film; with Douglas leading the cast in an immensely charismatic performance. I found Douglas appealing and a fantastic U.S. Presidential figure. (I wonder how the White House looked upon his portrayal when the film was first released...) If Douglas was running for president, he'd have my vote. Annette Bening was another wonderful addition to the cast. She makes a perfect companion for Douglas. She's sophisticated and smart, with a very subtle appeal.

The script is very intelligently written and showcases some very intriguing characters. The dialogue was taut and interesting even though it appears that nothing really significant ever happens.

The score for the film is also a great touch; utilising very triumphant, patriotic music during key scenes. The cherry on top is the very talented directing from veteran filmmaker Rob Reiner. As a result of this prize-winning combination I found every second of the movie highly engrossing. One of my only complaints would be the ending that felt a tad incomplete.

The American President is a fantastic comedy/drama. In a nutshell: the film is heart-warming, fun and light-hearted. As a consequence the film scores as an extremely entertaining experience.

I found it interesting that Douglas' portrayal of the President is nice, caring and honourable in addition to taking a strong stance against lying. Jesus, if only!

"You screwed up their lives? And by doing that, you decided to screw up our lives? Asshole!"

Wild Hogs is a film that received an appalling reception from the critics. The critics fundamentally tore it to pieces and fed its readers nothing but horrible comments. I approached Wild Hogs (on a recommendation) with caution because of the critics and found myself being pleasantly surprised.

The film is harmless entertainment with a few good laughs that is destined to provide some decent entertainment for the family. I cannot believe the critics disliked the film so much; I thought it supplied a healthy dosage of quality laughs. The first minute already had me in stitches!

Four middle-aged American blokes decide to take a break from their hectic lives, shake off all their responsibilities and hit the road on their bikes to experience "the real America". (Easy Rider, anyone?) Travelling on the road from Cincinnati to the Pacific, the men call themselves the 'Wild Hogs' (and therein lies the title, logically enough). The men come across a biker bar during their travels. While trying to fit in with the rest of the more "official" bikers they are made extremely unwelcome. These (rather clichéd) bunch of bikers then begin hunting the Wild Hogs after an incident that leaves them quite unhappy.

I thought for the most part Wild Hogs was absolutely hilarious. The first half contained all the best laughs and witty lines of dialogue. The second half didn't manage to maintain the same quality and charm that had been established. But of course there are still a number of great laugh-out-loud moments to be experienced the whole way through.

The four central cast members are fantastic! They have all pretty much passed their prime; however this is more suiting to the characters they portray. And face it: this is far better than any of the rubbish comedies that Tim Allen still continues to make in bulk. I never expected to see Ray Liotta pop up in a comedy like this. Someone of his stature actually helped the film quite a bit.

Script and direction are all standard for the genre. I liked the script for the most part; it contains some great hilarious dialogue and great moments. I just wished that they would have taken more time to remove all the clichés and conventions that shamelessly appear to no end. The second half is incredibly predictable! It's to be expected, but it's a shame that no contemporary comedies attempt to stay away from the typical clichés.

At the end of the day; Wild Hogs is a total hoot. The script contains lots of clichés as well as a number of great laughs that make the whole film worth watching.

The film is the furthest thing from a deep and meaningful experience; it's harmless entertainment that is a fun way to spend 90 minutes with the family. If you're looking for a masterpiece then I suggest you go rent something else. Wild Hogs is a comedy that is definitely worth a few screenings.