Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"We all know what we're dealing with here. Jimmy Conway rides into this town, he'll be bringing hell with him. Shoot to kill."

A badass Australian Neo-Western thriller, 2010's Red Hill further demonstrates that Aussie filmmakers are capable of producing top-tier films on low budgets that put more expensive Hollywood productions to shame. It's on the same level as other acclaimed Aussie gems like The Proposition and Animal Kingdom, with writer-director Patrick Hughes fashioning a hard-noised, suspenseful old-fashioned thriller that pays loving tribute to such old masters as John Carpenter and Sergio Leone while also developing a unique identity of its own using rural Australia instead of the vast deserts of the United States. Red Hill never reinvents the wheel, but Hughes trots out the clichés with a sure filmmaking hand, confidently pulling together a gritty, proficient B-movie that's viciously violent and consistently entertaining.

A city boy, young police constable Shane Cooper (Ryan Kwanten) relocates to the tiny rural town of Red Hill in order to reduce the stress of his wife's pregnancy. Cooper optimistically approaches his first day on the job, but the local sheriff, Old Bill (Steve Bisley), has no patience for the young man, giving him a tough time. Word soon spreads to the precinct that disfigured Aboriginal outlaw Jimmy Conway (Tommy Lewis) has broken out of prison, and his first port of call will no doubt be Red Hill to visit the police officers who put him behind bars. Pulling in armed civilians and his entire police force, Old Bill scrambles to protect the town from the bloodthirsty killer headed their way. Cooper soon comes face to face with the vengeful brute, who spares his life but is not so kind to the other police officers, killing them off one by one.

Red Hill plays out as a modern-day western, with Hughes transplanting the oft-seen genre tropes into a rural Australian setting. It's a simple idea, but it has plenty of mileage, particularly because Hughes takes the story in unexpected directions. As a matter of fact, the film looks to be losing steam at around the 60-minute mark, only for Hughes to drop a few revelations that reignite momentum and pave the way for a stunning ending. Moreover, Red Hill is an emotionally charged story, displaying interest in character development that doesn't merely come off as perfunctory. Cooper's wife seems like a shallow device to give him depth, but it actually feeds into the story in a profound way. Although none of the characters here are original, Hughes imbues them with complexity; even the ostensible villains of the tale are not as cut-and-dried as they seem. Red Hill does stumble at times (there's a subplot involving a panther that gets a little goofy, some of the firearm accuracies are skewiff, and at times people hesitate to shoot for no reason other than convenience), but Hughes keeps the picture afloat nevertheless, getting a lot more right than wrong.

Making his feature film debut after a string of short movies, Hughes assembles Red Hill with care and patience, telling this ostensibly simple story with plenty of thought towards mood and pacing. There is an overriding sense of tension to the movie that's suffocating at times, with a number of gut-wrenchingly intense scenes that kept this reviewer squirming on the edge of his seat. This is a testament not just to Hughes' abilities as a craftsman (he edited the film as well) but also to his skills as a storyteller; it's possible to become invested in this atmospheric tale and feel attached to the characters, breathlessly watching to see what will happen to them next. Tim Hudson's lavish cinematography is impressive, as well, making great use of the sprawling Australian landscapes and the small-town locales that provide Red Hill with flavour and atmosphere. And while Hughes gives the flick a serious, gritty tone, there is also a sense of playfulness underneath, preventing the film from devolving into a dour drag. The tiny budget is evident at times, but Red Hill is a stylish movie for the most part, benefitting from a strong sense of vision.

Ryan Kwanten is not the first name that one thinks of to play an action hero, as his work in television shows like True Blood and Home & Away portray him as more of a pretty boy than anything substantive. But Kwanten is perfect as Shane Cooper, showing genuine range as he creates a protagonist who's instantly worthy of our empathy. He's smart, sensitive, mature and nuanced, and never feels the need to take off his shirt. Moreover, Kwanten effortlessly sells Cooper's transition from clueless to heroic. Equally excellent is support work from Mad Max actor Steve Bisley, who makes for an entirely believable old police chief with more to his character than what meets the eye. Most of the other roles are pretty one-note, but Tommy Lewis deserves major plaudits for his mute portrayal of Jimmy Conway.

To be sure, Red Hill packs a fair amount of clichés, but this is a rare type of film that makes the clichés work, resulting in a surprisingly rich, emotional experience that deserves a wide audience. Hughes is definitely a talent to watch, as the film benefits from its smart pacing and an array of action sequences that are more viscerally exciting than the majority of Hollywood's output.

8.3/10

"You're not afraid of the dark, are you?"

A passion project for star Vin Diesel and writer-director David Twohy, 2013's Riddick is the third big-screen outing of the titular character, scrubbing away the soulless PG-13 extravagance of The Chronicles of Riddick to get back to the spirit of the original movie, Pitch Black. Produced on a petite $38 million budget and armed with an R rating, Riddick is vehemently a back-to-basics endeavour, foregrounding horror elements and once again portraying the franchise's namesake as a morally ambiguous badass with a penchant for brutal violence. The resultant picture is not exactly a masterpiece, but it is enjoyable B-movie nonsense, with strong craftsmanship rendering it a fun time-killer for both fans of the series as well as the uninitiated, even if it fails to introduce much innovation.

Unfulfilled in his new position as Lord Marshal of the Necromongers, Richard B. Riddick (Diesel) renounces his throne, hoping to set out in search of his fellow Furyans. Instead, he is betrayed and left for dead on a remote desert planet, where the wounded warrior learns to survive despite harsh conditions. With a monsoon approaching that will bring along scores of deadly creatures, Riddick feels he has outstayed his welcome, subsequently hatching a plan to escape the planet. With an enormous bounty on the killer's head, Riddick triggers a distress signal in a nearby supply bunker to lead ships to him, planning to steal a ship from whoever responds. The signal attracts a team of bounty hunters, but they are not willing to play ball with Riddick, who on the other hand is perfectly happy to pick them off one by one. Crashing the party soon afterwards is another group of bounty hunters who want Riddick for more personal reasons.

In seeking to recapture the spirit of Pitch Black, Twohy and Diesel essentially just rehash the film, as Riddick adheres to a similar narrative: an alien planet, a group of people stuck with Riddick, and a bunch of vicious creatures hunting them. In fact, Twohy abandons all the developments found in Chronicles to return the series to square one. The plot is very thin, more of a succession of set pieces without a cohesive through-line beyond the need to escape the planet. As a result, while entertaining, Riddick does feel a bit pointless in the long run, with Twohy doing little to progress the series in any substantial fashion. Of course, over-ambition rendered Chronicles a convoluted, overdeveloped bore, but a bit more ambition would nevertheless be appreciated here. Strangely, Twohy's screenplay seems insistent on hammering home the message that Riddick is a badass and characters should fear him, with repetitive dialogue that serves no purpose since this is the third film in the series and viewers should know who they're dealing with by now. Even for those who are new to the series, such dialogue is too heavy-handed. Also odd is the fact that Katee Sackhoff's character is a lesbian, but Riddick seems intent on changing that. This malarkey comes out of nowhere and feels astonishingly out of place.

2004's The Chronicles of Riddick imagined new worlds, with its vast $100 million budget facilitating a large-scale science fiction epic. Here, Twohy had a minimal budget to work with, and the financing was so meagre that Diesel actually mortgaged his house at one stage to keep production going until a bank loan came through. Riddick is visually ambitious for a $38 million production, with vast digitally-created otherworldly vistas, CGI creatures, and a smattering of futuristic technology. Twohy creates a compelling look for the movie, with cinematographer David Eggby displaying a real talent for composition and lighting, creating an impressive sense of atmosphere. The effects of the creatures are not completely convincing (the canines look particularly cheap), but they are good enough to allow us to feel invested in the story's occurrences.

The first act of Riddick is almost entirely bereft of dialogue, with Twohy observing Riddick's day-to-day exploits on the alien planet as he deals with a broken leg, gathers food and raises a young alien pup. It's often absorbing to watch due to the skill of Twohy's visual filmmaking, but Diesel has limited range, and therefore has trouble effectively conveying whatever thought or emotion he's feeling at any given time. Nevertheless, Diesel makes for a compelling enough antihero, with cold glares and a gruff line delivery working in his favour. He looks especially at home during the action stuff, when Riddick unleashes his brutal inner warrior in increasingly awesome ways. The supporting players here are fine for the most part, with Sackhoff the most notable simply because she's more or less the only female in the picture (thankless extras notwithstanding).

If you liked Pitch Black and have been yearning for a proper sequel that maintains the same spirit, then Riddick will likely satisfy you. Even the five people in the world who like The Chronicles of Riddick should also enjoy this third entry in the series. On the other hand, if you were not a fan of the prior flicks, then there's no talking to you. Even though it's disappointing that Riddick's plotting is far too slight, it is refreshingly stripped down after the overblown first sequel, with Twohy happy to merely let us revel in watching Riddick unchained. It's R-rated matinee-style silliness that proficiently fulfils its promise of delivering hardcore action and dark sci-fi thrills.

6.8/10

"Master Bruce. You set off the alarm, sir. This somnambulism is becoming a problem especially for those of us with a penchant for sleeping at night."

For over twenty years, comic fans have yearned for a film adaptation of Frank Miller's 1986 four-issue miniseries The Dark Knight Returns, which has long been considered a vital, iconic part of comic book history. Although a live-action adaptation is yet to be produced, it's hard to complain about the quality of 2012's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1, a straight-to-video animated production from Warner Bros. Animation. A constituent of the long-running DC Comics animated universe, this is an impressive, lavishly-produced feature that manages to do the groundbreaking comic book justice. While there are a few issues here and there, Part 1 is a satisfying rendering of Miller's celebrated work, with impressively stylised animation, a superb voice cast, brutal fight scenes, and an enthrallingly dark atmosphere.

As opposed to a typical tale about Batman in his prime, The Dark Knight Returns is the story of an aging Bruce Wayne (Peter Weller) who retired his masked vigilante alter ego ten years ago. It's a dark time for Gotham City, as a gang who call themselves The Mutants are causing turmoil on the streets, committing random acts of violence and causing unrest. Fed up with the injustice, Wayne opts to once again don the cape and cowl, heading out as Batman to clean up the streets of Gotham one last time with help from the soon-to-retire Commissioner Gordon (David Selby). Meanwhile, Harvey Dent (Wade Williams) is released from prison, soon returning to his old psychotic ways as Two-Face. Due to his age, Wayne is in need of assistance and is soon approached by the young, plucky Carrie Kelley (Ariel Winter), who dons the Robin outfit.

Those unfamiliar with Miller's work may find The Dark Knight Returns to be a departure from the ordinary. Miller depicts the Caped Crusader as an unrelentingly dark, Clint Eastwood-esque figure who's physically intimidating and brutal. In fact, the brutality of this movie cannot be understated; it's more or less an R-rated take on the character. While Part 1 carries a PG-13 rating, director Jay Oliva does not baulk from sequences of intense violence. Also worth noting about this story is the way it explores the Dark Knight's twisted psychology, as Wayne has a primal need to be Batman. For the most part, the script by Bob Goodman stays faithful to Miller's work, even devoting large portions of time to news reports, showing the media's perception of Batman and his enemies. This material works wonderfully, as we are given an overview of the bigger picture in Gotham and see the moral debates over the need for the Caped Crusader. However, the film excludes Batman's inner monologues from Miller's comic. While a voiceover-heavy presentation might have been too overbearing, snippets of inner monologues could've made for a richer and more complete experience.

Minor script flaws notwithstanding, Part 1 soars in every other department. For a direct-to-video production, the animation is stunning, with stylised character designs and creative compositions evoking the pages of Miller's comic book and possessing a cinematic flair that belies its modest origins. In fact, this is one of the most visually interesting DC animated features so far, with an eye towards noir-ish lighting and clever use of colours. The Dark Knight Returns is a dark movie, but it's not unrelentingly dour or dull like Christopher Nolan's movies, which is an enormous benefit. The various battle scenes are extremely impressive, most notably the hand-to-hand combat scenes involving Batman that are better than anything Nolan staged in his trilogy. Fluid, hard-hitting and altogether thrilling, Part 1 is an amazing action film, superior to most of the live-action interpretations of the Dark Knight. Plus, the pacing is spot-on and the music clicks beautifully, not to mention the voice acting adds finesse to the production. Peter Weller nails it as an older, world-weary Batman, while Ariel Winter adds spunk and energy playing the new female Robin.

Like its iconic source material, this animated version of The Dark Knight Returns is an engrossing, mature take on one of pop culture's most beloved icons. It's not perfect, but it's a promising start, benefitting from slick visuals, a strong screenplay and a wonderful sense of atmosphere. Dark and layered, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1 easily places itself in the upper echelon of DC animated movies, and anyone who's even mildly fond of the Batman character needs to watch this film (and Part 2) at the earliest opportunity.

8.2/10

"Everything you've heard... about monsters, about nightmares, legends whispered around campfires. All the stories are true."

2013's The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones is another attempt to kick-start a cinematic franchise of young adult novel adaptations, emerging in the shadow of Twilight, Harry Potter and The Hunger Games. It's actually the third movie of 2013 to attempt to spark such a franchise after both The Host and Beautiful Creatures failed. Even though The Mortal Instruments seems like a blatant Twilight rip-off due to its focus on young love within a story involving werewolves and vampires, it's actually more tolerable than this reviewer had anticipated - it's a well-made fantasy action-adventure that's suitably entertaining, even for casual viewers without any knowledge of the novel series on which it's based. It's more or less what Twilight could have been like if it wasn't so morose and dull.

A typical teenager living in New York City, Clary (Lily Collins) begins seeing and subconsciously drawing a strange symbol, which alarms her single mother, Jocelyn (Lena Headey). While out with her best pal Simon (Robert Sheehan), Clary is approached by the mysterious Jace (Jamie Campbell Bower), a half-human/half-angel warrior known as a "Shadowhunter" who slaughters demons that have entered the Earthly realm. With Jocelyn abducted, Jace informs Clary that she's not an ordinary girl, and her mother possesses powers she has passed on. Wanting to rescue her mother, Clary travels to a secret hideout called The Institute, accompanied by Jace and Simon. Powerful former Shadowhunter Valentine (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is out to retrieve a mortal instrument known as the Mortal Cup, which he seeks to use for his own devious purposes. Problem is, the cup is hidden, and only Clary's mother knows where it is, sparking a race against time to retrieve the cup before it falls into Valentine's hands.

Adapted from the popular novel series by Cassandra Clare, City of Bones was saddled with a lot of mythology to deal with and exposition to convey, necessitating a lot of chatter before the battles can kick in. Unfortunately, Jessica Postigo's screenplay is not exactly light on its feet, leading to pacing issues as the film gets bogged down in overly verbose blocks of dialogue. And even with all the endless talking, City of Bones leaves a number of questions unanswered, particularly about the specifics of the evil machinations at play and the exact significance of the Mortal Cup. As a result, the narrative does feel a little disjointed. City of Bones often feels like an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but that show benefitted from the witty writing of Joss Whedon. Here, the dialogue is pretty standard order.

Regardless of its script and pacing problems, City of Bones is a skilfully-assembled motion picture, with director Harald Zwart making the most of the $60 million budget at his disposal. The mythological beasts in this story actually have bite - the werewolves, vampires and demons are given free rein to, well, be werewolves, vampires and demons. Zwart delivers in a big way when the action arrives, impressively showcasing the badass abilities of the various combatants, executed with solid digital effects. Unfortunately, the romantic elements of the story are relatively unsuccessful. Simon is hopelessly in love with Clary, but she's ignorant of his feelings, and the melodrama stemming from this situation is on the same level as a television soap opera. Romance is essential for the movie's target demographic, but it needed a defter, more sophisticated touch. Here, the material is too corny. With that said, though, it's commendable that City of Bones never gets too bogged down in the romantic stuff, a trap that Twilight fell into. The flick is more concerned with the bigger picture, which is why it works for the most part.

Whereas Twilight was positively suffocated by lousy acting, City of Bones features a fine ensemble of actors who commit to the material and deliver believable performances. Collins is a confessed fan of the source material who passionately sought the role of Clary upon learning of the planned film adaptation. Thank goodness she got the part, as Collins is a beautiful presence who comes off as a credible young lady and embodies the role's intelligence and bravery. She even looks like a teenager despite being in her twenties. Meanwhile, Jamie Campbell Bower is decent as Jace, if not exactly remarkable, and Robert Sheehan is pretty good in the role of Simon. Luckily, the adult cast also provides solid support. Game of Thrones star Lena Headey is in fine form as Jocelyn, while Jared Harris is suitably strange and charming as Hodge. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is also good, sinking his teeth into this villainous role.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones is not overly memorable or brilliant, but it's a smoother ride than any Twilight film. It provides enough material to keep girls interested and prevent the male demographic from falling asleep. It's hardly required viewing, but it is watchable and often enjoyable, which is a ringing endorsement from a reviewer who normally hates this type of dreck. The film's failure at the box office is disappointing, as further instalments would be an enticing prospect. After all, the groundwork has been laid now, and sequels can have more fun with this cinematic universe. City of Bones has its flaws, but it's kept afloat thanks to solid performances, a decent story, and the fact that it doesn't treat its audience as complete morons.

6.1/10

"We will never stop innovating..."

By most accounts, Apple founder Steve Jobs was a cruel person; a narcissist who acted callously towards his family, friends and subordinates. However, according to Joshua Michael Stern's Jobs, all of the innovator's undeniable shortcomings are forgivable because he was a saint who simply used severe means in his quest for perfection. Even though this movie was not endorsed by Apple, it plays out like a safe commercial for the tech giant, with the screenplay by Matt Whiteley demonstrating no interest in exploring the psychological or behavioural complexity of its titular character. Jobs feels like a surface-level made-for-television movie, never transforming into anything substantive. It's a serviceable experience, but it lacks the ingenuity, execution, thematic heft and lasting impact of David Fincher's The Social Network, the film that Jobs clearly wants to emulate.

Dropping out of college due to boredom, Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) begins sitting in on design classes on-campus, studying calligraphy which stimulates his imagination. Jobs eventually lands a job at Atari, where he recruits his tech-savvy pal Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad) to assist in developing hardware. Finding that Wozniak has developed a device that could revolutionise home computing, Jobs pairs up with his friend, going into business together and founding Apple Computers, hoping to sell their technology to anyone brave enough to buy it. Getting his big break thanks to investor Mike Markkula (Dermot Mulroney), Jobs develops Apple into an industry force to be reckoned with, developing innovative products to remain ahead of their competition. However, power plays and financial demands force Jobs out of his own company, though he eventually returns years later with a vision to re-energise the fading Apple brand.

Jobs follows the standard biopic template, providing a "greatest hits" compilation of major events in Steve Jobs' life and Apple's tumultuous development. Since Stern and Whiteley strive to cover as much ground as possible, they fail to give any one subplot the dramatic development that it deserves, leading to story threads that lead absolutely nowhere. For instance, Jobs has a very heated phone call with Bill Gates regarding Microsoft and threatens to sue, but nothing more stems from this. Likewise, Jobs throws out his girlfriend due to an unwanted pregnancy, and refuses to accept that the child is his. In the third act, suddenly, the disowned daughter is in Steve's custody without any explanation as to why he finally embraced his little girl. At the very least, however, the film is fairly successful in its early stages, providing an absorbing glimpse at the early development of Apple in the 1970s. A two-hour film could have been produced which zeroed in on the early days alone, but the film wants to chronicle a lot more, resulting in a disjointed mishmash of dramatic skits without a proper through-line. Jobs is ambitious, but it fails to sufficiently delve into who Steve Jobs is and what makes him tick.

One of the fatal flaws of Jobs is that it decides for us that being a technological innovator is a good excuse for being a repellent human. It's the adulation that Stern and Whiteley display towards Jobs that renders the movie infinitely less interesting than it had the potential to be. Whereas The Social Network had the intelligence to present an honest, insightful, morally ambiguous portrayal of its subject matter and let us draw our own conclusions, Jobs is much less sophisticated. Worse, the ending is a total dud; it closes on an empty, underwhelming note, destined to induce murmurs of "Is that it?" Rather than a meaningful conclusion that effectively wraps everything up, the flick just seems to cut itself off right after Jobs gets back the reigns to his company which ultimately leads them to where they are today. A detailed segment about Apple's rise to prominence in the 21st Century would have been interesting, or the film could have even closed with a short, poignant montage depicting Jobs' more recent innovations leading up to his death. If such material was tagged onto the end, movie-goers would leave the cinema with interesting material to ponder. In its current form, you'll just shrug.

If nothing else, Jobs can be admired for its technical credits. Putting the tiny $12 million budget to good use, Stern convincingly recreates the '70s, '80s and '90s, with period-specific costumes and make-up, supplemented with a pleasant soundtrack of recognisable songs. With that said, though, Stern is not much of a visual stylist. Fincher's The Social Network was much more involving, and its pace was brisker, but Jobs is extremely middle-of-the-road all the way through, only rarely gaining much traction. Luckily, the acting all-round is strong for the most part. Kutcher is a fine, if not exactly memorable, Steve Jobs. He even emulates his distinctive walk, a fact that Stern is all too happy to exploit - maybe 10% of the film consists of shots of Kutcher just walking.

Ultimately, the story of Jobs and Apple is wasted in this distilled two-hour motion picture; there is easily enough fodder for a television miniseries that could provide the definitive overview of this subject and incisively explore more than just the surface of this complex man. Watching Jobs is akin to reading a Wikipedia entry due to its lack of depth and detail. For those curious about the life of Steve Jobs or the growth of Apple, the movie may be serviceable enough. By no means is this a terrible movie; it's just a missed opportunity, playing out like a Lifetime Original production as opposed to an audacious theatrical feature.

5.2/10

"I can't think of a more important job than protecting the President."

Blockbuster extraordinaire Roland Emmerich was last seen provoking yawns with his monotonous Shakespeare drama Anonymous in 2011, and received zero box office interest in return. Looking to get back to his old tricks, 2013's White House Down is a grand, big-budget offering of explosions and general spectacle, with the screenplay by James Vanderbilt (The Amazing Spider-Man) giving the director ample space to perpetrate scene after scene of wanton destruction, accompanied with a side order of American patriotism. White House Down is actually the second 2013 action movie to abide by the "Die Hard in the White House" premise after the deliriously enjoyable Olympus Has Fallen. While the earlier flick was a dark, adult R-rated thriller, Emmerich's take on the set-up yields a safe, generic PG-13 extravaganza, which is admittedly fun but flawed in ways that are difficult to ignore. Overblown, preposterous and often cloying, it elicits eye rolls and unwanted laughs, even if the production values make this a relatively passable sit.

A former soldier stuck in a middling job, John Cale (Channing Tatum) lands himself an interview for a Secret Service position. Also struggling to patch up the broken relationship he shares with his daughter Emily (Joey King), John takes his little girl to the interview, as she's interested in politics and cherishes the chance to visit the White House. Though John is shut down at the interview, he soon gets the opportunity to prove his worth. Following an explosion in the Capitol building, a team of domestic terrorists work from the inside to take over the White House and kidnap the President, James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx). Separated from Emily, John works to find his daughter but soon winds up protecting the President, teaming up with Sawyer to navigate the building and disrupt the terrorists' plan.

White House Down runs a completely unnecessary 130 minutes, as Vanderbilt overcomplicates the narrative to unnecessary extremes, in the process disrupting the pace and lessening the sense of fun. Most egregious is the added B-story concerning the Vice President (Michael Murphy) high in the air on-board Air Force One, and the Speaker of the House (Richard Jenkins) who takes refuge in a bunker. Such material is treated as decorative in pictures like Olympus Has Fallen and Air Force One, but the subplot here is actually integrated into the terrorism scenario, adding another ten minutes to the already much too-long runtime. Moreover, the film disregards logic and realism; Vanderbilt demonstrates minimal knowledge regarding how civilians, the American government or the Secret Service would handle such a crisis, and the White House takeover is so easy that it will induce groans. Plus, at one stage, John warns the military about the dangers of an air rescue due to the terrorists' equipment, but the suits in charge decide to discount his eyewitness testimony for no good reason. This is a Roland Emmerich movie, after all, hence it's a shallow popcorn actioner built on contrivances. White House Down is corny, as well - the material that involves John's daughter (who hates her father but winds up bonding with him through the experience) is obvious and trite, while a moment involving flag waving during the climax is ridiculous.

On the surface, White House Down is at least serviceable enough. Emmerich directs films with the same level of intelligence as a Michael Bay production but displays a better cinematic eye. Rather than using shaky-cam, Emmerich relies on steady, tripod-heavy set pieces, making for smooth viewing and allowing us to bask in the picture's destructive glory without suffering migraines. The $150 million budget was put to good use here, resulting in an attractive motion picture with impressive special effects (though some of the CGI is occasionally obvious). Emmerich raises the pulse at times, too, especially during an entertaining set piece spotlighting a prolonged chase on the White House lawn. However, as with most American action films, it would seem that the firearm accuracy of a henchman depends on how important their target is: no-name agents are gunned down effortlessly, but John can never be hit despite the thousands of bullets that are fired in his direction. There's also a huge contrivance towards the end involving the accuracy of a bullet that's destined to provoke derisive chortles.

As to be expected on account of its mammoth budget, White House Down is a PG-13 blockbuster, and the watering-down to achieve this docile rating is some of the most awkward and distracting in recent memory. Olympus Has Fallen never baulked from graphic violence, but White House Down's refusal to show any blood makes for astonishing incoherence, with strange cutaways and awkward framing to avoid capturing viscera. PG-13 films can work, but Emmerich's film contains R-rated content executed with a PG-13 sensibility. It's distracting.

There isn't much to criticise in terms of acting; the performers are serviceable without being overly brilliant. Tatum is a reasonably flat action hero, but he does make good use of the light, comedic side of his screen persona that we saw in 21 Jump Street. Nevertheless, Tatum is not memorable enough for these types of roles; Gerard Butler was much more successful. As President Sawyer, Foxx acquits himself agreeably, creating a charismatic leader reminiscent of Barack Obama. There are a few other big names in the cast here, including Maggie Gyllenhaal, Richard Jenkins and James Woods, but their work is merely okay, with the script clearly below their abilities. However, Jimmi Simpson looks to be having a good time as one of the bad guys, and Jason Clarke is a fun antagonist.

White House Down sticks by the formula that worked for Roland Emmerich in the 1990s, when he basically invented the dumb popcorn blockbuster. It's simplistic and dumbed-down, produced to play for the broadest demographic possible, and it needs a tauter screenplay. After all, it's not like the movie is worried about careful character development, and it lacks the class and sophistication of Die Hard. Action junkies may be pleased by White House Down, but it's hard to imagine serious cinema-goers finding much value here.

5.7/10

"We'll be alright, Joey. We're the lucky ones, you and me. Lucky since the day I met you."

War Horse brings a whole new meaning to the term "old-fashioned filmmaking." Though it carries a contemporary polish, it feels like the movie was written and meticulously storyboarded over half a century ago, intended to be directed by John Ford in the 1940s or '50s, but was eventually made in 2011 without any alterations to the original blueprints. It's a grand, sweeping 150-minute saga, infused with a level of schmaltz and corniness that no director has tried to get away with for a long time. Yet, it works under the careful control of veteran director Steven Spielberg, who brilliantly commits to the material, selling it with the right amount of conviction to render the enterprise sufficiently effective. Nevertheless, War Horse is not quite the masterpiece many had anticipated, as it's too long in the tooth and needs a sharper pace.

At an auction, hard-drinking family man Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan) buys a spirited horse named Joey despite his poor financial situation. Ted's son Albert (Jeremy Irvine) instantly bonds with the animal, training his pal to plough fields and ride. However, Ted is forced to sell Joey to make ends meet, upsetting Albert as his equestrian companion is sent to the front lines of World War I. In the war, Joey changes hands constantly, encountering the sympathetic Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston), a rural Frenchman (Niels Arestrup) and his granddaughter (Celine Buckens), as well as several members of the German military. Albert remains optimistic that he will someday reunite with Joey, enlisting in the army and enduring his own harsh wartime odyssey for the sake of his beloved horse.

Based on the young reader's novel of the same name by Michael Morpurgo (later made into a play for the London stage), War Horse is a charming story steeped in pertinent themes and ideally suited to Spielberg's storytelling sensibilities. Joey is completely neutral in the war with no care for allegiances or politics, rendering him an ideal vehicle for crossing the lines in a WWI saga to explore both sides of the conflict. Even though the British and German soldiers battle one another, Spielberg casts both sides in a sympathetic light, using Joey as a device to highlight the human commonalities of the opposing forces. A number of powerful moments stem from this, including a beautiful scene in which a German and a British soldier leave their ranks to rescue Joey when he's tangled in barbed wires. As they work together towards a shared goal, the soldiers treat each other as regular human beings, briefly breaking from the doom and gloom of the war and realising that they could even be friends if it wasn't for their governments. To be sure, however, there are a handful of saccharine-coated scenes in the film, and the story's conclusion is overly optimistic and unsurprising. More problematic is the prolonged running time, leading to a somewhat sluggish pace. Sure, a lot of ground needed to be covered, but the film is often a bit distant, only successfully striking emotional chords on occasion.

From a technical perspective, War Horse is old-fashioned to extremes, stylistically similar to films like The Searchers and Gone with the Wind. It's a gorgeous war epic, with Spielberg's regular cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, turning the picture into a masterclass of beautiful compositions. The lighting is exquisite, and the framing is sturdy and patient, taking full advantage of the competent production values bursting with authentic period detail. When Spielberg's camera heads to the battlefield, War Horse goes dark, depicting a substantial amount of wartime casualties. Nevertheless, the deaths are tastefully handled. This doesn't feel like an R-rated film that was cut down to a PG-13, but rather a product of Hollywood's golden age, creatively suggesting violence without showing a great deal, and the results are often harrowing. Spielberg's sense of pacing is a bit off, but his contributions are otherwise admirable. Also effective is John William's characteristically majestic score; not one of the seasoned composer's finest works, but nevertheless a flavoursome accompaniment that enhances the film's visual elements.

If the Academy Awards had a category for best animal performer, no doubt the eleven horses used to portray Joey would be collective shoo-ins. Even though Joey is just a horse, he has a remarkable sense of humanity and expressiveness, an extraordinary feat on the part of the filmmakers. As for the human actors, none of them appear for long, save for Irvine who receives a considerable amount of screen-time as Albert. Irvine is a fine performer despite his unknown status, ably handling the emotional requirements of the role and selling his love for Joey. A barely-present Emily Watson also makes a big impression as Albert's mother, while recognisable actors like Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch heighten the production's sense of class and gravitas.

Sentimental motion pictures are incredibly divisive, as some people are driven to tears while others find themselves unaffected. War Horse is a polarising melodrama all the way through to its core - it is powerful at times, but for the most part, it held this reviewer at arm's length, and it's far too long. Nevertheless, Spielberg has created a sweeping ode to Hollywood's golden age, beautifully shot and assembled with proficiency, and although it's not an instant classic or one of the bearded maestro's best works, it is welcome to witness such a production in this day and age.

6.9/10

"Thanks to mum and dad for bringing us all here together."

At long last receiving a theatrical release after hitting the film festival circuits in 2011, You're Next is one of 2013's most critically acclaimed horror outings, generating a lot of online buzz. What a shame, then, that all the hype is for naught. Directed by Adam Wingard and written by Simon Barrett, this independently-produced slasher flick is ridiculously weak and hopelessly predictable, content to go through the telegraphed motions without any sense of style or sophistication, and without ever raising a viewer's pulse by even a single beat. Apparently, the film is meant to be some type of satiric deconstruction of the popular "home invasion" subgenre, but it lacks the nuance and creativity to achieve such a goal. You're Next is actually just a really bone-headed and painfully clichéd slasher, never coming across as effective satire.

To celebrate their thirty-fifth wedding anniversary, wealthy couple Paul (Rob Moran) and Aubrey Davison (Barbara Crampton) set out for their remote country house for the weekend, inviting their adult children and their respective partners to commemorate the occasion. It doesn't take long for tensions to run high in the family as they settle down for the celebratory dinner, but things are soon interrupted by a group of armed assailants wearing animal masks. Storming the premise, the members of the household are killed off one by one, compelling Erin (Sharni Vinson) into action, who hopes to survive the slaughter and save anyone that she can.

If Wingard and Barrett intended You're Next to be a serious horror flick, they missed the mark by a long shot. The picture almost immediately plummets into an abyss of terrible writing, acting and directing, and it never recovers as it moves forward at a snail's pace. When people refer to "typical horror movies" that cheapen the genre, You're Next is exactly the type of film they are referring to. The script may as well have been regurgitated by a computer, as Barrett stuffs the picture with scene after scene of contrived situations and idiotic character actions. One character even asks, "Hello?" into the darkness, and at other times, characters wander around dark parts of the house alone even though there are murderous psychopaths inside. Worse, Barrett includes a few revelations about the true motivations behind the murders that should be shocking but instead come off as forced and hoary. There is no intelligence to the writing; You're Next suffers from some of the laziest, dumbest scripting that the horror genre has seen in years.

The only character who reacts smartly to the situation is Erin, who grew up in a survivalist compound and is skilled at offence and defence. Erin becomes the story's heroine, using an array of impromptu weapons to defend herself and actually giving the attackers a fight. When Erin turns the tables on the murderers, You're Next provides its only entertaining moments, though it's more of a "beggars can't be choosers" situation due to how dire the film has been until that point. Vinson acquits herself somewhat effectively in the role of Erin, but the rest of the actors deliver stiff, unconvincing performances. It's not all their fault, however, as one can only do so much with this amateur-hour material. Admittedly, horror fans will appreciate some of the casting choices, including B-movie scream queen Barbara Crampton (Re-Animator, Body Double) and celebrated young horror director Ti West (The Innkeepers), who plays a filmmaker character. Unfortunately, Wingard's directorial technique is slipshod, overusing shaky-cam effects to try and generate tension, but to no avail. Moreover, the photography is exceedingly ugly in terms of composition and colour palette, and no amount of lazy jump-scares can compensate for the fact that none of the actors can emote a convincing look of terror when one of their family members is butchered right in front of them.

If You're Next was designed to be a satire, it falls way short of its mark. The art of satire requires a deft sleight-of-hand, as evidenced in films like Shaun of the Dead and Black Dynamite. Wingard's technique is too outright drab and lacking in energy, making this an oddly joyless experience regardless of its intentions. One supposes that Wingard wanted to make a postmodernist, meta treat like Scream or Cabin in the Woods, but it lacks the required sense of wit and invention. To its credit, the film does work at times, including a few gory killings and a handful of moments that provoke intentional hilarity. As for the rest, it's difficult to figure out which tone Wingard is aiming for at any one time.

Outside of a halfway decent performance from Vinson and an agreeable synth score that evokes the old films of John Carpenter, You're Next is pure guff, an agonisingly incompetent wannabe slasher that fails on practically every level. Maybe devout horror buffs will get a kick out of the visceral killings, but everyone else will be turned off by the anaemic acting talent, lack of tension, horribly written dialogue and shoddy story. It honestly feels as if a group of aliens tried to make a movie mimicking our tendencies to the best of their understanding, and people only embraced the end result because it's so dunderheaded that they assume it must be a joke. You know what would've improved the movie by a hundredfold? If, in the end, it was revealed that it was just a student movie made by a (fictional) pretentious pseudo-intellectual, and the last few minutes contained genuine satire that delved into the mindset of everyone behind the scenes. Such material could've redeemed You're Next; as it is, it's a joke without a punch-line.

2.7/10

"Great, the school gets taken over by terrorists, and I'm still on pots and pans."

It's an overused analogy, but 1991's Toy Soldiers is fundamentally an amalgam of Die Hard, The Goonies and Red Dawn, making kids and teenagers the heroes of an adult premise. By no means is this a groundbreaking or awards-worthy production, but it is a terrific popcorn flick that delivers easy-going entertainment, exciting action sequences, and some nail-biting suspense. It's one of those movies you watch on a rainy day with a big bowl of popcorn and a handful of friends. And the fact that it's not marred by many of the usual pitfalls of modern action films makes Toy Soldiers even better. It's not on the same level as Die Hard, but nothing much is.

Notorious troublemaker Billy Tepper (Sean Astin) has been expelled from several educational institutions and winds up at the Regis School in Virginia, where powerful American families send their delinquent offspring. Tepper and his band of misfits (including Keith Coogan, Wil Wheaton, T.E. Russell and George Perez) consistently cause headaches for the school's dean (Louis Gossett Jr.) and headmaster (Denholm Elliott). However, the boys' courage is put to the test when the school is violently taken over by a group of terrorists led by the ruthless Luis Cali (Ander Divoff). Cali takes the kids hostage, demanding that the American government release his father from prison. Not surprisingly, Tepper and his rebellious pals are unwilling to sit back and do nothing.

Written by David Koepp (Jurassic Park) and directed by Daniel Petrie Jr., Toy Soldiers is skilfully structured and well-written for what's essentially junk food cinema. Like Die Hard, the terrorist takeover of the school does not occur until about thirty minutes into the film's almost two-hour runtime, permitting scenes of valuable character development. And the protagonists react to the terrorist takeover in a completely naturalistic fashion, showing intelligence and innovation, but they are also not shown to be invincible. Admittedly, Toy Soldiers is sometimes a little ridiculous, leaning on typical Hollywood chestnuts like split-second timing, and it also simplifies a few narrative aspects. And then there's the fact that the military and the kids simultaneously stage an attack against the terrorists, even though they cannot communicate properly and both parties would be screwed without the cooperation of the other. Still, none of this stuff is overly bothersome.

Even though Toy Soldiers is more or less a film for kids and teens, it is R-rated, which sparked negative reactions among critics. Petrie does not shy away from the inherent violence of the story, with gunshot wounds yielding visibly bloody holes and with the characters swearing constantly. Honestly, though, the R rating is what gives Toy Soldiers its colour - kiddie movies are often sanitised to a fault, which can be detrimental as kids will not grasp the consequences of violence. Plus, kids do swear, and this fact is scarcely acknowledged in PG-13 cinema. The film is dark at times, but it all comes with the territory for this type of story. It also helps that Toy Soldiers is so proficiently mounted, balancing its darker moments with light-hearted humour and good-natured scenes of the main characters giving the terrorists their comeuppance. Production values are strong all-round, with attractive cinematography by Thomas Burstyn and smooth editing courtesy of frequent Steven Spielberg collaborator Michael Kahn.

Toy Soldiers also works as well as it does thanks to the exceptional cast. Leading the pack is Astin, who had appeared in The Goonies a few years prior and was several years away from his turn in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Astin is a charming, funny smartass here, and makes for a great hero despite his youth. The other boys are just as good, sharing terrific camaraderie and selling their friendships. The acting standout, however, is Louis Gossett Jr., who's a witty and charismatic presence as the strict but fair dean. Indiana Jones co-star Denholm Elliott is also predictably good, coming across as a warm and level-headed headmaster, while Divoff is nicely menacing as the resident villain.

When it comes down to it, Toy Soldiers is essentially a hodgepodge of several other action movies, and there are not many original bones in its cinematic body. Nevertheless, it remains an entertaining flick. Some may question how appropriate it is for children, but it became popular with young folks anyway. Besides, the violence here is on the same level as Raiders of the Lost Ark and Red Dawn, and those movies are childhood classics. Moreover, the film still plays well when you're an adult, which is what matters the most. It's just good fun.

7.3/10

"We snatch him, we grab him, signs a few signatures, we give him a protein shake! He doesn't even know what happened! I watched a lot of movies Paul, I know what I'm doing!"

After years of gargantuan big-budget blockbusters, 2013's Pain & Gain was designed for Michael Bay to dial down his hyperbolic moviemaking tendencies and challenge himself by creating a low-budget character piece. Produced for a minuscule $26 million, it was a brilliant opportunity for Bay to flex whatever genuine directorial chops he possesses, but instead, the movie only serves to remind us yet again of Bay's inherent shortcomings. Rather than an intelligent drama or a comedic hoot, Pain & Gain is caught somewhere in between, resulting in a mean-spirited, repugnant mess that's a chore to sit through. There are no robots here, but Bay's visual diarrhoea is all over the screen - the film is every bit as obnoxious and painfully overlong as his Transformers movies. This is not progress.

Set in Miami in the 1990s, Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) is a convicted felon fresh out of prison who turns to personal training and bodybuilding to get his life back on track. Feeling unfulfilled, he attends a self-help seminar featuring infomercial guru Johnny Wu (Ken Jeong), which motivates him to take action. Recruiting the help of co-worker Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) and born-again heavy Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson), Lugo sets his sights on arrogant millionaire Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub), a new client of Lugo's at the gym. The trio of would-be crooks kidnap Kershaw, holding him for torture in a warehouse to force the millionaire to sign over his wealth to them. Although their plan is successful and the meatheads begin living the good life of wealth, power and comfort, Kershaw survives the incident, enlisting the help of grizzled private detective Ed (Ed Harris) to take down the men who ruined his life.

Written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (Captain America: The First Avenger), Pain & Gain plays out in an interesting fashion, with the film allowing all of the main players to deliver narration at some point. The POV baton is consistently passed around, giving us a window into everybody's psyches and inner thoughts as the proceedings unfold. It's a blatant disregard for basic principles of filmmaking, but it's a creative subversion of the usual narrative rules, and it's one of a handful of things that actually work. Unfortunately, the film is murdered by its misjudged pacing; it takes forever to get anywhere, as Bay dwells on every last detail of every character and every action. It's unnecessarily extended and full of superfluous scenes, making this a leaden experience in need of a more judicious editor. Bay has come so far in his career that he ostensibly has complete creative freedom, which is a death knell for Pain & Gain. Clocking in at over two hours, it's at least thirty or forty minutes longer than it needs to be, rendering this a truly punishing viewing experience.

Pain & Gain wears its "based on a true story" label like a badge of honour, with Bay emphasising it at every opportunity. However, the picture makes light heart of what's, in fact, a despicable story; in real life, the main players were pure scumbags who tortured people, destroyed lives, murdered, lied, extorted and kidnapped. Depicting Lugo and Doorbal in a seemingly sympathetic light is a huge error. Admittedly, Bay was apparently aiming for a dark comedy here, which would have been tolerable if only it were done well. Alas, Bay cannot do comedy properly, as evidenced in the Transformers movies. The approach, therefore, is seldom effective. Pain & Gain might have succeeded if it was a powerful drama or a good black comedy, but instead, it's a confusing hodgepodge of unsuccessful humour and ham-fisted drama, demonstrating that Bay simply lacks the intelligence, wit and nuance to do anything profound or insightful. The film is full of his trademark sensibilities. Hence, instead of subtlety or tastefulness, Pain & Gain is obnoxious and in-your-face, representing yet another example of his engorged creative chutzpah.

Bay definitely makes the most of the scant budget, even forgoing a proper director's salary to keep costs low to get the movie made. It's an impressive move for the filmmaker, who clearly wanted to get in touch with his more earthbound side. No matter its flaws, Pain & Gain is an attractively-produced flick with hyper-stylised, colourful cinematography that's thankfully low on shaky-cam. Moreover, the score by Steve Jablonsky is spot-on, representing the only element of the production with a degree of gravitas. Performances, meanwhile, are reasonable, with the actors all acquitting themselves well with the material. Johnson is probably the standout, showing that he has decent acting chops and is willing to poke fun at his tough-guy persona. Also worth mentioning is Australian actress Rebel Wilson, who's criminally underused and gives the film its only effective comedic moments.

If executed well, all of Pain & Gain's inherent script flaws - its humorous approach that comes off in hugely bad taste, its jarring structure, its excessive runtime - could have been forgiven. Michael Bay, however, was not the right man for the job. While it's promising to see Bay tackle a character-oriented film, Pain & Gain devolves into a disgustingly juvenile, uninvolving exercise in self-indulgence. The lack of taste is astonishing here. Pain & Gain is all pain, and you gain absolutely nothing from it.

3.7/10