Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"A wise man can learn more from his enemies than a fool from his friends."

Rush is arguably 2013's first genuinely great film. A gorgeously-mounted and compelling drama, it represents another winner from director Ron Howard, who's back in fine form here after 2011's The Dilemma. Howard's most distinguished movies are based on true stories, with Apollo 13 and Frost/Nixon showcasing the filmmaker's significant talents in terms of technical proficiency, bravura visuals and taut storytelling, and Rush further exemplifies this. Reuniting with Frost/Nixon screenwriter Peter Morgan, the picture turns its attention to the sport of Formula One racing in the 1970s, yet its appeal is not restricted to sports fans. Indeed, while fervent car fanatics and Formula One devotees will love the behind-the-scenes examination of this dangerous sport, newcomers are not left out in the cold. On the contrary, anyone who simply appreciates good filmmaking will enjoy Rush, as it offers far more than just racing action.

Set predominantly during the 1976 Formula One season, Rush concentrates on the rivalry between British racer James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Austrian Niki Lauda (Daniel Brühl). The pair are complete polar opposites - Hunt is a hedonistic playboy who indulges in women and booze, while Lauda is a consummate professional who's 100% focused on the track, the epitome of all work and no play. As they enter the Formula One season of 1976, a heated contest breaks out between Hunt and Lauda, with Niki taking the lead early into the competition. Following a horrifying crash, Lauda is hospitalised with severe burns and injuries, allowing Hunt to gain some ground. But Lauda is unwilling to let his rival win the title so easily, charging through his rehabilitation and risking his well-being to return to the racetrack before the end of the season.

A less skilful motion picture would mould the story into a brainless racing fiesta, using Hunt as a hero and Lauda as a one-dimensional villain. But Morgan's screenplay is balanced, functioning as a character study of both men, observing their tempestuous relationship as they hesitantly develop a mutual, unspoken respect for one another. As a matter of fact, neither man is painted as a 'good' or 'bad' guy - both have appealing characteristics, but both have flaws that make them hard to like at times. It's a unique angle, and it luckily translates to captivating cinema in the hands of Howard and Morgan. You may find yourself rooting for one or the other, but you may also wind up rooting for both at the same time, leading to a nail-biting few minutes at the end when it's unclear if Hunt is the new World Champion or if Lauda will retain his title. Naturally, Morgan does alter or omit certain facets of the historical record for dramatic reasons (Lauda and Hunt were actually friends off the track in real life), but his script works, and that's what matters since this is a dramatisation rather than a documentary. If there's anything to criticise, it's that a few aspects of the narrative feel underdone - the first race of the 1976 Formula One season is summed up with a brief title card that feels jarring, and Hunt's marriage isn't given much attention.

Even Howard's lesser movies are well-made, and the filmmaker's talents are on full display here, with the director flawlessly realising Morgan's superlative script. Howard's astonishing command of the pacing and storytelling is commendable, as there's nary a dull moment throughout the feature's lengthy two-hour running time. Rush is an energetic film, but this is not to say that Howard skims through character development - on the contrary, large portions of time are devoted to dialogue and drama, but the scenes benefit from fine craftsmanship right down the line. Rush also springs to life during the racing sequences. The races were gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (Dredd), the editing is faultless, and the use of sound is fantastic, making for immersive, atmospheric viewing. Plus, Howard doesn't baulk from showing the gruesome reality of Formula One racing, with Lauda's crash shown in unsettling detail. The make-up effects are seamless, and the production design exquisitely evokes the '70s without showing off.

Hemsworth is not an actor that one would expect to see in a role like this, as he's untested as a true thespian. But Hemsworth nails it, espousing an impressively consistent accent and embodying the essence of James Hunt. Believable as a booze-guzzling ladies' man, Hemsworth is ideal as the arrogant playboy, locating Hunt's humanity and even displaying the racer's emerging humility from time to time. Added to this, Hemsworth suitably resembles his real-life counterpart, which is underscored in a moving montage towards the film's end containing genuine documentary footage of the deceased Hunt. Meanwhile, Brühl was given the difficult task of playing Lauda, yet the resulting performance is extraordinary. Niki is a cold, determined man with unlikeable tendencies, yet Brühl humanises him, letting us believe his motivations and giving us the chance to sympathise with him. Rush is predominantly the Hemsworth and Brühl show, yet Howard assembles a top-flight supporting cast, too, including Olivia Wilde and Alexandra Maria Lara as the wives of the two racers.

Despite its Oscar pedigree, Rush is a mainstream-friendly flick, as Howard's touch is engaging, and the enormously stimulating racing sequences will keep casual movie-goers interested. Howard also deserves kudos for making this an R-rated adult fare, peppering the movie with realistic language and effective portrayals of racetrack harm. Rush could've gone the PG-13 route for maximum box office, but Howard sticks to his guns, and the result is a motion picture that feels like the work of a genuine auteur. While the film may prove somewhat entertaining for teenagers, this is vehemently a movie for adults who will appreciate the fine craftsmanship and the sense of cinematic maturity. And it's great to see this type of adult moviemaking sneaking its way into multiplexes after many months of fun but often brainless blockbusters.

9.0/10

"Try and fit in. I'm sick of finding you a new place to live every 90 days."

Although French super-producer Luc Besson has scripted a number of action films over the past decade and helmed a few oddball motion pictures, he hasn't directed an idiosyncratic movie since The Fifth Element back in 1997. However, that all changed with the release of 2013's The Family. Written by Besson and Michael Caleo, it's not a patch on the director's best efforts (1994's Léon: The Professional is his crowning achievement), and it can be criticised for its bizarre storytelling, jarring tonal shifts and lack of sophistication, but it's nevertheless a lot of fun. While it's nothing memorable, and it won't be a contender in this year's Oscar race, it has the potential to leave movie-goers with a smile on their faces. And considering all of 2013's misfires and disappointments, the fact that The Family is genuinely entertaining and watchable makes it worth at least a minor recommendation.

A former mob boss who's been marked for death after ratting out his friends, Giovanni (Robert De Niro) is placed in the Witness Protection Program, which irks his wife Maggie (Michelle Pfeiffer), son Warren (John D'Leo) and daughter Belle (Dianna Argon). The family are consistently moving from place to place under the direction of an agitated CIA agent (Tommy Lee Jones), and now find themselves in a small town near Normandy in France. Taking on the new identity of Fred Blake, Giovanni decides to sit back and pen his memoirs while his family use their various talents to cause mischief around the local area. But as the family deals with their respective problems, a greater threat emerges, as the men looking for Giovanni are on the verge of uncovering his new location.

The Family derives its humour from the cultural conflict that arises as a result of these American mobsters trying to fit into quaint, provincial French culture. From this, Besson creates a collection of amusing vignettes and moments hung onto the narrative framework, resulting in an admittedly interesting comedy that nevertheless lacks a proper through-line. It feels like a tremendously disorganised experience - De Niro delivers voiceovers on occasion, none of the characters are given the rich development they need, the pacing is strange, and even bad dreams and flashbacks are used, not to mention Besson unsuccessfully veers between the comedic and the outright mean-spirited. It's problematic that the film opens with the gruesome massacre of a family that's borderline uncomfortable to watch, and a few scenes later, we're watching funny dialogue between Giovanni and his family.

Keeping The Family afloat are the competent technical contributions across the board, as well as the fact that the humour is actually very funny. There are some darkly comic moments that made this reviewer laugh out loud, and there's even a meta gag that will please Martin Scorsese fans. Being a Luc Besson movie, it does contain its fair share of fisticuffs and violence too, which is primarily relegated to the picture's third act. Once Giovanni's enemies catch up to him, Besson has great fun staging action beats, which earns the picture's R rating due to the excessive violence. It's good fun, and although nobody will ever accuse the storytelling of being coherent or classy, The Family is always strangely watchable.

After years of coasting through his film roles for the money, De Niro seems to be awake here, and actually having fun in the role of Giovanni. It's not a vintage De Niro performance by any stretch, but there's genuine energy and substance to his character, which is miraculous considering most of his other recent work. Pfeiffer also handles the role of Maggie like a pro, with charm and comedic punch that's beneficial. Equally good are the kids, with D'Leo a nicely quirky presence, while Agron actually gives the production a few welcome moments of gravitas. Tommy Lee Jones is not the best that we've ever seen him, but he manages to be funny from time to time, and he suits his role nicely.

It's hard to predict anyone's reaction to The Family, as it's not great cinema and it's certainly no classic, but it's goofy and watchable, and it made this reviewer laugh on several occasions. As long as you're not seeking another rich drama like Léon: The Professional, this movie should fulfil your post-summer viewing needs.

6.2/10

"No parents, no-one telling us what to do. We make the rules!"

The debut feature film for Funny or Die veteran Jordan Vogt-Roberts, The Kings of Summer is a hodgepodge of indie cinema clichés. After all, it's a story about a boy's journey of self-discovery as he approaches manhood, the main character endures the death of his mother, and it's designed to be plotless and soulful, not to mention it was overhyped at the Sundance Film Festival. Unfortunately, none of this actually translates into an overly successful motion picture. The Kings of Summer is a wildly inconsistent feature, providing scenes that approach brilliance before slipping back into utter mediocrity. While it's clear that Vogt-Roberts aspired to create something profound and transformative, it falls short of the mark. It's nice to see something that's not a remake, reboot or sequel, but a defter touch would be appreciated.

An average teenage boy, Joe (Nick Robinson) is doing it tough due to the death of his mother and locks horns with his dad Frank (Nick Offerman) on a consistent basis. Fed up with his father and wanting to escape, Joe hatches a plan to build a house in the middle of a nearby forest, away from all adult supervision. Joining Joe is his best friend Patrick (Gabriel Basso), who also runs out of patience for his parents, while weird outsider Biaggio (Moisés Arias) tags along as well. Making a new home for themselves, the boys enjoy the sense of liberation while their guardians frantically spearhead a search to find their missing offspring. Joe eventually brings his long-time crush Kelly (Erin Moriarty) into the picture, which challenges friendships as she begins to express interest in Patrick.

The Kings of Summer concerns itself with emotional character arcs and coming-of-age dramatics, but none of this material comes across as overly weighty or affecting. In fact, the film packs no emotional punch at all, lacking the power that Stand by Me delivered back in 1986. Moreover, the script by Chris Galletta is about as subtle as a shotgun, dutifully spelling out and underlining every thought that crosses a character's mind. On more than one occasion, the characters point out that living in the woods is like their rite of passage into adulthood as if we didn't figure that out for ourselves. One also gets the sense that the movie doesn't exploit its full potential - the creation of the house takes up the length of a montage, yet it would've been fascinating to watch the trials and tribulations of the construction in detail. On that note, Vogt-Roberts is too enamoured with the power of montage, embracing his inner Terrence Malick as he observes characters running around and staring into the distance.

Other script issues abound, with Biaggio's presence never given a suitable motivation (the boys themselves even question why he's around), and with a love triangle emerging that will ultimately tear Joe and Patrick's friendship apart. Said love triangle is relevant considering the themes, but it appears to come from nowhere, and the film fails to really get into the psyches of the characters. Didn't Patrick know about Joe's affections for Kelly? And was Kelly really that oblivious to Joe's crush? Speaking of shallow characters, the film has to tell us that Joe and Patrick are lifelong best buddies - we never really feel that the two are actually that close, as they seem more like casual acquaintances.

At times, The Kings of Summer positively springs to life, delivering skilful vignettes that instil the sense of outdoor adventure and boyhood spirit that Vogt-Roberts was palpably aiming for. But too often, the picture feels oddly flat and muted, and, more critically, comes off as manufactured. Vogt-Roberts' style is a bit confused; The Kings of Summer feels like a try-hard attempt to come off as uniquely quirky, like Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom (which tackled similar themes far more effectively), but it's not quite successful. Furthermore, one gets the sense that the material might have worked better if it was given a more dramatic treatment like Stand by Me, which didn't baulk from outright tragedy. It's a big problem that the comedic moments of The Kings of Summer aren't very funny, and the dramatic moments are strangely ineffectual. Nevertheless, the movie does look good, with lavish forest locations and an ideally-designed DIY house for the boys to inhabit. The editing and photography are a bit skewiff at times, but the production values are still competent enough to maintain interest throughout.

The acting across the board is a strange mixed bag. By far, the best performer here is Offerman as Joe's dad. The long-time Parks and Recreation star has a perfect grasp of comedy and drama, and he makes the most of his extensive talents here. Also worthwhile is Offerman's real-life wife Megan Mullally, who's eminently quirky as Patrick's mother. In terms of the young performers, the only real bright spot is the effortlessly charming Erin Moriarty, whose youth makes her wholly believable in the role of Kelly. Unfortunately, Robinson and Basso make little impact. It's not that they're terrible, but they lack screen presence, coming across as exceedingly vanilla. Moisés Arias, on the other hand, feels overly forced as the trademark quirky friend. He's not bad, but at no point does his character seem convincingly lived-in.

For a movie that wants to explore the transition from boyhood to manhood, The Kings of Summer is surprisingly low on honesty, relying on caricatures and rarely venturing beneath the surface. It's a fun and innocuous enough picture in the moment, which prevents one from actively hating it, but it falls far short of its potential. In between the moments of excellence, there is a lot of hooey and dead air, making this a missed opportunity, though a valiant one.

5.8/10

"The bank was a set-up. We gotta figure out whose money that was."

An adaptation of the little-known graphic novel series of the same name by Steven Grant, 2 Guns represents the second collaboration of star Mark Wahlberg and Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur. Whereas their last movie, 2012's Contraband, was a deadly serious thriller, 2 Guns is more of a fun-loving buddy action film in the vein of Lethal Weapon, with colourful bantering and one-liners amid the violent shootouts. It very much recaptures the spirit of classic action movies from decades ago, to the extent that Bill Paxton even appears here, in what must be his first theatrical appearance since the 1990s. 2 Guns is ordinary in terms of narrative, but it roars to life on-screen, which is mainly thanks to Wahlberg and Denzel Washington who carry the feature with their effortless charisma and chemistry.

Ostensibly two criminals on the hunt for a big score, Stig (Wahlberg) and Bobby (Washington) are actually undercover agents, but neither are aware of the other's true identity. After unsuccessfully trying to score a major cocaine deal with Mexican drug lord Papi (Edward James Olmos), Stig and Bobby look to rob a local bank that holds a portion of Papi's fortune. The pair expect a $3 million score, but wind up leaving the bank with in excess of $43 million, clueless about who the cash actually belongs to. Stig and Bobby soon find out about one another's undercover status, but although they're hesitant to trust each other, they realise that both of their agencies are crooked, and form a tentative alliance to get to the bottom of the situation. Meanwhile, shadowy figure Earl (Bill Paxton) pursues the duo, looking to retrieve the stolen money.

For reasons unknown, 2 Guns actually begins in a non-linear fashion, hopping around the timeline for a little while before the bank robbery occurs. The device makes no sense in this context, as it's not effective in building a sense of intrigue or interest; instead, we're just left thinking that a linear approach would've rendered the experience far smoother. Blake Masters' screenplay is also overly convoluted, with Kormákur left struggling to keep the picture light on its feet as he dedicates huge chunks of time to the ancillary characters out of necessity. Thankfully, none of this is too crippling; the pacing is successful more often than not, as the bulkier scenes are interspersed with enjoyable moments of Stig and Bobby bantering. 2 Guns is a gritty film, but it's pitched with a good-humoured tone, giving it a great deal of replay value.

Lethal Weapon spent a large portion of its runtime exploring the protagonists, delving into their personal lives to raise the stakes. 2 Guns is less interested in this type of material, placing most of its focus on sharp-tongued bantering and the developments of this crime plot. We do meet one of Bobby's colleagues (Paula Patton) with whom he has some sort of a romantic bond, but she winds up coming off as a shallow plot pawn. Fortunately, the lack of character depth is not particularly problematic in the moment since 2 Guns is so much damn fun. One has to credit Kormákur for making the most of the meagre $61 million budget at his disposal, traversing several locales and pulling off a number of competent set-pieces that give the production an expensive look and feel. Most exceptional is the climax, which closes the story with rousing violence and a smidgen of well-judged humour. 2 Guns actually feels a bit like a Tony Scott movie due to its grittiness and technical proficiency, though Kormákur jettisons shaky-cam and rapid-fire editing in favour of something smoother. The R rating is also a huge asset to the film since it gives the production more flavour, and, thankfully, it would seem that practical blood squibs were used as opposed to CGI viscera.

Without a doubt, it's the on-screen pairing of Wahlberg and Washington that keeps the film afloat more than anything else. Wahlberg is especially enjoyable, embracing his inherent comic talents to play Stig as a charming, sarcastic badass, as opposed to his more dramatic/brooding performances of late. He has all of the funniest lines, and he disperses them with gusto. Washington, on the other hand, is more mature and level-headed, making him a brilliant straight man to Wahlberg's insanity. But it's Paxton who perhaps steals the show. It's rare to see Paxton on the big screen these days, and he relished the chance to play a bad guy here, infusing his performance with patient menace. You almost want him to survive.

Without breaking new ground or functioning as Oscar bait, 2 Guns is a success on its own terms; a late-summer surprise that represents one of the year's old-school action highlights. It's a messy, overly complicated movie that could've benefitted from tighter scripting, but it has a brilliant spark of personality thanks to the quality cast and the slick directorial efforts of Kormákur. If you're in the right mood, 2 Guns delivers enough engaging action and playful comedy to ensure that it's a worthwhile member of the R-rated mismatched buddy cop genre.

7.2/10

"Everton is the dominant species. I am Everton."

Despite the presence of James Cameron's long-time producing partner Gale Anne Hurd, Virus is a far cry from the likes of The Terminator and The Abyss. Whereas those movies were cerebral sci-fi with a hint of action, this 1999 blockbuster is just a dumb action film, using a nifty concept to craft a straight-ahead action fiesta without even a hint of nuance, subtlety or complexity. It's also more or less a mishmash of plot ideas and action scenes from other superior motion pictures, from The Terminator to Aliens. Add to this the fact that the film was directed by a special effects technician, John Bruno, and that nobody in the cast seems to care about anything other than their paycheque, and the result is a movie that's easy to hate from a serious critical standpoint. Despite this, Virus is surprisingly entertaining thanks to its top-flight special effects. It's ninety minutes of brainless fun - nothing more, nothing less. If this sounds appealing, have at it. If not, your loss.

Following a vicious storm in the middle of the ocean, the crew aboard the tugboat "Sea Star" find themselves in trouble, as their vessel is in need of repairs. Led by the borderline psychotic captain, Everton (Donald Sutherland), the crew happen upon a vast Russian vessel adrift in the high seas which is completely deserted, as if everyone suddenly abandoned ship. Sensing the opportunity for riches, Everton seeks to bring the ship back into port, where they can claim a salvage fee and become supremely wealthy. As the crew - which also includes navigator Kit Foster (Jamie Lee Curtis) and engineer Steve Baker (William Baldwin) - explore the ship, they find a sole survivor in the form of scientist Nadia (Joanna Pacula). Nadia warns Everton to shut off the power and leave the ship post-haste, explaining that an alien life form has inhabited the vessel. The aliens see the human race as a virus and look to extinguish it from the universe.

Narratively, Virus is similar to 1998's Deep Rising, another movie that involved a group of unsuspecting characters boarding an ostensibly abandoned vessel in the middle of the ocean to find that the crew were killed by something sinister that cannot be allowed to escape the ship and reach civilisation. But whereas Deep Rising was boosted by colourful writing and great casting, Virus is not as successful; the script is a cacophony of tin-eared, clichéd dialogue, and it takes itself far too seriously considering its preposterous nature. The film is actually based on a series of Dark Horse graphic novels that were initially written as a screenplay by Chuck Pfarrer before being turned into a comic book due to the limitations of cinema at the time.

A special effects technician, Bruno directs Virus in a workmanlike fashion, opting very much for a simplistic "point and shoot" approach as opposed to something more sophisticated or artistic. As a result, this is a watchable blockbuster with decent production values, but it's not the blast of pure adrenaline that it might've been in defter hands. Certainly, the film is no Speed in terms of pacing or tension. Nevertheless, Virus does boast some spectacular special effects, as to be expected since Bruno also worked on the likes of Titanic and Ghostbusters. Mixing animatronics and CGI, the alien robots are convincingly brought to life here, with the reported $75 million budget being put to good use. The action sequences are fluid, too. However, acting across the board is extraordinarily flat. Curtis admits in interviews that she thinks the movie is dreadful, and her lack of enthusiasm shows in a very mundane performance. However, Sutherland does seem to be having a fun time here, hamming it up to extremes. It's unintentionally hilarious to see Sutherland transformed into an alien cyborg.

Virus is a B-movie at heart, but it was given A-grade production values, reminding us of a bygone era when studios still put time and money into R-rated blockbusters. If this same script was produced in 2013, it would be a micro-budget SyFy/Asylum movie with unconvincing CGI and a horde of terrible actors. But Virus was made in 1999, and one gets the sense that the crew actually put in an effort to make an entertaining flick. If you enjoyed the likes of Deep Rising, Event Horizon and Deep Blue Sea, then there's a good chance you'll enjoy Virus, but it's by no means an essential watch.

5.2/10

"I shut down the third world, you win they lose. I shut down America, they win, you lose. The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Arriving fifteen years after the low-budget cult classic Escape from New York, 1996's Escape from L.A. is the very definition of fun, trashy entertainment. See, whereas the original 1981 movie was a bleak, gritty post-apocalyptic tale, this follow-up is a campy, deliriously over-the-top actioner, and the result is better than most critics are willing to admit. Unfortunately, the movie entered cinemas to little fanfare, and earned only $25 million at the box office, a disastrous amount considering its $50 million budget. Even though Escape from L.A. is far from perfect, it's enjoyable enough, and action fans should find it worth at least a rental.

In the year 2000, a gigantic earthquake desecrates Los Angeles, severing it from the mainland and reducing it to an island. The President of the United States (Cliff Robertson) declares that L.A. is no longer part of the country, turning it into a deportation region for the country's least savoury citizens. Hence, L.A. becomes a lawless zone populated by murderers, psychos and criminals, and a one-way trip to the island is equal to a death sentence. In the year 2013, the President's daughter, Utopia (A.J. Langer), steals a remote control unit for a doomsday device and absconds to L.A. to hand the device over to a guerrilla leader. Criminal Snake Plisskin (Kurt Russell) is captured by the government but offered a full pardon if he agrees to enter Los Angeles and retrieve the device. Although he refuses the assignment, he's forced to do it - he has been injected with a virus that will kill him in ten hours, and he will only be given the antidote if he completes the mission.

The screenplay by Russell, Debra Hill, and director John Carpenter essentially rehashes Escape from New York, following an almost identical narrative trajectory, right down to Snake having his cooperation forced by being injected with a virus (as opposed to a bomb, like in the original) that will kill him in a matter of hours. The difference is, this time the action takes place in the City of Angels. Luckily, Carpenter takes full advantage of the change of scenery. Escape from L.A. takes satirical jabs against L.A.'s entertainment industry, and sets its sights on plastic surgery too. Moreover, the fact that this is a typical copycat sequel seems to be a sly act of satire in itself. Well played, Mr. Carpenter. Luckily, the film is full of killer dialogue, with Plisskin again having a field day with one-liners (after being told that the United States no longer permits smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, guns, foul language or red meat, Plisskin sarcastically quips "Land of the free..."). Meanwhile, the ending is absolutely kick-ass, as it's unexpected and shocking in all the right ways.

Whereas Escape from New York was a low-budget movie, Escape from L.A. was produced for $50 million, no small chunk of change in 1996. It's therefore bewildering that the visual effects are so astonishingly inept, often going beyond cheesy to become outright embarrassing. The CGI is obvious and lacking in detail, not to mention the integration into the live-action elements is completely slipshod. Production values are otherwise strong, however, with expansive set design which makes the most of the Los Angeles setting. Indeed, Carpenter gives us a tour of L.A.'s ruins, showing changed geography and the desecration of recognisable sites. The action set-pieces are frequently solid here, too. As good as it was, Escape from New York does suffer from pacing difficulties, a flaw that Carpenter himself has even acknowledged. Escape from L.A. rectifies that flaw, as Carpenter fills the movie with big, colourful action sequences. It's a lot more fun than its predecessor as a result, but it does lack the enthralling atmosphere of New York. Also worth mentioning is the terrific music. White Zombie contributed a song to the soundtrack, and there are some enjoyable compositions courtesy of Carpenter, too. The main theme is very catchy indeed.

Russell has publically stated that, out of all the characters he has played during his career, Snake Plisskin is his favourite. Luckily, he slips back into the role with ease here. Russell is again a muscular badass who accepts no-nonsense, speaks in a raspy Clint Eastwood-like voice, and shows complete disrespect for authority. If anything, the fact that Russell is fifteen years older here is a benefit, as he looks even more badass. He's a huge asset to the film, and he's the reason why Escape from L.A. is as entertaining as it is. The supporting cast, meanwhile, is pretty packed, though none of the actors actually appear for very long. Most notable is Steve Buscemi, who's as strange as ever playing the role of "Map to the Stars" Eddie, while Bruce Campbell shows up for a single scene as a big-shot plastic surgeon. It's unfortunate that Campbell was not given more to do, but he does get a few laughs. Also present here are Peter Fonda, Pam Grier, Stacy Keach, and several others, but this is really Russell's show.

Taken as a film, Escape from L.A. is pretty bad, littered with cheesy effects and driven by a corny screenplay. Taken as pure beer-and-pizza entertainment, though, the movie is good enough. It's not even a classic in its genre, but it is a fun watch with its low-rent CGI and deliriously enjoyable action. Reportedly, Carpenter and Russell had planned to create a third Snake Plisskin adventure, Escape from Earth, after completing Escape from L.A., but the film's staggeringly low box office numbers unfortunately spelt death to that plan. It would have been very interesting to see further adventures of Plisskin, especially due to the way this film closes, but at least we will always have the first two movies to enjoy. Taken in the right mindset, Escape from L.A. is a hoot and a half.

6.1/10

"I don't give a fuck about your war... or your president."

With its restrained direction and deliberate pacing, 1981's Escape from New York may be a tough sell to contemporary viewers accustomed to fast-moving, exciting action flicks. However, it's hard to express just how badass and enthrallingly atmospheric this movie truly is, which is a credit to John Carpenter's abilities as a cinematic craftsman. Added to this, Escape from New York is built on a solid foundation of intelligence and innovation, with the screenplay by Carpenter and Nick Castle (which was initially penned in 1974) containing social commentary and reflecting society's anxieties of the period. It's one of Carpenter's timeless gems - while not on the same level as Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween or The Thing, it deserves to be seen by a wide audience.

In 1988, a third world war breaks out and crime rates rise 400%, leading the American government to transform the island of Manhattan into an enormous federal prison. Prisoners are dropped in, but they are never returned to the outside world. There are no guards or rules; the city is ruled by its population of violent criminals who have developed their own depraved society. In 1997, a group of radical socialists hijack Air Force One, crashing it into New York City in the hope of killing the conservative President of the United States (Donald Pleasence). The President survives by ejecting in the escape pod but lands in the middle of Manhattan at the mercy of psychotic criminals. Low on options, police commissioner Bob Hauk (Lee Van Cleef) chooses to send Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) in to save the President. A one-eyed special ops veteran, Snake is on death row after a failed bank heist, but he's the best hope they have. Although reluctant to accept the assignment, Snake is forced to cooperate, as explosive charges are planted in his bloodstream and will only be removed when he returns with the President. With a timeframe of less than 24 hours, the very pissed-off Snake is sent into New York, where he navigates the dark streets and deals with the variety of crazies inhabiting the broken city.

As to be expected from a John Carpenter movie, Escape from New York is classic sci-fi, and one of the most creative action movies of the '80s. It's high-concept action, with Carpenter supporting the violence and gunplay with a genuinely ingenious premise. It's actually a well-structured movie as well, taking its time to establish both this dystopian world and the plot before Plissken is thrown into the streets of Manhattan. Subsequently, Carpenter provides an engrossing walking tour through the ruined streets, and though there are not a lot of big set-pieces, the pacing is methodical and sure-handed, making for gripping viewing. On top of endowing Escape from New York with a dark dystopian vibe, Carpenter also finds time for political commentary, giving the production a welcome sense of intelligence. The script is cynical about Reagan-era world leaders, and Plissken openly questions just how free the American people truly are.

Making the most of the rather small $7 million budget, Carpenter portrays a gritty post-apocalyptic vision of New York that's hellish and eerie, where you feel that some crazed lunatic might pop out of any manhole. The majority of the flick was not actually shot in NYC but rather in a burnt-out section of downtown St. Louis, giving Carpenter and director of photography Dean Cundey (who also shot Halloween) plenty of nightmarish urban terrain to fill the widescreen frame. Escape from New York is a dark movie bathed in shadows, and a lot of the atmosphere is derived from the lack of polish in the visuals. To create the special effects, Carpenter enlisted the help of Roger Corman's production company who specialise in cheap exploitation films and knew how to create effective illusions on a dime. The special effects are very good, considering the limitations. Future filmmaking wunderkind James Cameron actually worked on this production, contributing to the matte paintings and miniatures. But it's perhaps the score by Carpenter himself that constitutes the definitive touch. It's an insanely catchy synthesiser score, adding to the film's texture and generating tension. Escape from New York is often criticised for being comparatively low on action, and it might've been nice to see Plissken engaged in more shootouts since he's such a fun character, but it's not too big of a deal.

Without a doubt, Snake Plissken is one of the greatest antiheroes of the 20th century. Mixing equal parts Clint Eastwood and John Wayne, and with an arsenal of witty one-liners, Plissken is one hell of a character, and everything about Kurt Russell as Plissken is extremely cool. Formerly a child actor and a Disney movie nice guy, Russell unleashed his inner badass here, a move that defined his career. And on top of being badass, Russell also displays smarts and a nice sense of humour. It's a tricky role, and Russell hits it out of the park. In the supporting cast, Ernest Borgnine is the most notable, putting in a colourful performance as a New York cabby, while Isaac Hayes is sublimely nasty and tough as the Duke. Also in the cast is Lee Van Cleef, who previously starred in the iconic Clint Eastwood western The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Cleef is predictably good here, while Pleasence is amiable enough as the President.

By modern standards, Escape from New York is slow, with the occasional action beats surrounded by deliberately paced scenes of Plissken touring a derelict NYC. And nobody will ever mistake this for a contemporary CGI-laden blockbuster. Nevertheless, Escape from New York is a winner because every single cent of its budget is visible on-screen and the movie was manufactured with genuine heart. There's something enthralling about watching an '80s film in which a resourceful filmmaker could create a sci-fi dystopia on a tiny budget, using sheer innovation to achieve his vision. The film works on multiple levels: it's both a fascinating action-adventure and a creative political commentary that captures the era's anxieties, not to mention it introduces one hell of an antihero. It may be a B-movie at heart, but Escape from New York is a B-movie with style, brains and attitude, thus it's not surprising that it's such an esteemed cult classic.

8.2/10

"Beautiful, don't you think?"

A long-gestating pet project for director and co-writer Alfonso Cuarón, Gravity is one of those rare motion pictures with the potential to appeal to both critics as well as average Joe movie-goers. See, the reviewers will gush over Gravity since it's a well-made feature with tremendous artistic merit, but it's also accomplished enough to play as an action blockbuster for the masses without insulting one's intelligence. Without a doubt, this is a landmark motion picture that will be discussed for years to come - its use of seamless CGI, proficient sound design and gorgeous cinematography is genuinely unprecedented. In fact, Cuarón was compelled to delay the movie until 2013 because he had to wait for cinematic technology to advance far enough to convincingly realise his vision. Large in scale yet intimate and emotional, Gravity is a rollicking space thriller with the power to awe due to its technical wizardry and affecting character drama. In a word, it's amazing.

On her first mission into outer space, Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is assigned to work on the Hubble Telescope, overseen by confident veteran Matt Kowalski (George Clooney). While Stone is anxious as she struggles to adjust, Kowalski does his best to keep spirits high, regaling both his crew and mission control (voiced by Ed Harris) with goofy stories. But when debris from a Russian satellite enters their path, it accosts the crew, shredding their shuttle and leaving Stone and Kowalski as the sole survivors. Without an easy means to get back to Earth, the pair of astronauts begin moving through the debris field, hoping to reach another orbiting space station to find a pod that can provide safe passage back home. Making matters worse, power and oxygen in their suits are running low...

Gravity is a model of storytelling economy, painting a terse but effectual portrait of Stone and Kowalski before plunging them into mortal peril. Following this, the film, for the most part, amounts to one thrillingly sustained action set-piece, observing the astronauts defying the odds as they move from one piece of debris to the next. The real eloquence of the screenplay (written by Cuarón and his son) is the way that the characters are further developed through the action. And even though the frenzied pace is interrupted at times, Gravity doesn't contain a single inessential frame, as the more leisurely scenes are necessary for introducing thematic depth, which renders this more than just a simplistic exercise in visual moviemaking. Dialogue is another strong suit, as the characters speak in naturalistic bursts of verbiage punctuated with believable technical chatter. It feels like we're listening to real flesh-and-blood astronauts. But despite the astonishing attention to detail, a few aspects of Gravity do not entirely gel. For instance, Stone's hair seems unaffected by zero gravity; while navigating through space stations, her hair remains perfectly combed. And there's an awkward moment in which Stone is running lethally low on oxygen and needs to reach an airlock, yet seems content to move slowly and without much purpose despite the urgency of the situation. But most bothersome is a deus ex machina of sorts which emerges during the third act. None of this cripples the movie, but it does stand out.

Although sound effects were used in promotional materials, Gravity depicts space as it is: without sound. The notion may seem unappealing, but it works like gangbusters, as the subtle sound design merged with Steven Price's hauntingly ethereal score draws us into the experience, complementing the visuals in an effective fashion without actively drawing attention to itself. While Cuarón is not exactly perceived as an action director, action is actually one of his biggest talents (see Children of Men). Cuarón also has a flair for extended tracking shots, and he pulls off some stunning work here, using a flawless mixture of CGI and live-action elements to execute magnificently detailed shots that run up to several minutes. Gravity actually begins with a bravura 13-minute unbroken take, observing the astronauts at work before chaos ensues. The opening mayhem is wondrous to behold, gripping and terrifying in equal measure. In this day and age, we have become so used to seeing visual effects that we can usually tell what's digital and what's live-action, no matter how competent the filmmaking. But in the case of Gravity? It's impossible. I genuinely do not know how they pulled off this movie. Nothing looks digital. It's an astonishing feat, making this a shoo-in for the 2014 Academy Awards in several categories.

3-D is now perceived as a needless gimmick due to overexposure, but Gravity's extra-dimensional presentation is heroic, giving breathtaking depth to Cuarón's depiction of outer space. It's possible to lose yourself in the dazzling cinematic environs for long periods of time, forgetting that you're in a cinema as you'll feel like you're actually floating in cold, desolate space alongside the astronauts. Gravity was reportedly converted to 3-D in post-production, but it looks as if it was shot natively in the format, as it possesses a gracefulness that even some native 3-D titles can only dream of.

Another aspect of Gravity that elevates it above its less skilful blockbuster brethren is the fact that Cuarón is a superb director of actors. Clooney and Bullock may seem like lazy choices for easy box office dollars, but they really give it everything they have. The big revelation is Bullock, a wild card who's frequently awful in dramatic roles (despite her Oscar, Bullock's performance in The Blind Side was grating). This is career-best work for the actress, who immerses herself into the role with such assured conviction that you forget you're looking at Bullock. For long stretches of time, we watch Bullock by herself, delivering only minimal dialogue. This might sound like a recipe for disaster, but it actually works. Equally remarkable is Clooney, whose performance feels completely natural. He's a superb Kowalski, as his effortless cool and charm makes him both a charismatic presence and a believable pick for the role of a seasoned veteran able to remain calm under pressure.

Gravity is a simple, familiar premise, but great things grow from these humble seeds. In the hands of Alfonso Cuarón, this is a white-knuckle rollercoaster of a thriller, beset with memorably rousing set-pieces and enough moments of downtime to develop the protagonists as human beings. Cuarón also underscores that our existence on Earth is a miraculous thing, as well as emphasising how much one life can truly mean. And with a tight 85-minute runtime, the movie doesn't outstay its welcome. There will probably not be anything quite like Gravity for a long time to come.

8.4/10

"I can't have that sort of thing going on in my motel. It gives the place a bad name."

The decision to create so much as one sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho was risky, but the crew behind 1983's Psycho II made it work, resulting in a strong follow-up that also stands as a terrific thriller on its own terms. Another sequel was seriously pushing it, and it's unfortunate to report that 1986's Psycho III is a tremendous step down in quality. Although Psycho III is built on an interesting conceptual framework and further develops the story of Norman Bates, the execution is mediocre at best, resulting in a 90-minute slasher that feels closer to a Friday the 13th instalment. Nevertheless, it's a blessing that the picture is not as idiotic or as insulting as it might have been in less deft hands, and one must admire Anthony Perkins' courage to both star in and direct the movie despite having no filmmaking experience.

Taking place about a month after the events of Psycho II, Norman Bates (Perkins) is still the sole caretaker of the Bates Motel, living in his family's ancient house which stands adjacent. Falling back into mental instability, Norman keeps the rotting corpse of his “mother” in her room upstairs, and she is prone to murdering the motel guests if they do not sit right with her. Norman seeks to hire another pair of hands to help with watching over the motel, recruiting wily wannabe musician Duane Duke (Jeff Fahey). Meanwhile, a new patron has moved into the motel; troubled former nun Maureen (Diana Scarwid), who strongly reminds Norman of one of his victims, Marion Crane. As Norman and Maureen grow closer and feel a mutual attraction to one another, Norman's mother grows unhappy with their relationship. Complicating matters further, tenacious reporter Tracy Venable (Roberta Maxwell) begins snooping around, determined to uncover proof that Norman is responsible for the recent disappearances of several people.

From the very outset, we know that Norman is a schizophrenic murderer again, with writer Charles Edward Pogue providing a behind-the-curtain glimpse of Norman conversing with his dead mother and preparing to kill. In theory it's interesting to see this side of Norman, but Psycho III is low on surprises. Psycho's ending was groundbreaking, while Psycho II also packed a handful of shocking twists, but Psycho III's conclusion is unsurprising and rote, making little impact. It's clever to turn this instalment into more of a character study, but Pogue and Perkins do not take full advantage of the set-up. Furthermore, Psycho III was never going to live up to Hitchcock's film in any capacity, but it keeps inviting comparisons. Psycho II worked because it found its own voice while subtly paying homage to the Master of Suspense, but Psycho III takes things a step further, with murders that visually recreate the death scenes in the 1960 original. It's too awestruck with Hitchcock's film, and as a result it's not bold enough to try anything innovative. In fact, it's so awestruck with Hitch in general, as Perkins even stages a homage to Vertigo to open the picture. Psycho III is at its best when it introduces its own creative, twisted moments, including a marvellous scene in which the sheriff eats from the motel's tainted ice machine. In another perfect moment, Norman as Mother is on a rampage, but decides to straighten up a painting while pursuing his victim.

The true horror of Hitchcock's Psycho was its “less is more” approach, necessitated because Hitch had strict censorship guidelines to adhere to, else his movie would not be released. The Master of Suspense took the limitations in his stride, resulting in a very classy horror movie. A knife is never shown piercing the skin, with the death scenes creatively shot to compel us to mentally fill in the blanks. Psycho III, on the other hand, was created in a different time period, when gratuitous '80s slashers were rampant, hence on-screen nudity and explicit violence was not only allowed but encouraged. Perkins (bless his heart) gives it his all, but his directorial approach is too obvious and unremarkable, and consequently Psycho III lacks scares and chilling moments. It's all a bit rote, and one must wonder what a Hitchcock-inspired virtuoso like Brian De Palma could've made of this project. That said, there is one aspect of Psycho III that really works: Carter Burwell's terrific synch score. It's a far cry from Bernard Herrmann's music, but Burwell's work is nicely atmospheric.

Even if the film is marred by several issues, Perkins' performance as Norman Bates is as brilliant as always has been. Norman represents an ideal antithesis to slasher movie icons; although he does commit unspeakably brutal acts of murder, he's morally conflicted about it, coming across as a man-child unable to control his mental state. You feel genuine sympathy for Norman, and though you know that he needs to be locked up again, you do not want him to be caught or arrested. Also good here is Scarwid as Maureen, while Fahey is wonderfully sleazy as Duke.

Psycho III is not essential viewing, and, like Psycho II, it's unable to recapture the artistry and ingeniousness of Hitchcock's original film. Psycho really did not need any sequels, and it doesn't help that this is pretty much a run-of-the-mill '80s slasher. Still, it's a worthwhile enough continuation of Psycho II, and those interested in the Bates mythos should find it to be a fun watch.

4.9/10

"If you want your own fucking island, and your boss tells you to go take a beating... Go out there, take the beating, come back and say, "Do you need me to do it again?!""

2013's Runner Runner might as well have been a straight-to-video flick, as its unspectacular script and subpar direction renders it forgettable and unremarkable, not to mention overly slight with its scant 90-minute runtime. In fact, this is the type of unsophisticated thriller narrative that we would expect to see featuring a washed-up action star like Wesley Snipes or Steven Seagal. Exactly why it was even given the theatrical treatment is a mystery. Directed by Brad Furman, Runner Runner is hard to care about and even harder to find yourself immersed in, as it never shifts out of first gear. One-note in terms of intensity and suspense, it's middle-of-the-road from start to end, rapidly devolving into boredom despite its flashy presentation.

A student at Princeton University, Richie Furst (Justin Timberlake) works as a recruiter for online gambling sites, receiving money for enticing students to sign up and drain their bank accounts. Facing impossible tuition bills and being forced by the dean to cease his gambling affiliations, Richie decides to bet his entire savings on a game of online poker. He loses all his money but soon discovers that the site actually cheated him. Low on options, Richie hops on a plane bound for Costa Rica, planning to confront the site's owner, Ivan Block (Ben Affleck). To Richie's amazement, Block is receptive to his complaint, reimbursing him for his lost money and offering a great-paying job. Taking the bait, Richie becomes swept up in Block's lavish, wealthy lifestyle while also developing feelings for his boss' advisor/girlfriend Rebecca (Gemma Arterton). Into the mix soon steps F.B.I. Agent Shavers (Anthony Mackie), who reveals Block to be a fraud and wants the frightened Richie to act as an informant and lure Block back into U.S. jurisdiction.

Scripted by Brian Koppelman and David Levien, it's hard to tell whether or not Runner Runner's issues can be attributed to incompetent writing, as their work might've been savaged by the editors under orders to keep the finished product under 90 minutes. There are massive leaps of logic here, including the glaring question mark of how Richie manages to afford a trip to Costa Rica, as well as accommodation, despite having literally zero dollars to his name. The lack of complexity here is truly heartbreaking, too; Runner Runner could've been an intelligent examination of the world of online gambling, but it abandons this approach in favour of a trite plot we've all seen done better a million times before. This is a superficial and two-dimensional experience; the characters are all cardboard constructs, and they're given no room to emerge as actual flesh-and-blood people. And Richie might be the ostensible hero of the film, but he's not given enough development, and it's hard to like him as he makes unwise decisions and acts in an unsympathetic manner. He's not interesting or charming; he's just greedy.

Runner Runner seems to have been designed to be a popcorn thriller, but the pacing is languid and sluggish, not to mention the film is dangerously low on narrative momentum and, most critically, it lacks a sense of threat. To the credit of Furman and cinematographer Mauro Fiore (Avatar), this is an attractive-looking flick, and the sense of workmanship makes it at least watchable, especially with the beautiful locales and fairly competent production values. But this aside, Runner Runner is just not an overly involving watch. There's no sense of escalation or build-up to the proceedings - rather, the film segues from one scene to the next, following a drab, uninspired rhythm, until the final scene suddenly comes out of nowhere. Sure, the movie climaxes with a double-cross and with Block being inevitably arrested, but none of this stuff feels as important as it should be. Furthermore, Runner Runner is astonishingly low on R-rated firepower. It carries an R rating, yet it plays out like a PG-13 endeavour, low on violence and harsh language. Here was a golden opportunity to craft a memorable R-rated thriller, and Furman completely squandered all potential.

Timberlake is not an inherently bad actor, but he completely founders unless he's playing a fully-formed character under the direction of a genuine auteur. He was brilliant in The Social Network, but he's a fairly vanilla presence, making him an uninteresting action hero. The character of Richie is so thankless and personality-free, giving Timberlake nothing to work with. And since he doesn't have the authoritative on-screen presence of someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger or John Wayne, he's hopeless here. Equally flat is Arterton, who makes no impression, while Mackie is completely interchangeable as the trademark F.B.I. agent. Faring mildly better is Affleck, in a rare villainous role. He took the part and ran with it, turning Block into a Bond villain who even has pet crocodiles. Affleck is clearly bored out of his mind, though, going through the motions for a paycheque and the opportunity to sit back after working so hard behind the camera to salvage his career.

If you were channel-surfing in the early hours of the morning and nothing interesting was on, then Runner Runner might prove to be a decent enough recliner diversion. Despite how forgettable it is, it's still somewhat watchable, but that's still not much of a recommendation - there are far better thrillers out there, and this one is not essential viewing.

4.2/10