Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"The closer you think you are, the less you'll actually see."

Although it aspires to be an intelligent blockbuster, Now You See Me is a very surface-level experience, with director Louis Leterrier using attractive, polished visuals to compensate for a slipshod script. Unlike 2013's other major magician picture, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, this effort is more seriously-minded, placing magicians within a twisty investigative thriller tailor-made for the summer season. The result is not a complicated, mentally stimulating heist picture like Ocean's Eleven, but rather a Hollywood extravaganza. While it's disappointing that the film falls short of its potential, it is intensely fun and fascinating as it unfolds, making it worth at least a mild recommendation.

Four magicians - sleight-of-hand master Daniel (Jesse Eisenberg), mentalist Merritt (Woody Harrelson), escape artist Henley (Isla Fisher) and pickpocket Jack (Dave Franco) - are united by an unseen entity, who tasks them with mastering an elaborate arena show. One year later, "The Four Horsemen" put on their first show, during which they ostensibly rob a bank using magic. Investigating the audacious stunt is F.B.I. Agent Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo), who's paired with Interpol Agent Dray (Mélanie Laurent) to bring down the group of illusionists, remaining hot on their tail at every turn. Also interested in the Four Horsemen is wily magic debunker Thaddeus (Morgan Freeman), who's out to reveal how the gang is pulling off their tricks. Meanwhile, the Four Horsemen become a smashing success overnight, looking to perform further shows to mesmerised, sold-out crowds as they ready themselves for their final plan of attack.

Without much in the way of smarts, Now You See Me is more about cheap thrills and blockbuster escapism, with writers Ed Solomon, Boaz Yakin and Edward Ricourt even inserting superfluous chases in a bid to compensate for the film's emptiness. This may be a picture about magic, but it's more concerned with movie magic; the tricks are all pulled off with CGI and cinematic trickery rather than sleight-of-hand mastery. The Incredible Burt Wonderstone actually contained a few magic tricks pulled off in-camera, devised by illusionist David Copperfield, but no such content exists here. Admittedly, however, the Four Horsemen's first show is a slam dunk, with Leterrier nailing the sense of wonder that a magic-oriented film should be able to deliver. Unfortunately, Leterrier and his crew are apparently under the impression that the audience is more interested in noise than awe, leading to silly action beats and further magic shows that are surprisingly humdrum. As a result, Now You See Me cannot recapture the brilliance of its first act. Even the Horseman's final show is a dud; it's meant to be a showstopper, but it's riddled with CGI that only detracts from the experience. No sense of wonder is felt.

It pretty much comes with the territory, but Now You See Me suffers due to a lack of compelling characters. The Four Horsemen apparently have no lives outside their profession, as the script treats them as plot pawns with absolutely no dimension. Since they are more or less the bad guys and the film wants us to root for the magicians, it would be beneficial to get to know them on a more profound level. Moreover, there's a completely ill-considered attempt to develop a romance between Rhodes and Dray, which makes no sense since the characters are strangers who know nothing about one another. Worse, it's very underdeveloped, as if the studio demanded for a romantic note to be wedged into the story, coherency be damned.

Since Now You See Me is undeniably terrible from a screenplay standpoint, it's fortunate that the movie comes to life with flawless technical specs. It's junk food cinema pulled off with genuine style; Leterrier creates dazzling eye candy throughout and has enough money at his disposal to keep the movie brisk and competent enough to distract us from how misjudged the entire screenplay truly is. Summer movies often lean on shaky-cam and fast cutting, but Leterrier avoids this pitfall, using an array of sturdy shots to capture the silly action beats. Better, the acting is strong right down the line. Now You See Me is carried by quite an impressive ensemble, all of whom are terrific despite their superficial roles. The standouts, easily, are Eisenberg and Harrelson; both are cocksure and fast-talking, and it's entertaining to watch them run their mouths. Seasoned veterans Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are also predictably good. Freeman is especially engaging (no surprises there), and watching him dissect magic tricks makes for dynamite cinema.

I will credit Now You See Me with one script-related strength: the twist ending is brilliant. Signs initially seem to point to a very predictable twist, but the ending defied my expectations and I was actually surprised. Nevertheless, there are some big leaps of logic here that are a tad challenging to overlook. David Fincher's The Game likewise featured a handful of absurd contrivances, but it had thematic resonance and a gratifying character arc. Now You See Me, on the other hand, lacks the thoughtfulness to become something of any substance. Instead, it's like a Las Vegas magic show - entertaining and executed with panache, but nothing lasting or memorable. The title is derived from the old magician saying, "Now you see it, now you don't," which also accurately describes the fleeting memory of watching Now You See Me. How appropriate.

6.2/10

"You and Rowdy have the same sickness, it's called denial and it's probably going to kill you both."

The racing sequences in Days of Thunder are fantastic. Everything else is borderline unwatchable. That's about all you need to know about this early Tom Cruise vehicle. (Excuse the pun.)

A rebellious hotshot race car driver, Cole Trickle (Cruise) dreams of NASCAR fame and fortune. Recruited by car dealer Tim Daland (Randy Quaid), Cole gets the opportunity to drive for an underfunded race team, supervised by veteran mechanic and crew chief Harry Hogge (Robert Duvall). Cole and Harry initially clash due to their dissimilar racing philosophies, but Cole eventually adapts, which allows him to win a string of races and become a favourite for NASCAR, irritating the competitive Rowdy Burns (Michael Rooker). While being reckless on the racetrack, Cole and Rowdy are almost killed in a major collision which lands them in the hospital. Here, Cole meets brain specialist Claire Lewicki (Nicole Kidman), and a romance burgeons. However, Cole is mentally jumbled up from the crash, forcing him to make a tough decision: retire or risk his life for NASCAR glory. Complicating things is Tim's new driver, Russ Wheeler (Cary Elwes), who will not take kindly to Cole's return to the track.

Days of Thunder reunited Cruise with director Tony Scott and producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer, whose previous collaboration resulted in 1986's smash hit Top Gun. What we have here is essentially a blatant attempt to recapture the success of their earlier movie, replacing naval aviation with NASCAR racing but changing little else. Once again, Cruise plays a young hotshot with a big ego who can't follow the rules and clashes with authority. Also, there's a romance involving a confident, strong-willed professional woman who's reduced to Cruise's personal cheerleader in the climax. And the narrative is very similar to Top Gun, with Cruise's character suffering a crisis of confidence. Hell, the change from planes to cars even allows for plenty of shots of helmeted professionals bantering through their microphones, not unlike Top Gun. It's laughable, and it's surprising that the script is actually credited to the legendary Robert Towne (Chinatown). Days of Thunder is awkwardly-structured and episodic, which is probably because filming started without a finished script and scenes were written on the fly.

Not surprisingly, Days of Thunder comes alive during the racing sequences, which are exhilarating and well-assembled. Many scenes were actually shot during real NASCAR races (with shrewd editing effectively inserting the actors into the action), giving them a more believable disposition and heightening the sense of speed, sound and fury. Scott and cinematographer Ward Russell put their cameras in the thick of the action, allowing us to feel the power of the cars zooming around the track. It's magnificent stuff. However, when the film veers off the racetrack and into character dramatics, the wheels really fall off. The relationship between Cole and Harry is admittedly effective, as is the friendship Cole develops with Rowdy, but everything else is half-hearted at best. Most egregious is the introduction of Russ, who's an antagonistic jerk literally because the script demands it. Cole apparently needed a nemesis to overcome in the climactic race, which is where Russ comes in, but he's so cartoonish and lacking in motivation that the entire subplot feels ridiculously forced. By the same token, the romance between Cole and Claire is incredibly flat, emerging again because the formula necessitates a romantic angle. The generic construction wouldn't matter so much if the narrative were smoothly executed, but Scott was unable to liven these plot elements, as they play out in a perfunctory, uninteresting and cheesy manner.

Another huge issue is the script's treatment of Cole. He's meant to be the protagonist of the movie, but he's an arrogant asshole only concerned with his own ego and desire and is never forced to come to terms with the hubris of his actions. Cole does things that are borderline criminal at times, intentionally crashing into a car while its driver does a victory lap, and carelessly speeding in a juvenile fashion while his girlfriend pleads for him to stop. Cole is egocentric and infantile; he needs a good slap across the face, but apparently, we're meant to care about him. It doesn't really work.

It doesn't help that Days of Thunder is mainly carried by banal acting. Cruise is an okay pick for Cole, but it's Cheese City; he emanates an aura of corniness when a more down-to-earth performer could've made Cole feel like an actual human being. Meanwhile, Kidman (with her original nose) makes no effort to hide her Australian accent, and her performance is appalling. Quaid is also mostly awful, doing nothing worthwhile with his shallow character who becomes villain-ish for no reason, while Elwes seems to put in zero effort. Elwes had The Princess Bride on his filmography by this point in his career, making his empty performance as Russ all the more disappointing. Honestly, Elwes is like a walking rice cake here. Fred Dalton Thompson also plays the NASCAR chief in this film before he considered running for President.

Days of Thunder may appeal to NASCAR fanatics, die-hard Tom Cruise lovers, or folks who need a better quality threshold for their action entertainment. Everyone else can do a lot better. Scott is right at home with the exciting action sequences that render the film watchable from time to time, but it's pure formula, in need of a stronger vision and smarter scripting.

4.8/10

"You'll be hunted to the edge of the earth for this..."

Four years ago, writer-director Neill Blomkamp's District 9 made a surprisingly enormous splash, generating impressive box office numbers from its tiny budget and earning critical praise, leading to a Best Picture nomination at the Oscars. Overnight, it turned Blomkamp into a talent to watch, heightening expectations for his inevitable follow-up endeavour. Luckily, 2013's Elysium is another winner for the South African filmmaker, further showcasing his fertile creative vision, supported by a more generous budget this time. Luckily, Blomkamp also effortlessly recaptures the gritty visual aesthetic of District 9, retaining his penchant for summer blockbusters permeated with intelligence and social commentary. It's not quite as good as Blomkamp's feature debut, but nothing much is. What matters is that Elysium is a solid motion picture in its own right and a promising sophomore effort for the gifted director.

In the future, Earth has become a barren wasteland, desecrated by environmental catastrophe and gross overpopulation. The planet's wealthy denizens - about 1% of the population - evacuate the Earth, travelling to the space station Elysium to continue their lives in luxury. Elysium is an artificial paradise, and its borders are ruthlessly controlled by Defence Secretary Delacourt (Jodie Foster). Meanwhile, the other 99% of the Earth's populace live in horrible conditions, policed by robotic enforcers and compelled to take dangerous jobs to sustain themselves. In Los Angeles, ex-con Max Da Costa (Matt Damon) is trying to keep it together, working a 9-5 factory job while hoping he will one day afford a trip to Elysium. In a workplace accident, Max is exposed to a deadly dose of radiation, leaving him with five days to live. His only chance for survival is on Elysium, as the space station's advanced medical technology can heal him. Low on options, he agrees to do a dangerous job for crime lord Spider (Wagner Moura) in exchange for a trip to the off-world paradise. Outfitted with a mechanised exoskeleton, Max becomes involved in a bold plan to infiltrate Elysium and bring power back to the people, all the while being hunted by Delacourt's ruthless Earth-based operative, Kruger (Sharlto Copley).

Like District 9, 2013's Elysium is an allegorical action movie, using its futuristic setting to deliver an astute thesis on a contemporary issue. In this case, Blomkamp is concerned with immigration. Even though the lowly humans left on Earth are likely to be caught or killed if they attempt to reach Elysium, it doesn't stop them from trying, climbing onto spaceships and hoping that said ships won't be destroyed during the border-crossing. None of this is exactly subtle, but it gives the movie a degree of class. On top of this, Elysium comments on universal healthcare and the widening chasm between the wealthy and the poor. It's nice to see such thoughtful material woven into the fabric of a blockbuster, and it's even better that this is an entirely original sci-fi, not based on any pre-existing material. What is also remarkable about Blomkamp's screenplay is that the filmmaker refuses to make Elysium a surface-level experience. None of the characters exist as plot pawns; they all have personalities and their own motivations, and everyone has an important role to play in the narrative. There are still a few things to nitpick about the script, however. Most glaring is that Max needs to consume pills to keep him functioning properly, but he is rarely seen taking them.

Despite the $120 million budget, Blomkamp ostensibly received tremendous creative freedom for Elysium, as his vision remains bleak and vehemently R-rated. Blomkamp continues to display an interest in observing the effects of powerful sci-fi weaponry on the human body, with characters being blown apart in visceral ways. It's great stuff. Elysium is a breathtaking picture to behold, as well, with imaginative production design across the board. It's easy to find yourself immersed in Blomkamp's elaborate sci-fi fantasy due to the sheer detail present in the technology and the quality of the special effects that breathe convincing life into Blomkamp's vision. The digital effects are seamless here - in fact, it's hard to tell what's CGI and what's practical. District 9's CGI was similarly stunning, and Elysium retains this high quality despite the bigger scale, once again showing that a director doesn't need $250 million to create an effective FX-driven extravaganza. Furthermore, Blomkamp and cinematographer Trent Opaloch give the picture a majestic feel, with sweeping shots that convey the grandeur of Elysium and the desolation of Earth. The photography is often shaky during the action scenes, but more often than not, it helps to amplify excitement and intensity.

As Max, Damon further demonstrates his ability to portray both an action hero and a regular guy, giving us a charismatic and engaging anchor to latch onto. It's a strong performance from the star, and it's great to see Blomkamp coaxing such terrific work from A-list actors. Foster and Alice Braga are also in fine form here, while Fichtner also makes a good impression. But the standout is easily Sharlto Copley, who's borderline unrecognisable as Kruger. It's hard to believe just how far removed Kruger is from his Copley role in District 9, showing that the performer has incredible range. And considering that Copley was not much of an actor before District 9, this is all the more impressive. He goes for broke here; it's a menacing, enthralling performance, and Blomkamp supports him by giving the character a degree of smarts.

The only thing that holds Elysium back from brilliance is that it feels too underdone. Sure, the whole thing is conceptually sound, but it would be nice to see more of the impressive tech (the exoskeleton feels like a missed opportunity), and to see and learn more about Elysium. The picture clocks in at 100 minutes, which is surprisingly scant - further expository scenes and character-building moments would have been valuable. It's doubtful that a sequel will ever materialise due to the limp box office returns and the way the film ends, which is somewhat disappointing because a trilogy of motion pictures set in this universe would be absolutely killer. In final analysis, Elysium is not the masterpiece that it had the potential to be, but it is a refreshing late-summer gem that treats its audience with more respect than the usual blockbuster endeavour.

7.7/10

"I said something...that wasn't."

Making the transition from television to the big screen, 2009's The Invention of Lying denotes the directorial debut of Ricky Gervais, who co-wrote and co-directed with fellow feature film virgin Matthew Robinson. A smart, high-concept comedy, this is an attractively-mounted and thematically thoughtful fantasy; not perfect by any means, but a worthwhile demonstration of Gervais' talent for comedic timing and dry humour. Nevertheless, one can't help but feel a little bit let down given the strength of Gervais' TV work (The Office) and stand-up comedy. It seems odd that the British comedian has yet to create a genuine home run of a motion picture.

The Invention of Lying unfolds in a fantastical alternate universe where lying does not exist. In fact, the word "lying" is absent from the dictionary because nobody even knows the concept. People have evolved to tell the absolute truth - it is encoded into their minds. Mark Bellison (Gervais) is a hapless screenwriter who's fired from his job and is depressed because has no chance of wooing his dream girl, Anna (Jennifer Garner). At the end of his rope, Mark realises he can tell untruths, giving him a massive advantage and allowing him to topple his rivals and earn vast amounts of money. While comforting his dying mother (Fionnula Flanagan), Mark lies to put her mind at ease, devising the notion of an afterlife and a God. However, he paints himself into a corner by telling such a tall tale, as people overhear him and unquestioningly believe that he has all the answers. This attracts the attention of the general public and the global media.

Suffice it to say, for you to embrace The Invention of Lying, you need to accept this world and accept the fact that lies do not exist. Gervais even delivers voiceover narration at the beginning of the movie to tell us everything we need to know. If you can swallow the conceit, there is a lot of fun to be had. Gervais and Robinson take the concept and run with it, exploring all forms of lying that emphasise the importance of untruths. For instance, motion pictures do not feature actors since acting would be deception; rather, movies consist of people sitting around telling true stories in a dry, uninteresting fashion. Moreover, advertisements in this world are nothing but unremarkable fact-stating, reinforcing that companies lie about their products all the time. Various sight gags are a hoot, as well - including a nursing home called "A Sad Place For Hopeless Old People," and a low-rent motel with the sign "A Place For Intercourse With A Near Stranger" - and it's funny to hear characters speak their mind in a frank manner. The wit is often quite subtle, too, with odd speech patterns and deadpan facial nuances getting laughs.

More than anything else, Robinson and Gervais position The Invention of Lying as a total piss-take on the bible, positing that religion is simply the result of gullible people believing something far-fetched simply because they do not know any better. Gervais makes no bones about being he's an atheist, hence such content is very suitable for his directorial debut. The satire, though, is sometimes a bit too on the nose, layering on the religious ridiculing with the subtlety of a shotgun. Seeing Mark turn into a spitting image of Jesus is one step too far; the film needed a more delicate satiric touch, which is usually Gervais's specialty. Also not overly successful is the romance between Mark and Anna. From the beginning, Anna tells Mark that she's not attracted to him and is not interested in dating him because she wants her children to have good genetics. Anna is completely shallow and often cruel, making us wonder what Mark sees in her and why she means so much to him. While it does give Gervais and Robinson the chance to explore the central conceit further, the subplot feels shoehorned in at the demands of formula.

Following his performances in Ghost Town and Night at the Museum 2, Gervais is a terrific fit for the role of Mark. He has a certain everyman quality and vulnerability, and his comic timing is spot-on. Additionally, Gervais is a fine actor, as evidenced in the scene of Mark talking to his ailing mother on her deathbed, which is surprisingly poignant. Gervais is not an over-the-top performer, relying on naturalism to sell the character. Fortunately, he receives solid support from his co-stars; Garner does a decent job with her superficial character, while Jonah Hill scores a few laughs as Mark's suicidal neighbour, and Louis C.K. is spot-on as Mark's bar-dwelling friend. Tiny Fey also appears here, making the most of her small role and delivering several amusing one-liners. Rounding out the main players is the reliable Jeffrey Tambor as Mark's boss and a reasonably funny Rob Lowe as a rival screenwriter.

Although The Invention of Lying is a bit underwhelming on the whole, there's no denying that this is an original, well-conceived comedy from Robinson and Gervais. It's especially noteworthy because it underscores how much of our society is built on lies, half-truths and speculation, all of which are placed forth by religious groups, politicians, media outlets, and even our own parents. The Invention of Lying suggests that lying can be beneficial depending on the context, which is a refreshing message for a comedy. But while the film makes you think, it's also a bright, enjoyable rom-com, even if Gervais is probably capable of better.

6.6/10

"You got me moving enough weed to kill Willie Nelson!"

Fundamentally RV by way of Pineapple Express, 2013's We're the Millers is an audience-pleasing comedy played out with an R-rated sensibility, happy to indulge in lewd, vulgar absurdity without breaking any new ground in the genre. Fortunately, even though it's episodic and formulaic, We're the Millers is also very funny, with director Rawson Marshall Thurber (2004's Dodgeball) settling into an agreeable rhythm of one-liners and character antics which keep the flick entertaining more often than not. It's only occasionally laugh-out-loud hilarious, but not all comedic highlights were spoiled in the marketing materials, which is miraculous in today's cinematic climate.

A professional drug dealer and a world-class slacker, David Clark (Jason Sudeikis) gets robbed whilst trying to stop a mugging, resulting in him losing his entire supply of weed and money. Consequently, David finds himself in hot water with his boss, drug lord Brad Gurdlinger (Ed Helms), who offers him the chance to pay his debt and earn a lot of money. His assignment is to pick up a stash of marijuana in Mexico and smuggle it back into the United States. Fearing that a single guy travelling alone might look suspicious, he concocts a hopefully can't-miss plan: he hires stripper Rose (Jennifer Aniston), homeless runaway Casey (Emma Roberts), and awkward teen Kenny (Will Poulter) to play the role of his wholesome all-American family, thus keeping attention off the drug smuggling. As "The Millers" hit the road in an RV, they begin to bond and soon meet road-tripping couple Don (Nick Offerman) and Edie (Kathryn Hahn), who believe the faux family's story...and refuse to leave them alone.

The basic premise of We're the Millers is a strong one, incorporating a few well-worn conventions but otherwise bringing forth a fresh, original concept. However, the plot is not strong enough to sustain a feature-length motion picture, necessitating a handful of narrative tangents that cripple the pace. This would be fine if only the execution were more robust, but We're the Millers runs far too long at almost two hours, continually getting bogged down between the big comic payoffs. Most egregious is the emergence of a rival drug lord out to reclaim his stash; he barely makes an impression and only comes across as an afterthought, as if the writers were obligated by formula to include an antagonist. Moreover, the film almost goes off the rails when it starts to take David's relationship with his acting partners seriously, attempting to infuse the picture with tenderness but ultimately falling short. And the content involving Don and Edie is far too long-winded. None of this is enough to ruin the experience, but a brisker, leaner, perhaps darker movie might've been more satisfying.

The script was written by Bob Fisher and Steve Faber (Wedding Crashers), as well as Sean Anders and John Morris (Sex Drive). Thus, We're the Millers is very much an R-rated affair geared towards the folks who enjoy movies like Hot Tub Time Machine and The Hangover. Since comedy is subjective, it's difficult to predict anyone's reaction to the movie's humour, but if you like this brand of R-rated material, you should find We're the Millers to be hilarious. Many laughs are mined through savvy pop culture references and absurd sight gags, including the image of an orca chomping on a shark in Brad's personal aquarium, and a tarantula bite yielding a massively swollen testicle. Otherwise, the profane dialogue is often amusing, though there's not much wit to be seen here. Indeed, We're the Millers is more of a scattergun experience than a carefully executed showcase of comedy genius. Not that this is a drawback - just an observation. However, the picture loses its way when it turns serious; Thurber cannot entirely sell the transition from broad to heartfelt.

Saturday Night Live veteran Sudeikis is a charismatic presence as David, displaying a strong understanding of timing and delivery. But it's Jennifer Aniston who steals the show; she's absolutely on fire as Rose, exhibiting flawless comic intuition and making her character simultaneously irritable and sympathetic. Moreover, Aniston is still extremely attractive despite her age, and a scene of her performing an elaborate impromptu striptease is an inspired, sexy highlight. As the fictional kids, Roberts and Poulter are spot-on, blending right into the R-rated lunacy. (And Poulter has got to be the luckiest actor of his generation; he extensively makes out with both Roberts and Aniston in one scene. Fuck.) Further standouts in the cast include Hangover performer Ed Helms, while Parks and Recreation mainstay Nick Offerman is also fantastic here.

While there are problems on a script level, and a few pacing lulls prevent We're the Millers from becoming one of 2013's standout comedies, it does its job well enough. It's an often amusing variation on National Lampoon's Vacation, and the funny parts are very, very funny. You could do a lot worse if you're in the mood for a fun time-killer. And be sure to stick around for a blooper reel during the end credits. It closes the door with a smile and underscores how much of the dialogue was improvised despite four writers receiving credit for the screenplay.

6.5/10

"What you've done is taken God's oldest killing machine and given it will and desire. What you've done is knocked us all the way to the bottom of the goddamn food chain."

Flawed as it definitely is, 1999's Deep Blue Sea is a rare type of big-budget summer extravaganza that fulfils its promise of delivering fast-paced, entertaining action with genuine panache. Nothing about Deep Blue Sea is original or groundbreaking in any way, but the production was overseen by blockbuster extraordinaire Renny Harlin, whose previous pictures include Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Cliffhanger (let's forget about Cutthroat Island). As a result, it's unfailingly enjoyable, and it doesn't feel its lengthy 100-minute running time. If Deep Blue Sea was released in 2013, it would have been produced by the SyFy channel, with zero budget and no skill behind it. Luckily, it was made in 1999, when studios still put money into R-rated B-movies. And thank goodness for that, as the resulting picture is a blast of pure good-natured fun.

On a floating research facility in the middle of the ocean, marine biologist Dr. Susan McAlester (Saffron Burrows) is seeking to find a cure for Alzheimer's Disease by harvesting the brain matter of Mako sharks. In order to glean more protein from the fishes, the scientists genetically engineer them, which results in heightened intelligence. Susan's corporate funder Russell Franklin (Samuel L. Jackson) agrees to a weekend expedition to the lab to check on progress. With most of the staff having left for the weekend, only a skeleton crew remains, including Susan, shark wrangler Carter Blake (Thomas Jane), engineer Tom Scoggins (Michael Rapaport), scientist Jim Whitlock (Stellan Skarsgård), religious chef Preacher (LL Cool J), and lab assistant Janice Higgins (Jacqueline McKenzie). Unfortunately, a violent storm arises, and a series of circumstances results in the base being severely damaged and partially flooded. With a number of gigantic, intelligent Mako sharks craving the taste of their captors, the science crew are left to fend for their lives as they attempt to get to the surface and escape.

The big issue which faced screenwriters Duncan Kennedy, Donna Powers and Wayne Powers was how to structure a shark attack movie without recreating Steven Spielberg's Jaws. Fortunately, the writers admirably overcome this, using Mako sharks as opposed to Great Whites, and creating a new plot and setting, not to mention introducing scientifically-altered sharks with increased smarts that are capable of more than the average beasties. In fact, the writers instead borrow from another famous Spielberg movie: Jurassic Park. How creative. Deep Blue Sea is well-structured for a B-movie, with a fair amount of build-up before all hell breaks loose and we get into the action. Once the mayhem commences, it never relents, progressing from one shark set-piece to the next at a brisk pace. Unfortunately, Deep Blue Sea is less successful in terms of dialogue and characters. The roster of characters here have little dimension to them; they're established as plot pawns, and lack satisfying individual personalities. The chatter, meanwhile, is standard, one-note action film speak, lacking the spark of wit which bolstered Jurassic Park.

Deep Blue Sea deserves plaudits due to the lack of sentimentality that's displayed towards the characters. None of the players are safe here, leading to unexpected and shocking character deaths. Most notable is a memorable scene in which a character delivers a very cheesy, melodramatic speech imploring the rest of the characters to stop bickering and work together to survive. It's the standard action film speech, meant to denote a key turning point in the narrative, but, before the character can finish, a shark emerges and pulls him underwater to be ripped to shreds. It underlines that anyone can be killed off, no matter their star status or how important they ostensibly look to be. The actors are fine, doing what they can with the material. LL Cool J is the only one who really shines, as he has the best dialogue and the best character, not to mention he's the most charismatic. Jane, meanwhile, is solid as well, establishing himself as strong leading man material. Also of note is seasoned veteran Jackson placing forth a fairly colourful turn, while Rapaport, Burrows and McKenzie are likeable as well.

Deep Blue Sea is a B-movie at heart, but Harlin had an A-grade budget at his disposal. $60 million was no small chunk of change in 1999, and in this day and age it's unheard of for an R-rated action movie to be produced for such a lavish sum. Production values are competent here, and Harlin is a gifted action filmmaker, staging exhilarating set-pieces with confidence and skill. The R rating is a huge benefit, giving Harlin leeway to go nuts with graphic depictions of shark attacks. Water turns red when someone is taken, and the sharks rip characters apart in a gory fashion. It's glorious. Furthermore, it's hard to overstate the effectiveness of the animatronic sharks here. The twenty-four years separating Jaws and Deep Blue Sea yielded tremendous advancements in cinematic special effects, allowing for practical sharks that are flawless in movement and detail. At times, you could swear that Harlin and his team must have thrown real sharks into tanks with the actors. Funnily enough, to date no other shark film has equalled or surpassed the animatronics here, which is bewildering. However, the movie's digital sharks are not nearly as successful. A few moments here and there look somewhat convincing, but, for the most part, the CGI is obvious and slipshod. Jaws overcame its fake-looking shark by keeping it hidden for the most part, but Harlin is too concerned with in-your-face money shots.

To be sure, it's disappointing that Deep Blue Sea is not on the same level as Jurassic Park, which merged genuine awe and excitement with an engaging sense of humanity and intelligence. Deep Blue Sea is instead closer to the film's sequel, The Lost World, with Harlin more interested in big action scenes than substance. But, to the movie's credit, it's a big success, guiltlessly trashy and undeniably fun, even if it is thoroughly ludicrous. Deep Blue Sea is the very epitome of summer entertainment; stuffy critics relentlessly lambaste it, but it's executed with enough energy, excitement, charisma and skill to render it an enjoyable guilty pleasure that gives you plenty of bang for your buck.

7.3/10

"Splitting up is a bad idea, it is much safer if we stay together!"

The credits for The Croods may list Monty Python alum John Cleese as a co-writer, but do not let this formality fool you. Cleese was only involved in the production's early stages many years ago, when Aardman Animation was slated to produce it. Eventually, however, DreamWorks picked up the project and re-hauled it, stripping away any flavour and wit it might have once possessed. As a result, The Croods is a by-the-book animated family flick in the vein of the Ice Age sequels, hitting all expected story beats and never really doing enough to stand out. Although it begins with promise, it plummets into mediocrity and never recovers, with dull characters, flat pacing, rote scripting and a lack of compelling conflict keeping The Croods from reaching its full potential. It may entertain the kids to an extent, but that's just not good enough.

The leader of a caveman family, Grug (Nicolas Cage) is profoundly terrified of the outside world, maintaining his mantra of "never not be afraid" and perpetually shielding his loved ones in their cave, including teenage daughter Eep (Emma Stone), wife Ugga (Catherine Keener), son Thunk (Clark Duke), toddler Sandy (Randy Thom), and his mother-in-law (Cloris Leachman). As a result of Grug's vigilance, they are seemingly the last family of their kind to not be wiped out by natural selection. Eep feels trapped, though, and grows curious about what the rest of the world holds. Lured out of the cave at night by the glow of a fire, Eep meets Guy (Ryan Reynolds) and his pet sloth Belt (Chris Sanders), an adventurous pair who warn Eep that the land is collapsing due to volcanos and earthquakes. Smitten with Guy, Eep pushes her family to join him after their cave collapses, setting out to find safer ground and a new place to call home. Grug is dragged out of his comfort zone, forced to confront the perils of the world while trying to protect his family.

Fortunately, writer-directors Chris Sanders and Kirk De Micco eschew pop culture references and use of trashy pop songs, which is groundbreaking for a DreamWorks picture. This aside, though, The Croods is extraordinarily by-the-numbers, abiding by an overly clichéd three-act structure and deploying character arcs straight out of the Animation 101 handbook. Unoriginality by itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but Sanders and De Micco lack the imagination and wit to allow the movie to genuinely soar. Moreover, the story's central message is confused and muddled. The flick posits that living within rules and routines is not living at all, and that taking risks will give you a full life. But one can understand Grug's viewpoint, as the planet is populated with dangerous beasts at every turn. Plus, it's even explained at the film's beginning that all of their neighbours have died, and they've only survived because of Grug's diligence. Sanders and De Micco seem to vilify Grug, but for no good reason. And is it really the best thing for a children's animated movie to tell its audience that they should run wild and not listen to their parents?

Simply put, The Croods should be far funnier. Ice Age may be getting drearier with each passing instalment, but it has an ace in the hole in the form of Scrat, whose acorn-related antics alone make those flicks worth watching at least once. Alas, The Croods does not have a Scrat. And without it, there's not a great deal of comic vigour or punch to the material. Instead, Sanders and De Micco go through the predictable motions without making the picture goofy enough for the little kids, or smart or mature enough for the adults. There was plenty of potential for the writer-directors to deliver a daring climax in the vein of How to Train Your Dragon (which was hugely affecting and exhilarating in equal measure), but Sanders and De Micco opt for bland safeness. Still, in spite of all this negativity, The Croods has its pleasures, mainly the luscious animation and a handful of effective set-pieces, not to mention the designs of the creatures. The Croods is all surface, but at least it's a mildly effective surface at times.

Even though the material is basic, The Croods is livened to an extent by the cast. Rising star Stone is a good fit for Eep, while Leachman is expectedly entertaining. But it's Cage who runs away with the whole movie (trust Cage to steal the show in an animated production), turning Grug into a lovable presence and conveying a sense of emotion at times. Cage sounds like he's actually acting, rather than just reciting lines. Meanwhile, Duke and Keener are decent enough, though Reynolds is so utterly non-descript and flavourless that you may not even realise he's voicing Guy.

DreamWorks animated movies are distinctly hit and miss. Whereas Pixar always produces good movies as long as the word "Cars" isn't in the title, DreamWorks has only produced a handful of memorable winners. Alas, The Croods will not be remembered as one of the studio's best titles. On its own terms it's not too shabby, but it looks extremely below-par when placed against other recent animated movies, like Rango, ParaNorman, How to Train Your Dragon, Toy Story 3 and Tangled. It's not funny or emotional enough. Perhaps if John Cleese remained aboard throughout the entire production, or if the movie remained housed as Aardman, The Croods would've been more meaningful and impressive. As it is, it feels really pre-packaged.

5.9/10

"That's how they git you. They're under the goddamned ground!"

A devilishly enjoyable creature feature, Tremors has understandably endured as a cult classic over the decades on account of its solid blend of comedy, horror, believable special effects and shrewd writing. In a nutshell, Tremors is a throwback to the B-grade monsters movies of old, but with a contemporary feel and a more agreeable tone. Director Ron Underwood also achieves the coveted "afternoon matinee" charm, rendering this a flat-out fun motion picture no matter your mood. It's one of few films that achieves an ideal balance of comedy and horror, and it's also one of the best PG-13, family-friendly horrors you will ever see.

A pair of hillbilly handymen, Valentine McKee (Kevin Bacon) and Earl Bassett (Fred Ward) make their living carrying out various jobs here and there. Heading into the flyspeck town of Perfection, Nevada in search of work, they meet graduation student Rhonda LeBeck (Finn Carter), an expert in seismology who begins recording some strange readings underground. People soon begin to go missing and a few dead bodies show up, putting the locals on edge. Investigating the matter, McKee and Bassett discover an array of giant wormlike creatures called Graboids living under the ground, with sharp teeth and huge, gaping maws. Able to take down cars and break into structures, the denizens of Perfection - including gun-toting hillbilly couple Burt (Michael Gross) and Heather (Reba McEntire) - are forced to hide on the roofs of any available building, seeking a way to destroy the threat or escape to safer pastures before they fall victim to starvation, dehydration or Graboid consumption.

Rather than simply imitating their influences, screenwriters S.S. Wilson and Brent Maddock improve upon '50s creature features by introducing interesting and resourceful characters. None of the folks here are as brainless as one would expect from the genre: they actually grow to learn about the Graboids, and start thinking and strategising, much like normal people would do in such a situation. Added to this, the dialogue is strong throughout, full of witty bantering and clever exchanges. Especially strong is the amusing interplay between McKee and Bassett. The pair feel like long-time friends, and the script gives them quirks to heighten their personality (they solve arguments with games of "Rock, Paper, Scissors"). Another strong element of Tremors is that it doesn't feel the need to reveal everything about these giant worms, leaving their origins a complete mystery. Most monster movies are saddled with tiresome exposition, but Tremors is played with more smarts. Rhonda may be the trademark scientist of the piece, but her theories are terse and the discussions make sense. Consequently, the film is endowed with a snappy pace.

Tremors also transcends the monster movie genre by creating real tension and employing a sense of creativity in shot construction. Underwood does not show the big menaces immediately, instead using Jaws-like POV shots, building curiosity about the worms. The monsters are revealed slowly, too; Underwood teases us with fleeting glimpses at first before giving us the full picture. And when the creatures do emerge, they look highly convincing. The Graboids were executed through practical animatronics, giving them a tangible disposition than computers cannot replicate. Better yet, the illusion still stands today. Underwood also gets the tone right; Tremors is silly and funny, but not a dumb parody. The film has a sense of humour, but the narrative is taken seriously as well. The Graboids do post a threat, leading to some intense confrontational sequences and shocking kills. It's the fun-loving sensibility which gives the picture its charm, derived from the amusing chatter and a few awesomely ridiculous scenes (Burt and Heather do not take kindly to a monster intruding into their firearm-laden basement).

Cast chemistry represents another strong asset of Tremors, as the actors give admirable life to the delightful screenplay. Front and centre are Bacon and Ward, who make for a great comedic team, bouncing off one another beautifully. The pair's repartee keeps the film fun to watch throughout, and it's hard to imagine any other actors being this effective. However, Bacon and Ward are pretty much shown up by Michael Gross, who was given the best character and the best dialogue to sink his teeth into. Equally good is country singer McEntire, making her film debut here as Burt's feisty wife. Young Ariana Richards also appears here, getting off rather easy compared to what she was about to go through in Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park just three years later.

Naturally, Tremors has its flaws - some of the music is a bit chintzy, a pole vaulting sequence feels a bit awkward, and a kiss before the end credits is cheesy as hell - but it holds up surprisingly well for an early '90s creature feature (it's aged far more gracefully than Anaconda). It might not have been much of a box office hit when initially released, but it picked up steam as people discovered it on home video and cable TV, leading to a handful of sequels and a television show. This is due to the fact that Tremors is hard to dislike, assuming you enjoy having a good time. Without being an award winner, it's a dynamite comedy-horror which is worth your time and never gets old.

8.3/10

"Time to meet the devil."

An unreasonable amount of expectation surrounded 2013's Only God Forgives, as it's the second collaboration of director Nicolas Winding Refn and star Ryan Gosling after 2011's Drive. Fans of Drive expecting something similar will be disappointed - you see, Drive was, in fact, more of a gun-for-hire project for Refn, who was called upon to put his distinct audio-visual stamp on a script by James Sallis. Only God Forgives, on the other hand, is a Refn project through and through, finding the Danish filmmaker both writing and directing this breathtaking, surreal mood piece that ponders the futility of revenge. The product is destined to be 2013's most polarising motion picture, though this reviewer found the experience utterly absorbing. It's pure art-house all the way through to its core, with deliberate pacing, ambiguous scripting and extended patches of wordless imagery.

In Bangkok, lowlife drug dealer Billy (Tom Burke) rapes and kills a 16-year-old prostitute, leading to his murder at the hands of the girl's father, spurred on by corrupt police captain Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm). Billy's brother Julian (Gosling) is compelled into a vendetta of vengeance, which is further fuelled by the arrival of the boys' mother, Crystal (Kristin Scott Thomas). Crystal demands bloodshed in response to Billy's murder, but this only provokes more violence, attracting Chang's attention as he transforms into a relentless machine. Amid the carnage, Julian finds solace in the company of young dancer Mai (Yayaying Rhatha Phongam).

Only God Forgives is irretrievably dark, with a sense of dread and malevolence permeating every frame. Mainstream viewers are advised to steer clear, as Refn is not interested in selling tickets to you; this is an exquisitely stylish but methodically slow neo-noir tour through Thailand's criminal underworld. It further demonstrates Refn's unique modus operandi, as it's another tale of a broken loner trying to navigate the savage world in which he resides. The film is unadulterated madness, and Refn gives us ample time to observe the horrors and poses, supported by a superbly atmospheric score by Drive composer Cliff Martinez. The music amplifies the experience and enhances the tone, affording an orchestral voice to a movie that's light on dialogue. Indeed, Only God Forgives prefers to show rather than tell. And what a show!

Refn's idiosyncrasies as a filmmaker are unique and distinctive; anyone familiar with Drive, Valhalla Rising or the Pusher movies will recognise his proclivity for extended pauses, stylish photography, short bursts of vicious violence, and a refusal to close on a definitive note. Shot on location in Bangkok, Only God Forgives benefits from its authentic flavour, as characters often speak in their foreign dialect, and the depiction of Thailand is not Americanized to any degree. Being a Refn production, there are scenes of bloodshed, and they are both ferocious and perfectly executed. Bodies are sliced open, and people are tortured in borderline unspeakable ways, and Refn lets us observe in graphic detail, though he manages the remarkable feat of being tasteful. A less skilful filmmaker would elect the overt torture porn approach, but Refn knows when to cut away, imbuing Only God Forgives with a rare sense of class. It's not that Refn was too scared to show everything - it's that he was astute enough to not cross the line into bad taste, and some occurrences here are so horrifying that mere implication is disturbing enough. It genuinely feels as if every audio-visual component of Only God Forgives was subject to heavy deliberation. A cinema screening is the best way to experience it, as you're more able to absorb the tremendous craftsmanship.

However, not everything in Refn's script gels - there are scenes that either go too far (some of the symbolism is pretty heavy-handed) or make no sense beyond gratuitous shock value (Julian mutilates a character's dead body in a completely baffling moment). Suffice it to say, Refn's style denies a strong human element, meaning emotional investment is impossible. Only God Forgives doesn't engage on a profound level, but that doesn't mean it's shallow; on the contrary, the thoughtfulness and deliberateness of its composition is stunning. It's David Lynch-esque in its construction, with Refn embracing abstract tendencies, blurring the line between reality and fantasy in sequences that explore the emptiness of Julian's soul. A great deal of patience is required to sit through Only God Forgives, particularly whenever Refn's camera returns to a karaoke bar to observe Chang pouring his heart out through singing. Such moments did elicit a few laughs in my screening, but I found the scenes almost unbearably poignant, especially with the knowledge that karaoke singing is a significant aspect of Thai culture.

Gosling may be perceived as the star here, but he's very understated, delivering maybe twenty lines of dialogue throughout the movie's runtime. It's a near-mute performance of nuanced stares, and it's astonishing to see how much emotion he can convey without uttering a word. Gosling doesn't just rehash his Drive persona, though; instead, he creates a distinct new character for Julian. Equally good is Thomas, who's the complete opposite of Gosling, dispersing vulgar dialogue and never baulking from speaking her mind. She's certainly broad, but it works, as she adds spunk to what is otherwise a wordless staring contest. Even better, though, is newcomer Vithaya Pansringarm, who's absolute dynamite as Chang. He's such an unexpectedly interesting character; one moment, he's committing indescribable acts of violence, and the next, he's showing his delicate side. Pansringarm is a powerhouse, and it's his haunting performance that will stick with you the most. Also deserving of praise is the beautiful Yayaying Rhatha Phongam, who keeps pace with Gosling and shares several memorable scenes with him.

Only God Forgives is another superb feather in Refn's cinematic cap: an avant-garde experiment in strange beauty and harrowing horror concerned with existential questions and the mysticism of Asia. At a scant 90 minutes, it gets in and out without feeling agonisingly protracted or overlong. You'll either love Only God Forgives or despise it; there's not much of a middle ground. Some viewers will go along for the ride, while others will ridicule the movie as pointless and uneventful. Do not even consider watching it unless you're prepared to keep your mind open and allow Refn's surreal cinematic spell to wash over the screen.

8.1/10

"I feel like there's something in this house."

Believe it or not, I actually enjoyed Scary Movie 3 and 4, laughing out loud several times during both films. But whatever enjoyment I once derived from the series has vanished with Scary Movie 5, or Scary MoVie as it's officially entitled. The need for a Scary Movie 5 is highly questionable in the first place, as the series is no longer relevant. After all, seven years have elapsed since 2006's Scary Movie 4, and, in the interim, the horror genre has been lampooned with more creativity in semi-comedic films like Cabin in the Woods and Zombieland. Plus, Scary Movie 5's main target is the Paranormal Activity franchise, which was already sent up in A Haunted House a few months beforehand. It shouldn't come as any surprise to learn that Scary Movie 5 is not just awful, but offensively so; an obnoxious waste of time and money that wouldn't even be able to entertain the lowest common denominator.

After the mysterious death of Charlie Sheen (played by himself), his three orphaned kids are found in a cabin in the woods. Retrieved in a feral condition, they're adopted by their uncle Dan (Simon Rex) and his girlfriend Jody (Ashley Tisdale). The children claim to have a supernatural protector known as "Mama," which unnerves their new guardians as odd things begin to happen around the house. Setting up security cameras and walking around with camcorders to capture everything that goes down in their residence, Dan and Jody eventually call in a psychic to deal with the situation. Meanwhile, Jody is dealing with a stressful upcoming ballet performance, and Dan has problems at the genetics lab where he experiments with chimps.

Aside from the obvious Paranormal Activity spoofing, Scary Movie 5 also sends up Mama, which was released a short three months before this dogshit polluted multiplexes. Also parodied is 2013's Evil Dead, which was released just a week prior. (It wouldn't be surprising if Scary Movie 5 did in fact start production just a week before its scheduled release date, since it's so sloppy.) Bizarrely, the film also targets internet memes for no discernible reason, while 50 Shades of Grey is spoofed despite not even being a movie yet. Other targets include Inception and Black Swan, even though those movies came out three years ago, while Rise of the Planet of the Apes gets a look in, just because. The script for Scary Movie 5 is actually credited to David Zucker and Pat Proft, both of whom contributed to The Naked Gun. (Zucker was also responsible for Airplane!, arguably the funniest film of all time.) Now, the pair could not devise a funny joke at gunpoint. At one stage, a character has a massive bout of flatulence that sends people flying all over the place, and the narrator complains about the smell. Are you sure you want to watch this movie now?

The biggest issue with Scary Movie 5 is that it simply does not feel like a cohesive movie - it feels like a series of YouTube skits strung together without any thought towards narrative cohesion or dramatic momentum. The last two instalments were pretty much a string of skits as well, but at least they made sense and built up to their respective endings. Here, the climax takes all of two minutes and happens completely out of the blue. There's no care or passion behind the picture - it's as if the filmmakers were rushing through every set-up, wanting to get it done as soon as possible and not caring about how slipshod their work might be. And get this: for whatever reason, when a couple of characters are driving between locations, we see a few odd shots of an empty toy car. It looks like it's meant to be the set-up for some kind of comedic payoff, but the moment never arrives. Is the toy car meant to be a gag, or is it meant to look real? Was the film made on such a cheap budget that they couldn't afford to shoot a proper car driving by? What the fuck is this shit?

Scary Movie 5 is not just unfunny but obnoxiously unfunny, with failed gags that not only fall flat but outright offend. The filmmakers must have purposely set out to make an unwatchable finished product because no writers or directors in their right minds could deem this material tolerable by any stretch of the imagination. In the entire film, I chuckled twice. I did not laugh out loud at any point - I just chuckled. Hence, there are maybe 30 seconds of worthwhile footage in the 90-minute movie, and that estimate is generous. Terry Crews even shows up at one stage, only to score absolutely no laughs at all. Crews has been in his fair share of bad movies, but even at his worst, he's usually funny. But not here. Scary Movie 5 is such a black hole of awfulness that not even Terry Crews can make successful jokes within it. There's actually barely enough material here to justify a feature-length runtime due to the threadbare plot, hence it ends about the 75-minute mark, after which a horrendous 15-minute blooper reel unfolds over the closing credits. I worked at a cinema that screened this malarkey, and at no point did I witness a single patron sit through it all. Everyone wanted to leave. On more than one occasion, I heard customers complaining about how terrible the movie was. Poor souls.

Perhaps the film's woeful disposition can be attributed to one thing: up to 70% of the content was shot two months ahead of its scheduled release. Reportedly, the original cut was essentially a different flick altogether, but reshoots occurred in February 2013 to change the storyline completely. If that's not a red flag, I do not know what is. Scary Movie 5 goes beyond the bottom of the barrel; it's disgracefully stupid and fucking retarded. Even the brain-dead would be capable of making a better movie. A few months ago, I proclaimed that Movie 43 was the worst motion picture of 2013, believing it to be scientifically impossible for any movie to be worse. Lo and behold, I must eat my words: Scary Movie 5 is worse than Movie 43. Do not see this movie under any circumstances. It will cause you physical pain.

ZERO FUCKING STARS