Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.9/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.7/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.3/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.7/10

"It's important to enjoy life while you still can!"

After the bitter disappointment of the original Red, 2013's Red 2 was a golden opportunity to learn from previous mistakes and finally achieve the full potential of this promising set-up and fine cast. Original director Robert Schwentke was even jettisoned in favour of Dean Parisot, who helmed the underrated '90s gem Galaxy Quest, demonstrating he has what it takes to create a marvellous action-comedy. Alas, Red 2 is every bit as deflating as the first film, if not more so. It's ultimately sunk by its slipshod screenplay, which was penned by returning writers Jon and Erich Hoeber. Aside from their work on the first Red, the pair also scripted Whiteout and Battleship. Why the hell would any producer hire these hacks for any project?

Retired CIA agent Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) has settled into a peaceful life with girlfriend Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), but he's soon approached by old pal Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich), who advises the retiree that he's not out of harm's way. Details were recently leaked regarding a 1970s operation called Nightshade involving a devastating nuclear device, and Frank and Marvin are named terrorists by government stooge Jack (Neal McDonough) who plans to dispose of the pair. With the decades-old nuclear bomb still lurking somewhere in Russia, the old veterans are drawn back into action to investigate, calling upon incarcerated scientist Dr. Edward Bailey (Anthony Hopkins) for help. Frank and Marvin's former cohort, Victoria Winslow (Helen Mirren), also lends a hand, while Frank's former flame, Katja (Catherine Zeta-Jones), also shows up. Further complicating matters is the fact that the world's greatest contract killer, Han (Byung-hun Lee), has been hired to kill Frank. As this plays out, everyone seems to double-cross each other, switching sides with such frequency that it's impossible to figure out where anyone's allegiances lie.

Red 2 was released three years after its predecessor, implying this was not a rush-job sequel. Nevertheless, the script certainly feels rushed and slipshod, as if the cameras rolled before much of a screenplay was written, and most everything was made up on the spot. The convoluted narrative is a mess of superfluous tangents, shady motivations, arbitrary plot contrivances and characters who randomly appear and disappear, making it hard to figure out what's going on and why. Added to this, much like its forerunner, Red 2 is a sluggish bore that falls flat in terms of intrigue and suspense, weighed down by leaden pacing and witless dialogue. With surprisingly scarce action set-pieces, the film is overly verbose, but there's no life or pop to the character interactions. Worse, this tedium runs for two goddamn hours. Red 2 should be lively and light on its feet, but it's a laboured, monotonous slog.

It's hard to believe that Red 2 was directed by the same man who gave the world Galaxy Quest and won an Oscar for a short film in 1989. This is actually Parisot's first theatrical feature since 2005's Fun with Dick and Jane, and though he's dabbled in television in the interim (including The Good Wife, Justified, Modern Family and Monk), he seems rusty and ostensibly clueless about how to construct a proper film anymore. Red 2's technical specs are surprisingly mixed, with a few incoherent scenes, poor comic timing, and a general lack of vision. The compositions are basic and pedestrian, and the action scenes are positively lifeless. Hell, the creative visual flourish of using comic-book-inspired freeze frames and animations only serves to emphasise the workmanlike nature of the cinematography. Some of the action is halfway entertaining, with a handful of car chases and gun battles, but the violence is bloodless to maintain the all-important PG-13 rating, forbidding anything memorable or colourful from taking place. Worse, Parisot never achieves the right tonal balance; Red 2 is rarely amusing and never hilarious, and the lack of an effective light-hearted tone makes the deaths of various characters feel oddly mean-spirited and dark.

The only variety in the action department is the hand-to-hand combat courtesy of Byung-hun Lee. A veteran of Korean action (if you haven't seen A Bittersweet Life or I Saw the Devil, fix that), Lee brightens up the movie with his martial arts chops, but he seldom receives sufficient opportunities to flex them, and Parisot's lackadaisical direction renders the close combat stuff oddly flat for the most part. Performances all-round are nothing special, with Willis clearly phoning this one in for the paycheque and refusing to have any fun with the role. Malkovich and Mirren, on the other hand, are clearly having a ball, as is Anthony Hopkins, who chews the scenery with gusto. None of the other actors make much of an impression, though Parker is still extremely attractive for a woman in her late forties.

Red 2 is not actively offensive, but it's completely forgettable and hard to care about. The drama is weightless and flaccid, while the action scenes look like something from a mediocre TV show, and the comedy is ineffective. It's a visually inept, pointless sequel motivated purely by box office receipts, and it fails to build on anything established in the first movie. Worse, there's no Morgan Freeman here since his character bit the bullet back in 2010. Hopefully, this series will live up to its title and retire for good.

3.5/10

"Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming."

To this day, 1993's Jurassic Park stands as one of the all-time greatest blockbusters in history, and its impact on popular culture cannot be overstated. With its Tyrannosaurus-sized box office returns and a bevy of critical acclaim, a sequel was inevitable, yet a follow-up would always be risky due to its predecessor's esteemed reputation. On top of this, 1997's The Lost World: Jurassic Park found director Steven Spielberg at the helm of a film for the first time since winning an Oscar for Schindler's List. Suffice it to say, The Lost World is not the knockout sequel many had hoped for, as it's not as intelligent or thoughtful as the first movie. Nevertheless, taken by itself, this is a skilfully-crafted rollercoaster, showing once again that Spielberg is practically unmatched when it comes to excitement, action and suspense.

Set several years after the events of the first movie, chaos theory mathematician Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) is approached by billionaire entrepreneur John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) with a proposition. As it turns out, there is more than one island inhabited by dinosaurs - there's a "Site B," where the creatures are free to run wild. And Hammond wants a team of scientists to visit the island to study the animals. Although Malcolm outright refuses, he learns that his palaeontologist girlfriend, Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore), is already on the island, which compels him to reconsider. With the help of documentary producer Nick Van Owen (Vince Vaughn) and engineer Eddie Carr (Richard Schiff), Malcolm travels to the wilds of Jurassic Park to rescue Sarah. Complicating matters is that Hammond's company, In-Gen, is now run by his shifty nephew Peter Ludlow (Arliss Howard), who authorises an expedition to transport dinosaurs from Site B back to the mainland to create a new amusement park. And, of course, the dinosaurs begin to run amok, decreasing everyone's chances of survival.

The Lost World unfortunately lacks its predecessor's thematic undercurrents. The 1993 movie delved into scientific hubris, gene splicing, DNA research, natural selection and the philosophy of man vs. nature. On the other hand, this sequel is less sophisticated - it's more of a B-grade monster action movie. It is fine in this sense, but the script could have used a few more revisions. Character behaviour is sometimes dumb - an experienced hunter manages to get lost by taking a few steps off the trail to relieve himself, and another hunter listens to music through a pair of headphones despite being on a dinosaur-infested island. There are also a handful of awkward moments, including an opening sequence that doesn't quite gel, and a jarring transition between said opening scene and the reintroduction of Malcolm. Not to mention, it's borderline cringe-worthy to see a teen battling raptors with gymnastics moves.

Although the screenplay by David Koepp is technically an adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel of the same name, it has basically nothing in common with the source material, as Koepp creates his own story. Admittedly, The Lost World does borrow a few narrative beats from its predecessor, but Koepp throws in a sufficient amount of new material to keep it from being a simple rehash. Most notably, the film posits that T-Rexes are family-oriented creatures, as a plot point involves a baby Rex being taken away from its loving parents. Koepp's best contribution is allowing a T-Rex to stampede around San Diego, as we get to see what would happen if such a carnivorous beast was brought into human society. The story here is admittedly flimsy, though - most glaring is the lack of a strong motivation for Malcolm, Sarah, Nick and Eddie's trip to the island. Nevertheless, once the movie gets into an agreeable groove, it soars.

No matter the niggling problems with the imperfect screenplay, Spielberg's visual treatment of the material is undeniably sublime. Spielberg infuses The Lost World with a similar flavour to the first movie, foregrounding a sense of awe and a light-hearted adventure spirit. Sequels are often larger and more lavish affairs, and The Lost World does not disappoint, with the dinos being allotted far more screen-time here. The action set-pieces are a lot of fun to watch, showcasing Spielberg's superb flair for mise-en-scène. Lesser films these days use shaky, zoom-heavy photography and fast cutting, but Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski employ smooth wide shots to great effect. Like its predecessor, The Lost World also gets dark from time to time; the body count is higher, and the PG-13 rating is earned due to the intensity of several death scenes. Fortunately, the special effects here are nothing short of spectacular. Although a handful of digital effects shots look slightly slipshod, ILM mostly improves on the quality of the CGI dinos from four years prior. Luckily, Spielberg heavily relies on animatronic dinosaurs from Stan Winston's team as opposed to just digitally-created beasts, and they look incredibly realistic in terms of movement and detail. Once again, we believe that the dinosaurs are alive. And John Williams' majestic score tops everything off.

Goldblum was easily the most memorable performer in the original film as the witty, wise-cracking Ian Malcolm. His return here is very welcome, and Goldblum embraces the opportunity - he infects Malcolm with a dry, intellectual wit, and the script gives him many caustic one-liners to disperse with gusto. Julianne Moore, meanwhile, acquits herself well as Sarah, and a young Vince Vaughn (long before he became a one-note funnyman) is decent enough. The standout is the late Pete Postlethwaite, who submits a memorable turn as determined hunter Roland Tembo. It's a great character, and Postlethwaite sunk his teeth into it. Attenborough also makes a strong impression as Hammond, while Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards show up for quick cameos to reprise their roles from the original movie.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park doesn't get the credit it deserves. As a standalone action-adventure with dinosaurs, it's an exciting and competently-crafted blockbuster. The cracks begin to show only when it's placed alongside its top-flight predecessor. But even then, The Lost World gets credit for not simply rehashing the 1993 original, as it introduces enough innovation into the series to make it a worthwhile follow-up. Not everything works, and it doesn't reach the dizzying heights of the first film, but it's a solidly enjoyable action-adventure that never bores despite its 130-minute runtime, which is an achievement in itself. It confidently fits the bill of summer popcorn entertainment. And it has aged commendably, with special effects that are still just as convincing all these years later.

7.7/10

"I try to have fun. Otherwise, what's the point?"

Even though 2010's wonderfully entertaining superhero satire Kick-Ass underperformed at the box office, its cult status and strong critical acclaim guaranteed a sequel, which has at long last become a reality. With British filmmaker Matthew Vaughn electing for a producing role this time, Kick-Ass 2 was written and directed by Jeff Wadlow (Never Back Down), and luckily, the result is just as giddily enjoyable as its predecessor. With an R rating and most of the surviving cast returning, this is a fine follow-up beset with bloody beatings, foul language and even a bit of heart, making it a refreshing alternative to 2013's other superhero offerings. If you loved the first movie, you will almost definitely enjoy Kick-Ass 2. But if you didn't like the 2010 picture (and if this is the case, why the hell not?!), there's no talking to you.

Unsure about his abilities as a superhero, Dave/Kick-Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) asks 15-year-old Mindy/Hit Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) to help him train and become his crime-fighting partner. She agrees, but this infuriates her guardian (Morris Chestnut), who wants Mindy to live a normal life, stay out of trouble, and focus on high school. Consequently, Dave joins a gang of superheroes led by Colonel Stars & Stripes (Jim Carrey), who call themselves Justice Forever. Meanwhile, Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) vows to avenge the death of his mobster father, reinventing himself to become "The Motherfucker," a leather-clad supervillain looking to build an army of heavies to raise hell and defeat Kick-Ass. The Motherfucker and his Toxic Mega Cunts gang, including towering behemoth Mother Russia (Olga Kurkulina), soon begin their reign of terror, hunting members of Justice Forever and threatening Dave's personal life, compelling Kick-Ass to ponder the real-life consequences of being a superhero.

Much like the original film, Kick-Ass 2 substantially deviates from the Mark Millar-written comic books to the extent that Wadlow's script bears almost no resemblance to the source. Happily, the alterations improve the movie and allow the production to stand as its own independent entity. If Kick-Ass 2 is not on the same level as its extraordinary predecessor, it's through no real fault of its own. Kick-Ass was just so much out of left field: an unpredictable, audacious and anarchic gem that defied expectations at every turn. The story of Kick-Ass 2 is more straightforward; the character arcs for Dave and Mindy are foreseeable, and there's a climactic battle that we all saw coming. Fortunately, it's the journey that matters the most, and Wadlow has created one hell of a ride. The picture moves at a brisk pace, and Wadlow's screenplay is beset with witty banter. Kick-Ass 2 is a frequently funny film; Mindy enjoys the art of post-mortem one-liners, Dave's interactions with his friends are hilarious, and Carrey gets a few funny lines to chew on. Wadlow's script does falter on a few accounts, however. The depiction of Mindy's school life is sloppy, leaning on ridiculous caricatures straight out of Mean Girls. It's not a deal-breaker, but the subplot should've been handled with more maturity and sophistication. Added to this, Dave's girlfriend Katie is suddenly tossed by the wayside for no real reason, which feels incredibly out of place.

Despite the change in directors and the multiple-year gap, Kick-Ass 2 feels like an incredibly organic continuation of the first film, with a similar look and feel making us believe that this is the same world. The studio reportedly trimmed the budget several times, bringing funding down to a scant $28 million (a little bit less than the first movie's $30 million price tag), but you would not guess it. Shot digitally with Arri Alexa cameras, Kick-Ass 2 carries an attractive look despite its meagre funding, and the special effects are terrific. Action scenes are fluid, inventive and fun, too. Perhaps nothing compares to the hugely inventive action beats of the original, but it's hard to complain about the set-pieces here, including a gleefully fun sequence spotlighting Mindy atop a van killing loads of hired goons. It's hard to imagine the technical execution being any better, a real credit to Wadlow's ability to do a lot with such little money. Fortunately, Kick-Ass 2 is as R-rated as its predecessor - the violent carnage and foul language remains refreshing in an age full of PG-13 superhero movies, and action fans seeking an R-rated fix will be in heaven here. Indeed, Kick-Ass 2 is not just for superhero enthusiasts but for anyone seeking a fun time.

Reprising the titular role, Taylor-Johnson continues to display great acting chops, though his geeky, awkward demeanour inherently means that he'll be again overshadowed by the supporting cast. And my word, the supporting cast here is something to behold. Young Moretz has lost none of her sass or manic energy as the scene-stealing Hit Girl, effortlessly earning big laughs. Moretz is also given more depth to deal with, and she does a superb job. It's Jim Carrey, however, that will get people talking. This is easily Carrey's best, most audacious performance in years, forgoing thankless kiddie stuff (let's forget about Mr. Popper's Penguins) to slide into a thoroughly adult role. He wears a mask and doesn't sound like himself, making this a welcomely unexpected turn from the actor. Mintz-Plasse also continues to impress, while returning cast members like Clark Duke effectively hit their marks. Perhaps the big unsung hero of the acting department is Garrett M. Brown as Dave's dad. He's not a main player, but he's such a warm, compassionate presence, coming off as a believable father figure. Brown deserves more credit than he gets.

The Justice Forever gang are all played well, with strong characterisations and warm performances, making them sufficiently sympathetic and likeable. On the other hand, The Motherfucker's Toxic Mega Cunts are shallow and one-dimensional, though that's the point since they're literally a bunch of hired goons in costumes. The exception is Mother Russia, played by bodybuilding champ Olga Kurkulina. She's a terrific find; an imposing presence and a decent actress who handles the physicality of the action set-pieces with utmost confidence. Now we wait and see which franchise picks up Kurkulina first - The Expendables or The Fast and the Furious.

Carrey spoke out against the movie a few months before its release, refusing to be involved in the promotional campaign due to a crisis of conscience. See, due to recent massacres (most notably Sandy Hook), Carrey felt he could not promote a movie with such violent content. But the actor is entirely off-base here since there's a fine line between fabricated movie violence and horrific real-life violence. Besides, Carrey's role is a born-again Christian who fights for good, punishing paedophiles and other scumbags, and the script actually explores the moral implications of violence. Controversy is nothing new for the Kick-Ass franchise, which received its fair share of flack in 2010 for depicting a 12-year-old Moretz killing bad guys and dropping c-bombs. But if you cannot watch the film in the proper mindset, don't watch it at all.

Kick-Ass 2 is, on the whole, a dark, viciously violent and gleefully irreverent affair, but it's a lot of fun to watch, and it has a sincerity beneath its lewd exterior to give it a degree of depth. There was no way it was going to top its magnificent predecessor, but Jeff Wadlow devises a sequel that's worthy of Kick-Ass, making it a glorious companion piece that in no way tarnishes the picture that spawned it. It's hard to imagine the wildly uneven 2013 summer season getting a better send-off.

7.9/10

"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