Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Let's move! The world ain't saving itself!"

2009's G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra had franchise potential written all over it, yet the flick severely underperformed at the box office, leaving sequel talks dead in the water for a few years. And now Paramount is trying again with 2013's G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which looks to start afresh with a new slate of characters. It was a golden opportunity for a different creative team to course-correct the series, and the effort thankfully pays off. Though imperfect, Retaliation is an enormously enjoyable actioner, benefiting from astute direction and a sharp screenplay courtesy of Zombieland scribes Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. This is easily the best movie produced under the Hasbro banner, clearing perhaps the lowest cinematic bar known to humanity.

With a nuclear threat brewing in the Middle East, the G.I. Joe military group, led by Commander Duke (Channing Tatum), are sent to Pakistan to diffuse the situation. The Joes save the day again, only to be betrayed in a deadly strike that decimates the team. The only survivors of the attack are Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki) and Flint (D.J. Cotrona), who suspect that the President of the United States (Jonathan Pryce) has been replaced by master of disguise Zartan (Arnold Vosloo), a member of the Cobra unit. Once the Cobra Commander (voiced by Robert Baker) is broken out of prison by Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) and Firefly (Ray Stevenson), a scheme is put into effect to eliminate nuclear weapons and hold the world hostage using destructive satellites orbiting the Earth. Once back on American soil, Roadblock enlists the help of General Joe Colton (Bruce Willis), an original Joe.

Retaliation was meant to enter multiplexes in June of 2012, but Paramount pulled the plug merely a few weeks before the scheduled release date despite having blown a lot of cash on marketing the film. The delay facilitated a 3D conversion and, reportedly, allowed the filmmakers to beef up Tatum's cameo (though not by much). Predictably, the 3D conversation is entirely for naught. It adds nothing to the experience; the picture looks flat for the most part, and the extra-dimensional stuff feels rote. Worse, the shaky cinematography renders the action scenes a complete blurry mess from time to time. Retaliation's 3D conversion brings back memories of Clash of the Titans; it's that bad. Why haven't studios learned their lesson about forced 3D by now? However, Retaliation is a lot stronger in other aspects. Reese and Wernick's script is very effective, mixing a healthy sense of humour with genuine stakes and charismatic characters. The characters aren't deep, but it's easy to like them, and you won't spend the entire movie being bored of their presence. The dialogue is a lot stronger this time, as well.

Director Jon Chu was a baffling choice to steer this extravaganza, as he's known for helming two Step Up instalments and the positively apocalyptic Justin Bieber: Never Say Never. Against all odds, Chu guides the flick with a sure hand, displaying a firm grasp of pacing and orchestrating several astonishingly fluid action sequences. Paramount reportedly blew around $175 million on The Rise of Cobra, but Retaliation was produced for a smaller sum of $135 million. Frankly, the reduced budget is for the best. Whereas The Rise of Cobra was coated in a disgusting amount of digital effects, Retaliation is a bit more down to earth, relying more on sets and locations than pure green screen. The more grounded action scenes here are, therefore, more exciting, even though there's some unfortunate shaky-cam here and there. One of the most impressive sequences is a perilous, high-flying ninja fight over the cliffs of the Himalayas. Cohesively shot and impressively executed, it's an astonishing set piece bursting with excitement.

Retaliation was assembled before Tatum suddenly developed into a good actor and a box office star, hence he's in and out fairly quickly to make room for the new faces. Thankfully, Tatum has loosened up as an actor, and his presence is amiable here. Even better is Johnson, who has the right physicality and attitude for the role of Roadblock. Johnson was born to be an action star, and it's always terrific to see the actor spending his time on films like this rather than kiddie rubbish. As General Colton, Bruce Willis pops in for a few scenes. He's not entirely disinterested here - he does deliver some sharp dialogue, but he's clearly coasting and looks to be only present for the paycheque. The rest of the cast fare well, with Palicki and Cotrona fulfilling their duties well enough as Roadblock's team members. More impressive is Pryce, hamming it up to extremes as the President (and his impersonator). It looks like Pryce enjoyed himself here; it's a fun performance.

Nobody was interested in sequel talks when The Rise of Cobra snuck into cinemas to minimal fanfare, but G.I. Joe: Retaliation leaves room for another sequel that would frankly be welcome. Of course, the film will not work for everyone, as it does come across as another jingoistic document about America's perception of itself as the world's police. Hell, towards the end, England suffers complete destruction, but no one seems to care, and no tears are shed. Nevertheless, it's a silly, over-the-top romp that succeeds in providing a good time. This reviewer had a ball with it.

6.5/10

"As his oldest friends, we have a moral obligation to get him drunk as fuck tonight!"

21 & Over is another of those "wild night of partying" films in the vein of The Hangover and last year's Project X. Written and directed by Hangover scribes Jon Lucas and Scott Moore (making their directorial debut), the movie is precisely what you'd expect; lots of booze, swearing, sexual jokes and crude dialogue. Luckily, there is some immature fun to be had with 21 & Over, as it has funny dialogue and amusing situations here and there. However, the pic is ultimately brought down by shoddy scripting and awkward structuring, not to mention its ham-fisted attempt to merge party chaos with a poignant coming-of-age tale. Whenever it tries to venture into dramatic territory, the movie comes off as manipulative and disingenuous.

Old school friends Miller (Miles Teller) and Casey (Skylar Astin) reunite at Northern University to surprise pal Jeff Chang (Justin Chon) for his 21st birthday. Chang has no plans for a celebration; instead, he wants to go to sleep early for an important interview the following morning set up by his father (François Chau). Miller refuses to take no for an answer, forcing his buddy to agree to a simple night on the town. But before he knows it, Jeff is demolishing drink after drink and moving from bar to bar until he passes out hours later. Miller and Casey seek to get their friend home but do not know where he lives. Hence, the duo begin carrying Jeff around town as they try to find Jeff's address and get their pal well-rested for his interview. Meanwhile, Casey expresses interest in Jeff's classmate, Nicole (Sarah Wright), who tries to help the boys in their quest.

For their directorial debut, Moore and Lucas merely rework their Hangover formula once again, this time for a different generation with college-aged characters and a campus setting. The theft of their own work is very obvious, with the search for Jeff's address substituting a search for an actual character. By the same token, 21 & Over commences with a scene set towards the film's end before flashing back to the previous night's events. Compounding the unoriginality, the search for Jeff's address is not strong enough to sustain the entire movie. Once Jeff passes out, there's still a solid hour left and the film cannot sustain itself. This leads to pacing difficulties galore. It grows wearisome by the end, and it's hard to care. Furthermore, Jeff's father hears about the trio's antics and sets out to find them, but this subplot is far smaller than it should've been. Eventually, he sees his son being put into a police car, but he doesn't seem to do anything about it and shows up the following day on his son's doorstep as if nothing happened. The internal logic is hideous.

Perhaps the biggest issue with 21 & Over is that none of the characters act like real human beings. The conceit of having to find Jeff's address is not fool-proof enough to sustain the movie - after all, why don't Miller and Casey simply try to sober Jeff up? At one stage, the boys enter a college party seeking to find someone who knows where Jeff lives. They look to ask the Resident Assistant, but the boys are not allowed to so much as lay eyes on him until they complete eight challenges at various levels of the building and reach the RA on the top level. It sets up some hardcore partying, yet it's contrived beyond belief. An on-duty RA is present to field any questions or concerns, and such behaviour would not only lead to the RA being sacked, but he may also lose his accommodation altogether. Plus, Miller and Casey drink a lot throughout the night yet never seem to wind up intoxicated. This type of malarkey keeps going on and on to the point that we cannot accept any of these characters as real, relatable people.

In fairness, 21 & Over delivers in the laughs category from time to time in a big way. Lucas and Moore embrace the possibilities of the picture's R rating, mounting a booze-fuelled adventure loaded with profanity, nudity and sexual gags. Not every joke lands (we could happily live without seeing Jeff drunkenly consume a tampon), but there are some satisfying belly laughs, though your enjoyment of this material depends on your sense of humour. Added to this, the film's depiction of college partying is spot-on. When the film cuts loose and lets the boys get into the alcohol, 21 & Over is tremendously enjoyable. Also, the actors are reasonably strong. Teller does a good job as the loud-mouthed, uninhibited one who speaks before he thinks and wants to keep the good times rolling no matter the consequences. Meanwhile, Astin does a decent enough job as the straight-laced Casey. Rounding out the primary trio is Chon as the birthday boy. Chon doesn't have much to do since he's often unconscious, but he handles his responsibilities well enough and has strong comic timing.

Although it's handsomely assembled and provides the occasional laugh, 21 & Over is rampantly hit-and-miss, as it continues to lose momentum the longer it goes. Nevertheless, there is some stuff to enjoy here, with a few scenes that reminded me of my own college experience. If you're in the mood for some brainless laughs, the film may satisfy you, depending on whether or not you enjoy raunchy comedies. Lucas and Moore stated that this is their love letter to college, which certainly shows, but 21 & Over could have been much better.

5.2/10

"Depression is the inability to construct a future."

Side Effects is not a motion picture that easily lends itself to a review, as it's hard to talk about this sophisticated thriller without revealing the numerous surprises that make it an enthralling watch. The screenplay by Scott Z. Burns (Contagion) is laden with plot twists, hence potential viewers are advised to watch the movie before reading too much about it. All you need to know is that Side Effects is a terrific film crafted by a superlative director starring a solid cast, and it delves into intriguing subject matter. In fact, if the movie had been made four decades ago, it most certainly would have been directed by Alfred Hitchcock, as Burns' script incorporates a number of Hitch's staples. It ventures into conventional plotting territory into its third act, yet it's handled with superb sleight of hand, and it offers genuine surprises as twists are revealed, and our perceptions of events and characters begin to change.

A young woman living in New York City, Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) is ready to welcome her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) back into her life after he's released from a four-year prison stint. Emily should be happy about Martin's return, but she cannot shake severe feelings of depression and unhappiness, leading to a suicide attempt that lands her in the hospital under the care of psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law). Although Banks prescribes antidepressant medication, Emily's condition seldom improves. Until, that is, Banks prescribes a new form of medication recommended by Emily's former therapist (Catherine Zeta-Jones). While Emily's new meds appear to be working, a side effect emerges: she sleepwalks at night, cranking up music and making meals. When one sleepwalking incident ends in tragic circumstances, Emily is suddenly thrust into a court case, while Dr. Banks fears that investigators will ultimately turn the blame onto his medical expertise.

Burns and director Steven Soderbergh previously worked together on the topical drama Contagion, and Side Effects similarly touches upon important, news-worthy scenarios. At the outset, the movie explores a handful of controversial topics, including the ethics of carelessly distributing prescription drugs, the devious practices of major pharmaceutical companies, and the power given to psychologists who can control and manipulate their patients. But while these themes run throughout Side Effects, it ultimately segues into more of an investigative mystery with shades of film noir. The shift could have felt unnatural and jarring, but Soderbergh pulls off the transition with ease, retaining the clinical drama tone and never relinquishing the picture's intelligence. It's a somewhat Hitchcockian twist (think Vertigo, though Soderbergh is not that good); in fact, the film tackles the "innocent man wrongly accused" theme that the Master of Suspense was such a fan of. It's ultimately difficult to categorise the movie as a whole - it's at once a deceptive character study, a compelling drama, a message movie, and a mystery-thriller.

While the narrative is old-fashioned, Soderbergh's cinematic approach is distinctly contemporary. Acting as his own cinematographer (as usual), the director's technique is subdued yet effective, keeping the picture grounded even when things grow a little sensationalised. Soderbergh handles Side Effects with precision, shooting digitally with Red Epic cameras. It's not as glossy as a more traditional film; rather, the look is colder and more utilitarian. Soderbergh also furthers the Hitchcock comparisons with a Psycho-esque opening shot that pans across the city and through an apartment window to reveal a blood-stained murder scene. Subsequently, the film flashes back three months to show the lead-up. But while an opening like this usually reveals the endpoint, here we learn what happens by the middle of the film.

The actors sell everything in the film extraordinarily well. Mara is especially strong as Emily; her role is multifaceted, yet Mara effortlessly pulls off all requirements. It's a different performance for Mara, who was also glimpsed in The Social Network and David Fincher's remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. However, it's Law who carries the entire film as the well-meaning, charismatic psychiatrist. Law's work is exceptional here, supplying an affable anchor to keep us interested in the complex narrative machinations. Meanwhile, Tatum (who was also in Soderbergh's surprise hit Magic Mike) is strong here, as well. Tatum used to be a stiff performer, but he has honed his craft over recent years and is now a surprisingly reliable presence. Rounding out the main players is Zeta-Jones, who is also in fine form.

Despite its strengths, Side Effects is no masterpiece. With so many complicated machinations happening throughout the narrative, the ending seems to wrap things up too neatly and quickly, as if Soderbergh wanted to rush through to the finish line to get to his retirement. If Side Effects indeed turns out to be Soderbergh's final theatrical motion picture, as the filmmaker has been saying, then it's not an inappropriate swansong; the crisp digital photography, air of cynicism and strong performances are all in keeping with the director's strongest efforts. Soderbergh is a voice in cinema that will be missed, as he's capable of creating both well-made blockbusters and enthralling talky dramas. How fitting that Side Effects is essentially a fusion of those two opposing sensibilities, reminding us just why Soderbergh is such an interesting filmmaker. It's not his best film at all, but it is intelligent and engaging.

7.9/10

"We weren't here when it happened. The experiment took place on a ship in Philadelphia harbour. It was October 1943."

Legend has it that during World War II, the Navy conducted a top-secret experiment in Philadelphia to make their battleships invisible to enemy radars. Although the experiment worked, the test ship reportedly vanished for a temporary period of time. The vessel did reappear, but the crew suffered severe side effects: some disappeared, some went crazy, and some became physically fused to bulkheads, walls and floors. The consequences led to the project's swift abandonment, and to this day, the Navy denies that any experiment actually took place. Whether or not you believe that the Philadelphia Experiment is real, it is a fascinating myth that has captured imaginations around the world. It's an ideal premise for a feature film, which is why it's disappointing to report that 1984's The Philadelphia Experiment is so flat and underwhelming. Backed by a meagre budget and with a cheap '80s sensibility, it is a wasted opportunity.

The story picks up in 1943, with the titular experiment about to take place. David (Michael Paré) and Jim (Bobby Di Cicco) are two sailors onboard the U.S.S. Eldridge, the warship being used for the test. Things go awry during the experiment, prompting David and Jim to jump overboard in an attempt to escape. Alas, they get sucked into a wormhole which spits them out forty years into the future. Disorientated, the sailors set out to investigate what happened, ultimately getting caught up with sympathetic civilian Allison Hayes (Nancy Allen), who believes the boys' story and wants to help them. Before long, the government begins pursuing the sailors, who go on the run as they search for the truth.

Although the ideas behind The Philadelphia Experiment are sublime, the execution is muddled. In short, the vision is too ambitious for the budget, resulting in a hammy B-movie that should've been an intensely creepy A-grade chiller. The time travel concept is an interesting angle, but it forbids the filmmakers from exploring the nasty details of the experiment. Is time travel the best they could do with a fictionalised account of the experiment, which some say opened up a portal to another dimension? Everything feels too tame and constrained. Imagine if the film was more in the vein of a H.P. Lovecraft story. Interestingly, horror extraordinaire John Carpenter was initially supposed to write and direct the movie, but other projects detained him even though he still executive produced. It's a genuine missed opportunity. Worse, the film eventually sputters out with a nonsensical happy ending that is hopelessly contrived.

Another big problem with The Philadelphia Experiment is that the special effects are corny and dated. Hell, they are more than just dated; they look terrible even for the 1980s. Movies like Back to the Future and The Terminator handled time travel around the same time and look positively immaculate compared to the cheesy effects here. Some movies can work despite subpar special effects, but this isn't the case here; the effects hinder the story instead of helping it. It's astonishing that a studio would fund this rubbish and not provide the proper budget to make it work properly. On top of this, the sound mixing is also poor, with audio effects that sound either muffled or cheap. As a result, this sci-fi fantasy never comes to life in a plausible way, which is a detriment to the storytelling. Furthermore, the acting is wooden across the board, with Paré about as exciting as watching paint dry. Is there any surprise that Paré went on to become Uwe Boll's go-to actor?

Apparently, many problems with The Philadelphia Experiment stemmed from disagreements about the direction of the script, as well as budget cuts and other snags throughout the production phase. In this sense, it's appropriate for the film's title to carry the word "experiment," as the finished movie seems like more of a test run than a fully realised motion picture. Maybe fans of B-grade science fiction cinema will find something enjoyable here, and there are moments that work from time to time, but The Philadelphia Experiment could have - and should have - been far better.

4.1/10

"You know what I hate about the Americans? Everything. Especially cowboys."

When it comes to the Die Hard franchise, the soup has already been pissed in. The original trilogy is close to perfect, yet 2007's Live Free or Die Hard tarnished the brand name, with new helmer Len Wiseman mounting an abominable PG-13 distraction that doesn't walk or talk like a Die Hard movie at all. And now we have the fifth film, 2013's A Good Day to Die Hard, which is back in R-rated territory for another round of pandemonium. Written by Skip Woods (Wolverine, The A-Team), this Die Hard outing is not on the same level as the original trilogy, but it's a step in the right direction for the ailing series. It's fun but ultimately inconsequential, too slight at 97 minutes and tremendously silly. Nevertheless, it administers a good-natured string of mayhem and violence that should keep you entertained, even if it doesn't feel like a true Die Hard movie.

Upon learning that his mostly estranged son Jack (Jai Courtney) has been arrested in Moscow for murder, NYPD cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) flies to Russia hoping to collect his boy. Instead, he becomes entangled in a dangerous assassination plot involving political prisoner Yuri Komarov (Sebastian Koch). Jack has worked as an undercover CIA operative for years, and his mission is to bring Komarov to safety so he can provide a file that could take down corrupt Russian politician Chagarin (Sergei Kolesnikov). Problem is, Chagarin is unwilling to let his existence be threatened by Komarov, and he sends a team led by his top enforcer, Alik (Rasha Bukvic), to assassinate him. With Jack acting as Komarov's protector, John gets swept along for the ride to help his son confront the increasing hostility.

A Good Day to Die Hard gets into the action reasonably early, with an extensive car chase not long after McClane arrives in Moscow. Intended to be the film's centrepiece, the crew apparently spent 77 days shooting the thing, but it's all for naught. While the sequence looks handsome enough, it's a black hole of awkwardness from which no joy can escape; hundreds of innocent civilians appear to be injured and killed during the rampage, and an enormous amount of damage is perpetrated. Not to mention, John clues himself into the whole situation too quickly and easily. Things eventually improve, but the storytelling is shockingly underdone and character development is virtually non-existent. The film lacks sufficient build-up to the carnage, begging for Jack and John to be further developed. It doesn't help that large chunks of the film seem to be missing, with the McClane duo driving from Moscow all the way to Chernobyl (about 400 miles) in the blink of an eye. The structure is choppy, and the pacing feels uneven. A Good Day to Die Hard clearly had a torpedo taken to it in the editing room; it's telling that this Die Hard clocks in at around 90 minutes, whereas the other instalments had a more comfortable two hours to work through their narrative. The extended edition restores a bit more dramatic material, but one must still wonder how much was cut either during the scripting stage or the editing stage.

In the director's chair of A Good Day to Die Hard is John Moore, a terrible choice considering his history with low-grade filmmaking (The Omen remake, Max Payne). If there's an area where Live Free or Die Hard betters this fifth film, it's in the filmmaking. The fourth film was at least pretty smooth, but the camera here is too shaky, and the editing is too shonky. It is doubtful that tripods were used at any point throughout filming. However, the grittier filmic look of A Good Day to Die Hard is welcome. Live Free or Die Hard was sanitised and glossy, with tiny amounts of blood and a detrimentally "clean" look. By contrast, A Good Day is darker in tone, with more blood and a grittier edge. Plus, the action scenes are frequently enjoyable, including a handful of nice shootouts and some entertaining fisticuffs. A few action beats are admittedly too over-the-top, especially the climax, but they don't entirely take you out of the movie. Nevertheless, McClane is too much of an unstoppable superhero here, in dire need of the more vulnerable edge that characterised him in the first place. Although the shaky cam is not as prevalent or distracting as it could've been, the action should've been more coherently shot and edited. Plus, Moore leans on ridiculous slo-mo on a few occasions, which is a dreadful misstep.

Willis is getting older, and it's clear that he mostly features in motion pictures for the money rather than the thrill of it. To his credit, he looks awake a few times throughout A Good Day, and there are a few glimpses of the John McClane we know and love (whereas McClane was positively MIA in Live Free). It's good to hear the detective swearing up a storm once again. However, he still looks asleep a lot of the time, and there are a few instances when it sounds as if Willis was dubbed by someone who doesn't sound like him at all. Surprisingly, Courtney fares rather well. The Australian native has bounced around the sidelines for years, occasionally showing up in TV shows and playing minor roles in films like Jack Reacher. His role of Jack McClane was briefly glimpsed in the original Die Hard but hasn't been seen since, so it's an interesting choice to finally introduce him properly. Courtney is solid in the role; he has the right attitude and looks at home in the middle of the action. The film also finds time for a few pleasant moments in which Jack and John bond, which gives the film a welcome smattering of heart. In the supporting cast, Rasha Bukvic excels as Alik. It's a colourful role, and the actor runs with it; he's good fun. Koch is also solid as the grizzled Komarov, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead pops in for two short scenes (and a voice cameo) as John's daughter, Lucy, reprising her role from the previous film.

A Good Day is a relatively soft R, with only a few blood sprays and around 15 f-bombs. It doesn't feel like it's pulling punches, however, as bullet hits are visible, and no awkward cutaways are used. It would be nice to see a more full-blooded R-rated Die Hard sequel, but at least Fox allowed the film to be released with an R rating (though it was censored in the UK, earning a 12A certificate). All in all, A Good Day to Die Hard is not the worst of the bunch, but it's not close to reaching the dizzying heights of the first three films, and it does not exactly close the franchise on the highest note. The script is too slipshod, the plotting too underdone, and the direction too frenzied. Nevertheless, if it's taken as the 90-minute action ride that it is, the movie delivers. It's not exactly Die Hard, but it is a good fun actioner, ridiculously enjoyable and with a few good laughs here and there. It's definitely not the disaster that the critics have made it out to be.

6.5/10

"Everyone has a different nightmare in Silent Hill; I am theirs."

For all of the flack it copped from critics, 2006's Silent Hill remains one of the most successful game-to-film translations to date. That may not be saying much, but it is a solid effort, a visually arresting horror flick supported by slick production values, believable acting, a bone-chilling sense of atmosphere, and competent direction by French director Christophe Gans. It left room for a sequel, which arrives six years after its predecessor. Considering that four Paranormal Activity movies and five Saw movies were released in the interim, such a gap is an eternity in the horror franchise world, making a Silent Hill sequel feel instantly outdated. It does not help that 2012's Silent Hill: Revelation is flaccid and forgettable, with a reduced budget and less directorial skill squandering the potential for a chilling exercise in terror.

Following the events of the original film, Rose (Radha Mitchell) manages to temporarily break the curse of Silent Hill, allowing her to return her daughter, Sharon (Adelaide Clemens), to the land of the living. To escape the demonic cult that rules the ghost town, Sharon's father, Christopher (Sean Bean), frequently moves the pair from state to state, never remaining in one place for very long and never retaining the same name. Now eighteen, Sharon is continually haunted by horrific nightmares of Silent Hill, which eventually begin to invade her waking hours. When Christopher is abducted, a note in blood is left on the wall asking for Sharon to return to the doomed township. Finding a friend in classmate Vincent (Kit Harington), Sharon makes her way back to Silent Hill to save her father, compelling the pair to brave the terrors within and hopefully neutralise the power of sinister witch Alessa.

Once Sharon and Vincent reach Silent Hill, the picture begins throwing out ridiculous videogame elements, including big boss fights, helpful bystanders, and the need to collect the other piece of an amulet. It's absurd stuff, and it struggles to frighten or even function on any effective level. The plot is complete nonsense, with writer-director M.J. Bassett simply incorporating pieces of gaming detail and familiar supporting characters for the fans. Furthermore, the mythology remains half-hearted and muddled, to the extent that one must wonder if anyone actually read the script before the cameras rolled. The characters attempt to explain everything through laborious passages of exposition that rely on telling rather than showing, but certain things still fail to make sense, and everything sounds exceedingly pedestrian. The biggest flaw of the first Silent Hill was its risible dialogue, even though it was penned by Roger Avary (who contributed to True Romance and Pulp Fiction). Revelation's script is worse, however, with the script containing goofball passages of dialogue and clichéd faux-intense horror movie speak ("You okay?", "Let's go!", and so on).

Revelation looks disappointingly cheap, even despite the polish of the 3D photography. Gans was working on a much more generous $50 million for the original picture, whereas Bassett has $20 million to play with, and the results are pale. A few set pieces here and there admittedly work, including a creepy sequence involving a spider-like creature and most of the scenes with Pyramid Head. Outside of this, Bassett does very little right, and the digital effects are too obvious. Budget constraints clearly forbid Bassett from mounting an intense, cohesive two-hour picture like its predecessor. Instead, the ride is ninety minutes, hence it feels somewhat disjointed and choppy despite the straightforward narrative, not to mention dramatically underdeveloped. The budget cuts may be understandable considering the first film's average box office performance, but no sequel at all is preferable to a sequel made on the cheap, which tarnishes the franchise name.

A few old faces return for duty here, with Bean reprising his role as Christopher and Mitchell popping in to play Rose in a tiny cameo. Bafflingly, Bean's performance is terrible here; he appears to be attempting an American accent, but it's appalling and inconsistent, and it honestly sounds as if the Brit native has been dubbed. Furthering the reunion are Roberto Campanella as Pyramid Head, and Deborah Kara Unger, who achieves precisely nothing as Alessa's mother. For whatever reason, Jodelle Ferland was jettisoned for the sequel, with Clemens stepping in to replace her as Sharon. An Australian native, Clemens is a dead ringer for Michelle Williams, and she's strictly okay in her role. The same cannot be said for Harington, a stiff actor who's never quite convincing enough. Also showing up is Carrie-Anne Moss, who honestly looks as if she doesn't know what's going on (join the club), as well as Malcolm McDowell, who must've been blackmailed into doing this thankless role.

If nothing else, one must credit both Silent Hill pictures for remaining true to their source. The first film does an impeccable job of capturing the game's eerie, hallucinogenic world, and this sequel at least tries to achieve something similar. That's more than can be said for Paul W.S. Anderson's Resident Evil film franchise, which ignores the horror-oriented games to showcase random slow-motion gunfire and bloodshed. However, this will probably just cause gamers to lament this missed opportunity of a sequel. It seems too late to salvage the film series at this point in time, with Revelation a total bust and with so many years having passed since Gans' extraordinary original effort. Revelation leaves room open for another sequel, but it's doubtful it will ever happen.

3.2/10

"I'm not your enemy, Ming is! And you know it yourself. Ming is the enemy of every creature of Mongo! Let's all team up and fight him."

Let's get this straight from the beginning: Flash Gordon is awesome. Rich in distinctive '80s campiness, it's a cheesy blockbuster extravaganza full of hammy acting, side-splitting special effects, glorious non-sequiturs, fantastic music and some of the most unintentionally hilarious dialogue ever written for a motion picture. Debates will rage for centuries as to whether the filmmakers set out to make a serious movie or an intentionally campy flick, but, regardless of the conclusion, Flash Gordon is a bona fide classic - it's a lavish '80s fantasy swashbuckler that's effortlessly entertaining from start to end. Based on the comic strip of the same name, the picture was produced by Dino de Laurentiis, who had deep pockets at the time and was keen to cash in on the sudden resurgence of the sci-fi adventure genre. Though Flash Gordon failed at the box office and the planned trilogy never materialised (one of the most heartbreaking injustices in cinema history), we must be thankful that we have this gem.

While on a flight, all-star Jets quarterback Flash Gordon (Sam J. Jones) meets fellow traveller Dale Arden (Melody Anderson), who works as a journalist. But catastrophe strikes as meteors begin to fall, causing the plane to crash into a greenhouse owned by mad scientist Dr. Zarkov (Topol). Subsequently, the trio launch themselves into space, causing them to get sucked into a black hole and hurled through the vortex of space. They wind up on the planet Mongo, home to Emperor Ming the Merciless (Max Von Sydow), who rules the universe and causes a lot of destruction. Ming wants to destroy Earth and make Dale his wife, compelling Flash into action. With the fate of the human race on the line, Flash sets out to defeat Ming and save his home planet from destruction.

Flash Gordon was released in 1980, the same year as The Empire Strikes Back. George Lucas won the day, of course, raking in massive box office dollars, while Flash simply foundered. This is most likely because movie-goers were unprepared for the experience of Flash Gordon and had no idea what to make of the film. Director Mike Hodges and his crew avoid creating a gritty, serious-minded sci-fi movie like Star Trek or Star Wars, instead producing a gaudy, colourful, farcical rock opera with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Indeed, the film's purpose was to replicate the tone and look of the original comic book and simply provide a good, fun time instead of anything more lofty. Fortunately, home video often provides the chance for misunderstood projects to have a second life, and Flash Gordon amassed a cult audience over time who have given into the production's countless charms (2012's Ted also helped this cause). While Hodges occasionally has trouble maintaining the furious pacing over the picture's overlong 110-minute running time, the movie has more going for it than not.

The ornate visual construction of Flash Gordon is a genuine marvel. Bright and vibrant, the movie literally explodes with a carnival of colours through its set design, matte paintings and elaborate costumes. The result is incredibly and unmistakably unique, as if we are looking through the eyes of a madman tripping on LSD, exhibiting a phenomenal level of creativity that even George Lucas could never match in his wildest dreams. The set pieces are equally trippy and over-the-top, with hilariously campy sound effects and half-hearted fight scenes guaranteed to have you in fits of laughter. Flash Gordon is a space opera, thus everything is pumped up to hyperbolic proportions. It's a cheeseball film bursting with swirling colours, questionable plotting and clumsy dialogue. The icing on top is Queen's iconic score. The rock gods were at the top of their game in the '80s, and they bestow the film with an insanely addictive, gung-ho sonic aura. The rhythms are psychedelic and atmospheric, adding excitement and flavour. The memorable opening tune is a highlight; you'll end up humming it for days.

Apparently, Kurt Russell and Dennis Hopper were initially in talks for Flash and Dr. Zarkov, but the roles were ultimately given to blonde newcomer Sam J. Jones and screen legend Topol. Jones has the right physique for Flash, but he's a stilted actor, and his lines were apparently dubbed by another actor. Nevertheless, Jones is great fun in the role, and his lack of acting talent is all part of his charm. Topol, meanwhile, is good fun as Zarkov, chewing scenery and spouting the cheesy dialogue with gusto. Accomplished thespian Max Von Sydow is also present here, hamming it up with delicious glee as Ming the Merciless. Sydow is great fun to watch, especially as he lumbers around in elaborate outfits. Meanwhile, Melody Anderson achieves precisely what you would expect as the token love interest, and Timothy Dalton is likeable in his Errol Flynn-esque role.

Objectively speaking, Flash Gordon is a pretty awful movie. But if you strip away critical thinking and watch the picture in good company, there are not many experiences as fun as watching this colourful cast of characters within such an overwrought sci-fi fantasy adventure backed by the rocking tunes of Queen. Its goofy charm is impossible to resist - this is a B-movie cult classic for good reason. I love this movie and have a lot of fun every time I watch it. It's the perfect Friday night escapist romp. And if you watch it drunk or stoned, it enhances the viewing experience.

8.2/10

Bates Motel takes place many years before the events of 1960's Psycho, exploring the early teenage years of Norman Bates (Freddie Highmore), who lives with his mother Norma (Vera Farmiga) before ultimately sliding into madness. The first episode of the show picks up as Norman loses his father, moving to another town where his mother has purchased an old house and a motel. It observes Norman and his mother as they settle into their new lifestyle.

It should be noted that this isn't the first attempt at Bates Motel. A show was pitched in 1987 with the same title, but got no further than the pilot. But now the show has gotten off the ground at last, for better or for worse. As one can imagine considering the source material, Bates Motel is not light-hearted television for easy consumption. Psycho deals with murder and transvestism, after all, hence we have to expect the same type of content here. Added to this, there's a disconcerting theme running throughout the show that Norman shares an almost romantic relationship with his mother. After all, we know that Norman and his mother become jealous whenever any of them are interested in a member of the opposite sex, thus the pair seem to interact like a couple at times. In the pilot, we also get a brutal rape and murder to keep us from getting too comfortable. Bates Motel is going to be a fucked up show for the mature crowd weaned on Dexter and The Walking Dead, make no mistake.

The problem with Bates Motel is its contemporary setting. Executive producer Carlton Cuse (Lost) has described the show as a “contemporary prequel” to Psycho, meaning they want us to believe that these events will lead to the Norman we all know from Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, but the setting is modernised in order to appeal to a wider demographic. But the problem is that the show borrows era-specific elements from Hitchcock's film as well, incorporating them into this modern setting with little regard for logic. For instance, Norman still dresses like a teenager from the '40s or '50s, and the teachers are dressed like conservative school marms. Plus, murders are a primary element of this show, but police investigation and forensics have improved a hundredfold over the last fifty years, hence it looks unrealistic and ridiculous for Norma and Norman to get away with murder in this day and age. The result feels slightly awkward, as if the show is in fact a reboot of Psycho but the creators are just too scared to embrace that label in fear of the implications (we all saw what happened with Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake). Some viewers may be able to overlook this aspect, but it's a niggling flaw. It would have been far more interesting if the show was actually set in the '40s or '50s.

Beyond the confused sense of time and place, there are a number of other questionable elements which harm Bates Motel. Bafflingly, Norman is instantly adopted by the cool crowd, developing into a total chick magnet with no effort at all. On top of the group of hot girls who surround him (and stalk him, coming to his house in the evening at one stage), even his teacher seems to take a shining to him. It makes no sense and feels entirely unmotivated. The dialogue is often amateurish as well, with characters constantly calling Norman by his full name for no apparent reason other than name recognition for our sake.

Bates Motel's biggest assets are Highmore and Farmiga, who are excellent in the roles of Norman and Norma. Highmore has grown up since the days of Finding Neverland and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and he's now a fine young adult actor. Playing Norman as shy, tongue-tied and humble, his performance actually evokes memories of the late Anthony Perkins. Equally good, if not more impressive, is Farmiga, a terrific screen actress who affords the show a bit more class and gravitas. Vera gives Norma multiple layers; she's a loving and even sexy mother, yet she's also brutally manipulative, using twisted logic to convince Norman to be obedient.

The first episode of Bates Motel definitely shows promise in its set-up of what's to come. It hones in on a critical moment in Norman's life, and he already begins his journey down the inevitable path in the premiere. The writing, directing and production values are strong for the most part, and the show definitely carries a cinematic gloss. It just remains to be seen where the show leads. If it ends up running for a few seasons, the creators may end up remaking Psycho in an episode, and no fan wants that. By the same token, if it suddenly gets cancelled before Norma's infamous lover is introduced and the writers only get the chance to create one more episode, he may be awkwardly shoehorned in. At this point in time, though, Bates Motel has potential. It's skilfully assembled for the most part and suitably shocking when it needs to be.

6.5/10

"You're all that's left of us. Good luck, God bless, and God's speed."

Pandorum limped into cinemas in late 2009, where it sank like a rock at the box office and became a punching bag for critics. A science fiction horror picture, it's equipped with a few nice ideas and the technical execution is sound, yet it's incredibly derivative, marred by a "been there, done that" feeling that prevents it from becoming a genre classic. Indeed, Pandorum feels like a compilation film, comprised of bits and pieces taken directly from Event Horizon, Alien, Pitch Black, Sunshine, Cube, Predator and even The Descent, and there are some traces of Mad Max 2 as well, resulting in an admittedly stylish picture that nevertheless lacks originality and purpose.

Forcefully awoken from deep hyper-sleep, Corporal Bower (Ben Foster) and Lieutenant Payton (Dennis Quaid) find themselves aboard a huge spaceship with no memory as to their identities or their mission. The rest of the crew are nowhere to be seen and the reactor is fading, compelling Bower to begin crawling through the dark bowels of the ship towards the main control room. But it fast becomes clear that things are not as they should be, with thousands of bloodthirsty mutants hiding in the spacecraft's gloomy shadows. Bower eventually discovers more survivors as he works to piece together what has happened. As for Payton, he finds himself dealing with paranoid crew member Gallo (Cam Gigandet) who could be suffering from "Pandorum," a special type of insanity which may render him a threat to everyone on-board.

Narratively, Pandorum resembles Paul W.S. Anderson's '90s chiller Event Horizon, though this is somewhat unsurprising considering that Anderson is billed as a producer here. To the credit of writer Travis Milloy, the film's opening segment is extremely strong, skilfully developing the central mysteries and letting us become familiar with the characters before things begin to unravel. The fact that Bower and Payton are suffering from amnesia is a terrific device, as viewers will be just as confused and disorientated as they are. As they hunt for clues and begin putting together the pieces, we're right alongside them. However, the extended midsection is too saggy, with too many chase scenes and too many characters. Luckily, the film ends strongly. The last ten minutes or so are superb, introducing a few nice revelations and closing on a surprisingly unpredictable and satisfying note.

The English-language debut for German filmmaker Christian Alvart (Antibodies), Pandorum does benefit from handsome production values that are better than expected considering the modest $33 million budget. Alvart does a great job capturing the tight confines and dark hallways of the ship, with superbly controlled lighting adding menace and tension to the picture. It was done better in Alien, but the sense of restraint is commendable. Problem is, at no point does Pandorum actually terrify. The film shows its cards too early by letting us see the creatures that pose a threat to the characters, and it doesn't help that the design is laughably generic. In fact, it looks like the costume department just raided Weta Workshop for all of their goblin outfits from The Lord of the Rings. The sound design is often effective, but the creatures themselves are never menacing, which lessens the tension and horror. And whenever there's a set-piece involving the mutants, the camera begins moving around in an annoying, herky-jerky fashion, while the editing is abrupt and jarring.

Foster and Quaid are convincing as the leads here, doing a great job at handling the fear, shock and uncertainty that the script calls for. They seem immersed in the material, and they're exceedingly watchable. Mildly less successful is Gigandet, who tries to do interesting things with his role but is ultimately too stiff and reluctant to come out of his shell. It was slim pickings for Norman Reedus at this point in his career; he featured here before participating in AMC's The Walking Dead and subsequently becoming a fan favourite. Thus, newfound Reedus fans should not watch Pandorum just because the actor features in it - Reedus has what amounts to a five-minute cameo. There are a few other actors here too, but they don't really warrant a mention; they're just okay.

Thanks to the director's proclivity for stylish visuals, Pandorum probably has enough to keep the sci-fi nerds entertained, but anyone expecting something more substantial should stay clear. It's too unoriginal and middle-of-the-road, lacking a spark of brilliance to place it alongside the genre's best works.

6.2/10

"Bugs are a fairly common delusion among paranoids... Bugs, spiders, snakes... spiders."

Bug is one hell of a motion picture experience, a nail-bitingly intense and thematically heavy piece of work guaranteed to polarise audiences. Based on the acclaimed play by Tracy Letts, who also provided the screenplay, this is not some cheap fright-fest about extra-terrestrial bugs; instead, it's a claustrophobic psychological thriller that delivers a dismal look at mental instability, hyperbolic paranoia and abusive relationships. Throughout the film's 100-minute duration, director William Friedkin meticulously peels away all layers of normality, with the primary location of a low-rent motel room turning into a nightmarish vision of Americana gone wrong. Bug will not work for everyone since its tone is bleak, its script is talky, and the pacing is unhurried and deliberate, but this reviewer found the experience uniquely enthralling.

A desperate woman working as a waitress in a lesbian bar, Agnes White (Ashley Judd) is on edge after her abusive ex-husband Jerry (Harry Connick Jr.) is released from prison. Indulging in booze and drugs, Agnes is introduced to the shy and quirky Peter Evans (Michael Shannon), and the pair immediately hit it off. Agnes lets him stay the night in her seedy motel room, which leads to the two striking up a sexual relationship. While in bed together one night, Peter discovers microscopic bugs that are biting him. He becomes convinced that a bug infestation has broken out and believes that the invisible insects, planted by the government when he was involved in scientific experiments, are coming from his bloodstream.

Although a few short story beats occur in other locations, Bug mostly retains the play's single setting of Agnes' motel room. The idea of a single setting is a troubling proposition for a feature, but Letts and Friedkin keep the pace brisk and the events interesting. Bug cannot be simply labelled as a horror film, as it's more of an exercise in psychological terror and dark comedy, though it has some genuinely horrific moments. It's perhaps best described as a character study of the relationship between a lonely, abused woman and a delusional paranoid with schizophrenic tendencies. We get to observe the two as they gradually grow insane, with Agnes making excuses for being with Peter no matter how delusional he grows, and with Peter developing into a danger for himself and others.

Bug runs the risk of feeling like a filmed stage play, but Friedkin and cinematographer Michael Grady embrace the medium's possibilities. A lot of close-ups are used during the more intense character-based moments, allowing us to absorb the nuances of all of the performances and get more invested in the action. What's extraordinary about the film is how it gradually and methodically builds its characters before all hell breaks loose. In fact, Bug starts as an offbeat story about two strangers who develop somewhat of a romance, while a side conflict presents itself in the form of Agnes' ex-husband. It then essentially transforms into another film entirely. However, the sudden descent into madness doesn't feel choppy or awkward thanks to Friedkin's strong filmmaking sleight of hand; if anything, it makes the picture more shocking. The final scene is particularly gripping as tension levels continue to rise to almost unbearable levels. It's hard to so much as take a breath until the end credits begin to roll.

With the entire film unfolding in a small space and with Friedkin's direction being predominantly unfussy, the real power of the picture emanates from the performances, all of which are excellent. Judd sheds every trace of movie star glamour in playing Agnes; it's a bare-all role in terms of both the nudity and the character's raw emotional state. It's not an attractive performance, but it is compelling and powerful. But it's Shannon who walks away with the entire picture. Shannon had already played Peter in the original play and was only a small-time cinema actor at the time. With Shannon's subsequent rise to fame, it's fascinating to go back and see the actor here in perhaps his greatest performance to date. Slightly odd-looking and creepy yet strangely endearing, Shannon is top-notch here, presenting an astonishing portrait of a radical mental meltdown. It's hard to overstate just how great Judd and Shannon are, and it's difficult to believe they were both overlooked at the Academy Awards.

Bug is not strictly about bugs, but Letts and Friedkin milk the title for everything it's worth. In the beginning, Agnes is constantly bugged by telephone calls, and the story is about Agnes and Peter trying to get rid of the bugs that are apparently infesting their residence and body. Peter even grows to believe that the government implanted electronic bugs into him. This is a very strange and unique film all in all, and it's hard to recommend outright. Yes, it's superb, and it deserves to be seen, but those unprepared to experience what Friedkin offers may ultimately walk away disappointed. Anyone prepared to approach Bug with an open mind should give it a whirl, especially if they like original, experimental movies.

8.5/10