Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Who died and made you fucking king of the zombies?"

An exceptional mixture of horror, biting British humour and reverence for zombie cinema, Shaun of the Dead is a total gas, winningly written and directed by the guys behind the cult TV show Spaced. We've seen horror spoofs done before, most notably the full-on farce of the Scary Movie franchise, but Shaun is a different animal, and simply calling it a parody would undersell the craftsmanship on offer here. Not a one-joke spoof, the film is more of a loving ode to the walking dead genre created by George A. Romero, taking its horror elements and story with sincerity while also providing plenty of huge belly laughs amid the vicious violence. It's a much-needed reminder about how fun zombies can be, and the fact that it's delivered via boundlessly energetic and skilful filmmaking is the icing on top.

A 29-year-old slacker from London, Shaun (Simon Pegg) is unmotivated to do anything, satisfied to work a dead-end job while constantly drowning his boredom in beer, much to the disgust of his frustrated girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield). Fed up with Shaun's unfulfilled promises and reluctance to get his life in order, Liz dumps him, prompting the broken man to go on a drunken bender with his slob best mate, Ed (Nick Frost). Awakening with a hangover the following morning, Shaun and Ed grow to realise that the country is in the midst of a zombie outbreak. Although the media advises everyone to stay inside their homes, Shaun becomes determined to finally do something. Shaun and Ed begin fighting their way through town to rescue Liz, her best friends, and Shaun's parents, aiming to take shelter in the local pub until the zombie apocalypse blows over.

Whereas most parody films amount to a series of meaningless sketches supported by a flimsy plot, Shaun of the Dead tells a fully-rounded narrative, allocating time between the big jokes and major set-pieces to focus on character interaction and tension-building. Co-written by Pegg and director Edgar Wright, the beauty of the movie is that it presents the zombie genre with tremendous respect and veneration while also playing the expected story beats with earnestness and joyfully poking fun at the genre's clichés. Furthermore, Shaun re-introduces zombies in the old-fashioned mould; they moan and move slowly, essentially representing the antithesis of the creatures from Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. The zombies are pretty easy to kill here, too, leading to delightful sequences of zombie bashing involving innovative uses of Queen music, vinyl records and sports equipment. Additionally, in the vein of Romero's endeavours, Shaun largely avoids exploring the cause of the outbreak. Wright and Pegg simply set up the wonderfully quirky characters and let the craziness play out; the bigger picture is irrelevant amid the pure fun the picture dishes up.

For horror geeks, Shaun of the Dead is a dream come true. Wright and Pegg love their zombie cinema, packing the script with references to genre classics like Dawn of the Dead and Braindead (there's even a sly dig against 28 Days Later). Fans of Spaced will also appreciate the film, as it has references to the show and appearances from cast members. Shaun of the Dead's comedy is not in your face like American films; the humour is understated, and if you don't pay attention, then you might actually miss the gags. If you give Shaun your full attention, however, you'll be able to appreciate the superb screenwriting, as there isn't a pointless line of dialogue during the picture's 95-minute duration. Added to this, Wright does not baulk from graphic violence, staging vicious zombie attacks and several gruesome moments towards the end. This does lead to a few tonality issues, but Wright quickly recovers for a climax that brings the house down. Although Wright was somewhat inexperienced in the realm of feature-film directing at this stage in his career, his filmmaking is flawless, with attractive cinematography and competently staged set pieces.

Going above and beyond the call of duty, Wright one-ups the usual standard for the genre by introducing characters that we can genuinely care about. Each character has a distinct personality; they're all hapless and flawed, allowing us to relate to them. Watching Shaun and the others bicker and squabble is funny, yet such scenes are also convincingly played. Leading the cast is Pegg, harnessing his wonderful comic gift to play the titular Shaun. Pegg never seems to be in on the joke; he plays it straight, making the absurdity of his lines and actions all the more amusing. Likewise, Frost is a riot, a scene-stealing supporting presence armed with one-liners and quirks guaranteed to have viewers rolling on the ground in fits of laughter. The rest of the cast is equally great, including Dylan Moran, who very much goes against type by playing a bit of a douchebag.

Romero's zombie classics carry some sort of subtext, and Shaun of the Dead retains this vital aspect of the genre while simultaneously creating golden comedy through social commentary. Wright posits that, in this day and age, humankind is already a collection of zombies, stuck in their ways and doing very little in the way of living. As a matter of fact, when London is taken over by the walking dead, Shaun and Ed are too hungover to even notice, as nothing seems out of the ordinary to them. Brilliant. Incidentally, Romero has stated that he loves this film, and he even invited Pegg and Wright to cameo in his 2005 project Land of the Dead. In short, Shaun of the Dead is a masterpiece. Even those who don't like horror will enjoy this film due to its comedic undertones.

9.5/10

"People think of aliens as these beings invading our planet in some great cataclysm, destroying monuments, stealing our natural resources. But it's not like that at all. The invasion already happened."

Former visual effects artist Scott Stewart has not had a lot of luck in film directing to date, having helmed 2010's astonishingly incompetent Legion and the drab vampiric actioner Priest the year afterwards. With this in mind, another filmmaking effort from Stewart sounds about as enticing as a kick to the genitals, but 2013's Dark Skies shows that the director has improved in his two-year absence. This is an intense, taut thriller, exhibiting a thick sense of atmosphere and a storytelling sleight of hand that nobody previously assumed Stewart was capable of. And despite being touted as being from the producer of Paranormal Activity, this is not a found footage production. Thank God.

In the suburbs, Daniel (Josh Hamilton) and his wife, Lacy (Keri Russell), have fallen on hard times, with Daniel struggling to find a job after being out of work for some time. Their usual routine is interrupted when strange things begin happening around their home during the night, with photos vanishing from frames and kitchen items being mysteriously stacked, placing suspicion on the couple's sons, Jesse (Dakota Goyo) and Sam (Kadan Rockett). Hoping to uncover the source behind the madness, security cameras are installed, and the parents conduct research, which leads them to believe that extraterrestrials might, in fact, be responsible for the mysterious happenings. For help, they turn to alien expert Edwin Pollard (J.K. Simmons), whose words are not as comforting as they would have liked.

It's for the best that Stewart was working with a scant $3.5 million budget, as opposed to the $26 million sum used to produce Legion or the extravagant $60 million budget for Priest. The budget helps by limiting the scope, compelling Stewart to focus on tension and mystery rather than dumb money shots. Dark Skies is an extraordinarily intense thriller, relying on what is unseen to create a sense of menace and threat. Moreover, while there are a few jump-scares, Stewart's efforts do not feel lazy, as there are some unsettling set pieces and images in the vein of M. Night Shyamalan's Signs. Also keeping us interested is the fact that Daniel and Lacy are a likeable, believable pair, with both actors selling the illusion that they are husband and wife. It hits hard to watch their distress over their various troubles, and you will want them to find a way out of their financial issues and halt the aliens before real damage is done. Acting is not usually a strong suit in thrillers of this ilk, but Russell and Hamilton truly hit it out of the park. Stewart gave the performers layered people to play, and the pair make it work. Luckily, Goyo and Rockett are just as impressive as the kids, while Simmons disappears into his role and always commands attention.

It's hard to overstate the effectiveness of the initial hour or so of Dark Skies, with the escalation of events - flocks of suicidal birds flying into the family's house, Lacy losing hours in a day, Daniel's nose bleeding profusely, unknown markings on the boys' bodies, and so on - building a sense of anticipation, while Simmons' big scene to shine reveals answers and connects the dots in a riveting fashion. Sure, the narrative does resemble Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but Stewart develops a unique personality for the picture. However, the script is not airtight; during the climax, for instance, the family willingly split up despite being told they can protect themselves through family unification. Added to this, there are several cheesy moments, most notably involving the token sceptics - we have cops and technicians who roll their eyes and give silly explanations for crazy stuff. Admittedly, people like that would probably exist in a real-life alien situation, but the actors are too hammy.

While the climax is effective, Dark Skies' ending is dopey and ridiculous, introducing an unnecessary twist and closing on a cliffhanger that makes the experience feel unsatisfying on the whole. It's an underwhelming payoff to a patient thriller, taking the production down a few notches. Still, despite its scripting flaws, Dark Skies remains a perfectly serviceable picture for a Friday evening. Its sci-fi aspects are interesting, and it's extremely creepy from time to time. To see a movie of such skilful construction from Stewart is exciting indeed, making this reviewer wonder why Dark Skies was so maligned by the critics.

7.1/10

"We are cancelling the apocalypse!"

Pacific Rim is of a rare breed of summertime blockbuster: it's not a reboot, a remake, a sequel, or a comic book adaptation. Instead, it's an original property, with Mexican director Guillermo del Toro dreaming up a new big-screen universe that pays tribute to the old Kaiju and mecha movies associated with Japan. Del Toro's first feature in five years, Pacific Rim is an uncomplicated actioner pitting monsters against an array of giant robots, yet it's more proficient than Battleship or Transformers thanks to the deft filmmaking on display. Del Toro understands how to nail the sense of childlike awe necessary for this type of blockbuster, rendering Pacific Rim an exhilarating summer treat. Nevertheless, despite the slick visuals, the picture suffers due to slipshod scripting, ultimately kneecapping what should have been an easy home run.

In the future, massive alien monsters known as Kaijus emerge from an underwater portal located at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, rising to wreak havoc in densely populated cities. In response, the world's governments collaborate to construct enormous artificial robots known as Jaegers to engage the beasts in combat. Jaegers require two pilots, with the pair engaging in "drifting" - that is, locking minds - to operate the robots in sync. A retired Jaeger pilot who lost his brother in a Kaiju battle, Raleigh (Charlie Hunnam) is called back to duty by his former commanding officer, Stacker (Idris Elba), who needs all the pilots he can find for humanity's final stand against the Kaijus. In need of a co-pilot, Raleigh finds a comrade in young Mako (Rinko Kikuchi), who has traumatic memories of the monsters from her childhood. Also investigating the Kaiju threat is scientist Dr. Newton (Charlie Day), who finds himself able to "drift" with a Kaiju brain, in the process uncovering potentially vital evidence for the survival of humankind.

An exuberant piece of entertainment designed for maximum theatre wall shaking, Pacific Rim is vast in scale to match the depth of del Toro's imagination. But while the film carries the strengths of Hollywood's best blockbusters in terms of eye candy, the screenplay by del Toro and Travis Beacham, unfortunately, falls victim to several eye-rolling Hollywood chestnuts. The death of Raleigh's brother is a clichéd device, and things only grow worse from there. For instance, none of the new hotshots believe Raleigh or Mako have any merit as Jaeger pilots, yet the pair are forced to enter a fight and wind up coming out on top, winning everyone's respect in the process. If that isn't conventional enough, the climax comes packaged with the trademark sacrifice and the faux character death. Practically every story beat is from the Big Book of Action Clichés. On top of all this malarkey, the scientists are hackneyed caricatures that never feel like real people. Plus, the dialogue lacks the spark that such writers as Shane Black and Joss Whedon can impart, leading to patches of uneven pacing. Del Toro ultimately keeps the picture afloat thanks to smooth mise-en-scène, but smarter scripting would not be an unreasonable request considering the usual quality of the director's output.

Fortunately, the rest of Pacific Rim is a home run, with first-rate technical specs across the board. Whenever del Toro is locked in action mode, some of 2013's best blockbuster moments emerge, as the filmmaker understands how to create honest-to-goodness excitement. Whereas Michael Bay makes it his duty to ensure that it's impossible to discern what the hell is happening at any certain time in Transformers, del Toro captures everything in sturdy wide shots here, letting us watch the carefully designed CGI battles benefitting from novel choreography. As with Man of Steel, some viewers will no doubt be unnerved by the surplus of destruction, but it's hard to imagine a situation like this playing out in reality that wouldn't result in the devastation of major cities. In terms of action, the only drawback is the lack of daylight skirmishes; apart from one all-too-brief daytime throwdown in Sydney, the battles occur in dark, dimly-lit settings. Still, this is not a significant drawback, as the action scenes here are consistently exhilarating nonetheless. You would have to be the biggest cynic on the planet not to harness your inner child and marvel at the superb set pieces.

As expected, the digital effects are marvellous, giving vivid life to the Godzilla-like monsters and the tremendous Jaegers. Del Toro is a kid in a candy store here, efficiently using the $180 million budget to visualise the grand-scale action. While the behemoths in Bay's Transformers are impossibly smooth, Pacific Rim presents a more plausible spin on giant robots - the Jaegers here have real weight and inertia, and suffer a continuous stream of damage. Every part of the Jaegers seems to have a purpose, as opposed to the Transformers designs which are ugly and busy. Del Toro thankfully infuses Pacific Rim with a healthy sense of humour, too, finding Jaegers using ships and metal containers as makeshift weapons while the destruction of an office building sets off a steel ball pendulum.

There's not much to write home about in terms of acting. Hunnam has the right physique to be an action hero, but his screen presence is too underwhelming, rendering him a bland protagonist when Pacific Rim needed a strong anchor. Mildly more successful is Idris Elba, who's authoritative and badass here. The rest of the acting is merely adequate - as with the narrative, del Toro paints the characters in broad strokes of primary colours for marketing needs, though he does introduce a good demonstration of his typical idiosyncrasies in the form of Ron Perlman as Hannibal Chau, a black market trader of monster remnants. Perlman continually enlivens the picture and scores a few laughs, but he feels like a missed opportunity since he's far too underused.

Is Pacific Rim the large-scale monsters vs. robots masterpiece we all hoped for? Not exactly, as the film is hollow and could've used a stronger screenplay. While it is aided by a few instances of trademark del Toro quirks, it's not as funny or as heartfelt as his best efforts, plus the chatter is often lifeless, and the narrative is a mishmash of blockbuster clichés. That's not to say Pacific Rim has no merit, though. On the contrary, it's a wonderfully entertaining, at times awe-inspiring instance of A-grade eye candy from a passionate filmmaker. It's definitely worth seeing on the biggest screen possible.

6.8/10

"Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it's not there."

Produced by Blue Sky Studios, who also created Ice Age and Rio, 2013's Epic is based on William Joyce's 1996 children's book The Leaf Men and the Brave Good Bugs. Apparently, such a title was too unwieldy for a motion picture, though Epic is not much better since it tells you nothing about the premise and invokes grandiose expectations that the movie cannot deliver upon. But while Epic is not as imaginative or exhilarating as the title would lead you to believe, it's a decent kiddie flick that manages to entertain for its 100-minute duration. Nevertheless, it's hard to overlook the flaws of the picture whilst examining it in hindsight - director Chris Wedge seems to be more concerned with marketing needs (a budding romance, a dashing hero, an attractive female, a heroes & villains tale) that he fails to deliver a genuinely breathtaking story. It's a thoroughly mechanical effort, though it's not without charms.

Following her mother's death, M.K. (Amanda Seyfried) sets off to live with her daffy scientist father, Professor Bomba (Jason Sudeikis). A detached oddball, Bomba spends all of his time trying to prove the existence of an advanced civilisation of miniature people living in the woods. These tiny individuals, known as The Leaf Men, are led by warrior Ronin (Colin Farrell), who lives to defend Queen Tara (Beyoncé Knowles), a royal with great powers that protect the kingdom. The sworn enemies of The Leaf Men are the wicked Boggans, who are determined to destroy the forest and stop Queen Tara from passing on her powers through a magical flower. When M.K. leaves the house searching for her father's three-legged pug, Ozzy, she encounters the tiny Queen Tara on the verge of death. Shrinking M.K. down to size, she is chosen by Tara to take the flower pod to the magical caterpillar known as Nim Galuu (Steven Tyler). To protect her, Ronin calls upon his irresponsible godson Nod (Josh Hutcherson), while molluscs Mub (Aziz Ansari) and Grub (Chris O'Dowd) tag along for the adventure. The consequences could be dire if the flower falls into the hands of Boggan leader Mandrake (Christoph Waltz).

Although Epic is technically an adaptation of Joyce's novel, Wedge and the five credited writers (including Joyce himself) were on the prowl for an action-adventure story more in the vein of Star Wars and Avatar with a splash of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids for good measure, mangling the source beyond all recognition. Epic clings to uninspired writing chestnuts and lacks the sophistication to make the picture truly soar like the best Pixar productions. Wedge has stated that comparisons to FernGully and Avatar are frustrating, but it's a big problem that Epic keeps inviting said comparisons, whether intentional or not. An opening sequence depicting a few Leaf Men battling some Boggans is full of Avatar influence, with characters riding around on birds shooting arrows while Ronin weightlessly leaps from tree to tree. Sharper dialogue and more robust storytelling could have breathed originality into the familiar parts, but Epic falls short in both respects.

On a more positive note, the animation of Epic is expectedly bright and sumptuous, maintaining a strong sense of visual interest throughout. Although not as lusciously detailed as a Pixar effort, it's good enough, with Wedge dreaming up a unique look that serves the material well. Whenever the movie is locked in action-adventure mode, Epic bestows major pleasures, and the third act, in particular, contains some nice payoffs. The music courtesy of Danny Elfman also helps, giving the film a zippy pace. It's a shame that the animation is not supported by stronger scripting, but the visual efforts are appreciated nevertheless, ensuring the picture is enjoyable from start to finish regardless of its inherent flaws.

The main knock against Epic is the lack of interesting central characters. M.K. is Bella Swan, plain and simple, retaining the Twilight protagonist's sullen personality and daddy issues. Rather than a sassy or involving lead, M.K. is a complete cardboard cut-out, a safely designed female without a single memorable personality trait. Likewise, Nod is a bland, generically-designed pretty boy, and the romance that burgeons between himself and M.K. is exceedingly by-the-numbers. Even Ronin is flat, though Farrell tries his best to give the role some vigour. Only the supporting characters are capable of livening the proceedings, with the adorable pug Ozzy stealing his every scene thanks to the magnificent animation bringing him to life. There's also the comedic duo of Grub and Mub, whose back-and-forth bantering never fails to amuse. Ansari retains the sharp comic timing of his work in Parks and Recreation to play Mub, and he lands the biggest laughs of the picture. However, none of the other characters make much of an impression - even Waltz is at his most forgettable as the stock villain. Mandrake is a flat antagonist, setting out to destroy the forest for no reason except because he's evil.

Although this review probably sounds overly negative, Epic works as a kid's movie on its own terms. It delivers inoffensive entertainment for family audiences, and children will likely be enraptured by all the bright colours, vivid animation and exuberant supporting characters. It's not the prettiest, funniest or cleverest of animated movies, and there isn't much to inspire a passionate response, but it's not dumb or annoying, which is a miracle. It's fun, and it delivers several effective scenes. You could do a lot worse.

6.5/10

"The game is tailored specifically to each participant. Think of it as a great vacation, except you don't go to it, it comes to you."

If Alfred Hitchcock were still alive and working in the 1990s, he would most certainly have directed 1997's The Game. Dense in atmosphere and thrills, it was only the third directorial effort of David Fincher, who had exhibited his 'A' game two years prior with 1995's Se7en. Looking at Fincher's work over the years, The Game is a strong demonstration of the filmmaker's artistic trademarks, as it's an outstandingly tense thriller that combines thematic relevance with sumptuous visuals. Although the script is not airtight, this is one hell of a movie, and it toys with viewer expectations just as the players in the film toy with the protagonist. Nothing here is what it seems, and the constant unpredictable surprises keep you gripped until the very end. And it's an even better experience if you're completely in the dark about the movie for your first viewing.

A San Francisco multimillionaire businessman, Nicholas Van Orton (Michael Douglas) spent his life climbing to the top of the corporate business ladder, in the process becoming emotionally stunted and shutting out everyone he holds dear. On the day of his 48th birthday, the age when his father committed suicide, Nicholas agrees to have lunch with his brother Conrad (Sean Penn). As a birthday present, Conrad invites Nicholas to a company called Consumer Recreation Services (CRS). Begrudgingly, he agrees to the unexplained "game" offered by CRS, going through extensive physical and psychological assessments. Nicholas is thrust into the mysterious game, receiving keys and being directed to perform various tasks. But CRS begins to intrude into his daily life to an unsettling degree, controlling everything, monitoring him all the time, and even damaging his property, implying that something nefarious may be going on. As his descent down the rabbit hole becomes increasingly dangerous, the line between reality and fantasy is blurred.

Written by Michael Ferris and John D. Brancato, The Game is notable because of its ambiguity. It gives us the chance to experience the game alongside Nicholas; like him, we struggle to figure out what's going on, and, just when we think we've cracked it, something happens to make us doubt our conclusions. Furthermore, the movie is somewhat of a morality tale, as Nicholas undergoes an epiphany by the film's end. It's the type of old-fashioned tale that shows a man might have significant wealth, but he realises that such a fortune means nothing compared to what's genuinely important in life. However, the screenplay is marred by fundamental flaws in plausibility that are difficult to swallow. Without spoiling too much, we are supposed to believe that many of Nicholas' actions were pre-determined based on assessments of his physical and mental state. Too many specifics are nailed by CRS, including exactly where he might aim a gun and the exact point where he might leap off a building to his death. The Game is a pretty intelligent thriller, but a better-constructed house of cards might have achieved perfection.

Despite the script issues, Fincher's treatment of the material is top-flight. Although the pacing is a tad slow from time to time, The Game is otherwise a masterpiece from a technical perspective, relentlessly intense and claustrophobic. As Nicholas scrambles to make sense of all the strange happenings, it's hard not to find yourself riveted as you wait to see what CRS has in store for him next and wonder whether or not every event or character is purely happenstance or elaborately planned. Also noteworthy are the photography and mise-en-scène; The Game is a visual stunner packed with gorgeously composed shots and a number of perfectly orchestrated set pieces. The use of tonal colours and careful lighting give the film great depth and atmosphere. Hence, while the mystery and intrigue keep you engaged when you watch it for the first time, the careful craftsmanship and nuances will grasp your attention on repeat viewings.

Perhaps The Game's biggest asset (and that's a tough call) is Douglas, submitting one of the best performances in his career. Douglas credibly sells Nicholas as a stubborn, arrogant man, and as his life is turned upside down, his psychological unravelling is truly a marvel to see. Douglas handles the character's arc flawlessly, gradually transforming the character as he works his way through the narrative. It helps that Douglas is such a charismatic presence to boot. We need to care about Nicholas for the film to engage us, and Douglas nails it. In the supporting role of Conrad, Penn (in one of his earlier roles) is flawless, selling the material with vigour. Also of note is Deborah Kara Unger, who does a commendable job playing Christine, a woman whose loyalties and motivations are shady.

The Game is underrated Fincher, a sharp thriller with a sound conceptual framework and an element of welcome psychological complexity. There are obvious flaws in the story's development, and one has to accept that things will not become clear until the very end, but the payoff is genuinely breathtaking. Once you have seen the ending, it's impossible to watch the film the same way ever again. However, a second viewing is also a wonderful experience because seeing things from an entirely different perspective allows you to appreciate the careful construction.

7.8/10

"Horse says you are a spirit walker. A man who's been to the other side and returned. A man who cannot be killed in battle."

With The Lone Ranger existing in film, television, comic book and radio form since the 1930s, it's unsurprising that the property was targeted to become a big-budget summer blockbuster by the folks at Disney. It's clear that producer Jerry Bruckheimer and the executives at Disney wanted another Pirates of the Caribbean, recruiting director Gore Verbinski, superstar Johnny Depp, and writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio in the hope of turning The Lone Ranger into a new franchise. What a shame that the resultant picture is one big mess; a noisy, agonisingly long and painfully leaden endeavour that's only intermittently entertaining. Some movie-goers might be reminded of The Mask of Zorro in terms of tone and story (especially since Elliott and Rossio also wrote it), but Verbinski's endeavour lacks the earlier picture's sense of pacing and panache, placing it firmly in the doldrums.

John Reid (Armie Hammer) is a district attorney dedicated to the proper channels of justice. While transporting vicious outlaw and cannibal Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) to the Texas town of Colby, where he'll be turned over to John's brother, Sheriff Dan (James Badge Dale), the train is hijacked by Cavendish's gang, who set the murderous criminal free. Although John refuses to pick up a firearm, Dan is compelled to deputise his brother as a group of rangers set out to find Cavendish. Unfortunately, the troupe are ambushed and attacked, with John emerging as the only survivor of the slaughter. Brought back to health by Comanche outcast Tonto (Johnny Depp), John sets out on a spiritual mission of justice. Learning that Dan's wife Rebecca (Ruth Wilson) and her son were kidnapped by Cavendish, John and Tonto look to bring the outlaw to justice, only to stumble upon a scheme involving the railroad and a silver mine fortune.

Rather than recreating the exhilarating magic of 2003's Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Verbinski channels the dead-on-arrival 2007 sequel At World's End with its bloated runtime, convoluted narrative, and lethally glacial pace. Worse, The Lone Ranger actually opens in 1933, introducing elderly Tonto (with Depp covered in phoney make-up), who tells stories about his adventures with John to a young boy in a Lone Ranger outfit. The device fails to fulfil any essential purpose, instead serving as a disruptive entry point that halts the pacing. Speaking of unnecessary subplots, Helena Bonham Carter shows up as a brothel owner with an ivory leg that can shoot bullets because writers Elliott, Rossio and Justin Haythe were apparently determined to cram in countless asides that detract from plot urgency. There's no reason for The Lone Ranger to run for almost two-and-a-half hours, aside from indulgence. As a result, the picture's midsection is a complete drag; boring and flat. Worse, the picture alternates between taking itself too seriously and not taking itself seriously enough; it's brutally violent one minute and a jokey farce the next. Most egregious is a scene involving cannibalism, which feels out of place in a Lone Ranger flick and even more out of place in a Disney movie.

The Lone Ranger does not look like a $250 million production, period. Films like Man of Steel and The Avengers were produced for less cash, yet both featured several large-scale action scenes and tremendously impressive production values. Even Quentin Tarantino made Django Unchained for a smaller sum, and his efforts are more impressive than anything glimpsed here. For what's supposed to be a fleet-footed adventure, The Lone Ranger is packed with too many scenes of drab character interaction venturing into superfluous narrative tangents. Nevertheless, the flick gets points for its lavish construction, with attractive cinematography making superb use of the magnificent locales, and with intricate sets and costumes. Moreover, some of the action sequences are admittedly spectacular. The best set-piece here is the finale, set to the William Tell Overture, which at long last delivers the type of fast-paced, old-fashioned cinematic excitement that we wanted all along. It's a genuinely rousing and spectacular climax, full of top-notch stunt work and seamless digital effects, and the tone is spot-on. Honestly, however, it feels like too little, too late - by the time the good stuff kicked in, I was numb from the past two hours of excessive bloat. It's a damn shame. And while The Lone Ranger is predominantly grounded, a few action beats are ridiculously over-the-top, killing credibility and clashing with Verbinski's dark tone.

Even though Hammer plays the titular Lone Ranger, Depp is very much the star of the show as Tonto; he's the one telling the story, and Depp is consistently foregrounded. He seems just to be playing another variation on Captain Jack Sparrow, serving as flimsy comic relief as opposed to anything sincere. A few attempts are made to give levity and depth to Tonto, but they're ineffective because Depp plays the character too broadly. Hammer, meanwhile, does what he can, but the material is working against him. Instead of a memorable hero, John Reid is completely bland, and he does a number of things that paint him as an unredeemable scumbag (he's willing to leave Tonto buried in the sand to die while he rides off on a horse…). Fichtner fares a bit better as the villain, and Tom Wilkinson espouses some welcome gravitas as a railroad magnate, but Ruth Wilson has nothing to work with as Dan's widow - she's just a damsel in distress, and Wilson was incapable of giving the role any pizzazz.

The Lone Ranger is entertaining at times, and it's marginally better than this reviewer expected it to be, but it remains an inconsistent, disappointing revival of the age-old brand name. In spite of its impressive production values, it predominantly lacks an all-important sense of spirit and fun. And although it was made for $250 million, it's hard to recall many especially note-worthy or amusing moments. Hell, I can barely remember any of the action sequences, either. Nobody really asked for a big-budget Lone Ranger flick, and calls for a sequel will be even less enthusiastic.

4.8/10

"Get back to work!"

A vicious thriller originating from Australia, Redd Inc. (aka Inhuman Resources) isn't a picture for the faint of heart. Tonally reminiscent of Saw and Hostel, it's an unforgivably bleak movie, with director Daniel Krige making the most of his limited budget by keeping things confined to focus on tension and gory make-up. Miraculously, it's a more skilful flick than other recent torture porn features, benefiting from strong performances and convincing make-up effects supervised by none other than horror veteran Tom Savini (who worked on the original Dawn of the Dead and too many other films to mention).

When several company executives are beheaded in a brutal multiple homicide, Thomas Reddmann (Nicholas Hope) is arrested and convicted for the crime, winding up dead as a consequence. One of the people who testified against Reddman was the innocuous Annabelle Hale (Kelly Paterniti), who works as an internet stripper. Months down the track, Annabelle is kidnapped, waking up in a dank office room chained to a computer desk with five others - including police officer Edward (Alan Dukes), psychic Sheena (Hayley McElhinney), and the kindly William (Sam Reid), all of whom were involved in the court case against Reddmann in some capacity. As it turns out, Redd is alive after all. Presenting himself to his hostages, Redd explains his innocence in the murder case, ordering them to pour through the evidence to find the real killer. Redd has zero tolerance for misconduct and punishes failure to work with severe penalties.

Written by Jonathon Green and Anthony O'Connor, Redd Inc. is tonally similar to other recent Australian exploitation pictures, containing shades of The Loved Ones and Wolf Creek. Genre fans who love seeing gooey gore delivered via practical effects will be thrilled with this movie, as it serves up tonnes of the red stuff using old-school methods. The legendary Savini supervised the effects, a prospect that should excite any horror buff worth their salt. There are many other nice touches here, too; Savini actually cameos in one scene, for instance, and his character sports a Dawn of the Dead poster on his wall. Added to this, it's darkly funny to see the murderous Redd drinking from a "World's Best Boss" coffee mug, and the film has a smattering of bare breasts for good measure. Krige and his writers have a firm grasp on what works in these types of flicks, delivering the superficial essentials as well as a twisty narrative that's not as simplistic as it seems.

If there's anything to criticise, it's the pacing. Krige was fighting an uphill battle here, attempting to keep the picture interesting despite most of the proceedings taking place in one location. At a hair under ninety minutes, it does get a bit repetitive in terms of visuals, though it is interesting more often than not. Perhaps with a bit more budget, the cinematic style could've been enhanced to keep the picture more involving. A bit more problematic is the screenplay, which isn't airtight; at one stage, a character flees while being pursued, as opposed to calling the police or trying to kill her pursuer despite being surrounded by potential weapons. There's also a twist towards the end that, frankly, I saw coming in the first ten minutes. Still, that's not to say Redd Inc. is a bust; on the contrary, it's decently written and executed, and the premise is original enough to distinguish itself in the crowded field of horror movies.

Krige's biggest asset is Nicholas Hope (Bad Boy Bubby), who delivers a delectably nuanced performance as the psychopathic Redd. Hope has understated charm on the surface, yet there's a sinister streak underneath. He's a great presence, and he's part of the reason why Redd Inc. works as well as it does. Meanwhile, the lively and cute Paterniti impresses as Annabelle, making for a fun, spunky and good-looking protagonist. The actress is a Home & Away veteran, but hopefully, this film will serve as a springboard for bigger and better things. After all, she's far more convincing than most of the horror heroines in Hollywood. There are other quality performances here, including director Krige himself who appears for a fleeting period, featuring in a fun cameo as one of Redd's hostages.

Redd Inc. is no masterpiece, and it won't scare you or bring you nightmares, but it's an entertaining genre effort orchestrated by a group of filmmakers who clearly love their exploitation cinema. Plenty of viscera is thrown around, yet director Daniel Krige also has an eye towards suspense and storytelling, making the most of the meagre resources at his disposal. Horror buffs should definitely check this one out, as it's ideal late-night viewing on a rainy Friday evening.

6.8/10

"You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders."

Unlike Bryan Singer's largely derisive Superman Returns, which endeavoured to exist in the same continuity as the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, 2013's Man of Steel is a straight-up reboot, going back to the beginning to explore the iconic superhero's origins once again. Warner Brothers pulled out all the stops to ensure Man of Steel effectively resuscitated the Superman film franchise, recruiting David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan to handle the script and story. And in the hands of accomplished visual director Zack Snyder, this is an exhilarating blockbuster implemented on a grand scale, yet it still understands the value of small, intimate moments in between the scenes of destruction. While imperfect, Man of Steel dexterously reinvents the character for a new generation, bringing Superman back to life with finesse and confidence. And it's about time.

With the planet Krypton on the brink of destruction due to mismanagement of natural resources, scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) places his infant son Kal-El in a ship bound for Earth, along with data that could regenerate Kryptonian life on another planet. General Zod (Michael Shannon) leads a coup against the Kryptonian council, but fails, and is imprisoned in the Phantom Zone as punishment. Years later, on Earth, Kal-El is adopted by caring farmers Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane), who name the boy Clark (Henry Cavill). Although it's clear that Clark has superpowers, he's advised to conceal them out of fear of humanity's reaction. As an adult, Clark draws the attention of Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who witnesses his powers and sets out to reveal the alien's identity. However, she develops respect for him, as Clark is revealed to be a decent, loving individual. But Earth is soon threatened by the arrival of General Zod, who has come to commence war on the planet and destroy the human race. Clark is compelled to reveal himself to the people of Earth to emerge as their saviour, ultimately putting his life of care and secrecy behind him.

The extent of Christopher Nolan's involvement has been contested since the feature's inception, with Nolan acting coyly when speaking about the subject. Besides the palpable tonal influence, Nolan's fingerprints on the picture are minimal, as his modus operandi is self-serious chatter and minimal action. According to Nolan, this is Snyder's film, and you can tell. It would seem that Nolan's name is all over the marketing merely for the box office boost.

To distinguish the picture from its predecessors, Goyer's script is non-linear; key events (like baby Kal-El's craft being found) are not shown, and Clark's background is conveyed through flashbacks intermingled with the narrative proper. With this device, Man of Steel does not feel like a structural clone of 1978's Superman, which is essential. What's notable about the movie is that it's more of a science fiction story about aliens rather than an outright fantasy adventure, which gives the narrative a realistic foundation and emphasises that, indeed, this is the story of an alien trying to ingratiate himself into Earth culture. It's a brand new tonal perspective for the franchise, which is refreshing. However, Goyer's script has its weaknesses. Clark is not humanised enough; his mild-mannered alter ego is not introduced until the very last scene, hence Clark spends the entire film as a sullen hero. The 1978 movie did a better job of portraying Superman, giving him more character and personality. He's a bit bland and generic here, though there's room to rectify this in the inevitable sequels.

There is an underlying stream of psychological complexity and emotional weight to Man of Steel that prevents it from being just another soulless CGI demo reel. Superman abstains from killing, yet something happens during the climax that tests his ethical standpoint, leading to controversy online (where else?) about a decision he is forced to make. This, along with another pivotal scene involving Pa Kent, adds a layer of moral wrangling not often glimpsed in blockbusters of this ilk, suggesting that being the hero sometimes means letting a few people die for the greater good. Fortunately, Man of Steel does not collapse under the weight of pretentious self-importance, a trap that Nolan's Batman films fell into. Snyder keeps the film focused and disciplined, although some of the action could've been scrapped in favour of further character interaction to enhance the picture's humanity.

To further distance itself from previous Superman features, Man of Steel carries a unique visual design. Krypton is reimagined as a vast, fantastical world (think Pandora) with flying creatures and advanced technology, while Superman's suit is redesigned, and Zod is heavily armoured. Snyder is a filmmaker renowned for action sequences, and he goes for broke here, acknowledging that both the hero and villain have the power of Gods, resulting in tremendous scenes of conflict. Watching Superman soaring across the globe and going toe-to-toe with Zod is riveting, and the destruction on offer here is spectacular, with the film excelling in terms of shot construction and digital effects. The CGI (courtesy of WETA Workshop) is out of this world, and Snyder goes nuts in his depiction of the devastation suffered by Smallville and Metropolis. Some have complained that Superman would not stage a war in such densely populated areas, but he did not have a choice, and the vast number of deaths continues to up the stakes as the ruthless Zod aspires to conquer the planet.

Although Cavill is no Christopher Reeve, he's a charming, dignified and engaging Superman, and his insanely muscular physique (that is not digitally enhanced) is spot-on. Cavill is an English actor, yet you wouldn't know it as he convincingly comes across as American. Meanwhile, Adams is a wonderful Lois Lane, exceedingly beautiful and with the right mixture of intelligence and vulnerability, though she doesn't quite have the feistiness that characterised Margot Kidder. Goyer and Snyder smartly avoid the contrivance of Lois being too stupid to realise that Clark and Superman are the same; she finds out right off the bat, which deepens their relationship. It's not an aspect previously explored, making sequels a tantalising prospect. As Jor-El, Crowe is suitably expressive and measured, with gravitas and charm that would make Marlon Brando proud. Also in the cast is Michael Shannon, who makes for a ruthless General Zod. It's a sinister role, and Shannon ran with it. Rounding out the main cast are Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, who provide strong, warm support as Clark's parents.

Man of Steel is touted as a dark vision of Superman, but this does not mean it's brooding or dour; instead, it is a serious take on the character, but Snyder still delivers joy and wonderment. It's a genuinely visionary interpretation of the character and his world. Luckily, the film doesn't spend a great deal of time setting up unanswered questions or untapped story beats for sequels, nor does it set out to establish the rumoured DC Comics Cinematic Universe. Rather, Snyder's film establishes a compelling new cinematic world for Superman to explore. The big question on everyone's minds will be whether or not it's superior to Richard Donner's beloved 1978 movie. It's a tough call to make, as 1978's Superman carried a superior screenplay while Man of Steel benefits from a flawless cinematic treatment that was just not possible three decades ago. There's room enough for two Superman origin tales to exist; both films are flawed but fantastic. Man of Steel is definitely better than all other cinematic incarnations of the character, and that cannot be debated. Competently executed and with a top-flight cast, Man of Steel is probably Snyder's best and most mature film to date. It's a hopeful start for what could finally be a strong Superman film series.

8.5/10

"Decriminalised Murder. An outlet for American Rage."

There's nothing worse than watching a motion picture completely waste a brilliant premise. 2013's The Purge is one such movie. It's built on a marvellous idea that could've made for a mature and thought-provoking examination of contemporary society, but writer-director James DeMonaco has no interest in a quality motion picture, instead delivering a fatally ridiculous film that fails to take advantage of its potential. The Purge is stupid to a criminal degree, lobotomising itself over its eighty-minute duration. By the time the film reaches its climax, the proceedings have become so laughably silly that only the boldest viewers will make it through to the end.

In the near future, the United States government has sanctioned an annual "purge" for the country, wherein murder and assorted crimes are legal for twelve hours. Emergency services are suspended, police cannot be summoned, and general anarchy is permitted. As a result, crime rates for the other 364 days of the year are down, and the economy is more stable. Taking advantage of the situation, James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) is a home security salesman who has accrued substantial wealth through his business. On the night of the purge, James locks down the house as usual, ready to relax with wife Mary (Lena Headey), daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane) and son Charlie (Max Burkholder). The night looks to be reasonably calm until Charlie decides to let a bloodied, helpless stranger (Edwin Hodge) enter their home. Making matters worse, the family are soon visited by a mob of armed "purgers" wanting to get the stranger. The Sandin family are given an ultimatum: give the man over, or the house will be stormed and all of them will be slaughtered.

Here's the thing: Charlie's choice to take in a potentially dangerous stranger is never believable, as it seems like it was only done for the sake of script convenience. And the family's decision to want to protect the guy, even though it could cost them their lives, is retarded. They do not know him, they owe him nothing, and yet they're prepared to protect him and possibly die for him due to a crisis of conscience? It's especially problematic since the stranger actually holds a gun to Zoey's head at one stage. And why is it that the armed mob spend so much time and effort trying to get to just one "homeless pig"? Couldn't they just keep hunting for other people? The Purge hopes nobody will think too much about it, as it's full of holes and vague motivations. Furthermore, the homeless guy is not even given a name or any characterisation beyond being a simple plot device. He does wear a set of military dog tags, though, to tell us that he must be a sympathetic good guy.

The idea of the annual purge is brilliant for a motion picture, provoking several questions. For instance, do businesses hire private armies to defend their property? What does this mean for the small businesses that are undoubtedly looted during the night? DeMonaco does show people killing and rioting, but what about other crimes? Do hackers and black marketers do most of their work during the purge? Alas, The Purge has no interest in exploring this stuff; instead, the premise is more like Assault on Precinct 13 (which was remade in 2005 from a script co-written by DeMonaco and starring Hawke), resulting in a routine "house under siege" flick marred by an over-reliance on silly horror movie theatrics. Indeed, DeMonaco wastes the most fertile premise in recent memory on a silly slasher movie that we've seen done before, done better, and done without all the elaborate set-up. Worse, DeMonaco captures a number of conflicts with herky-jerky cinematography, not to mention most scenes simply depict villains being conveniently killed mere moments before they plan to kill a main character.

Nit-pickers will adore The Purge, as DeMonaco's woeful screenplay of perpetual convenience, excessive idiocy, and unanswered questions is ripe for mauling. Had the writer-director pursued realism and depicted a truly nightmarish vision of society run amok, this could've been a harrowing motion picture full of potent societal commentary. But DeMonaco is only interested in cheap exploitation, with cartoonish violence replacing potentially fascinating details. The only real saving grace of the flick is Rhys Wakefield as the masked stranger; he's sinister and unpredictable, and his charisma makes him a memorable villain. The Purge's box office success has ensured that a sequel is coming, an avenue that might give the creative team a chance to create a truly epic horror film out of the superb central premise.

3.2/10

"The Kryptonian prophecy will at last be fulfilled. The son becomes the father, the father becomes the son... Farewell forever... Kal-El... remember me, my son."

For those unaware of the behind-the-scenes turmoil that occurred during the production of Superman II, here's a brief recap: director Richard Donner shot Superman I and II simultaneously, but filming on the second flick was halted before Donner could finish his work. Producers Ilya and Alexander Salkind did not want to pay Donner the money he was owed, and fired him, bringing in Richard Lester to take over the reins. Donner's vision was lost in the process, with Lester turning Superman II into a campy farce. Donner reportedly shot up to 80% of his Superman II, leading to a massive internet campaign demanding the release of Donner's missing footage. Thank God it finally happened, and we now have Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. While the continuity is shaky and this version falls short of perfection, the Donner Cut is more in line with the feel and tone of the first film, showing a devotion to character and logic that Lester's film sorely lacks.

Following on from Superman, the story finds Kryptonian rebels General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sara Douglas) and Non (Jack O'Halloran) freed from their Phantom Zone prison in space. Landing on Earth, the trio look to conquer the planet, briskly defeating the world's armies and overthrowing the President of the United States. Meanwhile, Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) becomes convinced that Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve) is Superman. After revealing his identity, Clark expresses his love for Lois, opting to give up his powers to be with her. Elsewhere, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) escapes from prison and seeks to team up with Zod to kill Superman for good.

The Donner Cut was orchestrated by editor Michael Thau, who managed to unearth six tonnes of raw footage from the original shoot. With the input of Donner and (uncredited) writer Tom Mankiewicz, Thau set about assembling the lost motion picture using scattered puzzle pieces. It's a brilliant experiment in rewriting cinema history, and Thau has, for the most part, succeeded. Lester's theatrical Superman II was littered with high camp, turning the villains into cartoonish jokes, forgetting that Donner's mantra on the original picture was to sell the superhero story with actual sincerity. Fortunately, the Donner Cut removes Lester's insulting tomfoolery, and the resultant vision is definitely something to behold. The biggest curiosity of this version is the inclusion of screen test footage of Reeve and Kidder for a pivotal scene in which Lois reveals Clark to be Superman. Donner never got to shoot it for real, so Thau only had the screen tests to work with, hence Reeve's hairstyle and physique is inconsistent, and the lesser production values are jarring. Still, the scene is a brilliant one, and it definitely still has life to it.

The most treasured moments of the Donner Cut are the restored Marlon Brando scenes. Even though his scenes were filmed, Brando was removed from the theatrical Superman II due to financial and legal issues. Hence, seeing Brando's material here is incredible, and his inclusion gives the flick dramatic weight, on top of feeling more in keeping with the original film. Moreover, the stuff with Brando brings Clark's character arc full circle. If nothing else, the Donner Cut should be seen for Brando. Another strength is Reeve's performance. The movie features some of his finest moments as an actor, and he's a tremendous presence throughout. Most notable is the scene in which Clark realises the consequences of his choice to give up his powers; it's the performance of the actor's career. And the fact that Reeve's best acting moment was left on the cutting room floor for a quarter of a century is disgusting. The Donner Cut has other charms, too; the dialogue has that witty Mankiewicz sparkle, the photography is often eye-catching, and Donner maintains a strong pace throughout. The dramatics of the narrative are paid enough attention to give them full lift-off, and there are several exciting action set-pieces throughout.

Even considering the limitations of the material, the Donner Cut is still imperfect. There's one awkward toilet gag that feels astonishingly out of place, and the final five minutes or so fail to gel. Superman turns back time yet again to reverse everything that has happened and prevent Lois from knowing his true identity. This is followed by another scene of Clark punishing the bully he met earlier in the film, which no longer makes sense after the events of the picture are reversed. At least the amnesia kiss from Lester's version is removed, but it would've been far more interesting if Lois still knew Superman's identity at the end of the picture. Some of the special effects do look a tad shoddy, but they did not necessarily bother me; as explained in the DVD extras, Thau aspired to create retro special effects instead of polished 2006 digital effects.

The best part of Donner's Superman II is that it does not need to be viewed simply as a curiosity; it stands alone as a proper motion picture. Sure, the screen test footage does stand out, but everything else comes together to form a coherent whole, which is miraculous. It's infuriating to ponder just how close Donner and Mankiewicz were to finishing Superman II. If only the Salkinds permitted just a little bit of extra time before shutting down production, we would be left with a more complete motion picture that could've exceeded its predecessor. And if Donner had completed the movie as intended in the 1970s, there's a good chance it would've been on the same level as X2. As it is, though, the Donner Cut still remains a wonderful movie, and it's difficult to go back to Lester's campy film.

7.7/10