Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"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

"Hang loose, stay cool, and don't forget your psychic humor."

A more apt title for 1986's Witchboard would be Witchbored, as this low-budget horror distraction from the 1980s promises a lot more than it delivers. The flick was written and directed by Kevin Tenney, who was fresh out of film school at the time and who lacked the abilities to create a genuinely effective chiller. Hence, while the idea of evil spirits communicating through a Ouija board holds potential for a top-flight genre offering, Witchboard flat-lines all the way through, with its wooden acting, dull chatter, laughable special effects and sloppy storytelling. Even the most avid horror enthusiast will struggle to enjoy this one.

At a party one night, suave law student Brandon (Stephen Nichols) introduces his peers to a Ouija board that he often uses to communicate with spirits. Using the board with former girlfriend Linda (Tawny Kitaen), Brandon contacts the spirit of a 10-year-old boy named David who was killed in an unfortunate accident three decades years prior. Brandon inadvertently forgets to take his Ouija with him, and Linda begins using the board on a frequent basis, growing increasingly obsessed. As she continues to communicate with David, Linda's behaviour drastically changes, which alarms her live-in boyfriend Jim (Todd Allen). Linda uses the board alone, which makes her susceptible to being used by an evil spirit as a portal into the real world. It soon becomes clear to Brandon that Linda is falling into "progressive entrapment," meaning her body is being used as a door between worlds and she may end up becoming possessed.

Tenney visibly strived to focus on character development and slow-burning suspense, spending the majority of the picture observing the main characters and their interactions. Problem is, all of the build-up lacks fizz; it's overall too flat, and there's not much in the way of skilful tension building. The script is also fairly sloppy. For instance, Brandon and Jim set out to find David's parents at one stage. The phone book does not list them, but they soon discover that that the pair actually died a fortnight prior. How were the parents eliminated from the phone book so quickly? Does the community publish a new directory every few days? The acting is a mixed bag, as well. Nichols is suitably charismatic and watchable as Brandon, but Allen is average at best. And about 40 minutes in, we're introduced to Kathleen Wilhoite who's embarrassingly over-the-top as a psychic named Zarabeth. It's an interesting postmodern depiction of a medium, but Wilhoite takes it way too far. There's also a detective played by Burke Byrnes, who achieves precisely nothing.

It may be unreasonable to expect top-flight special effects in a cheap '80s horror, but Tenney tried too many things that he lacked the budget to properly accomplish. For the most part, the film is low-key and relies on a fear of the unknown, but the climax crumbles hopelessly, culminating in an unintentionally hilarious sequence involving the Ouija board flying through the air and someone falling backwards out of a window (some of the most obvious green screening in history). Plus, the Ouija board antics never look entirely believable - the planchette takes many unnecessary gyrations, and it never looks creepy or believable enough, especially since it takes all of two milliseconds for the spirit to arrive and start making contact when there should be tense build-up. The score by Dennis Michael Tenney is extremely chintzy and seldom effective, too. The music is distinctly '80s-esque, but not in a good way; it sounds more cheap than chilling. Furthermore, Roy H. Wagner's cinematography is basic at best. There are a few POV shots in the vein of Evil Dead, but they do not amount to much, and the shadow of the cameraman is visible a number of times.

A few mildly effective set-pieces notwithstanding, Witchboard is pretty much a bust, an amateur-hour horror outing which squanders its limitless potential. It even closes with the proverbial "one last jump-scare," a moment that's horribly cheesy and predictable. A more skilful set of filmmakers could have done something outstanding and horrifying with the same premise, which makes the final product here all the more disheartening. Witchboard has become a bit of a home video cult favourite, but for this reviewer's money it deserves to remain obscure.

4.1/10

"I'm Garth Marenghi. Author. Dreamweaver. Visionary. Plus actor. You're about to enter the world of my imagination. You are entering my Darkplace."

Back in the 1980s, hubristic horror author Garth Marenghi (Matthew Holness) wrote, directed and starred in the television show Garth Marenghi's Darkplace with the assistance of his publisher Dean Learner (Richard Ayoade). Set in a hospital located over the gates of Hell, the show features Marenghi as the charismatic Dr. Rick Dagless M.D., and Learner as the hospital's administrator, Thornton Reed. Their colleagues are Dr. Lucien Sanchez, played by egotistical actor Todd Rivers (Matt Berry), and the ditzy Dr. Liz Asher, played by Madeline Wool (Alice Lowe). Together, they battle supernatural occurrences, ranging from cosmic broccoli to sinister Scotsmen. Fifty episodes of the show were produced, but the series was ultimately rejected by Channel 4, reportedly because it was "too radical… too goddamned crazy." It did enjoy a brief run in Peru, though. Two decades later, Channel 4 exhumed the show, dusting off a selection of six episodes for broadcast.

That's the conceit behind Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, an elaborate and brilliantly executed hoax that lampoons low-budget '80s television, horror, science fiction and the wild arrogance of authors who genuinely believe themselves to be geniuses. Written by Ayoade and Holness, Darkplace is instantly addictive and uproariously hilarious on top of being devilishly creative and witty. It's one of the most refreshing and original shows in years, as well, so it's a shame that the series was so overlooked during its original run. Thankfully, it developed into a critically acclaimed cult favourite, leading to an eventual DVD release and the spin-off Man to Man with Dean Learner. Darkplace's failure is a tremendous injustice, as the parody of low-budget '80s TV is pitch-perfect and anyone with real memories of such material will find the series to be side-splitting.

Darkplace would have been hilarious if the episodes were merely aired in their standalone form, but Ayoade and Holness go one step further, inserting straight-faced interviews with the cast who reminisce about the making of the show. It's truly priceless stuff. Marenghi features prominently, presented as a misunderstood genius who still believes the show is a masterpiece, aggressively defending the material and explaining the clumsy subtext behind each episode. Learner, seen with an oddly angled beret and a cigar, is full of hilarious production anecdotes that are too uproarious to spoil. Then there's Todd Rivers, the eccentric has-been theatre actor whose memory has grown hazy after years of heavy drinking. At times, Rivers even claims to have no recollection of having starred in the episodes.

From every technical aspect, Darkplace is a home run - the recreation of low-budget telly schlock here is perfection. The show carries a rough, dated appearance, with grainy film stock, hilarious fashion choices, an old-fashioned colour palette, and spot-on lighting which makes everything look like a phoney set. The framing is awkward, the editing is clumsy and the writing is terrible, but deliberately so. Augmenting the illusion is the soundtrack, which sounds similarly dated and carries a distinct synthesiser score that would make any '80s composer smile. And rather than relying on state-of-the-art digital effects, director Ayoade leans on old-school techniques, with hilariously obvious green-screening and visible wires. The attention to detail goes deeper as well; it kicks off with a retro Channel 4 logo, and the analogue music track is distorted at times as if the film elements have deteriorated. Luckily, the whole show is sold with a brilliant poker face. You see, Darkplace's incompetence does not feel manufactured; it feels as if everyone involved tried to do the best that they could, but were unaware of their shortcomings. It's a fine line to walk, but Ayoade and his crew nailed it. As a result, if you were none the wiser, you would genuinely believe at a glance that this show was produced in the 1980s.

The actors are staggeringly wooden and inept, but again this is deliberate, mirroring the type of stuff we see in low-budget television shows. Ayoade, in particular, is sensational, with emotionless line readings, deadpan expressions, stilted movements, and a tendency to forget what to do and look at the camera. Holness is equally brilliant, presenting Marenghi as a man consumed with ego whose every line delivery oozes confidence. Berry, meanwhile, delivers his dialogue in an ostentatious, theatre-like fashion, as if he's spouting Shakespeare. It's great stuff. Rounding out the primary cast is blonde bombshell Lowe playing the now-missing actress (presumed dead), who portrayed the token ditzy girl in the show. There are various other guest stars throughout the season as well, including Stephen Merchant and Noel Fielding, who are totally at ease with the so-bad-it's-funny style of acting.

Perhaps it's for the greater good that Garth Marenghi's Darkplace only lasted for six episodes. Like Fawlty Towers, further episodes is an enticing prospect in theory, but there's always the possibility that another series may fail to recapture the lightning in a bottle, and tarnish the show's legacy as a result. The new car smell of Darkplace was beginning to wane by the final episodes anyway, so let's be thankful that Ayoade and Holness stopped while they were ahead. As a result, we have six excellent episodes, all of which are thorough gems. This show is perfection.

10/10

"Everyone loves a magician..."

A humorous satire in the vein of Zoolander, 2013's The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is a creative send-up of modern magic as well as a celebration of old-school sleight-of-hand tricks. Featuring a delightful range of performers, including Steve Carell, Jim Carrey and Alan Arkin, it's a formulaic but warm and enjoyable studio comedy, skilfully assembled and brimming with creativity. Helmed by 30 Rock veteran Don Scardino, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is one of the first real crowd-pleasers of 2013.

Enthusiastic about magic from an early age, Burt Wonderstone (Carell) grows up to become a popular magician, performing with childhood friend Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi) at a prestigious Las Vegas casino. However, the wealthy duo begin to decline in popularity, with ticket sales falling following the rise of anarchic street magician Steve Gray (Carrey) who introduces a new brand of illusionist. Burt's act is too tired and dated in comparison, leading to him losing his gig at the casino on top of falling out with both Anton and his attractive assistant Jane (Olivia Wilde). Washed up and broke, Burt desperately searches for a new gig, ending up as an entertainer at a retirement village. It's here he meets his childhood hero Rance Holloway (Arkin), who reignites Burt's love for magic.

Written by Horrible Bosses scribes John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (with rewrites by Jason Reitman), the flick initially spends its time observing the childhood lives of Burt and Anton as they become fast friends and develop a passion for magic. Before long, however, the screenplay kicks into gear, assuming a routine of funny bantering, amusing set-pieces and inspired silliness. It admittedly transforms into a predictable tale of redemption and rehabilitation, with the egocentric, preening Burt setting out to rediscover his humanity. But it's clear that everyone is having a lot of fun with the material, which becomes contagious. The characters are so much fun and there's good-natured humour aplenty, and the tone is perpetually agreeable. The Incredible Burt Wonderstone has a degree of heart as well, embodied in a beautiful scene in which Rance explains to Burt why magic is important. Sure, attempts at cinematic maturity are perfunctory in comedies, but it works here.

Director Scardino is a fleet-footed filmmaker, hence The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is a briskly-paced distraction that doesn't outstay its welcome at just over ninety minutes. Scardino aspired to do several of the tricks for real on-screen, recruiting the iconic David Copperfield (who cameos here as himself) to devise a handful of illusions which could be done with practical effects. Some were pulled off with digital effects trickery, but there's a certain charm in seeing good tricks being performed for real. There are a number of amusing moments throughout, and the satirical aspect is spot-on. One of the best moments comes right at the end, when the filmmakers give us a glimpse at how exactly Wonderstone pulls off his climactic deception. It's a clever, darkly comic moment that allows the curtain to fall on a high note. It's just a shame that the film did not go further with its content. This is a PG-13 comedy, and, though it does work in its finished state, one must wonder if the film could've been superior if it was more abrasive and dark.

Carell is a perfect fit for the role of Burt. He nails the character's less savoury characteristics, yet he's never unlikeable thanks to his charisma and inherent quirkiness. The actor is getting older, but he still has a delightful comic touch. Buscemi, meanwhile, is an absolute winner here, funny and eccentric as Burt's on-stage partner. However, it's Carrey who expectedly steals the show. The 51-year-old does not rely on his usual manic, rubber-faced persona, instead going for something a bit more restrained but no less funny. He's hilariously committed to the material, and he's used sparingly, which was a well-judged creative choice. One of the highlights of the picture is a child's birthday party in which Carell and Carrey engage in a "magic-off." The supporting performances are just as good, with Arkin wonderfully cantankerous and hilariously dry as the cynical Rance, while Wilde is amusing and beautiful as the token love interest. Also of note is James Gandolfini as a casino owner.

To be sure, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone is forgettable comedy entertainment; it won't linger in the mind for too long, and it doesn't reinvent the wheel. But it is tremendously enjoyable and a fun way to spend to an evening at the movies that will probably develop into something of a cult film. Although it could've been funnier and wittier, it's hard to walk away dissatisfied with this appealing comedy.

7.1/10

"We are Australian cricketers on tour!"

Despite the involvement of a quality cast, 2013's Save Your Legs! is a strictly ordinary Australian dramedy that falls short of fulfilling its potential. Scripted by Aussie all-rounder Brendan Cowell, who also stars, the film is based on the exploits of a lowly ranked cricket club who toured India in 2001. The tour was actually the subject of a 2005 documentary also called Save Your Legs, directed by Boyd Hicklin who returned to helm this feature-length cinematic adaptation. The resultant picture is more or less a mix-up of Dodgeball and The Hangover, with traces of Bollywood flavour and midlife crisis angst for good measure. It's a watchable tale of mateship that works from time to time, but for the most part it proceeds at an uneven pace, and the narrative is not quite as satisfying as it wants to be.

A 30-something cricket enthusiast, Edward "Teddy" Brown (Stephen Curry) is something of a no-hoper, living in his best friend's garage in the suburbs of Melbourne whilst nursing an obsession with legendary cricketer Sachin Tendulkar. On weekends, Teddy is president of the Abbotsfield Anglers Cricket Club, playing the game with close friend Rick (Brendan Cowell) and the arrogant Stavros (Damon Gameau). But things are changing, and Teddy wants the opportunity for his team to go big. An opportunity presents itself when local sponsor Sanjeet (Darshan Jariwala) agrees to send the Anglers overseas to compete in a tournament in India. Teddy jumps at the chance, but the team of misfits need to raise their game.

The narrative is not quite as cut-and-dried as it seems. In Hollywood, the Anglers would rise to the occasion at the right time and win the tournament, but Save Your Legs! avoids that type of ending. It's a clever twist on the part of screenwriter Cowell, but alas it does not quite work, and never quite snowballs into a completely satisfying film in spite of the rousing climax. Perhaps this is because Save Your Legs! is established as a light-hearted dramedy, hence it feels a tad uncomfortable when things start to go south for the squad; the tonal change is jarring. Moreover, the depressing stuff is too saggy and heavy-handed, begging for a zippier touch. Most glaringly, while Cowell does avoid many of the more predictable staples of the underdog genre, he does succumb to a number of other clichés that are a lot less fun and satisfying. It also ends with a tacky last-minute Bollywood dance number, because India.

Despite the attempts at maturity, the film spotlights a fairly clichéd roster of sports film characters, including a love interest for Teddy that feels forced and useless. Out of the characters, the best is Colin (Darren Gilshenan), the superbly nerdy cricketer obsessed with statistics. Gilshenan is extremely amusing in the role, albeit a bit underused. In spite of the clichéd characters, the rest of the ensemble do place forth good work, led by Curry who's nicely charismatic as the club's president. Cowell (Beneath Hill 60) is also good as the boozy team captain, but he's shown up by Gameau as the preening master batsman.

Save Your Legs! was lensed on location in India, hence it's permeated with an exotic flavour and there's gorgeous scenery aplenty, captured with proficiency by Hicklin and cinematographer Mark Wareham. The cricket action looks nice for the most part, though Hicklin immediately leans on montages whenever a match kicks off, eliminating all sense of tension. See, the matches are meant to feel substantial because we're waiting for the pivotal moment in which the Anglers get their shit together, but montages treat everything too lightly. It's not that montages are necessarily bad, it's that Hicklin should ease into them more; it would be more effective to set the tone by showing the first few overs in real-time before getting into the montage. This aside, Save Your Legs! packs a few nice laughs, though the picture is nowhere near as funny as one would probably hope.

Certainly, Save Your Legs! is marred by multiple flaws, but it's not an entirely unappealing motion picture. Tonal inconsistencies and ham-fisted dramatic scenes aside, the movie comes alive from time to time, with handsome production values and a variety of strong performances that almost compensate for the otherwise flat pacing. It's definitely worth a watch, especially for avid cricket fans and consumers of Australian cinema.

5.9/10

"I don't want to be a good man... I want to be a great one."

With Tim Burton's high-tech reworking of Alice in Wonderland having grossed a substantial sum in 2010, it was only a matter of time before another famous literary property received a big-budget update. The result is 2013's Oz the Great and Powerful, which serves as a prequel of sorts to the enduring 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz. From the beginning, director Sam Raimi faced an uphill battle in undertaking this picture, as he needed to create a film that lives up to the legacy of the beloved Victor Fleming movie. Against all odds, the finished product is better than it had any right to be: a hugely enjoyable (if a bit overlong) and colourful family-friendly fantasy adventure that is lovingly referential to the old film while introducing plenty that is new to the world of Oz.

Oscar Diggs (James Franco) is a small-time illusionist nicknamed "Oz" who travels with the circus in the early 20th Century. Oscar is quite the con man, though, using cheap tricks to fool audiences into believing he's an actual magician. Following a performance in Kansas, Oscar finds himself in a sticky situation with the husband of a circus performer he romanced, and winds up taking to the sky in a hot air balloon just as a tornado approaches the area. He's sucked into the tornado and subsequently dropped into the land of Oz, where the inhabitants - including good witch Theodora (Mile Kunis) - believe that Oscar is a great wizard who has arrived to fulfil the prophecy of defeating the Wicked Witch and taking the throne as king. Scared by the responsibility yet disarmed by the piles of gold that victory would offer, Oscar sets out with friendly flying monkey Finley (Zach Braff) and a tiny, fragile girl made of porcelain (Joey King). During his travels, Oscar meets the angelic witch Glinda (Michelle Williams), who recognises that Oscar is a fraudulent wizard but nevertheless believes that he will overthrow the Wicked Witch and restore peace to the land of Oz.

To maintain a sense of fidelity and respect to the '39 feature, Great and Powerful opens in black-and-white with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Once Oscar leaves Kansas and heads into Oz, however, the film suddenly shifts to colourful widescreen, underscoring the beauty of Oz when contrasted against the melancholy of Kansas. Great and Powerful displays multiple other references to Fleming's movie, though screenwriters Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire show commendable subtlety in this area. Also, just like the '39 original, the characters Oscar meets in Oz represent people he knew back home. Finley the monkey is an incarnation of Oscar's showbiz partner (whom he actually refers to as a trained monkey at one stage), the china doll represents a disabled girl who asked Oscar to make her walk again, and so on.

This is Raimi's first PG-rated motion picture, but this doesn't mean the Evil Dead director has gone soft on us. Although the film is a fantasy aimed at kids, it has a dark and edgy side, and some scenes towards the climax are surprisingly scary for a kiddie movie. Eventually, the Wicked Witch of the West emerges, transforming into the iconic green-skinned evil hag that has scared kids for generations. This new incarnation of the Wicked Witch is a home run and will creep out a new generation of children. Most agree that the biggest flaw of Burton's Alice in Wonderland was the fact that it climaxed with a medieval battle in the vein of Narnia. Luckily, Raimi does not fall victim to this malarkey; Oz closes on a superlatively creative note, with Oscar facing off against the witches using his showmanship instead of weapons. It's a wonderful sequence brimming with humour, and it's the perfect close for this story. However, Oz runs too long; clocking in at over two hours, it feels like ten or fifteen minutes could've been trimmed from the final product. That said, the Spider-Man director never loses control of the pace, keeping the proceedings zipping along and always ensuring an impressive set piece is right around the corner.

Raimi's filmmaking sensibilities forbade him from spilling over into lazy digital effects overload. Oz is coated in CGI, yet actual sets supplement the digital trickery, and, as a result, it's hard to tell where the live-action photography ends and the digital effects begin. For the most part, the CGI is highly impressive, bordering on photo-realistic. Most impressive is the little china girl, who seems to be truly alive and is imbued with a soul despite being entirely digital. The 3D presentation is highly satisfying, too. Raimi is a 3D sceptic, and was reluctant about the idea of making the film with an additional dimension. But lo and behold, this is easily one of the greatest uses of the format to date. The sense of depth is astonishing, and the land of Oz looks real in three dimensions. Raimi also has a bit of fun with the medium, hurling a few things at the screen in an effective fashion. Trust me, it's worth shelling out a few extra dollars to experience the film in 3D.

Franco was not first in line for the title role - Robert Downey Jr. and Johnny Depp were initially in talks - but the actor hits it out of the park. He's a charming performer, possessing a sense of honesty and humanity that renders him watchable and easy to root for. He looks the part, too. However, it's his co-stars who steal the spotlight. Scrubs star Braff ably handles a lot of amusing quips and one-liners, displaying great comic timing despite spending most of his time as an animated monkey. King, meanwhile, is superb. She's cute and believable as the china girl without becoming cloying, and her emotional depth is stunning. As the witches, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams all hit their marks, especially the amiable Williams, who shares wonderful chemistry with Franco. Also of note is Tony Cox, toning down his language but otherwise embodying his marvellous angry dwarf persona (as seen in Bad Santa and Me, Myself & Irene).

Despite its strengths, Oz can never quite overcome the most glaring issue that's faced the picture since its inception: It does not quite feel essential. The whole hook of the 1939 Wizard of Oz is that it's ambiguous as to whether or not the entire thing was a dream. And while L. Frank Baum wrote numerous Oz novels, Great and Powerful is marketed as a prequel to the '39 picture, destroying the ambiguity. Did we really need to see the origins of the wizard for another "reboot" franchise? Probably not, but Raimi and his crew do a fine job, nevertheless. The filmmaker does not cruise on autopilot for the sake of a paycheque. Instead, Raimi injects the flick with honest effort and personality, mounting a genuinely satisfying family film bursting with enchantment and excitement, even if it's uneven with narrative and pacing.

6.8/10

"Thanks for the effort..."

There's plenty for horror enthusiasts to enjoy about 2002's Ju-on, a Japanese horror film that made a lot of waves around the world upon release and was frequently compared to 1998's Ringu. Directed by Takashi Shimizu, this is a well-made genre offering which provides a handful of thrills and chills within a fascinating narrative framework. It's a stylish haunted house story, benefitting from an array of creepy images and competent cinematography. Nevertheless, the hype is perhaps a bit on the hyperbolic side; Ju-on never quite attains excellence.

The term "ju-on" comes from Japanese legend; it is a curse that's born from a person who dies in a fit of rage. The curse of the movie was born when a jealous husband killed his entire family under the belief that his wife loves another man and his son is not actually his blood. Subsequently, their home becomes a contagion of evil, infected with a curse prepared to claim all those who come into contact with it. Ju-on is divided into six parts; it's a Pulp Fiction style anthology of stories involving an array of characters who become affected by the curse. It flashes backwards and forwards in time, revealing the fate of each of the characters, how they come to enter the house, and how they meet their end. The most prominent story arc concerns social worker Rika (Megumi Okina), who is sent to take care of an elderly woman in a vegetative state. She finds the house in complete disarray, and it doesn't take long for the sinister ghosts to make an appearance.

Ju-on suffers from storytelling and pacing difficulties, as it's not as bone-chillingly atmospheric or as enthralling as something like Ringu. When it dabbles in scares, it definitely delivers, but the in-between stuff is a mixed bag. Perhaps this is due to the fact that multiple stories are being told - we are never given a well-developed central character to latch onto. While Rika is the protagonist in theory, we do not get to know much about her as a person; she blurs into the other characters in the film, all of whom are thinly-sketched and at times barely distinguishable. Moreover, due to all the jumps in the timeline, Ju-on is at times confusing and difficult to follow. Although the structure is inventive since it theoretically allows for continual payoffs as it jumps from short segment to short segment, the end result is so-so.

On the upside, writer-director Takashi Shimizu displays more innovation than most Hollywood horror pictures, relying a lot on soundscape and creepy visuals. Ju-on was originally a made-for-TV production helmed by Shimizu, hence this was the filmmaker's shot at remaking his own film with the freedom of a bigger budget and theatrical distribution. And afterwards, Shimizu also helmed the American remake produced in 2004. How's that for enthusiasm towards improving one's work? While this particular incarnation falls short of greatness, Shimizu displays great skill behind the camera here, with a handful of impressive special effects sequences and effective use of eerie sounds.

At the end of the day, Ju-on is more creepy than outright terrifying, but it is a worthwhile addition to a genre that has grown increasingly formulaic and lazy. There's nothing especially damaging or wrong about the film, but it doesn't exactly break new ground either. Horror fans should check it out for sure, though more casual or passive viewers may not find a great deal here that appeals to them.

6.5/10

"But above anything else, I love the children."

Bestowing 1961's The Innocents with the label of "haunted house horror" is too simplistic, and the accuracy of such a description is debatable. An adaptation of Henry James' 1898 novella The Turn of the Shrew, this is a chilling horror feature that is notable for its brilliant ambiguity. When first released, Twentieth Century Fox billed The Innocents as a horror film for the adult moviegoer since it is a serious and intellectual piece of work rather than anything salacious, profane or cheap. Like 1963's The Haunting and 2001's The Others, this is a film that methodically develops tension and atmosphere, relying on what is unseen instead of rubber monsters or special effects. Although there is undoubtedly a place for more simplistic mainstream horror movies, The Innocents looks unique and refreshing in comparison.

After accepting a position as a household governess, Miss Giddens (Deborah Kerr) is charged with taking care of cute orphans Flora (Pamela Franklin) and Miles (Martin Stephens) at their uncle's luxurious mansion in the English countryside. It's a beautiful estate surrounded by luscious gardens and ponds, and a live-in housekeeper, Mrs. Grose (Megs Jenkins), oversees the vast house. Although everything seems innocuous at first, Miss Giddens is disturbed to learn that the family's previous governess, Miss Jessel (Clytie Jessop), died under unusual circumstances. Before long, Miss Giddens begins to see and hear strange things around the estate, leading her to believe that the property is haunted by the ghost of Miss Jessel and her late lover, Quint (Peter Wyngarde). As the normally innocent behavioural patterns of the children begin to change and grow more devious, Miss Giddens begins to suspect that the spirits of the dead may be possessing them.

The Innocents presents a haunting in the truest sense. Forget your contemporary perception of horror and forget about digital effects to illustrate implausibly over-the-top ghosts, as director Jack Clayton's horror opus is all about mood, atmosphere and eerie sounds. The Innocents benefits from its impressive gothic art direction, while the black-and-white cinematography by the masterful Freddie Francis (The Elephant Man) is extraordinary. Francis's composition and use of controlled lighting and shadows impress the most, turning what could have been just another forgettable horror film into a genuinely artistic piece of work. Director Clayton maintains the pervasively creepy atmosphere throughout the film, which is also a credit to the chilling original score by French composer George Auric (The Wages of Fear, Rififi).

The screenplay by Truman Capote and William Archibald is marvellous, as the film is deliberately unhurried and rich in engaging chatter. The Innocents is a small-scale picture that feels more like a stage play than a theatrical feature film, and this may leave impatient contemporary horror fans twitching in their seats. However, those with the appropriate attention span will find themselves engrossed in this scary picture as Clayton guides the narrative with a steady hand. Another notable aspect is the use of silence and eerie music to set the mood. The main tune is haunting, playing as an overture at the beginning to establish the tone. Additionally, The Innocents closes on a commendably uncertain note, with Clayton leaving us to decide whether the house is haunted or whether the sheltered, sexually repressed Miss Giddens is, in fact, going insane. Scholars will probably continue to debate the film for years, a true credit to the filmmakers who provide enough evidence to support conflicting theories.

Deborah Kerr was forty here, and she looks too old for the part of the twenty-year-old Miss Giddens. Nevertheless, she is a beautiful woman, and she is effective in the role thanks to her masterful acting prowess. Kerr is attention-grabbing from start to end, and she's extremely good at conveying mental deterioration, frustration and isolation. Fortunately, a terrific cast surrounds Kerr. Talented child actors are hard to come by, yet Franklin and Stephens are excellent as the characters of Flora and Miles, who are part angel and part devil. Stephens is the standout; he's a powerful child star, calling upon an astonishingly broad range of emotions and selling the various aspects of his character. Meanwhile, Megs Jenkins is also great as the housekeeper.

The Innocents admittedly looks dated to a certain degree in 2013, with a few patches of strictly ordinary filmmaking and an opening credits sequence that is a bit on the weak side. Nevertheless, this is required viewing for horror enthusiasts and budding filmmakers, as it is a masterclass on how to generate hair-raising thrills and chills without resorting to gore or excessive special effects. Sure, those things have their uses, and numerous successful horror films employ such techniques to terrifying effect. But not many linger on the mind or deliver the same staying power as The Innocents, which stimulates your intellect on top of raising the hairs on the back of your spine.

8.2/10

"You can only save one. Hurry up and make up your mind."

To some, 2010's Aftershock may appear to be China's answer to Roland Emmerich's 2012, but nothing could be further from the truth. Not a lavish spectacle merely concerned with visual effects, this is a potent character-based drama that finds time for well-earned tear-jerking. Upon its release, Aftershock became the second highest-grossing film in its home country of China, earning an astonishing 673 million yuan (around $100 million USD). Watching the movie, it is easy to understand the appeal. Aftershock goes above and beyond the call of duty, and it's genuinely rare to come across motion pictures as dramatically satisfying and emotional as this. The icing on the cake is that its production values are on the same level as any big-budget Hollywood blockbuster.

In 1976, a 7.8 magnitude quake struck the industrial Chinese city of Tangshan. It was a devastating event, destroying countless buildings and accumulating a death toll of approximately 240,000. This film shows us a family who are caught in the quake, with mother Li Yuanni (Xu Fan) losing her husband amid the chaos and facing the possible death of her two children, daughter Fang Deng (Zhang Zi-feng/Zhang Jingchu) and son Fang Da (Zhang Jiajun/Li Chen). Both are trapped in the rubble of their home, and saving one of the children by lifting a concrete slab will crush the other. Faced with a tough decision, the distraught Yuanni chooses for her son to be saved. Later, Deng's body is pulled from the rubble and left for dead, but miraculously, she later wakes up. Unaware of where her mother or brother are, and having heard her mother's decision, Deng winds up being adopted by a loving family. Over the following thirty-two years, she lives with her new family, never attempting to find her family or even try to contact them to let them know that she is still alive. Meanwhile, Fang Da grows up and becomes successful in his career, but his mother finds it difficult to move on with her life, unable to forgive herself for her decision.

Aftershock is not a disaster movie in the Hollywood sense, with the title actually referring to the emotional and psychological scars of the earthquake victims in the years following the earthquake. Hence, most of the narrative examines the central characters' lives as they deal with their grief. Running at a substantial 130 minutes, the screenplay is expansive in its exploration of each character, delving into familial drama and coming-of-age scenarios. Consequently, we grow to care about the characters and we get an intimate window into their lives, observing how the events in 1976 forever altered their lives. However, Aftershock falls short of perfection. Due to the lengthy running time, it feels overlong, with some dramatic scenes that could have been trimmed or excised altogether. Worse, Fang Deng marries a Canadian lawyer named Alexander (David F. Morris), and the English-language scenes set in Canada are positively ghastly. Performances are incredibly stilted and awkward, and it sounds like all the dialogue was dubbed. It's genuinely terrible stuff that sticks out like a sore thumb. A huge dramatic development towards the end of the movie is rushed, as well - it seems as if a critical scene is missing, which may leave you baffled.

Aside from the English-language performances, the actors are otherwise top-flight, brimming with honesty and humanity. Each performer handles the material's emotional requirements with confidence, and they always feel desperately human, making it easier to connect with them. The earthquake happens quite early in the film, and the result is horrifying in its immediacy. Peter Jackson's Weta Workshop was behind the special effects, and it is easy to recognise their meticulous digital craftsmanship throughout the chilling earthquake sequence. Buildings collapse, debris falls all over the place, and people are crushed in harrowing ways. It's one of the most jaw-dropping and enthralling earthquake portrayals ever portrayed in cinema. The images of the aftermath are just as extraordinary, with extensive sets and superb make-up. All the more impressive is the fact that Aftershock was produced for a scant sum amounting to approximately $25 million USD. That this technical luminosity was achieved on a meagre budget is nothing short of a miracle.

It's hard to refrain from crying or at least shedding a tear during Aftershock, as it's an emotionally powerful motion picture that does not rely on cheating or manipulation. It never feels like director Xiaogang Feng is twisting the knife or taking delight in evoking emotion. Instead, Fend earns the emotion through powerful performances and superlative craftsmanship. Aftershock also celebrates the resilience of the Chinese citizens. Their collective loss and grief were so huge, yet they bandied together selflessly to save lives and do good deeds in times of great tragedy. And since the movie refuses to make the earthquakes the primary focus, it in no way feels exploitative. This is a magnificent film.

8.1/10